Skip Navigation Links.
 |  headers for 67 fairlane/cyclone -- dennie, 07/23/2001
Has anybody found 390 headers that fit a 67 with column auto and power steering? it is an h code non gt motor |
|  | Which heads you got? -- Dave Shoe, 07/24/2001
When buying headers for your 390, it's important that you treat C6AE-R heads like 427 or 428CJ heads. FPA makes 427/428CJ headers which match those ports, as does Hooker. You'll wanna cal to learn which options work with which header.
C6AE-J, C6AE-U, C7AE-A, C8AE-H, and D2TE-AA FE heads all have low-positioned exhaust runners which require a low positioned header flange. For these, FPA makes "390GT" (incorrectly named) headers. Rumor is that Hedman also makes low-positioned header flanges, but I haven't yet called them to learn the details.
Shoe. |
 | lifter noise on 428 CJ -- Dan, 07/23/2001
I have 6000 miles on a professional rebuild on my 69 C.J. It slowly developed a lifter or rocker noise that when hot ranges from mild to quite loud depending on the day.
I replaced the front rockers where the noise seemed to be coming from but to no avail.
The engine was blueprinted and is all stock with exception of a mild crane cam.
I have heard that the valve trains in the F.E. motors are marginal at best but this may be a wifes tale.
I would consider a full blown roller set up if someone could recomend the best set up.
Thanks |
| Stock Exhaust Manifolds for 390 -- Scott Perry, 07/23/2001
I have a 390 out of a 63 Tbird (Police Special). I have the engine in a 67 Mustang, C6 with Hooker Headers. To say the least, clearance is a nightmare. I have to remove the engine/trany to fix a front seal and don't want to mess with the headers. Assuming I retap my existing heads to the fit the horizontal bolt battern of the Mustang maniflds, will they fit ok using the Tbird heads? Also, does anyone know if these part numbers are the correct maniflods to use. I have not been able to locate the correct manifolds yet. Thanks!casting # on the exhaust manifolds is C70E-9430-C & C70E-9431-C. Thanks again!~
|
|  | RE: Stock Exhaust Manifolds for 390 -- Dave Shoe, 07/24/2001
1965-earlier heads don't have the extra bosses cast in to allow the extra exhaust manifold holes. All 1966-later heads DO have the extra bosses, but there are complicating issues with these later heads, too.
1966 was the first big year for emissions control in the FE. All the heads were updated. Most got redesigned runners. This makes compatibility with Hookres dicey, if you don't know what to look for.
You might try searching for "C6AE-R" in this forum, in the hopes of finding one of the many posts which discusses the complicating factors
Also, do NOT install 390 unibody exhaust manifolds (most C60E or C70E exh manifolds) on your unibody car. They are horrible breathers and are not compatible with certain types of FE exhaust runners (they will leak). C80E is a much better exhaust manifold to start with.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: Stock Exhaust Manifolds for 390 -- Scott Perry, 07/25/2001
Thanks for the info Dave. As much as I hate to, I think I'm going to stick with the headers and Tbird heads....and just work through the pain of pulling the engine/tranny and replacing again. I can't complain about the performance of this combination at all. Great performer. The headers pretty much hug around the C6 which is really what make things difficuly. The header bolts are not too much fun either. Oh well....won't get done unless I get started uh? Thanks again! Are you aware of any tricks or special tools to make the headers bolts any easier job?
|
| | |  | Scott, patience and good karma......[n/m] -- HighSpeed, 07/25/2001
[n/m] |
| | | | RE: Stock Exhaust Manifolds for 390 -- Brian Crisman, 07/26/2001
Scott......
I found that the easiest way to bolt up the headers is to do it as the engine is being installed. I did this with my 390/4spd combo into my 67 Cougar GT. I don't know if this will work with a C6 or not but with my combo, the headers bolt up easily with the engine/tranny about 2/3rds installed. I would rather pull the engine/tranny to swap headers than go through the PITA that installing headers with the engine IN the car........9.5 hrs of contorting, twisting, bleeding and swearing vs. about 8 hrs of pulling and reinstalling the engine and bolting up the headers.....NO CONTEST!
The header bolts are pretty easy to access with the engine at a workable position partially out of the car.
