Camshaft/Lifter advice(BTDT?); Street 289

DD (CA)

DD (CA)

Gold forum user
CAT Member
Messages
525
Well, the motor pull and rebuild is moving along.

Block was virgin, so they've re-bored; 0.010 or 0.020. It's time for internals decisions...

Anyway, my objectives are as follows:
- Daily driver capable.
- Street; maybe club auto-x 1-2x year (non-competitive).
- Mid range is probably most important; think 25~45mph twisties along the coast.
- Keeping stock brake set-up (improved pads ok) for now; vacuum should be considered?
- BHP: I'm not targeting anything specific. The internals will be new and the exhaust will be new, so figuring some bump from stock there.
- SOUND: Dad had it sounding a lot like the cobra 289 youtube posted earlier; with solid lifters. I'd like to try and keep the lobe-y sound a bit; but not have idle issues (vacuum).

I'm a pure rookie, learning about duration / lift, etc... but not fast enough so I could really use your insight. (I realize this is totally subjective). Been scouring the interwebz for comments on some of these, but really tough to find what people have actually used and any feedback.

My short list / data chart below (I'm open to others):

Type /LobeLift(IN-EX)/ValveLift(IN-EX)/Duration(IN-EX)/@050/Separ/Centerline
289 /.2663-.2657/.4261-.4251/250-254/XXX/XXX/XXX
289HP /.2983-.2983/.477-.477/310-310/XXX/XXX/XXX
271H /.300-.297/.480-.475/266-273/219-226/112/108
264M /XXX-XXX /.480-.480/264-264/214-XXX/XXX/108
RPM /.280-.295/.448-.472/270-280/XXX-XXX/XXX/XXX

The CompCam 271H Nostalgia is listed as a 'newer design, that keeps the HiPo 289 sound. The duration (266-273) seems mild and should keep the torque low-ish. I read and heard the Isky 264M on a couple sites. And the Edelbrock Performer RPM seems popular too. Lupe of G&R Performance (Shelby guy) has helped with pull and is suggesting RV type cam for low end grunt and ease of use. I'm just not all together sold on that, yet anyway...

The lifter/rocker internal argument is a toughie... I'm OK with dong the lash adjustment for solids (or hyd flats) kind of frequently, PROVIDED the valve covers will allow me to remove them w/o extensive work, in situ. If I'd have to tilt motor, remove mounts, etc... I'd just as soon go roller all around and forget adjustment (understanding one must be cautious with spring rates and likely need VC spacer to use LAT covers.)

For rockers, the Magnum roller tips have my attention. This also tends to tilt me towards using a total kit from CompCams...

Wish I had videos of Dad's car when in operation and something else to go on... For example, don't even know if his block has 289 or 289HP cam...

Thanks for any advice or even video/audio to help match with sound...

Derek
DD (CA)
 
I would avoid solid lifter cams because you will not be able to remove the valve covers with the engine in the car without dropping the motor down.
Go with a hydraulic roller cam and roller rockers. Pay attention to rocker height
since most rocker will hit the underside of the lat covers even without baffles. I used Jesel shaft roller rockers in my 302 and I still needed to get one of Tom Halls .200" aluminum spacers and two sets of gaskets to gain clearance.

Moondoggie
 
Another Vote to Avoid Solids

Another issue with solid lifters is that they require a break-in oil high in ZDDP - much more than rollers. There are companies out there that do sell the snake oil stuff. However, I have heard of solid lifter cams going flat during the break-in time even with the snake oil break-in oil. Anyway, thems my thoughts.

David
 
Derek, my 302 has an RV cam and has good power to 5000-5500 rpms, which is plenty for this flat tappet motor.
 
Camshafts Galore

For general romp & stomp without a lot of maintenance issues, look for a cam that WILL NOT required the use of heavier valve springs. This is a "barnyard" yardstick for keeping your fingers out of a finished motor. Some cams have rapid ramps to get the valves open to the max in a hurry, while others gently lift and extend the duration without dropping vacuum to minus zip. Most well listed manufacturers will spec their cams with general torque & HP rpms. Stick with marine style torque specs because of the 2.88/1 rears and there is no need to slap 6K on the tach; your knuckles will be already white above 5000 rpm . . . . . .
 
I'm going with a Ford E303 and linked roller followers. Simple, proven and reliable. Yes, I know the firing order will change.
 
