Skip Navigation Links.
 |  rebuilding the engine -- T1M, 09/07/2001
I'm going to rebuild my engine soon. If when I measure the cylinders for out-of-roundness I find they're not excessively out-of-round would you reccomend just a honeing and then possibly reuse the same pistons and connecting rods with new rings and bearings of course? My question is, won't I have increased the amount of clearance between the piston and the walls with the honing, and aren't I sacrificing something in doing that?
Thanks |
|  | RE: rebuilding the engine -- Mel, 09/07/2001
Have a shop that uses a Sunnen Bore Gage check your cylinders for size, roundness and taper. If there is not a lot of ring ridge or wear you could get away with it. You will have increased piston to wall clearance but there should be no problem, even if you are at the limits. Ford recommends .007 to .009 piston skirt to cylinder wall clearance for the 428 CJ & SCJ with forged pistons. Your pistons are cast or autothermic design and do not expand as much as forged therefore they do not require as much clearance. If you use your old pistons with too much clearance you will hear rattling on start-up as well as on acceleration. It sounds like the engine's coming apart. |
|  | RE: Depends on the miles and oil changes -- RC Moser, 09/07/2001
If you have any ridge (worn bores not carbon) ( and you can probably bet the pistons are worn also) at the top I'd overbore and get new pistons. More clearance mean quicker the engine returns to the previous state. If you want a real stout engine match bore each piston to bore for minimun clearance. The rehoning and rering is usually only done to freshen up a engine that's has minimal clearance between the piston and bore (like and the end of a race season and after every thing was measured and compared to the previous measurements). Honing usually only removes .0002 to .0004 of metal if that, at least that's about all I could measure. Maybe you get some more opinions |
| | | RE: Depends on $, not miles and oil changes -- John, 09/07/2001
OK. I have done both...the $$ way and the cheapo way. Many, many times for both. And each have their merits. Forget "out-of-roundness" unless inspection shows obvious damage vs wear. Check taper. Taper causes the new rings to expand and contract as they go up and down causing premature ring failure (no, not breeakage, just that the rings lose their "springiness"). Therefore, the compression will go down more quickly in an engine merely "honed" vs one overbored with new oversize pistons. Therefore...less mileage before the really expensive rebuild. So what do you want? If you are restoring an antique T-Bird and will only put about 20 miles on it on warm sunny Sundays...go ahead and hone. Hey, I did a 289 for $500(Canadian...about $300 USD at that time)that include new timing chain and gears, new rings, bearings, new oil pump, heads and block hot-tanked, new gaskets, engine painted, and it was fine. It was in my 66 Mustang and yes, I added about 1 qt of oil per summer, and the woman that bought it still thinks the engine works great at about 30,000 miles after the rebuild, with still only about 1 qt added per summer. Oh, ...I must admit, I was on the cheap, so I dismantled and cleaned all the hyd lifters one by one...very time consuming...I also did a valve job myself...how I did it is another story...ask and I shall tell...chuckle. Even performance doesn't suffer much from an econo rebuild. It's longevity that suffers. Now...here's the "tech" poop...the 289 for example had 0.003" of taper. Max accordng to Ford. I agree...max. The engine had 150K on it, but it was my wife's grandmother's car, and I guess she was easy on it. The pistons appeared "loose", but worked fine with no noise. Oh...also...before honing, you must remove the ridge. This is not as easy as the "books" tell you, but don't worry, cause mistakes are above the top ring travel line and won't affect much of anything. So..I appear to be touting the econo rebuild. Not so..it has it's place in old antiques not expected to get much mileage, plus it leaves material in the block and crank for later rebuilds if and when required by a hopefully future generation. I personally like a full blown machined shop worked on block and crank. I put the engine together myself to:
1/ have fun;
2/ achieve personal satisfaction; and,
3/ if there is a mistake, it is my fault and I can get on with fixing it, not waste time arguing with the hired rebuilder.
