Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Crankshaft ID -- ford429cjlover, 05/14/2003
I need help identifying a crankshaft. I recently purchased a 428 short block that appears to be a CJ. It has a 4.13 std. bore with reinforced mains and C cast into the back of the block. The casting number on the block is C7ME-A. The crankshaft, however, only has one marking on the second counterweight from the front. The marking is a capital H. There is nothing else anywhere on the crank. The rods are C6AE-C. Any Idea what the crank or rods are? |
 | 360-390 -- hsimpson, 05/14/2003
I would like to know how to make a 360 into a 390.What parts would I have to interchange? |
| S code block? -- Mike Grammer, 05/14/2003
I was wondering if there is a stamp on a s code block distinguishing it from other 390s or if they are the same. It has the correct heads, and intake, just wondering about the block, just for piece of mind.
 |
|  | RE: S code block? -- Rick T, 05/14/2003
I just finished rebuilding my '67 Cyclone 390 "S" code, which is an ALL original car, and the only ID on the block was the production date and the casting number, C7ME-A. I did not find any stamped or cast numbers other than those. Rick |
| | | many high performance cars have the VIN... -- hawkrod, 05/14/2003
stamped on the block. almost all cars after jan 1 1968 do also. i have had 3 67 GT390's and only one had the VIN on the block so it may depend on the assembly plant or who was working that day. hawkrod |
| | | | RE:speaking of S codes? -- McQ, 05/14/2003
One question I have that I've never heard/read a solid answer to is this:
Was there a 1967 Fairlane -Z- code 390?
In '66 there was a -Z- code for all Fairlanes except the GT which was mandated -S- code only. The -Z- code was the "standard" 390-4V/300 horse.
But I can find nothing about this -Z- code engine contining as an option for '67. However many years ago, before I cared anything about such things as VIN codes, I remember seeing a couple of '67 Fairlane XLs with 390-4Vs. They did not have the common GT engine dress up kit, i.e., chrome valve covers, air cleaner, dip stick handle.
One of these '67 XLs gave me quite a surprise one night back in '68. The '67 Fairlane had a factory 390-4V with no chrome. It was a 4 speed. I had a '66 GTA. We had us a little country drag race. I thought he'd be no problem for my GT390. Wrong! He hung right with me stirring the toploader very well.
I've thought about this often. What engine was the '67 390-4V non GT? |
| | | | | RE:speaking of S codes? -- Rick T, 05/14/2003
McQ, I bought a '67 Fairlane several years ago that was a Y code 390. I checked all the stamped locations to verify and it was. I have never heard of a Z code in the '66 or '67 Fairlanes, but back then I didn't pay any attention either. Reference to hawk's message, my '67 Cyclone is a 11/66 production date so I don't think they were stamping the vin that early. Rick |
| | | | |  | RE:'66 Z code Fairlane -- McQ, 05/14/2003
I know for a fact that there was a 1966 Fairlane -Z- code 390 available. My father ordered/owned a '66 Fairlane XL with standard 390-4V, console shifted automatic. The auto. trans was a C-6 but with the "old-style" cruiso shift pattern, L - D1 - D2, it DID NOT have the new for '66 and exclusive to the GT/A Fairlane/Cyclone GT select or sport shift.
The '66 Shop Manual indicates the -Z- code too. But the '67 Shop Manual does NOT.
But as I indicated I've personally seen a couple of '67 Fairlane NON GT/GTAs that were 390-4Vs. The '67 shop manual indicates only an -S- code for 390-4V.
So what I'd really like to know is if the '67 Fairlane 390-4V all painted in blue and topped with the new style Motorcraft 4V carb was equipped with internal GT goods which basically boiled down to the C6OZ-B camshaft?
