Skip Navigation Links.
 |  trans tag code -- jm, 12/28/2002
As best as I can tell , the tag has 2JDF7 and a D5VP on it.
thanks |
 | crane hydraulic roller cam? -- Ian Dobson, 12/27/2002
Does anyone have anything good or bad to say about these cams in an FE engine?
I'm rebuilding a new 390 for my Mustang with the edelbrock heads and performer RPM and I'm pondering a new cam selection, I was wondering if the hydraulic roller cam kit was worth the money.
|
| | RE: crane hydraulic roller cam? -- Wayne K., 12/27/2002
I think most FE folks have just read the Hot Rod Magazine story on how it was used to build 450 H.P. from their 390 project. Pretty tame sounding it said, and, oh ya: They used the smaller of the two hyd rlr cams available from Crane to get 450 H.P. from it. Apparently it's short on duration, but HIGH on lift.
Wayne |
|  | RE: crane hydraulic roller cam? -- Bob H., 12/27/2002
THE only negitive I've heard is the lifters are heavy and engine won't rev above 5500RPM. |
| | | Crane hydraulic roller cam? Not exactly right! -- Ray, 12/28/2002
I have a crane 34HR00002 hydraulic roller, it gets 6500 before you know it. I grant you the lifters might be a little heavy, but in this case how can you argue when they don't float. They are a well built lifter (I think best to date), but as a curiosity item I well weight and compare it to another roller I have I'll post later. Ray |
| | | | RE: Crane hydraulic roller cam? Not exactly right! -- Bob Sprowl, 12/28/2002
What springs are you using? And what valves sizes in hat motor?
Thanks
|
| | | | | RE: Crane hydraulic roller cam? #928 comps -- Ray, 12/28/2002
Depending on the installed height(1.925) and lift of .607x.632 I shot for 140x380 pounds. I've done this before on other engines, it seems to work fine. The valves size is 2.180 x 5/17 stem titainum x 1.74 SS with titainum retainers. The weight of the valve train even if it was heavier would still go to 6500, but it would take longer Ray |
| | | | |  | I disagree........ -- kevin, 12/28/2002
thats not a fair comparison. If you use 144 gram CJ intake valves, they wont go that high without floating. This will lead to nice things happening to the rest of the valvetrain. I was able to achieve over 8,000 RPM's with the heavy valves by using 165#'s seat pressure with a vibration free valvetrain on a solid cam. Its not easy, but it can be done. A rev kit would be the way to go for more R's with a roller body, whether solid or hydraulic, and if you need to spin it high, you need the rest of the components that make power up there in the danger zone. On BBC engines, there was a rev kit by Isky (rev caps) that used a single large capped spring over the rest of the spring and retainer to preload the rocker, pushrod, and those way too heavy roller bodies (we need to design some for the FE). The roller tip rode right on top of the tool steel cap. This way, the valve is not over stressed by having more than it needed, and those 2.3" intakes were HEAVY (pre titanium days). This was the only successful way to get them to go 8k plus in tractor pulls with a 6-71 (the biggest supercharger at the time). Blown engines need an additional 30% valve spring pressure due to the positive pressure in the manifold instead of negative for naturally aspirated ones. Most people forget about the importance of the pushrod. It is always under dire conditions, and stores a lot of energy. It looks like a diving board when its under compression and extension. I'd run 1/2 diameter ones if I could. Like Smokey used to say "poppet valves were outdated when invented". But we have to live with them. Cut down the titanium valves that are 7mm stemmed for the SBC SB2 engine. They are larger than Fords, and much longer, allowing you to have a taller spring stack, and a bigger selection of springs. That way, you can run a rev kit, and use low spring pressures that allow much longer seat life, and those heavy hyd rollers. |
| c-6 transmissions -- Jesse, 12/26/2002
how much does it usually cost to have a c-6 rebuilt |
| | RE: c-6 transmissions -- McQ, 12/27/2002
I'm sure it varies from shop to shop, locale to locale, etc. But I'd think a good rebuild may run $500-$600 now....? Last one I had done was for my '68 F100, seven years ago. That was around $400 then. |
| Interesting thread on Cyclone/Torino forum titled -- 2cj's, 12/26/2002
Fastest Cyclones/Torino's, FE or 385 ? |
| | RE: Interesting thread on Cyclone/Torino forum titled -- Bob Sprowl, 12/26/2002
Where? What forum? |
| | | Url -- Wayne K., 12/26/2002
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/198944
It's sort of a "which brother is the baddest brother" kind of thing. Naturally I had to stick my two cents in. :)
Wayne |
| | | | RE: 428CJ vs. 429SCJ -- McQ, 12/26/2002
Read a few of the posts over there on Net 54. Found it sort of ... well not too factual just puffin' smoke. Thought about contributing my story but Net 54 is just too annoying to me. Not the people just the continual pop ups, procedures, etc.
