Skip Navigation Links.
 |  390 overheating?!? -- Josh, 07/08/2002
The 390 in my truck is overheating once I turn the truck off for a couple minutes and then restart. The temp spikes to 210-220 when I restart and then quickly drops to 170-180. Driving around and even at idle it is 170-180?!? Maybe a bad radiator cap? Any insight is greatly appreciated! Thanks and hope everyone had a good 4th.
Josh |
|  | RE: 390 overheating?!? -- Bob, 07/08/2002
That's normal. When the engine is turned off the internal heat is trapped sincce the water stops circulating and there is no air flow across the block.
The only way I know to fix this is with an electric fan AND an electric water pump. |
|  | That’s called a heat soak -- Barry B, 07/08/2002
And like Bob says, it’s perfectly normal. 220* is nothing, on a really hot day it will peg. Your cap is fine, it’s holding pressure so you can make it up to that temp. Otherwise it would boil out at 212* at sea level.
Relax! |
| |  | Oh yeah, antifreeze... -- Barry B, 07/08/2002
That raises the boiling point too. They don't like you puking that at the track. |
| | Thanks for the info guys! -- Josh, 07/10/2002
Glad to know it is normal on a hot day! |
| 428cj & Scj V 's GT 500, what's different? -- pop428, 07/08/2002
I own a mach 1 428cjr And I was wondering is there any real difference between the two engines? Do they share the same engine components eg: heads, manifold, crank, rods, are they basically the same? I would really like to know..
Thanks for any replies.
Peter. |
| | Nothing. -- Royce Peterson, 07/08/2002
Peter,
The 1968 GT500 Shelby used a 428 PI engine which is not a CJ. In mid -1968 model year the GT500KR came out. Shelby used the same everything in 1968 GT500KR's as the 1968 428CJ Mustang.
In 1969 Shelby Mustangs had the same 428CJ you could get in a regular Mustang. A few got the drag pac option consisting of the same equipment as a standard Mustang.
There were no 1970 Shelby's, only rebadged 1969's.
Royce Peterson |
| |  | Royce: Thanks for clearing it up! -- pop428, 07/08/2002
So the Shelby wasn't really the " King of the road" ;-)
It had too share........And with all the extra weight which comes with a Shelby a 68 428cj would of been quicker? |
| | | | A base Mustang coupe would be quicker... -- Royce Peterson, 07/08/2002
with optional 428CJ and a couple hundred pounds less weight.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | RE: A base Mustang coupe would be quicker... -- pop428, 07/08/2002
Yeh!
Did the KR have Glass front panels like a 69? or was it a full metal Jacket job? |
| | | | | | RE: A base Mustang coupe would be quicker... -- Royce Peterson, 07/08/2002
The 68 Shelby hood and nose section are Fiberglas. Fenders are steel.
Royce PEterson |
| | | | | | | A Good weight lose! -- pop428, 07/08/2002
that would give it a good account for it's KR title....
Great Shelby lesson Royce!
Any Cougars get the same treatment?
Thanks heaps once again Mate!!
|
| | | | | | | | Shelby Cougar's -- Royce Peterson, 07/09/2002
Mercury wanted to get into the act too so Shelby Automotive was hired to do a Cougar version for 1968, Dan Gurney was the figurehead for the XR7-G program. For tons of info on XR7-G's visit my website:
www.theclassiccougarnetwork.com/xr7g
Understand that there were also "Dan Gurney Special" Cougars and Cyclones that had nothing to do with Shelby Automotive. Only the XR7-G was built at A.O. Smith corp alongside the Shelby Mustangs. 200 were ordered for Hertz as part of the "Rent - A - Racer" program and another batch was sold to the public. The XR7-G was only built during the 1968 model year.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | | | Outstanding, I'll look your site up :-) n/m -- pop428, 07/09/2002
n/m |
| | 428cj & Scj V 's GT 500, what's different? -- Doug, 07/09/2002
The 428 PI engine in the '68 GT500 is listed at 360HP.
