FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: 427LX on June 09, 2022, 10:49:51 AM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
I had my 428cj cam measured with cam doctor:
https://www.428cobrajet.org/id-cam
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Warranty and emissions would be my two reasons to say as to why they didnt.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
The real answer to the OP question ? The answer was the PAS Product Acceptability Standards program. Some things one thinks of today, could not pass the PAS. Cars had to drive, start, emissions,comfort, in other words those standards had to be met, by every car Ford built. These standards were developed during the mid- 60s. There were some concessions for cars that would be used in competition events. However that was a small number of cars. What few remember ( or were not alive at the time) is the the auto companies were under extreme pressure from the government, to address safety, and emissions, or face the whole industry being nationalized .under a government department. Everything kept going along until Congress got enough votes too nationalize the auto industry, and that threat is what killed the performance cars from the factory.
-
1969 Drag Pak - hydraulic cam. 1970-71 Drag Pak - solid cam. So I would disagree.
-
1969-71 Boss Mustangs all had solid cams too! 302, 351 and 429
-
1969 Drag Pak - hydraulic cam. 1970-71 Drag Pak - solid cam. So I would disagree.
1969 and 70 428 SCJ had hydraulic cams, 1970 and 71 429 SCJs had solid cams.
Mustangs and Cougars still got the 428 in 1970.
-
My thinking on this is that when Ford introduced the 68 428 CJ they won all the national drag event's and finially had an affordable street car that would run with the other brand's.
At the time they were developing the 351C and 429 and didn't see any reason to futher develope the 428 because it was holding it's own and with the new engine's putting out way more power then the 428 used the CJ in a holding pattern until the new engin's came out.
Then OPEC reared their ugly head and more or less stopped futher develope on these engine's.
Greg
-
I meant only 429 cars for 1970 but appreciate the correction. Another point that was made to me is maybe Ford decided the CJ power level potential with a solid cam would exceed the limits of a 2 bolt main in their durability testing.
-
1969-71 Boss Mustangs all had solid cams too! 302, 351 and 429
69 BOSS 302 had solids. 70 had hydraulic.
-
1969-71 Boss Mustangs all had solid cams too! 302, 351 and 429
69 BOSS 302 had solids. 70 had hydraulic.
70 boss 302s were solid also.
-
Looking back, nothing had a solid cam by 1968 - solid lifter cam was not an option on anything that model year, right? The next solid cam engine was 69 Boss 302. Boss 429's didn't even get solid cams at first, then magazines tested them and they added the solid design also used on 429 SCJ...so maybe Ford was hoping to get away from solids all together, but found that it wasn't going to make the grade. Or, it was simply the individual program budgets driving each decision...Where's John Vermiersch, he'll know...
-
Ford missed the boat on lots of things in the 60's and 70's. But I still like 'em!
The SCJ should have had a bigger cam but I suppose they didn't want to infringe on the Boss 429 which also should have had a bigger cam. Not just Chevy but Buick, Olds and Pontiacs all came with decent cams.
And earlier they missed the boat by only offering the 66-67 Fairlane GT with a mild version which was pretty much a cam and carb on a Tbird engine. That could have used the PI intake and came with gears lower than the 3.25's they got.
Then in the 70's only 2V carbs on 302 Mavericks when GM but 800cfm Quadrabogs on everything.
-
Just imagine a 428SCJ, 429SCJ, or Boss 429 with a similar cam grind that the BBC used:
375 and 425hp/396, 402 and 427; 242/242 @ 0.050", 114/108, .520" gross lift.
L-88, 264/270 @0.050", 112/108, .560"/.580" gross lift;
LS-7(?)/ZL-1, 262/273 @0.050", 110/?, .560"/.600" gross lift
-
Considering the factory rev limiters Ford installed on the 70 428 CJ/SCJs was set at 5800 RPM, I imagine for warranty reasons, so I doubt they thought a cam that made more power, but at higher RPMs, was a desirable choice to offer.
-
Because Ford never had any intention of making the 428SCJ engine a performance upgrade over the 428CJ. It came into being strictly to improve durability and reduce the high number of warranty claims that they were seeing from low geared 428CJ 4 speed cars out in the field. My friend friend Kerry jokingly says that Ford should have called it the "Warranty Pack" instead of the Drag Pack option. JMHO
-
I agree that there were warranty claims for "used hard" 428CJ's.
Ford was still using truck bearing clearances - where less than 0.001" clearance was acceptable at the factory.
Many machine shops followed the Ford factory recommended minimum bearing clearances - hence many FE's with bearing issues.
Things have changed thank goodness!
-
Maybe the Ford engineers were smart enough to know all the experts were just gonna tear them apart anyway. They spec'd a cam that would tick most of the boxes and run good.
And yes I was one of those experts that had to reinvent the wheel. Steve
-
That's an accurate comment. We were regularly called by EEE engine guys, or they'd stop by the shop in the evenings to give suggestions and bring just-created 'go-fast' parts. One of those visits was my first look at a Sidewinder intake.
KS
-
Just imagine a 428SCJ, 429SCJ, or Boss 429 with a similar cam grind that the BBC used:
375 and 425hp/396, 402 and 427; 242/242 @ 0.050", 114/108, .520" gross lift.
L-88, 264/270 @0.050", 112/108, .560"/.580" gross lift;
LS-7(?)/ZL-1, 262/273 @0.050", 110/?, .560"/.600" gross lift
their image on the street would of been a whole lot better if they had, Chevy sure didn't jack around with tiny cams in a performance vehicle
-
Although the 375HP 396/402, and 425HP 427 Chevys were readily available to the buying public, the L88 was not, and the 454 LS7 was only available over the counter. Hardly comparable to the widely available 428 CJ. Also, the 375/396 and 425/427 BBCs also had higher compression, bigger valves and ports, aluminum high rise intake manifold, along with the solid lifter cam, so they were more of a race type engine than the much more docile 428 CJ. And unlike the 428 CJ, the "big dog" versions of the 396 and 427 Chevy were not available with A/C, and they earlier versions were 4 speed only. It is unfortunate that Ford never offered multiple versions of their street performance engines, there was only one version of the 66-67 390 GT engine, while the 396 Chev could be 325,350, 360, or 375 HP, the 427 BB Chev was also available in several Same with the 400 Firebirds and GTOs, Olds 442s, and Buick GS. It would have been nice if Ford had had some higher performing versions of the 390 and 428 CJ, as well as a better and more commonly available limited slip rearend, along with a wider gear ratio selection. Until the 428 CJ, about the lowest available gear ratio was 3.50, while you could you could order your Chevy SS with as low as 4.88s. But it`s all 50 year old water under the bridge now.
-
All Ford had to do was sell a 61 390/375 engine in 66/67 Fairlanes. They had all the pieces on the shelves.
Ron.