What is?

[rmarble57]

 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.

[rcgt350]

What is the overall census then for valve lash setting, hot or cold?

[The Going Thing]

Cold was what the original 67 service manual says. The .002 listed by others may be a hot lash setting.

[68blk500c]

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.

[The Going Thing]

That would explain the differences in settings being it's hot and cold.

[Royce Peterson]

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:

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.

[Royce Peterson]

I am guessing yours must be the original 1967 Chilton's manual?

Cold was what the original 67 service manual says. The .002 listed by others may be a hot lash setting.

[The Going Thing]

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?

[shelbydoug]

.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.

[The Going Thing]

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.

[shelbydoug]

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?

[The Going Thing]

Doug: I thought it was about six post back. However, I digress.

[shelbydoug]

Doug: I thought it was about six post back. However, I digress.

It's good information. What else is there to do anyway?