Skip Navigation Links.
 |  I grenaded the C6 in my W - Code 427 GTE -- Royce Peterson, 03/23/2002
While on the chassis dyno last year I trashed second gear on the C6 behind my 427 / 448 CI motor. It was showing 310 HP and 400 Ft-Lbs at the wheels in second gear when it happened. Tranny is full of metal and has to come out.
My problem is this: Do I have to pull both headers or just the driver's side to remove the transmission? I am running Hooker Super Comps. Need to get started tomorrow and any suggestions will be appreciated. I want to upgrade the transmission, considering a 4 speed.
Royce Peterson |
|  | There is a roller bearing kit for the C6.... -- James, 03/23/2002
You will be having to find all the foot pedal mechanisms and cut the hole in the firewall/floorboard for the clutch rod and you will be running slower times. Ford Motor Sports offers a needle bearing kit for the C6 that will free up several horse power for you to feed the need for speed with. A standard rebuild for the CJ trany plus the $400 kit will be pricey but you will be turning in faster times with no modifications to the car. That is just my opinion though. |
| | | RE: There is a roller bearing kit for the C6.... -- Royce Peterson, 03/24/2002
James,
Actually the hole in the firewall is a pre punched knockout, a hammer and block of wood will easily open it. It can be reinstalled with epoxy later if desired. I have all the linkage, pedal assy, big input / output Top Loader and several shifters including Hurst and factory units. Also have several flywheels and a Lakewood scatter shield.
What is the part number for the needle bearing kit you are referring to?
Royce Peterson |
| | |  | RE: W-code '68 to 4 speed.. -- Mike McQuesten, 03/24/2002
Now that takes big 'uns Royce! I admire your inclination to make such a modification to such a rare Muscle Merc. It's your car and so you can do what you want! Sounds like it'd be a fun project and I'm sure you'd be able to put it back to stock auto. and no one would ever know you'd lived on the stick side for awhile.
But a couple o'thoughts before you punch that knockout:
Ford's SVO parts also offers a low first gear set for the C-6. This along with the roller bearing kit and top grade rebuild might offer you some advantages. Is the C-6 in the W-code 427 cars the same as the CJ-C-6? Like cast iron tailshaft and R-code Servo? The R-code servo is still available through Ford's HP parts catalog too.
I don't have a current Ford SVO parts catalog, I'm not even sure it's still called SVO?, but I'm sure your local Ford dealer parts counter has a couple. And I think there may be a website for this too.
Ahh, but still, one, two, powershift here we go...... hard to beat the joy of a good shift. Oh, how about those rear leaf springs? Remember the shock a good clutch can send back to the rear zone. Don't want you to be lookin' like that jack rabbit '67 GT 'stang 390/4 speed with a 427 I saw back in '68. It was an embarassment. |
| | | | | RE: W-code '68 to 4 speed.. -- Royce Peterson, 03/24/2002
Hi Mike,
I have two W Code GTE's so one can stay stock while the other is for fun stuff. The green car 's original motor was sold to a Cobra kit owner long before my ownership so I don't have to worry about destroying numbers matching authenticity, nor am I ever likely to sell it. I have always loved 4 speeds and think that is the direction to head for reliability too.
The rear springs originally were 5 leaf extremely stiff units. They were sacked out when I bought the car so a custom made set was fabricated to give it less deflection and better stance. I also have bolt in Total Control Products frame connectors installed as the car was twisting noticeably when launching without them. I also have installed Lakewood traction bars and new front coils that were wound shorter to compensate for the aluminum Edelbrock heads and give it the right stance in front.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | RE: W-code '68 to 4 speed.. -- salid, 03/24/2002
Royce, sounds like a great project. You can probably also use the staggered shocks to help out the rear end stability. I'm not sure, but I suspect your auto GTE got the same side shocks like the auto CJ Mustangs.
One question, is there a reason you chose the Lakewoods over the the Shelby style underrides? Do they work better on the strip? |
| | | | | | | Traction Bars -- Royce Peterson, 03/24/2002
I think the under riders made by Traction Master Corp. (TMC) are probably better especially since they don't hang down as low. I got the Lakewoods with another car and they seem to work fine, I have wheel spin but never any wheel hop.
