Skip Navigation Links.
 |  non 428CJ to 428 CJ -- Matt, 02/18/2002
Hello, this is my first time to the forum.
My questions are: I have a Q code 428 from a 66 t-bird. What do I need to do to bring it up to Cobra Jet specs. Specifically, what heads should I use? Should I search for C80E 6090 heads, or will some other FE heads work for what I want? (cost is a factor) Should I leave the stock crank alone, or pop in a CJ crank? I definately want to step up the cam. Should I go with CJ spec or something different. Can a roller be an option?
thanks |
|  | Hi Matt...you have a jewel in the rough... -- kevin, 02/18/2002
first you dont ned to spend a lot for C-J stuff. Is this engine still running? If so I would do a compression test first. If not, oh well. You need to say what the intended usage is for, and be totally honest with yourself, for the right answers. What car, trans, and how much you will have to spend, and we will go from there. |
|  | non 428CJ C6AE-R heads to 428 CJ -- Matt, 02/18/2002
The heads on my non CJ 428 are C6AE-R. I problably envision this engine in a 68-70 stang or into another T-Bird running a C-6 and a quick differential. The engine was running, but is torn down for a rebuild. It has not been bored over. Thanks to kevin and mike who responded. Hope this info helps. |
| | | RE: non 428CJ C6AE-R heads to 428 CJ -- Mike McQuesten, 02/20/2002
When you have those heads "done", I'd recommend installing the 428 CJ/427 Lo-riser valves, 2.13 intake and 1.66 exhaust. Have a competent head rebuilder do this work so that they'll open up the bowl/pocket area so that the larger valves are doing more than just putting a larger lid on the same size can.
Another great feature of the C6AE-R is that there are provisions cast that allow you to have the cast in "tabs" to be drilled and tapped to match either CJ or GT exhaust manifolds. Of course, most would recommend the CJ manifolds over the very restrictive 390 GT manifolds. The CJ manifolds are available as new re cast now for around $450. Of course you can go with the correct headers for these heads.
You have a great engine there. No need for CJ rods either. Just have the stock '66 rods resized/furbished with ARP standard 390/428 non CJ bolts. I'd also recommend Forged pistons although they don't make horsepower.....they just allow more horsepower to be built into the engine. Standard CJ pistons are available forged at reasonable prices.
|
| | | | RE: non 428CJ C6AE-R heads to 428 CJ -- Earl Wood, 02/21/2002
So does anyone care to finish answering the question about cam selection? |
| | | |  | RE: oh yes, cam selection..... -- Mike McQuesten, 02/21/2002
Ah, the romantic shaft. So many cams & so little time.
Seriously, I now try to avoid cam choices but Matt did indicate that he wanted to bring his '66 428 up to CJ specs. So, how about a C6OZ-6250B? That's the original cam and was Ford's choice starting with the 390GT in '66. Used it as such through '68. Liked it so much they started using it in '67 for the 428PI over the solid lifter shaft that was used in '66. Again, liked it so much they selected it for the 428 CJ & SCJ. It's no longer available from Ford but is available from Crane & Comp as part of their Muscle Car series. Just a dup of the old smoothy. Personally, I like this cam a lot. I have one in a 390-4V that now powers my '68 F100. Very nice idle and it will pull to 5,500 easily. It has a nice broad torque/power curve. It "feels" good to drive around. But as many have said it's old technology.
How would I build a 428 CJ today? I'd go with a solid lifter cam in a performance application. I might even go with a hydraulic roller cam. I might do a whole bunch of things when it comes to cams. Why? Because I like to...I guess. Especially when I make a choice that slows the engine down. Then I can start the drain down....go buy a timing cover gasket set....read about all the promises cam grinders make....we're talkin' some kind of fun.
So what would you recommend Earl? |
| | | | RE: non 428CJ C6AE-R heads to 428 CJ -- Matt, 02/22/2002
With almost everything covered, what intake and carb would you recommend. Should I go with ford parts or go with aftermarket? |
| Looking for a top notch engine builder -- Scott Barrentine, 02/17/2002
I am about to build a all out race car and need a top notch engine builder who has experience in building high speed high RPM high HP engines. He hs to pay attention to detail and and build a top notch engine, balanced and bluprinted to the upmost precision. Thanks for any suggestions. |
| | RE: Looking for a top notch engine builder -- dani, 02/18/2002
Call Jim at Indy Mustang Performance. He builds race engines and runs a 1/4 mile car also. So he knows what to do.