I agree with the others, stick with a hydraulic cam.
The 271h is a nice cam and you can use stock springs, rocker arms, pushrods, and hydraulic lifters if you want. It will give you the mild idle lope that you are looking for, good strong vacuum, and good 2000-5000 RPM pull.
The performer is a good street cam (some call it an RV cam) with good 1500-4500 RPM pull, but it won't give you any idle lope.
You don't need a roller cam unless you want to get 6000+ RPMs out of this engine. If you are wanting to do this you will need much better/stronger connecting rods and you will need to have the engine balanced with the better rods. With the stock 260/289 rods you are risking blowing the engine if you take it much past 5200 RPM.
 
Whatever you decide, be sure your intake manifold, carb, and exhaust system are also in tune with your power band. Smaller runners in the intake will help with the low end power, hurt high rpm performance.

While I am one of the guys that are more of a HP hog, one of the challenges with the Tiger is to get enough air into the motor to keep up with the fuel demands at higher rpms. With a stock hood and aircleaner/filter, the air flow starts to choke off from what you need around 4000 rpm, as I recall. So from that perspective, the RV type cam also makes a lot of sense.

Also, if you are not trying to move a huge volume of exhaust out of the motor, headers and big exhaust pipes really do not make much sense either. Same would go for high flow heads.


Similarly, do not over size the carb.

Just my 2 cents.

Gene

BTW, one of the things contributing to the Tiger's somewhat "hard" sounding idle is its firing order. If you go with a cam that has the newer order (so called Chevy firing order) where 7 and 8 are not together, you get a bit more smoother, "turbine" winding sound. Or so I have read...
 
Camshaft advice

If some is good, then more is better...;)

Crower_Cam.jpg
 
cAMSHAFT ADVICE

GO TO COMP CAM'S WEBSITE AND DOWNLOAD THEIR CAMQUEST PROGRAM. YOU CAN PLUG IN BORE,STROKE,TYPE HEADS, AND THEN REVIEW HOW THEIR SUGGESTED CAMS WILL PERFORM, ( HP AND TORQUE GRAPH). THE OLD HIPO HYDRAULIC C90Z-C FROM FORD MUSCLE PARTS @ 218 DURATION AT.050 IS STILL TOUGH TO BEAT FOR SPIRITED STREET USE.
 
I also like hydraulic cams for street Tigers.

I always use the stock chromed stamped steel valve covers since they come off easily (without dropping the motor) if valve adjustment is needed. The later taller Ford covers can cause problems. My stock covers never have had a problem accommodating either stock and roller rockers. However some owners choose to actually raise their engines, usually to fit oversized fans. Aside from air cleaner clearance issues, this choice can cause valve cover removal problems as well.

If for some reason you need more valve cover height you can use the stock valve covers with thick gaskets or with Tom Hall's aluminum spacers.

David Vizard has done an excellent study (based upon thousands of dyno tests) on spec'ing cams and one of his recent books has his formulas you can use to select your own. To me, his method is revolutionary.

Most think of duration as a prime criteria. He approaches cam selection by first determining the intended use to which he assigns an overlap range. Then he provides a chart you use to find the optimum lobe cam angle based on your engines compression and breathing. Then you have the information you need so you can calculate your optimum overlap. We've been testing this method and it certainly has shown promise.

bt
at the beach
 
Last edited:
Well... more questions on motor build up...

I REALLY appreciate the great feedback y'all have provided. And I'm learning... but...

More ideas; and more questions. Paper engine building...

Current Assumptions:
Stroke: Stock 289 (not thinking 302 stroker at this time)
Bore: +20 (4.020") (Need to confirm)
Cam: Hyd Flat
Intake: Dual plane TIGER IM. (Dad's stock)
Headers: Headers. Either keep current (1.5") + coating or go CAT or SS.
Valve Covers: TIGER VC (Dad's stock).
Exhaust: Needed. SS probably...
Carb: TBD. 600cfm or less. (Edel, Holley, Merlin, Demon, Other ???)
Ignition: Conversion to Elec. Petronix.
Gearing: Stock 2.88, Toploader.
Rear: open to posi thoughts...


Questions/Ideers:

Heads: Leaning towards giving Powerheads the original heads & $ to CNC port, etc.
http://www.powerheads.com/earlyheads.html

Why? Stock (period), small chambers (torque), clearance (TFS, ARP, etc look to have +0.350 VC deck heights and/or larger chambers), data (found comparo...but lost it...will again). They also have 289 road racing heads, but my target is not rpms/BHP up high. I have secret HP anyway. And I've been told to stay away from higher spring rates if possible.