I went to visit the Traction Master shop in downtown Los Angeles last year. It is still in the same shop as when they made bars for Shelby in 1965. Interesting place in a really bad neighborhood.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | | RE: Part numbers -- SDP, 03/24/2002
Royce, here is the part numbers for the C6 stuff from Fomoco: M-7398-C "Wide ratio planetary needle brg kit" and
M-7027-A "R" servo |
| | | | | | | |  | Thanks! N/M -- Royce Peterson, 03/24/2002
|
| | | | RE: There is a roller bearing kit for the C6.... -- Dave, 03/27/2002
I put the close ratio Ford needle bearing 1st and 2nd gears in my 67 Mustang, 428, running 3:25:1 Trac Loc, while bringing the car back from having the carb dialed in, mashed the gas at 65MPH. It downshifted to 2nd and broke the tires loose. So far, I like the Ford set up. |
| 390 truck engine into a 67 fairlane -- Terry Bohman, 03/23/2002
I have the chance to pick up a 79 390 truck engine. Was wondering how much I would have to do to put it in my 67 Fairlane. Don't know a whole lot about this but I think the oil pan and pickup would have to be changed. Also the truck engine is a 4 speed manuel. Would my 70 4 speed toploader big in and out bolt up to the truck bellhousing? Thanks for all input. |
| | RE: 390 truck engine into a 67 fairlane -- Bob, 03/23/2002
Trucks didn't have 390s and the last FE was built in '76.
That said, the truck beelhousing should work with your transmission, you will have to use the correct clutch disc for your transmission. You may need a different clutch z-bar, and block bracket for the z bar.
And the oil pan and pickup will need to be ones from a '66 to '69 Fairlane etc.
Also you have to get headers or exhuast manifolds that will fit the heads on the 390 and into the Fairlane, the truckmanifolds will not work. What heads (csating numbers please) are on the 390.
What engine is in the Fairlane now? |
| |  | RE: 390 truck engine into a 67 fairlane -- Louie, 03/23/2002
The 390 was an option in '69 for the light trucks. |
| | | RE: 390 truck engine into a 67 fairlane -- Bob, 03/23/2002
Ok. I should have said that there were very few years in which Ford offered a 390 in a truck and that in any case they didn't build the FE after 1976. |
| | | | RE: 390 truck engine into a 67 fairlane -- dean, 03/24/2002
ford offered the 390 all years from 1967 to 1976, and was the most-ordered engine 67-74. |
| | | | | bellhousing may be a problem -- hawkrod, 03/24/2002
the truck bellhousing is a little longer than car one if i remember correctly. a short input FE trans may not get good pilot engagement so be sure to check. hawkrod |
| | | | | | RE: bellhousing may be a problem -- dean, 03/24/2002
yes tou will need a car bellhousing, not the truck one |
| | | | | | | RE: bellhousing is a problem if... -- Mike McQuesten, 03/25/2002
you don't have the right one. If a Ford (automotive 3 or 4 speed) stick trans is planned with an FE in a unibody car you will need the specific bell housing for this purpose. It carrys a C6OZ part # generally prominately located somewhere on the bell. It's the exact same housing that was used through '70 with all FE and stick combinations in unibody cars. It's designed and cast to fit in the tight confines of the unibody. The full size car bell housing may not work. The cross shaft pivoted right on the side of these full size cars bell. I'm not positive about this not fitting though. Maybe someone has made one work?
An option might be the Lakewood scattershield which I is still available. |
| | | | | 360/390 light truck engine years were 1968-76. -- Dave Shoe, 03/24/2002
The 352 was available 1965-67 in light trucks.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | RE: 360/390 light truck engine years were 1968-76. -- dean, 03/25/2002
I knew that, (brain fade)
I think I need more sleep... |
| Intakes -- Richard, 03/23/2002
Last night I went over and looked at two alm. intakes that a freand of mine was interesed in. The first one was a duel plane. It looked like a low-lowriser it had ford stamped on it and the only #s where IC3. Seamed to me that it was made iin the early 60s. The other one is a edel. street master - 390 singal plane. The street master was the only one that looked like it might be interesting. Any budy have any history on these. Thanks for any help Richard |
| | Could you help Mr. Shoe -- Richard, 03/24/2002
Thanks Richard |
| | 'IC3' =date code. Likely a 390/406 factory intake. -- Mr F, 03/25/2002
n/m |
| | | Thanks mr. F. -- Richard, 03/25/2002
N/m |
| | | Re: 3/3/61=390hp -- Mike McQuesten, 03/25/2002
Actually as far as interesting goes, the Ford intake, cast on March 3, 1961 (1C3) most likely for a 375 horse 390 High Performance engine & Total Performance package, has more going for it. These regularly bring $225-$250 on eBay and at swap meets. They're not as good as a 428 PI but they're light and are useful for "correct" early HP cars.
I've "heard" the E-brock Streetmaster is a good intake. Can't say from personal long term usage. I had one once and it leaked coolant terribly. It had been "Port Matched" by some previous owner and I attributed the leakage to too little material left between intake port #1 and the water passage port. I've never had an FE leak coolant before or since. My point is that I didn't get a chance to really try it out. I was aware of the problem very quickly during the first few minutes of a road test. Water spewing out the back intake PSE breather I was running. Back to the garage for R & R. Drain down of everything. Yes, it was a mess. Don't want to ever have that happen again.
