Skip Navigation Links.
 |  SUPER COBRA JET ENGINE 61k MILEAGE REAR SEAL LEAK -- Bruiser, 06/17/2004
Can anyone tell how big a job it is to fix a rear engine seal leak on a SCJ engine (1969 Mach1 Mustang ) that has only done 61K mileage and car has had little use .the rest of the motor is in fine condition(cylinder head compression etc) and original with only a new timing chain and water pump.
i want to do it properly ; what would it cost approx in labour and parts to fix.
if it is a big job i would rather send it to an engine over haul shop to fix.
i am a newbie on this forum so please bear with me
Regards
bruiser429 |
|  | RE: SUPER COBRA JET ENGINE 61k MILEAGE REAR SEAL LEAK -- giacamo, 06/17/2004
61k on a scj has it ever ben raced, i,t hard to say if your not confidend about changing a rear seal, asin dun this befor nobig deal. i,d find a shop that has done fe rear seals befor.sometimes a rear seal is a bitch even for a experanced mechanic,asin price ?to bad your engin don,t need overhauled that.s wen i like to install a new rear seal. how bad is it leaking some times just runing it a littel will sofen up the seal and it will stop leaking? |
| | RE: SUPER COBRA JET ENGINE 61k MILEAGE REAR SEAL LEAK -- Geoff, 06/19/2004
no biggie.....any more than a simple header leak is with a BB 'stang (I own a built 9R02R)...just remove the hood, disconnect the trans & use your engine lift...pull the motor for anything more than a spark plug change...once it's on the stand, you can work on it quite easily. |
|  | Rear main -- raycfe, 06/19/2004
Can be done in car. pan comes right off. May have to loosen mains to get seal out. Cap seals leak more than the seal itself.....AND intake end seal dry out and leak more than rear mains....check that first... |
 | fe heads -- Gary, 06/16/2004
Could anyone tell me if these are good heads for a 390?Also what year they were built?What engine they were for?(C4AE)_60900
thank you. |
| | RE: fe heads -- McQ, 06/17/2004
They're fine heads for a 390. They were introduced in regular production sometime in late '64. They saw duty on 352/390s through '65. They're the "tall" intake port and they have a decent combustion chamber. They can easily handle CJ/Lo Riser intake/exhaust valves. C4AE-G: Good Heads!
One draw back to some is that these heads do not offer the boss that allows them to be drilled/tapped for unibody exhaust manifolds, i.e., GT(Not good exhaust manifolds) or CJ(Good for exhaust manifolds). |
|  | RE: fe heads -- giacamo, 06/17/2004
good heads i try to mach intake ports to manifold, the small intake ports of the 1965 and up intakes will work but thay work better with a mached pre 65 intake. |
| | | RE: fe heads -- Gary, 06/18/2004
Thanks .These heads are matched to a 1964 four barrel intake(4d1) in my 64 galaxie. What aluminun after market intake works well with these heads?Why dose the engine have 352 #on it if it was a 390?( 06me 352) |
| | | | RE: "352" and intake choice -- McQ, 06/20/2004
First, the 352 cast on the front of the block doesn't mean a lot. That can be found on 390GT/428CJ's, etc. It's just an id thing. I think it has been addressed before but I can't remember the detail. I'm sure though that it has confused many people over the years.
Second, intake choice for your C4AE-G heads. Your original '64 intake will do just fine. The intake outlet ports do match the intake ports fairly well of the C4 heads. I don't know that there's much port matching necessary but it may help.
However, that being said, I do want to offer an opinion or two regarding iron intake choice. The HP/PI aluminum intakes get drug into the discussion too. But here's what I know based on what I've seen. From '66 on the standard FE iron 4V intakes and the aluminum PI, the C7 dual four, all got the smaller exit ports. I think most of the iron 4V intakes from '66 - '68 got the big -S- cast into them. These intakes were common to Fairlanes, Mustangs, Galaxies, etc. Their runners are a little higher in comparison to the '65 and older "flatter" intakes. They're even a little higher than the early aluminum HP intakes. These '66 and later iron 4V and aluminum intakes work very well on all the FE head castings way back to '58. I think Ford Engine engineering found something out about this realtionship of a smaller exit port matched to a larger-taller intake port. I don't know for sure because I've never read anything definitive and I've never done a real "test". But it looks to make sense in relationship to low end torque and a power range up to 5,500 rpms. I just looked at my iron CJ intake and my C7 dual four....both have the same size exit ports as the cast iron C8AE -S- intake. Shouldn't this be a hint to something about power improvement?
