Skip Navigation Links.
| 352 Intake #C5AE945B -- Greg Dowdle, 09/04/2003
I have a 65, 352 I took out of an F100. The heads and intake ports are about .100'' larger than normal 352 intake ports. I am trying to find a 4 barrell intak with larger intake ports to match the heads. |
| | All 1965-earlier FEs have the larger ports. -- Dave Shoe, 09/04/2003
The fist of the small port heads showed up in 1966, despite whatthe books might have you thinking. About 3/4 of production for 1966-67 got small "velocity" runners to help emissions and low-end response. About 99.9% of FEs got small runner heads from 1968-70, and all got small runner heads from 1971-on.
The C6AE-R head was a "transition head available in about 1/4 of all FEs in 1966 and 1967, and it kept the old ports and runners, but added thermactor emissions bosses (usually undrilled), and also revised exhaust manifold bosses (for drilling if it was to be used in a Fairlane/Mustang application).
The intake you have is only unique in that it's the first year the oil filler was absent from the manifold and the last year the runners were large. These large runner iron manifolds are identical, whether 2V or 4V, and were only slightly modified in 1966-72 when a small portion of the runner nearest the head was tapered down a little and a "T" was slapped onto the #1 runner, and when EGR was added for 1973-76. It's not a performance intake at all - mainly a smooth runner. For performance there are a whole slew of intakes to choose from.
Shoe. |
| Timing mark question -- Tim, 09/02/2003
I am a little confused. on a 390 when i line up the timing chain marks the dowel on the cam is pointing up. the assembly manuals state the dowel should point down. this would put the cam sprocket mark at the top. which on is correct?? |
| | RE: Timing mark question -- ed cougar, 09/03/2003
The cam dowel should be at the top and the arrow or dot should be at 6 o-clock. Read the manual again you may be confusing the dowel with the timing mark whitch should be at the bottom. |
| | | RE: Timing mark question -- Tim, 09/03/2003
Thanks Ed my manual has mostly small block spec's in it Thanks |
| | Same same. -- Dave Shoe, 09/03/2003
Since the cam rotates at half the speed of the crank, the dowel can face directly up or directly down with no problem.
Just rotate the crank one turn and it's in the other position. They're both correct.
Shoe. |
| Distributor Removal - 390 GT Mustang -- Patrick, 09/02/2003
Hi all,
I searched through archive and did not find anything on a more basic level with the dist. I'm looking for your help to verify the procedure to take out the dist. I'm new at this and I've read Steve Christ's FE book, but the procedure is more geared for removal for total rebuild.
He mentions to mark the placement of the dist and the intake..and then unscrew the dist bolt..but if I hear a loud thunk..not to worry because it's the oil pump sending unit dropping into the oil pan. he says you can grab it when you take the pan off..but I'm not looking to take the pan off. I want to take the dist off to touch up my intake with paint....how do i avoid having the oil pump sending unit from dropping down??
Thanks all ** !! |
| | RE: Distributor Removal - 390 GT Mustang -- Glenn, 09/02/2003
Patrick, I think you mean the oil pump drive shaft not sending unit. This shaft is a short hex shaped rod that fits loosely between the bottom of the distributor and the top of the oil pump. I bite my tounge when I say it rarely falls into the pan. Now that I have put the whammy on your deal there I have sucessfully fished 'em outta the pan with a long flexible magnet. If ya gotta pull the dist there is no way around the possibility of it fallin into the pan. I say just go for it. Anybody else?
[Post relocated by Admin.] |
| | RE: Distributor Removal - 390 GT Mustang -- Martin Micheelsen, 09/02/2003
There is a small retaining clip on the hexagonal oil pump rod that is supposed to keep it in place. I can attest to the fact that it anyway may slide up high enough to get out of the pump and then silently drop into the oil pan. That cost me a rebuild years ago. However when you have pulled the distributor you can visually verify that the top of the rod is still in its place in the small hole where the bottom of the distributor sits. If you don't see it - time to pull the oil pan.
