Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Adjustable rocker arms? -- Chris, 08/22/2001
I hear that adjustable rocker arms can be used on an engine with hydraulic lifters.How do I go about this?How do you adjust them?
|
 | what causes high oil pressure readings?n/m -- mikeb, 08/22/2001
n/m |
|  | what causes high oil pressure readings? -- Ross, 08/23/2001
Not sure of the question but...here goes...
Correct bearing tolerances, good pump tolerances, tight relief spring (x2 on early motors), good cam bushings all make high oil pressure
If you are having a problem with the oil pressure pegging the needle, its probably the relief in the pump
If you dont have oil pressure and want it, its probably worn main bearings |
| Quad for 390 -- Mac, 08/22/2001
I have a 67, 390/275 hp engine, currently with a 2bbl.
what would be a good 4bbl. to put on it using an eldebrock performer 390 intake, looking for improved cruising not racing. |
| | RE: Quad for 390 -- Mike McQuesten, 08/22/2001
The Edelbrock carbs are great. I've run two 500 CFMs on an old Offy dual four intake on a 428 CJ. Worked very nicely but no better than their (E-brock) Performer with their 750 manual choke. That combination really worked well in all around performance with the current Ford Motorsport cam that's available. Also have run their 600 on a 390 in an F-100. No probs at all. They're easy to work on and calibrate with the additional charge "kit" that can be bought which includes metering rods, jets, and step up springs. No leaks when you want to change any of these things. Of course the old 4100 Autolites are great if you get a good one in good shape. Holleys are always nice ..... but well we all have opinions and I've had some interesting problems running old used Holleys. |
| '66 390 Internal Vibration -- Paladin, 08/22/2001
Help! I just purchased a really straight '66 Thunderbird Landau that had a new 390 long block installed by the prior owner. It now has about 1,000 miles on it and displays no problems whatsoever other than the "shakes". You can feel a vibration inside the engine through the gas pedal. It is barely noticeable at about 1,000 RPM, becomes very distinct around 2,000 RPM, and goes mostly away by about 2,500 RPM. The vibration dampner on it is the one specified for the 315 horse 390 that came in the T-Bird. It is a very thin one, about 3/8 inch in depth. My prior association with 390s had them with a dampner that was about 1 1/2 inches in depth. Since this 390 long block is not a '66, is the vibration because of having the thin dampner on it rather than the thick one? And if that is the case, do I need to change the flywheel also? Any help would be appreciated in this.
God bless America,
Paladin |
| | The wrong damper won't make it shake. -- Dave Shoe, 08/22/2001
FEs got a new standard damper design in 1968. It's 1.10" front to rear and looks way more massive than the earlier damper.
Your 1966 damper is correct for that car. It's the standard FE damper from maybe 1964 (I'm still studying this date) intil 1967 (I'm sure of this date). It's 0.75" wide and has a belt groove in it. Note that the three pulley bolts are positioned different;y than the 1968-76 damper, so early pulleys don't match with '68-76 pulleys.
Dampers mainly go to work above 4000-5000RPM, when the fourth, third, second, and first order crankshaft harmonics can become problems. Dampers are not responsive at your problem RPMs.
I assume the shaking is a problem when the car is in neutral as well as drive. It could be a loose damper ring (visually obvious), or perhaps a bad clutch, or maybe a bad fan blade. It could possibly be an odd piston. I can't help you too much, other than mention these basics.
Shoe.
