These are the old FoMoCo Obsolete Forums and are being hosted by JCOConsulting.com. While you're here, check out my articles or have a look around at some of the Ford Stuff we have for sale. You might find something you can't live without.

Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7909&Reply=7909><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>T Bird or Not ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>DPM, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I am a Mustang enthusiast. Son's '66, my '70 Coupe, and recently acquired '70 convertible for the wife. However I am considering an opportunity to buy a '65 Thunderbird maybe for #2 son or me.<br><br>It is a 390 4V ,automatic, hardttop, California car. Body is good and interior is excellent.. Has AC but I don't think it is functioning. It belongs to friend of my son. The boy is going away to college and wants to sell. He got it for $3.7K and said he has invested about $2K in it. Trans among other things. He will let me have it as a friend for $3.9K.<br><br>I have no experience with T Birds or Ford FE big blocks. I do not know if the 65 Birds are good, bad or indifferent regarding performance, reliability and popularity if I need to resell. I am looking for opinions and recommendations.<br><br>Thanks,<br>David  </blockquote> T Bird or Not ? -- DPM, 08/30/2001
I am a Mustang enthusiast. Son's '66, my '70 Coupe, and recently acquired '70 convertible for the wife. However I am considering an opportunity to buy a '65 Thunderbird maybe for #2 son or me.

It is a 390 4V ,automatic, hardttop, California car. Body is good and interior is excellent.. Has AC but I don't think it is functioning. It belongs to friend of my son. The boy is going away to college and wants to sell. He got it for $3.7K and said he has invested about $2K in it. Trans among other things. He will let me have it as a friend for $3.9K.

I have no experience with T Birds or Ford FE big blocks. I do not know if the 65 Birds are good, bad or indifferent regarding performance, reliability and popularity if I need to resell. I am looking for opinions and recommendations.

Thanks,
David
 RE: T Bird or Not ? -- Neppy, 08/31/2001
Popularity: If it's a Bird, it'll always be worth something. I think the most popular, excluding the '55-'57(everyone loves those) and the Sportster, the popularity list seems to be the '61-'63 "Bullet Birds", the '58-'60 "Square Birds", then the '64-'66 "I don't seem to have a nickname Birds". The suicide door models are somewhat popular, but not as sought after by most. I won't comment on the '70's, '80's or '90's Birds as I have no real reference or knowledge (not that I have much knowledge anyway ;-) )
Reliability: The reliability is, judging by my brother-in-law's '66, about as good as any other '60 something FoMoCo.
The 390 is a good engine anyday. Get it rebuilt, if it needs it, and cruise to your hearts content.
The price isn't really something I can comment on, since I can't see car up close and I'm not any kind of judge for that kind of thing. Again, T-Bird's are always worth some money.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7916&Reply=7909><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: T Bird or Not ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mel Clark, <i>08/31/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>If the car is rust free and the engine is sound. the price seems very fair. A 390 T-Bird is not a record setter for speed but they are/were very reliable fashionable and comfortable cars. With the way Ford built them back then they are a pretty safe car also. One of the nicest features to me is the lack of a lot of the mandated emission devices. The worst feature is the fuel economy or shall I say lack of? Should you buy it I would suggest a Petronix type of ignition because of it's lack of moving/wearing parts which will improve the performance and fuel economy  as well  as reliability.  It's one of those things that, once you've installed it you don't have to look at it again.  Good luck with your new car. </blockquote> RE: T Bird or Not ? -- Mel Clark, 08/31/2001
If the car is rust free and the engine is sound. the price seems very fair. A 390 T-Bird is not a record setter for speed but they are/were very reliable fashionable and comfortable cars. With the way Ford built them back then they are a pretty safe car also. One of the nicest features to me is the lack of a lot of the mandated emission devices. The worst feature is the fuel economy or shall I say lack of? Should you buy it I would suggest a Petronix type of ignition because of it's lack of moving/wearing parts which will improve the performance and fuel economy as well as reliability. It's one of those things that, once you've installed it you don't have to look at it again. Good luck with your new car.
 RE: T Bird or Not ? -- Tim B, 08/31/2001
I've owned a 64 T-Bird convertible. If you dig through my homepage you can find a pic. The emphasis is on style not performance. They are well built (and heavy) cars. They were built along Lincolns at the Wixom plant. Underneath there is a lot of commonality.

I had it for a couple of years, sold it, didn't lose a dime, but then again it was a convertible. Coupes are a little tougher to sell of course, but it IS a T-Bird!

Tim B
1969 XR7 428 CJR convertible
http://members.aol.com/timbrands/index.html
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7924&Reply=7909><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: T Bird or Not ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mel Clark, <i>08/31/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Agreed, they are very nice cars! Very few squeaks and rattles, in the coupes, at least. </blockquote> RE: T Bird or Not ? -- Mel Clark, 08/31/2001
Agreed, they are very nice cars! Very few squeaks and rattles, in the coupes, at least.
 RE: T Bird or Not ? -- Tim B, 08/31/2001
A friend of mine had a beautiful black on black 1961 T-Bird coupe, he didn't have any problem selling it or the 1966 Tahoe Turquoise/White int. Coupe he had later. Both were very nice and very original. In this type of car buy quality! There are plenty of restoration specialists around if you need them.