The Streetmaster typically sells for around $150-$175. E-brock even provided instructions with it when it was new regarding proper porting procedures.
|
| | | RE: Re: 1c3 -- Mike McQuesten, 03/25/2002
That one that the "Bag Ladee" has on eBay is a '61. I've learned thanks to this forum the subtle differences between a '60 HP and a '61/later single 4V HP intake.
Easiest thing to spot is the angled carb base of the '61 intake. A '60 HP intake has a flat base.
I now have two '60HPs and one '61HP. Just can't have too many. I actually bid on that '60HP intake that sold this morning on eBay. And I was asking myself why too? But I set a limit of $200 and was high bidder until today. I was happy I didn't win it. No excuse for owning three '60 HP intakes unless you have three '60 HP cars.
Another subtle difference we have found between the '60 & '61 is the slightly larger runners of the '61. It's visable. I had read the '61 articles that indicated there was a 10% increase in '61 HP intake flow to match the increased cubes. I didn't believe it until I had the two side by side, upside down, every which way but loose. There is a difference.
Do you want to see? I'm feeling pretty competent with that digital camera. Later, when I get home I can take a pic of the one on my '60 "352HP" which is where the '61 is attached firmly. See Kevin, I'm living dangerously. I'm going to run an angled base on a '60! Crazy me. I want that 10% increased flow for my 352.
And then I can show you the flat boy '60. It's being saved for the real 352.
Gee I wish I had an air cleaner for a '60 HP. |
| | | | RE:here you go... -- Mike McQuesten, 03/25/2002
The installed intake is a '61 HP 390/375 horse intake with a casting date of: 0L30, 11/30/60. Fairly early '61 HP production. Note the angled carb base.
The intake on top of the installed intake is a '60 HP 352/360 horse with a casting date of 0E24, 5/24/60. Fairly late '60 HP production.
In the third pic I'm trying to indicate the subtle difference in the intake runner size. I'm not sure this will show clearly enough. I've placed the pencils in such a way as to indicate that on the '61 intake there is a little higher casting ridge of that particular runner. This is true for all of them. Although it's slight but visable. Remember Ford did say that the '61 had 10% increased flow over the '60.
Now for that carb base. Kevin has indicated that he thinks there was a difference in the engine angle between the '60 & '61. He has also indicated that there may be a difference in the rear leaf spring mounting locations between the two years thus changing engine angles. Kevin, I've got 'em both. And I've layed 'em out. I've measured. I've looked and measured some more. I can't see it or find it. I put two leaf springs side by side, one from my '60 & one from a '61 & '62 Galaxie. No differences.
Interesting to note that when that '60 intake was setting on the engine all mounted in the '60 Sunliner with the transmission fully installed, the little level indicated a half a bubble off. With the '61 angled intake setting in the same exact spot.....the bubble was right on even.
I believe lots of things, most of which probably don't amount to anything, but I do believe fairly strongly that the Ford HP team engineers found that there was some fuel starvation occuring in some situations with the '60 intake. A little angle up here and a little larger runner there and there you go....10% increase in flow! Maybe I should say it's my theory. I'm not ready to believe it yet.
Now to see if I can attach these pics...
[Image re-sized by Admin.]
 |
| | | | | RE:not smart enough.. -- Mike McQuesten, 03/25/2002
Sure enough, I'm a technoidiot. I can't seem to attach more than on jpeg from a disk at a time. So here's the pic I meant to be first....the one showing a '61 intake, casting date 0L30.
[Image re-sized by Admin.]
 |
| | | | | | RE: and finally... -- Mike McQuesten, 03/25/2002
What we have here is my attempt to have two HP intakes mate. Now if successful that should drop the prices on eBay!
[Image re-sized by Admin.]
 |
| | | | | | | RE: and finally... -- salid, 03/25/2002
Mike, that intake cleaned up real nice. Did the tall water hose tube turn out to be sound with no pin holes? Are you going to Portland? I think I am. I'll look for that air cleaner, if you're not going. |
| | | | | | | | RE: thanks Greg -- Mike McQuesten, 03/25/2002
Hey Greg, I'll thank you "publicly" for helping me out with finding that '60 intake. And yes the heater hose tube looks sound. I'm not going to attempt to remove it. Might do some damage. Just a little careful paint on it and the oil fill tube and it will be ready for the eventual resto of the original 352 HP.
Thanks Mr. GT 500 KR drop-top original owner. |
| | | | | | RE:not smart enough.. -- tbolt, 03/26/2002
I noticed your rocker adj. bolts have jam nuts. Is this a custom fabrication or can they be purchased? |
| | | | | Nice pics. -- Dave Shoe, 03/25/2002
I missed the big uns on your combustion chamber, but I saved the big file this time. Nice looking intakes. Thanks for the direct comparison. I'd like to learn more about the runner changes between models.
