FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: ChiefDanGeorge on December 04, 2015, 03:12:03 PM
-
Once again I come to the forum for wisdom.
My application is my wagon for around town and highway cruising, so I am wondering what cam(s) I should be looking at.
I know in Barry's book he has a general recommendation, although I don't have the book in front of me at the moment.
Thanks once again!
-
Why not call BarryR, Brent Lykins, or any other reputable FE builder and tell them EVERYTHING about your engine/car/requirements?
Just buy the cam/lifters and parts from them.
Costs about the same, and you'll get something a little more exacting to your needs.
-
I want to second Drew's advice and add Oregon Cams to that list as well.
-
well hell man, what's your combination?
For sure the engine builder guys can give you a good recommendation, but that's not why you came here is it?
What's your combo? There's lots of guys here who would love to give a recommendation?
JMO,
pauiie
-
My setup is:
390 with a 4.125 stroker going into a Merc O'matic transmission with a 3.00 rear end.
I am not looking for a thumper cam, this car is just to knock around town in and do some roadtrips.
I'm also looking for valvetrain recommends. I'm running the Edlebrok RPM heads.
This is my first full engine build so I am seeking the wisdom of the forum.
What I won't be doing anytime soon is a transmission change. Tranny was rebuilt last year and with the OD in it, I get half way decent mileage on the highway.
-
What I won't be doing anytime soon is a transmission change. Tranny was rebuilt last year and with the OD in it, I get half way decent mileage on the highway.
ummm OD?
Please explain.
As for the cam something flat tappet or hyd roller?
Cost being a factor.
With the highway gear you want to keep the duration at a modest level.
Any reason you gave up the extra .125" of stroke?
-
I talked to Barry and he recommended the 4.125. My criteria were that I want to use pump gas and get around 350hp and 400-500ft/lb torque.
I'm not really sure what to go for with respect to hydraulic versus flat.
What I won't be doing anytime soon is a transmission change. Tranny was rebuilt last year and with the OD in it, I get half way decent mileage on the highway.
ummm OD?
Please explain.
As for the cam something flat tappet or hyd roller?
Cost being a factor.
With the highway gear you want to keep the duration at a modest level.
Any reason you gave up the extra .125" of stroke?
-
If you are looking for a hard number recommendation for a cam I can offer the Crane hyd flat tappet. 272/284 with app. .540" lift. I run this cam grind in 2 engines, 1st] a mild built 390 .030" over, 1 x 4 bbl. C6. & 3.00 gear in my 66 Fairlane GTA. 2nd] in my ski boat, Lavey-Craft V-drive flat, similar mild built 390 +.030", 1 x 4 bbl. Cam idles at about 600 rpms with just a hint of a rumble at idle but nothing outrageous. Starts to pull about 1800 rpm [stock converter] up to about 52-5300 rpms. Both engines deliver decent fuel mileage [car gets 16.5-17mpg/freeway] and both serves well for my intended use. I would use this cam without reservation again for most street applications as it makes good torque where it is needed the most, 25-2600-4K+ rpm.
-
So to summarize: If you have a .030" 390 block with a 4.125" crank, that gives you about 431 cubic inches. You have 3.00 gears. You have a 3 speed automatic trans. I'm guessing a stock torque converter. Edelbrock RPM heads.
You want highway cruising and around town performance with decent mpg.
So far it sounds like you want a fairly mild hydraulic cam. That would be a hydraulic flat tappet if budget is a concern. You could use a hydraulic roller cam if budget is not a concern.
Valvetrain could be factory, either adjustable or non-adjustable, with a mild hydraulic flat tappet cam. A hydraulic roller may require some upgrading.
What kind of car or truck is it going in? Approximate weight? Tire size? What's the rest of the engine combination? Compression ratio? Intake manifold? Carb? Headers or manifolds? Exhaust system? All that information will help us make a recommendation.
paulie
-
Going in a '63 Colony park. Weighs around 4300lbs.
I'm not sure what the final compression ratio is going to be.
Carb will probably be a 750cfm, 4V.
Going to run headers if I can find a set that will fit.
So to summarize: If you have a .030" 390 block with a 4.125" crank, that gives you about 431 cubic inches. You have 3.00 gears. You have a 3 speed automatic trans. I'm guessing a stock torque converter. Edelbrock RPM heads.
You want highway cruising and around town performance with decent mpg.
So far it sounds like you want a fairly mild hydraulic cam. That would be a hydraulic flat tappet if budget is a concern. You could use a hydraulic roller cam if budget is not a concern.
Valvetrain could be factory, either adjustable or non-adjustable, with a mild hydraulic flat tappet cam. A hydraulic roller may require some upgrading.
What kind of car or truck is it going in? Approximate weight? Tire size? What's the rest of the engine combination? Compression ratio? Intake manifold? Carb? Headers or manifolds? Exhaust system? All that information will help us make a recommendation.
paulie
-
So around 4300 lbs. If you had a stock stroke 390 I'd think you might want around 205-210 degrees @ .050". Since you have about 36 more cubic inches I'd add about 5-8 more degrees duration. So, I think you might want something roughly in the 210-218 degree @ 0.050" range.
I'd keep the lobe separation angle in the 110-114 degree range, and get a as much lift as you can.
If you find headers I'd be inclined to use a single pattern cam, same duration on the intake and exhaust. If you end up using manifolds, I'd get a dual pattern cam that has 6-8 degrees more on the exhaust side. Make the exhaust as free flowing as you can in either case.
