Help me select a cam for my 428

[no_dice6]

Hi everybody. I don't post a lot but I read a lot of the info that is presented both on this website and fordfe.com. I need to ask for your expertise in selecting a camshaft. First let me tell you what I have.
428 bored .030 over
10.5 compression
Edelbrock Performer RPM intake
Edelbrock Performer RPM heads
800 Edelbrock carburetor
headers
MSD Pro billet distributor with MSD 6AL
Comp Cams roller rockers

This engine will be going into a 1972 F-100 with a manual transmission. My goal is to have an engine that will be fairly streetable but yet run like a bear. I would like to have around 450 horse and over 500 ft lbs of torque. I don't plan to spin it very hard so I would like the horsepower max to be around 5500 rpm. I have had a suggestion to try a Lunati hydraulic with a 230-240 grind number. Randy Ritchey told me in my parts combo, that would give me about 430 hp and 520 ft lbs of torque. I am limiting myself to a hydraulic cam. So if anybody has a configuration that is close to mine and have dynoed it, please tell me what cam you have and what your hp and torque figures were at what rpm. I'll be looking forward to you guyss suggestions. Thanks

[joea]

no dice,
Not sure what your time frame is but I will be dynoing my 428 with that Lunati cam in a few weeks. Randy built my short block and highly recommended that cam. Pics of my engine in my gallery.

My Desktop Dyno shows just over 500hp and about 512 ftlbs. for my setup. I doubt the HP will be that high but I expect between 450-500. We'll see.

[no_dice6]

My time frame isn't real urgent. I've just kindof been putting parts together here and there until I get just what I want. I have a fairly strong low mile 390 in there now, so I'm not in a real huge rush. I just felt that I wanted a little more power so I decided to go up in cubic inches. I would be very interested in what you come up with as far as your horsepower and torque are concerned. Is the rest of your engine basically the same as mine? If not what major components are different?

[Shelbytexas]

I have had a 428 built to stock specs (270/270 degrees of total duration, 480/490 lift) and just rebuilt it almost identically to yours with Comp Cams Extreme Energy 274 (230/235 @.050) and 560/564 lift. The original motor had more torque from a start - I mean at 800 to 2000 rpm. The new cam kicks in at 2000. If you are after torque from a start in a pick-up, you will be a lot happier with being conservative with the duration of your cam.

Just my 2 cents of practical experience with very similar motors...

[no_dice6]

I'm not too worried about having a ton of torque right off idle like a traditional pickup engine. The only thing this thing is going to haul is me, quickly. My ideal max powerband would be between 2000 and 5500 rpm. If I could find something where there was 500 ft lbs at 2000 or just a little higher, that would be very good. I'm also thinking about putting in a five speed and a little lower gears in the rear end so that in overdrive I could cruise at 70 at about 2100 rpm. The lower gears would compensate somewhat if there was a slight loss of torque right off idle. The cam that is currently in my 390 is a Crane 260. Before that I had a Crane 248. The 248 had good power right off idle but ran out of steam. The 260 has slightly less torque right off idle but keeps going where the 248 ran out. I don't care if the idle is a tad rough. I want to go big but I don't want to go too big.

[Chuck Nickloy]

We built a 428 motor exactly as you describe and used the hyd RPM Edelbrock cam. At the Engine dyno it made 461 Hp and over 500 ft/lb's torque.

The only thing we did that you haven't described is a pocket port and bowl clean up on the heads.

The RPM cam is perfacto for you description

The Best
Chuck

[joea]

no_dice,
My engine config is as follows:

std bore 428
Lunati H230-240 cam
TunnelWedge (dual single plane) intake
dual Holley 550s
Edelbrock RPM heads Stage II Ported
Erson's Roller Rockers
MSD 6AL

I'll let you know how she pulls on the dyno in a few weeks

[no_dice6]

Yeah, I'll be interested to she how it turns out. Doesn't anybody else out there have any advise?

[joea]

I'll let you know. My car should be shipping next week (I hope) once it arrives, I'll grab the headers and head to the dyno

[Clois Harlan]

Mine is almost the same as yours except this time I went with solid lifters, Comp Cam 492 lift and 232 dur, Sig Erson roller rockers, Alum Med Riser manifold and a Demon Carb. Dyno results at the rear wheels were:

438 hp and 463 torque

So if you translate this to flywheel hp it should be very near what you are looking for.

[rritchey]

Hey guys...

I know JoeA and no_dice are interested in this... I dynoed my latest 428 yesterday... 491.8 ft-lbs and 464.7 HP. It was at 400 ft-lbs below 2500 RPM, should be a terrific street motor.

Joe, you should expect a little higher than this with your induction. This one was a Performer RPM and it made best power with a 650 CFM.

