Skip Navigation Links.
| what is this engine? -- Mac, 10/27/2001
I have a 67 Galaxie with a 390 2v, C6 trans. the casting # on the engine is "C6ME A" Ford Parts Identifier book say it is a 390/428 engine for 66-67 ford's can someone explain what it really is ? a 390 or 428. Thanks, Mac |
| | RE: what is this engine? -- Kevin Crandall, 10/28/2001
all depends on what stroke and bore you have set up with the block. |
| | | RE: what is this engine? -- Mel Clark, 10/28/2001
Some people had the 4 bbl carbs changed for fuel economy, so you should post your cylinder head casting numbers and the first 5 digits of the cars VIN. That would give some clues. |
| | | | RE: what is this engine? -- Bob, 10/28/2001
The easiest way to find out the stroke is to get a 10 or 12 inch piece of white house wire (any gauage will work) and a magic marker. Pull a spark plug and stick the wire into the cylinder holding it vertically.
With the coil wire off, have some one crank the engine while you lightly push the wire towards the bottom of the cylinder. The wire should ride up and down the top of the piston.
Now use the magic marker to mark the wire as it goes up and down. The length of the mark is the stroke of the engine. 3.5 inches for the 352 and 360; 3.78 inches for the 390, 406 amd 427; and 3.98 inches for the 410 and 428.
A pencil will work also. Let us know what you find out. |
| | | | | RE: what is this engine? -- Mac, 10/28/2001
I will find out the casting #'s on the heads, and try measuring the stroke. will post results |
| 428 cj header gaskets? -- Greg Gilliam, 10/27/2001
Anybody know where to get them or have a part number? |
| FE build up -- John T, 10/27/2001
I need leads for a reputable rebuilder in the Los Angeles area. Preferrably in the SF Valley / Pasadena area. Any info, comments, warnings or personal experiences in the area would be extremely helpful. Thanks in advance, John T. |
| | First place to look for advice... -- Mr F, 10/27/2001
I always suggest asking for references at a car club - many keep a list of "good" and "bad" shops, based on their members' experiences. If you aren't familiar with your local organizations, try here:
http://fomoco.com/index.asp?Dept=5&Page=SelectArea
That's our "Worldwide Club-Finder", listing over 400 Ford-related groups. Hope it helps. |
| | RE: FE build up in L.A. Area -- Bill Conley, 10/27/2001
John-
I haven't found a good source in L.A. I would say Ron Miller of FPP (Norwalk, CA) is the local expert on FE's but he needs to get his operation better organized. My business partner brought his 427 sideolier to Ron in December 1999 for a rebuild. After TWO YEARS it wasn't done so we had to get it out of there!
We've decided to send that engine and my cammer to Rob McQuarie of Blue Oval Performance. Unfortunately he's in Colorado... Shipping will be a pain but for a valuable engine it's worth it. I wouldn't trust any local shop- especially with the cammer.
JMO -Bill |
| | RE: FE build up -- Royce Peterson, 10/27/2001
Try Reath Automotive in Signal Hill, California. This is very close to the Long Beach airport about 20 miles south of LA. Joe Reath is the owner and knows what's happening with FE's and has Cammer experience. Joe was a partner in the NHRA championship winning Dunn & Reath funny car in the mid seventies which was powered by one of his brand "C" motors. I had a set of CJ heads done by him earlier this year and some friends of mine liked his work on their projects as well. Joe isn't into selling parts, just machine work and vintage rebuilds so you know he is going to be concentrating on the business at hand.
Royce Peterson |
| 427 BLock -- Tom, 10/27/2001
ok i have pretty much given up on punchin out a diffrent FE engine to make a 427 does anybody know where i can get a 427 Block just the bare block for $1,000 or less i have Ford 9" Rear Ends to Trade out |
| | RE: 427 BLock -- Royce Peterson, 10/27/2001
Tom,
Good standard bore 427 side oiler blocks with hydraulic lifter provisions go for $3000.00 and up. Something that needs lots of repair like sleeves or welding is what you can get for $1000.00 or less.
Side oilers with no hydraulic provision sell a little cheaper. You might find a usable .030 center oiler for around $1600 or so.
Think about a 428 block and crank. That is available for less than $1000.00 from several sources.
