Skip Navigation Links.
 |  428CJ Bell Housing -- Sam, 12/22/2000
Hi,
I have a '70 Mach 1 428CJ 4-speed that presently has a steel scatter shield type bell housing. I'd like to replace it with the original type but I'm unsure of wether it was supposed to be aluminum or cast iron. Is there a specific part # I should look for?
Thanks in advance and Merry Christmas,
Sam V. |
|  | RE: 428CJ Bell Housing -- Brian, 12/23/2000
Sam the bell your loking for is cast iron Part # C6OZ-6392-C it will also have a large Z next to casting #. Hope this helps. I have one if your interested. Email me.
Brian |
|  | RE: 428CJ Bell Housing-Safe?? -- Sam, 12/24/2000
Hi again,
Brian, Thanks for the info on the type and part #. Now I have some other concerns. Am I safe running a 30 year old, original cast flywheel in a cast iron bellhousing? Will an aftermarket billet steel flywheel be sufficient or should I just stick with the scatter shield. I'm trying to build my car as original as possible but don't want to regret it if the flywheel explodes and rips through everything. Anyone have suggestions or advice?
Thanks again,
Sam |
| | | RE: 428CJ Bell Housing-Safe?? -- Robert, 12/24/2000
Sam the RPM is the key factor here and the quality of the components 2nd I believe .... The stock 428CJ is dead and burried at about 5400 rpm. The use of headers, cam, big mufflers etc will raise this but not much in street trim even street race trim the 428 IS A TORQUE MOTOR. Sure the stock NHRA guys are pulling big revs but that is not a street car by a long shot.
The Quality of the flywheel like the quality of all used FR stuff is doubtfull I love used LeMans Rods ---------- They dang well might have seen LeMans for 24hours. Or perhaps some Bozo turning his SCJ Mach to 7000.
Good components such as Hays, Centerforce, Zoom/Perfection are good all day at the revs you will see on the street. However second hand and Cheapo stuff????????????
Finally the factory cast bellhousing is far superior to the modern aluminium stuff and the very design of the Cast Iron tends to throw a clutch out the bottom |
 | 390 GT Carb Type? -- mark, 12/22/2000
FE experts - there's a guy on www.metromustang.com/classic that needs to know how to positively ID whether a 390 engine is a GT or non-GT - engine is on stand and completely assembled. Other than the 61-63 HP blocks with the HP cast on it, a Ford Perf book I've got says heads, intake, block are all the same incl casting #'s, just slight compression and some cam differences. Didn't the GT's have Holley carbs and the non or standard 390's have the Autolite? Any other way to tell other than by pulling a valve cover and measuring lobe lift? |
|  | 390GT is basically stock 4V w/ 600cfm Holley & CJ cam [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/24/2000
n/m |
| FE in 71 Mustang -- Ed Foral, 12/22/2000
Anyone ever try this swap or seen it done with any type of factory mount?
Any info is appreciated.
Thanks
Ed |
| | Hmm....off-hand, can't say that I have. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/22/2000
n/m |
| | RE: FE in 71 Mustang -- JESS, 12/22/2000
hi ed,you might try using the frame mounts on the car.then use the block & rubber mount from a 69-70 mustang that had an "FE". |
| | RE: FE in 71 Mustang -- Tom, 12/23/2000
I put a 64 427 into my 71 Ranchero. I got the mounts from Crites and used 65 galaxie FE insulators. fit like a glove (rough glove) But... a very nice sled. Ho Ho Ho |
| | | RE: FE in 71 Mustang -- Ed Foral, 12/23/2000
Tom
What application mounts did you use?
Thanks
Ed |
| | | | RE: FE in 71 Mustang -- Tom, 12/23/2000
Crites sells them as 66-69 Fairlane Torino Ranchero frame mounts. about $80. They also have the insulators. These mounts are the same as 1970 Torino Fe mounts BUT have three positioning holes at the insulator pad. My application used (if i recall correctly) the most forward holes with the insulator resting fully on top of the pad. The 70 Torino Fe mounts I could not locate, I'm here in Sacramento, Ca. where most people ask " What kind of car is that" let alone going into most "part houses" and still being told Ford doesn't make a 427 the other guy does!?!?!? Most bone yards around here could supply SUV and Mini van heaven. Old Fords with FE applications are rare and most pieces of worth have been so severely damaged by idiots trying to get to items such as a Dragging out a tranny w/o unbolting anything etc. etc. (interior destruction is a sin). You alll probably have seen some form of this. Happy Holidays from ol' Sacramento. Be safe and remember those lights in your rearview mirror.............. They're chevys! |
| | | | | RE: FE in 71 Mustang -- Ed Foral, 12/23/2000
Tom
I have a couple complete sets of the early Torino/Comet mounts, so I will check them out once I pull the Cleveland which is in there now. I don't seem to remember multiple positioning holes though.
I am not aware of any FE being used in a 70 midsize, as the 429/460 was the only available big block from 70 on.
The Mustang is another story of course.
Thanks
Ed
|
| My 428 combo, and how it worked for me -- John Preisler, 12/22/2000
'67 428pi for '67 shelby 00516
c6me-a block, +.040. flat top forged pistons
1u crank
edelbrock performer rpm heads
edelbrock performer rpm cam
c7zx-9425-a intake and bj, bk carbs redone by pony carburetors
ford powertrain applications tri-y headers
mallory unilite distributor
cam installed straight up, heads are out of the box with only a deburring, no porting.
461.1hp at 5300rpm
488.9lb-ft at 3100rpm
<http://acetylene.vapornet.net/~john/photography/cars/shelby/dynosheet.gif>
good street engine with lots of low-end grunt. no need to rev it past 6000 rpm - rev low, live long.
more dyno testing is being done to find me the best combo |
| | RE: Tell us more........ -- Morgan, 12/22/2000
This is good stuff John, I also have a 67 GT-500 (03217), I hope to rebuild the motor soon in a similar fashion. Lets talk a moment about the real world. Is the motor in the car? How much vacuum in drive does it have? How is the idle? How do the power brakes feel? I see that you bores it .040, does it run warmer that before the rebuild? Is yours running a top loader or C6?
Thanks,
Morgan |
| | | RE: Tell us more........ -- John Preisler, 12/22/2000
The engine is still at the engine shop as I'm having other parts tested. Lets see if we cant squeeze 500 hp out of it....
The dyno data showed no overheating problems, and I have a Griffin aluminum radiator so overheating shouldnt be a problem.
#516 was originally a C6 car but I am going with Tremec TKO.
The power brakes have been converted to a manual 4-wheel disc setup.
Can you tell I'm setting it up for SAAC open track club events?
-john |
| | RE: 428 Cobra Replica -- mark, 12/22/2000
JUST what I was looking for! Been planning a warm (not undriveable beast) street 428 for a Cobra replica for "authenticity" with the Edelb heads and Perf RPM intake and about that exact size (duration & lift) cam but was a little worried about the 108 LDA being a little close for a long stroke engine, although it does have a fairly low rod/stroke ratio which likes a low LDA number. But THOSE numbers are very impressive - quite close to my 426 Street Hemi of years ago, even on hp!! Especially nice is that fat torque at that rpm! Man, would that make a 2300 lb 50/50 weight balance Cobra fly with a Richmond 5spd and a streetable rear gear!! PLEASE post more info as you develope it. I was thinking of efi for driveability etc - but don't want all those lines plumbed all over the intake so am looking at the Barry Grant Venturi EFI that's built basically on a Holley 4bbl base. Is a good unit but would all hide under the air cleaner for an authentic look. THANKS!!! |
| | | Tri-Y's - where? -- mark, 12/22/2000
PS - I'm, a big fan of tri-y's on a torque motor - do these guys have a web site or an address? Just what I'd want! |
| | | | | RE: Tri-Y's - where? -- John Preisler, 12/23/2000
I must note however that the ford powertrain applications fe tri-y headers are a mighty close fit and I expect the drivers side to rattle
as it just barely almost contacts the block plate/scattershield.
