C8AX-6250D Cam

[1967 XR7 GT]

All you negative commenting people kill me. Where were all your fine comments when Mike was going to thru the trouble of having these cams ground I am actually kinda disappointed in whats gone on.

Mike did a service for the community it ended being something people wanted for what ever reason, mine was cause it was what was used back in the day, when I was a kid, so I bought one.

So, all of this experience and knowledge on these boards and no one has offered any suggestions or recommendations to help the people who bought these cams for what will help make these cams work.

I have a little hobby engine building back ground, nothing like the big name people here on the Boards, but enough.

So I'll start:
For reference- there was posted recently about an Old School 427 Tunnel Port motor stock bore & stock stroke was just freshened up, and dynoed @ 513 hp.

I am building a 468 4.125 x 4.250, with Blairs Street Pro Ports, with a J Sidewinder Ported & Flowed by JDC with each port flowing over 385 cfm averaged out to 387.95 cfm.

The D cam is just a hair larger than the came I was going to run, with identical opening & closing exhaust specs and it has 9 deg more of int duration and about .015" more lift.

Are there better Heads & Manifolds? SURE Are there better Cams? SURE  But  the question is ? Will this cam work in this engine combo,  I think it will work pretty darn good, and be fun.

 

[My427stang]

I don't think it's any of our jobs to validate something someone is trying to sell, in fact, if anyone did, it would have people far more upset than a cam recommendation (or warning) would

However, although your 9 degrees difference in duration is very significant and doesn't make it the same as another cam with some valve events the same, plus, don't use your engine to justify applicability to someone else's.  You have 35-40 more cubes, heads that will benefit from overlap, and I don't hear you trying to run EFI.  Every combo is different, and even then, yours likely needs a strong bottom end to support the deep breathing top end you chose. 

I completely stand by what everyone involved was warning, and since the OP made a decision to not use it, his car will be more enjoyable AND quicker.  We made very specific points, 4.88-5.13 gear, cross-bolted, steel crank, even better 427 based stroker with a big old deep breathing carb, it starts getting closer.  There haven't been any secrets on what that cam is for

[blykins]

I didn't say anything because Mike listed what he intended the cams to be used for:  restorations and F.A.S.T engines. 

I should have said something, because I can guarantee that there aren't 20-25 of those restorations and F.A.S.T engines being built right now.  Unfortunately, not a lot of guys understand cams and can get bit pretty quickly. 

To your point, your engine build would be more suited for something like this, but I will also say that 9 degrees of duration is a bunch, and a ton of overlap is worse than less.  I have actually made guys go faster at the strip by grinding them cams with less overlap. 

I just freshened up a 556 ci pulling truck engine that made 1163 hp @ 8500 rpm.  Now granted, those Profiler heads flowed 550cfm, but I will tell you that the camshaft needed to pull 8500-9000 rpm with that combination had about 20° less overlap than the C8AX cam.   

[FElony]

Somebody's making the D cam? I grovel like a dog and spit on my own grave for missing this, evidently while I was on the chain gang. Linky?

[1964Fastback]

https://www.fordfe.com/c8ax-6250-d-reissue-camshafts-t164022.html

Pat

[frnkeore]

You can get any cam you like ground, by just giving the cam grinder your spec.

I had Howards do a 302 cam for me. The cost is only $10 more than a standard cam and you can get it in about 1 week.

Call Ben Herheim at Howards and he'll fix you up as well as help you understand what you your getting.

You can modernize it too, with more modern ramps and higher lift, such as a tight lash profile.

As for streetability, the C3AZ-6250-K and C4AE-6250-B, both 324 duration cams, where used on the street, everywhere, at least in CA.

WHY?  Because we WANT to, because we are old and want what we didn't have or what we used to have. We don't really care about the last HP available and we aren't going to race, professionally. We just want it!

[FElony]

https://www.fordfe.com/c8ax-6250-d-reissue-camshafts-t164022.html

Pat

Thanks, Pat. So, somewhere between the "N54" thread and this one there was bad-mouthing about this endeavor? Why? It seemed that Mike sold all the cams, no? I'm with Frank's attitude. I don't care about every last horsepower, especially when it comes to "that" sound and cantankerous behavior. Seems like the people here are getting old and crotchety. They don't want to hear about anything old. They don't want to hear about anything new. They just want to have a hot toddy every night so they can scratch their balls and fall asleep on the overstuffed couch with the crocheted doilies.

All these cams gone? Some still for sale? I want one so I can soak it in lye, let it rust shitless, and slice up the rest of youse relics like I used to when I belonged to the ThunderSnakes. Rusty cam. Tetanus and lockjaw guaranteed.

[thatdarncat]

https://www.fordfe.com/c8ax-6250-d-reissue-camshafts-t164022.html

Pat

Thanks, Pat. So, somewhere between the "N54" thread and this one there was bad-mouthing about this endeavor? Why? It seemed that Mike sold all the cams, no? I'm with Frank's attitude. I don't care about every last horsepower, especially when it comes to "that" sound and cantankerous behavior. Seems like the people here are getting old and crotchety. They don't want to hear about anything old. They don't want to hear about anything new. They just want to have a hot toddy every night so they can scratch their balls and fall asleep on the overstuffed couch with the crocheted doilies.

All these cams gone? Some still for sale? I want one so I can soak it in lye, let it rust shitless, and slice up the rest of youse relics like I used to when I belonged to the ThunderSnakes. Rusty cam. Tetanus and lockjaw guaranteed.

I’m guessing it pertains to this thread. And not bad mouthing the endeavor of making the cams, but the discussion of whether it’s a good choice for the application in the thread.

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=8501.0

[FElony]

Thanks, Kevin. I think I'm all caught up on the subject now. For some reason, I thought Holman-Moody was still offering this grind. Thilly me.

[475fetoploader]

I'm not sure if anyone's commentary was from malice. I may be naive in saying this, I'd at least like to believe folks
were trying to help, based on their experience with producing powerplants utilizing current procedures equipment and products.  I love old stuff. That's why I am building an F.E. to begin with.  I have a Lunati flat tappet on my shelf I would love to use, but realistically, it will probably go flat and make me cry.  I am struggling between EFI and 2 Holley 4 barrels, I know which one would run smoother, and I know which one I would personally think is the coolest.  I hope we can appreciate this for what it is, a handful of Dudes who all want eachother to have the best running pavement pounder they can possibly build. 

[FElony]

"I hope we can appreciate this for what it is, a handful of Dudes who all want eachother to have the best running pavement pounder they can possibly build."

Yep, that's why the Progression Distributor thread hit a cement abutment. All those Dudes couldn't WAIT to entertain possibilities. God forbid I mention the company that is now making quality torque plates at a price substantially lower than BHJ. I'd be tar-and-feathered. Again. Still pluckin' around from the last time.

[1967 XR7 GT]

Warnings can only be helpful before someone makes a mistake, kinda of rubs it in after they already spent the money.

The cam is fairly nice size for a flat tappet, in a 390 it would be kinda big, as motor size increases, 427,428, 454, 468, 482,and so on, the cam gets smaller. Would it run in a 390, yes but it would be lacking torque on the bottom end. Would I run it in a 390 if that was all I had, hell yes.

I may throw the Crower cam in my 390 and run it till the 468 is done. Eng spec's I posted earlier are backwards it's 4.250" bore x 4.125 Forged Scat crank, for the 468 with Crower rods. I'll be running a 3,000 stall and 3:50 gears on the street. If your one of 25 who bought this cam, the bigger the motor the better off you'll be, but if you don't, run it anyways or put it on the shelf and shelf race it...


Here are the cam cards for both cams. And both cams have identical 99 deg's of overlap. The Crower has 4' advanced ground in on 108 LSA and the D cam has 5' of advance ground in on 107 LSA. And the D cam has .015" smaller base circle than the Crower cam. And the D cams 614" lift is calculated from the Hydraulic 1.73 ratio x .355 = 614 - .025 = .589" lift, with Solid rockers: .355 x 1.76 = .6248' - .025 lash = .5998" rounded to .600" lift. And the exh timing are identical on both cams, both open @ 68 and closes @ 24





 

[blykins]

Warnings can only be helpful before someone makes a mistake, kinda of rubs it in after they already spent the money.

The cam is fairly nice size for a flat tappet, in a 390 it would be kinda big, as motor size increases, 427,428, 454, 468, 482,and so on, the cam gets smaller. Would it run in a 390, yes but it would be lacking torque on the bottom end. Would I run it in a 390 if that was all I had, hell yes.

I may throw the Crower cam in my 390 and run it till the 468 is done. Eng spec's I posted earlier are backwards it's 4.250" bore x 4.125 Forged Scat crank, for the 468 with Crower rods. I'll be running a 3,000 stall and 3:50 gears on the street. If your one of 25 who bought this cam, the bigger the motor the better off you'll be, but if you don't, run it anyways or put it on the shelf and shelf race it...


Here are the cam cards for both cams. And both cams have identical 99 deg's of overlap. The Crower has 4' advanced ground in on 108 LSA and the D cam has 5' of advance ground in on 107 LSA. And the D cam has .015" smaller base circle than the Crower cam. And the D cams 614" lift is calculated from the Hydraulic 1.73 ratio x .355 = 614 - .025 = .589" lift, with Solid rockers: .355 x 1.76 = .6248' - .025 lash = .5998" rounded to .600" lift. And the exh timing are identical on both cams, both open @ 68 and closes @ 24

Well, we're kinda in bad shape if we do warn, and bad shape if we don't.   I kinda felt bad even asking Greg about running it in the other thread.  But it would have been a mistake and I hated to see him make it. 

The thread on the other forum clearly had a description of the intent of making those camshafts, as well as a clear description of the specs.   If someone bought a camshaft that has 273° of duration at .050" lift, then I have to assume that they bought it while seeing those specs. 

That Crower camshaft would be closer, but to be honest, I don't think either one of them are anywhere close to what you need for something going down the road with a 3.50 gear. 

I understand that a lot of guys want sound from a camshaft.  For crying out loud, that's why Comp went and made the Thumpr line of camshafts.   You wouldn't believe the number of guys who call me wanting a custom and they always throw in the line at the end, "Will this have a little bit of lope to it?"  I get it.  I like big cams as much as the next guy, and if you'll notice, all the engines I build for myself are pretty high stringers.   

