Best Street Cam/TC/Gear Combo for 428?

[CV355]

Hello everyone,

I put another two months of work into my '69, and the streetability is still not where I want it to be.  I'm looking at doing a cam swap, tighter TC, steeper rear gears, and a gentler automatic valvebody.

What would your recommendations be for a mild street-oriented cam / TC / rear gear combo?  I want this to be a reliable cruiser car and right now it's not.  As stated in a previous thread, S-CR is between 10.5 and 11.0 but will be measured soon.  I want to be able to take my wife on a weekend cruise or car show, and right now the car is just too unrefined to do so.

[blykins]

What car?  What engine?  What transmission? 

[CV355]

What car?  What engine?  What transmission?

'69 Mustang Mach 1, 428cj, C6 trans. 

Current cam is a Lunati (cheater cam, stock I/E lift) that is quite aggressive, trans has a 3.5-4k stall converter, and rear gear is 4.11. 

[blykins]

You're gonna get a ton of answers here, because we all have different ideas of what's streetable.  For me, I'd drive it like it is because I like them on the rowdy side.  Others desire a more docile driving experience. 

If you're looking for a great cruising combo, a 2500 rpm stall, with a 3.50 gear, and a hydraulic cam in the high 220's on .050" duration will put you where I think you want to be.  Keep in mind though, that if the compression ratio is high (10.5-11), it will make it more sensitive to pump gas when you cam it to have a more streetable stance.

[CV355]

You're gonna get a ton of answers here, because we all have different ideas of what's streetable.  For me, I'd drive it like it is because I like them on the rowdy side.  Others desire a more docile driving experience. 

If you're looking for a great cruising combo, a 2500 rpm stall, with a 3.50 gear, and a hydraulic cam in the high 220's on .050" duration will put you where I think you want to be.  Keep in mind though, that if the compression ratio is high (10.5-11), it will make it more sensitive to pump gas when you cam it to have a more streetable stance.

Understood, and I only run 93 in all of my vehicles.  The 428 gets 93 with octane booster just to help prevent knock (though I haven't experienced it knock myself- this was by recommendation of the previous owner)

2500/3.50 is what I was thinking as well. 

[blykins]

Here's one I did recently: 

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=5674.0

It would be a good match for what you're wanting to do. 

If you're trying to skirt around some higher compression, I'd think hard about running a hydraulic roller as the advertised durations are high enough to help with the compression ratio.  Running a hydraulic flat tappet at lower durations will probably pose a tricky situation. 

[plovett]

What is it about the current combination that is too unrefined?  High cruise rpm?  Rough idle and low rpm characteristics?

The convertor seems to have too high of a stall speed for your cam in any case.  Just swapping it for a 2500-2800 rpm stall would make sense to me.  3000 rpm stall at most.

I have a cam in my 428 with almost 20 degrees more duration and I use a 3600 rpm stall convertor (and 4.11 gears). Though mine is a solid cam so it's not apples to apples, but still.....

JMO,

paulie

[1968galaxie]

There is quite a difference between a 428 CJ copy camshaft and a stock class "cheater" camshaft.
If the op has a stock class cheater cam it will certainly require a 3500+ stall converter.

I have a Lunati stock class camshaft in a 390 build - I believe the duration was over 250 @ 0.050".

Cheers

[andyf]

Hello everyone,

I put another two months of work into my '69, and the streetability is still not where I want it to be.  I'm looking at doing a cam swap, tighter TC, steeper rear gears, and a gentler automatic valvebody.

What would your recommendations be for a mild street-oriented cam / TC / rear gear combo?  I want this to be a reliable cruiser car and right now it's not.  As stated in a previous thread, S-CR is between 10.5 and 11.0 but will be measured soon.  I want to be able to take my wife on a weekend cruise or car show, and right now the car is just too unrefined to do so.

