Skip Navigation Links.
| What does FE Stand For? -- David Charlton, 03/04/2002
I have never heard these engines referred to by anything else. Maybe FE is not an Acronym? |
| | Search the database. This has been beat to death. -- Royce Peterson, 03/04/2002
|
| | | RE: I agree but... -- Mike McQuesten, 03/04/2002
I agree with you Royce. But it's gonna keep comin' back again & again. We have to be patient, right?
F= Ford E = Edsel
BTW, I was just reading a Peterson Publication from, 1962, the other night. It's a High Performance Ford manual. Numerous excellent articles on building & modifying your Ford for high performance action, specifically, drag racing. Authors like Karol Miller, Les Ritchey, etc.
But the point is that in their write up on the big block FoMoCo engines (two of 'em then....the MEL, Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln(383/430) and I'm quoting from memory here.......the "Ford-Edsel big block that included 332-352-361-390-and the new 406". This may be one of the earliest references to the Ford-Edsel series although they did not specifically use the acronym of FE. But pretty darn close! |
| Who rebuilds original waterpumps ? -- Eric, 03/03/2002
Hello,
Can anyone refer me to someone I can ship my original '69 Ford waterpump to, to be rebuilt. I do not want to replace the pump as it is on a concourse show car and has the original casting numbers on it. Thank you for your help, Eric |
| 352 HP chamber -- Mike McQuesten, 03/03/2002
Hey guys, bare with me here, I'm experimenting here. This is my first attempt to attach/post a pic I took with a digital camera. Pretty high tech stuff for such a lo-tech guy. I selected a jpeg of the combustion chamber of a '60-'61 HP 352/390 head. They're kinda rare heads and maybe some of you have never seen such a chamber.
Thanks for letting me try this out here.
[Image re-sized by Admin.]
|
| | RE: 352 HP chamber -- Travis Miller, 03/04/2002
For those of you who have never seen the 352/390 HP head used in 1960-61, the combustion chamber looks like the ones used today on aftermarket heads. Ford did not realize what they had and dropped that combustion chamber design when the 406 came out in 1962. I have heard stories from guys who had 1961 390 HPs back then who could outrun 406's and even 427's.
Good picture Mike. Thanks for sharing it with those who have never seen a C0AE 6090D head. |
| | Great pics...........thanks for posting...... -- P, 03/05/2002
these were the weapon of choice for Ford when they were competing against the 348 Chevy plank head boat anchor.
After Ford ran all over Chevrolet for a couple of years with heads like these, Chevy was motivated to get back into the hunt.
In 1961 Ford and Chevrolet both threw their cards on the table again Chevy had the 409, and Ford cards had 390 cubes.
You can see how fast Ford scrambled for more cubes, having introduced the 406 and 427 in the next two years.
In 1963-1/2 when Ford rolled out the 427, the party at GM was over........and during the 1963, 64, and 65 season, Ford won 101 NASCAR races to 9 (nine) for the Chevrolet boat anchor.
Cool piece of Ford high performance history ya got there! I was in high school at the time, but I do remember a guy who had one that was a few years old, but still faster than a scalded cat. I recall how the front of the car would kind of raise up at speed when he applied power in any gear. It was pretty crazy back then, when high school kids were out on the roads with power (and chassis) like that!! One other nice thing about those days, many of the SUV's were powered by FE's (we had a 1959 Ford Station Wagon that had a Thunderbird motor, and it would eat up the road with ease.
