FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: Royce on January 06, 2021, 04:47:24 PM
-
Does anyone have the cc volume of the valve pockets on this piston?.. I am building a 360 horse 352 and am having a tough time getting the spec compression. The piston sits down in the hole .053 Even after decking the block .030. I think there is still a .015 shim gasket available otherwise I will go with the .020. Not ideal..
-
-6.2 cc's according to my notes.
-
Are you using the 6.54 rod?
-
I remember the reliefs coming in around 8cc's back years ago when I ran a set, and yes the comp height with those pistons makes for terrible 'quench"..........
-
These pistons must be for the later low compression 352's,the original's had no valve reliefs.Frnkeore brings up a good question,with the .030 deck and still being .050 down,would lead you to believe that you have the shorter 390 rods,even being rebuilder pistons they normally only drop .020 or so.The original 352 rods will have a B9AE or C0AE casting number,my buddies early 360hp engine originally had the early B9AE narrow beam rods,he was concerned about the strength of the narrow beam rods and used late 352/360 C7TE wide beam rods when he rebuilt it.
-
I ended up with a C7 Rod probably a 360.. The original CO rod was .040 shorter than that! I know it is common practice for mfg to add compression height on stock replacement pistons.. I guess to be safe after a meathead sbc builder gets his hands on an FE. LOL I think I will spit the diff on valve relief volume and go 7 cc.. I have yet too CC the heads. I think I can get my compression but quench won't be ideal..
-
Does anyone have the cc volume of the valve pockets on this piston?.. I am building a 360 horse 352 and am having a tough time getting the spec compression. The piston sits down in the hole .053 Even after decking the block .030. I think there is still a .015 shim gasket available otherwise I will go with the .020. Not ideal..
Edit:
From the data that I have, the original low compression 352's, compression height, is 1.825, giving a Deck clearance of .055. The HC, CH is 1.866 and no valve relief, giving a nominal deck clearance of .014. My 361 Edsel pistons with 6.54 rods, have a measured CH of 1.872, .008 deck clearance and no valve relief.
Factory HC 352, is 10.2 CR, Edsel, 10.5, either account for the top ring space.
Speed Pro’s, 361, 6.488 rod, FT piston, Summit Racing Part Number: SLP-H994 has a CH of 1.882 in. Ford's original FT piston, was 1.902.
The 361, Speed Pro @ 1.882, gives nominal, deck clearance of .002 above the block, with a 6.54 rod.
A lot of time, the CH is reduced to compensate for the increased CR that the over bore gives.
-
They also lower CH to accommodate any decking the block may need.Lowering CH has to be the worst way to adjust CR dishing the piston would be much better but it must be a more expensive method.I didn't realize there was that much difference in CH on the different versions of 352 pistons,I knew there was an export version of the 352 but didn't think they would drop the piston that much..Ford did that with 360's too,they used 390 pistons both the flattop with 4 VR and the dished ones, some even came thru with 410 pistons,I believe thats why some of the 360's were so prone to pinging.
-
Most of the cast replacement Sealed Power pistons were originally designed for large volume rebuilders such as Jasper or AER. They reduced compression height by +/-.020 to allow those companies to mill blocks and decks without needing to dedicate time (= cost) to individually fit each engine. When you are rebuilding literally hundreds of engines each day its far easier to just cut every block .010 as it moves through the shop, and if its been rebuilt once or twice in the past you could find your way into trouble otherwise. Some incremental reduction in performance was never a concern because the new replacement engine was always an improvement over the broken or worn out one coming out.
-
CH of my cast replacement pistons is 1.77 Factory spec is 1.844 The factory compression distance is .036. That is a lot of real estate to make up to get to the factory 10.5 compression ratio
-
CH of my cast replacement pistons is 1.77 Factory spec is 1.844 The factory compression distance is .036. That is a lot of real estate to make up to get to the factory 10.5 compression ratio
If you are 1.77, put 390 rods and crank in there for 10.150 rotating assembly, with a .030 deck assuming you started at 10.170, you'll be .010 tall, add a Felpro 8554 and quench will be nice. Not sure where compression will be not knowing heads and pistons, but will be a stout little stocker 390 bottom end
-
I would if that is what I was going for... My objective is to build a 352/360 hp as close as possible to factory specs, then test it to see if it really makes 360 horse with original parts..Then it goes back in a 60 Starliner original 352/360
-
When my buddy rebuilt his 360 horse engine he used a set of ancient NOS Jahns cast pistons I found at a swap meet they were flat top with no valve reliefs and he was very happy with how they worked out.The original pistons that came out of it had been knurled back in the early 60's by a perfect circle knurling machine that leaves a PC logo in the knurling on the skirts,we thought they were pretty cool.The old Jahns pistons were probably heavy as sledgehammers but he was happy and it balanced out OK.Have you done any tricks to the D heads?If you go with the larger valves you may be able to lose a couple of CC's with those.