So just for the heck of it here's the personal experience I had with two Ford Cobras.
The first one, a '69 Fairlane Cobra Formal roof(coupe). I was working as a general lot-lizzard, go-fer, parts runner, literally "etc." at a small Central Washington Ford dealership during the spring/summer/fall of 1969. It was a dream job for sure. The dealership owner's son and I talked his pop into allowing us to order a Fairlane Cobra. The idea being we could have some summer fun racing in what was known as Pure Stock. We checked the appropriate boxes and the Cobra came this way:
R-code Drag Pack with C-6 and 3.91s. Black on black. Column shift control with un ordered comfort weave buckets! We were going as cheap as possible. The taxi upholstered bench would have been fine. We never knew why the buckets. We placed the order in early June and it may have been one of the last '69 Cobras built.
Only mod to this Cobra was removal of the thermactor air pump system; correctly plugging the air holes. And a set of Cragar SS's with the original G'year Polyglas GTs. I think they were G70X14". Maybe F70? I know they were 14".
Results:
A best ET of 13.72/102mph at Deer Park Drag Strip North of Spokane, WA. We took first place trophy every time out that summer except once which was my fault due to red lighting. I think this was in C Pure Stock. The class was always packed with cars. People just driving to the strip and running as well as they could. Heads up drag racing with pure stock Roadrunners, Malibus, 'Stangs, Super Bees, 442's, GTOs.
Danny Muggli and I did change plugs upon arriving at the strip. He'd take one side and I the other. We'd replace the BF32s with BF22s. I doubt that it really made much if any difference. But that was the height of our speed tuning knowledge at that time.
The Head Parts man, er, the only Parts Man, was so impressed with the Cobra he wanted one for he and his wife. But too late to get a '69 so he ordered a '70 Torino Cobra as soon as available. He went right down the list like Danny and I. He ordered the R-Code 429 Drag Pack, C-6, 3.91s. Like the 428CJ, the drag package made the engines Super CJs. Bud's '70 Cobra was beautiful in Calypso Coral, black interior, shaker of course, and 15" Magnums with F60 Polyglas tires. It also had a column shift control and he did get the bench seat. Also had the cool factory tach optional in '70. It was a mean sounding thing with the solid lifter cam.
Results:
A best of 14.00/99mph in total Pure Stock form. Same Drag Strip. I drove it too for its first voyage out. Bud wasn't confident on his driving skills. It sure took a lot of skill....Leave it in drive or manually shift the hard shifting C-6, stab & steer. After that first time out, Bud took over and did as well.
Bud did eventually go with the hydraulic CJ cam(which was the trick back in the early '70s since the SCJ solid cam was out performed by the CJ hydraulic shaft). A set of Firestone Drag 500s and headers. It got him all the way down to the low thirteens. Not too bad and it was a daily driver.
So there's my real world experience with two Cobras. Please don't think I'm knocking the mighty 385/Lima big block. It just didn't get the proper full development by Ford that the FE got. Time ran out. By early '72 the 351 Cleveland Cobra Jet was the hot one. I actually personally owned one of those....whoa what a dog. |
| | | | | RE: 428CJ vs. 429SCJ -- TOM, 12/27/2002
aww come on the 351 CJ is a Monster in waiting just needs to be tuned in right |
| | | | |  | I think its neither - just a good, low-octane mill. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/27/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | 351cj -- Wayne K., 12/27/2002
Tex Miller used to race a '72 Torino Sport with the 351CJ in Stock class (L/SA) racing. I seem to recall that big ol' thang running 12's. Not bad I guess for smaller cubes in a heavy machine.
