Here are two threads from the Ford FE.com forum that discuss the original Cammer and standard 427 motors and whether they could really run 7000 plus RPM reliably. I've edited the spelling, grammar and capitalization to make it easier to read. If I changed the intended message of anyone's post please let me know and I will fix that.
At the end I have my experiences and a summary followed by my thoughts on this.
First Cammer Thread from the forumJanuary 9 2009 at 9:12 PM Roger Gordon: "The Year of the Cammer" / Bill Coon / Posford Posford,
You posted under the Genesis Block / "Another Cammer Failure" back on 12/22/08, that if anyone wanted to put a Cammer through its paces, you would put one in your truck and guarantee to test the engine to it's limits.”
Bill wanted me to tell you to get together a $1,000 deposit to put down on his next run of heads. You will have plenty of time to come up with the additional $4,000 for a set of his heads, and he will get you started towards a Cammer of your own.
Bill said that anytime someone mentions anything about durability problems with the Cammer, it really bothers him, as the Cammer has been tested and proved time and time again.
Bill said that back when he worked at engineering for Ford, he got two of the durability testing engines. These would be just like, or one of them could have been the one on the cover of Hot Rod magazine (I believe January 1965 was the issue) that engine had cast exhaust manifolds glowing cherry red. Bill said his two engines and others were hooked up to the dyno, and run at a constant 7,200 RPM 24 hours/7 days a week for a week and a half each, so he states there is no durability issue.
The issue he says, is guys trying to build one now, without enough information on the engines, or guys manufacturing parts that do not follow the original prints, whether by heat treatment, actual physical dimensions, or improper casting techniques.
Bill said; "Those durability engines are what I got to race with after running like that for a week and a half straight, and the engines don't have durability problems."
As for testing the engine to its limits, that has been done in all forms of drag racing, from boats, to top fuelers, and pulling tractors as well.
Bill said he was running his Cammer up to 9,600 RPM at the strip back in the day, and no other FE can compete with it. So step up to the plate, and he will get you started. Buy a part here, buy a part there, it doesn't have to happen over night!! Roger
January 9 2009, 10:04 PM Tom P: “run at a constant 7,200 RPM 24 hours/7 days a week for a week and a half” I'm sure I'm not the only one here who would have liked to have tickets to watch that week and half on the dyno. Maybe Jay can re-enact it?
(Several posts regarding red hot headers are skipped.)
January 9 2009, 11:10 PM Keith Craft: Waiting on Modern Cammer. I have met Bill and talked with him about these engines and he seems very intelligent about them. I have several sets of the heads on order from him to hopefully build some of these engines with. What I want to see is one of these engines make good HP by today’s standards and live with no problems. I have heard all of the stories about RPMs and the power they made in the day but if they were that good why were they not kept alive like the Chrysler Hemi. I do not care what kind of top end you had I find it hard to believe any FE bottom end would live to 9000rpms or above. I do not think the stock rods with the narrow rod bearings would stay in the engine and I do not believe that the standard oiling systems they had back then would keep them alive.
You have a problem keeping one of these new FE engines with all the modern stuff alive at 8500 RPMs with better cranks, rods and pistons along with better rings, machine work and all. When you start testing any factory engine you go through making more power which leads to the next weak part. Like when they went to a lot more spring pressure to work with the new aggressive cams they started taking the lifters out of the engine because they were not good enough to take the extra pressure. You will have problems with the regular cam bearings in a stock FE block because of the grove cut behind it and because it is to narrow so they crush and spin in the block so we go to roller cam bearings to fix this problem. The higher RPMS and horse power puts more load and speed on the stock rod bearings and they became a problem so we have gone to a 2.200/2.100 or even a Honda journal on all out race engines.
I have not run one of these engines so I do not know all of the weak points as of yet but if we build some we plan on finding them. Every engine has some and this engine will also. If you build it just like the factory did with factory parts you should not have any problems and you will make the 600 to 700HP that they made from the factory but that is no problem to make any more. We will need to build one with more cubic inches, compression, better camshafts and more spring pressure to control the valve train, better valve train and then we will find out if the chain set up will work with this stuff or if we need a gear drive set up for these engines. Don't get me wrong I am all for making them better but there must have been some problems with them or the after market would have still been making parts for them and racing them like they have done with the Chrysler Hemi and BBC engines.