As for the two intakes, I'm not an HP intake wiz, but I do know the higher-sitting MR-era design of 1965-later has caused the competition more grief than the earlier HP design.
The Streetmaster390 runs OK on the street (a bit too mild), but there is a modification sheet which Edelbrock released to help wake the intake up. The sheet instructs how to grind and port-patching, but is necessary to put this intake into the rev-range that it needs to start breathing. This sheet is occasionally posted in the forums. I'd post it now if I was better organized and could find it.
Since Ford had designed such fantastic dual-plane intakes by the end of the muscle car era, there was no way for a manufacturer to make money selling a dual plane - they just wouldn't sell well. The Streetmaster390 was a simple, cheap "single plane" design aimed at a large young market who knew there was something magical about single plane intakes.
The price-point was set to sell a lot of Streetmaster390 intakes, and therefore many would be installed on stock-cammed engines. This intake would work well for this purpose, though it'd lose some low-end torque (as all single planes do) because neighboring cylinders in the firing order would steal air charge at the end of the intake cycle. Dual-planes separate neighboring cylinders, so no cylinder is able to steal charge from another.
I just picked up a Streetmaster390 (my second in 30 years) a couple months ago. It was cheap, but it can make a fun motor if built right.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | | RE: Thanks Mike -- Barry B, 03/25/2002
Speaking of the flat vs. angled carb. flange, Last year there was a beautiful ’60 Starliner with a 352HP at the Fabulous Ford’s Forever at Knott’s Berry Farm. It had everything correct as far as I could tell, flat intake, funny looking helmet style air cleaner. The thing I noticed is that with the car sitting level, the carb. and air cleaner seemed to be leaning backwards instead of being level with the hood line. I can scan the pics for you (if I can still find them) if you’re interested Mike.
Barry
|
| | | | | | | HP air cleaner -- hawkrod, 03/25/2002
okay now that you mentioned it can somebody post a pic of the correct air cleaner on an early hipo or pi. i had a 63 but have never seen anything earlier. thanks, hawkrod |
| | | | | | | | RE: HP air cleaner -- Mike McQuesten, 03/25/2002
I like Barry's description - a Helmet. We around these parts have been referring to it as the "Cake". It has layers and layers crowning to a ..... Helmet! I have been told that there are even some unique features of the 1960 HP air cleaner compared to the '61 - '62. But the crazy thing is so hard to find, I'm not sure.
The one jPeg I have is too large to post. It's of a complete early HP 390. I keep the picture on my desk top just to remind me to keep looking. This pic is thanks to Greg also.
A lot of the older magazines/Hot Rod year books have pictures. The 1962 Hot Rod Yearbook has a great picture on page 17. It's right next to a picture of a 1960 HP intake they claim is a 406 intake. A file photo!
Also an oddity in this Hot Rod No. 2 Yearbook, is on page 12, a great shot under the hood of a supposed '62. Tri Power 406. Right valve cover off and adjustables in plain view. A nice looking set of headers. And right behind that last header tube on the right side.......A dip stick!! It's definitely an automatic trans car. What is with that?
I'd sure appreciate anyone that could post a pic of an early HP air cleaner too. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: HP air cleaner -- Barry B, 03/26/2002
Here's that '60 Starliner from the Knott's show, the air cleaner looks different than the one Mr. F posted. Mike I can email the other pics, there too big for posting, had to hack this one to fit.
I also have the Dec. '59 issue of Hot Rod and they have a road test of a '60 Ford Interceptor (Starliner). The air cleaner in their pics looks just like Mr. F's. They also have pics of the heads, manifold, rocker shafts, balancer and the whole engine on Ford's dynamometer, pretty cool. Note: The expansion tank in their Starliner is also ribbed.
Barry
 |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: HP air cleaner in Hot Rod -- Barry B, 03/26/2002
This is one of the pics in Hot Rod, sorry for the poor quality.
 |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE:Vacuum Advance? -- Mike McQuesten, 03/26/2002
Yes, that's one of the pictures I've seen. But thanks to your sending me those pics of a '60 HP at Knott's, I can see there's a difference between the '60 & the '61 HP air cleaners. The pic you've posted here of the air cleaner is different than the higher helmet look of the '60.
Aren't these pics from the story about the '61 HP 375 horse engine?
