What is the valve lash spec for a 289 HiPo? I assume that my engine is stock with a HiPo cam. Just want to check and adjust.
.022 is the valve lash cold. ( Sayeth so Ford) on the C30Z 6250 C Camshaft for the 271 HP 289.
If you wanted to know more about the OE cam here are the specs:
Duration 310 Degrees, Lift 0.477", Overlap 82 Degrees
Intake: 0.477" Lift with 0.022" Valve Lash with 1.6:1 Rocker Arms
Intake Opens 25 Degrees BTDC and Closes 70 Degrees ABDC, 275 Degrees Duration
Exhaust: 0.477" Lift with 0.022" Valve Lash with 1.6:1 Rocker Arms
Exhaust Opens 73 Degrees BBDC and Closes 22 Degrees ATDC, 275 Degrees Duration
Lobe Centers is 114 Degrees
That is the accepted cam BUT I show another listing IN ADDITION. Don't make me look it up. I'm using that book to hold up a table leg and all the water will spill.
I thought you used that book so you could see over the dashboard in the car, Doug? LOL
I pulled the factory Ford Service Manual for 1967. I have an original, not a reprint. I would assume Ford got it right?
I know some people set them differently than suggested by Ford.
I think you may want to confer with your little black book as well Doug, Perhaps there's a racer's trick.
I don't do small block anymore.
Straight out of the '1967 Shelby GT350/500 Owners Manual..020 Hot
I'd trust the service manual before the owner's manual. I have an original in my glovebox in the car, but didn't look at it. Is your manual an original or reprint?
Quote from: The Going Thing on July 07, 2020, 12:34:08 PM
I thought you used that book so you could see over the dashboard in the car, Doug? LOL
I pulled the factory Ford Service Manual for 1967. I have an original, not a reprint. I would assume Ford got it right?
I know some people set them differently than suggested by Ford.
I think you may want to confer with your little black book as well Doug, Perhaps there's a racer's trick.
I don't do small block anymore.
According to the Ford Pereformance Guide, there is another 1963 version. Maybe Randy can clear this up? I'm pretty sure that it did not have a special engineering number on it and perhaps it's the 260hp cam that Ford supplied for the first Cobras?
I sit on an old wooden milk crate.
I just did this. Its like 0.019/0.021 intake/exhaust.
Quote from: The Going Thing on July 07, 2020, 12:37:09 PM
I'd trust the service manual before the owner's manual. I have an original in my glovebox in the car, but didn't look at it. Is your manual an original or reprint?
Randy may not be aware so I will answer for him. The picture manual is one of several versions of the original owners manual . It is not a repro . One way he can tell is by the cover picture.
To the best of my knowledge, the owners manual that I supplied the picture of is the one that came with my car. The car's Shelby VIN is handwritten in the lower left hand corner, the "500" is magic markered over and the GT350 specs inside are highlighted in orange.
Better Pictures, oriented in the right direction.
So, since we are on the subject of Manuals.
The reproduction manuals that I see for sale are in color where mine is either black and white or it has completely lost its' original color over time. Thoughts?
Also, shows where an owner made a correction from 2.89:1 gears to 3.89:1.
And, one of my favorite parts is the curb weight comparison between GT350 and GT500 of 563 lbs.
Listed GT350 at 2,723 lbs and the GT500 at 3,286
Quote from: rmarble57 on July 07, 2020, 01:29:30 PM
Better Pictures, oriented in the right direction.
So, since we are on the subject of Manuals.
The reproduction manuals that I see for sale are in color where mine is either black and white or it has completely lost its' original color over time. Thoughts?
Also, shows where an owner made a correction from 2.89:1 gears to 3.89:1.
And, one of my favorite parts is the curb weight comparison between GT350 and GT500 of 563 lbs.
Listed GT350 at 2,723 lbs and the GT500 at 3,286
My thought is to start a stand alone thread so others can benefit using the search feature later or even in the present. No one would think to get owners manual info from a thread title what is? ;)
Roger that.
I was curious. Not that it should have any bearing on the information inside. I used the 1967 vehcile service manual for information. I tend to trust them more than an owner's manual.
However, .001 or .002 isn't going to be critical so either setting works.
I would agree. I have experimented with everything from .010 to .022 lash on my car and while it does change the actual duration and lift derived from the cam, the difference is slight and there should be no detrimental effect on the valvetrain.
What is the overall census then for valve lash setting, hot or cold?