WWW.indymustang.stangnet.com |
| 390 crank help.. -- jason, 02/17/2002
I'v just instaled my new crank bearings, but when I bult it in its tight to turn.... about how much force should it take to turn it by hand. without pistons. also whoat should my bolts be torqued too??
thanks
Jason |
| camshaft? -- jesse, 02/16/2002
would a crane cams power max with an adv. duration of 272/284 a gross lift of .533/.563 and a rpm range of 1500-5800 work well in a 390 |
| | RE: camshaft? -- Mike McQuesten, 02/16/2002
Jesse, look what happened with Jason's similar question about building a 390! Camshaft selection can be like choosing a ......... a mate, ya that's it. You'll get all kinds of advice, ideas, opinions and some of them go on and on.........my disertation on the "benefits of Edelbrock to me" is the best example I can think of.
To be honest the specs of this Crane cam look good. But good for what? What are you going to be doing with this 390? Even with all the information you could provide us about your intentions, you're going to get a long list of opinions/ideas.
Cam selection is a wonderful romantic process. There are those who have desk top dyno computer programs to help them. I'm not one of those, yet anyway, and there's nothing wrong with those programs to help you gain some advantage with this great mystery.
So how about this......talk with Crane tech people. Tell 'em exactly what you want and intend to do. Then make a decision and give us a real world report on how you think the cam did in meeting your expectations. Or maybe someone out there has actually used this specific cam? |
| | | Ya got that right :) -- Nitro, 02/16/2002
Cams have got to be the biggest engine hop up romance story ever to come down the pike. For any given engine you can choose between some 7,8,9,10 or more cams all advertising to be the ULTIMATE beast of performance. Then you have those guys who automatically slap in the biggest, baddest, wildest cam they can find only to dog their motor to the ground. Many times it's the "mild" cam that'll really wake up the motor......cams are probably the biggest performance building motor mystery ever. I've personally always tended to run mild cams because the wilder you get.....the more modifications you have to make in order to take advantage of the cam. Which cam is best? That's sort of like "six of one, half dozen of the other". |
| | |  | RE: Ya got that right :) -- Bob, 02/16/2002
I totally agree. Its like who's the prettiest girl. To look at or to take out or to marry. To look at is different from the one you have to wine and dine. And the one you like the best may not be the prettiest just like the best cam for you engine is probably NOT the one with biggest "lobes". |
| | | | Same cam, different car -- Travis Miller, 02/16/2002
Back in my street racing days in the mid 60's, a friend of mine had a 1963.....let's just say that it was not a Ford. However it did run great. It had a 4-speed with a 3.70 posi rearend. We changed the stock hydraulic cam to a big solid lifter one and it ran even better. After he tore out the 3.70's, we put in a 4.11 and the car became a serious contender on the street. Then came the night he crashed it street racing.
After he healed up from his injuries, we put the engine alone in a convertible that had an automatic and stock 3.08 rearend. Same complete engine with no change to it at all. Although the engine still sounded strong, that car was one of the biggest dogs I have ever rode in. We wound up putting the original 2bl engine back in the convertible and he sold the good engine to another guy who put it in a light weight '36 coupe with a 4-speed. The coupe became one of the fastest cars in the neighborhood without doing anything to the engine.
That is when I learned that if you do not have the proper rearend gear and a lighter weight vehicle, you do not want to go very wild on your camshaft selection. Heavy vehicles with gears around 3.00 need a very mild cam with bottom end torque to get them moving.
|
| | | | | RE: I appriciate your input Travis -- James, 02/17/2002
The cam that he mentions would be cool for a standard shift car but might make him spend some money on a stall converter just to make it streetable. I think that a person should always chose the milder cams as well. Nothing is more miserable than having to much cam. |
| 428-410 flexplate -- Paul G., 02/16/2002
Hello,
Can anyone tell me if this is the correct flexplate for a 428-410. I have read with great interest the information about the balancing of these engines, and would like to build up my 390 to a 428. I want to make sure I get the correct flexplate, crank shaft and dampener. The person selling this flexplate claims it came from a 69 428 mustang. How can I tell if it is correct?
