A no-holds-barred Ford 303 cam evaluation

In this, episode 66 of PowerTec 10, DV does a scathing report on the poorly derived valve event timing of ALL the Ford Windsor 303 cam series. Before you think about using one of these cams you had best watch this video. It will, without a doubt, give you the knowledge to make a more optimal cam choice. Remember you are not really buying a cam - what you are really after is torque and HP. If the cam you buy does not deliver these in the quantities it could - if properly designed - then you have been sold a mediocre product.

[@hoffa_82nd2]

Unbelievable Knowledge you have Sir. Thank You for teaching us

[@josephtravers777]

Thank you for all things SBF!

[@theshed8802]

In my opinion, stall converters, and short gears are specified to ensure that the bad camshaft selection and engine building practices are covered up. I used to run 2.75:1 gears in a Falcon GT coupe, and launch at 4000rpm when running a top loader. It was traction limited all the way through first gear, and it could still blow the tyres off at 5500rpm in top gear if the road surface wasn't perfect. I used to rev it to 7000rpm. Based on my minuscule experience, I agree totally with everything DV says. I recommend that everyone who hasn't bought DV's book, How to Build Horsepower, go out and buy it. It's worth its weight in gold, if you can read, that is. Great video David. Regards Greg

[@trailerparkcryptoking5213]

If you can read you should learn some basic college level physics and some differential calculus so you don’t express ridiculous opinions on social media! Let me guess.....you outran John Force with your top gear tire smoking hotrod when he match raced in Australia in the 70’s?!?

[@theshed8802]

@trailerpark cryptoking go back to your crypto currency pedaling mate. Just because you are unable to understand how different combinations work, doesn't mean that they don't. By the way, don't put your bed too close to the edge, you might fall off and see the elephant riding on the turtle

[@keithtobin5369]

Thank you. Thank you for all your wisdom and knowledge

[@dalewarriorofthesea3998]

Great and useful insight Backed by knowledge and dyno testing , so much out there is average at best

[@guywihn1658]

Amen!.. Love hearing you speak your wisdom to us mere mortals.

[@robertwest3093]

I've been waiting a long time for DV to talk about Ford 5.0 cams. Thank you so much! I knew Fords 303 series were slow ramp with lots of overlap for that idle sound we all love.

[@jcnpresser]

I think that’s what sold so many, was clearly just the sound. They do sound awesome, imo, may be a little bias due to owning a 95 5.0. Don’t even know the cam in mine, probably going to go hunting for some explorer heads and intake this summer and I’ll tear it down and find out. It thumps pretty good right now though.

[@fwh79FOXR6]

Robert West: The only Ford cam that has any overlap, is the Z303 with 4 degrees. The B E F and X cams do not have any overlap.

[@steamy1225]

@@fwh79FOXR6 That's good to know. I have the X in mine but sucks.

[@fwh79FOXR6]

@@steamy1225 What don't you like about it? According to Richard Holdeners 5.0L Ford Dyno Tests book... the X cam is the best performing of the Ford 303 cams (didn't test the Z cam). This is how they placed in the test: 1. X303 2. F303 3. E303 4. B303

[@autonomous_collective]

LOVE IT! "I dont have an opinion, I have a Dyno!"

[@scottsigmon926]

This was absolutely correct and informative. Can’t wait for the next episode

[@richardscott8186]

This man Rocks! Thank you David

[@lesgaal4017]

My only comment is David fantastic information sometimes people can't understand the importance of the Brain of a Engine. Looking forward to part two for Ford Windsor camshafts. Cheers

[@brianhdueck3372]

Well said, David. I am a skeptical guy. Anyone can write words but few can prove them. Thank you for your work.

[@keithtobin5369]

I never get enough of your wisdom thank you

[@brokentoolgarage8609]

Nice! Those cams remind me of the old Mopar purple cams. I got one of those non HO cams. It was half wiped when I pulled it out. The replacement is the Explorer cam and is installed at 4 deg advanced (cam)

[@jeffalvich9434]

Hi David! When I listen to you it's like my dad was sitting across from me...... He too was an aerospace mechanical engineer (non-credentialed) and worked in the early days of the space program- Gemini, Mercury, Surveyor and then went into missiles (ICBM & air to air) where he left in the 70's. He ran flatties back in the 40's and 50's at El Mirage and SoCal speedways.... he had one that the Stecker Bros ran at El Mirage- an NA version that turned 211 MPH in a streamliner.... people couldn't believe it..... but he also always drilled into me, toque 1st, hp second! Then, if you don't have the power, you need gears.... if you don't have the gears, you need more power.

[@mickcnd2657]

Another great video. Listen to Mr. Visard folks he has never once steered me wrong. And he is still batting 1000.

[@rwcolvin4229]

I once put together a 304 roller motor with an F303 cam,, 1'7 rockers. Twisted wedge aluminum heads with bowl and port work, shorty headers etc. Through the cats and mufflers it made 471 whp and 454 lb ft of torqe. Fun to drive and it got 20 mpg at part throttle cruise with 3.73 gears and a 5 speed. It passed California emmisions at a tset only station. All this was accomplished with an S trim Vortech @ 11 psi.

[@xxkingslayemxxgamer5553]

You are 100% right on that about the lobe center line alot of people just don't get it and buy a cam that is wrong

[@deanstevenson6527]

Merry Christmas, Uncle squirrel 🐿️...wherever you are..