The tilton super starter is also not happy with the headers, although a stock starter looks like it would fit fine.
I find myself having to drill a couple of new holes in the nose plate of the super starter in order to align it in an inoffensive manner.
-john
|
| FE versus MEL -- P, 12/22/2000
There's been a post or two about the MEL, and I thought I'd offer a perspective on the difference between these two engines. I obviously believe the FE is superior in every way to the MEL. I stand ready to be "corrected" if any of this info is not historically or technically correct.
The MEL is a totally different design than the FE. The MEL is a “plank head” engine, with cylinder heads similar to the Chevy 409. At one point back in the mid to late 1950’s the MEL put out 375-HP, but it was detuned every year thereafter for some reason. It was designed to be a “Lincoln hauler”, with a lot of torque, and it did that job well. I understand all engines were even test run for 10-hours as a part of the Lincoln quality control process. However, when it came to racing, the MEL was “a skeleton in Ford’s closet” according to one boat racer I know who is in the APBA hall of fame (twice). He said the 427 was a great engine, but the MEL was not all that hot. The MEL eventually evolved into the 462 Lincoln engine, and it was a smooth and torquey motor, but not the race-bred bruiser that was born in the middle of the “horsepower wars” like the FE was.
The FE evolved into several great performance engines during the “horsepower wars”, including a 360-HP solid lifter 352, a 401-HP 390, a 405-HP 406, and of course the NUMEROUS variants of the 427 (all of which had a rating of 425-HP despite many changes being made to obviously improve the performance). Actual performance ratings of the 427 engine in "street" form ranged in the 450-HP range and up, and the competition engines were as powerful and exotic as Henry Ford's gold card would stand ! The winning LeMans 427 (with aluminum heads) was "detuned" from NASCAR spec to around 499-HP. RPM was limited to 6000 because they wanted to be sure the motor held up for 24 hours (it did). When the engine was dynoed after the race, it actually produced 4 more horsepower than when it began.
The FE is indeed (as someone so elegantly said in the past) the "royalty" of the Ford Motor Company big block history.
P
|
| | FE versus 409 Chevy -- P, 12/22/2000
In evaluating the FE engine I think it is important to keep things in historical perspective, especially on a year to year basis because things were being changed so fast and frequently back then (by all the manufacturers).
The Chevy 409 grew out of the Chevy 348 "big block" that trumped the FE by one year. The 409 evolved into a "so called" 425-HP machine that won a lot of races. However, in 1963-1/2 something happened that would kill the 409, and that was the introduction of the 427 FE.
These are "round numbers" and if anyone really cares, I'll look up the exact numbers...........but in 1963 Chevrolet sold 17,000 409's. In 1964 the number dropped to 8000, and in 1965 it dropped to around 2500. Fact of the matter is, the Ford 427 was kicking butt, and many people didn't want to buy a "second place" performance car. The 409 couldn't keep up with the continuing evolution of the FE 427. Just look at the NASCAR racing records for wins..........the 409 was essentially a "no show". The FE literally dominated the series during the 4 years of so after the intro of the 427, so badly in fact, that it appeared that there was no competition.
Chevy tried to stroke and bore the 409, and actually built 57 of them pumped out to the magical number of "427 cubic inches", but the Chevy 409-based version of the 427 was a flop. It took them several years and a total redesign to eventually introduce the 396/427 version, and by then the Ford version had undergone so many refinements, including winning LeMans, that it would have killed the Chevy version in any kind of a real confrontation.
That's my opinion, what's yours!!
P |
| | | RE: FE versus 409 Chevy -- Brian, 12/22/2000
Same as yours |
| | | RE: FE versus 409 Chevy -- gerry, 12/22/2000
It’s an interesting analysis, P. But it’s mostly an emotional argument.
For those who don’t understand the engineering of the Chevrolet 409, it is not remarkably different from most engines of the day, but was comparatively unusual in that the “W” (or as we now say “Dubya”) engine’s combustion chamber was in the cylinder rather than the head. If you can imagine that rather than the block’s deck being machined at the usual 45-degree angle to the crank it was machined at, if I recollect, a 37-degree angle. The cylinder heads were completely flat. The engine was at least competitive with anyone else’s offering and it was far from a dog. . It should also be noted regarding the W series that these engines had very large bores and relatively short strokes even in the last 427 version the Z11, and it was a very stout performer. But that’s where it left off because GM was well into the development of the Mark series of engines with the Mark IV going into production cars in the 1965 model year. There was no real motivation to further develop the W engine since it had been superceded by the Mark IV engine with a better, more traditional combustion chamber design and better flowing ports. It would be similar to Ford continuing racing development of the FE with the Lima 385 series well into production. The Mark IV, not the FE, killed the W.
Yes, the FE was an engine of legend…no question about it, and it enjoyed a much longer production and racing life than the 409/427, but I remember a few Pontiacs in those early NASCAR days out there whompin’ butt too. That doesn’t make them king or necessarily diminish the FE or anyone else’s powerplant.
|
| | | | RE: FE versus 409 Chevy -- Brian, 12/25/2000
Gerry I think? I would vote for you as President!!! Sounds like a dogooder speech. hahaha
Brian |
| | | RE: FE versus 409 Chevy -- RC Moser, 12/22/2000
I think your right the Nascar, drag racing, and road races provided FORD had a clear advanage. The lack of sponsorship by fords top brass gave the advanage back to the competition. Which is evident to in NHRA Pro Stock today. But, I think ford rules in the mountain motors of the IHRA. And I think the SOHC with the huffer on it ruled TOP Fuel in mid 60s and again FORD lack of support and development kill that monster. And last the only thing that hurt the big FORDs of the early 60s was weight. These cars were built to last and not the tin cans of the competition. That's my opinion, but I have tunnel vision and Love 60s Ford race cars... |
| | | | RE: FE versus 409 Chevy -- Stanley Superior, 12/22/2000
The FE had a few good years in the 60's,but nothing to write home about. When you consider that the FE was strangled at the hands of the Chrysler Hemi,its easy to see why Ford desparately needed a replacement engine in the racing ranks. Enter the Boss 429 and 429CJ/SCJ! But going back to the 60's,there were a few heavy hittin Pontiacs with SD 421 power that showed the FE the quick way home a few times. The Chevy 409 was ok in its day,but it really is a POS! There were small blks that went head to head against the 409 and won many times,but noone ever hears about that. Correct me if Im wrong,but I think it was the 1960 (?) Daytona 500 that was won by a "MEL" powered T-Bird with a 430 in it. Ever since NASCAR mandated small blocks for racing,Fords have won more races with small block power than they ever did with FE power,thus making the "royalty" the small block (windsor). |
| | | | | Nothing to write home about? Think again, -- Louie, 12/22/2000
or initially. What ever the case may be.
1965-
"Ned Jarrett corrals the NASCAR Grand National title. This comes as no surprise after the way Ford cars dominated that series: 48 wins in 55 events." Let's guess what engine was in Ned's car...
