Back in the 9 Apr 2009 post I discussed an early 1958 352 solid cam I got from Sunjet.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/message/1239222917/352-%26quot%3B300%26quot%3Bhp+Ford+Interceptor+1958+-+solid+cam+measured

Below are the measurements I took on the cam in compact notation in a table. I got these with a degree wheel on the cam itself so when it comes to the "advance" that is pretty much by eyeball and I don't trust it. But the other measurements, wear aside, are within a degree or two and a mil or two:
d050=.050" lobe duration, i=intake, e=exhaust
d100=.100" lobe duration, i=intake, e=exhaust
lsa050=lobe separation angle determined from .050" lobe
lsa100=lobe separation angle determined from .100" lobe
adv050=advance determined from .050" lobe, don't trust this
adv100=advance determined from .100" lobe, don't trust this
lobe-i=max lobe lift, intake
lobe-e=max lobe lift, exhaust

I measured 15 lobes, all except 6i which was wiped out.
I also show the average and standard deviation.
But, to guess the original specs, I think we'd have to use closer to the maximum .050 and lift numbers, since wear would likely only make them smaller.

Was this the origin of the 352/"300" rating?
Assuming this cam new at
202-206 duration at .050"
112 LSA and 2 advance
.241 .244 gross lift as in Motors
10.2 compression
Carter 625 on top
The Gonkulator shows 301hp at 5000:

Torq 313 at 2000
Torq 341 at 3000 peak
Powr 301 at 5000

give ok gas mileage too!

Looks like a great torque/driver!

************************************

1967 390GT engine: 416 CID 233/238* @ 0.050 Solid Lifter w/ 4 spd TL.
1966 410 engine, 1969 CJ heads, CJ cam, PI intake
1968 GT/CS Mustang. 289/c4

Oh and a Bicycle - daily driver to save gas for the 'F'un 'E'xcursions.

duration on that cam. Not sure I would call it a performance cam in a 352 CI engine.

Pete's Ponies
Mustang RUSToration & Performance

This "hot" mechanical (202-206 at .050) is, I postulate, one of the pieces that might have let the 352 actually make 300hp as a prototype in top condition.

For sure, the first truly "hot" FE cam is what I am now calling the "Alpha-Omega" grind after all my Cleveland research yesterday prompted by the Gran Torino post and the excellent movie:

That is, I have also tentatively concluded that the same cam lobe (.298 lobe lift, 228 at .050, 195 at .100) that was the first Ford "Muscle Car" solid cam on the 1960 352/"360", was also the last Ford "Muscle Car" solid cam, on the same 4.00 bore x 3.50 stroke, the "351" (aka 352) 277nhp (aka 334ghp) 351ho of 1972.

Ironic that Ford started and ended the era with the same solid cam lobe, on the same bore x stroke, and that they actually changed lobes vs the previous year's Boss 351 to do this. Was it somebody's intentional nostalgia, knowing the end was here?

It is kind of a dog off the line, but a boatload of torque is available at cruising speed. Think the 3.00 rear has something to do with it? The 2bbl 390 in my 63 ragtop feels like it will run circles around it. I have every reason to think the 60 is bone stock, and every reason to think the 63 is all rehashed starting with there were no 2bbl 390's in 63.

I vividly remember a brand new 300hp 59 with a stick shift driven by a salesman from the dealership to the nearest stoplight. A couple of hundred yards of lack stripes on the street.

I re-read that '58 HRM article that dynoed the 352 at 210 hp
with the hydraulic cams at the Edelbrock facilities.
I noticed that they had some issues with ignition.
Dual coil ignitions improved the power output markedly,
as did better valve springs. That indicates real problems
with output on the street.

It may be that coupled with the crummy ingition energy
available back in the day and the inevitable
disparities with dynos that the Gonkulator may be right
after all, at least if an electronic ignition is used,
along with a reliable carb and better valve springs.

Some '58 engines got Carters and some got Holleys, but all were small.
I suspect that Ford used a better ignition system in
their dyno labs than was under the hood.
The solid lifter 300 hp version is in the same boat.

Both engines had CJ/LR ports and an iron manifold that is
a decent performer according to Jay. That means that 270 hp for hydraulic
and 300 hp for the solid under ideal conditions looks to be
correct.

If you have the figures Gonkulator figures Werby,
how do the Comp 265DEH or 268H and 270S fare
in these '58 engines, all else up to snuff? They are close to
these stock cams I believe.

Thanks for seeing what I was trying to show, that it was at least possible that there was a 352/300 that made an honest 300, though in production, due to downgrades in parts and sloppy tuning, it could have been much less.

This was not a "prediction" excercise with the Gonkulator, it took all kinds of tuning and guessing to guess and match what was going on in the dyno tests. In the end though, I have at least a consistent, though not predicted, series in the Gonkulator that pretty much matches the dyno test series (as many as 30 dyno tests!) from the Sep 58 HRM. My biggest assumption was that crappy dual exhaust was attached the whole time. The article never said either way. Given that:

HRM started with a 361/"303" (early "rough idle" hyd cam like the one posted above), and got 210hp on the dyno. The Gonk says 265ghp for that setup, with perfect tune, open exhaust, a fully opening vacuum secondary, and 60F 29.92 dry air.

HRM ended with 414cid (a massive FE for 1958...) and 342hp on the dyno for run #30. The Gonk says 394ghp for that build, again under well tuned gross conditions. (By that time the dyno engine was well tuned, but I assume still had the crappy dual muffs attached).

These results are consistent with all the other dyno-vs-Gonk engines I have, so the only mysteries remaining are the things not specified in the 51 year old article.

As far as the cams you asked about:
Actually, the two Comp hyd cams are closer to the 390gt/428cj cams, and the 270s is a near clone of the 352/360 solid. So, of course a well-tuned 361 would run good with these, kind of like a 361cj or 361HiPo.

As far as tuning:
In any of these old mag articles where a production engine is tossed on the dyno, the first run is usually awful, but makes a great comparison to the "after you buy all our parts" runs. This is consistent with production of that era.
Almost every factory "grocery getter" car I tuned out of production had crappy timing and carburetion until some quality time was spent tuning it. The only exception I remember is my dad's new 69 XL, that came home right off the line, plastic seat covering still on it. The folks on the line knew they were building my dad's car since it was his final assembly line, and it did run "extra good" from day one, as some 396 Chevelles would later learn. By the way, that is the "WerbyFord" valve cover car for those who forgot the story!