I will say this though, I built the 390 dyno mule, which peaked at 7000 and pulled to 7500 with a hydraulic roller.  It had 90° of overlap and the next iteration camshaft that I had for it before I sold it to Shady, was something with less overlap.   Not because I didn't like the sound, but because I thought it would make more power with less.  That's pretty common. 

So, at the end of all of this, I think you're making a mistake too, Richard.  I think both cams are incorrect for your application.  If you're in it just for the sound, that's all fine and dandy as long as you say that up front.  However, if you're building something to run, and I'd say you are with Blair's heads and a well-ported intake, I certainly would either reach for another cam, or throw a deep gear in that car.  That's a very mismatched combo.  With a 3.50 gear and a heavy car, I'd be somewhere around the high 230's/low 240's, for .050" duration.  Remember, that there's a byproduct to all of that overlap:  inefficiency at low rpm.  I get it, that's what higher stall torque converters are for, but a 3000 rpm stall isn't a lot for something like this.   

Let me also make the general point that it probably won't be the case with those Pro Port heads, but you can't keep throwing duration at an engine, expecting it to make more and more horsepower.  There's a very distinct line, where the power starts falling off.   When that happens, you end up with an engine with an extremely small powerband, with no guts down low, and no butt up high. 

[My427stang]

Richard, I am with Brent, you basically have an L88 cam there (more or less).  To be honest, yours is closer FOR YOU, but even that Crower would be a mess in the EFI 428 Edelbrock head engine that started this discussion.  Comparing two cams that are too big just shows two cams are too big and sorta match

It is a tough spot, do you say your opinion or let the guy buy pushrods, matching springs, shim rocker stands, shape pushrod holes, break the cam in, hopefully successfully, etc, and then have him "potentially" have to do it again?   You may call it inappropriate, and honestly, nobody is saying it's good news, but not the first time someone bought something that didn't match.  "Don't throw good money after bad" as they say

I'll arm wrestle cam choices if you want, but I have nothing against anyone, and no matter how much someone wants it, I just can't agree that it's a good match for an EFI, 433-ish CID machine. 

Remember, that was the application....not yours.  If you go back and read my post that said "rock on"... in a different application, I'd play with it.  In fact, I'd love to try the D cam in a carbed 482 or bigger, although I'd likely not run 12+:1, I'd be at a max of 11.00-11.25 or so depending on where I degreed it.  That cam at 102 ICL doesn't need that much compression in an engine that can handle it

To me, it's not at all about old school/new school for this one, it's about too big and too radical for the application that Greg initially discussed. 

[Joe-JDC]

I raced the D camshaft in my 452 CI MR FE for several years with tunnel wedge and 4500 stall converter.  No way would I run it on the street.  It definitely has its own sound, and it was a good cam for its time.  I would not even consider it now for another build for a serious bracket or race car.  Joe-JDC

[e philpott]

So a GM L88 cam is similar to Fords D cam ?

[GerryP]

So a GM L88 cam is similar to Fords D cam ?

You can look up the specs yourself.  But, no, the L88 cam has shorter lift and duration.  Interesting to note that the L88 was available with an automatic transmission.  The "D" cam is kind of in a league of the race cam heroes.

[frnkeore]

This is what this is all about:

Mike did a service for the community it ended being something people wanted for what ever reason, mine was cause it was what was used back in the day, when I was a kid, so I bought one.

I do not believe he is looking for "sound"! I believe he is trying to capture history, nothing else. I'm doing something similar with my 306 build. I'm going to break the engine in, with a simi copy of the Le Mans cam. You might call it a updated/modernized version with 251/255 and .595 lift, with ported C6 heads. Before I put the roller cam in it and aluminum heads. WHY? I just want to see what it will do, nothing else. It's not a waist of money, it's a experiment and worth every penny I spend on it, before pulling it and putting it on the shelf.

The "D" is a race cam, it put out 575-600 HP, in a MR 427 at 7000+ rpm, again a race cam, it's not very streetable. I'm 75 and in my day, we street racers didn't care if the engine bucked, we only cared if it would light the tires. We hung out at our favorite place and waited for a challenger to come along. My best friend had a 300 duration, Herbert roller, in a 324 Olds, with a 471 on top, in a '32. I built a 427 LR with the same came and we later put it in the '32.

So, all of this experience and knowledge on these boards and no one has offered any suggestions or recommendations to help the people who bought these cams for what will help make these cams work.

This is what he's asking for, not reason to discard the cam. Answers like smaller carbs, lower gear and a 4 speed would be things that would help him.

[My427stang]

So a GM L88 cam is similar to Fords D cam ?

No, an L88 cam is closer to the Crower listed earlier

The "D" is a race cam, it put out 575-600 HP, in a MR 427 at 7000+ rpm, again a race cam, it's not very streetable. I'm 75 and in my day, we street racers didn't care if the engine bucked, we only cared if it would light the tires. We hung out at our favorite place and waited for a challenger to come along. My best friend had a 300 duration, Herbert roller, in a 324 Olds, with a 471 on top, in a '32. I built a 427 LR with the same came and we later put it in the '32.

So, all of this experience and knowledge on these boards and no one has offered any suggestions or recommendations to help the people who bought these cams for what will help make these cams work.

This is what he's asking for, not reason to discard the cam. Answers like smaller carbs, lower gear and a 4 speed would be things that would help him.

People are losing their minds, we absolutely did say what it needs to work, steep gear, light car, and a carb.  BTW Barry just did one at 513 HP, so your 575-600 may not be accurate.  Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it hasn't been said over and over.......ADDITIONALLY, when rewriting the post's history, please realize, the OP changed his mind after he realized how the car would act.  What you are saying about what "Greg wants" doesn't seem to be the case, and that's a good thing

Just to be clear, I will say it on here too, depending on cubes, on the street, 11.0-11.75:1, a carb OR an EFI able to be run on open loop, a 4.56-5.13 gear depending on tire size, a 4 speed or big converter, and a lower end that can handle the RPM, in my opinion, that means steel crank and crossbolt.  Additionally, but not required, heads and intake that make power up there would help too. I'd like to see something better than a 260 cfm med riser if I was building it

Amazingly, the guys who actually ran them say the same things as the guys who regularly pick cams that run hard.  Maybe just trust someone Frank?  Sometimes you can't do what you want to do and have it turn out the way you want, as a toolmaker I am sure you had guys ask for something just because....

[frnkeore]

Do the math, and tell us how many HP it takes to get a full size Ford, to 200 MPH. I don't know what is wrong with Barry's engine but, that one should put out around 625-650 HP at 7500. It needs a bigger cam for those high flowing heads. It was only a one year engine but, did win races and it seems, it had at least the HP of a 426 Hemi. That is REAL world HP! Another point for prospective, is in the early, to mid '70's, a 302, SBF & SBC could produce 480 HP in F5000 cars and your saying that a race preped 427 can't put out more than 515 HP?

Greg, changed his mind (at least on this forum) because of all the negative input and I'll bet he will always wonder "what if". Whether good or bad, at least at my age, I don't ever wonder "what if", if I can afford it. I took a second on my home, in '73, just so I would not have to say that, to get into Formula Car racing. It was the best thing I ever did for myself. I spent a lot of money and don't have anything to show for it today but, SATISFACTION!

Your not wasting your money or time if you satisfy what you want to do.

[My427stang]

Do the math, and tell us how many HP it takes to get a full size Ford, to 200 MPH. I don't know what is wrong with Barry's engine but, that one should put out around 625-650 HP at 7500. It needs a bigger cam for those high flowing heads. It was only a one year engine but, did win races and it seems, it had at least the HP of a 426 Hemi. That is REAL world HP! Another point for prospective, is in the early, to mid '70's, a 302, SBF & SBC could produce 480 HP in F5000 cars and your saying that a race preped 427 can't put out more than 515 HP?

Greg, changed his mind (at least on this forum) because of all the negative input and I'll bet he will always wonder "what if". Whether good or bad, at least at my age, I don't ever wonder "what if", if I can afford it. I took a second on my home, in '72, just so I would not have to say that, to get into Formula Car racing. It was the best thing I ever did for myself. I spent a lot of money and don't have anything to show for it today but, SATISFACTION!

Your not wasting your money or time if you satisfy what you want to do.

If speculating, one reason that street racer could have been low is EFI, (ironically what greg wanted to do)  however, another could easily be those numbers were never where you think they were. 

Let's do some math, if you use 650 HP divided by 427 cid, thats 1.52+ hp per cid, that's a serious piece, and not likely driven on the street.  Back into it another way...2.2 hp per cfm intake flow, also a VERY good head, not likely an FE wedge, that would requires a 295 cfm head and more from the intake, not undoable, but not common either, in fact, most street machines and inefficent early heads are likely to be closer to 2.0 hp per cfm.  I promise I am not a hater, like I said, I'd play with one on a big motor, but I think the memories have grown a bit

Additionally, you take it like it's a negative, I'd say sound IS a good reason, as long as you use the car in a way that you are happy with.  Just like a Thumpr cam now.  However, combine it with EFI and a cast crank, not crossbolt, all it will be is sound.  Unfortunately, it won't be great sound with EFI unless you have the ability to tune, it isn't bolt on and let the ECM learn......

[cjshaker]

People are losing their minds, we absolutely

You can beat a horse over the head, but you can't beat common sense into it

[blykins]

Do the math, and tell us how many HP it takes to get a full size Ford, to 200 MPH. I don't know what is wrong with Barry's engine but, that one should put out around 625-650 HP at 7500. It needs a bigger cam for those high flowing heads. It was only a one year engine but, did win races and it seems, it had at least the HP of a 426 Hemi. That is REAL world HP! Another point for prospective, is in the early, to mid '70's, a 302, SBF & SBC could produce 480 HP in F5000 cars and your saying that a race preped 427 can't put out more than 515 HP?

Greg, changed his mind (at least on this forum) because of all the negative input and I'll bet he will always wonder "what if". Whether good or bad, at least at my age, I don't ever wonder "what if", if I can afford it. I took a second on my home, in '73, just so I would not have to say that, to get into Formula Car racing. It was the best thing I ever did for myself. I spent a lot of money and don't have anything to show for it today but, SATISFACTION!

Your not wasting your money or time if you satisfy what you want to do.

Bull butter.

