Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Stiil cruising in Dec.... -- Don V, 12/09/2001
..can't believe it but it's true. Got up this Sun morning with the sun shining in MI, fired up the Fairlne GTA and headed towards the country road. Man, listening to the rumbling of a good running FE at about 65mph echoing off the trees and bridges, peering down that square hood with those shiny hood insets glinting in the sun, what a feast for the audio - visual senses.
I just had to share this because , sometimes it's not about casting numbers, build dates,sideoilers, crossbolts or max HP, but about enjoying the experience of something that just plain puts a grin on your face.
Guys, smoke em if ya got em....
|
|  | RE: thanks a lot Don.. -- Mike McQuesten, 12/09/2001
As I'm sitting here looking out the window at this winter wonderland up here in the Northwest. I have the heater on warming up the shop and I hope to actually stick the 352HP/427 into the '60 today. A major step for me. Just one step at a time. Flywheel, T-85 & clutch linkage next. Wait, driver's side shorty exhaust manifold before equalizer shaft I think....
But I'm happy that you're enjoying that special FE sound coming from your Fairlane GTA. I remember it well. Within three days of purchasing my GTA in May, '66, I hack sawed off the stock mufflers and welded on a set of Walker Continentals. Followed up by 2 1/2" tailpipe extensions replacing the last three feet of the stock tailpipes that I also sawed off. Turned down the reverberated sounds of the Beatles and the Stones and let her rip down the highway at 3,000 rpms monitored by my brand new used Sun tach that I'd mounted on the steering column the day before the exhaust "system".
Another unibody factory FE powered ride I will someday own again! |
| | Yep, I took my cars out today too! -- Royce Peterson, 12/09/2001
All except the green 427 GTE which has a lunched C6 right now.
Here's a picture of my 1915 Model T Ford. It isn't as fast as the 427 or 428CJ but is a lot of fun!
 |
|  | RE: Stiil cruising in Dec.... -- Chuck, 12/09/2001
You can thank me for the good weather. See, I started tear down on mine first of November. Tried to get a early start for next spring. All my pals are out cruising in the nice warm weather while I'm in the garage working. Enjoy the ride boys....winters coming. |
| |  | RE: Stiil cruising in Dec.... -- Aussie pete, 12/09/2001
I'm yet to experience my first big block.... 428 CJ/R but thanks to you guy's I'm champing at the bit too fire her up......
Keep the stories coming it helps me through the late nights in the garage piecing my mustang together in the 30 c heat. |
 | Help ID'ing Autolite 4V carb? -- Charles, 12/09/2001
I am rebuilding an Autolite four barrel and have discovered that it came with the wrong tag (C5ZF B which is for a 1.08). It has "1.12" cast into the body and no other numbers I can find except a tiny "4A DJ" stamped on one mounting flange ear and a large "6" cast under the float bowl.
The generic kit from Napa has most of the parts but I need a primary booster venturi assembly (one is partially melted) and the little brass tube on the same side that projects into the venturi (don't know what it's called) and idle mixture screws. Can anyone tell me how to further ID this carb so I can get the right part numbers? Thanks for any info. |
| | I'm guessing that the full number on that "foot".. -- Ed Jenkins, 12/09/2001
....would be C4AF-DJ. Some of the casting numbers must have been worn off as Autolite 4100's (which this carb is) before 66 had a full casting # on the carb foot. C4AF-DJ = 1964 Fullsize Ford 390 with auto trans.
If you need anyother info please visit my carb forum at
http://www.network54.com/Forum/88781.