So...to sumarize...a seldom driven antique can get the econo job. So too can the ultra high performance engine as it won't last anyway, but the street engine that you want to last a long time...spend the money. You get what you pay for...well...er...most of the time. |
| | |  | Thanks -- t1m, 09/07/2001
I really want a worry free engine with no rattles on accleration or startup. I'll glance back at your posts while I formulate my decision. Thanks alot! |
 | carbs carbs ?? -- nick, 09/06/2001
wich is the best carb to use on a built 352 a holly 650 double pumper or a regular 600 vacume |
| | RE: carbs carbs ?? -- Mel, 09/07/2001
Regular Vacuum carb is best. |
| | | RE: carbs carbs ?? -- John, 09/07/2001
Hey..I use dual Holleys on my 428...vacumn carbs (always use vacumn carb(s) on the street) but your question raises another point. I have to say, that the Holley carb is the worst designed carb I have ever seen for 1 main reason. Side hung float bowls. Leak prone and non-conducive to jet changes because of the mess and copious quantities of new gaskets required. I do admit, it does have a lot of "pros" vs this one main "con". I would NEVER ever use a Holley on a boat, as I know it would eventiually leak and the bilge would fill with funmes, and the blower wouldn'ty get it all, and their would be either a gigantic explosion or a fire...neither a great thing when you are on the water. However, a 650 cfm carb of any make seems about right for an engine around 352 ci displacement (for a street engine) |
| | | | I'd say use the 600 CFM if you plan......... -- Ed Jenkins, 09/09/2001
...to keep the 352 fairly stock, with restrictive exhuast manifolds and if it is in a heavy car or truck you should use the 600. If you plan to rod it and use a high flow intake, headers, hot cam, and or race it, and if you use it in a lite car use the 650. Mechanical secondaries are for light cars under 3500 lbs or so. |
| Throttle cable for a `67 390 Gal500? -- Paul M, 09/06/2001
Anybody know where they are made or available, if they even are?
Neighbor needs one for his car, and the parts stores only go back to `70 LTD's at the farthest.
He said he may have to go with one out of a `yard, but he'ld prefer not to. |
| | RE: Throttle cable for a `67 390 Gal500? -- matt, 09/06/2001
tell him to look at the lokar cables i have one on my 1967 galaxie and it works great. |
| | RE: Throttle cable for a `67 390 Gal500? -- Mel, 09/07/2001
Tell him to take the parts to an old timey motorcycle shop and they will make one up for him. Should be less than $20.00. It will have to be a hole in the wall type shop or, try a bicycle shop, they can do it too. |
| | | Tha might have to be a last resort, -- Paul M, 09/07/2001
and not very likely to be an easy place to find in Seattle. Every thing around here is geared for "New New New, More expensive, More expensive" etc etc.
Not a bad idea though, Thanks Mel!
Hopefully we can find what he's looking for and get him up and running this weekend. |
| | RE: Throttle cable for a `67 390 Gal500? -- Paul, 09/07/2001
Yeah check out Lokar. Their stuff is great, easily adaptable and quite affordable. I put one on my 65' Galaxie xl convert. with a 352 and it is perfect. |
| FE block ID # C3AE-6018-H -- Earl Wood, 09/06/2001
I have a block # C3AE-6018-H that I can't identify. It is on an FE engine in a 63 Galaxie. The heads are C3AE-6090-C and the intake is C3AE-9425-B. The heads have non-adjustable rockers. What engine do I have? |
| | Sounds like a 406. -- Paul M, 09/06/2001
But that's for the head casting's only, as none of my literature shows C3AE-H for engines, and I don't know much about intake #'s.
Incidentally, what kind of intake is it? Only thing I can see is for the heads, but that casting #, C3AE-C shows 406 6V engine. You got a six pack intake there?
