Skip Navigation Links.
 |  427/428 in a 65 Coupe -- Darren, 12/13/2002
how much work would it take to adapt a 427 or a 428 in to a fairly stock 1965 Mustang Coupe? Should I not even try to go that big and stick with a 390? If a 427/8 would fit, would a C4 be strong enough to handle the power out of the big block? Any help or resources would be great. Thanks. |
|  | won't fit in a stock car, takes lots of mods N/M -- hawkrod, 12/13/2002
|
| |  | RE: won't fit in a stock car, takes lots of mods N/M -- Darren, 12/14/2002
could I get some more details on what kind of modifications would be necessary to make that motor swap? |
|  | RE: 427/428 in a 65 Coupe -- Tim B, 12/13/2002
A 390 won't fit either. FEs used a C6 trans. You'd be better off going with a 351W |
| | 390 & 427/428 are the same............ -- Pete's Ponies, 12/14/2002
size, it makes no difference. There are three ways to do this. First, you could remove the shock towers and replace them with 67/68 shock towers. This is a big job, but can be done. It would retain a factory look. Secondly you could cut and modify the existing shock towers. I am doing a Thunderbolt clone at this time, so modifying the shock towers in in my blood at this time :o) It too, is a big job. It could look very good depending on how it was done, but still will not appear factory. Thirdly, going with a rack& pinion coil over assembly for the front end will allow you to complketely remove the shock towers, and not have to replace them; except with flat steel. You will gain a lot of run and a more up tp date suspension. These kits are available now. They are not cheap, but are available in kit form. If you really want to do this, take your pick:o) |
| | | RE Mods So What!!Get that Fire Wrench out. Ray -- Ray, 12/15/2002
But do a nice job, because there is a higher force watching you. Ray |
| | | | I put a 429CJ in one about 15 years ago..... -- JPotter57ford, 12/16/2002
Looked pretty factory done too. Take out the `65 shock towers, replace them with towers from a `67 390 car. The car is still driving around now, thought the 429CJ is gone and a 351 C is there...Have pics of the 429 in the car....very cool... |
| | | | | When looks and runs well CJ it's always worth it. -- Ray Tirri, 12/16/2002
Lets see some pics. |
| | | | |  | RE: When looks and runs well CJ it's always worth it. -- JPotter57ford, 12/18/2002
I put some pics on this site for you to look at. As soon as I locate the after pics, I will post them up. I have several thousand photos, and many are packed away. I knew I had these, because I had run across them the other day while looking for family pics. It wasn't as hard a swap as it sounds, and after complete, gained the better adjustable front end of the `67 -68 Mustang front ends..The block and heads in the car in this pic are standard 460 pieces, empty, just used for fitting up. I used Torino motor mounts, 390 frame mounts, and Hooker Super Comp headers for a `70 429 Torino (1 7/8 tube) fit like they were made for the car. Here's the link to the build pics....
http://www.graficfx.com/samples/bb_stang.htm
|
| in need of some 428 -- dave, 12/13/2002
Here is a block that i think is a 428 and was told that it was a 428 from the guy that sold it to me but it doesn't have any A or C on the back of the block, and i have found out that there are some with out, could this be a service block, take a look at the pics
 |
| | photo 2 -- dave, 12/13/2002
back of the block
 |
| | RE: photo 3 -- dave, 12/13/2002
3 fingered webbing
 |
| | RE: photo 4 -- dave, 12/13/2002
outside side of the block
 |
| | RE: in need of some 428 -- dave, 12/13/2002
inside the freeze plug, it is cast 428 |
| | | RE: in need of some 428 -- Paul M, 12/13/2002
Looks like a service block. If there's no casting # on the front passenger side, that would be my guess. Doesn't mean that it is for sure, though.
Guess it boils down to cost. How much is he asking, and what's the bore on it now? Is it to expensive that running a sonic check makes it prohibitive? The 428 inside the water jacket is a good indicator, but I would still have it sonic'd to be sure.