Approx CFM of this carb is 520-530.
|
| | RE: Help ID'ing Autolite 4V carb? -- Bob, 12/10/2001
Its a C6AF-DG. You will have to get a replacement but used booster as no new ones are available. Actually from what's missing you have a parts carb or you need one. |
| 428 CJ True Horsepower -- David Shelton, 12/08/2001
Does anyone know what the true horsepower output was on a 1969 428 CJ? I had always heard the factory 335 hp was underrated for insurance purposes. Does anyone know for sure? What was NHRA's refactored number? |
| | NHRA Factored HP for 428CJ -- Royce Peterson, 12/09/2001
NHRA factors the 428CJ at 375 HP with flat top pistons and light valves. With factory dished pistons and heavy stock valves it is factored at 360 HP. Here's a link to NHRA's factor lists:
http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/engine/
A lot of magazines have speculated that the 428CJ had nearly the same horsepower in stock form as the '68 427 and I would have to agree, since I own two of the 68 427's and a 68 1/2 428CJ. The 427 was rated at 390 HP on the "A" or gross horsepower curve. That curve has only a water pump being driven by the engine and uses race headers, no air cleaner, etc. The CJ rating was allegedly taken with all acessories, that means alternator and smog pump, plus exhaust manifolds and a factory air cleaner. The torque figures for both engines are easier to compare because both are from the "A" curve. The 1968 427 is listed at 460 LB-FT at 3200 RPM. The 68 1/2 428 CJ is listed at 440 LB-FT at 3400 RPM.
Royce Peterson |
| | | RE: Torque number for 428 CJ -- P, 12/10/2001
I'm wonering about that torque number Royce, is it taken from the same spec sheet as the 335 HP??
Reason I wonder is this: My marine 427's get 439 footpounds of torque at 2900 RPM. I always thought a 428, with the longer stroke, would get more torque, especially producing the extra 60 or 75 horsepower on top of my marine 300's.
I agree with the HP ratings on the 428 CJ, virtually everything I have found indicates the engines were 20% to 30% underrated in power. It's a bit tough using published power ratings that far back, because the solid lifter 427 was rated at a max 425-HP for it's entire production run, even though there were many improvements in the design that would have allowed more power. True power for some of those variants is more likely in the 450 HP range.
I do trust the power readings provided by Ford to Chris craft, 300-HP and 439 footpounds at 2900 RPM, both being factors of the torque cam and 9.5:1 compression.
P |
| | | | RE: Torque number for 428 CJ -- Royce Peterson, 12/10/2001
P,
The numbers came from the Fomoco shop manual, 1968 for the 427 and 1969 for the 428 CJ. There was a press release detailing the 1968 1/2 CJ making the same torque number at a slightly different RPM, I have a copy someplace but not right at my fingertips.
I think the numbers are available on Scott Hollenbeck's fabulous site:
www.428cobrajet.com
There has been an old story that the 428 CJ made more torque at a lower RPM but the factory numbers don't support that theory. In the case of these motors, either makes plenty and your boat 427 numbers sound plausible as well.
Royce Peterson |
| Need a tri-power part & part # -- Styletone58, 12/08/2001
I need the heater hose fitting for my Tri-Power intake. It's the tall one with the right angle. I have neither a part number for it nor a source of where to get one. Repop would be fine. Thanks! |
| What do we have? -- Lynn, 12/08/2001
A few years ago a friend pulled in a 63 Galaxie, I have a 63 1/2 already and he gave it to me for parts. He told me that it had a rare motor in it. I looked a the motor and just thought it was a 352 because it was painted blue. I really didn't pay much attention to it at the time. A few weeks ago I looked at it again and notice that it wasn't a 352 or a 390. It for one didn't have 352 stamped on the front of the block.
I pulled the motor out and tore it down. This is what I have found. For starters the motor weights alot more that any 390 I have ever had on my stand. In fact I have build alot of 390's and this motor broke my motor stand. The intake was huge. It was very heavy, it took 2 men to lift it off the motor. The manifold exhaust pipe was about twice as big as a normal 390. The ports on the heads was different than 390's and the valve springs were duel springs. The pistons went down lower in the cylinder wall almost touching the to the crank and came up higher. The oil up has a different screen on it and the oil pan has some kind of clean deal in the bottom. The dip stick has on it that it holds 6 qts of oil. The rods are thinner and longer than a 390's.
The pistons are 2 ring pistons. A ford lover told us that the pistons were called quick slide and the rods are called diamond rods. Not sure on that but that is what we were told. Under the blue paint we found the paint was gold. The block has 2 stamps on it. One saying it is a 62 and another saying it is a 63. The block has a exta oil galley in the front.