Then short block should be easy but we will have to wait and see what happens with the new parts for the top end of these engines. I am sure we can build them like the original ones with the low spring pressures and small camshafts [by today’s standards] and not have any problems. I guess time will tell how this works out and if these engines will make the power that they seem to have legend of doing. Should be interesting. I just hope that we can get all of the parts that are needed to do the job.
Just like this rocker deal with the T&D rockers. I know they make good stuff and if all they need to do is open up the clearances a little that should be easy enough to do. I wonder if there is not enough oil to the shafts with the higher springs pressures to keep them from galling. We may have to use some of the technology that we use on other engines with some of these problems. We can have the shafts casidium coated which is what the NASCAR guys and ourselves are doing to wrist pins and other high load areas that do not get enough oil. You can even run the wrist pin right on the steel rod without the bushing with this treatment. I have seen them run for 500 miles and the pins still look like new. We are also using it on the valve stems and the face of the titanium intakes to keep them from cupping on the face. We should be able to take some of this new technology that is available and make these and any engine better than they were in the 60s. It has been done with ever other engine, now these engines need to be brought into the 21 century. Time will tell if it can be done or not. Good luck and waiting on the parts to be made. Keith Craft
January 10 2009, 12:09 AM Dave Shoe: Great science It is so cool to get a technical download from someone who "feels" the FE so well.
First, the Cammer competed with the Chrysler Hemi until two issues came into play: The FE has a much smaller block than the Chrysler and started predictably breaking at the #2 and #4 main oiling holes when top fuel power skyrocketed in the late 1960s, and the requirement that engines be rebuilt in the hour between rounds favored the Hemi over the chain-driven Cammer. Sadly, the Boss9 halted factory development of the FE block and only recently did Shelby, Genesis, and Pond recently beef things up. We still need a gear vendor to step in and resolve the "between rounds" rebuild time constraint with the Cammer, but that is coming. Let's not forget the beefy Chrysler 426 Hemi block did come apart on the track, since it was never as developed as the racing 392 Hemi blocks of the 1960s. I will say the stock FE oiling system is just fine as is. Any oiling shortcomings are oil pan and rod bearing aspect-ratio related.
Oiling with the T&D rockers is resolvable. It does seem the restricted flow may have permitted sufficient pressure at reduced flow which allowed overheating of the oil. Greater clearances, as now recognized, will likely resolve this.
Skinny rod bearings, an issue known with the FE since 1965, have been resolved with the wider BBC bearings of all modern stroker FE cranks. Only an issue when HP levels rise to racing levels, rod bearing "aspect ratio" is becoming better understood in the FE. The Honda aspect ratio is better but the crank becomes a bit flexy as HP levels climb. Whether BBC or Honda, the rod bearing issue is now well recognized. Bearing speed is simply not the issue with the FE (the speed would be fine with a wider rod bearing), the load and aspect ratio is.
I do want to say that Genesis iron has a few "tweaky" shortcomings, but the Genesis iron block remains the strongest and stiffest FE block ever made, and it deserves recognition for this accomplishment. Bill Coon recognizes advanced technology in ways which other companies will not, so we need to figure out a way to meld the Bill Coon efforts to the Genesis iron product. I advise that Genesis is building a stable product with a few semi-known quirks, and the Bill learn these quirks and develop a plan to work with them. I've tried without success to get some Genesis quirks removed, but I still believe in the strength and stiffness of their iron product like no other.
Your casidium comments, where coating engine components with a diamond-like carbon (DLC) coating to prevent wear, is a leading edge suggestion. DLC is one of the reasons why your computer disc drive is so reliable nowadays. DLC on titanium valve stems seems like genius. I'd not heard of it before but I'll bet it generates a lot of winning races, since titanium by itself galls so rapidly in guides. Very cool to realize. Shoe.