|
| | | RE: Dampner may not be the problem -- Mel Clark, 08/22/2001
If you cannot discover the cause of the vibration through standard methods of diagnosis, try a timing light on the components at the front of the engine and see if any thing is hopping around up there. If you have contact with the previous owner you may want to find out where the engine was rebuilt and if it was supposedly balanced. There are many shops and mechanics/machinersts that do not understand these engines and there could be a mis-match of the internals. you might also want to remove the flex plate and converter cover and look at the flex plate to see if there are any weights attatched, like a late design 428 would have. while the cover ia off I would try to rock the assembly to see if ther is any movement. Sorry, there are no cures or easy answers from me. All you can do is keep on looking and it will eventually show up |
|  | RE: '66 390 Internal Vibration -- BOB HOPKINS, 08/22/2001
Are you sure it's a 390" mybe the rebulider put a external balance 410"-428" long block instead of internal balanced 390" |
| | RE: '66 390 Internal Vibration -- Ray, 08/22/2001
It looks like you might have to pull the motor and check all the internal parts, rods,pistons,crank to be sure how the motor was put together. I have found that it does not take much to throw these things out of balance. Ray's Machine |
| |  | RE: '66 390 Internal Vibration -- Mel Clark, 08/22/2001
The early 428 and 410 was internally balanced just as the other FEs. The '68 and later CJ and SCJs are externally balanced. |
| | | | Not exactly. -- Dave Shoe, 08/23/2001
The 410, 428plain, all 428PIs thru 1970, and 428CJ thru mid November 1968 were all externally balanced at the flywheel only. These all had identical piston and rod weights, so they all got the same crankshaft and offset-balanced flywheel. The front half of these engines were internally balanced, so the damper was neutrally balanced.
In mid-November, the SCJ and CJ broke away from the crowd and got unique balances for several differing reasons. Invariably, the CJ is externally balanced only in the rear half of the engine (and kept the same flywheel balance as the 410/428), and the SCJ is externally balanced at both the rear and the front of the engine (and got a different flywheel balance than any other 410/428).
Note that the 428SCJ is what retired the 1969-427 production engine in November of 1968. With LeMans rods and looser-fitting cast aluminum pistons which were reinforced at the pin boss, this engine could hold together at higher revs than other 428s. Because of the heavier rods and pistons, the SCJ got a custom balanced flywheel, a counterbalanced crankshaft spacer to balance the front half of the engine, a high-RPM neutrally balanced vibration damper, and a custom-balanced crankshaft (marked 1UA).
The 428CJ then inherited the SCJ's stronger piston (however, with a snugger fit in the cylinder bore than the SCJ) as soon as it became available in mid-Nov 1968. This was a natural move because, unlike the 428PI, the CJ had the same dish volume as the SCJ. This heavier piston required the use of a custom balanced crankshaft, so in November of 1968 there were suddenly three crankshafts for the 428 which differed in balance only, the 1U (428PI), the 1UA (428SCJ) and the 1UB (the 428CJ).
After dyno-testing the SCJ in November, Ford apparently decided they could reinforce the new SCJ piston even more, so after updating the tooling, they came up with an even stronger version of the pin boss in late December. This revised SCJ piston weighed 20 grams more than the original SCJ piston, effectively obsoleting the two new 428 crank balances of November. Two newer 428 crank balances were created in late December of 1968 to balance the SCJ and CJ engines with the heavier version of the SCJ piston.
Shoe. |
| | | | Internally balanced 428 -- Ross, 08/23/2001
Shoe's right, but I'd like to word it a little differently. I wouldnt consider the early ones "front half" internally balanced although thats how it works out.
The early 428's and 410s made up the weight they needed for external balance at the flywheel and used a standard balancer up front. Th amount it needed wasnt as much as later SCJ's
SCJ's with the caprscrew rods needed more weight than could reliably be made up at the back of the motor, rather than add weight to a neutral balanced dampner, they added weight to the spacer and the flywheel.
Variations of balance weight do exist, but I havent found any reliable data, bottom line, 428 / 410 with std rods are all pretty close, and then 1UA and capscrew rods use the "hatchet" up front
All were externally balanced though |
| | | | | RE: Internally balanced 428 Revisited -- Mel Clark, 08/24/2001
Okay, I have to agree as I have checked a little deeper and Ford clearly recommends the use of the 428 SCJ crank, vibration dampner and flywheel for stroking the 390 to 410 CID. It might not have been correct but, when I built my engines I had them balanced internally as I would sometimes change transmissions from auto to manual and then I could use my heavy or light flywheel if running the 4 speed. A friend ran a balancing shop so I had several dampners and flywheels zero balanced. I could use them on any engine I was using at the time. I used the 410 Mercury crankshaft in my engines as I mistakenly believed they were internally balanced. My friend never told me of any difficulty in balancing these assemblies, so I continued to believe they were internally balanced. I'M sorry if I misled anyone, as I really get tweeked when I'm given incorrect info. Ford also says to use the capscrew 428 SCJ rods when building the stroker. Apparently this is so it is to eliminate the need to rebalance the engine. |
| | What I'd do -- Ross, 08/23/2001
First as said by Mel, watch the front for a wobble (bent crank snout, bad balancer ring, etc.)
