Skip Navigation Links.
 |  casting numbers -- doug, 05/01/2002
doing a rebild on what i think is a 351 clev. 2v. casting is behind the starter . D2AE-CA AND A LITTLE TAG BELOW IT . 1G9 OR LG9. WILL THIS NUMBERS GIVE ME A YEAR OR WHAT IT CAME IN.
DOUG |
 | 9" id -- Ed, 05/01/2002
Going through my old 9" center sections, I came across 1 with the letters SPEC cast into the pad where the date code usually is. It is a 2 rib unit with 31 spline guts - Any ideas? |
|  | ya got yerself an early N case there.... -- hawkrod, 05/01/2002
it will say C4AW on the inside casting. i have seen severl 66 and 67 cars with the SPEC date code. i once found a pair of GT C8AE-H heads that had it as well. i assume it means special but who knows for sure after all these years. hawkrod |
 | Fun Ford Weekend -- Kelly Mullins, 05/01/2002
Is anyone going to the Fun Ford Weekend at Houston?
I'm going and would like to hook up with anyone that will be there. Also need any info as to what time things get kicked off, never been before.
Thanks
Kelly |
| 390 Project -- Ted Young, 04/30/2002
I bought a 390 engine at a swap meet this weekend and plan to drop it into my 68 Torino. It has an Edelbrock Performer 390 intake, and heads that read C6AE-R . I am not sure what cam it has in it yet. The problem is, I need to drill the heads for Mustang/Fairlane headers as the heads came off of a 352 in a truck. I have access to a heavy duty drill press, but they do not drill cast iron there so I need to supply a bit. What material drill bit and Tap do I need to get to do this job? Secondly, would larger CJ valves promote more power and torque at all RPM's? I would like to give the motor a torquey stoplight racer attitude - basically a great street motor that will readily spin the tires. I am not that familiar with the FE's and I will have more questions. Please look out for my posts to follow. Does anyone know any good message boards that advertise FE parts for sale? Thanks a lot for all of your help.
Ted |
|  | Cast iron is relatively easy to drill. -- Dave Shoe, 04/30/2002
Any drill press should handle cast iron without hassle.
Cast iron is much easier to drill than steel, but it's critical that you do NOT let the drill bit overheat and burn the iron, or you'll recombine the carbon flake with the iron, creating iron carbide - impossible to drill through and guaranteed to instantly dull drill bits.
Start with a fresh drill bit and use some coolant (oil or water work with cast iron) to keep the iron wet as you drill. Actually, it's not that critical that the iron stay lubed all the time, but the first time you overheat and create carbides, you'll understand what the problem is.
Be sure to drill no deeper than the factory-drilled lower exhaust holes, or else you'll likely hit water. Use an "end tap" so you can cut "full" threads deeper into the shallow hole than a standard "tapered" tap which you start the hole with. Depending on core shift inside the head, you might hit water anyway, so measure twice and be alert.
CJ sized valves work well in these excellent heads, and it's a worthwhile upgrade.
The Edelbrock Performer 390 is not good for those heads, as it's cast for small-runner heads. I'd look for an RPM, F427, MR/PI, or sidewinder intake. A Blue Thunder might be a bit big for the 390, but it's a great street intake which is perfect for those heads.
I'd also weld-up the exhaust heat crossover in any non-stock FE manifold.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | Is a C4SE intake a better choice? -- Ted Young, 05/01/2002
I have a C4SE 4v iron intake with the larger runners. Would this intake give the engine enough power to make the car faster despite the weight disadvantage? I also noticed that the Performer's runners seem to be a bit taller in the intake then in the 64 4v intake. Please keep in mind that I would like the engine to be streetable. I appreciate your help.
Thanks for your time,
Ted |
| | | | Stick to the Edelbrock. -- Dave Shoe, 05/01/2002
The 1958-65 iron intake design is good for quiet cruising and basic road jostling, but it sits pretty low and makes the air turn corners pretty hard to get to the heads.
I'm not fond of the Edelbrock Performer intake (non-RPM version), or the earlier version of the same thing the Edelbrock 390, but if you've got it you might as well use it in place of the stock iron. It does sit a little higher for a straighter shot and probably has a better flowing plenum under the carb. The runners are what bite, in my opinion (I've never used one of these intakes, so my info is basically BS).
