C8AX-6250D Cam

[frnkeore]

In my reply, regarding duration, I did mead MORE, standard flat tappet duration. 6200 rpm isn't where that TP needs to be, the only way to increase the rpm, is with duration on the early cam lobes. The high flowing TP ports, weren't created for a low rpm engine and streetability was not their purpose, at all! They were a race head and that's how they need to be used. With a cam that peaks at 7000. I always wanted a set of SB TP's but, never found a set for sale.

Barry, was the cam checked for wear and timing? Also, in a car, the temp would be much higher and was the RT side A/F sensors disconnected and all the left side sensors hooked up?

Everyone keeps saying that "sound" is the reason people want that cam. You don't need a cam for sound, just pull the choke out and you've got that. For me, it's history, nothing else.

Here's a idea, why not hold a competition, using the "D" as the base line rule? That's kinda what the EMC is about. Are people interested in the FE because they are "modern" or because they are one of the best "old" engine. The FE is about history. You can add modern components to it but, basically it is a high end, historical engine, one of the best Ford ever produced!

Higher flowing/better performing/however you want to put it, heads, absolutely DO NOT need more duration.  That is basically a camshaft design law.   I've got 3-4 Tunnel Port head builds in the dyno results section of this forum and I can peak every single one of them at 7000 or higher with a smaller camshaft than that C8AX cam.  It's that big of a turd.  One of them was a 511 cubic inch engine, peaked at 7000, and had a smaller cam than the C8AX cam.   Granted the heads were ported, but camshaft rules are camshaft rules.

I also don't share the same thoughts as you as to what the FE engine platform is about.  It's an iconic piece of history for sure, but in no means should we keep doing things the way we did them 60 years ago because it's a historical engine platform.   Every FE engine builder here exists for the sole purpose of bringing the FE into the modern world of technology.

I guess that you were not following my train of thought. I was speaking of the flat tappet tech, that, that cam came from. Can you tell me how you can increase the peak HP at a higher rpm w/o increasing duration (using that type ramp), I'd like to hear it.

Barry, a quick and simple cam check, can be done with this Ford info. 0' @ .100 lift and a check of total lift.

[blykins]

In my reply, regarding duration, I did mead MORE, standard flat tappet duration. 6200 rpm isn't where that TP needs to be, the only way to increase the rpm, is with duration on the early cam lobes. The high flowing TP ports, weren't created for a low rpm engine and streetability was not their purpose, at all! They were a race head and that's how they need to be used. With a cam that peaks at 7000. I always wanted a set of SB TP's but, never found a set for sale.

Barry, was the cam checked for wear and timing? Also, in a car, the temp would be much higher and was the RT side A/F sensors disconnected and all the left side sensors hooked up?

Everyone keeps saying that "sound" is the reason people want that cam. You don't need a cam for sound, just pull the choke out and you've got that. For me, it's history, nothing else.

Here's a idea, why not hold a competition, using the "D" as the base line rule? That's kinda what the EMC is about. Are people interested in the FE because they are "modern" or because they are one of the best "old" engine. The FE is about history. You can add modern components to it but, basically it is a high end, historical engine, one of the best Ford ever produced!

Higher flowing/better performing/however you want to put it, heads, absolutely DO NOT need more duration.  That is basically a camshaft design law.   I've got 3-4 Tunnel Port head builds in the dyno results section of this forum and I can peak every single one of them at 7000 or higher with a smaller camshaft than that C8AX cam.  It's that big of a turd.  One of them was a 511 cubic inch engine, peaked at 7000, and had a smaller cam than the C8AX cam.   Granted the heads were ported, but camshaft rules are camshaft rules.

I also don't share the same thoughts as you as to what the FE engine platform is about.  It's an iconic piece of history for sure, but in no means should we keep doing things the way we did them 60 years ago because it's a historical engine platform.   Every FE engine builder here exists for the sole purpose of bringing the FE into the modern world of technology.

I guess that you were not following my train of thought. I was speaking of the flat tappet tech, that, that cam came from. Can you tell me how you can increase the peak HP at a higher rpm w/o increasing duration (using that type ramp), I'd like to hear it.

Barry, a quick and simple cam check, can be done with this Ford info. 0' @ .100 lift and a check of total lift.

I agree man, we have a real hard time trying to communicate.

Your post:  "It needs a bigger cam for those high flowing heads." 

