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.
 C6AE-R cc's -- Matt McCormick, 11/23/2002
Help, I need to know the chamber volume of 1966
C6AE-R heads off of a 428 non cj. The block is bored .30 over and im using Keith Black Pistons.
The plan is to get CJ power or more out of this engine. I could also use some advise on what cam I should use to wake it up. It will only see street duty. thanks
-Matt
 65 tbird motor mounts -- Allan, 11/22/2002
Has anyone found a cross reference part number for motor mounts for a 390 in a 65 Tbird. I'm building a new engine and have not found a way to cross reference the Ford part number to anything locally (NAPA, AutoZone, etc.) I've found all the other rebuild parts for the engine at my local parts store. Motor mounts have them stumped. The number on the mounts I have are C4SZ 6038 C & D.

Al
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15364&Reply=15364><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Boss 429</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John, <i>11/22/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Anyone know the casting#`s on Boss 429 blocks?<br><br><br>John </blockquote> Boss 429 -- John, 11/22/2002
Anyone know the casting#`s on Boss 429 blocks?


John
 C9AE; they have 4 bolt #1 main caps [n/m] -- Dan Davis, 11/22/2002
nm
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15362&Reply=15362><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>67 Shelby gt500 detailing info??</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>roy, <i>11/22/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Any one know of any GOOD web sites with colour detailes on corect engine & engine bay detailing & tips<br><br>Thanks<br>Roy. </blockquote> 67 Shelby gt500 detailing info?? -- roy, 11/22/2002
Any one know of any GOOD web sites with colour detailes on corect engine & engine bay detailing & tips

Thanks
Roy.
 RE: 67 Shelby gt500 detailing info?? -- x1968x, 11/22/2002
Try:

www.nvsaac.com
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15377&Reply=15362><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>NVSAAC site is colorful...but 'correct' is another matter. [n/m]</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> NVSAAC site is colorful...but 'correct' is another matter. [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/23/2002
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15380&Reply=15362><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Just what is it you are wanting to know?.....</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>kevin, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>if my memory can help you. </blockquote> Just what is it you are wanting to know?..... -- kevin, 11/23/2002
if my memory can help you.
 RE: Just what is it you are wanting to know?..... -- roy, 11/23/2002
Ok, just pulled the engine so as to detaile the engine & engine bay,what is the corect blue for the heads & block,I have looked through lots of photos & some are the lighter blue & some are darker blue??.Did the shade of blue change at a certain date during 67.My bild date is 12/4/67.
 RE: NVSAAC site is colorful...but 'correct' is another matter. [n/m] -- roy, 11/23/2002
Ok,so where can I look for a correct referance guide?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15382&Reply=15362><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>We may be able to help.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Chip, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Roy,<br><br>Can you give us anything in particular you need to know?  I have a 67 500, have a fair amount of experience, bought first one more than 25 yearts ago.<br>Chip   </blockquote> We may be able to help. -- Chip, 11/23/2002
Roy,

Can you give us anything in particular you need to know? I have a 67 500, have a fair amount of experience, bought first one more than 25 yearts ago.
Chip
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15385&Reply=15362><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: We may be able to help.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>roy, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Chip,<br>Ok, just pulled the engine so as to detaile the engine & engine bay,what is the corect blue for the heads & block,I have looked through lots of photos & some are the lighter blue & some are darker blue??.Did the shade of blue change at a certain date during 67.My bild date is 12/4/67.<br>Roy. </blockquote> RE: We may be able to help. -- roy, 11/23/2002
Chip,
Ok, just pulled the engine so as to detaile the engine & engine bay,what is the corect blue for the heads & block,I have looked through lots of photos & some are the lighter blue & some are darker blue??.Did the shade of blue change at a certain date during 67.My bild date is 12/4/67.
Roy.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15386&Reply=15362><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Deatails</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Chip, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Roy,<br><br>First, it sounds like you have a very late car... What # is it?  Mine is also very late and very near the last few 500's made, #3145.  Mine had when new, the lighter bright blue so I have maintained that color.  I have seen a few 67 owners that have used the dark blue but, throguh the years most have found that it was not original.  I am presently working on a project with a company to reproduce the lighter Ford bright blue in a HT epoxy paint that will withstand the heat on the head flanges.  I am starting out with an Epoxy coating that is usd on the nosecone of the F 22 Raptor fighter aircraft.  <br>Chip<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>  </blockquote> Deatails -- Chip, 11/23/2002
Roy,

