Skip Navigation Links.
 |  FE hydraulic clutch coversion-help -- Mick, 09/29/2004
Building 69 fastback with 428 FE and world class T5 gearbox. Fitted master cylinder with 3/4" bore ex JMC Mustangs San Diego, 3/4" bore slave cylinder (push-type) on bellhousing.
Running Hays Comp Street strip 11" clutch and pressure plate, 3 finger long style. It works but need to be Superman to push pedal, am thinging of hydraulic throwout race.
Any ideas much appreciated.
Thanks Mick |
|  | RE: FE hydraulic clutch coversion-help -- Gerry Proctor, 09/30/2004
Consider the things that change the leverage.
Mechanically, you can alter the pivot point for the master cylinder pushrod by moving the rod close to the pedal fulcrum. This will change the ratio so that by moving the pushrod up you also decrease the length of the stroke. Meaning that you get less pushrod travel for the same pedal movement.
Hydraulic leverage changes are accomplished through piston bore size. A smaller bore will decrease pedal effort. The results are the same as changing mechanical leverage in that using a smaller bore means you need more piston travel for the same fluid displacement. If you have enough pedal travel you can use a smaller bore in either the master or slave cylinder to lower the pedal effort.
But you just may be screwed on this one. A Long pressure plate has a much higher pedal effort than a similar diaphragm pressure plate...the intended application for a hydraulic actuation system. You'd probably be okay if you were in the stock spring range (1800-2200lbs) but you probably picked one of those beefy performance plates well above the 2200lb load.
As to the hydraulic throwout bearing, you'd have to know what the piston apply area is and compare it to the existing slave cylinder to know if it would make a difference. Same thing as above...smaller apply area means lower pedal effort. Honestly, I think you'd be indulging yourself in a fantasy if you think that would make a difference...or, in other words -throwing money down a rat hole.
My opinion? If you're going to use the factory style clutch(Long) then you'd be better off with the factory-style actuation system that includes the pedal assist spring that is weighted for this style clutch. If you want to use a hydraulic system then you'd be in a much better position by using a diaphragm-style clutch.
Now that you have the bad news, I want to wish you good luck on making this work. |
| |  | World Class T5!! -- Dano, 09/30/2004
Are you sure the T5 is going to hold up, they can't hold up behind a well built 5.0!! Unless you have something special, I think the big 428 is going to shred that T5. |
| | RE: FE hydraulic clutch coversion-help -- Mick, 10/04/2004
Gerry,
Thanks for the response, I`m running an almost identical set-up in my 59 Ford with 428 Cobra jet and T-10. I fitted it way back in 1973 when I installed the BW T-10. It has survived the original 332, a mild 390, a super-charged top-oiler 427 ( cracked number 5 & 6 cylinder bores Drag- Racing about 10 years ago) and still working well with the 428.
The 59 uses a Girling 3/4" master cylinder with the Australian Falcon slave cylinder pushing a F100 clutch fork and 11" clutch & long style pressure plate. The 69 Mustang has a 1/2" better fulcrum on the pedal so I guess I better start chasing an early F100 p/p and dump the new Hays plate.
Many Thanks.
Mick.
|
| msd distributor 8595 -- Dan Barham, 09/28/2004
Hi I have a 69 mach with a 390 engine.I recently had installed an msd 8595 distributor in it and I was wondering if I should do more to increase performance or if that was sufficient? Thanks for any feed back or incite. |
| | RE: msd distributor 8595 -- Martin Micheelsen, 09/28/2004
That depends on what you want from the engine. Did you also install the MSD multispark box to go with the new distributor ?
Do you have a regular cam or the GT cam ?
If you already have the GT cam and the engine is in good shape, you can liven it up quite a bit with an Edelbrock performer RPM indtake, FPA headers, Erson roller rockers and a well dialed in aftermarket carburator.
The questions are: What performance/MPGs are you seeking ? And how does your budget, skilles and time match your ambitions ? |
| Another 390 Question -- Chad, 09/27/2004
Did a 1968 Torino 390 GT come with the thermactor? Thanks. |
|  | RE: Another 390 Question -- giacamo, 09/27/2004
yes and no depends on wear it went |
| | All 1968 390GT engines were equipped with Thermactor. [n/m] -- Mr F, 09/28/2004
n/m |
|  | Thanks Mr. F n/m -- Chad, 09/28/2004
n/m |
| | | RE: Thanks Mr. F n/m -- giacamo, 09/28/2004
did the 68 have it i bought a 69 390 gt torino from the first owner witch was my brougher and it did not have the thermactor garbage on it.......was it droped in 69? or was it a op for smog zone cars? |
| | | | No 390GT engines were produced in 1969. -- Royce, 09/28/2004
The last year for the 390GT engine was 1968.
A 390 4V engine was installed in Torinos/ Mustangs etc in 1969 but it had a milder camshaft and a smaller Autolite carburetor which did not require Thermactor in most states.