Royce Peterson
|
| | | RE: 427 BLock -- Tom, 10/27/2001
i have been but id rather go with the 427 the 428 seems like it is more ofr drag racin than what im doing with mine |
| | | | RE: 427 BLock -- Joshua Carroll, 10/29/2001
Tom, The 428 was used in everything from trucks, full size cars, to Mustangs. My point is that it does not need to be an all out drag racing motor. Royce is right about a 428 being the best bang for your buck! If you have a more radical buget than go for the 427 but it will cost you to do it right. |
| | | | | RE: 427 BLock -- Travis Miller, 10/29/2001
Tom, maybe you should explain to us what your plans are. A 427 is a race engine that does not behave well on the street unless it is detuned. If you are going to waste a 427 by detuning it, you would be better off using a 428. That is unless you have an original 427 coded body of some type that you are planning on restoring. In that case it needs a 427.
We are not lecturing you, just concerned for a fellow FE enthusiast. |
| | | | | | Re: i disagree! -- Mel Clark, 10/29/2001
The 427 engine can be a very streetable engine without detuning it and if you run a 10.5 or 11 to1 compression ratio you can usually get by on premium pump gas. I've been doing it for years and running 38 degrees total advance. When I took my Cyclone out on cruise nights I would put 2 or 3 gallons of racing gas in it just for the aroma, Cam 2 does smell nice. I would not try to run more than 11 to 1 compression unless I were racing the car. The problem with most people that build 427 Fords is the go way beyond the factory specs when selecting a cam, usually because someone told them that the "XXX Racer Full Whammy" cam is the way to go. The truth is Ford spent many millions developing the 427 and the best cam is a Ford cam for street and some racing. The 306 duration cam (lumpy idle) that Ford put in the low riser engine is a really good place to start and the 324 duration (lumpier idle) is the next step up. For the street I would stay with the 306 and if a 447 incher is being built I might go with the 324 cam. Ford did make a .600 lift cam with 330 duration but, that brings a whole new set of problems to correct and adjust to. Stay with what's proven and you will have more fun and far fewer headaches. |
| | | | | | | RE: Re: i disagree! -- Tom, 10/29/2001
i want somethin that is streetable but at the same time i cant take out to the local track i live in las vegas NV my and go out the the shelby cobra shop and go along for ride alongs when they are testing the engines they are very streetable also good for on the track from what ive seen |
| | | | | | | RE: Re: i disagree! -- Travis Miller, 10/29/2001
Not many people take the approach that Mel did to give up allout race pieces to make a 427 streetable. I am glad to see that Mel was sharp enough to keep his 427 within reality when it comes to being streetable. Most would opt for a .750 lift roller with 12.5 to 1 compression and then could not understand why the engine was a dog up to 5000 RPMs. |
| | | | | | | | RE: Re: i disagree! -- Tom, 10/29/2001
well my 351c is a dog till about 5000 RPM also and i hate that i wat a streetable machine also want to have some top end performance from what ive seen 428 is for drag racin or street racin i dont want that i want somethin with some top end performance |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Re: 306/324 cams... -- Mike McQuesten, 10/29/2001
I just want to add my .02 worth here with regard to Mel's recommendation on the two Ford cams for the 427. The 306 is like Mel says an all around great cam. That shaft will idle with a serious lope and provide tremendous street/strip performance to an FE. The 324 is just a bit lopier but it pulls very well. I ran a 324/500 that was ground by Wolverine in their Blue Racer line. The specs on it looked to be exactly like the C4AE over the counter cam, which the 324 was. This was just a few years back. In a center oiler 427 with C4AE-G heads/CJ valves. That engine would idle just right at 750 RPM. My shift point was 6,300 but it that 390/401 cheater-clone would go higher... |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: Re: 306/324 cams... -- BOB HOPKINS, 11/02/2001
I agree with Mike the 306* cam I ran in my 427" powered 56 and 57 customs was a good every day driver, I replaced itwith the SS/B 324* knocked about 1/2 sec and picked up 8 MPH on next pass,was loverly pulled a 57 Chev a car lenght every gearDAMN was I happy!! |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: Re: 306/324 cams... -- KevinT, 11/02/2001