So again, I think your original '64 chunk-o-iron will work just fine for your needs based on your description. But if I were to choose an iron intake for a daily driver I would choose an CJ first with a '66-'68 -S- intake second.
Lastly, I would never run an older '65 back intake on C7AE, C8AE, D2T, etc. heads. That mismatch just would not be a good thing. |
| | | | | RE: "352" and intake choice -- giacamo, 06/21/2004
gary the intake i,d use is the pre 65 intake with the larg ports .yes it is flatter then the later intakes, that have the smaller ports, and the heads with the smaller ports, in the early 70,s i worked a murry ford in dubois pa and asked a ford tec rep why ford went to the smaller port styal heads and intakes in late 65. his reply was that large port heads and intakes had 25% fail during inspections after casting.and the smaller port styal head and intake had a 5% fail after casting. i personly thought 25% is a littel much, but this is wat i was told,i feal just mach port size and every thing will be ok,,and from personal experance i normaly can get 500 to 1000 more rpm,s out of the older larg port heads,,,,, |
| | | | | | RE: large port heads -- McQ, 06/21/2004
I agree with giacomo regarding the tall or large intake port heads. I believe they are the way to go for high performance based mostly on that's what Ford engineering did when they designed and cast the C8OE-N 428 Cobra Jet head.
But I will always respectfully disagree with regard to the early intake design vs. the '66 & later design. My firm belief or opinion(and alwasy open to enlightenment) is based on the design of the cast iron Cobra Jet intake manifold. This intake's runner exit ports are identical to the '66 & later -S- intakes.
But I want to close that I agree again with giacomo as far as using your C4AE intake. It'll work great for what you have planned. |
| | | | | | RE: large port heads -- McQ, 06/21/2004
I agree with giacomo regarding the tall or large intake port heads. I believe they are the way to go for high performance based mostly on that's what Ford engineering did when they designed and cast the C8OE-N 428 Cobra Jet head.
But I will always respectfully disagree with regard to the early intake design vs. the '66 & later design. My firm belief or opinion(and alwasy open to enlightenment) is based on the design of the cast iron Cobra Jet intake manifold. This intake's runner exit ports are identical to the '66 & later -S- intakes.
But I want to close that I agree again with giacomo as far as using your C4AE intake. It'll work great for what you have planned. |
| Billet rocker stands, driprails and why now -- salid, 06/16/2004
In my first post I mention that I had found an occassion to install my nearly new (only a year old) rocker stands. Well you might ask, "Why now?" Good question. It is because the motor was beginning to smoke noticably when I let off the gas. So I thought my print-O-Seal intake gaskets might be leaking again. Sometimes they don't seal very well under an alluminum intake (I'm using a PI intake). This is what the gasket looked like on the 6-7 runners. The runners in the head were completely covered in oil. Yeah, you're right, I did rip the gasket getting it off, but you can see how the gasket was cut right were it should be sealing. Now it is true that is may have also been an installation error. I may have over torqued them, or the may have been too loose, or I may have just gotten my intake too close to Print-O-Seal gaskets. I'm going to try the Victor Reinz gaskets. I've heard good things about them.
By the way, you may be thinking the same thing I was when took the intake off. "It looks like either the head face or the intake runner face is not flat." A straight edge says they are.
 |
| | RE: Billet rocker stands, driprails and why now -- giacamo, 06/17/2004
i dont know about over torking them lot,s of time wen thay get over torked by the one more turn club, the intake craks betwean the ports.even on the cast intakes.wat tipe of gaskets are you using...... |
| | | RE: Billet rocker stands, driprails and why now -- salid, 06/17/2004
these were Print-O-Seal gaskets, gi. They weren't over torqued.
Hey, I just noticed the Victor Reinz gaskets block the exhaust cross over. Does that require any mods to the intake? or is that just a cheap way to block the cross over? |
| | | victor rienz gaskets -- 390ranger, 06/18/2004
had same trouble and the victor intake gasket fixed it. gessford machine only place i found them.
goodluck |
| | RE: Billet rocker stands, driprails and why now -- Barry R, 06/18/2004
Flat ain't the issue - - its an angle problem.
Clean the intake and heads off until they're perfect with no residue. Gently lay the intake on the block with a penny in each corner on the "China wall" of the block where the end seals go (to simulate the seal thickness). Use a feeler gauge to measure the distance between the head's intake surface and the intake itself. I'll bet ya a set of Print o Seals that the measurement is much tighter at the lower edge of the port than it is at the top.