Royce |
| | | | | RE:The mighty '69 -S- code 390 IP -- McQ, 09/28/2004
IP......Improved Peformance! No further comment necessary. |
| | | | | 69 gt 390? -- giacamo, 09/29/2004
the 1969 torino i owned, had a 390 with the crome valve covers dipstick and oil fill cap stock, and had the gt on the dash and grill and rear crome gt center below the trunk key, and the gt center hub caps stock i allways thought it was a gt 390 with a slightlie lower lift cam then the 66 or 67 390gt it is a s code car i belive it falls in the gt class becouse it is a gt car with a 390 my two cents? |
| | | | | | RE: 69 gt 390? -- McQ, 09/29/2004
You're right about the '69 -S- code having a slightly smaller cam. The '69 -S- code also came with a slightly smaller carburetor as noted by Royce.
You could have a "GT trimmed" Mustang/Torino with a 302-2V! The same "GT trimmed" unibody car could be had with a mighty 428 CJ non ram-air or ram-air, even with a Drag Pack.
The point is not whether the car itself is/was a GT trimmed car, but rather the fact is that the '69 -S- code 390 was not as powerful as the '66-'68 -S- code 390. I had a '69 Mustang Coupe -S- code with C6. As a matter of fact, I still have it but it's too far gone to be restored. It had chrome trim on the 390 too. But it did not have camshaft C6OZ-6250-B, and it did not have a Holley 600 CFM carb. These two items were what made the -S- code '66-'68 a real 390GT. That cam mentioned was the key. It was good enough that the FoMoCo engineers felt it was more than suitable for the 428 Cobra Jet. |
| | | | | | | RE: 69 gt 390? -- giacamo, 09/30/2004
McQ your right about the cams the earlie cams for the gt moter and springs wer a over the counter item at the ford dealership i worked at in the earlie 70's. i've sean many fe,s of all sizes get that cam instaled and work decent........ |
| 390 Intake -- Chad, 09/27/2004
I need confirmation that casting# S C8AE 9425-F is the correct intake for a 1968 390 GT. Any help would be appreciated. |
| | RE: 390 Intake -- giacamo, 09/27/2004
thouse numbers are for a 68 390 428 4 v intake witch could of came on a gt moter.... |
| Balance Numbers? -- Dave, 09/27/2004
I pulled apart a 428 that I purchased that was recently rebuilt. In permanent marker on the balance pads of the connecting rods the following numbers have been written...On #8 and #4 5215 On #7 and #3 5213 On #6and #2 5214, On #5 and #1 5215. As you can see by the pattern the rods on the respective journals have the same number written on them. My machinist said the numbers are to high to represent the weight of the piston rod/combo in grams. Could these numbers be in the correct range to indicate the total of two piston/rod assy's and be the value of the Bob weights that would have been used to balance the engine? Thanks |
| 289 to 390 switch in 67 mustang -- Rex Budde, 09/24/2004
I have all the correct engine mount parts, but I read in the part books that you have to drill a new hole in the shock tower to make the 390 drop in properly, I guess to pivot the mounts out slightly? Can anyone help with instructions on how to do this? |
| | RE: 289 to 390 switch in 67 mustang -- gilles, 09/24/2004
rex! youre lucky 67 only year d'ont need this modification,keep 289 frame mounts,fit right away in.......... |
| Ford XE 351 Motor -- susie, 09/22/2004
What year did they stop making the Ford XE 351 Motor??
thanks
susie |
| | RE: Ford XE 351 Motor -- jake, 09/22/2004
There is no XE 351 that I know of. There are 3 different 351 cubic inch engines made by ford. If you tell us more about the car (year and model of ford) and we may be able to help identify which engine it is. |
| | | RE: Ford XE 351 Motor -- Roy Richards, 07/21/2005
Ford did make an XE 351 motor in both Iron and Alum. I used to have a complete short block which I traded for some stuff. I currently have the parts to put together an all alum. one. The heads I have are not correct for the app. but they are alum.XE heads made by Ford around 1974 ( basically stock heads in Alum.) I have several XE parts. Most XE parts were race parts. The 351 XE motors were a windsor type block with a 351C deck height which required a special manifold for that deck height because these were made around 1967-68 time frame. I have an article that talks about a guy named Lother Moschenbacher in South America that ran one with Gurney Weslake heads.
