Skip Navigation Links.
 |  1968 Ford galaxie 500 convertible for sale........ -- fordmanjoe, 08/04/2002
1968 Ford galaxie 500 convertible for sale. Complete/less back window. All there and has been in storage in a barn for 12 years. Have storage title. $500.00 Call 1-563-872-5792 or e-mail for more info or questions at red_alert_player_01@hotmail.com |
 | will it fit -- dave, 08/03/2002
can i put a 390 fe in a mustang 65 coupe,what is the diffrence between 351c and 351w, will ether fit in a 65 mustang |
|  | All the early publications said... -- James Dodson, 08/03/2002
that it couldn't be done. The 67 engine bay was enlarged to accomodate the FE, only reason they did it. |
|  | RE: will it fit -- GCF, 08/05/2002
Unless you completely replace the front suspension and eliminate the shock towers, no, the 390 will not fit. The 351W is the Windsor and is a taller deck version of the 302 with a bigger crank. The 351C is the Cleveland, and although it shares the same bore spacing, motor mounts and bellhousing pattern as the Windsor motors and its heads will physically swap, it is a completely different engine having more in common with the 429 and 460's (design-wise) than the Windsors. The 351W is a popular swap for the early mustang. The 351C will bolt in, but has major clearance issues due to the wider heads. |
| |  | RE: Yes / If your go with a torch & welder -- Ray, 08/06/2002
We did it, not even thinking we could't back 65. We shoe horned a 425HP 427 out of galaxie into 65 mustang. We cut the towers back to springs, I mean it was tight I'am telling you. We had to use some exhoust manifolds from old truck that we found in a wreaking yard. This thing was so fast, it turned 115 mph the first time out and would not hook up at all but it was fun!. Yes it will fit, but I would use a better exhoust than truck exhoust. Ray |
| 427 Carb information request -- John Oberly, 08/03/2002
List 3139-1 and 1850-1 Can someone tell me what they are. Thanks for the info! |
| | RE: 427 Carb information request -- Royce Peterson, 08/04/2002
The 1850-1 is a universal application Holley replacement carb offered from 1967 - 1972 or thereabouts. It is still offered today as the 1850-4. It is Holley's number one selling carburetor and is rated at 600CFM. It is recommended for 289 - 350 CI engines.
The other number does not appear in any of my Holely books but it is certainly not a Ford carburetor number. A factory Ford Holley would have a number similar to C5AF 9510 - BU or perhaps C5AF - BU along with a Holley list number. See any numbers like that on this carb?
Royce Peterson
|
| | | RE: 427 Carb information request -- John Oberly, 08/04/2002
Here is the number above the List 3139-1 carb 3874898-ER Could this be a replacement carb for a 2X4 medium riser ?
|
| | | | Replacement MR carbs -- Royce Peterson, 08/04/2002
John,
Factory issued original equipment carbs for the 8V Medium Riser were stamped as follows:
C5AF 9510-BC
C5AF 9510-BD
C5AF 9510-BT
C5AF 9510-BU
They came in pairs as follows:
BC/BC (yup, both carbs got chokes)
BC/BD
BT/BU
Over the counter replacement carbs were also sold :
C8AF 9510-AC
C8AF 9510-AD
Holley and Ford sold replacement carbs into the early 1980's with the original numbers. I don't have a cross reference of the Holley list numbers but all I have ever seen had the Ford number AND a Holley list number stamped into the air horn. If your carb has no Ford part number it is likely not a replacement carb for a 427 or any other Ford. Can you measure the butterflies and post a picture of the carb(s)? The last set of numbers you added don't look like any Ford Holley number I have ever seen.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | the ER carb is an oem part but not ford.... -- hawkrod, 08/04/2002
i am on the road again so i do not have my books with me but i think it was a lo po chevy truck or an AMC (i remember looking it up once but can't remember!). hawkrod |
| Milling of intake. How much? -- Terry Good, 08/03/2002
I just installed a pair of 427 medium riser heads on my sideoiler and was going to install the sidewinder intake when I came upon a problem. I laid down the intake gaskets and sat the intake on and I noticed the difference in height on where the heads and intake meet at the top where the valve cover sets. I knew the heads had been milled as most medium riser heads have but their was still some of the thumb print there. Will the cork gasket collapse that much when I tighten the intake down or do I need to have the intake milled? I have a Steve Christ book and it tells how much to remove off the intake if you know how much the heads have been milled but I do not have that info. When I set the intake on without gaskets it is flush at the top where it should be with gaskets. Is it possible to still have a thumb print if the heads were milled .060 ? Any idea's on how much you think the heads have been milled? |
| | Sounds like the block might have been milled N/M. -- Royce Peterson, 08/04/2002
N/m |
| | RE: Milling of intake. How much? Unknown -- Ray, 08/04/2002
