Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Correct toploader for an early 1970 Mustang 428CJ -- Stuart, 10/12/2003
I need help trying to find out what would be the "correct" toploader for my 428.The build date is early August 1969 and its a 1970 model Mustang. Would it be a RUG-AZ which I show for a 1970 or would it be a RUG-AE2 which I show is for a 1969? So what was the change over date on the toploaders? Thanks Stuart
|
| ![Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18695&Reply=18681><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a> <b>Changeover was as supplies ran out. Early Aug., I'd use RUG-AE2. [n/m]</b> -- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>10/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote>](/WebResource.axd?d=vG1pKMaqyV2y6301aKyltvXl1CGNYE0-Mc9frsC84_DI222YFzc4rDnsbtQEmDUqpvejEaNBouvxkCimoUCCRqPKPqZvM9KOiQXtK2Lluvg9jVsH8qm10Sv05bPp6HuM0&t=637814653746327080) | Changeover was as supplies ran out. Early Aug., I'd use RUG-AE2. [n/m] -- Mr F, 10/13/2003
n/m |
| |  | RE: Changeover was as supplies ran out. ... -- Geoff McNew, 10/14/2003
RUG-AZ tag would be correct for 1970 model year Mustangs. I have a 10 spline RUG-AE2 in my restored Jan 10th '69 V-code axle Mach1...fresh David Kee toploader with all his "road race" mods and new gears. His site has good reference charts on big and small spline toploaders, tailshaft ID#'s.
http://www.4speedtoploaders.com/idchart1.htm |
| | Nuts - guess I didn't pay attention. A '70 *needs* the '-AZ2' unit. [n/m] -- Mr F, 10/18/2003
n/m |
| top end oil restrictors - Help! Shoe or someone -- Geoff McNew, 10/12/2003
I think I may need to add oil restrictors to my engine. It's run-in now with the new heads about 1,200 miles and it's just starting to puff under trailing throttle after the rpms have been up for a while, so I think I'm pulling oil down the guides. Heads are Edelbrock, so they have good thread on PC seals, but it has Erson billet rollers and shafts so I lost my stock stamped oil deflectors. I suspect I'm piling a good quart in each valve cover after a run through the gears, and with a little wear on the seals by now, they're letting some oil by.
What's the best way to do this restrictor thing today? Decades ago when I was previously into FE's a friend machined (2) little aluminum bushings with orifice drillings - the bushings simply fit in the annular space around the rocker shaft bolt/stud under the stand that feeds the oil to the rocker shaft on each side.
Does someone sell such an item now? |
| | Ed heads get different restrictors. -- Dave Shoe, 10/12/2003
Ed drills the oil feed passage larger than factory FE heads, so the standard Holley jet doesn't work.
Orifice diameter typically ranges from .090" to .060", depending on pump, cam, stuff like that. Solid lifter cams allow more oil to flow upstairs, since the rocker is unloaded for part of the cycle, whereas hydraulic cams always load the rocker, keeping the oil feed hole snug against the rocker. some aftermarket rockers create a whole different kind of flow dynamic upstairs, so you've gotta hypothesize, experiment, and speak to folk about your particular setup, being careful to not follow bad advice that is so often offered.
A factor not often spoken of is the length of the restrictor. Whether the orifice is about 1/16" deep (typical carb jet), or 1" or so deep (drilled rod), the flow can vary greatly just by the length and chamfering.
The port to restrict on each head is readily available with the rockershafts removed. It's the port that travels up through the head to the drip tray. Since I don't know exactly what restrictor is preferreed for Edelbrocks, I'd recommend being creative and experiment a little. Hopefully someone else can clarify. If no one does, the orifice diameter will likely be close to .070", and the weight of your truck will hopefully prevent it from accelerating so hard that oil will tend to slosh out of the poan to the rear of the engine.
I lived through this issue for a couple years, rapidly wearing out bearings and hearing hydraulic lifter clatter on hard turns with an 80PSI/HV pump. When I installed a performance pan, the oiling problems went away and bearings lasted a long time. Still, I'd get the occasional smoke bursts after a hard romp, and eventually moved on to restricting the heads to resolve that.