If you're telling me that Barry's 427 needs a BIGGER cam for the tunnel port heads, that's all I have to say to you.   If anything at all, HIGH FLOWING HEADS need less camshaft.  I did a 465 inch Tunnel Port with nothing more than properly prepped cylinder heads (read not ported) and the thing peaked at 7000 with a much smaller camshaft than that C8AX cam.....about 20° smaller actually. 

Trust me, this is not the 60's.  The answer to everything is not make it bigger.   Do you know how I eventually got 700 hp out of that 465 TP?  We made the port volume *smaller*.  Cam stayed the same size.  465 cubes, making 700 hp with a little 260° @ .050" camshaft. 

Greg changed his mind because he was not aware of the camshaft specs.  In his own words, "Looks like I will rethink using the D cam. I am finding out what I didn't know about it."

You act like you're insulted that engine technology has changed in 52 years. 

[1967 XR7 GT]

Brent, that was not what Frank had said, he was saying that the motor needed a bigger cam referencing the D cam, not a bigger cam than the D cam, and I agree with Frank that Tunnel motor port should of done better than 513 HP, it had 14 to 1 cr with a single 4, but it was mention that initially the EFI setup they were using was having troubles, could of been limiting factor in performance, and I think if they had tried a carburetor they would of seen an hp improvement, not to mention the  2x4 setup would of been better.

But that's not what the owner of that 427 wanted, he's not looking for every last bit of HP on that motor he had the motor refreshed as it was, could he make more HP with a smaller cam maybe, could he go to a 2x4 setup, could he have those tunnel ports made smaller from even more flow, could he, could he, could he or could he (was that you that had that done to a set of tunnel ports for even better flow numbers, I remember reading about that)  Or, does he just want it the way it was back then ?

Can anyone see my point ?

So I want to thank everyone for their help.

[blykins]

I think his exact words were, "It needs a bigger cam for those high flowing heads."  If he means that a higher flowing head needs a bigger cam, he's wrong.  If he meant Barry's engine needed a bigger cam, he's wrong. 

The beauty of it is that it's a free country and you guys are free to do whatever you like.  Y'all have more money than me though to build an engine solely around a sound. 

[wayne]

I ran one in a 427 todays cams are much better but if you want every one to know your coming to the drive in no cam sounds better.

[Barry_R]

I don't really know which thread to put this in - maybe I should start a new one in the dyno results section.  Maybe after I do a video...

The engine I ran last week (before the apocalypse) was not built by me.  It was built sometime in the late 1970s.  We freshened the heads, replacing the old and by now fragile OEM valves and the tired springs.  The car's owner reinstalled them on the original bottom end, along with the single plane 4150 intake and a Holley Terminator bolt on EFI.  The lower end has vintage everything including those pop up pistons and dykes rings.  This is probably as close to a real deal back in the day tunnel port as we are ever likely to get.  I wanted to try a carb on it, but we ran out of time.  I think a Dominator might have picked it up by 20 or so - - but 600+ was never gonna happen - ever.  I have run an original high riser 2x4 with a "B" cam and it made 487 HP, and an original medium riser 2x4 with a Comp 282S that made 442HP - - so this one fits the working range pretty well in comparison to those.  I am sorry to those that think it should make a bunch more - but it don't.

The car this came from - and is going back into - is something of a Detroit street racing icon.  Nic Zuk's "Midnight Express" Maverick was a 10 second street piece back when 10s were considered bad ass fast on the street of the Motor City.  As such, the car was the focus of an article by Gray Baskerville in a 1979 issue of Hot Rod magazine.  Nic recently sold the car, and is involved in it's resurrection.  The new owner, the old owner, friends of each, and a couple Ford dyno techs were all on site during the running of this one.  We were approaching the legal limit for old people grouped together and social distancing was not possible - nor desired with all the high fives and fist bumps after each pull.  At one point, when the engine ran past 7000 RPM one of the guys said he heard angels singing.... 

I will attach some pics for viewing, and will get video up later on as time allows.
Nic Zuk is the guy with the glasses...
See if anybody can recognize the interesting water pump on this one....

[Nightmist66]

At one point, when the engine ran past 7000 RPM one of the guys said he heard angels singing.... 

I hear that's one of the side effects of running this cam. 

[Katz427]

I guess I'll add to the discussion a bit of history as I remember it. A local driver had a 427 tunnel port he ran in the early 70's , short tracks 1/2 mile or less. That engine with a Reed cam and an early holley 4500 and 12.3 to 1 TRW's  would put out about 530-540 hp. ( No fancy computer controlled Dyno) It was geared for 7000 rpm on the straight and was a competitive car. At that time Holman Moody was claiming  around 580 hp for a speedway, tunnel port cammed for Daytona or Charlotte. What cam? I have no idea. Valve springs were a problem, and getting too aggressive meant the valve springs would not last more than 250- 300 laps on the long tracks. The engine builder at that time had his own shop, but like most Ford racers had a connection or two at HM.  Just adds a couple more data points

[SSdynosaur]

LeMans pump. At first glance I thought Dove but realized the later-design shaft support ribs were missing.

Question; were the TP rocker shafts equipped with any manner of end supports?

I'll go on record as one of the NHRA S/S racers that tried the "D" cam in a legal MR427, 2x4 TW manifold and was unable to even match the performance of the period Crane Z300-8 in the same setup. I posted my experience on the old FE Forum and was seriously flamed for the heresy of posting a negative review of a historically revered factory effort.

[66FAIRLANE]

Its really good that this discussion has remained quite civil as it is very interesting. Especially for us guys that weren't around 'in the day', don't build engines everyday or in countries where the FE was not produced.

What I will say is, if I remember correctly, in the OP's original post he said something about showing some chevy guys what an FE can do. It would be a shame to tip a heap of money & effort in and get mauled by a modern built 350. My advice is heed what these guys are saying. Any cam suggested to make your combo run great is still going to sound pretty good through the right exhaust.

As an example my 390 used to use the attached cam. Edelbrock heads (out of box), various largeish carbs & tri-y headers. It made 7" of vacuum, didn't come alive until 4000rpm (converter was 3500) and I used to regularly spin it to 6500 & occasionally greater. It sounded plenty nasty, turned heads & won its fair share of street action when it should have.

Currently rebuilding & putting a smaller cam in

[gt350hr]

   Let's look at reality . The C8AX-D cam lobe was "created" by Eonic ( for Ford)in 1967! In it's day it was BIG but there were aftermarket grinders making bigger cams. The "lobe" was used for the Boss 302 (DOZX-A) Boss 351 ( D1ZX-CA) and Boss 429 (D1ZX-??) as it was the biggest Ford had. Camshaft design has advanced "a bit" to say the least since then. Is it "the ultimate"? Maybe not but a "proper" reproduction allows nostalgic builders the opportunity to use one with confidence versus a used one. Nice to see someone took the initiative to have them remade though Holman Moody has always offered them.

[frnkeore]

In my reply, regarding duration, I did mead MORE, standard flat tappet duration. 6200 rpm isn't where that TP needs to be, the only way to increase the rpm, is with duration on the early cam lobes. The high flowing TP ports, weren't created for a low rpm engine and streetability was not their purpose, at all! They were a race head and that's how they need to be used. With a cam that peaks at 7000. I always wanted a set of SB TP's but, never found a set for sale.

Barry, was the cam checked for wear and timing? Also, in a car, the temp would be much higher and was the RT side A/F sensors disconnected and all the left side sensors hooked up?

Everyone keeps saying that "sound" is the reason people want that cam. You don't need a cam for sound, just pull the choke out and you've got that. For me, it's history, nothing else.

Here's a idea, why not hold a competition, using the "D" as the base line rule? That's kinda what the EMC is about. Are people interested in the FE because they are "modern" or because they are one of the best "old" engine. The FE is about history. You can add modern components to it but, basically it is a high end, historical engine, one of the best Ford ever produced!

[blykins]

In my reply, regarding duration, I did mead MORE, standard flat tappet duration. 6200 rpm isn't where that TP needs to be, the only way to increase the rpm, is with duration on the early cam lobes. The high flowing TP ports, weren't created for a low rpm engine and streetability was not their purpose, at all! They were a race head and that's how they need to be used. With a cam that peaks at 7000. I always wanted a set of SB TP's but, never found a set for sale.

Barry, was the cam checked for wear and timing? Also, in a car, the temp would be much higher and was the RT side A/F sensors disconnected and all the left side sensors hooked up?

Everyone keeps saying that "sound" is the reason people want that cam. You don't need a cam for sound, just pull the choke out and you've got that. For me, it's history, nothing else.

Here's a idea, why not hold a competition, using the "D" as the base line rule? That's kinda what the EMC is about. Are people interested in the FE because they are "modern" or because they are one of the best "old" engine. The FE is about history. You can add modern components to it but, basically it is a high end, historical engine, one of the best Ford ever produced!

Higher flowing/better performing/however you want to put it, heads, absolutely DO NOT need more duration.  That is basically a camshaft design law.   I've got 3-4 Tunnel Port head builds in the dyno results section of this forum and I can peak every single one of them at 7000 or higher with a smaller camshaft than that C8AX cam.  It's that big of a turd.  One of them was a 511 cubic inch engine, peaked at 7000, and had a smaller cam than the C8AX cam.   Granted the heads were ported, but camshaft rules are camshaft rules.

I also don't share the same thoughts as you as to what the FE engine platform is about.  It's an iconic piece of history for sure, but in no means should we keep doing things the way we did them 60 years ago because it's a historical engine platform.   Every FE engine builder here exists for the sole purpose of bringing the FE into the modern world of technology.   

[FElony]

There have been several FE Reunion videos that include cars idling about in the pits and such. Can anybody here pinpoint for a fact a shot of a D cam? It's a missing component of this discussion.

[blykins]

There have been several FE Reunion videos that include cars idling about in the pits and such. Can anybody here pinpoint for a fact a shot of a D cam? It's a missing component of this discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=BEqpYAeuwg8&feature=emb_logo

That video goes with this car:

https://www.sheltonclassics.com/vehicles/220/1964-ford-fairlane-thunderbolt-tribute

So there ya go.

I think towd56's 390 on my Instagram sounds meaner......