Without hearing it I assume its hitting on all 8, but make sure you dont have one dead cylinder, a skip would be a good shake
After that I would pull the inspection cover and turn the motor over by hand and look to see if there is a weight on the flexplate. Maybe there is and there shouldnt be with a 390
After that, assuming no luck, I'd pull the pan and look at crank numbers. 1U, 1UB, or the unlikely 1UA would tell you that you have an externally balanced crank and you need a weighted flexplate
Finally, if it was a 390 crank with a 390 flywheel, and it wasnt skipping. I'd pull the motor down and see whats bent or mismatched. Good luck |
| | First Thing I'd Check -- Skip C., 08/23/2001
Make sure the spark plug wires are routed correctly. Especially #7 and #8.
Good Luck, Skip |
| Wanted, 428 CJ heads in decent shape -- Jecsd1, 08/22/2001
if you have info please mail at jecsd1@aol.com... i may not be back to the forum for a while |
| check out nov muscle car review -- mikeb, 08/21/2001
fe stangs did pretty well at the musclecar shoout in norwalk.
they didn't win it all, but did better than they usually do.
also, i article about mickey thompsons hemi head thunderbolt is in this issue |
| | RE: Strange stuff -- Mel Clark, 08/22/2001
Mickey was a true hot rodder, what he couldn't buy he would invent. The M/T hemi never ran as he expected it to and when the SOHC arrived, Ford saw to it that Mickey got some of the first. |
| lifter valley pan(I thats what they're called) -- mikeb, 08/21/2001
are they hard to find?back in '86, i had to havee the cam replaced in my cj, and the guy who did it forgot to put the pan back. are these easy to find, and does it really hurt anythng not having it? thanks |
| | you would know if it hurts not having it or not... -- Walker, 08/21/2001
if you need one, they show on on ebay pretty regularly.
condition varies from NOS to slight surface rust.
Have you had any problems with not having one? |
| | | RE: you would know if it hurts not having it or not... -- mikeb, 08/21/2001
car has been inactive for years,but afterwards i never had problems that i knew of, but i didn't drive it that hard, but I know it had to have some purpose |
| | | | RE: you would know if it hurts not having it or not... -- John, 08/21/2001
I think it is nothing more than a heat shield to prevent hot oil from coming into contact with the intake manifold. The engineers put it there for a reason, so it is probably wise to use it. I suggest you get one, but put off installing it until you have to remove the manifold for some other reason (intake gasket water leak, etc.) then install it. |
| | | | | RE: you would know if it hurts not having it or not... -- Mel Clark, 08/21/2001
That pan is to keep the oil off of the exhaust cross-over of the intake manifold, the reason is to help keep a lower temperature of the oil and a byproduct is a cleaner engine as a cake will eventually build up on the bottom of the manifold without the valley pan. It is fairly important so you should locate one and use it. |
| | | | | | RE: you would know if it hurts not having it or not... -- John, 08/21/2001
Looks like Mel and I are both right. Steve Christ writes in his book, and I quote "The baffle keeps hot oil off the underside of the intake manifold. This keeps the intake charge cooler and reduces oil baking under the manifold exhaust-gas passage". I guess the importance of this is up to you, but I would use one...though I must admit, I'd be loathe to install it after the engine was together unless I had absolutely nothing else to do on a rainy Saturday. |
| | | | | | | RE: thanks for the info n/m... -- mikeb, 08/21/2001
n/m |
| 352 good or not so good //?? -- nick, 08/20/2001
a 65 352 . is this a good moter to build up . does it have any potential of say 400 horse or so . its going in a lowerd and tubed 65 galaxie fastback please help im stuck on this problem. if it can be done how and how much . i have pretty vast knowlage on engine building but this is my first FE |
| | RE: 352s was great engines for crusiers. -- Nostrodomas, 08/21/2001
