These are the old FoMoCo Obsolete Forums and are being hosted by JCOConsulting.com.
While you're here, check out my articles or have a look around at some of the
Ford Stuff we have for sale. You might find something you can't live without.
|
|
|
|
Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Re: 390 trans. question. -- David Siedschlag, 01/01/2002
Hey, from my 12-28 post I asked if a C-6 from a 390 69 cougar eliminator would work ok to put into my 67 with a 390. Mike M. said no problem. I think so to. I also asked if the flywheel would work from my old cruisomatic trans. that came with the engine I purchased to rebuild. He thought that would work as well. That I am not sure of, Not that I don't trust you mike, but I want to be sure, is there another sorce to confirm this with. Also will the block spacer be the same from a cruisomatic to a C-6 or are they different. I don't have the trans here so I can't just try the parts on for size. Help. If its not to much trouble send responses to my E-mail as well. Thanks David |
|  | RE: Re: 390 trans. question. -- Mike McQuesten, 01/01/2002
I really don't think there's any difference between the flexplate/block spacers of a '65 Cruisomatic and a FE-C6. But I can appreciate your wanting a second or third opinion. I've got a stack of flexplates(that's what I tend to call automatic "flywheels") and they've come from a variety of old Fords/Mercs I've parted out. So I'm also open to a confirmation on my guess that the flexplate from the cruiso will work with that '69 C6. I do believe the plate tooth count is the same from '65 up. Now if it was a '64 & earlier flexplate, I'd say probably not.
You've said something a little different with your post this time.....you say the C6 you are buying is from a '69 Cougar Eliminator with a 390. Last time I think you said it was a '69 Cougar 390. What I would like to know is if the Eliminator was available with a 390? I know it was standard with a 290 horse/351-W 4V and I knew the 428CJ/SCJ was optional and I think the Boss 302 engine became available in '70..? It seems plausible that the 390 could be had with a '69 Cougar Eliminator....Royce? |
 | stroker cranks -- bear, 01/01/2002
I haVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT A STROKER CRANK FOR AN FE i WASA SURFING THE NET ONE NIGHT AND CAME ACROSS A COMPANY SELLING THEM. BUT, I CANNOT REMEMBER WHO,WHERE, OR HOW MUCH.
ANYHELP WOULD BE APPRECIATED. |
| need a little help -- steff, 01/01/2002
Please tell me where I can find out about engine specs on ford 302 `68 and 351 `78. Basically I am putting a `78 351w into a `67 cougar and having a little trouble with identifying 78 tranny mounts ... etc |
| | For 1960-73 engines, click 'Engines' button (above) [n/m] -- Mr F, 01/01/2002
n/m |
| '60 HP intake probs! -- Mike McQuesten, 12/31/2001
It has been a frustrating couple of days. I've got my "HP 352" (a C3AE 427 appearing as a '60HP 352) settled nicely into the '60 Sunliner. The T-85 O.D. is buttoned up with the Hayes clutch. So it was time to settle the original '60 aluminum intake between the COAE-D heads.
I've done a lot of FE intakes both iron & alumimum. If you run the end seals like Ford did, the alumium can be a little bit of a challenge to settle in properly so that all ten bolts line up properly. Because I do like to run the end seals (don't ask me why, I just do, just like we always did before there was silicone or The Right Stuff) I like to use the FeL Pro intake gasket set #1246, which blocks the heat crossover passages and the end seals have a nice sticky surface that adheres well. I've never had a problem with these gaskets. I was also going to use the ARP stainless steel bolt set specific to FE. All set... you bet.
What gives?!
I worked for three hours attempting to get this supposedly original FoMoCo aluminum HP intake to fit. It would NOT settle in as it should. I could get nine ARPs started with a lot of effort but that last one, the one up front, this time on the left/driver's side would not go. Oh, and I had used a liberal dose of antiseeze lube on the bolt threads too. But I could tell there was too much effort used to tighten down the nine I had started. I even pulled a couple of ARPs out thinking they were the problem, and used the trusty, crusty 9/16" head Ford intake bolts. Still not right. That was it. It had to come off.
