These are the old FoMoCo Obsolete Forums and are being hosted by JCOConsulting.com. While you're here, check out my articles or have a look around at some of the Ford Stuff we have for sale. You might find something you can't live without.

Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17127&Reply=17127><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>MX, FMX differences</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Eric, <i>05/08/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>My '66 F100, 352, "G" code tranny appears to have a MX tranny.  Using pan photos, I'm pretty sure it is a MX. Tranny tag reads PDB  F<br>010322.  My chiltons identifies it as a C4(wrong), and my ellery repair book doesn't even list MX trannys.  Repair manuals sem to be hard to come by although the local Transtar has three master rebuild kits for the MX.  Can anyone fill me on on this tranny?  Is the MX part of the FMX family or a completely different tranny? </blockquote> MX, FMX differences -- Eric, 05/08/2003
My '66 F100, 352, "G" code tranny appears to have a MX tranny. Using pan photos, I'm pretty sure it is a MX. Tranny tag reads PDB F
010322. My chiltons identifies it as a C4(wrong), and my ellery repair book doesn't even list MX trannys. Repair manuals sem to be hard to come by although the local Transtar has three master rebuild kits for the MX. Can anyone fill me on on this tranny? Is the MX part of the FMX family or a completely different tranny?
 I think the FMX may have showed up in 1967. -- Dave Shoe, 05/08/2003
I'm not sure of the various dates, but the FMX (Borg Warner tranny contracted by Ford) was a tranny that fit between the FX and MX (both FX and MX terms became publically known in 1966, though both were introduced in 1958), so you can sorta consider it a heavy duty FX or a light duty MX tranny. The goal was probably to offer a tranny that fell halfway between the strength of the C4 and C6.

The oil pan gasket is different for all three, and is probaly the best way to determine what ya got (not that I can even tell the difference in the actual FX, MX, or FMX trannies, as I can't because I mainly study the C6).

Good luck. I've noticed that some literature uses the term FMX generically to indicate any of the three trannies. I guess even the tranny repair writers had trouble determining what was what.

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17130&Reply=17127><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Here's a smattering of background info on all those units...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>05/08/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote><a href="http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=1049&Reply=1021">http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=1049&Reply=1021</a><br><a href="http://jcoconsulting.com/ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3233&Reply=3212">http://jcoconsulting.com/ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3233&Reply=3212</a><br><a href="http://jcoconsulting.com/ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9103&Reply=8973">http://jcoconsulting.com/ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9103&Reply=8973</a> </blockquote> Here's a smattering of background info on all those units... -- Mr F, 05/08/2003
http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=1049&Reply=1021
http://jcoconsulting.com/ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3233&Reply=3212
http://jcoconsulting.com/ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9103&Reply=8973
 RE: Here's a smattering of background info on all those units... -- Eric, 05/08/2003
Thanks, fellows. I have been looking for manuals on the MX but all I kind find are FMX references and I don't think they are close enough in design.? This truck is in great shape and very original so I want to kep the MX.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17132&Reply=17127><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>What kind of literature (or info) do you need, exactly? [n/m]</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>05/08/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> What kind of literature (or info) do you need, exactly? [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/08/2003
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17158&Reply=17127><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: What kind of literature (or info) do you need, exactly? [n/m]</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Eric, <i>05/11/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Well Mr. F. I was wondering if my tranny manual, that covers FMX would apply to a medium case MX?  A little rebuild guidance is all I need. </blockquote> RE: What kind of literature (or info) do you need, exactly? [n/m] -- Eric, 05/11/2003
Well Mr. F. I was wondering if my tranny manual, that covers FMX would apply to a medium case MX? A little rebuild guidance is all I need.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17165&Reply=17127><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Frankly, I don't know. Try asking these guys...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>05/11/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/">http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/</a> </blockquote> Frankly, I don't know. Try asking these guys... -- Mr F, 05/11/2003
http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/
 RE: Frankly, I don't know. Try asking these guys... -- Eric, 05/12/2003
I tore it down yesterday and it looks very similar to the photos in my FMX manual. I think it's close enough to proceed with the rebuild. Man, that CI case is heavy!!$#^@&#
The fluid was so black it looked like very old motor oil!
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17122&Reply=17122><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>stock thermostat o.k.?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Geoff McNew, <i>05/07/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I ran the cam in, thermal cycled the engine several times, checked the head bolt torques, re-mounted the Erson roller rocker shafts, changed the oil & filter, timed 38 deg. mech. @ 3500-4000 rpm / 45 deg. vac.....idles sweet...pulling 13" vacuum on the 750 cfm 4150-HP, starts on the first jog....no knocks, leaks, runs, hits or errors. <br><br>BUT, before I start driving it, what's the word on thermostats?  I put in a Motorcraft 192 deg., which is stock for my '69 428-SCJ.  It had someone's 180 deg. hi-flow in it when I took it down.  Motor has Edelbrock heads, 9.9:1 compression.  Is there anything wrong with a stock 192 deg. thermostat for my sea-level semi-daily driver? </blockquote> stock thermostat o.k.? -- Geoff McNew, 05/07/2003
I ran the cam in, thermal cycled the engine several times, checked the head bolt torques, re-mounted the Erson roller rocker shafts, changed the oil & filter, timed 38 deg. mech. @ 3500-4000 rpm / 45 deg. vac.....idles sweet...pulling 13" vacuum on the 750 cfm 4150-HP, starts on the first jog....no knocks, leaks, runs, hits or errors.