"In a first for any major auto manufacturer, Ford wins at LeMans. Perhaps as a token of vindication for Chairman Ford (or to tweak Mr. Ferrari), they do it memorably....a trio of 427-powered GT Mk IIs crosses the line 1 - 2 - 3. " Detuned no less.
1968-
"Desperate for cars that are more competitive, Ford releases yet another FE variant - the 428 "Cobra Jet" - <snip> Mustangs dominate NHRA "stock" classes, & Ford-lovers rejoice. "
Just a very small sampling for you to absorb so you won't be so 'uninformed' about the FE's acomplishments.
|
| | | | | | RE: Scrooge has nothing to write home about.! -- RC Moser, 12/22/2000
Thanks Louie, I needed that. |
| | | | | Precious Windsors in NASCAR? -- Alan, 12/22/2000
Don't see too many precious Windsor headed engines in NASCAR!!!
I believe they are of the Cleveland variety. |
| | | | | | One more thing -- Alan, 12/22/2000
When the street version of the Boss 429 Mustang came around the 428cj would outrun it! |
| | | | | | RE: Precious Windsors in NASCAR? -- Whole Lotta Tom, 12/22/2000
And the blocks are far from a stock Windsor. They are custom race blocks. A stock Windsor block would not last the race. But, the old 427 NASCAR engines used the same blocks that were used in the R-code Galaxies. Hell, the SOHCs were used in top fuel, Connie Kalita's Bounty Hunter, for instance. No way you could run a Windsor block there. They ran agains stock block Hemis of both old and new design. I said the 427 blocks ran against Hemis. They won against Hemis. Windsors did not, and do not.
This guy could be contributing to a Windsor forum, but instead he is here, baiting and trolling this forum. He does not seem to really know what he is talking about (He said the 460 oiling system is better than the FE! A clear indication he has not studied either!) Why is this troll tolerated? |
| | | | | | | RE: Precious Windsors in NASCAR? -- Stanley Superior, 12/22/2000
Yes,but when was the last time you saw a Windsor ever running against a Hemi? The blocks in NASCAR Fords are based on the Windsor design with Cleveland style heads on them,the best of both worlds! The oiling system on 460's are better than FE's,Im talking about all the FE's except the side-oiler,check it again Whole lotta tom! In the 70's when NHRA pro stock was emerging on the scene,it was the 351 Cleveland that did most of the winning. Dyno Don won a national event in 1971 with a cammer powered Maverick,but the rest of the decade belonged to the 351C,not the 427FE! Same goes for NASCAR racing. In the 70's when they said everyone had to run small blocks,Fords responded with Cleveland power again. In fact,Fords were the first to have to run the restrictor plates because they would pull away at the top speeds against the Chevy's. In the high RPM's, the 4V heads would keep pulling where the SB Chevy's fell off. |
| | | | | | | | Having a problem backing up your statement? -- Louie, 12/22/2000
"The FE had a few good years in the 60's,but nothing to write home about. "
I thought the discussion was about your 'opinion' of the accomplishments of the FE. Please stick to the subject.
You also wrote:
"Ever since NASCAR mandated small blocks for racing,Fords have won more races with small block power than they ever did with FE power,thus making the "royalty" the small block (windsor). "
I am curious; with your wealth of 'fact', how many NASCAR titles were with won with a Windsor block (not based on, but a true Windsor block)? Now, write down that number. Next, write down how many NASCAR titles were won with a true FE block. Write down that number. Do you see a bigger number in the FE column? Tried to make it easy for you. |
| | | | | | | | Reason for smallblocks in NASCAR -- Alan, 12/22/2000
The ONLY reason they went to smallblock engines in NASCAR is that at the time NASCAR felt the cars were going too fast! They made the rule change that mandated a 355cui limit, and it took the racing teams nearly twenty years to once again reach the speeds they were running in late 60s and early 70s. Same thing in ProStock,NHRA had a 370cui limit and for a while all you saw was smallblocks until people like Glidden and Reyer/Morrison worked out the details on destroking bigblocks and then, bye bye smallblock, and we haven't seen them since. I have no doubt if put a 427 s/o motor in one of these new slippery Nascar stockcar bodies they would put a serious on the precious Windsor/Cleveland mutant! |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Reason for smallblocks in NASCAR -- Stanley Superior, 12/22/2000
Let me guess,with 40 yr old parts too,right? |
| | | | | | | | | | Sideoilers not available 40yrs. ago. n/m -- Alan, 12/22/2000
n/m |
| | | | | | | | It is well known among those who... -- Whole Lotta Tom, 12/22/2000
...actually know anything about engines (it is clear that Stanley, the Troll does not) that the 385 series oiling system, esentially the same as the 335 series oiling system, is a poor design. It, like the 335, uses the right side lifter galley as a main line to provide oiling to the 2, 3, 4 and 5 main bearing journals. This results in a lack of volume and pressure at the mains, especially the rear main.
The 460 oiling system is inferior to any FE, and all proffesional 460 engine builders will agree. The whole world knows this, except for the Troll Stanley.
|
| | | | | | | | | 385 Oiling -- JCRAFTCARS, 12/23/2000
Though Wholelotta Tom is often wrong about magazine writers like my pal Jim Smart, he's absolutely correct when it comes to 385 series oiling systems. As designed, they were just fine for trolling around at 2,000 rpm in a luxo-land yacht. High RPM work, on the other hand was problematic. There WAS a reason that the first dry-sump motors in NASCAR were the Boss 429s that debuted at Atlanta in March of 1969. I know that for sure because my Race spec Boss '9 is on the dyno as we speak. As I originally built it ,it has a wet sump. That's all about to change though due to the engine being able to run out from under the oil pump above 5,000 rpm. I should have known better, my old SCJ had the same problems. |
| | | | | | | | | | Jim Not-Too Smart -- Whole Lotta Tom, 12/24/2000
That horse done left the gate, my man. Jim Smart is well known as a writer with little Ford knowledge or little knowledge of the concept of fact checking. He is indefensible. Don't come to this forum and try to say different. Anyone who reads his stuff and has anything other than a passing aquaintance with Ford products will say the same. I am not alone here. Don't try to make his lack of talent or caring into a personal issue with me. He stinks, he doesn't seem to care, we all know it. Urge him to try another proffesion, if you care about the guy. Or maybe he and Stanly can get together and write for Super Chevy. Bill Holder is in the same boat (anybody remember him?). |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: Whole Lotta Hubris -- JCRAFTCARS, 12/24/2000
It's clearly personal with you. Curiuosly I've yet to see ANY publication of yours regarding ANY subject in ANY book or periodical (and I've been checking the penny saver for your byline regularly). Hmmmm. Pretty easy to be arrogant and condescending when your own work is NEVER held up to criticism, isn't it? Until and unless you become some type of forum gatekeeper, you'd best refrain from telling folks when and when not to come to this or any other forum. Jim's been working on and writing about Ford products since the early eighties. Based on the tenor of your posts, I'd guess that's long before you were potty trained. Put up or Shut up time laddy. Publish or Perish. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Nice thrust & parry, fellas. All that and 'hubris', too? Neato. :-D [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/24/2000
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Whole Lotta Hubris -- Whole Lotta Tom, 12/24/2000
I'm so sorry you feel it so important to defend your friend. His work should speak for itself. Amongst Ford fans, his work say's "sloppy". Go ahead, be his friend. Urge him to leave Ford fans alone. I'm sure the Enquirer could use someone with his skills in fact checking.