Wayne |
| | | | | | | RE: very sorry.. -- McQ, 12/27/2002
Didn't mean to offend anyone with my one derogatory comment regarding the 351CJ.
Obviously the mighty C has tremendous potential. Mine was a '72 Ranchero GT w/4 speed, 3.25 gearing. As Mr. F indicates it was the new wave of low octane High Performance. It ran very smoothly and nicely. Fun to drive, etc. I ran it once against a friends '70 Cyclone Spoiler in which he had replaced the SCJ '29 with a mildly built Thunderjet(Standard 429-4V). Wasn't much of a race. My 351CJ was way behind by the time his C-6 shifted into second. But with my '66 390GT/A...it was much more interesting. It was close but I could pull the Spoiler by a half a car length. Again, the Spoiler was equipped with a standard 429-4V with a mild re-grind cam.
So I take back my bad statement about the 351C-Cobra Jet. Nice mill with 4 bolt mains and lots of power producing potential. |
| | | | | | | | It wasn't derogatory, and you were right. -- Dave Shoe, 12/27/2002
A pure stock 351C would trounce a pure stock 351CJ, every time. Well, I don't know this for sure, but I assume it's true, based on the engine specs.
I think it was a dirty trick for Ford to use the CJ name on the first "emissions Cleveland". The engine sure had lots of potential, just as any 351C did, but it was nothing but a reduced compression ratio 351C which replaced the 351C mid-year 1971. Instead of naming it the 351CJ, they should have named it the 351RC, or maybe left the name 351C. The "CJ" acronym had a reputation as an octane-demanding street brute, and there was no reason to dillute this in an emissions application.
Reduced compression may have opened up a number of alternatives for making power with supercharging, but these were not particularly well developed back in the mid seventies, at least not as store-bought packages as nitrous is nowadays. When the 351CJ came out, racing gas was called "premium" and it was available at every corner gas station for a couple cents more per gallon than "regular". The 351CJ should have demanded more octane than the 351C, not less as it did.
If I had purchased a new car with a 351CJ in it, I'd expect it to be an upgrade of the great 351C. I guess it was a sign of the times, as the basic Torino Cobra came standard with a plain 429 engine, not a CJ or SCJ, so you had to know your options list, or suffer the consequences.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | RE; They have potential from 4000 to 8000 to big? -- Ray, 12/28/2002
The heads were so big (4V) they could not make good low end horse power no matter what compression they was. It was not a good head for normal driving on the street. 351 C needed gears and high compression and a lot of RPM to work well. I'm sure the flow capacity of the head would have better suited for any race engine or something over 450". I believe the aussie head, with the closed chambers smaller ports would have been a better choice for sake of this discussion and for the size of this motor..Ray PS to bad ford only built them down under |
| | | | | | | | | | I did back to back comparisons at the track..... -- kevin, 12/28/2002
and the Aussies were not 1 tenth of a second different in lap times. The CJ's that I raced were only turned to around 6,100 on a good lap. I did a lot to them to get them to outrun 383-406-420 cube chevy's. No porting was allowed, so I did plenty of other things. There was finally a rule passed outlawing Clevelands due to the crybabys that coudnt beat it. They can run, and I used dished pistons to boot! I prepped some NHRA cars with them too. Dont waste money on Aussie heads. The best ones to run if you can port, were the D3's with the smaller valves. |
| | | | | | | | | | | The advantage of the 302C head is not on the track -- Styletone58, 12/28/2002
The 302C "Aussie" head is simply a 2V C head with a closed combustion chamber. It's advantage is in allowing a quick and easy boost in compression on US 351Cs with dished pistons. This way, you can get a boost in power without having to resort to high octane gas, if the piston to head clearance is not too large. There is no advantage in port flow when compared to the 4V, anymore than any US 2V. In fact, the way the chamber wall is reduced around the valves as compared with US CC heads can hurt flow if it is not removed. The 302C head is great on mild street engines that need torque, where the extra compression and higher-velocity ports combined with a DP intake and a mild, fast-acting cam will make for a brad powerband. Go spinning around a track at 6100 RPM and naturally the 4Vs will excel. There simply is no question. Since when did the 302C head get this big "HI-PO" rep? It's a great head for a mild streeter, nothing else.