Thanks,
Paul G.
 |
| | RE: 428-410 flexplate -- Travis Miller, 02/16/2002
The one I just pulled out of my customers 1966 Galaxie with a 390/C-6 does not have the weight welded on it. Neither does the new one that will be going back in the car. |
| | RE: 428-410 flexplate -- Ray, 02/16/2002
It looks likes right paul, in fact I have identical new 428 pioneer replacement flexplates. I do have a another 428 flex that has triangular cut-outs holes around it's dia, but I'am not absoluly sure if its original. Ray |
| | | RE: 428-410 flexplate -- salid, 02/16/2002
this is an original out of a 68 428 CJ from a GT500 KR. I believe they all had the cutouts. You might think it would make them weak, but I've never heard of one breaking. Many replacements seem to come without the cutouts. I do not know if any other FEs had cutouts or not.
 |
| | RE: 428-410 flexplate -- Bill Howell, 02/16/2002
I believe all the 428's have the counterweight welded on the flywheel. (The 428's are externally balanced, unlike the 390 and 427). All the original ones I have seen have the cutouts in the flywheel but the aftermarket ones may be solid. Also, a machine shop can weld on the weight to balance the engine. |
| | | RE: 428-410 flexplate -- Travis Miller, 02/16/2002
For the 428 replacement, they probably just take the solid 390 flexplate and weld on the weight. |
| | RE: 428-410 flexplate -- Jim, 02/17/2002
My flexplate out of my 68 Shelby GT500 KR has the triangular cut outs. It also has a ring that goes between the bolts and the plate (kind of like a big washer). This is needed to prevent cracking. |
| | | RE: 428-410 flexplate -- Travis Miller, 02/17/2002
The 390/C6 flexplate I pulled from my customers '66 Galaxie also has the ring between the bolts and flexplate. That bolt ring is not unique to the 428 flexplate. |
| | | | RE: 428-410 flexplate -- Ray, 02/17/2002
Then theres is no doubt, that's an area of concern for me. That was good info, it looks like I'll using a new one for my application. And with me one good eye looking for cracks! .) |
| | | | I believe the ring allows the bolts to fit. -- Dave Shoe, 02/17/2002
Apparently, Ford uses this ring to assure proper thread engagement of the flywheel bolts. Not enough thread engagement and you may strip the crank. Too much and the bolt tip will press against the block and really foul things up.
I believe there is one factory 352 application which Ford's master parts manual claimes uses a stack of three of these rings.
The ring would logically seem to provide a stress-relief function, but I've seen enough "factory stock" engines which don't use the ring
9and the flexplate looks great) that I suspect the spacer ring may not be necessary for reliability.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: I believe the ring allows the bolts to fit. -- Jim, 02/17/2002
A good source of parts and info regarding the flexplate is Bill Upman at Mansfield Mustang http://www.mansfieldmustang.com/
He has these parts and has been great help to me on my project.
|
| | | | | | RE: I believe the ring allows the bolts to fit. -- peter(pop428), 02/17/2002
I have not yet seen a Ford V8 with an auto that doesn't use the flat ring plate here in Australia windsor or cleveland my 428cj has one on it. And all our engines were directly imported from the U.s. except in 1972 when we brought all the tooling for the cleveland off of Ford U.S. to continue with the cleveland upto 1985! |
| | | | | RE: I believe the ring allows the bolts to fit. NO -- hawkrod, 02/17/2002
i hate to ask this but no one else has, if the spacer is to get correct thread engagement, how come ford just didn't use the right length bolts? all flexplates were the same guage metal so the correct length would have been known. ford is a cheap company and does not use parts just because it is easier. they use parts because it is cheaper. they would have specified the right length bolts from the supplier if that was the problem. adding the spacer adds costs including the spacer, longer bolts (when you buy by the pound shorter bolts are cheaper), and extra assembly time. no i don't buy it. the spacer is a reinforcement due to issues or they would not have used one. no disrespect meant but thats the way i see it. hawkrod |
| | | | | | RE: I believe the ring allows the bolts to fit. NO -- salid, 02/17/2002
I was about to say that I could not remember whether mine had the ring or not, but you can clearly see on the image in my earlier post that there was a ring. As to what it intended to do, I don't know, but it does give us something to talk and wonder about. |
| | | | | | Hawkrod says "or they would not have used one" -- Dave Shoe, 02/18/2002
Ford apparently did not always use one.