The 428CJ/SCJ/KR is listed at 335HP. Other than an aluminum intake on the PI I don't know of any other diffs. |
| | | RE: 428cj & Scj V 's GT 500, what's different? -- salid, 07/10/2002
The PI and the CJ are very similar. The real difference is the heads. The C80E-N CJ heads have larger valves and runners than the C8AE-H PI heads. The 67 GT500s used the C7AE-A heads, also small runner/ small valve. The blocks also have some minor oiling defferences and the CJs have extra webs on the main journals. The rotating assembly could have been the same for 68 CJs and 67 or 68 PIs. Same crank and rods ( but not the same as the SCJ). See Shoe's excellent post on 428 pistons. So, all that said, the difference in performance between the PI and the CJ is above 4000 rpm. Bigger valves and runners make better big end power and don't fall off so fast. 68 Shelbys also had glass trunk deck and rear quarter extensions. The convertible parts were also used on the California Special coupes. Even with glass tails the Shelbys still weighed more than the Mustang. The Shelby Registry says that the 68 GT500 weighs 3445 and the KR 3570. Add another 150 for typical weight. Add another 150 for convertible. |
| | RE: Super Cobra Jet is Different -- J. Wofford, 07/10/2002
The 428 Super Cobra Jet ...SCJ Was rated at 5 More H.P. than the CJ & Has LeMans style Connecting Rods...
I do Believe..............
JW |
| 69 Mustang- 390 Question. -- Pat, 07/07/2002
Hi Guy's, I am working on my 69 Mustang which has a 390 4V IP engine. It looks like the exhaust manifolds are cracked and one broken ear. I can't see the part numbers on the manifolds so my question is what are the casting and part numbers. I have found a set but the numbers are C80E9430A and C60E9431A. Can you die hard FE guy's help...thanks for your time. |
| | casting numbers will get you close but... -- hawkrod, 07/08/2002
late 68 and 69's used a different right manifold but had the same casting number as the earlier one. the late manifold was machined differently to eliminate the use of a spacer. i will try and look at mine in the next day or two if no-one else responds (it is buried in the shop and moving everything may not be fun). also note that the replacement H pipe is late 68/9 but many mustang places don't realize that there is a difference and i have been there too! hawkrod |
| Multi-Port EFI,FE -- CDAY, 07/06/2002
I want to build a 427 or 428 with mutli port EFI. I am considering Force, Edlebrock and/or a Holley Set-up. Does anyone have any experience with FEs that are Multi-port EFI? |
| Oh No!...Not Again!...Low Oil Pressure -- John, 07/06/2002
With the many letters in this forum regarding low oil pressure combined with my own experience with these engines, it seems that oil pressure should be about 20 psi (hot) at idle and 75 to 80 psi (cold)where it's limited by the oil pump bypass valve. I usually get about 60 psi with hot oil at 2000 rpm with 10W40. After having to rebuild my engine due to low oil pressure (cracked block and antifreeze stripped the bearings) I have found to my dismay low oil pressure again. Right from the intial cranking with the plugs out to the first start up. It's not getting worse, but drops below 10psi once the oil gets up to over 200degF. I am using 10W30 mineral oil to seat the rings and had planned to switch to 5W50 synthetic about now. I didn't check the bearing clearances this time (they should be 0.0025")as the machine shop I deal with has always put them where I want them every other time (a mistake I see now). Other than having the crank turned and a different new oil pump and pick-up, everything else is the same. The engine is a 428 with plugged lifter galleries for the solid lifter cam. All the oil gallery plugs are threaded. Has anybody ever experienced this low oil pressure after a rebuild? The engine runs fine with no noise and no smoke. Does anyone think that the switch to 5W50 will cause a significant increase in pressure? I just wonder if I left the threaded plug out of the block behind the cam gear....I know all the others are in for sure...nah....couldn't have made that mistake. |
| | Dumb Question -- Lou, 07/06/2002
What make you so sure that your gage is telling you the correct pressure? |
| | | RE: Dumb Question -- John, 07/06/2002
it's a borden tube gauge, and was previously checked against a standard when I had the problwem before...and that's not a dumb question.....my first guess is to tell people that the electric gauges typically have bad sensors..thanks anyway |
| | RE: Oh No!...Not Again!...Low Oil Pressure -- Bob, 07/06/2002
I'd use 15W-40 or 50/ That should be fine.