400 horses of a 352 is pushing it quite a ways past the envolope. Your 65 is a heavy car. If you want speed to go along with the tubbed rearend, then a motorsport 460 will make the cruiser fly. But, expect to spend as much as 20K for a complete engine/tranny/rearend and suspension combo. Now you have to ask yourself. Is the body that clean, do I have the cash, and will I enjoy the 7 miles to the gallon. If you answer no to any of the questions, then I just rebuild the 352 stock and enjoy the 65 as it was meant to be a slick cruiser with eye catching lines. |
| | | RE: 352s was great engines for crusiers. -- Styleline58, 08/21/2001
You can build a 352 just like you can build a 351C or a 351W. 400 HP is not a problem. The block is very strong, like all FEs. The good heads fit. The good intakes fit. The good cams fit. The choice in pistons is not great, and this limits your head selection because you need a small chamber to get compression, although the heads on your 352 can be reworked to flow plenty. The Factory built a solid lifter 360 horse version in 1960, and raced them extensively until the 390 came out. The 352 in my car is producing more than 400 HP, and I have no problems with it.
Now, the best thing you can do to get some good, cheap power is to bore the block .050" over and use 390 rods, a 390 crank and 390 pistons. Result, 390. Easy. You can then go with an Edelbrock F427 intake or a sidewinder or a PI/CJ or a Edelbrock Performer Plus intake, a decent cam like a CJ or larger and some try-y headers from FPP and you will have a great engine that will make 400 easy HP and last a good long time. Keep an eye on the swap meets and Ebay for a good deal on the intake, and use a 3310 Holley with Ford kickdown linkage. I would want to swap in a C6. Ain't nothing wrong with a 352, and you can yank some big power from them, but the 390 set-up will make more torque, and that's where it's at for the street.
Here is my 352:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tcrocker/ |
| | | | RE: Exactly! -- Mike McQuesten, 08/21/2001
Styline58 is totally right on with his recs for building your 352 for that '65. There have been numerous 352's built to run and they do. By the way Styline, your website is great. I even bookmarked it to go there every so often just to admire that fine '58 Modified Prod car. You've done a marvelous job restoring it to the way it was and should be. And with a cruisomatic! Just excellent. |
| | | | | Thanks, Mike! But, it's cooler than restored... -- Styleline58, 08/21/2001
...it's unrestored! The last owner painted it, and that's about as restored as it got. I went through the engine but left it essentially unchanged. I did recently add a Blue Thunder PI intake and 3310 Holley, and it runs much better than with the Tri-Power. And the trans is not a Cruisomatic, it's a Fordomatic! Art Carr confirmed this when I spoke to him recently. This is the big cast-iron three-speed Fordomatic, which is very much like a cruiso, but it has some smaller internals, and only two drive ranges. Lo and Dr. It's, uh, fun to shift. |
| | | | | | RE:Whatever, it's cool -- Mike McQuesten, 08/22/2001
I guess I meant the little bit of refurbishing you did with the engine, i.e, tidying it up a bit. Altogether, it's just such a cool car. About that cast iron Fordo....Might the '58 rust bucket Country Sedan parts wagon I have up on blocks back in the bone yard have this trans? It's a four door so not worth all of the rust repair needed. It's an early '58, production in 10/57, 352 Police Interceptor, Machine C-chambers, solid lifters, Carter AFB 4V that I believe to be the original carb. It has a Fordomatic trans which I've never given too much recognition to. Just blocked 'er up to have easy access to the rear end when needed. Have started to tear the engine down so as to store the heads in the shop. It looked to be virgin. Not driven since '67. Bent push rod on #5 exhaust. I was surprised to see the solids are the Shell style of lifters. So my question is, is this a good, valuable transmission? Would this be a fun trans to build w/the 352 if I should ever find that dream '58 or '59 sedan like yours? |
| | | | | | | The Fordomatic is as old as the Cruiso. -- Styleline58, 08/22/2001
It's not rare, or valuable. It's heavy, has only two drive ranges and parts are scarce. You would be better off building a C6 for an FE project. When I blow this Fordo, I'll switch to a C6. |
| | | | | | | RE:Whatever, it's cool -- Bob, 08/27/2001
I have one of those Carter AFBs, ECZ-9510-AA on the air horn, F9 2441SA on the front left of the base. What are your numbers?