I do believe that the 351CJ, named I believe for the cam profile which is the same as the 428CJ as well as to make a marketable performance connection, should have been built using 2V heads and the Aussie 302C-4V intake. Would have been a snappier street engine, if the same CJ cam and converter been used.
Better opinions than mine can be found at the Cleveland forum:
http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/119419 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: No question about it ! n/m -- Ray Tirri, 12/28/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: Are we talking about racing them? -- Ray Tirri, 12/28/2002
or running them on the street. Big port cleveland was not a very good head as well BBC rectangular port since you made mention chevys. Now everything has it's place, those heads were primarily designed racing. And the reason I know is because I build heads for living and race them when I'm not building them. I have yet to find one head that would fill the bill for everything application! have you. |
| | | | | | | | RE: very sorry.. -- rich, 05/30/2004
Just wondering, came across a standard model 72 ranchero with 351c 4v 4 speed factory right down to hurst shifter. Motor has chrome lid on air cleaner, could this be an HO. Did they make many of these? |
| | | | | | | | | From the factory, '351 HO' was only offered in Mustangs. [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/31/2004
n/m |
| | | | recent events suggest the 429 CJ can't beat a 390, -- blinker, 06/01/2004
let alone a 428. it's true about it isn't the size of the dog, but the fight in the dog, because recently, in Pure stock drag racing, a 390 Cyclone had better times than a few of the 429 CJ cars. Who would have thunk it? |
| | | | | can't beat a 390, -- giacamo, 06/01/2004
for the money it,s hard to beat a 390 i,v sean solid lifter 390,s surpass 7000 rpm and hang together, the 429 aint no slouch but like it,s big brouther the 460, high rpm.s mean big bucks$$ i enjoy the extended rpm,s of a bilt 390 to the outher engin classes. the new 4.6 overhead cam type engins i feal is the new way to go.the pretenthal for hipreformance mods is stagering my two cents |
| Trans ID -- SDP, 12/25/2002
Need help in indentifying a BorgWarner T10 supposedly out of a 63 Galaxie. The tag numbers are:HEK-M
Thanks, Steve |
| headers -- Chris, 12/24/2002
i bought some headers for my 67 mustang and the people who i bought it from said i needed a power sway bracket for a 289 and i don't have a clue where it goes or even know if i do need that bracket. can someone tell me where it goes and be specific |
| | RE: headers & drop bracket for PS -- Courtney Bolze, 12/24/2002
I think what you are asking about Chris is a power steering drop bracket for the ram. It lowers the mounting point at the frame for the ram so it will clear the headers. When done installing check and make sure it is not moving back and fourth from the ram pushing and pulling against it. Can be mail ordered from perfomance dealers. Also do a search on this forum for installing headers in a unibody for tips, tricks and pit falls for the installation, the performance improvement is worth it :). Coutney Bolze. |
| 428 id # -- Gary, 12/23/2002
need your help again guys! I recently purchased some parts and need to know what they are. The short block was supposed to be a 66 PI but I'm not so sure now. The block is C7ME-A with "WI" above the cast date "8A26". It has a "C" marking on the left rear next to cam plug. Rods are C7AE-B. Bore is 4.13 and shows very little wear. (no ridge at top of cylinder) Have other parts that came with the deal (heads,intake,holley carb, cast exhaust manifolds,flywheel, etc.) and also have these numbers available. My suspicion is that this may be a CJ short block. Heads are C8OE-N but one has cast date "9K17" and the other "8G20" or "8C20". The 9K head has two piece valve retainers and the other has one piece. I'm almost sure the heads are not a matching pair but are the retainers correct for the cast dates? Thanks for any help and Merry Christmas to you and yours.----Gary |
| | Sounds like a 428CJ -- Royce Peterson, 12/23/2002
The heads obviously are not a pair, I don't have a clue about the retainer change date but thought most came with two piece retainers.