I've still got a new 100PSI blueprinted pump from FPP which I had the guts to buy 15 years ago but never had the guts to install. I now know how to install one properly, but don't presently have any applications that need these specs. Maybe someday.
I've seen a few FE motors blow, and know of others that have blown because they followed the "written word" on upgrading an FE oiling system. The only good documents on how to upgrade an FE oiling system will start by discussing the oil pan. When you've found one of these articles, thn you are on the right track. Invariably, any article that starts off with "the FE top oiling system is bad", is NOT a good article, as top oiling has always provided great performance on the track. The sideoiler came about because of the Cammer's unique oiling requirements, not because there was a noted deficiency in the FE's top oiling system. The topoiling FE is a great racing oiling system, and has proven itself for decades, despite what many writers will have you believe.
You don't need to run drip trays. Just get a good balance to your oiling system, and start thinking of what type of pan and pump you will install next convenient chance you get.
Do a forum search for the terms "sucking air" or "starvation" or "bad writing" (use quotes) to maybe find some detailed threads on the topic.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| |  | RE: Ed heads get different restrictors. -- Geoff McNew, 10/13/2003
Thanks for the info. This still looks as tricky as 30 years ago, though - darn!
I'm running a 428-SCJ in my '69 Mach1. It has the stock pan and HV pump, I merely added an FPP shaft when I had the heads off. It does have the factory windage tray. When I pre-oiled the engine, I noticed it was putting a lot of oil up top in a hurry. The Heads are Edelbrock with Erson shafts, stud-mounted. Cam is hydraulic Crane 296H2.
I guess I've got to enter the black hole now and try to get answers from people at Edelbrock & Erson. Wish me luck!
|
| | | | THe later CJ pan is improved over the early pan. -- Dave Shoe, 10/13/2003
Your later CJ did get an improved "CJ-only" oil pan, and also a shortened dipstick to force an extra quart into the stock-sized pan, though I still wouldn't recommend using that pan in a modified CJ/SCJ engine unless you were willing to carefully monitor the oil level.
Good luck!
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: THe later CJ pan is improved over the early pan. -- Geoff McNew, 10/13/2003
Jeez Shoe, will anything else even fit? I already had to hammer my crossmember a tad with a 5lb sledge where it was rubbing the paint off either side of the stock pan (I think the pubic hair's gap between pan and crossmember disappears when you double up pan gaskets and add a windage tray).
Anyway, I think I may have blown away my excess oil theory, although I will definitely add oil restrictors. I just had a buddy follow me and it was only smoking out the passenger side tail pipe (no crossover). So, I pulled the rocker cover and shaft off that side, pulled the plugs and it's got one oilly black spark plug - #4. It began smoking all of a sudden too....not a good sign.
I'm gonna borrow my buddy's leak-down test rig tomorrow to see if it could be a ring - I don't think so, since it only puffs under high vacuum/trailing throttle after running up in rpms. I'm hoping it may just be a valve seal let go, but both seals look o.k. (what I can see of them) they're in place over the guide, the little tensioning spring on the lip is still there - I'll have to compress the springs and take 'em apart to inspect closer.
Just thinking out loud, could it possibly be a leaky intake manifold gasket? It could suck oil in there, I guess, but...I was absolutely friggin meticulous during assembly, and the bolt torques are all still there.
Oh, I called Erson & they agree with your 0.060"-0.090" for the restrictors - now, just gotta talk to my pal with the little lathe... |
| | | | | | #4 and #8 smokes when the head fills up. -- Dave Shoe, 10/13/2003
Since the engine is tilted back, oil puddles up at the rear valves, not the front ones.
I'm still thinking it's overfilled heads, particularly on the passenger side in your case.
If you used the blue teflon gaskets, it's likely the gasket has moved on ya and is causing leaks, but a leaky intake gasket would probably smoke most at lower speeds.
