Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Gear oil -- Kyle Kellum, 03/01/2006
67 Mustang
289 4bl
Trying to find out what type of gear oil ot use for my 8" diff. |
|  | Regular hypoid oil, 75/90. n.m. -- Gerry Proctor, 03/02/2006
nm |
 | Whats the best FE Intake? -- K-Ski, 02/28/2006
Hello all, I'm in the process of building a 350 horse 390fe and will be stuffing it in my 65 F-100 2 wheel drive with a truck 4-speed manual,(more like a 3-speed) and 3.50 rear gears. I guessing the weight to be in the 4,000 lb range. I'll use it for light loads and cruzen to the lake with the skis, with an occasional 1/4 mile pass here and there.
My main question at hand is what kind of intake manifold would you all use with a 650 Edelbrock AVS on top? The machinist working with the engine recommends a tall GT cast iron intake that he has, how good are these intakes? And is there any others that would work better for my application thats not hard to find? My max red line will be 5,500 rpm.
Thanks for any replys! K-Ski |
|  | Tall GT cast iron? -- Gerry Proctor, 03/01/2006
The GT engines used the same intake as the regular passenger cars. It's not unique to the GT (the "S" on the intake runner means nothing in relation to the S-code engine).
The iron 4bbl intake is fine for what you seem to be looking for. Don't pay more than about $20 for this intake. It's only slightly more rare than dirt.
Other aftermarket intakes are fine too and none are hard to find but the iron is the least expensive path and gets you to where you want to go. |
| | | RE: Tall GT cast iron? -- K-Ski, 03/01/2006
OK, now I know the real story on the Great GT intake! Thanks for that piece of info Gerry.
Now that I know the GT is just a stock non-performance intake, could you answer me this?
Would you say the Edelbrock Performer with a idle-5,500 rpm band be a better flowing intake with more on the top end than the plain stock GT intake? My cam stops making power around 5 grand anyway! Thats the question that I really want to know!
Thanks all.........K-SKI |
| | | | Less weight and that's all. -- Gerry Proctor, 03/02/2006
The Performer (not the Performer RPM) is no better, flow-wise, than the factory piece. For your purposes, a Performer RPM wouldn't do much either. If you have the money to burn or if you can find one very cheap, then go ahead. |
| FE Intake C5AE 9425 T What application? -- James, 02/27/2006
It is aluminum and has the C5AE 9425 T part number. It is a single 4bbl intake. What application was this intake used for?
|
|  | 352-4V and 390-4V Passenger car N/M -- Royce P, 02/28/2006
|
| | Oops! Just saw you said aluminum....... -- Royce P, 02/28/2006
I have no idea what its for. Are you sure its aluminum and not silver paint? |
| | | RE: Oops! Just saw you said aluminum....... -- James, 02/28/2006
Postitive. It is much lighter than my CJ intake and is about as light as my 427 2x4 intake. |
| | | | RE: Oops! Just saw you said aluminum....... -- Royce P, 02/28/2006
Can you post a picture or email one to me?
roycegte(at)earthlink(dot)net |
| | | | | RE: Oops! Just saw you said aluminum....... -- James, 03/01/2006
It is a medium riser according to the owner. He said it was for a 390. But I have never heard of an aluminum factory 4bbl intake other than the 428 PI, which this one is not. |
| | | | | | There were 390 police cars too. -- Royce P, 03/02/2006
The first year for the 428 was 1966 so it makes sense this could have been on a 390 police car.
Royce |
| | | | | | Sure - Ford made 4v LR alum. intakes for 390, 406 & 427. [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/02/2006
n/m |
| 428 CJ ID With Pics Link -- James, 02/27/2006
Can you FE experts please look at these pics in the link and help me positively ID this engine as a 428CJ? It has the 1UB crank (see pics) and the three ribs, the “C” scratch on the back, 66-427 cast into the rear of the block, no casting numbers on the side, a June 21, 1968 or 9 date code (see pics) and it had a baffle in the oil pan that was like a windage tray. The heads have casting numbers that are very hard for me to read. They look like they are C8AE 8080 H, (see pics) but from other heads I’ve searched and have seen pictures of the C8OE 9060 N heads look almost identical as the “6’s” and “9’s” tend to look like “8’s” and the “N” looks like a “H”. So, are they C8OE 6090 N 428 CJ heads” The large intake valve measures almost exactly 2”. Can anyone tell me by looking at the pictures if the rods or end caps (bolts) look correct for a CJ engine? The engine also camwe with a pair of finned aluminum Valve covers that had no “Cobra” or anything else on them, but they are Ford parts. There was also a pair of adjustable rocker shafts and a C8OE 9425 C cast iron intake. Any insight, advice, opinions or tech knowledge about this engine would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in Advance!