I'd go hydraulic flat tappet unless you want a hydraulic roller for some reason.
JMO,
paulie
-
So around 4300 lbs. If you had a stock stroke 390 I'd think you might want around 205-210 degrees @ .050". Since you have about 36 more cubic inches I'd add about 5-8 more degrees duration. So, I think you might want something roughly in the 210-218 degree @ 0.050" range.
I'd keep the lobe separation angle in the 110-114 degree range, and get a as much lift as you can.
If you find headers I'd be inclined to use a single pattern cam, same duration on the intake and exhaust. If you end up using manifolds, I'd get a dual pattern cam that has 6-8 degrees more on the exhaust side. Make the exhaust as free flowing as you can in either case.
I'd go hydraulic flat tappet unless you want a hydraulic roller for some reason.
JMO,
paulie
comp magnum 260 or 268 if the converter is loose
-
Thanks for the help!
Reading a bit here (http://www.enginebasics.com/Engine%20Basics%20Root%20Folder/Basic%20Camshaft%20Understanding.html) to try and better understand the various specs.
So around 4300 lbs. If you had a stock stroke 390 I'd think you might want around 205-210 degrees @ .050". Since you have about 36 more cubic inches I'd add about 5-8 more degrees duration. So, I think you might want something roughly in the 210-218 degree @ 0.050" range.
I'd keep the lobe separation angle in the 110-114 degree range, and get a as much lift as you can.
If you find headers I'd be inclined to use a single pattern cam, same duration on the intake and exhaust. If you end up using manifolds, I'd get a dual pattern cam that has 6-8 degrees more on the exhaust side. Make the exhaust as free flowing as you can in either case.
I'd go hydraulic flat tappet unless you want a hydraulic roller for some reason.
JMO,
paulie
-
these guys are awesome , can not get this info off of talk radio or a news channel
-
I'd love to still be able to call in to Car Talk and at least ask though.
these guys are awesome , can not get this info off of talk radio or a news channel
-
They'd tell you to buy a honda. That is pretty much what they tell everyone with an older car.
On another note, the 429 in my 63.5 Galaxie has a 218 @ .050 duration cam at around .500 lift.
It's a really nice street grind, mean enough to know the engine is there, relaxed enough to idle around in town with no drama.
-
static compression (measured, estimated?), chamber style, head gasket, deck clearance, rod length, bore?
Go too small and you won't be happy with fuel requirements
RJP's is likely a very good cam, very CJ-like, but would like more info to give you an opinion of a specific cam
-
I don't have a head gasket yet, looking at that head gasket thread I didn't realize there were so many choices.
The pistons are dish style, heads are the Edlebrok RPM, bore is 4.090.
static compression (measured, estimated?), chamber style, head gasket, deck clearance, rod length, bore?
Go too small and you won't be happy with fuel requirements
RJP's is likely a very good cam, very CJ-like, but would like more info to give you an opinion of a specific cam
-
I don't have a head gasket yet, looking at that head gasket thread I didn't realize there were so many choices.
The pistons are dish style, heads are the Edlebrok RPM, bore is 4.090.
Do you know the dish volume on the pistons? Or the part number?
-
Dan,
We can get in the ballpark, but what we need is part numbers and some specifics to get really good.
Piston part number
Crank part number (just want to verify that you have exactly what you expect)
Cylinder head part number
Deck height of the block
The last part is really something you may not be able to give, but if you know deck height, it helps. If you know if the deck was cut at all, how much would help, and if you never cut it, that would help too, we can likely get close enough with a WAG (although normally we don't like to)
After that we'll start with a Felpro 1020 gasket and go from there with a compression calculation
In the end, again, RJPs cam is likely very close, but the difference between close and real good is where most of the guys here operate.
Hope this was read understanding this is your first build, just need more info in order to do a good job for you
BTW, I may have asked this before too, but is "Chief" in your screen name come from NCO, police officer, fireman or something else?
-
Ideally we'd like to know the measured cc's of the cylinder head's combustion chamber, too. The reason I say that is my Edelbrock heads are advertised as have a 72cc chamber, but the actual measured volume is 79cc. A big difference. Mine were early Edelbrock head though. I think later ones are closer to actual advertised volume.
The first engine I put together with these heads; I thought the compression ratio was about 10.0:1. It was actually about 9.3:1 because the chambers were bigger than I thought.
I'm just echoing Ross's sentiments. The more info you can supply, the better.
JMO,
paulie
-
After that we'll start with a Felpro 1020 gasket and go from there with a compression calculation
I have to ask. a 4.40 bore gasket with a 4.09 bore?
-
My Ed's came in about 76ish cc from the factory and they are about 10 years old.
-
After that we'll start with a Felpro 1020 gasket and go from there with a compression calculation
I have to ask. a 4.40 bore gasket with a 4.09 bore?
It's all planning math, just numbers I am familiar with, although it's a good gasket and wouldn't hesitate to use it, the SCE is certainly a better match for the small bore
-
I went with the Prison Break stroker kit from Survival.
Scat 9000 Series crank
The pistons are dished for 9.8:1 compression.
Cylinder Head is Edlebrok part #60069
I don't know the deck height.
ChiefDanGeorge comes from the movie Outlaw Josie Wales.
I appreciate all the help!