Good Luck,
Brian Crisman
67 Cougar GT 4spd |
| hugger headers -- Krinn, 07/22/2001
There is a guy selling hugger headers for an ungodly price. He says that they are factory produced headers for placement of a 390 in small spaces in order to clear the shock towers. This sale is online so I cant get a good look at them. Is the info for real or am I being played for a patsy? |
| | RE: hugger headers -- Will, 07/23/2001
As far as I know, there were only a few "headers" made for the FE.
There were long cast iron manifolds, short cast iron manifolds - both of these were for 427's. Then, there were the CJ cast iron manifolds.
I am by no means an expert on these. I believe the first two were designed for the Galaxie body style, but they may fit the Mustang/Cougar/Fairlane model line. The CJ manifolds were designed for the Mustangs, but they require the 16 bolt CJ heads.
All of the other manifolds I've seen were your normal restrictive garden variety.
The only headers I've ever seen for an FE from the factory were the bundle-of-snakes for the T-bolt - but you can't really call them factory headers. Heck, even the Shelbys had manifolds.
I've seen factory over-the-counter headers, but I'm not calling them "factory".
All of the manifolds sell for around $500. Unless you need original headers, I'd go with the FPA headers. They're also around $500, but I think they're worth it. I've also heard good things about Crites. The Hookers seem to make the most power, but they should be considered a strip-only option, 'cause they have lousy ground clearance. |
| | | RE: hugger headers -- Travis Miller, 07/23/2001
If these are aftermarket headers, they could be designed like the tri-Y ones that were made for Mustang and Fairlane to clear the shock towers. I believe they were made by Hedman. |
| | | | RE: hugger headers -- Mike McQuesten, 07/23/2001
The HP header style manifolds that Will mentions will NOT fit a stock unibody car. BTW, the short style was introduced with the '60 352HP and carried into '62 when the long style cast iron header manifolds started to be installed on late 406s. The "Shorty" manifolds were used through '64 on 390 police applications. They will not even fit '65 up Galaxies....well, unless you make some mods to the mounts, etc. Even the long style for the '65 & later are different that the early long style. I agree with Shoe that the original GT exhaust manifolds are too restrictive. Plus you can't make them fit your '64 heads anyway. If you want to stick with those heads, probably C4AE-Gs, which are great heads, go with FPA headers as has been recommended. |
| | | | | RE: hugger headers -- Will, 07/23/2001
Hey - I had always wondered about the long cast iron headers fitting a unibody. Whenever I go down that road, I figure the FPA's are new, they fit, they are about the same cost, and they're lots prettier, so I've never asked anyone if the cast iron jobbies will fit. The short cast iron manifolds don't look like they'll even come close. Thanks for clearing that up for me. |
| | RE: hugger headers -- John, 07/24/2001
The ones on E-bay were 428 CJ exhaust manifolds. |
| HP Estimate for 352 -- Mark Allen, 07/21/2001
I have an original 62' Galaxie 2V. I'm having the engine rebuilt now and I'm switching it over to a 4V probably with a 500-600cfm carb. I'm also putting in a GT 390 cam I was wondering if anyone could give me a rough HP estimate.
Thanks |
| | 200 to 300 horsepower depending on exhust flow n/m -- Ed Jenkins, 07/21/2001
n/m |
| 390 cams and non-adjustable rocker arms. -- John, 07/21/2001
I am building a 390 for my galaxie 500and I was wondering if I could get away with a crane (270-343941) 272/284 adv. duration .533"/.563" gross lift cam with non-adjustable rocker arms? Not a serious racer just a cruiser. Will it work? |
| 427 center oiler -- Mel Goff, 07/21/2001
Relatively new to Ford motors. Can anybody shed some light on performance specs on a '63 center oiler? This motor is in a Cobra that I plan on buying.
Can anybody suggest a good cam/head setup? Solids in motor now, thinking about going to a full roller setup. Any heads up on this?