[@TheGT350Garage]

I'm going to disagree with DV on just one of the "303" grinds, because the B/E/F cams never performed like Ford claimed they should, and I never bothered with the Z303. I did use the X303 extensively from the late '90s into the '00s and it has always been successful for me, but there are caveats to that. The X303 needs good supporting parts, like an RPM Air-Gap (carb) or Systemax II (EFI) intake, Twisted Wedge 170s, and 1-5/8" long tubes with a 2-1/2" dual exhaust. It should be installed on a 113 degree ICL, with 1.72 rockers (for 0.584" lift), and the valve springs need to be a Comp 987 or beehive equivalent. On a production 5.0L HO Short block this combination makes 340-350rwhp and 330-340rwtq consistently at peak verified on multiple chassis dynos, and with 11.90-12.10 @ 116-117mph in a 3450lb (with driver) LX coupe running a 4.30 gear and M&H drag radials. Are there better cams? Yes, absolutely. But was there ever better cam for less money that matched or exceeded that performance? No. Is it entirely fair to label every "303" cam as garbage, no, but as I started with, the B/E/F very much are/were.

[@TexasCamSultants]

The X303 cam is a good cam. It is really just a high lift B-303. The install CL actually would be different for each setup.

[@TheGT350Garage]

@@TexasCamSultants calling the X303 a B303 with more lift could not be further from reality. The problem with a B303 is the ramp rate is terrible, the X303 improves the ramp rate substantially, using a 1.72 rocker ratio improves that. Having used the X303 hundreds of times in 302/306/327/331/342/347 displacements with most popular cylinder heads and induction systems, I can tell you the cam wants to be installed in a narrow window between 112 and 116 ICL, 113 and 115 being the most common.

[@TexasCamSultants]

@TheGT350Garage You are completely correct, the B303 has a ramp rate of 2.40 vs the x cam 2.55 ramp rate. Because, it is "basically" the same cam with more lift. It has to get to a higher lift in the same amount of time. It can't do that with speeding up. Actually, the B cam Lobe has more intensity (60) vs the x cam (62). The B cam with 1.8rr has a very sustainable 2.62 ramp rate giving it a total lift of .540. The x xam though, with 1.72rr still faster with 2.70 rate. Both cams have the exact same @.050 valve events. Moving the centerline i.e. retarding or advancing the camshaft is the same for both because cores are cut with 107 CL, and 112 LSA. But the camshaft doesn't like or dislike different install centerline. It's the engine that likes it. That is because your changing valve event. Like I said in a different post. Camshafts are designed around valve events. Duration, LSA, and CL are just products of putting the valve events where you want/need them.

[@TexasCamSultants]

To add on to one thing I was saying about the x cam. Looking at the live profiles; the x cam w/1.72rr is getting super aggressive over the nose making it harder for the springs to control the valvetrain. With 1.72 rr the x cam accelerates from .500" to .582" back to .500" in only 65 degrees. The x cam with 1.72rr is more aggressive over the nose than the Comp cams xtreme energy 274HR with 1.72 rr. I'm looking at the Lobe profiles and how they change with rocker arm adjustments.

[@johnathanrogers9794]

What cam would you recommend for a supercharged ford 4.9L inline 6 cylinder for off-roading and still be streetable with a manual transmission?

[@dennisrobinson8008]

I had that f303 in a 10.25:1 ported dart jr, Weiland stealth, 650dp holley and 1 5/8" long tubes 302. The f303 made 310rwhp/320rwtq. An ultradyne 223 with 223 duration , .556 lift and 108 lsa made 335rhwp and 330rwtq. The ultradyne had much more aggressive lobe profile. The f303 had a slightly better idle to 1000 rpm or so and the ultradyne spanked it across the board. With a vic jr intake the ultradyne made 360rwhp and 320 rwtq.

[@whiplashmachine]

The F303 is my prefered Letter cam👍. I've stuck them in so many different applications.

[@cjespers]

Thanks for the video!

[@rogeroaks2865]

One consideration for wide centerlines on the 5.0 fuel injection motors is these early injection systems where hard if not impossible to tune. Wide centerlines where much more computer friendly.

[@steamy1225]

Thanks for doing this video. I wish I've seen this back in 1996 when i did buy the X303 cam and put it in my 5.0 L Mustang. With the 30 over pistons and 1.6 roller rockers and this x303 cam , Edelbrock performer intake and 1 5/8 headers it only gained 15 horse power over stock. Had the car dynoed years ago and it only produced 197 HP at the wheels and 200 Lb ft i think. Very disappointing numbers. Yes is has the AOD trans. 88 Mustang LX automatic. 3.27:1 rear gears (stock) , street car. Not mad but thankful for the right info. On the next engine removal for strut tower rust repair i was going to re-install a stock cam as i'm more interested in Fuel mileage than horsepower nowa days . But maybe not, time will tell. Thanks again for the great info on this 303 series of cams for SBF.

[@obbyjep7597]

Thanks DV, this is awesome . I have been using flat tappet narrow lsa oval track cams in sbc projects and they work good. Most guys seem to run wide lsa cams in hot rods on the street, often my junk will beat them.