If you want some easy horsepower in the future, just replace the intake with a MR-era performance intake or RPM.
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: Edelbrock/Heat Crossover -- Mike McQuesten, 05/02/2002
I generally agree with most if not all of Shoe's recommendations and advice. So all I'm adding here is just a bit of personal experience with an Edelbrock Performer. It's a little counter to what you're saying but I don't think you'll mind.
On a 428 Cobra Jet with the correct heads, C8OE-N, I ran four intakes. First, a C7AE aluminum PI intake. It worked very well with three different carbs, the original 735 Holley; a '62 Merc 1.12 Autolite (jetted up a little); and thanks to a friend I even ran an 830 CFM Double Pumper. A note: the double pumper felt good and sounded good but it didn't perform any better than the 735. And the Autolite 1.12 (as has been shown, they're not a full 600 CFM) worked about as well as the 735! All of this is in relation to actual on the strip ETs & MPH.
Then I switched to an old '60s era dual four Offy with two Edelbrock 500 CFMs. Just for fun is why. It looked cool. It worked nicely but no better than the PI & the variety of carbs I had used. I ran the two E-brocks in progression and simultaneously. It didn't make a bit of difference. No bog. No problems. Sucked a lot of fuel and it just didn't turn a better ET/MPH. So off it came and back to the owner.
So now what? Why not try the Edelbrock '70s era Streetmaster. I'd had it awhile. Had not ever used it. It was port matched to the CJ intake runners and all the necessary work was done as per Edelbrock's instructions. Turned out to be a bad deal. I've told the story before so let it suffice to say that it leaked coolant(on the maiden run with pure water only) at #1 intake port. Ugly internal mess. Off it came and a lot of time spent cleaning things up. So....
There was no RPM available yet. I was planning on "de-tuning" the CJ a bit anyway in order to install it in my '68 F100/C-6. The Performer seemed a reasonable available choice for my intentions of utility pick up use. I also decided it was time to pull the 3rd cam I tried, a Schneider solid lifter grind with something in the 230's @ .050. It was a great cam. The best of the three to that point. My new cam was the one offered from Ford Motorsports and I think still is? I can't remember the specs off the top of my head but it was close to the original C6OZ-B GT/PI/CJ cam. I thought this would be a good all around mild stump puller.
How'd it go? Fabulously! This Edelbrock Performer with it's ridiculous appearing runners and that Motorsports cam were perfectly matched. I tested it fully in my '61 Starliner for a few months. I'd never had that much trouble hooking up on the line before. I also switched to the Edelbrock 750 manual choke at this time too. Once I dialed that in with Edelbrock's carb tuning kit and a phone call to Edelbrock, the trio of Motorsports cam, Edelbrock Performer intake and their carb would literally smoke the M&H Street Slicks I commonly used at the strip. My ET/MPH fell back a little. I expected that with the cam change. The Schneider would make horsepower right to 6,000 where the Motorsports cam was done at 5,700. And I was running the same gear ratio by this time, 3.50. My standard ETs/MPH had been high 13's/100-102 mph. With E-brock intake/carb & M-sports cam, 14.0-14.1/98-99 mph. And it now idled like a 390GT. Very smoothly at 550-600 rpm.
So I think Edelbrock did some dyno research in designing those runners/ports. Look at a stock, un port matched PI intake. I don't remember there being that much difference. It seems the smaller intake port in conjunction with the tall port heads works pretty darn well for street utility usage.
Also, about blocking heat crossover passages. I agree with Dave here except why weld them up? There might come a time you want to sell this aluminum intake and there might be a guy who has to drive his/her FE powered vehicle in the cold winter weather. That heat is nice to have to prevent carburetor icing and aide warm up. What I like to do, and it's worked well, is to fill the opening of the heat cross-over passage with about an inch of the good Permatex High Temp red silicone. Just squeeze that tube of good stuff in there and then wipe it off carefully so that you have a nice flat surface on the intake. Let it dry well. The run intake gaskets that like Fel Pros #? that don't offer provision for the cross over. I've found that this Felpro gasket does tend to burn through from the intense heat coming from that head but the high temp silicone keeps it from flowing through thus keeping the intake cooler. Again, it has worked for me a few times and that way I haven't modified an aluminum intake thus maintaining higher future value.