First, it sounds like you have a very late car... What # is it? Mine is also very late and very near the last few 500's made, #3145. Mine had when new, the lighter bright blue so I have maintained that color. I have seen a few 67 owners that have used the dark blue but, throguh the years most have found that it was not original. I am presently working on a project with a company to reproduce the lighter Ford bright blue in a HT epoxy paint that will withstand the heat on the head flanges. I am starting out with an Epoxy coating that is usd on the nosecone of the F 22 Raptor fighter aircraft.
Chip













 RE: Deatails -- roy, 11/23/2002
Chip,
The # 1549, from what I have seen most if not all seem to burn off around the manifold area so any development in the paint technology is a welcome prospect.
I think I'll take your advise and go for the lighter blue.
Roy
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15388&Reply=15362><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Does your car have a T/E (anti-smog) system?[n/m]</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> Does your car have a T/E (anti-smog) system?[n/m] -- Mr F, 11/23/2002
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15389&Reply=15362><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Does your car have a T/E (anti-smog) system?[n/m]</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>roy, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>No antismog. </blockquote> RE: Does your car have a T/E (anti-smog) system?[n/m] -- roy, 11/23/2002
No antismog.
 Ok, then - here's a pretty accurate ('restored') engine bay... -- Mr F, 11/24/2002
[.image.]
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15393&Reply=15362><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>No Anti smog on #3145 N/M</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Chip, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>xx </blockquote> No Anti smog on #3145 N/M -- Chip, 11/23/2002
xx
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15406&Reply=15362><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Sure, but that would vary on a per-vehicle basis. [n/m]</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>11/24/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> Sure, but that would vary on a per-vehicle basis. [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/24/2002
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15415&Reply=15362><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Sure, but that would vary on a per-vehicle basis. [n/m]</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>roy, <i>11/25/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Also forgot to mention,#1549 was a direct export to Spain for the 68 Spanish Ford Fair.<br>Thanks for the referance picture.<br>Question?<br>I take it from the photo that the Air Cleaner top housing<br>should be plain ally,with no black paint? Roy. </blockquote> RE: Sure, but that would vary on a per-vehicle basis. [n/m] -- roy, 11/25/2002
Also forgot to mention,#1549 was a direct export to Spain for the 68 Spanish Ford Fair.
Thanks for the referance picture.
Question?
I take it from the photo that the Air Cleaner top housing
should be plain ally,with no black paint? Roy.
 Neat history. Yes - most if not all were 'plain.' [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/26/2002
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15361&Reply=15361><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>C8AE-H vs C8AE-A</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Brett, <i>11/22/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Whats the difference between these two heads? Which is correct for a 68 mustang GT 390?<br>Thanks in advance </blockquote> C8AE-H vs C8AE-A -- Brett, 11/22/2002
Whats the difference between these two heads? Which is correct for a 68 mustang GT 390?
Thanks in advance
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15367&Reply=15361><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Same, but different.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>11/22/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>The FE head got it's only major redesign in 1966.<br><br>The goal was to reduce emissions, so emissions features found their way in.  Additionally, 1966 marked the incorporation of the FE into the Fairlane/Comet.  This restricted exhaust manifold bolt access, so all heads (except 427 race heads) got eight extra bosses cast into them to allow drilling and tapping for a diagonal bolts at the exhaust manifold.<br><br>Now, onto your question:<br><br>There were three versions of the full emissions FE head.  The first, was a C6AE-J or C6AE-L, and it got modified intake and exhaust runners.<br><br>The second version was the C6AE-U and C7AE-A, which was the same except the chamber was shrunken slightly, taking on the CJ chamber shape, without the big valves.<br><br>The third version was the C8AE-H and D2TE-AA, which was the same as before but an even smaller, all new combustion chamber was incorporated.  this smaller chamber creaded more "velocity" around the increasingly shrouded valves.  This apparently improved mixing.  THis design stuck around to the end, though the D2 version was made compatible with unleaded gasoline, and thus the exhaust valve seat was induction hardened to reduce wear.<br><br>A really early 1968 Mustang could get either.  A later only the C8AE-H.  Check the date code of the head and of the car.  They should be withing three months of each other,<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> Same, but different. -- Dave Shoe, 11/22/2002
The FE head got it's only major redesign in 1966.

The goal was to reduce emissions, so emissions features found their way in. Additionally, 1966 marked the incorporation of the FE into the Fairlane/Comet. This restricted exhaust manifold bolt access, so all heads (except 427 race heads) got eight extra bosses cast into them to allow drilling and tapping for a diagonal bolts at the exhaust manifold.