Too much cam, gear and carb are the most common mistakes that hot rodders make. I see it all the time and I make the same mistake myself sometimes. Everyone is always pushing bigger and bigger stuff. Not very many ads say "use our small cam and carb and be happy". When I get lost I always go back and look at the cam that Chevy put in their 502 crate engine. It is tiny, around 220/230 at 0.050. That engine works nice in street rods and heavy cars and older muscle cars. I have a 512 inch engine in my street car with a 245 @ 050 hyd roller and I think the cam is too big. I was sure it would be the right size but after driving it I think I was 5 degrees too big. So it happens to most of us.

[andyf]

How much tuning have you done with the combination? An aggressive cam will need more ignition timing and some very careful calibration changes to the carb. If you haven't spent a day or two on a chassis dyno then that would be one recommendation. It is possible that the cam is just too aggressive for your application so you might need to change it but you might be able to save it by tuning. Have you advanced the cam to see how it responds?

Another option is the one I'm doing right now with my street car. I've gotten tired of constantly chasing a tune with analog carbs and ignition systems so I'm switching over to EFI with computer controlled ignition. The full digital approach gives you screen top tuning as well as data logging. With full data logging capability it is easier find some issues and resolve them. The Holley Sniper kit will give you a lot of tuning capability for only $1000 so you might consider going that way. Who knows, maybe EFI will tame the combination down enough that you won't need to change the cam and the TC. If so you'll end up money ahead.

[Joe-JDC]

Having been there with my Shelby, I went back to the stock CJ camshaft, 3.50:1 gears, 2400 converter/wide ratio gear set, headers, recurved distributor @ 14* initial and restored very good driving manners.  I don't care for the jerking around at idle any more, a sure sign of maturity---finally!  LOL   Joe-JDC

[gt350hr]

  I agree with Brent , that Lunati "stocker" cam is waaaaay too aggressive for the street . Duration should be in the high 220's or low 230's for something street driven. Over .500 lift helps too. Hydraulic rollers "act" like a regular hydraulic that has 10* more duration .

[fryedaddy]

I guess the word streetable is different from man to man. im running 4.11 gears,3600 stall,.245 at .050 flat tappet,3000 pound comet-c6,and i drive it almost every day for daily driver.seems streetable to me as long as i dont go over 25-30 miles from home.i had a 280 crower hyd.flat cam with 3.50 gears in it before and it was real streetable.i even drove it on vaction 1000 miles no issues.i think after .245 at 50 they start getting less streetable,but every mans version  of streetable is a little different.

[FElony]

Having been there with my Shelby, I went back to the stock CJ camshaft, 3.50:1 gears, 2400 converter/wide ratio gear set, headers, recurved distributor @ 14* initial and restored very good driving manners.  I don't care for the jerking around at idle any more, a sure sign of maturity---finally!  LOL   Joe-JDC

Yep, I think many guys have forgotten (or never knew) how well a tuned stock/mild CJ car really runs. Used to be able to find lots of them for sale unmodified with over 100k miles that still ran well. Can anyone build a stocker these days and still call himself a man? Perhaps not.

[WerbyFord]

If its this Lunati Cheater, that's only 224-232-114, which is just a bit rougher than the old Ford c8ax-c at 220-230-116.
That cam was very streetable. It needed a converter but would do fine with a stock converter, even in a little 390.


http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=2269

IF that's the cam you have, you might not need or want a milder cam - it just might be the 3500-4000 stall and 4.11 gears (on the freeway???) that is the problem. That cam would do fine in a light mustang with say 3.50 gears and 2500 stall as stated above.

The problem with a much smaller cam also is that at 10.5-11.0 CR, with iron heads and cast pistons you'd be in trouble with pump gas. A blocked heat crossover, cold air to the carb, and keeping the engine below 190F would help, but then you're into cutting the timing back and making it run like a tired dog.

So it will want a decent cam with that much compression - if you have the 224-232-114 Lunati Cheater already that sounds about right.

4.11 gears and 4000 stall sounds super-annoying on the freeway. Running 4.11s in a slushbox it will rev about like 4.30s in a stick car which is crazy at 70mph. Marginal back in the old 55mph Carter Days but not today. Needs taller gears and less converter, then you might be fine as-is!