Here is a pic link of the engine and heads
http://photobucket.com/albums/b258/TenHemi/428%20CJ/ |
| | Its a '69 - 70 428 -- Royce P, 02/28/2006
Cj. |
| | RE: 428 CJ ID With Pics Link -- Mark V., 02/28/2006
Looks like a Cobra Jet to me. Does it have a partial VIN stamped on the rear of the block just below where the driver’s side head meets the block? The stamping can be very hard to see. If so, this can help you figure out what car it came out of. Take a look at this link. It has great info on identifying CJ’s components.
http://www.428cobrajet.com/id-main.html |
| | Yeah looks CJ BUT... -- Hawkrod, 02/28/2006
Those are LeMans rods and it may be an SCJ if its original. And yes those are C8OE-N heads just a lousy casting version! Hawkrod |
| | | RE: Yeah looks CJ BUT... -- James, 03/01/2006
Yeah! I just figured out the Lemans rods yesterday. But the 1UB crank means it was a pre-December 68 non-CJ engine doesn't it? I have also only seen cranks where the 1U is stamped above the "B" on the crank. Is it normal or does it occur often where the 1UB is stamped all on the same line like this crank?? |
| | | | RE: Yeah looks CJ BUT... -- Royce P, 03/01/2006
Looks to me like an ordinary CJ that someone installed Lemans rods in.
LeMans rods to me are something that sells good on Ebay, not something I want in my engine.
Royce |
| | | | | RE: Yeah looks CJ BUT... -- Royce P, 03/01/2006
Looks to me like an ordinary CJ that someone installed Lemans rods in.
LeMans rods to me are something that sells good on Ebay, not something I want in my engine.
Royce |
| | | | | | RE: I disagree, I do not believe you can tell -- James, 03/01/2006
What about the Balancer, spacer and flywheel shold I look for to help ID which one it may be?? Royce, please eleborate on the hesitation to use Lemans rods.....!! I am not planning on beating tis engine too hard, street cruisng and the occasional burnout and recreational Drag pass.
The engine was converted over from a 4spd (still has the Z-bar bracket on engine) to an automatic. The 428 flywheel or flexplate and torque converter comes with the engine, but not the 4spd flywheel. |
| | | | | | | The flywheel or flexplate will have a part number -- Hawkrod, 03/01/2006
The flywheel or flexplate should have a hand stamped part number on it somewhere and if it is SCJ it will start with C9ZE. Also the balancer is larger in diameter with a C8AE-6316-C casting number and the spacer behind the balancer will have a weight hanging off of it if its an SCJ. Hawkrod |
| | RE: 428 CJ ID With Pics Link -- JohnRB, 03/10/2006
Any VIN# on it?
John |
| | | RE: 428 CJ ID With Pics Link -- Junkman, 03/10/2006
Yes, the VIN stamp said 9A278892 |
| 351 cleveland -- bruce olsen, 02/27/2006
i changed over to a solid roller and trying to find out where i need to put oil restrictors.oil pressure is only at 25psi.i had a hydraulic roller before and pressure was at 80psi.i do have a high volume pump.thanks any info would help |
| | RE: 351 cleveland -- glennz, 02/27/2006
you have another problem, even though it is a good idea to restrict some of the upper end flow it should not have made that much difference in pressure, i was running a hydraulic and went solid and i did not see any decrease in pressure..
