Skip Navigation Links.
| head I.D. -- chuck, 12/09/2005
can anyone I.D. this head for me? C6AE 6090R |
| | 1966 - 67 FE head -- Royce P, 12/10/2005
Low performance head used on 352, 390, 410, 428. Has the early intake ports and late exhaust ports. It is a popular head to modify because it can be used in 67 - 70 Fairlane, Comet, Mustangs and Cougars.
Royce |
| 1967 mustang hardtop -- Jon Varley, 12/09/2005
OK if 2,932- 67 hardtops made with s code(390) 5 code trans(4 speed) how many GTs how many non GTs. I need to know any help you can offer me? Thanks JON |
| 406 -- lincoln62, 12/09/2005
I plan on building a 406 out of a 390 block with 428 flat top pistons and a 390 crank. with 70cc heads should have about 8.5:1 comp. am I nuts? |
| | It will work, I've seen a few, but I'm -- Lou, 12/11/2005
not sure the project is worth the time and money. |
| | Re: 406 -- giacamo, 12/11/2005
8.5 conpression is realy lame for a 406,the i,d find a 428 block to start with if i was bilding one. |
| | | RE: Re: 406 -- lincoln62, 12/18/2005
whay do I use for fuel with over 9:1 comp?? |
| | | | RE: Re: 406 -- giacamo, 12/18/2005
89 and up fe,s are more fuel frendly than brand x moters... |
| | | RE: Re: 406 -- walt, 12/20/2005
i was thinking of putting a 390 crank in my 428 pi,i just like the higher rpm,shorter stoke motor behind a stick shift truck,any how ,think tank what would the compresion be,and balance probs,running the zero balace flywheel? |
| | Re: 406 -- galaxie390, 12/17/2005
It will run really "sick" too because of the .110" deck clearance you will get - no quench, no swirl, a dog. Find a 410/428 crank or buy a new Scat 4" crank it is worth it, those extra inches AND the quench are worth it. |
| | | RE: Re: 406 -- salid, 12/18/2005
have your block sonic checked. Some of the late 406 blocks had essentially the same walls as the 427. If you are so lucky, consider boring to 4.23 and using a 410/428 crank. Before you bore this big, recognize that you will have probably bored it for the last time, there won't be enough meat to go any further. If you are reluctant to go this far right now, just get a 428 crank and build yourself a nice 428. 428s have put a lot of smiles on a lot of faces, I think you'll very happy with one and then you'll still be able to sit in front of a nice warm fire all winter long a dream about the next build where you'll build a real monster. |
| blocks -- David, 12/08/2005
Okay I heard that back in the 60's and early 70's ford blocks mainly the 351W were made with a higher nickel content so that they were stronger. Have any of you heard of this |
| | higher nickel -- Barry B, 12/08/2005
I've heard of a lot of blocks with higher nickel content like those and the Mexican 302's, Aussie 351's, 289HP's, various 427's and 428's etc. Ford wasn't the only one, have heard of Olds, Chevys, even old Hudsons with higher nickel too. I can't prove any of this but I'd think a machinist would know after trying to bore one of these blocks. Alloying nickel does increase the hardness of cast iron and the machinability, at least that's what I remember from a material science class. |
| | | Utter baloney -- Royce P, 12/08/2005
Search the forum for high nickel. Dave Shoe has found many of the original blueprints for the 427 blocks and other high performance ford applications. It just didn't happen outside of a couple failed experiments. Higher nickel just causes higher rejection rate of blocks and rapid failure of tooling.
Ford did use higher chromium in 427 blocks at some point in production and also increased phosphorous levels after 1971 but the practice didn't make a whole lot of difference worthy of any search for one of those blocks over another.
Royce |
| | | | whatever... -- Barry B, 12/08/2005
David asked about what he heard and I replied along with what I've heard, Oh, I forgot to mention Boss 429's. :)
I'm not totally convinced as you are Royce. I remember talking to Ron Miller a couple decades ago and he mentioned some ’68 FE blocks w/ an X in the lifter valley that had nickel. There also was a member on the network54 forum that had a couple ’68 X blocks that his machinist complained about the hardness. Let’s not get into the whole X thing, it can mean different things. For now I just take it as some kind of identifier. I’ve been following along on a number of forums on the nickel issue for a long time now and to me the jury is still out, and I don’t think Shoe is totally convinced one way or another either. |
| | | | | RE: whatever... -- Royce P, 12/08/2005
I got my information from the former chief metallurgist at Ford's Cleveland foundry. He was very adamant that any stories of higher nickel content were rubbish and told me he personally analyzed pour samples on a daily basis to monitor levels of the iron mix.