[gt350hr]

  fryedaddy,
       You are right , streetabiltiy is a matter of "opinion". Look at the Hot Rod Drag Week! My CJ is a day two , street strip deal with a bigger cam , headers and a C8AX oil pan. With the 4spd , I don't mind a cam that is 240/248 @.050 hydraulic cam

[plovett]

If its this Lunati Cheater, that's only 224-232-114, which is just a bit rougher than the old Ford c8ax-c at 220-230-116.
That cam was very streetable. It needed a converter but would do fine with a stock converter, even in a little 390.


http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=2269

IF that's the cam you have, you might not need or want a milder cam - it just might be the 3500-4000 stall and 4.11 gears (on the freeway???) that is the problem. That cam would do fine in a light mustang with say 3.50 gears and 2500 stall as stated above.

That's what I thought the cam was.  Bigger than a 206/220 factory CJ cam, but not huge.

[CV355]

I appreciate the feedback everyone!

Right now the cam gives a very rough idle, shakes the whole car at idle.  It smooths out nice once you're in the throttle a bit.  Maybe I'll do as was recommended here and leave the cam for now, get it tuned.  Tighter torque converter and 3.50 rear gears. 

If the cam is still an issue, I'll think about doing a roller setup.  At that point, I'd be putting aluminum heads on anyway.  Might be able to find some heads to lower SCR a bit. 

[Joe-JDC]

I have to disagree with everyone here.  The camshaft is the heart of the issue.  You can put 4.10 gears in a stock cam vehicle, and it drives smooth as silk.  A loose converter with a stock camshaft will not jerk or buck, but will slip at lower speeds.  I have had customers come back with camshafts at 230* and want their stock cams back.  It is all in what manners you are looking for in driving.  A stock CJ is nearly perfect for a street engine.  Ford did their homework on that camshaft.  I ran the Motorsports upgrade hydraulic camshaft and my power brakes were spotty after a quick stop.  The AA camshaft was actually a better street camshaft for idle and off idle manners.  Joe-JDC

[andyf]

I appreciate the feedback everyone!

Right now the cam gives a very rough idle, shakes the whole car at idle.  It smooths out nice once you're in the throttle a bit.  Maybe I'll do as was recommended here and leave the cam for now, get it tuned.  Tighter torque converter and 3.50 rear gears. 

If the cam is still an issue, I'll think about doing a roller setup.  At that point, I'd be putting aluminum heads on anyway.  Might be able to find some heads to lower SCR a bit.

A rough idle could be the cam but it could also be something else such as a vacuum leak, wrong timing, bad plugs, bad plug wires, incorrect carb adjustment, etc.

Do you have a wideband on the car? What does the vacuum gauge say? What is the timing?

I'd be surprised if a cheater cam ran good in a street car since that isn't what they are designed to do, but I also wouldn't be surprised to find a bunch of other tuning problems in a new build. Every home built car that I've ever worked on has had a bunch of issues. That is just the nature of the beast.

[CV355]

A rough idle could be the cam but it could also be something else such as a vacuum leak, wrong timing, bad plugs, bad plug wires, incorrect carb adjustment, etc.

Do you have a wideband on the car? What does the vacuum gauge say? What is the timing?

I'd be surprised if a cheater cam ran good in a street car since that isn't what they are designed to do, but I also wouldn't be surprised to find a bunch of other tuning problems in a new build. Every home built car that I've ever worked on has had a bunch of issues. That is just the nature of the beast.

Here's the problem- I bought the car last September and I have put 9 miles on it.  I think no matter what it needs a tune.  I'm definitely thinking that the cam needs to go.  Man I love the sound of it, but it's just too rough- shakes the whole damn car at idle.  If I was building a drag racing car, I'd keep it.  But my goal for this is weekend cruiser.

The entire build has ~2k miles on it from what I was told by the previous owner, original block, heads.

So what would be a good cam for this car?  I wouldn't mind a little lope/thump, but the current is excessive, especially being flat tappet.  Aggressive ramps and flat tappet scares me. 

