FM 246P piston

[427John]

I talked to Mike today,and he confirmed that the original pistons were flat top no valve reliefs,just as I remembered but the jahns pistons I found him at the swap meet were domed and he had Dick machine the domes off.He also ended up running a AA cam from Holman Moody in it and was super happy with it,he still has the original and another friend has it and is going to have Delta copy it,he's going to see if he can have them map all the particulars while they have it,and when he gets it back we will also inspect it for the ID marks.He also agreed that the same cam was used thru to the early 406's with a slight change in installed timing like 2 or 4 degrees somewhere along the way.He also confirmed that the block was a B9AE,and back when we were doing the teardown he was corresponding with a guy in Chehalis or in that area that had a 360 horse Starliner that told him that the 360 horse motors used the B9 block at least the early ones,Mikes car was an April build and the block was cast in Feb.,the starliner guy also had him check a machined pad near the oil filter mount for a hand stamped HP which it had,so it sounds like that may be an identifier for the HP block.

[WerbyFord]

I talked to Mike today,and he confirmed that the original pistons were flat top no valve reliefs,just as I remembered but the jahns pistons I found him at the swap meet were domed and he had Dick machine the domes off.He also ended up running a AA cam from Holman Moody in it and was super happy with it,he still has the original and another friend has it and is going to have Delta copy it,he's going to see if he can have them map all the particulars while they have it,and when he gets it back we will also inspect it for the ID marks.He also agreed that the same cam was used thru to the early 406's with a slight change in installed timing like 2 or 4 degrees somewhere along the way.He also confirmed that the block was a B9AE,and back when we were doing the teardown he was corresponding with a guy in Chehalis or in that area that had a 360 horse Starliner that told him that the 360 horse motors used the B9 block at least the early ones,Mikes car was an April build and the block was cast in Feb.,the starliner guy also had him check a machined pad near the oil filter mount for a hand stamped HP which it had,so it sounds like that may be an identifier for the HP block.

Thanks to all involved in degreeing this old original cam, it will be a huge service to the history of the FE!

Now, on the original Flat-Tops in the 352/360hp, do we know the piston compression height or deck clearance?

[427John]

We didn't measure how far down the hole they were,but he did say he still had them so maybe we can figure out how to measure the CH,Would measuring from the piston top to the top of the wristpin bore with calipers and then adding half the diameter of the wristpin give a fairly accurate number?

[exgi]

I was in the same situation on my hipo Starliner.  070-080 down with 010 off of the deck. Same pistons.  I had 020 off the heads and used 020 shim gasket. Comp 270S cam.  Runs fine, but did not dyno, so I don't know horsepower loss.

[frnkeore]

We didn't measure how far down the hole they were,but he did say he still had them so maybe we can figure out how to measure the CH,Would measuring from the piston top to the top of the wristpin bore with calipers and then adding half the diameter of the wristpin give a fairly accurate number?

Yes, John, that will get it very close with good calipers and careful measuring.

[427John]

Ok got some pics and measurements ,the rods were EDC-A casting narrow beam the pistons had a casting number of B8AE-6110-?  couldn't read the suffix ,flat top no valve relief 2 front indicator notches CH appears to measure out at ~1.845",the cam is the old thrust button type has a blue paint splash and a K forward of the rear cam journal its kind of hard to see in the pic,Mike said according to what Dick found the lift and duration appeared to be pretty close to what the C6OZ-6250-B 390GT/428CJ cam was ~.470-.480 lift but in a solid profile,we still plan to have Delta map it when he gets the copies made on no thrust button cores.

[frnkeore]

Great John, just as expected.

How far down is the top ring? My Edsel pistons are .400.

[427John]

Another detail I forgot is when Mike had Dick rebuild the engine he initially wasn't going to use the Jahns pistons because they were domed,so they bought a set of replacement pistons and while we don't remember if they had VR Dick noted that they were way down the hole,so Mike brought in the Jahns and had him take a look at them,Dick said he could mill the domes off no problem and that they were really good pistons so thats what they did.

[Tommy-T]

Late to the party here but here's some pics of a 352/360.

[427John]

Nice pics,is the HP stamp near the oil filter mount pad?The rod and piston are consistent with stuff that came the motor I.ve been talking about too.Did yours have the stamped steel timing cover or had they switched to the cast aluminum one?

