Skip Navigation Links.
 |  how big is too big? -- Neil, 05/26/2006
I have an 1988 mustang, but its just the frame and body. I am looking to build a mustang that can smoke the new z06. what is the biggest engine I could fit under the hood with huge mods? I was thinkin a 429 Cobra jet? will it fit? |
 | 65 Mustang 289 intake manifold -- Dave Surry, 05/24/2006
My car has a Ford 2 barrel carburettor on a Standard Intake manifold. 2 questions,It has 2 quite large ports on a sloping casting to the rear of the carb which has a blanking plate(home-made) fitted to it, what was that used for? and at the rear drivers side is a vacuum outlet with a straight neck.Is this where the pcv valve pipework connects to ? My car was in a salvage yard so many parts were missing,I'm just trying to figure out where everything goes!! Thanks Dave |
|  | RE: 65 Mustang 289 intake manifold -- raycfe, 05/24/2006
Double links, sometimes I ammaze myself. Dave you are in the fe forum and would get more answers in the "main" forumn. Go up to address bar and just change the fe to main. Hope this helps. If you repost on the main I can repost these prints.
|
| 351W identification -- Steve, 05/23/2006
How do I identify the year of my 351W? Purchased my 1953 Ford Effie with a 351W and C4 tranny, but have no idea what year they are. ? |
|  | RE: 351W identification -- glennz, 05/23/2006
by the starter on the block willbe the casting numbers
letter-number-letter-letter
ex C9AE
C is for decade ( 60's ) number is year
so C9 =1969
D would be the 70's
so D4 would be 1974
glennz |
| exhaust manifolds -- vin, 05/22/2006
does anyone know what these casting numbers mean c3oe-9431 c 4ze-9430- a are they hipo ? what engine would they fit, what year thanks |
| | Re: Manifolds -- bobduff, 05/23/2006
Manifolds are 1965-66 Mustang 289 K code (before 12-15-66) |
| 2x4 on 390? -- gilles, 05/21/2006
here's my spec
390,270hcam,fpa headers now want blue thunder 2x4 mediun rise intake,bj bk carbs will be fine or any others idea?? |
| | RE: 2x4 on 390? -- walt, 05/21/2006
2x4 are a bit too much,427 428 390 included,lots of maintenance there,running a single 4v is more cost,effective maintenace less system,and deliverers about the same power |
|  | RE: 2x4 on 390? -- McQ, 05/24/2006
Gotta agree with Walt that two 4's on a 390 especially with a mild 270H cam is just not wise. It'll look cool. Dual 4's always look good but I think in your case it'd be a mismatch, too much fuel for such a low rpm engine.
Now if you want to build a 390 that can use a dual 4 induction system, that'd be great. You'll need to plan for 10.5:1 up compression, a solid lifter cam with something above 230 degrees @ .050, headers, stick shift, 4.11's....and a lot of other good stuff that'll give ya lots a go with a whopping 10 mpg.
That's what I was thinkin'. |
| | | RE: 2x4 on 390? -- walt, 05/26/2006
10 mpg,kind of pushing it,aren't we?,and i had some 652 center squiters,and no power valve provision in the metering blocks,on my 2x4 single plane 427 tp,i was luckey if i got 5 mpg,but it ran hard,to the next fuel stop.,good thing premium leaded was 35 cent's a gallon then,the carbs 4224 holley squirters,and all they knew was rich and how to load up the plugs,and deliver power in the broad rpm spectrum,5000 rpm plus,and a set of plugs after a night of cruising,run headers a good cam,depending on your rear gear,valve trian capabilities,weight of car,and i think the big block responds with more lift,shorter duration cams,and the smaller ported,valve engine could use a slightly more duration cams,small ports protected the tourque curve at lower speeds,that what i feel,but there are other trains of thought in cams and valve train,wich are valid and need to be looked at,remember how do want to use this car? |
| | | | RE: street....... -- gilles, 05/28/2006
this for a shelby clone! dual quad set up is for the look only!what do you think 390cfm or 450cfm?? |
| | | | | RE: Dual 4V's on an FE? -- McQ, 05/28/2006
It can be done and a small CFM dual four set-up should work for the street. But, and here's where someone else is going to have to jump in with help.....the coordination, synchronization, fuel atomization, etc., etc. of making two Holley non dual 4V carbs work in a dual 4 configuration. It has been discussed here before. It's not a matter of just bolting on a couple out-of-the-box 300-400 CFM carbs. There are vacuum diaphram tops available but there's more to it than that. I think.
