• Welcome to the CaliforniaSpecial.com forums! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all our site features, please take a moment to join our community! It's fast, simple and absolutely free.

    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

    Please Note: If you are an existing member and your password no longer works, click here to reset it.

1968 Checks under valve covers

p51

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,025
Location
NorCal
I've got a leaky valve cover gasket that I'm going to replace. While I've got the valve covers off I thought I'd do a little checking on the health of the valve train, cam, etc. The engine seems plenty healthy (great compression, etc) but I'd like to check what I can with the valve covers off...

So, any suggestions what to look for while I've got the covers off?

Also, does anyone know the stock cam specs (lift, durations, LSA, etc) for a stock 1968 J-code 302 engine? The previous owner did a ~stock engine rebuild but I don't know what cam might have been used. I'd like to check things like lift and LSA while I've got the covers off and compare them to stock #'s.

Thanks
James
 
OP
OP
p51

p51

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,025
Location
NorCal
302 J-code Cam specs:

Well I couldn't find anything on the web so I did something really radical in this day and age and... looked in the shop manual (doh!) :rolleyes:

So for anyone else looking for this you apparently can calculate all the cam spec numbers from info in the shop manual. Lift's are directly specified for lob lift and valve lift (w/1.6 rocker ratio). There are no durations or LSA directly spec'ed in the manual but you can calculate them from the numbers in the manual (specifically, there no info for 50/1000'' duration specs but you can calculate durations at ~5/1000"). I hesitate to state what I got since my math, assumptions, or interpretation of numbers in the manual might be wrong and I would not want anyone taking what I calculated "to the bank".
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
I got tired from all the turkey..... This is what my 1970 Ford Muscle Parts Catalog says are the specs for a 1968 to 1970 302 cam shaft are:

Intake events:
Open 16° BTC Close 70° ABC Open 40° ATC Close 8° ABC

Exhaust events:
Open 44° BBC Close 20° ATC Open 1° BBC Close 27° BTC

Duration:
Intake 266° Exhaust 244°

Lift:
Intake .230 at Lobe .360 at Valve
Exhaust .237 at Lobe .380 at Valve

Overlap:
36°

Identifying mark is a UA between last lobe and the journal.

These specs are the same for the 1965 thru 1968 289 engine. Same same. Pretty much a nice cam for a John Deere tractor!! Bigger is better!! The 289 Hipo cam has 82 degrees of overlap and .460 lift at the valve. The 289 Lemans Cam had 94 degrees of overlap and .510 at the valve!! Now we be talkin!!

Rob
 

Mosesatm

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
9,011
The guy that built my engine always recommends the Melling 24212 cam for daily driven small block Fords, as a good mix between performance and comfort.
 

Attachments

  • Melling cam Specs 24212.jpg
    Melling cam Specs 24212.jpg
    140.7 KB · Views: 37

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
I got tired from all the turkey..... This is what my 1970 Ford Muscle Parts Catalog says are the specs for a 1968 to 1970 302 cam shaft are:

Intake events:
Open 16° BTC Close 70° ABC Open 40° ATC Close 8° ABC

Exhaust events:
Open 44° BBC Close 20° ATC Open 1° BBC Close 27° BTC

Duration:
Intake 266° Exhaust 244°

Lift:
Intake .230 at Lobe .360 at Valve
Exhaust .237 at Lobe .380 at Valve

Overlap:
36°

Identifying mark is a UA between last lobe and the journal.

These specs are the same for the 1965 thru 1968 289 engine. Same same. Pretty much a nice cam for a John Deere tractor!! Bigger is better!! The 289 Hipo cam has 82 degrees of overlap and .460 lift at the valve. The 289 Lemans Cam had 94 degrees of overlap and .510 at the valve!! Now we be talkin!!

Rob

In the intake events above the last closing degree may be wrong. I mapped this on a degree wheel thought and I had a correction in my book that says it should be 84° ABC vice the 8° ABC noted.

Rob
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
The guy that built my engine always recommends the Melling 24212 cam for daily driven small block Fords, as a good mix between performance and comfort.

Arlie,
That looks like an excellent cam for a nice street driver. A lot more pep and I bet a bit of a nice rumble and yet great vacuum and street characteristics.

Rob
 
OP
OP
p51

p51

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,025
Location
NorCal
Thanks for all the info! Appreciate it.

While I'm replacing the valve cover gaskets I thought I'd learn a little about cams - at least enough to do some checks on what I've actually got. Now the more I learn about performance cams the more I want to swap one in. Some of those retro-fit hydraulic roller cam kits look like a good project. Of course that means new intake... headers... :grin:
 
OP
OP
p51

p51

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,025
Location
NorCal
I had a Crane hydraulic roller retrofit in my GNS. It had a nice rumble, but great vacuum. This is the grind:

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/crn-369541/requiredparts/?prefilter=1

The retrofit roller I think is gone. Crane and others came up with a short height roller valve lifter that fits a roller into the stock 1968 blocks with their shorter lifter bores.

Rob

From what I can tell there are two kind of kits for retro-fitting...

(1) One kit has the cam ground on a smaller base circle and uses a standard (?) hydraulic roller lifter along with standard dog bones/spider hold down. The smaller base circle cam keeps the lifters from rising too far (and exposing their oiling hole?). You need to drill two holes in the top of the block to attach the spider.

