Why didn't Ford use a better camshaft in the 428 SCJ engines?

[427LX]

When the 428 CJ came about in mid 68 Ford just grabbed the old 390 4bbl GT cam and called it done. Maybe an okay choice for the general use with mild gears auto trans and A/C options.
However did they miss the boat a bit with the SCJ package ?  If I remember they had a better camshaft specd out for the 50-100 cars that were built for NHRA class racing.

[shady]

I suspect Ford wanted them to be user friendly. Most cars were daily drivers. Very few families had two cars. They had to start easy in all climates. If your wife needed to take the kids to school in 10* weather, she needed the car to start and run smooth with no fuss, and keeping warranty issues at bay.

[cammerfe]

I was part of the group who received one of the first batch of ten cars Ford built with the CJ engine. From Detroit, we had to go to Romy Hammes Ford in South Bend to do the pick-up of the 'dollar' car. Jon Corrunker and his brother Rick and I drove it back to his garage in Detroit and took it apart.

There was much evidence of 'quick-'n'-dirty hand-assembly work in the engine compartment. We were told that the engine was 30-40 pounds heavier than a 390 and that we should substitute one of the lighter blocks to get weight off the front end. We went through a half dozen to find a 390 block that had such minimal core shift as to take the overbore.

The NHRA rules specified some of the cam specifications, but it was common to take the 'numbers' to a local grinder who would grind a 'cheater' that would pass inspection. Lishin Cams was the place to go in Detroit.

We set, and held, the MPH end of the Super 'E' Automatic record for most of the '68 season.

[Tommy-T]

A couple of thoughts to the original posters question

While the 429SCJ did use a solid lifter grind as opposed to the hydraulic stick used in the 429CJ, it was marginally better than the CJ juice grind. Not FE, but a general comparison.

The 428CJ cam is not really a "bad" grind, especially for 1966 or so. Case in point, around 1980 a friend had a stock 1969 Mach I 428CJ automatic that he street raced here in the San Fernando Valley. He wanted to go faster, but didn't want to take the motor apart. There was a company named Motion that had a "tune-up" and performance guide that could be followed for quite a performance upgrade. We followed it to a "T". The kit included shims that go under the stock non-adjustable rockers shafts. Keep adding shims until a lifter starts to tick and then take one out. It was supposed to add a few RPM before the hydraulic lifters "pump-up". It came with light springs for the distributor mechanical advance and instructions on how to put the advance in the shorter advance slot. This was the hardest of the modifications, and pretty scary doing it with the distributor installed. Instructions on setting timing for best performance too. Four sets of jets for the factory 735.
The instructions called for 1 3/4" Hooker headers and a good 2 1/2" exhaust, 4.57 gears and TracLok, and 9" slicks.

The results were mid-12's. Very quick on the street in 1980 AND we never went deeper in the motor than remove the valve covers. Granted, the motor did not want to be revved up to 6K, but it didn't need to.

[e philpott]

Ford and Chrysler both wussied out with performance stock cams but Chevy didn't and those pesky L78 396/375 hp ran good and there was a bunch of them

[427LX]

I have the original hydraulic cam out of my brother's 1970 Hemicuda. With 10,000 miles on it I set it up in my lathe with a degree wheel and indicator and it checked out at 284 degree at .006 lift and 228 degree at .050 with a 112 LCA and a .470-.480 valve lift depending on true rocker ratio.

[rcodecj]

I had my 428cj cam measured with cam doctor:

https://www.428cobrajet.org/id-cam

[Stangman]

They could have put the 427 low riser solid cam in it. I believe it was 306 duration and 500 lift that would have woke that baby up and was already a Ford part number. They also had the 324-500 cam and although guys like us would think it’s fine some people don’t know how to drive it might have been to much in an automatic car. I would have to imagine that would have given it a good 25 horsepower.

[427LX]

Yep something in the 224/230 @ .050 and .500 lift would have made for a strong runner in the 428 SCJ! However it is still impressive that the engine ran well for such short intake duration on the original cam.

[bsprowl]

Stangman's suggestion of the 427 low riser cam is the cam used in the '66 428 Police Interceptor.  The PI engine was choked to death by the use of the Autolite carb. 

I think the 735 CFM Holly and the 427 lower riser cam would have been a great combination and very streetable.

[My427stang]

My opinion is they did use a better cam in 390GTs and CJs.  That cam had split duration with lots of exhaust lobe compared to intake, plenty of advertised duration. Until about the 390GT and J code Mustangs, Ford just either went small, or bigger single pattern.  Seems like someone at Ford started figuring out that the imbalance of the heads and exhaust needed split. 

As far as why not a bigger cam with that setup?  I think springs, power brakes, warranty, heavy parts, etc, maybe even looking forward to the Muscle Parts sales for those who wanted more.  Not to mention, cold start, the wife driving the CJ to the store while hubby worked, start of some initial emissions requirements leading up to 68, all would have met a larger customer base than making it choppy

That being said, at about 50 degrees overlap, they could have added 4-5 degrees, advanced it by about the same amount, and still behaved well down low and drove power up by a margin.

[428kidd]

Warranty and emissions would be my two reasons to say as to why they didnt.

[e philpott]

 Could also be because Ford offered AC and power steering along with more streetable gear choices available? I'm pretty sure the Chevy L78 was not available with AC or power steering and was limited on what axle ratio's could be ordered with it

[frnkeore]

What we say now about the cam, doesn't change anything. The SCJ sold well and had a lot of hp for it's time. It also ran well on the street and the track.

The car had many racing options, too. I ordered a SCJ, in Oct of '68. I ordered it with two options, that I've never heard mentioned, the insulation and undercoating deleted. I didn't get it, because I couldn't sell my K-code Fairlane, in time to take delivery. So, it could be running around SoCal, still.

Here is Fords specs, for the stock and optional cam. I can only assume, that the "Stock Class" cam could have been a dealer installed option, though I didn't know about it in Oct of '68.

[4twennyAint]

Back to the original question here; why did a Drag Pak not have a solid cam when it was widely known to add performance?  The vast majority of people who wanted a Drag Pak, SCJ cared little about drive-ability, cold starts, etc.  They were tolerating ratchety deep geared locker rears, tossing smog pumps and definitely no A/C.  Ford knew the heads flowed more at higher lift than the given cam alotted, and lets add to it they had aluminum intakes available as well.  So why not?  My guess is FE tooling was at the end of life cycle and financing was all in the 429/460.  Money to apply adjustable valvetrain and aluminum pieces just wasn't there for our beloved 428.   Ford essentially admitted the solid cam would have been better, having applied it on next generation 429 SCJ Drag Pak.