That is about the only way to guarantee usability of any 30+year old block. |
| | now i found some numbers on the caps -- dave, 12/14/2002
on the main caps it says d2 te on the caps, is that what this engine is?, there are no casting numbers such as c6me or anything, just on the caps it says dt2e. could the caps be from another block or are they matched at the foundry. I am just really wondering if this is a replacement, an industrial, or what the heck it is, and if it could be a good 428 block. Did they make a 428 ford truck motor?. thanks
dave |
| | | No 428 truck motor, no, however -- Paul M, 12/14/2002
It seems that alot of the truck blocks ended up being blocks that had been used as service blocks at the time. JMO, but I've heard the same from other people.
I've also heard that the blocks were cast as 428's with thick walls, but the program of putting FE's in cars came to a screeching halt, so they just used them in trucks.
The d2# does point to a truck block, but they could have been swapped in.
You can read this for some info to help you decide if it's even a candidate for sonic mapping: http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=10565&Reply=10489
I say check it out. There seems to be a good # of these blocks like that, that are capable of going to 4.13 bore (428). Remember that the next time you seem some "ultra-rare, gold-plated, unobtainium-cast" `72-dated CJ engine block on Ebay! |
| | | | don't forget,although they quit using 428's... -- hawkrod, 12/14/2002
in cars, they did not quit making them. service engines were made well into the seventies and i have seen a couple with 1976 dates on the tags. just because ford didn't make cars with these engines did not suddenly mean that they did not have to supply replacements. many service engines carry a variety of numbers including the D2TE main caps and other oddities. ford also made industrial and marine engines into the 70's and many of those were 427's and 428's. on an engine like you have the only way to verify it is to have it sonic checked and compare the numbers against a known figure for a 428. if i had to guess i would say it really is a 428. hawkrod |
| Need help and ID with an intake -- Paul M, 12/13/2002
And I need it from a knowledgeable source that can be trusted. I bought an intake from a guy I’ve trusted for awhile, because he told me it was an early CJ intake, designed off the S-code of `66. This one’s casting # is C7AE-9425-E, date code 7B7, with the big “S” on it. It looks completely identical to this one; http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=16&groupid=51291&ck . I made the mistake of not researching it first, because I trusted the guy, but when I went to have it surfaced to clean up the port faces, my machinist asked me what in the hell was wrong with me putting that thing on the engine I just spent $3000 on. Everything I’ve heard about the S-code intakes is that they aren’t much better than the 2V’s, and even the 2V that is currently on my truck (big “T” on it) appears to have bigger ports/runners than this thing. He had quite a lengthy speel about Ford's craziness back then, and how they did things.
It’s not about needing a CJ intake in particular, it’s about paying $180 for an intake that would not be worth my time to put on this engine. (and also sells everywhere for $25-$75) He says I can port it, but some of the walls are less than 1/16th inch thick. Doesn’t sound like I’ld get very far.
I HAVE found an early CJ intake, casting # C7AE-F (not E) spoken of on Scott Hollenbeck's site, here: http://www.428cobrajet.com/id-intake.html however it is an *aluminum* casting, not iron, like mine. There were also only a very few made.
The other thing I found there was a press release from April of `68, announcing to the public the release of the `68 1/2 CJ cars. Seems rather odd to me that they would be producing intakes almost a year prior.
