These are the old FoMoCo Obsolete Forums and are being hosted by JCOConsulting.com.
While you're here, check out my articles or have a look around at some of the
Ford Stuff we have for sale. You might find something you can't live without.
|
|
|
|
Skip Navigation Links.
![Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=24308&Reply=24308><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a> <b>Stories of C6AE-R cylinder heads in action?</b> -- <font color=#0000ff>The Jet, <i>03/16/2005</i></font><br /><blockquote> Yes, I'm a newbie here, so please pardon any redundant questions. Yesterday I ran a search on these heads here and read the relevant posts back to about 2001. I'm accumulating parts to revive my old '68 Mustang, currently a small-block car. This is to be a non-babied recreational vehicle. At first I was considering a CJ or MR or something "exotic", but I think for now I'd like something less glorified that I can hammer without fragging collector parts. <br><br> So, the C6-R's get the nod. I'm looking for results (1/4-mile ET, driving impressions) from anyone here who has built an R-headed engine, including the rest of the combo. Anyone?<br><br>[Title edited for clarity by Admin.] </blockquote>](/WebResource.axd?d=lIhYVYeLZitD6XlgNHhEdxzXSvny5pF7HdC6AYjYYCFot0H-bg_4h3a5xK2soTDmZUI0XnU1ItulJoF_o8uS9u89yKd8j5v_Hnhq70W1n9UfEd1mg4EhRMU1sGvoCwn60&t=637814653746327080) |  Stories of C6AE-R cylinder heads in action? -- The Jet, 03/16/2005
Yes, I'm a newbie here, so please pardon any redundant questions. Yesterday I ran a search on these heads here and read the relevant posts back to about 2001. I'm accumulating parts to revive my old '68 Mustang, currently a small-block car. This is to be a non-babied recreational vehicle. At first I was considering a CJ or MR or something "exotic", but I think for now I'd like something less glorified that I can hammer without fragging collector parts.
So, the C6-R's get the nod. I'm looking for results (1/4-mile ET, driving impressions) from anyone here who has built an R-headed engine, including the rest of the combo. Anyone?
[Title edited for clarity by Admin.] |
|  | RE: Stories of C6AE-R cylinder heads in action? -- The Jet, 03/17/2005
So I come back here to check on this thread and come to find out the title I chose has been "edited for clarity", as if the other people here are too stupid to know what I'm talking about. Is this the m.o. here? Free speech a no-no? I find this very disturbing. |
| |  | RE: Stories of C6AE-R cylinder heads in action? -- Cyclone, 03/17/2005
So, you get a guy in here with more FE's than just about anyone else in here, and that's how he's treated? Access denied? |
|  | RE: Stories of C6AE-R cylinder heads in action? -- walt, 04/17/2005
the c6ae-r head is a big intake port,with the lower exhaust port floor,will not compare to the 428 cj headwich has the higher exhaust port,lager valves,and better/larger port runnerson both sides |
| | RE: Stories of C6AE-R cylinder heads in action? -- walt, 04/24/2005
hey jet you can talk to me any time,any how the c6ae-r head was intro on the 66 352,it had the 428cj/427 low riser intake port,but had the lower exhaust floor of all the big block ford heads,66 and later,exceptions are the 428 cj/68 427,production motors,they also used the stock 390 valves |
| Standard Adjustable Rocker Assemblies -- Rick, 03/16/2005
Hi all. We are almost ready to install the engine in my 67 Mustang. First we need to ssemble the long block. The short block is a 427so and the heads are 428 PI. I bought standard adjustable rocker assemblies and have been told that one of the inner rocker stands should have an extra hole or an oversized hole to match up with the one oversized bolt hole in the heads. The standard rocker stands are squared out and the supplier said they will work fine. I understand that this is how the rockers are oiled. Is he correct? Thanks in advance. |
|  | RE: Almost. -- Gerry Proctor, 03/16/2005
The stands themselves are the same. One stand bolt is, however, different. The bolt for that hole goes into the one that has the oil feed in the head. This allows the oil to feed through the stand and pass into the shaft, which should have the oil holes facing down. Obviously, we're talking one side of the engine. The other side has the same difference since it feeds the same way. |
| | | RE: Almost. -- Rick, 03/16/2005
Thanks very much for the explanation Gerry.