[blykins]

Before you go swapping sticks, have someone do a quick run-down of the motor mounts, carb, etc.  Any way to verify that the flywheel is the correct flywheel?

If you come back to still wanting a camshaft, the results of the last 428CJ I did with a hydraulic flat tappet are in that link that I posted earlier. 

[WerbyFord]

A rough idle could be the cam but it could also be something else such as a vacuum leak, wrong timing, bad plugs, bad plug wires, incorrect carb adjustment, etc.

Do you have a wideband on the car? What does the vacuum gauge say? What is the timing?

I'd be surprised if a cheater cam ran good in a street car since that isn't what they are designed to do, but I also wouldn't be surprised to find a bunch of other tuning problems in a new build. Every home built car that I've ever worked on has had a bunch of issues. That is just the nature of the beast.

Here's the problem- I bought the car last September and I have put 9 miles on it.  I think no matter what it needs a tune.  I'm definitely thinking that the cam needs to go.  Man I love the sound of it, but it's just too rough- shakes the whole damn car at idle.  If I was building a drag racing car, I'd keep it.  But my goal for this is weekend cruiser.

The entire build has ~2k miles on it from what I was told by the previous owner, original block, heads.

So what would be a good cam for this car?  I wouldn't mind a little lope/thump, but the current is excessive, especially being flat tappet.  Aggressive ramps and flat tappet scares me.

Well I still don't think that 224-232-114 is a "rough" cam - the roughness could well be one of the many other issues folks have raised here - even a carb crudded up with ethanol/water sediment, etc. (Then again we aren't really SURE what cam you have in there, it could be quite a bit bigger than that, I am just ASSUMING those Lunati web specs)

BUT, if you really want a different cam, here are 3 that the factory (and I think most customers) thought were streetable. The durations are at .050 lobe:
206-220-116 hyd stock 428cj, also in 390gt, 428pi, and later in 351cj
A good clone for this cam is the common "RV" cam at 204-214-112
Another good clone is the Crower 270hdp at 210-220-112 (Werby's Wife's favorite cam)

220-230-116 hyd stock 429cj and 429pi
I ran this cam in my high school daily driver, and my girlfriend never complained. The cam didn't interfere with any of our planned activities.

228-228-114 solid stock 352/360hp, 390/375hp, 390/401hp, 406/385hp, 406/405hp, 427/410hp, 428/360pi, 289/271hp, 302boss, 429scj
This is the "AA" cam JDC mentioned above. A solid cam will idle a lot smoother than a hydraulic - it will act about 10 degrees smaller.
A good clone for this cam is the Comp 270s. I put this in my 88-year-old dad's build and he did almost 90 car shows with it, a real cruiser cam.


Any of these cams are GUARANTEED streetable cuz the factory said so & used em in many different engines, and they were all used in PI (cop) engines so they had to be pretty streetable.

[Joe-JDC]

If it has only 9 miles on it in months, then the gasoline is suspect at best.  My '55 Thunderbird's carburetor fuel will evaporate within a few days and be hard to start unless I add fuel to the bowl and charge the squirter before trying to start it.  The fuel today is pure junk if it has alcohol in it.  Joe-JDC

[gt350hr]

   Our California gas kills the o ring on the needle and seat assemblies. Start up and run dead rich . Change the o ring and back to normal. Yes this gas sucks!

[plovett]

So what specific cam do you have CV355?

Is it this one?

http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=2269

Product Description
Hydraulic Flat Tappet Cam. Lunati's version of the C60Z-B 428 CJ & 360 horsepower camshaft.
Advertised Duration (Int/Exh): 304/324
Duration @ .050 (Int/Exh): 224/232
Gross Valve Lift (Int/Exh): .481/.490
LSA/ICL: 114/110
Valve Lash (Int/Exh): Hyd/Hyd
RPM Range: 3000-6000
Includes: Cam Only

Part Number: 10331003
Previous Part Number: 10503

[CV355]

So what specific cam do you have CV355?