P |
| Oil pump-High voulume or stock? -- Boydster, 03/03/2002
Still building my '67 410 and got a recommendation from the machine shop to use a high voulume oil pump. I am going with the Edelbrock Performer RPM package so I called Edelbrock and their tech said to use a stock oil pump. Who knows best? As far as the engine, it's bored 30 over, stock oil pan, cast pistons, adjustable hydraulic rockers and the carb hasn't been decided on yet. If any of that sounds wrong please let me know. Any suggestions will be appreciated, thanks. |
| | if you're running edelbrock heads....beware..... -- John, 03/03/2002
i read on another fe forum about oil passage problems with the edelbrock heads when using studs. I don't remember all the details of the article, but it mainly said that one of the studs may cause an oil passage in the head to be blocked. The machinist who posted this said that ford made the passage a little bigger than the edelbrock engineers made it, therefore starving the engine of oil. Like i said before, I don't remember all the specifics of this article, but you can read more about it on fordfe.com. This was posted a few weeks ago, so you may have to scroll through a few pages to find it, but the title is similiar to the one i posted. Good luck. |
| | | RE: if you're running edelbrock heads....beware..... -- Art, 03/06/2002
I called Edelbrock today on this issue and the other one of the shims wearing thin and causing the valve springs to wear into the head. On the oil issue; they said as long as you use the Edelbrock head bolts you will not have an oiling problem. And you could use either H.P. or H.V. oil pumps with these heads. Second issue; he said they have no record of complaints about the shims wearing away and causing any damage,(BUT!!) they have been installing spring cups on there heads ,but he couldn't tell when they started doing this. I think they did have a few complaints but won't admit to them. He also said they prefer you use studs to hold the rocker assembly rather than bolts due to bottoming out and stripping out the head. Any thoughts are appreciated , before I bolt my #6006 heads on my .030 over 428!! |
| | Stock oil pan = stock oil pump! [n/m] -- Dan Davis, 03/03/2002
nm |
| | Go with the stock oil pump. -- James, 03/03/2002
Many people use a high volume oil pump and are sorry, according to the shop that built my engine. If the motor is going to be run on the strip only then the high volume is a good choice. High pressure oil pumps, according to the machinist, is the choice for the street driven cars as a rule. The stock oil pump on the FE is a good one especially since Edelbrock made the oil passege small on the head for you already. This passege way was the first thing that a 428 guy would restrict on the stock head to keep more oil on the bottom. You will not have that problem with the Edelbrocks. Hope this helps. |
| 390 pistons -- Charlie, 03/03/2002
I'm looking for a set of pistons in over bore size that will give me around 10:1 comp in my 390 with 428 cj heads. TRW makes some avail from summit for a decent price, but I don't think I'll get more than 9.5:1 comp. Any ideas where to go for good priced pistons? Do they have a web site? Thanks |
| | RE: 390 pistons -- SDP, 03/03/2002
Charlie, check out KB-Sivolite(www.kb-silvolite.com) for their 'hyperutectic' pistons. They offer a one for the 390 that should yeild the comp. ratio your looking for with the right deck height. If your after a forged piston, I beleive Ross still offers a 390 piston. The TRW's are fine, but leave a lot to be desired when compared to the other pistons on the market. JM2C |
| | | RE: 390 pistons -- Travis Miller, 03/03/2002
I checked the cc's on a set of 390 Silvolite pistons and they do not match the advertized specs. The pistons I have are number 1131 and are advertized at 8 cc's volume in the valve reliefs. They actually measure 12 cc's. The original dished with valve relief ones I took out of the engine only measured 14 cc's. |
| | | | RE: Sivolite specs -- SDP, 03/03/2002
Good point Travis. Guess Sivolite's specs are off a little on that piston. Did you happen to balance that engine that you used those pistons in? I was curious what the weight is on that particular piston................................ |
| | | | | RE: Sivolite specs -- Travis Miller, 03/04/2002
No, the engine is not being balanced because I am changing a complete set of pistons and they are suppose to be within the tolerance for replacement ones. However I did check the compression distance and found that the Silvolite pistons have .020 more deck clearance than the original dished pistons I took out of the engine. That is another 4 cc's. I looked at my notes and found that the original dished pistons had 16 cc's instead of the 14 cc's I had previously posted.
Taking the 12 cc's in the valve relief area and the 4 cc's because of the extra .020 deck clearance in the Silvolite pistons, I will wind up with the same compression ratio as before with the old dished pistons. I think a phone call to Silvolite is in order here. |
| | | | | | Silv-O-Lite specs -- Travis Miller, 03/04/2002
Just talked to a tech guy at Silv-O-Lite. Told him that the specs on the website concerning the 390 non-dished piston #1131 was not the 8cc's but actually 12cc's and there was also an extra .020 deck. While he was not rude to me at all, his basic answer was...so what.
Everyone be warned that the Silv-O-Lite pistons #1131 for a 390 do not meet your expectation on compression ratio if you go by their specs that are shown in the on-line catalog.