Bob |
| | | Ford Tranmissions -- Lou, 08/23/2001
Ford 0 matic cam out in 1951, Cruse 0 Matic came out in 1958. Both were good transmisions Ford o was a little weak intill 1957 when Ford offered the suppercharger. Cruse 0 was a good trans and unless you had 450 + hp would hold up. ( I never lost a cruse0 raceing or otherwise.)The cruse-o became the C4.
Yes the C6 is better than the earlyer ones but in most cases it is overkill. With the exception of the C6 most Ford trans use the same bands and clutches 1957 to today. |
| | | | The Cruiso became the FMX, not the C4 -- Styleline58, 08/23/2001
The C4 was entirely new for 1964. And, about half a heavy as the cast iron Cruiso. I'd have to consult Art Carr about the bands and clutched thing, but I doubt that any Fordo or Cruiso parts are gonna work in a C4 or an AOD. |
| 352 -- nick, 08/20/2001
a 65 352 . is this a good moter to build up . does it have any potential of say 400 horse or so . its going in a lowerd and tubed 65 galaxie fastback please help im stuck on this problem. if it can be done how and how much . i have pretty vast knowlage on engine building but this is my first FE |
| | Re: 352 -- Mel Clark, 08/21/2001
Ford tried to make a high performance engine back in '58, the first year of the FE 300 horsepower with a single 550 cfm Holley, with no luck at all as the cars were just too heavy and had horrible gear ratios.
The FE has gone on to an impressive high performance record since then and have shown that they have lots of strength. After saying all that, I would not recommend that you spend your money on a 352. I would say that you should pick up a 390 GT engine from a '66 to '70 car snd build that while driving what you have. The early engines had a different cam and the oiling system was not as good and the blocks and heads were made of much better iron alloy from '65 and up( more nickel), these are sometimes referred to as "nodular" engines. |
| | | RE:sorry Mel but... -- Mike McQuesten, 08/21/2001
Hey Nick you got your question(s) posted twice. Easy to do but Mel, you should read Styline58's response on the potential of a 352. I'm not going to rehash that 'cause as I said, he had it right on. As for the '58 FE 352 not being much in a "heavy" car.....I will agree that the first FEs of '58/'59 were disappointments. The Ford engine engineers were doing their best to honor the supposed ban on anything high performance that all the manufacturers agreed to in '57. Of course, the boys over General's way were cheatin' like crazy. Hence, the '60 352HP/360 horse. That was a bad '52 and is still a legend. And remember Nick said his car is a '65 thus his camshaft would be using the improved cam retainer that started with '63/'64. Now about your claims that the '65 and later blocks/heads were"made of much better iron alloy" etc. Hmmm...I ain't gonna bodly claim this to be not so 'cause I've learned to not make such bold claims but I'd like to hear more about these "Nodular" engines. Is there some truth to this Shoe? I'm always open minded to learning more about our big friend FE. Oh, '58 Fords are heavy? Again, I don't think they're that heavy. There is documented proof that stock HP 352s moved 4,000 lb. plus Galaxies into the 14's in the quarter. Stock! I had to modify my '66 GT Fairlane to get it to dip into the high 14's back in '67 or so. It took 352s two years to get out of the gate but once they hit the track, it was Total Performance all the way. |
| | | | 58 too heavy ?? -- Lou, 08/21/2001
I got my drivers lic in 1959 my father had a 58 Fairlane 500 with a 352. This thing kicked a-- on the street. Also
The main problem wiyh a 58 was that 2.69 gears were standard with the 3.30 and cruse-o you could have 57 Chevys for lunch, plus the 58 drove realy nice. The 57 Ford was a better looking car but the 58 was a much better driver and needed a lot less maintance. |
| | | | Cam retainer -- Styleline58, 08/21/2001
My B9 352 block is modified for the later cam retainer. All you gotta do is tap the two holes that are there, and use a leter retainer. I think Christ's book outlines the mod. |
| | | | | RE: Ford Performance? -- Mel Clark, 08/21/2001