January 10 2009, 9:39 AM dedom: Re: DLC Keith I read with much interest your comments about the steps you are using to build reliability into the engines. The fact that you are using a DLC type product is not surprising to me at all since I was involved in helping to determine methods for improving the life of fuel pumps for direct injection of E85 gas.
Some of the problems we had with a DLC type product were caused by the method of deposit. We had found that the coating was difficult if not impossible to grind or polish to size after cure. The hardness and durability was outstanding however the man hours to "lap or grind" to size was not cost effective for production. I was familiar with a coating used in Aerospace on bearing surfaces in jet engines, compressors first to forth stage, that increased the life and provided the same protection as DLC type products. It's called Ni-Boron and is applied the same as a silver or chrome plating. The material is then heat treated to cure which brings it to a level equal to DLC. The Ni-Boron allows for "sizing" thru lapping and polishing for fit.
This product has allowed Pratt & Whitney to run military and commercial engines up to 50,000 hours before the need to "rebuild" the bearing areas which amount to a strip and recoat. This is something not available to a DLC type coating because of the type of deposit, (usually electro-static or flame coat).
If you think you may be interested in this type of wear protection drop me a line and I'll put you in touch with a high quality vendor in Florida, not so far from you, that has certified processes in this coating. dedom
January 10 2009, 7:35 AM Jay Brown Stock Cammers are perfectly reliable. The issue with any engine is what happens when you crank it up to modern race standards.
Both my SOHCs are nearly all aftermarket. I have run extensive tests on the chain drive (which I was worried about), with modern cam profiles and spring pressures. I saw an issue with the two gears that were pressed onto the stub shaft, but after the fact I found out that the press wasn't correct on gears, which could certainly have led to the failure. I also know that pinning the two gears together solves any press fit problem, and is a no-downside fix. With this modification, the chain drive is trouble free. My Drag Week motor went hundreds of dyno pulls and 1200 miles on the street, and shows no wear or tension problems. I think the chain drive is fine as is.
I'm concerned with the rocker arms. By all accounts, the factory rocker arms survive just fine with modern cams and spring pressures. Right, now, obviously, the aftermarket rocker arms are not up to the drill. Hopefully they will be soon. If someone would just COPY the factory rockers, and get the hardness and clearances right, the problem would be solved.
I think the problems with the aftermarket SOHC have all been identified and worked out, with the exception of the rocker arms. Once that is done, the engine should be as reliable as any other FE. Jay Brown
January 10 2009, 10:27 AM Barry Byer: Re: Stock Cammers are perfectly reliable. I have to agree, every Japanese import for the last 30 years has a chain drive with OHC's. There is \nothing new or untested in the 427 SOHC design.
January 11 2009 at 11:42 PM Roger Gordon: The Year of the Cammer" / Bill Coon / re: "Waiting on Modern Cammer" by Keith C Keith,
Bill wanted me to address some of the things in your post "Waiting on Modern Cammer" to help with a better understanding of what was done to these engines back in the day.
I have met Bill and talked with him about these engines and he seems very intelligent about them. I have several sets of the heads on order from him to hopefully build some of these engines with. What I want to see is one of these engines make good HP by today’s standards and live with no problems. I have heard all of the stories about RPMs and the power they made in the day but if they were that good why were they not kept alive like the Chrysler Hemi.
BILL; Keith, this was Fords Creation and Ford was responsible for its demise. Ford only made one run of parts and then parts were only made by a few people who struggled.
I do not care what kind of top end you had I find it hard to believe any FE bottom end would live to 9000 RPMs or above.
BILL; Keith, you should have been born earlier guy, then you could be the one trying to convince guys that we really wound them this tight. I get a call from a different old racer just about every time this comes up saying yeah, we rally never babied them. I have a whole list of guys that I could give you off list to call some guys up who used to race these engines like this. Len Rictor, who was known for his fast shifting, was shifting it in the high 8,000 RPM low 9,000 RPM range and free rev was in excess of 10,000 RPM back then.
