Thank you C6AE!

That is the camshaft in my 390. Certainly not mild, and not a lot of idle vacuum.
Does run well above 4000 rpm.

Lunati did make an NHRA stock class "cheater" cam years ago.
I still have it in my 390.
I cannot find the cam card, but I believe it was over 250 degrees @ 0.050"
Big cam idle for sure. I had 3500 stall converter, nowhere near enough for this cam. 5.14:1 gearing helped.

I still think an iron headed (unless it has aluminum heads?) 428 without attention to quench distance and having actual CR near 11:1 is asking for issues on pump gas.
The loose converter and low gear ratio helped so the engine was less "loaded"
Changing to a tighter converter and higher rear gear will load the engine much more.
Detonation a very likely result - taking away ignition timing to reduce detonation will just kill power.


Just my opinion.

Do you know what the quench distance is? or deck height?
0.060"+ quench distance will not make things better.
Iron heads with 10.7:1 is really pushing it.

Custom cam for sure - by someone who knows these engines (Brent as an example).

Until someone who regularly builds FEs tries a set or Andy builds another FE to compare, there’s really not anything that can be said about the performance of that head.

As Blair pointed out, trends need to be made on one specific dyno, as they are meant to be incremental measuring tools and not comparators.

The only problem with that is that the majority of internet users are not dyno operators or professional engine builders.  So if they see one builder make 500 hp with a particular combo, another builder make 500 hp with a similar combo, and then another builder come in with 650 hp on a similar build, then they either think that there’s something magical about the builder or the parts that are used.

Just because you are a professional engine builder doesn't mean you are the GOD of FE engines either.
Belittle anyone who isn't a professional engine builder - you are slamming quite a few of us on these FE forums.
I take offense to the suggestion that only professional engine builders know what works and what doesn't.
In a previous post you mention several FE builds that you were involved with that made 700+ HP. Good for you.
You are also comparing a modern FE head port layout (similar in some aspects to a custom sized pro-port head) with 50 year old tunnel ports etc...
Do you really think a new revised port will not make an difference?
You must be smarter than that.
You are the one speaking from ignorance - you slam the build, yet you have no experience with these new castings.

My 2 cents worth.

I agree a bit on the too expensive side.

However this particular DOVE-A block does have the Boss 429 bulkheads. Take a look at the pics.

Cheers

Not really comparable...for other reasons
But my most recent EMC engine made middle 600s at 6500 with 433 cubes with a 236@.050 cam....
Back in the day we'd have called that an RV grind as far as duration goes
Same engine with a 242@.050 cam went over 700..

There's always more to it than meets the eye
And some old ideas tend to die hard..

hello Barry,

How on earth can you compare the low duration (0.050" numbers) EMC camshaft with a typical low duration RV grind?
Not really the same are they?
Any extreme camshaft lobe profile (which any low duration EMC build is) coupled with high lift does not make for a long maintenance free lifetime. I am sure you will agree. Hydraulic rollers set up like a solid roller, and solid roller type valve spring pressures.
Not a comparison in my opinion.

I would much rather have a little longer duration with a reasonable lobe design than an EMC type lobe.