I am 99% sure this is not a CJ intake, but I need facts, from as knowledgeable a source as I can get. Any help I could recieve on thiswould be greatly appreciated.
|
| | C7AE-F '67-'68 428 PI manifold n/m -- Barry B, 12/13/2002
n/m |
| | RE: Need help and ID with an intake -- Brian Duff, 12/13/2002
S manifold was an equalized runner manifold, with a higher carb platform, I have heard these flow nice.I would question any "engine builder" who recommends a 2 barrell truck intake over a 4 barrell. I would wonder what he is trying to sell me. |
| | RE: Need help and ID with an intake -- Brian Duff, 12/13/2002
I looked at your first site and although it mentions the S manifold, it looks like it has a different casting number (Looks like a C6 type number) and after reading the info on the other site if yours is a C7AE-E and C7AE-A and C7AE-F are "considered" CJ's I'll bet ford considered yours one also. I have a friend running an "S" manifold in a 67 390 mustang, his is more of a high riser than my 4 barrell, runs very strong and he always called it a CJ engine. If it were me I might run it and see if its what it seems, (after 3000.00 whats 180.00) Hope that helps. |
| | | As barry mentioned above, -- Paul M, 12/13/2002
Sorry, I failed to mention the different casting #. Other than that difference, however, they are the same.
C7AE-F was the PI intake, (aluminum) and was only used as the CJ intake on SOME of the 50 Dearborn Mustangs to be used in racing at the END of December, `67. That's still a year after the thing was cast. And it's iron, not aluminum.
C7AE-A wasn't mentioned anywhere, not sure where you got that. Perhaps you're referring to the C8OE-A early CJ Scott mentions? I've also since found out that the term "CobraJet" wasn't in existance until late `67, and that the S-code intake wasn't changed at all from `66-`67. This intake I have was cast in *February `67*, almost a year ahead of the 50 race cars. Also, that the iron "CJ" intake was modified *from* the design of the 428 PI aluminum intake. Look at the site with the ID pics again, you'll see that the S-code looks very little like the CJ-PI intakes.
Regardless, this is not a CJ intake, and looks nothing like one. And that was the entire point I need to make to this person. |
| | CJ Aluminum intakes -- Royce Peterson, 12/13/2002
The first 428 CJ's were made in November - December 1967. They used the same cylinder heads (C8AE 6090-J), exhaust manifolds (same as 390GT)and intakes of the 1968 W code 427. These first cars were made to legalize the car to use at the Winternationals NHRA event.
The intake C7AE-F was used on the 1967 428 PI engines, 1967 427 Medium Risers and the 1968 427 GTE Cougar. It was also sold for years afterward as an over the counter replacement part. They are very common, originals sell for 250 - 450 depending on condition.
Royce |
| | | RE: CJ Aluminum intakes -- Paul M, 12/13/2002
And they look absolutely nothing like this one, correct?
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=16&groupid=51291&ck
All this info I found as well, on Scott Hollenbecks site.
This is where the guy told me he got his info from in the first place, and knowing Scotts reputation for detail and accuracy, I took this guys word for it. I definately wasn't being told the truth.
Oh well, guess it's a hard earned lesson.
|
| | | | CJ intake -- Joe K., 12/14/2002
I have always been told that the "s" marked high-rise manifold was the early type "poor mans" CJ manifold. I have actually seen two different types of "s" manifold, and perhaps that is the difference we are talking about here. One looks like a normal FE 4 barrell, but the other one has the runners and carb mount about 1 1/2 to 2 inches taller. Both are supposedly better than a regular earlier type 4 barrell as they are considered equal runner type manifolds. You didn't think you were getting an aluminum intake and bought a cast iron did you? I would check and see if you have the "high-rise" S manifold, as that one is a good one. Just my 2 cents |
| | | | | RE: CJ intake -- Paul M, 12/14/2002
No, I knew I wasn't getting an aluminum manifold. This manifold looks much like the 2V "T" manifold in my truck now, but it's a 4V, with the big "S"(it's about an inch tall), and there is a slight difference in the runner sizes coming off the carb tower. They are actually smaller than the 2V I have now.
He is claiming that this is the "high rise" S-code. I've never heard of this, or seen mention of it anywhere, until he said something about it. I don't have another intake to compare with, aside from visual with the one on my truck now. It doesn't appear to be much taller than the C5 Galaxy 4V I traded to him a couple months ago, but I am working on memory, so I may be wrong about that.