As a general rule, higher flowing heads require less camshaft....i.e. if you have a particular combination, with say, 260cfm heads and a certain camshaft, if you change to a 300cfm head, the engine will peak higher.   That 427 already had a leg-up on the cylinder head department.  Not a LR, not a CJ, but a TP. 

You don't just keep adding duration when you see an anomaly such as this, you do something different.  My guess is that another camshaft, with different valve events altogether, would have let that 427 pull up higher and make more power.   I've had numerous Tunnel Port combinations in here, and even though they were much larger in displacement, all of them have peaked at 7000 rpm or higher, with less camshaft.    What does that tell you?

[Barry_R]

I guess that you were not following my train of thought. I was speaking of the flat tappet tech, that, that cam came from. Can you tell me how you can increase the peak HP at a higher rpm w/o increasing duration (using that type ramp), I'd like to hear it.

Barry, a quick and simple cam check, can be done with this Ford info. 0' @ .100 lift and a check of total lift.

It's a flat tappet cam.  If it were to be worn out it would quickly cut through the hardened surface and would make no power at all and lots of shrapnel in the oil.  A couple thou of potential wear ain't gonna have a big impact on anything.  Checking cam timing might be useful, but would likely only swing the curve around by a couple hundred RPM if it were even close.  And no - with that ramp and those spring pressures you do not have many ways to gain RPM.  Back in the proverbial day 7000 RPM was really high, and this package definitely gets there.  If I were building this today, with today's parts, I would not use those ramps, I would have at least 25% more spring pressure even with a flat tappet, and I wish we had an intake option that would be more modern by a decade - or five.  A modern cam with more lift and more aggressive lobes would gain a bunch of power.

[mike7570]

There have been several FE Reunion videos that include cars idling about in the pits and such. Can anybody here pinpoint for a fact a shot of a D cam? It's a missing component of this discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=BEqpYAeuwg8&feature=emb_logo

That video goes with this car:

https://www.sheltonclassics.com/vehicles/220/1964-ford-fairlane-thunderbolt-tribute

So there ya go.

I think towd56's 390 on my Instagram sounds meaner......

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8E6oXvHzEK/

Sorry, I'm going to go with the rapid but steady lope of the D cam over the random soon-to-have a cardiac episode of the really bitchin' wagon. Shame the tribute car doesn't have Hi Riser heads (would that alter the sound I wonder?). Here's the real thing from back in the day:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU09f49Bszw

Myocardial infarction for the win!

Probably my favorite sounding FE video   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1jHlinJTCM

[My427stang]

I guess that you were not following my train of thought. I was speaking of the flat tappet tech, that, that cam came from. Can you tell me how you can increase the peak HP at a higher rpm w/o increasing duration (using that type ramp), I'd like to hear it.

Barry, a quick and simple cam check, can be done with this Ford info. 0' @ .100 lift and a check of total lift.

Frank, I think you should just try to acknowledge that someone else knows something about engines.  I see you on three forums, and you always seem to start with a purposeful question, then just tell everyone why they should either know the answer, or why they are wrong.

You don't know me, and I won't push my background to make a point, however, 2 professional engine builders, at least 3 former racers and this knuckle dragger all said that the cam likely didn't make the power you believe back in the day AND gave some feedback on what to do to run it.  I promise, Barry doesn't need help figuring cam centerline and if he says that motor is where it should be, he knows, and all of us know what a slight change in cetnerline, or even a large one would do.

Tradition, heritage, LOUD AND CLEAR...got it...so lets run old H&M springs that used to break for the experience, someone said tool steel lifters, screw that, lets go heritage....in fact your adapted small retainers, screw those too, let's use heavy steel or early Ti that used to shatter and 1.5 ratio Isky ball/ball rockers and add some sodium filled valves.  A good 5/64 and 3/32 ring to boot should be good for the original "feeling"

I am totally being a wise guy for a point.  Every one of those things are easily overlooked because they are not as good as modern parts, same here.  Now, if you want to use any one of them, you want them, it's OK, but there is no heritage in an EFI or a 428 transplanted  an old 427 race car, so don't pick and choose to win an argument.  I actually like the sound of the cam, I actually like the heritage, and as I said before, I'd like to try one, especially in a comparison to see how it would run in a big incher


We have shifted back to sound, again, it's not a bad reason why, but call the ball....in fact, I will do everything I can to help you build an engine around that cam if you do so, but save your argument for a more righteous fight

[frnkeore]

Well Stang,
I guess that I have my first stalker. You seem way to interested in me and it seems that anything Brent says, you jump in and try to magnify it, usually in a derogatory way, when it comes to myself.