The "58 Fords that came with the FE engines were slugs, mainly because of 3 things; 1) Weight, they had grown to be positively obese. The shipping weight was in the area of 3600 lbs. but in fact the 500 hard top, which was very good looking, was over 4000 lbs. 2) Engine horsepower, the 352 was rated at 300 (?) HP with a single 550 cfm holley and it performed like it had an honest 100 hp. This was very likely caused by fairly modest compression and a very mild cam. 3) OEM gearing, this car was produced in an era when Ford went the wrong way in standard gearing. 2.75 or 3.00 to 1 was the usual gear that an automatic was delivered with. Thats a pretty good gear for Bonneville or Daytona but not for the average street driver. I don't say that the 352 has no potential, only that it was a slug in its normal state and I have to say ther was very little development by racers or parts companies because of this fact. The '57 cars were about the same but came with better gear ratios, and were alittle leaner and they also had the benefit of a lot of factory performance development. Most notable was the 300 HP rated McCollough supercharged cars as raced in USAC and NASCAR. Based on the cars they beat they had to have a lot more than 300 HP. As Ford chose to honor the performance/racing agreement, they lost the edge that they fought so hard to gain.
I was going to buy a Ford in '58 and after riding in a friends new car as well as beating him badly with my 292 powered '54 Customline I decided to wait and see. The year went by and Ford did nothing so I bought 1 of 51 345 HP, 4 speed equipped Pontiac Catalinas and I had a lot of fun racing and beating most cars that I came up against, both on the street and at Union Grove and Oswego. My Pontiac was pretty consistant at 13.8s and 103 mph. The toughest race I had was with some farm boy in Paw Paw, Michigan that had a new Tudor Ford sedan and a 352/360 engine with an overdrive trans.. He cleaned my clock, not once but three times as I couldn't believe he could beat me, he also got a few bucks in the bargain. Ford had finally done something right after stalling for three years. |
| | | | | | 3600#=slug? -- Styleline58, 08/22/2001
I dunno, 3600 # ain't that bad. The Boss 351 was close to that.
But this is where I get crossed up with folks, so I'll put it simply: I don't care what the factory built, I care what I build.
The 352 can make a fine engine, and you can get a lot of power from one. Nothing inherently weak about it. Still, I would rather build at least a 390, and a 352 block can usually withstand the overbore to 4.05". My personal plan is to build a 443 stroker FE, another engine Ford never built.
I'll dig up the info on how to mod the block for a later retainer and post it. |
| | | | | | | RE: 3600#=slug? -- Mel Clark, 08/22/2001
The point I was trying to make at the beginning of this thread, the 352 is not a bad engine it, just takes a bit more money to make it into a real performer and I felt that to start off with a 390 GT engine would be a big head start for a budget build-up. With enough money a 352 can be made to really haul a--, but to me, thats like starting a race a half lap behind the pack. If the car was going to be a matching number car and not tubbed or seriously modified, I would suggest that the original engine be stored and buy or build a 447" engine until he wanted to sell the car as "all original". This sounded like a cruiser on a budget with a lot of "show mods" that still wanted to have some decent acceleration. |
| | | | | | | | RE: 3600#=slug? -- Styleline58, 08/22/2001
I am saying that the guy can save some bux by making use of the parts he has. The block is good, and is the equal of the block used for the 390 GTs. It uses the later cams and has an alternator mounting boss. The heads may or may not be the old large port LR-style heads, which flow better than the later 390 GT heads. The ports should also match most aftermarket intakes for LR and CJ-style heads. The 1965 352 block is the equal of the 1965 390 block, but with a smaller bore. If FEs are scarce in his area, as they are in some, he could save himself a lot of trouble by using what he's got. I would sonic check the block and if it's got the meat, I'd bore it .o5" and build a 390 out of it.