What size wrench fits the rod bolts?
Royce |
| | | RE: Sounds like a 428CJ -- Gary, 12/24/2002
Just a quick check without using calipers, the rod nuts are between a 9/16 and 5/8 so my guess would be 19/32. Maybe for once I've gotten more than I had bargained for. This is my first 68 1/2 project and like I've mentioned before, I know a little but not a lot about these cars so I hope I can rely on experts like yourself and others in this forum for help and advice. Many thanks Royce and Merry Christmas!-----Gary |
| | | | Any sign of a partial VIN on the rear of block? nm -- Dan Davis, 12/24/2002
nm |
| | | | RE: Sounds like a 428CJ -- Greg, 12/24/2002
Sound like a bunch of junk... I'll take it just to be nice.
The block is a 428 cj, as are the heads. I have the same setup in the garage in my car. Bear in mind that these heads are 30 plus years old and have probably been rebuilt at least once in that time. Quite possible that one cyl head got two piece retainers and the other got the one piece.
Greg
|
| | | | | You have a correct dated 68-1/2 CJ..... -- kevin, 12/28/2002
that newer head was probably stuck on there by the dealership after a year due to some problem. They were bare, and the shop just put these retainers in it without knowing much about the CJ engine, same as most other shops that did not specialize in FE's. All CJ's had the one piece steel retainer that has tool marks on it from the lathe. The two piece are stampings, which are cheaper to make and work fine, rotating the valves to 4,600 rpm which was the original redline for the FE. Try to rev them over 6,000 with higher spring pressures, and they turn to bubblegum. What do the pistons say on them?, CJ, or Super? Super pistons were installed in CJ's after a certain date, later than yours should be I believe. start looking at the block real close for any cracks between the core plugs, and in the valley, (if its from the freeze zone) and in the main saddle bolt thread area, as well as between the cam and main bores, and on the deck. Make sure the caps are a snug fit in their registers, and need to be yanked on hard to remove. You got lucky it sounds like. Is this for restoration of a 68-1/2 "R" code Mustang? |
| | | | | | RE: You have a correct dated 68-1/2 CJ..... -- Gary, 12/28/2002
Yes, it is for a 68 1/2 R-Code Mustang. Matter of fact, I took a "roll back" and picked up the car today. Owner had been holding it for me till my shop was completed. I had picked up the engine a couple of weeks ago from same owner of car but have not had a lot of time to do a detailed inspection due to my work schedule. Thanks for the tips and information. |
| anyone have a exploded view of a 68-69 - -- mrb, 12/23/2002
fastback Torino tailight assembly? I would appreciate it.
thank you |
| truck motor mounts -- Scot J, 12/23/2002
I have a 66 4x4 f-250 with motor mounts front and rear. Front mounts on the timing chain cover and the rear mounts are on each side of the bellhousing. would this be considered a weak mount if I wanted to add much horsepower to my 390? |
| Valley Pans -- Mike, 12/22/2002
What purpose does a valley pan serve. I pulled apart
mt 390 and it didn't have one. I've heard you don't
need it and that's why alot of people pull them and
don't put them back.
Opinions?? |
| | RE: Valley Pans -- John, 12/22/2002
The pan acts as a barrier to keep heat and oil away from the underside of the intake. If the Ford Engineers thought it was a good idea, maybe they were right. I use one. |
| | | RE: Valley Pans -- mike, 12/22/2002
Thanks much!! I have an old one off a 352 that
should work. My brother-in-law agrees with you that
it should have one on.
Happy Holidays.
Mike |
| | | | Also a sump baffle as well..n/m -- Peter, 12/22/2002
n/m |
|