Glad to hear the results of the 324 cam. Just had a 416 engine built using that cam. We're getting ready to fire it up soon. Can't wait! |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Ford Cams -- Mel Clark, 11/02/2001
It's a fact that I learned the hard way, Ford Cams Work . If you take the time to analyze your combination and then fine tune the cam timing and carburetors you will gain much more than just switching cams because of some fad that's going around. |
| | 306(aa)-324(b) -- Ranch, 11/03/2001
I've run both cams ( AA & B ) in my "406”. The AA is a great street cam in that it sounds great and pulls good and should not be ignored. Now the B cam really brings on the power after 3K and will go to at least 7K. My one concern with it is the lack of vacuum it pulls, may not be good enough for power brakes, and people should be aware of it. ( Stop before you go ) Also you have to take into consideration if your engine can take the higher RPMs that the B likes.__ JMO |
| | | RE: Good Point! -- Mel Clark, 11/03/2001
That's a very good point, Ranch. You also may have to replace the power valve(s) in the carbs too or you could have a serious enrichment problem. |
| Roller Rocker Cam in FE -- Joshua Carroll, 10/26/2001
Crane makes a roller rocker retro-fit cam for the old FE. Does anybody have any experience with this setup? Any thoughts? Thanks. |
| | RE: Roller Rocker Cam in FE -- Bob, 10/26/2001
If you're asking about Crane's hydraulic roller cam, I'm curious too as I plan on running one in 454 I'm putting together this winter. |
| | | RE: Roller Rocker Cam in FE -- Swifty, 10/27/2001
I put one of Cranes Hydraulic Roller retro-fit kits in a 351 W. Not too difficult, you will have to replace the valve springs though. Much higher spring rates needed to control the heavy roller lifters. Great torque!! lots of power from 1000-6000 RPMs no flat spots. It's kinda expensive($250 for the cam alone, plus lifters,springs, retro fit kit) but you won't get this kind of power throughout the rpm range with any other type of cam(except maybe a solid roller) |
| | | | RE: Roller Rocker Cam in FE -- Bob, 10/27/2001
Expensive yes. I've been told $1000 for the cam, roller lifters, springs and retainers. Push rods are extra. But it sounds like its worth it. And I want people (ie rice burners) to think I'm just running a regular hydraulic cam so I'm willing to pay that if it works. |
| Balancer -- Michael Bryce Winnick, 10/25/2001
Is there an aftermarket balancer for the 390. If so, what is the part number out of which catalogue. Fluidampr? Am I stuck with stock? |
| | What year engine do you have. -- Dave Shoe, 10/25/2001
Non-racing 390s came with three common damper styles over the years, some styles are better than others. What year do you have?
Shoe. |
| | | RE: What year engine do you have. -- Michael Bryce Winnick, 10/25/2001
1969 Merc Marauder. Is there an aftermarket? |
| | | | There are many aftermarket dampers available. -- Dave Shoe, 10/25/2001
Lots of times, aftermarket dampers don't have timing marks which match the pionter on your timing cover, but that's a minor issue.
I haven't really studied aftermarket dampers much, though others have posted a bunch of info on the popular options.
If your stock 1969 damper looks good, and since you're not building what looks like a 6000+ RPM terror, I'm not so sure you need to pounce on a performance damper right away. If you had a 1967-earlier 390 I would suggest a change, but the 1968-later damper does provide some good damping - though it'd be insufficient for sustained romps above 6000RPM.
I don't have any details on racing dampers, but you might try the "search" button (keywords: damper or balancer or harmonic) in this forum to find some alternative brands, and the stories which are attached to them.
It sounds like it's gonna be a fun ride when you get through with it.
Shoe. |
| what is it for? -- Kevin Crandall, 10/25/2001
I have a exhaust manifold with part # C60E9430 on it. Can not get it to bolt to my 390 heads. Does anyone know what it is for?? |
| | 1966 Fairlane/Comet only. -- Dave Shoe, 10/25/2001
That exhaust manifold, also known as the 390GT exhaust manifold, came on the 1966 Fairlane/Comet.
It needed to be slightly redesigned in 1967 because one of the sides didn't quite fit the 1967 Mustang engine bay. The 1967-69 (and maybe 1970, I forget) version was used in the Fairlane/Mustang/Comet/Cougar and had one bolt relocated.