I have found alot of numbers and stamps on the block and parts that don't really add up. If anyone could help us figure this out please post back or email me.
Parts#
block...C3AE-6015-E AND C2KI6S
HEADS...C1AE-6090-A
ROCKER STAND....62AE-6531-A
CRANK....C3AE-B
RODS C1AE-B
CAM...Z (THE ONLY NUMBER OR LETTER ON IT)
The rods are 6.540 and have 13/32" bolts
Thanks,
Lynn
Missouri |
| 1963 406/427 fastback -- Lou, 12/07/2001
Today I was asked two interesting questions that I do not know the answer to, so I will drop it on the rest of you.
#1 What date did the 427 replace the 406 in production?
#2 What date was the 63 1/2 fastback introduced to the public? |
| | RE: 1963 406/427 fastback -- Tom, 12/07/2001
the 427 came out in late 63 and the 63 1/2 was introduced in spring of 62 detriot auto show |
| | | Detroit Auto Show -- Royce Peterson, 12/07/2001
The Detroit Auto Show is held the last week of January each year. Mid year introductions for 1963 1/2 were first shown at the January 1963 show. The production year at Ford starts at July 4th and goes thru July 3rd for every model year. So january 1963 was the middle of the production year for 1963 body styles.
I haven't looked it up but memory (faulty sometimes) suggests that the 427 was used at Daytona in 1963.
Anyone have any old Nascar reference material?
Royce Peterson |
| | | | I mean production. (n/m) -- Lou, 12/07/2001
n/m |
| | | | | RE: I mean production. (n/m) -- Travis Miller, 12/07/2001
If you are hinting if there were any 406 fastbacks built, I can tell you that a friend of mine bought a used "B" code (385 horse single 4bl) 406 in the spring of 1967. The car was a white Galaxie 500 fastback with a 4-speed. It had 15" wheels with the original full disc 427 style hubcaps still on it. He kept it 2 years then traded it in on a new Torino.
Another guy I know said he bought a new '63 fastback 406-405 with a 3-speed on the column when he lived in Arizona. He did not order the car that way, and was actually looking for a 390 car. It was sitting on a dealer's back lot and he liked it because it was black with a red bench seat interior. He did not care anything about drag racing, but he did say it was one heck of a fast road car. |
| | | | | | RE: I mean production. (n/m) -- Mike McQuesten, 12/08/2001
Lou, I believe the 427 became available to the general buying public in February. Announced in January and orderable by Feb. I'm going from memory on this but I'm looking at an April '63 Hot Rod issue where a Ford eight (8!) page ad spread touts all the engine combination packages available giving special emphasis to the new two versions of the 427, the new HP 289, the Falcon Sprint, etc.
The fastback roof design was made available by January. And as Travis indicated, there were a number of 63 1/2 Galaxies built with what must have been the last of the 406s, both B code 4Vs, 385 horse, and the -G- code tri powers, 405 horse. |
| | RE: 1963 406/427 fastback -- Mike McQuesten, 12/08/2001
I've been checking and reading a little more about your questions Lou and I won't be able to give you what may be the Ford official dates but, the new roofline "fastback" Ford made its racing debut in January at the Daytona 500. Along with the new was the new 427.
Not sure on the specific date again but this new roof line and engine had to be available to the public to be classified as "stock"cars. Just like a '02 351W powered two door Taurus coupe, huh?
What you got me doing her Lou was looking through my pile of '63 magazines. Most I think I've had since I bought 'em off the mag stand back then. Haven't looked at them for years and if you guys are looking for some good old FE articles, here's a little shoping list for your next trip to a swap meet:
December, 1962, Hot Rod - P. 71, "Ford's Rolling Dyno". A big 483 cubic inch experimental engine running Bonneville in a '62 Ford. Facts: 406 block with .100 over bore to....yup, 4.23; A 406 crank is Ford stroked .520 to 4.30 = 483 big 'uns.