This is the second personal attack you have launched against me for speaking my mind. Stop it now. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Whole Lotta Hubris -- JCRAFTCARS, 12/24/2000
Interesting that simply noting you have nothing to show in the way of publishing accomplishments strikes you as a personal attack. Equally intriguing is the self description of YOUR persistently purile PERSONAL attacks on Jim Smart as simply "speaking your mind". Sounds like you're living in a glass house laddy. Best thing to do then , is drop your stones. It's still put up or shut up time. Do something (anything actually)of note in the field of automotive publication or stop spewing bilge about those who do. Until you do, or at least make some constructive effort to corrrect the alleged errors you so vitriolicaly complain of, you really haven't got much of a gripe-or a forum in which to air it. By the way, electronic ultimatums really don't have much more substance than your incessant bleatings about Jim Smart. So why waste your time?. Jim's office number at E-Map is (323) 782-2323. Perhaps you can muster the courage to confront him directly with your rants. But then again, you probably won't since, just as with your publishing accomplishments, it's a whole lot easier to anonymously hurl invective than to actually risk embarrassment with (attempts) at personal performance. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Thou Art Not Worthy writes "Hubris John" Craft -- Whole Lotta Tom, 12/28/2000
John Craft has called into question my qualifications to comment on the writings of Jim Smart. John Craft has stated that, since I am not a professional writer, I should not comment on the work of a professional writer. He has written the same to others. It is true, I am not a professional writer. I do not write professionally about the cars that I own or the engines that I build for them. No, I actually work on them. I build them, modify them, maintain them and used them. I read, research, discuss, and make decisions for and about them, and live with the results. I can’t afford mistakes, and I can’t afford to make assumptions based on bad or incorrect information. Despite all of that I do not meet John Craft’s personal peculiar qualifications. But I am, in fact, the most qualified individual to comment on Jim Smart’s product. Why?
Because I am the consumer.
When I put down my cash money for a Mustang Monthly to use for it’s technical content, and I see thoughtful, well-written and technically accurate articles, and then I see crap, I get pissed off. And I am not alone. Now, John Craft would have us believe anyone who is not "published" should not criticize a writer.
Can you imagine Dr. John Craft? "Unless you have 12 years of schooling and 4 years of residency, you have no right to question me! I am god to you". Congressman John Craft? "Unless you have served two terms in the House, you have no right to criticize your representative! What Hubris!"
Hubris indeed!
So who is this jag-off John "the customer is always wrong" Craft to say I have no right to comment on the writings of Jim Smart? He claims to be an engine builder. Judging by the tenor of his posts, how do you think he would handle a dispute at his shop? Ever been ripped-off by a bad machinist? Think that you must have eight years machinist experience and $500K in equipment to be able to complain? I don’t either.
According to John "the customer is always wrong" Craft, because Jim Smart has been writing since the eighties, he should be revered, never questioned by mere mortals. To John "the customer is always wrong" Craft, Tenure=Excellence, Job Done=Job Done Well, Consumer=Mute Slave. I suggest that if John "the customer is always wrong" Craft really wants to live by his own creed, he should move to where there is a system set up in just that fashion. Communist China, for example.
Back in September, a post critical of Jim Smart was made on the Network 54 New FE Forum. Read it here.
http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/74182?it=32
It was posted by "Alan" and was a reprint of a letter he sent to Jim Smart in care of Mustangs and Fords. 59 responses followed. 45 were actually off topic, most being the sort of in depth technical discussion you never see in the magazines. 13 were critical of Jim Smart. One was supportive of Jim Smart. It was written by John "you are not worthy" Craft, and was almost exactly the same as his first response to me in this thread. 13 to 1 against Jim Smart. Oh my, what hubris! Those people should be shot for even daring to respond at all, eh John "the people are dirt" Craft?
In October, Jim Smart himself posted in the original N-54 FE forum, asking for 390 dyno data for an upcoming book (be VERY afraid!). See it here.
http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/21142?it=27
"Alan" responded by re-posting his letter, asking Jim Smart to respond. Jim Smart never did. 14 responses followed, Seven were negative, six were OT, one post looked forward to a book on FEs. No one came to Jim Smart’s defense. Jim Smart himself never replied. I am not the only one who is disgusted with Jim "fact check?, nah" Smart. Far from it. Should I call Jim Smart at his office? Why? If he has spent 15+ years in the business and is still this sloppy, he isn’t going to change now. Some slobs are slobs for life. His publisher is only interested in ad revenue. So, I am only too pleased to let other Ford hobbyists know that they need to double-check anything Jim Smart writes about. It is in their best interests to do so.
If I buy a product or service, be it a car, a line hone, a head surfacing, a set of pistons, a medical procedure, a toilet, a 2X4, a re-roof or a waffle, and the product or service is of poor quality or poorly executed, I reserved the right to bitch about it. And I will bitch as long and as loud and in any manner I want. And no sycophantic lapdog like John "the customer is always wrong" Craft is going to deter me from it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE:WHOLELOTTAHUBRIS (The Sequel) -- JCRAFTCARS, 12/28/2000
And the person holding the gun to your head, forcing you to by Jim's mag would be???? The solution to your problem is obvious: If you don't like the stuff my Buddy Jim writes; DON'T BUY IT!. Bettcha it would do wonders for your diastolic,too. And, it would certainly be more CONSTRUCTIVE than anonymous name calling from behind a corpulent sounding psuedonym. Call Jim, you've got the number. Until you do, just stop spewing your electronic bilge about a good guy behind his back. If you can do better-DO IT. That's how more than a few of us got started. Of course, then YOU'LL actually have to PERFORM and not just mewl when YOU think others don't measure up. On another note, I know it will be tough for you to answer, your being all wrapped up in the flag right about now, but just how does challenging someone to put up or shut up translate into communist tyranny?? NO hyperbole there! By the way, as to "Hubris John":hubris is a noun and can't really be used as an adjective. You might give "hubristic" a try, however (Just a preview of some of the hurdles you'll have to surmount on your way to putting up or shutting up about Jim). It'll be a whole new world for you. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | The lapdog yippeth -- Whole Lotta Tom, 12/28/2000
Well, I did not expect anything mnore from John "please stop picking onmy only friend" Craft. He seems to be a one note song. Go bang you Jim Smart Is God drum somewhere else, little man. He gets no credit here.