I don't suspect you have ring problems, as draining the pan causes bearing problems, not ring problems. So far, I don't recognize symptoms of oil starvation in your case.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: #4 and #8 smokes when the head fills up. -- Geoff McNew, 10/14/2003
Shoe, I'm glad you're still rooting for me...because the wifee stopped. Ha! I'll do a leak-down test, but I can't belive it's a ring either... hoping some as-yet-to-be designed & fabbed little oil restrictors, plus a new pair of oil seals (I'm gonna tear down the two #4 valves and "wiggle-test" the guides) will fix this.
Nonetheless, I am open to any more good ideas you might have on oiling. I didn't think this would become a problem when I started the car 3yrs ago, but as it looks, I'm gonna stick with this one and the car is slowly mutating from its current west coast Marin Co. road racer, 620# spring, metal bushing, Koni/Comp Engr. porsche-killer existence to a more legit and sedate vintage/Shelby club car...and I don't want it to smoke, or worse, spin a main while on the track for all to see.
I know a bit about pressurized oil bottles from USAC club cars, but never really saw any in use on the few FE's (cobra's). The SB 'Vette guys all used them. A dry dump is out, and like I explained, I don't see any more pan fitting between the crossmember, PS slave cyl., and the ground when I'm literally catching air from 45 to 65 MPH while burning thru 2nd and getting ready to slam the slotted SSBC's down hard. |
| | | | | | | | RE: #4 and #8 smokes when the head fills up. -- Greg Westphall, 10/14/2003
I have a set of Edelbrock heads, an RPM Intake, and a 428CJ. The Edelbrock heads have a problem with their oil drainback holes. Check them out. You can fit your thumb down the stock drainback holes while you can barely fit your pinky down the Edelbrock ones. What is more important though is the mating surface between the cylinder head and the intake manifold. The drainback hole is positioned in such a way that the intakemanifold gasket and the intake manifolkd itself actually block a good portion of the drainback hole. Check it out for yourself. I contacted Edelbrock a few times and finally got through to them with this problem as well as a number of other problems I had. My heads arrived with a bunch of blasting shot still in some of the passages. I had to dissassemble them and throughly clean them. The disassembly and rfeassembly process apparently ruined the teflon seals.
Between the bad teflon seals and the oil pooling under the valve cover I had a real problem on my hands. Oil was getting sucked down the guides and carbon was building up on the stems inside the port, not to mention the amount of oil I was burning. The heads looked like they had 90,000 miles on them after only 5,000 miles. Every time I washed my car, I noticed the rear bumper was covered with a film of spent oil that had migrated from the exhaust pipes. I was not very happy. Edelbrock took the heads back and pressed in new guides because the upgraded seals (new style Edelbrock heads don't come with teflon seals) would not fit on the old guides. I also talked to them about the oil drainback problem. We resolved that the best solution was to trim the gasket slightly between the intake manifold and the cylinder head directly where the oil exits the head.
I reinstalled the heads with all of the changes and have driven the car another 5,000 miles since then. I am very happy to say that these changes took care of my problems. I burn very little oil now. I might add 1 quart between oil changes. I am running a Milodon Road Race oil pan with the baffles, a high volume pump ( although the stock pump actually was just fine, it is a long story why I switched it in the first place), and stock style adjustable rockers with a Crower mechanical cam. I am not running any restrictors to the shafts. I am running restrictors to the lifters though. I think this sends even more oil up top but it still hasn't been a problem.
I would suspect that I may have to restrict the oil up top if I experience valve seal wear. I will definitely restrict it if I switch to roller rockers. For now I am happy to leave it alone.
If I were you I would slam on a new set of teflon seals but make sure you use the protective sleeves that go over the stems so you don' ruin the seals. Also I would remove the intake manifold and perform the same modification to the intake manifold gasket that I spoke about ealier. I think you will be pleased with the results.
 |
| | | | | | | |  | RE: #4 and #8 smokes when the head fills up. -- Geoff McNew, 10/14/2003
hummmmm! veeerrry interesting. & Thanks.
