Ford Bump Stick descrepencies

xctasy

5K+
VIP
Comments of camshaft variances. This is realted to small six cams, but they draw from all SBF, 335 and i4 OHV and small six I6 Ford cams.

I've gone through the Clevite cams below, the profiles and details are are very different from the stock Ford cams, but they are listed as replacements.

Why are the so different to the stock cams listed below?

I'm a veteran of about ten different of the generic Types of Ford ohv camshafts of interest on the Ford small sixes, fours and its small block v8's since I was born in 1970. I've listed these in 10 types here to make sense of them, since they are listed with very different specs to canonized Ford info elsewhere.

Over the years, I've put up with a lot of crap about how Ford optimize their cams to suit same or similar family engines with different capacities, but that isn't always the case, and in the case of the 335 engines, they didn't optimize them at all in the base versions although they certainly did optimize the performance cams to suit.

Back before I was a twinkle in my 'mudders' eye, With the I6, Ford really did change the cams for capacity. The 144 and 170 had a
Type 1 mechanical 229 degree cam, the early 200 65-68 a

Type 2 240 degree cam, then a high power
In Ford released the 1962 Windsor 221 and 260, which had a

Type 3. 252 degree cam with 21-51/57-15 and 36 overlap.
The other 289 cam versions are skipped here, but the 271 hp 289 got the wild K code

Type 4 310 degree solid lifter cam, C3OZ-6250-C 289 HiPo 271 hp K-code Mustang , which then allowed the 306 hp GT350, R, supercharged and T/A 2X4 bbl and Cobra 4 IDA versions to rise to such stellar success. It was also found on one 300 hp 351 4v ho for 1970 in Australia in Cleveland firing order. There was a rare hydraulic Total Performance C9OZ-6250-C hydraulic camshaft version, and a 343 and then 350 hp Cobra 4 IDA C40Z-6A257-A cam not listed below. The consensus is that all the 306 hp Shelby GT350 289 engines used the same 271 hp K code cam. http://www.mustangandfords.com/parts/mu ... sults.html.

They (Ford and Shelby) then played around with it, upgrading it to the truly bad a$$ mechanical C7 FE -6250-A profile, an independent runner Weber 48 IDA 289 made 390 hp in 1965 GT40/LeMans spec, which worked well on anything SBF or 335, with Intake Lift: 510 thou (-0.020 taken off), Exhaust Lift: 510 thou (- 0.025 taken off) Intake Duration: 318 Exhaust Duration: 304 Deg Intake lash: .020 Exhaust lash: .025, Io: 52 deg Eo: 82 deg, Ic: 86 deg Ec: 42 deg 94 deg overlap: At @.050 thou lift;Io 23 BTDC, IC 51 ABDC, Eo 59 BBDC, EC 15 ATDC, 108 deg Lobe Sep. Duration @ .050" 254 both sides Lobe lift .337 both sides. Ford Motorsport made a few variants of the K code cam to suit 5.0's, 331 strokers and 5.8's

There are some great examples of how modern cams have too much lift, See http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/mod-c ... s-cam.html

Then there was a

Type 5 256 degree cam in the 73-74 200 I6 versions. The 69-74 250 I6 got the same 256 degree cam with built in retard for some years. All later Australian log, 2v 250, and non XF EFI cross flows.The stock Aussie 302C 2V, 351C 2V, 351M 2V and 400 2-bbl and 4-bbl were all listed as having the same Type 5 256 degree cams. This despite with massive Total Performance versions, like the rare 250 build 310 degree solid 351 4V GT HO Australian cam, the 250 build 300 degree solid Phase III 351 4V GTHO cam, the almost mass produced 290 degree 302 Boss cam, the more rare 280 degree hydraulic 1973 351 4V Cobra Jet cam, and the myriads of special build De Tomaso 351C 4V hydraulic cammed variants.