BUT, before I start driving it, what's the word on thermostats? I put in a Motorcraft 192 deg., which is stock for my '69 428-SCJ. It had someone's 180 deg. hi-flow in it when I took it down. Motor has Edelbrock heads, 9.9:1 compression. Is there anything wrong with a stock 192 deg. thermostat for my sea-level semi-daily driver?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17126&Reply=17122><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>put the 180 back in it</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>james, <i>05/07/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>It will give it more horses. </blockquote> put the 180 back in it -- james, 05/07/2003
It will give it more horses.
 I'm a 192 fan, myself. -- Dave Shoe, 05/08/2003
I don't know why one is better than another, but I've only ever used 192s because they work for me.

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17143&Reply=17122><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Re: 192</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Geoff McNew, <i>05/10/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Thanks Dave,<br>BTW, you should see the engine bay!  It's sick.  The motor is all blue, and thanks to a slightly loose wire clamp on start-up, it's even got a spritz of radiator fluid to make it look all-the-more  "stock 428-SCJ with headers is all".  If you stoop, you can just see the twin return springs under the air cleaner/shaker, and that's it.  Everything else is satin black, 40k volt coil, 8mm spiro-pro's, flex-a-lite fan included.   Getting picky, the new 4150-HP feeds opposite side of my stock Holley list# 4279, but, I replaced the 5/16" tubing with 3/8", 37 deg. AN flared & bent it all myself, routed between the water pump flanges and timing cover... it looks too factory....sick. </blockquote> Re: 192 -- Geoff McNew, 05/10/2003
Thanks Dave,
BTW, you should see the engine bay! It's sick. The motor is all blue, and thanks to a slightly loose wire clamp on start-up, it's even got a spritz of radiator fluid to make it look all-the-more "stock 428-SCJ with headers is all". If you stoop, you can just see the twin return springs under the air cleaner/shaker, and that's it. Everything else is satin black, 40k volt coil, 8mm spiro-pro's, flex-a-lite fan included. Getting picky, the new 4150-HP feeds opposite side of my stock Holley list# 4279, but, I replaced the 5/16" tubing with 3/8", 37 deg. AN flared & bent it all myself, routed between the water pump flanges and timing cover... it looks too factory....sick.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17144&Reply=17122><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Re: 192</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Geoff McNew, <i>05/10/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>See, in previous bog-mode with 6 degrees retard, the car already killed a 911-turbo and a 348 wanna-be 355-F1....now, I figure vipers and Z-06's are fair game.  </blockquote> RE: Re: 192 -- Geoff McNew, 05/10/2003
See, in previous bog-mode with 6 degrees retard, the car already killed a 911-turbo and a 348 wanna-be 355-F1....now, I figure vipers and Z-06's are fair game.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17154&Reply=17122><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Why 180?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>James, <i>05/10/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have been told by a wrench from way back then that the 192 thermostat was one of the components of the emissions being put into place by the government. The 428CJ was the one of the first engines in a muscle car to have emissions of any kind on it (smog pump). The mechanic told me that the first thing folks would do to their 428 back then was take the smog pump off, put real duals on them and put a 180 degree thermostat in it. The smog pumps were not made to take the torqueyness of the 428 and the dealerships got so tired of fixing them that the customer was persuaded to just let them take the belt off and let it go. <br><br>As for the thermostat, the 180 works better because the cooler the engine is the more horsepower stays in it...up to a point. The more heat that is present the less horse power stays in the engine. Furthermore, if a 428 has been bored it has a tendancy to run hotter and can take advantage of the cooler thermostat. I ran a 192 for a while and went to a 180 and never looked back because it made the engine run better especially in the 100 degree tempuratures of Oklahoma in the summer time. </blockquote> Why 180? -- James, 05/10/2003
I have been told by a wrench from way back then that the 192 thermostat was one of the components of the emissions being put into place by the government. The 428CJ was the one of the first engines in a muscle car to have emissions of any kind on it (smog pump). The mechanic told me that the first thing folks would do to their 428 back then was take the smog pump off, put real duals on them and put a 180 degree thermostat in it. The smog pumps were not made to take the torqueyness of the 428 and the dealerships got so tired of fixing them that the customer was persuaded to just let them take the belt off and let it go.