I agree, otherwise. The logic follows that the plate is used for flexplate reinforcing. I just looked up the official name (plate, flywheel reinforcing), and this does not suggest it's a spacer.
What I don't understand is why the auto-tranny 352 pickup truck got three of them installed. Three would not be any stronger than one, but is more costly and may even be weaker.
This topic remains unresolved with me. The only logic I can fathom is Ford sometimes used the three rings as spacers. I've also got a couple later-year hi-mileage factory flexplates in excellent shape which came without the rings and which show no trace markings of ever having a reinforcing ring.
Shoe.
[Image edited for size by Admin.]
 |
| | | | | | | RE: Hawkrod says "or they would not have used one" -- Barry B, 02/18/2002
I don’t have a good answer to this but as an observation, I’ve seen similar reinforcing rings used on heavy-duty truck wheels. I assume they are used as a load spreader so it’s not all concentrated at the lugs. JMO |
| | | | | | | | They're too thin to be load spreaders. -- Dave Shoe, 02/18/2002
The rings will help distribute the load a slight amount, but these rings are so thin, they will not offer any significant pressure more than a couple millimeters from the head of the bolt.
I have pondered the "3-ring" notion today. I suspect Ford trucks may not have had auto trannys before 1965, so when the Curisomatic was dropped into a light pickup, Ford engineering may have wondered whether a heavily abused truck might be able to cause the flexplate to creep and loosen under the short flywheel bolts.
Longer bolts have a shank stretch which would allow some flexplate creep while maintaining clamping force. Since manual flywheels FT trucks of 1964 had used these longer bolts, it was possibly thought that first-edition Auto-trannied FE pickup trucks of 1965 might do well to run these longer bolts until it was proven the shorter bolts wouldn't loosen up over time and abuse.
Just my latest thoughts on what that ring is doing there.
Shoe. |
| 67 K-code -- willie, 02/15/2002
I am wondering the production numbers of a 67 Mustang fastback with K-code 289 and 4 spd, AND GT? I asked this once before but failed to include the GT option. Thanks for any help. |
| | RE: 67 K-code -- Mike McQuesten, 02/15/2002
Sorry Willie.....wrong forum. Still, that's one rare '67 Mustang GT w/Hi-po 289. I just read this number somewhere.....? Seems like just a few hundred HP 289 '67 'stangs were built. That's not counting the '67 Shelby GT350 which started life as a K code HP289.
I'll bet someone has the exact number of K code '67s right here for you soon.
This is one Mustang I wouldn't put an FE in. |
| | See the "VIN Report" box on the right... -- Dan Davis, 02/16/2002
Kevin Marti can tell you exactly how many.
Cheers,
Dan |
| 390fe Vin ID numbers? -- eric, 02/15/2002
Can anyone tell me where exacally the 390fe has the vin numbers stamped in the block. Would like to know if it the matching number motor in my 1967 GTA mustang fastback.....thanks. |
| | RE: 390fe Vin ID numbers on block? -- hawkrod, 02/15/2002
the numbers are usually on the drivers side rear just above the bellhousing holes and below the top of the deck. they can not be seen by mere mortals if the engine is in the car. actually they can but its not pretty! you need lights and mirrors and to be sure the back of the block is spotless clean and then if all of the planets align and the gods are feeling generous you may catch a glimpse. however that being said, when the engine is on the ground they are plain as day even with 200k worth of gunk and you will wonder why you didn't notice them before! last but not least, they may not be there! i have seen cars where all is right and no numbers, and my 69 CJ car has the number stamped on the headjust above the deck. i have always assumed it was a new guy and he just stamped it 1 inch too high (probably misunderstood the directions!). hawkrod |
| | | | RE: So these are VINs? -- Mike McQuesten, 02/15/2002
Really? These stampings that you're kindly sharing with us are VI #s of the original vehicle they were dropped into at the FoMoCo assembly plant?
See what I learn here. All these years I thought that Ford did not code original factory installed engines with Vehicle Identifications.
Please break down that number on the back of your '68 Cougar's 390 and how it relates to the VIN on your data plate for us.
