<![CDATA[missing cam]]>Where did my cam go?

Oh wait, overhead cam < pushrods

legacy image

]]>https://fargostreet.com/topic/11869/missing-camRSS for NodeThu, 28 May 2026 04:38:56 GMTFri, 14 Sep 2007 12:14:11 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:52:46 GMT]]>Sounds powerful!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175682https://fargostreet.com/post/175682Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:52:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:23:13 GMT]]>1 s2k head and a z6 head with vtak from a b series

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175678https://fargostreet.com/post/175678Thu, 20 Sep 2007 22:23:13 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:10:46 GMT]]>i think he swapped an s2k head, or maybe a s2k head and a z6? just rumors though...

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175675https://fargostreet.com/post/175675Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:10:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:04:25 GMT]]>Is it fast now? Did you swap a VTEC head on?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175674https://fargostreet.com/post/175674Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:04:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:37:02 GMT]]>Its about damn time you finished it....remember when i spit in your engine?

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175671https://fargostreet.com/post/175671Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:37:02 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:22:28 GMT]]>She fuckin runs!

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175574https://fargostreet.com/post/175574Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:22:28 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:18:51 GMT]]>

Parker;186095 wrote:
Fords new emblem
legacy image

lol i changed the background on my managers computer to this^^ he drives a mustang also

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175554https://fargostreet.com/post/175554Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:18:51 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:59:46 GMT]]>

97lt1;186143 wrote:
You guys have never worked on a LT1 f-body. If you can work on one if these you can work on anything.

Word.

Plug wires in an LT1 suck.

On another note, I will be starting the car tonight.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175551https://fargostreet.com/post/175551Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:59:46 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:56:20 GMT]]>

97lt1;186143 wrote:
You guys have never worked on a LT1 f-body. If you can work on one if these you can work on anything.

I think you'd say the same thing about a Supercoupe.

I remember a buddy showing me pictures of the only real easy way to change spark plugs... the heads were on the work bench.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175473https://fargostreet.com/post/175473Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:56:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:30:31 GMT]]>You guys have never worked on a LT1 f-body. If you can work on one if these you can work on anything.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175463https://fargostreet.com/post/175463Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:30:31 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:04:45 GMT]]>I got the lower intake bolted on today and found out that I now need an intake spacer to run fox valve covers. fuck.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175452https://fargostreet.com/post/175452Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:04:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:17:27 GMT]]>:lol:

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175421https://fargostreet.com/post/175421Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:17:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:58:23 GMT]]>

MisterCMK;185753 wrote:
4.6 = Still a gay Ford

5.0 = Still a gay Ford

Fords new emblem
legacy image

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175415https://fargostreet.com/post/175415Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:58:23 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:56:40 GMT]]>

MisterCMK;185996 wrote:
I have a 92 Explorer with the 4.0 V6 (basically the same as the truck you had) and there is LOTS of room in there.

Lots of room my ass..

not when you need to change plugs from the god damn wheel well on the passenger side....

I can actually SEE where the plug wires end on the Tahoe...

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175407https://fargostreet.com/post/175407Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:56:40 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:18:45 GMT]]>

MisterCMK;186017 wrote:
I agree with that. Never said that they weren't.

Yeah I'm not sure why I hit the quote button on you there, meant to just say what I said and nothing else.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175338https://fargostreet.com/post/175338Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:18:45 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:07:24 GMT]]>I agree with that. Never said that they weren't.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175337https://fargostreet.com/post/175337Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:07:24 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:48:27 GMT]]>

MisterCMK;185996 wrote:
Hmm, I haven't had a problem with Ford engine bays. The Expedition with the 5.4 is a little on the tight side, as is the Modular SN95 'Stangs, but other than that they really aren't that bad. I have a 92 Explorer with the 4.0 V6 (basically the same as the truck you had) and there is LOTS of room in there.

Modular 4.6's and 5.4's are some of the biggest (dimensionally) engines Ford has ever made. They are way too big and way too underpowered.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175336https://fargostreet.com/post/175336Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:48:27 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:26:18 GMT]]>Meh, its the same way with the Fords too

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175330https://fargostreet.com/post/175330Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:26:18 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:08:16 GMT]]>The issue is about the rats nest of wires and hoses. Yeah, there's plenty of room in the mustang -- and its all filled with shit.

Look how clean the layout of the M5 engine bay is. Everything is routed logically and cleanly. It's easy to tell what everything is and what it connects to.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175326https://fargostreet.com/post/175326Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:08:16 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:18:58 GMT]]>Hmm, I haven't had a problem with Ford engine bays. The Expedition with the 5.4 is a little on the tight side, as is the Modular SN95 'Stangs, but other than that they really aren't that bad. I have a 92 Explorer with the 4.0 V6 (basically the same as the truck you had) and there is LOTS of room in there.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175316https://fargostreet.com/post/175316Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:18:58 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:14:25 GMT]]>

thrash;185977 wrote:
Ford engine bays are a complete nightmare.

You can say that again.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175307https://fargostreet.com/post/175307Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:14:25 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:54:43 GMT]]>Ford engine bays are a complete nightmare. Those pics make me squeamish. I had a 85 Bronco II with the V6 and that thing sucked something fierce.

Here's the engine bay of the 1991 BMW M5

legacy image

3.6 liters, 24 valves, 6 throttle butterflies, 310hp, ~270ft/lbs, 7000 rpm, DOHC, shim-over-bucket.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175297https://fargostreet.com/post/175297Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:54:43 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:57:39 GMT]]>I got the accessory brackets bolted up and I started gasket matching the intake manifold. I have to go back to Home Depot to buy a different pipe for the damn EGR though. Maybe by this weekend it will run.

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175290https://fargostreet.com/post/175290Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:57:39 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to missing cam on Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:14:33 GMT]]>

MisterCMK;185753 wrote:
NA 4.6 = faster than NA Honda

NA 5.0 = faster than NA Honda

Boosted 4.6 = faster than Boosted Honda

Boosted 5.0 = faster than Boosted Honda

Double Fixt for you Brandon 😄

]]>https://fargostreet.com/post/175168https://fargostreet.com/post/175168Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:14:33 GMT