[MonsterMach]

Maybe someone has some better insight into this ...

I have been under the impression that as far as the "engine" is concerned, there is virtually zero difference from a CJ to a SCJ incarnation ...

My impression/understanding was that the difference was actually in the "Package" on the specific car

ie ... other drivetrain and chassis parts that made it an SCJ car.

Correct ... or ... Not ???

 

[67stang]

Actually, you're partly right. The '70-'71 Torino Cobra had a cj and scj incarnation of the 429 motor. The scj included 4 bolt mains, a holley carb, oil cooler and though only rated 5 horses more than it's cj sibling (375 vs 370), it actually put out close to 435-450 horsepower. I learned to drive on one of these beasts. It was my mom's.

 

[coolfalcon]

Cool Mom

 

[rod n az]

I thought that the cams were different too.

 

[mustangboy]

Yes and no.First of all you don't say if you're talking 428 or 429.There were some differences in the engines such as heavier rods and slightly different balance (42

and the 429 had some valvetrain diffences but the scj engines were usually in cars with the drag pac option which gave them low rear end gears with 31 spline axles,ram air,oil coolers and quite often a 4-speed although the c-6 was also available. So the engines were somewhat different and so were the cars.I'm sure I've overlooked lots of details but I hope this answers your question

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: frdnut on 3/9/02 10:08am ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: frdnut on 3/9/02 10:09am ]</font>

 

[MGT351]

The CJ was a C code had a Rochestor carb, and 2 bolt mains, the SCJ was a J code and from what I understand was the only way you could get a drag pack, which had the extra cooler, 3.91-4.30 gears. I believe the CJ was a Hydraulic cam, and the SCJ was a solid(not 100% sure on that) same heads though. They were in the 70-1 Torino GT/Cobra, 70-1 Merc Montego/Cyclone, 71 Cougar(rare) and the 71 Mustang Mach 1

 

[MGT351]

I have seen both C and J code cars with and without ram air, guess it was optional on either

 

[MightyMach]

Ok, so the CJ is a 428, and the SCJ is the 429 correct?

Jeff Given

 

[89 coupe]

Both 428SCJs and 429SCJs had solid cams(No exceptions)and all CJs had hydraulic cams(no exceptions). SCJs had the drag pack option included but no CJs came with drag pack option.

 

[mustangboy]

89 coupe I think you're half right.The 429scjs came with solid cams but the 428scjs use the same hydraulic cam as the cj.I've seen enough strange rare combos in magazines etc to never say "no exceptions" to anything.

 

[89 coupe]

No, the 428SCJs really did come with solid cams and adjustable rockers. The 428CJ and 390GT came with the same hydraulic CJ cam but the SCJs cam with the solid. I use to be into FEs and still have some 428CJ/SCJ stuff(enough to build 2 engines with nearly a 3rd except for the block) but I do remember the SCJ being solid lift cams and I have 2 used oned(both the same) from 2 SCJs I have. The CJ I have is minus a block because it wouldn't take .060" and needed to go that far to clean up.

 

[ltyrsports]

Ok guys, I am assuming this is concerning the 429cj and 429 scj, so here it goes. This is written from Ford Motorsports Catalog. The 429cj had a "hot hydraulic cam and hi-rev lifters". The cylinder heads had 2.19 int/ 1.725 exh. 2 bolt mains, sometimes 4 bolts. It had the spreadbore Rochester and non adjustable valve train.

The 429 scj had a solid flat tappet cam, square bore intake with Holley 730 4 barrel. It also sported lareger 2.25 intake valves and had adjustable valvetrain. This engine was way underated. It made an easy 425+.

 

[mustangboy]

I'm not sure which engine family MonsterMach had in mind, maybe he just meant any scjs or cjs.Me and 89 coupe are disagreeing over the 428 scjs camshaft.I think the 429scj has been pretty well covered by everyone in this post.