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8E6oXvHzEK/

[FElony]

There have been several FE Reunion videos that include cars idling about in the pits and such. Can anybody here pinpoint for a fact a shot of a D cam? It's a missing component of this discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=BEqpYAeuwg8&feature=emb_logo

That video goes with this car:

https://www.sheltonclassics.com/vehicles/220/1964-ford-fairlane-thunderbolt-tribute

So there ya go.

I think towd56's 390 on my Instagram sounds meaner......

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8E6oXvHzEK/

Sorry, I'm going to go with the rapid but steady lope of the D cam over the random soon-to-have a cardiac episode of the really bitchin' wagon. Shame the tribute car doesn't have Hi Riser heads (would that alter the sound I wonder?). Here's the real thing from back in the day:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU09f49Bszw

[blykins]

There have been several FE Reunion videos that include cars idling about in the pits and such. Can anybody here pinpoint for a fact a shot of a D cam? It's a missing component of this discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=BEqpYAeuwg8&feature=emb_logo

That video goes with this car:

https://www.sheltonclassics.com/vehicles/220/1964-ford-fairlane-thunderbolt-tribute

So there ya go.

I think towd56's 390 on my Instagram sounds meaner......

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8E6oXvHzEK/

Sorry, I'm going to go with the rapid but steady lope of the D cam over the random soon-to-have a cardiac episode of the really bitchin' wagon. Shame the tribute car doesn't have Hi Riser heads (would that alter the sound I wonder?). Here's the real thing from back in the day:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU09f49Bszw

Myocardial infarction for the win!

[FElony]

[snip]... Every FE engine builder here exists for the sole purpose of bringing the FE into the modern world of technology.

You mean, like bluetooth programmable distributors? 

No offense, Brent, but you are too young to understand. You didn't live in "it" back then. I did. Others here did. Sometimes nostalgia is very deep. Sometimes one little thing can trigger a momentary transformation that envelopes you for a bit and is gone.

For those of us in the HO world from the beginning, the smell of Aurora racing oil and the sound of the brass gear mesh will do it. It's the 60's again. Never gets old.

[1967 XR7 GT]

The thing about cam lope, has also something to do with the induction, or the amount of air taken in at idle. For reference hows about we use the D cam... ... A single 4 barrel will lope more than a 2x4 setup, a 3x2 setup will have less lope than the 2x4 setup, a Weber setup or Stacked Inj, will have almost no lope at all, and it's not just with a D cam it's with any cam, the engine just runs more efficient when it's able to take in more air, simplified.

[blykins]

[snip]... Every FE engine builder here exists for the sole purpose of bringing the FE into the modern world of technology.

You mean, like bluetooth programmable distributors? 

No offense, Brent, but you are too young to understand. You didn't live in "it" back then. I did. Others here did. Sometimes nostalgia is very deep. Sometimes one little thing can trigger a momentary transformation that envelopes you for a bit and is gone.

For those of us in the HO world from the beginning, the smell of Aurora racing oil and the sound of the brass gear mesh will do it. It's the 60's again. Never gets old.

No offense taken.  I'm a young pup compared to some of you fellers.  I can understand how nostalgia can run deep.   My father in law made a comment to me once.  While talking about cars, he told me that when guys get older and have some spare money to throw around, they usually end up buying cars that were popular when they were in high school.   To me, that's a Fox body Mustang.  To others, it's a '66 Fairlane or '63 Gal. 

However, there's a flip side to that....

There are guys, maybe older, maybe younger, who see guys talking up a nostalgic cam, and don't fully understand the in's and out's of it.  Lots of guys don't know much about camshafts at all and there are quite a few, that if they called me up wanting a cam for their 3.50 geared C6 Galaxie with a 390, C6 heads, factory intake, etc, etc., and I said "I'm gonna send you a cam with 273° duration at .050" lift...", they'd say, "Ok, whatever you think.", because they just don't know.

In the same token, when the dude on the other forum spoke up and said he was having 20 of these D cams made by Comp, I think a lot of guys ordered them, not knowing what they were getting into. 

[Heo]

There have been several FE Reunion videos that include cars idling about in the pits and such. Can anybody here pinpoint for a fact a shot of a D cam? It's a missing component of this discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=BEqpYAeuwg8&feature=emb_logo

That video goes with this car:

https://www.sheltonclassics.com/vehicles/220/1964-ford-fairlane-thunderbolt-tribute

So there ya go.

I think towd56's 390 on my Instagram sounds meaner......

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8E6oXvHzEK/

I dont know if the D cam sounds much different than my 282S . And he probably have 4 into one headers.
And i have stock shorty castiron headers Yes he revs it so the microphone dont can take it. But maybe thats me
that dont have the proper ears

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu0N8MUT1u8

[Barry_R]

In my reply, regarding duration, I did mead MORE, standard flat tappet duration. 6200 rpm isn't where that TP needs to be, the only way to increase the rpm, is with duration on the early cam lobes. The high flowing TP ports, weren't created for a low rpm engine and streetability was not their purpose, at all! They were a race head and that's how they need to be used. With a cam that peaks at 7000. I always wanted a set of SB TP's but, never found a set for sale.

Barry, was the cam checked for wear and timing? Also, in a car, the temp would be much higher and was the RT side A/F sensors disconnected and all the left side sensors hooked up?

Everyone keeps saying that "sound" is the reason people want that cam. You don't need a cam for sound, just pull the choke out and you've got that. For me, it's history, nothing else.

Here's a idea, why not hold a competition, using the "D" as the base line rule? That's kinda what the EMC is about. Are people interested in the FE because they are "modern" or because they are one of the best "old" engine. The FE is about history. You can add modern components to it but, basically it is a high end, historical engine, one of the best Ford ever produced!

The cam was run through a break in cycle just to be safe, but it was not checked or altered from its 1979 vintage installation.  Owner bolted on the heads, we set lash, and let it eat.  No indications of distress or problems with the valvetrain of any sort.

The temperature in the posted pull looks pretty realistic to me - a lot of drag cars come to the line way colder than that - cold water and hot oil would add power in many cases.

The air/fuel info is only on one channel because the other sensor was connected to the Holley EFI system - so I had one to look at and the computer had the other - we compared data a few times and were usually within a couple tenths of each other.

I know we all want it to make more - but it don't - and there is nothing wrong with this engine.  I have had tunnel port engines make over 600 with dual quads and more cubes, on pump gas, with a much shorter duration cam, albeit a roller.  I would certainly hope that we have learned a few things over the past fifty years of development, and those advances do not in any way diminish the contributions or successes of those who paved the way before us.

[Heo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3qCOEWIrJg

[gt350hr]

    frnkeore,
         Don't waste your time looking for SB tunnel ports. I ran them in the day and ran them again in 2000. Thought I had learned a thing or two in 32 years. Stroked it to 331, made it a true 13.5-1 , added a solid roller ( 252x.700 int 260x.640 on a 106) , Ti valves. Made about 460 and was a pig under 3,800. Sold the top end,bought Vic Jr's , LOST compression (11.6) and made over 520. Picked up SIX tenths and 4MPH .
   Randy

[frnkeore]

In my reply, regarding duration, I did mead MORE, standard flat tappet duration. 6200 rpm isn't where that TP needs to be, the only way to increase the rpm, is with duration on the early cam lobes. The high flowing TP ports, weren't created for a low rpm engine and streetability was not their purpose, at all! They were a race head and that's how they need to be used. With a cam that peaks at 7000. I always wanted a set of SB TP's but, never found a set for sale.

Barry, was the cam checked for wear and timing? Also, in a car, the temp would be much higher and was the RT side A/F sensors disconnected and all the left side sensors hooked up?

Everyone keeps saying that "sound" is the reason people want that cam. You don't need a cam for sound, just pull the choke out and you've got that. For me, it's history, nothing else.

Here's a idea, why not hold a competition, using the "D" as the base line rule? That's kinda what the EMC is about. Are people interested in the FE because they are "modern" or because they are one of the best "old" engine. The FE is about history. You can add modern components to it but, basically it is a high end, historical engine, one of the best Ford ever produced!

Higher flowing/better performing/however you want to put it, heads, absolutely DO NOT need more duration.  That is basically a camshaft design law.   I've got 3-4 Tunnel Port head builds in the dyno results section of this forum and I can peak every single one of them at 7000 or higher with a smaller camshaft than that C8AX cam.  It's that big of a turd.  One of them was a 511 cubic inch engine, peaked at 7000, and had a smaller cam than the C8AX cam.   Granted the heads were ported, but camshaft rules are camshaft rules.

I also don't share the same thoughts as you as to what the FE engine platform is about.  It's an iconic piece of history for sure, but in no means should we keep doing things the way we did them 60 years ago because it's a historical engine platform.   Every FE engine builder here exists for the sole purpose of bringing the FE into the modern world of technology.

I guess that you were not following my train of thought. I was speaking of the flat tappet tech, that, that cam came from. Can you tell me how you can increase the peak HP at a higher rpm w/o increasing duration (using that type ramp), I'd like to hear it.

Barry, a quick and simple cam check, can be done with this Ford info. 0' @ .100 lift and a check of total lift.

[blykins]

In my reply, regarding duration, I did mead MORE, standard flat tappet duration. 6200 rpm isn't where that TP needs to be, the only way to increase the rpm, is with duration on the early cam lobes. The high flowing TP ports, weren't created for a low rpm engine and streetability was not their purpose, at all! They were a race head and that's how they need to be used. With a cam that peaks at 7000. I always wanted a set of SB TP's but, never found a set for sale.

Barry, was the cam checked for wear and timing? Also, in a car, the temp would be much higher and was the RT side A/F sensors disconnected and all the left side sensors hooked up?

Everyone keeps saying that "sound" is the reason people want that cam. You don't need a cam for sound, just pull the choke out and you've got that. For me, it's history, nothing else.

Here's a idea, why not hold a competition, using the "D" as the base line rule? That's kinda what the EMC is about. Are people interested in the FE because they are "modern" or because they are one of the best "old" engine. The FE is about history. You can add modern components to it but, basically it is a high end, historical engine, one of the best Ford ever produced!

Higher flowing/better performing/however you want to put it, heads, absolutely DO NOT need more duration.  That is basically a camshaft design law.   I've got 3-4 Tunnel Port head builds in the dyno results section of this forum and I can peak every single one of them at 7000 or higher with a smaller camshaft than that C8AX cam.  It's that big of a turd.  One of them was a 511 cubic inch engine, peaked at 7000, and had a smaller cam than the C8AX cam.   Granted the heads were ported, but camshaft rules are camshaft rules.

