Skip Navigation Links.
 |  TRW piston info -- John, 07/17/2001
How do I contact TRW ? I have some pistons but need some info on them. |
|  | Oddly, they now marketed as "pistons from TRW"... -- Mr F, 07/17/2001
But they're made by Federal-Mogul. Check here: http://www.federalmogul.com/ |
 | C8AE-H head w/406 manifolds? Shoe? -- Gary C, 07/16/2001
I have '62 406 tri-power intake and cast iron headers I was planning to put on my 390 for my '64 Galaxie.
I was reading some posts a couple of weeks ago and Shoe was talking about the emissions heads having some ports slightly different (or relocated) than the non-emission heads. Will the 406 manifolds work with the C8AE-H head or will I have trouble with leaks?
I've got a set of C1 heads, but the C8s already have hardened valve seats.
Thanks in advance for your advice.
Gary C. |
|  | They'll work fine. -- Dave Shoe, 07/16/2001
The 406 exhaust headers have oversized runners which fit both the raised exit (pre-emissions) head and lowered exit (emissions-era) head. How Ford engineers had the insight to "oversize" the exhaust manifold ports four years before the low-exit "emissions" head was designed is beyond me. I can only guess the earliest FE prototype heads may have had excessively large exhaust runners that matched this larger manifold port.
Note that some later cast iron headers only mate properly to high-exit heads. Likewise, 390 unibody exhaust manifolds only properly mate to low exit heads, though they also sorta work with anti-reversion (C6AE-R, 427marine, etc) heads.
The 406 intake manifold will not have a perfect port match with the C8 head, but if you use the pre-emissions type of intake gasket (for the tall intake runner), then it will properly crush the gasket and will not leak. Flow should be quite good.
I sorta wonder if the tall intake runner can puddle a small bit of gasoline as it joins with the smaller head runner, but I've never heard this to be a problem. To be sure, Ford policy during the '70s was to sell short-port heads to customers with damaged tall-port heads, so this is certainly not a major issue.
Keep in mind that FE iron heads do not have thick metal like aluminum heads do, so you want to be careful about porting excessively, should you try to match the tall intake runners.
Shoe. |
| | | Thanks Dave [n/m] -- Gary C, 07/18/2001
/. |
| Apparently, Edelbrock named the Ford-Edsel in '59. -- Dave Shoe, 07/15/2001
I've been browsing old car mags, and have noticed a general trend in 1957-1959 where the media calls the FE engine a "Ford and Edsel" engine.
Edelbrock advertised it's first FE intake (six 2-V carbs) just months after the release of the FE. Back then, the early 1958 advertisments referred to it as the "Ford and Edsel..." intake, complete with a picture of the intake being offered in either 3-bolt or 4-bolt carb flange versions.
In December of 1959 the Edelbrock advertisment in Motor Life magazine has shortened it's description to simply the "Ford-Edsel" intake.
The Edsel name would soon be forgotten, as the Edsel division had already been abandonned by Ford when this ad was published. The new "small Edsel" which was planned would instead become the Mercury Comet.
Apparently, the Ford-Edsel notation would be lost for more than a decade, until the Ford marketing department decided it needed to create "engine family names" when the 351 Cleveland was released, to help identify the growing array of engines which Ford was selling at the time. FE made sense to the marketing department, though they never actually stated what the acronym mean't.
Shoe.
 |
|  | Oh, also, "Log" manifolds refer to 12V intakes. -- Dave Shoe, 07/16/2001
It sounds to me that "log" manifolds refer to the ultra-common (in 1958-60) six-deuce intake manifolds, a term lost to the decades.
By late 1959 the basic "Log" manifolds were cheaper than the new twin-four-barrel intakes. I say "basic" because it apparently cost a pretty penny to purchase the progressive linkage to synchronize all those Strombergs in a "complete" log intake set-up.
Shoe.
|
| | So thats where it came from!! n/m -- Ed Jenkins, 07/18/2001
n/m |
| | | I think I know how the 390 displacement was chosen -- Dave Shoe, 07/18/2001
I've wondered how Ford selected the various displacements for the FE.
The 332 and 352 of 1958 are easy to figure: They followed in the Y-block displacement increments of 272, 292, and 312.
The reason for the 361Edsel's displacement remains a mystery to me, but the 390 of 1961 seems to be a "one-up" response to the big-breathing Pontiac 389 which was the only performance motor to out-torque the 352HP in 1960.
Also note that the 352HP really was a kick-ass motor, reasonably rated at 360 HP. The tests in December of '59, when the option had just been released, had a Starliner clocked at over 150 MPH in a stock 352HP. The 352HP liked LOTS of gear (4.11:1 and numerically higher worked really well).
Unfortunately, between 12-59 and 2-60, the 352HP kit often got the wrong valve springs, so it would not rev past 5800 RPM without floating the valves. Lotsa people made lotsa noise about this. These kits just needed to have the correct valve springs installed, and they'd do the 6800 RPM they were supposed to do.