I used the Felpro #1247 gaskets Edelbrock recommened. I didn't notice any drainback problem, but then again I didn't look for one - figured when Edelbrock said their heads were cnc'd to match their RPM intake, they were.
The drain holes at either end of the head sure are small as hell though. I was really hoping not to have to yank the intake. & If the heads have to come off, the engine has to come out I fear - no damn room in a Mustang with headers.
The seals I have are a copper/tan color, they have an external tensioning spring at the top and they thread-onto the outside of the guide.
My Edelbrock paperwok doesn't give me a part# or description for them however. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: #4 and #8 smokes when the head fills up. -- Geoff McNew, 10/14/2003
You're right! - I tried sticking a pencil through the drain hole at the end of the head and it stops right at the gasket. A soda staw that flexes makes it all the way through - so, I am partially blocked off like you were. Looks like off comes the intake.
Oh, I am not a happy camper right now! |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: #4 and #8 smokes when the head fills up. -- John, 10/14/2003
er.....you do realize that a head bolt cuts off half of the oil drain passage. Your pencil might be hitting that. I've tried restrictors and they help, but also you should check your rocker shafts. The ones with a hole both top and bottom leak oil like a sieve. Get ones with an oil hole on the bottom-side only |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: #4 and #8 smokes when the head fills up. -- Geoff McNew, 10/15/2003
True on stock heads, not on Edelbrock heads- the oil passage is outside the head bolt hole, then there's a little cut back and chamfer - which seems to result in the intake gasket problem. (See: Westphall's pic) Also, my rockers & shafts are Erson's so they're not like the stock shafts vis-a-vis the hole(s). |
| | | | | | | | | | | | My Edelbrock heads have different drain holes -- Geoff McNew, 10/15/2003
John, I retract my previous post -you are correct. Greg, my Edelbrock heads seem to be different than yours in the picture. Mine are more like the stock CJ heads I took off - the oil drain holes are larger (on the manifold side that is - they're still soda straw sized upstream by the valve) and the head bolts go through them like a stock head. There didn't seem to be any gasket interference. I gotta get someone at Edelbrock to explain the "evolution" of this head design. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Greg, newer heads do have different drain holes -- Geoff McNew, 10/15/2003
Edelbrock says they have indeed changed the oil drain holes from the type in your photo to the type I have with the head bolt going thru the passage like a stock head. The gaskets don't interfere, but, unfortunately they left the "upstream" portion of the drain holes tinee weenie soda straw diameter. So the friggin oil still wells up. Edelbrock recommended opening up the hole....I recommended THEY start doing so...make sense? Oh, they say they also changed the OD of the guides and thus the newer heads have a different size seal.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Greg, newer heads do have different drain holes -- Greg Westphall, 10/16/2003
I knew about the valve guides. They replaced mine when they put in new seals because of this. Keep in mind they only did this for free for me because the heads arrived in such bad condition (shot blast still in the casting). I ruined the teflon seals taking the heads apart to clean them. Instead of giving me new teflon seals they upgraded me to the new ones which required the new guides. I asked them if I could enlarge the holes and their answer was yes. When I asked for more detail like how much or in what direction I received no further reply. Rather than risk hitting a water jacket or weakening the head bolt area I left them alone. I would definitely recommend you put in new seals if they are the least bit suspect. Even with the small holes my heads seem to be draining back sufficiently. I would be cautious on how much you restrict the oil to the top end. I know everyone recommend doing it especially with roller tipped rockers but the oil does more than lubricate. It conducts the heat being generated at the guide and spring. |
| | RE: top end oil restrictors - Help! Shoe or someone -- giacamo, 10/16/2003
is thear room to instal the tin deflectors thay do work. |
| | | RE: top end oil restrictors - Help! Shoe or someone -- Geoff McNew, 10/16/2003
No, you lose those with the billet rocker bases. |
| | RE: top end oil restrictors for Edelbrock heads -- Geoff McNew, 10/17/2003
O.K., spoke with a couple nice fellas at Edelbrock, and told them it would be really neat if they machined their heads with the ability to take a Holley jet to limit oil to the rocker stand. However, they seem to think their "current" redesigned FE head is tits now, and doesn't need larger drain holes or oil restrictors to the shafts.