In the set of studs that I have there is one that is longer and slimmer that I now understand is the bolt for the oil passage bolt hole.
Rick |
| | | | RE: Almost. -- Glenn, 03/20/2005
What cam and valve springs are you using? If your running a big lift cam and high spring pressures you might want to upgrade to some better shafts and stands. Just something to think about.....G. |
| | | | | RE: Almost. -- giacamo, 03/20/2005
at least get rid of the alum. stands and go to steal ones and make shure to have jam nuts for the adjusters, |
| 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- Walter, 03/15/2005
I currently own a 68 GT FB 390 C-6 Auto PS PB. Last week I pulled the motor to freshen up the motor as well as the engine compartment and attempt to remedy an annoying exhaust leak. The exhaust manifolds, suposedly, are 428 CJ and the bolt holes on aftermost port on the driver side don't appear to match up. All other bolt holes seem to mate up perfectly.
The numbers on the manifolds are as follows:
Drivers side; C80E9431B GL 11 188
(etched by hand "3009J101")
Passenger side; C80E8430D 1/12/6?
(etched by hand "300913")
Also, on the aftermost port of the passenger side manifold there is a small hole with a screw in it at the bottom. What is this for?
I am leaning toward replacing these with Ford Powertrain headers. They refer to a 14 bolt pattern for GT but I believe my heads only have a 8 bolt pattern. Tomorrow I will recover the numbers and confirm bolt pattern from the heads to ensure I have the proper heads.
A full ground up restoration was performed on this car 12 years ago but is in need a a bit of superficial TLC.
I plan on acquiring chrome waterpump, starter, alternator, waterneck etc prior to reinstalling. Any suggestions as to the best (i.e. most durable chrome products) source for these materials.
Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
|
| | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- Ken, 03/15/2005
The small hole with the screw is probably where the choke stove tube used to come out and connect to the choke on the carburetor. There should be another hole about 3 inches below that one for another tube. |
| | | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- Barry B, 03/15/2005
It does sound like you are running CJ manifolds with 14 bolt GT heads. All the diagonal bolt holes will line up, the only vertical ones used are on the #8 exhaust. Your bottom hole will line up but not the top hole because the GT heads have that bolt hole lower than the CJ heads. |
| | | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- walt, 04/17/2005
DO NOT use the 428 cj exhaust manifold on the 390 gt,the bolt holes line up,but not the exhast port does not,the 390 port is 1/2 inch lower than the 428 cj,i know from experience |
| | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- John Bednorz, 03/15/2005
If your 390 motor still has the original heads it has what is known as the "14-bolt" exhaust pattern. There will be 14 threaded bolt holes on the exhaust side of the heads. Three of the exhaust ports will have four mounting holes (two horizontal and two vertical). The fourth port will have only two vertical holes. There were special exhaust manifolds made for this bolt pattern and they are commonly known as 390GT exhaust manifolds.
Cobra Jet exhaust manifolds were designed for the "16-bolt" pattern on the Cobra Jet heads, where each exhaust port has two horizontal and two vertical bolt holes surrounding it. IIRC Cobra Jet exhaust manifolds will bolt up properly to all the 390GT exhaust ports except for the rear ones.
Passenger car heads only have 8 exhaust holes - 2 vertical holes on each port. You need headers to use these heads in a Mustang.
Before ordering headers you need to ascertain which heads (and which exhaust bolt pattern) you have. |
| | | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- Walter, 03/15/2005
Thanks for the info. I had a closer look this morning and the heads do, in fact, have the 14 bolt hole configuration. This is a numbers matching 68 GT FB w/ Deluxe interior C-6 Auto 9" rear End. Taking this into consideration, I am keeping the big items original but do plan on dressing up the engine compartment (i.e. billit alum or chrome starter, waterpump, alternator, waterneck, brackets, etc). What would be the best option for exhaust taking into consideration the stock nature of this vehicle wrt quality / performance? Currently I am leaning toward the FPA ceramic TRI-Y headers. I understand the stock exhaust manifolds are lacking. Am I correct in assuming the FPA headers will be a marked improvement? Are there any stock exhaust manifolds that have quality performance and will mate up to these 390GT heads?