BTW, if the publishers of Mustang Monthly want to have me write a piece for them, I'll happily do it. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: more name calling? -- JCRAFTCARS, 12/28/2000
Jeezzz. Pretty hard for you to get the point,eh? Jim's not God, just a good guy trying to do the right thing. And one undeserving of the purile dirt you continue to dish. While doing so, at least spend a bit "mnore" (sic) time on the task. And about the length of time you'll spend waiting for the publishing world to "request "your input-talk about HUBRIS. That's not the way it works laddy-remember that wrapped in the flag, God , Mom and Apple pie rant you just squeezed off? Right here in the good 'ole US of A, you generally have to PROVE yourself BEFORE the world comes knocking at your door. Sit down and try to write something -anything (preferably without punctuating it with childish invective) and see how far it flies. Oh yeah, and don't forget the spell check. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Re: more name calling? -- 406Custom300, 12/29/2000
Rant? So how is it you got a job writing for SuperFord way back when? Is it the amount of cool stuff you could afford? Give it a rest, guy, no one cares, except when we buy a magazine for it's content and come away with a half-attempt. When this guy starts turning out something worthwhile, Tom won't pick at him, you know? Prescribe yourself some prozac or something.... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: WHT's Career in Auto Journalism -- JCRAFTCARS, 12/29/2000
Answer: NOT by calling folks NAMES behind their backs. As I have not so SUBTLY suggested to your lad Tom, If he can do better: DO IT. THAT is exactly what I did back in the day. It's a really simple thing to comprehend. No mind altering drugs needed on either end of the exchange. Until HE DOES (or you, or anyone else who thinks it's SOOOOO easy to do it better) he should 86 the personal attacks on Jim. Call Jim directly to set him straight if you think he's wrong about some point -be it major or esoteric-(323) 782-2323. Just don't repeatedly pillory him on line when he's not around to set the record straight (or to make amends as the case may be). That tack suggests a certain lack of testosterone, Wouldn't you agree? |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Swell, guys - points made, all-'round. We're quits, Ok? [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/29/2000
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | "Lapdog"? ::ahem:: Its a draw. Let's move on. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/28/2000
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | "Corpulent"? Ok - game called on account of animus. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/28/2000
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Whole Lotta Hubris -- 406Custom300, 12/28/2000
Geez, old timer, what's your trouble? Nobody has said anything about you, unkess Jim Smart is your pseudonym, hehe. Get a little ruffage, will you, geez. |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: 385 Oiling -- oil man, 12/25/2000
How is FE oiling better than the 385? Are you on drugs? Any engine that oils the rocker arms first (and the cam),is not a good performance design. There is no way the FE oiling system is even close to the 385! The 385 oils the crank and cam at the same time,the FE oils the top of the engine first,then lets the rest starv for whats left. Besides,look at the holes for the oil passages in a FE block,over half of them dont line up with each other,and that small main oiling hole from the pump to the block is a joke! The one on the 385 is the correct size to begin with. You must be unknowing of these facts,you probably have never even had an engine apart before,because if you did,you would spot these FE deficiencies right away! BTW, the 385 doesnt need to rev to 7000+ to make power like the FE does,so if it does have a lesser oiling system,it not being stressed like the FE's is. |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: 385 Oiling -- JCRAFTCARS, 12/26/2000
Which, of course, explains why the only true 385 series race engine(read: Boss 429) needed a dry sump oiling system when revving to 7,000+ rpm in the racing environment it was designed to dominate(NASCAR). Check your history and your facts. You might also try to actually build an un-modified performance 385 engine (even with dry sump systems, Ford racing engineers still had to restrict top end oiling in NASCAR Boss '9s) that is capable of good high rpm pressure with a factory oiling system (even with an HV pump). Then get back to me. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Since when does a 385 need a dry sump? -- RJP, 12/26/2000
Dry sumps are used for high G loads, not for a poor oiling system, which the 385 does NOT have. NO dry sump in the world will make up for any defecencys in the oiling system. Check out how many mods have to be made to a FE system and how many are needed on a 385. I have run several 385 engines to 7000+ rpm with the only mods. being a 10 qt pan and a windage tray and this is with a cast crank,CJ rods and 2 bolt block. All this and only 60 lbs of pressure. Bad system? get back to me when you sober up. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: RJP is absolutly right -- Stanley Superior, 12/27/2000
If JCRAFTERS has a Boss9 on a dyno,then he must not have been present when it was tested! If he was,then he would know these things already. In addition to the high G loads encountered by the oil in a wet sump design,the dry sump system also pulls vacuum inside the crankcase. In case you didnt know,vacuum also makes more power,esspecially in the high RPM environment of NASCAR. Besides, when has a "normal"385 ever needed a dry sump system for high performance on the street or track? And when you say your 429 SCJ ran out of oil above 5000 RPM,it sounds to me like you simply did not have enough oil in it to begin with. Clevelands do the same thing,all I do is run 1 1/2 extra quarts of oil,its that simple! I have run Clevelands well into the 8500+ RPM range many times,with nothing more than a standard volume oil pump,with thin oil in the pan. Try that with an FE! BTW,Im talking about the oiling system itself. Look at the stock oiling system in your precious FE motor. Look at the oil holes in the main bearing saddles,they dont even line up with the hole in the bearing! They are like half blocked by the main bearing itself! Another FE oil problem is the pump to block oil passage,its 3/8" inch! Then take a look at the oil passage on the outside of the block,where it passes into the part that mounts the filter,it too,needs to be opened up! The FE is starving itself for oil! The 385 is not. When you finally figure these truths out,then get back to me. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: RJP AND Stanley AREN'T SO RIGHT -- JCRAFTCARS, 12/27/2000
Sorry , wrong. At least that's what a fellow named Yunick says. According to Smokey, Ford's Boss '9 dry sump cost about 60 horse-power on the dyno-but was necessary. Of course, you lads all know better than Smokey, I'll bet. To digress, I miss the point of the purile insults that folks like Stanley and RJP seem incapable of posting without. Sounds like some basic insecurities are leaking out on to the web. But back on point, the Boss I built is on the dyno and at present (without a sump or the restrictors that Ford racers employed in '69) needs help in the pressure department. Just like the several 429 Cobra Jets I've built. However the 428 CJs and the 427 MR I've built -while possessing far from perfect oiling systems-didn't run out from under the pump like my 385 motors have. Of course neither did the Boss 302 and the various Windsors (302 & 351) I've built. Or even the 2000 cc OHC Pinto motor that I built for my Alpine. I only mention the mechanical "vita" to suggest that my reports are based on fairly lengthy ,personal engine building experience-not the tech section in the Mustang Trader or wishful thinking. It may be worthy of noting that the folks (Matt and Scott) at my local Ford only machine shop (Powered By Ford Orlando-builders of the Super Trooper-former World's fastest naturally aspirated 5.0 Mustang - have run into the very same problems with the scores of 385 series engines they've built and dynoed,too. I know, I know, those professionals, along with Smokey and the Ford E&Fengineers who found it necessary to install a REAL pump (dual rotor no less) inside a race Boss'9s internal dry sump system are all just plain wrong. If you're own experiences differ ,then congratulations. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Dropping names makes an arguement? -- RJP, 12/27/2000
Insecuritys?..at least I don't drop a bunch of names to bolster my arguement. I build my own engines and I have never, repeat, never had any oiling problems with any of my 385 engines. From stock 460s for Lincolns to twin turbocharged/intercooled marine engines and everything inbetween. All I do is to see to it that the engine has a generous supply of oil at all times. And not one dry-sump. How many times have some so-called mechanics said ".....if its a Ford then it needs at least 100 lbs of pressure to live"? Sound familier? I thought so. If you are having so much bearing trouble then perhaps you should re-evaluate your engine program.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Dropping names makes an arguement? -- JCRAFTCARS, 12/28/2000
Work on the sangfroid RJP, insecurity can make one percieve "argument" when none is being made. Happy to hear of your success. Sorry to hear that you think seeking advice from experts is "name" dropping". Perhaps you overlooked the "I" in my posts. They were used to signal you that "I",too, build my own engines. I can but report what results I've had. Which, of course, is the purpose of this forum. NOT sarcasm, or baseless condescension or inane rants . Let me assure you how predictable it was to hear from you that Smokey and all of those NASCAR types (that i've talked too on a number of ocassions) are all WRONG. Please advise where in the NASCAR, NHRA, SCCA, USAC (etc...) record books I can look up your accomplishments. Smokey's number is in the phone book. The area code is 904. Or you could all Robert Yates in Charlotte. (engine builder for Holman Moody late sixties early seventies-built the 427 TP that LeeRoy Yarbrough won Daytona with in '69 -the night before the race!). His area code is 704. I'm sure they'd both love to learn a thing or two about history AND engine building from you.LOL |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: No inane rants here... -- RJP, 12/28/2000