JMO of course. |
| | Another Clue -- John, 07/07/2002
Changed the oil today. It was clean. No debris. I even filtered some through a coffee filter (very slow). Nothing there. Then I cut the oil filter apart. Not great. There is a slight smattering of copper particles on the pleated filter. Not very much, but it's there. Now trying to be optomistic, I do have a manual transmission car and there is always extra wear on the sides of the middle main bearing which takes a lot of pressure when the clutch is depressed. Also, it is very difficult to align the bearing cap "perfectly" with the main saddle which may account from some intial wear at a "high" point. Anybody think this might be normal for a newly rebuilt engine with only 1 or 2 hours on it? (I don't think I'm going to like the answer on this one). Just trying to decide wether I should add the "expensive" synthetic and run it for a while to see what happens, or just bite the bullet and tear it down again. |
| | | Sudden Oil Pressure Increase -- John, 07/10/2002
Just for the curious, I changed to 20W50 mineral oil to finish the break-in and got a few more psi out of the oil pressure. The second time I drove the car after this, the oil presure suddenly increased. I now have almost normal oil pressure. I know the gauge is OK. All I can think of is a bit of "debris" from the rebuild caused the oil pressure relief valve to stick open slightly. The new thicker viscosity oil at a higher rpm caused the valve to open further and then go back to fully closed. But of course some damage is already done. Heaven forbid, but I might try to change the main bearings with the engine in the car after the summer is over. |
| Cast Iron FE Headers? -- Dewain, 07/06/2002
I was referred to the main forum by a friend, but no one answered my question. Another friend said that they were cast iron headers from a Ford FE, possibly 427? Anyway, I got these things from a dead beat, non-paying customer. Here are the numbers cast onto them. On the bottom number the G is right below the second 2.
C3AE-9431-B
C2AE-2480-B
G
Would someone please tell me what these are for, and possibly what they are worth? I'm hoping to get at least my parts cost out of them! |
| | RE: Cast Iron FE Headers? -- kevin, 07/06/2002
They are for a Galaxie. They originally came out on the 406 in 62, but will fit 60 to 64 frames. Going price depending on condition is from 300 to 500. Look carefully for cracks, spray them with oven cleaner, scrub em up a little at the car wash (watch for splatter) and inspect. What part of the country are you in? There is always somebody wanting them, even if they are HEAVY. |
| | | RE: Cast Iron FE Headers? -- Dewain, 07/06/2002
Kevin,
Thanks for the reply. It looks like I might actually get my money out of this guy afterall! I am in SE MO, and thank you for the interest, but I will probably put these on eBay. |
| | | | RE: Cast Iron FE Headers? -- Bob, 07/07/2002
Those are somewhat rare 427 Cast Iron factory Tri-Y manifolds. They only fit FEs in the '62-'64 Galaxie chassis They are excellent headers for the street. |
| | | RE: Cast Iron FE Headers? -- Robert, 07/12/2002
A big "thank you" from all FE enthusiasts for your informative site. Robert |
| | | | Glad you found my site useful. n/m -- Bob, 07/12/2002
n/m |
| Spacer Plate -- Rob, 07/03/2002
When I pulled the 390 from a 69 Mach I recently it did not have a spacer plate between the C6 tranny and the engine block. Am considering a 391/428 replacement with proper refinements. I would assume the spacer plate is important but wonder what it does?
|
| | RE: Spacer Plate -- John Saxon, 07/04/2002
Rob,
The plate you are referring to serves a few different purposes,it places the starter in the position for proper drive to ring gear engagement(depth wise),it also spaces the tranny back some to prevent bottoming the torque converter drive lugs in the front pump rotor,and also serves as a dirt and water shield along with the inspection cover. |
| | it looks like an early 70's truck casting with.... -- hawkrod, 07/02/2002
egr capabilities (the hump on the side of the carb flange). still very odd but probably for a specific purpose or for testing. hawkrod |
| C7TE-C heads -- Troy, 07/02/2002
My brother picked up an industrial "428" with these heads. Is it for real? If not, what do these heads come factory on? I'm looking for cc volume, valve sizes, any particulars. Thanks for the help. |
| | they are standard FT heads. -- Dave Shoe, 07/05/2002
The industrial 428 engines that I'm aware of have a Cobra Jet short block and standard FT heads as you'd find on a 361/391 heavy truck.
I don't recall what cam it got, but I believe it's a regular FT cam.
They come with standard 2-barrel FT intake and exhaust manifolds, but use a propane single barrel carburetor with an adapter to mount it to the intake.
These were popular in irrigation pump applications.
Shoe. |
| | | Thanks Shoe, I've got a couple of quick ?'s left.. -- Troy, 07/06/2002
Right on the nose Dave, this motor was used in an irrigation application.
What is the combustion chamber size and what was nominal compression?
Also, would these heads already have hardened seats in them or would a rebuild with different valves and seats be necessary to run unleaded fuel?
Thanks for the information. If this motor is a legit 428 with the CJ shortblock, then it will make one heck of a rebuilder! |
| | | | Dump the heads. -- Dave Shoe, 07/06/2002
The heads are unuseable for any performance applications, so the CC is not relevant.