I do not think the stock rods with the narrow rod bearings would stay in the engine
BILL; I used to "pin" the bearings on my cap screw rods and this was good for 7,200 RPMs. The only guys that had problems at this level were the guys running stick shift. The Automatics never had problems with this fix at this level. Very early on, Connie Kalitta could not make a full pass in his AA fueler and said; "I never had this problem in my Chrysler." It was then that he was responsible for running the Chrysler Journal #2235 RA fueler bearing, RA standing for race aluminum, as the bearings were aluminum so the Nitromethane wouldn't interfere with them. We shipped our cranks to Moldex Cranks and they would widen out the rod journals and leave a minimum of .003 rod bearing clearance or more, then touch up the mains to straighten them by turning them for .006 main bearing clearance. We would then run heavier oil and the truck pump with the bigger rotor.
And I do not believe that the standard oiling system they had back then would keep them alive.
BILL; Keith, I modified the oiling system on my very first engine, which was a 406 FE in the early 60's, so modifying the oil passages is nothing new. The early oil filter adapters were square and ugly; the newer more streamlined oil adapter was something Ford copied from us racers.
You have a problem keeping one of these new FE engines with all the modern stuff alive at 8,500 RPMs with better cranks, rods and pistons along with better rings, machine work and all. When you start testing any factory engine you go through making more power which leads to the next weak part. Like when they went to a lot more spring pressure to work with the new aggressive cams they started taking the lifters out of the engine because they were not good enough to take the extra pressure. You will have problems with the regular cam bearings in a stock FE block because of the grove cut behind it and because it is to narrow so they crush and spin in the block so we go to roller cam bearings to fix this problem.
BILL; The Cammer is not a wedge engine and doesn't have those problems. The higher the RPMs and horsepower puts more load and speed on the stock rod bearings and they became a problem so we have gone to a 2.200/2.100 or even a Honda Journal on all out race engines.
BILL; I already addressed this with the fact that Kalitta solved this problem and shared the information. We were running aluminum Chrysler rods very early on with the earlier mentioned modifications.
ROGER; Keith, just to add some information, I personally had a friend that had Moldex turn a 391 FT truck crank down for Hemi Rod Journal size on the rod throws about 1985 and he ran aluminum Childs & Albert’s rods and shifted at 8,500rpm, and this was not new technology at that time, so I can vouch for that far back myself.
I have not run one of these engines so I do not know all of the weak points yet but if we build some we plan on finding them. Every engine has some and this engine will also. If you build it just like the factory did with factory parts you should not have any problems and you will make the 600 HP to 700 HP that they made from the factory but that is no problem to make any more. We will need to build one with more cubic inches, compression, better camshafts.
BILL; These engines need a new non-symmetrical camshaft design and more spring pressure to control the valve train.
BILL; The Ford 2.250 hollow stem intake valve weighed 98 grams the way it came from Ford. By comparison Jay Browns intake valve weighs 148 grams, over 50% more then the originals. The original intake valve spring pressure was only 80 pounds closed and 350 pounds open. And these numbers that Ford came up with were done on a Spintron, no guess work. These numbers can be verified in the 1965 April issue of Hot Rod magazine. Now we did clearance the exhaust valve. 145 to keep the valves from kissing the pistons, but no, we don't have to overbuild this thing and add a bunch of weight to the valvetrain, that's not the way NASCAR does it, and they have been running at 9,600rpm for a long time with the correct cam and lighter valve spring pressures. What we need is a new non symmetrical cam design and not such massive spring pressures as these things eat up frictional horsepower.
A better valve train and then we will find out if the chain setup will work with this stuff or if we need a gear drive set up for these engines.
BILL; No, we don't need a gear drive. The new true roller timing chains are 1/3 stronger then the chains we ran back in the day, and the other chain issues can be dealt with when we use a proper press in regards to the stub cam and the big timing chain gear.
Don't get me wrong I am all for making them better but there must have been some problems with them or the after market would have still been making parts for them and racing them like they have done with the Chrysler Hemi and BBC engines.
