Discussion in '2nd Gen 1991-1996 1.9L SOHC' started by publikdstrbnce, Mar 27, 2005.
so any updates brad?
not yet but this has been a pressing issue, im going to be headed to the jy sometime next week to get me a 91 cam, and then get it spec'ed out to see what the damn deal is, and if it turns out to be spec'ed out like the 92+, i will send it off to iskycams.com to have them do a $100 high lift and duration grind for my turbo motor (double valve springs, etc), i need to take some pics of the cyl head ive been working up.. (ie you can rev out these stroked 1.9+L CVH motors to 7k and still have descent power output, they are doing it over in britain with our 1.9L bottom ends they import, and doing quite well on numbers)
updates to come peeps, after 14 pages someone has to show some work without just 'saying' they checked them and they are the same.. i dont trust sh!t like that and if it's written out that the 91 lx's were this way (same as the 91egt being spec'ed out better than the 92+) then it's probably true.
thats not a good idea for a turbo motor. you dont want alot of lift and duration. those cam profiles are for n/a which can act adversely on a turbo motor.
if a turbo cam doesnt exist, you need to calculate proper lift and duration with proper overlap, because if overlap happens (which is typical for n/a motors since they have no pressure forcing air in) exhaust will go through the intake.
basically on the 2nd gen cam, the overlap seems to be minor to nothing (i cant be for sure what it is, and im lazy to calculate it) so i dont think duration can be increased, but you might be able to go with slightly more lift. i wouldnt go too much more. but for that, id say keep stock cams and port the head and intake manifold. increasing the volume into the combustion chamber will be the bigger help.
i understand what you are saying, but with these motors you need as much flow as possible, and this is what the guys over in england are running on their stroker cvh's (import our block) .480" lift w/ .280degree duration .. and this is only good when coupled with double valve springs and titanium spring retainers from the 2.3 svo/turbocoupe aftermarket
the guys overseas have gotten the cvh w/ this cam spec up to 162mph+ on a straight (not 1320' time) if that doesnt outline how well the hemi w/ high lift in the sohc head flows then i dont know what does.
now if you dont go and do extensive engine mods then yes it is a waste of your time.. and the hemi'ing of the cc is a must.. i have yet to get a chance to head out to the jy
i got a 91 lx with slight mods and i used to have a 94 lx and i think my 91 is faster than the 94
Ok so one quick question, if it is possible to swap this cam for the stocker in the SPI I am willing to do a couple dyno pulls and put this to rest....plus if it is true I coud use the extra 10 or so ponies But what I need to know is if it is possible what do I need?
I'm waiting for a post in bold text to tell me waether the 91 cam is in improvement or the same. I'm guessing I'll be waiting forever...
I've got the time to check it out, just not the tools or knowhow.
Well, it really isn't a fair comperison but
I just dropped a 91 1.9 in my 93 LX. Got it because it had really low miles on it.
Also, because I had been reading along with these posts.
Took the car for a run today to check out the new engine and there's no way the 93 engine ever had the power this 91 has.
Ran it though the Arkansas mountains and the 91 had no trouble at all pulling the hills. 93 always needed help to get over the top.
Both engines were tuned and running to the top of their ability and the 91 out performs the 93 hands down.
Somewhere in these posts, it's noted that the 91 should have had approx 10 more HP due to the cam.
IF my results mean anything at all ?????
Ok guys, I race these cars, and I also race with a Master Ford Technician. And he said, and I quote, " There is NO difference in the 91 1.9L LX cam to the following years" Hope this ends the debate, looks like Hanes had the info wrong in the manual, go figure!!
The ford part number for the cam is FOCZ-6250-A which is the same cam used from 1991-1996 accordind to the ford catalog.
the 91 would have more power due to not having power steering and no ac that results of a smaller serpinten belt which means more power.
if the cams were different they would have to by law have a different part number.
and heebracing38 is right haynes manuals suck!
91's had PS and AC, unless it was a Pony, but those 2 things off are not going to net more than maybe 2-4 HP, not really any noticeable difference.
it has been proven to lightin up the care by 30lbs and 8-15 wheel horsepower i put a underdrive pulley on mine and i felt more pick up
just called ford and looked into it on the computer at the shop
AND THE ARE EXACTLY THE SAME
My SPI had A/C and P/S and a 50% UDP, when I eliminated the A/C and P/S, it didn't make that much of a difference, it did make a little bit maybe 2-3 whp.
hey i have a 1991 escort pony so that means my valves are bigger or what lol
i've been talking this over, and I have felt the difference with a 91, a 92 which felt the same, a 94 and a 95. It has been proven the cams are the same for the 2nd gen, right? Well, let me give you something else to ponder. Maybe you've been looking too high for the answer. Maybe it's the whole bottom end....
If I have done my research correctly, In mid 93, Ford made huge changes in the 1.9L engines, Enlongating the stroke, restricting the airflow in the name of emmissions control, and Ford CEO's admitted that the quality of their cars was set aside for quantity. That being said, The botom end, mainly crank and mains and rods are probably different. That, and the overall Quality put into them, possibly weak tuning, is the real culprit of the difference in power.
BTW, all the cars I drove, even the`91 Pony 2dr had Power Steering and A/C.
I haven't been on here in about 3-4 months and wanted to check this thread. I guess no one actually looked into this and read through the Manual that well. I stumbled across this just looking in my old my old Haynes Manual and the funny thing is the question was totally wrong to begin with.
It states in the Haynes Manual:
Lobe Lift = Lift of the Cam lobe
91.....................0.240" - Smaller
92 and later.......0.245" - Larger
Theoretical Valve Lift (Measured at end of Rocker Arm) = Actual lift with Rocker Ratio figured in
91.....................0.468" - 1.95:1 Rocker
92 and later.......0.405" - 1.65:1 Rocker
Theoretically what it should probably be
91.....................0.396" - 1.65:1 Rocker
So the question is not whether the cam was larger but whether the Rocker Ratio was 1.95:1 rather than 1.65:1, which would be nuts because even after market Big Block Rockers are hard to find above 1.8:1, I've not seen them. Which if you look at the 10-Key on your keyboard 6 is right below 9, which tells me Human Error messed this whole thing up and it went 15 pages for no freakin reason. Don't get me wrong I'm guilty too, I should have just looked.
And I feel dumb because this very post was on the very first page, sorry for the extra post, but I feel it neccessary.
Ok, noob here with a 97 SPI, will the 91 cam work in my car, its a 4cyl race car and im getting spanked on the straights, i already have the 3.8 tb, and a straight through exhaust.......
Alright just read the last few pages nevermind.
Separate names with a comma.