Dave Shoe backed up this story using the blueprints he copied at Ron Miller and John Vermeersc's shop. They plainly do not show higher nickel content for any particular type of FE block. Levels of phosphorous and chromium were adjusted around 1971 but there was no significance to the X marking either.
Royce |
| | | | | | Interesting! -- Barry B, 12/08/2005
because now that you mention it, Ron’s and the network54 member’s two blocks were all from the Cleveland foundry. Wonder what made those particular blocks harder?
Thanks for the inside scoop! Did the metallurgist happen to mention any details like this about the other Ford engine families? |
| | | | | | | RE: Interesting! -- giacamo, 12/08/2005
hay" some blocks are harder to bore, many things can change it,s hardness i,v sean them same numbers eazy to bore and hard to bore.i cheary pick my blocks on casting slag bildup most ruff looking cast means a cold mix cold,or cold mold ,and i look at finish machine work from the factury,ive found out the later bolcks in the 70,s normly look better my 2 cents...... |
| | | | | | | | You are right on target giacamo... -- Hawkrod, 12/09/2005
The way a pour works will affect the finish of the part. Parts poured early can be a different temp than later parts as the volume in the flask changes. Also slag that is not dragged off and even a poor mix can affect the finished product. As proof of this I will offer up HP 289 cranks. They all came from the same molds and iron as regular cranks but the HP cranks were Brinnell tested and if they passed they became HP cranks if they failed they went into a regular 289. It really isn't rocket science. Ford documents were very clear and although rumours of high nickel blocks existed for years it turned out to be untrue. Shoe has not wavered on this, the more research he has done the clearer it has become. Royce was absolutely correct. Hawkrod |
| | | | | | | RE: Interesting! -- Royce P, 12/08/2005
I only asked about 427's specifically. He said that for the most part the 427's used the same batch of iron as anything else up until 1971. In his words "An extra box" of chromium was used in them after that along with a quantity of phosphorous. They were mixing tremendous amounts of iron every day and it was only possible to make 427 blocks one day every few months because it would shut the line down for a full day before and after to set up and then tear down the mold line. To think that some 390 blocks were made better than others is in fact ludicrous. Ford's block iron was a very successful mixture and there was no reason to alter it.
Royce |
| | | | | | RE: whatever... -- walt, 12/15/2005
royce do you that vermeersch personaly also?.i was a torn in his side in fun back in the old streetracing days,he could never believe how i got them bone yard 390's to match his 428'sbut when i needed parts he got them for me, him and i still friends, |
| | | | | | | RE: whatever... -- Royce P, 12/15/2005
I have emailed John and talked with him on the phone but we have never met in person. He seems like a real nice guy.
Royce |
| | | | | | | | RE: whatever... -- walt, 12/16/2005
he is a good person,but not to many fall into his area,i was luckey enough to meet him many times one on one,from his garage in east detroit to mt clemens mich,total performance shop,before he worked with rousch team |
| | | | | | RE: whatever... -- walt, 12/16/2005
i had friends that worked the dif ,engine plant,special casting,dso crib,hot metal cranes,and molds,they told me that there are some short cuts to meet demands,then they sneak me in on a sunday,pallets of 427 blocks 40 foot tall,,how long i can't remember,my friend who set up the machines to bore the cross bolts,and my other friend set up the bores,they had to be done by monday morning,before the next crew came in,and they were passed off as industrial blocks? |
| | | | | | | I don't know about "passed off" -- Hawkrod, 12/16/2005
The 427 was probably used more for industrial applications than it was in automobile production. They were used to run windmills, generators, built as air pumps, and for big boats. The 427 was based in performance but earned its keep in more mundane applications. Hawkro |
| | | | RE: Utter baloney -- then why are they heavier?, 12/14/2005
Why is my 427 block 70 pounds heavier than my 390GT / 428CJ blocks then with thinner cylinder walls? |
| | | | | Maybe yours is filled with concrete? -- Royce P, 12/14/2005
Racers sometimes fill blocks with epoxy or concrete which can make them heavy!