April, 1963, Hot Rod - Ford eight page ad spread with Roger Huntington claimed to be the author. This was a tremendously intereting find that I'd forgotten comletely about. This is a must for Ford fanatics. Even the very rare Gleasman Dual-Drive differential system is mentioned. I've heard a little about this but I don't think I've ever seen one. Roger recommends ordering your 427 with dealer installed 4.57:1 gears coupled to the 3 speed with overdrive that would yield you approximately 3.3:1 in overdrive out on the road. This is exactly my plan with my '60/427.
May, 1963, Hot Rod - pp. 26-31 and on, Great article on Ford's top five spot sweep of The Daytona 500 with their new slippery roofline and new, enhanced and improved 406....the 427.
July, 1963, Custom Rodder with 2 Ford S/S Road Tests! A 427 Galaxie found on pp. 13 - 17 cont. and another on a Monte Carlo Falcon Sprint. This is going to be a tough find. A rather rare magazine I think. I read it cover to cover in 9th grade, obviously mostly in English class. This article is good but a bit strange in that they their test on the strip with 3.50 gearing and a full loaded XL yielded a best of 13.0 at a 108! What! They never counted this test in the fastest stone stock muscle car of the sixties? I'm obviously skeptical of their testing procedures but it's a good article.
Happy hunting for these magazines. Good readin', it'll be worth the search.
|
| | | RE: 1963 406/427 fastback -- Lou, 12/08/2001
Thanks guys, a friend of mine is looking to trade a 55 crown (the crown is a show piece) for a 427 fastback (good orginial) and because the owner of the 427 knows nothing about the car he ask me to do a little research before he spent a day driving to look at the car.
I did not know that there were any 406 fastbacks built, I had a 406 Conv built in Feb and assumed that all fast backs were 427s.
thanks again, guys. |
| | | | RE: 1963 406/427 fastback -- John R. Barnes, 12/14/2001
January 15, 1963, you could order. |
| | | | | Order Which, 427 or Fastback? (n/m) -- Lou, 12/14/2001
n/m |
| | | | | | RE: Order Which, 427 or Fastback? (n/m) -- John R. Barnes, 12/14/2001
I beleive that was the engine availabilty. I know of a man that ordered in January and waited till July for the car because it was a fastback. If you wanted the engine earlier, you could get the notchback. |
| Need a little help -- Greg, 12/07/2001
Am going to sell my spare 428 and need some help with the pricing. It's a '66 428 "Q" from a T-bird. The numbers put it built in november of '65. It's a standard bore (never taken apart until last month) It's complete from the carb to the pan. I have a buyer but don't know how much to ask for it. Thanks for the help.
Greg
|
| C3AE-D heads/Jim -- Mike McQuesten, 12/07/2001
Jim, please e-mail me to let me know if you're really interested in selling those C3AE-D heads for my friend's '63 R code restoration.
We're finding some some items, a C3AE, 306/500 cam in excellent shape, the dual 4 set up minus the fuel log, and a '63 BW-T-10 (yuk on that box but that's what he wants).
So if you're interested in selling them let me know and I'll pass the word on to Mr. -R- code '63. |
| 390 .80 over = 427! -- Joshua Carroll, 12/07/2001
Earlier this week I posted some pictures of a block I thought was a 406. It ended up being a bored out 390 block .80 over. Therefore, I convienced the guy that sold me the block to take it back and sell me a 1965 427 center oiler block he has had for years. Not a bad trade! Thanks to all the guys that helped me determine what the block with no casting numbers really was. I checked the numbers on the 427 and it is the real deal. Would like to get a side oiler someday but this center oiler is going to make a hell of a motor. It is in excellent shape and passed the mag test. I am going to have it sonic checked to get a mapping of the block. Thanks again!
Josh |
| | RE: Congratulations! -- Mike McQuesten, 12/07/2001
Way to go Joshua! You will be able to make as much power in that '65 Center Oiler as you could with a side oiler. A side oiler doesn't make any more power. Now if you plan on running at 6,000 rpms plus for a few hundred miles, yes you might want to get a side oiler. But that block you acquired has all you should need. Especially with the engine mount provisions to fit any chassis from '58 up.
