428 CJ

[Stangman]

Doug your signature pic is different now, could of sworn it was the other one earlier today, boy am I loosing it.

[MHarvey]

as much I should pay the $500 for a retest...that cam was not what I was looking for...I take the blame for not researching and telling him what I wanted.

I should have gone to this forum to validate first .....and am half way to installing the new cam....fixing the carb...

I will install and get it dynod next year....

Thanks all.

[Barry_R]

The 9:1 and oddball stroke numbers are in the "notes" section of the dyno software and will not impact the data at all - that is just a free form area to write stuff - I will often reference the changes from pull to pull there, such as timing or jetting.  You would want to know what stroke and displacement data was input into the actual software data section before making any determination.

We pre-oil very single engine before it ever sees the dyno.  No exceptions.  If they do not get around 70-80 psi on the drill we will find out why before moving ahead.  Every so often I will get one that comes up low on the dyno readout.  Its almost always just an air lock in the gauge line - crack the fitting, crank the engine for a second, and it clears up & everything is normal from there.

Takes me at least three or four full pulls just to find fuel numbers and I have hundreds of FE engines worth of data to fall back on making initial judgements.  Same for timing.  With only one or two pulls you really do not have a dyno session - you have a test fire up and cam break in.  Still might be well worth the effort depending on what you paid for.  A plumber with a Harbor Freight screwdriver in one pocket and an adjustable wrench in the other gets $100+ per hour these days - a dyno can cost over 50 grand before its even installed....

[MHarvey]

you just cannot make this up...I pulled the cam and despite the builder telling me it was a 218/224 comp cam, the part number I pulled out was a CS1102R, designed for towing with an RPM limit of 4200.  NEVER use L&R in LA.

[My427stang]

That's a mild cam, but it's not bone stock either.  It does completely explain a low peak however.

    Duration @ .050":     Intake: 209° Exhaust: 219°
    Advertised Duration:     Intake: 282° Exhaust: 292°
    Valve Lift:     Intake: .484 Exhaust: .511
    Lobe Separation:    112°
    Power Range:     1500-4500
    Idle:     SMOOTH

[Stangman]

I would think pretty good power for a cam that size. I would be more worried about the oil pressure

[MHarvey]

agree on oil pressure...I confirmed all galley plugs are in....I have the intake off and when I get it back on this weekend...and get the oil pressure guage I will run the drill test.

Not sure what else could be the issue other than the pump...comments?

[rockhouse66]

Oil pickup too close to the bottom of the pan?

[WerbyFord]

you just cannot make this up...I pulled the cam and despite the builder telling me it was a 218/224 comp cam, the part number I pulled out was a CS1102R, designed for towing with an RPM limit of 4200.  NEVER use L&R in LA.

With that cs1102r (its 204-214 at .050, a decent but not exact clone for 390gt/428cj stock cam) and 9.0 CR ASSUMING that's what you have, the Gonkulator says:

Torq 460 at 3200
Powr 376 at 4800
I would bet just kicking the timing up to where it should be would get you the 20hp you are missing, as Brent says.

Right now it should sound about like a stock 428cj (they were NOT very rumpety when warmed up), but if you want more, about 230-230-110 on the cam is as high as you would want to go since youre running power brakes. To me, a little Mustang doesn't need power brakes, they just add weight to the front end, but then again to me A/C does that too & just makes it harder to set the timing. But I'm more of a purist.

Up to you!
For YOUR USE, I'd leave that 204-214 cam in there. Given your use, the power brakes & air, more of a cruiser. You will NOT get tired of it because its too big & too ornery in the winter, it will be decent on gas, and remember the 428cj had a pretty good reputation with a very similar cam. And as noted you avoid the risk of breaking in another cam. And a re-dyno.

So again, ASSUMING your compression is really 9.0, you're only down about 20hp & the timing would likely fix that.

If it was me, I wouldn't even spend another $500 on a re-dyno or another $300 on a cam/lifters. Just drive it!
Hit the dragstrip & let your trap speed tell you if the power is there, you're only 20hp away even now.

[falcongeorge]

It's difficult for me to understand why people always push the comp 280H, when the isky 280 mega has considerably more lift and a 2 degree tighter lsa with pretty much the same seat and .050 duration. I guess maybe an FE with more mid range grunt is too scary to contemplate?? 
He who pays the most magazine payola wins...

[falcongeorge]

Comp    280@.006     230@.050  137@.200  .530  110 LSA    106ICL
Isky       280@.006     232@.050  142@.200  ..565  108LSA    104ICL

'Nuff said.