Dan,
We can get in the ballpark, but what we need is part numbers and some specifics to get really good.
Piston part number
Crank part number (just want to verify that you have exactly what you expect)
Cylinder head part number
Deck height of the block
The last part is really something you may not be able to give, but if you know deck height, it helps. If you know if the deck was cut at all, how much would help, and if you never cut it, that would help too, we can likely get close enough with a WAG (although normally we don't like to)
After that we'll start with a Felpro 1020 gasket and go from there with a compression calculation
In the end, again, RJPs cam is likely very close, but the difference between close and real good is where most of the guys here operate.
Hope this was read understanding this is your first build, just need more info in order to do a good job for you
BTW, I may have asked this before too, but is "Chief" in your screen name come from NCO, police officer, fireman or something else?
-
Deck Height.
To measure the deck height in the shed.
Put the bearings and crank in the block. Then put a piston and rod in each corner.
Then bring each corner up to TDC and measure the depth from the deck to the piston.
You will need an accurate depth measuring setup.
You will learn a lot about your block and stroker kit from doing this.
-
When I get them in, I'll do it.
Is there a particular gauge brand I should get, or is this one of those things worth renting from NAPA since I am not building engines on any sort of regularity?
Deck Height.
To measure the deck height in the shed.
Put the bearings and crank in the block. Then put a piston and rod in each corner.
Then bring each corner up to TDC and measure the depth from the deck to the piston.
You will need an accurate depth measuring setup.
You will learn a lot about your block and stroker kit from doing this.
-
The best tool is a depth micrometer.
You can buy one pretty inexpensive on ebay.
You will need a 0 to 1" and you will find that your piston is about 0.010" to 0.020" below
the deck on a stock deck FE.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1311.R1.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xdepth+mi.TRS0&_nkw=depth+micrometer&_sacat=0
-
I have beat this drum before, but the best bet is to take the block to the machine shop and tell them what deck height you want. My hunch is that Barry's setup likes 10.155, but I am not sure without seeing compression height. If you take the block to the machine shop and tell them, square the decks at 10.160 or 10.155, then you know they are right.
Measuring in the hole is good for calculating, but if you haven't bored the block, or if the block needs main and deck work, numbers change.
Unfortunately, I still can't provide specifics for a recommendation. Barry makes a few different kits for the 4.125 crank with different pistons and I have no idea what the compression height and dish size is with his kits. I can guess though, but it is a guess and should be treated as one.
As an educated WAG....using a 10.160 deck height (ends up .010 below) and a 17cc dish with a 74 cc chamber (assuming Edels are a little big) and a 1020 gasket, you end up at 9.55:1 static. Seeing these numbers and knowing the difficulty in keeping a 4.25 stroke below 10:1, I can see why he recommended this for your use.
Seeing those numbers, and assuming they are right (big assumption). You could run as small as a Comp 268H to make some serious torque with decent quench and DCR at 8.02
However, this is all bench racing. Some of many tweaks in blue printing come from actual deck clearance, actually measuring the heads, having the exact number for the piston dish or d-cup, and choosing the correct gasket to get where you want to be.
So in the end, looks like you are real close and looks like Barry steered you right. If it was my first motor, I'd ask Barry, "what should I tell the machinist to cut the decks to? and "what cam have you had good experience with" I'll also add if this is your first one, I'd likely go hydraulic roller, and that will likely enjoy slightly more advertised duration, and a little more compression (zero deck and/or thinner or smaller bore head gasket)
-
It might be a good thing if the Edelbrock's chambers are bigger than advertised in this case. It depends on how all the parts stack up, but it might be nice to have lower than 9.8:1 compression given the combo.
Picking a cam based on a compression ratio is the backwards way of doing it, in my opinion. The cam should be picked first, based on other factors, then compression ratio selected or massaged. I understand that in real life it doesn't always work that neatly.
JMO,
paulie
-
It might be a good thing if the Edelbrock's chambers are bigger than advertised in this case. It depends on how all the parts stack up, but it might be nice to have lower than 9.8:1 compression given the combo.
Picking a cam based on a compression ratio is the backwards way of doing it, in my opinion. The cam should be picked first, based on other factors, then compression ratio selected or massaged. I understand that in real life it doesn't always work that neatly.
JMO,
paulie
No doubt, but it works out the same either way in this instance, because the combo supports the use and he doesn't have a cam yet. We are just backing into it.
I agree though, and I almost guarantee that that engine is below 9.8, unless he zero decks and cuts the heads. In the end, this looks like a good combination of parts for the desired use. With off the shelf 445 parts, it'd likely have a little bit too much compression, something I fought with trying to build a lowish-budget Probe stroker for my 4x4
If I didn't beat the drum I thought I beat, let say it to Dan one more time. I showed you a guess that is likely close, if you want to build a high end build, measure everything or pay someone to measure everything. ALL of those numbers I threw out were a guess for example only.
-
Lets make a WAG that Dan does not have a ready use competent machine shop that he can just drop off the
parts and pickup when done and swipe the CC.
Here is another cheapo way to get the same as a machine shop.
Head CC.
Get a 100 cc syringe from the drug store for 5 or 6 bucks and CC the heads on the kitchen table.
You will need a piece of plastic and a drill. The plastic must cover the head chamber.
Drill a hole in the plastic to squirt the water from the syringe in.
Smear a bit of vaseline on the head to create a seal and fill up the chamber with water from the syringe.