Is it this one?

http://www.lunatipower.com/Product.aspx?id=2269

Product Description
Hydraulic Flat Tappet Cam. Lunati's version of the C60Z-B 428 CJ & 360 horsepower camshaft.
Advertised Duration (Int/Exh): 304/324
Duration @ .050 (Int/Exh): 224/232
Gross Valve Lift (Int/Exh): .481/.490
LSA/ICL: 114/110
Valve Lash (Int/Exh): Hyd/Hyd
RPM Range: 3000-6000
Includes: Cam Only

Part Number: 10331003
Previous Part Number: 10503

10503- Yes I believe that it is based on the specs the previous owner told me.  Cannot confirm but it sounds correct.

I just put fresh gas in it in March with octane booster and stabilizer.  Got her running on Saturday- started right up first crank. 

I might do this in phases- torque converter, valvebody, and rear gears + tune.  Then if it's still not the way I like it, cam.

This cam is a real thumper.  Not that it's any real comparison, but I have fairly aggressive cams in my '14 GT500 and the streetability didn't suffer much.  It has some vibration at idle- sitting in traffic I get bounced around a little.  I'm ok with a little NVH. 

[blykins]

If that's the cam you have, something else is wrong.....that camshaft is pretty mild.  Low lift, fairly low duration, pretty long LSA.

The cam that I mentioned on the first page is considered pretty mild and the specs are more conservative than what you have.

[CV355]

If that's the cam you have, something else is wrong.....that camshaft is pretty mild.  Low lift, fairly low duration, pretty long LSA.

The cam that I mentioned on the first page is considered pretty mild and the specs are more conservative than what you have.

Sounds like it needs a tune no matter what then.  I'll see if phase 1 can be the torque converter, rear gears, valvebody (has a harsh reverse-manual right now), and a tune on the dyno. 

Regarding the cam, the previous owner said:  "Intake lift .481, exhaust .490, same as stock, think it is Lunati but it is considered a cheater cam."  The 10503 looked and sounded about right from what I found. 

 

[CV355]

I have to disagree with everyone here.  The camshaft is the heart of the issue.  You can put 4.10 gears in a stock cam vehicle, and it drives smooth as silk.  A loose converter with a stock camshaft will not jerk or buck, but will slip at lower speeds.  I have had customers come back with camshafts at 230* and want their stock cams back.  It is all in what manners you are looking for in driving.  A stock CJ is nearly perfect for a street engine.  Ford did their homework on that camshaft.  I ran the Motorsports upgrade hydraulic camshaft and my power brakes were spotty after a quick stop.  The AA camshaft was actually a better street camshaft for idle and off idle manners.  Joe-JDC

I may have mislead you a little here- the car drives smooth as silk once you're in the throttle.  It's just unruly on the street due to sitting at very high RPMs.  Idle is downright nasty, which I am now believing is more fuel and spark than cam.  Sounds amazing though. 

I agree and understand what you're saying- I think I just didn't explain the situation well.

[plovett]

More initial ignition timing will smooth out the idle.  And it will improve off-idle and low rpm characteristics, sometimes a ton.

Just make sure you don't get too much total timing, if you advance it.  You may need your distributor recurved.

[wayne]

Lunati cams i think years ago they made a cheater for stock class racing  that is not the cj cam they have now.

[CV355]

Lunati cams i think years ago they made a cheater for stock class racing  that is not the cj cam they have now.

What do you know about the old cheater cam?  I'm assuming mine is the 10503 but if there is something else referred to as the "cheater cam" I would be interested in knowing.   

[1968galaxie]

Lunati did make an NHRA stock class "cheater" cam years ago.
I still have it in my 390.
I cannot find the cam card, but I believe it was over 250 degrees @ 0.050"
Big cam idle for sure. I had 3500 stall converter, nowhere near enough for this cam. 5.14:1 gearing helped.

[Drew Pojedinec]

   Our California gas kills the o ring on the needle and seat assemblies. Start up and run dead rich . Change the o ring and back to normal. Yes this gas sucks!