I also don't share the same thoughts as you as to what the FE engine platform is about.  It's an iconic piece of history for sure, but in no means should we keep doing things the way we did them 60 years ago because it's a historical engine platform.   Every FE engine builder here exists for the sole purpose of bringing the FE into the modern world of technology.

I guess that you were not following my train of thought. I was speaking of the flat tappet tech, that, that cam came from. Can you tell me how you can increase the peak HP at a higher rpm w/o increasing duration (using that type ramp), I'd like to hear it.

Barry, a quick and simple cam check, can be done with this Ford info. 0' @ .100 lift and a check of total lift.

I agree man, we have a real hard time trying to communicate.

Your post:  "It needs a bigger cam for those high flowing heads." 

As a general rule, higher flowing heads require less camshaft....i.e. if you have a particular combination, with say, 260cfm heads and a certain camshaft, if you change to a 300cfm head, the engine will peak higher.   That 427 already had a leg-up on the cylinder head department.  Not a LR, not a CJ, but a TP. 

You don't just keep adding duration when you see an anomaly such as this, you do something different.  My guess is that another camshaft, with different valve events altogether, would have let that 427 pull up higher and make more power.   I've had numerous Tunnel Port combinations in here, and even though they were much larger in displacement, all of them have peaked at 7000 rpm or higher, with less camshaft.    What does that tell you?

[Barry_R]

I guess that you were not following my train of thought. I was speaking of the flat tappet tech, that, that cam came from. Can you tell me how you can increase the peak HP at a higher rpm w/o increasing duration (using that type ramp), I'd like to hear it.

Barry, a quick and simple cam check, can be done with this Ford info. 0' @ .100 lift and a check of total lift.

It's a flat tappet cam.  If it were to be worn out it would quickly cut through the hardened surface and would make no power at all and lots of shrapnel in the oil.  A couple thou of potential wear ain't gonna have a big impact on anything.  Checking cam timing might be useful, but would likely only swing the curve around by a couple hundred RPM if it were even close.  And no - with that ramp and those spring pressures you do not have many ways to gain RPM.  Back in the proverbial day 7000 RPM was really high, and this package definitely gets there.  If I were building this today, with today's parts, I would not use those ramps, I would have at least 25% more spring pressure even with a flat tappet, and I wish we had an intake option that would be more modern by a decade - or five.  A modern cam with more lift and more aggressive lobes would gain a bunch of power.

[mike7570]

There have been several FE Reunion videos that include cars idling about in the pits and such. Can anybody here pinpoint for a fact a shot of a D cam? It's a missing component of this discussion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=16&v=BEqpYAeuwg8&feature=emb_logo

That video goes with this car:

https://www.sheltonclassics.com/vehicles/220/1964-ford-fairlane-thunderbolt-tribute

So there ya go.

I think towd56's 390 on my Instagram sounds meaner......

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8E6oXvHzEK/

Sorry, I'm going to go with the rapid but steady lope of the D cam over the random soon-to-have a cardiac episode of the really bitchin' wagon. Shame the tribute car doesn't have Hi Riser heads (would that alter the sound I wonder?). Here's the real thing from back in the day:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JU09f49Bszw

Myocardial infarction for the win!

Probably my favorite sounding FE video   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1jHlinJTCM

[My427stang]

I guess that you were not following my train of thought. I was speaking of the flat tappet tech, that, that cam came from. Can you tell me how you can increase the peak HP at a higher rpm w/o increasing duration (using that type ramp), I'd like to hear it.

Barry, a quick and simple cam check, can be done with this Ford info. 0' @ .100 lift and a check of total lift.

Frank, I think you should just try to acknowledge that someone else knows something about engines.  I see you on three forums, and you always seem to start with a purposeful question, then just tell everyone why they should either know the answer, or why they are wrong.

You don't know me, and I won't push my background to make a point, however, 2 professional engine builders, at least 3 former racers and this knuckle dragger all said that the cam likely didn't make the power you believe back in the day AND gave some feedback on what to do to run it.  I promise, Barry doesn't need help figuring cam centerline and if he says that motor is where it should be, he knows, and all of us know what a slight change in cetnerline, or even a large one would do.

Tradition, heritage, LOUD AND CLEAR...got it...so lets run old H&M springs that used to break for the experience, someone said tool steel lifters, screw that, lets go heritage....in fact your adapted small retainers, screw those too, let's use heavy steel or early Ti that used to shatter and 1.5 ratio Isky ball/ball rockers and add some sodium filled valves.  A good 5/64 and 3/32 ring to boot should be good for the original "feeling"

I am totally being a wise guy for a point.  Every one of those things are easily overlooked because they are not as good as modern parts, same here.  Now, if you want to use any one of them, you want them, it's OK, but there is no heritage in an EFI or a 428 transplanted  an old 427 race car, so don't pick and choose to win an argument.  I actually like the sound of the cam, I actually like the heritage, and as I said before, I'd like to try one, especially in a comparison to see how it would run in a big incher


We have shifted back to sound, again, it's not a bad reason why, but call the ball....in fact, I will do everything I can to help you build an engine around that cam if you do so, but save your argument for a more righteous fight

[frnkeore]

Well Stang,
I guess that I have my first stalker. You seem way to interested in me and it seems that anything Brent says, you jump in and try to magnify it, usually in a derogatory way, when it comes to myself.

I was taught that the only stupid question, was the one no asked. Regarding the retainer question, no one had a answer, based on the engineering of springs and retainers, only supplying answers, based on what was manufactured at this time. Tomorrow or some other time in the future, those things will change, as they have from yesterdays retainer and springs. I have a curious mind and I don't take what anyone says w/o factual backing. Doesn't anyone ever ask "why". I'm also not a follow the leader guy. I like to see more that the ass end of things.

Regarding this "D" cam, at the time it was developed, increased rpm was only available with duration (at those FT ramp rates), lift (lift was limited) and LSA. Duration, the fastest way to do it. In the "D" period, who would have ever imagined a roller cam in factory production car. In '68, roller cams where available but, not legal in NASCAR (I put a Herbert roller in my LR in '69) so, that wasn't a option. Real racers do not care what the lower rpm response is, just the HP and torque, in the range they need and use.

You will note in Fords recommendation, aftermarket springs were suggested for it. Ford could have also gone to 5/16" diameter valves. Why they didn't do that, is a mystery to me as the Hemi's used them w/o problems but, maybe H&M did, if so, it never came out.  Also, I don't understand why the 3/8" valves are still being used in FE builds at this late date.

In the 80's I manufactured water pumps timing belt drives and V belt pulleys, mostly for SBC (that's where the money was in those years) all of my own design.   They where advertised in Stock Car Magazine and Circle Track. I also sponsored a Open Comp stock car, in those years. I'm not a novice but, I haven't been involved in racing 18 years. Yes thing change and I'm on this forum and Speed Talk to catch up but, the old stuff is near and dear to me.

You can jump on me for this but, for people that have actually had a all out race car and raced it, "sound" is meaningless to your desires. It's all about the power band that you use.

[My427stang]

Frank, not a stalker, which was a clever response, think of it more like a car wreck.  Hard to take your eyes off it, much like these threads

Asking questions is fantastic, however, asking the unanswerable and accepting only the format and info you choose is not.

The problem I have with this round of the post is simple, and honestly, I don't get upset or offended, but I just can't walk away for some reason   Let me go in bullet format

The debate
- The guy who asked about the cam isn't arguing
- The guy who said "shame on us" isn't arguing
- The guy who is arguing is building a small block (which is completely fine, just not applicable to this discussion ... unless I am mistaken and you bought one of these cams)
- The guys who answered the questions with specifics about the cam and lobe profile are providing info that the one guy doesn't like, and he is responding in his standard form

The power
- Racers like power not sound, I agree, engine builders do too. 
- This cam is not the most powerful available, therefore is justified mostly by heritage, not power
- The cam is not being used by a racer in the conversation we are having, is it used by people with vehicles not being predominately raced
- The rpm ranges posted, were generally a mismatch for the cam...(actually the cam was a mismatch for use, but trying to stay in format) referencing your power band comment

The use
- I have no argument for the cam in a T-bolt for heritage, however, the use was in both an EFI 428 and a 3.50 geared car, both not 7000 rpm heritage builds
- You state that sound doesn't matter, but others said it did, which was what we said in the first case was likely the most beneficial.
- If you do not go for maximum power in the proper range for use, you are going for aesthetics, which means, feeling, sound, looks, etc, not to mention the heritage argument...the only indicator the cam is in there IS sound. It's acceptable, not my choice, but I was trying to give credit to a good reason for those who bought it.  I do think it sounds tough, especially if it had some real compression and inches behind it

I will likely bow out (maybe I won't, but this is unlike me to hang this long) The issue with me is the dichotomy....It's not about every bit of power, it's about heritage....it's not about sound it's about power.  Pick a position, in my opinion heritage and aesthetics are good reasons, but in the applications given, power (or especially the RPM range) is not

What I think your position is, is winning a debate, and if that is the case, you give me how you would build one with that cam.....and why you chose the parts with the same scrutiny you put on all of us.  I may pick it apart, but rather than asking and arguing, be vulnerable like others are and throw out what YOU would do.  Right now, you are only heckling

[gt350hr]

     Gentlemen,
        IF you choose to "roll back the clock" , engine performce will STILL be very close to what it was with those "vintage" components. IF you "modernize" some of the components based on CURRENT knowledge , you will likely make MORE power than the vintage assembly. IF you don't you/we are doing something wrong! In the '60's Ford was VERY limited on their "own" cam profiles. Don Sullivan (rip) was a true pioneer in Ford camshaft development , but it is no secret the aftermarket was producing more powerful cams "at the time". The "D" cam lobe was designed around 150 gram intake valves and 7,000 RPM sustained use. "Sully" as he was known at Ford made at least TWENTY variants ( LSA/ timing advance , I have the SK notes to prove it) using the "D" lobe and one or two others. They were named E1,E2,E3,and E4. The D lobe was E2. What was sold to the public as C8AX 6250-D was the one Sully felt was best for "public" use. I am not sure "who" actually designed the lobes. At the time Ford was working with Harvey Crane , and they also had their own "in house" genius Don Tewles (later General Kinetics) using the Ford computer to design cams. It is also important to note that "some" Ford sponsored racers "claimed" to be running the D cam but were actually using an aftermarket cam. No surprise there.
   Randy

[frnkeore]

Frank, not a stalker, which was a clever response, think of it more like a car wreck.  Hard to take your eyes off it, much like these threads.
Yes, that's how stalkers justify it, too.