Head CC.
-
Howie, no doubt at all in both of your recommendations, but that is a big WAG that he is going to build a nice stroker without a good machine shop
If not boring he needs to check taper, even if boring needs to check decks, check main alignment, etc, if he doesn't have that machine shop support, he is spending a lot of money for something that could turn out less than optimal or give him issues.
That being said, something like cc-ing the heads, I do like that advice, its cheap and easy, and will save him the labor compared to paying the shop.
Checking deck height is fine too, but if the block hasn't been square decked, he will likely just get information that won't do him much good and take him a while. Most old FEs are a little crooked, and the machine shop should fix that and BTW won't use his measurements anyway, if not and he leaves it, again, it's a lot of money to spend for extra cubes without ensuring it's done right. I agree it will teach him something, but in the end, it still requires a good machine shop to fix
I'll stop preaching :) your advice is good as always, but for a first build, I'd sure recommend getting rid of a bunch of measurement variables, there is enough to learn without having to worry about stuff like that
-
Let's say the deck is stock and is square, would I still need to have it cut and if so why?
I have beat this drum before, but the best bet is to take the block to the machine shop and tell them what deck height you want. My hunch is that Barry's setup likes 10.155, but I am not sure without seeing compression height. If you take the block to the machine shop and tell them, square the decks at 10.160 or 10.155, then you know they are right.
Measuring in the hole is good for calculating, but if you haven't bored the block, or if the block needs main and deck work, numbers change.
Unfortunately, I still can't provide specifics for a recommendation. Barry makes a few different kits for the 4.125 crank with different pistons and I have no idea what the compression height and dish size is with his kits. I can guess though, but it is a guess and should be treated as one.
As an educated WAG....using a 10.160 deck height (ends up .010 below) and a 17cc dish with a 74 cc chamber (assuming Edels are a little big) and a 1020 gasket, you end up at 9.55:1 static. Seeing these numbers and knowing the difficulty in keeping a 4.25 stroke below 10:1, I can see why he recommended this for your use.
Seeing those numbers, and assuming they are right (big assumption). You could run as small as a Comp 268H to make some serious torque with decent quench and DCR at 8.02
However, this is all bench racing. Some of many tweaks in blue printing come from actual deck clearance, actually measuring the heads, having the exact number for the piston dish or d-cup, and choosing the correct gasket to get where you want to be.
So in the end, looks like you are real close and looks like Barry steered you right. If it was my first motor, I'd ask Barry, "what should I tell the machinist to cut the decks to? and "what cam have you had good experience with" I'll also add if this is your first one, I'd likely go hydraulic roller, and that will likely enjoy slightly more advertised duration, and a little more compression (zero deck and/or thinner or smaller bore head gasket)
-
This is getting way more complicated for a 1st time engine builder than it needs to be. The OP is not building a race engine that needs to extract every ounce of power from it. A street engine that will only see WOT about 1% of it's entire life leaves a much wider window for a "close" cam selection. I think I could find no less than 10-12 cams from all the prominent cam grinders that would work quite well for this application. Does it really make that much difference if one cam makes 5 or 6 HP more than another cam? Or if the peak torque is at 3400 rpm vs. 3600 rpm? Now don't get me wrong, I do firmly believe in custom ground cams for applications that truly needs it. The last custom cam I bought was for my twin turbo 460, it was done by Comp using their recommendations for turbocharged engines and using the perimeters I gave them. It has more intake duration [248 deg] than exhaust [236 deg] ground on 114deg lobe centers. Not exactly the type of cam used in a N/A application. This cam allows the engine to idle smoothly at 750-800 rpm, start building boost at about 3K rpm and makes power and pulls hard to 7200rpm. On the other end of the spectrum I use an OLD, original 1962 406 solid lifter cam in my 4200lb 66 428 Galaxie LTD, it too runs well, idles smooth with the typical solid lifter clatter and pulls hard to about 54-5500, delivers about 15.5-16 mpg/hiway In my previous post I recommended a cam that I have personal experience with. That cam, although may not be absolutely perfect for him, his car and his application I felt it would be close without over thinking and further muddling this 1st time builder's mind. I also went against my personal policy of not recommending a cam as cam selection is purely subjective. IOW what works good for one may not work good for another based on what is important to them. Some like a lumpy idle others like a smooth idle. Some want it to pull hard to 7K, others don't care if it makes power beyond 5K. Nice discussion here but can be a bit confusing and over thought. JMO
-
I am learning there are more variables in play from block to head than I had any previous idea of.
My thoughts with a cam is if I purchase that cool timing gear cover from Jay, if my first cam choice is not the best, I can swap it out fairly easily. I appreciate your initial suggestion have looked those up.
I also don't want to overlook something when I put this together, so while I have a bit of info overload now, at least I know some areas I was unaware of before.
I really do appreciate all the info!