BILL; Prior to the Boss 429, Ford stopped giving us racers new parts. We didn't know about any of the Holman & Moody crate engines. All the racers had to bring their broken parts to the company who had the original contract to machine the parts for Ford, and have them fix the parts. The engines were to complex, and too few of them were ever produced to make a market for any large scaled after market attention, and when Ford said that was it for the Cammer, that was it.
Roger; Keith just for your information, from a personal conversation I had with Connie Kalitta, he told me that when Ford first came out with the Boss 429 engine, Ford forced him [as his sponsor] to stop using the Cammer and switch to the Boss 429. [Fords concept was that they wanted the public to see an engine winning at the race track that they could identify with as a Ford they could possibly go down to a dealership and order brand new in a car] Connie said the best Horsepower he ended up being able to make with the Boss 429, was 400 horsepower less then he was already making with the Cammer. [400 horsepower was a bunch by the standards of those days] Connie said that Ford forced him out of being able to be competitive, and he had to switch back to the Chryslers.
The short block should be easy but we will have to wait and see what happens with the new parts for the top end of these engines. I am sure we can build them like the original ones with the low spring pressures and small camshafts [by today’s standards] and not have any problems. I guess time will tell how this works out and if these engines will make the power that they seem to have a legend of doing. Should be interesting. I just hope that we can get all the parts that are needed to do the job. Just like this rocker deal with the T&D rockers. I know they make good stuff and if all they need to do is open up the clearances a little that should be easy enough to do. I wonder if there is not enough oil to the shafts with these higher spring pressures to keep them from galling.
Bill; I know for a fact that there is enough oil flow to these rockers. The oil flow to these rockers was actually restricted in these engines as built by Ford.
We may have to use some of the technology that we use in NASCAR and ourselves are doing to wrist pins and other high load areas that do not get enough oil. You can even run the wrist pin right on the steel rod without the bushing with this treatment. I have seen them run for 500 miles and the pins still look like new. We are also using it on the valve stems and the face of the titanium intakes to keep them from cupping on the face. We should be able to take some of this new technology that is available and make these and any engine run better that they were in the 60s.
BILL; Keith, that is why I intend to build a 900 horsepower Cammer that will run on pump gas and shift it at 10,200 RPM!!
It has been done with every other engine, now these engines need to be brought into the 21st century. Time will tell if it can be done or not. Good luck and waiting on parts to be made.
BILL: Keith, Cylinder Heads are close. Pictures of the final machining will hopefully get posted
at the end of next week.
Keith Craft
PS: Bill: Ken S., I'll admit, I'm not very smart at all, but I'm working my heart out right now to try to get all the people interested in GOOD, HI-QUALITY SOHC parts, reasonably priced for the people that are patiently waiting.
January 12 2009, 3:38 AM Jim: RPM We all ran 10,000 RPM in the 60s. It wasn't the valve train, the rods or the crank that got us there. It was the lousy tachs! JMO, of course.
January 12 2009, 6:00 AM Dave Walters: Good point... Due to the lack of accurate tachometers I wonder how many engines actually saw that high of an RPM. Sure the tach would bounce that high but was it even accurate???
Also with the camshaft technology of the day wasn't it just engine abuse to rev them that high. IMO there is no way that the engines of that era could rev that high and still make usable horsepower. I'm sure other guys will stamp their feet and scream that I'm wrong but let’s look at the present day. What are some of the fastest FE powered cars today turning RPM wise? From info I have read it seems that the best engines are topping out at 8500-9000 rpm. That's super stout in any ones book. I can't see any 60's era engine even coming close to that.
January 12 2009, 6:34 AM Rod C: Well Dave, no stomping/screaming here, but the late 60s NASCAR FEs were…turning over 9,000rpm. They weren't reaching the speeds of today's COT cars mainly due to aerodynamics (they actually looked like the showroom cars of the day, 2-drs and RWD), suspension, and tire technologies development. The tach inaccuracies would only come from point-bounce, not tach design. Magnetos were more common with mechanical tach-drives in FEs that revved to the stratosphere, LOL, JMO, Rod.