-
CH of my cast replacement pistons is 1.77 Factory spec is 1.844 The factory compression distance is .036. That is a lot of real estate to make up to get to the factory 10.5 compression ratio
I would if that is what I was going for... My objective is to build a 352/360 hp as close as possible to factory specs, then test it to see if it really makes 360 horse with original parts..Then it goes back in a 60 Starliner original 352/360
Makes perfect sense, and fun project, I drifted off forgetting what this plan was..... Are you considering a custom piston to get where you need to be?
-
Nothing seems to add up:
1.75 + 6.54 + 1.77 = 10.06
10.14 (decked .030)
-10.06
-----------
000.08
Was the block decked prior to your build?
I think I would be temped to have a set of custom pistons made with the original 1.844 CH and have .006, deck clearance.
-
The machinist that has the heads broke his collarbone snowboarding so I have no CCd them yet. I have a couple references of 352/360 being 10.5 compression but then I also see a 9.7 number..I need to measure the actual rod length and compression height and deck height to see where I am off from the calculated numbers. Might be a stacking of tolerances from crank stroke rod piston and deck
-
When my buddy rebuilt his 360 horse engine he used a set of ancient NOS Jahns cast pistons I found at a swap meet they were flat top with no valve reliefs and he was very happy with how they worked out.The original pistons that came out of it had been knurled back in the early 60's by a perfect circle knurling machine that leaves a PC logo in the knurling on the skirts,we thought they were pretty cool.The old Jahns pistons were probably heavy as sledgehammers but he was happy and it balanced out OK.Have you done any tricks to the D heads?If you go with the larger valves you may be able to lose a couple of CC's with those.
This brings back some long buried memories. When I bought my 60 Starliner in 1967 I ran the 360hp/352 for about 6-8 months before pulling it and dropping in the 390 short block I had built by a well known local machine shop. When I tore the 352 down it had Jahns cast domed pistons in it. The compression ratio must have been over 12 to 1 as the heads were the heart shaped small chamber "D" heads [59-61cc?] Any thoughts of building a extra engine for my Starliner was trashed as 5 of 8 pistons were cracked at the pin bosses, each one had 3 or 4 cracks in each piston eliminating any ideas of building a spare engine for it or maybe another car.
-
Probably the result of a "light " pin , heavy piston and too much RPM. Cast "coffee can" pistons were pretty brittle back then.
-
Here is some info that might help. I know that Ford didn't account for the piston volume, above the first ring so, I omitted that in my CR calculator.
This is what mustangtec says about the C0AE, C & D heads:
C0AE-6090-C
60 352
Valves 2.02 / 1.55"
In port 2.34 x 1.34
Ex port 1.84 x 1.28
73cc
C0AE-6090-D
60 352HP
61-62 390HP Valves 2.02 / 1.55"
In port 2.34 x 1.34
Ex port 1.84 x 1.28
59.7cc
I don't know how those cc figures where determined but, the 73cc for the C heads, should be about right. Within +/- 1cc. We know the D heads were smaller but, this is the only figure I've seen.
BTW, if anyone is interested, there is a set of D heads for sale, in my area.
These calculated CR's are based on CH that I believe to be accurate for the 300 hp 352, Royce's 1.844 CH and my estimate of the HG volume of the steel shim .030 gasket. Does anyone have any factual info on when the .015 gasket was first used?
The first picture is from my 1960 Service manual publish in '59 so, it doesn't have the 360 HP. Take note of the gasket thickness and value relief, based on Randy's valve relief info and the common Ford flat top of that period.
-
I was trying to think of a good way to describe the grooves in the sides of the pistons and coffee can is as good as any.Most specs I have seen for D heads usually list a range of 55-59 or 57-61 cc's.
-
http://www.nhraracer.com/content/general.asp?articleid=46634&zoneid=132
-
http://www.nhraracer.com/content/general.asp?articleid=46634&zoneid=132
Thank you for that link.
The NHRA specs are not Ford, factory specs though. It is a hodge-podge of what NHRA allows you to use and if your building a engine to run in the class, you should build to those or protest to change to Ford specs.
For instance, there is no way you can get 10.6 CR, using those specs with a notched piston. They also are allowing 1.76 (apparently adj rockers) for the HL engines.
-
The strange thing about those NHRA specs. is that it shows the 60 COAE-D heads as 59.6 cc's,while the 61 390HP that uses the same D heads as 56.2 cc's,it also shows the 62 390HP and 6V which uses the C2SE heads and the 406 6V w/C2SE heads at 56.2 and also shows the 63 406 6V C3AE-C heads at 56.2.The C2SE & C3AE-C heads all use a smaller chamber than standard 352 and 390 heads but is definitely larger as cast than C0AE-D they're usually listed as 61-67 cc's.Does NHRA back calculate chamber volumes from listed CR's or do they arbitrarily assign chamber volumes?