So now I've been eye balling and fitting for two days. I cleaned off all gaskets/sealers and attempted to fit the '60 HP intake. Not good. Especially in comparison to my tried and proven tri power intake. It fits right down nice and even all around. The '60 intake will not settle down on the heads properly.
John Saxon came by and we really gave the '60 intake a looking over. It appears that at sometime in its 42 year life it has been milled! I cold see that someone had done some "port matching" but I had not noticed that it had been cut on. What a major disappointment this is.
I know there are lots of intakes old and new that will beat the performance of this first year true HP aluminum intake made by FoMoCo. I had wanted to run this with the original Holley 540 CFM and then do a year two thing by installing the '61 tri power. We'd know what the real performance gain would be provided by the original, used and proven, triple Holley system would make on this engine. A couple years later, install the C7ZX with two 540s just for fun. These last two intakes/systems will be used but now I'm looking for the following:
A true un-cut 1960 352 High Performance intake manifold. This is what makes a '60 HP intake:
1 - Aluminum with oil splash pan, although it can have heat chamber corrosion/rot, because I don't want to use the heat anyway.
2- The carb mounting base must be flat. The '61 HP had the angled base.
3 - The firing order must be cast at the back left corner. This is a small detail along with the carb base that differentiates the '60 from all the later HP intakes.
Of course I wouldn't mind the one, now additional item, I still don't have for my car, an origianl '60 open element HP air cleaner. But I've got a nice '62 unit that will work okay. I don't mind using it. Remember, I'm not a correct parts # boy.
Off to do some ebay shopping I go....... |
| | RE: '60 HP intake probs! -- Travis Miller, 01/01/2002
Milled intakes and/or heads are the ruination of many high performance FE parts. In the early days when high octane unleaded gas was available at every corner service station, milling for more compression was the thing to do to gain horsepower. All machine shops had a formula for how much needed to be taken off the intake side of the head when the deck side was cut to lesson the cc's in the combustion chamber.
One thing I did years ago was to measure an original untouched FE head from the intake side to the exhaust side. All FE heads, no matter if they were high performance ones off a 427 or standard ones off a pickup truck have a thickness measurement of 5.580 inches. When I go looking for a set of FE heads, I measure the thickness of the head avoiding ones that have been cut too much. This is not to say that heads that have been cut a lot cannot be used. It just tells me that I may need to severely cut an intake to get it to work with the cut heads. Once an intake has had a lot of material taken off the head mating surface, it will not fit an uncut pair of heads without a lot of work. Gasket companies used to make thicker intake gaskets to make up for the excessive milling but I do not know if they are available anymore. I have also enlarged intake bolt holes and ground pushrod bores out in order to make butchered intake manifolds fit. Sometimes the end rails would have to be cut to allow the manifold to drop enough to fit the heads.
|
| | | RE: '60 HP intake probs! -- Ray, 01/01/2002
I would have to agree Travis, When you have F.E,s heads in you hands you better make sure there gonna work ! Some of ford puplications have charts that you can follow, that will explain how this is done. ( It's called percentage cutting) But one thing for sure they cannot tell you how much was taken off the heads before you got-um . This idea of keeping those numbers handy for future use is good , I keep a virgin head handy myself. But if you want to save these -- H.P. heads, because you have a ton of money in them.
Take your manifold to your friendly machines shop and cut it, I swear it won't hurt ! |
|  | Making it work. -- Royce Peterson, 01/01/2002
Mike,
I have had this problem before, there can be a lot of variation in intakes and if the heads or block get surfaced this happens too. I went to Home Depot and they sell 1/16" cork sheet. Make thinner end gaskets from the 1/16" cork using the Fel Pro ones as a pattern. Then use yellow contact cement to glue them down.
Royce Peterson |
| | | RE: thanks -- Mike McQuesten, 01/01/2002
Thanks for the suggestions and advice. I've been thinking about it quite a lot. The heads are true out of the box NOS. The block is standard with the deck being just mildly surfaced for good head gasket mating.