Tim B
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7963&Reply=7909><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: T Bird or Not ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mikeb, <i>09/04/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>seen a 1964 at a local car show, it had under 40k miles, gold with gold interior,for 5900<br>if anyone is interested, say so and i will try to find the guys # </blockquote> RE: T Bird or Not ? -- mikeb, 09/04/2001
seen a 1964 at a local car show, it had under 40k miles, gold with gold interior,for 5900
if anyone is interested, say so and i will try to find the guys #
 RE: T Bird or Not ? 37,600 miles n/m -- mikeb, 09/04/2001
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7904&Reply=7904><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>PCV installation</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Tim E, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I changed my 2 barrel manifold for an after market aluminum 4 barrel.  The new manifold has no provision for the PCV hose hook up.  This is on a '64 Galaxie 390.  The stock connection is on a spacer which mounts under the carb.  The new manifold's flange is not wide enough to seal the stock spacer's PCV port inlet .  HELP!! </blockquote> PCV installation -- Tim E, 08/30/2001
I changed my 2 barrel manifold for an after market aluminum 4 barrel. The new manifold has no provision for the PCV hose hook up. This is on a '64 Galaxie 390. The stock connection is on a spacer which mounts under the carb. The new manifold's flange is not wide enough to seal the stock spacer's PCV port inlet . HELP!!
 You could use a Holley. They often have a PCV nipple. [n/m] -- Mr F, 09/04/2001
n/m
 AOD for FE's -- mikeb, 08/30/2001
in current issue of Mustangs and Fords,
from
LENTECH AUTOMATICS
P.O. BOX 1207
RICHMOND, ON, KOA 2Z0
613-838-5390
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7900&Reply=7900><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>406 Ford Value</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Young, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>  Gentlemen : I have a complete 405 hp/406 Ford ('62 vintage) engine that was dealer installed into my '60 Starliner by San Marino Motors in Pasadena Ca. sometime in 1963.  After 38 years of ownership, I'm wondering what this motor is worth. I've been enjoying reading your website and have renewed interest in this vehicle and its engine. This motor is complete from pan to air cleaner and all origional.  Thanks for your help. </blockquote> 406 Ford Value -- Dave Young, 08/30/2001
Gentlemen : I have a complete 405 hp/406 Ford ('62 vintage) engine that was dealer installed into my '60 Starliner by San Marino Motors in Pasadena Ca. sometime in 1963. After 38 years of ownership, I'm wondering what this motor is worth. I've been enjoying reading your website and have renewed interest in this vehicle and its engine. This motor is complete from pan to air cleaner and all origional. Thanks for your help.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7903&Reply=7900><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 406 Ford Value</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Dave, you are very fortunate to have made the wise decision to hold on to your '60 Starliner all of these last 38 years.   My opinion on the value of your 406/405, and it's an opinion based on some experience in shopping for and selling a few of these fine FEs, is this:  Good '62 406 block, $500; 406 crank (nothing too special about them other than fully grooved mains), $200; 406 rods, $100; Pistons, to replace with cast as was stock in '62: $200; cam, thrust button retention cams are rather undesirable but still original and correct in good condition: $50; '62 406 heads, $300; complete tri power induction system: $1,500; shorty HP exhaust manifolds: $350; Dual point distributor: $100.  I may have forgotten a few valuable parts/pieces but that basic parts list totals: $3,300 if sold or purchased individually to create a correct '62 406/405. Now you have to decide what it's value is to you to sell as a complete, running unit.  My personal opinion is I wouldn't even consider letting it go as a total performance package for under $6,000.   <br><br>I would really appreciate hearing the full story on your Starliner.  I'm a complete freak for the '60 Fords.   I'm fortunate to own a '60 Sunliner that is a 360 horse HP 352.  It was a drag strip weekend warrior until '68 when a  keeper let loose allowing #8 exhaust valve to drop into the cylinder.   It's about half way through total restoration with a few mods.   Is your car an HP car?   Quickest way to tell if a lot is missing or whatever is the fuel line.  Is it a 3/8" line?  Is so, it's a 360 horser.  Is it a 5/16" line with Y code engine designation?  It's a 300 horser, lo-po indeed.  I hope to someday start an on line registry for 1960/61 true HP cars.  <br> </blockquote> RE: 406 Ford Value -- Mike McQuesten, 08/30/2001
Dave, you are very fortunate to have made the wise decision to hold on to your '60 Starliner all of these last 38 years. My opinion on the value of your 406/405, and it's an opinion based on some experience in shopping for and selling a few of these fine FEs, is this: Good '62 406 block, $500; 406 crank (nothing too special about them other than fully grooved mains), $200; 406 rods, $100; Pistons, to replace with cast as was stock in '62: $200; cam, thrust button retention cams are rather undesirable but still original and correct in good condition: $50; '62 406 heads, $300; complete tri power induction system: $1,500; shorty HP exhaust manifolds: $350; Dual point distributor: $100. I may have forgotten a few valuable parts/pieces but that basic parts list totals: $3,300 if sold or purchased individually to create a correct '62 406/405. Now you have to decide what it's value is to you to sell as a complete, running unit. My personal opinion is I wouldn't even consider letting it go as a total performance package for under $6,000.

I would really appreciate hearing the full story on your Starliner. I'm a complete freak for the '60 Fords. I'm fortunate to own a '60 Sunliner that is a 360 horse HP 352. It was a drag strip weekend warrior until '68 when a keeper let loose allowing #8 exhaust valve to drop into the cylinder. It's about half way through total restoration with a few mods. Is your car an HP car? Quickest way to tell if a lot is missing or whatever is the fuel line. Is it a 3/8" line? Is so, it's a 360 horser. Is it a 5/16" line with Y code engine designation? It's a 300 horser, lo-po indeed. I hope to someday start an on line registry for 1960/61 true HP cars.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7931&Reply=7900><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>406 Ford</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Lou, <i>08/31/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I know of a complete 406, less exhaust manifolds, single 4 barrel ready to go for $3500. It's in Franklin, Mass. at a restoration shop. Same guy has a 62 406 galaxie XL conv. for sale, but it is a poor restoration. </blockquote> 406 Ford -- Lou, 08/31/2001
I know of a complete 406, less exhaust manifolds, single 4 barrel ready to go for $3500. It's in Franklin, Mass. at a restoration shop. Same guy has a 62 406 galaxie XL conv. for sale, but it is a poor restoration.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7937&Reply=7900><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 406 Ford</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Eric, <i>09/01/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Out of curiosity, Lou, What's he asking for the Galaxie?  My dad parted with his when he went to Nam and has been looking for a reasonable, not perfect one ever since. </blockquote> RE: 406 Ford -- Eric, 09/01/2001
Out of curiosity, Lou, What's he asking for the Galaxie? My dad parted with his when he went to Nam and has been looking for a reasonable, not perfect one ever since.
 RE: 406 Ford -- Lou, 09/01/2001
He was asking $20,000, but the body work is so bad I didn't make a offer. The only good thing I can say the car is correct including the 15" wheels. You can buy a nice one for less than $25,000 and there is no way this car could be put in shape for 5 grand ( or 10 grand for that matter)
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7939&Reply=7900><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: close $?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>09/01/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Thanks Lou, it seems like I might be in the ball park on my opinionated estimation of the value of Dave's 406.   $3,500 for a 4V-406/385 ready to go then add $1,500 for the tri power, another $400 for the exhaust manifolds and that equals....$5,400.   With the small parts, i.e., fuel filter, dual point dist., I still think around $6K is reasonable for a complete and running '62 406/405 package deal.<br><br>Hey Dave, I'd like to know a little about your '60.  Please e-mail me at this address.  <br><br>Eric, does your dad want a convertible?   I ask because I noticed that there's a rough '62 Galaxie 406/405 car on e-bay that was up to a whopping $800.  It's in Coos Bay Oregon.  May be too far and too far gone to fix.  It's honestly represented as more of a parts/donor to build a clone.   </blockquote> RE: close $? -- Mike McQuesten, 09/01/2001
Thanks Lou, it seems like I might be in the ball park on my opinionated estimation of the value of Dave's 406. $3,500 for a 4V-406/385 ready to go then add $1,500 for the tri power, another $400 for the exhaust manifolds and that equals....$5,400. With the small parts, i.e., fuel filter, dual point dist., I still think around $6K is reasonable for a complete and running '62 406/405 package deal.