And it is you who is guilty of sarcasm and baseless condescension. "......I'm sure they'd both love to learn a thing or two.....yada yada" LOL ! You need to "own" your words, it is you sir, who made the statement that the oiling system of the 385 series engine is one of the worst ever. You stated that the oil pressure goes away at anything above 5000 rpm and that a dry sump is needed to insure oil to the crank and rods, perhaps the pan is being pumped dry, nessessating the need for a bigger pan. I would like to know in your infinite wisdom how a dry sump is going to cure these so-called oiling system shortcomings of the 385. As I said in a previous post they are used to insure a continious supply of oil under high G loads encountered in racing. In my humble opinion the biggest shortcoming of the Ford is the front sump pan [not a problem though in flatbottom V drive boats] And yes I am familier with Smokey Yunick, having met him on several occassions and have read his book "Power secrets" several times, maybe you should too. I refer you to pages 110 to 114 of same book. I believe it was he who said the wet sump system is ok for street use but todays racing exceeds the limits of the wet sump. and I whole heartley agree with him. But you have failed to show me where the oiling system is defective of the 385 engine. Don't refer me to what other people said as things can get misconstrued. Make your arguement. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: instructions. -- JCRAFTCARS, 12/28/2000
INSTRUCTIONS: 1) Go to previous posts 2) Look for key word WORST 3) Keep looking until you find it (but don't forget to pay the power bill before computer shuts off) 4) {OPTIONAL}Actually ask Smokey cogent questions about the specific oiling system at issue(read: THE BOSS 429) 5) {OPTIONAL}Ponder the question: WHY oh WHY did FORD Choose to incorporate a DOUBLE rotor pump nearly twice the capacity of a stock Boss/CJ pump as part of its complicated Dry Sump system? 5a)Ponder Related Question: Are Factory designed Oil Pumps actually part of a Factory Oiling System? CLUE: This is NOT a TRICK question 6) {ADVISABLE} Seek professional help concerning your querulousness 7) {MANDATORY} Become more "Familier" [sic] with spell-check PS: For the definition of "INANE RANT" Check Dictionary Under "Stanley" (Review previous posts before power shuts off) PSS: Based on your remarks about Jim; I'll divide my future research time between looking for your name in the NASCAR/NHRA/USAC (etc..) record books and searching for your Byline in the pennysaver. Please join the Put Up or Shut Up Club of Writer WannaBes;See WholeLottaHubris (President) for details; Recruit 406Custom for a two for one membership discount. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: I await your devine guidance.... -- RJP, 12/28/2000
Ok....you are the engine and writing God of modern times and I am nothing but a lowly serf who is not worthy of contributing to this, or any other forum. And if it please you Almighty one I will on your command dump all of my Ford cars, engines, parts, books, magazines and anything else that is Ford related into the bay. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Misguided -- JCRAFTCARS, 12/29/2000
You are in need of guidance. SO: refer to original comment about the marginal nature of the 385 oiling system (stock) for high rpm use. After doing so, see if that in any way suggests the abandonment of Ford products. Just how did you get here from there? Hope it wasn't caused by the ingestion of any controlled substances. REPEAT: The stock 385 oiling system, (in my experience and that of folks who have raced it professionally in NASCAR circles) needs assistance for sustained high rpm work. Your mileage may vary. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: no controlled substance -- RJP, 12/29/2000
Damn, You have managed to "stir the pot" with 3 people on one thread with mostly opinions, unfounded remarks and hearsays. And when the arguement isn't going your way, you attack more on a personal level....do you work at such a disposition or do you come by it naturally? |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Gentlemen - stop arguing ad hominem & shake on it. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/29/2000
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: 385 Oiling -- 406Custom300, 12/28/2000
Where did that Jim Smart snippet come from? Tom is generally correct about that dude, lol...He can't even get a model year right half the time..hehe Smart, indeed. |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: 385 Oiling -- RJP, 12/28/2000
I think the whole "Jim [not so] Smart" thing came from an article he wrote about the lackluster performance of the Galaxie and/or the poor performance of the FE engine. It was published in the March issue of Mustangs and Fords. The article clearly shows the lack of reserch that was done by the author or his help. He comes across as anti Ford and in a strange way gloats over the so-called failures of Ford for "missing the mark several times" Perhaps he should find another line of work. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: 385 Oiling -- 406Custom300, 12/29/2000
Thats what I have thought since I started subscribing to Mustangs and Fords about 3 years ago. That guy used to write for PHR didn't he? If not he needs to knock on their door, because he sucks, just like PHR. I have noticed several errors in print by him and that Wayne Cook guy. Both of them have trouble with even years and models. I wrote a letter to the mag last month, guess I pissed them off, because I didn't even get an automated response, hehe. Oh well, I've said it all along, I would like to hook up with John Paradise, and his former group of writers, because they've probably forgotten more about Fords and their history than Jim Smart, John Craft, and Wayne Cook will ever learn. Not a personal attack on Jim/John or Wayne, but they do need to do a little more research before they put something in print. By the way, how many of us will be building a NASCAR or roadrace 429 that need such sustained, high g-force, high rpm oiling mods as a dry sump? As far as I'm concerned, Jim Smart is just one more nial in EMAP's coffin, because when my subscriptions run out, I will not be renewing any of them. That's about 4 mags down the toilet. From what I gather, I'm not the only one who's disenchanted with the EMAP way......... |
| | | | | | | | RE: Precious Windsors in NASCAR? -- Brian, 12/25/2000
Alot of things come into play at this time Stanley. Which we dont' have time to explain to you. But I'll give you a hint! Better get out some NHRA rule books from the time to see what was happening |
| | | | | | | | RE:NHRA banned big blocks in small body P/S -- Tim, 12/26/2000
It wasn't the Cleveland,Windsor or Clevor that ended the FE's rule in Pro stock. NHRA banned big blocks in all pro stocks under 100" wheelbase. I built a 427 sohc Pinto in 71 only to have it banned. I ended up running in gas & altered clases. When the Cleveland engine could no longer do it. Why do you think Gapp & Roush went to a 4 door Maverick and Glidden went to an old Mustang. (So they could go back to big blocks) |
| | | | | | | | RE: Precious Windsors in NASCAR? -- 406Custom300, 12/28/2000
351 C's wouldn't last at the Pro Stock rpm level without a massive re-do of the oiling system. have you ever seen one? I doubt it or you would be able to comment on the 5 or six yards of steel tubing running around, through and over the engine to redirect oil to the mains. Better, nah. The same, more likely. Take a look at the Ford Performance book, it shows a detailed example of what it took to make a Cleveland live at 10,000 rpms. A load of work was also done to the crank, as well as the cylinder heads to eliminate that fat, lazy spot in the exhaust ports. Geez, to make a 351C run good with factory parts(no, not 302-c motorsport alum heads either) would cost twice as much to do as to build a 428, even a passenger car motor.Leave the windsors to the little 5.0 mustang guys, Lord knows they need them. |
| | | | | | | RE: Precious Windsors in NASCAR? -- 406Custom300, 12/28/2000
That, my friend is beyond me. He has been canned from at least 2 other forums I know of. Why Mr F lets this dude hang around to inflame and irritate is definitely a puzzle. |
| | | | | | | | Sorry, folks - its my call. Actions elsewhere don't accrue. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/28/2000
n/m |
| | | | | Chew on this Randy... er.... Stanley -- DMA, 12/22/2000
One way for you to convince myself & some others about the
"superiority" of the Windsor engine would be to place your own engine (the mighty 408) into any small, good handling chassis available today. After proper break-in & tuning you do a little test. Start a stopwatch. Accelerate this vehicle as hard as you can to say....100mph. At which point reverse your objective, pile on the binders and stop as quickly as your body will allow considering the G-forces involved. When you come to a complete stop, click the stopwatch as well. Now see how well your # compares to the same test Car & Driver magazine did on a mid '60's Cobra. How I envy the gentlemen on that original ride!!! Their time was 13.8 sec. 13.8 sec to go fr 0-100-0. That time stood for roughly 30 yrs despite some of the worlds best exoticars trying to best it. Do you remember what engine was in that Cobra? I'll give you a hint. Think of the 5th & 6th letters of the alphabet in reverse order plus the #s 2, 4 & 7 (you arrange them). When I see YOUR engine in a car YOU built on the cover of Car & Driver beating the engine that "had a few good years" I will bow down to the janitor/machinist. And to make it truly legit; produce this SAME car in limited #'s and sell it through Ford dealers. AND WARRANTY IT! Merry Christmas Randy ..........Stanley ........
