Skip Navigation Links.
| Lemans C6AE-E rods anyone? -- Jim, 12/01/2001
Just saw them on Ebay item #598391491 for $425 reserve. Bidding is at $247.50 so far.
9 of them--FE +1? Is this a good price?
They dont look much different than any FE rod to me. Is it the iron metal contents that makes them so special?
|
| | All FE rods use the same steel. -- Dave Shoe, 12/01/2001
All FE rods use SAE 1041 steel, but the LeMans rod uses more of it on the big-end, and the H-beam is slightly beefier, as well.
You are correct in noting the Lemans rod is quite similar to the plain 390 rod. It's main benefit is in the higher clamping forces allowed by the larger diameter bolt. This allows higher RPMS before inertial forces can override the clamping force of the bolt and allow the big-end to distort. The LeMans rod does handle extreme RPMs better than the excellent 390 rod.
As for the ones on ebay - I haven't looked at the auction, but these are most likely the 1980 repops which Ford commissioned. They are exact copies if the '66-'70 forging, and are still commonly available NOS for around $550.00 from a motivated seller, $800.00 for a motivated buyer. The price drops considerably for used versions, hanging in the $200.00 to $400.00 range.
LeMans rods are considered a bit heavy by today's standards. With lightweight Eagle rods selling for $700.00 a set, and lightweight performance pistons readily available to match these rods (Ford, TRW, and Sealed Power pistons are NOT lightweight pistons), the LeMans rods are not as seriously sought by racers as they were 10-20 years ago.
If you wish to buy these rods right now because they are hard to find, you might as well hold off on the purchase. They are almost always available on ebay - frequently new. If you want to buy that set because you just gotta have LeMans rods for your next build, then that's a good enough reason to buy. They definitely are the best looking rod ever made for the FE, and are probably as durable as any racing rod you'll ever find.
Shoe. |
| Fuel Conversion -- Kelli, 11/30/2001
I'm having a 428 SCJ restored. Should I have it converted for unleaded, or should I just use super and additives? Any advice appreciated, this is a little over my head - Thanks! |
| Oil hole missalignment in main bearing sadle -- charlie, 11/30/2001
Recently on this board there was a question on what to do about oil hole location mismatches in the main bearing sadles (block to bearing shell). I recall that the recommendation was to leave it alone, it was meant to be that way...
On another FE forum an FE oiling article explained how to make these holes line up better, and added that the alignment on 406 and 427 blocks was closer than the other FEs.
On another oiling topic, I went to an autoparts jobber last year and ordered a set of std 428 rod bearing shells. They did not have the 'v' cut on the edge, which lines up with a hole in the rod/cap assy to lub the lower cyl wall. We ordered another set from another co. and they had the 'v' cuts.
Charlie
|
| | RE: Oil hole missalignment in main bearing sadle -- RJP, 11/30/2001
I always match the holes. Ford did that to force more oil to the hyd. lifters. I think the crank is a bit more important than the lifters esp. when the engine has solids and Ford recommends blocking the oil gallerys to the lifters. As for the "V" in the rod bearing its no big deal, that notch is to allow a small squirt of oil to the opposing cylinder. Another carry-over from the 40s and 50s. The cylinders get enough oil from throw-off that the little notches aren't needed. |
| | | RE: Oil hole missalignment in main bearing sadle -- Mel Clark, 11/30/2001
The offset in the bearing to block is essential in all FEs as it insures equal volume and pressure to each component that is designed to have oil fed to it from the oil pump. You can bet that if it was better for any portion of the engine to get more or less oil than is allowed by these supposed mis-alignments Ford would have changed the castings or the machining or the bearings. Ford invested many millions in the design and development of the FE engine and if you alter the system from as it was designed you will alter the life span of the engine. Just remember that if you alter the system and you have a failure you can stand in front of a mirror and complain to the "Re-Engineering department". |
| | | | RE: Oil hole missalignment in main bearing sadle -- RJP, 12/01/2001
Then why did Ford align the oil holes in the 427 and truck engines? |
| | | | | RE: Oil hole missalignment in main bearing sadle -- Bob, 12/01/2001
Yes RJP, that is why my 427 side oiler is obviously drilled at the factory to match the bearing hole.
I believe the bearing saddle should be opened up to match the hole in the bearing and oil flow around the bearing controlled by the bearing clearance. There should be no restriction down stream of the bearing.