I'd like to know too because I have a nice original C7ZX intake and a couple of nice 540 Holleys that individually were original '60 HP352 carbs. I've often dreamed that maybe these two carbs would work well together on the old '67 GT500 intake.
So lets hope the FE dual 4V experienced heads will jump in and help us both. |
| | | | | RE: street....... -- walt, 05/29/2006
ok make sure that you modity your vacuum seondaries,with the top cover that has the tube on them to balance the secondaries,600's should be ok,i hear them 390 cfm,are reverse vacuum signal?,i never worked with them,,i always seemed to find them on them small cheveies,so i found no intrest in them,6.5 power valve should be ok,and try not to jet it to lean,play;s havoc,with the pistons and exhaust valves,should boogie and look good,and some milage,good luck |
| pushrods -- joe cass, 05/20/2006
I have a 390 big block with stock rocker arms and hyd cam and hyd lifters what type of pushrods should i use. The solid ones or the ones with the hole through the rod. Please help if you can. |
| | Use the factory pushrods. -- Gerry Proctor, 05/22/2006
FEs oil through a passage in the deck, through the cylinder head, and into the rocker shaft pedestal. They do not oil through the pushrod like many engines and would use a pushrod with no holes.
It doesn't appear that you have any reason to deviate from the factory pushrods, which are tubes with balls on each end with no hole. |
| | | RE: Use the factory pushrods. -- joe cass, 05/22/2006
Thank you, so I can use the solid pushrods, hyd cam, hyd lifters and non adjustable rocker arms. right? I just want to be sure before I crank it, Thanks |
| | | | That's right. n/m -- Gerry Proctor, 05/23/2006
x |
| | | | | RE: That's right. n/m -- j cass, 05/24/2006
Gerry, I really hate to bother you. But someone else said I had to switch rocker arms to a adj ones. Are they just trying to get me to buy rocker arms or do I need to switch from non - adj arms? Is there a difference on two which will affect my engine performance? |
| | | | | | A difference? Yes, but it depends. -- Gerry Proctor, 05/25/2006
You would need adjustable rockers (and companion pushrods) if you were running a solid lifter cam. You might (heavy emphasis on the "might") need them for some hydraulic cams too.
You must use an adjustable setup if you are using anti pump-up lifters. The reason for this is that in order for anti pump-up lifter to function properly, preload is usually limited to .020", which is not achievable with a non-adjustable setup. On a standard lifter, the recommended preload range is .060-.080 which is done with a non-adjustable valvetrain.
It also might be necessary, or at least beneficial, to run an adjustable valvetrain with some high-lift, long-duration hydraulic cams. As you get over .550" lift, some cam grinders recommend an adjustable valvetrain. This isn't a carved in stone rule.
If you run adjustable rockers, you also have to run companion pushrods. Pushrods for adjustable FE rockers use a ball and cup design, while non-adjustable rockers use a ball and ball design. There is also an inconsequential rocker ratio difference between the two (1.73 to 1.76) but that ratio difference is a red herring, should it come up.
Regarding a performance difference...if your cam grinder or lifter manufacturer didn't specificially caution that you need an adjustable valvetrain, then you have nothing to gain by converting.
I am using an adjustable setup on my 390, but that's only because I'm using anti-pump-up lifters.
If someone is telling you that you do need an adjustable setup, ask them for justification and see if it coincides with fact. I have no idea why someone is telling you that you do and don't know what their motivation would be for doing so. The only valid reasons are running a solid cam for lash adjustment, or that you can not achieve proper hydraulic lifter preload. |
| | | | | | | RE: A difference? Yes, but it depends. -- walt, 05/25/2006
i have run both systems with the same cam,didn't notice much dif in the 1.73.to 1.76.ratio,but i was able to cover valve train variables with the adjustables,and to (fool) the cam,run the intakes a little tighter,exhaust a little looser,there fore you advance your cam,delay the exhaust side,,hard on the valve train though,but your timimig is over a larger area,makes some horses,and match the dist to fit curve |
| | | | | | | | That only works with a solid cam, Walt. -- Gerry Proctor, 05/25/2006
You may have perceived a difference but I can assure you that with hydraulic lifters, there is no change in either lift or duration by going either loose or tight on the preload. If there were then the hydraulic plunger wasn't doing its job. Some people do preload hydraulics on the loose side, which they claim makes them less sensitive to pump up, but I'd just as soon use an anti-pump up lifter that was designed to meter the oil flow to keep them from pumping up. I've never seen any proof that loose preload on a standard hydraulic does delay pump up. But I don't quible with those who like to run loose preload whether it works or not.
