n/m

that the damper ring has not slipped? I have not followed this post, so dont know what has happened.

n/m

Greg,

Since the factory used manifold vacuum that would make a lot of sense. There are great pictures of how it hooks up in your Ford shop manual.

PCV hooked to the air cleaner wouldn't work. The factory hooked 68 - up oil filler caps to the air cleaner so that the PCV could draw fresh air into the crankcase.

Royce Peterson

Bought "72" F-100 Ranger Sport Custom 3 yrs ago from body and fender nut the exterior is still in awsome shape, but need new motor! I want to replace
the existing 390 with either a 351 w or 305. Want lots of chrome and detail but the end result is this. I want to
put this motor on an engine stand and add to it gradually, then put in in. I don't know what I can get away with emissions wise. North Carolina has no emissons requirements for "75" or later, but they will still look for factory installed emissions sheet metal, and tubing. This truck will eventually be in the possestion of a 19 yr old Marine who sorely needs new
transportation. He has $5000 burning a hole in his pocket. And I'm trying to convince him that putting the money into the truck would be more to his benifit than going out and buying a new or new/used car!! Would love to take the long block and bolt on headers, electronic ignition system, different intake and carb set
up nothing more nothing less. Can I get some advice up in here!

To answer your origional question you are in no danger of pulling any oil from your crankcase through your PCV. They are designed to open only at very lo engine vacuum. The valve is held shut by engine vacuum at idle (when vacuum is at its highest value) and is spring loaded internally to open when you open the throttle. At that point vacuum disappears and any oil suction won't occur. If the pcv fails then and only then would you have that problem and it would immediately be visibly apparent in your exhaust.

metal tag 390 66 6 5 5J 357 8 I'm afraid those numbers seem a little screwy. May I assume the tag looks more like this?:    390    66    6     5-J    357  8 This represents a 390 "Z"-code engine of change level #8. It was assembled at the Dearborn Engines & Foundry plant in September, 1965, for use during the 1966 model year. Basic engine ID #357 appears to have been specific to the Thunderbird car line, always mated with either a C/M or C-6 automatic. To learn more, please visit our "Obsolete Engines Textbook". You can click that link, or use the ENGINES button found on every page of this Forum. Hope this helps.  :-) Mr F

n/m

Check out :
www.428cobrajet.com
for the real story.

Royce Peterson

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=600142861

Point the crank somewhere close to TDC. Remove the tranny inspection cover (1/2" wrench, 4 bolts) and sneak a peek at the 1/4" (or so) wide notch at the bottom of the crank at the flywheel. If there is no "huge crescent" next to the notch which has been sliced outta the crankshaft flange, then you've got at least a 390/410/428 on your hands.

To verify it's a 410/428. you gotta pull a spark plug and SOMEHOW measure the stroke. If it's closer to 3.984" than 3.784", then you've got the long crank. Good luck telling the difference!

As for the bore, there's really no way to verify it outsida pulling the heads. By now, you don't know whether sombody has overbored a 390 block or whether you've got a genni 428 block anyhow - they have identical casting indicators on the outside.

Best chance of verifying it's a 428 block is to punch out the center two core plugs and look for the number 428 cast onto the floor. If you don't find it, no problem, it may be located elsewhere or covered by sludge. Pop out the other four core plugs (engine must be out of he car) and use a drill-bit to measure the gap between all bores. If the base of a 1/4" drill bit fits between the water jackets of any of the six core plug holes, you've likely got an overbored 390 block on your hands. If the drill bit don't fit in any of the six positions, you might just have a real 428 on your hands.

Lastly, if you have access to the flywheel face of the block, look for a large "A" (std), "C" (HD), or "X"(428freak) protruding from the face. If you see one of these LARGE characters, then it's very likely a 428 block.

Not pulling the heads? It won't be easy.

JMO,
Shoe.

Not many 7-Litre's around... I own one with toploader. Where are you located? I am in NC.

Got the same car. And I have the smae problem too. Don't bother with the H pipe. Just go with a universal fit crossover pipe because they are more advanced. Now I am still searching for a suitable header which does not require power steering relocation. If you reply please do so directly to my email.

I can't handle the truth so here is what I'll tellya.....

The 1963, 406 tri power/405 horsepower engine was factory equipped with a head casting of C3AE-C. This head was built with a standard size 390 intake valve, and a new size, 1.66, exhaust valve. This head was factory machined for valve spring support cups. The combustion chamber was a new & unique to C3AE-C casting that is approximately 62cc.

The 1963, 406, single 4-V, 385 horsepower engine retained the C2SE head from '62 that continued with the standard size 390 intake & exhaust valves.

Note: horsepower rating of the '63 3-2V 406 did not change. But actual real world performance of this engine did.

Now, what gives with a C3AE-C casting being on '63 390 4-Vs? My answer on this remains, as always so far, pure speculation. What I have seen and heard is that when you find a '63 390-4V 300 horse standard grocery getter, T-bird haulin', Galaxie cruisin' engine, you will find the C3AE-C head without the spring cups; with standard size 390 intake & exhaust valves and the same combustion chamber as the factory prepped 406 tri power head. Why? I think because the engineers wanted more compression for the '63 390. The same pistons from '61 & '62 were carried over, these are the dished ones. The '61/'62 390 had a rated compression ratio of 9.6:1(?maybe 9.8:1, going from memory) but the '63 compression ratio is rated as 10.5:1. This would seem to make sense with the much smaller combustion chamber of the C3AE-C head vs. the much larger cc chamber of the C1AE head.

So they made a whole bunch of C3AE-C heads and used 'em for '63. Again, I've never had this specifically explained or justified.

For '64, the 390-4V was still rated with a compression ratio of 10.5:1 but you'd find either C1AE or C4AE-G heads in place of the C3AE-C units. The pistons were new though - the flat top that became the staple of the 390-4V for many years.

And I should make this a normal sign off on all my posts and e-mails:

I think the C3AE-C head has excellent potential as a high performer meaning HIGH compression head. The standard C3AE-C with standard valves cc's out to 64. That's a serious compression making chamber with the right piston.

This is basically the same discussion we had on here a few months ago. At that time I told of the original 390 I pulled out of a highly optioned but seriously rusted '63 Galaxie 500 4-door sedan. The car had a build date of early May 1963. The 390-300 horse engine had the original C3AE-6090-C heads on it. It also had dished pistons with no valve reliefs.

One more thing of note was the actual cc's of the combustion chambers. While all data from Ford shows C3AE-C heads at around 62-64 cc's, the heads I had measured 72 cc's. This was after a valve job but the valves did not wind up being sunk an excessive amount.