352HP engines built from March 1960 and later all got the good valve springs.
Just having fun with what I've read.
Shoe. |
| | | | I've often wondered why my 352 runs like it does.. -- ED Jenkins, 07/18/2001
....even on restrictive exahust manifolds. I guess it is because it is a good design. Its the 1966 car 352 the last of the car 352's. |
| | | | | It sounds like Holman&Moody designed the 352HP. -- Dave Shoe, 07/19/2001
This is a little snippet from the December 1960 Motor Life magazine.
Shoe.
 |
| | | | | | Here's another soon-to-be familiar name. -- Dave Shoe, 07/19/2001
Here's an early posting (November 1960) of another soon-to-be-familar name.
Shoe.
 |
| | | | | | | I sorta get the drift that... -- Dave Shoe, 07/19/2001
...the 352HP valve spring problem may NOT have been ironed out in March 1960, as I first posted. That December '60 post suggested it was a bit later in the 1960 year before things were set proper. I suspect my first post was based on an optimistic magazine story which was written in March when the problem was first identified, but the solution was a bit more complicated than the writer thought.
I recall the old stories of the need for FOrd to develop "7000 RPM" kits for the FE, and the hassles that Ford had in this regards. I suspect this is what was in the early stages of being developed here.
I'm not sure that all the bugs were worked out in December of 1960, because I seem to recall the not-yet-developed 390HP also may have had a few problems with floating the valves.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: Here's another soon-to-be familiar name. -- Richard Bouman, 07/19/2001
Don't forget Karol Miller who drove his '60 Starliner to Bonneville from Texas, uncorked it and set records. HP361?? |
| | | | | | | | I just read it tonite. -- Dave Shoe, 07/19/2001
I had to get to the February 1961 Motor Life Magazine before I read the story. It's a fun one.
Shoe.
 |
| | | | | | | | | He got 19 mpg driving to Bonneville, with air conditioning, too. -- Dave Shoe, 07/19/2001
I wonder if he got that mileage with the AC on?
A couple pages later in the magazine, Champion Spark Plugs did a two page advertisment on the car. It was basically a biographical story with a couple Champion "plugs" tossed in for good measure.
The story mentioned he has 40,000 miles on this daily driver. It's got air conditioning and power steering. On the trip to Bonneville he averaged 19 mpg. He's been playing at Bonneville since 1956 when his 312 powered Ford Victoria came in second. The next two years he returned with 302 and 272 truck engines (similar to Y-blocks) where he broke some speed records.
It was also fun just now reading in Motor Life that Richard Petty had air conditioning in his 1960 Plymouth stock car. It'd kick-in whenever the throttle was not floored.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | | I wish that my 352 would get 19 mpg. I'm lucky.... -- Ed Jenkins, 07/21/2001
....to get 15 on the highway and 8 to 10 in town. |
| harmonic balancer -- Dwayne, 07/15/2001
is it possible to use a 76 390 balancer on a 66 428.the one on my 428 is twisted.i guess it was caused by a bent pulley. thanks for the help
|
| | It may be an excellent idea. Maybe not. -- Dave Shoe, 07/15/2001
Ford redesigned the FE for the 1968 model year, obsoleting the 1967-earlier damper. This new design lasted to the end of the FE run and has an inertia ring that's 1.10" wide with no pulley grooves in it. It's a heftier damper and was used in all FEs except the 428SCJ, 427 hydraulic, and maybe Shelby mustangs for the first half of 1968, which got an even bigger damper (similar to the LeMans damper).
For compatibility reasons, Ford changed the position of the three crank pulley bolts on new the damper, so you'll need to get the 1976 crank pulley. Because there are a dozen or more different crank pulleys for the late style damper, you may not get an exact pulley match. This may be good, bad, or indifferent, depending on your luck.
If you are not intending to race your car, and if you want to keep it simple, look for a damper from most any 1963-1967 FE engine. This damper has the 0.75" inertia ring with the groove cut into it. It's what you currently have. If you get sent an oddball damper from an engine of these years, it's likely the 427 LeMans damper with the 1.45" inertia ring. This ain't anything to gripe about (it's also just a fantasy, as you won't be getting this lucky).