Great point.
Most viton needle and seats seem to handle everything, I get bags of 008-009 Viton orings from Mcmaster carr for next to nothing, really solves a lot of the fuel leaking by issues.

[CV355]

Lunati did make an NHRA stock class "cheater" cam years ago.
I still have it in my 390.
I cannot find the cam card, but I believe it was over 250 degrees @ 0.050"
Big cam idle for sure. I had 3500 stall converter, nowhere near enough for this cam. 5.14:1 gearing helped.

So, without tearing the motor down and taking measurements, how would I know if it's the 10503 or the "NHRA cheater" I see referred to here and there?

Meaning, any empirical evidence of one vs the other? 

[1968galaxie]

You could put a degree wheel on and actually measure the valve events.
This doesnt require pulling the engine.
You would then know for sure what cam is in there.

[C6AE]

That Lunati "CJ" copy cam is pretty mild, I have one and it idles "smooth" at about 700 rpm, with a 750 holley.

The "Cheater cam" note rang a bell from the past so I poked around a bit...
Maybe it is this one? I don't think it  will idle "smooth"!

https://www.fordfe.com/oem-cams-spec-ed-at-050-lift-t8065.html

(Kevin66)

"I've got an old Lunati 'Cheater' that goes about 248°Int/263°Exh @ .050", and a Cam Dynamics '-2' (stickshift)grind that's 252°Int/268°Exh. Lift on both runs about .003" to .009" below the .481"/.490" maximum."
"Since these also had to check legal at the 'gross' duration figures (304°/324° @ .002", you know that they were pretty radical looking lobes, leaving nothing to today's hydraulic roller designs. It's almost amazing they could work the way they did, turning 6,300-6,500 RPM with a whopping 296 lbs of spring pressure!"

[1968galaxie]

Thank you C6AE!

That is the camshaft in my 390. Certainly not mild, and not a lot of idle vacuum.
Does run well above 4000 rpm.

[wayne]

I will see if i can find an old lunati catalog on that cam it will check like  a stock one but the lobes look like a roller. Lunati got its start by doing cheater cams Joe was good at getting the most from stock grinds.

[WerbyFord]

That Lunati "CJ" copy cam is pretty mild, I have one and it idles "smooth" at about 700 rpm, with a 750 holley.

The "Cheater cam" note rang a bell from the past so I poked around a bit...
Maybe it is this one? I don't think it  will idle "smooth"!

https://www.fordfe.com/oem-cams-spec-ed-at-050-lift-t8065.html

(Kevin66)

"I've got an old Lunati 'Cheater' that goes about 248°Int/263°Exh @ .050", and a Cam Dynamics '-2' (stickshift)grind that's 252°Int/268°Exh. Lift on both runs about .003" to .009" below the .481"/.490" maximum."
"Since these also had to check legal at the 'gross' duration figures (304°/324° @ .002", you know that they were pretty radical looking lobes, leaving nothing to today's hydraulic roller designs. It's almost amazing they could work the way they did, turning 6,300-6,500 RPM with a whopping 296 lbs of spring pressure!"

C6AE
Let me add my thanks as well.
For a couple years now I have been revisiting the 1960s "stock class" NHRA era, and of course cheater cams is always a big factor. It is hard to find "official" specs on a "cheater" cam, the name kinda says it all.
But, I do find in the Gonkulator that I typically have to guess 20-40 degrees of "added" duration at .050 for any hope of matching the trap speeds that the top NHRA stockers actually turned in. This of course is after adding every other legal prep I can think of. It is good to see some confirmation as to how big these cheater cams actually were.

[1968galaxie]

Crane also made NHRA stock class cams. I had one before the Lunati cam.
Part number: 340491  Grind No:  CC-C60Z-B8
The lobes certainly have dwell on the top.

No records of what the duration numbers were on that one - I assume 108 LSA from grind number.

Cheers

[wayne]

So far i have not found a old catalog i will look some more.  I used to sell lunati parts but dont know how much stuff i still have left