Also Does anyone know of a manufacturer who produces high quality chrome products or even better Billit Alum products such as starters, waterpumps, alternators, brackets, etc for the FE? I am not looking to radically modify this engine only for cleaner looking products that will mate up to the existing setup.
One more item, I pulled the numbers off the engine this am as well as some numbers off an extra motor I have. Any help in identifying would be greatly appreciated.
-----------------------------------------------
Block:
O6ME-A
27
352
7D18 (located under oil filter)
-----------------------------------------------
Heads: (14 bolt pattern)
C7AE-A
DIF
----------------------------------------------
Intake Manifold:
C7AE
9425-E
-----------------------------------------------
Additional Block:
0Z600256 (Located on Driver side rear part of block where the head bolts on #8 CYL)
62
352
2D13 (Located under oil filter)
------------------------------------------
Additional Heads (8 bolt pattern)
C6AE-R
------------------------------------------
Intake:
(Ford Dual Quad)
C3AE-9425-K
3LC
I also have an Edelbrock Streetmaster 390
I hope I am not asking too much. Thanks again for your continued assistance. |
| | | | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- The Jet, 03/15/2005
The engine you pulled out belongs to a '67 GT. The block was cast in April of '67. Way too early for your car. The heads will have casting dates under the valve covers centered near the valve cover rail. The intake should have a date code, too. 68 heads would be C8AE-H's.The manifolds are definitely CJ's, and are the best flowing FE's that will fit your car aside from R-codes perhaps. A decent machine shop can "move" the holes in your GT heads for a proper fit. They will support flow for a 12-second 428. The "matching numbers" thing, I fear, is going to be a dissapointment. |
| | | | | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- Walter, 03/15/2005
The build date for this vehicle is 9 Jan 68. Very early production. Wouldn't it make sense that 67 engine, heads, etc were used? It has been my understanding that this was common practice. I have owned this vehicle for 23 years and was the 3rd owner. It came into my possession with everything from the original 8 track AM radio to the original crome dress up kit from the factory (i.e. coil, volt reg, valve covers, etc). I still have all this boxed up in my possession. There were no apparent modifications but it needed a bit of TLC. I appreciate the input and I don't like things sugarcoated, considering the above information do you still believe it isn't a numbers matching vehicle?
The numbers on the previous post were all that I could find for each indicated item. I thought the Date code was the C7AE (indicating 1967). What numbers indicated the month cast? Where can I find a directory to decode this info? |
| | | | | | The bad news is you are very mistaken -- hawkrod, 03/15/2005
A car built January 9th is definitely not an early much less "very early" car. A car built in the previous late July 67 or early August 67 would be a very early car and a car built by say mid october 67 may be considered early but your car is well into the model year and at least 75,000 were built before yours and maybe even 100,000. Also, it is a falacy that Ford used up leftover parts as there is no such thing. Ford only built and shipped enough parts to build scheduled cars. In other words, if they planned to build 1000 cars they built and shipped 1000 engines to the final assembly plant from the engine plant. They had a fabulous "Just In Time" system in place and only outside sourced parts and really special production items (like 427 Fairlane exhaust manifolds) will have dates outside of an approximately 30-90 day window. As a prime example of this JIT system, my own 68 GT 390 car was getting assembled the last weeks of February and into March (scheduled 3/4, built 3/12) and the engine was assembled on 3/3 and all of the casting dates are late January up to mid February. My original Holley has a 1st week February date and my smog cannister is dated 2/29 (you knew it was a leap year correct?). My harmonic balancer and distributor are also dated February. Now as far as original goes, the chrome dress up package did not include a coil or a regulator so somebody was into your car at some time and made changes. Hawkrod |
| | | | | | | RE: The bad news is you are very mistaken -- Walter, 03/15/2005
Hawkrod,
Thanks for the input. |
| | | | | | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- The Jet, 03/16/2005
> The build date for this vehicle is 9 Jan 68. Very early production. Wouldn't
> it make sense that 67 engine, heads, etc were used? It has been my understanding
> that this was common practice. I have owned this vehicle for 23 years
> and was the 3rd owner. It came into my possession with everything from
> the original 8 track AM radio to the original crome dress up kit from the
> factory (i.e. coil, volt reg, valve covers, etc). I still have all this
> boxed up in my possession. There were no apparent modifications but it
> needed a bit of TLC. I appreciate the input and I don't like things sugarcoated,
> considering the above information do you still believe it isn't a numbers
> matching vehicle?