Also note, I'm not yet sure what the first year was for the 0.75" damper on your car, but the previous damper of 1958-1962? looked WAY different, so you don't need to look too closely.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: It may be an excellent idea. Maybe not. -- Dwayne, 07/15/2001
thanks dave i have the pulley that came with the 390 balancer . all i can do is give it a try.again thanks alot. |
| | | | RE: It may be an excellent idea. Maybe not. -- The Original Ross, 07/15/2001
I run a late model damper on a 63 427. You have to run a pulley combo to match what you have but it can be done with a mix of all Ford parts. They are all zero balanced, and I like the idea of the more beefy damper on my motor. I had mine balanced, but I wouldnt hesitate to throw a later model one on an early motor without balancing. The overall diameter of both are relatively small, and both are "supposed" to be zero anyway. Throw it on, only downside is your timing mark may not line up. If you need a 72 cover with the right mark, I have a skillion of them. |
| i wish Shoe was my neighbor! n/m -- mb, 07/15/2001
n/m |
| | Hey, man. This is better than being neighbors. -- Dave Shoe, 07/15/2001
We can chat FEs anytime we want, but you have the added benefit of not having to look at my ugly mug every day and I get the added benefit of not having to loan you my lawn mower when yours breaks.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: Hey, man. This is better than being neighbors. -- allen, 07/15/2001
Bet its an FE mower! ;) |
| | | | RE: Hey, man. This is better than being neighbors. -- John, 07/15/2001
Without a doubt, Mr Shoe apears to be the FE guru au natural of the world wide web. He is knowledgable, tolerant and has a sense of humour. Far too many people with a particular knowledge of a single interest become pompous about their superiority. My Shoe does not. As for neighbors...absolutely not! (No offense Dave) Part of what makes this a great hobby is finding out for yourself. Yes, it can be expensive, it can be heartbreaking, but when you finally get it working, there is a lot of self-satisfaction involved. While forums like this can help prevent one from re-inventing the wheel, I still don't want a "knowlegable" guy from next door telling me all of my mistakes (Not that Mr Shoe would do it...but I don't really want to take the chance) If you just want a car to impress the ladies, then perhaps one could offer Mr. Shoe loads of $ to do it for you, but if you truly love this hobby, you will do it by yourself. So...all of you go out, armed with whatever you know, use your commonsense, and indulge your hobby as best you can. Have fun!...that's what it's all about.
My 2 cents worth. |
| | | 'course... -- Will, 07/16/2001
Your lawnmower is probably powered by a 352HP.
BTW, great info on Edel & FE. |
| Mr. F why is h code 390 missing from engines page -- dennie, 07/14/2001
almost got me into an arguement... |
| | Sorry, but as the page says, OET is 'a work-in-progress'. [n/m] -- Mr F, 07/15/2001
n/m |
| | RE: Killer big blocks -- RC Moser, 07/15/2001
Thanks R.C.V., pretty neat. Had two of those cars and the times was within 2 tens of what mine ran stock. |
| 302 pistons -- Yooper, 07/13/2001
I know this is a FE forum, but I need help. I have a 302 with c9 351 w heads. the pistons are TRW? #7061P
popups. I need to know the compression height and how many CC's the popups are. Can anyone help? I can't find the info anywhere else.
Thanks |
| Ford parts gt500 check liliseca ebay -- CHRIS955, 07/13/2001
Liliseca on rbay has cj shock towers ,,,,,,gt500kr trans case c-6
crank 428cj and rods |
| Identifying Big Block (FE?) -- BlueTech, 07/12/2001
I need help in identifying a big block that I am planning to buy. The owner pulled it out from a 70s Clubwagon but doesn't know what it is. It has a C6 trans and a 4-barrel Holley. What are different casting numbers and where do I exactly look for them?thanks. |
| | RE: Identifying Big Block (FE?) -- Dave Shoe, 07/12/2001
It could be any of five different engine block designs:
Windsor
Cleveland
Michigan (derived from the Cleveland)
FE
385 Series
I suspect the valve coler bolt count and pattern might help narrow down the variables, but the easiest way generally involves reading the engine code in the vehicle's VIN number. You didn't mention the year of the van, so it's sorta tough to isolate further.
If the valve covers have five bolts holding them in place, it's likely an FE. I don't remember the other V8s that well, but I think the FE might be unique this way.
Also, since the engine is apparently out of the vehicle, it might be easy to locate the head casting number. For a '70s engine there are only two possible head cassting numbers for an FE: C8AE-H and D2TE-AA. THis number is most often located between the two center spark plugs.
I believe the FE is also unique in that the water pump appears to be distinctly separate from the engine block. It clearly bolts to the front of the block with four bolts. The other V8 choices integrate sections of the water pump into the block casting.
Sorry if it's not very clear, but I don't know the other engine families that well.
Shoe.
|
| | | Identifying Big Block (FE?) -- BlueTech, 07/13/2001
Many have suggested counting the valve cover bolts. I think this is the easiest method to identify the engine. I'll do it on Sunday. I am sure that this is not a Windsor or Cleveland coz I am familiar with these engines. thanks. |
| | No FEs in Clubwagon, gotta be a 460 n/m -- Barry B, 07/12/2001
n/m |
| | | No FEs in Clubwagon, gotta be a 460 n/m -- BlueTech, 07/13/2001
I have been informed also that there were no FEs in Clubwagons. The engine is not a Windsor or Cleveland, so chances are it is a 460. I'll check on the casting number on Sunday. I already have a chart to decode block casting numbers. Thanks. |
| | | | 460 was the only 4V engine option n/m -- Barry B, 07/13/2001
n/m |
|