Skip Navigation Links.
![Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=26803&Reply=26803><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a> <b>Help identify Bbf parts?</b> -- <font color=#0000ff>MARK LANGLEY, <i>02/12/2006</i></font><br /><blockquote>I need to know what i have! i just got a 68 cougar ,someone put an fe into it, it has a factory dual quad intake( cast aluminum) part # c3ae-9425-j and the bellhousing/scattershield is also a factory fomoco piece with nascar use only cast into it,can anyone tell me where these pieces are from ?<br><br>[Edited for compliance by Admin.] </blockquote>](/WebResource.axd?d=lIhYVYeLZitD6XlgNHhEd-8gl3glROaXiuCSsS0kUhMbzEzrh864nu9TEVc5o5s74Q8Nxx5-ZDj-hIkp_SpfCA7TlXjb8ZaRHmd_I-LT622vrMm8D_gbO_LyLtAFTics0&t=637814653746327080) |  Help identify Bbf parts? -- MARK LANGLEY, 02/12/2006
I need to know what i have! i just got a 68 cougar ,someone put an fe into it, it has a factory dual quad intake( cast aluminum) part # c3ae-9425-j and the bellhousing/scattershield is also a factory fomoco piece with nascar use only cast into it,can anyone tell me where these pieces are from ?
[Edited for compliance by Admin.] |
|  | RE: Help identify Bbf parts? -- hot428ford, 02/22/2006
the couager could be 390 sme came that way..the intake is of a 63 427 |
 | Need help to pick a cam -- Sten, 02/11/2006
Does anyone know a cam that will work on my 428CJ. It´s fully balanced and blueprinted, 030 over and a vintagetray but otherwise completely stock. It will be used in a Shelby Mustang with a fourspeed, 3,50:1 in the rear and weighs about 3500. I want it to run as strong as possible but still smooth at idle. Is the stock CJ cam the best choice or is there a better one around these days? |
| pertronix -- loco100, 02/09/2006
still need an answer, if you use the standard pertronix coil with the standard pertronix unit, can you get rid of the resister wire that is standard from ingition switch to coil,thus making existing coil (ford) a 6 volt coil. this is on a 1967 gal.500 ,390 ci. |
| | Yes, if you follow the directions -- Royce P, 02/09/2006
The Pertronix unit needs a coil with a certain resistance as stated in the directions because the Pertronix unit will burn out if you have too much current going through the unit. Read and follow the directions and it will last forever. |
| NOS Tunnel ports -- chuck, 02/09/2006
Can anyone tell me what a set of nos tunnel ports c70e-6090 k are worth
includes 8 ford intake valves, 1 ford exhaust, 7 manley exhaust valves and 16 inner and 16 outer springs of unknown brand |
| |  | Interesting photos on that . . . -- Orin, 02/10/2006
. . . auction; the guy never actually shows the tunnel ports. OK, he shows the p/n, but still . . . :-)
|
| | | | You can see them if you look, but who cares? -- Hawkrod, 02/10/2006
Since you see the part number you know what they are so pics of the ports are wasted bandwidth. Hawkrod |
| thought -- walt, 02/07/2006
sinnce i have been challanged a few many times,what was the first big block cobra engine?,proto type?answers? |
| 390 exhaust manifold -- Lew, 02/06/2006
I have a 1969 Mustang Mach 1 with a 390. It has the reinforced shock towers. The shock towers have a 3/16 steel plate wrapped around as the reinforcement. Originally the front of the reinforcement was removed ( notched). When the car was restored the shock towers were put back to stock. Now the engine barely fits. The exhaust manifold sits on the reinforcement of the shock towers. There is absolutely no clearance.
The Passenger side exhaust is : C8AE9430/A
The Driver side is 2TE9431AA
Will a set of GT exhaust manifolds be a better fit? What are the correct exhaust manifolds for this car?
Can the motor mounts be raised to make a fit? Is there a solution other than cutting the shock towers?
|
| | It hits because you have the wrong manifolds -- Hawkrod, 02/06/2006
There is a reson why ford used such ugly restrictive manifolds on these cars in the first place and now you know why. Raising teh motor mounts won't help and not knowing if you have GT heads (you probably don't) I can't tell you if the GT manifolds will fit or not. Hawkrod |
| | | RE: It hits because you have the wrong manifolds -- Lew, 02/06/2006
The heads are C8AE.
Thanks for your help. |
| | | | C8AE may or may not be unibody heads. -- Gerry Proctor, 02/07/2006
It's how many bolt holes exist in the exhast port flange. Eight bolt holes is the regular passenger car pattern. Fourteen bolt holes are for the unibody (Mustang/Fairlane) cars. C8AE-H heads were drilled depending on what car they were going on in the final assembly.
If your heads have the eight bolt holes, then you can not fit the correct factory manifolds to the car unless you pull the heads and drill and tap the exhast flange for these manifolds.
If you do have the 14-bolt flange, then you just need to get the correct unibody manifolds.