As for the thermostat, the 180 works better because the cooler the engine is the more horsepower stays in it...up to a point. The more heat that is present the less horse power stays in the engine. Furthermore, if a 428 has been bored it has a tendancy to run hotter and can take advantage of the cooler thermostat. I ran a 192 for a while and went to a 180 and never looked back because it made the engine run better especially in the 100 degree tempuratures of Oklahoma in the summer time.
 RE: Why 180? -- Geoff McNew, 05/11/2003
now, what are these high-flow versions that are avail?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17176&Reply=17122><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Minnesota factor.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>05/11/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>192 might be best suited for the snowbelt, I dunno.  It also did well in San Jose, California back when gas had lead in it.<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> Minnesota factor. -- Dave Shoe, 05/11/2003
192 might be best suited for the snowbelt, I dunno. It also did well in San Jose, California back when gas had lead in it.

Shoe.
 RE: Minnesota factor. -- Geoff McNew, 05/11/2003
The car is an "R" code Mach 1 w/ "V" code axle (SCJ) made in San Jose...and now "out to pasture", residing just 100 miles north. So, I avail myself of the Unocal76 110 octane leaded NASCAR gas just down the road from me at Sears Pt....ooopse, make that Infineon, at every chance. You can drive in and the pumps take your card...always keep at least 1/3-1/2 the tank full of good stuff to mix with 92 unleaded elsewhere on the street. So, I figure I'm always running leaded gas at around 100 octane....smells good too.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17117&Reply=17117><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>motor modifications</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>carlos, <i>05/07/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Hey guys, hope you can help. I am building a 390 motor bored 40 over with C7AE-A heads, holley 650 carb, hooker super comp headers, a C6 automatic tranny, 3.50 gears and compression at 9.5 to 1. My question is should i boost compression to 10 to 1 and how would i do that?? do i mill the heads or change pistons? also i planned to have heads port and polished, is this a good idea or not?? Finally i have been racking my brain on which cam to go with. I want a choppey idle with just enough vacume for my power brakes but i also want a wide power band with good torque. I was thinking of the COMP 280H or the comp cams 270H, WHAT DO YOU THINK?? Thanks for your help in advance. </blockquote> motor modifications -- carlos, 05/07/2003
Hey guys, hope you can help. I am building a 390 motor bored 40 over with C7AE-A heads, holley 650 carb, hooker super comp headers, a C6 automatic tranny, 3.50 gears and compression at 9.5 to 1. My question is should i boost compression to 10 to 1 and how would i do that?? do i mill the heads or change pistons? also i planned to have heads port and polished, is this a good idea or not?? Finally i have been racking my brain on which cam to go with. I want a choppey idle with just enough vacume for my power brakes but i also want a wide power band with good torque. I was thinking of the COMP 280H or the comp cams 270H, WHAT DO YOU THINK?? Thanks for your help in advance.
 Supercomps don't port match with C7AE-A heads. -- Dave Shoe, 05/07/2003
Hooker truck headers are rumored to work with C7AE-A heads.

Be aware that Hooker headers for cars don't port match to the low-exit FE heads. Besides the flow issues related to a 5/16" port mismatch on the top and bottom of the port, there is insufficient gasket crush at the weld bead along the lower portion of the port, generating an irritating series of exhaust leaks.