at this point, take off all gaskets and set manifold back in place, center manifold useing a feeler gauge. Then correct the height with shim stock at both ends of manifold check center again. Say there's .020 cleance at each corner, figuring you have .010 compression for gaskets, subtract .010 that number from your gaskets thickness and that should give you a good idea how much to take off manifold or heads. Ray |
| | RE: Milling of intake. How much? -- RCV, 08/06/2002
Terry, email me about the intake. Your email kicks back. |
| Engine "Help" -- BF, 08/03/2002
Can I put this 351/5.8 Windsor, Fl, Dipstick Roller Cam V8 94-97 Engine, in my "65"coupe? What year and models should I look |
| More on the guy getting 2 free 427's -- David Thayer, 08/03/2002
There is a neat board for Ford Truck entusiasts, www.fordtrucks.com. A fellow with a couple of old trucks had emailed me telling me of a find he made, well it gets better, this guy did not know a lot about Ford engines, but he Emailed me telling me of an old wooden boat (that had sat in a lot for years) being dismantled, he said there were 2 light blue engines that appeared to be FE type, complete with all of the marine drives. The owners of the lot were going to haul them to the dump and told him he could have them if he wanted. He again emailed me, telling me they had light blue valve covers saying "300 HP" and asking if I thought it would be worth his time to get them home. Of course, I told him I suspected them to be 427's and by all means get them home as they have to have some value. Multiple emails back and forth, with him going out to look for this and that,, pulling the marine drives off, asking more questions, he gives me the final blow, both engines have 3 small hex plugs above each crossbolt on the driver's side!! |
| | RE: Another pair were found at Lake Powell -- Craig Nelson, 08/21/2002
I heard a similar story a few years ago about a similar old wooden boat on Lake Powell that was being dismantled. It was powered by two 427 FEs as well. Wonder how many marine 427s are out there? |
| Do I run the oil slpash gaurds or not? -- James Dodson, 08/01/2002
An avid FE builder told me that since I was running to Edelbrock heads that I didn't need to run those splash shields. The reason that I was given was that Edelbrock puts such good seals on the valves that you don't need them. What is the real story? |
| FE clutch fork compatability -- Ted Young, 08/01/2002
Will the clutch fork from a light ford pickup with a 390 work in a stick shift (floor shift) 1967 Galaxie with a 390? I THINK the fork came out of 76 F100. I can get the dimensions etc.... Does anyone have a pic or schematics of a Galaxie clutch fork? Thanks for any help.
Ted |
| 428CJ rear end vs Boss 302 -- Stuart Cofer, 07/31/2002
I have a 1970 Mustang 428CJ 4-speed car that has an incorrect 28 spline rear end.I have found a 31 spline posi and axles from a 1970 Boss 302.I kow they will interchange but does the Boss N case have the same Daytona yoke or will I have to change out? |
| | All N case rears came with Daytona pinion.... -- Just Strokin, 08/02/2002
support in the late 60's-70's that I have ever seen. This by no means the final word, Ford has done some crazy things over the years. |
| | | only N case rears in hipo cars came with Daytona. -- hawkrod, 08/02/2002
not all N case rear ends had daytona pinion supports, but all mustangs torinos etc... with boss or CJ engines that came with an N case also came with a daytona support. funny part is a ton of F100's came with N cases in the 60's but i have yet to find one with a daytona pinion support. however i have found a bunch of daytona pinion supports on NON N case F100's! never figured out the logic of that one. also the 72's with small bearing N cases usually do not have daytona supports. hawkrod |
| | | | RE: only N case rears in hipo cars came with Daytona. -- joe.s, 08/03/2002
daytona support?? pardon my illiterate question, but what is that? i've heard people talk about it but i've never seen one, i don't think. thanks |
| | | | | RE: only N case rears in hipo cars came with Daytona. -- hawkrod, 08/03/2002
the daytona pinion support is a heavy duty version of the front support that the pinion gear is mounted in. here is a link to a page that has a pretty good breakdown of 9 inch info; http://www.kevinstang.com/Ninecase.htm
hawkrod |
| | | | | | RE: only N case rears in hipo cars came with Daytona. -- Stuart Cofer, 08/05/2002
Thanks for the help guys.What a great link for 9 inch rearends! |
| gaskets or no gaskets -- john, 07/31/2002
should i use gaskets on my 390 GT exhaust manifolds or not? did they come with them from factory? thanks |
| | Please don't use gaskets. -- Royce Peterson, 07/31/2002
They did not have gaskets from the factory, nor did any of the 289's or 302's or 438CJ's. You need to be sure there is not a major flatness problem and no heavy rust pitting. Surfaces should be clean and not oily. Give the mating surface a light coat of silicone sealant and torque the bolts per the shop manual. You will never have a problem if you do this.
Royce Peterson |
| | | use that stuff that has the copper in it. n/m -- James Dodson, 08/01/2002
n/m |
|