This happens because the heads and or block have been machined in the past without trueing the intake surface. Every time the head or block deck get cut, the head's intake surface's get a little closer together, tightening up the included angle. Write down your measurements and taek the intake to a good machine shop where they will fix it in short order. |
| | | RE: Billet rocker stands, driprails and why now -- Tim, 06/18/2004
Carquest also supplies Victor rienz gaskets,, they come in the carqust box, but they are rienz... |
| | | RE: Billet rocker stands, driprails and why now -- salid, 07/01/2004
Hey Barry, you really got me thinking with your post. I tried your measurement method, but I did not get a significant difference. The driver side was 3 thousandths wider on the bottom and the passenger side was 2 thousandths wider on the top. That seems to be a value that could easily be handled by the gasket material. I also think that I was just measuring the difference in the washers I used to lift the intake off the block.
Also, since the FE is 90 degree V8, milling the heads or the block should only change the height to the ports and not the internal angle unless the milled surface was not parrallel to the original surface.
I'm not trying to be a smart alec here. I just do not understand why properly milling the heads or block should have any effect on the internal angle. |
| | | | RE: Billet rocker stands, driprails and why now -- Barry_R, 07/02/2004
That would be true if the intake mounting was exactly 90 degrees to the head surface. Unfortunately thats often not the case.
In addition, consider the intake bolt hole location relative to the end seal. Every milling will move the bolt holes closer to the crankshaft. When you try to put the bolts in, you naturally angle them trying to catch the threads. As they try to "pull straight" they put quite a load on the intake, pulling it into a distorted shape. I've seen bolt bosses on FE intakes cracked from this. |
| Billet rocker stands and hi-po driprail -- salid, 06/16/2004
this is what the "hi-po" drip rail looks like. It is probably a good idea to keep the oil off the top of the head if possible. Ideas, comments?
 |
| | RE: Billet rocker stands and hi-po driprail -- McQ, 06/17/2004
I believe the "hi-po" drip rails you've shown us here are the "early" common drip rails featured on FEs from '58 through........guess time, '64! Now I'm going to go back and look at your rockers/stands once more. |
| | | RE: Billet rocker stands and hi-po driprail -- salid, 06/17/2004
yeah that's what I thought too. These came off a 66 390 2V that I got for the C6AE-R heads. The link below will take you to the DSC site where they are referred to as hi-po items. It does seem like a good idea to keep the oil off the top of the heads, but I haven't yet convinced myself that they will actually do that. Anyone ever use these on purpose? If the were so good, why did ford go to the other type? They certainly couldn't be any more expense to make. http://www.dscmotorsport.com/asp/Products/popup_PartDetails.asp?PartID=162 |
| | RE: Billet rocker stands and hi-po driprail -- giacamo, 06/17/2004
thouse are the early rocker tin i love to use i feal thay promote better oil drain off of the heads .on a hi lift cam most of the time you haf,t to bend the tin a littel to keep the push rods from rubbing.witch is no big deal. |
| Billet rocker stands -- salid, 06/16/2004
first let's get the basic info out of the way. One of us is stupid, and it's not you. OK, I feel better now. Here is the deal, about a year ago I bought a set of billet rocker stands, and already I'm getting around to installing them. A pic of my progress(?) is attached. My problem is I don't remember who I got them from and the instruction are a little weak. What I want to know is, do I pitch the drip rails? Are the stand built to compensate for no drip rails? I found a set of wht some folks call the "hi performance" driprails that drain the oil back into the valley area instead of letting it drail back through the heads. Can I use these under new rocker stands ( yes, some modification would be required, but isn't that what I'm doing now?)?
I know some of you will recognize these stands. Any help wold be appreciated.
More pics in other posts.
 |
| 390 head choice -- edward, 06/16/2004
i have a 390 that currently has c8ae-8 heads and fpa headers in a 1967 caliente.the motor is shot so i bought a used 64 tbird 390 with c4ae-g heads.i plan on installing the 64 short block but i dont believe the c4 heads will fit with my headers-the exhaust ports are too high on the heads.
so if i put the smaller cc c8 heads on my 64 block will i have any problems?
my 64's compression is 10 to 1 factory and will the c8 heads raise it too high for pump gas?
i would rather use the c4's but i can live with either one.
thanks edward |
| | RE: 390 head choice -- Dave, 06/16/2004
Consensus with compression is that "most" FE's run fine with premium 93 octane and 10.5:1 comp. Not sure of the size difference offhand for chambers but should be fine. Check the pistons on head removal, maybe dished on one and flat-top on the other. Good luck. |
| | | RE: 390 head choice -- edward, 06/17/2004
i rebuilt a 67 390 gt motor a few years back and it was a 10.5 to 1 comp. ratio.i put a crane cam in it and it didn't perform quite right.