[WerbyFord]

The pistons we pulled out of my friends documented 60 HP sunliners original engine were flat top with no valve relief,and the original cam that we checked for lift was not .500 lift,it was roughly .480 with no indication of excessive wear. We had seen conflicting references of listed cam lift figures some saying .500 and others listing .479,based on our observations I tend to believe the .479 figure. It appeared to be an early engine as it had a B9AE block,still had the stamped timing cover with timing pointer that matched the HP balancer and had the earlier C0AE dual point distributor they had 2 C0AE DP dist. with different suffixes,the K suffix dist.was the later one and his had the earlier one but I can't remember what the suffix was on it.It also had the earlier narrow beam rods,the later ones supposedly switched to a wide beam rod.

I just re-discovered this link, either this 96pg PDF is new or I missed it.
Says 1964 but really from 1962 - no 289, no 427, refers to Apr 1962 in future tense.
Says the 62 406 cam was .479 lift, with 274-274 duration measured at lash ie .025 gross valve lift or about .014 lobe.
I think this is the 306-306 duration cam but that 306 degrees is at .004 or .006 lobe. Not sure though.

http://www.mustangtek.com/Library2/PDF/64FordPerformanceHandbook.pdf

And here all this time I thought h&m was for Hennes & Mauritz, ya know, the clothing store where the kids shop at the Mall.
Just kidding. A great 96 pages.

Also in here are pictures of the 390 and 406 pistons, no valve reliefs shown. They go thru deck, compression, etc.

Degreeing that old cam will be interesting indeed.

[427John]

Wereby I actually have that book,the copy he scanned evidently is missing its cover the first page is actually the title page once you open the cover, which has a beautiful shot of a tripower 406 with lots of chrome and long exhaust manifolds,also I'm not sure why he lists it as 64 because the copyright date clearly states 1962.I am certain that early cam is not the 306 AA cam,this is a milder grind that was used on the 352HP,390HP as the C0AE 6250 B,and with small installed timing change as the C2AE 6250 A in the 406.I believe the C2AE 6250 B cam installed in later race 406's and possibly very late production 406's introduced the 306 grind on a thrust button core,and was then repeated on a non thrust button core as the AA in the 427. The specs listed in the book are IO 24 BTC IC 72 ABC  EO 72 BBC EC 24 ATC .479 lift  276* duration and 48* overlap and ..025 lash.The later 306 grind had quite a bit more overlap,and while I don't believe the 306 had a full 30* more duration  I think that can be explained by inconsistent measurement lift Ford typically measured their cams at like .020 lift for duration but the cross town rivals (chevy)typically advertised their cam durations at .006 or seat to seat so it sounded like their cams were much bigger(Ive seen some chevrolet factory cam durations listed at as much as 346* and this was for a standard production line cam not an over the counter race grind),so I think Ford was feeling a little pressure to make their cams sound a little juicier by changing the checking lift.I don't think they stooped to chevy's level but I think they moved a little closer. 

[frnkeore]

It was a joy, reading that PDF and brought back many memory's!

The FE was abundant and very desirable, in those days BUT, like all Ford stuff, expensive! Those prices seem cheap today but, in '62 @ 18, I had a VERY good paying job ($2 per hr net, no taxes), that 5/8 stroker would have cost me 2 months pay. Men in their mid 20's wouldn't have made much more than $2.50 per hr. Minimum wage was $1 per hr.

Now a days, you would cringe at the welded rod you see in that one picture but, back then, "Boxed" rods were popular, for high HP engines. Instead of welding that piece down the middle, they welded thin plates on both sides. Nothing wrong with it, as long as it is re-HT and brought back into dimensional spec.

I always loved the 6 & 8x2 manifolds. I bought one of those 6x2, Weiand, MEL manifolds and 2 sets of GM tri powers, to put on it. It was going to replace my 352 in my '60 Ford but, my dad had it hauled away, after I got drafted in '65 (along with all my other engine stuff).

It also answers the question of whether the FE was a thin wall casting as I talked about, when I first got on this forum.

