Great link Bob, thanks for posting that.  I have never seen actual printed news stories about the SOHC being banned from NASCAR until I read that link.  Factually it appears to be nearly perfectly correct; the only error I found was the claim that with Pete Robinson's gear drive the right cam could be used in both heads.  That is not true, of course, since the bearing spacings on the heads from side to side are different, and a right cam would not physically fit in a left head. Also, I've read that moving the spark plug location up from the early SOHC head position to the standard head position was good for a bunch of horsepower, and this article says it wasn't, but who is to know for sure?

I heard a similar story about plug location. It was said that the SOHC engine development group was at a loss as to why the engine was not up to the power expectations they were aiming for. Seems by changing plug location was worth about 50+ hp over the original design. Also I vaguely remember seeing pictures [cannot recall where] of an early cammer with the plugs located in the center of the head similar to the 426 Hemi...anyone have any info on that?   

Hi all
 I've searched the net but can't find the specs I'm looking for
Can anyone give me the cam specs for the 390 375 HP  from 1961
thanks
Best

The cam for the 375/401HP-390  is .479" lift, 276 deg duration and is the same cam as the 1960 HP 352 and the 62 406 cam but with minor timing changes. Part no. is C0AE 6250-B [60-61] and C2AZ 6250-A [62] Timing for the C2AZ cam is intake: open 24* BTDC, close 72 ABDC Exhaust open: 72* BBDC close 24* ATDC with 48* overlap. Valve lash is .025"  Forgot to add: The C2AZ cam is the service replacement cam for the earlier 60-61 HP cam.

I have a cherry B cam & lifters that I pulled from an old 427 V-drive engine that will probably go in the 57 Sedan delivery- they run pretty good, and very easy on the valvetrain. Also have a NI the tube 330/600 that might find it's way into one of these engines- there was a guy running one around the Bay Area in the late 70's and it was one baaaad sounding MF. Pretty lame down low, but get it revved up a little...

Many years ago I ran a 330/600 in a 390...limp as a wet dish towel until about 4K...... then hang on, pulled like a Baldwin locomotive. Also I run a reproduction B cam in my 67 Fairlane [427 s/o, dual plane MR 8V, same lift & duration but slightly different L/C than the FoMoCo cam. Pulls strong to about 62-6300, has a good sounding choppy idle that sometimes attracts the wrong type of attention.

Copied this from an AERA article: A “BOSS” To Reckon With

"Chrysler pegged its efforts on the recently reborn Hemi, Chevrolet relied on the 427 big block “Rat Motor”, and Ford used its 427 “FE” series engines. That scenario put Ford at a bit of a disadvantage because the “FE” was a dated design having originated in 1958; the 426 Hemi debuted in 1964 and the big block Chevy first hit the streets in 1965."

That "dated design" sure has whooped its share of Hemi's and BBC's

And thats not accounting for all the Ford parts that NASCAR outlawed...Hiriser, cammer etc. Let alone that MOPAR was allowed to run the midsized Dodge Coronet and Plymouth Belvedere with their Hemi. Chrysler even stated to Bill France they could not win using their full size Polara or Fury bodies against the Galaxies.

I'm sorry but Ford's "whoring to play this game in someone else's ball-park"... A pushrod motor as mentioned has not been in the Ford lineup for decades. Using the 429 "race engine" displacement which helps ticks me off - right in there with their selling 427 Windsor's.  To me it looks like NHRA "cooked the books" with the under 400 Cu In motors only deducting off 100lbs from the 3350 min weight of 430 Cu In Motors. Remember those writing the 2013 EMC Rules didn't believe Fords Modular Motors could get to 400 Cu In.  Kaase and three other EMC competitors already proved a 400 inch modular is venomous to brand-x's. Imagine how a modular Ford naturally aspirated  modular Ford engine could kick asses on the Brand-x's if 2013 EMC Challenge proved anything. Just a shame that FoMoCo plays their game at NHRA.

Jeeezzzus, BB is there anything you won't bitch about? This is something Ford should have done decades ago...like in the mid 50s. If Ford had been more concerned about the "youth market" as did Duntov in his memo maybe Chevrolet would not be the go-to company for hotrodding. Ford had that market locked up in the 30s thru the early 50s with the 4 banger, flathead and could have with the Y-block [with more than just a token and very limited supercharged 312]  then on to the FE. Ford dropped the ball on that big time. I guess it's better late than never and if Ford wants to play in the NHRA sandbox then I suppose Ford has to play by NHRA's rules. IMO the NHRA rules are and have been stacked against Ford for years. The casual observer, and even the most jaded ones would think NHRA does not want Ford competing against the almighty Chevrolet and Mopar. Afterall who would ban all engines with a bore center more than 4.84" ? And what engine has a maximum bore center of 4.84"?....3 guesses...and the 1st two don't count.

One thing that is very important to me is the "comfort level" of a engine,  meaning a cheap 390 that I can drive like a rented mule and not worry about is much more fun to me than a $20-30K engine that if something breaks its big bucks and an extended search for parts that are on the endangered species or unobtainium list. That was the reason I took the 427 S/O out of my Hondo flat as it would be much safer and well preserved in my 61 Starliner. The Hondo got a 460 t/t that I had no reservations about running it to 72-7300 rpm. I am a die-hard Ford freak and just about any Ford engine is fine with me irregardless of the family...I love 'em all from flatheads to Mod motors and everything in between but my main interests are FEs and 385 engines in that order.

Hummm....interesting question. But even at 15-20 grand for a 390/428 based Cammer is still more than I can justify at this stage in my life. I am wanting to retire in the next year or two and frivolously spending, say $20K on a car that sits in my shop for 359 days a year and only rolled out for a evening at the local hotrod get together or for that one annual carshow road trip my wife and I take every year I still can not justify the cost. The eye appeal is second to none even while parked next to the typical shoebox Chevy with a 6-71 sticking out of the hood...The Cammer wins hands down, no doubt.  As I said in my other post spending that kind of $$$ just to impress the crowd that doesn't know [or care] the difference between my 60 Starliner and a Pontiac Bonneville, huge set of cam covers that say "Ford SOHC" is not going to mean much to them anyway except for the usual stupid comments like "...didn't Pontiac have a OHC too?" or "What does "SOHC" mean?" As for the horsepower, my drag racing days are long gone so the hp is more or less a non issue and the more hp I have is just too tempting to use it on the street. If...and that is a big IF I was tempted to build a Cammer, I wouldn't bother with a 390 or 428 block I would use one of the 427s I have now...but I would wait until the next morning for the final decision when I sobered up.   Jay, If the cost of the rights, patterns, equipment, etc is cheap enough I think it would be a good long term investment as the Cammer would appeal to the pre-48 hotrod crowd looking for something different to put in their fenderless 32 or some sort of street "altered" hooptie. The 60s Galaxie application is a given but I think there is a wider appeal to the Cammer than just Galaxies, Fairlanes and Mustangs and don't overlook the hotboat crowd.