[Post relocated by Admin.] |
| | | RE: Distributor Removal - 390 GT Mustang -- Patrickm, 09/03/2003
Glen & Martin, thanks for input*
hey, so if I do drop the shaft and then open the oil pan to get it....is the process to put the oil pump shaft back-in fairly straight forward? Do I simply place in the dist and then lineup the bottom of the shaft sticking out of the dist into the pump?? Hope that made sense.
thanks again! |
| | | | RE: Distributor Removal - 390 GT Mustang -- Martin Micheelsen, 09/03/2003
No actually the shaft is supposed to go in place from the pump's side. If the shaft falls out I would get a new one where the retainer piece can be counted on. Then Remove the pump and pick-up tube, put the new shaft in the pump with the end with the retainer upward and put the pump and pickup tube back in place and see to that the shaft goes in the hole where it meets the bottom end of the distributor. |
| | | | | RE: Distributor Removal - 390 GT Mustang -- Gregory Westphall, 09/03/2003
FPP offers an oil pump drive that has an increased outside diameter through its mid-section with nice radii to neck it down to the stock hex diameter at the oil pump and distribuotr. Whether it is actually really stronger or not I am really not sure, but what I like about it is that the step prevents it from pulling out when removing the distributor. That little clip can slide off the stock shaft pretty easily especially when the distributor has not been removed for a while and the shaft has locked onto it. Don't ask how I know this. |
| 390 Hydraulic lifter Valve to Rocker Clearance -- Mike Zarro, 09/02/2003
Hi-- Have a set of 66 GT heads that appear to have been several valve jobs throughout the years. I recently had hardened seats installed on the exhaust side. The manual states that there should be between 0.1 to 0.2" clearance betweent he valve and rocker when the lifter is fully collapsed. I am measuring about 0.05" on the intake and 0.125" on the exhaust. Are there shorter push rods available to install on the intake side ? Also, finding headers or a set of exhaust manifolds to fit GT heads are a challange. --Any recommendations
Regards |
| | Headers -- Royce Peterson, 09/02/2003
FPA makes headers to fit. |
| | RE: 390 Hydraulic lifter Valve to Rocker Clearance -- giacamo, 09/02/2003
p.a.w. has shorter push rods hooker makes headers to fit but very expensive!and a bitch to install.keep looking for exaust manifolds thear worth the wate. |
| Tri power V. Projection -- David Wilson, 08/31/2003
I have found my Tri power set up on my 428 is not altitude friendly. I makes mountain trips frustrating because it wants to flood out. I am considering going to the Holley projection system to make my ride more touring friendly. Any thoughts on the Projection system on the FE? |
| Twin turbo FE,wich block? -- Louis 466, 08/31/2003
I just purchased a set of turbo's wich I'm gonna make work on my FE. The engine in my car is a 352,but Ican get my hands on a 360,wich is a truckblock.390's are avalible but are not cheap overhere.What would be the best choice to start with?
Louis from Holland |
| | RE: Twin turbo FE,wich block? -- giacamo, 08/31/2003
i would look for a webbed 360 block throw away the 360 littel rods and crank and pistons look for 390 partsto bild with the 360 and 390 have same boar.and deck height. |
| auto trans options for 67 fe -- dennie, 08/29/2003
Hello i know lentech makes an overdrive c-6 for bid $ , are there any other options? an adapter that will allow a newer od trans work I'm open to anything thanks |
| | | Don't be put-off by the 61 pound adapter ring. -- Dave Shoe, 09/02/2003
The steel adapter ring in the layout photo weighs 61 pounds, but the production ring is made of aluminum and weighs 13.8 pounds.
There are other options for the FE, such as Lentech, Gear Vendors, and PA, for attaching the AOD, none cheap.
Shoe. |
| 427 head gaskets -- terry, 08/29/2003
Is a C3AE-6051-B head gasket the same as the steel shim CEAZ-6051-B? TERRY |
| | Ceaz-6051-b? -- Ted E., 09/05/2003
I'm not familiar with the CEAZ steel shim gasket. Here are the thickness' that I'm aware of for the steel shim gaskets. C3AE-BS and C4AE-BS are 0.020" thick while the C3AZ-B is 0.015" thick. |
| | I don't believe so. -- Dave Shoe, 09/05/2003
As mentioned in the above post, the B and BS versions of the C3AZ-6051-B gasket are slightly different. I'm not sure of the thickness, but the BS version is stainless steel and the B verson is coated steel.