Roy |
| | Australian Falcon, Fairmont XE 351? -- Barry B, 09/22/2004
Ya got me, have you tried the Ford Forums from down under?
|
| | RE: Ford XE 351 Motor -- russ, 10/07/2004
you would;nt be thinking of a xr7murcury cougar would you? 1974 to 1976 |
| | RE: Ford XE 351 Motor -- Dave, 04/24/2005
All the XE 302 & 351 motors were left overs from the 79-82 XD model run. The last were fitted in XE's in 1983 |
| | RE: Ford XE 351 Motor -- walt, 04/30/2005
the XE means expirimental engine,stayed within the ford test parameters,before being released for use or sales,they were suppossed to be destroyed,after the ford tests,some did slip out though,i seen 6v manifolds and carbs for the 351C,same with the 429,boss ,some how sneak out of ford engineering test facilities,i got a set of 427 tunnel ports,prototypes with XE stamped on them,manifold to match also |
| | | That is not correct in this context... -- Hawkrod, 04/30/2005
as pop428 has already correctly noted, the XE 351 was an Australian designation for a specific package. XE part numbers are not uncommon although some parts are. XE parts are not always destroyed especially if they are teh same as teh final production part as there is no reason to waste the parts. There are many items on some models of Mustangs such as the Boss 429 that should have an XE number as that is what is correct on that vehicle. Early 4 barrel 260's are also often equipped with an XE cast iron 4V intake especially in Falcons. Hawkrod |
| | | | RE: That is not correct in this context... -- walt, 04/30/2005
sorry not familiar with the down under parts,but i had friends at engineering and dyno at dearborn,that were crying about what they had to destroy |
| | | | | Yup, some pretty neat stuff got trashed -- Hawkrod, 04/30/2005
Happened everywhere though. If everything had survived then those rarities that Mr. F thrives on would be worthless! LOL Hawkrod |
| | | | | | xe esp restoration -- rollin, 05/17/2005
I've got an Xe esp clevo and am about to start a resto. Any tips on good places to get parts etc.. Anyone out there with even the smallest of tips would be a help.
Keep them falcons a flyin' |
| | | | | | | | RE: What do you need? I sell obsolete US Ford parts, like... -- joe, 09/15/2005
weatherstripping (doors) for 1979 4door
ford fairmont |
| | | | | | | | | Sorry, Joe - I handle 1960-1973, only. [n/m] -- Mr F, 09/15/2005
n/m |
| | So Susie where are you, No reply?? n/m -- pop428, 05/18/2005
n/m
|
| Major Ignition Improvement...CHEAP! -- John, 09/21/2004
Well....Holy Smokes! What an improvement. After a few years of thinking about it (I always wanted to be a procrastinator, but kept putting it off) I finally spent about $75 and bought a Pertronix solid-state replaceement kit for my dual-point distributor in my 428. Really, I only expected to get better reliability from it, as I was tired keeping the points spotless all the time. BUT, a major improvement in power and smoothness was noted. Whole different driving experience. Best money I ever spent! But then the brain did some sub-concious thinking and finally in a flash, it came to me. That wasn't the only thing I did. Because my distributor hold-down clamp is painted, and because I read recently about how oil film can build up insulating varnish, etc. I also added a ground wire to the distributor body. Easy to do as I connected it with the screw that formerly held the external condensor to the aluminum distributor body. So.....is the Pertronix unit really responsible for my significant ignition improvement,, or is the ground wire helping me make a better ground and subsequently more coil current? Anyway, I dont' care...the engine "barks" at an idle and changes to a super smooth roar as the rpm increases. So, I highly recommend the Pertronix Unit, but for those of you not quite ready to plunk down the $75, try just addding an external ground wire first. Of course the moral to the story is the age old tinkering idiom (is "idiom" really the right word?...maybe "parable" is better)...Never try two things at once when messing around with engines. |
| 4 speed automatic -- Mike, 09/21/2004
4 speed automatic for an FE any suggestion? |
| | RE: 4 speed automatic -- Mark, 09/25/2004
If you'd like detailed info on a bulletproof stock Ford 4 speed OD auto with just about all stock parts and that has the AOD Windsor bellhousing pattern - would work with those adapters - send me your email. Stock or even beefed AOD's will have a hard time with big block torque.
macxx1@excite.com |
| Rear end whine -- Dano, 09/21/2004
My 9" rear end in my 69 Mustang has whined since I had it rebuilt. It has 3:08 gears, with a factory traction loc, using a 9+ nodular case. The guy that I had set it up does a lot of them, he said that it is normal for operation with 420hp like my 390 has. The whine is most noticable at light throttle, and barely audible under acceleration, at pretty much any speed. Is this normal, or is the rearend guy off his rocker? |
| | RE: Rear end whine -- Martin Micheelsen, 09/21/2004
I would say that it is all in how well the ring and pinon are lined up and has nothing to with the amount of HP on tap - unless it cannot hold its setup due to excessive force, but people wouldn't be putting 9" Ford rears on everything else if that was the case. I think he got sloppy and doesn't want to redo his work. |
| | RE: Rear end whine -- giacamo, 09/23/2004
3.08,s should be real quiet, with no wine.are you shure you dont have a axel bearing wining?a loose bearing can mimick a rearend noise. |
| | | RE: Rear end whine -- Dano, 09/25/2004
Giacamo, The axel bearings are still original, I will have them changed and see if that works, since the bearings are 35 years old, I was planning on changing them anyway. Thanks for the info guys. |
|