$500 for headers that are nearly as restrictive as the stock manifolds ? In "restrictive" I mean, look at the curve coming out of the #5 and 6 ports. May as well use the Ford Racing P "headers" Not much point in building a big inch motor, then corking the exhaust in true Ford fashion.
Building a flat tappet engine is almost a waste of money these days, good roller blocks can be found cheap. My
Just dealing with what he is working with....in this case a hydraulic flat tappet cam 351 block. Had he found a good roller cam 351 block we would be discussing TFS cams. Don't think it would have any problems with vacuum.
Not that I didn't look for a roller block... Just got real lucky with this one. I can always rollerize it when/if ever I decide (and can afford) to get serious later on. For now I think it's good. People went fast for a long time on flat tappets before roller cams became the thing.
Yea, but that was before the cam failures so well associated with flat tappets now. Just something to contemplate before choosing.
Given what this car is for... Say 1% track time just fooling around, maybe 4% miscellaneous irresponsible back road behavior, 10% sustained highway speed and the remaining 85% just every day grocery getting, going to work, ordinary sub-speed limit driving... Does anybody think I'm taking a serious risk or tempting fate by choosing a flat tappet cam for now?
I'd go roller now, irregardless of what block you have. I've had two cam failures, both of which were not from a lack of zinc in the oil, both were a direct result of one of the following: bad lifters, or a failure of the failed lifter(a single lifter and lobe on each of the failures) to get spun by the cam lobe on fireup ( which could be the result of a couple things involving the lubrication) Both failed in the first twenty minutes run time. The lack of zinc failures happen over a longer period of time and involve more than one lobe. And in these two cases, Comp was one brand, Crane was the other. One was in a 400 Ford, the other a 390.
I've had a flat tappet cam fail too. Was an XE278H in a Chevy and it didn't take very long. But then I've also had others that lasted. My old 302 didn't get babied at all, and when I took it apart after about 30,000 miles under my foot and at least 10k under the previous owner, the cam and lifters were fine. The cam and lifters I pulled from this block I'm working on now look good, and they've been in there at least ten years assuming they were new in 2001 when the bearings were new... The 351w in my Maverick that I put together last year, (except for the rotating assembly, which is why we're here now) had a good cam and lifters when I got it, and that bottom end turned out to be very tired indeed. Bearings dated 1993 and showing lots of copper. ...Not that any of that means anything, really. It's all anecdotal. But at this point, a roller setup is cost prohibitive, and I feel like it's an acceptable risk. Unless I'm not looking hard enough, I figure I could buy a flat tappet cam and lifters twice and still spend less than I would on a roller conversion. If I wasn't on such a tight budget I'd do it, but I didn't plan for this.
I shouldn't have said anything I'm running a flat tappet 73 302 in my 73 Grabber, with E7TE heads, works well, but I did whip a cam... I know a guy that converts flat tappet engines using roller cam parts, with no issues. He's run one for over 5 years now. If you were closer, I'd give you one of my stockpiled roller short blocks.
I agree on the flat tappet if ur budget does'nt allow for a roller. Flat tappet cams worked for decades B4 rollers became common. We have used them in all kinds of cars over the years/decades w/o any issues. The way u have specified the car will be used I wud'nt have any problem using one. If they were that unreliable the cam makers wud probably discontinued producing them.
Up until 10-12 years ago, the lifters everyone used were produced right here in the USA. That's no longer the case with tons of Chinese lifters making their way here. It only takes one poorly machined lifter face to ruin a cam, and do it in the first ten minutes run time. The reliability is no longer there and hasn't been there for that period of time.
What method does he use to do that? Typical linkbar setup or something else? I'll have to look up the specifics, but I believe I've read somewhere a while back that it's possible on a 351w, although maybe not a 302, to drill and tap the mounting holes in the lifter valley for the stock roller lifter retainer, the "spider" thing. But then I'm not sure what happens after that, whether or not you can use stock roller lifters, want to say maybe you've got to use a cam with a reduced base circle or something... I should see if I can find that info. 'Cause if there is a cheapskate junkyard way to do something and it's not just a complete and total hack... You know me, I'll do it.
For a 302 you can retrofit a roller cam without running link lifters. Just like you said also. Drill and tap the block for the dog bones/spider gear + reduced base circle cam. Now you're gonna get a bunch of people telling you that the reduced cams are junk,etc... But before there were 100% new aftermarket cams people ran regrinds on their OE cam core, which reduced the base circle also. Thousands and thousands of them ran those cams. If they're was a huge issue with them those companies would have gone out of business.