[@dougelverud4383]

Mlm

[@TexasCamSultants]

He's wrong

[@obbyjep7597]

Explain @@TexasCamSultants

[@TexasCamSultants]

@obbyjep7597 Well, every camshaft has a specific application in which it excels above the rest. Each is right in one setup or wrong in another. For one thing, he lost me when he said centerline is the most important valve event, considering it isn't a valve event. An engine is an air pump, camshafts are designed around what an engine's setup likes. Duration, lsa, and centerline are all products of getting the valve events correct. The letter cams have low intensity lobes compared to the newer style camshafts. In theory higher intensity makes more power, but not always. The greater (lower number) the intensity the faster it snaps the valve open = more power. The down side is they require more spring, and the high intensity wears them out quicker. Let's face it most people don't ever go back and look at the valve train when they build a hydraulic setup. They put it in and forget about it. Once the springs lose their ability to control the valve effectively, the less aggressive cam makes more power. Higher revs exacerbate the issue. Let's use his 211/211 camshaft as an example. I ran it through my cam design software along with the b-303. The 211/211 is better for a bone stock engine, but once you change the cylinder heads, intake, exhaust, etc, the b 303 outperformed it. I used AFR165 for the model. The b cam makes 4 more peak power than than the 211/211 and 2 less average torque from 2500rpm to 6500 rpm. From 4000 rpm (where people race from after 1st gear) they make the same average, and from 5k the b cam is on top, making 4 more average. The numbers are irrelevant, and it isn't even really the intention. The purpose in designing is to figure out if this, or that works better with the sum of the rest of the parts making up the build. I do agree with one thing, his will have much better idle quality and vacuum. That's because it only has 40° of total overlap and -9° overlap at .050" compared to the B camps 60° total overlap and 0° overlap at .050". That also means it will barely lope at all. Tighter (narrow) LSA tend to have better midrange torque. The tighter it gets, the more overlap a camshaft has if the given duration is unchanged. There is so many variables, I don't know how anyone can claim any particular camshaft is mediocre as a blanket statement. More specifics need to be given in what context of what the engine setup is. Well, I have rambled on way too long. If you made it through the whole post, my hats off to you.

[@obbyjep7597]

I read it all. And agree that many things effect the cam timing that will be best. I don't have a lot of experience,only less than a dozen motors with a few ending up getting dyno ed. Most of my stuff could be called low budget with stock or close to heads and I found using circle track cams with narrow lsa have me a bit of advantage at the cost of poor idle. Thanks for taking the time to explain@@TexasCamSultants

[@arthurrose6473]

Dave- please clarify how you use the term LCA. For me, it is LSA (LOBE SEPARATION ANGLE) I use LCA to indicate WHERE I am INSTALLING the cam (advancing or retarding relative to the crank). LCA is adjustable, LSA IS NOT- it's ground into the cam. You are the man to clarify this misnomer I have been seeing for too many years! It will stop the confusion once and for all! Thanks!

[@jasonhemp5747]

Where the cam is installed is the ICL

[@lautburns4829]

Thanks again,Davis. I’m working on a Boss 302 now so I’ll need info on that engine as well.✋🏻👍

[@hotrodray6802]

Send him $5,000 and he'll do your dyno tests.

[@lautburns4829]

Well yes and I may be delivering the heads also.

[@John1Brady]

Had a 89 5.0 HO from a Mustang I swapped into my then 87 TBird Turbocoupe. Had to rebuild so opted for the E303 as an upgrade. Looks like from the presentation that might be the best of the bunch due to the 110 LCA. Unfortunately the springs were not up to the job and dyno'd at 249rwhp @ 4600rpm and 314rwtq @ 3500rpm (yes I know that rwtq does NOT include the gearing increase but backs it down to engine RPM). Thing ran great but no money at the time means no valve spring upgrade which would have likely show 300ish rwhp at 5500rpm or so. Wish I had a Vizard cam in it. Long since sold. Oh yeah, stock heads pocket ported and runner matched with 1.5" shorty headers and 2.5" dual exhaust. Was VERY torquey.

[@hotrodray6802]

I've been thinking E because of 110*. Ford says it works with stock fuelie setup. That's good. Jones or Isky 👍 45 more on stock long block.... Fuelie? DV didn't say but I'm betting 4 bbl.

[@foxfordcatguy2283]

"1.5" shorty headers"? Do you mean 1⅝" (1.625")? The stock Mustang headers are 1½" (1.5").

[@JC-gw3yo]

Next time I need a cam, David, you will get a message. That all makes a lot of sense to me.. I hope you don't get too busy Ha

[@howardcameron1541]

Thank You Mr Vizard.

[@gernblanstien4968]

100% right.... some guys seem to have a 350 that idles good, yet pulls harder to 6500, and seems to beat so many 350s that idle rumpety rump and need a high stall....

[@dannoyes4493]

Thank you for this.

[@user-op5jt8sv5z]

Спасибо за информацию. Очень интересная подача материала

[@rjblue1119]

Good stuff David, you forget to mention the ridiculous prices of the Ford cams now. They are a RIP off, I 100% agree with you.👍

[@hotrodray6802]

E was a good improvement 30 years ago

[@whiplashmachine]

I'm still playing with the factory HO cams lol. Have a Rush headed 351W with a factory HO cam in my '91 E150 and a factory HO cammed, 11:1 347 with a 500cfm 2 barrel Holley in my '86 Mustang.

[@doughelmle6575]

I"m alittle confused. I always looked at overlap and tied that to idle quality. Then everyone started talking about LSA. I assumed they were the same . Now im learning about coefficents, static and dynamic compression, LSA formulas, My heads starting to spin! Thanks david! I"m a slow learner.

[@GregHuston]

David's book has some good info on Overlap. The book can explain better than I can how you can decrease overlap on a narrow LSA cam and retain idle quality.

