Topic Sponsor
1987 - 1996 F150 Still running strong! Talk about your 8th and 9th generation Ford F150 trucks.

Comp cams e313303

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 7, 2015 | 12:26 AM
  #1  
Richardpr's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Default Comp cams e313303

Anyone ever use one of these? I was planning on using one in my 92 with a 5.0 and e4od.
Reply
Old Apr 7, 2015 | 08:03 AM
  #2  
Chris_1's Avatar
5 Year Member
10 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,811
Likes: 712
From: Ontario, Canada
Default

92 is speed density and very sensitive to low vacuum ( created by too lumpy of a cam). That's all I know about it specifically, but I know a lot of guys have had all kinds of problems after swapping in the wrong cam (i.e. mustang hi performance).
So good idea to get all the opinions you can before stuffing something in there.
Reply
Old Apr 7, 2015 | 10:30 AM
  #3  
Richardpr's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Default

I was thinking of using moates quaterhorse for tuning
Reply
Old Apr 7, 2015 | 01:20 PM
  #4  
Chris_1's Avatar
5 Year Member
10 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,811
Likes: 712
From: Ontario, Canada
Default

I can't say specifically about that particular cam, but if it's a good choice for a 302 in a mustang, it's a bad choice for a truck. Cars are after high end power, trucks need low end torque because of the weight.
If you're not getting into thousands of dollars worth of internal improvements then you have to choose between power or torque. It's one or the other. You can't get both out of the same bore and stroke.
So it ends up that a power cam turns a truck into a real dog off the line - for what that's worth.
Reply
Old Apr 7, 2015 | 01:32 PM
  #5  
Richardpr's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Default

It was in a f150 before
Reply
Old Apr 7, 2015 | 09:59 PM
  #6  
Crownman's Avatar
5 Year Member
10 Year Member
Photogenic
Liked
 
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 1,251
Likes: 263
From: San Antonio, Texas
Default

That part number you have isn't coming up on the Comp website. Are you sure that's the right number?
Reply
Old Apr 8, 2015 | 08:08 PM
  #7  
qdeezie's Avatar
5 Year Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,646
Likes: 258
From: Charlotte, NC
Default

This cam number looks real E303ish....

Just sayin' lol

And if it is an E303, it doesn't matter if it was previously in a Lamborghini, it's not a good truck cam.

Last edited by qdeezie; Apr 8, 2015 at 08:12 PM.
Reply
Old Apr 9, 2015 | 06:47 PM
  #8  
Richardpr's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Default

Reply
Old Apr 9, 2015 | 08:02 PM
  #9  
qdeezie's Avatar
5 Year Member
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,646
Likes: 258
From: Charlotte, NC
Default

Ok, here are the cam specs.

Honestly speaking, this cam is the complete opposite of what you need. I'll give you the reasons:

1) Camshaft will produce extremely low vacuum - Your MAP sensor will not like it and your engine will surge.

2) Camshaft specs are for top end. Your typical truck RPM range is Idle through 5000ish RPM. This cam's powerband is 2500-6500 RPM.

3) You will need a 3500 RPM stall torque converter. This stall is way too high for a truck.

4) Camshaft requires high compression for optimal performance - You will need to run premium fuel more than likely. Not good for a truck (in my opinion).

5) This is a flat tappet camshaft. A '92 F150 uses a roller tappet camshaft. You'd be moving backwards doing this.

This is not a good choice to be honest, I could go on and on, but 1 thru 5 captures what's really going on.

Try looking at Comp Cams 35-512-8 or 35-349-8 if you're itching for an upgrade.

Last edited by qdeezie; Apr 9, 2015 at 08:08 PM.
Reply




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:22 AM.