You have to check by grind number, not the part number.

I'm running a crane solid roller as well, part # 34SR00006, grind number SR-256/374-2S1-10 ( SR stands for special roller) Crane doesn't list my cam as it is a special order item.

lift I-.658", E-.658" Lash .020 on both, so effective lift is .638"

Dur @ .050 I-256, E-264


My cam has a little less duration, but about a .050" bigger lift. I definitely would not get any more radical than this for a street driven car. It needs to be at about 3000 rpm's to run perfectly smooth at cruising




Ernie, here's the link to your specs.

http://www.cranecams.com/?show=brows...61&lvl=2&prt=5

Well, if you want to stay with a solid roller, assuming your cam is still good or you'll buy anoither solid roller, get the crower lifters that oil the bearings. I'm running crane pro-series rollers. I didn't think they oil the bearings, but someone told me that they do. I know for sure the crower's do. Spend the extra money and get the crower's. I have about 1800 miles on mine, and this winter I'm puilling the intake to check the lifters, possibly to replace with crower's.

Game plan: Street, daily driver!
 

I'm considering changing out the pistons for a lower compression ratio, and then going with a much more mild cam with a 3000 to 6000 rpm range. Flat tappet would work well in this application, hydraulic rollers maybe.

I would then also change out the valve springs to single or dual springs, 150 lbs rating or so. This should make the engine much more streetable and still maintain "decent" power and long life.

Iron heads with 63cc combustion chambers and "pop up" pistons. Cranking cylinder pressure was 230-240 lbs measured with a compression tester (12.5 to 1). I would like see that drop to 150-170 max.

I LIKE the original iron high riser heads and matching dual four intake, so alloy heads are not an option. I want to keep the motor in the "spirit" of 1966. I'm think flat top or even "dished" pistons to get C.R. down to about 10 to 1. I will even consider the original 425 horse power OEM style cam (to keep it "real").

The gear ratio is simply to high for the reduced horse power I'll be looking at. A ring and pinion change to 3.5 or so gear would be about right.

Hmmmmmmm,,,,, much of the fun is in the planning!

No way a guy could "clean up" that damaged cam lobe! The cam is toast, no doubt about it. Emory cloth was a joke all ready!!!


...then again I could just buy the same cam I had before and continue to terrorize the local drag strip! That BIG horse power is just SO cool.

Ernie,
Sorry to hear about your motor. Hopefully you won't go too whimpy on the cam and compression though. I ran into a similar type situation a while back and it actually turned out to be the type/brand of valvesprings I used were not matched very well to my first Crower cam. I then stepped down just a bit on the cam to get the power band down a tad, but made sure I had the correct / matched valve springs for the new cam the 2nd time around. If things are matched well, you can still make it somewhat radical and streetable, and still have the crackle-sound fun too. :) Good Luck.

Ernie, A word on your compression ratio....Cylinder cranking pressure does not equal compression ratio. My cam last year had 285 lbs cranking pressure and 10.6 compression. My cam this year has 185 lbs cranking pressure with the same 10.6 compression. I didn't change anything but the cam. To get your compression ratio you need to know bore, stroke, head gasket compressed thickness, deck height, piston dish or pop-up and head cc's.

http://www.campbellenterprises.com/R...o%20calculator

Here's a link to figure CR when you know the above numbers.

Dove makes aluminum high-riser heads.

Interesting observation on cranking pressure vs compression. In my case I know my c.r. is 12.5 to 1

10.6 sounds reasonable!

I'm pretty sure those Dove alloy heads weren't available in 1966. :D

Ernie,

Aluminum heads will dissipate the heat better and you can go a little higher on the compression with them and still run pump gas. If you want the stock iron head look, just paint them like I did my water pumps. Everyone thinks they are the stock pumps and not aluminum. You will never be happy again with anything less than 600 horse so go for it and do it right. Me, I am very happy after I lowered my power in the 69 way down. I think if it didn't cost so much I would replace the stroker with an engine in the 375/400 horse range.
By the way, I looked at the pictures Ron(CW) posted and he got his little jab in I see. This is a picture of Ernie's car while it was running under it's own power or something along that line. Very nice pictures and you and the car are becoming famous on the island.