Hawkrod gave you the non-sugared answer. The question is whether you really want to go the extra effort in true numbers matching. There are tons of date codes involved in this.
>
> The numbers on the previous post were all that I could find for each indicated
> item. I thought the Date code was the C7AE (indicating 1967). What numbers
> indicated the month cast? Where can I find a directory to decode this
> info?
The 7D18, for example, tells us the part was cast in calendar year 1967 (7), in the month of April (letter D is the fourth letter in the alphabet. It goes A thru M for Jan thru Dec, skipping the letter I) on the 18th day. This scheme works for most of the parts. Some exceptions, but you get the idea. The casting number (C6ME) really only tells you what production year that particular design or revision was implemented. Some parts have casting dates years later than the casting number, if the same part continued use without changes. Look closer on your other parts. The dates are there.
|
| | | | | | | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- Walter, 03/16/2005
The Jet,
Thanks. I've been out of the country for the last 17 years so it has been a bit of a challenge to dig out the old manuals and other publications. Last night I found an old book by Steve Christ that gave a decent account of decoding the numbers.
Regardless of weather its a numbers matching vehicle or not, its what I have and I have always loved the vehicle.
The basic questions still apply wrt quality billit alum or chrome products and where to locate them. As well as the issue wrt the exhaust manifolds or FPA headers. As is to be expected, I seem to get differing opinions from different sources as to what would be best. My biggest concern with the headers if ease of installation (i.e. can you REALLY slide the block with the headers into the eng campartment. Is there a leak issue like many of the old headers (remember my experience is working on these things 20 years ago). If the claims are true, I will probably go with the FPA headers and not deal with drilling and tapping the heasds.
I continue to appreciate the candid input from the Forum participants. |
| | | | | | | | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- Fatblockford, 03/17/2005
I'm using an aluminum Edelbrock waterpump on mine. Looks good & works great. Not cheap though! Mine is not polished, but I believe you can order it that way. |
| | | | | | | | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- zane, 03/18/2005
Well just to let you know the FPA headers are a dream. Such a wonderful exhaust note with them and a huge inprovement over the log flow manifolds. you can get a aluminum bracket from FPA as well for the alternator that is sweat. I would advise the one that drops the alternator to reduce belt slap from hard accelerations |
| | | | | | | | | RE: 390GT using 428 CJ Exhaust Manifolds -- Walter, 03/24/2005
I appreciate all the fine input.
I have ordered the Victor series Edelbrock polished alum waterpump, the FPA headers and alt bracket, the Tuff Stuff 100A Chrome Alt and Chrome Super Torque Starter, 6 1/2 qt finned alum cobra oil pan. Soon I will be ready to slap it all back together.
I guess I'll find another use for the CJ exhaust manifolds. Two more FE's in the shed (390 & 427 crossbolt) maybe the 390. I think I'll use the 427 for bigger and better things. Possibly a cobra kit car.
Thanks again,
Walt |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: CJ exhaust manifolds work great on 390GT heads -- walt, 04/17/2005
check the locations of the bolt holes to the port locations,you will see a 1/2 inch drop between the 428 cj head compared to the 390 gt head |
| | | | | | | | The good news: CJ exhaust manifolds are worth $$$. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/19/2005
n/m |
| Pioneer replacement 428CJ C6 Flexplate ? -- Jack W, 03/13/2005
Anybody running the Pioneer replacement flexplate for the CJ.....Part #Fra-224
Supposed to be OEM correct replacement...
Any thought on this.
