Posted by: wm ®
2001/08/16, 00:07:16
Author Profile
|
Here is the problem, these lincoln motors have pistons that DO NOT have valve reliefs. This means that .460 to .470 is as much lift as you can run. Second, if the 83 is a CFI I'll assume it is the same as my 84 CFI. This block is drilled and tapped for the roller cam retainer meaning you can order the parts necessary to convert to roller for under 50.00 dollars (this does not include the cam or lifters but finding a used one isn't to hard). When switching to the 83 block you will need to use the older oil pan (front sump) and oil pick-up tube and timing cover. The CFI timing cover will not allow installation of a mech fuel pump or allow you to check the oil level. The newer blocks have a rear sump so the oil dip stick is back there. Also, if you are running the column shifter or manual transmission the "hole" in the block where the ball threads into to support the Z-bar/cross bar does not exist on the 83 block. If you have a floor shifted auto then no problem. The nice thing about these blocks is you can install a stock mustang roller cam and the E7TE mustang heads and you will basically have a GT motor. The pistons are basically flat tops that are just about "level" with the block deck. The stock GT's have about .450 lift with 260 adv duration and 115 lobe separation angle and the compression is around 9.3 to 9.5. The reason that these lincoln motors are listed so "low" on the performance scale is due mostly to the heads. They have huge chambers and an 8.4:1 compression ratio. I have an 86 GT block sitting in the garage and I compared pistons and found that the lincoln block and the GT block have the same piston and deck height the only difference being the valve reliefs. I also found that they both use the same head gasket so, the difference in the compression ratio has to be in the heads. If Ken M reads this, what do your sources say about the cc of the 83-84 lincoln heads? Hope this helps! wm
|
