Wereby I actually have that book,the copy he scanned evidently is missing its cover the first page is actually the title page once you open the cover, which has a beautiful shot of a tripower 406 with lots of chrome and long exhaust manifolds,also I'm not sure why he lists it as 64 because the copyright date clearly states 1962.I am certain that early cam is not the 306 AA cam,this is a milder grind that was used on the 352HP,390HP as the C0AE 6250 B,and with small installed timing change as the C2AE 6250 A in the 406.I believe the C2AE 6250 B cam installed in later race 406's and possibly very late production 406's introduced the 306 grind on a thrust button core,and was then repeated on a non thrust button core as the AA in the 427. The specs listed in the book are IO 24 BTC IC 72 ABC EO 72 BBC EC 24 ATC .479 lift 276* duration and 48* overlap and ..025 lash.The later 306 grind had quite a bit more overlap,and while I don't believe the 306 had a full 30* more duration I think that can be explained by inconsistent measurement lift Ford typically measured their cams at like .020 lift for duration but the cross town rivals (chevy)typically advertised their cam durations at .006 or seat to seat so it sounded like their cams were much bigger(Ive seen some chevrolet factory cam durations listed at as much as 346* and this was for a standard production line cam not an over the counter race grind),so I think Ford was feeling a little pressure to make their cams sound a little juicier by changing the checking lift.I don't think they stooped to chevy's level but I think they moved a little closer.
Cams:
I’m thinking this is all the same “4v solid” cam:
306-306 at .007 lobe (guess based on 324 cam, amazingly I cant find this spec!)
274-274 at .014 lobe (.025 valve ie “at lash”) sometimes 276-276
228-228 at .050 lobe
195-195 at .100 lobe Ford spec
.500 net or .480 net max lift (this is the mystery, but it’s only a 3hp difference in the Gonkulator)
Consider the “8v solid” cam
324-324 at .007 lobe (ford manuals)
290-290 at .014 lobe sometimes 288-288
244-244 at .050 lobe sometimes 242-242 or 245-245
208-208 at .100 lobe Ford Spec
The Comp 270S cam gives another hint:
300-300 at .006 lobe (measured by me)
270-270 at .014 lobe (Comp spec)
224-224 at .050 lobe (Comp spec)
192-192 at .100 lobe (measured by me)
If you just add 4 degrees to the Comp 270S you get
304-304 at .006 lobe (darn close to 306-306 at .007)
274-274 at .014 lobe
228-228 at .050 lobe
196-196 at .100 lobe
Which starts to look exactly like the Ford 4v cam. (The 270S is on tighter centers & a little more lift though).
I’m saying that the 306-306 and 274-274 cams are the SAME GRIND, just measured at different lobe lifts.
Both are 228-228 at .050 lobe, 195-195 at .100 lobe.
Dennis K’s postings have also implied that the grind was the same, 352/360hp thru 427/410hp.
EG:
14 May 2007 thread on Fordfe.com:
https://www.fordfe.com/c2az-6250-a-has-anyone-heard-of-this-cam-t54635.html“tbolt2:C2AZ-6250-A converts to a C2AE-6250-A.
The specs on a the C2AE-A cam is same as C0AE-B, except induction hardened and oil quenched lobes.
The COAE-B cam is 306/306 deg, cam lift is .298355" x 1.76 ratio = .525" less lash is around .500".
Regards,
Dennis”
My opinion / hunch.
It’s not “definitive” though. From the road tests of the era, that 152mph 352/360 car, even with a loose block and open pipes, still favors a bigger cam eg 228-228 at .050.
There are NO old road tests of the 390HiPo. Their performance in NHRA is not definitive but they ran pretty darn good which does favor the 228-228 at .050 spec.
So I’m betting they were ALL 228-228 at .060.
The .480 net vs .500 net lift is only about a 3hp difference in the Gonkulator so impossible to parse that.
The .480 net lift keeps popping up though – it had to come from SOMEWHERE, unless a bunch of people were subtracting lash twice. Not likely but possible. Look how many books have the early FE intake port height at 1.94”, ever since the typo in 1969 Muscle Parts.
But duration – 228-228 vs eg a 207-221 “CJ” style (solid) is about a 20hp difference, which would put eg a typical assembly line 406 about 30hp below its factory rating. They didn’t run THAT bad!
For sure, Chevy spec’d some REALLY LONG durations, but they did the same thing – sometimes the same grind would have eg a 300-300 duration, and in a different year, a 270-270 duration. Same cam, just a different spec. The really long durations made it easier to grind “cheater” cams, and even do so legally after 1967. This gave the Mouse some of its edge in NHRA. The Mouse cams weren’t really that big, but the specs gave room to make them fatter.
So there’s my logic.
Here’s to the degree wheel!