[@rono3045]

Back in the seventies and eighties a real popular cam for the 351 Cleveland was a 505 cam now if they would have done that for a 302 or a windsor those two would haul butt

[@thomasgellos1732]

Good day Sir

[@terrysibley9636]

Thank you sir.

[@donnatalielucasheimbigner7598]

I was building my little brother's 302 for his 83 F-150 when the cams were relatively new & had a boat load of hype. I don't know what the cams do on the dyno, but I dismissed them after looking at the specs. Not what I wanted to build max low-end torque through mid-range perf.

[@MrAPCProductions]

228/228 and 345 lift...."race" camshaft. For reference the baby comp XE is 230/236 that idles like a factory motor.

[@gofastparts4u]

No it doesn't lol.

[@Trobertsdsgmach1]

That’s showing lobe lift my friend.

[@hotrodray6802]

You missed the point: LSA 6-9* too wide depending on which CC.

[@daledavies2334]

Hello David, Happy New Year. Considering the SBF, how would tight LSA function with EFI? Carburetted you can end up passing fuel out the exhaust. With an O2 sensor that is read as a rich mixture and the ECU will try to lean the mixture out. I recon you could program to delay the start of injection, which would allieviate fuel passing out the exhaust valve. Years ago PHR did a 305 in a 83 Malibu wagon. They stroked it to 334 CID and put a Comp 268H cam in. This car had a feedback Rochester carb. At the dragstrip it kept rolling over, sensing a rich mixture. The electronics kept leaning it out. They kept trying all the conventional tuning and even drilling the carb. Finally a reader clued them in that the O2 was sensing rich from too much intake duration running into the overlap. They got an Engle cam of shorter duration and higher lift. By then they had the carb butchered so got a Holley feedback replacement. Those early electronics were not very "smart". Once they did this it ran great. 700R4 trans and 2.56 gears. Seems I remember 15 something in the 1/4 and real good fuel economy. Thank you DV

[@GregHuston]

every Ford 5.0 HO from 1986+ is Multi Port EFI. The Ford System especially '89+ with MAF is much better than that CCC Rochester that even with piggy back PROM Chips didn't like any big changes. A good tuner today can easily make a tight LSA CAM have the correct fueling in any 5.0 HO. We really didn't know nearly what we do now back n the 80s & 90s, it was a lot of trial and error.

[@TractorTech]

The funny thing is if you go on a mustang forum and ask about replacing the stock cam and you hav e E7 heads everyone will say don't do it because the factory cam is very efficient. The if someone asks about an alphabet/303 cam they will say don't use it because modern grinds are better. Now going by that logic, wouldn't there be a better cam than the stock cam? I've been watching and learning from your videos for a while DV. I used your 128 formula and figured out I need a cam with a 108 LSA for my 302 with GT40P heads. I found a custom grinder that actually offer 3 off the shelf grinds for GT40 combos. 2 of them have a 108 LSA.

[@itseithergonnaworkoritaint7852]

Thank you DV for sharing you knowledge and many years of experience. I was thinking about the tighter LSA cams and was curious on how the LSA effects fuel economy? Seems like more TQ and HP on tap throughout the entire RPM range even at cruise could possibly yield more mpg with the right gearing? Do you have any data on fuel economy with the tighter LSA cams that you recommend? I know, what does performance have to do with fuel economy right? I have to drive my junk to the track so I want it all, great performance AND decent fuel economy so I won't have to hesitate on which car to take on a nice day. Thanks in advance if you answer this question.

[@donnatalielucasheimbigner7598]

It has in my experiences, even in relatively heavy pickup trucks. It makes getting the best mileage a bit tricky though, because the throttle response at anywhere close to your max torque will make keeping the same speed without cruise control nearly impossible.

[@bcbloc02]

So many people that say a cam is great have never dynoed against a different cam to know if it really is or not.

[@Twilight-Imagery]

Interesting video. I’ve been a fan of David Vizard for many years. One thing that should be taken into consideration is the fact that David is talking about making peak HP & TQ in this video. You won’t make a video less than two hours long that gives more and better information. But there are many things not said in this video. Optimal cylinder heads / intake design / fuel mixer / exhaust / emissions needs etc. All need to be taken into consideration here when designing a proper engine configuration. Street only / street & track / track only.. Then there are creature comforts - vacuum required for brake and HVAC needs / power steering / automatic transmission / etc. David “should” address that it’s all a great balancing act here. It’s give & take - not all just take, take, take…. So the very first thing that needs to be done is to nail down your “use case” and then design an engine build to address your needs. That design includes the selection of a proper camshaft.

[@grantsgalaxy687]

The old Ford le Mas cam has a 107 lsa. And is solid flat tappet wonder how it would compare

[@edbrown1080]

E303 with 1.7 rockers won't be to bad with a good stall to boot.

[@michaelgiglio1571]

I totally agree. What were they thinking.

[@copisetic1104]

I read the ramp accelerating and opening and closing geometry by prof Blair. Does anyone use these algorithms?

[@jeromeogivenz4470]

Give a foxbody guys a engine formula/recipe so we could kick some ass and say David vizard sent us 🏎️ ⚡️🏆🇺🇸

[@donnatalielucasheimbigner7598]

I have prepped the sides of the rods additionally to eliminate any chances of stress crack formation from any sharp edges. I also think that perhaps it aids in oil shedding from the rods, which will possibly help cool the rods & slightly increase the amount of oil thrown on the cam lobes. Not certain of the latter, but even if it is possible, it is worth the time. I used a miniature belt sander to smooth out the rod beams & top. It left them super smooth & produced vertical sand scratches while eliminating the possibility of creating accidental "scallops" from leaving the die grinder in one spot for too long.

