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

[Katz427]

The real answer to the OP question ? The answer was the PAS Product Acceptability Standards program. Some things one thinks of today, could not pass the PAS. Cars had to drive, start, emissions,comfort, in other words those standards had to be met, by every car Ford built. These standards were developed  during the mid- 60s. There were some concessions for cars that would be used in competition events. However that was a small number of cars. What few remember ( or were not alive at the time) is the the auto companies were under extreme  pressure  from the government, to address safety, and emissions,  or face the whole industry being nationalized .under a government department. Everything kept going along until Congress got enough votes too nationalize the auto industry, and that threat is what killed the performance cars from the factory.

[4twennyAint]

1969 Drag Pak - hydraulic cam.  1970-71 Drag Pak - solid cam.  So I would disagree. 

[4twennyAint]

1969-71 Boss Mustangs all had solid cams too! 302, 351 and 429

[badcatt]

1969 Drag Pak - hydraulic cam.  1970-71 Drag Pak - solid cam.  So I would disagree.

1969 and 70 428 SCJ had hydraulic cams, 1970 and 71 429 SCJs had solid cams. 
Mustangs and Cougars still got the 428 in 1970.

[gregaba]

My thinking on this is that when Ford introduced the 68 428 CJ they won all the national drag event's and finially had an affordable  street car that would run with the other brand's.
At the time they were developing the 351C and 429 and didn't see any reason to futher develope the 428 because it was holding it's own and with the new engine's putting out way more power then the 428 used the CJ in a holding pattern until the new engin's came out.
Then OPEC reared their ugly head and more or less stopped futher develope on these engine's.
Greg

[4twennyAint]

I meant only 429 cars for 1970 but appreciate the correction.  Another point that was made to me is maybe Ford decided the CJ power level potential with a solid cam would exceed the limits of a 2 bolt main in their durability testing. 

[JERICOGTX]

1969-71 Boss Mustangs all had solid cams too! 302, 351 and 429

69 BOSS 302 had solids. 70 had hydraulic.

[shady]

1969-71 Boss Mustangs all had solid cams too! 302, 351 and 429

69 BOSS 302 had solids. 70 had hydraulic.

70 boss 302s were solid also.

[4twennyAint]

Looking back, nothing had a solid cam by 1968 - solid lifter cam was not an option on anything that model year, right?  The next solid cam engine was 69 Boss 302.  Boss 429's didn't even get solid cams at first, then magazines tested them and they added the solid design also used on 429 SCJ...so maybe Ford was hoping to get away from solids all together, but found that it wasn't going to make the grade.  Or, it was simply the individual program budgets driving each decision...Where's John Vermiersch, he'll know...

[TomP]

Ford missed the boat on lots of things in the 60's and 70's. But I still like 'em!

The SCJ should have had a bigger cam but I suppose they didn't want to infringe on the Boss 429 which also should have had a bigger cam. Not just Chevy but Buick, Olds and Pontiacs all came with decent cams.

And earlier they missed the boat by only offering the 66-67 Fairlane GT with a mild version which was pretty much a cam and carb on a Tbird engine. That could have used the PI intake and came with gears lower than the 3.25's they got.

Then in the 70's only 2V carbs on 302 Mavericks when GM but 800cfm Quadrabogs on everything.

[1968galaxie]

Just imagine a 428SCJ, 429SCJ, or Boss 429 with a similar cam grind that the BBC used:

375 and 425hp/396, 402 and 427; 242/242 @ 0.050", 114/108, .520" gross lift.

L-88, 264/270 @0.050", 112/108, .560"/.580" gross lift;

LS-7(?)/ZL-1, 262/273 @0.050", 110/?, .560"/.600" gross lift

[Rory428]

Considering the factory rev limiters Ford installed on the 70 428 CJ/SCJs was set at 5800 RPM, I imagine for warranty reasons, so I doubt they thought a cam that made more power, but at higher RPMs, was a desirable choice to offer.

[wsu0702]

Because Ford never had any intention of making the 428SCJ engine a performance upgrade over the 428CJ.  It came into being strictly to improve durability and reduce the high number of warranty claims that they were seeing from low geared 428CJ 4 speed cars out in the field.  My friend friend Kerry jokingly says that Ford should have called it the "Warranty Pack" instead of the Drag Pack option. JMHO

[1968galaxie]

I agree that there were warranty claims for "used hard" 428CJ's.
Ford was still using truck bearing clearances - where less than 0.001" clearance was acceptable at the factory.
Many machine shops followed the Ford factory recommended minimum bearing clearances - hence many FE's with bearing issues.

Things have changed thank goodness!

[SReist]

Maybe the Ford engineers were smart enough to know all the experts were just gonna tear them apart anyway. They spec'd a cam that would tick most of the boxes and run good.
And yes I was one of those experts that had to reinvent the wheel. Steve