All 1966-later heads have bosses cast into them (but only drilled for small-car applications) which allow drilling the "diagonal" bolt pattern these manifolds require. The diagonal pattern was necessary to make the manifolds more "service" friendly in such a confined engine bay.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: 1966 Fairlane/Comet only. -- Kevin Crandall, 10/25/2001
So is it possible for me to drill out the hole or have it done so I can use it or is it a lost cause?? |
| | | | Yup, you can drill it if the head is 1966-later. -- Dave Shoe, 10/26/2001
If the part number on the head is C6 or later, then it's got the eight extra bosses (4 visible, 4 not visible except from inside the water jacket).
Drill only as deep as the factory holes, or else you may hit water. There are a few different ways to properly locate the holes without mismatching the ports or hitting water (due to missing the hidden bosses), but careful calculation and measurement will generally get you through.
Be sure to use a "bottoming tap" so you have full-cut threads which go sufficiently deep. Regular taps have excessive taper and should only be used to start the thread. A fairly OK bottoming tap can also be made by grinding the tip off a regular tap so that the full-thread section goes sufficiently deep.
Shoe. |
| | | | | Beware... -- Dave Shoe, 10/26/2001
...these exhaust manifolds are quite restrictive, and they only port match to low-exit heads. If you're presently running non-performance "log" type manifolds in your Galaxie or truck, you might as well keep them, as they seem to outflow the overly cramped 390 Fairlane/Comet exhaust manifold design.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | RE: Beware... -- Kevin Crandall, 10/26/2001
Thanks for the help! |
| Concourse correct valve covers? -- Eric, 10/25/2001
What are the concourse correct valve covers for a 69 Mustantg, 428cj, Q-code (non-ram) Would it be the chrome "Powered by Ford" or the ribbed aluminum cobra ones ? Thanks for your help, Eric |
| | RE: Concourse correct valve covers? -- Tim B, 10/25/2001
It could be either on the Q or R code SCJ or CJ. I think the later CJs had the aluminum, even that's a guess on my part. Mine has the chrome valvee covers, it was built 11/15/68. |
| | | RE: Concourse correct valve covers? -- Mike McQuesten, 10/26/2001
Earlier '69 CJs both in Fairlane/Torinos & Mustangs got the chrome tin Power by Ford v-covers, carry overs from '68. Not sure on the dates of mfg. when the beautiful low finned aluminum ones starting showing up. Tim's car seems definitley correct with the chrome tin & the Nov., '68 mafg. date. It was in the spring of '69 that I remember noticing the aluminum covers. And weren't there some that had a snake or something cast into them? I do mean the Ford aluminum 428 covers too, not the Shelby high, pentroof aluminum covers. It seems like I saw them more on Mustangs and not on Fairlane Cobras or Torinos. |
| | | | RE: Concourse correct valve covers? -- Eric, 10/26/2001
The build date on mine was 11/01/68 and I have the chrome covers, so I guess it's correct. Thanks guys. Mike, I too remember seeing a cobra snake on some, I don't know ifthose are after market or stock. |
| | | | | RE: Concourse correct valve covers? -- Mike McQuesten, 10/26/2001
I think that for sure your car is correct with the chrome/tin PbF covers. The "snake" CJ aluminums I remember were definitley FoMoCo. They looked very similar to the plain ones. Again, they were not common and I'm going from memory. |
| | | | | | RE: Concourse correct valve covers? -- peter, 10/27/2001
Mike this is from the cobrajet regisrtry facts and figures pages it does'nt give exact dates but may help..
http://www.428cobrajet.org/facts.html#twelve.