(2) The other kit has a standard base circle hydraulic-roller cam but the lifters are modified and paired with a link bar to keep them from rotating. In this case the pushrods need to be shorter to make up for the modified lifter height.

Is there yet a third scheme for solving this issue?
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
Number 1 is disappearing.

Number 2 is the current stuff they are offering. My cam was like #1 with the spyder and the longer lifters.

Rob
 
OP
OP
p51

p51

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,025
Location
NorCal
Just curious. Can a cam swap be done on a 1968 mustang without removing the engine from the car?
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
Yes, I have done it. You need to remove the radiator and hood latch supporting stuff that goes down in front of the radiator. I have the Summit Racing Installation tool in this link. You need to remove the brand X adaptor and use a 3/8 16 stud to do a Ford Camshaft. The Proform one looks like it has some nice adaptors. These really help to ensure you do not nick up the cam bearings.

https://www.summitracing.com/search/part-type/camshaft-installation-tools

Rob
 
OP
OP
p51

p51

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,025
Location
NorCal
Yes, I have done it. You need to remove the radiator and hood latch supporting stuff that goes down in front of the radiator. I have the Summit Racing Installation tool in this link. You need to remove the brand X adaptor and use a 3/8 16 stud to do a Ford Camshaft. The Proform one looks like it has some nice adaptors. These really help to ensure you do not nick up the cam bearings.

https://www.summitracing.com/search/part-type/camshaft-installation-tools

Rob

Thanks Rob.

James
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
I am sensing a roller cam, aluminum heads and intake, long tube headers, and a nice big carb in your future!!

HOOOOOO BAAAAAMMM out the exhaust tips!! I have been spending my own money like a drunkin sailor!! It is way fun!!

Rob
 
OP
OP
p51

p51

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,025
Location
NorCal
I am sensing a roller cam, aluminum heads and intake, long tube headers, and a nice big carb in your future!!

HOOOOOO BAAAAAMMM out the exhaust tips!! I have been spending my own money like a drunkin sailor!! It is way fun!!

Rob

Just FYI... yesterday (how's that for timing) they did a hydraulic flat tappet cam vs hydraulic roller cam "shootout" on MotorTrend TV. The roller cam only got between 1% and 4% better torque/hp.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VjFZMKvEwY&t=868s

I'm starting to think, the GT/CS is running so well it would be a shame to muck with the engine too much. So to get my fix I may just have to do an engine build from scratch... of course then I'll need another car to put it in :grin:
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
Nice link and a good test. A kinda equal comparison of the two cams with nearly the same duration, which negates the true advantage of the roller cam. With me, the advantage of the roller is to be able to increase the duration which in the flat tappet world starts to decrease the vacuum and harm the idling characteristics of the engine. Making it less drivable to the owner especially with an automatic and a stock torque convertor.

The true advantage of the roller is to get far more duration, but with the steep cam lobe profile, the overlap that the intake and exhaust are both open at the same time is greatly reduced when compared to a flat tappet cam with the same duration. Better vacuum signal and better/slower idle.

Roller cams are for the owner searching for large increases in power. To achieve this you need better heads, larger carbs, and headers of some type. For the owner who is fine with the stock power, they are a waste of money.

Many people wonder how modern engines are making way more HP per cubic inch than in the past. Roller cams and other friction reducers are part of this along with fuel injection, and variable valve timing.

But a basic 289 or 302 can be changed into a fire breather with the right balance of parts these days. Boy, I live for the owners smile, the first time they put their foot in it!!

Rob
 
OP
OP
p51

p51

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2005
Messages
1,025
Location
NorCal
Nice link and a good test. A kinda equal comparison of the two cams with nearly the same duration, which negates the true advantage of the roller cam. With me, the advantage of the roller is to be able to increase the duration which in the flat tappet world starts to decrease the vacuum and harm the idling characteristics of the engine. Making it less drivable to the owner especially with an automatic and a stock torque convertor.

The true advantage of the roller is to get far more duration, but with the steep cam lobe profile, the overlap that the intake and exhaust are both open at the same time is greatly reduced when compared to a flat tappet cam with the same duration. Better vacuum signal and better/slower idle.

Roller cams are for the owner searching for large increases in power. To achieve this you need better heads, larger carbs, and headers of some type. For the owner who is fine with the stock power, they are a waste of money.

Many people wonder how modern engines are making way more HP per cubic inch than in the past. Roller cams and other friction reducers are part of this along with fuel injection, and variable valve timing.

But a basic 289 or 302 can be changed into a fire breather with the right balance of parts these days. Boy, I live for the owners smile, the first time they put their foot in it!!

Rob

Great explanation!

Thanks
James
 

Mosesatm

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
9,011
Of course, the stock 289 heads create such low compress they leave room for a little 'boosting'. 😜
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
Actually the stock 289 head and the 302 4V head have some of the smallest combustion chambers of all Windsor based offerings. 56 CC for the early 289 and 53 CC for the 302 4V. But with water methanol injection "boosting" a 10 to 1 motor is no problem. Mo compression equals mo power!!

Rob
 
Top