Why not? $$$. After shipping, this will cost the same as a nice, lighter, brand new set of TFS Al heads. The original appearance, to me, overrides the +40 lbs. It's silly, I know. Any other technical reasons to avoid these?

Pistons:
Number of references to makers. I've no idea if one are better; Keith Black, JE. At this point will need help coming up with clearance / CR thoughts. The CR comes into play, right? So, the +/- for head volume cc's is necessary.+2.6cc, -XXXcc, I've no idea. I do understand it's critical. lol.
http://www.uempistons.com/kb_car/performance.php?action=search&mfg=Ford&EngSize=302&RodLen=5.09

Hydraulic Tappets / Lifters:
Sold on Hydraulic flats for non-race. Based on Vizard and other comments.
The info on Rhoads variable leakdown lifters has me intrigued. The sound of solids, with the benefits of hydraulics. Lower rpm tq, capable of higher rpm hp. Yet, the fact that more things will be moving in there gives me cause for concern. More chance to breakdown, no?
http://rhoadslifters.com/sc2/agora.cgi?cart_id=5501189.6969*jZ5Mj8&xm=on&product=V-Prostreet
If not a good idea, will stick with Compcam kit; which would be less $ anyway.

VC Clearance:
As depicted in pictures, the current VC's (CAL CUSTOM) fins were sawed off at the bulkhead to allow removal. When I compare the new LAT types, it appears the LATs are lower. Good! More room. But, alas... What about needing roller tip rockers (Comp Cam Magnum steels) for the 'retro-new' heads. The polylocks will take space. I'll need spacers, negating any potential clearance improvement, right? Also, these LATs have baffles, those will need removal... I read comments on going stock. I have them. But Dad had the LATs in the box and they have to go on. I like em too.

Followers/Rockers:
Compcam Magnum steel roller tip?
Ford 1978+ steel pressed? (Have some...with head too, but for another project)

Cam: That's what started the thread. wish I could revise title...
Learned a lot from Mr. Vizard info. Looking at overlap around 40~50, to mesh low rpm tq and street (~marine torque). The Comp 260H (40), 268H (50) kind of on radar, 271+N still there too (46).

Pictures:
1,2,3,4: Headers. Can anyone ID them? They are nice in that they fit UP pretty tight along underside. Worried new ones won't? But pretty rusty.
2(1),3(1), 4(1): Repro LAT (Ford?) Dual plane IM.
1(1): top secret, under the hood. BUP. (unicorns >>>> horses)

Sorry for the long post(s), but I can assure you there will be more. Really appreciate the advice.

DD (CA)

PS: If anyone needs to offload any extra parts that fall into these slots...let me know. Thx.
 
I think there is probably a good afternoon's worth conversation possible on all of your post. Here are some of my thoughts on what seems particularly important to me.

When you talk about compression ratio, you really need to focus on dynamic compression ratio, not static ratio. This takes into account your specific cam timing. It is this ratio that determines if you can run on pump gas or not. For my 347 stroker, I did not do this up front. After getting the engine pretty much together, I did the calculations just for grins and an afterthought checkand found I would need aviation fuel! I ended up buying a different cam. There is some good info on the calculation on the Keith Black Pistons web site.

In my limited circle of gear head friends, Comp Cams is not as popular as Lunati. Some say Lunati has better quality control. That is who I went with. Worth a look if you have not already.

Closing pressure is pretty critical for flat tappet cams. I think the maximum is 300 lbs, or the cam lobes start galling, even with proper high zinc additive in the oil. Make sure you check the installed height and have the correct pressures. Not a bad idea to test the springs to be sure they are consistent and match the expected rating out of the box. Again, consider Lunati as an option. Make sure the company selling you the springs knows exactly what heads you are using, so they can determine the installed height. How the valve springs sit on the head can affect installed height and thus the pressures when valves are sitting and open.

BTW, no affiliation with Lunati.

I see no point in going with Rhodes lifters. They are old technology and are meant to tame a hot cam for better lower rpm operation. You are looking for power down lower, get a cam designed for that and be done with it.

Hope some of that is helpful.:)

Gene
 
Assembled heads and other cams

Gene, thanks.

