Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Small block forum? -- John, 10/12/2005
When I first found this FE forum, I think I used a link on the www.fomoco.com main page. Seems to me there was a small block forum also. Can't find either any more. Help please? Anyway, in case some of you FE guys might know, is there a differece between a 5.0 litre small block and the old 289/302 small block? i.e. will 302 heads, water pump, engine mounts etc, fit a 5.0 block? |
|  | http://www.fomoco.com/mustang-forum n/m -- dennie, 10/12/2005
|
 | steering -- bruce olsen, 10/12/2005
72 f350 2 wheel drive ford steering gear adjustment steering wheel has a litle to much play how do you do it. |
| |  | RE: I'm not familiar with '72s. Is that integral or non-integral P/S? See... -- bruce olsen, 10/14/2005
how would i tell the difference between the two it is power steering and has a nut on top of the steering box that i thought you could adjust and if so HOW. THANKS MR F |
| | | | shameless plug -- Barry B, 10/14/2005
Hi Bruce! A good friend of mine Keith has a great website for our ’67-’72 trucks that may also be of help to you: http://www.fordification.com |
| | | | | RE: shameless plug -- bruce olsen, 10/14/2005
Barry your the man thank you very much for the web site. |
| 427 Tunnelport -- phil, 10/11/2005
Looking for any information on the 427 Tunnelport application, race configurations, carb applications, etc. Any links documenting race use for the TP. I read that the TP was raced in NASCAR as late as 1970. Any info would be appreciated. |
| | RE: 427 Tunnelport -- Royce Peterson, 10/12/2005
The tunnel port was used to win LeMans in 1966 and won a lot of races in NASCAR and ARCA from 1967 - 75 or so. Tunnel port heads were used on FE's as small as 366 cubic inches when the 6 liter rule went into effect. Richard Petty won Riverside in 1969 with a tunnel port 427.
There could be thousands of things to say about tunnel port heads. Try going to http://www.google.com and inserting tunnel port 427 in the search window. Then press the button that says search.
|
| | | RE: 427 Tunnelport -- john p, 10/12/2005
wonder if we put the name royce into google and hit search if it came up A$$HOLE..
i have nothing to do with this post just read allof them to learn, but would be insulted by your post, unless the rest of us are not as smart as you and not able to hit a search button
maybe you don't mean to be sarcastic, but not the first time i have seen this sarcasim come from you... |
| | | | Where Royce may be coming from. -- Gerry Proctor, 10/13/2005
Yes, Royce can be sarcastic. So am I. It’s just my personality. There’s no malevolence intended in it but you’d have to know the person better to know where they’re coming from. We’re used to the slings and arrows that come with that side of our personality. If you were more familiar with Royce, you wouldn’t arrive at that snap judgment.
To the contentious issue itself…It can be perceived two ways: 1) The person has not bothered to research the information and just wants to be spoon-fed without investing any time to satiate their interest, or; 2) That their time is more valuable than the resource’s so they don’t need to bother with looking it up.
I doubt that either is really true in this particular case due to the obscurity of the question asked, but a lot of questions get asked on this and other forums that are widely available. For instance, how frequently does the question on C8AE-H heads or initial timing get asked? Maybe a couple or three times a month? So when I see it, I know immediately that the person didn’t even take the time to use the forum’s search engine. I too know that they didn’t invest their time by Googling anything. They didn’t invest anything, so why should I? I just don’t bother with answering questions that have been beaten to death. Mr. F. just posts a bunch of links to search results. There is a subtle lesson to the poster in this method that maybe they ought to take a more active approach, rather than wanting to be spoon-fed. Sometimes is painfully obvious, like when someone asks for a link to Summit’s or Crane Cam’s website. Again, not necessarily the case in this post but I know that if I was willing to invest some time, I could Google it and use time-honored research methods to find the answers. A lot of people never bother to even start. I take more interest in a topic where it's obvious that the person at least tried, whether they were successful to my expectations or not.