The Type 6 Cobra Jet package was a kind of cam 270 int/290 ex package which was rolled out in 335's, 385's and FE's, and it had specific 20 degree extra exhaust duration over the intake duration on the FE's. See http://meanmontpa.tripod.com/HTMLobj-11 ... braJet.pdf

In 1973, there was a Type 7 cam, which latter got gifted to the 5.0 GT. The Type 7 "1973 Torino" profile flat tappet camshaft, had intake duration 260°, exhaust 278° , a 69-73 "H" code 351w 2V cam, and then over the years, the Windsor got fortified with special cams, culminating in the legal Roller cam to beat, the 'new GT40' cam, the roller B303 Special Service Police packages. Then the Lightening and the Saleen and Roush 351W's got some really killer set ups.

The gas crunch and Clean Air Act caused massive issues, and Ford downgraded the Type 4 302W and 351W cams, which were 256 degrees in the base versions, but there were special 4V versions which were virile in the case of the 290 hp 4V 351W, but mild with the 230 HP 302W 4V. Then the 1980 to 1982 4.2 "255" was listed as a

Type 8 244/256 split inlet and exhaust duration cam from one source, but it actually came out in 1976 in the emasculated 137 hp 302.


Along the way, Ford cut up the I6 to make the ProCo I4 on which many different head were set up. The Honda/Ford co-op was canned, but Ford Australia released an Alloy Honda head X-flow based on the work the US and Japanese engineers did, and Ford USA used it in the Escort Erika based platform to become the Tempo/Topaz HSC/HSO 2300 and the later Taurus 2.5.

The cut down I4's ran deck heights were close to the Australian medium 3.46" stroke 221 and 3.126/3.91 stroke tall deck 200/250 engines, but the 2300 and 2500 overhead valve engines ran some screamer camshafts, since the high swirl required bigger lift and duration behind little I4 engines with automatics and 4 and 5 speed transaxles.

The cams for the I4 were quite special, and we need to look closely at them.

The quoted durations are

Type 9 283 degrees for the HSC.

The HSO 2300 ran the

Type 10 298 degrees for the HSO, but the 46 degrees overlap is the same as the Cobra Jet 351C cam.
They downgraded it to a special 229-2275 with unlisted SAE duration, but its just a Type 10 cam downgraded to Type 9 specs.

Type 11 229-2275 cam came out in 92 to 94 when the Vulcan V6 became the performance Tempo engine, but that doesn't concern us here.

The Type 12 and 13 are footnotes.


Type 12 is the Australian X-flow XF EFI cam, adv264/264, 196/196@0.050", 109LSA .439"/.439"IN. 24/60EX.60/24

Type 12Not related as it is the Big Six, but right the way through from 1965 to 1997, and in 240 or 300 sizes, efi and 1-bbl, it was always a 399 thou lift, 268º total duration cam with 192 degrees duration @ .050

These cams are remade by Clevite to Ford's spec, and listed on there site, but they are different to the quoted amount of durations listed in Ford publications.
See page 146 to 149 in the pdf for full cam specs in SAE terms and 50 thou and 0.006 ramp event terms. They all differ from the quoted SAE duration in Ford publicity material
http://www.imperioautopecas.com.br/_arq ... levite.pdf
Type 1 is #229-2279 is a 229 degree cam
Type 2 is #229-1640 is a 240 degree cam
Type 3 is #229-1402 is supposed to be a 252 degree cam
Type 4 isn't listed, but its a K code and QC 1970 351 c 4v ho Phase ii cam-
Type 5 is #229-1665 is supposed to be a 256 degree cam
Type 6 is #229-1883 is a Cobra Jet/Boss/4V split duration cam
Type 7 is similar to #229-1655, but its a split lob design
Type 8 is #229-1686, the low po California 1976 cam for 302's and the 255 cam, it differs from the listed 244/256 cam specs. Why?
Type 9 is #229-1785, the respective HSC cam in the Clevite website pdf
Type 10 is #229-1918, listed as the respective HSO, the 38 th cam of 56 on page 148 and 149
http://www.tempotopaz.com/main/index.ph ... 79&start=0
http://www.yoyoparts.com/oem/14165565/c ... 91918.html

The following chart shows other cam profiles

 
Valve lift points as low as .002” up to .008” are used and this can add up to thirty degrees to the advertised figure. Even when the cams being compared are all measured the same way the figures can still be misleading if you don’t know what the cams were designed for. Cams designed for quiet street operation can sometimes show higher .006” duration numbers than performance cams of the same rpm range.http://www.aucklandcams.co.nz/formula/


That explains the duration differences to the stock advertised SAE Ford durations. Lots of the Clevite cams show a hugher duration than the stock Ford figures, so they are most likely cams with increased ramp angles over stock.