Asking questions is fantastic, however, asking the unanswerable and accepting only the format and info you choose is not.
Unanswerable questions? Retainers are designed by automotive engineers, they do it by strength and the actions of materials and have answers.

The problem I have with this round of the post is simple, and honestly, I don't get upset or offended, but I just can't walk away for some reason   Let me go in bullet format

The debate
- The guy who asked about the cam isn't arguing
- The guy who said "shame on us" isn't arguing
- The guy who is arguing is building a small block (which is completely fine, just not applicable to this discussion ... unless I am mistaken and you bought one of these cams)
You ARE mistaken! I do not have nor did I ever have one, I put a Herbert roller in my LR
- The guys who answered the questions with specifics about the cam and lobe profile are providing info that the one guy doesn't like, and he is responding in his standard form.
If you talking about me, I know the ramp profile is old and can't be improved much, all I said is that you need more duration to increase the max power rpm. If it's wrong to ask is some checked the cam timing and lift, I'm GUILTY!

The power
- Racers like power not sound, I agree, engine builders do too. 
- This cam is not the most powerful available, therefore is justified mostly by heritage, not power
- The cam is not being used by a racer in the conversation we are having, is it used by people with vehicles not being predominately raced
It's not a street cam but, he was asking about how to use it on the street
- The rpm ranges posted, were generally a mismatch for the cam...(actually the cam was a mismatch for use, but trying to stay in format) referencing your power band comment
I don't know about that, once it was in it's power band, it stayed there a long time

The use
- I have no argument for the cam in a T-bolt for heritage, however, the use was in both an EFI 428 and a 3.50 geared car, both not 7000 rpm heritage builds
- You state that sound doesn't matter, but others said it did, which was what we said in the first case was likely the most beneficial.
I guess we have differences of opinion. Like I said before, if you want sound, just pull the choke out. A quick story. In '62, I bought a Austin Healey 100-6, I had "cut outs" installed on it. One cold night, I went to my best friends house. The garage door was close but, there were several guys in there. I unbolted the cut outs started it and pulled the choke out. The door flew open and all of them came running out to see the "race car".
- If you do not go for maximum power in the proper range for use, you are going for aesthetics, which means, feeling, sound, looks, etc, not to mention the heritage argument...the only indicator the cam is in there IS sound. It's acceptable, not my choice, but I was trying to give credit to a good reason for those who bought it.  I do think it sounds tough, especially if it had some real compression and inches behind it

I will likely bow out (maybe I won't, but this is unlike me to hang this long) The issue with me is the dichotomy....It's not about every bit of power, it's about heritage....it's not about sound it's about power. It's about power, in it's day. In 1968, most of the guys on this forum would be using this cam, if they couldn't afford a roller cam. Ya, I know most of you weren't born yet Pick a position, in my opinion heritage and aesthetics are good reasons, but in the applications given, power (or especially the RPM range) is not

What I think your position is, is winning a debate, and if that is the case, you give me how you would build one with that cam.....and why you chose the parts with the same scrutiny you put on all of us.  I may pick it apart, but rather than asking and arguing, be vulnerable like others are and throw out what YOU would do.  Right now, you are only heckling
So, asking questions is heckling? Sorry.

In my younger days ('60 - '72), I would not have thought twice about putting it in a drag/street car. Compression, porting (very expensive and iffy, at that time) and a pair of 600's on a single plane manifold, I would have tried 780's, they were cheap then. MT and Edelbrook, had cross ram manifolds, I don't know how well they worked but, I would have tried one but, as I said, I found roller cams early, through my best friend and his older brother. The brother knew Chet Herbert and his shop was only 2 miles from me. So, I went that route with my LR. There wasn't a lot available in those days but, you could get adjustable rockers (off the early engines) for about $20 (or less) a set. I was a mechanic, in those days and we had a tow service and wrecking yard so, I had it good for those type items.

As expensive as FE's are to build today, you can at least double it for FE stuff in my day and as Randy alludes to, there was a lot of rule bending in those days. In my recollect, in '64 H&M cut the top and bent the windshield pillars back, Smokey did quite a few things, also. Those were real pioneer days.

[frnkeore]

Frank, not a stalker, which was a clever response, think of it more like a car wreck.  Hard to take your eyes off it, much like these threads.
Yes, that's how stalkers justify it, too.

Asking questions is fantastic, however, asking the unanswerable and accepting only the format and info you choose is not.
Unanswerable questions? Retainers are designed by automotive engineers, they do it by strength and the actions of materials and have answers.

The problem I have with this round of the post is simple, and honestly, I don't get upset or offended, but I just can't walk away for some reason   Let me go in bullet format

The debate
- The guy who asked about the cam isn't arguing
- The guy who said "shame on us" isn't arguing
- The guy who is arguing is building a small block (which is completely fine, just not applicable to this discussion ... unless I am mistaken and you bought one of these cams)
You ARE mistaken! I do not have nor did I ever have one, I put a Herbert roller in my LR
- The guys who answered the questions with specifics about the cam and lobe profile are providing info that the one guy doesn't like, and he is responding in his standard form.
If you talking about me, I know the ramp profile is old and can't be improved much, all I said is that you need more duration to increase the max power rpm. If it's wrong to ask is some checked the cam timing and lift, I'm GUILTY!

The power
- Racers like power not sound, I agree, engine builders do too. 
- This cam is not the most powerful available, therefore is justified mostly by heritage, not power
- The cam is not being used by a racer in the conversation we are having, is it used by people with vehicles not being predominately raced
It's not a street cam but, he was asking about how to use it on the street
- The rpm ranges posted, were generally a mismatch for the cam...(actually the cam was a mismatch for use, but trying to stay in format) referencing your power band comment
I don't know about that, once it was in it's power band, it stayed there a long time

The use
- I have no argument for the cam in a T-bolt for heritage, however, the use was in both an EFI 428 and a 3.50 geared car, both not 7000 rpm heritage builds
- You state that sound doesn't matter, but others said it did, which was what we said in the first case was likely the most beneficial.
I guess we have differences of opinion. Like I said before, if you want sound, just pull the choke out. A quick story. In '62, I bought a Austin Healey 100-6, I had "cut outs" installed on it. One cold night, I went to my best friends house. The garage door was close but, there were several guys in there. I unbolted the cut outs started it and pulled the choke out. The door flew open and all of them came running out to see the "race car".
- If you do not go for maximum power in the proper range for use, you are going for aesthetics, which means, feeling, sound, looks, etc, not to mention the heritage argument...the only indicator the cam is in there IS sound. It's acceptable, not my choice, but I was trying to give credit to a good reason for those who bought it.  I do think it sounds tough, especially if it had some real compression and inches behind it

I will likely bow out (maybe I won't, but this is unlike me to hang this long) The issue with me is the dichotomy....It's not about every bit of power, it's about heritage....it's not about sound it's about power. It's about power, in it's day. In 1968, most of the guys on this forum would be using this cam, if they couldn't afford a roller cam. Ya, I know most of you weren't born yet Pick a position, in my opinion heritage and aesthetics are good reasons, but in the applications given, power (or especially the RPM range) is not

What I think your position is, is winning a debate, and if that is the case, you give me how you would build one with that cam.....and why you chose the parts with the same scrutiny you put on all of us.  I may pick it apart, but rather than asking and arguing, be vulnerable like others are and throw out what YOU would do.  Right now, you are only heckling
So, asking questions is heckling? Sorry.

In my younger days ('60 - '72), I would not have thought twice about putting it in a drag/street car, it would have had a 4 speed (all my cars did) and I would not have cared how much it bucked, on the way to where we hung out. Compression, headers, porting (very expensive and iffy, at that time) and a pair of 600's on a single plane manifold, I would have tried 780's, they were cheap then. For the OP, I would recommend a pair of 450's on a 180 manifold. MT and Edelbrook, had cross ram manifolds, I don't know how well they worked but, I would have tried one but, as I said, I found roller cams early, through my best friend and his older brother. The brother knew Chet Herbert and his shop was only 2 miles from me. So, I went that route with my LR. There wasn't a lot available in those days but, you could get adjustable rockers (off the early engines) for about $20 (or less) a set. I was a mechanic, in those days and we had a tow service and wrecking yard so, I had it good for those type items.

As expensive as FE's are to build today, you can at least double it for FE stuff in my day and as Randy alludes to, there was a lot of rule bending in those days. In my recollect, in '64 H&M cut the top and bent the windshield pillars back, Smokey did quite a few things, also. Those were real pioneer days.

[FElony]

I hereby nominate Frank for President of the United States for combining a point-by-point reply (been years since I've seen one with secondary text color) with a general reply IN THE SAME POST!!!. Truly remarkable.

[My427stang]

Frank - hang with me, and I'll show you a dyno of a pair of 450s followed by a pair of 600s on an iron-headed externally period-correct build.  You may change your mind.

Honestly, I am about ready to lick every shopping cart at Walmart.... 

[blykins]

Frank - hang with me, and I'll show you a dyno of a pair of 450s followed by a pair of 600s on an iron-headed externally period-correct build.  You may change your mind.

Honestly, I am about ready to lick every shopping cart at Walmart.... 

You no good STALKER!

[475fetoploader]

“Liked” I’m about ready to lick every shopping cart at Walmart.  LMAO

[1967 XR7 GT]

A lot of the opinions here are based on assumptions.

First off, I don't have a concern about power in the lower rpm ranges, And a lot of engine builders build the motors for their customers for specific needs, most of which are street motors with off idle throttle response, which is what most of their customers want, so cams are chosen for those needs.

Now it's been said these D cams are out dated, they have lazy lobes and so on.