Thanks.........Mel |
| | For specs, click 'Engines' (above). [n/m] -- Mr F, 07/21/2001
n/m |
| FE cam dowel pin -- Ed, 07/20/2001
Anyone ever run into a situation with the length of the dowel pin for the Timing gear /Fuel pump ecentric. During assy of a 428, I find the pin is not long enough to engage the ecentric. I have checked the pin for correct length as per the Ford Master parts catalog and It is the correct 1.5" in length. The hole in the cam is the same depth as 3 other FE cams I have and the Timing gear is within 015. in thickness of the original gear I had. Should the pin be free floating or be a interference fit (press fit) into the camshaft. Am I correct in assuming the pin should bottom in the cam and be roughly flush with the retaining washer under the cam bolt. Any help is welcomed - Thanks, Ed |
| | RE: FE cam dowel pin -- Bill, 07/22/2001
Are you sure you are using the right timing chain sprocket. If the new one has the spacer built in do not use the loose spacer. |
| C6AE-R vs C7AE-A Heads -- Travis Miller, 07/20/2001
What are the differences in these heads? Is one type better than the other? If so by how much? Need the info to help decide which to use on a '67 428 Police Interceptor engine going in a '67Mustang. |
| | RE: C6AE-R vs C7AE-A Heads -- The Original Ross, 07/21/2001
I think the C6AE-R, with its larger ports, and a set of CJ valves would be the better choice for a couple of reasons.
1st I think the C6AE-R can be almost a copy to the CJ heads with the valves and a little port work will make it walk all over the C7AE-A high port heads.
2nd, I had a set of rebuilt C7AE-A heads, which incidentally, along with a bunch of lesser motors, were standard for 67 only Shelby 428 PI motors. This made mine highly desireable to the Shelby guys. Not a special head, but what they needed to make theirs numbers match.
Bottom line, a bit more performance, and a possibility to get some cash out of the C7AE-A's. I'd run the C6's |
| | | RE: C6AE-R vs C7AE-A Heads -- Travis Miller, 07/21/2001
Thanks for the opinion on which is better. However, without installing larger valves or any port work (cost being the reason), would the C6AE-R heads be that much better than the C7AE-A heads. Or would it then become a toss up as to which was better. The car could see some dragstrip action with open headers.
Since you brought it up, was the C7AE-A head the only one used on the '67 Shelby GT500? Someone also said they came with 2-4's only. Is that correct? |
| | | | RE: C6AE-R vs C7AE-A Heads -- Ross, 07/21/2001
The C7AE-A's are used on the 428 PI, and yes the Shelby's were dual quads. Without a valve change I still think the C6's will flow a bit better, but check chamber sizes. Hopefully Shoe will pop in and add his opinion, I cant remember chamber sizes. All in all, run the C6's I think they are a better head, and through the C7's on Ebay as "correct casting for 67 Shelby GT500" LOL |
| | | | | RE: C6AE-R vs C7AE-A Heads -- Paul M, 07/22/2001
Be warned that they are not only available on GT500's.
My 390 2V out of a T-Bird had C7AE-A's on it.
and I've seen them on other apps as well.
Just my .02. |
| | | | | | RE: C6AE-R vs C7AE-A Heads -- The Original Ross, 07/22/2001
Thats what I put in my first post, my point isnt that you have something worth gold, but instead something someone might use for a restoration. The C7AE-A's were on all kinds of GT's, std 390's and 428's as well as the Shelbys
The C6's are probably not going to be a resto item, although many guys do like them to make a CJ-similar head
I'd still use the "proper casting number for 67 PI" on Ebay, its not a lie, and for the guy that needs them, its the right casting number |
| | | | | | | RE: C6AE-R vs C7AE-A Heads -- Travis Miller, 07/22/2001
While correct numbers are certainly important for restorations, I am more interested in the performance when comparing the two different heads. Anyone ever do a comparison? |
| | | | | | | | RE: C6AE-R vs C7AE-A Heads -- Ross, 07/22/2001
Travis, the bottom line is that the C6 is a better head. No emissions-era smog bumps, slightly larger intake ports, same size valves. Sorry that we wandered off topic a bit. I was just trying to point out that the C7's were marketable to a point.