Hey Dave, I'd like to know a little about your '60. Please e-mail me at this address.

Eric, does your dad want a convertible? I ask because I noticed that there's a rough '62 Galaxie 406/405 car on e-bay that was up to a whopping $800. It's in Coos Bay Oregon. May be too far and too far gone to fix. It's honestly represented as more of a parts/donor to build a clone.
 RE: close $? -- Eric, 09/01/2001
Yeah, He's looking but not real hard. I guess he feels that the right one will come along, and I'm sure he's right. Just have to be patient and it'll come to you. Always happens that way. At least to me. Oregon's too far. Northeast or midwest is about it, but thanks for the thought.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7897&Reply=7897><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Dec. 1990 Street Rodder Mag?!?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Joshua Carroll, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Does anybody have a Dec. 1990 issue of Street Rodder Mag.  There is suppose to be an article that describes how to retrofit a jeep top-side gear selector to a toploader tranny.  If nobody has the issue does anybody know where I can find it.  I called the mag publisher and they only carry back issues to 1996.  Thanks.<br><br>Josh </blockquote> Dec. 1990 Street Rodder Mag?!? -- Joshua Carroll, 08/30/2001
Does anybody have a Dec. 1990 issue of Street Rodder Mag. There is suppose to be an article that describes how to retrofit a jeep top-side gear selector to a toploader tranny. If nobody has the issue does anybody know where I can find it. I called the mag publisher and they only carry back issues to 1996. Thanks.

Josh
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7905&Reply=7897><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Dec. 1990 Street Rodder Mag?!?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Richard Bouman, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I've got a copy of that article. I would need to send it by mail. Can't e-mail it. </blockquote> RE: Dec. 1990 Street Rodder Mag?!? -- Richard Bouman, 08/30/2001
I've got a copy of that article. I would need to send it by mail. Can't e-mail it.
 Dec. 1990 Street Rodder Mag found! -- Joshua Carroll, 08/31/2001
Thanks for the reply. I found the guy below in Hemming and he is sending me the whole mag for $8 (shipping included). This guy had everything under the sun! If he does not come through I will email you. Thanks again for replying.

Bob Wigger,
301 Meadow Dr, Bethalto, IL 62010, PH: 618-377-5949
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7892&Reply=7892><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Engine Specs</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Tim, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>It's a 390 bored .030 with a 428 Crank.  basically a .030 over 410.  C8AE-H Heads.  Ford Aluminum<br>Intake.  Crane Hydraulic Energizer Camshaft with 533 lift and 272 Advertized Duration. </blockquote> Engine Specs -- Tim, 08/30/2001
It's a 390 bored .030 with a 428 Crank. basically a .030 over 410. C8AE-H Heads. Ford Aluminum
Intake. Crane Hydraulic Energizer Camshaft with 533 lift and 272 Advertized Duration.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7894&Reply=7892><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Engine Specs</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Will, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Tell us more about how it's flooding the plugs.<br><br>Is it popping?  Does it foul the plugs? (black sooty stuff on plugs).  Or are the plugs wet?  How does it run?  Does it put gas on the plugs *all* the time?  Or just when you stomp on it?  Is the carb new?  Are all the plugs wet, or just a couple?<br><br>My first reaction to your original post was that you may have garbage in the needle & seat.  When that happens, gas flows through the carb (into the intake) all the time.  You should be able to smell the gas.  This makes a mess.  It will dump a *lot* of gas into the oil, and plugs.  You can fix it by replacing the needle&seat or just cleaning it out (but they're cheap so why not make sure you're getting a good seal).  If you find that's the problem, make sure you replace the fuel filter.  - and your oil! </blockquote> RE: Engine Specs -- Will, 08/30/2001
Tell us more about how it's flooding the plugs.

Is it popping? Does it foul the plugs? (black sooty stuff on plugs). Or are the plugs wet? How does it run? Does it put gas on the plugs *all* the time? Or just when you stomp on it? Is the carb new? Are all the plugs wet, or just a couple?

My first reaction to your original post was that you may have garbage in the needle & seat. When that happens, gas flows through the carb (into the intake) all the time. You should be able to smell the gas. This makes a mess. It will dump a *lot* of gas into the oil, and plugs. You can fix it by replacing the needle&seat or just cleaning it out (but they're cheap so why not make sure you're getting a good seal). If you find that's the problem, make sure you replace the fuel filter. - and your oil!
 RE: Engine Specs -- Tim, 08/30/2001
It's not popping, but it does foul the plugs (Black soot on all plugs). The plugs when removed are not dripping with gas. The exhaust has a rich fuel smell. I have the idle adjustment screw about 1/4-1/2 turn from being all the way in.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7899&Reply=7892><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Engine Specs</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Tim, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Oh yea the carb is new.  It has been doing this since I bought it to some degree.  The Engine was just recently rebuilt.  </blockquote> RE: Engine Specs -- Tim, 08/30/2001
Oh yea the carb is new. It has been doing this since I bought it to some degree. The Engine was just recently rebuilt.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7902&Reply=7892><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Engine Specs</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Styletone58, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I am wondering about the carb.  It's possible that the power valve has failed (although , despite what everyone says PV failure is rare) or you have an internal leak.  I would try to procure another carb, any size, and try it out to compare.  You could also go leaner on the jets.  Try 65s. </blockquote> RE: Engine Specs -- Styletone58, 08/30/2001
I am wondering about the carb. It's possible that the power valve has failed (although , despite what everyone says PV failure is rare) or you have an internal leak. I would try to procure another carb, any size, and try it out to compare. You could also go leaner on the jets. Try 65s.
 agree. n/m -- Will, 08/31/2001
n/m
 RE: Engine Specs -- Mel Clark, 08/31/2001
If it has backfired, even once, through the carburetor the power valve could be damaged. You should check it with a hand or motor operated vacuum pump. You could also just suck on it to see if it operates or if air gets through it. Your carb is not so big that you really need to worry about it. Ford put a 780 cfm Holley on the 1969 Boss 302 anf they were raced with dual 780s as well as some having dual 1150 Holleys.
Are you certain that your cam is timed correctly?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7881&Reply=7881><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390 in Mach 1</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Tim, <i>08/29/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have a problem getting my carbeurator adjusted correctly (Flooding out plugs) on my 390.  It is a 750 CFM Vaccuum Secondary Holley.  I began by checking the fuel level in both floats and it's about and 1/8 below the holes.   Next I went with smaller primary jets, From 72's to 68's with still no change.  Then I suspected a wrong size power valve so I checked the engine vaccuum.  At an idle the vaccuum is 16-17 in hg.  Slightly increasing engine RPM to 1500 increased vaccuum to 20 in hg.  Does anyone have any suggestions on solving this problem?<br><br>Tim </blockquote> 390 in Mach 1 -- Tim, 08/29/2001
I have a problem getting my carbeurator adjusted correctly (Flooding out plugs) on my 390. It is a 750 CFM Vaccuum Secondary Holley. I began by checking the fuel level in both floats and it's about and 1/8 below the holes. Next I went with smaller primary jets, From 72's to 68's with still no change. Then I suspected a wrong size power valve so I checked the engine vaccuum. At an idle the vaccuum is 16-17 in hg. Slightly increasing engine RPM to 1500 increased vaccuum to 20 in hg. Does anyone have any suggestions on solving this problem?