But, overall, there is really a shortfall in etiquette anymore. A reflection on society and individual ambitions, an unintended consequence of “gotta have it now” Internet lifestyle? Who knows.
|
| | | | | RE: Where Royce may be coming from. -- phil, 10/13/2005
Thanks Royce, John,and Gerry for spending time on my post. I do know how to access the net to search out information on a particular subject. I've searched for 427 Tunnelport, 427 Ford tunnelport Race Engine, Ford 427 Tunnelport Nascar Race Engine, Holman Moody 427 Tunnelport Race Engine, Wood Bros. 427 Tunnelport Race Engine, etc. I find it interesting that those who dont want to spoonfeed someone who either cant or dont want to use the information available on the net, or those who have a life spend MORE time taking shots at each other, or analysing the thought process of someone else. I asked a simple, although broad question about an engine that does not seem to have the available information out there. My apolagies to you FE experts if my inquiry was not deserving of some information that you might possess. |
| | | | |  | Sorry, Phil. -- Gerry Proctor, 10/13/2005
I wasn't being critical of you. I thought I made that clear. I was addressing John's criticism. Royce sarcastically gave you some of the best information there is on the subject and that you really do need to do the research on this to discover both how scarce and obscure the information is and how difficult it is to put it all together.
You asked a tough question and the answer(s) could be very involved and lengthy. It's also not an area of focused research so there is no one "Big Book of the 427 Tunnelport" to work from. It would be easier to find the depth of information on the 427 SOHC than the tunnelport.
Part of what I do is research -a lot of it on the Internet. Using search engines, as you know, is a process of finding out how to ask the right question and using those results to ask more of the right type of questions. I might have started my search with David Pearson and gathered the artifacts of those results. I might also have tried to associate the tunnelport to the development and NASCAR ruling on the Boss 429. I might also have tried Holman-Moody, or Woods Brothers. Yeah, you gotta plow through a lot of junk that has nothing to do with what you're looking for, but that's the nature of research...more dead-ends that solid leads.
No, Phil, I don't think you're lazy. That's not what I was getting at. Besides, how would I know that? |
| | | | | | Hey Phil -- Royce P, 10/13/2005
Phil:
You will find if you meet me in person or on the internet that I am opinionated and obnoxious. It works for me and I am unlikely to change my ways. If that offends you then please disregard my answers and use all the other relevant tunnel port information in the accompanying threads on this post.
The rest of you could either give Phil useful information or find something else to do. I think I answered everything he asked specifically in a most effective manner without being insulting or rude. If humor is something you don't like then don't open any post by me. I tend to take potshots at people who deserve it too. I also use muti syllable words which can be mistaken for arrogance.
Royce |
| | | RE: 427 Tunnelport -- phil, 10/12/2005
Tried the Google/search thing Royce. Not much info out there. Just the basis stuff and parts for sale. Was hoping to tap into the FE experts and find out what carb/intake combos were used in Nascar, etc. WOW, got in for Royce, or what John? |
| | | | RE: 427 Tunnelport -- john p, 10/12/2005
no not really, mainly just read post and do not post much,
somtimes i think he feels he is better then most as shown in his deminer on his post
and inserting tunnel port 427 in the search window. Then press the button that says search.
most of us are to stupid to push the search button without his help
not the first time i notice his sarcasim |
| | | | Other stuff -- Royce P, 10/12/2005
It is impossible for me to type all the iformation in the world about tunnel ports because:
a. I actually have a life
b. I don't know everything
Regarding the carbs and intakes there were factory intakes that had 8V single plane, 4V single plane and Dpminator single plane. I have not seen any dual plane TP intakes but I am sure there were some made at some point. The most commonly found tunnel port intake is the 8V single plane and the correct original carbs are C8AF AD and C8AF AC Holley 715 CFM vacuum secondaries.
The tunnel port was never installed in any car from the factory. Exception being the GT40 Mk II and Mk IIB which were race cars, not factory assembly line stuff. It was strictly either a crate engine or buy the individual parts if you wanted a tunnel port engine.
There are trolls on the internet like John with no sense of humor. Every once in a while they pop out from under their bridge with nothing to offer us except stupidity.
Honestly, Google is the way to find the stuff you are after. Try some other topics:
Dan Gurney, GT40, Richard Petty, 1968 Talladega, 1969 Riverside, 1967 Sebring, 1967 LeMans, 1966 LeMans, side oiler, Mark Donohue, Peter Revson, Ken Miles, SAAC.
Good books include Shelby GT40 by Dave Friedman, Fearsome Fords by Phil Hall and Ford Performance by Pat Ganahl.