January 12 2009, 8:02 AM qikBBstang: I can't help wonder if the RPMs go higher as the years pass With all respect to you Rod I just have problems comprehending HOW FE NASCAR engines made meaning full power @9,000+RPM with the engine building technology and component infrastructure that in the '60s. Unless the revs are for shits and giggles alone, churning revs for revs sake alone is not exactly a smart idea ever. Sure an engine might turn 9,000 Revs plus but is it making usable power at that RPM level?
Looking at my Holman & Moody book (p163) I see Lorezen's 65 Galaxie nearing completion @ Holman & Moody. It looks to have a 1-4V Dual Plane High Riser with a conventional stock distributor cap and obviously by today’s standards obviously weenie looking ignition wires. The headers primaries appear to head for the ground except for #2+#3 that sweep up near the inner fender.
The problem is when I look at our most exotic FEs today that make power over 8,000 and certainly over 8,500-9,000+ I see single-planes, roller cams, titanium Valves weighing fractions of the weight of the old stainless valves and steel retainers, pressurized oil spray cooling of the springs, sophisticated lightweight rods/pistons and ignition systems that dwarf the distributors in physical size alone let alone technology. With our exotic FEs today I see Rocker support packages that have trash canned the factory four bolt Rocker Shaft Assembly that I'm hard pressed to find was ever even run in the day with any kind of end supports.
I recall Smokey saying over 5000 HP / 6000 RPM you are joking yourself without a dry sump on a race engine especially an endurance engine which after all is what NASCAR is all about. Everything is exponential when it comes to loads as revs climb.
Jays testing decidedly leans toward Victor type single planes and Tunnel Rams as the revs rise. I know the Sidewinder and High-Risers have monstrous runners but the dual plane has to be a burden. If we were to insist the race engine builders of today use SS Valves, Factory Rocker Systems and dual planes I'd figure they would scream bloody-murder. I know my pet engine builder refuses almost anything less the .250" thick walls for a race engine and I think about the old days FEs Godzilla weight rods and pistons working away on a common 427FE blocks thin walls. I recall hearing a solid cam will offer a 3000 RPM peak power band and a roller will offer a 3,500 RPM band. The NASCAR guys today still seem to keep them that tightly wound. I guess by the math alone for 9,000+Revs the engine would need to stay in the 6000-9000 band. It all leaves me scratching my head if that was workable in the 60s....
January 12 2009, 8:32 AM Rod C: I'll address 2 of your concerns: 1) "weenie wires", we ran solid, steel core wires ... not like today’s 8/8.5mm carbon fiber core where a majority of the mass/thickness is insulation, so everyone can hear their radios and watch their analog TVs (we didn't care what radio station you were trying to listen to, you knew something bad was coming, LOL). 2) My 63 LR-427 was basically stock (heads and shortblock) and about 5-years old at the time I ran it. It would reach 7K without hesitation or without any concerns of the stock 427 valvetrain coming apart. The only limiting factor for not shifting at 7,000rpm was whether the clutch would disengage or not. Nothing coming off a showroom floor would intimidate/bother me 'cause their wimpy-ass Polyglass tires couldn't hook up, not even your precious SCJ Mustangs. When Chrysler ran the Hemi, Ford was still their nemesis, especially the TP. The development of the FE in the 60s was not Stone-Age science, nor engineered by knuckle-draggers. Bill Coon's reply to Keith Craft's statements/questions, through Roger Gordon, pretty much explains how FEs could run back in the 'Horse and Buggy days' of racing, JMO, Rod.
January 12 2009, 11:33 AM Bill Ballinger: A 390 built with a solid cam lives very happily at 7000 with stock rods (good bolts and careful assembly) and a good valve job on unported early heads. I know because I have done it. If you put an intake on capable of feeding it, a bread and butter 390 is pretty damn stout, 400-425 hp easily if you wind it up, and you can cam it to shift it at 7000 because it is making power up there with the right intake. I know that because I have done it. What’s funny is that with a truck 4 speed using 2nd, 3rd and 4th with 4.56 gears 31" tires and my 4800 lb weight, running the 1/8th a guy there with a drag strip calculator said it was making over 500 hp, but I know it wasn't. No where near it. It's 425 at the most, probably not that. Power strokes make the numbers "anomalous" if you can squeeze its scrotum tight enough. No point bounce either, it’s a Duraspark. Mario 428's Street Dominator is what makes it do that, that son of a bitch breathes deep!