Back when these cams were cutting edge and up todate, Ford and other markers tend to absolve themselves of warranty duties if cams of less than 0.006" are used, but 0.008" is fine as long as the duration computes.
 
xctasy":3jc1bzwy said:
.....
There are some great examples of how modern cams have too much lift, See http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/mod-c ... s-cam.html
......

I just caught this part. using max lift numbers is no way to say something has too much lift for either mechanical clearance or max air flow and power.

Max lift is no where near when you are measuring your valve to piston clearance.

I get a kick out of people who say my heads have max flow at .540 lift so I need a .540 lift cam.
of course they will only see that .540 for a whole degree or less, If that much. when if they have a .580 lift cam they will closer to that max air flow number for a much longer period of time.


Valve lift points as low as .002” up to .008” are used and this can add up to thirty degrees to the advertised figure. Even when the cams being compared are all measured the same way the figures can still be misleading if you don’t know what the cams were designed for. Cams designed for quiet street operation can sometimes show higher .006” duration numbers than performance cams of the same rpm range.http://www.aucklandcams.co.nz/formula/

xctasy":3jc1bzwy said:
That explains the duration differences to the stock advertised SAE Ford durations. Lots of the Clevite cams show a hugher duration than the stock Ford figures, so they are most likely cams with increased ramp angles over stock.

Back when these cams were cutting edge and up todate, Ford and other markers tend to absolve themselves of warranty duties if cams of less than 0.006" are used, but 0.008" is fine as long as the duration computes.

I can see how hard it is knowing the small differences in these it is hard to find a exact replacement for a paticular engine. I think this is a case of having too much info. It is just overwhelming.
Just pick a good aftermarket cam in the range you need and call it a day.

Or is this about historical correctness for writing a artical ?

Yes the many of the high performance hydraulic profiles push the limits on lifter noise. Small price I saw to have better performance. I was told by the engineers at crane that the HMV (Hydraulic Maximum Velocity)profiles they did in the 1970s used all but the last .002 of the lifter diameter on a .942 lifter due to the rate of lift. (I am not sure if anything with the HMV name was designed for larger(Ford,Chrysler/AMC ) lifters.)
 
Thank you! I rebuilt my 65 200" Mustang due to getting way too aggressive with total advance and having to stop at a Mom & Pop gas station which had watered-down 86 octane...only! By the time I got home 50 miles later #6 compression ring was in pieces. That required a .060 bore and I decided to do a total rebuild. The Melling cam #448 also called CFC-3...I think, had no spec sheet but was supposed to be a replacement. The old Motors Manual did not show cam specs either. Contacting Melling got me NOTHING but, "Check the old factory books"...which nobody seems to have. I found either 246 duration or 256! Intake valve closing at 73 degrees or 65 or maybe 33 degrees! I had no idea "stock" replacement cams could be so varied. Normally I would not care but with ethanol gas and Texas highway 75-85 mph speeds I want to know. My 65 is a DRIVER! I rebuilt the dual-advance points distributor limiting the weights to 20 degrees total, plus 14 initial, figuring 34 was "safe". Hello guess-work! My 72 year old ears don't detect ping/detonation with 89 octane but it could be me. A homemade cool-air intake (this is Texas, there is no "cold-air" intake) plus hotter coil, better wires, better exhaust (eliminated several bends) and the .060 bore give it a nice pull, up to 80/85 MPH. It will do 100 (don't ask). As a non-engineer type Hot Rodder, I read everything I can about tech stuff and this site gives info I trust. Thanks again for showing replacement is not always "replacement", as in same as OEM!
 
Back
Top