I gotta say the best mod is more cubes, we certainly agree on that. Since it is a big car, I say build it for torque. I am assuming that breaking 12s is not in the program. So, if the original poster is still watching, what are the casting numbers on those heads? |
| | | | | RE: Cam retainer & castings -- Mel Clark, 08/22/2001
I'm not certain which year Ford changed the design of the FEs cam and retaining system but I do know that the early blocks needed some machine work and different parts were required. There was also the problem of trying to get the latest design camshafts because Ford did very little in the way of supporting the earlier designs. If Ford wouldn't make "stuff" for their own cars the aftermarket sure wouldn't because they were assumed to be both obsolete as well as dead. The current phenomena of Edelbrock and others casting FE heads and blocks for engines that have not been produced in about 30 years is a matter of strictly business. They are driven by profit and I think the demand started in the Shelby/Cobra collector ranks searching for the ever elusive aluminum MR-HR-TP cylinder heads and has spread from there. The demand grew through the other Ford based clubs and now nearly all of the '60s designed engines can benefit from these products.
Ford castings and foundry technique undergo constant changes and usually improvement of product is achieved. In the early '60s Ford pioneered thin wall casting of blocks and heads by improving the media used in making the cores as well as new methods for eliminating core shift. This resulted in lighter engines and more castings per ton of ore. Because the Iron used in the earlier casting was of a more basic grade, the castings were soft, or not strong enough to withstand the stress as well as being quite porous. This caused a lot of research to be done so they could continue the thin wall process and have an engine that wouldnot leak through the skirts of the block or cylinder walls or into the tappet valley. They soon came up with a Chrome/Nickel/Iron alloy for block and head castings. This alloy was improved upon over the years and if you look at a '67 427 side oiler or SOHC block (both have screw in core plugs) you should be able to see that those blocks have a much smoother casting, that appears to be a tighter grain. And they don't have a predisposition to rust so quickly on the outside. For those that want an education in this regard, I suggest getting and reading some of the SAE papers that were submitted by FOrd in the '60s. |
| | | | | | RE:Thanks Mel -- Mike McQuesten, 08/22/2001
Thanks Mel for the alloy/iron casting information. As I said, this is new information to me and I appreciate learning about this. Your story on the Big Pontiac was great. I can't help but be pleased that it was a 352/360 that whooped up on ya. Not that I'm a GM hater at all. I appreciate much that the General came out with in all those years. And I do agree that if a 390 is available at a reasonable price, it's a better start for overall performance. |
| | | | | | | RE:Thanks Mel -- Mel Clark, 08/22/2001
I think he had more gear than me. :-( everything equal I would have eaten him alive! It was still a damned good race though. My poor pontiac was good enough to beat Arnie the Farmer Beswick when he was running his cheater '58 Catalina tudor. The next month he got caught at Indy after winning the Nationals and was disqualified. |
| Oil Cooler Lines -- Frank, 08/20/2001
I need a picture of 1969 428 SCJ Oil Cooler Lines.
Can anyone help? |
| | RE: Oil Cooler Lines -- Mel Clark, 08/25/2001
Beteewn the Shelbys, Mustangs, Fairlanes and Torinos Ford used at least 3 different oil coolers and lines and 2 different adaptors at the filter mount. Whatever you find double check it to be certain of the system being correct for your car. |
| | Here pix of '69 Fairlane oil cooler hoses... -- Dan Davis, 08/26/2001
Cheers,
Dan
|
|