And what's with that vacuum advance mechanisim on that distributor? They weren't claiming that to be a hi-po distributor were they? Another file photo. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE:Vacuum Advance? -- Barry B, 03/27/2002
Mike, that vacuum advance dizzy is also a dual-point, it's hard to see in the pic. I don't think these are pics from the story about the '61, this article was published in Dec. '59. Tonight I'll check the '60 service specification booklet for the HP dizzy specs. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | RE:Vacuum Advance? -- Mike McQuesten, 03/27/2002
Thanks a lot again Barry. I'd be surprised to see an early FE dual point with a vauum advance mech. I've got two COAZ-K dual point distributors and they're the centrifugal advance just like "all" dual point FEs were. I put " " around that all because I don't make blanket claims of facts anymore. Ford did produce some dual point vacuum advance distributors in '70......I think? But I think they were for the 429 SCJ.....er maybe there were some for the '70 428 CJ 4 speed.....or maybe...
And now I'm totally confused again on those crazy helmet/cake air cleaners. The pics you sent of the '60 HP car at Knott's have an air cleaner that's different than the one in the '59 Hot Rod mag picture. Was Ford putting out two early HP style air cleaners?
I could believe that. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE:Vacuum Advance? -- Barry B, 03/27/2002
Hey you’re welcome Mike and I totally agree with you. I think I stand corrected, in the text in the article says: The distributor for the special engine is equipped with dual points for increased coil saturation at high rpm’s and uses centrifugal advance only, no vacuum unit is provided.” I tried to blow-up that pic in the article, hopefully you can see the dual points. So what the heck is that thing on the outside and does this look like an FE dizzy?
I’m gonna try to blow-up the dizzy on the Knott’s car as a follow-up.
 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE:Knott's dizzy -- Barry B, 03/27/2002
Here’s a blow-up of the dizzy on the Knott’s 352HP, I can’t see any vacuum connection up to it. Didn’t they use hard lines on the old vacuum advances? This “thing” on the outside also has a funky looking end on it.
 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE:Vacuum Advance? -- Bob H., 03/28/2002
I do not know what it was out of but years ago my brother worked at Ford dealer and gave me a duel point vacumnadvance FE dist with a ballbearing vacumn advance plate that rotated in circleto keep point gap constant,ran it in my 390" pickemup forgot about it when I got rid of truck ,would like to find it or know what the heck it was out of!! |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | First used on 69/70 Boss and 70 428CJ, then 351Cs. [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/28/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE:Vacuum Advance? -- Derek, 03/28/2002
Here's a Ford PR photo of an early Hi-Perf FE , showing both the lower or 'flatter' air cleaner, AND the vacuum advance distributor.
(Hope the photo shows up...never done this before!)
[Image re-sized by Admin.]
 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE:Police not HP. -- Mike McQuesten, 03/28/2002
Thanks for the nice shot of a '61 Police Interceptor 390 Derek. I've got the factory brochure that shows this exact picture. And it's referred to as the Police Interceptor engine by '61. I also have the '60 Police brochure.
But I have seen some publications that have used this picture and referred to it as the High Performance 352 or 390. It's easy to see the confusion because the Police engines included the HP shorty header style exhaust manifolds from '61 through '64. They also incorporated the open element HP air cleaners of the various years. Other than the '60, which offered a special grind hydraulic cam, a mild solid lifter cam was incorporated. Thus, generally the Police engines utilized a HP style block without provision for hydraulic.
But look closely at the picture you've posted. First, check out that fuel pump & filter. Standard equipment there: 5/16" line with a small flow capacity filter. That system was common on 2V & 4V standard engines. Then the vacuum advance is another indicator of this not being an HP. And I'm not sure about that harmonic balancer but it looks like it may be the standard one not the HP style which is unique. And strain your eyes to look under that air cleaner that I need and you might be able to make out the look of an Autolite 4100 four barrel carburetor. And it's bolted to a cast iron standard 4V intake.
So thanks again Derek for the cool picture. The "P" code packages are very rare indeed. The Interceptor 352 & 390 of '60 - '61 had unique features but they weren't Hi Pos! |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | I agree. Never seen real Ford artwork of 352HP. [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/28/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE:Police not HP. -- Derek66, 03/29/2002
Thanks for the corrections and the details, Mike...I sure don't mind learning something new every day!
|
| | | | | | | | | yea, that would be the one -- hawkrod, 03/26/2002
i was told about these but, since i was a mustanger until i got my bulletbirds, i never really paid attention. i was told these were based on some old 6 cylinder lid and i can see that. it may or may not be the same as the 6 cylinder but it sure looks like it! i will have to see if i can dig one up, i think i have one from a late 50's ford truck and it seems it looks a lot like that. thanks, hawkrod |
| | | | | | | RE: You bet! -- Mike McQuesten, 03/25/2002
Yes, please Barry. When you find the time and the pics. My first real street and on the strip experiences came thanks to a good friend/neighbor's older brother. He traded in his '60 Impala 348/stick for a '61 Sunliner 390/401/stick & O.D. This rangoon red terror was a thrill to Doug and I. And that was just as 13-15 yr. old passengers.