You need to get away from C6AE-J, -L, -U, -Y, C7AE-A, C8AE-H, and D2TE-AA and go towards 1958-65 heads, or C6AE-R, CJ, or 427 heads for a proper port match.

FPA (fordpowertrain.com) has headers that will work in a car - make sure you get the ones with the proper flange - and some other manufacturers also make the proper header.

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17110&Reply=17110><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Harmonic Balancers</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Tom, <i>05/07/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>  I have a 64 - 427 LR and my balancer is getting weak...  I saw a balanser on e-Bay for $58.00   ITEM DESCRIBED AS:  these are identical to 1968 and later 360-390 and 428 balancers. Timing marks start at 10 ATC and go thru 30 BTDC with TDC at zero( just like original). Question is can I use this on my 64 block-   more infor available..... Thanks , Tom </blockquote> Harmonic Balancers -- Tom, 05/07/2003
I have a 64 - 427 LR and my balancer is getting weak... I saw a balanser on e-Bay for $58.00 ITEM DESCRIBED AS: these are identical to 1968 and later 360-390 and 428 balancers. Timing marks start at 10 ATC and go thru 30 BTDC with TDC at zero( just like original). Question is can I use this on my 64 block- more infor available..... Thanks , Tom
 Yup. -- Dave Shoe, 05/07/2003
You'll also want to get a timing pointer for the 1968-later style of damper, and the timing cover from a 1968-later FE might be nice to properly support the pointer, though the pointer issue is really a minor concern - I just thought I'd remind you of it.

Since the late style damper lacks a cast-in pulley, you'll also want to pick up a pulley (single grooves are readily avalable in a few different diameters, usually all good performance diameters, but you'll usually have to watch ebay for a week or more to find one. Note the crank pulley bolt pattern is different of the 1968-later pulleys (common type and SCJ type) compared to the 1958-67 pulleys (all versions), so a late crank pulley will be needed.

Damper spacer is the same for all FE damper designs, and crank pulley groove offset is also identical for all FE dampers so you don't have to fuss with the water pump pulley. Note that the first years of the late damper offered 40BTC markings, but these dropped back to 30BTC as emissions issues overtook performance.

JMO,
Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17120&Reply=17110><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Harmonic Balancers</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Charlie, <i>05/07/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I bought a balancer from dsc off ebay a while back was suppose to be nuetral balance. Seems to be good quality but the balance was way off. I've bought a 2nd since, but they get balanced with rotating assm. before use.<br>Charlie<br><br> </blockquote> RE: Harmonic Balancers -- Charlie, 05/07/2003
I bought a balancer from dsc off ebay a while back was suppose to be nuetral balance. Seems to be good quality but the balance was way off. I've bought a 2nd since, but they get balanced with rotating assm. before use.
Charlie

Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17121&Reply=17110><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Harmonic Balancers</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Tom, <i>05/07/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Thank guys,  Yes Charlie it is offered by DSC.  I will make sure to check the balance before installation....Again thanks, Tom </blockquote> RE: Harmonic Balancers -- Tom, 05/07/2003
Thank guys, Yes Charlie it is offered by DSC. I will make sure to check the balance before installation....Again thanks, Tom
 Rebuild your current balancer? -- Ted E., 05/07/2003
I just had a 406 damper rebuilt by Damper Doctor in California and looks great. I'd try them on your 427 damper as it's a uniquie piece and dyno testing shows it to be the best of the lot due to its weight.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17107&Reply=17107><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390 driveshaft</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Ed McManus, <i>05/06/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>My '67 390 Fairlane needs a driveshaft. The question is: Will the driveshaft from a 289 C4  '67 Fairlane work if I change the yoke?  Thanks, Ed </blockquote> 390 driveshaft -- Ed McManus, 05/06/2003
My '67 390 Fairlane needs a driveshaft. The question is: Will the driveshaft from a 289 C4 '67 Fairlane work if I change the yoke? Thanks, Ed
 RE: 390 driveshaft -- hawkrod, 05/07/2003
390 car has 9 inch so the driveshaft is shorter. hawkrod
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17101&Reply=17101><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>428 CJ block</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>ford429cjlover, <i>05/05/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Just bought an FE that I believe is a CJ. The engine is disassembled so I was able to inspect thoroughly. The block is a STD bore with 428 piston. It also has the reinforced main webs and a large C cast in the back of the block. The part number cast into the side of the block is C7ME-A  and there is a 66-427 cast into the back. Is there anything else that I should be looking for to verify that this is indeed a 428CJ? The engine came out of a 1969 Fairlane. Thanks in advance. </blockquote> 428 CJ block -- ford429cjlover, 05/05/2003
Just bought an FE that I believe is a CJ. The engine is disassembled so I was able to inspect thoroughly. The block is a STD bore with 428 piston. It also has the reinforced main webs and a large C cast in the back of the block. The part number cast into the side of the block is C7ME-A and there is a 66-427 cast into the back. Is there anything else that I should be looking for to verify that this is indeed a 428CJ? The engine came out of a 1969 Fairlane. Thanks in advance.
 Help id a 428 CJ block here. -- John, 05/05/2003
http://www.428cobrajet.org/id-block.html
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17098&Reply=17098><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>FE cylinder heads C6AE-R</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Todd, <i>05/05/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have a set of C6AE-R cylinder heads with a 16 bolt exaust flange design.They also have a large R .I was wondering if anybody knew what these were off of and if they are of any value ?? I have never seen a set with the 16 bolt flanges.  </blockquote> FE cylinder heads C6AE-R -- Todd, 05/05/2003
I have a set of C6AE-R cylinder heads with a 16 bolt exaust flange design.They also have a large R .I was wondering if anybody knew what these were off of and if they are of any value ?? I have never seen a set with the 16 bolt flanges.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17099&Reply=17098><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>1966 352-390-410-428</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>05/05/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Those are ordinary heads from any of the FE line except 427 in the 1966 - 67 model years.<br><br>I drilled mine for the 16 bolt pattern so it would not be unusual to find another set that way. Makes them seal really well when using headers if you install all the bolts in the 16 holes.<br><br>The ones with the big "R" come from Ford's Cleveland foundry. See the casting mark C with superimposed F?<br><br>Royce  </blockquote> 1966 352-390-410-428 -- Royce Peterson, 05/05/2003
Those are ordinary heads from any of the FE line except 427 in the 1966 - 67 model years.

I drilled mine for the 16 bolt pattern so it would not be unusual to find another set that way. Makes them seal really well when using headers if you install all the bolts in the 16 holes.

The ones with the big "R" come from Ford's Cleveland foundry. See the casting mark C with superimposed F?

Royce
 RE: ordinary but good -- McQ, 05/05/2003
As Royce indicates the C6AE-R was commonly used in '66 and early '67 on the FE series. They are still reasonably easy to find.

Most importantly one thing I've learned about them from this forum is that they have great potential to meet or exceed the flow/performance of the C8OE-N 428 Cobra Jet head. With CJ valves, pocket porting and little else you have a great set of heads.

And as you've found from yours having 16 exhaust manifold/header bolt holes, they will work with GT or CJ manifolds. The C6-R obviously has the bosses for this if they aren't already drilled/tapped for the unibody manifolds.

Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17125&Reply=17098><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: FE cylinder heads C6AE-R</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Jeff H., <i>05/07/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have heard rumours that these heads properly modified will out-flow just about any production FE head.  My cousin is getting ready to run a set of these heads on his 427 street/strip (mostly strip) '69 torino.  I laughed at him initially when he told me he was putting "390 GT" heads on his 427.  According to him the C6AE-R heads have a larger radius intake port that flows much better than other FE heads at high RPM.  He is still prepping this car for this season so I can't report his performance with htese heads.  I will say that  I have heard others (including FE racebuilders) say great things about this casting.  Just to put it into perspective my cousin has a set of 427 MR heads on his shelf  but chose the C6AE-R heads instead.  I am still skeptical.         </blockquote> RE: FE cylinder heads C6AE-R -- Jeff H., 05/07/2003
I have heard rumours that these heads properly modified will out-flow just about any production FE head. My cousin is getting ready to run a set of these heads on his 427 street/strip (mostly strip) '69 torino. I laughed at him initially when he told me he was putting "390 GT" heads on his 427. According to him the C6AE-R heads have a larger radius intake port that flows much better than other FE heads at high RPM. He is still prepping this car for this season so I can't report his performance with htese heads. I will say that I have heard others (including FE racebuilders) say great things about this casting. Just to put it into perspective my cousin has a set of 427 MR heads on his shelf but chose the C6AE-R heads instead. I am still skeptical.
 They are good but.... -- Royce Peterson, 05/08/2003
The C6AE-R heads are not as good as Medium Riser or High Riser heads. Unmodified they are not as good as CJ or Low Riser heads, particularly on the exhaust side.