-
Supposedly, all NHRA Stock Car Guide engine blueprint specs must be received by NHRA from the OEM for the engine and body combination the manufacturer wishes to list for competition. NHRA does not formulate blueprint specifications on their own and whenever the manufacturer decides to not submit specs for any given year/make/model/engine combination then that particular year/make/model/engine combination is not eligible for competition in either Stock or SuperStock Classes or Eliminators or any other class or eliminator that relies on the Stock Car Guide for classification information. All omissions and errors are the responsibility of the submitting manufacturer.
-
deleted
-
I just CCd my D heads. After a cleanup shave they come out at 60.2 cc. I was hoping a little smaller, but the intake valve has a dished head.. No way I can make 10.5 compression with the parts i have.. Might try to cut the heads another .020?
-
Is your intent to compete in class racing?
I think your going to have to verify all your dimensions, including the stroke. I think the best and easiest way to do that now, is to assemble a measured rod and piston, install it and measure the stroke and deck clearance. That will give a true deck height. From what I added up, something is wrong also, those 1.77 piston, will never get you even 10/1.
If your going to class race it, custom pistons with low tension rings, will make it the most competitive. Other wise I would go with the FT pistons, on Summit and cut the tops to 0.00 deck clearance.
-
If you aren't against installing larger valves without dished heads and cut the seats as high as possible that will gain you a little,if your heads have a couple of valve jobs over the years the seats/valve heads may be getting low which will significantly affect chamber volume.The same friend of mine that had the 360hp sunliner once ran a 428CJ in the starliner I currently have he had the heads rebuilt and the guy sank the seats/valve heads with valve job,he couldn't figure out why the engine would fall on its face at ~5000 rpm,after checking everything he finally pulled the heads off and had another machinist check them as soon as he saw them he said the seats are too low and put seats in the heads,when he reinstalled them the engine would pull hard to nearly 6000 rpm.I don't remember the before and after numbers but do remember the chamber volume changed around 3 or 4 cc's from getting the valve heads back up where they belonged.
-
Not a race motor just a stock rebuild ... because It is going in a restoration it has all the 360 horse original stuff.. My intention was just for fun and information to build it to factory spec then dyno it .. See how close it actually comes to 360 horse. Right now I am .053 down the hole with an assembled piston and rod.. Using a .015 to .020 gasket.. Right now I calculate right at 10:1. If I could get the head down to 56cc then I would hit 10.5:1
-
As far as the NHRA specs,sounds like after 1960 Ford was sending NHRA specs that allowed racers to heavily mill their heads and still be legal,I guess they were learning fast at that point.
-
I realize the sunken seats were screwing up airflow and that was the cause of the limited rpm and not chamber volume but was just using that experience as an example of how much it can affect chamber volume.
-
Ford always had a set of Society of Automotive Engineers specs they called the "Pikes Peak Engine" and beginning with certain 427 applications they submitted those those specs to NHRA as a "range" that a 427 could fall into that permitted 14.5:1 compression ratio at minimum deck and chamber volume utilizing maximum piston dome cc's of 12.1. The production 427 piston dome barely displaced 7 cc's before cutting valve reliefs and wound up yielding mid 11's to about 12:1 compression ratio.
-
I always assumed the 352/360hp would have:
a] decent quench & therefore a deck clearance of maybe .020
b] therefore, valve cuts due to the 228-228-114 .500 .500 net lift cam
Does anybody have pictures of an original HiPo piston? I know it complicates it since it was a mid-year engine so (as usual) not in the shop manuals.
I looked in 60-64 MPC and found:
c0az-a 60-63 2v and 64(up) 4v
c0ae-h 60 4v
c0ae-aj 60 HiPo
no detail on height or volumes.
x2 on the NHRA specs BTW, they are what Ford sent in (eg like how the C8AX-C cam was "optional" in your 428CJ), and cc's that gave 14.0 compression in the 427s. Ford was not the only manufacturer that sent in stuff like that.
NHRA lists a little 450 Holley for the 352/360hp engine, either a cut & paste from the 352/300hp (most came with a 4100 autolite) or an outright goof in the wrong direction. Ford should have sent to NHRA that dual quads were an option on the 352HP, like Mopar did on their 383. It worked!
I imagine the racers of the day were like tax accountants, combing thru those specs looking for "loopholes".
The Mopar 383/343hp-8v was a "loophole" engine, as was IIRC the 265/195hp Mouse. And (surprise) they won a lot, like those 14-to-1 427 Fords.