I was taught that the only stupid question, was the one no asked. Regarding the retainer question, no one had a answer, based on the engineering of springs and retainers, only supplying answers, based on what was manufactured at this time. Tomorrow or some other time in the future, those things will change, as they have from yesterdays retainer and springs. I have a curious mind and I don't take what anyone says w/o factual backing. Doesn't anyone ever ask "why". I'm also not a follow the leader guy. I like to see more that the ass end of things.

Regarding this "D" cam, at the time it was developed, increased rpm was only available with duration (at those FT ramp rates), lift (lift was limited) and LSA. Duration, the fastest way to do it. In the "D" period, who would have ever imagined a roller cam in factory production car. In '68, roller cams where available but, not legal in NASCAR (I put a Herbert roller in my LR in '69) so, that wasn't a option. Real racers do not care what the lower rpm response is, just the HP and torque, in the range they need and use.

You will note in Fords recommendation, aftermarket springs were suggested for it. Ford could have also gone to 5/16" diameter valves. Why they didn't do that, is a mystery to me as the Hemi's used them w/o problems but, maybe H&M did, if so, it never came out.  Also, I don't understand why the 3/8" valves are still being used in FE builds at this late date.

In the 80's I manufactured water pumps timing belt drives and V belt pulleys, mostly for SBC (that's where the money was in those years) all of my own design.   They where advertised in Stock Car Magazine and Circle Track. I also sponsored a Open Comp stock car, in those years. I'm not a novice but, I haven't been involved in racing 18 years. Yes thing change and I'm on this forum and Speed Talk to catch up but, the old stuff is near and dear to me.

You can jump on me for this but, for people that have actually had a all out race car and raced it, "sound" is meaningless to your desires. It's all about the power band that you use.

[My427stang]

Frank, not a stalker, which was a clever response, think of it more like a car wreck.  Hard to take your eyes off it, much like these threads

Asking questions is fantastic, however, asking the unanswerable and accepting only the format and info you choose is not.

The problem I have with this round of the post is simple, and honestly, I don't get upset or offended, but I just can't walk away for some reason   Let me go in bullet format

The debate
- The guy who asked about the cam isn't arguing
- The guy who said "shame on us" isn't arguing
- The guy who is arguing is building a small block (which is completely fine, just not applicable to this discussion ... unless I am mistaken and you bought one of these cams)
- The guys who answered the questions with specifics about the cam and lobe profile are providing info that the one guy doesn't like, and he is responding in his standard form

The power
- Racers like power not sound, I agree, engine builders do too. 
- This cam is not the most powerful available, therefore is justified mostly by heritage, not power
- The cam is not being used by a racer in the conversation we are having, is it used by people with vehicles not being predominately raced
- The rpm ranges posted, were generally a mismatch for the cam...(actually the cam was a mismatch for use, but trying to stay in format) referencing your power band comment

The use
- I have no argument for the cam in a T-bolt for heritage, however, the use was in both an EFI 428 and a 3.50 geared car, both not 7000 rpm heritage builds
- You state that sound doesn't matter, but others said it did, which was what we said in the first case was likely the most beneficial.
- If you do not go for maximum power in the proper range for use, you are going for aesthetics, which means, feeling, sound, looks, etc, not to mention the heritage argument...the only indicator the cam is in there IS sound. It's acceptable, not my choice, but I was trying to give credit to a good reason for those who bought it.  I do think it sounds tough, especially if it had some real compression and inches behind it

I will likely bow out (maybe I won't, but this is unlike me to hang this long) The issue with me is the dichotomy....It's not about every bit of power, it's about heritage....it's not about sound it's about power.  Pick a position, in my opinion heritage and aesthetics are good reasons, but in the applications given, power (or especially the RPM range) is not

What I think your position is, is winning a debate, and if that is the case, you give me how you would build one with that cam.....and why you chose the parts with the same scrutiny you put on all of us.  I may pick it apart, but rather than asking and arguing, be vulnerable like others are and throw out what YOU would do.  Right now, you are only heckling

[gt350hr]