Mike posted this when he had the cams spec's checked:
"mkopmani:
 I didn't mention it, but once we measured the lobe profiles, Billy said other than running a little more lash, the ramp profile design was more than 20 years ahead of its time - quite a statement from the Comp Cams guru' Billy Godbold . So while an older design, this cam is not as dated as most think. As two of the three cams were still in original cosmolene, we also benchmarked surface finish (Ra, Rmr, Wt, Wcvx, Rpm, Rvm) and they were very similar to limits for what Comp uses today.
-Mike"

There was a remark about the 3:50 gears I intend to run on the street with this cam, I may even go back the 3:25's I have, the reason, I need a freeway gear and the 4:57's in the car now won't work well on the freeway.  And at some point after I get the car running, I'll be going an over drive auto, then the 4:57's will go back in.

I am not building a motor and then just throwing in a big cam,  which I have done before, I thru together a 390 with a cam with 258' @ .050" and I loved it.  Most of these street cars we build are for the street, they don't have big money suspension & tires that can hook a motor with 500 hp and 500 ft pds of torque, which is what is being built regularly and and the power is moved lower in the rpm range, which is well and fine for a dedicated 1/4 mile car.   

One of my favorite cars was my 68 Impala Custom.  I built a 327 SBC, I borrowed the Dontov 30-30 from my 69 Z28 302 motor, and thru the 327 in with a 2500 stall in a power glide, cam didn't come on till 4,000 rpm, but it flew on the freeway. Sad thing was, the car got stolen.

The Z28 302 motor, came out of a  Corviar set up for mid engine, that I bought, that came from Detroit, couldn't keep U joints in the axels, the body was so rusted the suspension moved so much when you got on the car it kept eating U joints, ended up pulling the motor and junking the car.

So what do you think, a 468 with the D cam you think it will have 500 ft pds of torque ?  My car weighs 3,600 pds, with the 390, that 258' @.050" cam, 3,000 stall, a detroit locker with 4:57's and 10.5" wide 29" tall slicks I was finally able to get the car to hook, no such luck with the 9" wide 27" tall street tires.

A stock 390 4v engine was rated 335hp, with the cam, heads, int, & exh change I think it ended up close to 400hp.

Now, the 468, at least 500hp and 500 ft pds of torque, do you think I will able to get this to hook, it will never happen, regardless where the torque range is.

It's been said that more hp can be made with cams with less duration, but you can't really use a roller cam for a fair comparison a more aggressive faster opening lobe can be used with a roller than a flat tappet, with a roller you have less duration but the lift has been increased, I don't deny roller profiles are superior, but so is the cost.

I, use what works for me and I hope everyone else will use what will work for them, the other 24 people who bought the cam, I hope this topic helps you decide how you will use this cam or not.

[blykins]

A lot of the opinions here are based on assumptions.

First off, I don't have a concern about power in the lower rpm ranges, And a lot of engine builders build the motors for their customers for specific needs, most of which are street motors with off idle throttle response, which is what most of their customers want, so cams are chosen for those needs.

Now it's been said these D cams are out dated, they have lazy lobes and so on.

Mike posted this when he had the cams spec's checked:
"mkopmani:
 I didn't mention it, but once we measured the lobe profiles, Billy said other than running a little more lash, the ramp profile design was more than 20 years ahead of its time - quite a statement from the Comp Cams guru' Billy Godbold . So while an older design, this cam is not as dated as most think. As two of the three cams were still in original cosmolene, we also benchmarked surface finish (Ra, Rmr, Wt, Wcvx, Rpm, Rvm) and they were very similar to limits for what Comp uses today.
-Mike"

There was a remark about the 3:50 gears I intend to run on the street with this cam, I may even go back the 3:25's I have, the reason, I need a freeway gear and the 4:57's in the car now won't work well on the freeway.  And at some point after I get the car running, I'll be going an over drive auto, then the 4:57's will go back in.

I am not building a motor and then just throwing in a big cam,  which I have done before, I thru together a 390 with a cam with 258' @ .050" and I loved it.  Most of these street cars we build are for the street, they don't have big money suspension & tires that can hook a motor with 500 hp and 500 ft pds of torque, which is what is being built regularly and and the power is moved lower in the rpm range, which is well and fine for a dedicated 1/4 mile car.   

One of my favorite cars was my 68 Impala Custom.  I built a 327 SBC, I borrowed the Dontov 30-30 from my 69 Z28 302 motor, and thru the 327 in with a 2500 stall in a power glide, cam didn't come on till 4,000 rpm, but it flew on the freeway. Sad thing was, the car got stolen.

The Z28 302 motor, came out of a  Corviar set up for mid engine, that I bought, that came from Detroit, couldn't keep U joints in the axels, the body was so rusted the suspension moved so much when you got on the car it kept eating U joints, ended up pulling the motor and junking the car.

So what do you think, a 468 with the D cam you think it will have 500 ft pds of torque ?  My car weighs 3,600 pds, with the 390, that 258' @.050" cam, 3,000 stall, a detroit locker with 4:57's and 10.5" wide 29" tall slicks I was finally able to get the car to hook, no such luck with the 9" wide 27" tall street tires.

A stock 390 4v engine was rated 335hp, with the cam, heads, int, & exh change I think it ended up close to 400hp.

Now, the 468, at least 500hp and 500 ft pds of torque, do you think I will able to get this to hook, it will never happen, regardless where the torque range is.

It's been said that more hp can be made with cams with less duration, but you can't really use a roller cam for a fair comparison a more aggressive faster opening lobe can be used with a roller than a flat tappet, with a roller you have less duration but the lift has been increased, I don't deny roller profiles are superior, but so is the cost.

I, use what works for me and I hope everyone else will use what will work for them, the other 24 people who bought the cam, I hope this topic helps you decide how you will use this cam or not.

I speak with Billy on occasion, when trying new lobes.   He's a very sharp cat and is very helpful.   With that being said, a camshaft that's 20 years ahead of its time would still be a 1988 camshaft.    A 1988 camshaft is still 32 year old technology and would probably be something like a Comp 280H, 282S, etc., which work well in and of themselves, but are still outdated and can be improved on.   

Do I think your 468 will make more than 500 lb-ft?  That's 1.06 lb-ft per cubic inch.  To be honest, if you didn't have Blair's heads, I'd say no chance, and I'm still on the fence about it, with his heads.  Remember, when you move the horsepower peak up, the horsepower can go up, but the torque goes down.  500 lb-ft is easy to make hook up with the right parts out back.   Guys do it all the time.  I rarely send an FE out of here that doesn't make 500 lb-ft, and most have 550-575 lb-ft.  If your goal is to flat-foot it off idle and never slip a tire, that's one thing, but most people know how to pedal until the car gets moving fast enough to not be traction limited. 

I understand that some guys don't want to run roller camshafts.  That's fine and I still build flat tappers frequently.   However, you don't need a roller and a modern flat tappet would be superior in almost every aspect in comparison to the D cam.

Richard, with your heads and intake, you have the HUGE potential for horsepower.   There is no reason why you can't make 575-600 hp with Blairs heads and Joe's intake, with the right camshaft.  To be completely honest, with a custom, I think you could make 550 hp and keep the powerband as such that your 3.50 gears and 3000 rpm stall would work all the time. 

My goal is to help guys not have to settle or build band-aid engines.  With this camshaft, lots of guys are going to have to be applying band-aids to even have a combo that will work ok. 

[Barry_R]

Holding the camshaft as "fixed" variable while changing the engine around it is a very different way of looking at things.  Approaching Fantasy Island type stuff.

I feel that on a torque basis, a number over 500 is pretty reasonable with a 468 inch engine running this cam and a good set of iron heads.  The aforementioned tunnel port I tested achieved a torque per cubic inch number of +/-1.1, which on a 468 would translate to +/-513 at peak. 

Problem (if you want to call it that) is that the tested tunnel port was said to have really high compression.  If you want to apply some of the common (and very loose) assumptions regarding compression benefits as a percentage of power, you might see perhaps a 15% gain () in going from common pump gas territory to something in the 13-14:1 ranges.  The 468 engine's displacement is approximately 9.5% greater than the tunnel ports 427 inches.   Assuming (with damn near zero data to back the assumption) comparable air flow potential and a comparably appropriate intake - the smaller cross section port 468 wedge should run close or even better.  Its about cylinder pressure management, and you are trading compression for cubic inches, normally a good strategy for the street.

In this case, the functional RPM ranges for the 468 combination should be lower due to airflow, but I suspect that other variables such as intake and/or throttle body sizing may have been holding the tunnel port back a bit.  If that particular cam is indeed "driving the bus" I suspect that either package is gonna want a bunch of gear and a bunch of converter to get it working.  We can definitely do better now, but this is really getting pretty dang close to the old 454 strokers I ran in the middle 1980s, and they seemed to do best at under 6500 RPM with 4.30s and a 3600-3800 stall on an 11" slick.  Based on that old experience I would say that running a comparable package with a lesser converter and 3.25:1 gearing would sound great at the drive in, but would be a flat dead cat if you punched it from anything below four grand.  And in those circumstances the geared up tunnel port would eat your lunch and come back for dessert.

[My427stang]

You are getting good advice here from both Brent and Barry

I will tell you, if I were to build that engine and you were insisting that cam, I would run 11.25:1 to an absolute max of 11.5:1 on the street, ensuring that cam ended up on 102 ICL, no later. I'd be sure I tightened the quench up to .040, and run a decent amount of initial, likely 18-20, and adjust total for max power.  Then, I would err on the side of MORE gear than 3.25, not the 4.57, but not 3.25.  I think you may balance what you want with a 3.89-4.11, that would put you at 3300 rpm on the street at about 65 with a 3.89.  It's not a perfect combo, but with some good tuning, it'd live better than the 3.50 or 3.25

However as Brent said, the same care in building with a more modern grind will make more power, much more, and if you have very good heads, it's hard to recommend not taking advantage of them

I will say this though, blowing the tires off doesn't have to happen on slicks.  One potential possibility, I have one car I work on, 440 cid Rat motor, we kept dropping the launch RPM and it kept going faster, then we shifted 1-2 early and it kept getting faster and quicker.  I know suspension work is a bear, but that and tweaking every launch and shift point along with the suspension will likely get you there better than a gear change.  Owner didn't believe it, used to rev it to the moon at launch and 1-2. 

[cjshaker]

Everyone seems to be ignoring this 'first hand' and 'informed' comment, by someone who actually used and raced with this particular cam. Theory and conjecture mean squat compared to actual experience, and this experience says a lot, IMO.