Ron :) %/

yes they were. Ford did make some aluminum hi-riser heads in 1964/65.

"While running under it's own power",,,,,, I had to chuckle at how accurate that statement was. I've had the trans out and the clutch replaced and the rear end torn down for inspection/adjustment (more than once), the heads off TWICE and 4 different carbs since I brought the car home! Mostly I try to keep it running long enough to make it to the next "car show". :D :D

I've redone the interior and I must say, the car looks and runs great, well, when it actually IS running anyway.

I know all about the advantages of the alloy heads. I really like the original equipement look/feel the engine has now. To me, the Cobra is a time machine.

Wasn't aware of the alloy high riser heads ala 64-65. Must have been pretty rare and impossible to find an original now? NOT that Holman Moody stuff mind you, something with a part number like C4AE-etc.

Sorry,
That was my big mouth that jinxed your engine:mad:

What year block do you have? '67 and up have provisions for hydraulic lifters which allow for pushrod/lifter oiling. "65 and '66 side oilers have no lifter galleys so unfortunaltely cannot take advantage of the newer designed forced oiling roller lifters.
Early blocks are splash feed only for the lifters, relegating you to a mechanical flat tappet, or as you found out, a solid roller tappet that needs periodic replacement.
Oil temps of 210 F to 220 F are perfect.

Also, the cause of the rocker shaft damage was the lifter. When the roller wheel and bearings went away the excessive valve lash caused the pushrod to pop out of the rocker arm seat and get wedged between the pushrod seat and the base of the rocker arm. When the cam lobe came around again and raised the pushrod... BANG!
I've seen it happen before and unfortunately I'll probabley see it happen again!
Rick, send me my 20 bucks:D

Sorry to hear about your explosion.


--Mike

Ernie,

I really like the original equipment look and feel the engine has now. Well, you have it as it is blown up just like the originals did. :LOL: :LOL:

Not sure what the head numbers were but the 427 tunnel port that I had in 65 had aluminum heads and intake. And just like the original stuff it blew up. Only thing that I salvaged was the intake and two carbs. Ruined the block, both heads and everything else. I always figured since the engine was built by a racing shop, the heads weren't Ford heads but don't really know. :confused:

Ron :MECOOL:

Actually hydraulic provision started in 1968 (C8AE-A) after that all service blocks had that provision. chuck

Wether a big block holds up or doesn't is directly related to how and how built and how and who is driving it.

I drive 'em like I stole 'em, small or big, same same! I DO believe the motor I have is one NICE motor, that has been neglected.

When I got the car the valve lash was .040 or HIGHER! I know the for a fact the guy I bought it from never checked it. He owned it three years! The damage was done, the roller was almost toast all ready. I'm very fortunate the damage is mostly contained. Makes a strong case for a strong motor!

I figure those rollers could have easily seen 10,000 BRUTAL miles!

Excaliber Ernie can you post a picture of the push rod and the bottom of the rocker. That shaft is broken in the middle of a mount and snapped side to side on top to bottom. Too much lash started the problem. 600 lb springs is also not helping. That push rod would bend and twist before it would break that shaft in half. Is that the mount in the picture? Do you know what push rods you have in the motor? Chromemoly? Steel? Befor Mike gets $20.00 I want to see the rest. What's the address Mike???:confused: Rick Lake Ps how big is the hole that pushrod is passing through? Intake manifold modified? Thanks Ernie. %/

Excaliber Ernie I had an Idea about your motor. For the oiling system you could make a hard line oiling system to each lifter bore. It's like the deisels that have oil jets to cool down the bottom of the pistons. AMC motors have an oiling problem with the 4 and 5 main bearing under hard driving not getting enough oil this is the fix by taping the main supply to help the back bearings. A limiter would work great with a .010 hole to each bore. Just a thought. Rick Lake

The push rod is "bent", not really "twisted" and not "bent" that bad. It did not gouge out the bottom of the rocker so I'm kind of puzzled over what caused it to bend. Pretty radical motor so I'm guessing the best quality push rod material. I think it was the really BIG clearance the rocker had AFTER the roller failed that caused the most damage.

