This Has Been Copied From The LINC FORUM For Readers Here-
Below is a partial PM exchange between a poster and myself when he discovered the then accepted cam gear was one fit all-
One of the many changes to the 1961 430 was the redesign of the camshaft, camshaft bores/bearings, retainer and cam sprocket. This was largely unknown until Walter noticed someting strange on the CLOYES cam gear sold by EGGE (they still haven't changed their cataloging) used on an early MEL (58/60). I advised him of the production change and he in turn contacted CLOYES.
Sent : Wednesday, November 9, 2005 12:09 PM
To : firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject : Timing Gear issue Solved.
Thanks for the information, Gary. Here’s what I’ve discovered thus far.
‘58 – ‘60 part number: S282 camshaft sprocket
S283 crankshaft sprocket
In late ’60 they did something to change the size of the camshaft, thus necessitating a larger counter bore in the camshaft sprocket.
’60 – ’68 part number: S386 camshaft sprocket
S283 crankshaft sprocket (crank stayed the same for all years)
S282 counter bore – 2.268
S386 counter bore – 2.328
I spoke with Wayne Gray at Cloyes’ manufacturing facility in Fort Smith, Ar. He was extremely helpful, he started rambling off part numbers and specs before ever opening a book. He said he has worked there for 41 years.
They have about 150, S282’s on the shelf and didn’t know why EGGE sent me what they did. So I called EGGE, spoke with Steve and he said Wayne told him S386’s were a proper cross over. He called and discussed it with Wayne again and still didn’t seem to think it would be a problem, but if I wanted the correct gear that he would get it for me.
Needless to say, gear is on its way. He said the gear supplied to me was manufactured by someone else, despite the fact it is in an old Hoof box showing plenty of shelf wear. Steve was very helpful and said several ’58 to ’60 people are running these gears. I was not comfortable running the later gear as the counter bore is so large that should the gear pivot on it’s locating pin and shift over, the load will be transferred to the mounting bolts, possibly shearing them off (something that may never happen so long as the cam doesn’t start to seize or have an unusual load imposed upon it, but…). With the original gear, the load would simply transfer to the shoulder of the gear as the clearance of the bolts through hole is sufficient to allow for it to never impose a load upon the fastener. So, if the correct part is out there, why experiment?
Thank you for your help. I’m certainly going to file this in my correspondence. I hope you will do the same.
I am not 100% sure of the correct chain PN as two box stores give different PN's on the net. When I find the correct info, I will post it in this thread.