Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

21 - 40 of 91 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #21 (Edited)
found these 460 factory cam specs. Looks like my cam should outperform it.

1970 429/460 passenger car engine (incl. Thunderjet) Cam Specs:
256°/270° @ SAE
193°/206° @ .050"
.253"/.278" lobe lift (.443/.487 valve lift)
110°/116° lobe centerlines - 113 LSA

Not sure how the heads compare to the 460. Didn’t the late 60s 460 motors have around 375hp and 460ftlbs at 10.5 compression while the 428 Cobra Jet had around 335hp and 445 lb-ft at 10.6 compression? I think my 445 idea will beat both of these and run lower compression for today’s pump gas
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
found these 460 factory cam specs. Looks like my cam should outperform it.

1970 429/460 passenger car engine (incl. Thunderjet) Cam Specs:
256°/270° @ SAE
193°/206° @ .050"
.253"/.278" lobe lift (.443/.487 valve lift)
110°/116° lobe centerlines - 113 LSA

Not sure how the heads compare to the 460. Didn’t the late 60s 460 motors have around 375hp?
So, I would take Iowan's question in context of your exhaust question not just a cold performance question and answer "Likely a little more but similar to one with a set of headers and good intake/compression"

The reason is, the 460 will have more cubes, better heads, but less cam, but will still make power in a similar RPM range, especially if it's an early one. Keep in mind, the 460s have a much better head design that will equal or outflow your Edelbrocks out of the box, so it "needs" less cam

So in that light, yes, it's about like an early 460 and a 2.5 mandrel bent system will be plenty, if you were going higher RPM, a 445 or a 460 for that matter would start wanting more exhaust.

However, your pic almost looks like to the dumps it's 3 inch then 2.5 after, is that correct? If so, if/when you go to the strip, open the dumps and let her breathe
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #23
Hmmm. Good question. I will have to go look at the xpipe again. I think it’s 2.5” all the way. Was thinking about electric cutouts for driving in and out of car shows. Pure vanity. Lol
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #24
with no shift kit or aftermarket stall converter and with 5500rpm max and only 3.50 gearing in a huge car, I was just thinking of street use only. You mentioned using the cutouts for at the track. Would you think a car with this setup is worthy of taking to the track?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #26 (Edited)
I don’t want to get too specific because Brent lykins custom sized it for me in order to stay with stock transmission. It pretty much follows what him and Ross have suggested in other threads. I don’t think he would be too upset for giving conceptual info and not the specific lobes or numbers...
Around 220 degrees intake duration at .05 lift,
a small split between intake and exhaust to help with scavenging,
under .5” total lift,
more overlap than 110 lsa,
and enough initial timing to almost worry about hitting valves.
The idea was to get close to the Comp XE262H but without slamming valves open and closed, without the valvetrain noise, and with more overlap and with more timing
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
That's anemic, a stock 289 can handle a cam with 218/[email protected] with a stock converter. It was a Ford cam and Ford referred to it as a torque cam.
If you just compare .050s, Ford used to use 114 or greater LSAs, this is much tighter and will use overlap to his advantage with a 108 spread. The duration is pretty close to a stock CJ cam, but with 52 degrees of overlap instead of 46, so it does seem small, and was originally planed for a 390, but with the good heads and intake it'll pull real hard for the use

I would say though, be sure you talk to Brent about compression and intake centerline when you buy your stroker parts, my hunch is that he'll probably have you retard this cam since you are now going 445 instead of 390

I'd likely put that cam on a 108 ICL in a 445 with a true and measured 10:1 compression, if it's 9.5, you could go as early as 104, but I think the 445 will like it a bit later and 10:1