Although, I've found that many old Ford PI intakes have rotted out heat chambers hidden under the oil splash pan. In this case, I've had that chamber cut away leaving just the bosses for the oil splash pan to be reinstalled. Plus I have the cross over head surface hole welded shut and surfaced smooth. No longer is the old PI a good cold climate intake but it's still very usable. Also kind of a good negotiating point at the swap meet when you find a C6AE/C7AE PI intake....."mind if I remove that pan sir? Oh my gosh look at this........" "Hmmm, how much you say you wanted?" |
| | | | | | 68 390cid and 428cid parts interchangeability -- kenny brown, 05/02/2002
will the 4 speed flywheel, starter and clutch on a 1968 mustang gt 390 match up with a 428cid engine |
| | | | | | | RE: 68 390cid and 428cid parts interchangeability -- Gerry Proctor, 05/03/2002
The flywheel, no. The 410/428 FEs (the 3.98" stroke engines) are externally balanced through the flywheel. As to the clutch and starter, yes. |
| | | | | | | | 390 flywheels are easily offset balanced. -- Dave Shoe, 05/03/2002
It's pretty easy to offset-balance a 390 flywheel. You've just got to drill a bunch of holes in the flywheel.
For performance, stock Ford flywheels are not recommended, as iron flywheels are known to grenade at the darndest times. An explosion proof bellhousing is a #1 line of defense, and the 2nd stage upgrade is a steel flywheel. Third in line is a performance pressure plate which won't split apart if a shift is missed.Just be careful when dealing with stock flywheels and bellhousings in a high-revving FE.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | I run my blocked crossovers in Minneapolis. -- Dave Shoe, 05/03/2002
I wondered about how my engine would handle the blocked crossovers in cold weather, and I have no problems at all at -20 degrees F. This is a 452CJ with Blue Thunder intake, an 850DP, and no choke plate. I've installed the choke plate with no improvement in cold starting, so it remains removed. Naturally, I pump the gas to enrichen the starting fuel-air mix.
Below -20F, stock starters don't crank fast enough to start the motor, even with Mobil1 oil. When I try it with a ministarter in the future, I may be able to start in even colder temps. I'm hoping so.
I've purchased some SAE technical papers which discuss carburetor icing problems, a condition which sometimes exists at about 40 degrees F on humid days, but I've never had any carb icing problems myself, and I haven't yet read the papers to learn whether the crossover would help this possible condition out.
The engine runs like a dream (a scary dream, mind you) on the coldest of days. I've got to twiddle the gas pedal a little to activate the accelerator pumps when accelerating from a stop for the first minute or two, but after that, all runs smooth and strong with the heat crossover blocked.
I'm cautious about recommending the use of just a gasket to block the crossover, because the gasket really does bake a bit, and one good strong backfire has been known to blow them out. Backing the gasket with silicone is an interesting idea, but it brings to mind a friend who decided to just use steel wool to block the heat crossover. Naturally this was soon blown out, though it did not seem to damage the engine. I suspect it could have been a disaster. The same intake was powdercoated silver and it turned brown at the crossover humps because the steel wool didn't block the heat.
When I play with engines, I'm not really thinking of resale value that much. Since welding the heat crossover is a permanent change for my intakes, I'm not hesitant to do this. Blocking the heat passage would also slow or stop the corrosion of the crossover chamber, so future value may not deteriorate as badly as one might think. I have sold a few blocked crossover intakes in the past, and their value was never brought into question by the mod.
If the silicone backed gasket works, that's great. I'll stick to good old reliable welding for now.
Also, I appreciate having my opinions questioned. I'm more of a bookworm mechanic, and lotsa forum folk have way more hands-on experience than me. I'm mainly here to learn.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: I run my blocked crossovers in Minneapolis. -- salid, 05/03/2002
I don't think the cross over will help that much with icing. The only time that I know for sure I experienced this was as it was begining to warm up after a snow/rain storm, with the temp at about 35. As the roads began to dry out I was driving reasonably fast. The engine began to run rough and I gave it more throttle (I'm just about the smartest guy I know, if it doesn't seem to be running right, just give it more gas). It coughed back through the carb and the throttle plate wouldn't go back to the idle position. I pulled over and stopped and the engine died. I got out and looked into the carb and there was ice built up on the low pressure side of the front venturis and the bottom of the fuel discharge tube booster venturis. The ring of ice that had been on the driver side booster had come off and had blocked the throttle plate partially open. As I stood there trying to figure out what to do, the engine heat melted the ice and the water ran down into the motor. Problem solved, right? So I jumped back in and started it up and headed down the road (you might be asking yourself, did he say the water ran down into the engine? I told you I was smart). I got about ten miles down the road and the same thing happened again. This time I blocked the throttle open and sat back and took a little nap and let time and temp do the work.