Now, onto your question:

There were three versions of the full emissions FE head. The first, was a C6AE-J or C6AE-L, and it got modified intake and exhaust runners.

The second version was the C6AE-U and C7AE-A, which was the same except the chamber was shrunken slightly, taking on the CJ chamber shape, without the big valves.

The third version was the C8AE-H and D2TE-AA, which was the same as before but an even smaller, all new combustion chamber was incorporated. this smaller chamber creaded more "velocity" around the increasingly shrouded valves. This apparently improved mixing. THis design stuck around to the end, though the D2 version was made compatible with unleaded gasoline, and thus the exhaust valve seat was induction hardened to reduce wear.

A really early 1968 Mustang could get either. A later only the C8AE-H. Check the date code of the head and of the car. They should be withing three months of each other,

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15369&Reply=15361><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>What about ...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Brett, <i>11/22/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>the difference between the C8AE-H,  C8AE-AH and C8AE-AG the ford masterpart catalog says all are for 68 GT 390?<br>I never heard of the latter two until today, so I'm confused. </blockquote> What about ... -- Brett, 11/22/2002
the difference between the C8AE-H, C8AE-AH and C8AE-AG the ford masterpart catalog says all are for 68 GT 390?
I never heard of the latter two until today, so I'm confused.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15370&Reply=15361><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Phantom heads.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>The parts interchange books are all totally screwed.  It's been like this for decades.<br><br>Long ago the 6049 part numbers got mixed with the 6090 casting numbers, creating a horrid mess that has been a best seller.  Hell, these books all ape each other's mistakes to the point that people believe the FE has a bad oiling system, but none has accused the oil pan as being the ONLY weak spot in the oiling system.<br><br>The FE head casting numbers are ascually not very complicated to memorize, if that happens to be what inspires you.  I've left out a couple of available casting numbers of full emissions heads, such as C6AE-Y, because they aren't common and they're all the same anyway.<br><br>If there is one lesson to be learned here, it's, "Don't believe everything you read".  If there is another, it's "recognize that Shoe wasn't particularly involved in the FE until just recently, and in this short time he's been shoving all kinds of implausible crap down our throats.  Watch out for that guy."<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> Phantom heads. -- Dave Shoe, 11/23/2002
The parts interchange books are all totally screwed. It's been like this for decades.

Long ago the 6049 part numbers got mixed with the 6090 casting numbers, creating a horrid mess that has been a best seller. Hell, these books all ape each other's mistakes to the point that people believe the FE has a bad oiling system, but none has accused the oil pan as being the ONLY weak spot in the oiling system.

The FE head casting numbers are ascually not very complicated to memorize, if that happens to be what inspires you. I've left out a couple of available casting numbers of full emissions heads, such as C6AE-Y, because they aren't common and they're all the same anyway.

If there is one lesson to be learned here, it's, "Don't believe everything you read". If there is another, it's "recognize that Shoe wasn't particularly involved in the FE until just recently, and in this short time he's been shoving all kinds of implausible crap down our throats. Watch out for that guy."

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15373&Reply=15361><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Phantom heads, revisited.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Can you tell I'm a little jittery about posting my FE oiling system claims?  The present 390 build I'm undertaking will execute this claim to the fullest extent, measuring oil pressure at both the filter and the rear of the block, with only a fancy pan, a recalibrated stock pump, reinforced pump driveshaft, and oil restrictors upstairs.  Until then, I probably shouldn't be so bold about it. <br><br>As I understand it, the NASCAR 406 and 427 CO engines had no chronic problems with oiling, whether due to lack of pressure at the mains or with the crank journal diameters causing oil overheating.  These stories presently appear to be  fabricated.  The FE often enough whooped the Chrysler Hemi, with Petty's Monster Hemi expiring after 60+ laps of neck-to-neck racing with a 396FE, the FE moving on to victory.  You KNOW that FE was spinning some RPM!  Well OK, it was a sideoiler, but it likely had the standard crankshaft journal diameters, suggesting there is little merit to crank journal overheating complaints.<br><br>It's become clear to me the only reason the sideoiler was created was because the FE uses the camshaft to route oil the crank, and the Cammer would lack a cam in the block.   Since the Cammer's oiling system was to need some kind of mods to route oil to the crank, it looked wise to adapt the block to the more conventional "priority mains" oiling used in the Y-Block.  The Y-Block was a sideoiler,  but the FE was designed as a center oiler, partlyly because it was a hydraulic lifter block and it needed oil upstairs, and partly to reduce the opportunity for oil drips out on the garage floor - a service expense and customer relations issue.  With most of the oiling plugs moved to the inside of the FE, it would drip less.  The Cammer customer was not the type to be concerned with oil drips.<br><br>This is all just my theory, pure fabrication, so I probably need to be more careful about qualifying my oiling claims until I get a functional test bed (a 390) going, and actually make measurements.<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> Phantom heads, revisited. -- Dave Shoe, 11/23/2002
Can you tell I'm a little jittery about posting my FE oiling system claims? The present 390 build I'm undertaking will execute this claim to the fullest extent, measuring oil pressure at both the filter and the rear of the block, with only a fancy pan, a recalibrated stock pump, reinforced pump driveshaft, and oil restrictors upstairs. Until then, I probably shouldn't be so bold about it.