Uncoated steel versions of this reinforced head gasket were repopped not too long ago, and are readily available at several FE retailers for a good price.
I don't recall seeing the C3AE prefix being used in the context of the FE steel shim head gaskets. I'm unaware of any CEAZ prefixes on any head gaskets.
Shoe. |
| | I see no listing for a 'CEAZ-' gaske, from 1960-70. [n/m] -- Mr F, 09/05/2003
n/m |
| | | Re: shim gaskets -- John, 09/06/2003
What is the best method for installing/sealing the shim style gaskets? |
| | | | First off, there are 2 completely different types. -- Dave Shoe, 09/07/2003
Be aware there are the "simple embossed" type of steel shim head gaskets which remain readily available. These work well in bores up to 428, but do not fit the larger 427 bore. These were common on production FEs for many years.
The "simple embossed" shim gaskets are NOT the ones we refer to.
Instead, we are referring to the "reinforced" shim gaskets which have a rolled lip at the cylinders to improve cylinder sealing when there is so little space separating the large 427 bores. These gaskets work well in smaller bores, but are designed for the 427.
More info can be gleaned from this older post, though I've noted there are a couple errors in it: http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=7888&Reply=7880
Another feature of the C3AZ-B's is they are a wet-deck gasket. In other words, coolant passages are NOT sealed, allowing coolant to wick into the uncrushed space between the head and deck to help transfer combustion chamber heat to the block.
Oddly, I still use Permatex copper-coat head gasket sealer with these gaskets with perfect luck. This reduces the coolant wicking a little, since the copper goo is all over the place, but the coolant still mananges to fill the remaining air spaces, providing some thermal mating between the head and block, thus reducing hot spots on the head.
Some folk have trouble with the shim gaskets leaking coolant like crazy when they are installed. I have not learned why this is, but they were experienced builders, so beware some folk have had less than perfect luck with them.
Shoe. |
| heads casting No. ? -- David Davis, 08/29/2003
I have a 1963 12 Galaxie XL500 that codes out a #390 300 HP. The casting no's between the center spark plugs are 2143 and 575. I have never seen c/n like that. Can any one identify these heads. This car apears to be a virgin with 51,000 miles. No's 2 & 6 cyl's are dead with 5-10 # comp. Thaks Dave |
| | RE: heads casting No. ? -- John, 08/30/2003
David casting # 5752143 is part of a casting # system ford used for a very short time somewhere in the late 58 early 59 time frame prior to that they used a casting # that looked like EDC-6090-C after that they used a # that looked like C0AE-6090-D.The early and late systems gave you some idea of what the part you were looking at was and the late system would tell you specific information on what the part was originally designed for and when,this in between system has me baffled.I have also seen Y-block parts of this era using this casting # system.So provided it is definitely an FE engine in your car I would guess that the heads on your engine are late 58 early 59 352 heads that have the as cast combustion chambers,which are essentially the same as all standard performance 352-390 heads up to 1964 with a couple of exceptions one being the 1963 390 4V engine using the C3AE-C heads which had significantly smaller combustion chambers.This head was basically the late 406-6V head with standard size valves and no machining for valve spring seats. |
| | RE: heads casting No. ? -- giacamo, 09/02/2003
you probley have a couple burnt valves you have a decent set of heads hard seats on exaust valves is a must on earley fe heads. |
| Fordomatic speedometer gear -- Crusinbuddy, 08/29/2003
I have a 64 Galaxie with 390 and Fordomatic. I purchased the car and the speedometer did not work. Then I noticed that it works fine in reverse but not forward. Can this be corrected with gear change in Tranny or with gear change on the cable end?
Any ideas would be great! Thanks |
| | Remove Cable and gear from trans, -- Lou, 09/03/2003
check gear for ware. Remove gear from speedometer cable and using a reverseable electric drill spin cable and see if the speedometer works in both directions. If not take the speedometer head out and have it rebuilt. |
|