-
I think I would have to see a picture of a that piston, with FoMoCo markings, to believe it had valve reliefs. If so, I think it would have been the first FE with them. Even my 361 Edsel, with .008 deck clearance and a .030 gasket (.038 PTH), doesn't have them. The '60 300 hp 352 only had .014 deck clearance w/o reliefs.
It's possible that the reason the piston is so far down and they used a small chamber, is for valve clearance (.066 PTH), since before that, they ran the piston much closer. Of course it is possible that small chamber head and large quench, produced more hp, on a dyno, than a closer fit?
-
The pistons we pulled out of my friends documented 60 HP sunliners original engine were flat top with no valve relief,and the original cam that we checked for lift was not .500 lift,it was roughly .480 with no indication of excessive wear. We had seen conflicting references of listed cam lift figures some saying .500 and others listing .479,based on our observations I tend to believe the .479 figure. It appeared to be an early engine as it had a B9AE block,still had the stamped timing cover with timing pointer that matched the HP balancer and had the earlier C0AE dual point distributor they had 2 C0AE DP dist. with different suffixes,the K suffix dist.was the later one and his had the earlier one but I can't remember what the suffix was on it.It also had the earlier narrow beam rods,the later ones supposedly switched to a wide beam rod.
-
As far as the different C0AE part numbers for the 352 pistons the 2V engine was rated at a lower CR than the early 4Vengine,I had a 64 with the original lower CR 352 4V and had to pull the heads and it clearly had no VR pistons.I believe the early 352's all used used non VR pistons of differing CH,which would explain why the 2V and late 4V engines had the same lower CR with the same heads as the earlier higher CR 4V engines.I've never seen a 64 and earlier 352 that had VR pistons,if 352's did ever have VR pistons from the factory I believe they may have been 65 and later after they started being used in pickup trucks.I remember years ago the hop up trick when rebuilding a 360 pickup engine was to use .080 over 352 pistons
-
The pistons we pulled out of my friends documented 60 HP sunliners original engine were flat top with no valve relief,and the original cam that we checked for lift was not .500 lift,it was roughly .480 with no indication of excessive wear. We had seen conflicting references of listed cam lift figures some saying .500 and others listing .479,based on our observations I tend to believe the .479 figure. It appeared to be an early engine as it had a B9AE block,still had the stamped timing cover with timing pointer that matched the HP balancer and had the earlier C0AE dual point distributor they had 2 C0AE DP dist. with different suffixes,the K suffix dist.was the later one and his had the earlier one but I can't remember what the suffix was on it.It also had the earlier narrow beam rods,the later ones supposedly switched to a wide beam rod.
Did you check the piston compression height on those original pistons or how far down the hole were they?
I'm guessing maybe .038 - .040 in the hole then?
Now, how thick was the original gasket, a .020 shim?
OK then with no valve reliefs, would they HIT? Probably not - but how much piston-to-valve clearance would that leave?
It doesnt depend so much on the max lift, since the piston is way down the hole by then.
Piston-Valve clearance depends more on Overlap, ie valve events at .020 or .050 lobe lift.
Do you still have that cam by chance?
The .480 net lift vs .500 net lift mystery seems to linger, but doesnt make much difference - about 3 hp or so.
Mainly though, if there is a .480 net lift cam (new, unworn), are its DURATIONS the same as the 228-228-114.5 cam used on the 390HP, 406, 427-4v?
The only way to know that would be to degree it.
Either way - I dont know what the piston-valve clearance would be. Maybe they cut it kind of close!
-
Well between the original flat top piston vs 4 reliefs and the greater compression height of the stock piston, That would explain my struggles to get the spec compression.. I did not even bother looking for the original flat top piston.. Does anyone even offer them? I ended up with the .500 lift cam from Holman Moody
Does anyone know if DSC is open and doing business these days?
-
Royce,unfortunately we did not measure the deck clearance of the stock pistons on disassembly there was no consideration of reusing them,but they didn't seem to be down an unusual amount.As far as the the cam he may very well still have it I will check and see if maybe we can get it mapped.Based on what we gleaned from MPC we concluded that this grind was used on 60,61 and early 62 engines including the early 406's.We speculated that the late 406 C2AE cam was essentially a AA cam ground on an early thrust button core and that is when they went to the .500 lift.If he still has the cam,I'll see if we can get details such as mapping and ID marks and post them up.
-
I've got a rebuilt assembled 1959 352 with flat tops w/ no relief. I'll measure the distance to the top of deck with a feeler gauge (that's all I have)
Not sure if the block was decked though. Is there a way to tell?
Richard >>> FERoadster
-
Another thing to keep in mind,is that early 390 dished pistons,and 406 pistons lacked valve reliefs also.I've got a set of 406 pistons here and they lack any sign of reliefs.