Re: Lunati
Definitely have been checking out many players... Lunati, Isky, Comp, Ford, Custom (camresearch), MustangBarn, HolmanMoody. Its overwhelming. I'm kind of using CC as examples, unless someone else points a specific cam out. For Lunati, their data ('cam card') is very limited. I can't calculate overlap for example. I have a feeling some of Vizard's techniques were incorporated here, but cant prove it out with their published info.

RE: Heads
I'm really looking only at assembled heads. This due my interest in a 'known quantity' and trying to keep my hands out of them. But, this may not be the best approach? I'm sure the experts could better match components, I'm trying to KISS method it.

The 'standard' powerheads come with the following:
ALL EARLY HEADS INCLUDE COMPETITION CNC PORTING, SOLID BRONZE GUIDES, HARDENED EXHAUST SEATS, 5 ANGLE MACHINED SEATS, 1.94’’x 1.60’’ FORGED SS SWIRL POLISHED VALVES, 7/16’’ SCREW-IN STUDS WITH GUIDE PLATES, .530’’ LIFT SINGLE VALVE SPRINGS WITH CM RETAINERS AND VITON OIL SEALS. PROFESSIONALLY ASSEMBLED AND VACUUM TESTED TO ENSURE VALVE SEAT INTEGRITY.
They have airflow data on their site and another crazy thorough site was impressive. I'll try to relocate that link... Had all heads; thousands.

Their 'road race heads:
+ addtl hand porting
+ severe duty valves
+ beehive or cylindrical springs
+ Ti retainers
+ 10 deg locks
+ addtl CNC (Hurricane)
+ half moon water jacket weld ala Shelby
Thinking overkill for my street tune.

RE: CR
I'll need someone to help me figure this all out. I've no idea thus far. And certainly prefer not to siphon fuel away from our G5. (I wish. Funny thing, Dad was a lifelong pro pilot)

Derek
DD (CA)
 
cAMSHAFT ADVICE

YOU have done a lot of digging for information, picking from the various brands of camshafts and related parts. But I believe you're getting the cart ahead of the horse. Even with the stock 260 getting the power to the ground is a problem. A limited slip differential is required. A Dan Walters Torque arm is required for any HP INCREACES over stock. Then there is the gear ratio. A 2.88 is great for the freeway, but getting going from the stoplight is a bitch with a cam and the stock toploader. A 3.54 works great at the stoplight grand prix but buzzes the engine at freeway speeds. Wide ratio transmission gears are a good compromise. A overdrive transmission is the answer.
Then to the engine. Aluminum heads are the CAT'S meow compared to reworked Ford heads. Comp Cam's CAMQUEST computer program reveals that 330 hp is the max with Iron ported 351 W heads where as 400 HP is realistic with AFR 165 Renagade heads. Reworked and ported 351 W heads will $ 1000 to $ 1200, The Renagade heads run $ 1500. There is less expensive aluminum heads out there. Forget the Procomps that show up on E BAY for around $ 600. Floo-Tec heads are a pretty good bang for the buck at less than $ 800 from Speedway Motors. Then there are Edelbrocks and Trick Flows at $ 1000 and up. Reference the Feb issue of Car Craft Magazine for a head to head performance evaluation. Kieth Craft Performance does CNC ported AFR Outlaw heads at close to $1400.
Then there is your Tiger lettered intake manifold. It is not a performance piece. It flows about the same as the Ford cast iron intake.
ROGER
 
gears and heads

Doc: thanks

Re: Gears. I'm open, but don't know enough. If reviewing the SS catalog, I see lots of gearing options. I'd do nothing but dick it up. They're just numbers to me. 3.31 sounds better, because its in the middle-er, but dunno... LSD rear sounds great too. The stock rear diff just 'looks' like its been badly leaking for a long time too. I've spoke with Bill M about the 5 speed conversion, he realizes it was out of my $ scope, but sure sounds like a neat choice. "Wide Ratio" ala MKII comes up here. But, I do not know what that would entail... I really need someone to spell out what wide ratio conversion and LSD would mean to me. I'll search, but.. those in the know are appreciated. "Hey Derek, buy this LSD..."