And Hawkrod is right...the factory log manifolds stink. Unless you are going for a resoration at some level, do consider headers. |
| | | | | RE: C8AE may or may not be unibody heads. -- Lew, 02/07/2006
Will a 16 bolt CJ exhaust manifold fit the 8 bolt C8AE cylinder heads? Will it be sufficient to only use 8 of the 16 bolts to fasten the CJ manaifold?
Thanks |
| | | | | | Nope. At least not in your application. -- Gerry Proctor, 02/07/2006
There's a reason CJ heads have the 16-bolt pattern. You can't install bolts in all of the vertical positions. The only way they'd fit is if you left out some of the bolts. They are also intended to fit the higher CJ exhaust port. This means that the exhaust slams into about .25" of the manifold at the bottom. Admittedly, there's very little flow there but it's not something you'd want to do if you had a choice. Ford did just this on the big car engines using the low-port head and the earlier, unchanged, exhaust manifolds. In those applications, it was somewhat inconsequential.
Besides, and again, Ford log manifolds -even the CJ- are the pits.
If you want to use factory iron manifolds, pull the heads and get them drilled for the correct pattern and get the correct manifolds. Otherwise, leave the heads alone and get headers. |
| | | | | | | RE: Nope. At least not in your application. -- Lew, 02/07/2006
Thanks for your advice. Actually, in speaking with FPA they recommended the 16 bolt CJ headers and only using the 8 bolts. My concern was with the ports aligning in this scenerio. |
| | | | | | |  | I would have made the same recommendation. -- Gerry Proctor, 02/07/2006
And don't worry about the port. Make sure FPA knows what heads they're going on. |
| | | | | | | | RE: Nope. At least not in your application. -- walt, 02/07/2006
rember this them bolt hole mean nothing,just make sure when the/header ports match when you bolt them on,there is a 1/2 inch port location diff in the heads,early heads were higher,the later were lower,bolt locations did not change,just the port,and do not use the 428 cj exhaust manifold s on 390 gt heads or 390/428 pi head after 65,port mismatch,my law ,see the lump for the air injection tube,or the dual bolt pattern,check the port location,walt |
| flywheel and bellhousing -- Craig G Robitaille, 02/04/2006
A little stuck here. New rebuilt FE 63' block. 65 Bellhousing with the longer housing to accomodate the longer starter shaft. Flywheel is a 68 FE flywheel. I was adjusting the valves today prior to start up, and the motor would not turn at all with the starter bolted in place. I have the spacer plate installed as well. Once I unbolted the starter, the motor turned freely and I finished the adjustments. Do I really need the spacer plate? I think the 68 flywheel does not like the old style Folomatic starter? Maybe the spacer plate needs to go?? Maybe a 68 starter without the long shaft??
Thanks!
Craig
Craig |
| casting ID source -- chuck, 02/03/2006
Anyone know of a good source to ID all casting #'s for FE's? |
| | RE: casting ID source -- Royce P, 02/06/2006
There is no such reference. Your best bet is the search feature on http://www.fordfe.com/
|
| Cam thrust plates -- Keith, 02/02/2006
I've had two different 390s break cam thrust plates. Both were good running fairly low mileage un-rebuilt engines at the time they broke. I've had several FEs and other than these two, they have been trouble free. Any clue on what would cause this and how to prevent it? I'm concidering building a hot FE for a project but right now I'm a little gun shy about them. Any help would be appreciated. Keith |
| | RE: Cam thrust plates -- Keith, 02/06/2006
Sorry, guess I didn't know the secret FE handshake. Thanks for the help. Looks like I build something else. |
| | | Tsk, tsk...dont' give up hope -- John, 02/06/2006
It's probably because no-one knows the answer. It's a problem I never heard of before. I can't even imagine it happening unless the retaining bolts came loose. Can you describe the damaged plate?...maybe that will clue someone in. hmmm....wait a second...could oil pressure on the far end of the cam drive it forward?...seems more liekly that the sealing (like a frost) plug would pop out first...gotta think more about this one.... |
| | | Define "break." -- Gerry Proctor, 02/07/2006
When I read your post, I'm trying to picture how this flat, hard, steel plate could break in half. Never heard of this type of failure before and that you've experienced it twice tells me that there is some kind of assembly error. And the only type of assembly error I can even think of is that the rear cam plug is installed backward...and even that's a push.