Royce |
| | | | | RE: Other stuff -- john p, 10/12/2005
google is a great source for info, just not sure why we need you to tell us how to push the search button
oh yeah that is right we are all morans except royce, knower of all
i guess the way i would have liked to the post to read was do a google search there is a ton of info,
not....goto google.com, type 427 tunnel port, and hit little button that says search
SARCASIM... but i guess when you know everything about everything, you can be an a$$ to us little trolls that look towards people like you to answer questions no matter how simple... |
| | | | | | RE: Other stuff -- phil, 10/12/2005
Wow, after reading the responses to my post, I now know what FE stands for FU**ING EGOMANIAC. Thanks for the info. |
| | | | | | | RE: Other stuff -- john p, 10/12/2005
classic royce, should read down further on some of his other post
i admit he knows a lot, problem is he knows it.. |
| | Gee - this thread has gone well, hasn't it? ;-) ::LOL:: [n/m] -- Mr F, 10/13/2005
n/m |
| | | RE: Gee - this thread has gone well, hasn't it? ;-) ::LOL:: [n/m] -- glennz, 10/13/2005
have been following this post, kinda humorous
i agree with john P have seen the arogance of royce on many threads
i think reading the post from top to bottom that phil indeed knows how to use the internet to do searches and did not need someone to tell him to push the little button marked search,
i think he did all the searching he felt he could and was asking for any new leads as gerry pointed out several names that i would not think about trying that may lead to some new leads
i have found that most of royce's and gerry's post have been very informative and agree that some are repedative, but with the arrogance shown, some people may be leary to ask questions..
with alot of first time builders of FE engines simple questions may be asked and polite non arogant answers should be given so that such a person may not feel that all FE experts are jerks MR F does a good job of that by sending them links to previose threads, i know it is time consuming but if FE building is going to last we need to help each other out
really liked royce's comments about john being a troll under a bridge, john wrote a personal observation then got nailed for it
just my .02
great site just like to see less arogance
|
| | | | RE: Gee - this thread has gone well, hasn't it? ;-) ::LOL:: [n/m] -- phil, 10/13/2005
MAN, You guys need to get a LYPH LOL |
| | | | | Danged, and it wasn't even me! N/M -- Hawkrod, 10/13/2005
|
| | | | | | Hey, no one's more surprised than me. ;-D [n/m] -- Mr F, 10/17/2005
n/m |
| Mach 1 Starting Issues -- MC, 10/10/2005
I rewired my 1969 Mach 1 with a 390 and am having trouble getting it to start. When you turn the key to the on position, it sparks once. But when the key is in the crank position there is no spark. Again when you turn the key back to the off position it will spark again, once. Any ideas on whats wrong.
Thanks
MC |
| | RE: Mach 1 Starting Issues -- raycfe, 10/10/2005
First off, if you run a jumper wire from the battery to the plus side of the coil does it start and run? If it does; after it starts disconnect the jumper. If it dies the ignition switch or resistor wire is bad. If it keeps running; shut it off. Now when cranking is there power at the I (rear small) terminal of the solenoid? If not the the solenoid is bad. Hope this helps |
| | RE: Mach 1 Starting Issues -- Dano, 10/10/2005
If it's the factory ignition, I would first take a voltmeter and make sure there is power to the coil, if the power to the coil goes off after the single spark, you probably have an ignition switch problem. If the power stays on to the coil even after the single spark, it has to be either a bad coil, coil to distributer wire, condensor, points, rotor or distributor cap. |
| | Are you running an electronic ignition? -- Bill Conley, 10/10/2005
I ran into the same issue wiring an MSD box into my '64 Galaxie. It would fire when I was cranking and then shut off as soon as I let go of the key.
I found out that I had wired the box to the resistor wire instead of the full 12V. These old ignitions get a full 12V when cranking, then the resistor wire drops it down to 8-9V for running the coil (so you don't fry the coil).