...whoever. |
| | | | | | Nascar -- dj, 12/23/2000
Ford had clearly dominated NASCAR racing in the 60's. By '69 ,the top speeds at the super speedways had reached 200 mph. Neither Firestone nor Goodyear made a tire that would hold up to sustianed speeds of 200mph. All the drivers were scared of the possibility of a tire failure at those kinds of speeds, and through the formation of a drivers union, led by the King Richard Petty, had managed to influence Bill France to address the speed issue. By '70, NASCAR introduced the restrictor plate. In the rule book the big block motors had to run these restrictor plates, however, the small block motors did not. Further more they could save almost 700 lbs. off their race weight by running a smaller motor. By '72, Bud Moore had pioneered the introduction of the small block motor in NASCAR racing. Yes, the small block motors had a tough time competing against the big block motor even their restricted form. The small blocks lost out due to a whole host of engine failures. It was a rough road for the small blocks in those days. The big blocks made more torque even with a restrictor plate. The small blocks were allowed to run unrestricted until '87 when Bill Elliott turned in a top qualifying speed of 210.364 mph at Daytona. In '88 NASCAR re-introduced the restrictor plate to the teams for use on the super speedways. And now this year, the last race at New Hampshire was run with a restrictor plate. I hope this sheds some light on the subject of big block vs small block in the NASCAR competition........dj
p.s. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!!!!!! |
| | | | | RE: FE versus 409 Chevy -- Brian, 12/25/2000
Stanley you are right on the small blocks today, but how many drivers today have done it as consistently as a guy named David Person? a.k.a. The Silverfox Check out his win record with FEs. |
| | | | RE: FE versus 409 Chevy -- P, 12/26/2000
I share your tunnel vision, obviously !
The NASCAR records are pretty hard to argue with. There are two years where Chevrolet did not win a single race. There is at least one year where Chevrolet won one (that's one race folks).
During one of those years Ford won 48 races (1965). Get the picture? How many races did Chevrolet win with their almighty 409? Answer: "not many".
P
All the best, P |
| | | | | RE: FE versus 409 Chevy -- RC Moser, 12/27/2000
I think they (409) had a oiling problem and the heads were CHOKED! |
| | | | | | RE: FE versus 409 Chevy -- Lou, 12/27/2000
The 409s had a lot more than oiling problems. They had the highest DNF rate of any engine ever raced both in NASCAR and drag racing. I drove a new 63 409 they would go like hell but wouldn't stay in one piece. |
| | How's this for MEL power boy's?... -- steiny, 12/28/2000
Mike Steinberg, AA/Gas Super-charged "Lemon Twist"
40' Willys coupe, 430" blown & injected Lincoln engine.
It also ran BB/Altered and held the record in the late sixties for over a year. Best time was 9.42 et. 153.47 mph.
The 430 Lincoln MEL motors were stronger than the FE428 motors. That's a fact! Because of the combustion chamber being in the cylinder and not in the head, this helped valve shrouding. It also allowed the engine to have very large valves. Out of memory, 2-3/8 x 2" ex. as I recall. The ports in the heads were also large. This made the motor a natural for super-charging. The engine was intended to be run at lower rpm. Thats were it developed its best power. Just like the FE428's. I spun mine in the lights to 6200-6500 rpm. That's pushing it with this motor. It had no end stands for the rocker arm shafts, or for that matter, no snap-click parts available. I just drilled the shafts and stands, and went over size on the rocker bolts. I guess I got away with murder right? The 430 Lincolns did not run near so well normally aspirated. That's where the FE's came in...in the right hands, the FE428's & 427's were a terror...with carburators! But the 430 Lincoln could handle super-chargers and even nitro; Ted Cyr, who I knew, and Earl Canavan. To the best of my knowledge, their weren't any FE super-charged nitro or gas motors running back then. I never saw or heard of any!
Mike Steinberg, AA/GS
 |
| Number game -- Neppy, 12/21/2000
Found a long block at Grampa's. I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the details are based on the numbers.
Front of block on driver's side - 85 352
Rear of block on driver's side - 352 57
Driver's side of block toward front - 49 DIF
under the oil filter mount above the oil pan rail - H30?
a number I could barely make out looks like either an E or an F followed by either a 1 or an I
Heads D2TEA A
Rods CE11
I appreciate any help.
Neppy |
| 1966 F-100 Headlights -- Mike, 12/21/2000
The headlights on my 66 F-100 quit working this week, the lamps i checked and are both good, i'm getting power to the park lights but not to the headlights, anyone have idea's on what this could be?
Thanks for any help. mikstwrt@netscape.net |
| | RE: 1966 F-100 Headlights -- gerry, 12/21/2000
Could be three things, Mike. 1) Bad light switch, 2) Bad dimmer switch, 3) Bad relay.
Of course, you should check your wiring with a multi-meter as well to check for opens, shorts, and excessive resistence. |
| | RE: 1966 F-100 Headlights -- bill white, 12/21/2000
I had this problem with a 65 f-100, it was the relay causing it. But I have also seen a bad switch. |
| | RE: 1966 F-100 Headlights -- DMA, 12/22/2000
Some Ford light switches had a built in breaker. Something to consider.... Other than that; start tracing light circuit right fr the battery. Too many things can go wrong w/ old electrics. Best to you!! Doug |
| Spark plugs!!! -- Jason, 12/21/2000
I have a 1967 gt-500 and I need to change the plugs, because they have fouled, but I can't figure out how to change them since the fender-well is way too close for my hands. Can anyone help me with a trick or some advise besides taking the motor out. |
| | RE: Spark plugs!!! -- gerry, 12/21/2000
There is no trick, Jason. You need a 3/8" ratchet, lots of extensions, u-joints, the plug socket, and some bandaids and clean towels to control the bleeding. It is a very tough job and requires some thought as to how those plugs by the shock towers are going to come out, especially if you have the air tubes in the heads. You will have a straight shot at only a couple of the plugs...the remaining plugs require the extensions and at least one u-joint connection. Give yourself a couple of hours and have your wife standing by to call 911 should you need a visit to the emergency room. |
| | RE: Spark plugs!!! -- Dan, 12/21/2000
I have a '67 Mustang w/ a 390 in it and I have found it very helpful to remove the valve covers in order to make it easier to access the plugs. |
| | | RE: Spark plugs!!! -- Derek, 12/22/2000
Just watch out for the sharp edges it exposes on the top of the heads. I slipped and have two nice scars on the top of my hand.
