Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Cj main bearings -- peter, 11/22/2001
Just went to put the main bearings in my 428cj and noticed that the oil holeson the bearing don't line up with the oil holes on the mains except on the end main journal..The oil hole is showing only half of the oil hole on the mains....Do i make the hole to match or is this a factory restriction design?
Is this fords way of reducing the oil flow?
Any help would be appreciated...
|
|  | RE: Cj main bearings -- Bob, 11/22/2001
Most of us with FE engines make a number of oil system modifcations including opening the main bearing holes to match the bearings and opening up the oil pump to filter bracket hole.
|
| | | RE: Cj main bearings -- Mel Clark, 11/23/2001
That is Ford's way of building a little restriction into the oil system. I would leave it that way. Ford did a lot of engineering over the years on the FEs and that's an area that has remained constant over the years. |
| | | | RE: Cj main bearings -- peter, 11/23/2001
Mel, that was my engine builders opinion, he was wanting a second opinion which you just gave me.
This is my first FE and coming from australia it isn't common Knowledge about these motors...Mind you we're not that far behind......what is your opinion on the standard adjustable rocker gear, I'm thinking of unning it on my Cj looking at about 400 -500 hp.
Thanks for your reply |
| | | | | RE: Cj main bearings -- Mike McQuesten, 11/23/2001
Peter, I'll just give you a little advice and opinion on running the standard adjustable rocker system with your 400-500 horse 428CJ. They'll work okay. However, I would suggest a "system" that offers end supports for the shafts. This tends to be a weak link in the system. You might also consider heavy duty shafts. There are many companies that offer these parts from pieces you want to entire bolt on systems. What I'm using this time is a system I bought from a company in Anaheim, CA, Rocker Arm Specialist, e-mail: rocker@c-zone.net. What I got was their rebushed adjustable rockers with locking adjusting nuts; chrome moly HD shafts, their billet aluminum full support system and aluminum spacer set that replaces the springs for spacers. Then I bought rocker studs from Blue Oval Performance in Denver Colorado. Which is another knowledgable, friendly and helpful source of parts for an FE.
It's not a roller system but definitley an improvement over the stock system first introduced in 1958. That system saw little change through the years. I personally have had problems with the stock self locking adjusting screws. The threads have stripped and they tend to lose adjustment very quickly. I've had a couple back out to the point the push rod slipped out of the rocker's adjusting screw and that's a bad thing. Both times I was fortunate that it was at normal driving speeds and I heard the rattle of the loose push rod. Neither time did I bend, break or mutilate the push rod. Both times I replaced the two rockers and found the threads on the adjusting screw to be stripped. So that's why I like the locking nut sytem that RAS offers.
But now of course you can go with a snazzy roller rocker set.....I plan to someday with another FE, my day dream FE. It's about third in the line.
The cost for this system I now have and plan to run was $380. There is a core charge of $100 for the adjustable rockers. I was lucky to have an old set still in place on a core '58 352 "Interceptor Special". (Note Shoe: I didn't say Police anywhere) So the total tab would be around $500 to get them shipped downunder. |
| | | | |  | RE: Cj main bearings -- peter, 11/23/2001
Mike,
Thanks for your valuable information sounds like the go to me. I'll pass on the info to my Mate the engine dude and look seriously at buying the hardware you suggested. I'm all for after market performance gear especially when it works so well.
I love a car to look original but it must go as good as it looks.......
Peter....... |
 | drivability problem -- tulley, 11/22/2001
I have a 390 that's fairly fresh but lasck oomph. The car has terrible throttle reponse from light to full throttle and sometime backfires through the carb. It has a fairly lumpy cam and an Edelbrock 700cfm carb. I have tried playing with the factory timing and it doesn't seem to make much difference. Any ideas?? help... |
| | RE: drivability problem -- Martin Edridge, 11/22/2001
With a fairly lumpy cam (your description) the engine will want the advance curve modifying to suit, or you will have a soggy bottom end and maybe backfiring and be generally unresponsive until the R's are up. This sounds like the situation you are already in. Try different springs in the dist, or even removing one spring to speed up the curve, but be careful of detonation and if it does ping under load, do not continue without first pulling back the timing to be safe. It depends on your CR and what grade fuel you use among other factors. HTH
Cheers, Martin. |
| |  | RE: drivability problem -- richard, 11/22/2001
start your timing at 10 initial and 36 total all in by 3000 rpm and go from there. that worked best with my 289 with an erson viking cam in it. you might also advance the cam about 4 degrees to get more low end. depending on the design you might not lose top end and you might even gain there as well. |
| | | RE: drivability problem -- tulley, 11/24/2001
thanks martin, I will give that a try with advancing the curve some. After the original distributor went south (shaft froze in housing) I replaced it with a Unilite model and thought that would have advance springs, but I'm not sure about that. |
| | RE: drivability problem -- Pat, 11/22/2001
You said fairly fresh - how fresh? How long has it been doing this? Who rebuilt it? |
| happy thanksgiving day,god bless your families -- gerald, 11/22/2001
[nm |
| 428cj oil pan -- Stuart Cofer, 11/22/2001
Also I need a oil pan for a 1970 428cj mustang.Are all 428cj pans the same including Torino etc? Thanks Stuart |
| | RE: 428cj oil pan -- Bob, 11/22/2001
All '66-69 Fairlane and Mustang pans for 390s and 428s are the same. |
| | RE: available from Ford -- Mike McQuesten, 11/23/2001
If you want a stock 428 CJ pan, it's still available from Ford via their Special Parts Program. One of the few FE parts and pieces they offer through this high performance parts program. You can have it in chrome or plain and it does have the necessary dimples for drag link clearance. Also made with the internal baffling that is important too. Very reasonably priced. |
| 428cj fan shroud -- Stuart Cofer, 11/22/2001
I have a 1970 mustang 428 cj 4speed non ac car. I found a fan shroud part #c8zz-8146-c is this a repro or is it original.Also will a repro fit on original radiator? Thanks Stuart |
| | RE: 428cj fan shroud -- Tim B, 11/23/2001
I got a reproduction from Mustangs Unlimited and it fit fine. Most Mustang/Cougar vendors will have them. There were NOS ones around until recently.