This is getting way more complicated for a 1st time engine builder than it needs to be. The OP is not building a race engine that needs to extract every ounce of power from it. A street engine that will only see WOT about 1% of it's entire life leaves a much wider window for a "close" cam selection. I think I could find no less than 10-12 cams from all the prominent cam grinders that would work quite well for this application. Does it really make that much difference if one cam makes 5 or 6 HP more than another cam? Or if the peak torque is at 3400 rpm vs. 3600 rpm? Now don't get me wrong, I do firmly believe in custom ground cams for applications that truly needs it. The last custom cam I bought was for my twin turbo 460, it was done by Comp using their recommendations for turbocharged engines and using the perimeters I gave them. It has more intake duration [248 deg] than exhaust [236 deg] ground on 114deg lobe centers. Not exactly the type of cam used in a N/A application. This cam allows the engine to idle smoothly at 750-800 rpm, start building boost at about 3K rpm and makes power and pulls hard to 7200rpm. On the other end of the spectrum I use an OLD, original 1962 406 solid lifter cam in my 4200lb 66 428 Galaxie LTD, it too runs well, idles smooth with the typical solid lifter clatter and pulls hard to about 54-5500, delivers about 15.5-16 mpg/hiway In my previous post I recommended a cam that I have personal experience with. That cam, although may not be absolutely perfect for him, his car and his application I felt it would be close without over thinking and further muddling this 1st time builder's mind. I also went against my personal policy of not recommending a cam as cam selection is purely subjective. IOW what works good for one may not work good for another based on what is important to them. Some like a lumpy idle others like a smooth idle. Some want it to pull hard to 7K, others don't care if it makes power beyond 5K. Nice discussion here but can be a bit confusing and over thought. JMO
-
Don't get me wrong, too much info is always better than not enough info. But as a 1st time engine builder [We ALL started somewhere] trying to cram all this info into your head will just lead to overload as you cited in your last post. As Ross pointed out FE block decks are generally crooked and/or sloped in relation to the crank centerline. it is always a good idea to deck the block if for nothing else to assure a good gasket seal. But since this is being done anyway you may as well gain the most benefit from decking the block, that means zeroing the piston comp. distance to .005" to .000" in the hole. I wouldn't worry too much about that "cool" timing gear cover unless you plan on doing a lot of cam timing adjustments and with a proper cam selection you should not need multiple timing adjustments unless you are really bored and are looking for something to do. Besides, how are you going to see any benefit of a timing adjustment on a strictly street engine. If you are racing it will show up in a time slip for better or worse but it'll only be in hundreds or thousands of a second and that way beyond "Butt-O-Meter" distinguishable.
-
Well, I certainly agree with Bob that this sounds too difficult, but really the info he needs is not very difficult to get. It takes longer to type this stuff than have it done. Please don't get discouraged, you are bringing up good things and stand to have an awesome engine, just try to be specific and purposeful with your build.
This is an aftermarket crank, aftermarket rods, and pistons that are the quality of the race stuff of 15 years ago. Heck, probably even better stuff. Because it isn't cheap stuff, spending 250-300 to square deck and check main alignment on top of the balancing is money well spent. Heck, this is a medium riser alum-headed 10:1 430-ish inch motor, that's what dreams were made of in the 60s and 70s!
If it was a Speed-pro equipped 396 stock build, or a rering, I'd say slap a cam in it and have a blast, but this motor is made of good parts. it's worth a little blueprinting.
I agree completely with Bob, I would NOT buy a fancy timing chain or cover, not because they aren't awesome, they are, but with your build, all it takes is a little info to pick a cam and then you will never touch it again. Instead, I would be darned certain I knew exactly what my parts were and I would machine the block so I knew it would be both reliable and at the specs the parts were designed for. Like I said, lots to type and talk about, but it's really just knowing what you have for parts and doing a good prep of the block.
-
Lots of good info for you Dan.
I'm one of those Speed Pro slap them together have blast kind of hacks
so take that fwiw. ::)
-
Not trying to muddy the waters more, but here is a cam I think might work good.
http://www.crower.com/camshafts/ford-332-428-compu-pro-hydraulic-cam-276-hdp.html
It has less split than the Crane HMV272. I don't like 12 degrees of split even if exhaust manifolds are used. This one has some split at 6 degrees, but not as much. It has a tad more intake lift and a bit less exhaust lift. It should be slightly better at low-mid rpms, yet it has enough advertised duration to stay out of trouble with the likely compression ratio range, and it should have good octane tolerance.
At the forefront of my mind is we're talking about an ~4300 lb. car with 3.00 gears and I think stock convertor.
You could also get the Crane cam in a single pattern style. It has a little tighter lobe separation angle at 110 degress. The Energizer 272. Crane has it or Summit has it, as well. I am guessing the Summit cam is the exact same cam as the Crane, just repackaged and cheaper.
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/sum-1793/overview/make/ford
Just food for thought.
paulie
-
If it was a Speed-pro equipped 396 stock build, or a rering, I'd say slap a cam in it and have a blast,
If that isn't a signature line I don't know what is.... For the street I'm a Speed-Pro, slap it together and have a blast type of guy too. Street stuff...It ain't rocket science, its just fun.
-
Some reading that may be relevant:
http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29828&hilit=exhaust+manifolds
paulie
-
Yes, I'd spend the time "blueprinting" the block, heads, intake and making sure both airflow and clearances are optimized. Many a cam as noted would work fine. In a street car with mufflers, as RJP mentioned, it will spend the vast majority of time in the lower rpm range while WOT performance will be at minimal time. That said, one would barely notice a cam change or even the effect changing the the cam timing on what's in it.
Funny, made me think of a recent blog I read that had a fellow agonizing over whether to build 4-2-1 merge collectors (think Pro Stock!) , whether to go straight primary tube or stepped primaries, the exact placement of a X-pipe (ala' Dr. Gas) and the optimum size of the pipes out back.