There is a point to this long winded story. The victim car is a 68 500KR which has ram air. The engine was stock, didn't have the cross over blocked but did have the 0.38" phenolic spacer under the carb and cool very humid air dumped straight onto the carb. Cross over heat didn't do anything to prevent carb icing under these circumstances and with this particular installation I don't believe it ever would. In fact, I think I agree with Shoe, if it will start when it's cold, you may not be able to tell whether you got cross over heat or not. By the way, did you ever tear apart an FE and find the cross over completely blocked with carbon? So have I. That may be what cross overs do best, is collect gunk. |
| | | | | | | | RE: Zinc will work too! -- Ray, 05/04/2002
Preheat head with a torch, melt sinc in a plumbers laytel about 750 degress pore into cross over a grind smooth. Makes about 20 more HP. Ray
 |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Zinc will work too! -- Bob, 05/04/2002
Pre-heat the head? how hot? Could zinnc be used to build up the floor on the intake and or exhaust ports? |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: Zinc will work too! -- Ray Tirri, 05/04/2002
Hey Bob, about 200 deg, in the area where your going to pore. It takes about 20 min, from start to finish. What I do is, put heat on the laytel at the same time putting heat on the head. You should do this in steel box to keep the heat in an around the head, and let cool slowly. It will not hold in a open area like a port, so what did there was I used my powder torch to build up areas that I wanted to change like floor of the intake. After straighting the floor, I pick up 30 CFM. Ray
 |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: Zinc will work too! -- Bob, 05/04/2002
Please forgive my ignorance but Powder Torch means nothing to me. Could you provide some more details?
And would zinc stay inthe exhaust port ot would the hot exhaust gases melt it out?
Thanks |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Zinc will work too! -- Ray, 05/04/2002
The sinc will holed in places it's confined to, like the crossovers. A powder torch is a regular axy-acetylene torch with addion of small bottle of iron powder that feeds into the torch depositing the powder on to the cast iron(1500 degress) for any build up or crack fixing that you want to do. |
| | | | | | | Tri-Power. -- KEN BARNES, 05/04/2002
I have a 64 Galaxie w/stock 352,4bl. Plan is to rebuild to 410 CI with 428 crank. I found a Tri-Power manifold at Portland swap meet .The heat crossover is cracked ,but after reading your solution I plan to use it on this engine. The manifold looks original ,but I don't know whats correct and what isn't. The carburetors all mount at different levels,with lowest in front , highest in rear. The center carb has no tag but a number on the housing is #C1AE-9510-AV.Same for rear one but #C1AE-9510-AU. The front one has # 2A1 3164329 ,below this is # 122 List 2463. Are any of these numbers correct ? I have no linkage or air cleaner. There are no casting numbers on the manifold top or bottom. The only mark is a small FO MO CO stamp on the right side between the center carb and right head. Is this manfold a copy or do I have the only one Ford made without a number? I'd appriciate any advice you have on this project . I' v always been a Ford fan but like most people never had time or money to build the car of my dreams so this will be a first. Thanks |
| | | Shoe, please take a look at my 427 sonic map -- Josh, 05/05/2002
Shoe,
When you have a chance, please look at my post on 5/4/02 concerning a sonic map of my 427 center oiler. I would like to get your thoughts on this one. I have never built up a 427 before and I do not want to make a mistake! They are to darn expensive! Thanks.
Josh |
| High riser carb help -- Terry Tobolt, 04/30/2002
I have a problem with clearance against the front carb. I am trying to put on a mallory unilite dist., but the fuel bowl is up tight to the dist cap. I am just using 1 gasket and no spacer - is there supposed to be a spacer between the carb and manfold? I tried to call mallory but i got voice mail. |
| | I imagine..... -- kevin, 05/02/2002
you know whats what on the carb situation. You have the primary's to the rear and they are 4160 series with secondary plates instead of blocks right?. Did you try a Ford dist? You dont have a bigger cap than normal Mallory do you? Which intake do you have # wise? |
| 428 water pump by-pass hose clamp -- x1968x, 04/29/2002
What is the "correct" style (i.e. what came from the factory) hose clamp for the water pump by-pass hose?