It looks identical to these two manifolds, listed as GT manifolds, in all respects but the casting # :
http://www.dscmotorsport.com/asp/Products/popup_PartDetails.asp?PartID=364
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=16&groupid=51291&ck |
| | | | | | RE: CJ intake -- Joe K., 12/14/2002
The difference should be obvious, if you have the "high-rise" it is DEFINETLEY tallers than the C5 galaxy (because that is what I have) (high-rise is a misnomer, don't let it confuse you it is 1 1/2 to 2 inches taller but side by side with a c5 it is very obvious). The other "S" code which is looking like the C6 number is very similiar to the C5. The bottom line is they BOTH flow better than the C5 and the "high" one flows better than the "short" one. There is no comparision to a two barrell and anybody telling you so its plain nuts. The S manifolds are very good for low end to mid-range torque, and I probably wouldn't call them a CJ manifold they were definetley the the "missing link" before a CJ. I think they were better than the earlier PI manifolds. Remember we are only talking about the cast iron ones, not aluminums as they are a hosre of a different color, You know apples to apples. Depending on your application I think its a good find and deal if its in good shape. |
| | | | | | | RE: CJ intake -- Paul M, 12/14/2002
I'll take your word for it being a good intake, as others have told me it work work as well, but for $180? I can get a real CJ iron intake for $150 from DSC, or another from someone else for $125, both + shipping costs. i could have gotten this same intake from DSC for $50 + shipping.
Main reason I bought it from him was not having to wait for shipping time, besides having dealt with him before. For a few dollars more I could have saved close to 50 lbs and just bought a Performer.
Guess I'm gonna have to chalk this up to experience, anyways. He seems rather reluctant to admit he mislead me, and I was stupid for not checking before hand.
The worst part is it's going to cost me another $50 to have the surfaces machined to cleanup the small amount of pitting, and another $30 to have the shield pin removed from the bottom so I can have the holes tapped for bolts. One got busted off at the head, and is rusted in place.
Gawd what a mess. Live and learn, they say. HA!
|
| | | | | | | | Hmm hard to say -- Joe K., 12/14/2002
To many variables to say if you got a good deal or not, or whether you got taken or not. Its real hard when you only hear one side of the story. One of the problems with these old blocks is some of the Hipo names have been bandied about so much they have been watered down. Another is everybody would really love to uncover gem mint FE Hipo parts. You mention you have dealt with this person before, has he dealt fairly with you in the past? If so, most people wouldn't change to a rip-off artist. It really sounds like some mis-communication or some mis-listening. I would like to see a nice (real) CJ for 150.00. I have yet to do so. I am no expert but I am afraid that had you bought from one of the other two you might have been in the same boat as you are now. I guess you could also look at it this way, you have a pretty decent intake,(I think one of Fords better cast ones anyway) for not a bad price, and if its in good shape, you might be able to sell it and then get one of your CJ deals. I know my buddy swears by his "s" code manifold in his 67 T-bird. His 390 and mine are built very, very similiar (except mine has a C5 intake) and his seems to be better by the seat of the pants. Good luck. Hopes it work out. Hope I was able to help. |
| | | | | | | | If that's the worst mistake you make, you're doing Ok. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/14/2002
n/m |
| | | | RE: CJ Aluminum intakes -- Scott Hollenbeck, 04/25/2005
If you found something wrong on my web site, would you be so kind as to point it out? |
| | | Pics -- Royce Peterson, 12/13/2002
I did not see a picture of the '67 "PI" intake but it is very similar to the '66 version which pictured.
|
| | | | RE: Pics -- Paul M, 12/14/2002
That's kind of what I'm getting at. They all look extremely similar, and the S-code looks nothing like them at all. Hard to believe this was the design Ford based the PI/CJ intakes on, no matter how much I try to fool myself. |
| | HERES SOME MORE INFO>>>> -- Joe K., 12/18/2002
I did some more checking because I too had always heard that the "S" manifold was the precursor to the CJ manifold. Check out this website: http//mansfieldmustang.com/EngineMechanicalp1.html
It definetley shows the "S" type manifold as a 390GT which was the precursor to the CJ as I had always been told. So if your seller sold it as an early CJ he would be correct, If he sold it as a CJ he would be wrong but only an idiot would do that unless the numbers were the C8OE numbers and it would be easy to check.
