Have you asked the guy's at:

http://www.shelbyparts.com/

The RPM cam by Edelbrock is not a rough idle cam, slightly rougher than stock but not lopey. Your engine is fine and you'll like the cam I think. Bigger is not always better, heavy loping may be fine for flat out track racing but not too great for street....try it out for awhile and I think you'll be happy. It makes good power.

It is not a good thing to have inside. I dont remember anyone having heat problems, bu there is the chance it can come loose. All the Chevy engines seemed to have a chunk here or there when I pulled them apart. Polish it instead, (unless he's too lazy) this is the omly way to keep a clean engine. There is epoxy based electric motor paint that works better anyway. After acid dipping, or blasting, I sprayed it on and baked them in oven. They are impervious to anything except laquer thinner and stand up to 300 degrees no problem.

It does sound sorta like a healthy 360/390 block that may be good for .060" overbore or slightly more, sonic permitting. If you plan to bore and build-up, a sonic map is worth it for peace of mind with regards to core shift.

I have a 428 "A" block which will accept a 14/64 in a spot or two, but will accept a 15/64" nowhere. The few 360/390s I've checked will typically accept a 16 or 17 in a location or two, block dependent.

My 428 "A" passenger block does not have reinforced mains, and neither does your block. This should not be a concern. There is a semi-substantiated rumor that Ford (and all other manufacturers) reduced the tensile strength of the cast iron used in their engine blocks by almost 10% as the muscle car era was replaced by the Arab oil embargo and resulting recession, so it's possible the D4 block was made of a slightly different iron. Again, this would not likely be cause for adjustment of your build-up plans, just rumor passing. I'll follow up as I learn more.

C6AE rods could very easily be factory-installed rods and should be considered street-race rods after installing ARP bolts and then giving them the requisite reconditioning for the new bolts. All 390 rods since mid-63 are great rods, don't sweat the forging numbers.

What kind of headers do you have. If they're Hookers they won't port match the heads and will leak along the bottom of the gasket. Most headers don't port match these heads, so beware. You'll need some "low-flange FPA" or equivalent "emissions era" type headers.

A 428 crank will buy you an extra 5-10 horsies and 15 foot pounds, but I'm not sure it's worth the hassle. The 390 crank is stronger (not that it matters), and you've already got it. The 390 crank will rev out farther and sound meaner doing it.

The "full emissions" heads are always worth an easy 400HP (not considering any specific engine), and are generally more efficient than the large runner heads at the lower RPMs. Your 390 should readily make this kind of power. I'd run an Ed Perf RPM intake with 'em. Alternatives include the 427MR/428PI intake.

Since .060" over tentatively looks more appropriate for the block than .080", I'd suggest 390+.060 Silvolites, or something equivalent. 428 factory pistons are reinforced slightly more than 390 factory pistons, so I'd opt for the aftermarket if revving beyond 6000 is in the cards. If you plan to play in the 5500 range and below, factory cast pistons will last forever, though a properly selected 5500 limit will likely have you cammed a bit too mildly to hit a solid 400 flywheel horsies. With the shorter 390 stroke crank you can reliably rev and extra 300-500RPM above the more flexible 410/428 crank, and this buys the missing horsepower and a frightening exhaust sound.

This is just preliminary BS. A sonic map will tell you more abbout the block. It sounds like you've got the basics for a good running FE. I don't recommend cams, as others are better at this than me. I will recommend that you MUST have rockershaft end support stands to run this motor. If you don't buy them, you'll soon learn why they were recommended. Rockershaft dowel kits are also a nice option with a build like yours.

JMO,
Shoe.

Paul, looks like your block has the extra webbing for the mains, it's the extra rib in the middle. Compare yours to the pics here:

http://www.428cobrajet.com/id-block.html

I think that is a canned statement to get them off the hook in case something does not clear. My H-S rockers fit under both "Power By Ford" stock covers and the pent roof "Running Cat" valve covers made by Shelby American for the FE. You should not have a problem. By the way they also work fine with the stock oil diverters.

Royce Peterson

I looked into this and come up with $3200.00 as an approximate budget for me to install a throttle body, sequential EFI system.

If you can't tune a carburetor this job is too technical for you. Carbs are way simple. They are also reliable and cheap. Not being insulting here, just honest.

Royce Peterson

Equa Lock is the limited slip rear used in 8" and 9" differentialed cars through midyear 1968, Traction-lok was used from mid-1968-on. (Note that the 8.8" Traction-lok is based on the same engineering concepts as the 8"/9" but is a completely different product).

Equa Lock offered a constant friction differential between the rear wheels. It was a bit much on slippery corners and not quite enough on hard dragstrip starts.

Traction-lok is different in that it varies the friction coupling between the rear wheels based on how much torque is being delivered by the driveshaft. On slippery corners when minimal throttle will be used the coupling is low, allowing the rear wheels to spin easily a different speeds and thus preventing slip. On hard, straight drag starts, the coupling between rear wheels is at a maximum.

Traction-lok's reduced coupling at low driveshaft torques is achieved by the use of a small coil spring which applies only a small force to the clutchpack. This will offer slight coupling in sand and snow when the traction conditions only allow slight traction from each wheel anyway. At high driveshaft torques the spider gears inside the differential provide a ramming effect against the axlegear, and the axle gear presses on the clutchpack, forcing a hard lockup.