Sorry i have not worked out how to make it a direct link but if you use the above address it says that the snake covers were a factory option to dress up your engine.... |
| | similair question. -- Greg Gilliam, 10/26/2001
I have a '69 428 cj in a mach 1 that has the chrome valve covers. A friend at work gave me a set of the fomoco finned aluminum ones that say "428 cobra jet" and have the snake emblem on them. But they don't seem to want to fit( not tall enough). Anyone know anything about this? I really would like to use them. Thanks Greg |
| | | RE: similair question. -- Mike McQuesten, 10/26/2001
If they trully are the FoMoCo aluminum valve covers as you describe, they should fit your 428 CJ! I ran mine with adjustable rockers and there were no clearance problems. I do know they were the originals, they came with the entire engine from a totalled '69 Fairlane Cobra. |
| | | | RE: similair question. -- peter, 10/27/2001
You should post this question on the cobra jet registry. I seem to remember this question on their recently. www.428cobrajet.com/forum.html......... I'm sure scott will have answer for you all. My 428 was built in june 69 and has aluminium covers. Peter..... |
| 428 cj Exhaust Manifolds -- peter, 10/25/2001
I was wondering what the Factory exhaust manifold are like as far as performance goes? I'm about to rebuild my 428 cj engine in my mach 1and was thinking about porting the original manifolds. Is this wise or are they to thin or fragile? I'm after a little more power whilst retaining the factory look....... Coming from australia this is my first experience with a big block. Any help would be great. Thanks Peter.... |
| | RE: 428 cj Exhaust Manifolds -- Mike McQuesten, 10/25/2001
My opinion is that the factory 428 Cobra Jet exhaust manifolds work very well especially for stock. My personal experience is this, on a very mild 428 CJ with only a "hotter" cam (I still question my decision to run three different cams, Herbert, Rhoads, Schneider..)the rest stock, oh I did run a '67 aluminum PI intake, but the rest was stone stock from distributor to 735 Holley, the two cars I ran this engine in ran mid to high 13's consistently. First was a '66 Cyclone that weighed 3680. It ran 13.55 @ 104. Then I installed the exact same engine into a '61 Starliner that weighed 3,860. I did switch to the shorty HP 352/90/06/PI manifolds. That car ran a best of 13.72 @ 103. I did run dump out exhaust cut outs on both cars. As a matter of fact, the same ones. So my opinion again is, yes the CJ exhaust manifolds work very well especially if you allow a quick opening down the line, dump out exhaust.
I read sometime back about a Mustang 428CJ that ran low 12's through the stock exhaust manifolds. It was quite awhile back but it was a very prepared "stock" 'stang.
Headers should always give you more power. But generally it's at a price, i.e., maintenance, fit, exhaust leaks & noise. |
| | | RE: 428 cj Exhaust Manifolds -- peter, 10/25/2001
Mike, that's great to hear. I was hoping to maintain the stock manifolds. They look to be resonable with the way they flow. Did you do any porting or cleaning up of the insides for a cleaner flow? I will be running the original 735 and a 3000 rpm stall. Using a stock steel inlet but match porting the head to suite. I would love to get down to low 13's or flat 13's. I picked up a full set of factory light weight racing valves for the heads as well. Thanks for the information it's been great to chat. Regards peter. |
| | | | RE: 428 cj Exhaust Manifolds -- Mike McQuesten, 10/26/2001
I don't believe that porting/cleaning up the inside of the exhaust manifolds will make any difference. You reminded me that I did install a TCI "Street Dominator" torque convertor when I pulled the CJ/C6 combination from the Cyclone and reinstalled it in the heavier Galaxie. It was only around a 2,800 stall max. It may have helped a little. But the seat-o-the-pants feel of the stock torque convertor that I ran in the Cyclone was more responsive.
Stock steel inlet...? You must mean the cast iron intake manifold right? Here again, I don't think you need to do any port matching of a stock 428 Cobra Jet intake to stock CJ, C8OE-N heads. They were very nicely matched by the Ford engineers in Dearborn.
Now as for those factory light weight valves.....hmmm. There were problems with those especially for street driving. I'm sorry I can't remember the details now. I just know that those Ford light weight, sodium filled exhaust valves were problems.