As I understand it, the NASCAR 406 and 427 CO engines had no chronic problems with oiling, whether due to lack of pressure at the mains or with the crank journal diameters causing oil overheating. These stories presently appear to be fabricated. The FE often enough whooped the Chrysler Hemi, with Petty's Monster Hemi expiring after 60+ laps of neck-to-neck racing with a 396FE, the FE moving on to victory. You KNOW that FE was spinning some RPM! Well OK, it was a sideoiler, but it likely had the standard crankshaft journal diameters, suggesting there is little merit to crank journal overheating complaints.

It's become clear to me the only reason the sideoiler was created was because the FE uses the camshaft to route oil the crank, and the Cammer would lack a cam in the block. Since the Cammer's oiling system was to need some kind of mods to route oil to the crank, it looked wise to adapt the block to the more conventional "priority mains" oiling used in the Y-Block. The Y-Block was a sideoiler, but the FE was designed as a center oiler, partlyly because it was a hydraulic lifter block and it needed oil upstairs, and partly to reduce the opportunity for oil drips out on the garage floor - a service expense and customer relations issue. With most of the oiling plugs moved to the inside of the FE, it would drip less. The Cammer customer was not the type to be concerned with oil drips.

This is all just my theory, pure fabrication, so I probably need to be more careful about qualifying my oiling claims until I get a functional test bed (a 390) going, and actually make measurements.

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15375&Reply=15361><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Phantom heads, revisited.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Nathan, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Shoe,<br><br>Did or did not the cammer have a cam (blank) in order to turn the distributor and oil pump?<br><br>Just following your advice ("Watch out for that guy.") and harrasing you a bit. . .<br><br>Take it Easy,<br>Nathan </blockquote> RE: Phantom heads, revisited. -- Nathan, 11/23/2002
Shoe,

Did or did not the cammer have a cam (blank) in order to turn the distributor and oil pump?

Just following your advice ("Watch out for that guy.") and harrasing you a bit. . .

Take it Easy,
Nathan
 The blank was a stubby -- only the 1st 2 bearings -- Dan Davis, 11/23/2002
nm
 It ended up with a cam blank. -- Dave Shoe, 11/23/2002
The cam blank would have been an execution detail, not part of the conception brainstorming.

When I speak of the sideoiler function in the context of this thread, I'm hypothesizing why Ford would have converted from centeroiling if there was no oiling problem in the FE.

The reasons are apparently that the Cammer would stress the block more than any other engine beforehand, so incremental improvements in the oiling system might be of benefit, and also because the Cammer would have no use for routing volumes of oil to hydraulic lifters and around the cam. Converting to a more conventional "priority mains" side-oiler design would have been a rather obvious choice, given these basic parameters.

I expect that much of the napkin sketching of the sideoiler circuitry would have been completed by the time an oiling system peripheral like the stub shaft appeared as the most cost effective distributor-drive option. I expect many other ideas had been fielded for operating the oil pump and distributor early in the process.

JMO,
Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15391&Reply=15361><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Phantom heads, revisited.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>salid, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>"but the FE was designed as a center oiler, partlyly because it was a hydraulic lifter block and it needed oil upstairs"  Wasn't the first FE a solid lifter engine?  Are you thinking that they intended all along to make it hydraulic?  It likely would be much cheaper from a service perspective to go hydraulic. </blockquote> RE: Phantom heads, revisited. -- salid, 11/23/2002
"but the FE was designed as a center oiler, partlyly because it was a hydraulic lifter block and it needed oil upstairs" Wasn't the first FE a solid lifter engine? Are you thinking that they intended all along to make it hydraulic? It likely would be much cheaper from a service perspective to go hydraulic.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15394&Reply=15361><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>The hydraulic galleys were always cast in.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>The galleys for pressuring the hydraulics were there from day 1.  They weren't drilled until about day 90 or so.<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> The hydraulic galleys were always cast in. -- Dave Shoe, 11/23/2002
The galleys for pressuring the hydraulics were there from day 1. They weren't drilled until about day 90 or so.