Hope this helps some. |
| | | RE: Sounds like a 406. -- Earl Wood, 09/06/2001
The heads are the only thing I can ID also. It has a 4 bbl intake on it. |
| | RE: FE block ID # C3AE-6018-H -- Mel, 09/07/2001
Should be an aluminum intake for a 406 unless it's been changed. Post the list number of the carb, that's a good clue. |
| | | Re:c3ae-c -- Mike McQuesten, 09/07/2001
Non adjustable rockers? C3AE-C heads .... not always for 6V 406. Just a guess here but I think you have a nice garden variety 390-4V-300 horse. We had quite a discussion about these heads back in late July. I always thought the C3AE-C was nothing but the early 406-tri-power head. Wrong! They were if they were equipped with large valves, 2.08/1.66. However, FoMoCo apparently thought these heads with the standard valves, 2.03/1.55, would be a nice compression bump to the '63 390 which was still being built with the dished pistons. A friend has located three sets lately. We've picked up two of the sets because the c-chamber is 64CC. With the larger valves you have a nice set of HP heads. Also will machine them for spring cups which the 406/405 '63 engine had. Many said the heads are nothing special. I disagree. They have great compression making combustion chambers. They were apparently used only in '63. I've had '64 390 4V enignes and they were either equipped with C1AE or C4AE-G heads. The C3AE-C was a one year deal in my guess/opinion. Again, your 390's non adjustable rockers indicate it's not a HP engine. |
| | | | RE: Re:c3ae-c -- Earl Wood, 09/07/2001
Mike, I tend to agree with you....I have another friend with a set of those heads on a 390. What threw me was the block casting #. I will disassemble.. If anything other than 390, will post.... |
| | | | | RE:Block # -- Mike McQuesten, 09/07/2001
Ya I'm perplexed by your block # too. The additional numbers you've listed..the 6018-H part throws me. I've seen only C3AE....with various letters and other numbers obviously for other years but not this many numbers. And again regarding those C3AE-C heads, I do believe them to be great "builders" if you want high compression. I had a set of genuine 406/405 '63 C3AE-C heads with the big valves and spring cups. Sold 'em like a fool! The 390-4V heads of '63 are identical with the exception of large valves/machining for spring cups. |
| | | | | RE: Sure enough -- Mike McQuesten, 09/07/2001
I don't want you to think I didn't believe you on that block number but I had to go do some checking with my friend John. I told him your numbers and he said yes he has seen block numbers like that. And he can't find them listed anywhere either. He said he thought about the possibility of a block like that being an early 427 since that number is partially used for that '63 block. But it wasn't, it was a 390. As we were talking, I looked down at an FE block lying upside down and there was a C4AE-##- A. John has FEs lying all around. So you're totally correct in your block number. Again, I believe you have yourself a 1963 300 horse 390. |
| | RE: FE block ID # C3AE-6018-H -- John R. Barnes, 09/08/2001
C3AE 6015 H is 1963 390 with H lifters. |
| | | RE: FE block ID # C3AE-6018-H -- Earl Wood, 09/08/2001
It is possible that the # is 6015 (not 6018) I read it in a mirror in the car. The 5 (8) wasn't very clear. I am picking the engine up in a week or so. Will tear down and let ALL interested know what I find. Thanks to all of you....... |
| | | RE: FE block ID # C3AE-6018-H -- Earl Wood, 09/08/2001
John, WHERE did you find that number? I have searched and found nothing..... |
| | | | RE: FE block ID # C3AE-6018-H -- John R. Barnes, 09/09/2001
I have reference book that I got from Auto Krafters and it has been very accurate. It is called 1960-73 Muscle Cars Parts Identifier. |
| | | RE: FE block ID # C3AE-6018-H -- Earl Wood, 09/09/2001
John, Does it have the engine I inquired about? What is the Auto Krafters part # or ISBN of the book you have? |
| | | | RE: FE block ID # C3AE-6018-H -- John R. Barnes, 09/09/2001
It lists many part numbers and casting numbers for most Galaxies, Thunderbirds and Mustangs. Warner Roberts Products, P.O. Box 300231, Fern Park, Fl. 32730, 407-695-6279. Check for a area code change. John |
| | RE: all 406s had adj rockers NM -- gerald, 09/08/2001
Nm |
| | | RE: all 406s had adj rockers NM -- whitt russell, 09/10/2001