John Saxon and I were just looking at a C5AE 427 yesterday. A sad block. It had a big window in the skirt on the #8 rod side/location. This was a center oiler '65 block like yours. This block was laying on the floor of Dick Flynn's shop, the guy that has built a 361 cranked de-bored '68 service block into a cammer. This 355 c.i. FE Cammer is in a steel '32 roadster and races at Bonneville only. Dick knows his stuff. So there's the broken '27 block, damaged main bearing saddles, a damaged $ steel crank and 7 LeMans rods left. The engine had been in a cobra replica/kit car. Dick doesn't think there's much to save as for the block. The crank? Maybe, but it will require welding,etc. The seven rods? Hmmm, maybe we should pursue those at what might be a reasonable price.....
Congrats again Joshua. It's great to see good things happen to FEnatics. |
| | | RE: Congratulations! -- Joshua Carroll, 12/07/2001
Mike,
Your comments were the most useful in determining what the no casting number block was. Truely appreciated! Have a great weekend and thank you again for the help!
Josh |
| | | | RE: Congratulations! -- Tom, 12/07/2001
hey that 390 block what did it come out of did it need to be sleeved what are the block numbers if you can get them for me id like to see about having a 390 fake 427 sicne i cant find real ones thanks alot |
| | | | | RE: Congratulations! -- Tom, 12/11/2001
hey thinki can get some info on this block if y dont mind |
| New 13/32 connecting rod bolts?!? -- Joshua Carroll, 12/07/2001
Does anybody know where I can buy new 13/32 connection rod bolts. I also need new valve cups for 1965 427 medium risor heads. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Josh |
| | RE: New 13/32 connecting rod bolts?!? -- Mike McQuesten, 12/07/2001
I don't think Ford offers them anymore. I did buy a complete set of bolts and nuts a few years ago. All I have left is a box the nuts came in with part # COME-6212-A. You might try that number with your local Ford parts counter guy. He look at you with a what the hey is that? Kind of fun to see them look that way.
But if it were me now, I'd just buy the set that ARP makes for the 427 low riser/PI/428CJ. They're designed to be the replacement of what you have.
A good source: Rob McQuarie at Blue Oval Performance. Denver, Colorado. |
| | | RE: New 13/32 connecting rod bolts?!? -- Joshua Carroll, 12/07/2001
Mike,
Any advice on valve cups? Thanks for ARP 13/32 connecting rod bolt info.
Josh |
| | | I'd avoid the ARP bolts. -- Dave Shoe, 12/07/2001
As much as I appreciate the idea that ARP makes 3/8" hybrid bolts which fit the PI/CJ rod, I suggest looking for an SPS source, as these are apparently a genuine 13/32 bolts, not a hybrid.
You might try www.dscmotorsport.com for some of these.
Shoe. |
| | | | RE: Now, I found out! -- Mike McQuesten, 12/07/2001
Dave, have you actually heard of any problems and or failures with the ARP hybrids as you call them? And I understand why you call them hybrids.
I used them in my 427. After I purchased them and saw them, I'd started hearing "rumors" about these ARPs being a weak link. Now my machinist, engine builder who I think quite highly of, didn't say anything badly about them. He followed the ARP procedures for torquing/stretching/measuring, etc. He thought they would be fine. We did converse about how a standard 390 rod with the standard 3/8" ARP bolt looked like a better deal. But we'd already prepped the C3AE/C6AE low riser/PI rods and so went with them and the ARP.
I wasn't even aware that SPS was still in business.
Still learning and interested in your opinion and any facts on the failure of ARP.
Oh and as for spring cups Joshua, I'd check with your machinist who you plan to have do your heads. There are a number of these being manufactured out there. I think Ford starting using them with the 406. I know for sure they were stock on C3AE-C early '63 tri power heads. |
| | | | | I think I may have started the bad rumors. -- Dave Shoe, 12/07/2001
I posted my "theories" on the construction of these hybrid bolts a few times. As far as I know they have never failed in service, and they may be superior to stock 13/32 bolts - I simply don't know.