Oh and yes -Y- code and -H- code 390-2Vs were reasonably common...way back then. |
| ford 390 fe -- russ rice, 05/13/2003
my 390 has trouble firing on 1 and 5
if i pull the plug it fires every time if i srew it in. it stops firing its all new help |
| 1962 G Code Galaxie -- Daniel Rashley, 05/13/2003
How can I get production figures for a "factory executive reserve" 406 G code with a three speed overdrive? All the literature I can find says these cars were mandatory 4 speeds. Please help!! |
| | Where'd you get 'exec. reserve' info...the warranty plate? [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/13/2003
n/m |
| | | RE: Where'd you get 'exec. reserve' info...the warranty plate? [n/m] -- Daniel, 05/14/2003
The DSO starts with 84. The lightweights, thunderbolts and the AFX Comets had this number (at least my AFX does). This 84 signifies factory executive reserve. Thank you for the excellent info on the T-85. I had heard some of the info you provided, but not in such great detail. You made my day. What do you expect from such a Ford guy?? If I would have inquired about a Camaro, I doubt I would get a response! |
| | RE:G code w/Overdrive -- McQ, 05/13/2003
It wasn't common to see that's for sure but the Borg Warner T-85 with Overdrive was available with the high performance full size Fords from '60 - '64. In '60 the regular T-85 was standard with the 352HP and the Overdrive was optional. The same was true for '61 except that in April, '61, a Borg Warner 4 speed became available at the same time the tri power option became available. Both were dealer installed options for these late '61 HPs. The BW 4 speed became a factory installed option in '62 with both the 390HP-375 & 401 horse early and later 406-385/405 horse. Standard trans for these in '62? Column shift 3 speed T-85 or T-85 Overdrive. This remained true through '64.
The BW T-85 standard or Overdrive was much more durable than the BW T-10. The Top Loader Ford 4 speed trans was phased in during '64 to replace the problematic T-10.
So yes the 3 speed w/overdrive and G code 405 horse tri powered 406 was a reality. A much better combination to run 4.56 rear gears with than the 4 speed. |
| | | Question for McQ...... -- Rick T, 05/14/2003
have you ever ACTUALLY seen anything other than a Z code for a 390 HP built prior to 1/61 ? Thanks, Rick |
| | | | RE: Question for McQ...... -- McQ, 05/14/2003
Great question Rick! There's so much misinformation actually printed about the VIN engine code(s) for the '61 HP 390.
I have personally never seen a 1961 High Performance 390, 375 horse or 401 horse that wasn't a Z code. FoMoCo did not give either the 1960 or 1961 High Performance engine and integrated powertrain(Total Performance!) a specific VIN engine code. They did for 1962.
I have seen a April, 1961, built 390HP-401 horse Starliner that had a -Z- VIN engine code. |
| | | | | RE:RE: Question for McQ...... -- Rick T, 05/14/2003
McQ, I have a '61 Starliner 390 HP sitting in my garage now that has a 12/15/60 production date, Los Angeles built for San Jose district with a Z code. 1J53Z126---
My first new car was a '61 Starliner 390 HP Z code, that I took possession of in 11/60, 3 weeks before my 16th birthday. I worked at a Ford dealer after school and weekends and sometime in the spring of '61 the owner had the shop install the 3-2v's and a 4 speed in exchange for them putting the car on the showroom while I went to school. Rick |
| | | | | | Re:wow! -- McQ, 05/14/2003
For me the '60/'61 HP cars are the greatest. Oh sure any '60s Ford with G-B-R-W-Q, and -S- are outstanding but the '60 - '61 true HPs are so rare they border on mythical to me.
You are very fortunate to have had the experience first hand to own a '61 HP at the tender age of just 16 and to work in a Ford dealership at that time too. Add to that that you currently own a HP '61...well I'm just darned envious and pleased.
A friend of mine in Yakima, WA, Jerry Pruitt, is currently restoring Portland, OR's Bill Ireland's '61 HP Starliner. It's an early 375 car that went through the few changes to be competitive in SS back then. Tri Power and 4 speed. Jerry is putting it back to original column shifted T-85/OD although with the heritage of the car he wouldn't mind running a Hurst Synchro Lok on the floor. It's Rangoon red with factory black interior.