Also, the 428 Irrigation service manual is loaded with errors. I believe the documentation department was alloted about 30 minutes to assemble a manual and they didn't exactly get all the facts correct. Since I haven't seen an irrigation 428 up close (except for the one cyl head I've got), I'm only going by what I recall from other folks descriptions.
Shoe. |
| | | | | This is going to be a low rpm motor. -- Troy, 07/06/2002
This motor is going to be a low-rpm grunter designated for use a grain truck. My dad has a 1964 F-600 with an anemic 330 and 5 speed tranny with hi-low rear end. We're hoping a freshly overhauled 428 will give the old girl some snap. I'd be suprised if it ever saw more than 4000 rpm once installed in the truck. Really suprised.
So, will these heads be make low rpm power yet yield streetable compression or should we go with some later model castings to lower compression to today's fuels capability?
Info I've seen on early FE's shows compression up around 10.5:1. That's plenty high for 87 octane but if the cam is chosen wisely, it might work. |
| | | | | | The compression will be too high. -- Dave Shoe, 07/07/2002
If you keep those heads, you'll be able to use the truck's stock exhaust system (bolts right up), and naturally you'll be forced to use the FT intake manifold with those heads.
Still, I see the compression sitting around 10.0:1 (not calculated - just guessing based on info fragments) which is too high for a big truck, regular gasoline, or a mild camshaft. Note that the irigation service manual falls flat on it's face when describing the compression ratio of the motor, as it simply lists 428PI specs verbatim. This is not correct.
Mild camshafts offer the highest static compressions because the intake valve closes so early. This makes detonation an issue.
I believe the propane fuel is tougher to detonate and also offers less energy than gasoline, so the 428 irrigation motor was able to use the higher compression without problems.
You might try installing a 390 crankshaft in the block to create a low-compression 406. Note that all iron cranks are made of nodular iron. The 390 crank is stronger and stiffer than any 428 crank and would allow using cheap cast 428CJ pistons. I have not done the math, but suspect you cound get truck-like "performance" compressions outta this combo.
Note that the 390 pickup truck uses 410 car pistons to achieve it's reduced compression. The 360 pickup uses 390-4V car pistons to achieve it's reduced compression, too. Note that these compressions are still about a point higher than the 330/361/391 FT engines.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | Dave, your the best. -- Troy, 07/07/2002
I appreciate all your help. My old man has several 390's around his shop. If I get this right, we could use a 390 crank, rods, and pistons and get compression down, theoritically have a more durable combination, and use the C7 heads? We've actually got a 390 that was overhauled with about 10K on it and then we decided we had a crack in the block. It was mixing oil into the antifreeze resulting in a runny pudding effect in the radiator. The 390 was a 1974 model so I know it has smogger heads on it. Would they go on the 428 block and reduce compression by a point or so?
I know I'm asking a lot of "stupid" questions, but I'm just trying to get the best combo out of the existing parts the old man already has laying around. |
| | | | | | | | I agree with ya Troy -- P, 07/08/2002
ole Dave is a walking national archive.
P |
| | | | | | | | I believe all FT heads have the same cc volume. -- Dave Shoe, 07/08/2002
The FT did gain thermactor bosses during the emissions era (sometimes machined for thermactor tubes, sometimes not), but the head seems to have remained unchanged other than that.
I believe you'll get about the same compression with any FT head.
Keep in mind the exhaust crossover casting is way different between the FE and the FT, so if you use FT heads you must use FT manifolds, and if you use FE heads you can use FE manifolds or aftermarket goodies. When you speak of 390 heads, I'm not sure whether you are referring to 390FE heads or 391FT heads.
Also, 428CJ rods with the 13/32 bolts are the same as 3/8" bolt 390 rods from mid-63 and later. The only difference is how they get drilled for bolts at the engine plant. At 4000 RPM, there is no need for the larger bolt.
Shoe. |
| cutting out- I give up -- Craig, 07/02/2002
1961 tbird 390.
She runs great. Rebuilt and balanced about 1500 miles ago.
Pulls a steady 20 hg, idles smooth. New points. condenser, coil [this morning] plugs wires, etc..
Carb overhauled 300 miles ago. No cracks in Cap, and new rotor.
Plenty of fuel [I pulled of the air horn] and after it dies, it starts right back up. I tightened the ground strap.
Have I missed something? |
| | check the gas cap.... -- hawkrod, 07/02/2002
wrong gas cap will seal tank and vacuum will build to the point the fuel pump can't over come it. take the cap off and go for a ride. also any big pieces of crud in the tank can get pulled against the pick up and plug it until you shut it off. good luck, hawkrod |
|