SInce the bearing is cooled only by this oil flow then the clearence must be higher it you routinely rev to high RPMs. |
| | | | | RE: Oil hole missalignment in main bearing sadle -- Royce Peterson, 12/01/2001
RJP,
I don't know about truck engines but all of my 427's have the main bearing oil holes offset. I currently own 1964 center oiler, 1965 side oiler and two 1968 hydraulic side oiler blocks, all are offset on the mains. My machinist prefers to leave them that way. Never had any oiling problems as a result.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | RE: Things that make you go "Hummmmm" -- RJP, 12/01/2001
Hummmmm...Thats odd, every 427 and FT I've torn down has had the holes aligned. I'm not saying that this is the rule but I'd like to know why some were and some were not. I am also not saying that the mis-alignment is bad, it just doesn't make sense. Personally I would rather let the bearing and journal decide how much oil it needs, not the metered hole. If the mismatched holes work for you its fine with me. Can someone explain why some FEs have 360 deg groove in the main bearing and some only have 180 deg? [solid lower shell] |
| Intake help -- Charles, 11/30/2001
I have a iron FE intake number C9ZE-9425-B. Any ideas what it goes to? My book says Boss 302,but, I thought all Boss 302's were aluminum. Any thoughts? |
| | RE: Intake help -- Dave Shoe, 11/30/2001
Try the main forum at http://fomoco.com/mustang-forum/ for an answer. There are many more small-block gurus over in that forum. Also, I tend to agree that if it's iron, it ain't Boss.
Shoe. |
| | '69 390 ip -- Barry B, 11/30/2001
Does it look like this? |
| | RE: Intake help -- Bob, 12/01/2001
Your book may have part numbers, but the number on the manifold is the casting number. |
| Starter will it fit? -- tomscarpt, 11/30/2001
I have a 390 right now needs a stater but a428 will be in the car in a few months will the 390 stater fit into the 428? |
| FE Maximum Cubic Inch? and my FE life story... -- Jim, 11/30/2001
Is 428 +30-60-90 the max CID?Since the stock block FE is thin wall technology is 428 about it?
Is it possible to get in the 500's or 600's like hemis and BBC's?
If so, is the 427 block a must? From the "FE vs 385" thread it seems that the 427 block is the best way to go. True?
Since the stock block FE is thin wall technology is 428 about it?
BTW, thank you all for this priceless info. I have been an ignorant diehard FE fan for 25 years ever since I got my first of four '67 mustang GT's and GTA's.
A FE fan for life....
Today, all with C6's... A 73 CJ5 (AMC/Jeep) with a 390 conversion, 3 late 60/early 70's F250 FE's, a sweet little 428 CJ (I think, im not sure after coming to this site 2 days ago but Im going to find out soon thanks to you guys) waiting to be reassembled and put in something, and the 390 GT engine out of my first Mustang that I rebuilt at 17 y.o. all by myself is running mid 12's in a cut up to fit 3000 pound '75 Ford/Mazda Courier weekly at my local drag strip.
Im looking at a '62 390 T'bird this weekend to be my daily driver. If it was up to me (not smog laws in CA) I would even put one in my smokey/leaky/tired '86 V6 T-top LX Stang.
THE WAY I SEE IT, YOU CAN PUT AN FE IN ANYTHING!
My FE life story.
What FE's do you guys and gals have? Are you all 427 side oiler/428CJ people?
|
| | 454 with a 428 crank in a 427 block is easy. -- Walker, 11/30/2001
then you can get stroker cranks, bored 427 blocks. but realistically, mid-400's are max displacement for FE's. 500 is virtually impossible without a new block and stroker crank. |
| | | RE: 454 with a 428 crank in a 427 block is easy. -- Bob, 12/01/2001
A .030 over 427 and a 4.125 crank (428 crank offset ground and using 400 rods) will get you 470 cubic inches. The new Genesis block (which has a maximum bore size of 4.38) will get you to 497 will the above crank.
But the heads become the limiting factor. You really will have trouble getting enough air flow to fully use those cubic inches. While I am a big fan of the FE I also know that unless you use the tunnel port head or the best of the high rise heads your maximum horsepower at high RPM will be limited by the heads. |
| | | | RE: Easy? -- Jim, 12/01/2001
Hmmm, I dont have a 427 block. Wish I did. And I would put a down payment on a second gouse instead of buying a Genisis block.
Let me ask a few more dumb questions.