-
Yes Royce, DSC is still open, I just bought an item from him on ebay. Received it a couple days ago. Rob
-
I've got a rebuilt assembled 1959 352 with flat tops w/ no relief. I'll measure the distance to the top of deck with a feeler gauge (that's all I have)
Not sure if the block was decked though. Is there a way to tell?
Richard >>> FERoadster
Richard, is that the .030 over one, with 2116 marking on the top?
If so, it's a TRW piston, with a 1.866 CH. It should be about .014 down.
-
Best I could measure tonight was .015 down but not sure if the piston was at TDC so it could be less. I'll put a Flex plate on it tomorrow so I can turn it and get to true TDC
-
I ended up putting the AA cam in mine.. I would be interested in mapping the original if it is still available..
-
I talked to Mike today,and he confirmed that the original pistons were flat top no valve reliefs,just as I remembered but the jahns pistons I found him at the swap meet were domed and he had Dick machine the domes off.He also ended up running a AA cam from Holman Moody in it and was super happy with it,he still has the original and another friend has it and is going to have Delta copy it,he's going to see if he can have them map all the particulars while they have it,and when he gets it back we will also inspect it for the ID marks.He also agreed that the same cam was used thru to the early 406's with a slight change in installed timing like 2 or 4 degrees somewhere along the way.He also confirmed that the block was a B9AE,and back when we were doing the teardown he was corresponding with a guy in Chehalis or in that area that had a 360 horse Starliner that told him that the 360 horse motors used the B9 block at least the early ones,Mikes car was an April build and the block was cast in Feb.,the starliner guy also had him check a machined pad near the oil filter mount for a hand stamped HP which it had,so it sounds like that may be an identifier for the HP block.
-
I talked to Mike today,and he confirmed that the original pistons were flat top no valve reliefs,just as I remembered but the jahns pistons I found him at the swap meet were domed and he had Dick machine the domes off.He also ended up running a AA cam from Holman Moody in it and was super happy with it,he still has the original and another friend has it and is going to have Delta copy it,he's going to see if he can have them map all the particulars while they have it,and when he gets it back we will also inspect it for the ID marks.He also agreed that the same cam was used thru to the early 406's with a slight change in installed timing like 2 or 4 degrees somewhere along the way.He also confirmed that the block was a B9AE,and back when we were doing the teardown he was corresponding with a guy in Chehalis or in that area that had a 360 horse Starliner that told him that the 360 horse motors used the B9 block at least the early ones,Mikes car was an April build and the block was cast in Feb.,the starliner guy also had him check a machined pad near the oil filter mount for a hand stamped HP which it had,so it sounds like that may be an identifier for the HP block.
Thanks to all involved in degreeing this old original cam, it will be a huge service to the history of the FE!
Now, on the original Flat-Tops in the 352/360hp, do we know the piston compression height or deck clearance?
-
We didn't measure how far down the hole they were,but he did say he still had them so maybe we can figure out how to measure the CH,Would measuring from the piston top to the top of the wristpin bore with calipers and then adding half the diameter of the wristpin give a fairly accurate number?
-
I was in the same situation on my hipo Starliner. 070-080 down with 010 off of the deck. Same pistons. I had 020 off the heads and used 020 shim gasket. Comp 270S cam. Runs fine, but did not dyno, so I don't know horsepower loss.
-
We didn't measure how far down the hole they were,but he did say he still had them so maybe we can figure out how to measure the CH,Would measuring from the piston top to the top of the wristpin bore with calipers and then adding half the diameter of the wristpin give a fairly accurate number?
Yes, John, that will get it very close with good calipers and careful measuring.
-
Ok got some pics and measurements ,the rods were EDC-A casting narrow beam the pistons had a casting number of B8AE-6110-? couldn't read the suffix ,flat top no valve relief 2 front indicator notches CH appears to measure out at ~1.845",the cam is the old thrust button type has a blue paint splash and a K forward of the rear cam journal its kind of hard to see in the pic,Mike said according to what Dick found the lift and duration appeared to be pretty close to what the C6OZ-6250-B 390GT/428CJ cam was ~.470-.480 lift but in a solid profile,we still plan to have Delta map it when he gets the copies made on no thrust button cores.
-
Great John, just as expected.
How far down is the top ring? My Edsel pistons are .400.
-
Another detail I forgot is when Mike had Dick rebuild the engine he initially wasn't going to use the Jahns pistons because they were domed,so they bought a set of replacement pistons and while we don't remember if they had VR Dick noted that they were way down the hole,so Mike brought in the Jahns and had him take a look at them,Dick said he could mill the domes off no problem and that they were really good pistons so thats what they did.
-
Late to the party here but here's some pics of a 352/360.
-
Nice pics,is the HP stamp near the oil filter mount pad?The rod and piston are consistent with stuff that came the motor I.ve been talking about too.Did yours have the stamped steel timing cover or had they switched to the cast aluminum one?