[WerbyFord]

OK here goes the Gonkulator shootout.
I have the Gonkulator running today anyway, wringing out 428 Catalinas as featured in the Dec 2018 Hemmings Muscle.

So here goes: T=Torq P=Power peak
69 Mach, Mharvey car, curb=3710 guess w pspb,ac, full tank, modern street rubber, good granny shifting but not destroying the driveline.

1358-101.8 bone stock 428cj 475T 380P 206-220-116
1378-100.7 434as-dynod 455T 355P 204-214-112 this is what the dyno said. Still not so bad!
1365-101.7 434tuned 460T 376P 204-214-112 same engine/cam you have just tuned up!
1346-103.3 comp280 461T 409P 230-230-110
1342-103.6 isky280 462T 418P 232-232-108   

The Isky will sound meaner, and runs half a carlength better. But, its way into end-stand territory so there's that.
Depends if the couple tenths is worth dealing with a new cam/valve train.
Then again, clean bragging rights of "well over 400hp" would be there, which is what many magazines claim a bone stock 428cj makes.

[falcongeorge]

OK here goes the Gonkulator shootout.
I have the Gonkulator running today anyway, wringing out 428 Catalinas as featured in the Dec 2018 Hemmings Muscle.

So here goes: T=Torq P=Power peak
69 Mach, Mharvey car, curb=3710 guess w pspb,ac, full tank, modern street rubber, good granny shifting but not destroying the driveline.

1358-101.8 bone stock 428cj 475T 380P 206-220-116
1378-100.7 434as-dynod 455T 355P 204-214-112 this is what the dyno said. Still not so bad!
1365-101.7 434tuned 460T 376P 204-214-112 same engine/cam you have just tuned up!
1346-103.3 comp280 461T 409P 230-230-110
1342-103.6 isky280 462T 418P 232-232-108   

The Isky will sound meaner, and runs half a carlength better. But, its way into end-stand territory so there's that.
Depends if the couple tenths is worth dealing with a new cam/valve train.
Then again, clean bragging rights of "well over 400hp" would be there, which is what many magazines claim a bone stock 428cj makes.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying the isky is what he should run, I am saying that IF he insists on going to a 280ish cam the Isky is superior to the comp 280H, and the cams are directly comparable.
I am not recommending EITHER 280 cam for his combo, I think both are too much cam for the rest of his combo. But comparing the comp to the isky, the isky is better in every way, and the narrower LSA will help crutch the inadequate (for a 280 cam) static compression. An Isky 270 mega would probably be a better choice in an off the shelf cam, it was the op that brought up overcamming it, and several guys jumped on the comp 280 bandwagon, my point was that if that's the way he wants to go, there's a far better choice in 280@.006 hydraulics than the comp. FWIW, that ship has already sailed,he mentions on another thread that he has bought the comp. It seems listening to videos on YouTube is the #1 "method" of cam "selection".

[WerbyFord]

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying the isky is what he should run, I am saying that IF he insists on going to a 280ish cam the Isky is superior to the comp 280H, and the cams are directly comparable.
I am not recommending EITHER 280 cam for his combo, I think both are too much cam for the rest of his combo. But comparing the comp to the isky, the isky is better in every way, and the narrower LSA will help crutch the inadequate (for a 280 cam) static compression. An Isky 270 mega would probably be a better choice in an off the shelf cam, it was the op that brought up overcamming it, and several guys jumped on the comp 280 bandwagon, my point was that if that's the way he wants to go, there's a far better choice in 280@.006 hydraulics than the comp.

Well said & agreed. I also find wide LSA cams to be more soggy. LSA is usually made wide either for good idle, emissions, or gas mileage, or even for extreme top end or blower apps, not the case for this OP. The only other thing is those vanilla iron FE heads don't respond much to the lift over .500 or so, so the extra Isky lift is kinda wasted unless the heads are prepped for it. Either way for the OP's usage I'd just leave the cam he has in there.

[falcongeorge]

FWIW, for this guys deal, I like the 276@.006 custom cam that Lykins used in his near stock 428cj a little farther down the page. For an off the shelf cam with a little chop to the idle, the isky 270 would also be a good choice. It's not totally clear, but I think the op is  running an auto with a stock converter, a.c. and pb, I think either 280 is going to give him a fair amount of grief. The stock converter will dictate a low idle speed, the a.c. compressor adds a healthy load on the motor at idle, and the pb  dictate the need for a good stable vacuum signal. All this adds up to a not very pretty picture.