Tim B
1969 XR7 428 CJR convertible
http://members.aol.com/timbrands/index.html |
| 428CJ/SCJ Blocks -- Wayne, 11/22/2001
I would like to know how to identify a 428 SCJ block by looking at it. Is there a diference in the CJ & SCJ Blocks ? How do you tell the dates on them? Any recommendations? |
| Drag Racers, Heads Up! -- Mel Clark, 11/21/2001
New 4.86 and up 9" gearsets for $110 each. Item is eBay #598289516. This is only to let those who need them know. This is not my stuff and I have no relationship with the seller. |
| 62 T-Bird 390 -- Tom, 11/21/2001
i found a 62 T-Bird with a factory 390 the 390's that had 400 HP from ford i can buy it for 150$ is it worth it ? |
| | RE: 62 T-Bird 390 -- Mike McQuesten, 11/22/2001
Just a 390 alone is worth $150. But I'd like to know what Thunderbird ever came with a 400 horse 390? Are you talking about the tri power bird that I think was available in '63? I don't know a lot about those. But I do know that the tri power bird option was very rare and it was a nice step up over the 300 horse standard 390. Warmer hydraulic cam, the trio of Holleys on a specific aluminum intake for the 'bird that was flat vs. stepped like the full size all made for a nice package. Not too hot however.
But what are you talkin' about? |
| | RE: 62 T-Bird 390 -- Tom, 11/22/2001
the 390 tri power that was run from 61-62 it is missing the tri power intake but it does have them cast iron headers from ford |
| | | RE: 62 T-Bird 390 -- tulley, 11/22/2001
this sounds more like a police intercepter motor if it has the cast iron exhaust headers |
| | | | RE: 62 T-Bird 390 -- Tom, 11/22/2001
to my knoledge it did not have them in 62 |
| | | | RE: 62 T-Bird 390 -- Mike McQuesten, 11/22/2001
It may be possible that someone installed a high performance 390 into your '62 t-bird. However, I do not believe the solid liftered, HP 375 or 401 horse engine was ever offered for the bird. Is your car a stick shift? I don't think a stick was offered for '62 birds either.
So you might have a nice set of HP shorty exhaust manifolds in your car. I'm glad they fit the '62 bird. I wouldn't even have thought those would fit but I know very little about any Thunderbirds.
|
| | | | | RE: 62 T-Bird 390 -- Travis Miller, 11/22/2001
Check the serial number on the car. If the fifth digit is a "M", the car came from the factory with the 390/340 horsepower 3x2 setup. If the fifth digit is a "Z", you are looking at a base 390/300 horse car. |
| | | | | | RE: 62 T-Bird 390 -- Tom, 11/23/2001
ok listen to me for a sec not my car at all all tags from car are gone it is in a junk yard it is a 62 bird if ya click the engines button and look at the 390 form 61-62 ya see that it was offered in the bird im wondering how much can i get for it seeing as how i have a 62 Tri Power intake in the back of my torino so how much is this motor worth? |
| | | | | | | RE: 62 T-Bird 390 -- kevin, 11/23/2001
I dont know what you are planning to do with the engine but it sounds OK if it does indeed have the "shorty" headers on it. First off is your tri power manifold flat? Does it have a fitting under the drivers side middle carb? That is the only T-bird correct style for 62-63 M birds, otherwise it is a 406 set up. Flat stye wont work on any thing other than a T- bird unless you level the engine's angle in the car. Look at the date code above the thermostat housing. Hell look at the date code on the engine block. The 62 M engine had a slightly hotter cam, 63 was the same as any other 300 horse 390, both were rated at 340 horse so Ford was fudging just for sales. |
| | | | | | | RE: I listened -- Mike McQuesten, 11/23/2001
Okay Tom, I listened up very carefully as per your request. It's all very interesting. Now I'm just going to whisper this to you:
FoMoCo never did release a 390HP/401 horsepower engine for a Thunderbird of any year. That's it. I want to guarantee you.