No_dice... this was a std. bore 428 CJ motor with Edel. heads, only slightly ported, RPM intake, and the same H230-240 Lunati cam that has already been mentioned in this thread. It's a very good combination. You can run this cam with the out-of-the-box complete Edel. heads.

Thanks!
Randy

[joea]

This is great news for me Randy! I have been hoping for upper 400's in HP and low 500s in TQ. Looks like that is where I will land. I am running a TunnelWedge Intake (2x4 single plane) and dual 500cfm Holleys. Thanks so much for the update Randy.

My car should be here in 7-10 days...then I'll have the headers and I'll be off to the dyno. Stay tuned.....

[gt-347]

No-dice. Comp Cams 280H works great. I have a 1965 F-100 with a 428, and it runs great. Just to give you an idea of what I mean, my son and I were at Bremerton raceway (WA) last season. He was driving the truck, but due to no driveline loop they insisted that the vehicle not go into the 13's (Bremerton rule). We did not know what it was capable of. So on the brakes before the end of the 1/4 mile it ran 13.79 @ 96 mph.


See www.forddragteam.com

Good luck.

[no_dice6]

Thanks for all the info guys. You've really been giving some good advice. Gt-347, I have a question for you concerning your F-100. Has anything special been done to it or is it basically a stocker as far as body and chassis are concerned? I'm happy to hear about the dyno figures that people have been giving. It sounds just like what I want.

[gt-347]

No_dice6. The body/chasis is bone stock. I have a disc brake conversion, but have not yet installed it. I did install a dual resivoir master cylinder and power booster. I would like to lower it, but promised Mustang & Fords editor, Jeff Ford that I would not change anything until after our race against a new Ford Lightening. They asked us if we would accept the challenge against a Lightening to be in some future issue.

As for engine work, the heads have been ported a little bit, and I have a Holley 830 cfm. If you have never used an 830 or 850 Holley, your missing something. They have GREAT throttle response.

As for dyno info at the rear wheels, it was still making H.P at 5500 (278 hp). I did not want to go over 5500.This was on a REAL dynometer, that puts the vehicle under a load. Not to be confused with an Accelerometer, which is what most places use, which give readings approx 40 h.p. higher. The guy that dyno'd the truck (Craig Blood of Blood Enterprises) told me that I was still under carburated and needed a 950 cfm.

Now that I have installed a driveline loop, I will find out May 8th just what it really is capable of in the 1/4 mile.

The comp 280 makes big power, and is streetable. Power brakes are a little weak in stop and go traffic, but are fine at all other speeds.
Good Luck

[no_dice6]

Gt-347 I have a question for you. Are you running a manual transmission or a C6 and what is your rear end gearing? It sounds like that thing runs like stink. I hope mine has every bit of a chance to run that fast. Good luck against the Lightning. Let me know what you put down for times on the eighth of May. I'll be curious.

[gt-347]

no_dice6, It is a C-6 with a TCI Street Fighter stall convertor. Rear gears are 3.55 posi. I'll post the new lower e.t. the week following the drags.

I am sure yours will run strong. My guess is, the performance of your truck will bring a smile to your face. :-)
GT-347

[decooney]

A customer of a local engine builder has the same truck / year/ motor as you; 428, same heads and all. He tried a Comp 292H, and ended up pulling it out to go with a 280H, etc.

I've tried 282S and up, have a friend with a 280H, and feel you would probably be happier with a Comp 280H or lower in a truck. Also, I grew up with a 72 Ford truck/428, and we put a lessor cam in it, and it was still tons of fun to drive with lots of low-end torque. You've got plenty of compression and with some good cylinder head porting/matching, something close to a Comp 280 spec or one notch down would probably be more fun in a truck. To me, after learning first hand on three different cams in 428s, going too big just makes it less fun to drive and annoying unless you like to keep the R's up in traffic.

Good Luck.

[gt-347]

decooney, that is some very good advice. I, likewise have used too big of a cam in years past, only to find that I had no low end, no power brakes, and a vehicle that did not want to idle at stop lights. At the drags, EVERYONE left me on the starting line. The only thing good about the big cam was it sounded cool idling in neutral, which is not a good trade off.
GT-347
www.forddragteam.com

[RICK LAKE]

no dice6 Here's what I have 427 block shelby Shelby heads, 9.25 -1 comp 501-533 hydra cam retarded 4 degrees. real dyno numbers at the rear wheels 372 hp 478 tork. On the 2000 dyno the hp and tork where a little under your hopes. The motor runs nice and can light the tires up in 2nd gear. It runs 12.50 in the 1/4 mile. Total cubes is 452. I have my motor with a speed-pro fuel injection system. There is a 1200 cfm throttle body on it with 50 lbs injector. I can put a glass of water on it with the shakes of a larger cam. In some applications, smaller is BETTER My 2 cents Rick Lake