Tim
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7884&Reply=7881><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>I think its simple: get a smaller carb. [n/m]</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>08/29/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> I think its simple: get a smaller carb. [n/m] -- Mr F, 08/29/2001
n/m
 RE: I think your right!. -- RC Moser, 08/30/2001
Say 600 CFMs
 Please tell us more about your car. -- Dave Shoe, 08/30/2001
I'd like to hear more about how your car is set up. Just knowing about your carb doesn't paint much of a picture.

Shoe.
 RE: 390 in Mach 1 -- Tim, 08/30/2001
I'm new to this see the post above...
 RE: 390 in Mach 1 -- Ray, 08/30/2001
When you are have problems like that, your doing damage to the rings and cylinder walls(BLACK DEATH) an old racing turm. Get a carb that you know that works, orther wize you will damage motor, to the point that it will need to be rebuilt. I've seen ware it did damage to the rods/mains!. PS if you your going to snoozes going to lose. Ray
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7907&Reply=7881><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 in Mach 1 (Still Trying)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Tim, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have the 80508-1 4160 Holley 750 Carb.  I Just went to smaller jets (66's) with no change.  Although this time I raised the secondary speed adjustment screw and completely loosened the primary screw.  This made it smoke worse at the same speed.  Also when I shut the Car off a light haze of smoke comes from the secondary throttle plates.  This makes me think it's getting way to much fuel from the secondaries.  Does anyone know if this type carb has problems with the secondaries?  I'm thinking that if I replaced the secondary metering plate with  holley's conversion kit (Metering Block) that this might solve my problem.  Does anyone recommend trying this?  Tim </blockquote> RE: 390 in Mach 1 (Still Trying) -- Tim, 08/30/2001
I have the 80508-1 4160 Holley 750 Carb. I Just went to smaller jets (66's) with no change. Although this time I raised the secondary speed adjustment screw and completely loosened the primary screw. This made it smoke worse at the same speed. Also when I shut the Car off a light haze of smoke comes from the secondary throttle plates. This makes me think it's getting way to much fuel from the secondaries. Does anyone know if this type carb has problems with the secondaries? I'm thinking that if I replaced the secondary metering plate with holley's conversion kit (Metering Block) that this might solve my problem. Does anyone recommend trying this? Tim
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7913&Reply=7881><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 in Mach 1 Try This!</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>08/31/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>It sounds like you have a fuel inlet needle/seat that is either being held open by a piece of dirt or way out of adjustment. Take the carb off the car, dump out the gas, turn it upside down and with a clean piece of fuel hose connected to the inlet blow into the carb and see if the fuel inlets are closed. If you can blow air into the carb you need to remove the bowls and check that the float upper surface is parallel with the upper bowl surface when the needle is closed. Replace the needle/ seat assemblies with Holley units if they won't close. <br><br>Installing the 4150 conversion won't help anything if the fuel won't shut off.<br><br>           Royce Peterson </blockquote> RE: 390 in Mach 1 Try This! -- Royce Peterson, 08/31/2001
It sounds like you have a fuel inlet needle/seat that is either being held open by a piece of dirt or way out of adjustment. Take the carb off the car, dump out the gas, turn it upside down and with a clean piece of fuel hose connected to the inlet blow into the carb and see if the fuel inlets are closed. If you can blow air into the carb you need to remove the bowls and check that the float upper surface is parallel with the upper bowl surface when the needle is closed. Replace the needle/ seat assemblies with Holley units if they won't close.

Installing the 4150 conversion won't help anything if the fuel won't shut off.