I'm personally about 2/3 done restoring a '60 Sunliner documented 352HP -Y- code. Restoring meaning resto-modding with a '63 427 fitted with C3J marine dished pistons that offer 10:6.1 CR with the COAE-D heads. It "looks" like a 352HP. I have the original short block which dropped #8 exhaust valve one summer evening 1968. Just 54,000 on it then. It has not rolled under its own power since that night. I do plan to eventually restore/build the original B9A 352.
Please e-mail me directly with more details on your '61s. I'm one of a few who really cares to know more.
Hey you -R- code fans.....I just took a little drive to look at a local car I've never seen or knew a thing about. A '64 Galaxie -R- code. Not an XL just a 500 Whimbledon White with blue interior. It's a total mess and so rusty. Engine's gone but the T-10 is laying the trunk and it's complete rust too. It looks to have been sitting under a tree for 20+ years. Lots of other little pieces are gone too, i.e., generator/fuel filter but oh .... it's got the factory original transistor ignition box still there on the left inner fender panel! The 3/8" fuel line and the unique to HP cars from '61 on..cross over brake line that ran to the front and behind the radiator over to the pass. side. Yes, we're negotiating. Even as rusty as this thing is you just can't pass up an -R- code Ford/Merc. |
| Question for Mr. Shoe.: Edelbrock Performer - worth it? -- mark, 05/12/2003
Is the Peformer manifold any better than the stock 4bbl. ? <Mark.
[Title edited for clarity by Admin.] |
| | Not Shoe, but experience with Performers -- Ross, 05/13/2003
I wouldnt waste the gasket. Its certainly lighter, which is good, but I havent seen one FE run better with one. No worse, but no better. Matter of fact the difference between a CJ iron, or a PI alum and the Performer is so dramatic, you'd never run one if you did a before/after swap.
If you cut the plenum back, add a spacer, and do some port work they are OK, but for the cost of an RPM, F427, or PI you'll make more mid range AND believe it or not more torque.
Bottom line, they were designed in the times of the gas crucnhes and never worked so well, their RPM rating kept sales good for the low end crowd, but the RPM is a much better deal. Remember their competition was an SP2P, a manifold only good to about 4500 rpm, the Performer 390 may be OK on a 352 or 360, but dont expect much. As far as stock vs Performer, I'd probably run it if I knew I couldnt afford anything else, mostly for looks, but again ont expect much |
| | | Thanks Ross. -- Dave Shoe, 05/13/2003
Though I've never run a plain Performer intake, and I've complained about them in the past, I've more recently started to talk less cynically about them, most notably about a week ago. My initial response to this post was sounding too tolerant of the plain Performer, so I could not press the send button.
I appreciate your first-hand perspective, as it'll put me back on a more sensible course.
I started out on 428PI iron intake engines and was very happy. I've never run less than a CJ intake on an FE. As Ross said, a starting point is the Performer RPM and the iron CJ intake. Where you go from there is up to you, but there is NO good reason to look at the plain Performer or SP2P if performance is a goal.
If you are just looking to gain experience at changing FE intakes, I highly recommend the plain Performer - otherwise, plant your income on another manifold.
Shoe.
Shoe. |
| | | | RE: My .02 -- McQ, 05/13/2003
I've told this before but I'll tell it again and I'm working on being more concise.
I was running a 428 CJ in a '61 Starliner w/C-6/3.50 rear gear. The CJ was basically stock but I apparently got such a kick out of changing cams....I went through four liking just two of them. The best was a Schneider solid shaft with specs I've forgotten but it was similar to the 306/500 427. The intake varied between a C7AE PI with original CJ 735 Holley or a Autolite 4100/1.12 600 CFM jetted up or an old Offenhaeuser dual four with two 500 CFM Edelbrocks. This Offy sytsem sure looked cool but if didn't work any better than the PI ..... 13.7 E.T./102 mph.
The 3,800 lb. 'liner(Crites T-bolt syle hood & glass bumper) would run this driving to the local strip & running M&H G60-15 Street slicks.