As far as price according to this source and a few others I checked out 180.00 was in the ballpark, not the cheapest but certainly not the most expensive, plus depending on where you lived you would still have shipping on a 95 lb manifold, easy worth any machining cost.
As far as performance, 390GT, you could certainly do far, far worst.
Hope this helps
Joe |
| | | Re: heres some more info -- Paul M, 12/18/2002
This is a dead issue. Sorry if you've wasted your time. |
| | RE: Need help and ID with an intake -- walt, 04/25/2005
i don't understand why people think that big S on cast iron 4v intakes means somthing , it means that it;s a low riser carb height with the small port size of 1.16x1.75,the cjis 1.24x1.94 with a med riser carb height,the low riser,is 1.14x2.20,all 352 390 up till 66 used the1.16x2.14 low riser profile,we used to use the S manifolds as boat anchors,for real!,we always opted for the cj manifold or the med riser alum both wich fit the small port 390 head,just watch the gaskets |
| | | Well, it does mean 'something' - just nothing 'special'. ;-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 04/25/2005
n/m |
| | | | RE: Well, it does mean 'something' - just nothing 'special'. ;-) [n/m] -- walt, 04/29/2005
yep,nothing realy Special |
| motor mounts -- fordfan, 12/13/2002
are all FE motor mounts interchangable? Any differences between a 428CJ and a plain 390-428 mount? |
| | Nope - for a given model & year, they're identical.[n/m] -- Mr F, 12/13/2002
n/m |
| | With a few exceptions..... -- Royce Peterson, 12/13/2002
The driver side mount for a 427 Side oiler is different for the cars that received them originally. I think that list is as follows:
1965 - 66 Galaxie
1966 - 67 Fairlane
1966-67 Comet
1968 Cougar
I am not totally sure of the Galaxie, those may have used the early 2 bolt style mount, if they did a different mount would not have been necessary. The Fairlane, Comet and Cougar used a different block plate on that side for certain.
352, 360, 390, 410, 428 are all the same as Mr F says.
Royce |
| Piston specs -- Rob, 12/13/2002
Am I jumping the gun? I was about to order some Ross forged pistons for a 428 buildup (361/391 block sonic testec & bored to 4.13). When I got the build sheet to order the pistons there are a lot of questions I can't answer yet. Should I wait and order pistons after I can answer all the questions? The folks I am ordering from (Campbell) seem willing to help but they are primarily a (dare I say it ) Mopar shop.
I put the build up sheet with what I know on it below.
Thanks in advance for any help you can offer!
Rob
CUSTOM PISTON ORDER SHEET
Piston Brand Ross
Piston type FT
Desired Compression ratio Approx. 10.5:1
Desired Compression Height if know ??
Engine block type Ford FE
Finished bore size 4.13
Crankshaft stroke 3.98 (428)
Rod type and length 6.488 inches probably (Eagle or Crower H beam)
Piston pin diameter/length 0.975 inches
Cylinder head type Edelbrock Performer RPM
Cylinder head chamber cc ??
Amount heads have been milled Not milled
Angle milled? If yes what angle? No
Valve diameters 2.14 intake/1.76 exhaust
Intake valve height/depth relative to deck ??
Camshaft lift at split overlap when at TDC no more than .600” lift
Type of racing Street/Srtip
Type of fuel Mix gas & aviation
Will nitrous or forced induction be used? Possible nitrous, max. about 150 shot
Ring type and widths Chrome Moly file fit set? or Childs Albert ZGS set
Gasket thickness ??