 

[DynoTom]

On 2002-03-09 01:29, 89 coupe wrote:
No, the 428SCJs really did come with solid cams and adjustable rockers. The 428CJ and 390GT came with the same hydraulic CJ cam but the SCJs cam with the solid.

This is correct,I'm about 99.9 % sure of it.I just checked the original Ford manuals from 1969 and it's listing a mechanical camshaft as being factory installed in the SCJ 428.

 

[R Code]

Let me do some editing to look less stupid as my original post was incorrect. According to the March 97 Mustang monthly, for the 428SCJ - some of the things that differentiate it from the CJ are: The SCJ has 427 LeMans (7/16" capscrew) rods which are heavier than non. A unique wider dampener with a "hatchet" counterweight and a unique flywhell are used on the 428SCJ.

The correct cam for a 428SCJ is the same as CJs and PIs and 66-68 390GTs it is hydraulic and is C60Z-B.

The SC and SCJ cranks have higher nodularity but the SCJ crank is a 1UA while the CJs are either 1U or 1UB. The pulleys on the front of the engine are also unique to the SCJ. Some, not all SCJ428s came with finned chromed aluminum Cobra Jet "snake" valve covers, but no CJs came with them from the factory. However, these covers were available over the counter.
The rest of the "drag pack" in 1969 includes an engine oil cooler, N-case 9" diff, 31 spline axles and either a 3.91 or 4.30 rear ratio. 4-speed cars had staggered rear shocks. My 69 Mach 1 SCJ has all of the above with the 3.91. The drag pack didn't exist for the 68 1/2s and was available in 69 and 70 only on Q-code (non ram air) and R-code (ram air) cars. By the way, only the PIs had the aluminum intake. CJs and SCJs have the same cast intake.
There is more for the 429s in here too if someone is interested.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: R Code on 3/10/02 2:42am ]</font>

 

[qtrhors]

well I have never seen or heard of any 428 with a solid lifter valvetrain from ford. I cant find and have no info on such a beast. All books I have show 428 SCJ as a hyd valvetrain motor. The diff between the 428 CJ and SCJ seems to be minimal as far as power. 428 SCJ cars had an oil cooler and better rods as the only real diff in the engine...that I can find. Although I have heard of some 428's that crossbolt mains...and they were not machined. But that could be some left over 406 blocks that were offered with crossbolt mains(406 and 428 share the same bore size). Could a 428 crank have ended up in a 406 crossbolt main and or solid lifter motor? Wouldnt surprise me

 

[qtrhors]

well...a solid 428....uummm and I thought I new everything about fords.

 

[Mach1Morgan]

All 428's whether they are CJ's or SCJ's had the same hydraulic cam. I owned a 428 SCJ engine about 15 years ago and it was hydraulic with a non adjustable valvetrain. I even profiled the cam with a degree wheel and dial indicator to get the .050 cam specs. It was 206-220 at .050 with approx .275 and .280 intake and exhaust lobe lift. The centerlines were at 115 int. and 119 exh. and the lobe seperation was 117 degrees.

 

[Mach1Morgan]

I think that much of the confusion stems from the fact that the 429 CJ had a hydraulic cam while the 429 SCJ's had solid lifters and an adjustable valvetrain. People confuse the two engines or just assume that the 428's were the same. The 428 SCJ and CJ engines all had the same power rating but the SCJ 429 was rated at 5 HP more than the SJ was. When looking at old track test times though it appears that the SCJ429 cars were often nearly a second quicker then many of the 429CJ cars which was probably mostly due to the SCJ's more aggresive gearing.

 

[DynoTom]

Ok, I did some more reasearch on the 428 SCJ cam question.

I had found three books I have that all list specs for the cam used in the 428 SCJ.

The "Ford" one I have that lists a solid grind was from a performance" upgrade advertisment.

The two other ones list the cam for those motors with a part number of C6OZ-6250-B that has a hyd design.

I'm not sure about the part number on the cam listed above,it's the one both books listed though?