It's definitely the intake that was butchered at some time many years ago. So I'm going to be patient and see what happens with a couple of want ads for a '60 HP intake, and I'd probably be willing to take any single 4 early Ford aluminum intake that had oil fill provision and rear draft tube provision too.
I may even just skip to year two and run the tri power system that is in excellent/complete working order.
Thanks again. |
| | | | RE: thanks -- Mac, 01/01/2002
umm one more question i did my 351c 4v and had same problem with my edelbrock intake they had a specific order to put the bolts in did you do that? |
| | | | | RE: yes -- Mike McQuesten, 01/01/2002
Yes I did follow the correct torque sequence for the initial bolt installation. Wasn't too concerned at first because when running the end seals it is always a little difficult to get an aluminum to align just right. But after numerous attempts with all kinds of bolt loosening and trying, I knew something wasn't right.
Thanks for the idea Mac. I'm just waiting for that e-mail from some kind soul who'll let that old Ford FE aluminum intake go to a proper home at a reasonable price.
I'm half ready to just order an Edelbrock RPM. But I really wanted this engine to "look" like an original '60 352HP which would be difficult with the e-brock RPM. I can't see from their website pic that there is provision for an oil fill tube and for a '60HP rear draft tube. |
| FE Swap To Small Block -- Rollie H, 12/31/2001
I have a 1976 F100 Explorer and I am considering swapping my 428 FE with a C6 for a small block engine. I need some opinions and ideas for this before I make a decision. I am looking for better highway performance and all around gas mileage. I do have an extra 351C with a C4 tranny. The 351C needs a rebuild before attempting to use it for anything. As far as towing or hauling goes I do very little of that, so the big FE is overkill really. This truck came with a very anemic 360 originally. Any information and opinions will be helpfull. |
| | RE: FE Swap To Small Block -- Ed Foral, 12/31/2001
What are you trying to get for mileage? Unless you have a car to put the 428 in, you will miss the torque you have with it. There is a lot of tuning you can do to improve your mileage. How many miles are on the engine? What kind of cam, intake and carb are on it?
Ed |
| |  | RE: FE Swap To Small Block -- richard, 12/31/2001
if you still have the 360 block i would use that and put the 428 crank in it. this will give you 410 ci. you get the torque of the 428 and the economy of the 390. you wont do much better than that if at all. remember you are oulling around a lot of weight and you need the low end torque to do that even though you are not towing. just be conservative with cam, intake and carb choice and you will do ok. sell the 428 block to someone who is building a hot FE powered car. my old F-250 got 20 mpg but it was powered by a diesel engine. i dont recomend you swap though as the diesel was quite loud. in fact at 70 it was hard to even hear myself think!! |
| | | RE: FE Swap To Small Block -- Rollie H, 01/01/2002
I am getting around 8 mpg now on the highway. I want to get around 12 or 14 at least. I dont think this is asking too much.
It has an original cast iron 4V intake with a Holley carb. I am not sure which CFM it is. The cam is a stock profile cam. This 428 is not a high performance engine. You are right about the torque it has for pulling. I still want better highway performance. Is it possible to get more performance and not get worse gas mileage?
This engine has been rebuilt and has around 15K miles since then. It has the dished pistons with 4 valve relief pistons and is bored to .030 oversize.
It uses no oil at all. I mean the thing is full of oil every time I check it. I have people watch while I start it and there isn't even any smoke during a cold start. |
| | | | RE: FE Swap To Small Block -- Will, 01/02/2002
Damn - 8mpg! I have a 67 Mustang with a 428 w/Edel heads, big solid cam, 2x4's, etc., and I got around 14mpg the last time I checked.
Granted, a Mustang isn't a truck, but I figured you'd get better mileage than that. If it's an F100, I bet you may even be lighter than me. If it's an F250 or more, I bet you weigh more. I don't think the aerodynamics matter that much. I don't think they do a thing until you start getting around 50mph
I still think the biggest contributor to your bad mileage is your rearend gears. My only other guess would be your timing. I got a lot better response from my 428 after I had the distributor recurved. |
| | RE: FE Swap To Small Block -- Will, 01/01/2002
If it's fuel economy you're looking for, you may want to look at swapping in a 5.0 with fuel injection along with a 5-speed manual or automatic overdrive.