Thanks JW |
| cj heads -- tommy walton, 03/13/2005
i have a 66 fairlane gt with a 428cj i got from my dad. i removed the intake to install some new lifters and trashed the intake gaskets. when trying to get new ones i found that the only ones to fit are non cj gaskets from felpro. what is going on. the intake is an edelbrock performer 390. the heads have a exhaust port on them. it is between the first and second intake port and is about half the size of the intake port. these are the numbers i could make out... 3, 1, 9814, c80e, 8090w or m-o6o8 im not sure which way is up or down on the last two. can someone please help me |
| | RE: cj heads -- Jack W, 03/13/2005
Hi Tommy,
1st of all a no 66 Fords came from the factory with a 428 cobra jet engine.This engine was not released until mid 68-April.Unless it's had a transplant??
CJ Head casting #'s are C8OE-6090-N
If the car is an original GT car it may have the 390 GT(Good Stuff) engine in it.Casting #'s on the heads are C8OE-6090-H with 14 hole exhaust bolt pattern.I believe the head gaskets are the same for both GT & CJ & regular 390's & regular 428's.The valley pan baffle is a little tuff to find....
Jack W |
| | | RE: cj heads -- tommy walton, 03/13/2005
yes you are right the car is a 390 gt and when my dad bought it in 1980 it had the 428cj in it bolted to a c-6. although the clutch pedal and linkage for the factory 4 speed are still on the car.. the engine was rebuilt, balanced blueprinted by the kuntz and craft with 10.5:1 forged trws, hydrallic lifters and for some reason adjustable rockers. i was pretty sure bout the motor being a 428 cause i still have the build sheet on it.. oh yeah and im looking at the valley pan right now. thanks any suggestions on timing. accell single point through a 6a with accell super stock coil |
| | | | RE: cj heads -- Jack W, 03/13/2005
If your engine still has the original Autolite dist, in it I'd sure KEEP It there.It's worth a bunch of $$.
What are the casting #'s on it,if you have it?Should be something like C8OF-12127-J.This #is for a 69 CJ with C6.I'm going to replace my points in the Autolite dist with Pertronix Ignitor set up.Very stealthy & close to stock looking.Excellent for good solid Firing.Gonna use a pertronix coil to go with.
JW |
| | | | | RE: cj heads -- tommy walton, 03/13/2005
darn no autolite, its an accell dual point that acts really crappy with both sets installed so i replaced them with one of the single point deals with the capacitor built on. i get major fire now! no problems at all with that anymore. i would like to know how to set the valves. here are some specs off the build sheet. exactly as written on the sheet.
lift int@ cam 3027 @valve533
lift ex@ cam 3027 @valve533
rocker ratio 1.76
duration 216'
4.158 pistons
.030 trw L2303f
any help setting the valves would be great. hydraulic lifters, new ones i installed because the motor bent a pushrod on #1. i think because it sat up for bout two years between cranks. any way the thing has adjustable rockers . thanks |
| | | | | | You need shop manual -- Jack W, 03/13/2005
You'll need a book or some help from your local experts.
JW |
| | | | | | | RE: You need shop manual -- tommy walton, 03/13/2005
haha thanks |
| | | | | | | | RE: You need shop manual -- McQ, 03/14/2005
The reason someone installed the adjustable rockers might be that the hydraulic lifters installed at the time the cam was installed may have been anti pump-up. These generally required the adjustable rockers. It's also possible that the builder/owner wanted the advantage of the 1.76 adj. rockers ratio over the non adjustable.
Adjusting the rockers with hydraulic lifters is fairly easy/straight-forward. Just make sure that you're adjusting a rocker where the cam lobe for that valve is on the base or fully closed. Heres' a technique I learned years ago that doesn't require a shop manual:
Start with #1, turn the 428 over by hand or with remote starter while watching the first valve, which is exhaust. Just as this valve starts to open(when the valve-spring starts to compress), the intake valve will be on the base circle of that lobe. It's time to adjust the intake valve rocker. Now all you have to do is tighten down the adjuster of that intake valve rocker until you've taken up the slack. Just turn the pushrod with your hand as you tighten down the rocker adjuster. Just as the pushrod tightens, stops spinning easily by hand...Stop! Now set your wrench(I use a 3/8" drive socket wrench) at something like high noon and give the adjuster a half a turn, like from noon to half past - 12:30. Make sense? With hydraulics, it's very easy. Just don't over tighten.