     Gentlemen,
        IF you choose to "roll back the clock" , engine performce will STILL be very close to what it was with those "vintage" components. IF you "modernize" some of the components based on CURRENT knowledge , you will likely make MORE power than the vintage assembly. IF you don't you/we are doing something wrong! In the '60's Ford was VERY limited on their "own" cam profiles. Don Sullivan (rip) was a true pioneer in Ford camshaft development , but it is no secret the aftermarket was producing more powerful cams "at the time". The "D" cam lobe was designed around 150 gram intake valves and 7,000 RPM sustained use. "Sully" as he was known at Ford made at least TWENTY variants ( LSA/ timing advance , I have the SK notes to prove it) using the "D" lobe and one or two others. They were named E1,E2,E3,and E4. The D lobe was E2. What was sold to the public as C8AX 6250-D was the one Sully felt was best for "public" use. I am not sure "who" actually designed the lobes. At the time Ford was working with Harvey Crane , and they also had their own "in house" genius Don Tewles (later General Kinetics) using the Ford computer to design cams. It is also important to note that "some" Ford sponsored racers "claimed" to be running the D cam but were actually using an aftermarket cam. No surprise there.
   Randy

[frnkeore]

Frank, not a stalker, which was a clever response, think of it more like a car wreck.  Hard to take your eyes off it, much like these threads.
Yes, that's how stalkers justify it, too.

Asking questions is fantastic, however, asking the unanswerable and accepting only the format and info you choose is not.
Unanswerable questions? Retainers are designed by automotive engineers, they do it by strength and the actions of materials and have answers.

The problem I have with this round of the post is simple, and honestly, I don't get upset or offended, but I just can't walk away for some reason   Let me go in bullet format

The debate
- The guy who asked about the cam isn't arguing
- The guy who said "shame on us" isn't arguing
- The guy who is arguing is building a small block (which is completely fine, just not applicable to this discussion ... unless I am mistaken and you bought one of these cams)
You ARE mistaken! I do not have nor did I ever have one, I put a Herbert roller in my LR
- The guys who answered the questions with specifics about the cam and lobe profile are providing info that the one guy doesn't like, and he is responding in his standard form.
If you talking about me, I know the ramp profile is old and can't be improved much, all I said is that you need more duration to increase the max power rpm. If it's wrong to ask is some checked the cam timing and lift, I'm GUILTY!

The power
- Racers like power not sound, I agree, engine builders do too. 
- This cam is not the most powerful available, therefore is justified mostly by heritage, not power
- The cam is not being used by a racer in the conversation we are having, is it used by people with vehicles not being predominately raced
It's not a street cam but, he was asking about how to use it on the street
- The rpm ranges posted, were generally a mismatch for the cam...(actually the cam was a mismatch for use, but trying to stay in format) referencing your power band comment
I don't know about that, once it was in it's power band, it stayed there a long time

The use
- I have no argument for the cam in a T-bolt for heritage, however, the use was in both an EFI 428 and a 3.50 geared car, both not 7000 rpm heritage builds
- You state that sound doesn't matter, but others said it did, which was what we said in the first case was likely the most beneficial.
I guess we have differences of opinion. Like I said before, if you want sound, just pull the choke out. A quick story. In '62, I bought a Austin Healey 100-6, I had "cut outs" installed on it. One cold night, I went to my best friends house. The garage door was close but, there were several guys in there. I unbolted the cut outs started it and pulled the choke out. The door flew open and all of them came running out to see the "race car".
- If you do not go for maximum power in the proper range for use, you are going for aesthetics, which means, feeling, sound, looks, etc, not to mention the heritage argument...the only indicator the cam is in there IS sound. It's acceptable, not my choice, but I was trying to give credit to a good reason for those who bought it.  I do think it sounds tough, especially if it had some real compression and inches behind it

I will likely bow out (maybe I won't, but this is unlike me to hang this long) The issue with me is the dichotomy....It's not about every bit of power, it's about heritage....it's not about sound it's about power. It's about power, in it's day. In 1968, most of the guys on this forum would be using this cam, if they couldn't afford a roller cam. Ya, I know most of you weren't born yet Pick a position, in my opinion heritage and aesthetics are good reasons, but in the applications given, power (or especially the RPM range) is not

What I think your position is, is winning a debate, and if that is the case, you give me how you would build one with that cam.....and why you chose the parts with the same scrutiny you put on all of us.  I may pick it apart, but rather than asking and arguing, be vulnerable like others are and throw out what YOU would do.  Right now, you are only heckling
So, asking questions is heckling? Sorry.

In my younger days ('60 - '72), I would not have thought twice about putting it in a drag/street car. Compression, porting (very expensive and iffy, at that time) and a pair of 600's on a single plane manifold, I would have tried 780's, they were cheap then. MT and Edelbrook, had cross ram manifolds, I don't know how well they worked but, I would have tried one but, as I said, I found roller cams early, through my best friend and his older brother. The brother knew Chet Herbert and his shop was only 2 miles from me. So, I went that route with my LR. There wasn't a lot available in those days but, you could get adjustable rockers (off the early engines) for about $20 (or less) a set. I was a mechanic, in those days and we had a tow service and wrecking yard so, I had it good for those type items.