Luckily, I find that Gessford offers (2) sizes of drop-in tube inserts to restrict flow...so, you can buy something else instead of a lathe:
http://www.gessford.com/cobraparts/fheads.htm |
| | | RE: top end oil restrictors for Edelbrock heads -- Greg Westphall, 10/20/2003
Who did you speak with at Edelbrock? |
| | | | RE: top end oil restrictors for Edelbrock heads -- Geoff McNew, 10/20/2003
I spoke with a Marcus Lim, then Mike Rochon and he forwarded my email to their engineer, a "Jim" somebody. Edelbrock says the drain holes on their head should now be 7/16" ID at the top of rocker valley (mine apparently didn't get drilled full diameter all the way thru - looks like the bit stopped short by about 1/10" and left a smaller diameter shoulder - this I can fix with a hand drill without removing the heads or head bolts). Also, Edelbrock is going to start tapping the oil feed to the rocker so it can take a little set screw with a drilled orifice. (I've got a set of 0.090" ID tube restrictors coming from Gessford, BTW. Gessford also says they prefer the Victor Renz over the Felpro 1247 intake gasket.)
Here's the last email communication from Edelbrock:
Delivered-To: lonewolf@netwiz.net
Received: by mail.netwiz.net (Postfix, from userid 11184)
id A51126C38C; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:23:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.edelbrock.com (mail.edelbrock.com [63.202.124.194])
by mail.netwiz.net (Postfix) with SMTP id B58786C1FB
for <lonewolf@netwiz.net>; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:23:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ginger.edelbrock.com by mail.edelbrock.com
via smtpd (for mail.Netwiz.Net [208.136.106.6]) with SMTP; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:27:47 -0700
Received: from netserver.edelbrock [192.187.224.15] by GINGER - SurfControl E-mail Filter (4.6); Friday, 17 October 2003, 11:23:18
Received: by netserver with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
id <T7FBYTB7>; Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:20:55 -0700
Message-ID: <FA0A792CD68DD611B68F00065B3834FB089F0F@netserver>
From: Mike Rochon <MRochon@edelbrock.com>
To: "'lonewolf@netwiz.net'" <lonewolf@netwiz.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 11:20:53 -0700
Subject: FW: FE heads - oil restrictors & drain holes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
X-SEF-85CBB7DC-1AAA-4D81-8D55-BF5C37990D: 1
Return-Receipt-To: Mike Rochon <MRochon@edelbrock.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on NFS
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
X-UIDL: I;2"!BUJ"!P5##!0B9"!
Geoff,
I forwarded you e-mail to the engineer on this head. This is what he
responded. I hope this helps you.
Hi Mike,
This the only complaint I have heard about Fe oil drain-backs I changed the
oil drains. The current configuration is easier to manufacture and works
better. The hole size where the drain breaks into the cylinder head rocker
valley is 7/16" diameter not 11/32", this oil drain size is typically
sufficient. I looked at heads that we are currently manufacturing to check
that they were machined correctly and I saw no problems. I reject the guys
complaint that he cannot restrict the oil because the he cannot use a Holley
carburetor jet in the passage. The passage can easily be tapped for a
1/4-20 setscrew that can be drilled with their desired orifice size. If the
guy is hesitant installing the restrictors in an assembled engine. I would
tap the oil passage with a greased tap and then I would flush-out any
remaining chips in the passage by pulling the distributor and spinning the
oil pump. Catch the oil and chips that come out of the passage with a rag,
then install the restrictor. To solve the oil restrictor complaint I think I
will add the 1/4-20 tapping to the FE head and instructions in the
installation instructions on how to make and install the restrictors.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff McNew [mailto:lonewolf@netwiz.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 9:04 PM
To: mlin@edelbrock.com
Cc: mrochon@edelbrock.com
Subject: FE heads - oil restrictors & drain holes
Too much oil in the valve covers is one of the trusty old FE engine's very
few problems. Finding the balance between too much and too little oil can
be tricky, given all the variables such as pump volume/pressure.