Cold was what the original 67 service manual says. The .002 listed by others may be a hot lash setting.
Ford reference sources for 289HP:
Ford High-Performance Guide-65 page 15 says .020 hot;
Ford High-Performance Guide-66 page 22 says .018 hot;
Ford Muscle Parts Supplement #1 page 10 says .020 hot.
That would explain the differences in settings being it's hot and cold.
The Fomoco Service Manual calls for 0.022" COLD and 0.018" HOT.
I would not try setting them at 022" HOT, it would affect performance in a negative way.
It is interesting that the Shelby glove box manual differs from the Ford shop manual. The cam specs in Shelby's glove box book are also showing camshaft duration specs that are 2 degrees milder on opening and closing locations than what Ford shows. I suspect that if you used the adjustment specs from the glove box book it would indeed make the cam specs different to the tune of 2 degrees less on the opening and closing.
Here it is from my original copy:
Quote from: 67 GT350 on July 07, 2020, 11:45:39 AM
What is the valve lash spec for a 289 HiPo? I assume that my engine is stock with a HiPo cam. Just want to check and adjust.
I am guessing yours must be the original 1967 Chilton's manual?
Quote from: The Going Thing on July 08, 2020, 03:02:18 PM
Cold was what the original 67 service manual says. The .002 listed by others may be a hot lash setting.
I think I covered where the information came from. The 1967 FORD service manual. It's not a reprint. .022 cold is what I posted, which was the FIRST reply.
Pays to actually read the thread instead of making snide comments, right Royce?
.002" difference is not a significant number on any cam profile. The HP cam is so mild it won't be noticed at all either way.
.002" looser will give you a little more torque. .002 tighter a little more rpm. Neither significant at all.
If you hear a little more ruckus in the exhausts almost like a pinging, sometimes like a spitting sound, you're too tight and best back off a little, less you burn the seats.
On the intakes, if you are too tight, you will have the tendency to flame out or backfire through the intake at idle.
Of course if you guys want to debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, carry on. You are all doing a superb job of it.
Hello Doug:
I'm not questioning the difference. I am in complete agreement with you. A tight valve can be an issue and often it pops back through the carbs and can cause burnt valves. I don't do Chilton manuals as Royce opined. The comment was snide and we have enough arseholes here as it is. The whole point is to help others and even learn ourselves, is it not?
Focus is lost and sadly at those who have benefited most by the existence of the SAAC and other forums by selling goods and services seem to be at much of the hostility here. This isn't the military or a sterile cockpit environment that requires only one focus.
I am here to not only learn but to also help others through solving issues. Manuals tell little about anything that didn't come off the assembly line and technology changes constantly.
You covered what happens with tight or loose valves. The scenario I posted is the ugly side of things and clearly why some shouldn't touch their vehicle mechanically. I know you and I tend to muscle through things. Not all goes to plan, but it gets done at the end of the day. Such is the price of improving of Ford's better ideas.
Enjoy because what we call "rivet counters" in another hobby I have done since I was seven tend to destroy the enjoyment of creation and completion of complex projects. Carpe diem.
Quote from: The Going Thing on July 11, 2020, 07:01:42 PM
Hello Doug:
I'm not questioning the difference. I am in complete agreement with you. A tight valve can be an issue and often it pops back through the carbs and can cause burnt valves. I don't do Chilton manuals as Royce opined. The comment was snide and we have enough arseholes here as it is. The whole point is to help others and even learn ourselves, is it not?
Focus is lost and sadly at those who have benefited most by the existence of the SAAC and other forums by selling goods and services seem to be at much of the hostility here. This isn't the military or a sterile cockpit environment that requires only one focus.
I am here to not only learn but to also help others through solving issues. Manuals tell little about anything that didn't come off the assembly line and technology changes constantly.
You covered what happens with tight or loose valves. The scenario I posted is the ugly side of things and clearly why some shouldn't touch their vehicle mechanically. I know you and I tend to muscle through things. Not all goes to plan, but it gets done at the end of the day. Such is the price of improving of Ford's better ideas.
Enjoy because what we call "rivet counters" in another hobby I have done since I was seven tend to destroy the enjoyment of creation and completion of complex projects. Carpe diem.
No arguments by me and my intent is not to chide. All I am saying is isn't the question answered already?
Doug: I thought it was about six post back. However, I digress.
Quote from: The Going Thing on July 11, 2020, 09:00:41 PM
Doug: I thought it was about six post back. However, I digress.
It's good information. What else is there to do anyway? :)