And if it did work that way with hydraulics (again, it does with solids), running tighter lash on the intake has the same, or nearly the same effect as retarding the cam. That being the intake closes later, not earlier as it would in advancing it. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: That only works with a solid cam, Walt. -- walt, 05/25/2006
i was reffering to the anti pump ups,and who gave me this info to apply was vermeersch,and the late captian cobra jet,carl holbrook,run them till they rattled,and give them a crank,just to quiet them,and true with the slid cams,but forget them variable duration noisey types,they are always noisey |
| | | | RE: Use the factory pushrods. -- walt, 05/25/2006
also no oil in the push rod,makes it lighter |
| | | | | RE: Use the factory pushrods. -- j cass, 05/25/2006
I really appeciate your guys input alot. I have been bashing my head trying to figure this out and get this Mach 1 running. I have the comp cam 270h with hydr lifters, solid pushrods(balll ends) non Adj rocker arms. I am not sure if the hydr lifters are pump up or what they just came with the cam new from comp in a kit. Bottom line all of this will work together for a daily driver? When it comes to all the lifters,pushrod questions its all greek to me. Thank you guys alot from one ford fan to another. If you guys say it will work set up that way I am definaely going with your opinions. |
| speakers -- cheech, 05/19/2006
does any one know what size speakers fit the raer parcel shelf of a 69 notch back without cutting the metal portion
|
| | Haven't seen that area, in awhile. Is it a big, centered opening? [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/20/2006
n/m |
| FE Newbie Looking for suggestions---Intake -- Karl, 05/18/2006
I've got a '63.5 Galaxie fastback, ReBuilt 352 2V, Auto Trans (CruisoMatic), Single exhaust. C8AE-H heads. Edelbrock waterpump. pretty tame and stock for now.
I'm looking to get this beast moving a bit better, and I was going to start with a 4BBl intake and carb. I'm looking at the Blue Thunder MR 4V for this application. I'll also be adding a 600CFM carb.
My question is is this going to end up being too much intake for a 352? I was looking at the BT for it's supposed good match to the C8ae heads and the period correct look. This is going to be a streetable car, that I want to take out for an occasional run down the 1/4.
Future plans are for a Cam swap, shorty headers, and dual exhaust. Fuel system upgrade. Got a new fuel sender on the way from Crites with the 3/8 outlet. Will be upsizing to 3/8 from fron to rear, and I am going to upgrade the fuel pump as well.
Another question. Those of you who have swapped from 2V to 4V, what was a bugger about the throttle linkage swap. Should I go cable activated, or find a donor for the stock linkage?
As always thanks for the help
Karl
|
| | Too Much Intake -- Big Dave, 05/18/2006
Yes, Karl, it's too much intake. The cam is only designed for a 2bbl carb, not a 4bbl. Not to mention the intake is designed for a power range that your engine is not designed for. Unless you are planning to swap all those parts at the same time as the intake, you will only need something like an Edelbrock Performer. You are going to need a higher performing cam/head combo to match the intake. |
| | | RE: Too Much Intake -- Karl, 05/18/2006
Hey Big Dave,
Thanks for the info. That's pretty much what I thought too. I figured I would need to make all those changes at the same time to not end up going backwards. Sometimes It's good to ask though.
I think for now I'll find a nice performer or some suggested a Streetmaster.
I'm trying to keep the puke tank and oil filler in the intake though, Guess you gotta compromise!
Thanks again
Karl |
| | | The Performer is no good. -- Royce P, 05/20/2006
Recent dyno tests showed the Edelbrock Performer was down approximately 70 HP compared to a Performer RPM or a Blue Thunder. Surprisingly it was also down on torque at any RPM compared to either of the more modern dual plane manifolds.
The Blue Thunder is not a radical intake. It will work fine on a mild engine even with a stock 2V cam. The engine being tested was a mild 428. The Blue Thunder produced tons of low end and mid range torque. It would be a good choice for your 352 with a 600 CFM Holley or Edelbrock carb.