The C6 is the better head, assuming equal condition - Ross |
| | | | | | | RE: C6AE-R vs C7AE-A Heads -- Paul M, 07/24/2001
Sorry, I wasn't trying to step on toes, or make waves. |
| | | | | | | | RE: C6AE-R vs C7AE-A Heads -- Travis Miller, 07/24/2001
Paul, No offense taken from my end. It is interesting to see that Shelby had access to better heads but chose to stick with the ones on the '67 428 PI engine. Maybe it was simpler to just use a complete Ford engine than to start piecing them together. But didn't someone say that they all had 2-4's instead of one 4bl. Wonder if he changed the intakes or they were shipped that way from Ford. Any idea?
Also, what were the C6AE-R heads used on? |
| | | | | | | | | In general... -- Dave Shoe, 07/24/2001
...early '66 FEs (non-427) apparently came with either C6AE-J or C6AE-R heads. Later in 1966 you could find C6AE-R or C6AE-U heads on any FE. Early in 1967 the possibilities were C6AE-R, C6AE-U, and C7AE-A. Later in 1967 it was just the C6AE-R and C7AE-A. Due to stricter emissions laws, all these heads were replaced by the C8AE-H from 1968-1971.
I guess I can trust the source that claims the 1967 Shelby 428 engine only got the C7AE-A head, but I'm rather certain that some 428PI motors that year may also have been found with C6AE-R and C6AE-U heads. If someone else mentioned that some '67 Shelbys came with the C6 numbered heads, I'd tend to believe them. Ford seemed to install heads randomly into their motors - not recognizing any performance difference between the casting numbers Note that C6AE-U is identical to the C7AE-A.
In fact, any FE head is great for making up to 400 or so easy HP, but the C6AE-R is generally recognized as being a head that can handle more air flow. It's got the larger intake runner (like the 428CJ and all '65-earlier FE heads), and it's got the high-position exhaust runner (like the 428CJ, 427, and '65-earlier head).
As the 428CJ head is cast for standard FE valve sizes, and needs to be throat-dressed at the factory to fit the CJ-sized valves, the C6AE-R is basically identical to the 428CJ head except for the installed valve size and the combustion chamber size.
If open header operation or drag strip time is in your future, I'd go with the C6AE-R heads. All FE heads can make horsepower, it's just easier to do it with the large-runner heads.
Beware that C6AE-R and C7AE-A heads require different header flanges due to the different exhaust port positions. Use the low-position header flange (FPA-GT and maybe Hedman?) for the C6AE-J, C6AE-U, C7AE-A, C8AE-H, and D2TE-AA castings and use the high-position flange (FPA-CJ and Hooker) for the C6AE-R and all other castings. Note also the C6AE-R head has an anti-reversion lip on the roof of the exhaust runner where it mates to the header. Grinding this lip outta there will help high-RPM flow.
Note also that only the 1966-428PI got solid lifters. The 1967-later 428PI got hydraulic lifters. Also note that old FE heads can sometimes have somewhat sunken valves (due to multiple valve grinds or general seat wear). Installing oversized valves can frequently restore the position of the valve head back to the surface of the chamber, thus improving airflow and avoiding the expense of hardened valve seats to restore the height.
The Shelby Registry probably speaks about the 2-4V intake in accurate detail. Someday I gotta buy me that book. I suspect Ford would have installed the 2-4V intake at the factory, as these engines would have been specifically built for Shelby. This special build was necessary, as the unibody exhaust manifold bolt pattern was another unique "Shelby-only" item on those 428PI engines.
JMO,
Shoe.
|
| 351 C 2-V Intake Manifold Change Out -- Bryan, 07/20/2001
I recently swapped out my intake manifold on my 1971 Mach 1 with a 351 C 2V heads. I recently purchased the car and it came with a Ford 351 C 4V manifold in place of the original.
I have just completed the intake manifold swap and installed a Holley Street Dominator with a new Edelbrock Performer 600 cfm carb on top. The good news is the car runs much smoother but seems to have lost its power.
I checked the timing and it is set at 8 degrees BTC. I have new plugs, Petronix ignition, coil and wires.
Any ideas on why the older and incorrect Ford 4V manifold performed better than the lighter and better matched Holley manifold?
What can I do to get my power back without reinstalling the Ford 4V?
Thanks. |
| | You might want to try the other Forum. [n/m] -- Mr F, 07/21/2001
n/m |
|