Things were working so nicely I had to change it. Actually I was preparing to switch the CJ to my '68 F100 and I thought a minor de-tuning would be in order. Off comes the dual 500s/Offy and out comes the Schneider. In goes the one and only high performance cam still offered from FoMoCo through their High Performance parts program. That's the one..the hydraulic shaft that looks a little warmer than the stock CJ cam. This was around 8 - 9 years ago and I decided that the Performer might be nice with this cam esecially for a pick up. The RPM was only a rumor at this time and I think for my intended purpose I would have still chosen just the Performer. Oh and I did top the E-brock Performer with their 750 manual choke.
How did it work in the big Galaxie? Excellent! The Starliner would still run a decent 14.0/99 mph. Nothing else was changed. Just the milder very nice cam which had a very slight lope. My bottom end performance, right off the line was much stronger than it had ever been. It would overpower the M&Hs easily which was not the case before. I'd always readily spin the street slicks but not smoke 'em like I could with the new Ford cam/E-brock Performer. Seat-o-the-pants feel was outstanding from 650 rpm idle all the way to 5,500 rpm. Plus this package was perfect for the '68 F100. But that didn't last either....not going to go into that.
So it all really does depend on what your intentions are with your FE. Are you going to drag race it? I always think that's a good idea and that's why I would probably generally select a PI or RPM or my fav, the 390/406 tri power. But if you want all around great street performance up to 5,500 The Performer is tough to beat. And it sure is nice to set on those heads. |
| | | | | RE: My .02 -- Ross, 05/14/2003
I agree with the benefit of weight, however, in my case, my most alarming change was on an equally heavy vehicle.
I have ran the Performer, or in better description, modified a few for customers, but on my own truck, .040 over 390, 9.5:1, 280H cam, headers, 600 Holley, truck 4 speed and get this 35 inch tires aith a 3.50 gear. Believe it or not, this truck with a PI (or even now with a modded Street Dominator) will chug down to almost zero rpm and pull like a mule up to 5500.
From a PI to a Brand new Performer (PI had cracked in the crossover) I lost so much mid range and gained zero noticeable low end, although admittedly I never dynoed. This is a day after the $300 purchase way back when so belive me I wanted it to work LOL
I ended up sending the PI out to be repaired THAT DAY, and as soon as it showed back up I put it back on the truck and gained all my power back.
That Performer is still on our shop truck, a 390 4x4 pickup, so I dont think they are junk, but like I said before, the technology is old tech, computer design has allowed the RPM to give you all the Performer can and more, I would only use the Performer for weight saving. |
| | | | | | On another note? -- pop428, 05/14/2003
Can you notice the difference visibly if someone has fitted a F427 manifold on a 428cj with ram air instead of a factory cast iron inlet manifold if they were both painted corporate Blue?
I have no experience with FE's until 12 months ago when I brought my Mach 1, and It was fitted with the F427 inlet and I have the original one as well. I was wondering if you can pick the two manifolds once they are fitted to the engine with all the hoses and the shaker in place??