If you've heard bad things, you might want to mute your concerns a bit. I never heard any bad talk about them 'till I started into my baseless philosophical rants on the suckers.
On the other hand, ARP would seem to have an obligation to have warned me, the valued customer, that these were a hybrid design. They got my money for a set, and after looking at them I decided to stick with the stockers (but modifying the stock nuts so they're shorter).
I'm a hair-trigger away from hopping into "full-rant" mode on this topic again, but since I'm not nessessarily correct (I only THINK I am), I'll hold off for now.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | ARP bolts -- Royce Peterson, 12/07/2001
Dave,
I've got a lot of FE dollars betting on those being good little bolts. Three 427's and a 428 CJ to be exact. I have noticed a lot of older FE fans have a Le Mans rod with a broken stock bolt and piston scraps on display. They always talk about the nice 427 block they used to own! I have not met anyone who has any ARP bolt horror stories.
Aside from conjecture, do you have any factual based reason to believe ARP is selling an inferior product?
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | Nope. -- Dave Shoe, 12/07/2001
Basically, I was just spouting the notion that you can get a superior stretch displacement from the 3/8" rodbolt over the 13/32" hybrid which has a shorter stretch beam. Extra stretch assures a more constant clamping force, even if the rodcap relaxes as time goes on.
Also, if you do not use a socket extension on the torque wrench, it seems quite possible that you could stretch the bolt crooked, due to the slop in the hole and the side-thrusts of the torque wrench. An extension would eliminate side loading while torquing.
Note that Ford's trilobe capscrew for the LeMans rod would seem to have this ability to bend when torqued (0.365 shank in a .435" hole) - I wonder if any of these bolts ever broke simply because they were tightened a little off-center (due to not using a socket extension), creating tremendous stresses on the one side of the bolt. Maybe bending them is not possible - I don't know. If I'd engineered the tri-lobe bolt, I'd have built a step under the head to assure the bolt would remain mechanically constrained to the center of the hole. If you torque a 3/8" bolt in a 3/8" hole, there is no way to bend the bolt sideways while tightening, extension or not.
Also, the "comfy" notion that a 3/8" drilled FE conrod is meatier (less drilled-out) makes it easy for most readers to get the gut feel that the 3/8" rod is the way to go.
Looks like I managed to sidestep any hyperventilating this time around.. That's good.
I presently run stock 13/32" rods in my stroker 427, and I believe the ARP 13/32 hybrids are probably superior to these, but I'm not certain and I don't want to experiment on this topic. Future "moderate performance" builds will involve 3/8" rods w/Arp bolts, because I strongly believe these are the best value going.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | RE: Nope. -- Mario428, 12/09/2001
With all due respect Dave, but why are you willing to use a standard 3/8 bolt but not a bolt with 3/8 threads but a larger shank. Seems very simple to me that the "hybrid" bolt would be stonger than the standard bolt ignoring the material taken out of the rod.
Have you looked at the torque/stretch specs from ARP and are they different for each bolt. I would assume(dangerous words but) if asked ARP would give you the proper specs if asked.
Whether you want to be or not you are highly regarded in the FE world we both move in on the internet and your opinion just made a lot of 13/32 rods a bad thing to have. |
| | | | | | | | | I stand by my bad opinion. -- Dave Shoe, 12/09/2001
I'm not a know-it-all. I'm just louder than most. Keep in mind I am here to learn - the preaching part is not my first interest.
I think it's well recognized that I tend to spew a slang type of laboratory-grade opinion which may-or-may-not apply to the racing world. I'm hoping, in fact, to be taught otherwise by individuals with experience which I lack.
I don't think I've dissed the 13/32" rod too badly, though, you've got to admit the 3/8" rod has been overlooked for way too many decades. Now that I've learned (just this past week) of a source for the SPS version of the 13/32" bolt (a high-alloy version of the stock PI/CJ bolt), I suspect these may be stronger than 3/8" ARP bolted rod. The stretch will be less on these 13/32" bolts than either size of ARP bolt, but the strength, and ability to clamp at extended revs would appear to be higher too. This gets back to a most basic chicken-and-egg question: Which is stronger, the rod or the bolt - a little finite element modeling might be in order here).