Royce |
| | | | RE: The Performer is no good. -- Karl, 05/21/2006
Thanks for the Info Royce. The Dyno tests that you referred to, was that the ones that Jay was doing? If so I need to go back and take another look.
I;ve heard good thigs about the BT intake, but I was concerned that it might be a step backwards with my current combo.
Plans are to upgrade the cam and put headers on with duals. I just don't want to put a lot of $$ in and only kill the thing at the top end.
What is your opinion of the edelbrock carbs? I've read that they are a pain to tune. I've read enough to stay away from Demon, unless I want to rebuild before I do th initial install.
Thanks again for the help
Karl |
| | | | | RE: The Performer is no good. -- walt, 05/21/2006
i always felt by performance responce,the ford hiper manifolds worked excellent,never was happy with the edelbrocks or wiend,not familiar with the blue thuder or the dove,but from what info i get,they work good,as the old old ford tooling worked,spend your money wisley,maybe pay more,but the numbers are there to reflect the cost of performance,and the smile on the face |
| | | | RE: The Performer is no good. -- Steven E, 05/21/2006
Royce, can you post those dyno test results or tell me here I can find them? I did an identical swap and I've been curious what change in hp there is....and there is some!! |
| | RE: FE Newbie Looking for suggestions---Intake -- giacamo, 05/20/2006
Karl the 1968 styal heads you have problie dont port mach the old oil tube tipe intake worth a dam.thear not pre 65 heads you have listed, if you do get a intake make shure it maches the heads. thouse heads will proublie nead the later styal intake with out the oil tube.on your 352 things i,d do on a buget and have worked out for me are headers and good dules help alot,i,d pull the intake and just find one that maches stock 4v with a 600 cfm carb.one problem with using the newer tipe intake is the t stat housing with the tank fitting you haft to make some plates to reduce it to get a t stat to work becouse thay have a diferent size t stat, and change the valve covers to the newer styal.install a gt cam or a comp 265 h with springs something around 500 lift i,d not go crazy on the cam,i,d also think of some gears maybe 3,50,s or 3.25,s in the rear anouther sugestion is to toss all of the top end and find a top end of a pre 65, heads and 4v intake so every thing maches might be your best bet,the pre 65 parts have biger ports even the 2v intakes have biger ports than the later 4v intakes and heads. |
| | | RE: FE Newbie Looking for suggestions---Intake -- Karl, 05/21/2006
Thanks for the info Giacamo. I figured that the poor port match might be one reason for a rather sluggish response that I see now. That and the car is under carbureted. Both things I will correct soon.
The C8ae-H heads were swapped by the previous owner when the motor was rebuilt. The stock 2V manifold was left on the motor. The original carb was replaced with a used 2v holley replacement carb, that just seems like too small of a carb. The engine seems to be just begging for more fuel.
I have what I have for now. Changes are next on the list. Just don't want to go backwards!!
Thanks
Karl
|
| | | | RE: FE Newbie Looking for suggestions---Intake -- walt, 05/21/2006
also make sure of the exhaust port location,the bolt holes match but not the port location to the header,or manifold,on MANY applications,be careful,i found out the hard way on both intake and exhaust,specialy the exhaust side,i made up an instant DOGmotor,till i found out what was wrong,then the engine bolted when i corrected the problem |
| | | | RE: FE Newbie Looking for suggestions---Intake -- walt, 05/21/2006
opps fogot to sat,them c8ae-h heads were stock for 390,2 v/4v ,same,also used till they came out with the d- te head,same head,diff number,i know i got one c8 on one side of my truck,d4te on the other side,the original d-4 cracked,they are identical,ports,valves ;chambers,bolt locations, |
| 427 intake -- Chuck, 05/16/2006
Numbers on intake C6AE9424/J is this a 427 sidewinder Thanks Chuck |
| | Yes N/M -- Royce, 05/16/2006
|
| | RE: 427 intake -- bobduff, 05/17/2006
The C6AE-9425-C,J,K,M and the C7AE-9425-C,K (casting numbers) were all Sidewinders. Strangely enough, the C7AE-9425-C, (part number C6AZ-9424-M) is shown in the Ford MPC as the factory intake for the 67 427 Fairlane?? |
| | | Right -- Royce P, 05/17/2006
The intake on '67 Fairlane W codes is not a sidewinder. The Fairlane used the intake with C7AE 9425-F casting number, commonly called a "PI" intake.