I will see if the place where I purchased these pistons will allow me to exchanged them for a set of pistons made by someone else that does meet specs.
|
| Stock 428 cam -- James, 03/02/2002
Some of the cam manufacturers make the equivulant of the stock Cobra Jet cam. I wonder what is the skiny on the stock cam as far as performance vs. the others. I have a stock CJ trans and do not want to have to buy a big converter. The cam that I have is a .514 lift and 223 duration at .050. It is rated at 1500 to 5000 rpm. The CJ equivalent is rated at 3000 to 6000rpms from Lunati. I ran a 13:76 @ 102mph with the one I have but I fear that it is going round on me because of a lifter noise that will not go away along with it making my carb run rich. If I have to change it I thought about the stock CJ cam. Some of the manufactures make what they call the equivalent but before I leap I wanted to know what experience has been seen by more experienced people on this subject. Thanks James |
| 427 Calliope FE -- Royce Peterson, 03/02/2002
It's a 3 valve pushrod engine with two cams in the block designed to circumvent Nascar's ban on the SOHC motor.
Royce Peterson
[Image edited for size by Admin.]
|
| | RE: 427 Calliope FE -- James, 03/02/2002
I wonder which tranny mounts up top that? |
| | RE: 427 Calliope FE -- P, 03/04/2002
Great pic Royce, thanks for sharing it. Never seen a photo of it, but heard something about it way back. Would make an interesting GTE motor?
P |
| carbs and long duration cams... -- James, 03/02/2002
I have had problems with vaccum secondary carbs with long duration cams. The big cams make such low vaccum that it dribles fuel from the secondaries making for poor idle and adjustability problems. It will also make the plugs fuel foul after a few hundred miles. One guy here in town knows just how to fix it but wants $250 to fix it. The fix includes some of his wizardry on the carb and recurving the distributor. I can have the distributor recurvered myself but what could he be doing to the carb? Any thoughts are welcome. |
| | RE: carbs and long duration cams... -- Travis Miller, 03/02/2002
I am not sure about the dribbling fuel, but a long duration cam usually takes a higher idle to keep the engine running. That causes the throttle blades on the primary to be opened past the idle curcuit holes. Fool the engine by cracking the secondary butterflies open allowing the primary ones to go back to their normal position. On a Holley there is a small set screw on the secondary passenger side that can open the throttle blades. Give this a try and if it works, send me the $250. |
| | | RE: carbs and long duration cams... -- James, 03/02/2002
Thank you Travis but it is much cheaper to shout your name in the streets. :-) |
| | | | drop the vacum secondaries and go double pumper. n -- john, 03/03/2002
n/m |
| | | | | RE: drop the vacum secondaries and go double pumper. n -- frank, 03/03/2002
If the secondary needles are not leaking, then, your power valve needs to be changed so the low vacuum is causing it to open too early try a 4.5 PV. I think your probleems will be over |
| | | | | | I have a 750 Edelbrock -- James, 03/03/2002
n/m |
| SCJ Piston Weights -- Mike Bellaire, 03/01/2002
428SCJs came with either 692 gram or 712 gram pistons. Is this weight the piston alone, or with the wrist pin/rings? Thanks. |
| Best carb for a stock 390 -- Terry, 03/01/2002
What is the best carb (Holley, Demon, Edlebrock, etc..) and size for a stock, no emissions 390. I know they came with 600's, and bigger isnt always better, but how about a 625, or a 750. Looking for more power and the best driveability. Any experiences and advice with any of these combos would be a great help.
|
| | Hard to beat a 735 C-J original... -- kevin, 03/01/2002
for it looks stock to the untrained eye, has proper linkage, smaller primary venturi that helps drivability, virtual bolt on, readily available, reasonably priced, and Ford recomends it as the first step in doing just what you described. |
| | | RE: Stock 390 = CJ carb? -- Gerry Proctor, 03/01/2002
Terry, I've done this and can tell you from personal experience that it is detrimental on a stock 390 to go any higher than the factory-sized 600 CFM carb. There was no gain in upper rpm power and the car was slower overall. Performance, economy, and driveability all suffered with the larger carb.
It doesn't matter what carb you use...Carter, Holley, Edelbrock. They all perform exactly the same as far as the end result...mixing air and fuel. The Edelbrock and Carter require a little more tuning knowledge since you're not just chaning jets and power valves as in a Holley, but they're not difficult to tune at all. |
| | | | RE: Stock 4100 -- R Shannon, 03/03/2002
Why not use the carb. designed for you engine, the 4100 for it simple in design, easy to adjust, easier to rebuild if you get it clean. and all around preformance in all climates. And the most important the ability to adjust the choke for absolute prefect starting and warm up. Can the others beat that? |
| | Don't bother adding cfm without other mods. [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/01/2002
n/m |
|