-
The pistons we pulled out of my friends documented 60 HP sunliners original engine were flat top with no valve relief,and the original cam that we checked for lift was not .500 lift,it was roughly .480 with no indication of excessive wear. We had seen conflicting references of listed cam lift figures some saying .500 and others listing .479,based on our observations I tend to believe the .479 figure. It appeared to be an early engine as it had a B9AE block,still had the stamped timing cover with timing pointer that matched the HP balancer and had the earlier C0AE dual point distributor they had 2 C0AE DP dist. with different suffixes,the K suffix dist.was the later one and his had the earlier one but I can't remember what the suffix was on it.It also had the earlier narrow beam rods,the later ones supposedly switched to a wide beam rod.
I just re-discovered this link, either this 96pg PDF is new or I missed it.
Says 1964 but really from 1962 - no 289, no 427, refers to Apr 1962 in future tense.
Says the 62 406 cam was .479 lift, with 274-274 duration measured at lash ie .025 gross valve lift or about .014 lobe.
I think this is the 306-306 duration cam but that 306 degrees is at .004 or .006 lobe. Not sure though.
http://www.mustangtek.com/Library2/PDF/64FordPerformanceHandbook.pdf
And here all this time I thought h&m was for Hennes & Mauritz, ya know, the clothing store where the kids shop at the Mall.
Just kidding. A great 96 pages.
Also in here are pictures of the 390 and 406 pistons, no valve reliefs shown. They go thru deck, compression, etc.
Degreeing that old cam will be interesting indeed.
-
Wereby I actually have that book,the copy he scanned evidently is missing its cover the first page is actually the title page once you open the cover, which has a beautiful shot of a tripower 406 with lots of chrome and long exhaust manifolds,also I'm not sure why he lists it as 64 because the copyright date clearly states 1962.I am certain that early cam is not the 306 AA cam,this is a milder grind that was used on the 352HP,390HP as the C0AE 6250 B,and with small installed timing change as the C2AE 6250 A in the 406.I believe the C2AE 6250 B cam installed in later race 406's and possibly very late production 406's introduced the 306 grind on a thrust button core,and was then repeated on a non thrust button core as the AA in the 427. The specs listed in the book are IO 24 BTC IC 72 ABC EO 72 BBC EC 24 ATC .479 lift 276* duration and 48* overlap and ..025 lash.The later 306 grind had quite a bit more overlap,and while I don't believe the 306 had a full 30* more duration I think that can be explained by inconsistent measurement lift Ford typically measured their cams at like .020 lift for duration but the cross town rivals (chevy)typically advertised their cam durations at .006 or seat to seat so it sounded like their cams were much bigger(Ive seen some chevrolet factory cam durations listed at as much as 346* and this was for a standard production line cam not an over the counter race grind),so I think Ford was feeling a little pressure to make their cams sound a little juicier by changing the checking lift.I don't think they stooped to chevy's level but I think they moved a little closer.
-
It was a joy, reading that PDF and brought back many memory's!
The FE was abundant and very desirable, in those days BUT, like all Ford stuff, expensive! Those prices seem cheap today but, in '62 @ 18, I had a VERY good paying job ($2 per hr net, no taxes), that 5/8 stroker would have cost me 2 months pay. Men in their mid 20's wouldn't have made much more than $2.50 per hr. Minimum wage was $1 per hr.
Now a days, you would cringe at the welded rod you see in that one picture but, back then, "Boxed" rods were popular, for high HP engines. Instead of welding that piece down the middle, they welded thin plates on both sides. Nothing wrong with it, as long as it is re-HT and brought back into dimensional spec.
I always loved the 6 & 8x2 manifolds. I bought one of those 6x2, Weiand, MEL manifolds and 2 sets of GM tri powers, to put on it. It was going to replace my 352 in my '60 Ford but, my dad had it hauled away, after I got drafted in '65 (along with all my other engine stuff).
It also answers the question of whether the FE was a thin wall casting as I talked about, when I first got on this forum.
-
Wereby I actually have that book,the copy he scanned evidently is missing its cover the first page is actually the title page once you open the cover, which has a beautiful shot of a tripower 406 with lots of chrome and long exhaust manifolds,also I'm not sure why he lists it as 64 because the copyright date clearly states 1962.I am certain that early cam is not the 306 AA cam,this is a milder grind that was used on the 352HP,390HP as the C0AE 6250 B,and with small installed timing change as the C2AE 6250 A in the 406.I believe the C2AE 6250 B cam installed in later race 406's and possibly very late production 406's introduced the 306 grind on a thrust button core,and was then repeated on a non thrust button core as the AA in the 427. The specs listed in the book are IO 24 BTC IC 72 ABC EO 72 BBC EC 24 ATC .479 lift 276* duration and 48* overlap and ..025 lash.The later 306 grind had quite a bit more overlap,and while I don't believe the 306 had a full 30* more duration I think that can be explained by inconsistent measurement lift Ford typically measured their cams at like .020 lift for duration but the cross town rivals (chevy)typically advertised their cam durations at .006 or seat to seat so it sounded like their cams were much bigger(Ive seen some chevrolet factory cam durations listed at as much as 346* and this was for a standard production line cam not an over the counter race grind),so I think Ford was feeling a little pressure to make their cams sound a little juicier by changing the checking lift.I don't think they stooped to chevy's level but I think they moved a little closer.