Prior to this week, I only knew of the availability of factory original 13/32" bolts (all used) and the ARP 3/8"-nutted hybrid bolts for the PI/CJ rod. Factory original bolts are becoming worrisome because of fatigue, their age, and the simpler alloy used for high-volume production.
The ARP hybrid bolt remains a design I don't understand. It's got all strength of a 3/8" bolt (which BB Chevy race rods have proven are plenty large), less of the elastic stretch of a 3/8" bolt, and it offers hollow pockets between the bolt's shank and rod's bolt hole that obviously freak me out. All experience available from this forum suggests the ARP hybrid bolt works flawlessly (my very first indications have again been learned just now from persons in this thread).
The SPS bolt is apparently a high-alloy version of the stock 13/32 bolt. I gather it also has the oversized nut which hides the end of the bolt when installed in the rod assembly. If the nut does extend like the stock rod, I'm gonna be the first to say I'm shaving enough off the nut to expose 2-1/2 full turns of thread on the bolt - and I'll keep the shaved side of the nut away from the rodcap. This is just my own form of voo-doo, but I really want to see a bolt stick out past the nut when it is torqued, and I believe this design oversight is why the CJ nut is so famous for working itself loose over time (more of my voo-doo theory - I have no basis for this statement). A short nut won't promote this (just my opinion).
Anyhow, I think you see where I'm coming from. I'm glad that I'm causing others to ponder my theories, because I'm just looking for answers.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: I stand by my bad opinion. -- Chip Huffman, 12/09/2001
Dave,
I'm confused , are you telling us that 13/32 rods when rebolted with ARP bolts are really getting 3/8 bolts? I thought ARP made bolts for 390 rods and a different set for CJ rods. Can you clarify this so I can sleep!
Chip |
| | | | | | | | | | | ARP PI/CJ bolts are a special design. -- Dave Shoe, 12/09/2001
The rod-half of the bolt is sized just like a CJ bolt, with a 13/32" diameter shank that fit's snugly into the drilled bolt hole.
The rodcap half is basically just a 3/8" ARP bolt, complete with 3/8" shank, 3/8" threads, and a 3/8" nut (same nut used on the 3/8" rod). The bolt tapers from one size to the other size about half way down the shank.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | About the strength of the bolt... -- Dave Shoe, 12/09/2001
...I think I now recognize you believe the hybrid bolt is stronger than the 3/8" bolt. I disagree.
I believe both the hybrid bolt and the 3/8" bolt will come apart at the same stress levels. Since the thread appears to be the specific location of the greatest stress in this bolt design, it seems most likely that both bolts would likely be destroyed at the same torque (or tension levels), and the fracture would likely occur at the thread nearest the shank. The beefier 13/32 shank is pretty much a guaranteed no-break, but both bolts have a 3/8" shank, and ,should the thread somehow decide to hold together at a stress level which would fracture a 3/8" shank, each bolt would still break.
Add in the possibility that the hybrid bolt may have been tightened crooked in the hole (maybe this is not possible, I don't know), then the 3/8" bolt would likely outlive the 13/32" bolt.
Hey, the hybrid design was a cost-saving business decision made by ARP management, under guidance of engineering, and at the request for parts from FE enthusiasts. They didn't see a need to tool-up for an expensive 13/32" thread, so they stuck with the hybrid 3/8-13/32 design. Maybe someone should contact ARP about their test findings, as it might shed some good light on the subject.
ARP is definitely more enthusiast friendly than SPS. I've called SPS a couple times and always got the paranoid "top secret need-to-know" kind of runaround that never got me anywhere toward finding what they had to offer. I'd bring up the idea that I was looking for info on some common automotive bolts they manufactured for the general public, but they seemed to think I was trying to pry out Ford secrets or something.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: About the strength of the bolt... -- Mario428, 12/10/2001
No I do not think it is stronger than the straight 3/8 bolt and I agree with your analysis of that.