Thanks |
| 1969 Mustang buck tag question -- boB, 04/29/2002
What does "RAC" stamped on the buck tag of a '69 Mustang refer to?Thanks. |
| Engine ID -- Dave R., 04/29/2002
How do I determine what engine is in a 69 Mustang? Where are the casting numbers located on the block and where is the engine tag, if it still has one? The motor is supposed to be a 428. How do I tell it from other FE motors? Thanks. |
| | | RE: Tag's on coil brkt. or intake. Here's more info... -- Dave R., 04/29/2002
I can find no numbers stamped or cast into the block at the locations you provided. Any other ideas about how to ID this motor? |
| | | RE: Tag's on coil brkt. or intake. Here's more info... -- Dave R., 04/29/2002
Mr. F, I have further search and found the following numbers on the block. 316DIF is cast into the block on the left side just to the rear of the oil filter adapter. 48 with 352 below it is cast on the front of the block on the left side, near the cylinder head. Cast into the block below the oil filter adapter iare several marks, they appear to be 2913 but I am unable to make them out clearly. Thanks so much. |
| | | | Definitely no cast ID behind alternator, right? [n/m] -- Mr F, 04/29/2002
n/m |
| | | | | RE: Definitely no cast ID behind alternator, right? [n/m] -- Dave R., 04/30/2002
That is correct. No cast number behind the starter, either. Only those numbers and locations I gave you above. |
| | | | | | | RE: Is there a cast 'X' on the R/H side? If so, read this... -- Dave R., 04/30/2002
Sounds like the X he is talking about is under the intake manifold. My engine is installed and running. It is supposed to be a 428 r code in this 69 Mach 1. VIN and data tag bears this out, but can't pinpoint the motor for sure. |
| | | | | | | | Whatever it is, its a late-production piece - prob. 1972.[n/m] -- Mr F, 04/30/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | | | Well, darn - further ID is unlikely w/o some disassembly. [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/01/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Well, darn - further ID is unlikely w/o some disassembly. [n/m] -- Dave R., 05/01/2002
I have it from a reliable source that the engine was professionally rebuilt. My observations of gasket sealer and such seem to bear this out. I have no reason to tear it apart other than to try and verify what CU. IN. it is. Am I correct in assuming that this motor could be any FE series motor, at this point? Just my luck to have some bastard block. With a lack of markings, is it probable that the block is a service part, bought from a dealer as a replacement? Thank you ever so much for your time and effort. |
| | | | | | | | | | Yes & yes, sorry to say. And you're very welcome. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/01/2002
n/m |
| | | RE: You can narrow it down by messureing the stroke -- Dave R., 05/02/2002
Thanks to all of you that took time to share your ideas with me. |
| do I need a valley pan? -- matt, 04/28/2002
I just realized that I forgot to put the valley pan under my intake when I rebuilt my 428. Will it make any difference? I wasn't sure if I really need it or not.
Thanks,
Matt |
| | Good idea! -- Kevin66, 04/28/2002
There's differing opinions on its importance. It's primarily there as a shield, but not everyone's aware it works two ways.
It acts to keep oil splash off the bottom of the intake manifold, so oil residue doesn't bake onto the heat riser passages, and also so the plenum/port runners don't pick up heat from the hot engine oil.
At the same time, it helps prevents the heat from the exhaust crossover passage from 'baking' oil film on the block valley areas.
Most factory manifolds used a rivet-on shield on the bottom, along with this valley baffle. Most aftermarket intakes don't, so probably rely more than ever on the baffle plate being there. |
| 390gt -- Stephen, 04/28/2002
Were can I get a 390gt dip stick and tube. I also need a throttle linkage for this motor.
Thanks
Stephen |
| | Where to get any big block parts -- Royce Peterson, 04/28/2002
Mansfield Mustang (Bill Upham) specializes in big block parts. He ships right now and has fair prices.
www.mansfieldmustang.com
Royce Peterson |
|