Block deck height/amount block milled Don't know for certain, I had deck milled and was probably done once before so maybe .020??
Options, special milling, etc.
Number of pistons wanted 8
Piston Pins 8
|
| | Relax. All it requires are some measurements... -- Dan Davis, 12/13/2002
...that your shop can handle. Especially if they are ordering the pistons (and presumably making some $$ off that task).
Compression height -- leave blank; Ross will figure that from the rest of the data
Rod length: I doubt that you will change from stock length, but now is the time to decide!
Chamber cc: Measure the heads. If you do not have them, get them. If you do not plan on doing any chamber work to them, ask Edelbrock the median chamber size.
Intake valve position: Sorry, you need the heads for this. Too many variables to use a median here. Ross need this info for CR and Valve clearance calcs.
Ring type/size: Chose the ring stack now. ZGS rings like a different groove clearance than file fit rings. 99.9% of the performance ring sets are stacked 1/16, 1/16, 3/16.
Head gasket thickness: Just choose one now. Example: Mr Gasket Ultra Seal #5760 is 0.042" thick. Note: this is not a gasket recommendation, just an example. I've never used Mr Gasket head gaskets ao I do not know how well they work.
Block deck height: have the machine shop measure for you. You also need to know if a cleanup cut is needed and how much. Your shop can tell you this.
Regards,
Dan
http://www.sea-tools.com/mpc/index.htm |
| how rare is a 1968 'R' code Torino? -- fordfan, 12/12/2002
the car does not have original engine, but being a R' code, does that command a premium over other coded Torino's of 1968? Does anyone know how many were built? I remember a old Musclecar Review 50 fastest list that also had a ringer catagory, which they stuck the '68 R code in. If I remember, it ran a 13.52, which seems more within reason than ringer to me. |
| | Pretty rare. I don't have the numbers for Torino.. -- Dan Davis, 12/12/2002
...but there were 22 Fairlane 500s made with the R-code in 1968.
Statistics courtesy of Kevin Marti.
Cheers,
Dan |
| | RE: how rare is a 1968 'R' code Torino? -- Pete's Ponies, 12/13/2002
68 428 Fairlanes are very rare, more so than a Mustang. There were many 69 428 cars built. |
| 2 questions: Thanks in advance......... -- Walker, 12/11/2002
1) Where can I get a shifter refurbishing kit for a floor mounted C-6 shifter in a 68 Fairlane? Bushings in particular.
2) What is the psi output of a stock ford power steering pump? 1000psi? 1500psi? 2000psi? more, less?
Thanks |
| comp 282S -- Gary, 12/11/2002
To those who have installed the Comp 282S cam in a 428 CJ , were there any problems with valve/piston clearance or valve spring binding using flat top pistons? |
| | That's too much lift for stock springs -- Royce Peterson, 12/11/2002
I am running a similar Isky solid cam in an engine with CJ heads. We had to use different springs and the valve guides had to be cut too. I would also expect there to be piston to valve problems if you are running an off the shelf cast piston. I used Ross forged pistons, the valve reliefs are quite a lot deeper and properly located.
The stock springs are not up to much more than .500 lift.
Royce Peterson |
| | | RE: That's too much lift for stock springs -- Gary, 12/11/2002
thanks for your reply Royce. Just so happens that I have a set of Ross .030 set to go in my rebuild. I'm thinking it would be wise to purchase a cam as a "kit" with matching springs, lifters, etc. as opposed to buying bits and pieces from different manufactures. Do you agree or have any thoughts on this? Also, how do you rate the performance of your Isky with similar specs? My car is a 4-speed and will be a weekend driver only. Maybe too much cam?? Thanks again--Gary |
| | | | More cam ideas -- Royce Peterson, 12/11/2002
The matching parts are for sure the easy and good way to be safe. My Isky cam has 108 degree lobe centers and I am not happy right now because the vacuum is around 10 inches at idle, not enough for power brakes. The Comp cam looks like it would be better because of the 110 degree center, and would be a good choice for a manual trans.