A minor dream of mine is to drive my '60 'Liner to the show at Knott's. A little trip from Spokane, WA. |
| | | | | | | | RE: You bet! -- Richard, 03/26/2002
That is What I was looking for gents. Thanks a lot, most Appreciated. Richard |
| rocker shaft stud kit part # for 428. Summit ... -- James, 03/23/2002
Summit is playing dumb on me. They are saying that no one list a part number for the stud kit. I have a .545 lift cam with Edelbrock heads and have been told that high lift cams will pull the helicoils out of these heads unless a stud kit is used. If it is not in kit form then what should I buy. Many thanks for educating me on this. |
| | RE: rocker shaft stud kit part # for 428. Summit ... -- RobMcQ, 03/23/2002
Summit does not have such an item, yet. Remember, Summit is a mass marketer and focuses on large volume sales items. For specific or unique items and actual knowledgeable help, you need to use the Ford specialty shops that have the parts and know how to help you out. Places like: FPP, Gessford, BCI, Precision Oil Pumps, Keith Kraft, Blue Oval Performance, Dove, and more that I cant think of right now.
Of course, as Summit, Jegs and a few others continue to grow, they will probably carry more such items. But, as folks increasingly buy from them and bypass the small, knowledgable specialty shops, they will begin to disappear. Then, your only choice will be what the big guys choose to sell.
Hmm, a bit of a tirade, sorry.
Rob |
| | | Thanks Rob. I appreciate the input. (n/m) -- James, 03/23/2002
n/m |
| | RE: rocker shaft stud kit part # for 428. Summit ... -- Dallas Fridley, 03/26/2002
Rob,
how does the stud kit keep the helicoils from being pulled out? Are they longer and go deeper into the head then a bolt? I am about to put a high lift cam in my engine as well and would like to prevent the problem if there is one. I would think that by only having more thread engagement into the head would prevent this problem?
|
| | | RE:Blue Oval is the place for me.. -- Mike McQuesten, 03/26/2002
I can tell you that Blue Oval Performance is the place to get your rocker arm stud kits. They're knowledgable, responsive, and competitive. They build all Ford engines and they supply all that they can.
I called ARP before dealing with Blue Oval asking about a FE rocker shaft stud kit and I got a major "Duh, we don't make that..." Thanks to an e-mail from a satisfied Blue Oval customer I found out where to go.
You can't tell much from those pics I posted yesterday in relation to HP intakes but my Rocker Arm Specialist rocker sets are attached with Blue Oval studs for cast iron heads. There's a difference.
Dallas, you asked Rob and he can explain the benefits of studs over bolts better than I can. But if I was called on to answer my simplistic reasoning would be that the torque stress is placed more in/on the stud instead of the threads in the rocker bolt holes. What I liked was just setting the rocker set on the studs, a little minor adjusting of the spacers and the set drops down nice and square. A little adjusting and that's it. On go the special washers & nuts. Torque evenly and you're ready to adjust your valves.....oh, do set the pushrods in the lifters first. |
| | | | RE:Blue Oval is the place for me.. -- Dallas Fridley, 03/27/2002
Thanks Mike for the input. I now have to make sure that the studs do not affect the oiling. I think I read in hear a couple weeks back that the studs are not tapered where the bolts are and that this was not taken into account for the Edelbrock heads I will be using. |
| | | | RE:Blue Oval is the place for me.. -- Dallas Fridley, 03/27/2002
Mike do you have contact info/website for the blue oval guys?
Thanks |
| | | | | RE:Sure -- Mike McQuesten, 03/27/2002
It's real easy just go back up there and e-mail Rob McQ. He's the one you want to talk to.