I think it'll peak around 5000-5200 depending where cam centerline ends up, certainly no drag motor, but it'll make more HP than an original 427 with the manners of a stock 390 and a nice little lope at idle
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #29
not going to argue against that which is why I didn’t consider taking the car to the track. Guess it all depends on your goals.
I am aiming for street performance better than the cobra jet but want to keep my cruiseomatic which is only rated at 1800rpm with the 390. Every thread and cam manufacturer website says anything with more duration needs at least 2400 rpm stall which I don’t have. I don’t have all my numbers handy but Even though my cam is fairly anemic compared to other performance cams out there, I think the 428 cam was only 211 degrees intake and .475 lift with a huge lsa around 116 and way less timing? If so, my cam beats it in all aspects
My only concern is whether the valves will hit if I go with the extra stroke and all the early timing. Ross, at 4.25 stroke, what’s the earliest timing you would build into the cam? That’s the ICL, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
The LSA was 112 witch is erelevant when comparing 289 cubes to 445.
I have a BB mopar I first put together in 92, its a 500" wedge with production iron heads that makes 600 lb's of torque just under 3000 rpm and it's still making 630 hp at 6500 rpm with a 110 LSA cam.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #33 (Edited)
If you need to retarded or advanced a cam to use it , you have the wrong cam.
Yes and no.

Yes, The cam I have was set up with an early icl so that installing it “straight up” (ie lining up the dot on the cam with the dot on the crank) gives it built in early timing. Now that I’m going with a stroker, the timing May be so early that the valve will hit the piston due to the longer stroke.

No, that doesn’t mean the intake duration and exhaust durations and lsa are incorrect for my application. it just means that the dot is in the wrong place on the cam. that doesn’t mean I have the wrong cam. If I know what icl is desired, I just have to degree the cam to that icl.

If I accept what you are saying, ford used different cam timing in 460 motors in the 60s versus the 70s. Does that mean they used the wrong cam in 460 motors in the 60s, 70s or for two decades? I would say they had the right cam for their desired use and degreed it to get the desired result

I am willing to accept that I have the wrong cam for my application if you have a suggestion and can explain why it is a better fit without completely changing everything else on my car. What flat tappet cam would you use to run mid grade pump gas for a 445 paired to a stock 3speed cruiseomatic with a stock 1800rpm stall, 3.50 gears, 780cfm vac secondary carb, dual plane rpm intake, edelbrock rpm heads, fpa shorty headers, and 2.5” exhaust in a 4400lb convertible with power steering and power brakes? Intake duration at .05, Exhaust at .05, LSA, ICL, and why?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #34 (Edited)
The LSA was 112 witch is erelevant when comparing 289 cubes to 445.
I have a BB mopar I first put together in 92, its a 500" wedge with production iron heads that makes 600 lb's of torque just under 3000 rpm and it's still making 630 hp at 6500 rpm with a 110 LSA cam.
You are 100% correct. There are some bitchin motors out there with 110lsa and it sounds like you have a cool one.
I kinda get what you’re saying about the 289 because it’s a much smaller engine so you’re using that to justify using a larger cam in my much larger engine. I don’t think it’s that simple. Unfortunately I dont know enough about engine calcs to compare what works on the 289 or a 460 or a mopar 500 wedge and make it relevant to the FE. others here may know how to do that but I hope we don’t get lost in what works on other engines because they all have different intakes, exhaust manifolds, combustion chambers, valve sizes, etc and could be paired with any number of transmissions, vehicle weights, gear ratios, etc.

I was referring to the lsa and cam specs of the 428cj which I am trying to beat. The 428 is the premier FE passenger motor of 1966 (aside from the 427 racing motor). In sticking with the FE motors from the same engine family, keeping everything else on the vehicle constant, the lsa of that cam is very important because it changes the overlap of the valves which directly affects the torque and horsepower curves. That was taken into account to get my 390 to compete with the 428. Now maybe it needs to be recalculated for a 445. Or maybe not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
If you need to retarded or advanced a cam to use it , you have the wrong cam.
Iowan, this just isn't correct. This is a custom cam that was ground 108 LSA on a 102 ICL, advancing a cam that much, combined with a narrow LSA has proven to provide a ton of torque. However cam advance is one tool that we use to make the engine do what we want by shifting the tuned peak as well as controlling cylinder fill A 108 LSA cam is commonly installed on 108 (called straight up) or even if using a generic 108 LSA box cam would be ground at 104. That's three viable options with the same cam. To think you wouldn't build an engine and manipulate intake centerline to your advantage is at best trusting the cam guy, at worst giving up power.