Raised a few eyebrows to see an old truck run like that. If I didn’t have to drive it to work I would have wound it a little higher. Its still sitting out here rusting away still hurts your neck if you stomp it in 2nd gear.
January 12 2009, 10:55 AM SSdynosaur: Counter-point(s) The post implies that stated RPMs are a figment of "revisionist" history rather than documented fact; similar to the size of the thrown-back fish growing in the car during the return ride from a fishing trip. I have an article from June 1997 "Drag Racing Monthly" (defunct), titled "Ford's Secret Test Sessions", in which the author reproduced a FoMoCo data acquisition strip (p.33-34) from one of Brannan's 65 Mustang AF/X Mustang test runs graphing data when they were running durability tests on the C-6 trans. The 1/2 shift point is 8650 RPMs at 3.6sec, 140 ft into the run. The 2/3 shift occurred at 8740 rpm, 5.35 sec and 341 ft.. Keep in mind that this was a test vehicle, probably de-tuned for consistency and longevity. Just imagine what a savvy racer like Bill Coon could do with this hardware as a "starting" point.
The tone of comments regarding the 4V dual plane manifold on Lorenzen's car ignore that, at the time, that was the ONLY 4V manifold available or legal (NASCAR) for that car. I can further assure you that Lorenzen's engine, or any other successful NASCAR or NHRA engine never saw a valve even remotely as heavy as a SS valve. Those engines all, from mid-63 on, ran the "7000 RPM kit" containing the infamous hollow stem valves. The FoMoCo hollow stem intake valves are measurably lighter than today's high tech titanium valves of equal dimensions. The titanium exhaust valve weighs the same as the Ford exhaust, +/- 1 gram. It may be old tech but it had a solid foundation-not just RPMs for RPMs sake.
I also recommend reading Bill Jenkins comments on dry sump systems. He stated that the very best HP increase he tested between a wet sump and a dry sump on the dyno was 3/4 HP. Dry sumps have always been about chassis packaging and endurance, not horsepower. NASCAR began allowing them to get the chassis lower and, even today; NHRA still does not permit them in several eliminators.
We should not minimize the fact that, early on, H & M recognized that higher HP and higher RPMs and inextricably linked. Their camshaft designs and subsequent dyno work focused on maximizing HP and RPMs within the confines of, at least, a stock appearing valve train. Their cam grinders spent thousands of hours quieting harmonics that limited RPMs. The modern theory is don't spend a lot of time on harmonics, just throw a heavier valve spring or rev kit at the problem.
I realize it is a difficult concept, but during the early days of the SOHC, Ford was really protective of the true potential of that or any other FE race engine. They had been burned by both NASCAR and NHRA by being too forthcoming early on.
Final comment. IMHO society, in general, subscribes to a culture that validates ideas and opinions of the younger members by attempting to minimize its older member's experiences and I believe that there is some of that in this thread. Go ahead-shoot me.
January 12 2009, 11:51 AM Bill Ballinger: I built small inch SBCs back in the 70's that saw 10,500 every gear. And 427 Rats that ran to 8000. On the street. The FE is more than capable if you build it right for 7000-7500, and I've been up to 8000 more than a few times on stock parts. The NASCAR stuff was actually kind of heavy. I liked the 390, would have loved to have had a 427, but getting them to live at 7000+ was not a problem. A virgin granny car 390 that has never been hot would yield a very good foundation. And those "crummy old heads" with a good valve job were a lot better than you think. Put a Sidewinder and some big headers on one and hang on. Naw it wasn't a 427 TP or HR, an L-88 or a Hemi, but it would surprise the shit out of people what you could get out of it for the money.
January 12 2009, 6:46 AM Joe D. Craine: Re-rpm I ran a mechanical cable tachometer to eliminate the error of the electric tachometers in my 427 MR. Joe-JDC.