"I'll go on record as one of the NHRA S/S racers that tried the "D" cam in a legal MR427, 2x4 TW manifold and was unable to even match the performance of the period Crane Z300-8 in the same setup. I posted my experience on the old FE Forum and was seriously flamed for the heresy of posting a negative review of a historically revered factory effort."
SSdynosaur

[Ranch]

About 6 month ago I sold an OEM C8AX-D for a hundred bucks, it was brand new never opened the tube sept to make sure I wasn't selling the guy a rusty stick.  I bought it back in the 70's along with the C4AE-B to replace my C3AZ-D cam in my 406 I even had my heads (C8AE-J) prepped for the big lift of the 'D' cam.  All I know was what a difference the 'B' cam made with 12-1 comp, but my experience with with the 'B' was it was not a so friendly on the street (also the days of heavy Zoom clutches) and that is what made me just put the 'D' up on the shelf for next 45 years. Now I have Comp 282-S with 9.8-1 definitely not as strong as the old 'B' but but still get compliments on the sound (2 1/2" MF 13256) and it pulls right out at idle.

[gt350hr]

   The D cam is very similar to the Crane F 260. In "roller terms" it would be like a solid roller with (around) 255-256 @ .050. As MANY have noted "every" engine doesn't need long duration cams! The D cam was good "for the time". Shorter duration higher lift solid and roller cams have surpassed it's potential. It is what it is and time has marched on. For those who want to own/run a legendary cam , they have the option. Many of us use the "modern" option instead.

[My427stang]

Everyone seems to be ignoring this 'first hand' and 'informed' comment, by someone who actually used and raced with this particular cam. Theory and conjecture mean squat compared to actual experience, and this experience says a lot, IMO.

"I'll go on record as one of the NHRA S/S racers that tried the "D" cam in a legal MR427, 2x4 TW manifold and was unable to even match the performance of the period Crane Z300-8 in the same setup. I posted my experience on the old FE Forum and was seriously flamed for the heresy of posting a negative review of a historically revered factory effort."
SSdynosaur

Good catch....

[WConley]

Let's not forget about reversion at low rpm.  A street engine spends a lot of time at idle or just putting around.  A big overlap cam in those conditions will eat spark plugs like candy    Intake port velocity is your friend!

[Joe-JDC]

My 452 FE MR with the D camshaft would go through spark plugs so quickly that I thought something was wrong with my MSD.  I raced the Mach I with 4.57 and 4.88 gears.  Joe-JDC

[1968galaxie]

Good to hear from actual users!

I have a copy of the "old" Ford muscle Parts Manual - a 79 page booklet - made in the 70's I believe.
Shows "stages" of performance increases - interesting reading for sure.
It certainly does make mention of the C8AX-D camshaft.

"This big stick's whopping 0.600" lift and 330 deg duration makes it strictly a full race strip and track cam. It will turn your mill to the 7000 plus range. So we only recommend it for engines that have been properly set up to handle those extremely high rpms. You can use it in a medium riser, but most likely you'll find it works best in a high riser or tunnel port 427"

There are plenty of modern recommendations that would make better power for street and race these days. For a replica of what people back in the day used it would be a fun project. (As long as the end result would be understood.)

Power output of a race 427 in the late 60's? 500 HP?
Power output @ 427"with today's tech?

[GerryP]

...
Power output of a race 427 in the late 60's? 500 HP?
Power output @ 427"with today's tech?

I don't believe anyone is taking the position that the "D" cam is the ne plus ultra example of a modern performance cam.  Your point is well taken, though.  The prevailing opinion of those screwing motors together with regularity and whose reputations depend upon abundant and reliable power have already staked out their positions, and have done the analytics to know what they're talkin' about.

This whole thread, while fascinating, has two incompatible perspectives;  1) The dyno proof and knowledge of camshaft events as experts who deal with this as a data solution, and;  2) those who have an emotional investment into the particulars of building an engine with this cam.  It will be very difficult for those two perspectives to coincide.

I say stab that cam in there and if it becomes too much of a pain, then take it out.  I would only offer that you should have a good "Plan B" cam and pick valve springs that will work with both cams to save yourself the expense.

[Gregwill16]

This whole thread, while fascinating, has two incompatible perspectives;  1) The dyno proof and knowledge of camshaft events as experts who deal with this as a data solution, and;  2) those who have an emotional investment into the particulars of building an engine with this cam.  It will be very difficult for those two perspectives to coincide.

I say stab that cam in there and if it becomes too much of a pain, then take it out.  I would only offer that you should have a good "Plan B" cam and pick valve springs that will work with both cams to save yourself the expense.

+1

[1968galaxie]

+2

[Katz427]

I think some of the discussion is how much power did the engines actually make back in "the day". I was having some conversation with an old racer, just a day ago. Dick ran a Ford powered super-modified up on Northeast tracks like Oswego, NY, and Thompson CT.  He changed to a BBC when he was able to buy a 496 BBC. His recollections are useful, I think. Dick always felt the hi-riser was a better all-around head for a 427 Ford. He said his driver's thought the hi-riser pulled better off the corner, as compared to a Tunnel port.  Jim Shampine (rip) told me the same many years ago. Jim told me Holman Moody claimed about 550 hp with a 780/850 Holley. He ran that setup in his modified. Jim's super was a 427 hi-riser with mechanical Hilborn injection, which pushed it up considerably as well as they ran Pennsylvania "jungle juice" for fuel. Jim also switched to a BBC when Ford shut down the race program. The BBC didn't turn any faster lap times  ( than the 427 Hi riser) until he too got a 496 BBC.
I know this doesn't settle the camshaft question. But there are a couple of interviews with Robert Yates (rip) and his recollections were a NASCAR 427 tunnel port was making around 580-585 hp. The Nascar Boss 429 he said was producing about 620 hp in 1969. Another side was  Robert felt with "today's" technology ( year 2000) he would have been near 1000 hp with the 429.

[blykins]

...
Power output of a race 427 in the late 60's? 500 HP?
Power output @ 427"with today's tech?

I don't believe anyone is taking the position that the "D" cam is the ne plus ultra example of a modern performance cam.  Your point is well taken, though.  The prevailing opinion of those screwing motors together with regularity and whose reputations depend upon abundant and reliable power have already staked out their positions, and have done the analytics to know what they're talkin' about.

This whole thread, while fascinating, has two incompatible perspectives;  1) The dyno proof and knowledge of camshaft events as experts who deal with this as a data solution, and;  2) those who have an emotional investment into the particulars of building an engine with this cam.  It will be very difficult for those two perspectives to coincide.

I say stab that cam in there and if it becomes too much of a pain, then take it out.  I would only offer that you should have a good "Plan B" cam and pick valve springs that will work with both cams to save yourself the expense.

That's probably the best synopsis that I've read so far.   Lots of emotional arguments in this thread. 

The only thing that could blow-up though if he tries the D cam, is if it wipes a lobe.  Playing with flat tappets can be good data, but each time you swap one, you play roulette.   Non-coated tool steel lifters can help, but IMO, I don't use tool steel lifters without nitriding the camshaft too. 

[gt350hr]

   Brent ,
   "Specialty builders" like yourself , Barry , Blair, Jay , have a tremendous advantage over the average guy because you work with these engines every day. "Logging" performance data lets you know which combination can tolerate more or less "camshaft" . Despite my being in the camshaft business in the past and getting cam specs every day from customers , I still listen to advice from "real world" builds like you all do.  There is NO substitute for hands on information.

[WerbyFord]

     Gentlemen,
        IF you choose to "roll back the clock" , engine performce will STILL be very close to what it was with those "vintage" components. IF you "modernize" some of the components based on CURRENT knowledge , you will likely make MORE power than the vintage assembly. IF you don't you/we are doing something wrong! In the '60's Ford was VERY limited on their "own" cam profiles. Don Sullivan (rip) was a true pioneer in Ford camshaft development , but it is no secret the aftermarket was producing more powerful cams "at the time". The "D" cam lobe was designed around 150 gram intake valves and 7,000 RPM sustained use. "Sully" as he was known at Ford made at least TWENTY variants ( LSA/ timing advance , I have the SK notes to prove it) using the "D" lobe and one or two others. They were named E1,E2,E3,and E4. The D lobe was E2. What was sold to the public as C8AX 6250-D was the one Sully felt was best for "public" use. I am not sure "who" actually designed the lobes. At the time Ford was working with Harvey Crane , and they also had their own "in house" genius Don Tewles (later General Kinetics) using the Ford computer to design cams. It is also important to note that "some" Ford sponsored racers "claimed" to be running the D cam but were actually using an aftermarket cam. No surprise there.
   Randy

Randy,
Thanks for all that old info.
1. So the hollow intake valves were 150 gram?
Would you know the weight on the factory stock 427MR intake valves?

2. When you say "7000 rpm sustained", does that imply the C8AX-D cam was developed mainly for 1968 NASCAR and perhaps NOT for the 1968 NHRA SS use?

I can see Ford stuffing it into the "135" SuperStock cars as it was the hottest FoMoCo cam they then had, and then could suggest that drivers not play with the engine. (Mopar did the opposite & just put the Street Hemi cam into their Race Hemis - knowing racers would change to their favorite cam anyway). But since it seems quite a few discovered that other solids ran .1 to .2 better (L1P1 Daytona, Crane 300-z8 and maybe even the F-266), wouldnt FoMoCo then point out that the "D" cam wasnt the optimum for NHRA, certainly not in the 428CJ?

Well I know this fiery thread is a year old but I'm still studying it - a lot more content than what the Federal Reserve is lying about right now - a few disagreements among different but knowledgeable people is how we ll learn. It's a classic thread.

I just weighed some valves I have on my Zieis cat-dieting-scale and got
133 gms 2.03 solid 3/8 intake valve OEM
135 gms 2.09 solid 3/8 intake valve TRW

So I'm concluding then that the C8AX-D cam was designed for 7000 sustained rpm and what must have been SOLID stem 2.19 intake valves at 150 gm each?
(The hollow stem EZ-pop valves were 100 gms each, right?)
I'd have thought NASCAR would want the hollow valves or weren't they up to lasting 500 or 600 miles?

[wayne]

Anyone hear that owned a gold 69 mustang called good vibrations  i seen it run at one of the first expos at national trial it ran high 9s i talked with the owner it had a tp with the d cam. It was one of the faster  cars back then.