However, in both cases (roller breaking and shaft cracking) I think this damage is a direct result of the .040 or greater tappet clearance the car was running when I got it. I think that BIG clearance set things up to "break".

I've got the motor torn down now, examining every part carefully. The block is a hydraulic lifter late model 427 side oiler block. It has a "restrictor" at the begining of the lifter oil galley to limit oil flow to the solid rockers. I suppose the restrictor would be removed if a guy was running hydraulic lifters. I suspect the roller lifters were getting plenty of oil, but at 10 to 12,000 miles their "life" was up!

I'm looking into having the pistons milled (there pop-ups) flat to lower the compression. BUT, I'm not sure this will drop compression enough, so I may go with new "dished" pistons. 63 cc combustion chamber and current C.R. is 12.5 to 1. I would like to see 10.5, 11 max.

Also going with a "Level 5" Crower cam with a lower rpm range. 2500 to 6000 with a 7000 redline (but after 6000 the cam is "done"). This should bring the useable rpm of the engine in line with my rear gear and tire size to optimize cruising and low end torque. Dumping the BIG pressure valve springs and going with far less seat pressure springs.

The 660 center squiter drag racing carbs are out, 600 cfm dual Holley with vac secondaries are "in".

I figure horse power will drop from 667 to a mere 500 or so. But a much more "useable" 500!

Excaliber Ernie 12.5 is not all that bad for a street motor with octane boost. You have turbo motors on boost that make a high compression. If you can go Hydros, Great!! Too much Lash was the start of the problem, Make sure the cam matches the motor. Springs too for the valves. I just got Dyno sim, what alot of setups for my next motor. You could put TWM with FI on the car and pickup 20-40 hp in the mid range. What exhaust is on the car? Getting the right back pressure could be worth 20-30 hp. You are half way back to you orginial 600+hp. Flywheel steel or Alum? 20lb alum will let the motor spin up faster. Pushrods are maybe chromemoly tubing or something of that strenght. Give the 7G shifts up. If the cam is done at 6K then put a 6500 chip in the box and save the motor. Just a Thought%/ Rick Lake

6500 WILL be the new rev limit, shift at 6000 and save the motor. I'm thinking flat tappet solid for the cam rather than hyd, and of course light weight springs to match. BIG spring pressure compounded the original problem I think.

I really like the "original" aspect of how the motor is setup now. Iron hi riser heads and alloy 2X4 intake, all major parts bearing Ford OEM numbers. I'm even considering going with the original 1965-66 cam specs for the 425 h.p. 427. Nah, to mild, I'll go a little more wild on the cam.

The paperwork with the engine indicates a gain of 96 h.p. with the sidepipes removed and shorties installed. I ran the 1/4 mile with the shorties and could FEEL the increase in power. 11.90 at 121 mph. I won't be seeing "11's" again after the new more mild build. I DID have detonation issues with the 12.5 C.R., having blown a head gasket early on with the car. I feel I HAVE to reduce the compression to achieve the "streetable" pump gas goal.

Ernie,

I am running 11:1 compression in the 69 and have no real problems with it. This crap they sell here for gas works about the same on any compression ratio. And I have the original iron high rise heads also. I had thought about changing to aluminum heads but decided these are good enough for me. When I want to drive hard, I fill the tank with my good ole 110 octane leaded racing gas. Then when I drive by everyone wonders what I have in the car as most of these young people have never used or seen real gas. :rolleyes:

Ron %/