[@shaunobrien6425]

The e303 doesn't look bad, maybe less torque than the last few but it has more duration and overlap so that should be expected, I would guess it is making more power at higher rpms, still has a narrow LCA too.

[@johnhennery8820]

Thank you David for sharing this with us and thank you for another excellent video I have always gone with a 108 to 110 lobe center line thay make my engens really quick out of the hole beat just about everything that challenges me with a 289 I also use a crank from a 221 early ford v8 any way thanks again for your time and looking forward to seeing the next edition of this❤

[@markbartley3630]

Thank you for time and knowledge. I'm learning! Will replace my cam in 331,afr185,air gap,10.5 comp. 4.30 gear,5speed 66 fastback. Your chart said,104 lsa, 2.02 intake ,289 cfm at 600. Lift. 6200 rpm limit. Any input on overlap an duration,thinking 280 ish at .50?

[@daynalynds8719]

Love this channel

[@cmte.brazinazzo2061]

Why did you cut the music at the end? I'd love to know its name to enjoy it some more...

[@rodsnhawgs]

Love your channel DV. I've learned soooo much. Thank you. Trouble is...the more you learn, the harder it is to find "off the shelf" parts... especially cams

[@aaronzahorski9809]

Still waiting on the addendum to this video…

[@trailerparkcryptoking5213]

I drag raced 289’s in the early 80’s and never liked the specs of these 5.0 cams. My 289’s ran 11 second quarter miles before there was technology and an aftermarket for SBF’s!

[@adrenaholic1]

265rwhp 93 5.0 with ported e7, trick flow intake, comp cam, and short headers. Maxed out stock injectors.

[@steved479]

The E303 is CARB legal; it's the only "Street legal" cam for the Windsor I'm aware of.

[@Comet-hn3gm]

I will be in touch.

[@tonytate2964]

Thanks

[@Stl5ltr]

What are your feelings on the Summit versions of the letter cams?

[@frank3stangs]

I've got a 347 turbo mustang! Got the F cam. It made 600 wheel hp with a auto. 13 psi of boost. Got a 408 mustang with a supercharger, made 630 whp! 13 psi! F-cam! 5 speed. I've seen 351's make 1000 hp with the F cam! Your saying I should change it?

[@DavidVizard]

The fact you have supercharged the engine brings the cam you are using more into line with what is needed.

[@BAMAJiPS]

I was thinking how BAD the E7TE Fox 5.0 heads flow - abysmal numbers - but how well overall the 5.0 Fox Mustang performed and how fun the cars were... now the go-to performance upgrade was headers, intake and a B303 and E303 cam... and its amazing throwing all those upgrades at completely maxed out heads as cast from the factory... (just thinking out loud here)

[@95Sn95]

If someone has a street driven bone stock E7 headed 5.0ho and plan to do cam intake and exhaust upgrade what cam would you recommend?

[@hotrodray6802]

DV said +45 for Jones. Carb or fuelie, he didn't say. Jones or Isky, but I'm betting you'll have to get a laptop tune.

[@erikturner5073]

It is what it is! Facts don't care about feelings!👍

[@deanharris7149]

If I remember correctly, which is a 50/50 bet, the original 303 cams were on pre mass air flow engines. Any giant leap of air flow leaned the engine out because the computer couldn’t measure the air, it had built in tables. Thank you for your interest in the other makes. Especially the 302’s. That poor engine suffered so much because it was originally designed to be mileage engine. ANY LIGHT you can shed on factory 4V Cleveland heads and what cam shafts fit their nature would be immensely appreciated. Is the 71’ Boss cam really better than the 72’ HO cam? If you were building a 351C Boss clone what cam would you put in it.

[@hotrodray6802]

DV's cam spec service is worth his price.

[@steamy1225]

I got a speed density Mustang(88) 5.0 with the X cam and before i installed a superchip module to the computer it did run very lean to the point of headers glowing red hot. The module fixed that problem . Stock injectors. That was in 96. Still in the car and still driving it 26years later. Same set up.

[@mikemaccracken3112]

I would love to see that SBF cam list.

[@deanstevenson6527]