glenn z
www.mtrperformance.com |
| | | RE: 351 cleveland -- bruce olsen, 02/28/2006
what else can it be?it ran with a hydraulic roller for 2 months i have the best of everything in it .does having the valve lash too tight have anything to do with it.i set it at .018 and just noticed it should be .026 |
| | RE: 351 cleveland -- keith, 04/18/2006
is the cam so big that the bottom or the top of the roller lifters are going past the oil feed gallery ? take the inlet off ,winde the motor over and look for excess oil flowing out ofthe lifter bores |
| Correct exhaust manifolds for 67 390 -- WACO, Simi Valley CA., 02/26/2006
Can anybody tell me if Item number: 8041724422 (Exhaust Manifolds) on E-Bay are correct for a 67 390 GT Fastback Mustang? What I've noticed for a 67 is that one of the manifolds usually starts with C6, but I don't know if that is this is correct. Can anybody suggest any manual that describes the 390 in detail so I don't have to keep asking these dumb questions? Thanx, waco in Simi CA. |
| | | Those are actually an odd pair of manifolds.... -- Hawkrod, 02/27/2006
I can not tell from the date code but they machined differently on the passenger side on mid 68 and 69 to eliminate the spacer. That date looks early but you can never be sure. The later manifolds were machined for a donut gasket and did not use a spacer. Hawkrod |
| 428CJ heads -- Jeff H., 02/25/2006
What is a fair price range for the following set of CJ heads?
-C8OE-N Cobra Jet heads
-Not run since early '70s
-Need rebuild - light surface rust, needs exhaust seats, valve guides, still has thermactor tubes, etc.
-Never ported or decked
-Already have Ford plugs for thermactor ports.
-Threads need chased because of light surface rust
-No cracks or broken ears
-Stock valves, retainers and springs
|
| | RE: 428CJ heads -- Royce P, 02/25/2006
$400 - $500 if they mag check good.
Royce |
| | | RE: 428CJ heads -- dave, 03/06/2006
hey i have a bunch of old fe engine parts the heads are numberd c6ae and one is c6aer they have the bigger ports, do you know of anyone that can help me figure out what i have. the valve covers that came off the engine says merc murauder and they are gold but these heads are from a differnt car. |
| | | | Use the search button -- Gerry Proctor, 03/07/2006
They're nothing special, really. Just '66 passenger car heads. From a performance perspective, if you had your choice between the C6 and a D2 head, you'd what the C6 head but it's not a very big difference like say a D2 and a C8OE-N head. |
| | | | | RE: Use the search button -- dave, 03/08/2006
do you know anything about rod numbers and crank numbers? my rods are c3ae-c and crank is c3aee |
| | | | | | Maybe, but don't take it to the bank. -- Gerry Proctor, 03/08/2006
The rods should be the big bolt rods used in the 427 and 428CJ. I believe the shank diameter is 13/32 on those. I'm not sure though so seek a second opinion.
The C3AE-E crank is just an ordinary 390 crank.
Honestly, I'm a bit of a dunce when it comes to Ford casting numbers since I don't have enough grey matter to devote to recognizing them. |
| | | | | RE: Use the search button -- dave, 03/08/2006
so why do some heads have bigger intake ports than others? mine are the bigger also mine have 4 bolt holes to hold the exh. manifolds on and the others i have seen have only 2. also my heads have threaded holes on the top of the exh. ports |
| | | | | | For a lot of reasons. -- Gerry Proctor, 03/09/2006
C6AE heads with both horizontal and vertical bolt holes were originally installed in the Mustang or Fairlane. These are the 14-bolt heads. You'll notice that on the two inner exhaust ports, that there are no bolt holes at the bottom of the flange. Other passenger cars that used the same head casting number, like Galaxys, had only the 8-bolt vertical (bolt holes at the top and bottom of the port) pattern with no drilled and tapped horizontal holes. They are the same head with the exception of how the exhaust flange was drilled.
The only heads that came from the factory with the Cobra Jet 16-bolt pattern were the CJ heads (exception was the 427 head in the unibody cars). And the CJ exhaust flange bolt pattern is slightly different from the 14-bolt heads, beyond just having the two extra bolt holes for the inner bottom exhaust ports.
Ford had many port designs through the various evolutions of the FE head and it depended on what the engineering intentions were. And there is more to ports than just their size. A medium riser intake port used on the 427 is smaller in area than the standard passenger car port but the medium riser's port is higher relative to the valve short turn radius and has much better port flow. |
| | | | RE: 428CJ heads -- BanditChaser, 03/08/2006
Dave the casting number c6ae come back as follows
C6AE-B '65-'66 427 c.i.d. To 12-9-65, Side Oiler
'66 428 c.i.d. Police Interceptor, Cobra Jet, Solid Lifters
C6AE-C '65-'66 427 c.i.d. Side Oiler
C6AE-D '66-'67 427 c.i.d. Side Oiler
C6AE-F '66 428 c.i.d. Police Interceptor, Cobra Jet, Solid Lifters
|
| Low Riser High Riser -- James, 02/25/2006
Choice of several parts. which to use for best results?? Which are more valuable?