Royce Peterson
 RE: 390 in Mach 1 Try This! -- John W., 08/31/2001
I too was getting very frustrated with a holley 735 on my cobra jet, kept blowing the power valve. Finally bought a 750 Edelbrock hooked that baby up right out of the box and noooo more problems!
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7880&Reply=7880><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>milling heads for comp</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>nick, <i>08/29/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>i have a 65 352 im lookin to get a couple of more pounds of compresion  . i dont want to have to run 600 dollar domed race pistons in it .  if i was to shave o about 30 thousanths of would that give me more. and what about piston to valve clearance . will i have to clay the moter . i dont know the stock comp on my 65 but  it is a factory 4 barrel moter . im lookin for at least 10 and a half to 1 . the cam i want to use is the 298 series comp cam it works from 200 to 6500 . is that to big  </blockquote> milling heads for comp -- nick, 08/29/2001
i have a 65 352 im lookin to get a couple of more pounds of compresion . i dont want to have to run 600 dollar domed race pistons in it . if i was to shave o about 30 thousanths of would that give me more. and what about piston to valve clearance . will i have to clay the moter . i dont know the stock comp on my 65 but it is a factory 4 barrel moter . im lookin for at least 10 and a half to 1 . the cam i want to use is the 298 series comp cam it works from 200 to 6500 . is that to big
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7883&Reply=7880><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: milling heads for comp</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mel Clark, <i>08/29/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>If I remember right, you already have 10.5 to 1 compression. </blockquote> RE: milling heads for comp -- Mel Clark, 08/29/2001
If I remember right, you already have 10.5 to 1 compression.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7888&Reply=7880><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>E-Z on the claims.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>High nickel 7000 RPM tapped core 427 blocks(?), unattainable 350 HP(?), and other claims are really tough for me to understand.  Please put some basis to these statements or else mention that they are just opinions.<br><br>The 1965 automotive 352-4V compression ratio was 9.3:1, the truck 352-2V was 8.9:1.<br><br>.015" steel shim head gaskets with the reinforcement ring made by Fitzgerald (and formerly sold by Ford as C3AZ-B racing head gaskets) and regularly sold on ebay for $22.00 to $28.00 a pair (search "steel shim" and "ford") are equivalent to milling about .015"-.020"  from the heads, when compared to other aftermarket gaskets who's average thickness is around .035".  Beware that these Fitz gaskets do easily rust, so don't store them in wet areas, and always keep your antifreeze fresh.  The old Ford version of the Fitz gaskets were coated, so they resisted shelf rust better.  Note that the head and block should be checked for flatness prior to using shim gaskets, as some people have had problems getting them to seal.  I've never had any problems.<br><br>Don't confuse the reinforced Fitzgerald gaskets with the other type of "embossed" steel shim gasket used by Ford on many production FEs.  The cheaper "non-reinforced" embossed shim gasket will not fit the 427 bore, and is not reinforced at the cylinder bore.  The plain embossed shim head gasket will not handle combustion pressures as well as the racing shim gasket will, though they work great in mild performance engines.<br><br>Stepping past the easy "head gasket" method of bumping compression a slight amount, you may wish to mill your head or deck the block a little.  Keep in mind that this weakens the head and block slightly, so you don't want to go overboard with the grinder unless you have a specific need to do so.  Assuming the head has not already been decked, taking .010" to .030" is not a problem.  You'll want to mill the intake manifold if you want to match ports and bolt holes properly after milling the head more than maybe .020".<br><br>Sorry, I don't have time for math right now, but you can probably bump the compression ratio to 10.0:1 without much effort.<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> E-Z on the claims. -- Dave Shoe, 08/30/2001
High nickel 7000 RPM tapped core 427 blocks(?), unattainable 350 HP(?), and other claims are really tough for me to understand. Please put some basis to these statements or else mention that they are just opinions.

The 1965 automotive 352-4V compression ratio was 9.3:1, the truck 352-2V was 8.9:1.

.015" steel shim head gaskets with the reinforcement ring made by Fitzgerald (and formerly sold by Ford as C3AZ-B racing head gaskets) and regularly sold on ebay for $22.00 to $28.00 a pair (search "steel shim" and "ford") are equivalent to milling about .015"-.020" from the heads, when compared to other aftermarket gaskets who's average thickness is around .035". Beware that these Fitz gaskets do easily rust, so don't store them in wet areas, and always keep your antifreeze fresh. The old Ford version of the Fitz gaskets were coated, so they resisted shelf rust better. Note that the head and block should be checked for flatness prior to using shim gaskets, as some people have had problems getting them to seal. I've never had any problems.

Don't confuse the reinforced Fitzgerald gaskets with the other type of "embossed" steel shim gasket used by Ford on many production FEs. The cheaper "non-reinforced" embossed shim gasket will not fit the 427 bore, and is not reinforced at the cylinder bore. The plain embossed shim head gasket will not handle combustion pressures as well as the racing shim gasket will, though they work great in mild performance engines.

Stepping past the easy "head gasket" method of bumping compression a slight amount, you may wish to mill your head or deck the block a little. Keep in mind that this weakens the head and block slightly, so you don't want to go overboard with the grinder unless you have a specific need to do so. Assuming the head has not already been decked, taking .010" to .030" is not a problem. You'll want to mill the intake manifold if you want to match ports and bolt holes properly after milling the head more than maybe .020".

Sorry, I don't have time for math right now, but you can probably bump the compression ratio to 10.0:1 without much effort.