The MSD box did not like the low voltage so it would shut down. The fix was to wire the MSD box ahead of the pink resisistor wire. |
| | | RE: Are you running an electronic ignition? -- walt, 10/11/2005
i found a bad igntion switch,put 12 volts to the coil for starting,0 at run,,this spark? where are looking at it?,the dist?,i also found a bad strap in the dist to ground,and bad dist wire from the ciol,open under the insulation,no visable breaks,good luck |
| | RE: Mach 1 Starting Issues -- MC, 10/11/2005
I am running the Pertronix Ignitor I system with a Flame Thrower coil. As is said in the pertronix flame thrower coil instructions i have bypassed the resistor, because the coil has an internal resistor. I tested with a test light and i have power to the coil while the engine is cranking but there is no spark. like i said it only sparks when the key is turned to the on position, and it sparks once. during cranking there is no spark. |
| | RE: Mach 1 Starting Issues -- MC, 10/11/2005
Tried running a jumper wire to the coil, it sparks all the time then, and it still wont start. |
| Rocker End Stands -- John C, 10/10/2005
I'm building a hp street application 390 motor. This will have a hyd. roller cam, Edelbrock heads, factory style adjustable rocker arms with ARP rocker studs. I've been reading that it is adviseable to use aftermarket end stands for the rocker shafts? Can anybody give me advise on this matter? Thanks, John |
| | RE: Rocker End Stands -- Scott Allard, 10/10/2005
Yep, they are a good idea, as are the rocker arm studs. I got mine from Precision Oil Pumps which is a major supplier at a decent price. No mods needed to install them. The basic groundrule seems to be if lift is over 500 or RPM is much over 5500 you should go with them. Another thing to consider is adjustable rocker arms from a place like DSC motorsports and matching pushrods. It makes installation and adjustment much easier. Good luck! - Scott
Oh, and cost wise it seems to be a good bet. Iron stands are real $. |
| I have the opportunity to buy a 390 engine -- Justin G, 10/10/2005
390 from a fairlane for sale locally. Guy probably raced it a little, supposedly rebuilt less than 8,000 miles ago and then the car was crashed. Heads are off and were just redone by a local shop, new oil pan, new weiand high rise intake still in the box, new RV cam still in box.
I am in the process of getting part numbers for the heads, should have the later today, but I assume they are GT390 heads, also includes exhaust manifolds. Also includes Holley carb, but it is 780 CFM, and an Edelbrock intake. Spins freely but obviously it is a big unknown do you think it is worth the risk at this price?
He started off wanting $3,000 which is very high, but how much should I offer him? His son mentioned $2,000 but I still think I could do better but is this worth it?
My other plan is to buy a rebuilt motor to my specs for about $6,200.
Thanks! |
| | C7AE-A and C6AE-6090R heads -- Justin G, 10/10/2005
An engine I am looking at has the following heads one is C7AE-A and and one is C6AE-6090R. Will I have any issues with these heads? Supposedly they were both just rebuilt by a local shop. Are they mismatched?
[Post relocated by Admin.] |
| | | Sorry to ask again but anyone know if I would have -- Justin G, 10/14/2005
an issue running one of each head? |
| | | | That is a serious mismatch. -- Royce P, 10/14/2005
Those heads have different size combustion chambers and different port sizes. Neither is a high performance head. Both are common variants. You should try to find one of either type to make a pair.
Don't try using them together, the engine will not run right. It will have a fundamental out of balance in compression that will be very annoying.
Royce |
| | | | | Thanks Royce! n/m -- Justin G, 10/14/2005
nm |
| 428 Build Advice -- JL, 10/07/2005
I'm building a 67 GT-500 clone and I want it to look and run like the original. So far I've got a c6me-a 67 Block that was a standard 428, a set of C7AE-A heads with correct 67 date codes, and a 1U crank. I've got a complete 67 CMEA-A 390 engine from a 67 fairlane with the stock exhaust manifolds that I can pirate for any parts I may need like timing covers, rods, etc. I'm wanting to use one of the repro dual quad set-ups too and run the exhaust using the fairlane maifolds if they will fit and work. I'm using a big block toploader from the fairlane too. I might be talked into headers if the sound and HP gains are worth it. I'm on a budget so I can't go nuts with $$. So here are my questions.