Fortunately, Ford factory heads have a large enough drilling in the passage
under the rocker stand to accept a standard Holley jet, or a fabricated
bushing with 0.060"-0.090" orifice is also commonly used to restrict flow
to the rocker shaft. The Edelbrock head has like a 3/16" drilling - too
small for a jet. It could be a nice feature if Edelbrock started relieving
the drilling and tapping it for a jet, BTW. But, as is, the 3/16" drilling
puts too much oil up top...way too much for the small oil drain holes and
only gravity for help.
I spoke with your Mike Rochon earlier today, and he explained Edelbrock
changed the oil drainback hole design on the FE head once. In fact, I've
corresponded with a customer who had your old design. I have the current
design and the Felpro 1247 intake gasket seems to work fine, but the drain
hole is still inadequate. The head bolt goes through the oil drain, like
with a factory head, but the hole diameter is smaller. Smaller still is the
drain hole diameter "upstream" - something like 11/32". So, all the oil
build up in the valve cover at elevated RPM's submerges the rear most valve
springs (first); after about 1,500 miles with some wear on the valve seals,
they start letting enough oil by and you get smoke out the pipes under
vacuum/trailing throttle, plus very oilly #4 and/or #8 spark plugs.
I guess I could drill out the drain holes a tad? But how much? It'd be
kinda tough to relieve these drain holes with the engine assembled and in
the car. I'm a little affraid to remove even one head bolt to allow a drill
bit, as if the idea of catching the shavings wasn't bad enough.
|
| | | | | RE: top end oil restrictors for Edelbrock heads -- james, 10/21/2003
I have ED heads and had no problem restricting the oil flow. Pontiac uses something simular in there 6 cylinder heads. It is a nylon type screw that withstands up to 600 degrees. I got them from a bolt supply here in OKC and ground them in a cone shape and gently tapped them in with a .060 hole drilled in them. Then, I took a dremel tool and took what little was left on the top off to let the rocker pedestal set flush again. It was so easy. |
| | | | | | RE: top end oil restrictors for Edelbrock heads -- Geoff McNew, 10/21/2003
sounds like fun to me! |
| My New Compression Ratio.... C6AER -- Nash, 10/12/2003
I've been reading previous posts saying that C6AER Heads have 76CC's
Im reading sites after sites that are telling me 71-73.
The forged pistons I have (TRW Speedpro flattops) and a 71 CC head will give my 9.6:1, and thats what Im expecting
Should I expect that? or even higher? |
| | Expect higher. -- Royce Peterson, 10/12/2003
The NHRA minimum for C6AE-R heads is 72CC. Many "reference" sources have copied such statistics without any actual knowledge of the way that figure is achieved.
To get there (72CC) you have to mill the living daylights out of them. Unmolested you can expect 76CC or thereabouts. To find out for sure buy a syringe and see what yours hold.
Royce |
| | RE: My New Compression Ratio.... C6AER -- giacamo, 10/12/2003
nash most comon heads are 72 to 76 cc,s with flat top pistones your conpreson generley runes 10 to 10.5 wich i feal is perfect. if you wount to be forshure mesure every thing.... |
| How much is this stuff worth? -- Nash, 10/12/2003
What should or shouldnt I trash?
I have:
1 Timing cover
1 FE Crank (Dont know the Casting # Journals look EXCELLANT)
8x FE Rods (forgot the casting #)
1x C6AEH Head
1x C8AEU Head
1x Exhaust manifold
8x #360 Pistons
1x Straight Oil Pan
1x slightly dented oil pan
2x Slightly dented valve covers
MainCaps, bolts, ect
I want to make alittle on ebay, what is WORTH selling, and how much?