Mike, see both 5:23, 8:23. For you, here is a smattering of what was for Ford SVO, the 12 most Revolutionary Roller and Flat tappet cams for post 1986 Port Fuelie 5.0and 5.8's. They are way out of date, but you asked... There were some earlier Marine cams from other suppliers that varied from the stock 115 lobe center, but it's hard to track them down. E5AE 6250 AA and F1AE 6250 AA is the 107 LCA roller cam, not on the list, it's a Standard Output 5.0 and 5.8 cam, but it's a tiny cam. 50 thou figures show a lot more on what was going on. Stock 85-90 cam is 204°/204° at 50 thou 444 in. 444 ex thou lift ( Version 1 and Version 2 again, Roller cam). This compares with the 91-95 cams 222°/214°, so it varied on the quoted number in other parts of the old catalogs. Overall Roller cam Production figures are effectively four types, revised four times: 85-88 5.0: E5ZE-6250-AA 266°/266° at lash 444/444 thou lift (Version 1)................................................ ..1st 89-90 5.0 : E8ZE-6250-CA 276°/266° at lash 444/444 thou lift (Version 2)................................................ 2nd 91-93 5.0: F1ZE-6250-AA 276°/266° at lash 444/444 thou lift (Version 2) 93 Cobra 5.0: F3ZE-6250-CA 270°/270° at lash 479/479 thou lift with 1.7 rocker arm ratio (Version 3)...3rd 94 Cobra 5.0: F1ZE-6250-AA 276°/266° at lash 444/444 thou (Version 2) 95 Cobra 5.0: F4ZE-6250-DA 276°/266° at lash 444/444 thou lift (Version 2) 96-01 Explorer 5.0:F4TE-6250-BA 256°/266°at lash 422/448 thou lift (Version 4)....................................4th A-cam (Ist flat tappet hyd ) is 204°/214° at 50 thou 448 in. 472 ex...............Deadly Letter A'.....................5th A-cam (2ndflat tappet hyd ) is 204°/214° at 50 thou 472 in. 496 ex..............Deadly Letter A''....................6th E-cam is 220°/220° at 50 thou 498 in. 498 ex thou lift..................................Deadly Letter E.....................7th B-cam is 224°/224° at 50 thou 480 in. 480 ex thou lift..................................Deadly Letter B......................9th F-cam is 226°/226° at 50 thou 512 in. 512 ex thou lift..................................Deadly Letter F......................10th X-cam is 224°/224° at 50 thou 542 in. 542 ex thou lift..................................Deadly Letter X.....................11th Z-cam is 228°/228° at 50 thou 552 in. 552 ex thou lift..................................Deadly Letter Z......................12th

[@hotrodray6802]

@@deanstevenson6527 Ford says all those stock HO cams are the same grind. The different part numbers were because of the machining on the cam gear end changed. Your E5 and F1 non HIPO cam info is incorrect as they are different firing orders from each other. Enough.... from me.

[@pedrogarza-ec5jq]

I want to install a camshaft on my 302 5.0 ho 1988 I am between a new trickflow stage 1 or an anderson that sells me my friend I have gt40p mounted heads and rockers 1.7 of cobra flat piston .30 hypereutectic speed pro will you know if I have any problems between valve and piston? Will it work with the same stock rods?

[@chestrockwell8328]

Did the Ford Windsor Cam Selection Chart every get made and released? I assume by "windsor" DV means both the actual Windsor 351's and the Cleveland 302's.... yes, the 302 blocks are cast at a Cleveland plant. For years I assumed the 302's were also made at the Windsor plant, I was corrected.

[@craigchiddo2794]

What year was the crown vic cam wit the 107lsa

[@CatDaddyTuning]

Thoughts on modified 289 heads on a fox body 302?

[@javierquiroga1658]

I wonder what happened with the G303 cam ,it came out for a bit but I guess no one ever bought it 🤔 and it's not forsale anymore

[@user-oy2id5ii6r]

Hey, can anyone tell me I’ve been watching dv videos after buying a B3, 03, Cam, I have flow 185, cylinder heads, 10.5 to 1 compression Would I almost be better off running the stock HO Cam feedback please

[@pimpovic2]

Can someone please elaborate on how this all changes when you add boost to a SBF engine? The 128 formula (127 on a sbf) is very specific in its compression ratio abs the fact that its NA. What adjustments need to be made for boost? Do you simply treat it as raising compression points? Can't imagine that's thorough enough.

[@blkcoupequattro]

adding boost increases VE in any engine, and yes by increasing VE timing and compression are crucial. I spoke to Vizard years ago about a small engine I was building, he's by far one of the better authorities on IE engines, the engine we spoke on was the 1.6L English Ford Kent pushrod engine....

[@dresdensvo]

What changes did Summit make on their improved 303 cams ?

[@hotrodray6802]

Holdener tested them. No appreciable difference.

[@edwardkurek5355]

I emailed the company you suggested for oil a few days ago and received no response!

[@mikemaccracken3112]

Go over to Lake Speed Jr’s channel Speediagnostix. Lake worked for Joe Gibbs Driven motor oil.

[@christophersambuco9414]

This video was already posted a year ago

[@hotrodray6802]

He explained that thoroughly while you were watching somebody else.

[@laiky71]

DV, can you comment on when/why you would want a larger LSA? What happens to drivability? Mileage? Emissions? When i picked the cam I'm using in my street car, (SBC 383, 9.8 :1, AFR 190 heads) emissions and drivability we're a concern. I ended up with a 224/230 on a 114 LSA The thought at the time was that it would idle better, and be more likely to get past emissions. I can tell you that it will pull 5th gear from 1000 rpm without any issues. Would i do better with a tighter LSA? Would i give up any drivability?

[@johnflett2531]

According to DV's how to build horsepower book, page 107. The chart there shows your cam should have an LCA of 105-106 (383ci, divided by 8 = 47.875ci per cylinder. Now we divide that by your intake valve diameter, 47.875/2.02=23.7 and that puts you between 105 and 106 on the chart). This is all assuming your engine has a CR between 9.5:1 and 10.5:1. "when/why you would want a larger LSA?" If you increase valve diameter for a given displacement optimal LCA widens. Also compression widens it as well. Page 108 says to increase LCA by .75 for every point of compression above 10.5:1. A 347 SBF dyno test on page 106 shows the difference between that engine's ideal LCA and 2 degrees too wide. After being run first with the 110 LCA cam, a new cam was installed with the same profile but an LCA of 108. The tighter LCA cam produced almost 20hp and 20 ft-lbs more with no lose of idle quality and it made more power though the entire pull (2500-6000). That was only a 2 degree difference, I can only imagine what your engine is missing out on being 8 degrees too wide. As far as passing emissions goes, I'd bet the overlap would be the main deciding factor there.