This is reallty a two part question. I'm buying a complete 68 428 CJ engine from a man that has owned it since 1969. He has a small hoard of FE parts that are priced very reasonable. The CJ engine is complete and correct from intake to pan. He also has a pair of low riser 427 heads, a low riser 427 dual quad, a medium riser 2x4 intakle, 2 medium riser tripowers, and an aluminum PI intake.
Which of these set-ups would be best (make the most HP) on the CJ engine? How valuable (WIW) for the 427 low riser heads? Should I just keep the heavy cast iron 4bbl CJ manifold on the engine? I am building a 67 Shelby clone
and I would really like the dual fours on it. I was considering a blue thunder 2X4 set-up. Are these equal to or better than an original 2X4? Should I or could I bolt the low riser 427 heads to the CJ block ansd use the low riser 2X4 intake? Will the low riser intake fit the CJ heads? |
| | RE: Low Riser High Riser -- Big Dave, 02/25/2006
If you want some dual fours on your engine, go for the medium riser heads and intake. THey will give you lots of power. However, with the really large valves of the MR heads, you may have to notch the top of the cylinder bores to allow for clearance, as the 428 bore is not as large as the 427. But the low riser combo is also a really good setup. The aluminum PI intake has the exact same dimensions of the CJ iron intake, but is made of aluminum and is about 55 lbs lighter.
The Blue Thunder intake is better than the originals, because it is newer design and the originals are 40 years old. If it were my decision, I would stick with the original pieces.
The low riser intake and heads will fit on the block, as well as the intake fitting the CJ heads.
Hope this helps
Big Dave |
| | RE: Low Riser High Riser -- Royce P, 02/25/2006
The stock 428CJ heads are in fact the same ports but better combustion chamber than the 427 LR heads.
The stock 428CJ cast iron intake is better than any of the Ford aluminum intakes.
Your 428CJ will probably make the best power with the original parts and a set of headers. Any of the other parts you mentioned only add complexity and in most cases cost horsepower.
The Medium Riser 8V can make more power if set up properly with factory 8V calibrated carbs.
Royce |
| C3AE G heads -- Ross, 02/25/2006
I would like to know some specs on these heads. From my research, it sounds like these are the 427 LR heads. Is this the only application they were used in? What size chamber and valves do they have? I have a '64 390 Super Marauder Merc engine I intend to use in a future project. It has the C4AE G heads. What is the differences between the two heads and would it be a benefit to use the C3AE G heads on this engine? Thanks in advance. |
| | RE: C3AE G heads -- giacamo, 02/28/2006
the c3ae heads might have a littel biger exaust valve in them outher than that i don,t think thears any more diferances betwean them,i,d use the best looking set and install hardened seats in the exaust and use some 1,60 valves any way,,,,,, |
| | | RE: C3AE G heads -- Ross, 02/28/2006
Correction. These might be C3aeC heads instead. The screw head in the casting distorted the letter. What I really want to find out is the comb chamber smaller than my C4aeG heads. |
| | | | RE: C3AE G heads -- giacamo, 03/02/2006
the c3aec heads are listed at 53 to 60 cc and the c4aeg is listed in the 70,s. i,d cc the chambers myself, on the fe heads most of the time the books are crap i n the cc i d ing department........ |
| | | | | RE: C3AE G heads -- Ross, 03/06/2006
With the smaller chamber on the c3ae c's, what kind of compression ratio could I expect running these on my stock 10 to 1 4v 390 that currently has the c4ae g heads on it? |
| | | | | | RE: C3AE G heads -- giacamo, 03/07/2006
10. 5 11. 00. |
| ball joint -- loco100, 02/24/2006
my 67 gal. has a upper ball joint boot that has split. i have a factory replacement dust boot. can i replace it without spring compressor or special tools. if so can someone give me instructions. |
|