I doubt the 351C would give much better fuel economy than the 428. I've seen several modern 5.0's putting out 20+ mpg, though.
Another thing to consider is the final drive ratio. The modern cars get a lot of their fuel economy with overdrive tranny's. If you were to swap your trans for an automagic overdrive, you'd probably get 3 or 4 mpg from that. If you did a Tremec, you may get 5 mpg, especially if you went with taller rearend gears (the Tremec has a pretty low first gear).
The standard Tremec is about $1400, and I think it has the same input shaft as a small input toploader. |
| | | RE: FE Swap To Small Block -- Rollie H, 01/01/2002
Overdrive sounds good. But what about the linkage and the tranny mount? Is there a kit to switch this truck over to an overdrive or do I have to fabricate some stuff? I can fabricate metal pieces if needed.
I can't imagine all of the changes it would take to get a fuel injected engine installed and working in this old truck. If someone has done this I could follow what they did. That is a good idea. Now I wonder if it is possible to install fuel injection on my 428?
|
| | | | RE: FE Swap To Small Block -- Chuck, 01/01/2002
What gear are you pulling in the rear? Maybe you could change it and get your mileage right there! |
| | | | RE: FE Swap To Small Block -- Will, 01/01/2002
You can buy an automatic overdrive for the FE for about $2500 from Lentech. They may just sell their bellhousing so you could get your own trans. If I were doing it, and I HAD to have an automatic, I'd call Lentech or Art Carr and have them build the whole thing. The AOD wasn't designed for the FE, so who knows how long a junkyard AOD will last. They could also give you advice on your crossmember, driveshaft length, etc.
Here's a link where someone was looking at an AOD behind an FE. http://mix.twistedpair.ca/pipermail/galaxie/2001-October/023023.html
I don't think I'd fool with converting an FE to fuel injection in a truck. It may make sense in a Cobra or some other sports car, but if you're just looking for MPG and better cold-weather performance, it isn't cost effective. Even if it gave you 3 or 4 mpg, you'd have to drive a heck of a lot to recover your costs. |
| | RE: All Ready has a Load to haul! -- R Shannon, 01/02/2002
Your 70's F100 is a heavy truck. A six banger probably won't get more than 16 to 18. I'd either redone the 351C and might squeeze 15 MPG highway and if you're lucky 13 in town. A 302 might get a few MPG more. Just face it, what ever you put it, it all ready has a load to haul! Maybe the price you get for the 428 could pay for most of the rebuild and/or 302 swap. MY 67 has a 352 (got 10 to 12) Some years later I put a stock 410 in (got 10 to 15) and Faired alitte better on the highway with the 4100 vs. the 2100. Yes, I liked the extra torque of the 410, but to build one would be costly with little gain in MPG. |
| | | RE: I'd do some tuning and! -- RC Moser, 01/02/2002
I junk the Holley and do some tuning. You should be able to get somewhere around 12 in town and maybe 15 on the road with a light foot. |
| | | | RE: I'd do some tuning and! -- Rollie H, 01/03/2002
I have decided to keep the 428 and perform some upgrades. I am going to pull the engine and tear it down and build it all over again with a different cam profile, intake, carb and headers. The main reason I am going to tear it down it is to change to a different piston. I am sure the pistons were not changed on the previous rebuild. This engine received everything else though. A balance job may get done as well just to see what the difference is in an engine before and after. The heads are just fine the way they are. They have all stainless valves and hardened valve seats and it wasn't cheap!
Thanks for all of the great help! |
| S code 67 GTA -- Phil J, 12/30/2001
How is it best to deterime if this vehicle has the original engine? Date of manufacture is5/17/67. What casting #'s should I have on the block for an original "S" code? Any answers would be greatly appreciated.