Shoe.
 RE: The hydraulic galleys were always cast in. -- Ron, 11/24/2002
Hey Dave, JMO, But I like the way you write, Makes sense and makes me think. Keep it up. Thanks, Ron.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15359&Reply=15359><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>big block id</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>danny, <i>11/22/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>what would a block with (65ae-a), be? </blockquote> big block id -- danny, 11/22/2002
what would a block with (65ae-a), be?
 Could be anything. -- Royce Peterson, 11/22/2002
I have seen 352, 390 and 427 blocks with that casting number. It's meaningless. Post some pictures of the rear bulkhead and measure the bore of the block if you really want to know.

Royce Peterson
 360->428 sonic update -- Pete, 11/21/2002
some time ago I mentioned that I had my 360 block sonic checked and it passed for being able to bore .080 over. I now know what the specs were. No cylinders were thinner than .170 after the boring. This is a standard 360 block, from a 1969 F-100. Obviously this block had plenty of meat. It is possible!!
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15345&Reply=15345><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Source for shell lifters?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>DeanGT428, <i>11/20/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Anyone know of a source that has shell lifters for an FE engine? </blockquote> Source for shell lifters? -- DeanGT428, 11/20/2002
Anyone know of a source that has shell lifters for an FE engine?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15347&Reply=15345><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Source for shell lifters?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>11/20/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I got mine from Rob McQuarry(sp?) who owns BlueOval performance Ford parts.  Check out BlueOval.com.   Rob is responsive and fair.   Of course you'll need the corresponding long push rods that go with the shell lifters.  Rob has those too. </blockquote> RE: Source for shell lifters? -- Mike McQuesten, 11/20/2002
I got mine from Rob McQuarry(sp?) who owns BlueOval performance Ford parts. Check out BlueOval.com. Rob is responsive and fair. Of course you'll need the corresponding long push rods that go with the shell lifters. Rob has those too.
 RE: blueovalperformance.com -- MikeMcQ, 11/20/2002
The correct business name to check.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15371&Reply=15345><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Source for shell lifters?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Robert, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Crane Cams still makes the shell lifters and longer pushrods, however I just bought a backup set from DSC or DCS Motorsports who frequently sells on eBay, and also has their own business. I've purchased FE steel shim head gaskets from them in the past as well. Good folks. R </blockquote> RE: Source for shell lifters? -- Robert, 11/23/2002
Crane Cams still makes the shell lifters and longer pushrods, however I just bought a backup set from DSC or DCS Motorsports who frequently sells on eBay, and also has their own business. I've purchased FE steel shim head gaskets from them in the past as well. Good folks. R
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15372&Reply=15345><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Source for shell lifters?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>DeanGT428, <i>11/23/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>According to Dennis at DSC Motorsports, I bought his last set of shell lifters.  Evidently the company who supplied Crane and everyone else with shell lifters went out of business.  No other company is stepping up to produce these.  You can still get some directly from Comp Cams, but I don't know how much longer their supply will last.<br><br>DeanGT428 </blockquote> RE: Source for shell lifters? -- DeanGT428, 11/23/2002
According to Dennis at DSC Motorsports, I bought his last set of shell lifters. Evidently the company who supplied Crane and everyone else with shell lifters went out of business. No other company is stepping up to produce these. You can still get some directly from Comp Cams, but I don't know how much longer their supply will last.