Re: Heads. Was familiar with CC article here.http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_1302_six_budget_ford_heads_that_work/viewall.html But, it's not the other test I'd run across. Nor is it the data shown on all heads by this guy...
http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablehdc.htm The WWW never lies, right?! But, here the data is pretty interesting to compare side by side, across many articles, etc. The powerheads fared pretty well. <shrug> Al types easier, lighter, quicker and cheaper; but not period and may/may not have additional clearance issues. I'm going to presume that most who went the Al head route have also gone full roller. So, in theory there's less concern about serviceability, right? anyone running TFS/AFR heads with hyd flat cams...?

Re: IM. Current is Oppenheimer 360(?), but this tiger IM looks more similar to cobra dual plane. The data shows dual to be better in most of what I looked at? The air gap RPM still better. And then others, hi-rises, but the hood is stock and will remain. The tiger IM may or may not perform better than the Opp, but its brand new and was intended for motor. So, it's going on. The LAT Tiger, non-baffled oil pan, which seems quite controversial, is the only part from the list which looks to be losing it's battle to go on.

Re: Torque arm (goes to search engine...)

Re: Purpose built. Maybe I should clarify my intent. Stock appearance and sound, with better than stock 289 (220hp) performance. Target around HiPo, but more low end than that . Sub 300hp would be OK. If I were going more than 300, it'd probably be a different block.
This scope is the same for other stuff too; prefer to use stock appearance/sound parts everywhere. If out of sight / sound, its open for swap (new fuel pump types, new SS fuel and brake lines, more...). "As if an MKII owner just added on mild modifications..."

Greatly appreciate it... keep changing my assumptions... I'll never move ahead... ;-)

Derek
tiger with 1bUP (brake Unicorn Power)
 
Post 1967 motors...

Duke: Yes, believe me, I'd copy you. ;-)
My daily driver audi s4 wagon has twin turbos and can put down >350 with similar tq to all four wheels. It's a neat, torquey machine, that could drive well in the OH winter. Many of these put down ~450. Mine's a 'mild' turbo build. Maybe one of these would go good in here too. :p

My tiger has another purpose. but more on point...

RE: Valve Servicing. For those of us that can't drop the motor in 6 mins... :D Can you remove VCs from the top with motor in place? And if so... how so... ? And why am I being warned about both solid flats... or rollers with polylocks for losing this ability? The 347 deck height is the same. The VC covers are the same or taller, yes? The studs/bolts must be longer, or combined with nut is too tall to allow VC to clear between firewall and block? EDIT: See your Comp cam magnum rollers 1:6:1. Probably the same I was consdiering. But no idea if same final height as stock...just shorter than Al rockers...

RE: Full Roller. I just feel like its too quiet and outside the 'period' scope. That and data shows flats to perform equally at lower power (<270 duration). But, of course I could do it...

One shochu for you...

Derek
 
IMHO...
Stick with a hydraulic cam and lifters. Stay away from Rhodes lifters, you will NOT be happy! Ask me how I know :)
Go with a dual plane manifold. They are better for the street and will give you better driveability and gas mileage.
I highly recommend a Carter AFB or Edelbrock Performer carburetor over a Holley (or clone) for street use. They are MUCH less finicky for day-to-day street use and they are very easy to tune and KEEP in tune (and... they don't leak).
The Pertronix conversion is good. Get the one with the built-in rev limiter and set it for 5200 RPMs MAX (5000 RPMs will give you a safety margin) if you have the stock connecting rods in your engine. Keep your vacuum advance and make sure that it is working and properly adjusted. Don't underestimate the importance of your timing adjustments. You can gain a considerable amount of performance, gas mileage, driveability, and cooling benefits if you get it right!
Stick with the stock 2.88 rear end gears. You WILL regret going higher. Have the wide ratio gears installed in your top loader if you can afford them (any top loader specialist can do them for about $800 to $900), it is money WELL spent. If money is no object, go with the 5-speed. You really don't need posi unless you plan to drag race the car, but then you will also need some additional modifications to get the power to the ground (like a torque arm setup), a scatter shield, and a stronger clutch.
 
Last edited:
camshaft/street 289

The 5 speed conversion you mentioned from Bill Martin or Tom Hall doesn't fit most peoples budget. Somewhere ( ???) it was posted Dan Williams Toploader is developing an overdrive gear set that utilize the Toploader case. Probably similar to the overdrive transmission in the Ford in the Zepher.
I haven't seen anyone from T/AE or any other Blog jump in on fitting Kieslers T-45 5 speed conversion @ $2400. to the Tiger. There is a Kiesler dealer near my sister's home, and plan to check it out on the next visit to SIS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top