This in a 4,000+ lb. barely re-worked 454 BBC, auto-transmission streeter that would never see a track! Crazy.
-
I'm not with you guys who think it's "agonizing" to discuss these things. It takes almost no energy at all. Typing or talking or thinking about this stuff takes very little effort. Even going out in the garage and measuring stuff is not that bad. Agonizing is an emotional term and I don't think we're at the point being pushed to that level. I agonize when I have a broken rib (and/or torn intercostal tissue) and 18 year old kids are asking me to keep playing pickup football with them. I do understand and agree that we may be splitting hairs and talking about making very small gains. Isn't that why we're here, though?
So we're not talking about a racecar. Does it hurt anything to try to optimize it?
How about some more cam recommendations or questions about the combination/useage?
A big car with high gearing and a moderately sized engine might be a more difficult call than a light car with a huge engine and low gears.
JMO,
paulie
-
I agree Paulie.
The subject engine is a big under taking for a novice and he is here for info.
I say pour it on.
Talk, pictures, diagrams, charts, graphs, and smoke signals.
Both ways.
Don't be shy with the camera Dan.
You will only end up with a better engine.
-
It's not agonizing, but what I don't want to end up doing is spending time/money for diminishing returns.
I can understand making sure the deck is squared, for proper head/block fitment.
I'm not with you guys who think it's "agonizing" to discuss these things. It takes almost no energy at all. Typing or talking or thinking about this stuff takes very little effort. Even going out in the garage and measuring stuff is not that bad. Agonizing is an emotional term and I don't think we're at the point being pushed to that level. I agonize when I have a broken rib (and/or torn intercostal tissue) and 18 year old kids are asking me to keep playing pickup football with them. I do understand and agree that we may be splitting hairs and talking about making very small gains. Isn't that why we're here, though?
So we're not talking about a racecar. Does it hurt anything to try to optimize it?
How about some more cam recommendations or questions about the combination/useage?
A big car with high gearing and a moderately sized engine might be a more difficult call than a light car with a huge engine and low gears.
JMO,
paulie
-
Perhaps this is a dumb question, but why would I do this on new heads? Is there that much variation from the spec'd 72cc.
Lets make a WAG that Dan does not have a ready use competent machine shop that he can just drop off the
parts and pickup when done and swipe the CC.
Here is another cheapo way to get the same as a machine shop.
Head CC.
Get a 100 cc syringe from the drug store for 5 or 6 bucks and CC the heads on the kitchen table.
You will need a piece of plastic and a drill. The plastic must cover the head chamber.
Drill a hole in the plastic to squirt the water from the syringe in.
Smear a bit of vaseline on the head to create a seal and fill up the chamber with water from the syringe.
Head CC.
-
Dan, many of us have seen Edelbrocks that were way off. My own on my Mustang are 73cc, that is after being cut by Keith Craft. I don't know what they were out of the box, they are a set of his Stage 2 heads and I bought them new, but of course to be 73 cc now, they were larger than 73cc and they are 72cc heads. FWIW, I checked mine myself and I check all of them before I assemble. Additionally, the 396 F100 I just did, we only did a single chamber, but it was 74cc.
Paulie got some that were 79cc if I remember right.
The difference may or may not be significant to some, but say a 9.9:1 431, zero deck with 72 cc heads, it would be 9.64:1 with a 75 cc head, next let's add .015 of deck clearance and you have a 9.38 motor.
Is that significant? To me it is, even the .3 lost from the head difference is, but yes I am a bit more "mathy" then others. I am exclusively a street torque kind of guy, and the cam and compression combo for a torquey streeter will be a bit different for a 9.9:1 motor than for a 9.3:1 motor.
So what does this mean in cam choice? With a 9.38:1 motor, for something built for pure torque, I'd go as small as a 262 cam with a decent set of heads and a tall gear heavy car. That cam would likely be fussy on fuel at 9.9:1 with a big car and 3.00 gears, in that case I would likely run a 272 cam. In both cases they would work well, and the second would likely have as much if not more torque than the 1st due to the compression difference. Bottom line, despite tweaking for compression, in both cases the parts match
Now let's talk the tougher issue... if the deck isn't square. You may have some of the 9.9:1 cylinders and some of the 9.3:1 cylinders. Which cam do you choose? Well, probably the bigger one to make sure it isn't fussy on fuel, but in this case, although the 9.9:1 cylinders work great, the 9.3 cylinders are down on torque because of the lower compression. Will it run well? Sure, no skipping, no bad behavior, no nothing, but spend a couple grand on very nice parts then hit the brakes on blueprinting for a few hundred dollars?. It's not about fitment only, it's about matching, balance, and forecasting performance.
I will say this though, after running the numbers, if you think you don't need to do the blueprinting, go with RJP's cam or Paulie's later CJ-like recommendation from Crower. Those are conservative in terms of cylinder pressure and octane tolerance, but realize you potentially are giving up power if your motor comes in at a lower compression.
-
Gotcha.
I have no problems doing the upfront work. I just can't tell what is a must do from an "I like to do this".
I have access to a good machine shop, I'm just waiting on the crank and pistons to arrive since I have to get the crank balanced.