The sidewinder was over the counter only. Never installed as factory equipment on anything.
Royce |
| | | RE: 427 intake -- bobduff, 05/17/2006
Thanks for the clarification, Royce, .. I suspected the MPC was incorrect! |
| | | | The MPC is correct -- Royce, 05/18/2006
The MPC is giving a part number - not a casting ID number.
Royce |
| | | | Sorry, but what's wrong is your reading of it & the suspicion. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/18/2006
n/m |
| | | | | RE: Disagree -- bobduff, 05/19/2006
The MPC shows part #C6AZ-9424-M as the 4V intake for the 67 427 Fairlane. Numerous other references including the Ford Autolite HP catalog clearly associate that part number with casting #C7AE-9425-C, which is a Sidewinder. The P.I. Intake casting #C7AE-9425-F (straight line) is part #C6AZ-9424-H which the MPC shows as the 4V intake for the 68 (hydraulic) 427. |
| | | | | | There are no Sidewinders with that part number. -- Royce, 05/19/2006
Better come up with a new theory. I have mine. Do what ever you think is best but in my opinion the side winders are strictly over the counter. Ford convinced NHRA to allow them as retrofits.
Royce |
| | | | | | | Oops meant no Sidewinders with that Casting ID n/m -- Royce, 05/19/2006
N/m |
| | | | | | | | My Sidewinder has that Casting number -- bobduff, 05/19/2006
The Sidewinder I have here on my bench is casting number C7AE-9425-C. I don't really believe these came from the factory on the 67 4V 427 Fairlane, ... I just find it odd that the MPC indicates that it did. |
| | | | | | | | | MPC indicates no such thing...hence my previous remarks. [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/20/2006
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | MPC isn't designed to indicate what's 'original', in that sense. [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/20/2006
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | Its a common misconception, as MPC's easy to misinterpret. [n/m] -- Mr F, 05/20/2006
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | I don't believe the casting # is for a Sidewinder -- Royce, 05/20/2006
Can you post a picture of the intake? I have owned a number of Sidewinders, never any with that casting ID.
The MPC lists many of the over the counter intakes (and other parts) and gives hints as to what they might fit. This doesn't mean the part ever came on a car from the factory.
Royce |
| | | | | | | | | | Sidewinder Photos, .. How do I attach them?? -- bobduff, 05/20/2006
Took three good photos of my Sidewinder, but can't figure out how to attach them to this message? Please clue me in here!.
Re the MPC, Thanks Royce and Mr F for pointing out this misconception. It will clear up some confusion relating to what is correct for a restoration. |
| | | | | | | | | | C7AE-C is a Sidewinder n/m -- Barry B, 05/24/2006
n/m |
| | | | | | | RE: There are no Sidewinders with that part number. -- walt, 05/25/2006
had both sde winders,one with the cobra logo,one plain(still in the original box) |
| | | | | | | | RE: There are no Sidewinders with that part number. -- walt, 05/25/2006
the cobra logo manifol was stolen at the machine shop,when it was being repaired,bolt holes,cracked dist bolt hole,and warped,i hope the guy who stole it has one hell o a headache,trying to figure out whats wrong,and ps,was milled for 20 under heads |
| | | | | | | | C7AE-9425-C is the casting number -- bobduff, 05/27/2006
I have this sidewinder here on my bench, .. will send a photo if anyone is interested. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: C7AE-9425-C is the casting number -- walt, 05/27/2006
welcome to the ford what the heck part or engineering number,confusing,as some cars that were made,but no record,but that's the mystique |
| rear end axle -- Larry, 05/15/2006
i was wondering how to tell what axle i have in my 73 mach 1 mustang i was told 9 inch but how to tell for sure |
| | RE: rear end axle -- Rons66GT, 05/16/2006
Mr F is correct, the tag will tell the story. However if it's a 302 car it will have originally been an 8" axle. If it's a 351 it will have originally been a 9". |
| | | RE: rear end axle -- glennz, 05/17/2006
look at the 2 bottom nuts on the carrier,
if you can get them off with a socket, it is a 8 ",
if you have to use a wrench to get bottom to nuts off it is a 9"
glenn z |
| | | | RE: rear end axle -- walt, 05/17/2006
from what info i got,all 351's had the niner,my 72 mach has 350 trac lock 31 spline axles(n)case housing,stock,not an optoin,in machs,cjs' or bosses,as far as i know |
|