The Medium Riser heads will always fill the chamber better because of the straighter, wider intake port. The C6AE-R head suffers the same problem as a CJ or Low Riser head on the intake side of having the port opening too low. These heads can show good numbers on a flow bench but not perform as well because the intake charge has to make a sharp turn due to the port floor. That is why when Edelbrock made their aftermarket FE head the Medium Riser was the basis for the design.

The C6AE-R head is better than most standard FE heads but not as good as any of the 427 - 428 CJ varieties in unmodified form. I think with a lot of work you could get really good flowbench numbers but for the amount of labor involved it would be better to just buy a set of Edelbrock heads.

My own set of C6AE-R's cost $50 for the pair at the junk yard and now have another $800 worth of CJ sized stainless valves, bronze guides and teflon seals with a serious multi angle seat / radius cut valve job. I drilled them for CJ manifolds and cleaned up the ports some. They were noticeably down on power compared to a set of CJ heads on the same engine now. The exhaust ports would need some serious work to be as good as the CJ port.

Royce
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17096&Reply=17096><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390 tripower carbs which will work</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>dennie, <i>05/04/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Hello got an edelbrock f380 intake with no carbs need to know what carbs will work, not worried about originality, it's on a 67 caliente. </blockquote> 390 tripower carbs which will work -- dennie, 05/04/2003
Hello got an edelbrock f380 intake with no carbs need to know what carbs will work, not worried about originality, it's on a 67 caliente.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17097&Reply=17096><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Wow - an oldie! You'll need Rochester 2G carbs, similar to this 2GC...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>05/04/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.classicpreservation.com/rochestermodel2G.html">http://www.classicpreservation.com/rochestermodel2G.html</a> </blockquote> Wow - an oldie! You'll need Rochester 2G carbs, similar to this 2GC... -- Mr F, 05/04/2003
http://www.classicpreservation.com/rochestermodel2G.html
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17103&Reply=17096><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>thanks for the link Mr. F glad I found forum again</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>dennie, <i>05/05/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>It seemed to be missing for awhile. </blockquote> thanks for the link Mr. F glad I found forum again -- dennie, 05/05/2003
It seemed to be missing for awhile.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17104&Reply=17096><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>also Mr. F it is the large base G, Correct? n/m</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>dennie, <i>05/05/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote> </blockquote> also Mr. F it is the large base G, Correct? n/m -- dennie, 05/05/2003
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17105&Reply=17096><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Yep...large-flange model. And you're very welcome. :-) [n/m]</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>05/05/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> Yep...large-flange model. And you're very welcome. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/05/2003
n/m
 Mr F, Can small base Rochester be adapted to -- dennie, 05/06/2003
the large base manifold? I found that small =
3 1/2 and large is 3 11/16 from center to center on longest side. The small base carbs seem plentiful. I know these carbs aren't our specialties but the end result is true blue mercury bigblock. thanks
 RE: 390 tripower carbs which will work -- Tom, 05/07/2003
You can also check this out- http://www.gerlecreek.com/ This guy has been around for awhile.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17087&Reply=17087><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>front suspension</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>67 stang, <i>05/03/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>67 fastback GTA car  390,  replacing front coils,  taking down old one there is an aluminum spacer on top of spring,  between body and spring,  new springs i have are much longer then the ones in there but about the same as old spring and aluminum spacer together,  can i run the new springs with out this aluminum spacer,  is this spacer common,  spacer is about 1 1/2 wide,  i was worried about running springs agains top of shock tower without spacers,  any input appreciated... </blockquote> front suspension -- 67 stang, 05/03/2003
67 fastback GTA car 390, replacing front coils, taking down old one there is an aluminum spacer on top of spring, between body and spring, new springs i have are much longer then the ones in there but about the same as old spring and aluminum spacer together, can i run the new springs with out this aluminum spacer, is this spacer common, spacer is about 1 1/2 wide, i was worried about running springs agains top of shock tower without spacers, any input appreciated...
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17088&Reply=17087><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: front suspension</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Charlie, <i>05/03/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>This is called a coil spring insulator. Yes you need to keep it, keeps metal from metal rubbing together helps with wear and noise. They run about $3.00 for original style and about $20 for poly. For the price replace them before you get all the new pieces in.<br>Charlie </blockquote> RE: front suspension -- Charlie, 05/03/2003
This is called a coil spring insulator. Yes you need to keep it, keeps metal from metal rubbing together helps with wear and noise. They run about $3.00 for original style and about $20 for poly. For the price replace them before you get all the new pieces in.
Charlie
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17091&Reply=17087><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: front suspension</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>67stang, <i>05/04/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>i understand insulators,  there is also a rubber insulator on the aluminum piece,  if i used the aluminum spacer i will not be able to install the new springs i pruchased,  this seems more like a spacer, not an insulator,  the old spring with the aluminum spacer is the same length as the new springs without the insulator, the new speings will not fit with insulator and they are the correct springs as far as the parts books read,  just tryingto figure out if this is something ford did in order to use smaller springs with the big block cars... </blockquote> RE: front suspension -- 67stang, 05/04/2003
i understand insulators, there is also a rubber insulator on the aluminum piece, if i used the aluminum spacer i will not be able to install the new springs i pruchased, this seems more like a spacer, not an insulator, the old spring with the aluminum spacer is the same length as the new springs without the insulator, the new speings will not fit with insulator and they are the correct springs as far as the parts books read, just tryingto figure out if this is something ford did in order to use smaller springs with the big block cars...
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17092&Reply=17087><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: front suspension</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Charlie, <i>05/04/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I wouldn't use the spacer. The insulator is a must. It looks like someone added an after market piece for some reason.<br>Charlie </blockquote> RE: front suspension -- Charlie, 05/04/2003
I wouldn't use the spacer. The insulator is a must. It looks like someone added an after market piece for some reason.
Charlie
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17100&Reply=17087><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: front suspension</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Bob, <i>05/05/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Alum. spacer not a Ford OEM part; used to be a quick, cheap way to fix weak springs. It's a cheap but incorrect way to solve the problem where new springs should have been installed instead.  <br><br>Agree in that they should not be re-used; an insulator is required, stock rubber type or aftermarket poly.  </blockquote> RE: front suspension -- Bob, 05/05/2003
Alum. spacer not a Ford OEM part; used to be a quick, cheap way to fix weak springs. It's a cheap but incorrect way to solve the problem where new springs should have been installed instead.