[WerbyFord]

Wereby I actually have that book,the copy he scanned evidently is missing its cover the first page is actually the title page once you open the cover, which has a beautiful shot of a tripower 406 with lots of chrome and long exhaust manifolds,also I'm not sure why he lists it as 64 because the copyright date clearly states 1962.I am certain that early cam is not the 306 AA cam,this is a milder grind that was used on the 352HP,390HP as the C0AE 6250 B,and with small installed timing change as the C2AE 6250 A in the 406.I believe the C2AE 6250 B cam installed in later race 406's and possibly very late production 406's introduced the 306 grind on a thrust button core,and was then repeated on a non thrust button core as the AA in the 427. The specs listed in the book are IO 24 BTC IC 72 ABC  EO 72 BBC EC 24 ATC .479 lift  276* duration and 48* overlap and ..025 lash.The later 306 grind had quite a bit more overlap,and while I don't believe the 306 had a full 30* more duration  I think that can be explained by inconsistent measurement lift Ford typically measured their cams at like .020 lift for duration but the cross town rivals (chevy)typically advertised their cam durations at .006 or seat to seat so it sounded like their cams were much bigger(Ive seen some chevrolet factory cam durations listed at as much as 346* and this was for a standard production line cam not an over the counter race grind),so I think Ford was feeling a little pressure to make their cams sound a little juicier by changing the checking lift.I don't think they stooped to chevy's level but I think they moved a little closer.

Cams:
I’m thinking this is all the same “4v solid” cam:
306-306 at .007 lobe (guess based on 324 cam, amazingly I cant find this spec!)
274-274 at .014 lobe (.025 valve ie “at lash”) sometimes 276-276
228-228 at .050 lobe
195-195 at .100 lobe Ford spec
.500 net or .480 net max lift (this is the mystery, but it’s only a 3hp difference in the Gonkulator)

Consider the “8v solid” cam
324-324 at .007 lobe (ford manuals)
290-290 at .014 lobe sometimes 288-288
244-244 at .050 lobe sometimes 242-242 or 245-245
208-208 at .100 lobe Ford Spec

The Comp 270S cam gives another hint:
300-300 at .006 lobe (measured by me)
270-270 at .014 lobe (Comp spec)
224-224 at .050 lobe (Comp spec)
192-192 at .100 lobe (measured by me)
If you just add 4 degrees to the Comp 270S you get
304-304 at .006 lobe (darn close to 306-306 at .007)
274-274 at .014 lobe
228-228 at .050 lobe
196-196 at .100 lobe
Which starts to look exactly like the Ford 4v cam. (The 270S is on tighter centers & a little more lift though).

I’m saying that the 306-306 and 274-274 cams are the SAME GRIND, just measured at different lobe lifts.
Both are 228-228 at .050 lobe, 195-195 at .100 lobe.
Dennis K’s postings have also implied that the grind was the same, 352/360hp thru 427/410hp.
EG:
14 May 2007 thread on Fordfe.com:
https://www.fordfe.com/c2az-6250-a-has-anyone-heard-of-this-cam-t54635.html

“tbolt2:C2AZ-6250-A converts to a C2AE-6250-A.

The specs on a the C2AE-A cam is same as C0AE-B, except induction hardened and oil quenched lobes.

The COAE-B cam is 306/306 deg, cam lift is .298355" x 1.76 ratio = .525" less lash is around .500". 

Regards,
Dennis”

My opinion / hunch.

It’s not “definitive” though. From the road tests of the era, that 152mph 352/360 car, even with a loose block and open pipes, still favors a bigger cam eg 228-228 at .050.
There are NO old road tests of the 390HiPo. Their performance in NHRA is not definitive but they ran pretty darn good which does favor the 228-228 at .050 spec.

So I’m betting they were ALL 228-228 at .060.
The .480 net vs .500 net lift is only about a 3hp difference in the Gonkulator so impossible to parse that.
The .480 net lift keeps popping up though – it had to come from SOMEWHERE, unless a bunch of people were subtracting lash twice. Not likely but possible. Look how many books have the early FE intake port height at 1.94”, ever since the typo in 1969 Muscle Parts.

But duration – 228-228 vs eg a 207-221 “CJ” style (solid) is about a 20hp difference, which would put eg a typical assembly line 406 about 30hp below its factory rating. They didn’t run THAT bad!

For sure, Chevy spec’d some REALLY LONG durations, but they did the same thing – sometimes the same grind would have eg a 300-300 duration, and in a different year, a 270-270 duration. Same cam, just a different spec. The really long durations made it easier to grind “cheater” cams, and even do so legally after 1967. This gave the Mouse some of its edge in NHRA. The Mouse cams weren’t really that big, but the specs gave room to make them fatter.

So there’s my logic.
Here’s to the degree wheel!

[427John]

Do you think the difference in overlap is explained by the same checking lift theory?It does make the mapping project sound more interesting doesn't it.