Cams:
I’m thinking this is all the same “4v solid” cam:
306-306 at .007 lobe (guess based on 324 cam, amazingly I cant find this spec!)
274-274 at .014 lobe (.025 valve ie “at lash”) sometimes 276-276
228-228 at .050 lobe
195-195 at .100 lobe Ford spec
.500 net or .480 net max lift (this is the mystery, but it’s only a 3hp difference in the Gonkulator)
Consider the “8v solid” cam
324-324 at .007 lobe (ford manuals)
290-290 at .014 lobe sometimes 288-288
244-244 at .050 lobe sometimes 242-242 or 245-245
208-208 at .100 lobe Ford Spec
The Comp 270S cam gives another hint:
300-300 at .006 lobe (measured by me)
270-270 at .014 lobe (Comp spec)
224-224 at .050 lobe (Comp spec)
192-192 at .100 lobe (measured by me)
If you just add 4 degrees to the Comp 270S you get
304-304 at .006 lobe (darn close to 306-306 at .007)
274-274 at .014 lobe
228-228 at .050 lobe
196-196 at .100 lobe
Which starts to look exactly like the Ford 4v cam. (The 270S is on tighter centers & a little more lift though).
I’m saying that the 306-306 and 274-274 cams are the SAME GRIND, just measured at different lobe lifts.
Both are 228-228 at .050 lobe, 195-195 at .100 lobe.
Dennis K’s postings have also implied that the grind was the same, 352/360hp thru 427/410hp.
EG:
14 May 2007 thread on Fordfe.com:
https://www.fordfe.com/c2az-6250-a-has-anyone-heard-of-this-cam-t54635.html
“tbolt2:C2AZ-6250-A converts to a C2AE-6250-A.
The specs on a the C2AE-A cam is same as C0AE-B, except induction hardened and oil quenched lobes.
The COAE-B cam is 306/306 deg, cam lift is .298355" x 1.76 ratio = .525" less lash is around .500".
Regards,
Dennis”
My opinion / hunch.
It’s not “definitive” though. From the road tests of the era, that 152mph 352/360 car, even with a loose block and open pipes, still favors a bigger cam eg 228-228 at .050.
There are NO old road tests of the 390HiPo. Their performance in NHRA is not definitive but they ran pretty darn good which does favor the 228-228 at .050 spec.
So I’m betting they were ALL 228-228 at .060.
The .480 net vs .500 net lift is only about a 3hp difference in the Gonkulator so impossible to parse that.
The .480 net lift keeps popping up though – it had to come from SOMEWHERE, unless a bunch of people were subtracting lash twice. Not likely but possible. Look how many books have the early FE intake port height at 1.94”, ever since the typo in 1969 Muscle Parts.
But duration – 228-228 vs eg a 207-221 “CJ” style (solid) is about a 20hp difference, which would put eg a typical assembly line 406 about 30hp below its factory rating. They didn’t run THAT bad!
For sure, Chevy spec’d some REALLY LONG durations, but they did the same thing – sometimes the same grind would have eg a 300-300 duration, and in a different year, a 270-270 duration. Same cam, just a different spec. The really long durations made it easier to grind “cheater” cams, and even do so legally after 1967. This gave the Mouse some of its edge in NHRA. The Mouse cams weren’t really that big, but the specs gave room to make them fatter.
So there’s my logic.
Here’s to the degree wheel!
-
Do you think the difference in overlap is explained by the same checking lift theory?It does make the mapping project sound more interesting doesn't it.
-
Do you think the difference in overlap is explained by the same checking lift theory?It does make the mapping project sound more interesting doesn't it.
Yes- by definition the overlap change will EXACTLY equal the duration change as you measure at different lobe lifts on the same cam.
This even holds true when comparing different cams if their lobe separation is the same.
mapping all these old cams is worthwhile. I was generously sent a couple early 1958 cams, solid and hyd, mapping those was interesting too.
-
Ford seemed to like that 228 duration lobe. They also used it on the 271 HP, 289 with a 109 ICL. Lobe lift on it was .298. That's .477 x 1.6 - .018/.020 lash and .524 x 1.76 - .025. The FE C3AZ-D, ICL is 112.5
Werby, is one of your '58 cams a Edsel?