With 428 CJ "stock" block and "stock" CJ heads what is the maximun CID that can be attained?
|
| | | | | I think you're too concerned with absolute size. -- Walker, 12/01/2001
yes, you could bore a perfect block that doesn't have core shift to paper thin wall thicknesses. But then you have a weak block. Just accept a standard 428 block at its given dimensions and work on flowing air in and out of it as efficiently as possible. Why exactly do you want all this displacement? To make power? What kind of power? Low-RPM range, screamer? These are the questions you should be asking, not poseur questions about max displacement. |
| | | | | | RE: Nahh, just curious... -- Jim, 12/01/2001
390 GT's 30 over is my size of choice. I have 5 of them.
1.9 60 foot times are enough torque.
Would like to pull hard past 6500 rpms though. More top end!
Im running my 75 courier with a little tired nasty cam, stock crank and rods, 12.75 to 1 390 with new triple springed CJ heads in front of a C6/3500 stall, 488 locker, 14/32 eagles at 12.50's/112 mph through the lights.
It gets to 6500 3/'4 of the way down he track and just stays there through the lights damn it.
Going to build my dual quad CJ to drag race only.
REALLY curious about going destroked with the 428block/427 crank I have.
Not sure what rods or pistons to run. Dont know the rod lengths for 390,427,428's.
Dont know what the bore capabilities of a stock block 428.
What got me curious about max CID is my Brother in law has a stock block 572 hemi with Indy heads running low 9's in his Road Runner. Wanna improve my et's with an FE thats all |
| | Stock 352 with factory orginal Autolite 4100...... -- Ed Jenkins, 11/30/2001
..... Chicago factory orginal engine in a 66 Galaxie 500 Convertible which is an Illinois car with a little rust here and there. She's got C6AE-R heads on her from the factory! |
| | | RE: Stock 352 with factory orginal Autolite 4100...... -- Shorty, 12/01/2001
I've got C6AE-R heads on my all origional 67 Galaxie 390. Are those good cylinder heads? |
| | | | RE: Stock 352 with factory orginal Autolite 4100.. -- Jim, 12/01/2001
In my unbiased, objective opinion... :)
Anything FE is great.
Couldn't honestly tell you without pulling all my 390 valve covers of to see if I have any C6AE-R's. I was never into these numbers until coming to this site. I AM NOW THOUGH DAMN IT!. I HAVE TO KNOW what all my numbers are! :)
If they came stock on a 67 390 GTA Mustang then YES they are.
I'll check the 390 GTA stock heads (off the engine now) and get back to you |
| hood tach -- Eric, 11/29/2001
I have a 69 Mustang, GT, 428CJ, Convertible without an in-dash tach. I want to add a tachometer without compromising the integrity of the restoration. My first thought was a hood tach, because I was told this was a dealer add-on and not shown on the build sheet. Does anyone know if that is in fact true ? Thanks for any help, Eric |
| | RE: page 71 Muscle Parts -- Mike McQuesten, 11/29/2001
There was a hood tach offered in '69 as part of the Muscle Parts program. It's on page 71 of the '69 issue of Muscle Parts. Good luck in finding one! |
| | RE: hood tach -- robbie, 11/30/2001
My 70 boss had it DEALER installed and on the sales envoice ,,when I restored this car I bought an NOS one and have never installed(I kinda thought it was tacky looking beside the shaker) it I'm still debating the selling issue,especially now that i've seen them sell on ebay for over a thousand dollars as NOS ,,,mine could end up there
Robbie |
| | | Try Perogie n/m -- Matt, 11/30/2001
n/m |
| | | | RE: Try Perogie n/m -- Eric, 11/30/2001
I have an opportunity to purchase an NOS hood tach. The part no. is: 072-17126D Does anyone know if that is the correct one for a '69 ? |
| my holley# is C9OF9510-H, -- mikeb, 11/29/2001
LIST# 4345 and a date code of 895. I didn't see this listed on 428 cobrajet.com as a cobrajet carburetor. Does anyone know if this is a correct carburetor for a69'cobra built in october of '68? thanks |
| | Yes, that's a CJ carb for '69 Intermediates [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/29/2001
n/m |
| FE in a '64 Ranchero? -- Jim, 11/29/2001
The reason I am writing you is to ask you about putting a FE 428CJ/C6 in my 64 ranchero.
Any info, ideas, links, or others that you may know of who have successfully attempted such a conversion would be great appreciated.