My NOS 427 block (1972 date code) weighed just a hair over 200 pounds. Any 427 block will weigh slightly more than a 390 because the main caps are heavier and there are cross bolts. I think the difference between a 390 and 427 block is approximately 10 pounds. There is a difference in 427's, the irrigation blocks were intentionally made with thinner cylinder walls for better cooling so those are going to be somewhat lighter.
Hey if you want to see a heavy 427 block try the new Genesis iron 427 reproduction block. I just bought one and weighed it at 233 pounds!
Royce |
| | | | | | RE: Maybe yours is filled with concrete? -- walt, 12/14/2005
ok food for thought,i rember reading old hot rod periodicals that nhra let some 427's that were sleeved down to 428 bore ,run stock because of the wieght gain difference,in the cj class mustang,i think hubert platt was one of them,i also heard there was some diff in the pan rail width,427 was narrower?i was also told the 428 non reenforced block was approx 40 lbs lighter,the 428 cj,390 reenforced block was 20 lbs lighter,then i heard stories on a427"G" block?and then i heard stories about,the cooling tunnel at the casting plant to control some stuff in the curing,cooling process,the why does ford have that N on the heavier case rear housings,while then i seen the reenfored gear case whithout the N,then what does the N or nodlar realy mean,then i heard of gray iron blocks,frying pan grade iron block,that wore the bores out too fast,example,my 76 f 250 was wore out in less that 2 years,(14000)milesand it was called back for that prob,but i had dropped in a 66 mec 390 in by then,can any one explain? |
| | | | | | Royce is right on.... -- Hawkrod, 12/14/2005
I have had a lot of blocks and so has Royce and a 70 pound claim is ludicrous. It would be impossible to have an almost 50% increase in the weight of a bare casting no matter what style it is. The range in weights for FE blocks is less than 20 pounds based on the dozens if not hundreds I have shipped over the years. The later 427 is a little heavier but it has some extra material for side passges as well as the other features Royce mentioned. Walt, the G blocks are likely the C8 blocks that were made with extra phosphorus. The nodular iron rear case was made starting in 62 but during production in the fall of 68 Ford realized that they needed an identifier for the housings to preclude assembly error. Nodular iron is a type of iron where the graphite forms round nodules covered by an iron carbide shell. This type of iron is made through controlled use of magnesium to desulferize the iron and causes the graphite to form the nodules rather than flakes. Hawkrod |
| | | | | | | RE: Royce is right on.... -- walt, 12/15/2005
ty for the info hawkrodi got this case from a 67 shelby gt 500,extra ribs,like the n case,but no "n".since the case is in a car,off memory,think was c4aw-b? casting # |
| | | | | | | | Yup the C4AW-B "N case w/o the N " is the norm.. -- Royce P, 12/15/2005
for '67 - 68 Shelby GT500 / GT500KR and Cougar GT-E and 67 Fairlane 427 and '68 428CJ and probably some other applications that I haven't named. The N started showing up some time in the middle of the '69 model year apparently.
Royce |
| | | | | | | FE block weights -- james roney, 12/22/2005
Hi...I'm pretty sure that there's more than 20 lbs difference with the new Aluminum FE Genesis block, but you probably knew that!
But seriously, What is your opinion of the new Aluminum FE block, and is it worth giving up the rigidity of the cast iron block to save 70 lbs?
James. |
| | | | | | | | RE: FE block weights -- big dave, 12/24/2005
You ought to check out the Shelby or Genesis aluminum blocks, they are reinforced is some places to make up for the aluminum, most notably the three ridges across the lifter valley. Shelby himself built one awhile back that can turn 1300hp and 8000 rpms (I think, my source isn't nearby). All longblock parts were ones that he offers. But look to spend 4-5K for a block and main caps alone. |
| | Thanks, guys. Just one more chunk of . . . -- Orin, 12/09/2005
. . . reliable data to add to the many other chunks of reliable data I get off this site on an regular basis. |
| | | RE: Thanks, guys. Just one more chunk of . . . -- David, 12/11/2005
yea thanks guys for clearing up this info that I heard |
| ford big block -- steve balsano, 12/07/2005
I have a question about a ford engine i know didnt exhist but i had a customer inform me that there was such a monster in the late 60,s a 555 cid in a limited production ranchero yes i said 555 cid as you are laughing so was i if this motor did exhist i would like to know but i believe i allready know yhe answer to this but i would like to gat some input in this to solve my curisoty @ someone elses dillusional beliefs |
| | Through '69, biggest stock engine for a Ranchero was 428CID. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/07/2005
n/m |
| | ...and I've never heard of a stock 555CID Ford engine, for cars. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/07/2005
n/m |
| | | RE: ...and I've never heard of a stock 555CID Ford engine, for cars. [n/m] -- Randy, 12/09/2005
Believe Royce is right. Don't know exact cubes but remember them to be 500 plus. No one was ever interested. They had interesting holley 4 barrel, of unknown size to me. |
| | There was a 534 -- Royce P, 12/07/2005
Made for school busses and 700 series Ford trucks. Weighed something like 800 pounds in short block alone. Max RPM was 4000, it was obsolete from the day it appeared on the market.