Thanks! |
| Any info on C6AE-R heads -- Brandon, 10/11/2003
Just curious about the heads on my 390. Any info is helpful. I know they are from '66, thats all. What difference is there between the C6AE-U and C6AE-R |
| | Search the archive for that ID# - its a popular topic, here. [n/m] -- Mr F, 10/12/2003
n/m |
| 66 police interceptor heads -- Tim, 10/11/2003
What would the casting #'s and or specs for the heads be?
Thanks!! |
| | RE: 66 police interceptor heads -- Tim, 10/11/2003
this would be for a 428, BTW... |
| | | Same as 390GT heads, except... -- Dave Shoe, 10/11/2003
...for the exhaust bolt pattern.
The raw castings are the same as any FE car or pickup truck that year, but the 390GT and 428PI head assemblies got different valvetrain goodies, such as stiffer springs, non-rotating valve retainers, and valves with grooves compatible with the non-rotating retainers.
Most heads (including 428PI) would be the new-for-1966 small "velocity" runner type, but some would retain the larger runners of 1958-65 but gaining extra emissions and exhaust manifold bolt bosses for drilling as needed.
Available casting numbers would be C6AE-J, C6AE-L, C6AE-R (the only large runner type), C6AE-U, and C6AE-Y. Again, the raw head castings for 428PI engine were the same as for any other FE that year.
Shoe. |
| | | | RE: Same as 390GT heads, except... -- Tim, 10/11/2003
Thanks, I'll keep a lookout for some C6AE-R's.. |
| moter -- GTG, 10/11/2003
Any info,books or spec. on building 390 What to look for in rebuild modifcations ect.Street use but would like it to have 400/425 horse power. |
| | http://www.woodyg.com/fairlane/finfo/390intro.html -- dennie, 10/11/2003
|
| Finally fixed that 'right-click' glitch. Sorry - busy month. :-p [n/m] -- Mr F, 10/11/2003
n/m |
| 390 camshafts.....which one? -- T.O., 10/10/2003
Ford Total Performance sent me a cam supposedly the same as their stock 390GT, C60Z-6250-B. It is going in my Fairlane I am rebuilding. The cam showed up in a box from Lazer Cams?? Never heard of them. It is supposed to be ground to same specs. I'm just a little scared to use something that is not Brand name. I have checked websites of Crane, Comp, Isky, Lunati. They all have sevral choices. I am confused. Can anybody help me?? |
| 3x2 Holley carb rebuild services -- T.O., 10/10/2003
Has anybody used Holley's rebuild services? They quoted me $600 to rebuild, re-plate, restore, wet bench test, and 1yr warranty to do complete tri-power set up. |
| | RE: 3x2 Holley carb rebuild services -- McQ, 10/10/2003
I have not used Holley's rebuild service but I have had Joe Bunetic, Ohio, rebuild my original trio of '61 390HP-401 horse Holleys. They looked absolutely brand new and worked like it. No problems whatsoever. I've also had Joe rebuild to new a '60 COAE-AA Holley (352HP) and a C3AE-B Holley (427-410 horse).
It seems that I paid Joe around $200 a piece for the tri carb rebuild. It was ten years ago or so. The 4V rebuilds have been in the last year and he charges $285 for those. If you want to e-mail me I'll respond with Joe's phone #.
Joe Bunetic does fabulous work and he's honest. When he's through with a carburetor it looks and works brand new. |
| | | RE: 3x2 Holley carb rebuild services -- T.O., 10/10/2003
I am interested in contacting him. Please forward me any info on how I can get in touch with him. Thank you. |
| | | RE: 3x2 Holley carb rebuild services -- Paul Garvin, 10/14/2003
Joe did my carbs also. I would recommend him to anyone. honest, reasonable and professional. I sent him my two holley 600's and my manifold and he sent it all back ready to bolt on with all the hardware in place.
Paul Garvin
69 XR7 Convertible |
|