[@pimpovic2]

​@@johnflett2531does he talk about what happens to the formula (and corresponding LSA) under boost? I've been asking for weeks with no answer what to calculate for boosted applications.

[@johnflett2531]

@@pimpovic2 I don't think boost would change the LSA requirement at all ("think" being the key word here as I'm not an expert on the mater). Adding forced induction doesn't change airflow attributes of the engine. One way to think of it is, adding boost is just putting the engine at a simulated lower altitude. If I'm running a procharger at 12 psi of peak boost, the engine effectively "thinks" that the barometric pressure is 12 psi higher than it was before (at peak RPM anyway, because of how the boost curve works). If the LSA needs to change with boost, than it would also need to change with altitude, and I don't believe that is the case. What does need to change is how well the exhaust flows out of the cylinder. The more boost the engine sees, the more the exhaust needs to flow compared to the intake. This can be addressed when porting the heads. If that's not an option then installing a cam with more exhaust duration can aid in removing the excess of pressure from the extra oxidizer. Watch "Blower/N2O head mods - 50 -100 extra HP" DV did about 7 months back. He talks a lot about what to do with a boosted engine, and he doesn't mention anything about LSA.

[@andrewforster4974]

Hello David I have a question I have a 1968 ford 302 I was wondering if I put e7te heads on it would it make better hp and torque the engine is for a daily driver ty andrew

[@panthermadness4232]

You would lose compression with the larger combustion chamber size of the later model E7 head..There are no gains honestly with an E7 head...I'd keep the 68 heads unless you wanted to pay more for different pistons to regain compression which would just be a waste of money honestly, to re-gain what you already had with the early heads...Now, if you were talking the GT40 (3 bar heads) or even early 69/70 351 windsor heads then this would be worth it considering the heads are a considerable improvement over stock 302 castings with larger intake ports and bigger valves. I would consider early 54cc 289 heads which would raise your compression and give you added power if you're just looking for a budget bolt on.

[@hotrodray6802]

@@panthermadness4232 289 heads flow about the same 155 and are shrouded valves. Will push the compression to about 9.5 depending how far your piston is in the hole. Find a wrecked Explorer. Remember the Explorer 3 bar are basically 69-70 W heads with small plugs, same 62 CC chamber volume. Before you choke.... How many have YOU ported ??

[@panthermadness4232]

@@hotrodray6802 First of all not all the 3bar heads you find on an explorer are going to be 62/63cc "Cobra" castings..Ford used what stock they had and one set can end up being 64/65cc 3 bar castings from the lightning..I'd probably get a few more facts with casting numbers to look for instead of the poor advice to just go find a wrecked explorer and pull the heads...GT40P castings are actually closer to the early 351 heads ranging from 58cc to 60cc. Gt40 heads are refined and a completely different casting than the early 351 so, NO, they aren't "Essentially" the same aside from valve sizes. Cough cough cough..sorry,I'm choking over here...How many heads have I ported?...If this is your magic question to judge someone's knowledge,I would consider a new hobby away from being a keyboard engine building expert...I'll bet youre an expert on the Facebook small block ford pages too aren't you?

[@mackenziehutchison4838]

Could you review the Slopy Stage 2 cam for the LS engines, it's often called the best all round cam for 5.3 and 6.0 engines for power and drive ability. I don't really believe it.

[@hotrodray6802]

Holdener has.

[@dennisrobinson8008]

@@hotrodray6802 yes he has

[@bigblockjalopy]

So by "wide lobe center angle" you mean lobe seperation angle (LSA)?

[@hotrodray6802]

Yes

[@yolandalindsay8368]

Let the Sparks Fly.

[@christopheransell2179]

So what you're saying is that the 303 cam is not hot enough to properly feed a purpose built high horsepower engine? What about the opposite end of the spectrum, a 303 cam in an early '70s low compression Ford 302 with the only mod being an aluminum dual-plane intake and a 600 cfm carb with a stock C4 tranny? Would it help or hinder?

[@utahcountypicazospage5412]

So tighter lsa also affects max rpm if you add duration that makes the cam have a higher shift point and more overlap could cam companys be making cams have higher shift point with less overlap? Even tho that sacrifices power

[@dennisrobinson8008]

Did you see Rich Holdener cam lsa KZbin? The tight lsa wins across the board on a na app.

[@quintonbrown7280]

How do we get in touch with you to spec a cam

[@dresdensvo]

How do they compare to other 1986 cams ?

[@hotrodray6802]

A 20 hp increase was always told by the drivers as 50.

[@elliottbutts153]

Curious what your thoughts are on the cam Richard Holdener always recommends for SBF. The Comp Cam XE274-HR? But that may depend on the engine, displacement, valve size, cyl heads which I understand.

[@TractorTech]

If you use the DV 128 formula the xe274hr has the wrong LSA.

[@fwh79FOXR6]

@@TractorTech What LSA does the formula come up with?

[@mrhipbone]

The issue I have with Holdeners videos is he is sharing information from magazine dyno tests he did in some cases over 20 years ago, and also with predetermined bias to the results published. DV touched on it at the start of this episode, tests published in magazines are there to sell the magazine, and/or sell the tested product depending on who paid for the test. The XE274 does give reasonable improvements over a stock cam, but there are better options available especially with the advances in HR valve spring tech since RH did his testing.