Dan, many of us have seen Edelbrocks that were way off. My own on my Mustang are 73cc, that is after being cut by Keith Craft. I don't know what they were out of the box, they are a set of his Stage 2 heads and I bought them new, but of course to be 73 cc now, they were larger than 73cc and they are 72cc heads. FWIW, I checked mine myself and I check all of them before I assemble. Additionally, the 396 F100 I just did, we only did a single chamber, but it was 74cc.
Paulie got some that were 79cc if I remember right.
The difference may or may not be significant to some, but say a 9.9:1 431, zero deck with 72 cc heads, it would be 9.64:1 with a 75 cc head, next let's add .015 of deck clearance and you have a 9.38 motor.
Is that significant? To me it is, even the .3 lost from the head difference is, but yes I am a bit more "mathy" then others. I am exclusively a street torque kind of guy, and the cam and compression combo for a torquey streeter will be a bit different for a 9.9:1 motor than for a 9.3:1 motor.
So what does this mean in cam choice? With a 9.38:1 motor, for something built for pure torque, I'd go as small as a 262 cam with a decent set of heads and a tall gear heavy car. That cam would likely be fussy on fuel at 9.9:1 with a big car and 3.00 gears, in that case I would likely run a 272 cam. In both cases they would work well, and the second would likely have as much if not more torque than the 1st due to the compression difference. Bottom line, despite tweaking for compression, in both cases the parts match
Now let's talk the tougher issue... if the deck isn't square. You may have some of the 9.9:1 cylinders and some of the 9.3:1 cylinders. Which cam do you choose? Well, probably the bigger one to make sure it isn't fussy on fuel, but in this case, although the 9.9:1 cylinders work great, the 9.3 cylinders are down on torque because of the lower compression. Will it run well? Sure, no skipping, no bad behavior, no nothing, but spend a couple grand on very nice parts then hit the brakes on blueprinting for a few hundred dollars?. It's not about fitment only, it's about matching, balance, and forecasting performance.
I will say this though, after running the numbers, if you think you don't need to do the blueprinting, go with RJP's cam or Paulie's later CJ-like recommendation from Crower. Those are conservative in terms of cylinder pressure and octane tolerance, but realize you potentially are giving up power if your motor comes in at a lower compression.
-
They will not be 72 cc. More like 76 cc or more.
Most of this measuring is to get to the ideal "quench" of .040".
The closer you get to that number the better your engine will run
and less chance of detonation when lugging the engine down.
Also what gas are you going to use?
The cheapest low octane crappy blend you can find or pump premium.
It makes a difference.
-
Am I going to gas station hop until I find the perfect blend? No. Am I going to use the correct octane for the car, you bet!
They will not be 72 cc. More like 76 cc or more.
Most of this measuring is to get to the ideal "quench" of .040".
The closer you get to that number the better your engine will run
and less chance of detonation when lugging the engine down.
Also what gas are you going to use?
The cheapest low octane crappy blend you can find or pump premium.
It makes a difference.
-
FWIW, my tight quench 489 at 10.7:1 compression will run and drive happily on anything, it usually gets 89 octane unless I am going to run it very hard, but even then having it dialed in right let's it run on anything. It's EFI so I can tweak any part of the fuel curve, so a bit easier to run cheap stuff in.
My 445 in the heavier truck, with a carb, is a bit more fussy, and when I say that, all I mean is it likes mid grade or on hot days it can rattle, so I just fill it with 89 all the time.
Although some guys don't like to discuss DCR, it works pretty well for me. Just for giggles, the 489 is at 8.33 DCR with .050 quench distance and the 445 is at 8.2 DCR with .058 quench distance (fat Felpro blue head gasket). Next time the heads are off I will swap for the small bore SCE gasket and it should work a little better, but no reason to take it apart yet. All calcs are using PKelley's calculator and carefully measured numbers, using a different calculator or not measuring will bring different results.
The examples I gave above for your engine with the two different potential cams and compression combos were 7.98 DCR for the 9.38:1 262 combo and 8.02 DCR for the 9.9:1 272 combo. Both would be happy with whatever mid grade is in the tank assuming the timing curve isn't crazy and the engine isn't overheating or running way too lean and are more conservative than they likely need to be, but good for a heavy car.
Tight quench, realistic compression, the right cam, and the right mixture, they run real well.
-
I hear ya, ChiefDanGeorge.
Hey, one other question. Again, I'm not trying to muddy the waters, but are you open to using a slightly higher rpm stall convertor?
Even a mild one, say in the 2200-2300 rpm range could make a pretty big difference in performance, and it could affect the cam choice.
paulie
-
Yep, I am open to changing the converter since the motor is going to be out. Buddy that is going to help me do the build had me planning on doing that.
I hear ya, ChiefDanGeorge.
Hey, one other question. Again, I'm not trying to muddy the waters, but are you open to using a slightly higher rpm stall convertor?
Even a mild one, say in the 2200-2300 rpm range could make a pretty big difference in performance, and it could affect the cam choice.
paulie
-
You may like a lunati high-efficiency cam i used a 10330211 in a 410 i liked it dur 262/272 lift 507/533 lsa 112/108 call and ask them.Good mpg and a ton of low end.
-
Yep, I am open to changing the converter since the motor is going to be out. Buddy that is going to help me do the build had me planning on doing that.
Man, if you put in a mild stall convertor AND found some headers........ I think it'd be a big performance increase with no downside other than cost.