The engine codes that Mr. F has listed for you does indicate a 390HP for '61 & '62 however that powerplant was only released for the full size Fords & Mercs. The code Z was very commonly used for 390s from '61 on.
As for an M code bird, that was for '63. There was an M code car/engine combo in '62. Early '62 only. It was the carry over of the HP 390 tri power 401 horse engine for the full size Fords/Mercs again. Never installed them in Thunerbirds. Yes, in '63 there was an M code like Kevin explains. Maybe there was in late '62, that I don't know but I don't think so.
So what you have is a nice set of shorty HP exhaust manifolds that someone has somehow worked into a '62 t-bird. Buy that car! Those manifolds, if they trully are what you say, are worth between 3-400 bucks. Maybe more to someone in need.
No VIN plates? Not much info on what that old 'bird is.
But for $150, pull that old FE and see what someone has installed over these last forty years. |
| | | | | | | | RE: I listened -- Tom, 11/23/2001
ehh car is totaled im gona pull all chrome i can sell it and pull the motor and rebuild anbd sell or put in my grandma's galaxie |
| C7ZX-9425-A what did this intake come factory on? -- Mike, 11/21/2001
its a factory dual quad medium riser manifold, i just wanted to know if it came factory on any cars or was it a over the parts counter Ford manifold. |
| | RE: C7ZX-9425-A what did this intake come factory on? -- Royce Peterson, 11/21/2001
Mike,
It came on top of the 428 PI engine in every 1967 Shelby GT500. The carbs on it were C3AE- BJ and BK. It is a great setup, I am using one on my 68 Cougar 427 GTE. No bog, no hesitation, just ungodly power from idle on up.
They were also sold over the counter both as complete kits with carbs, linkage, etc. or as just the manifold alone. I recommend it highly.
Dove has been reproducing these for some time, I don't know of a way to tell the repro from an original or if it even matters.
Royce Peterson |
| | | RE: C7ZX-9425-A what did this intake come factory -- Mike McQuesten, 11/21/2001
Great news Royce! I have one of these bare on the shelf and always wondered how it'd work on a fairly built engine. I know the '67 GT 500s didn't run as well as they looked in real life or on paper but I knew it wasn't due to the induction system.
I'm printing out your response to save as a resource to know what carbs I should look for and run.
You won't mind if it goes in that folder labeled "Dave Shoe info" do you? |
| | | | RE: C7ZX-9425-A what did this intake come factory -- Royce Peterson, 11/21/2001
Shoe fits, wear it I always say.
Royce |
| | | | Lame 67 500 Testing -- Chip, 11/21/2001
Mike,
I have most of the significant 1967 magazines that have the road tests of the 67 500's. I have too agree the results are not impressive. I own a 67 500. I do not know how many persons are aware because if youare not involved in Shelbys you may not be privy to published information but, that testing was done on a GT-500 with a 390. The published quarter mile times match the 390 Mustang tests of the day. This is a good clue that led to investigation into the lame test results in the late by persons involved with Shelby. As reported, the Shelby assembly people had problems with much of the fiberglass parts. Due to these problems, they were running very behind in schedules and rushed to meet the deadline needed by the magazines for testing to get a car ready. Thus they ended up getting a car ready that had a 390, not the 428.
Chip |
| | | | | RE:C7ZX Intake -- Mel Clark, 11/21/2001
That is the original equipment manifold for my '67 Cyclone R and it works great with 780s. It probably came on the R code Fairlanes too. |
| | | | | | RE:C7ZX Intake -- Fairlne427, 11/21/2001
From what heard the fairlanes came with no# intake, ive seen them, but dont know whats correct, i have the C7AZ 2x4 med rise, anyone care to comment on this?...ill also take e-mail, ......thanx John |
| | | | | | | RE:C7ZX Intake -- Mike, 11/21/2001
thanks for all the good information. |
| | | | | | | | RE: C7ZX 9425 A Intake -- Mel Clark, 11/22/2001
I'm the second owner of my '67 Cyclone R and have known the car since new. The manifold with casting # C7ZX 9425 A was original equipment on my car and the one that was run with a few short exceptions when playing with a 4V set up for class competition. |
| | | | | RE: Lame 67 500 Testing -- Mike McQuesten, 11/22/2001
Chip, I think you're a very lucky guy to have one of the most beautiful Mustangs built. Your story makes a lot of sense as to the why of the poor initial showing of the GT 500. Again, on paper it looked like it should run a lot stronger and better than the 390GT. It was a '66 428 Police Motor with that C7ZX dual quad set up that Royce described.
A friend of mine had one and he had to do a lot of tweeking to get it to run mid 13's. Tweeking: Cobra Jet heads(this done in '69), an aftermarket cam....Isky I think, 4.11 gearing. It was an automatic C6 GT 500. Regular daily driver that ran those mid 13s on smallish bias ply tires of the days....late 69 and early 70.
Thanks for the information. |
|