Where did you find these numbers? I have a FE motor and have not been able to id it. The stock intake is gone but the heads are still on it . Where is the block id # stamped ,the only numbers I have found on the block is the 352 on front and a A 20 on the back. Thanks for the help. |
| 67 FE Engine mounts -- Dave Alton, 09/06/2001
I have a 67 GTA, 390 I have been working on for some time. The engine is a 66 428 from a T-Bird. ( Not the original, but came with the car) The engine does not want to drop down enough to line up with the motor mounts.( about an inch and a half high) The frame mounts are the original 67 mounts still on the car. The engine block mounts are off a 68 390 from a mustang. The rubber pads are repro. Is there some trick to getting the engine to set down on the frame mounts? |
| | 1967 Mustangs apparently got unique FE frame mounts. -- Dave Shoe, 09/06/2001
Interestingly, I believe that 1967 Mustangs used the same frame mounts for FE and small-blocks. In 1968, Ford repositioned one bolt hole in the frame mounts so the frame mounts would tilt about 15 degrees from the small block position. I've never studied why they would do this, but perhaps it lowered the engine in the bay or something. I suspect the 1968-70 FE Mustangs got revised engine plates to go along with this change - with the angle built-into them.
Unless you purchase 1968-70 FE frame mounts, you'll have to relocate one bolt hole in each frame mount (one bolt hole if an AT car, and also a smaller clutch spring hole if a stick car) so that it swivels about 15 degrees for proper fit of the 1968-70 motor plates.
I'll try to dig up specifics for modifying your current set of frame mounts.
Shoe. |
| | | Here's a crummy photo. -- Dave Shoe, 09/07/2001
Still haunted by the $100.00 digital camera I bought last Christmas, here's a
fairly crummy photo of the two Mustang frame mounts.
The left one has the bolt hole and clutch spring hole moved to the 1968-70 FE
position.
The right one has the bolt hole and clutch spring hole positioned for the
1967-70 small block and 1967 FE.
Shoe.
[Keywords: brackets cj cobra jet engine image pic
smallblock support 1967 1968 1969 1970 289 302 390 427
428]
 |
| | | | RE: Here's a crummy photo. -- Dave Alton, 09/07/2001
Dave, Thanks for the info, We tried the 68 (frame)brackets and it did not make big enough difference. How many different brackets are there for the engine to rubber mount. The angle on the block bracket just doesn't look right, makes the bracket stick out away from the block. Looks like if it were closer to the block it should work. Are the Cobra Jet, top brackets different then the 390 brackets? This car is a factory 390 and according to the books I've got and shops the correct frame mounts were on the car when I bought it. ( Motor was out and no other brackets with it at the time of purchase) |
| | | | | RE: Mickey Mounts -- Mel, 09/07/2001
I was looking at a similar problem a friend has today. He is missing the block plate portion of the mounts. It's been a while but I think the block plates are right and left. I think there is an "R" or "L" stamped on each plate, I'll know for certain in a coulpe of weeks when I pull my engine. IMHO Ford really Mickey Mouse Engineered that mounting system and it can be confusing. Look closely and see what you've got.
If anyone out there has a set of FE Mustang block plates they would sell, please contact me. |
| | | | RE: Now I'm really confused -- hrdtail, 09/10/2001
This is a problem I have "researched" for some time and now you have me completely confused. Are you saying the 67 frame mounts for small blocks and FE's are the same? Then the frame mounts for
68 FE's are different? I had always heard the FE mounts were the same for 67-70? If the 67 mounts are unique to 67, then they must use a unique block plate as well? Can I use 68 frame mounts (which according to your picture I have) in my 67 S code? I converting it back from a small block. Don't know which frame mounts the small block is using currently. I guess what I'm asking is "can 68-70 frame mounts be used in a 67 and if so do I need 68 block plates or will 67 work or what? |
| | | | | Actually, I'm not certain, either. -- Dave Shoe, 09/10/2001
The 1967 thing has me wondering, but I've heard it from a few people. I sorta think it's better to just assume 1967-70 FE mount assemblies are the same, at least until I see different with my own eyes.
