What do you guys think of this? http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/wiki/Cam_and_compression_ratio_compatibility
did you write this or was it in the write up? "The Right Curve, stop dinkin' with what I write." what I do is...call the cam Co. of my choice and tell them my specs, they tell me what cam they are going to send me...
I did not write anything in the article. I assume that "The Right Curve" edited the author's article and the author was not happy about. I have always used the cam manufacturer's recommendation, too. However, regarding the engine in my car I went about it backwards. We built the engine based on a magazine article called " Pulse Width vs Power Valve" which was in the Dec 2000 issue of Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords. That 5.0 made 450 hp with a Comp XE282HR cam. My engine is identical except we didn't mill the heads to get 10.5 to 1 compression. The AFR 185 heads produced 9.7 without milling. It made 385 hp on the engine dyno. The article above tells me that with the XE282HR cam which has 232* intake duration I need 10.5 to 1 compression. At 9.7 to 1 I'm leaving power on the table, especially on the bottom end. That may explain my soft launches and 1.8 60 ft times. The fix is obvious, mill the heads. I have to take the heads off to install the short-throw Comp hydraulic roller lifters so I might as well have them milled. All that for after the racing season, though.
Dont know what your head gaskets are but it is possible to achieve some extra compression by changing head gaskets. When I had my engine built the heads were 64 cc I believe to get the compression to 10.3 he stuck the pistons .005 out of the hole so that mean he milled the block. I dont know if this is good or bad but FordStrokers built it and has treated me well. If you get the heads milled ask about mismatch of intake manifold. Probably wont take much milling to get down to 10.5. While you have it apart gasket match the intake to heads
I think it's your 3.89 gear more than the cam. The statement that you are leaving power on the table? NOS, SuperCharger, Turbo, or new Cam it's all power left on the table.
That's all true about power adders. But, I race 1/4 mile and I'm already on the shift light and sometimes the rev limiter going through the traps, so shorter gears is going to make that situation worse.
You could go with higher stall to improve the 60fts & retard the cam moving the rpms up to keep you off the limiter.
I, too have always used the cam manufacturer's recommendation. Actually I found one guy that I was happy with and stuck with him. A number of years ago I switched engines-again-and went with a different camshaft, as the old engine was 12.2:1 and the new one was around 15:1. So the old cam wasn't optimal. Got new cam in, and raced it for many years. Performance difference was none, even though I was 30 cubic inches bigger, camshaft considerably bigger, bigger bore, longer stroke, etc. But the engine got a little heavier so that may have offset it a little. A few years after I screwed that thing together, I was doing up a 5.0 for a Fox Mustang. Got a few referrals to a guy out of Rhode Island and I got in touch with him, told him my goals and expectations. A few months later I get a camshaft, and bolted that one together. It FAR exceeded my expectations. Then this last spring I decide to swap cams in the race car. Called the guy in Rhode Island again and within 2 months I get another camshaft. It's in now, have not been to the track yet. But it does sound different. When I told him the specs of the old cam, he laughed and said that's an old 289 super stock grind, designed originally for the old small cubic inch engine turning some RPM (9000+). He then said that my compression gauge should be broken. I did test it and it pegged the needle against the 300 psi pin. So he was right. He says the "new" cam should be almost guaranteed some horsepower and torque with my deal compared to the old. He also said check your rod bearings as it's entirely possible that they're beat out because of the high cylinder pressure generated by the old cam. I got lucky there...they check out good, measuring the upper width against the original width. Kind of anxious to get to the track. Point of sharing experience is that one cam guy's suggestion is probably different from another guy's, and for that reason even though many of them are supposed to be pros, there are but a select few that actually know Ford engines and what they "like". Those are the guys who are always busy, hard to get in touch with, etc...but there is a reason they are that way.
I am running the 282 with edbrock rpms 10.1 349. 389 gear 26 9 tire 1.6 60 ft. I have plenty of low end. Car and me 3060 lb
Not sure I agree with the 3.89 gear being the issue...I run a 3.89 gear and have netted a 1.35 60' so far. Granted, with a deeper gear, it would probably do better...but that's not too shabby . I'm guessing that if you're wanting to maximize what you have...get a converter that is matched to the combo you have now. An off the shelf converter will get you off the shelf results lol. It's expensive, but you WILL see tangible results. I don't know anyone who has ever gotten a converter made specifically for their combo who has lost performance as a result. IMO, heads, cam, and converter are where you will get your best bang for your buck in pretty much any combo. If one or the other is mismatched for the combo, you're leaving performance on the table. But it sounds like you're having a good time racing, and that's as important as anything!