Phil J |
| | RE: S code 67 GTA -- Mike McQuesten, 12/31/2001
The block probably will be a C7AE casting. That C7AE may be followed by an -A. The casting date should be approximately two months prior to your cars build day of May 17, '67. So maybe in March.... or maybe even back to February...or may be as late as sometime in April. I've just heard that two months difference is reasonable. Others may know more.
You didn't mention whether your -S-code is a Mustang or a Fairlane? I know, it's probably a 'stang and there's nothing wrong with that. There were just a few of us who would buy Fairlanes because....I'm not sure. Maybe it was because my girl freind at that time thought Mustangs were soooo cute. I did everything I could to please her! Hey Carol, come look at my Fairlane.... |
| S code Torino -- James, 12/30/2001
I'm looking at a 68 Torino GT. S code on the VIN but what looks like a 428 SCJ under the hood - Oil Cooler, mechanical lifters, etc. Sounds like a retro-fit? |
| | RE: S code Torino -- Mike McQuesten, 12/30/2001
Yes it does. The last true GT 390: correct cam - C6OZ-B and other essentials, was the -S- code 1968.
I think there were a few 428CJ '68 Torinos built but I think they were prototypes and factory promo specialty vehicles. Not nearly as "common" as the very rare and uncommon '68(1/2) Mustangs and Cougars. |
| | | | RE: 1968 428 Fairlane 500 -- Mike McQuesten, 12/31/2001
Thank you Dan! That is a fabulous '68 Formal Roof 428 Cobra Jet Fairlane! I've never seen another like it anywhere, Magazines or for sure in person.
So this was a very early production CJ '68 that basically got demoted before it had a chance? Is it a 4 speed or auto. car?
I must admit my preference for the formal roof styling. It's just my preference and I don't dislike nor would I not own a SportsRoof '69 Cobra. I'd take a '69 Cobra any style now. Back in '69, I was a gofer/lot lizzard with a little tiny bit of influence at a podunk farm Ford dealership. I talked them into ordering a '69 Cobra Formal Roof w/drag pack & 3.91s/ram air too. I wanted to go 4 speed but they wouldn't allow that. The sales manager wanted to drive it once in awhile and he was not proficient with the ol'clutch. Unless it was a tractor or an F250.
Thanks again for those pics - I'm turning on the printer for those. |
| | | | | | RE:See, I knew there'd be some... -- Mike McQuesten, 12/31/2001
I knew that if I mentioned that I'd never seen a real, honest to goodness, '68 Torino/Fairlane 428, that you guys could bring 'em out. I did know that a few had to have been built but like I thought, not nearly as common as the '68 CJ Mustangs/Cougars. I've seen those. I actually toured the Milpitas(San Jose) assembly plant in the closing days of the production, summer of '68. What a tour. I asked the guide where the Cobra Jets were. He took me personally over to a wall which was in the engine storage area and there they were.....a line up of 50 or so '68 428 CJs. I was amazed!
Yes Dan, please send me those pics when you have time. Please send them to:
mcquesten@earthlink.net
that e-mail is easier to work with for downloading than this hotmail.com is.
Thanks for all the info. It'll give John and I something to do tonight while the wives are gettin' beered up & trash talkin' us motorheads. We'll be showing Corvette Woody what a 'vette stomper looks like. |
| | | | RE: 1968 428 Fairlane 500 -- Travis Miller, 01/01/2002
Back in the late 1980's after working the NHRA Winternationals at Pomona, I spent a few days in California after the race. The days were spent going thru the tech files at the NHRA headquarters. I ran across some literature Ford had sent NHRA concerning the 1968 428CJ Mustangs and Fairlanes. Going through the notes I made back then, I have been able to decipher that 341 Fairlanes with 428 CJ's were built up thru July 10, 1968. There was still about a month of production left that year. The production break down up to that date is as follows:
Fairlane formal coupe = 8
Fairlane 500 formal coupe = 5
Fairlane 500 fastback = 8
Torino formal coupe = 2
Torino GT fastback = 290
Torino GT convertible = 1
Torino GT Formal coupe = 27
The Atlanta plant built 197 cars, Lorain built 51, and Kansas City built 93.