Anybody able to help Peter with recommendations about these valves? |
| | | | | RE: 428 cj Exhaust Manifolds -- peter, 10/26/2001
Mike, wow stock convertor? I am not use to people telling me to use a stock convertor, coming from australia i have only experience with windsor 351's which I had in my XW GT falcon i ran a 3000 high stall the car ran 13.2 1/4 mile in reletively mild trim. This is my first Big Block and by the sounds of it I'm going to enjoy it. I guess i will leave it stock I will get my engine builder to check on those valves before we install them. Many thanks for all your tips it has been fun.... Peter....I might make a posting on those valves....? |
| | | | | RE: 428 cj Exhaust Manifolds -- kevin, 10/26/2001
If you mean the Ford ligtweight valves I assume you have the 2.09 intake and 1.65 sodium exhaust, they are beautiful but beware. The powdered metalic sodium melts at 208 degrees farenheit and transfers heat more effectivly than a solid stem. This allows for a cooler running temperature of about 2-3 hundred degrees, which means lots more life. It also weighs only 79 grams as opposed to 137 grams for a stock Cobra Jet of the same size. This allows about 1,500 more RPM over the stockers with the same springs usually. The Intake of a stocker weighs 144 grams and I cant recall the Lightweight number, but the 2.19 Hi Riser weighs 97 grams so the 2.09 should be less. The sodium filed exhaust has popped the head off on many people for various reasons including, valve float, (all valves bounce on return to the seat above 7,000), the weld coming apart (they are a 2 piece design), and the sodium eating away at the metal from the inside. This last one is quite controversial to me as all FT truck engines have sodium exhausts and usually dont break them. There are many replacement stainless valves on the market but beware of the difference in quality, it varies. I myself have noticed that the majority of the race engines that had a broken sodium exhaust, seemed to do it on the end cylinder which in my opinion was due to shaft vibration on the nonsupported end of the shaft. I've been lucky to have never have one break but that is because I've always run end supports. When I did not once, I did have a valve spring break and only bent one. You can have them X-rayed to look for internal occlusions, but that could cost some bucks, or you can run them, or use them for paperweights, your choice. Good luck |
| | | | | | RE: 428 cj Exhaust Manifolds -- peter, 10/27/2001
Kevin, Firstly thanks so much for the heads up on the valves grest information, thanks heaps. yes factory light weight valves: Intake #C8AX-6507-A Exhaust # C8AX-6505-A i DIDN'T know there was a problem with them when I brought them.... But if you think they will be o.k. with extra support on the rocker shafts then I'll give them a go....What type of support do you use? Do you think they will be o.k. for street application? thanks Peter.... |
| | | | | RE:'60 air cleaner... -- Mike McQuesten, 10/26/2001
Excuse me here Peter while I ask kevin to tell me about where that '60 HP air cleaner is that he said he might have and would look for.
Just let me know kevin. Do I look desperate or what? I have a very nice '63 HP ac that I've painted gold to look kind of like a '60...but it ain't the one.
The only thing I'm missing on my '60 Sunliner 352HP/360 is that damn air cleaner! I've got absolutely everything including the mint build sheet. I can live without and enjoy lots of quality time with the solid lifter clattering drop dop...but
Just let me know kevin. I won't mind if you can't find it. I'd just like to know for sure. |
| '67 Merc rear end -- Boyd, 10/24/2001
I've got a 2.80:1 rear end in a '67 Marquis. The engine code says that it's a locking rear end. Is this rear end worth changing the ring and pinion to a 3.50:1 or something with a little more get up and go? I've heard that Ford changed their locking rear ends after '67. Is this true? I'm in the middle of rebuilding the 410 in this car and I plan to beef it up a little and don't want to waste my time on this rear end if it isn't worth a crap. |
| | It's most likely a 9-3/8" rear, not a 9" rear. -- Dave Shoe, 10/25/2001
Your Marquis most likely has a 9-3/8" rear end carrier (also known as a 9-3/4" because some ratios are the larger size).
This rear carrier assembly looks much like a 9" rear carrier (the 9" is also sometimes called an 8-3/4" due to it's 1957-1959 ring gear size), and it even fits into most 9" sheetmetal housings (but you've gotta add a notch to the housing to clear the extra large ring gear). The maincap threads are bigger, as are the ring gear threads, as are just about all other dimensions.
The bottom line is you won't be able to stuff 9" ring gears into your 9-3/8" carrier, so make sure you know which size carrier you have before placing the order.
Note that it's easy to plop a 9" carrier into a 9-3/8" housing. I run a 9" nodular carrier in my 1967 LTD which originally came with a 428 and 9-3/8" rear. No mods are necessary. Just be sure to match the axle spline count.
As to your original question: 3.50:1 gears will wake the car right up. Beware that you've got the pre-1968-1/2 type of posi in that car. It's called the "Equa-Lock" and it does not grip as solidly as the newer "Traction Lok". Still, it beats the heck out of an open carrier rear when it comes to biting in.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: It's most likely a 9-3/8" rear, not a 9" rear. -- Bob, 10/25/2001
Dave has it right. I can only add that I've never seen a 9 3/8 setup that didn't have 31 spline axles. Maybe Ford made some but I've not seen any. |
| | | Thanks for the info -- Boyd, 10/25/2001
n/m |
|