Thanks. |
| | | | | RE: So these are VINs? -- hawkrod, 02/15/2002
not all fords were numbered until the 70's but most hi-performance cars were. the 68 is 8F93S545119 but unfortunately the pic does not show it well but it is clear on the block. the whole number appears on 68 and 69 but it seems they started stamping only the year plant and sequential number in the 70 and newer cars (i am not sure when the change occured, but it would look like 0F123456 instead of 0F01R123456) my transmissions also match, the C6 in the "G" has a pad on top and the 4 speed from the CJ has the serial number along the top edge above the bolt that holds the trans to the bellhousing. hawkrod |
| | | | | | Partial/full stamp varies by plant & maybe by operator. [n/m] -- Mr F, 02/16/2002
n/m |
| | | | | RE: So these are VINs? -- peter, 02/16/2002
Mike, I have my Partial Vin stamped on the left side of my block just below where the head bolts on.
This is how I I.D. My original block when i brought my 1969 mach 1 428cj.If you want I.ll send you a photo as well.. |
| | | | | VINs on engine/trans Federal requiement, 1967... -- Dan Davis, 02/16/2002
...model year and up. Earlier HiPo engines (i.e., 289 HiPo) had the stampings as well before 1967. The format was first two and last six digits of the VIN. Example: 0H37N201424 will have 0H201424 stamped on the block and trans.
I too have seen VIN stampings in error on the head (on a 351C) instead of the block.
Correct casting numbers but incorrect or missing (i.e., service replacement block) VIN stamping do not a "numbers matching" vehicle make! The VIN stamping on the block & trans matching the vehicle VIN make a vehicle "numbers matching."
Cheers,
Dan |
| | | | | RE: Excellent new information to me. -- Mike McQuesten, 02/16/2002
Thanks. All very interesting and new. Should help guys out looking/shopping for the "numbers correct" Ford/Merc HP car. |
| | | | | | How is a car with no motor or trans a #'s matching -- Dale, 02/18/2002
Recently saw an ad from some guy asking way to much for his #'s matching Dodge. Seems the parts with the numbers were long gone. Sheesh... |
| | | | | | Numbered engines -- Travis Miller, 02/18/2002
I know a guy who spent 1969 and 70 in the "big house" because someone told him that Ford's never serialized their engines. He was real cocky with the detectives until they matched the engine number on the back of the 428 in his garage to a stolen '69 Mustang Mach I. Years later as he told the story, he said it was the one and only time he ever messed with a Ford. He said he stole many Chevys, never got caught but one Ford did him in. Served him right! |
| Help with 428 numbers please -- salid, 02/14/2002
I have a 428, C6ME-A engine. The numbers on the tag under the coil is 407J, shouldn't that say 428? The numbers by the oil filter adapter say 8D24 and WI. I think the date is 24 April 68, but what does the WI mean? |
| Dove Rockers on High Riser Heads -- Terry Tobolt, 02/14/2002
When put on dove rockers on C4AE-F high riser heads how critical is to plug up the oil hole comeing up at no.2 rocker stand.I was told since the motor is together.just stick something in the port with a7/64 hole in it. This the first ive used dove rockers I called dove but the main man is out sick . OK now be nice on your feedback . |
| | RE: Dove Rockers on High Riser Heads -- Ray, 02/14/2002
Yes its a good idea to restrike oil at that point, use a small piece of copper tubing, fill the tube with solder drill hole to .090 to .120. Size will be determined by which pump your going to use H V / H P. Your crank will see a lot more and less likely to empty your pan. Ray |
| '60 HP 352 info for Nitro -- Mike McQuesten, 02/14/2002
That thread on the merits or lack of regarding Edelbrock cams/equipment went on ..... and on.... still it was interesting to read comments and opinions. I'm not going to start in again. I have wondered about the performance of the Edelbrock RPM cam myself. I have not read or talked with anyone who has actually run that shaft & lifters, springs, etc. On paper it looks good but lots of cams do on paper right? As for the basic Performer cam I know that it was designed as nothing more than an "RV" grind for a all around driving providing torque to 5,000 rpms.
As for the Edelbrock Performer intake I can tell you that I personally had excellent performance provided by it. That's in comparison to two other intakes that I ran on a 428 Cobra Jet in three different vehicles (I just seem to love pulling and placing engines....). I ran four different cams in this exact same engine. No dyno testing available, just real world on the street and strip comparison.