As expensive as FE's are to build today, you can at least double it for FE stuff in my day and as Randy alludes to, there was a lot of rule bending in those days. In my recollect, in '64 H&M cut the top and bent the windshield pillars back, Smokey did quite a few things, also. Those were real pioneer days.

[frnkeore]

Frank, not a stalker, which was a clever response, think of it more like a car wreck.  Hard to take your eyes off it, much like these threads.
Yes, that's how stalkers justify it, too.

Asking questions is fantastic, however, asking the unanswerable and accepting only the format and info you choose is not.
Unanswerable questions? Retainers are designed by automotive engineers, they do it by strength and the actions of materials and have answers.

The problem I have with this round of the post is simple, and honestly, I don't get upset or offended, but I just can't walk away for some reason   Let me go in bullet format

The debate
- The guy who asked about the cam isn't arguing
- The guy who said "shame on us" isn't arguing
- The guy who is arguing is building a small block (which is completely fine, just not applicable to this discussion ... unless I am mistaken and you bought one of these cams)
You ARE mistaken! I do not have nor did I ever have one, I put a Herbert roller in my LR
- The guys who answered the questions with specifics about the cam and lobe profile are providing info that the one guy doesn't like, and he is responding in his standard form.
If you talking about me, I know the ramp profile is old and can't be improved much, all I said is that you need more duration to increase the max power rpm. If it's wrong to ask is some checked the cam timing and lift, I'm GUILTY!

The power
- Racers like power not sound, I agree, engine builders do too. 
- This cam is not the most powerful available, therefore is justified mostly by heritage, not power
- The cam is not being used by a racer in the conversation we are having, is it used by people with vehicles not being predominately raced
It's not a street cam but, he was asking about how to use it on the street
- The rpm ranges posted, were generally a mismatch for the cam...(actually the cam was a mismatch for use, but trying to stay in format) referencing your power band comment
I don't know about that, once it was in it's power band, it stayed there a long time

The use
- I have no argument for the cam in a T-bolt for heritage, however, the use was in both an EFI 428 and a 3.50 geared car, both not 7000 rpm heritage builds
- You state that sound doesn't matter, but others said it did, which was what we said in the first case was likely the most beneficial.
I guess we have differences of opinion. Like I said before, if you want sound, just pull the choke out. A quick story. In '62, I bought a Austin Healey 100-6, I had "cut outs" installed on it. One cold night, I went to my best friends house. The garage door was close but, there were several guys in there. I unbolted the cut outs started it and pulled the choke out. The door flew open and all of them came running out to see the "race car".
- If you do not go for maximum power in the proper range for use, you are going for aesthetics, which means, feeling, sound, looks, etc, not to mention the heritage argument...the only indicator the cam is in there IS sound. It's acceptable, not my choice, but I was trying to give credit to a good reason for those who bought it.  I do think it sounds tough, especially if it had some real compression and inches behind it

I will likely bow out (maybe I won't, but this is unlike me to hang this long) The issue with me is the dichotomy....It's not about every bit of power, it's about heritage....it's not about sound it's about power. It's about power, in it's day. In 1968, most of the guys on this forum would be using this cam, if they couldn't afford a roller cam. Ya, I know most of you weren't born yet Pick a position, in my opinion heritage and aesthetics are good reasons, but in the applications given, power (or especially the RPM range) is not

What I think your position is, is winning a debate, and if that is the case, you give me how you would build one with that cam.....and why you chose the parts with the same scrutiny you put on all of us.  I may pick it apart, but rather than asking and arguing, be vulnerable like others are and throw out what YOU would do.  Right now, you are only heckling
So, asking questions is heckling? Sorry.

In my younger days ('60 - '72), I would not have thought twice about putting it in a drag/street car, it would have had a 4 speed (all my cars did) and I would not have cared how much it bucked, on the way to where we hung out. Compression, headers, porting (very expensive and iffy, at that time) and a pair of 600's on a single plane manifold, I would have tried 780's, they were cheap then. For the OP, I would recommend a pair of 450's on a 180 manifold. MT and Edelbrook, had cross ram manifolds, I don't know how well they worked but, I would have tried one but, as I said, I found roller cams early, through my best friend and his older brother. The brother knew Chet Herbert and his shop was only 2 miles from me. So, I went that route with my LR. There wasn't a lot available in those days but, you could get adjustable rockers (off the early engines) for about $20 (or less) a set. I was a mechanic, in those days and we had a tow service and wrecking yard so, I had it good for those type items.