Agree in that they should not be re-used; an insulator is required, stock rubber type or aftermarket poly.
 RE: front suspension -- Tom, 05/07/2003
I believe the aftermarket theory to be correct. I have seen different methods of tightening up suspension, twists and towers even air bags. Replace them - even if it is just for the pleasure of doing it. Believe me spend the extra $15-20 for the neoprene or (competition) You will notice the difference.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17083&Reply=17083><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>casting C7 AE-A</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Clad Blake, <i>05/02/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>recently bought 390 heads with C7 AE-A to be 390 PI. heads. Can someone tell me yeah or nah ; I have worked 352 heads on my 390 ; They have the same size valves but smaller chambers </blockquote> casting C7 AE-A -- Clad Blake, 05/02/2003
recently bought 390 heads with C7 AE-A to be 390 PI. heads. Can someone tell me yeah or nah ; I have worked 352 heads on my 390 ; They have the same size valves but smaller chambers
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=17085&Reply=17083><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: casting C7 AE-A</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>hawkrod, <i>05/03/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>these are the standard 67 FE head and was used on all sizes of 67 engines including 352 390 and 428. sorry, not special. hawkrod </blockquote> RE: casting C7 AE-A -- hawkrod, 05/03/2003
these are the standard 67 FE head and was used on all sizes of 67 engines including 352 390 and 428. sorry, not special. hawkrod
 RE: casting C7 AE-A -- cudrow, 05/04/2003
thanks for the info ; can you tell me what size the combusion chambers are.I am running 10:1 flat tops ; I think my 352 heads have larger chambers than the C7AE-A.
Go to the top of this page
Go back one page Back    Next Go forward one page

201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220