January 12 2009, 10:38 AM Tom P: RPMs... I run a mechanical tach in my Fairlane. None of this needle that floats at 7000 for two seconds when I blip the throttle crap here. They actually did run that high, an old fueler would still be spinning the tires at the top end and be 10,000 RPM at over 200 mph.
January 12 2009, 11:59 AM Bill Ballinger: Eric Oldham stood his '64 Fairlane on the back bumper with a destroke 396 ci (a 427 with 3.5 stoke) and RPMs that made people in the pits grind their teeth when he would be going at it. Bad ass car from Barlow, Kentucky. He used to be on here all the time, haven't heard from him in awhile. You still out there Eric?
January 12 2009, 5:15 AM Rod C: Pinning' the bearings was mandatory when my uncle built FEs. I always thought it was common practice, LOL, both rods and mains. I really like Mr. Coon's responses, he obviously has the 'been there, done that' knowledge and attitude, Thanks to Roger and Mr. Coon, JMO, Rod.
January 12 2009, 1:06 PM Bill Orrick: Just my old Cammer what was and what is.
Don’t stop Bill your doing good 1965 to 1970 going by my engine that I still drive today is close to 700 Hp.
695Hp. In it's heyday on 65% nitro it was building 2500Hp on 85% wow? a 6-71 moon blower on top.
And that was the key to a Cammer engine. Like any Hemi. Engine you need a blower to get all
the HP out of a Hemi. My Cammer is still set up this way. Cams are stock I can’t say how they
are set up or I will lose my nut's call Barillaro. The crank is machined to Chrysler bearing.
Running Childs & Albert rods and pistons. This is not a wedge you don’t need the spring pressure
cams very important the way there ground I have some cranes that was good for nitro. I don’t go down
1/4 anymore I can’t tell when I'm crossed up anymore scares the crap out of me. That comes with age.
With a modern tack 9000 to 9500 RPM best times 1/4 is when shift at 8800 to 8900 with my cams.
My Cammer comes on at 3500 rpm. This is just my engine. I have been around faster Cammers but still
good on the street. This may not make sense to you I don't thank I will right for Hot Rod this month.
Bill you’re the only one that makes sense for now. Keep it up
Bill Orrick
In the mid '60s I regularly heard 427 Galaxie owners and drivers talking about their shift points of 7200-7800. However broken rods and windowed blocks were a worry. 7- 9 quart deep sump pans were the rule. When the wider NASCAR journals were used the frequency of broken rods decreased. Engines with factory or H & M cams never had rocker arm shaft issues.
Several things need a comment. First the power levels were lower so the loads on the cylinder walls were less. I've often wondered why valve float was not a limiting factor and three statements from the above threads address this. 1) The sodium filled valves were much lighter than the titanium valves of today. 2) Ford developed cam profiles that had greatly reduced harmonics. 3) Today's cams have very aggressive ramps compared to the cams of the mid '60s.
The narrow standard FE rod was replaced by the wider Chrysler and later, the NASCAR rod. While the dynamic loads on the rods are the same a given high RPM, the power load is higher today due to the better cylinder filling, ignitions and fuel systems. I frankly believe we've loading the engine harder at lower RPMs and so we see failures at those lower RPMs. Today's failures of the rocker arm shafts is a good and obvious example. The vastly lighter piston is a counter example. We are seeing fewer rod failures, as that technology is better than we now need. Also I never saw an FE block (from a door slammer) cracking at the mains in the '60s. Today that is an old story.
The bottom line is that we're comparing apples to oranges. The engines of the '60 did not make the power that they make today. The engine of the '60 very likely had an unbored block, very light hollow valves, and - by today's standards - a cam profile that was not what we use today. While rods and pistons were heavier, wider rods were often used. Still with the better blocks available today as well as our better understanding of the other weaknesses and how to over come them, I see no reason why today's engine with the right cam won't live at 8000+ rpm.
JMO
Corrections and additions will be added to this as they are recieved. I will post about major updates on the forum. Back to the Introduction