Royce |
| | | | | RE:Comp vacum -- SDP, 12/13/2002
My dad runs a 282S in his Cobra replica. The motor is a "stock" Med Riser and this particular cam idles(700-800rpm) around 12" of vacum. How do you like that Isky cam other than the vacum Royce? |
| | | | | | Isky cam -- Royce Peterson, 12/13/2002
I think it is too small for my 427 stroker (454CI). It has a very narrow power curve, all down between 2500 - 4000 then it is done. The 108 lobe centers kill the vacuum. It would probably be a good drag cam for a 352 - 360, it is not working for me. I have to try different things, still learning after all these years.
Royce |
| | | RE: That's too much lift for stock springs -- curt, 12/11/2002
so will cj pistons work with the 282s cam or will a guy have to get some new pistons, i am using c6ae-r heads. |
| | | | Valve reliefs are shallow and poorly located... -- Royce Peterson, 12/12/2002
The pistons will work if the valve reliefs are cut a little deeper.
Royce Peterson |
| 428 solid lifer oiling -- curt4nu, 12/11/2002
i am wondering what if any oil mods i will have to perform for the block when putting in solid lifters. and any other oiling concers that i am not aware of when rebuilding this block, it is a 428 cj block. thanks curt |
| | RE: 428 solid lifer oiling -- McQ, 12/11/2002
It is highly recommended that you tap & plug the main hydraulic oil holes in the main oil gallery. The two access holes are easily seen near the back of the main gallery tunnel in the block valley. There are a number of ways to block them. I like to tap them and plug with screw in plugs. That way there easy to remove when/if you go back to hydraulics.
That said I must admit that I did run a solid lifter cam in a 428 Cobra Jet for three years with absolutely no problems what so ever. And in the '69 Muscle Parts booklet where various stages of performance mods were recommended by Ford engineers no less(at least the booklet was sold at Ford dealers..) one of the stages in building a 428CJ was to install a solid lifter cam. There's nothing mentioned about modifying any oil provisions.
But it certainly makes good sense to plug the hydraulic lifter oil passages if you're running solids. Why not direct that oil to where it will do some good? And if the engine is going through a build it's a perfect opportunity to make the mods necessary. |
| | other oiling ideas, block? -- curt4nu, 12/11/2002
are there any other oiling mods that i should perfrom on my block, ect |
| | | RE: other oiling ideas, block? -- McQ, 12/13/2002
The best advice I think you could get is to make sure that whoever you have do the machine work on your block should be someone knowledgeable, experienced and enthusiastic about working on FEs. Maybe you're not fortunate enough to live by or know someone like this. Do some checking and get some recommendations. Travel if you have to.
Oiling mods generally aren't going to make horsepower but a few simple changes can allow you to safely produce more horsepower at a little higher rpm.
So I'm not going into a lot of details because I think for the usage you've mentioned before extensive oiling mods aren't necessary. Here's what my experienced FE machinist did to my 428CJ block:
He started by drilling & chamfering the opening of the block oil pump passage to 5/8". The rest of this passage that leads to the oil filter adaptor he carefully drilled larger to 1/2". BTW, be sure to use the C8AE oil filter adpator. This is a much improved adaptor over the prior standard ones. It was pretty much common stock on any FE from '68 on.
It's farily common to also restrict the size of the rocker arm stand oil feed hole in each head to .090. This can be done numerous ways. The one I prefer is to tap the hole and then use proper size set screws with the .090 hole drilled the length of the set screw. This keeps oil down where it's useful.
Then my machinist recommended a quality high volume oil pump.