FYI -there is no secret FE handshake. Closest I can tell you without devulging the inner workings of the covert group is that meetings are held on the order of the Illuminati and the spoken language is a corrupted form of Esperanto. |
| | | | RE: Define "break." -- Keith, 02/07/2006
Here are the details. The first engine was a 390 from a 2 owner 64 Thunderbird with 62000 miles. It was latter destroyed in a garage fire. Thats when I got it. It had never had any internal work done. The second was a 390 from a wrecked 68 Galaxie 500 with 72000 Miles. Because of the mileage, this engine got a precautionary new timing set before it was installed. It latter had the heads redone. Both engines were run in the same 63 F-100 p/u with a truck 4 spd. Both engines ran a little rough right before they quit. On the 68, I pulled away from a light in second gear, shifted to third and it backfired about three times hard, made a lot of bad sounds under the hood and quit. It would not restart. The 64 did about the same but I was going about 45mph and it popped 2 or 3 times and quit. Latter, I tore both down and they had jumped time, had broken cam thrust plates and bent valves. The plates had broken in the middle and were nearly identical breaks. I've been wrenching most of my life and I've never seen this before and certainly not twice. But thats kinda how my luck goes. LOL I'd tend to blame faulty engine work at some point, but I knew the history on the 64 and it had never been apart. Inspite of being in a car almost completely burned up all it needed to run like a top was a new distributor cap and a set of wires. Even the carb was fine. After the second one broke I got frustrated and sold both engines and the truck. Thats about all I can tell you. Any ideas? |
| | | | | I can only guess. -- Gerry Proctor, 02/07/2006
Something that would have enough force to propel the cam in that fashion...well, I guess if, and this is a big if, you had a valvetrain collision that cause the lifters to propel the cam forward due to the taper of the lobe...naw, not even that seems possible.
Did you use the correct cam gear? It's obvious you replaced it in one engine, but not the other. There are two cam gears. The early factory one used a c-spacer at the pump eccentric, while the c-spacer is integral with the gear. Using the c-spacer on a new replacement set can cause problems. I don't know that it would split the thrust plate, at least not that I've ever heard of.
Did you install the thrust plate in the correct orientation?
Really, the only plausable thing I can think of is that the plate came loose, the cam walked forward, and the plate was ultimately destroyed as a consequence of everything else being destroyed.
This cam walking is pure theory. Once the lifters come off the cam, everthing jambs and who knows what forces are in play in those circumstances.
That it happened to you twice is really wierd.
Hope someone else has something better than I presented. I would regard it as the mystery of our time. |
| | | | | | RE: I can only guess. -- giacamo, 02/07/2006
crappy timing chain and sprocket i,v sean elcheapo chains jump and jam behind the sprocket never sean a thrust plate break but anything can happen...... |
| | | | | | | RE: I can only guess. -- Keith, 02/08/2006
The timimg set was a Federal Mogal or a Cloyes not sure, which from NAPA. My buddy worked there as the machinist. He would buy whatever I needed at his jobber cost and I would pay him. So I got good parts.
I mentioned this to a guy on the phone last night and we wondered, could the distributor or distributor gear have jammed or seized or someting and shoved the cam forward? I removed the distributors when I tore them down. I don't remember finding anything wrong with them, but my memory is not clear on that.
Hows that old blues song go? "If it wasn't for bad luck, I wouldn't have no luck at all." lol |
| | | | | | | | Very doubtful on the distributor doing this. -- Gerry Proctor, 02/09/2006
If something causes the oil pump to sieze, the driveshaft will either break or the distributor rollpin will shear. Those are your two weak links there. For the distributor to drive the cam out the thrust plate, the distributor would have to be turning the cam, which, of couse, doesn't work that way. And even if the driveshaft and rollpin didn't fail, the distributor would turn in the bore and kill the engine.
I don't know that you'll ever get to the cause of the failure but some things can be ruled out as causes.
I really think that the thrust plate failure is a consequence of another failure. In other words, it got taken out in the carnage. There's just nothing forceful enough that can drive the cam forward and break the plate. |
| | | | | RE: Define "break." -- walt, 02/07/2006
some thing is wrong never broke any,and i turned over 8000 rpm in several fe's,never shoved a cam to break the cam plate,even shattered liters in the bore,still no plate beakage,lifter bore as mentiond ealier?but did you check if you got the truck block?some have a larget dist hole bore,and my be it could be walking the cam by the distribitor gear,just a thougt,walt |
| | | | | | RE: Define "break." -- Keith, 02/08/2006
The truck block question, I have no idea. If they used some truck blocks to fill car engine orders I suppose its possible.
I had a 73 LTD wagon with a 429 years ago. Took it in for an exhaust system. The shop manager had to have the exact assembly date for the car. He showed me the book showed two different exhaust systems. For about twenty days of production they filled regular 429 orders with police intercepter engines. I questioned the intercepter in a wagon thing but he said the book showed "all models". I did luck out on this one, mine by 3 days, used the way cheaper regular exhaust system. Of course on the down side I didn't have the cool Intercepter mill. Rats! |
| | | | | | | RE: Define "break." -- Keith, 02/09/2006
Thanks everyone for the help. It seems like there is no clear reason why this happened. I'm out of ideas. I either missed something during teardown or I've forgotten something that would have helped solve this. It has been several years since this occured.
I re-thought the project and I'm leaning toward a physicaly smaller engine. Maybe a Y-Block or even a Flathead. Its going to be a light car and I really don't need all the torque an FE produces. A smaller package will be easier to fit too. Thanks guys.
|
|