DeanGT428
 RE: Crower? -- Mike McQuesten, 11/23/2002
The shell lifters I purchased from Blue Oval Performance were supplied by Crower. However they may be manufactured by the same source for Crane, Comp., etc.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15343&Reply=15343><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Sideways mounted Holleys on a 2 x 4v Intake. . ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Nathan, <i>11/20/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Hello All,<br><br>I have seen a few 2 x 4V intakes set up with the carbs sideways, and many tunnel rams set up that way as well.  What is the advantage of this?<br><br>Also, more importantly, I would like some responses to this:  Say I take my split plenum single plane 2 x 4V intake and mount my Holleys side ways with the linkage of each carb facing each other.  I will be running these carbs in sync with NON-PROGRESSIVE linkage so I would have a primary curcuit for each bank.  Will this run okay, or am I just setting myself up to make cylinders 1, 2, 7, & 8 run lean while leaving cylinders 3, 4, 5, & 6 to run rich?<br><br>I would like to do this for many reasons, but don't want to do so at the expense of a fuel distribution problem.  Would adding a 1" open spacer, or possibly cutting away part of the plenum divider help this situation any?  Any and all comments are welcomed and appreciated.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Nathan </blockquote> Sideways mounted Holleys on a 2 x 4v Intake. . ? -- Nathan, 11/20/2002
Hello All,

I have seen a few 2 x 4V intakes set up with the carbs sideways, and many tunnel rams set up that way as well. What is the advantage of this?

Also, more importantly, I would like some responses to this: Say I take my split plenum single plane 2 x 4V intake and mount my Holleys side ways with the linkage of each carb facing each other. I will be running these carbs in sync with NON-PROGRESSIVE linkage so I would have a primary curcuit for each bank. Will this run okay, or am I just setting myself up to make cylinders 1, 2, 7, & 8 run lean while leaving cylinders 3, 4, 5, & 6 to run rich?

I would like to do this for many reasons, but don't want to do so at the expense of a fuel distribution problem. Would adding a 1" open spacer, or possibly cutting away part of the plenum divider help this situation any? Any and all comments are welcomed and appreciated.

Thanks,
Nathan
 RE: Sideways mounted Holleys on a 2 x 4v Intake. . ? -- Nathan Sweitzer, 11/20/2002
I'm not sure about the method of mounting the carbs. The only proble I can see with it is that upon initial acceleration, you would be opening up both sets of primarys. unless the engine was asperated just right I would think that you would have a bad lul, from too much initial fuel. Again that is just my 5 min reasoning...so take it with a grain of salt. I'm sure the other guys on the board can give better info on it.

As far as adding an open spacer, or cutting the plenum.....that is a very worth-while mod. Offenhauser did this on their duel plenum intakes. it is a small cutout about one inch wide and about 3/4 of an inch deep. ( if you are really interested I can give you the exact specs) The cut was made at the rear of the plenum. It works so well that I took an edlebrock intake and made the same cut in it's plenum, and was able to notice the difference. The car ran alot smoother and was a little faster to respond to acceleration. It is a very good idea. I don't know about the open space though. it would seem that you would acomplish teh same thing with it tough, unless there is somethign that I don't quite understand.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15340&Reply=15340><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Getting the 390 and a 351</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike, <i>11/19/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I went saturday and ended up getting the 390 and a 351w. The guy has 2 390's. A 74 or 6 and 70 model.. I will probably get the 74.  They came out of trucks. Ihad tried to post htis Sat eve. but it would not let me post for some reason. Mike </blockquote> Getting the 390 and a 351 -- mike, 11/19/2002
I went saturday and ended up getting the 390 and a 351w. The guy has 2 390's. A 74 or 6 and 70 model.. I will probably get the 74. They came out of trucks. Ihad tried to post htis Sat eve. but it would not let me post for some reason. Mike
 So I'm not the only one! -- Paul M, 11/20/2002
Thought I was going wacky, as I couldn't post for a couple days myself, over the weekend.

Is the 74 a 4V or 2V? I havent been able to find much info on the 70's FE's as they were only in trucks, and most people tend to disregard them as being low compression dogs. Methinks thats probably how the 390 got it's bad rep in the first place, but that's just my $.02 worth
 That can be a tough decision...... -- kevin, 11/21/2002
as the 71 may have the more desirable deck height pistons. The 74 may have the more desirable "105" block, and D2 heads which SHOULD have the induction hardened exhaust valve seats. It depends on if you are going to bore it too. They should both have pipe plugs in the back instead of press ins. If you can measure between the cylinders on each, that could also make one more desirable than the other. you can always add hard seats to the earlier C8 heads, but you cant change the wall thickness on the cylinders. Look up the drill bit test threads to see what I mean. You may want to buy him new 1-49/64th's" core plugs before you go over there to allow you to check. You are gonna need some anyway. Do not use the 1-3/4" ones that come in all the rebuild kits, unless you plan on epoxying them in with JB weld. You should buy the brass ones for yourself anyway.
Go to the top of this page
Go back one page Back    Next Go forward one page

221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240