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7895&Reply=7880><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Re: Claims and Facts</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mel Clark, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Page 44 of Fords Muscle parts and High Performance book states that 390 4V engines are stock at 10.5 to 1 compression. <br>1958 T-Birds were rated by Ford at 350 HP.  The standard 390 4V engines of '67 are listed at 315 HP  and the GTs are listed at 325 HP on the same page; 44, same book.<br>I posted Ford'S PN for the screw in "core plugs" that I got out of Ford's SOHC engine manual. If you would like I can send some of this info by posting pages. I have many years of experience with the FE engine, as well as having worked at Holman-Moody in the late '60s nad early '70s. <br>The HP figures I posted for the 427 are from Ford's research and design papers filed with the S.A.E.. <br>What other Information would you like cleared up?  </blockquote> Re: Claims and Facts -- Mel Clark, 08/30/2001
Page 44 of Fords Muscle parts and High Performance book states that 390 4V engines are stock at 10.5 to 1 compression.
1958 T-Birds were rated by Ford at 350 HP. The standard 390 4V engines of '67 are listed at 315 HP and the GTs are listed at 325 HP on the same page; 44, same book.
I posted Ford'S PN for the screw in "core plugs" that I got out of Ford's SOHC engine manual. If you would like I can send some of this info by posting pages. I have many years of experience with the FE engine, as well as having worked at Holman-Moody in the late '60s nad early '70s.
The HP figures I posted for the 427 are from Ford's research and design papers filed with the S.A.E..
What other Information would you like cleared up?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7908&Reply=7880><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: bumping compression..</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>08/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Here's a simple compression bump for your 352:  Build it into a 390!  Since it sounds like you're planning to rebuild this 1965 352-4V (Was there ever a factory built 352 that had more than 9.5:1cr other than the 1960 HP?) just get a 390 as has been recommended to you before Nick.  Rebuild it with the commonly available '64 & later 4V  cast pistons and there you go.....10.5:1 or so.  Not a very expensive rebuild.<br>As for milling the heads......hey Mel remember this?  It's right on page 15 of the first edition of  Muscle Parts, summer of '69.  There's the story about how much to mill the heads and the intake to assure correct mating of ports.  Chart I.<br>You know that 350 horse '58 Thunderbird you mentioned Mel?  From a Ford book.   I think that may be in reference to the MEL(Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln) 430 that was the optional big horse mill for the '58 bird.  I don't think there was a '58 FE of any dimension that was near 350 horsepower.  Maybe the 361 Edsel was?  Then you mentioned the horsepower ratings game Ford was playing with the 390 in the mid to late sixties.  Pure confusion best describes it.  I never understood why the '66 390GT went from what seemed a reasonably rated 335 horsepower to 320 in '67.   I never thought the 315 rating was close to the Z-code 390 of '66 and '67.   They were really a slug.  Very poor cam.  It was that C6OZ-B cam that woke the 390 back up from its slumber that began in '62 when the HP 401 solid lifter fire breather got replaced by the 406 in Jan., '62.  The 390 became the torque grunt motor for everyday driving.   The last real 390 GT was '68.   What was it rated at?  Oh ya, Page 44, Muscle Parts, 1969, are you ready?  325 horses!  Was crack cocaine around then?<br> Then Ford really pulled what they thought was a fast one.....rating the 428CJ at 335 horses.  Sure.<br><br>I appreciate all your input Mel.   It's obvious you've been around and worked on FEs for many years.  I think the old adage of "you may have forgotten more than what I'll ever know" may be appropriate.  I mean that as a total compliment.   You obviously have resources at hand and you were there.  I may not agree with everything but you have got me checking,i.e., the claim of higher nickel content in '65 and later blocks.  You mentioned a Ford bulletin or something about that.   I'd like to know what that was again.  I've asked two machinist friends who are FE fans. Both know their stuff, one runs a 428 CJ in a '67 Fairlane GTA @12.00 while the other runs a 427 SOHC in a '32 Ford at Bonneville. They told me that there were some blocks that they have seen where there's a large X cast in the lifter valley.   They say these may be a little higher grade block.   It doesn't mean they can take a 427 4.23 bore though.  And you never said that the '65 and later blocks commonly could either.  The point I'm trying to make here is that neither believed that there was much if any difference in the cast iron of normal FE castings.  Of course, they mentioned that the '70s ribbed castings were sometimes blessed with thicker cylinder walls but that isn't a given.  As for '65/later side oiler blocks, I and they believe these did have improved casting techniques.  So my little mental jury is still out on that higher nickel content  but it's still deliberating!  <br> </blockquote> RE: bumping compression.. -- Mike McQuesten, 08/30/2001
Here's a simple compression bump for your 352: Build it into a 390! Since it sounds like you're planning to rebuild this 1965 352-4V (Was there ever a factory built 352 that had more than 9.5:1cr other than the 1960 HP?) just get a 390 as has been recommended to you before Nick. Rebuild it with the commonly available '64 & later 4V cast pistons and there you go.....10.5:1 or so. Not a very expensive rebuild.
As for milling the heads......hey Mel remember this? It's right on page 15 of the first edition of Muscle Parts, summer of '69. There's the story about how much to mill the heads and the intake to assure correct mating of ports. Chart I.
You know that 350 horse '58 Thunderbird you mentioned Mel? From a Ford book. I think that may be in reference to the MEL(Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln) 430 that was the optional big horse mill for the '58 bird. I don't think there was a '58 FE of any dimension that was near 350 horsepower. Maybe the 361 Edsel was? Then you mentioned the horsepower ratings game Ford was playing with the 390 in the mid to late sixties. Pure confusion best describes it. I never understood why the '66 390GT went from what seemed a reasonably rated 335 horsepower to 320 in '67. I never thought the 315 rating was close to the Z-code 390 of '66 and '67. They were really a slug. Very poor cam. It was that C6OZ-B cam that woke the 390 back up from its slumber that began in '62 when the HP 401 solid lifter fire breather got replaced by the 406 in Jan., '62. The 390 became the torque grunt motor for everyday driving. The last real 390 GT was '68. What was it rated at? Oh ya, Page 44, Muscle Parts, 1969, are you ready? 325 horses! Was crack cocaine around then?
Then Ford really pulled what they thought was a fast one.....rating the 428CJ at 335 horses. Sure.