Derek
(From Torino forum) |
| | RE: Spark plugs!!! -- bill white, 12/21/2000
I have to agree, lots of swivels and extensions. On very hard to reach plugs I have used these two tricks, First, often a T-handle with the swivel built in can most times get to it. You can usually find these in the bargain bin at most auto-parts places and as long as you are not reefing on them, they will last. Second, Most spark plug sockets are 3/8 or 1/2 drive, find a 1/4 drive and use 1/4 extensions and U-joints then adapt up to 3/8 at the rachet. Of course you could always use the 57 dodge hemi trick and drill out 1-1/2 inch holes in the fenderwells and take off the front tires to change plugs, easier than removing the engine each time. Oh to re-install plug without crossthreading those rare 427 medium riser heads, use a piece of hose that fits the plug secure, it will bend and allow you to hand start, and it secure enough, to tighten to the point where all you will need is to seat it with a rachet |
| | Re: 428 pi 8v -- S7MS, 12/21/2000
"I have a 1967 gt-500 and I need to change the plugs, because they have fouled, but I can't figure out how to change them since the fender-well is way too close for my hands. Can anyone help me with a trick or some advise besides taking the motor out. "
The easiest way I found was to remove the aluminum rocker covers. Don't forget that a spark plug socket also has a 5/8" hex for use with a box-end wrench.
I remember on the 428 Pontiac Trans-Ams that the easiest way was to drill access holes through the skirts. |
| | Best advice: pay a mechanic $25 and relax. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/21/2000
n/m |
| | RE: Been there done that..... -- Morgan, 12/22/2000
And its a bitch! Hey, how about the number eight cylinder right near the master brake cylinder. I find the hardest part is getting the damn plugs started. When I first got my 67 GT-500 it gave me fits, but I have manged to collect some nice ratchet extensions and I also found that the make a spark plug holder that helps to get the spark plug threaded. I don't remove the valve covers in most cases and now I am able to get it done in less that an hour.
Keep at it, you will get it .....eventually
Morgan |
| | RE: Spark plugs!!! -- Ken M., 12/27/2000
Jason;
The advice you've been getting is pretty much on the mark as far as using a 3/8" ratchet wrench with about 15 inches of extensions and a universal joint at the spark plug socket. I've found that all universal joints aren't created equal. After blowing apart a couple Craftsman universal joints, breaking the spark plugs loose, I noticed the Snap On universal joints were stronger and able to make sharper turns which is what you need to get to some of the plugs. The Snap On universal joint makes the job so much easier to do. Put a little oil or grease on it. This works for me on my '69 CJ Mach-1s. I seriously doubt if you'll find a mechanic to do it for $25. These cars are usually exempt from the $49.95 tune up specials! |
| | | Spark plugs & Magic ratchet -- Greg B, 12/27/2000
SK tools makes a 3/8" drive ratchet part #3870 It has a swivel head unlike any other .
It is my tool of choice for plugs for plugs on my 69 Mustang w/428 motor.No universal joints are needed,I only use a 1 1/2" extention,No valve cover removal needed.It is not a cheap tool but well worth the price |
| block casting # -- bill, 12/21/2000
I have an fe motor with:
2c614 on the block, right side in front of the stater motor. Anyone tell me the cu. In. |
| | Sorry - its just a date code. Look for "C6AE-etc", or similar. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/24/2000
n/m |
| FE 5 speed -- bill white, 12/21/2000
Thanks for the info. My 65 Galaxie is the c4 cruise-a-matic and would love to do the change over to a toploader, I have all the pieces, EXCEPT the toploader itself. Everything I have seen around here has been unreasonable or junk or a combination of both :o). I was wondering what it would take to do the 5 speed as they are available and relatively reasonable. If it will bolt up to an FE bellhousing and the spacing and snout are the same?????? Then there is the mounting points to consider.
Just ruminating,perhaps I will stay in the toploader hunt, but wouldn't a 5 speed sound great being backed up to a healthy FE.
I would appreciate any leads on 65 and/or 66 XL interiors, preferably red!!!!!! But would consider any and all,whole or pieces, esp convertible interiors. |
| | RE: FE 5 speed -- Will, 12/21/2000
There was a thread on one of the other forums about this. You should read it. I was going to post the link, but the messages aren't showing up. Maybe the network54 server is down. :-(
What it boiled down to is this...
1. The Tremec TKO has a toploader bolt pattern, so it'll bolt right up.
2. It has a Chevy-size input shaft, so you'll need to buy a Chevy clutch disc.
3. The input shaft is longer than a toploader (I think 3/8"), so you'll either have to have a machine shop cut the input shaft or buy a spacer made by McLeod. I've even heard of people cutting the pilot bushing, but the best solution is to cut the input shaft. The spacer fits between the tranny and the bellhousing.
4. The TKO II is stronger than the TKO, but not by much. I think the external dimensions are identical. I like the TKO 'cause it has a better 5th gear ratio.
5. The output shaft is the same size as a C-6 (or a big output toploader). I think they come with the driveshaft yoke.
6. There were some discussions about strength. Yes, the Richmond Gear is stronger, but the TKO is strong enough. The TKO regularly lives behind 700 HP engines w/out failures.
7. You may have to custom fab your crossmember.
8. You may have to custom fab your speedometer cable. I think the Tremec uses a GM style gear.
9. The Richmond Gear doesn't come with a shifter, whereas the Tremec does, so you've got to factor that in to the price.
10. That's about all I've got to say about that. |
| | | RE: FE 5 speed -- john preisler, 12/22/2000
the borg warner t5 and tremec transmissions are for 5.0 application, which is to say, small block. if you had a 302, you'd be done already.
You face two problems with the input shaft of the five speed:
1) the input shaft is longer on the 5-speed than a toploader
2) the input shaft is smaller diameter than a toploader for FE would have.
Mcleod sells a spacer plate; mine took several sessions with the dremel to fit properly. that solves problem 1.
If you do indeed have all the clutch bits for FE in a galaxie, bravo. You need to somehow sleeve the big block throwout bearing to fit the smaller shaft of the 5-speed.
If all you have is a pedal setup and a bellhousing, go with the Mcleod hydraulic throwout bearing and eliminate the z-bar and bellcrank altogether.
that solves problem 2 of the input end.
As for the output end, the 5-speed uses a 5.0 speedo driven gear on your stock galaxie 4-speed speedo cable.
Plenty of places sell early mustang trans mounts; perhaps you can use one as a reference and modify your existing trans mount.
I cant remember where I read it, but a c6 xmember from a '66 galaxie might not be a bad starting point.
I cant help you with driveshaft yet as Im not that far in my conversion :)
-john
|
| | | | RE: FE 5 speed -- huttjd, 12/22/2000
as for the drive shaft. there is many tranny and drive line shops that will make you a custom drive shaft for around 300 dollors. just remember dont get cheap when it gets time to have it balanced. trust me. |
|