I know it is hard to tell the condition of an assembled short block, but with the price of 428 cranks being over $400 on e-bay, the price seems more than fair. About 15 years ago or more when everyone thought FE's were becoming impossible to find, it was not unheard of to pay $1200 for just a good useable crank and block. If the seller will let you, remove # 4 bearing (he might not like it if you remove #5 and ruin the sealing, but the caps farthest from the oil pump tell the tale the best) and check the condition of the #4 main bearing journal as well as look to make sure the crank hasn't been already turned 0.040". The back of the bearing will be stamped with the undercut size. 0.040 is max, so it's no good if it has to be turned again, unless you get it hardchromed back to factory specs which is very expensive.

Your question is one I've asked before too John. And I've received a lot of opinions and ideas.
Royce's points about the shell offering less weight and better geometry are the exact reasons I've decided to go with the shell.
My camshaft, a Competition Cams 282S came with the waisted(also referred to as the dumbell) lifters. I've run this style of lifter before, both in a 428CJ(with no block alterations) and a 427. I had no problems at all in either case. Both engines would rev to 6,500 although it wasn't necessary with either cam. And with the CJ I only did this a couple of times. Made me a little nervous with standard CJ bottem end. Not very often with the 427 either. It didn't have any better bottem end. Just standard '64 427 crank/rods.
A question I recently asked but received no definitives answers to, was if the shell lifter used in the early '58 332/352 was designed for the early block which seems to have been cast with a hydraulic lifter system. I only have one early '58 block to base this on so understand this is mostly speculation. It seems that Ford may have had most everything set to go with hydraulic cam system for the new FE in late '57. But why did they go with the solid cam system for the first three months of production?
Based on this speculation, my theory is that the shell solid lifter would be the wisest choice for converting from a hydraulic cam to a solid cam in an FE. It helps to block some of the oil flow that is being wasted up in that region of the block with solids thus keeping more oil pressure down where it's needed.

But once again, I've decided to run the shell/correct 10.6" pushrod because of they're lighter and offer better geometry. Since my block is a '63 427, it doesn't matter a lot either way.

I think that when you buy a Crane solid lifter FE cam with their kit, the shells are standard. But with Comp the waisted/dumbell is standard. I'm not positive on that about Crane, it's just that their on line catalog only shows the shell and pushrod combo.

I just ordered my shell lifters and matching 3/8" pushrods from Blue Oval Performance. Their supplier for these items is Crower. I'm sure the shell lifters are all made by the same company. Blue Oval's price even beat Jeg's.

The original flywheel for the 428 required the use of an 11.5" clutch assembly, which in turn required the 1.375" (big input) transmission. Some flywheel makers used to offer both bolt patterns on their wheels. I don't know if they still do.
There is a simple rule that most racers follow in selecting a flywheel and that is; Heavy car = Heavy flywheel, Light car = Light Flywheel. Then there are those that do not follow rules and have excellent results. There is also the matter of which transmission you are going to use. All big inputs are close ratio from the factory, small inputs can be either close or wide ratio. Drag racing or a heavy car will usually dictate the use of a wide ratio gear box. Road racing and light cars are best suited with the close ratio trans..
Balancing is a whole 'nother subject. As many of us change our cars and engine/ transmission combinations that it is usually best to have the engine assembly internally balanced and the dampner and flywheel "0" (zero or neutral) balanced, that way you can change any portion of your combination without rebalancing.

The NHRA has always factored the 428 at less HP than the 427 for every model year. If the facts were different NHRA would change the rating. Horsepower is a multiple of torque, if the 428 had more torque it would also have more horsepower. The reason the 427 has more power potential is that the larger bores allow more efficient cylinder filling. Also the 427 can sustain higher RPM's with less breakage due to stronger block architecture. Another plus is that larger valves can be used in the 427 without interfering with the cylinder walls.

All that being said, on the street with my totally stock '68 427 GTE Cougar and 68 1/2 Cougar 428 CJ there was little noticeable difference. The 427 car handles better with its aluminum intake. Both will destroy tires. The CJ engine cost half the amount the 427 cost to build.

Royce Peterson

Ted, call Mark Beck at silver-lite ( Keith Black ) in nevada he's your best shot at getting pistons at a reasonable price If they still make them. @ United Engine & Machine CO. 702-887-2971. Ray Tirri
PS, I may have a set of standard bore ford, forged 11to1's

Howdy P,

Besides stepping off another High-Speed Weekend of serious hide burning (we ain't got a nearby drag strip, so we have our annual "Da Bike Show" at Roy's Repair, a surrealistic event where local racers boil the remaining rubber off their bikes using the streets of Minneapolis as the friction medium, to commemorate the end of the racing season) and junkyard hopping at Joe's Auto salvageyard, I'm pretty swamped with bringing a new product to the pilot production line at work right now, so my writing time is kinda thin.

I definitely appreciate the FE marine info you've introduced in so many forms. If I recall, you've posted more FE marine info than anyone.

As for more info on my end, I have just picked up a stack of "Automotive Industries" and "Ward's Quarterly" (managerial type) car mags from the early sixties, and I suspect they may have some oddball info on marine and other FE/FT applications. Time is preventing my browsing through them right now.

One interesting post I'm following up on is over at the FordFE.com forum, ref: http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=74182&messageid=1002383923 . I still don't know where these blocks were cast at (I have a friend with several and I need to make time to visit his shop to see the foundry symbols on them), but they were apparently machined in Flat Rock, Michigan. The Donzi connection puts commercial logic to the lot.

As I find more info (and time), you can be sure I'll be posting. If I can get my grubby mitts on those prints, you can bet I'll be modeling them up in 3-D and making fresh prints from the model.

Shoe.

Here is my latest. Fresh from Blue Oval Performance. I can't wait to get it all together.

Doug

MIne has lighting bolts on each side of the mercury. I remember 390s were red-orange (or a faded red) and 410 and 428s were blue.