I appreciate all your input Mel. It's obvious you've been around and worked on FEs for many years. I think the old adage of "you may have forgotten more than what I'll ever know" may be appropriate. I mean that as a total compliment. You obviously have resources at hand and you were there. I may not agree with everything but you have got me checking,i.e., the claim of higher nickel content in '65 and later blocks. You mentioned a Ford bulletin or something about that. I'd like to know what that was again. I've asked two machinist friends who are FE fans. Both know their stuff, one runs a 428 CJ in a '67 Fairlane GTA @12.00 while the other runs a 427 SOHC in a '32 Ford at Bonneville. They told me that there were some blocks that they have seen where there's a large X cast in the lifter valley. They say these may be a little higher grade block. It doesn't mean they can take a 427 4.23 bore though. And you never said that the '65 and later blocks commonly could either. The point I'm trying to make here is that neither believed that there was much if any difference in the cast iron of normal FE castings. Of course, they mentioned that the '70s ribbed castings were sometimes blessed with thicker cylinder walls but that isn't a given. As for '65/later side oiler blocks, I and they believe these did have improved casting techniques. So my little mental jury is still out on that higher nickel content but it's still deliberating!
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7910&Reply=7880><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: bumping compression..</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mel Clark, <i>08/31/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>When I get better with this thing I'll email a page or two from one of my treasures (books).<br> I don't think the ribbed blocks were ever used in production except possibly the '68 427-390 hp cars and trucks. <br>I have bored the 428 SCJ blocks over .125 just testing the walls and and there was still at least .060 to .070 remaining in the walls. I dont know if it was that thick all the way around but I didn't bore into air. :) <br>I don't think NASCAR allowed the big Lincoln engines in '58, I  think that happened in '59 or maybe even '60. I looked at a '58 NASCAR T-Bird replica on Monday and it had the aircleaner decal that said 352 High Performance, 350 HP. but then again anyone with a computer and a color printer can make decals/stickies and anyway Ford was rather optimistic about horse power back then. Ford did have some kind of strange option that I have never seen anything in print about, I was not much more than an onlooker when my friend installed a 430 Turmpike cruiser engine in a '59 4 door cop car they had a kit and an instruction book from Ford to guide them. Installed it with a 3 speed O/D trans at Speed Craft in Maywood, Ill., the car belonged to the Feds. <br>Have your machinest friend look closely at the block of the SOHC and compare it with an early 427 or 352. the early blocks were much nore rough to the touch and they would rust the out side pretty quickly if they were not painted. The High nickel blocks did not rust so easily, even in marine applications.   </blockquote> RE: bumping compression.. -- Mel Clark, 08/31/2001
When I get better with this thing I'll email a page or two from one of my treasures (books).
I don't think the ribbed blocks were ever used in production except possibly the '68 427-390 hp cars and trucks.
I have bored the 428 SCJ blocks over .125 just testing the walls and and there was still at least .060 to .070 remaining in the walls. I dont know if it was that thick all the way around but I didn't bore into air. :)
I don't think NASCAR allowed the big Lincoln engines in '58, I think that happened in '59 or maybe even '60. I looked at a '58 NASCAR T-Bird replica on Monday and it had the aircleaner decal that said 352 High Performance, 350 HP. but then again anyone with a computer and a color printer can make decals/stickies and anyway Ford was rather optimistic about horse power back then. Ford did have some kind of strange option that I have never seen anything in print about, I was not much more than an onlooker when my friend installed a 430 Turmpike cruiser engine in a '59 4 door cop car they had a kit and an instruction book from Ford to guide them. Installed it with a 3 speed O/D trans at Speed Craft in Maywood, Ill., the car belonged to the Feds.
Have your machinest friend look closely at the block of the SOHC and compare it with an early 427 or 352. the early blocks were much nore rough to the touch and they would rust the out side pretty quickly if they were not painted. The High nickel blocks did not rust so easily, even in marine applications.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7911&Reply=7880><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 427 block</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>08/31/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>You're right about the appearance or texture/feel on the 427 Sideoiler block, which is a C8AE original hydraulic block that Dick has modified to accept the SOHC heads, as compared to my C3AE 427 centeroiler.  His block is much smoother.  Mine looks like anyother early sixties FE, well, except for the obvious cross bolts and the HP cast on the side.  Mine is a fairly early 427 that was cast in February of '63.   I'm fortunate that it's still standard bore and crack free.<br><br>I don't know about NASCAR not allowing the 430s in '58.   It never did surprise me when NASCAR would ban Ford from using anything that beat the mighty General, i.e., the SOHC.   But I know my uncle had a '58 'bird, maybe it was a '59?   I was just a kid of 13 when he let me drive it and I did know what a 430 was and the difference then from a FE and even the '57 M-L 368.  That bird was a hard runner even with the cruisomatic.<br><br>Thanks Mel.  I'll look forward to reading those materials when you're up to that techno step.  Thata's something I'm working on too.  <br> </blockquote> RE: 427 block -- Mike McQuesten, 08/31/2001
You're right about the appearance or texture/feel on the 427 Sideoiler block, which is a C8AE original hydraulic block that Dick has modified to accept the SOHC heads, as compared to my C3AE 427 centeroiler. His block is much smoother. Mine looks like anyother early sixties FE, well, except for the obvious cross bolts and the HP cast on the side. Mine is a fairly early 427 that was cast in February of '63. I'm fortunate that it's still standard bore and crack free.

I don't know about NASCAR not allowing the 430s in '58. It never did surprise me when NASCAR would ban Ford from using anything that beat the mighty General, i.e., the SOHC. But I know my uncle had a '58 'bird, maybe it was a '59? I was just a kid of 13 when he let me drive it and I did know what a 430 was and the difference then from a FE and even the '57 M-L 368. That bird was a hard runner even with the cruisomatic.

Thanks Mel. I'll look forward to reading those materials when you're up to that techno step. Thata's something I'm working on too.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7918&Reply=7880><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 427 block/SOHC</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mel Clark, <i>08/31/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Mike, how did your friend modify his service block for the SOHC?  he had to have oil returns from the heads. Did he use external oil lines or did he machine through the block as Ford Did? </blockquote> RE: 427 block/SOHC -- Mel Clark, 08/31/2001
Mike, how did your friend modify his service block for the SOHC? he had to have oil returns from the heads. Did he use external oil lines or did he machine through the block as Ford Did?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7919&Reply=7880><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>mid-60s 390 performance question.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>08/31/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Mel,<br><br>I'm looking for factory dyno curves for the various mid-60s 390 engines, and was wondering whether you've seen them in any of your texts.  I'm not looking for aftermarket dyno runs, only the ones Ford did.<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> mid-60s 390 performance question. -- Dave Shoe, 08/31/2001
Mel,

I'm looking for factory dyno curves for the various mid-60s 390 engines, and was wondering whether you've seen them in any of your texts. I'm not looking for aftermarket dyno runs, only the ones Ford did.

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7923&Reply=7880><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Dave, Dyno</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mel Clark, <i>08/31/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Dave , the only dyno runs I could offer are from one of the High Performance books that Ford published in the late '60s and early '70s. If you want, I'll try and scan some of that stuff in and email it to you. I have a lot more of info on the 427s than anything. <br>You must also realze that Ford only published what looked best for Ford.  :) </blockquote> RE: Dave, Dyno -- Mel Clark, 08/31/2001
Dave , the only dyno runs I could offer are from one of the High Performance books that Ford published in the late '60s and early '70s. If you want, I'll try and scan some of that stuff in and email it to you. I have a lot more of info on the 427s than anything.
You must also realze that Ford only published what looked best for Ford. :)
 I'd like to see a little of the 390 stuff. -- Dave Shoe, 08/31/2001
I've got lotsa 427 stuff, too, including the SAE papers on SOHC and LeMans 427s.

390 charts are more ellusive. If you want to email a sample my way, I'd appreciate it. If some text about the 390 is included, a sample of that would be cool, too.