Now, lsugymrat bought this cam for a 390, yes that is true, and when doing that, picked a cam that is on the small side for the 445, however, that cam when installed straight up, will do absolutely fine in his heavy car with a stock tranny, converter and gears. It will also have the potential of making over 450 HP, which of course is not the peak a 445 could make, but with well into 550 lbs of torque, and pump gas friendly, should be very fun in the car.

Happy to discuss cams in detail, because all the valve events matter and interact with each other, but some of the comments concern me because you can't just look at .050, LSA, advertised duration, lift or overlap alone, each one plays upon the other
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
The LSA was 112 witch is erelevant when comparing 289 cubes to 445.
I have a BB mopar I first put together in 92, its a 500" wedge with production iron heads that makes 600 lb's of torque just under 3000 rpm and it's still making 630 hp at 6500 rpm with a 110 LSA cam.
Don't get caught up in any single part of cam grinding being irrelevant. In fact, many of us now look at the exhaust pulse as the first event, and managing that during overlap starts the process. Cam grinding has come a very long way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
Iowan, this just isn't correct. This is a custom cam that was ground 108 LSA on a 102 ICL, advancing a cam that much, combined with a narrow LSA has proven to provide a ton of torque. However cam advance is one tool that we use to make the engine do what we want by shifting the tuned peak as well as controlling cylinder fill A 108 LSA cam is commonly installed on 108 (called straight up) or even if using a generic 108 LSA box cam would be ground at 104. That's three viable options with the same cam. To think you wouldn't build an engine and manipulate intake centerline to your advantage is at best trusting the cam guy, at worst giving up power.

Now, lsugymrat bought this cam for a 390, yes that is true, and when doing that, picked a cam that is on the small side for the 445, however, that cam when installed straight up, will do absolutely fine in his heavy car with a stock tranny, converter and gears. It will also have the potential of making over 450 HP, which of course is not the peak a 445 could make, but with well into 550 lbs of torque, and pump gas friendly, should be very fun in the car.

Happy to discuss cams in detail, because all the valve events matter and interact with each other, but some of the comments concern me because you can't just look at .050, LSA, advertised duration, lift or overlap alone, each one plays upon the other
As you point out engine size matters also, a small displacement 289 needs the extended range the larger LSA gives and a large displacement doesn't. If I was recamming my 500 I would use a 108 or maybe a 106 LSA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
I'd like to see the numbers this combination actually makes , what I don't under stand is why go to lengths for such pathetic numbers, I have a 289/292 that makes 455 hp and 445 tq :smile2:

And yes I know why you advance a cam and the deference 106,108,110,112 or larger ICL and how it affects the power band as does stroke and heads, I also no now you can manipulate the power band.
With the CID and the heads this thing has I would give it 230 to 235 duration @50 and all the lift that would fit, have the cam ground 2 degrees advanced , then put a carb on it 850 db. My 289 made the most power with a QF 750db and it only runs to 6500 but made more power everywhere.
I think you stifling your build by 50 ft lbs of torque.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #39
I agree I’m leaving some on the table with the stroker now. In fact, I think all three of us can agree on that.

If I had never bought a cam for the 390, a new cam for the 445 would ideally have a little more duration but it isnt a necessity. We can all probably agree on that too

Where we seem to differ is being ok with going this far and not getting everything out of the engine. I guess why am I ok with it is the question. it may help to know it started as a 2bbl 390 economy motor with only 240hp. The initial goal was to make 350hp with a top end kit. If the lower end wasn’t in question, I would have stopped there. Going the stroker route will give way more performance than originally planned with the 390 build.

I guess I could shelf the 390 cam and hope someone may want to buy it some day. I just hate to eat another $200 on the car when I’m already getting so much more than I ever expected.

By the way, thanks for the info gents.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
196 Posts
Discussion Starter #40 (Edited)
The 2bbl setup the car has now is definitely anemic. Great throttle response but Very Blah

The 1998 mustang I bought in college only had around 200hp which was definitely pathetic. It was all I could afford but it was laughable.

I know it’s all in fun, but 450 HP or 550 lbs of torque doesn’t sound terribly anemic or pathetic for a street car. My F150 (360hp and 380ft-lbs) doesn’t have anywhere near that now and it hauls ass
 
21 - 40 of 91 Posts
Top