Now for that exhaust valve, turn the CJ over until that #1 intake valve just starts to open, when then intake valve spring just starts to compress. Now that exhaust valve is on the base of the exhaust lobe and it's ready for the same adjustment you just did to the intake valve rocker. Just go right down the right bank there, 1-4, jump over to 5-8, doing the same thing and that should do it.
Again, it's simple, just don't go too tight. Once the slack is taken up, a half a wrench turn should do it.
|
| | | | | | | | | RE:'66 390GT heads... -- McQ, 03/14/2005
Oh and Jack, if tommy's '66 390 GT had been an original 390GT, it would have had C6AE-R castings with the exhaust bolt configuration you correctly described. The C8 heads didn't show up until.......1968. I bet you just made a typo there is all. |
| | | | | | | | | | RE:E-brock Perf./CJ heads -- McQ, 03/14/2005
Sorry, I keep reading your original post to be sure I understand.
There should not be any problem finding an intake gasket set for a CJ. The same intake set for a 352-427 works too. Any FE with a standard or low riser head. Just tell the parts man you have a 428CJ and that's it. Fel Pro makes it.....#1246. I keep a set handy just because sometimes I wake up feeling like I need to R & R an FE intake manifold. Keeps me in top shape!
You will see that the E-brock Performer intake ports are much smaller/shorter than the intake ports on you C8OE-N CJ heads. That's no problem. The CJ stock intake had similar short/small ports too. Designed to provide a lot of torque/power up to 5,500 RPM. I was pleased with the all around performance of an E'brock Performer on a CJ many years ago. But if I were to choose today, I'd choose the Performer RPM. Maybe you don't want to spend that money right now but keep your mind open and start saving a little. You'll wake up some morning with that burning desire to change an FE intake. |
| | | | | | | | | | | NO R&R Fe cast intakes -- Jack W, 03/14/2005
THAT Burning desire is Long Gone.20 Years ago I could break 1 loose & set it right off.2005 - My buddy & I had to use a cherry picker to get it off......Geez where did all the time go
LOL JW |
| | | | | | | | | | RE:'66 390GT heads... -- Jack W, 03/14/2005
Oopps !
LOL |
| | | | | | | | | RE: You need shop manual -- tommy walton, 03/14/2005
thanks for the info |
| 390 piston rings -- Dusty, 03/11/2005
i've asked this question once but didn't get an adequate answer so i'm asking again. i have a 390 bored .040. i bought some hastings rings and when i checked the gaps they were .035 the min clearance is .010 oh i even miced my engine with a digital caliper and the bore was 4.090 which is a 390 bored .040. someone please tell me whats going on. its not the first time i've had this problem with rings. past experiances, advice, pointers are all appreciated. thank you |
| | RE: 390 piston rings -- giacamo, 03/12/2005
time for a call to hastings, some rings have a larger than stock gap. like some pistons have a larger than stock piston to bore clearance .035 sounds a littel large to me? |
| | | RE: 390 piston rings -- Dusty, 03/13/2005
hey thanks for actually replying. i've been trying to get a hold of them but it seems like everytime i call they are closed. just have to keep trying. oh and my pistons are stamped .040 same as it was bored. when i checked the gap on the piston to bore clearance i don't remeber what it was but it was just in the minimum space after i honed it so my pistons are a little tight. don't know if that matters or not becuause the ring is, as i'm sure you know, measured against the piston wall. thanks for the reply. |
| | | | RE: 390 piston rings -- John, 03/14/2005
Seems to me Hastings asks for 0.004" of gap clearance per inch of cyl bore....so 0.016" would be good (at least for the top ring...second ring can be more....oil ring doesn't matter too much). Yours are approx twice that. The specs are on the Hasting box or wrapping paper for the ring or somewhere with the ring set paperwork. The ring must be square in the cylinder bore for measuring gap clearance. Down a bit is wise in case the top of the cylinder isn't machined quite right....too dificult to explain in few words. Put the ring in the bore and using a piston, push it down about an inch. Remove piston and use feeler gauge to check. You probably have done all this correctly, so not sure what else there is.... You are sure the rings arn't a stock set, or for 0.030" over vs 0.040" over? I didn't do the math, but it may work out to that....i.e. wrong rings. About the piston to cylinder wall