The bottom line is if you are converting from small block V8 to big block, you'll have to drill a couple holes in the small-block frame mounts and buy left hand and right hand FE-type steel plates that bolt up between the engine and the insulator. FE-type Insulators (same left and right) are being reproduced, and are dime a dozen, or maybe $30.00 each, whichever you find first.
If you are converting from 6-cyl to FE, you'll have to buy frame mounts, insulators, end engine plates. Easily converted small block frame mounts are common, and I still find big-block Mustang frame mounts for sale cheap at swap meets (bought a pair for maybe $25 recently), so you just gotta hunt out the FE engine plates. I understand FE engine plates have also been reproduced, so I doubt that any of this conversion stuff is tough to dig up for a good price.
Shoe. |
| going to larger capacity oil pan -- mikeb, 09/05/2001
thinking about getting a 'Cobra" type oil pan for my '69 Cobra, was wondering if the stock oil pump is okay for the larger capacity, I think the 'Cobra" pan holds 6.5 quarts,and stock it has a 5qt pan. Or should I just run 5 qts in it ,or if any changes would be recommended for this
thanks |
| | RE: going to larger capacity oil pan -- John, 09/05/2001
Hi. I just switched from a 6.5 qt cast aluminum Tony D. Branda Cobra oil pan to an Aviaid 427 Cobra Oil pan....well...er... I am in the process of switching. I just recieved the Aviaid pan from the courier yesterday. It was very expensive, but did consist of 4 parts....the pan, a screened and louvered windage tray, a special pick-up and another internal baffle. The pan is only 6 inches deep and has a center "box" where the pick-up goes that has 4 "one-way" doors so that oil is always fed to the pick-up, but difficult to escape from the box. With cold oil, the 6.5 qt pan could suck the sump dry as the oil in an FE returns slowly when cold (even at an idle). This was particulalry true with the HP/HV oil pump, but not as bad with the HV only pump. I think the cast Al. pan might make a good flower pot,...or maybe an ashtray. |
| | | RE: Pick up -- Mel, 09/05/2001
You will need the correct oil pick up assembly to go with whichever oil pan you decide to use. If you have satisfactory oil pressure with your pump now, you should be just fine. |
| | | RE: Would be interested in your flower pot -- Morgan, 09/11/2001
If you still have it and its in good shape, I would be interested in buying you Cobra oil pan. Let me know.
I can also be reached at My home:
e-mail is: gone-n-60@msn.com
|
| | | | RE: Would be interested in your flower pot -- Mel Clark, 09/12/2001
Go to the end of the line please. I asked several days ago. :) |
| 427 and 406 screw-in freeze plugs -- Bill White, 09/05/2001
First I would like to thank the forum for all its help with my freeze-plug problem for my 427.
I have in fact FOUND a source to make them for what is looking to be a very reasonable price. I have ordered two sets of these at 40.00 a set(both for my engines) and will be able to order more, Of course the more made the better the deal SO.......
My question now is if the price was in the 30.00 to 40.00 dollar range who would be interested in a set?(basically 5.00 to 6.00 dollars a plug.)
These will be the correct internal hex 1 1/2 NPT tapered plug.
I will not put together an order unless I get a good interest (so the price should be around 30.00) as I will only make a couple of bucks on each set(and I am busy enough).