Thanks
Peter
1969 Mach 1
428Cjr
WT 7034 green |
| | | | | | | Sure - just by looking for the big 'Edelbrock' logo. ;-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/14/2003
n/m |
| | | | | | | | RE: Sure - just by looking for the big 'Edelbrock' logo. ;-) [n/m] -- Geoff McNew, 06/09/2003
ANS: Grind off the logo on the intake (fill the logo on the heads) paint it all Ford blue and the shaker will indeed help hide the truth from 99.9% of observers. My '69 Mach with 428-SCJ just made it thru our Nostalgia Days show and only 2 people did double takes....actually, they did 4-5 takes, reading the engine description in the window and looking under the hood, reading it again, looking again....one guy started smiling and cracking up, the other fella actually seemed really upset, kept shaking his head, I could read his lips when he said "sick" several times. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Sure - just by looking for the big 'Edelbrock' logo. ;-) [n/m] -- ERIC, 06/09/2003
[quote]ANS: Grind off the logo on the intake (fill the logo on the heads) paint it all Ford blue and the shaker will indeed help hide the truth from 99.9% of observers.[/quote]
Don't forget to add the metal shaving to mix with the paint to Pass the "Magnet Test" during the Tech inspection! :eek: |
| | | | | | | The only alum. intake that passes for stock is a PI. [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/14/2003
n/m |
| | | | | | | | The F427 is a comfortable counterfeit. -- Dave Shoe, 05/14/2003
The F427 can be distinguished from the CJ and PI intake at a glance, but it's a good copy of the MR intake (the PI is basically a later-year version of the MR intake) and looks nice atop any FE. The F427 typically sells for a lower-than-PI price, and is a good value.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | Thanks dave... -- pop428, 05/14/2003
I was "WEIGHING" up my options with my 428Cj. I will probably stick with the Stock inlet(Orignal restoration). Just asking about the F427 incase it was similar to the stock inlet and not noticeable once fitted to the engine! Trying to reduce weight! Anyone want to buy a F427??
Peter
1969 Mach 1 428Cjr
Wt 7034 green.
http://www.freewebs.com/cobrajetpage/ |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: Thanks dave... -- Mike, 06/02/2003
Peter,
From what I'm reading is the F427 similar to the PI?
How much do you want for it?
Will it bolt up to a stock 390GT motor?
Thanks,
Mike |
| | | | | | | | RE: The only alum. intake that passes for stock is a PI. [n/m] -- Jeff H., 06/06/2003
But only if you paint it Ford dark blue;-). I plan on purchasing a Blue Thunder M/R intake for my 428 street/strip 69 R-code 'stang build, painting it Ford dark blue, and telling all the chevy/mopar guys it is a stock 428CJ intake. They'll never know the differnence. I almost can't wait.
This 428PI intake is basically identical to the 428CJ cast iron piece so there is only the weight savings that makes it superior to a cast iron CJ manifold. Anyone serious about top-end performance (and who isn't?) should consider either the edelbrock rpm or the Blue Thunder offerings. I hear that the Blue Thunder is slightly better from mid-to high rpms. It is also at least $100 more expensive! One more thing that I have heard is that the RPM intake puts the carb too far back for shaker mustangs. Also the BT intake puts the shaker in the right spot but higher by over 1/2". |
| | | | | | | | | RE: The only alum. intake that passes for stock is a PI. [n/m] -- ERIC, 06/09/2003
How about buying the RPM and adding a 1/2" spacer ?? |
| trying to ID FE engine -390?? -- mark, 05/12/2003
I'm trying to figure out what engine I have.
Heads: C8AE-H (68-71 heads, Got that figured out from other posts)
Intake: D5TE9425MB (its a 4BBL) mystery to me.
STROKE: 3.7812" (390 STROKE?)
BORE: 4.125 (it has .030" over pistons, Subtract the .030" and I get 4.095, accounting for wear, thats alot over what a stock 390 would be at 4.050)
Thank you for your help, Great site! <Mark. |
| What sre these heads? -- Lou, 05/12/2003
I'm cleaning out my cellar today and under my bench I find a set of what appear to be FE heads. The only casting number are 575 2143, are these my long lost 59 T-bird heads? |
 | stroker 390 -- Mike Harris, 05/12/2003
First has anyone used Flatlanders stroker kits for 390s?
I was thinking using my 390 block at .030 stroked to 4.125 , my c6ae-r heads with CJ valves and minor clean up in the ports.
I have not decided on what cam / intake but something mild for a 3000 LB car with a c-6 and 3.89 gears. My goal is 450 HP . Is this to far out of a goal? |
| C6AE-R heads on 352. -- Al Phillips, 05/12/2003
I heard somewhere that the BIG valves in these heads would not clear the cylinder wall of a352 unless it was bored .060. So, how big of a valve will clear the already .030 bore ? |
|