Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi,
I have my ‘62 260 V8 at the machine shop for a rebuild. Stock engine, and I’d like to keep it that way. It had the stock Ford UV B cam in it,and I was happy with the way it ran. I don’t see that cam around anymore, so I have to figure out a replacement.
The Melling SYB 9 looks like a good, but not exact match. So the question is has anyone ran the SYB 9 in a 260 before? If so, how did you like it!
Thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
564 Posts
IIRC that is the 289hipo cam right? If so that is a good choice for a 260 and about the most I would use in one. It is identical despite any advertised specs.
Randy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I think the 289 HiPo is a lot more aggressive.
The stock “UV B” cam for my engine is
Advertised Duration-262 both i/e
Duration @ .050-?
Lobe Lift-238
Lift at valve-.380
Overlap-36 degrees

The SYB 9
Advertised Duration-261
Duration @ .050-187
Lobe Lift-?
Lift at valve-.380
Overlap-45 degrees
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I show the 289HP as-
Duration-310 degrees
Lobe lift-.298
At valve lift-.460
Overlap-82 degrees


The SYB 9 has the same lift as my stock one, so I could still use the stock press in rocker studs. And a hair more duration and overlap. I think it would be fine, but wondering how the extra duration is going to effect idle quality. It’s just a driver, not looking for more power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
856 Posts
Isn't the 289 HIPO cam a solid lifter type?

AFAIK all other non-hipo small blocks 221, 260, 289, 302 are hydraulic lifter.

Looks like that SYB 9 is a pretty close match to your stock 260 cam, at least close enough that I'd run it.
I doubt you'd be able to tell any difference between the two.
It's pretty mild going by the specs.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top