Please E-mail me at billrwhite@juno.com
Also no offense to the couple of people that have these for sale on here on a regular basis and DID offer to sell some to me. To be fair I did find SEVERAL sources for these plugs and with all but this one sources, the price was for the same or much more than what the people on here were selling them for |
| been a while since ive been on. -- 410cougar, 09/05/2001
how have you guys been. i havnt been on regularly since the days of you know who (ole stan the man).
got good new and bad news. well i stoped working on the cougar. its been sitting in the garage with about a half inch of dust. i even actually entertained an offer to buy everything for almost double what i paid for it. need less to say i just got married and the wife stepped in and told me that if i sold it she didnt want to see me whining about the cougar i used to have or what i was going to do to it. (still whine about a mustang i got rid of when i went over seas) so now the cover has been pulled off an a paint job is in progress. the engine has been put to gether (390gt block, 428au crank, and ross forged pistons, aluminum edelbrock heads. ive had the trany rebuilt with a manual valvebody and the rear just came in yesterday. traded a jag irs for a amp custome irs. waiting for amp to sand my front hubs. total control front suspension (rack, stearing pump).
question ive got for you guys is?
has anyone tried out the new edelbrock fe intake looks a lil steep (4500-7500 rpm).
should i go with a single 4brl or 4x4 or a modified tripower that ive got. i picked one off a guy that was going to sell. its got 3 moded corvete 2100's that flows 1100cfm. seams like a lil over kill but im kinda curious. it was originally installed on a 427 that guy used to race.
410cougar
fire breathin 67 |
| | RE:intake choice -- Mike McQuesten, 09/05/2001
Just a quick opinion on your intake choice....Tri Power is always cool at least to look at. And the FE system is easy to work with if the carbs are done correctly. But you know your modified system with the 'vette carbs, so that's got to be your call. You must mean 2X4 not 4X4? Again, two fours are very cool and they'll make power with like always, a nicely coordinated and engineered package. As for the new Victor intake, haven't seen any tests or have I seen one run yet. I can only assume that they're built to run for racing. Are you racing the Coug most of the time? From what I've read and heard from folks is that the Performer RPM is a good all around high performance intake manifold. It's not your RV recreational intake either ala the Performer. With a strong high performance camshaft, gearing, etc, the Performer RPM would seem to me to be a great choice. But again, if you're intending to fire breath into the 10's with that 410Cougar, go with the new Victor Intake, roller cam, and lots of $$. |
| gearing -- nick, 09/04/2001
my 65 galaxie with the built 352 is a heavy car its got 410 in in it now . what would be a good street gear for it . i like the power of the 410s but i dont want to over rev the moter . gas milage isnt a problem but what about like 383s or so . i built the car to sumwat run .i dont want cruiser gears in it |
| 352 botom end -- nick, 09/04/2001
im working on a build up of my 65 352 ive had the heads milled 30 thau and of course the intake also for proper fittment . i have stock but forged pistons and an aluminum intake and a hei set up on it . i had new valves and springs put on the heads . the block was bored and the crank was cut also . my problem is im using a pretty big cam its a comp cam 280 h series its about 480 lift. am i going to have to wory about piston clearance and valve float using stock springs . also how are the crank and rod bolts on an fe . should i put milidon rod bolts in them or will stock ones work |
| | RE: Safety First -- Mel, 09/04/2001
Just follow the manufacturer's specs on the springs and you should be alright. As for piston to valve clearance I don't think you need to worry but it dosen't hurt to check with modeling clay. The connecting rod nuts may never cause a problem but, it is cheap insurance to replace them with new. Change the bolts too while you're at it. The bolts are what usually break. |
| | RE: Safety First -- Mel, 09/04/2001
Just follow the manufacturer's specs on the springs and you should be alright. As for piston to valve clearance I don't think you need to worry but it dosen't hurt to check with modeling clay. The connecting rod nuts may never cause a problem but, it is cheap insurance to replace them with new. Change the bolts too while you're at it. The bolts are what usually break. |
| | | RE: Safety First -- Ray, 09/04/2001
Don't forget to machine the exhoust side othe head as will, most of them are warped. Ray PS It's also good idea to use aquality spring for that cam, w/a seat pressure 125 LBS / 350 open @ 1.900 |
|