First, Stock CJ with Chet Herbert grind which I can't remember exactly what it was, it has been sixteen years now, but Chet personally recommended it being a cam that would exceed the stock C6OZ-B and make h-power to 6,000 rpms. One thing, Herbert cams at least then were regrinds thus very economically priced. Intake was a '67 PI with original Holley 735. Results: Good. Car ran best of 13.52/103 mph. This with 4.11 gearing/C-6 in a '66 Cyclone GT. Drive it to the strip. Uncork dumps and let it run through the stock CJ ex. manifolds. I didn't think the cam was good enough! Another problem that I have.
So in goes the at the time brand new Rhoads 222 cam/lifter kit. This was supposedly the hot ticket in '86. It was winter. It was snowy so why not do a cam change? Oh, I also ran stock Ford 1.76 adjustable rockers rockers throughout all of this personal research & change. I wouldn't call it development. Especially after the results of this cam change.
The Cyclone would now run a 13.9/100 or 101mph. No other changes! Aren't I the smart guy?
At this time I acquired a mint '61 Starliner w/292/cruiso. One owner car that I bought right and just thought I'd detail 'er and sell 'er. What I told my wife.....
Well I decided the big 'liner was better than the Cyclone. It was just a personal choice at the time. Out comes the 292 Y block and cruiso. Cyclone yields the CJ powertrain which did include a CJ - C6 (R code servo and cast iron tail shaft). Easy fit into the '61. One little change was that I did install a TCI street dominator torque convertor. Engine remained exactly as it had been in the '66 Comet.
Results: 13.90s/low 100s....this with a car that was 200 lbs. heavier. Maybe the convertor helped? Whatever, I still wasn't happy. I wanted those consistent mid 13s back. The Herbert cam was now in a friends '63 390. So now what should I try?
Schneider solid lifter. No changes, just their 427 grind & lifters. Again, I can't remember but it was something like 230ish both intake & exhaust @ .050. Results: Whoa, this cam worked well! It would easily pull to 6,200 plus but ran my best e.t.s were to column shift the mighty C6 at 5,900 rpms. The big Galaxie ran a best of 13.72/103 mph. This through shorty HP352/360 horse exhaust manifolds and the exact same dumpouts I'd ran on the now gone Cyclone. Gearing? Everything from 3.50s to 4.56s. The 3.50s were all around best with this powertrain combination.
Next, a friend loaned me his old Offenhaeuser dual four intake. This thing looked very nice with a couple of ancient AFBs and the coolest Offenhaeuser alumiunum air filter. I wouldn't run the spider infested '58 Pontiac carbs so I bought a couple o'brand new Edelbrock 500 CFMs with manual chokes along with E-brocks dual carb linkage kit. All went together easily and basically. It looked so cool on the big CJ which had the original plain aluminum Ford finned valve covers. But performance? Get ready......13.9 once with mostly 14.0/14.1s. I apparently get a real kick out of slowing cars down. But it looked good. But it didn't run as well as the PI/Holley 735 or even the single autolite 4100/1.12 I ran once in awhile for fun.
Time to pull that engine! My '68 F100's original 360 was getting very tired. The '28 CJ would make a nice power source. First though I wanted to make a few changes to prepare the mill for the work horse F100. Off comes the cool lookin' Offy. Out comes the Schneider/solids. In goes Ford Motorsports one and only cam for the FE. I chose it because it "looked on paper" a little better than the stock GT/CJ/PI cam. It was available cheap. I topped it off with a brand new Edelbrock Performer intake & Edelbrock 750 manual choke carb. The RPM intake was not available yet and I doubt I would have chosen it for this anyway. This was to be for an everyday hauler.
Results? Whoa! This engine had never put out so much power/torque right off the line! Obviously it couldn't help but being a tire ripper. A stock 428CJ rips 'em very well especially that first to second shift with a C6 has to be experienced to appreciate. But I'm telling you, this Edelbrock intake/750 carb(I did have to tweak the 750 with larger metering rods & weaker step up springs from the Edelbrock strip-kit, and a guy at Edelbrock personally advised me as to what to do about the initial bog I was getting). Anyway, this Induction system & that mild cam would literally overpower the M & H DOT Street /Strip tires I had been using. With the other combos I would just power brake to 2,500 and stab to the floor with the last amber on the tree, then steer and shift that old column shifter twice. I ran easy 14.0s/99/100mph with this Edelbrock intake/carb & the very smooth idling Motorsports cam.