Fuel injection would be a good idea, but a Royce mentioned, this is an area where you need prior knowledge if you expect good results. Most FE folk opt for carburetion because it's cheap and easy to dial in. You can make more power with a properly installed fuel injection system, but only if the whole engine is properly wired and only if the right type of fuel injection is selected and if job is done just right.

One thing you'll want to determine is the casting number on the heads. Most likely they are the C6AE-U or C7AE-A castings which are "full emissions" castings with exhaust ports positioned lower on the head than 1958-65 heads and smaller "velocity-type" intake runners than the 1958-65 heads. There's about a 30% chance you've got C6AE-R head castings which are a "transition emissions" design. By "transition", I mean it contains some features of pre-emissions head castings and also has some features from the emissions era. C6AE-R was only available on about 1/3 of the FEs and only in 1966-67, and the engines appear to be selected at random.

"Full emissions" and "transition emissions" heads do not use the same type of header. In some cases you'll want to use different intake manifolds, so you'll need to pay attention to details here. Both types of heads will make 400 flywheel horsepower with little effort, but the transition head will tend to breath better as the RPMs climb and horsepower moves beyond 450. If horsepower moves beyond 450, you're going to have a high-revving hot-cammed engine with mediocre gas mileage. Since you're looking for fuel efficiency, 450HP is likely not a target and either head type will likely work well for you.

If you are looking for extra horsepower without driveability or mileage issues, you may want to look at the expense of a mild roller cam. It'd probably be cheaper horsepower than fuel injection, and the efficiency of a modern-profile roller cam would make sense if you went the fuel-injection route. Since a roller cam is probably not in the budget, I won't go into many details - not that I know all that many details anyway.

Most likely, you'll want an Edelbrock Performer RPM intake. This is ideally suited to a 390 with either type of head. Don't even think of buying a "performer" or "performer 390" intake - they're not performance intakes.

Hooker headers will only work with C6AE-R heads (and 427 and CJ and 1965-earlier heads) because the Hooker header flange is designed to match the high-positioned exhaust port. FPA makes a tri-Y design in two styles, one fits the high-positioned exhaust port, the other fits the low-positioned exhaust port. Note they semi-erroneously call the "low positioned" header the 390GT header. It's true it'll work on all 390GT heads, but if you have an FE with C6AE-R castings you really should get the 427/428CJ headers from FPA (www.fordpowertrain.com). FPA headers fit great and are reputed to be particularly high in quality. They're not cheap, but cheap FE headers disappeared 15 years ago.

The stock connecting rods are fine performance pieces. They become great street performance pieces when ARP bolts are installed, and are then resized to match the higher clamping force the new bolts provide. The cranks are a famously strong nodular iron design. The blocks should be sonic-mapped prior to boring, just to be sure you've got minimal core shift. If anybody tells you the C6, C7, or C8 casting number which might be on the side of the block means it's a 428 block, thell them they're full of it. This was an incorrect rumor started long ago and popularized in more recent books.

This scratches the surface. Hope it helps.

Shoe.

You can take suitable a carb intake, have the injector bungs welded into it, use aftermarket fuel rails, and use a Mustang harness and computer with few alterations to the harness. Once it is functioning, you should not have to mess with the injection system on a regular basis.
This is by no means a budget build for you , since you would be farming out the work, but it is an option.

Ed

I have a mechanical gauge that I connect temporarily so I can see what the oil pressure really is. I have gotten more than one bad "new" sending unit although not lately.

The oil pressure sensor is the usual culprit. The little beehive shaped housing has a diaphram inside it, and they eventually can spring a small leak. As the pressure equalizes on both sides of the diaphram, low oil pressure is indicated. You can teporarily cure this by drilling a small hole in the beehive housing near the electrical contact. You will get a small oil leak, but it will confirm the problem. For an "idiot" light, a switch is used instead. The switches are far less prone to failure. Knowing this, and because you changed the unit with no success, I'd say you actually do have a reduction in oil pressure. This is not good. It is almost always caused by worn main bearings. Since the engine was recently rebuilt, there are many other things that could be the cause, such as a oil gallery plug that worked loose (it amazes me the pressed in ones stay as it it). It could be a loose oil pick-up (very common) or a loose oil pump (both items should be loctited during assembly and lockwired if possible). So, what to do? First verify the low oil pressure with a mechanical gauge against the oil pressure switch's specs (usually illuminates around 6 psi). If the oil pressure is low, then remove the pan and check the oil pick-up and oil pump. If everything is still all right, remove the valve covers and check the ends of the rocker shafts for the pressed in plugs and the rocker stands for tightness. Still ok? Remove the intake manifold and check all the oil gallery plugs you can locate. Still nothing? Remove the engine and check the rear oil galllery plugs. Last....strip the engine down and face the rebuild scene. Some people may try to tell you that a clogged oil filter is the culprit, but oil filters have a bypass in them to allow circulation if plugged or if the oil is very thick and cold. My similiar problem was found to be a cracked block that allowed antifreeze to mix with the oil and ruin the main bearings. Hope your problem is less severe.

Well, I installed a mechanical unit today and changed the oil filter anyway to my dismay, I was getting a reading of around 22-25 psi @ 2500 rpm. So I have to decide weather to yank the engine right now or try some of John's suggestions which will probably lead up to that anyway.

What are the casting numbers on both the new and old heads?

n/m

Jeff;

I've heard about the Scat cranks and I'd like to get one installed in my FE, but I don't have any info yet.