Thanks,
Shoe.
shoe@bitstream.net.
 RE: 427 block/SOHC -- Mike McQuesten, 08/31/2001
He modified the block as per the standard procedures that were required of all 427 side oiler blocks to accept the SOHC heads. The blocks that were not factory cast to work with the cammer heads. In other words, as you have stated, he machined through the block. There are no external oil return lines. You're right, that the block he started with was a service 427 with hyrdraulc lifter oiling provision.
 Re: sohc -- Mel Clark, 08/31/2001
I was fortunate to have several OEM cammer blocks when I built mine. After doing a lot of comparing but no machining I came to the conclusion that the material was there to actually drill the block for the oil return. When you study the side oilers you might take note of a bulge in the casting that runs down the block to just above the block's skirt area. I don't know if there would be any sand from the mold process in there or if you would just drill through iron all the way. I don't think the water jacket is in the way at all.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7879&Reply=7879><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390 Engine Vibration in '66 T-Bird (Part 2)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Paladin, <i>08/29/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>     I would first like to thank everyone who responded to my first post with their opinions and suggestions in regard to an engine vibration in my 390 powered '66 Thunderbird.  I went and checked everything mentioned short of pulling the engine and having the reciprocating assembly balanced.  I have no problem doing that and have done it several times in the past.  But I am hesitant due to a new discovery this evening.  I blocked the car up and crawled underneath with a mechanic's stethoscope and started poking around.  With the engine running and the 'Bird in park I found that the engine itself had very little if any vibration at all.  The vibration is coming from the transmission area, most probably near the front of the tranny and carrys all the way down the case.  Again, to cover prior ground, I recently purchased the car with a recently rebuilt engine and transmission.  Does anyone know if there is anything in the front of a C6 that would be spinning with the engine running and in park that would cause this?  The only thing I can think of is the torque converter and the flexplate itself.<br><br>Thanks again to everyone and may God bless you and yours,<br>Paladin<br> </blockquote> 390 Engine Vibration in '66 T-Bird (Part 2) -- Paladin, 08/29/2001
I would first like to thank everyone who responded to my first post with their opinions and suggestions in regard to an engine vibration in my 390 powered '66 Thunderbird. I went and checked everything mentioned short of pulling the engine and having the reciprocating assembly balanced. I have no problem doing that and have done it several times in the past. But I am hesitant due to a new discovery this evening. I blocked the car up and crawled underneath with a mechanic's stethoscope and started poking around. With the engine running and the 'Bird in park I found that the engine itself had very little if any vibration at all. The vibration is coming from the transmission area, most probably near the front of the tranny and carrys all the way down the case. Again, to cover prior ground, I recently purchased the car with a recently rebuilt engine and transmission. Does anyone know if there is anything in the front of a C6 that would be spinning with the engine running and in park that would cause this? The only thing I can think of is the torque converter and the flexplate itself.

Thanks again to everyone and may God bless you and yours,
Paladin
 Your torque convertor is improperly bolted. -- Dave Shoe, 08/30/2001
I suspect someone installed your torque convertor with the drain plug in the wrong position so that it is distorting the flexplate.

Look at the four 9/16" nuts which bolt the torque convertor to the flexplate, note that as the engine is manually rotated that there are two larger holes (maybe 3/4" in diameter) between these nuts , and one of these should have a (7/16"?) pipe plug poking thru so you can drain the convertor. I suspect that neither hole has this plug poking through, because it's positioned 90 degrees away, at a location which doesn't have a drain hole in the flexplate - this forces the flexplate to warp.

If this is so, I suspect that removing the four flexplate nuts, and then loosening the tranny crossmember bolts a little, and then loosening the bellhousing bolts and prying the tranny away from the engine about 1" will allow you spin the torque convertor to the correct position and reengage the flexplate at the correct position.

Just my suspicion.

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7874&Reply=7874><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>427 Hi-Riser Motor</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Andy, <i>08/29/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>does anyone know what they go for ?   short block and crank is 428 crank....     heads have very small crack in chamber, next to intake valve seat.  everyone i have seen, have had this same crack.  lol<br><br>have big block top loader, and  many other tings...<br><br>dual quad hi-riser intake with right carbs,,,,<br> <br>www.427comet.com<br><br>Andy   630-830-9189 </blockquote> 427 Hi-Riser Motor -- Andy, 08/29/2001
does anyone know what they go for ? short block and crank is 428 crank.... heads have very small crack in chamber, next to intake valve seat. everyone i have seen, have had this same crack. lol

have big block top loader, and many other tings...

dual quad hi-riser intake with right carbs,,,,

www.427comet.com

Andy 630-830-9189
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7875&Reply=7874><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 427 Hi-Riser Motor</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mel Clark, <i>08/29/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>They go for a lot of money, as much as 15K could be reasonably asked, maybe even more. As a side note, in standard form the Medium riser make only 1 hp less than the high riser on Ford's engine dyno. . High riser set-ups are awesome to behold though. Oh yeah, you will have a problem with the hood if you don't have a scoop. </blockquote> RE: 427 Hi-Riser Motor -- Mel Clark, 08/29/2001
They go for a lot of money, as much as 15K could be reasonably asked, maybe even more. As a side note, in standard form the Medium riser make only 1 hp less than the high riser on Ford's engine dyno. . High riser set-ups are awesome to behold though. Oh yeah, you will have a problem with the hood if you don't have a scoop.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7877&Reply=7874><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>MR 485 HP @ 6000, HR 540HP @ 6300 &lt;eom&gt;</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>08/29/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>&lt;eom&gt; </blockquote> MR 485 HP @ 6000, HR 540HP @ 6300 <eom> -- Dave Shoe, 08/29/2001
<eom>
 ford's personal numbers. No accessories, gross. -- Walker, 08/29/2001
I assume

I also don't buy the 15K estimated value/cost of a high-riser, you can buy an SOHC for 15K albeit, not a perfect one.
The heads and intake and, if you must, 'correct' carbs, basically the top of the engine, is where the cost is.
Otherwise it's your 'garden variety' 427FE down below.
 RE: 427 Hi-Riser Motor and gold nuggets -- RC Moser, 08/30/2001
Like gold nuggets they were scarfed up along time ago. Finding a rebuildable period HR is about as rare as finding gold nuggets laying in the bottom of a creek. good luck.
 RE: 427 Hi-Riser Motor -- Mel Clark, 08/30/2001
I think the H.R. engine in near perfect or NOS condition could bring as much as $15,000, especially from someone that "just has to have it" for his Cobra or restoration of an A/FX car. Also a "correct" H.R. engine is not the same as just any old 427. The H.R. is the second generation of Ford's serious racing program. The first revision of the 427 was the 7,000 rpm kit that was offered in parts form which offered; Camshaft, Lt. weight valves,Lt. weight, deep lifters (actually truck parts), and matching long push rods. Then for the more serious racer there was 2 different steel Crankshafts, Cap screw con rods and domed Pistons, 780 cfm Carburetors and lots more. There was even a 7,000 rpm Oil filter! The H.R. engine was in all reality a race engine that was equipped with all of the above and a higher nickel block casting with screw in core plugs and the H.R. heads and intake manifold (which could also be ordered as a part of or addition to the 7,000 rpm kit).
Ford typically held the best they had for the corporate racers and everyone else had to get whatever they could as Ford made it available. There were very few H.R. equipped cars sold, mainly because of the need for the tear drop hood scoop and Ford was afraid of liability due to accidents caused by restricted visibility. Then the Med. Riser was released.
Shelby american still installed the H.R. engines for a while.
Go to the top of this page
Go back one page Back    Next Go forward one page

361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380