So what does this mean? I don't know really except I personally like Edelbrock intakes & their carbs. I would like to run their complete system including heads, RP |
| | RE: and the 352HP? -- Mike McQuesten, 02/14/2002
Yes Nitro it was offered as a brand new high performance option for 1960. I have one. They're real. But really rare. It's my opinion that this package heralded the start of the Muscle Car era. This really pisses Pontiac afficianodos off. Why? Because where GM & Mopar were offering some great high horsepower engines in '60, they were still just plunking them into standard passenger car chassis with little improvement to things. The Ford engineers put together a 360 horse 352 that could be had only with a fully integrated package that included a HD differential, larger fuel line, brakes, springs, u-joints, etc. It was the start of Total Performance. It was the big block Ford that got the positive press that the 352 didn't get in '58 & '59. It was the HP352 that started the big block Ford legends.....before it was known as FE. |
| | | RE: and the 352HP? -- Nitro, 02/14/2002
Thanks for the info Mike! I too love Edelbrock intakes/carbs and in fact run them on my lil' 302 with '65 hi comp heads (ported/polished), headers, comp ignition/fuel pump and an Edelbrock Performer cam combo which works very well for the 302 on the street. I'm in the process of building my '67 410 Merc and will use Edelbrock top end there too....still not certain which cam (or brand) but your info was of interest to me in that respect.
I appreciate the info from both yourself and Bob concerning the 352 as well but still can't seem to find that motor listed in my Motor manuals. I have the '62, the '71 and the '74 Motor manuals, they don't show that hp rating. Bob says it's in the '64 manual (and I believe him, no reason not to) but I can't understand WHY it wasn't listed in the other year manuals even though the 352 IS listed? I remember some years back reading of a '61 Starliner running a top end of 152 mph stock in some magazine, perhaps it was the engine you & Bob refer to. Anyway, interesting thread to be sure :) |
| | | | RE: 152 mph stock! -- Mike McQuesten, 02/14/2002
That's true. I have the article. It was a 1960 Starliner 352/360 horse. Briefly, and I know that'd be amazing from blabber-typer me, Ford wanted their new HP offering to make a big splash with the automotive press. As stated, the 332/352 were much berated in their initial two years. So Ford invited writers, etc. to its proving grounds where they were able to prove a documented 152 mph on an oval test track in a bascially stock '60 Starliner. They claimed they were not going to release the package for sale until they could get 150 mph out of it.
Then, the legendary Ford Bonneville stock car racer, Texan Carroll Miller, drove his '60 Starliner to the flats, just as he had done with his Y block '56, and set a new record of 157 mph. And this was with a 352-4V, 300 horse hydraulic car!! With Air Conditioning and Power Steering. Seems, he was going to retire from the Bonneville thing and just enjoy his new car. But he couldn't do it. He acquired a set of new HP heads, new HP aluminum intake & a Lincoln Autolite 4100!! and the new HP dual point, and a set of the new HP header style exhaust manifolds. He did run an Iskenderian cam. Like I said, he drove it from Texas to Utah and blasted a new record exceeding 158 a couple of times to set the average at 157. This is before there was a 390!!
As for not being able to find listings of or about the 360 horse 352, you're very correct. It's a difficult engine to document. Very similar problems for the '61 HP 390 too. Both as a 375 single Holley 4V and for the 401 horse tri power. The fact is Ford did not have a unique designated engine code letter for the HP options in either year. There are new publications/sources (Greg Donahue, '63-'64 Ford guru) that have got it outright wrong! The 1960 High Performance 360 horse 352 got a Y code and that was it. The 1961 High Performance 390 got a Z code. The high performance option was noted in the Remarks/Notes section on the build sheets of these cars. They were initially coded as basic 300 horse hydraulic liftered 4V engines in both years. This has created a lot of confusion. Then they were built with all of the special equipment that made them a total performance package. Just like an R ode '63 car. Even my original 1960 Ford Shop Manual makes no mention of the 352/360 horse engine.
But my build sheet does and that's what counts to me!