And about the taper in the studs...the ones I purchased from Blue Oval are correct, i.e., there are two studs in the set of eight that are tapered correctly, one for each head at the oil feed hole. |
| adj. hydraulic lifters. I know...old subject but.. -- James, 03/22/2002
There seems to be a few different methods that are all hailed as being the best way to do it. There is the shade tree that will tell you that he has done a million of them by just bringing both rockers up even with each cylinder and wiggled the push rod till there was no more wiggle and going 1/2 turn more. Then there is the mothod described in the literature with the cam. This method: turn the motor over till the exhaust pushrod just begins to move upward to open the valve. Your now ready to adjust the intake rocker of the same cylinder. For the exhaust you turn the motor over until the intake pushrod comes all the way up and almost all the way back down. Now set the exhaust to "zero lash" and add 1/2 turn. I am thinking that the shade tree version might tend to make cams go round. Does it matter which way? Do both methods get to the same place? |
| | All 4 cycle... -- kevin, 03/22/2002
engines that I have ever worked on get this.... I write down the firing order, split it in half (4 on top of 4 for a V-8) and start with #1 TDC. You only need to watch the oposing cylinder's rockers when they are at TDC on the overlap stroke (ex closing, int opening). Simple, foolproof, and reliable. I dont have to mark the damper and only have two complete revolutions to make. You cant believe how many people get lashing mixed up in the pits, so I write it down on the underside of their hood. I know that some people like the set this and that rule when you turn it over once, but if the cam has long duration and ramps, this can bite you. I run solids if given a choice, but when Hyd are present I like to have the most plunger travel available to avoid pump up. For a race car, I run .001-2 lash on hyd lifters to avoid it totally |
| C8me-a -- John, 03/21/2002
I measured the bore in this engine and confirmed that it is a 390. The date code next to the oil filter mount is a little difficult to decipher. Can this engine be safely bored to 428 specs as i realize that it requires approx. .080 to be removed?I have a mint set of 428 take out pistons labelled "428 Super" that have checked out with a micrometer and are quite servicable.Is there a foolproof method to ensure that this can be done. Sonic test? Rebalance?Great forum! Thanks . John |
| | Sonic test it...U want at least 0.120" wall.. -- Dan Davis, 03/21/2002
AFTER it is bored out. So you need to start with 0.160" walls. Highly unlikely in a 390, but you never know. Check one hole first and then the rest if it looks promising.
Dan |
| Head swap question. -- Derek, 03/21/2002
I don't know much about FE's, so.....
I am working on a '67 Galaxie and pulled the engine for a rebuild. Two of the manifold ears are cut/broke off and two are stripped. A friend has a set of 360 heads from '73. For $20 would they be a decent substitute? I can make up for lower compression with pistons, but are the valves the same size?
Thanks,
Derek |
| 427 "cammer" -- Marc, 03/20/2002
Any body know how many of these bad boys (L code 427 SOHC) were built? Any make to the street?
Thanks |
| | About 565 were made as complete engines... -- Dan Davis, 03/20/2002
...with a couple hundred "conversion kits" also made. NONE were installed in cars by the factory, despite the VIN code listed -- that was done in preparation for homologation for NASCAR but it never materialized.
A good thread about the SOHC is here: http://fomoco.com/forum-ford-fe/reply.asp?ID=10249&Reply=10249
Cheers,
Dan |
| | | RE: There was at least 1 street galaxie. -- David Thayer, 03/22/2002
Ford honcho Jaque Passino drove new 65 Cammer powered galaxie, pictures and stories were done on the car by several magazines. |
| | | | Other Ford Galaxies with 427 Cammer -- Travis Miller, 03/22/2002
There are two built by Ford Motor Co. that I can think of. One was a 1964 fastback in an issue of Cars Magazine. I will try to look up which issue. The other was a 1966 Galaxie that was built special for the 1966 NHRA Winternationals car show at Pomona. I will try to get details on both. |
| | | | | Dont forget the astronaut's 66... -- kevin, 03/22/2002
maybe that was the Pomona car, I dont remember. I have that rag with the 64 test mule, cool article. That was the early style that had many minor differences. |
| | | | | | what was the 'et? -- mikeb, 03/22/2002
thanks |
| | | | RE:Schmitt's Cammer B/FX -- Mike McQuesten, 03/22/2002
This thread got me to looking through my stack of '66 mags. I was thinking I remembered having an article about a '66 Galaxie street cammer. Couldn't find it but did find an article from an old mag, "Speed and Supercar", October, 1966, pp.29-32, featuring Mike Schmitt's '66 Galaxie that held records in B/FX (NHRA) and B/Modified Production (AHRA). Best for this car at the time was an 11.30/126 mph. This was in no way a street car. It featured numerous fiberglass body parts and a full roll cage. But it maintained the look of a stocker unlike the emerging funny cars of late '66. This is a great article featuring some wild looking headers and a Dana 70 rear end. Top Loader 4 speed. Here's the launch/shift techniques: "The car comes off the line at 7000 rpm, is shifted at 7300, and goes through the lights at 6800 rpm..." The big Ford was down to a svelt 3,400 lbs.
Also of note in this magazine are two other great big-block Ford articles:
PP. 10-11, "Can Ford Beat the Street Hemi?", a very cool looking '66 Fairlane GT (Yes, a GT!) with the 425hp/427 and the factory fiberglass hood with four NASCAR fasteners(hood pins). Yes, it's a prototype of what was coming for '67. Too bad this wasn't the upgrade package over the 390 GT of '66/'67.
And then, the article that makes this mag worth $5 - $10 swap meet bucks, is on pp. 16-18, a story about a '66 1/2 (yes, there was a L & M sponsored program that included a set of Comet Cyclone GTs with Bud Moore blueprinted engines) Merc run by "Northern Rebel Bill Lagana" sponsored by McCormack Lincoln Mercury, Mt. Kisco, NY. Excellent article talking about how this particular Merc ran a shade under the national record in C/Stock at Englishtown, New Jersey. There's a great shot of the underside of the Cyclone's glass hood showing the ram air system duct work.