A deep sump oil pan, i.e., Milodon #31130 and correct corresponding screen/pick up tube is a good idea. However for street and occasional drag strip runs a standard Cobra Jet pan always filled with 6 quarts of oil is fine. Ford Racing Parts still offers over the counter two FE pans that are duplicates of the CJ, #M-6675-J390 is chrome; M-6675-K390 is unplated. Oh and don't forget to always run a windage tray as was stock on '69-'70 Cobra Jets, still available again from Ford Racing, #M-6687-A390. I will say that the original CJ windage tray was finished a lot better than these new ones. But a little careful grinding/dressing around the sharp edges is easy to do before installing.
These basic oil mods worked well for my CJ. I ran it fairly hard in three different vehicles. Mostly street with 30 - 40 drag strip passes a year.
Again, based on what you've said you're going to do, I think you're the same Curt? 428/ C-6 in a '66 Fairlane, 3.50 gears? It's my opinion that these mods are all you'll need. Others might offer more extensive mods and I'd enjoy reading about them.
|
| | | | The most critical FE oiling mod is... -- Dave Shoe, 12/13/2002
...an aftermarket oil pan.
It is imperative that a high capacity oil pan be installed on a fast FE, as the stock 5-quart pan is guaranteed to cause oil starvation under hard acceleration or cornering.
Stock pans are fine if you have a 15 second car or slower. 14 second bracket cars need an extra quart of oil in the 5-quart pan, along with the windage tray to keep this extra oil off the crankshaft. 13 second cars need a good oil pan with trap door baffling. After this is installed you can start to consider other oil mods.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | RE: other oiling ideas, block? -- curt, 12/13/2002
2 quick questions. are the 66 390 oil pans and a cj oil pan the same, and i have a c0ae oil filter adpter are they the same as the c8ae. I have a windage tray on order. thanks for the great info.
curt |
| | | | | RE: nope. -- Mike McQuesten, 12/13/2002
The '66 390 pan is not adequate. Shoe's right that the stock CJ pan is marginal with a 14 second CJ but at least it has some baffling to keep the six quarts of oil around the pump pickup.
It really is best that you get yourself a deep sump 7-8 quart pan and matching pick-up with a 5/8" tube. Canton makes a very nice pan form what I've seen. The Milodon I have is reasonably priced and is nothing more than a stock CJ style pan cut and a new piece welded in to deepen/add capacity.
The COAE filter adaptor isn't a good idea either. You need to find a C8AE as was stock on CJ and other FE powered cars from '68 on. And NOT the pick up filter adaptor. |
| 390 Exhaust Manifold Replacements -- Allan, 12/11/2002
I'm just finishing up a 1965 Tbird 390 rebuild. The exhaust manifolds on this engine are in pretty sad shape. They've had studs drilled out on the exhaust pipe end and are pretty rusty. Does anyone make replacement exhaust manifolds for these engines? The part numbers on them are:
RH: C5SE 9430C
LH: C3SE 9431B
Allan |
| | | RE: Not sure about Tbird specific; -- allan, 12/11/2002
Thanks.....they had the gaskets but no manifolds. That's about what I've been seeing from the parts houses I've tried so far. A good used set would also be acceptable if I could find some. |
| | RE: 390 Exhaust Manifold Replacements -- Paul M, 12/12/2002
I've bought and traded parts with a local who restores the `60's Tbirds. If you havent found anything by this weekend, I'll give him a call and see what he has available, if you're interested. He's not around during the week; Must be nice to be retired :)
|
| | | RE: 390 Exhaust Manifold Replacements -- allan, 12/12/2002
Thanks, I appreciate the offer. I'll let you know what I can come up with....if anything.
Al |
| | | I have what your looking for................. -- Bill White, 12/14/2002
I have what your looking for in several different states of condition. Please E-mail me if interested |
| | | | RE: I have what your looking for................. -- allan, 12/15/2002
Bill,
Check your email. If you did not get the message I sent let me know.
Allan |
|