Royce |
| | RE: ford big block -- lincoln62, 12/09/2005
I know ford was planning on using the Ford truck engines of 472 and 534 inches for racing until Nascar put the 427 limit into the rules. Ford took a 472 to boneville in a 1962 Galaxie with a 1961 starliner top welded on to see how fast it would run, can't remeber the sped it attained. |
| | | No they didn't..... -- Royce P, 12/10/2005
The 483 Starlifter was an FE 406 that was bored and stroked to the limit.
The 534 truck engine was never considered for any racing use. It is one huge lump of iron that would not fit even into a 1962 Galaxie!
Royce |
| | | | Royce is right, Ford took a 406, -- Lou, 12/10/2005
to the limit and cross bolted it. The enginbe team wanted to see if the cross bolting would really work. At the time 409 Chevys were blowing up right and left on the street and Ford did want to take a chance of their "Total Proformance" Image turning into the laughing stock that Chevy had. |
| | | | | RE: Royce is right, Ford took a 406, -- lincoln62, 12/18/2005
was in a Hot Rod magazine, late 1962.Know there was a mention of the 534, maybe just a dream. |
| 428 cj supercharged? -- tommy walton, 12/04/2005
I would like some help getting started supercharging a 428cj in a 66 fairlane gt. i know my compression right now is way too high. 10.5. can someone help me with blowthrough supercharging |
| 1967 Mustang clutch pedal -- William MacKinnon, 12/04/2005
Has anyone tried to install a late model mustang pedal assembly into their vintage stang? I have a 67 that I am converting to a t-5 with a clutch cable. I am having a big problem locating a clutch pedal and power brake pedal assembly. Unfortunately anyone that has one thinks it's worth its weight in gold and I'm not going to pay someone on e-bay 600.00 for an assembly that needs rebuilding. I've seen alot of late model stuff installed on the earlier mustangs, so I thought perhaps the pedal assembly might be able to be installed. |
| casting # -- jody, 12/04/2005
I have a 69 model 429. the casting # on the head is ( d3ve a2a) can anyone tell me about this head |
| | RE: casting # -- raycfe, 12/04/2005
D3VE is 1973 or newer not 69(C9V) |
| 69 Mach 1 Headers -- Kenny Compton, 12/04/2005
I have a customer that wants to put a 460 engine and trans combo in his 1969 mustang Mach 1. My question is where can I find a company that makes a header for this application or can anyone tell me a manifold that would work. Thanks Kenny Compton |
| head differences -- chuck, 12/04/2005
I have c6ae 6090r pair with 16 exhaust bolt holes, c7ae-a pair with 14 exhaust holes and c8ae-h pair still on 390 and appears to have 8 bolt pattern. What do I have here? anyone, class,anyone? Are the c6 heads best for performance? I've been told certain c8ae castings are the ones to have... I checked some of the archives but thought it might be quicker to just ask some dumb questions. Is there anywhere to find a complete list of FE heads with their specs and applications? As far as porting goes, is it worth it and is there any info available on what and where to remove material? Have thought about aluminum but want to keep car as original looking as possible. Thanks to anyone who cares to respond. |
| | RE: head differences -- Pete's Ponies, 12/05/2005
the C6-R are the best IMO. They can be just like a CJ head with little work. The C8 has a different exhaust port, doesn't flow as well. |
| | | RE: they've been worked.... -- chuck, 12/09/2005
where do they need work?..the intakes look like they've been port matched...exhaust are untouched...what do you mean by IMO |
| | | | RE: got the IMO figured out...duh -- chuck, 12/09/2005
I'm new to this forum thing... |
|