-
Ford seemed to like that 228 duration lobe. They also used it on the 271 HP, 289 with a 109 ICL. Lobe lift on it was .298. That's .477 x 1.6 - .018/.020 lash and .524 x 1.76 - .025. The FE C3AZ-D, ICL is 112.5
Werby, is one of your '58 cams a Edsel?
Yes - one is the super-hot-Hi-Po early 58 solid cam, donated by Sunjet60, 203-206 at .050 as I measured it, which Gonkulates to a nearly honest 300hp 352cid if you use the EDC heads and super-hi-rise intake (ok it's about 1/4" taller) and the big AFB with the vacuum secondary before they went to the floppenvalve AFB to save money.
I've got this cam down as B8A-A.
This may have evolved into the 390/330pi cam when a little lift was added in 1961.
And that may have evolved into the hydraulic 390GT cam at 206-206 for early 1966. More exhaust duration turned it into 207-221 and the 428CJ cam.
The second 1958 cam was donated by FERoadster, and is the "cheater hot" hydraulic cam, EDD, from the early 58 361/303hp Edsel, comes out to 196-196 at .050 lobe.
That was said to idle "too rough" (really???) and is a big step hotter than the later B8A-B hydraulic at 186-186 at .050, used in grocery getters thru 1965.
Always happy to take donated factory cams and degree them for the cause!
Usually the peak lift is down a little, to be expected, but the low lift and .050 and .100 durations seem pretty dependable.
-
Haha,the Mike I referred to in my posts with the 360 horse cam is Sunjet60,I know well the 58 that the early solid cam came out of.
-
The second 1958 cam was donated by FERoadster, and is the "cheater hot" hydraulic cam, EDD, from the early 58 361/303hp Edsel, comes out to 196-196 at .050 lobe.
That must be the cam out of my engine. This are the cam specs from my July of '57 factory repair manual:
17/59 = 256 Dur / 111 ICL
57/19 = 256 Dur / 109 ICL
.2265 cam lift
How does that compare with the cam for seat seat duration, lift and timing?
There also seems to be some difference or confusion in what the hydraulic rocker ratio is, in reading old info, like the PDF above. I've seen other specs that they are 1.76, too. My factory manual doesn't list the rocker ratio or cam lift but, does have the spring ht difference (seat & open) of .400, right for that cam lift and 1.76 @ .399.
I'm including 2 pages of the '58 Ford Repair Manual. It doesn't list the rocker ratio, either. It does give the checking, lift specs and the lobe lift is much different, .2265 vs .241, seems odd.
-
Does anyone have the cc volume of the valve pockets on this piston?.. I am building a 360 horse 352 and am having a tough time getting the spec compression. The piston sits down in the hole .053 Even after decking the block .030. I think there is still a .015 shim gasket available otherwise I will go with the .020. Not ideal..
I posted on the other forum some time back when I measured the 352 pistons. I have no 1960 HP data, TommyT has some photos below. From my findings whether passenger car or pickup truck the FACTORY 352 cast pistons through March of 1966 were flattops without valve reliefs. The casting number on the inside is C0AE. In April of 1966 the 352's were built with cast pistons C5AE. I believe I measured 6 or 8cc total and were very very slightly taller. My information came from first time teardowns (dated bearings). For a few years the closest gap I had was a pickup truck December 1965 C0AE non valve relief piston set from a pickup and a April 1966 F-100 C5AE with reliefs. The last one I went through was a March 1966 block from a 4V 352 Galaxie. It had C0AE pistons and C6TE-G heads.
-
Frnkeore,
Here are the lobe lifts from the early solid I measured.
Jives pretty well with .241 intake .244 exhaust lobe lift.
Almost no wear at the rear, where the oil is, quite a bit of wear at the front.
Lobe Lifts I E
1 0.232 0.229
5 0.228 0.236
2 0.234 0.230
6 wiped 0.238
3 0.242 0.242
7 0.232 0.242
4 0.240 0.244
8 0.241 0.244
Duration at .050 was about 202 intake, 206 exhaust.
Duration at .100 was about 162 intake, 167 exhaust
LSA about 112
I didnt have an early timing set to get the advance/retard.
Decent duration but really low lift, I guess they were still using flathead Ford springs.
-
If you run Fords timing numbers, it comes out to the intake having a 111 CL and the Ex 119, giving a 115 LSA (4° advance) and 26° over lap.
The Edsel is, with it's In 111 and Ex 109, 110 LSA (1° retard), gave 36° over lap. Maybe the "rough" idle was the result of the 10° extra overlap.
If you subtract the lash, the lift is only .008 apart and would be the same, if the early hyd rockers were 1.76.
Does anyone have a known '58 hyd rocker to measure rocker ratio?