|
| | | I had a black 68 sportsroof "R" code -- kevin, 12/31/2001
that I traded my 64 GTO for plus 75 bucks. It had no emblem on it anywhere signifying a 428. Bench seat interior (black) no tach, automatic, 3.50 T-lock. I was sceptical at the time untill I dug into it. It was stolen in 74 and now resides in a quarry (submerged) with about 12 more stolen cars on top of it. Iv'e waited a lot of years for that S.O.B. to get out of prison so I can "settle" up with him. He also stole a lot of FE stuff (NOS) too boot, 3-2's and 2-4 set ups and Belanger headers and oooh I gotta quit before my blood pressure makes me go out and... |
| | | | Stunt driver wannabe? -- Orin, 01/02/2002
Kevin:
Your Torino is with 12 other cars at the bottom of a quarry? Who put the cars there - the cops or the robber? Was this guy practicing to be a stunt driver or something and borrowed your car to practice with? What's the story? |
| | | | | RE: Stunt driver wannabe? -- kevin, 01/02/2002
No, he was whacked out after coming back from Columbia with a load of coke with his partner. This was before the borders were very secure evidently. He had several nice cars, 340 Duster race car, a KR that I had built, dune buggies, snomobiles, and a Norton 850 Commando. By the time I found out from a neighbor who recognized him, I went there and the house had been stripped and destroyed. The farmer who owned the place had many of his cars and some other stuff driven in along with all kinds of other crap, and it was iced over so bad and below zero that I just said screw it. He was buying this place and something went wrong (gee I wonder) and his wife had left him, and my girlfriend had consoled her and I figured he must have thought something was going on. There were some seriously pissed off bad guys after him too I heard later. I caught him in a bar and he had a gun and my gal said to let it go. He was long gone by the time I called the cops and I've never seen him since. You never know in life what some people are capable of. I've seen that stuff destroy a lot of lives and think its a shame that some humans are not strong enough to control themselves. When they started the war on drugs, they missed the boat. They should have learned why people need to escape themselves. Just study the origins of the Boxer rebellion and the greedy fat cat westerners that kept the opium trade going and it makes you sick. I look at the crackheads around the beach and am glad I am not in their shoes, if they have any. Sorry for the off subject rant, but it sure brings back a bad memory every time I see a 68. |
| | | RE: S code Torino -- Rollie H, 12/31/2001
The 428 setup in Torino was available at the dealership in 1968. If they didn't have one you could have ordered one. The limitation was how deep your pockets were. |
| | | | SCJs weren't available 'till 1969. -- Dave Shoe, 12/31/2001
The SCJ wasn't available until a few months after the 1969 models were rolling.
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: SCJs weren't available 'till 1969. -- James, 12/31/2001
Thanks everyone. Now that it's almost zero degrees outside, perhaps the asking price will come down too.
Happy New Year! |
| | | | | RE: SCJs weren't available 'till 1969. -- Rollie H, 01/01/2002
Still it can be a 428, 428CJ and possibly a 428SCJ because it may not be the original engine or one of Fords little secrets is at work here. The 428CJ was optional in 1968, so if an engine failed in 1969 under a warranty claim isn't it possible it was replaced with a 428 SCJ by the dealership? You have to remember how the Ford Motor Company operated. I have seen engines not supposedly available until the next year or a certain car. Still there the engine sits installed by Ford straight from the factory. A very good thing to remember when dealing with these Fords, believe what you see too and not just what you read. |
| Flatlander Racing Pro-Line Oil Pan -- David Shelton, 12/30/2001
Anyone look at the Pro-Line FE powdercoated oil pans at www.flatlanderracing.com? Looks like they have dimples for Mustang/Cougar tie rods. Any comments? Anyone have experience with Flatlander? |
| C8AE-H cylinder heads.. -- Mike, 12/29/2001
i came across a set of these today at the local yard. can cobrajet size valves be installed in these and if so how will the perform compared with the real cj heads. thanks. |
|
|
|
|