Thanks for your time,
Jim
|
| | I dont want to be a smart ass, but... -- kevin, 11/29/2001
it is like self abuse. You must do so much it is a ton of work and grief. You will haveto upgrade every component of the truck. It is so much easier to start with a later year that has the acomodation for the engines size and weight. Now if you are determined to do it the easiest thing to do would be to contact Crites and see what they have for the T-bolt conversion. If you dont like their prices, you can locate a donor Econoline and install the straight front axle set up under it. Or you can use a Mutang II set up with the mods it takes. Or if you can fabricate the necessary fender hold downs and graft a 66 or later front end to your firewall. This way you can install the roll bar tubes through the floor and tie it in with the subframe splice and have some rigidity. You will need it. I drag raced Ranchero's and Fairlane's and can tell you it is much harder to get the truck to keep from twisting. |
| | | Overkill -- Lou, 11/29/2001
A FE would be overkill in my opinion, I think you would have a very hard to drive vehicle that made a lot of noise and smoke but had very little traction. In the past year I have seen two interestng 64/65 Rancheros. One had a HoPo 289 and the other the sprint 6 Cyl ( with the 3x1 head) both were quite fast and and quite driveable. |
| | | | RE: Overkill -- Jim, 11/29/2001
I would tub it first of course. Noise is controllable. I dont like tire smoke, Except to heat up the slicks. I have a nice little 9 inch that will be just right hopefully. It is pretty much going to be a 1/4 miler that is street legal. |
| | | RE: I dont want to be a smart ass, but... -- Jim, 11/29/2001
Thats what I was afraid of!
BUT will the FE fit in between the shock towers at all without cutting them.
AND then how the heck do I get the headers on it?
AND will the C6 squeeze under the floor of the body w/o cutting it?
Is the 64/65 A/FX cyclone the same frame, etc? The have 427 FE's
Please continue Mr. Smart Ass, I appreciate the info.
|
| | | | It's not a tough fit... -- Dave Shoe, 11/29/2001
...except for the headers. The headers are what make it tough to stick an FE between the wells of this car.
Also, the original motor mounts are cast iron (whether 6-cyl or V-8), but if you borrow some big-block sheetmetal motor mount assy's from a '67-70 Mustang (or small block V8 mounts from the same, but relocate a hole in the frame mounts to make them fit the big-block insulators properly) then you can stuff an FE bare block, heads, and tranny into the bay and see exactly how things fit before it gets too crowded.
In order to fit the engine mounts, you'll have to cut out a tiny part of the center vertical sheetmetal rib in the shock towers. It's fairly obvious where to cut when you try to install the frame mounts. Also, one of the motor mounting holes in the frame of the Ranchero won't be used for the sheetmetal brackets (only for cast iron motor mount brackets) - again this is obvious and the unused hole is not needed for support.
Note that the unibody frame holes for the engine mounts are located in precisely the same location for a '64 Ranchero as for an FE Mustang. The differences are in how Ford carved out space in the shock towers for the big-block-era cars.
I'm not an expert on this, but I have pondered the exact same questions as you and don't see it as being an impossibility. Crites kits completely remove the shock towers, and this makes header installation a whole bunch easier. I suspect a header flange, a lot of welding talent, and your own mandrel bender might allow you to fabricate your own custom-fit "header-manifolds) using hundreds of slices of thinwall tube.
I say, "Go for it!", assuming you have shop space, a torch, and tenacity.
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: It's not a tough fit...Dear Dave... -- Jim, 12/01/2001
Thank you for the very considerate replies.
Your optimistic reply almost makes me want to go for it for the fun of it.
I just hate to cut up another vehicle to fit one in. I am getting good at it though :)
I love trying to reinvent the wheel.
But alas, I think I will pass on this for now. Hmmmm, maybe not... |
| | RE: FE in a '64 Ranchero? -- Jim, 11/30/2001
The Ranchero project is dead before it even got started. Im going to look at a '62 390 Tbird instead. |
| | You are posting in the wrong forum. -- Dave Shoe, 11/29/2001
Your page has nothing to do with the FE. Please keep future posts on the topic of the FE or related issues.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: You are posting in the wrong forum. -- Henry Ford, 11/29/2001
SORRY! I figured that my occassional contributions to All FoMoCo forums entitled me to share my excitement. If you look closely you will see there is something there for everyone........(even those least respected) Henry Ford |
|