The 13/32 portion of the bolt must come down far enough to give the rodcap its location relative to the rod itself.
What I read from your original post was that you consider the hybrid bolt a problem and stated you would be quite reluctant to use them.
The bolt getting crooked in the hole I do not see as a problem. All rod bolt threads had clearance in the drilled hole and the possiblilty of moving around. A square face on the cap and the correct lube would eliminate that issue. The nut will stay concentric with the bolt as long as the loading is even as with a square face. When George redid my rods he remachined that face after rough hoining to endure the nut would be square to the threads. |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: About the strength of the bolt... -- Dave Shoe, 12/10/2001
You are correct in your assessment that I do consider the hybrid bolt a problem (I would actually say, "Potential problem", until I can learn otherwise), and I have already proven to myself I am reluctant to use the set I have.
By now, I'm sure you've also noticed I'm frequently wrong in many of my posts.
I also know (by reputation only) that George Gessford would not use them if he did not recognize their value.
I believe I'm gonna have to create an experiment for myself which will destroy a number of used rodbolts. The experiment will involve machining a thick steel plate so I can reef on a bunch of different rodbolts I've got laying around (including my new hybrid ARPs), to determine whether there is measurable deflection during tightening, and to just plain "see for myself" how these thinks do finally fail, just so I have an appropriate mental image in my head when I'm listening to the engine while powershifting.
I'll be interesting to see how the ARP hybrid bolt performs next to a factory 3/8", a 13/32", and a LeMans bolt. I'll probably toss a bunch of standard SAE-graded fine-treaded bolts into the experiment for good measure, and will also drill holes in ways which vary the "shank gap" which I perceive to be such a threat. In particular, I want to observe how much the LeMans bolt might move sideways when torquing, as I've got a lot of these "trilobe threaded" bolts to play with, and they've got quite a history.
I won't be doing this test anytime soon, but when I do, I'll naturally post on what I find.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | RE: Nope. -- Bob, 12/11/2001
Shoe:
Wnat rods use the 11/32 bolt? Unless I've forgotten how to use a mike my C6AE-C (casting number) rods have 3/8 bolts. Thanks |
| | | | | | | | | An FE forging can be drilled either way. -- Dave Shoe, 12/11/2001
My research shows the 3/8" rod and the 13/32" rod are the exact same thing - just drilled with a different sized bit.
You will find the popular C7AE-B forging (incorrectly famous as the 428CJ rod) drilled for either the 3/8" bolt or the 13/32 bolt. It's all the same.
Your C6AE-C is the same as a C7AE-B, except it was probably forged on tooling which was cut a year earlier.
Also, the FE rodcap is the same, whether from a 3/8" rod, a 13/32 rod, or even from a skinny rod from the early days of the FE. The same grade of steel is used and everything is the same.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | | I found a bolt science web page !! -- Paul C., 12/11/2001
I just came across it after reading this thread, so I haven't read it yet. Thought I'd pass it along though.
http://www.boltscience.com/index.htm |
| | RE: New 13/32 connecting rod bolts?!? -- Bob, 12/07/2001
Try www.dscmotorsport.com at $80 a set. |
| | | Valve Spring Cups and Rod Bolts! -- Joshua Carroll, 12/11/2001
Thanks Bob,
DSC Motorsport has rod bolts and the valve spring cups I am looking for! I had no idea I would start such a mess when I asked about 13/32 bolts! Very interesting and thank you to everyone who replied.
Josh |
| | | | RE: Valve Spring Cups and Rod Bolts! -- Bob, 12/11/2001
The FE family, being twenty-five years out of production and subject of many tall tales as well as myths, often generates replies like this. Remember that Ford beat Ferrai so thoroughly with an FE engine that Ferrai had the rules changed so the FE could not be used again; also the Ford FE 427 owed NASCAR in the middle '60s, NHRA A and B /Stock and the F Super Stock records are stil held by FE engines. The tall tales are usually true; separating them from the myths is what makes this fun.
But still it's as if we don't like simple answers. We do like simple answers but all to often the answer depends on what you want to do as well as how you want to do it. |
|