clearance.... A lot of the TRW forgings call for very tight clearances these days...amazing really. TRW usually suggest adding 0.001" of clearance for a performance enigne. If you allowed for this and still think it's tight, keep in mind the piston skirts will deform in slightly after the break-in....adding about another 0.001" of clearance. So take it easy for the the first drive and you should be fine after that...er..once you get the ring situation cleared up, of course. Measuring cylinder to piston clearance is tricky. Machine Shops use a micrometer, but using an inside micrometer, or those telescoping aids that work with an outside micrometer are tricky. You never can be sure if you are measuring across the 'exact" center or not. Feeler gauges work, but as they have to bend across the blade, getting a "feel" for the right guage and clearance takes practise. |
| | | | | RE: 390 piston rings -- Dusty, 03/15/2005
I was finally able to get a hold of hastings today they said that some flaw has occured but just incase they will send me a new set slightly bigger. its not my block that is overbored and yes i did check the gap right. i miced the bore and its exactly 4.090 wich is a 390 .040. they actualy should almost be too small. but from the factory the ring gap should be anywhere from .015 to .022. so i'll see if the "ring king" is gonna work otherwise i'm going to sealed power or something becuase i've heard only good about them. thanks for your help and sorry if i sound moody just a little frustrated. thanks to all for reading and giving your advice. |
| Carb plate -- Ken, 03/11/2005
I used Myk's adjustable carb plate to take my 428CJ out. It worked great! I just used it with the PI aluminum intake to put the engine back on the stand. It worked great again! On the Eastwood adjustable chain sling the chains were too short to reach the head bolt holes. It would probably have worked on the intake bolts but I didn't want to unbolt them.
http://www.myks-tools.com/ |
| | RE: Carb plate -- Big Dave, 03/12/2005
How much for one of those things? Thats a really good idea! |
| | | RE: Carb plate -- Ken, 03/12/2005
It was about $90 and worth every dollar. Did you check out the link to the web site? I thought other FE owners could benefit from this handy tool. I kind of found it by accident looking for engine hoists on line. |
| | Hey everyone, check this out! n/m -- Big Dave, 03/12/2005
n/m |
| Holley Carb ID? -- Big Dave, 03/11/2005
I have a holley carb that I was told it was a 428CJ carb. I am now beginning to doubt that. Anyone have any idea how to ID these things? What numbers am I looking for, and where are they? |
| | | RE: Holley Carb ID? -- Big Dave, 03/12/2005
Thanks. That info definitely rules out cobra jet. I just found out that its actually the factory carb of a 360... a 600cfm carb instead of a 735cfm, which is what I needed. |
| bad 360 -- krafty, 03/10/2005
i got a 76' 360 with 60,000 miles when it warms up it overheats and the oil pressure is really low. have installed new waterpump,thermostat, radiator cap 13psi, flushed radiator numerous times, have installed a new oil pump checked pickup for cracks also have checked timing it is right on. i have also pulled a valve cover off when running cold and hot and barely any oil on top of head. checked rod and mains they are pretty tight yet. does anyone have a clue? |
| | RE: bad 360 -- Big Dave, 03/11/2005
Seeing as how the engine is almost 30 years old with 60k miles, and assuming that its never been rebuilt, it must have had quite a bit of sitting time. Possibly your water passages in the block are clogged with corrosion and pieces of metal. These pieces could be large enough to stay in the block, even through numerous flushings. And if the engine was rebuilt, was the block hot tanked and cleaned? If not, all that corrosion has probably been there all the time.
As for the oil pressure, it could be a number of things. It could be blocked oil passages. If the engine has been rebuilt, replacing hydraulic lifters with solid lifter causes low oil pressure. Could be that oil passages were opened or closed during a rebuild. Could be the viscosity of the oil is too thin.
Maybe you should rebuild? |
| | RE: bad 360 -- giacamo, 03/11/2005
no oil at the heads, maybe a oil galliey plug came out? on the over heating, may be the head gaskets are roted out, and the frount passage that should be blocked by the gasket has opened up and letting coolant pass infrount of the block insted of leting it go through the head to the back of the block to cool the moter? |
|
|
|
|