[@TractorTech]

@@mrhipbone I think I'm going with the flow tech induction cam. It is on a 108 lsa like the dv 128 formula says to use.

[@mrhipbone]

@@TractorTech I'm doing an EFI 5.0 now with a modified set of GT40P heads (240cfm @0.550") beehive spring assembly and heavily modified Cobra/Explorer long runner intake. In various combos over the years I've tried a lot of different cams and for this build settled on FTI's GT40 KR1-A. 214/218 @0.050" with a LSA of 108° and ICL 106°. 10:1 comp and a few "free HP" tricks in the bottom end to try and achieve a real 300rwhp.

[@cryptosully2357]

I am new to engine building. would like to do it right the first time. my engine code is of a 1970 Fairlane/Tornado 4bbl never opened. its in my 66 mustang. I won two trophy's with it last year. i wouldn't open the hood for anyone not even the judges. Need help. if some one could let me know what to buy i can figure out how it goes together. I'm a lunge time mechanic but never did a full engine build. would be nice to hear a heavy cam and be close to 400/425hp. I have true/track 9'' 3.50 3speed. I have a 6speed but not goin in just yet. rear tire is 245/40 18

[@ricknorrington2211]

How about the 429/460 engines Really not much info and testing on them

[@ummduhgmail]

Absolutely. I'd also love to see how this all applies to trucks as well, as far as building a killer towing engine.

[@hotrodray6802]

Basic porting work is applicable to all engines. DVs cam program works well. 460s need about 102 LSA with those sucky heads.

[@ricknorrington2211]

@@hotrodray6802 🤣😂429-460 head definitely could’ve been designed way better especially without that huge obstruction in the exhaust I massaged a set of dove heads that will hopefully flow enough for a tunnel ram

[@HenryDara1]

Great info David, thanks so much. Any chance you can omit the background sound as I find it very distracting when I am trying to hear what your saying. Thanks again!!

[@MrGsxr10001]

The 303s came out a long time ago. at that time they worked pretty good. BUt the truth is 90% of the people that put in the E or B are looking the idle sound. They are not doing any real racing and they like the way they sound. I had an F in an 86 fox with intake carb and headers and 3.73s It sound really good and was fun to drive. I was happy with it, Miss that ole girl. The 303s arw out dated for sure.

[@msk3905]

So this video is telling us what we knew back in late 80s early 90s?

[@creeksidegarage852]

I sure would like to get you to help me figure out a cam for a cleveland ford. I've been trying the 128 formula (132 in my case)...but I'm a little confused about some things...like for instance what if I have more than 10.5 to 1 compression...does the formula change ? Amongst other things.

[@hotrodray6802]

Yes

[@theshed8802]

Buy David's book, How to Build Horsepower. In it, you will find all of the adjustment factors that you need to deal with. Not just for Cleveland's, but for anything else as well. I posted some photos of the Ford Falcon GTHO workshop manual engine section on the Cleveland's Forever Facebook page last year. That motor was specified 11.5:1, and solid lifter cam. The actual valve timing was 40 80, and 84 36. I just sat down ran the numbers using DV's book. Valve overlap is 76°, and the lobe centreline/separation angle is 112°. According to DV's book, including making adjustments for the change in compression ratio, the desired LCA is 111.75°. The HO as we know it, was/is legendary for its performance in Australia.

[@johnflett2531]

Yes, listen to The Shed, get the book. Use the LCA chart, then add 2 degrees (because Cleveland heads have canted valves) and add .75 degree for every point of compression above 10.5:1.

[@theshed8802]

@@johnflett2531 you obviously have the book as well.

[@creeksidegarage852]

I'm going to give it a read for sure...thanks

[@jr78racer]

Horsepower is an imaginary number that uses mathematics to highlight high rpm torque numbers to sell automobiles and automotive parts. The bottom line is that the more torque you have at any rpm ABOVE 5,252 rpm, the more “horsepower” you’ll have.

[@tinolino58]

HHaha

[@rustybritches6747]

What about diesel engines that make twice as much torque than horsepower below 3,000 RPM

[@jr78racer]

@@rustybritches6747 horsepower is an imaginary number. It is irrelevant. Dynamometers only measure torque. Horsepower is the product of a mathematical equation.

[@dennisrobinson8008]

High rpm torque

[@Cougracer67]

@@rustybritches6747 The formula is the same!

[@eterniaworks8802]

David knowledge is bursting from your videos but music effects are noise... don't get me wrong I will listen to you as long as you speak but dont repeat give me your time, we already given you all of it.

[@Bdoyle909]

those cam grinds got developed 30 years ago, cam and engine management technology has changed a lot since then. my thought is the wide LSA comes from the need for a smoother idle and better drivability because the factory ECU that runs the efi in a fox body sucks to say the least, and trying to tune the factory computer to have satisfied customers would then prove to be difficult for shops and at home wrenchers. also ford stopped making windsor engines in 2002? and the focus became the 4.6 and 5.4 in the mid to late 90s, so chances are Ford didnt continue investing large amounts of money into the windsor platform since it was becoming obsolete in the production world. so the development of the high performance windsor platform was pretty much handed to the aftermarket while the 303 cams made power improvements over stock so to ford those cams did their job... just my 2 cents

[@DavidVizard]

Spreading the LCA is not the way to improve idle and drivability. What they should have done is to shorten duration. This would have increased torque and probably HP depending just how much duration was cut.