As expensive as FE's are to build today, you can at least double it for FE stuff in my day and as Randy alludes to, there was a lot of rule bending in those days. In my recollect, in '64 H&M cut the top and bent the windshield pillars back, Smokey did quite a few things, also. Those were real pioneer days.

[FElony]

I hereby nominate Frank for President of the United States for combining a point-by-point reply (been years since I've seen one with secondary text color) with a general reply IN THE SAME POST!!!. Truly remarkable.

[My427stang]

Frank - hang with me, and I'll show you a dyno of a pair of 450s followed by a pair of 600s on an iron-headed externally period-correct build.  You may change your mind.

Honestly, I am about ready to lick every shopping cart at Walmart.... 

[blykins]

Frank - hang with me, and I'll show you a dyno of a pair of 450s followed by a pair of 600s on an iron-headed externally period-correct build.  You may change your mind.

Honestly, I am about ready to lick every shopping cart at Walmart.... 

You no good STALKER!

[475fetoploader]

“Liked” I’m about ready to lick every shopping cart at Walmart.  LMAO

[1967 XR7 GT]

A lot of the opinions here are based on assumptions.

First off, I don't have a concern about power in the lower rpm ranges, And a lot of engine builders build the motors for their customers for specific needs, most of which are street motors with off idle throttle response, which is what most of their customers want, so cams are chosen for those needs.

Now it's been said these D cams are out dated, they have lazy lobes and so on.

Mike posted this when he had the cams spec's checked:
"mkopmani:
 I didn't mention it, but once we measured the lobe profiles, Billy said other than running a little more lash, the ramp profile design was more than 20 years ahead of its time - quite a statement from the Comp Cams guru' Billy Godbold . So while an older design, this cam is not as dated as most think. As two of the three cams were still in original cosmolene, we also benchmarked surface finish (Ra, Rmr, Wt, Wcvx, Rpm, Rvm) and they were very similar to limits for what Comp uses today.
-Mike"

There was a remark about the 3:50 gears I intend to run on the street with this cam, I may even go back the 3:25's I have, the reason, I need a freeway gear and the 4:57's in the car now won't work well on the freeway.  And at some point after I get the car running, I'll be going an over drive auto, then the 4:57's will go back in.

I am not building a motor and then just throwing in a big cam,  which I have done before, I thru together a 390 with a cam with 258' @ .050" and I loved it.  Most of these street cars we build are for the street, they don't have big money suspension & tires that can hook a motor with 500 hp and 500 ft pds of torque, which is what is being built regularly and and the power is moved lower in the rpm range, which is well and fine for a dedicated 1/4 mile car.   

One of my favorite cars was my 68 Impala Custom.  I built a 327 SBC, I borrowed the Dontov 30-30 from my 69 Z28 302 motor, and thru the 327 in with a 2500 stall in a power glide, cam didn't come on till 4,000 rpm, but it flew on the freeway. Sad thing was, the car got stolen.

The Z28 302 motor, came out of a  Corviar set up for mid engine, that I bought, that came from Detroit, couldn't keep U joints in the axels, the body was so rusted the suspension moved so much when you got on the car it kept eating U joints, ended up pulling the motor and junking the car.

So what do you think, a 468 with the D cam you think it will have 500 ft pds of torque ?  My car weighs 3,600 pds, with the 390, that 258' @.050" cam, 3,000 stall, a detroit locker with 4:57's and 10.5" wide 29" tall slicks I was finally able to get the car to hook, no such luck with the 9" wide 27" tall street tires.

A stock 390 4v engine was rated 335hp, with the cam, heads, int, & exh change I think it ended up close to 400hp.

Now, the 468, at least 500hp and 500 ft pds of torque, do you think I will able to get this to hook, it will never happen, regardless where the torque range is.

It's been said that more hp can be made with cams with less duration, but you can't really use a roller cam for a fair comparison a more aggressive faster opening lobe can be used with a roller than a flat tappet, with a roller you have less duration but the lift has been increased, I don't deny roller profiles are superior, but so is the cost.

I, use what works for me and I hope everyone else will use what will work for them, the other 24 people who bought the cam, I hope this topic helps you decide how you will use this cam or not.