Again, "Speed and Supercar", 10/66. Something to dig for this summer. |
| | | | | RE: Passino's Car -- David Thayer, 03/23/2002
great stories. Passino's car could have been and 65 or 66, I can't really remember. It was bone stock though. I think Hot Rod had some pix of the car taking a corner so hard it looked like one of the front wheels was going to go under the car. Don't know why they were doing cornering tests on a Cammer Galaxie. Oh well, it was the 60's. |
| | | | | | i have a picture of a 66 galaxie w/ a cammer...... -- John, 03/24/2002
I took it last summer at the all fords meet at carlisle. |
| | | | | | | RE: i have a picture of a 66 galaxie w/ a cammer...... -- David Thayer, 03/24/2002
what color is it? |
| | | | | | | | white.......n/m -- John, 03/24/2002
n/m |
| | RE: 427 "cammer" -- Gary TYravinski, 03/25/2002
If any one is interested I have any original cammer for sale. This engine is currently installed in my Cobra. It has 900 original miles. It is complete and runs great. |
| Blower manifolds -- Andy, 03/20/2002
I have just acquired a GM 6-71 for my 390. Can people please tell me which manufacturers still make a blower manifold for the FE and who used to make them that are around secondhand. Please include as much detail as possible as I am in Australia. Also will it fit with a Mallory twin point or will things get ugly in this area? |
| Cam Specs? Low Vacuum = No Brakes -- Dave Alton, 03/20/2002
I bought a cam from Ford Motorsport in 96 or 95 for my 428. I believe the part number was M6250-A411. Does anyone have an old Motorsport Catalog that shows what the cam specs are for this cam? I lost the card that came with it. I am not exactly sure of the part number. It was the only cam listed for a 390/428.
I've installed the engine/cam in my 67 Mustang GTA,it runs strong, but only puts out 8lbs of vacuum at idle. Not enough for the brakes. I've put a vacuum cannister on it, but it hasn't helped the brakes. Will I have to put an aux. vacuum pump on, or is there a cam that will produce enough vacuum to run the brakes. Any help would be appreciated.
Holley 4150/Edelbrock performer RPM Manifold, Tri-y headers, mildly ported C7AE-H heads, MSD 6 ignition.. |
| | RE: Cam Specs? Low Vacuum = No Brakes -- Derek, 03/21/2002
This sounds a little weird, Dave! I'm sure someone else will come up with the published specs, but my recollection is that the only FE cam in the early MotorSports program wasn't particularly wild...something about what you'd want in a tow rig, certainly not much hotter than a Comp 260-type cam.
You might want to verify WHAT the cam you installed actually is. Did it have any of Ford's typical casting symbols, between the last lobe and last journal? Were there any other marking on it? What kind of RPM are you getting out of it?
If you can positively rule out 'external' vacuum leaks, I'd suggest checking the cam timing, ie. is it Advanced/Straight Up/Retarded, and then checking your rocker arm adjustments, etc., to see if there's something amiss there.
You should be able to run a cam with up to something in the neighborhood of 230 degrees duration (@ .050" lifter rise) without any loss of idle vacuum bad enough to affect your brakes. |
| | RE: Cam Specs? Low Vacuum = No Brakes -- Bob, 03/21/2002
Intake opens @ 29 BTC, closes @ 73 ABC; exhaust opens @ 79 BBC, closes @ 34 ATC. Advertised duration 282 intake, 292 exhaust, lift .493 intake, .519 exhaust.
I doubt if this cam is causing your problem. |
| | | RE: Cam Specs? Good HP = No Brakes -- Ray, 03/21/2002
The numbers for that cam makes good HP(461) and (481)torque, what are the numbers @ .050 do you know. So I can compare with others cams on my dyno. Ray |
| | | | RE: Cam Specs? Good HP = No Brakes -- Bob, 03/21/2002
The book I have only gives the total duration for each lobe, @ 0.050 204 Intake and 214 exhaust without any more data. |
| | | | | RE: Cam Specs? Good HP = No Brakes -- Dave, 03/22/2002
Thanks for the help. Bob had the info that I recall was on the cam box when I bought it. The vacuum booster started whistling today, so it definately has a leak. Is 8lbs of vacuum still low for that cam? I checked it without the booster connected and it was still 8 lbs. I'll check the carb base plate for leaks as well. |
| | | | | | RE: Cam Specs? Good HP = No Brakes -- Bob, 03/22/2002
I don't know but I would think that 14 or more pounds would be normal.
After the carb base gasket, the next place to check is the manifold to head gasket area. |
|