What can/should I use from the 67 390 in my 428 build?? Where would it be best to spend what $$ I DO have considering the parts I've got above? What can I do to increase HP without spending $$ I don't have? What should I use for a damper? What about a distributor? Any other tips for an amature?? |
| | RE: 428 Build Advice -- giacamo, 10/09/2005
if going 428 make shure you at least get the rotating assembly balanced.i,d use a comp cam 270h with maching springs onepice retainers and molly pushrods, a melling hv oil pump and deep pan if i was going to race it i can go on and on but at least dont skip on the machine work with the heads on a fe. i try not to use any heads that dont at least have hardend exaust seats and one pice spring retainers. |
| scattershield experience? -- BB67FB, 10/06/2005
Hello! I am currently collecting parts to put an FE in my mustang and am wondering what the differences are between a scattershield and a regular bellhousing are. do they mount up the same? what about the clutch fork? - does it use the existing one, or need a special one? I noticed one for sale on ebay.
Any information would be greatly appreciated! thanks in advance! |
| | RE: scattershield experience? -- Dano, 10/06/2005
I use a Lakewood bellhousing in my 69 Mustang. The factory clutch fork works, but you will need the pivot bracket that is usually riveted to the factory bellhousing. Also, make sure you attach the Z bar mount bracket to the engine before you install it in the car, you may have to trim some metal off the edge of the bellhousing to get it to fit right, thats what I had to do. The one thing I am still looking for is a clutch fork boot that fits. |
| E475 mel -- Terry, 10/06/2005
Is it true that this engine put out 375 hp,and what kind of compression ratio was it?I have one that I got in a 58 Edsel I'm parting otu and I'm thinking fo rebuilding it. 410ci and 375 hp sounds good to me. |
| | RE: E475 mel -- Lou, 10/06/2005
The engine put out 345 HP at 4600 RPM, and 475 lbs of torque at 2900 RPM Compression was 10 1/2 to 1. Frend of mine had one in a 58 Ranchero that he pulled his 63 406 Galxie and trailer with. Ranchero towed at 65 mph like the trailer was empty.
I stock form it is a really good torque engine, but there is very little to hot rod it. (I did at one time have a 4x2 intake manifold for a 410. that not a mistake, it took 4, 2 barrel 3 bolt carbs.)
Good points, It's a really good engine, bad points, it is heavy, and not built for high RPM.
If you want more info talk to the guys a Y-Block http://disc.server.com/Indices/5173.html |
| | | RE: E475 mel -- Terry, 10/06/2005
Thanks for the info Lou,I was think about puting it in my 57 Ford custom 2dr, That should be a little diffrent then the norm. |
| | | | E475 mel in a 57 -- Lou, 10/06/2005
Terry, that should be a bolt in job, as the 58 Pacer shares the same frame as a 57 Ford Fairlane & Fairlane 500. The custom & Custom 300 is different only in the fact that it has a different wheel base. |
| | | | | RE: E475 mel in a 57 -- Terry, 10/07/2005
Lou, I have a FE 390 in the car now but I was thinking of a change for some time now,everybody I talk to wants me to put a 460 in it but thats too common for me,I have always wanted to be a little diffrent.Man it sure would be sweet to find one of those 4x2 manifolds,with 4 Stromberg 97's on top. |
| | | | | a little late to the party but.... -- Hawkrod, 10/10/2005
You mention the Pacer had the same frame as the 57 Ford but I must point out that the E475 was not a Pacer or Ranger engine, those cars were FE 361's (E410) and smaller, the Citation and Corsair were built on Mercury chassis and had the E475. The cars look the same but park them side by side and you will see that one is a mini me! The parts do not interchange much between the otherwise identical looking cars. The Citation and Corsair are longer and wider than the Pacer and Ranger! Many an Edsel newb has been caught offguard on that one when they bought NOS body parts only to find out they were too big/small to fit their cars! All of that being said, it isn't too much trouble to swap and has been done a million times. Hawkrod |
| | | | | | RE: a little late to the party but.... -- Terry, 10/11/2005
Hawkrod, this engine came out of a Corsair,and yes the car is bigger then my 57 Ford custom,as is the 57 Ford Fairlane, but the engine bays are alike as is the front crossmember from what I measure. |
| | | | | | | As I noted, The engine swap is not too tough... -- Hawkrod, 10/12/2005
I was merely pointing out that The Corsair and Citaition were not Ford chassis cars and were in fact quite different. Hawkrod |
| | | | | | | RE: a little late to the party but.... -- Terry, 10/12/2005
Point you made is well taken, thanks for your reply. |
|