And after that windy disertation I did on the benefits of Edelbrock, you'd think I had a major stock holding in Vic's corporation. I don't. I should but I keep investing in FE parts!
|
| | | | Gotta love those old Fords! -- Nitro, 02/14/2002
BTW, what did you ever do with that old 292 Y-block from the Starliner? I've had several of them over the years, good old motors! I ran a '57 T-bird 312 with the dual 4V set up, Isky cam, milled heads etc for years in my old '60 pick up. That was one quick truck and I could smoke 'em for days :) Sure do miss that old thing, still got the block but the rest is pretty much gone now :( |
| | | | | RE: Gotta love those old Fords! -- Mike McQuesten, 02/15/2002
The 41,000 mile Y block/cruiso? I gave the dynamic duo to a friend who had helped me numerous times. He had been the shop foreman for many years at the small Ford dealership I had worked at back in '69. He is still one of the sharpest old school mechanics I've ever known. Actually he may be the sharpest. He installed the set into a '53 F100. I agree that the Y block could be a real shocker if "worked and equipped" well like yours was. I had a '57 'bird in '68-'69 w/312 & stick. All I ever wanted to do to it was replace the '12 with an FE. Never did. Got married. Down the road the lil'bird went. Along with a lot of other things.....
Hey, SDP, it would be interesting to hear what you're doing to that 352 to get into the 13's. I know 352s can be built to run hard. I've mentioned him before, but there's a Yakima, WA guy named Jerry Pruitt who held a national record in one of the lower stock NHRA classes a few years ago with a '64 Ford Custom 2 door sedan & 352. He was running mid 11's. Maybe Travis could check the NHRA archives on this?
Last time I saw Jerry he had switched the 352 to a fox body '80s 'stang and was preparing to run one of the SS/GT classes. Then I heard he had it for sale so he could focus restoring one of Portland, OR's Bill Ireland's old SS cars....A '61 Starliner, 401 horse warrior.
I'm very impressed with SDP's '64 running low 13's with a 390. Your '64 was a couple hundred pounds heftier than my '61. Mine weighed an honest 3,860. This was with the 428CJ/aluminum PI, CJ-C6; Crites T-bolt style glass hood & Crites glass rear bumper.
Hey Greg, I can't get to that site from this computer. I'll try it at home this weekend. |
| | | | | | RE: Gotta love those old Fords! -- Travis Miller, 02/15/2002
Jerry Pruitt's car was actually a Super Stocker. He ran in SS/N with his 1964 Galaxie 2-door sedan. He held the record for a while with his 352/250 horse 4-speed car. |
| | | | | | | RE: 352/250 horse SS/N? -- Mike McQuesten, 02/17/2002
I haven't talked to Jerry for awhile. I live over 200 miles away now. But I was wondering what his time/mph were with that '64 sedan? It seems they were pretty impressive for a 352/250 horse. I do remember how much "work" he had into that 352. He ran an Edelbrock Streetmaster that was ..... well, there wasn't a lot left of it that was Edelbrock's work. |
| | | | | | RE:All steel -- SDP, 02/17/2002
Thanks for the compliments Mike on our 64 Mike! Our car weighed more no doubt cause it is all steel with no 'glass' parts on it at all comparerd to your 61. The 40lb flywheel and scatersheild probally helped some too! LOL We have not done much of anything to the 352 honestly. Other than a cam and header's, that's it. Stock "unported" heads, iron intake, and cast pistons......................................... |
| | Maybe you'll like this Mike.. -- Greg, 02/14/2002
Go to kickme.to/macleod and go to the bottom of the page and download the video. It's about 5 sec. But you'll love the rumble.
|
| | RE: Great info -- SDP, 02/14/2002
Man Mike, what great info in your post! Your experiance's playing around the "combo" sounds much like ours in our 64 Galaxie. I tried several different intakes/cams as well in our car and some worked better, some not. Our best combo was the PI,3310 Holley,and a Comp solid cam. This was on a 390 with 406 heads and a TopLoader behind it. In the 4060lb Galaxie we would run 13.40's@104. That was with slicks and 'uncapped'. Still we would drive the car to and from the track. Now were palying hell trying to get the 352 thats in the car now to run 13's.................................. |
| | | info -- Lou, 02/18/2002
I have (bought it in 1972) a 60 T-Bird with the 360 hp 352 and overdrive. Great running and driving car.
The December 1959 copy of Hotrod Magazine has 9 page layout on the new 360 Hp 60 Ford starliner. |
|