Here is a good question

I reset the timing on my TC today and I noticed something strange. The timing light would not flash all the time showing the mark. It would acccaully miss, but the exaust note stayed the same (i.e. no miss). I cleaned and regapped the plugs this afternoon (0.030" gap) and reset the timing from 8* to 12*. I am trying to find the sweet spot. Under full load, the motor still misses from 3K to 5K and once 5K is reached the motor seems to run out of steam. I understand that the RR stops at about that RPM, but it just does not pull like the stock slider did in the D port head over the oval port with the RR set at -4*.

I want to check the resistance of my motorcraft wires, what should it be?

Jim B .

Resistance: http://natomessageboard.com/cgi-bin/ulti...543#000001
I'm not sure if resistance is the whole ball of wax. It may not indicate if the insulation is bad and the spark is leaking/jumping/cross talk.

Jim,
The ranger roller has less lift and a LOT less duration, of course it's killing your power. A few guys on TF have dyno tested stock sliders back-to-back with RR's and lose 40HP going to the smaller ranger cam. Ditch it!

Jim,
The ranger roller has less lift and a LOT less duration, of course it's killing your power. A few guys on TF have dyno tested stock sliders back-to-back with RR's and lose 40HP going to the smaller ranger cam. Ditch it

I would to see the actual dyno results. This is the 1st and only time I ever heard this about a roller. They have almost the exact same lift and duration as the stock cam.

stock TC cam specs:

Valve Lift (Exhaust):.412"
Valve Lift (Intake):.412"
Degrees Overlap:28 Deg
Duration at .050" Lobe Lift (Exhaust):189 Deg
Duration at .050" Lobe Lift (Intake):187 Deg

Ranger roller crap cam:

Duration at .050" Lobe Lift (Exhaust):186 Deg
Duration at .050" Lobe Lift (Intake):189 Deg
Degrees Overlap:34 Deg
Valve Lift (Exhaust):.355"
Valve Lift (Intake):.355"

Right out of the Ford factory manuals. Your giving up .057 lift and adding in more overlap which turbos hate. It's a smaller cam, TRASH IT!

Mike. I do not agree with you. Many people go ranger roller and have good results with it. Many people have enjoyed the lower torque band of a ranger roller. I would appreciate MORE if we educate the question rather than calling something CRAP. Your opinions are abound, and you need to provide some proof aside from 'oh so and so they...'

First off his question is about Wire resistance. The RR is ALREADY in his car. Nobody wants to hear something they can't redily change is CRAP and that wasn't his question. The question is wire resistance with a glancing comment about the noticable difference between his 2 setups. Of course it's noticable!

Now, an education on this. Your are technically correct..those cams ARE different. But.

"40hp less than stock cam" is sure right. Well guess what HP is????

hp = RPMxTorque/5252

i.e. Horsepoer is simply a measure of how quickly the work of torque can be done. For instance, many small imports claim high HP numbers but that's because the meagerly small torque numbers can be sustained well into 7,000 rpm. My Friend and I laugh at his Acura RSX. "OOHHH 250hp"! I can still kick his ass; he just stays in gear longer. I'm making WAY more torque than 175 ft.lbs. He still prefers to drive his volvo 740 for this reason.

so...lowering your torque cure sure does affect HP..by moving your peak torque lower in the RPM band. Note, if peak torque is at 5252rpm..then guess what peak HP is??? Same as peak torque.

So actually FOR THIS REASON I have considered a RR. I don't drag race, and could use the torque down lower with all the hills around here. Sure I might lose a few hp up top; but not all of us beat our cars from a stop at 5000 rpm. I can have MORE torque at a lower RPM in sacrifice of HP at high RPM. With my SC50 I can efficently breath hard on it to compensate for the loss of **high rpm torque** (i.e. horsepower). This is not debatable and is proven time and time again. Reeve went very far on his RR and I believe it even increased his 60' times. Yes, he had to relearn where to shift if I recall the posts correctly. What I do not recall seeing is tons of people saying they lost torque with the RR; or NOBODY would be using it.

But I digress because that wasn't the original question. But I will be a jerk and say that you certainly don't take kind to people telling you your stuff is crap and I sure would like to see you afford the same respect when out in the open here.

No harm on my part...just tired of seeing OPINION clouding your fine judgement. Just because someone has it and you don't donesn't make it wrong. Not everybody is willing to almost lose their house in order to have a ported head on their car. You're telling him to trash something and you don't even know why he has it on his car in the first place of if he wants to keep it!

He can put NEON on his car for all I care, it's HIS car! I might not like it, but I'm not going to call him an idiot and tell him to trash it because of that.

(grabs popcorn & cold drink, sits back waiting for next act)

I would really have to go with Pete on this one, wires are generally good for quite some time, but when they start to act up.... there is no turning back.

Things I don't know about your car that might be important...

Tune up was done (cap/rotor) ? Wires ?

Try moving the pickup of the timing light to a different plug... same miss ? Move to the primary wire (it will flash a lot faster, may not see the 'miss' as easy.... ) check to see if it is missing there...

Next question, do you have a boost valve ? Before I put mine on, (I have the RR also) at 4.5k & up, it was flat. With the boost valve, it helped wake up the car a lot.

It's odd that many of the 25 fastest TC's have a "crap RR" and have times as good as they do.

Mine pulls just as good to 6200 as it did with the slider, and has much better low end torque. Most of us have to use the the parts we can afford to use, not the dream parts that would leave us living in the TC.

OK, "In my opinion, the ranger roller is CRAP".

Here's some facts Matt, I DO have the rr, it's in Layla, WITH the SC50. It's been in there since 2005. It's a horrible cam. It does NOT make enough lift for low boost pressures, it has TOO MUCH overlap causing a measurable DECREASE in idle quality AND spooling characteristics.

The ONLY reason this cam is so popular is that it is cheap and easy to find. NOBODY, not one single person has dynoed before and after and shown gain in HP or bottom end torque over a NON worn stock cam.

Actual facts:
Ranger roller has .57 less lift on intake and exhaust
Ranger roller has a 107* centerline instead of a 112*
Ranger roller has 6* more overlap

Your post has nothing to do with the original question about a possible electrical issue. Is biased and opinionated toward your narrow view of the RR cam using the specification facts to draw a biased conclusion based on your setup, motor issues, and driving style without regard of the intended (in this case actual) use of someone who may not desire the same performance you do. And it was unsolicited.

I firmly state such outbursts degrade from the quality of this board we have here as they are not presented as factual but merely persuasion and degredation.

Now, since we are so authoritative about the crapulence of the Ranger Roller might I entertain you, and other spectators, with a summary of the top 25 list that utilized this crappy cam.

Dan E 14.59 030 over ported E6 .63 T3
Eric Jefferson 14.539 ported, big valve etc
Jack Lockhart 13.647 mild port .48 T3
Bob Meyers 13.095 gutted/ported intake/exhaust .60/.63

I couldn't seem to find you in the top 25, there must be a problem with the message board .

Anything is possible without fear and prejudice (Go Bob Go!! ).
"Facts scmacts. Anything even REMOTELY true can be proven with facts."
-Homer Simpson

(apologies to Jim for such an off topic flogging and disrespectful hijacking of his thread)