Is your engine bay the same as a Galaxie? That would sure make things easier for headers.
paulie
-
I am pretty sure it is. I've found a place that says their headers will fit here (http://www.fordpowertrain.com/FPAindex/headers2.htm)
Yep, I am open to changing the converter since the motor is going to be out. Buddy that is going to help me do the build had me planning on doing that.
Man, if you put in a mild stall convertor AND found some headers........ I think it'd be a big performance increase with no downside other than cost.
Is your engine bay the same as a Galaxie? That would sure make things easier for headers.
paulie
-
FPA headers are very nice. If you have the cash, ceramic coating will stop them from rusting and keep the engine compartment and floorboards much cooler.
BTW, for an easy reference, I'd run a stock cam with headers in your car before I ran an aftermarket cam with manifolds. Headers make quite a difference over manifolds in most every FE, other than the few cast iron header applications from the factory
-
BTW, for an easy reference, I'd run a stock cam with headers in your car before I ran an aftermarket cam with manifolds.
Agreed! Headers and free flowing exhaust are one of the rare win-win parts additions you can make. Properly sized headers will make more power everywhere in the power curve.
Most other parts are a trade off. With a camshaft or intake manifold for instance, you are usually trading power in one range for power in another.
JMO,
paulie
-
I'm skeptical of fitment until I get a set in and verify they work. Passenger side is just so close to shock tower.
I emailed the FPA guy a while back and he said they fit.
BTW, for an easy reference, I'd run a stock cam with headers in your car before I ran an aftermarket cam with manifolds.
Agreed! Headers and free flowing exhaust are one of the rare win-win parts additions you can make. Properly sized headers will make more power everywhere in the power curve.
Most other parts are a trade off. With a camshaft or intake manifold for instance, you are usually trading power in one range for power in another.
JMO,
paulie
-
n/m
-
Unlike a Windsor or Cleveland in any older Mustang, I can't think of ANY FE header that fits that well and/or requires some level of custom tube bending, denting, etc. to fit. That and the wide variance in engine bay sheet metal that has sagged, twisted, and bent itself in over during the years of road pounding and maybe even accident repair.
Once good measure of the bay's dimensions is to try and attempt to install a quality supplier's Monte Carlo cross brace (shock tower-to-tower) in any original through 1970 Mustang. Often one has to pry the towers apart just to get the bar to slide in enough to bolt it in! One other measure is to check the condition of the horizontal inner well sheetmetal where the fenders bolt on. Here, heavy rust and/or bondo repairs mean not only is this area rusty but it has likely sagged badly as well.
http://www.fly-ford.com/MM0105-How_To_Install_an_Export_Brace_and_a_Monte_Carlo_Bar.html
Moral? No wonder the headers don't fit right.
-
I have never had to even dimple a Hooker 6114 on a Mustang, over 3 sets in different cars, all 4 speeds, although I have never used any of the race headers. FPAs, the only thing I had to do on a 428 Montego is put a bar inside the collector and pull it slightly to center, on a 460 big body Mustang they slid in, although a 67 F100 we had to take about 1/4 out of the upper edge of the frame rail.
What kind of car is it? I think I missed it
-
'63 Mercury Colony Park.
I have never had to even dimple a Hooker 6114 on a Mustang, over 3 sets in different cars, all 4 speeds, although I have never used any of the race headers. FPAs, the only thing I had to do on a 428 Montego is put a bar inside the collector and pull it slightly to center, on a 460 big body Mustang they slid in, although a 67 F100 we had to take about 1/4 out of the upper edge of the frame rail.
What kind of car is it? I think I missed it
-
I have never had to even dimple a Hooker 6114 on a Mustang.
Yes, that is an exception I missed. Hooker race headers do require some light 'massaging'!
-
With a full size, I am afraid I have no idea which header fits best, but I have to assume it's not a big deal for FPA, just make sure he knows you need the early/CJ flange
The other cool thing on that car is you could go with cast iron headers for the stock look, and they do pretty well power wise and pretty much bolt on and go. I think the repop ones would be comparable in price to ceramic FPSs too.
Galaxie guys, any opinions?
-
Getting cast iron headers is an issue of scarcity. ALthough I haven't combed ebay too much looking for them.
With a full size, I am afraid I have no idea which header fits best, but I have to assume it's not a big deal for FPA, just make sure he knows you need the early/CJ flange
The other cool thing on that car is you could go with cast iron headers for the stock look, and they do pretty well power wise and pretty much bolt on and go. I think the repop ones would be comparable in price to ceramic FPSs too.
Galaxie guys, any opinions?
-
On my 63.5 galaxie it has sanderson shorty headers with a toploader behind a 428.
-
With a full size, I am afraid I have no idea which header fits best, but I have to assume it's not a big deal for FPA, just make sure he knows you need the early/CJ flange
The other cool thing on that car is you could go with cast iron headers for the stock look, and they do pretty well power wise and pretty much bolt on and go. I think the repop ones would be comparable in price to ceramic FPSs too.
Galaxie guys, any opinions?
As a Galaxie guy I would opt for a set of shorty HP manifolds or the long branch 406-427 manifolds for a street only full size car. Any header or manifold that fits the Galaxie chassis from 1960 thru 64 should fit the Merc. I have the long branch 427 manifolds on my 61 Starliner/427, they work good and I don't have to deal with warped flanges, leaky gaskets, ground clearance issues and other maladies associated with tube headers. And yes I do run tube headers on 2 applications, one car and one boat.