ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1965 Shelby => Topic started by: m.b.spuur on November 13, 2019, 05:56:41 PM
-
Hello. Is there some one there know What the camshaft specifications was On the shelby 350 289 k code
Thanks. Mike
-
The cam was the same as all "K" code engines. All I have is from "The 289 High Performance Mustang" -
Ford Service p/n, C3OZ-8250-C; intake duration - 310deg; exhaust duration - 310deg; lift - lobe, 0.298in; lift - valve, 0.460in; overlap 82deg; marked, EA (mirror image,inverted).
Jim
-
The cam was the same as all "K" code engines. All I have is from "The 289 High Performance Mustang" -
Ford Service p/n, C3OZ-8250-C; intake duration - 310deg; exhaust duration - 310deg; lift - lobe, 0.298in; lift - valve, 0.460in; overlap 82deg; marked, EA (mirror image,inverted).
Jim
+1 . K code cam is the same as in regular production 65-67 GT350 .
-
You can't use the specs listed above to compare to any cam today because it's not at the industry standard of .050 lift.
Why? Because it hadn't been set as an industry-wide standard at the time.
The specs are set for .100 lift.
As explained in this article (https://www.fordmuscle.com/tech-stories/engine/dyno-test-rekreating-the-famed-ford-289-k-code-v8/):
The original 289 HiPo cam (PN C30Z-6250-C) had 310 degrees advertised duration (194 degrees at .100-inch lift) with a .460-inch total lift at the valve and lobe separation angle of 114 degrees. The problem with comparing modern cams with those from the ’60s is that SAE hadn’t implemented the standard .006-inch valve-lift spec for advertised duration, and Ford didn’t list duration at .050-inch lift, which is today’s most-used comparison tool.
“The 194 at .100 is more in the 224-234 at .050 range,” estimates Godbold.
Edit due to copy/paste failure.
-
The problem with comparing modern cams with those from the ’60s is that SAE hadn’t implemented the standard .006-inch valve-lift spec for advertised duration, and Ford didn’t list duration at .050-inch lift, which is today’s most-used comparison tool.
So, how does this apply to an original 1966 cam as installed in a "K" engine?
Jim
-
It is pretty simple.
A single camshaft design was stock (original equipment) for all High Performance 289 (HP289) engines March 1963 until the last 1967 model year car got one of the engines. Fairlanes, Cobras, Comets (a few), Mustangs, Shelby versions of Mustangs, Griffiths if HP289 equipped, 289 Sports (coil spring cars AC Cars offered in home markets as 427 Cobras came to an end), and as far as I know a few GT40 MKIII street cars with 4V induction system. Shelby's racing Cobras used the same camshaft design in race Cobra roadsters with 4-2V induction during the 1963 race season. Shelby American wise a Stage I race engine option (Cobra Stage I race car) or over the counter used a stock HP289 camshaft. Five bolt engines, six bolt engines, engines in new cars, and service "crate" engines.
The HP289 camshaft design was for practical purposes the same as developed for the High Performance 260 (HP260) engine that failed to make it to production even though at least 137 of them were made. The HP260 and HP289 camshaft is not the same as the design used in Experimental High Performance 260 (XHP-260) engines that Ford built.
Off road use intended race camshafts by anybody is a different subject.
-
So, how does this apply to an original 1966 cam as installed in a "K" engine?
Jim
If you can't find the cam you would have to source a replacement.
The specs given would not give you a cam anywhere close to the original as the specs aren't standard. It's like talking gross horsepower and net horsepower.
If you gave those specs to someone familiar with how to figure out if the cam you had in your car was a hipo cam they would also fail.
The OP asked for the specs of the cam and the original information given does not apply to how cams are spec'd today.