the engine i want to build now is a 390 with holley street dominator intake, fpa headers, c-6 and 3.00 to 1 axle.
i have decided to use the c8ae-h heads but am not sure of a cam??
i read a lot of posts on this site and i think i may try a comp cams grind being i wasn't happy with a crane max velocity in the past.
well i still have a long way to go .any advice is welcome |
| | | | RE: 390 head choice -- giacamo, 06/17/2004
no problems on the head exchange use the newer type intake to mach the ports. i use comp cams thay preform as advetized, wen all the cam conponets mach,and don,t toss the older heads and intake thear a decend combo for outher projecks. |
| | | | RE: 390 head choice -- giacamo, 06/17/2004
ed 3.00 gears i,d use 3.25,s to give me a littel edge on takeoff 3.00 are a littel hi for my liking. 3.25,s are the hiest i use and only for crose country driving,,,,,, |
| | | | | RE: 390 head choice -- edward, 06/18/2004
i also have a set of used 390 gt valve springs.would i be able to use those with a cam similar to a gt cam?or should i invest in new ones.
it looks like the comp cams 268 is very close to a stock 67 gt cam on the valve lift.
i believe this to be the best choice for my application.
does anyone know how the 268 sounds with headers and duals?i want a cam with some rumble that builds power in low rpms. |
| | | | | | RE: 390 head choice -- giacamo, 06/24/2004
edward the 268 is a good cam choise and sounds good with a set of glass packs i,d buy the cam package with the springs and lifters so youd have a mached set of conponents the 268 has mor lift then the stock gt cam and i feal a new set of springs is a good investment. i also like to use the one pice spring retainers i,v had the two pice stock retainers fail, and new set of molly pushrods i,v sean a lot of stock pushrods bend wen a over then stock spring is used. |
| | | | | giacamo's spelling... -- Dave, 06/18/2004
Hey, giacamo, I love to read your posts, there is always a new way to spell a word. Not putting you down, just like to read them! |
| | | | | | RE: giacamo's spelling... -- edward, 06/19/2004
they do make for interesting reading ,but i wonder if it is more of a rush in typing rather than spelling?
either way thanks for posting responses |
| | | | | | | RE: giacamo's spelling... -- giacamo, 06/21/2004
i,m just a chiald of fonicks............ |
| Headers -- Jacob, 06/15/2004
I bought a pair of Heddman headers that are new but don't know what they fit other than a FE bolt pattern. On the drivers side flange 89180 and under that is 04 02. dose any one know what they fit? thanks |
| | RE: According to Hedman's site: -- Gerry Proctor, 06/17/2004
http://www.hedman.com/
They fit 69-77 Ford 1/2 ton pick ups. |
| late model engine in early model mustang -- Joe, 06/14/2004
i have a 1967 mustang and have been pondering putting in a 1998 cobra engine. the car right now is an auto, but i wouldnt have a problem making the change to a manual. i am curious as to how much work is involved putting in one of those late model engines. i dont have a problem with fabrication, but really have never done anything like this. any information would be much appreciated. |
| | RE: late model engine in early model mustang -- Dale Cecil, 06/15/2004
Joe,
Just check in some of the recent issues of Mustang Monthly, and Mustangs and Fords. I will get you exact issue dates, but that conversion is becoming more popular. I believe the only real issue is the electronics. It depends upon which model the donor is as to some of the computer issues.
Dale
|
| It's Alive!! -- Jacob, 06/13/2004
I started my 352 for the first time I had to pull the heads to lap the valves to regain compression and rebuillt the 4bbl autolte carb. It dosen't sound like much but I bought the car with most of the engine in the trunk. The trans seems to atleast go into drive and rev. I haven't drove it yet I need to find a rad. and gas tank. Any help finding these items? Its a 66 Galaxie.. |
| converting hydraulic block to solids -- cuzncletus, 06/13/2004
I'm trying to convert from a hydraulic cam to solids. For further info, read my post and replies several back. Does anyone have personal experience converting from hydraulic lifters to solids in a hydraulic block? I plugged the oil galley for the lifters as per "the books'" advice. Then somebody else says all you have to do is restrict the oil flow to the heads to increase the amount of oil available below. Any one with personal knowledge on this? |
| | RE: converting hydraulic block to solids -- giacamo, 06/13/2004
i never restrick oil flow to the heads. i feal ford has the proper size oiling pasages for them to begin with.i also use a hv melling pump on my rebilds.pluging the oil to the lifters i feal is ok for solids and i have done this in the past ,the solid lifter blocks wernt even drilled to beginwith, i feal if the bearings and crank and cam bearings are all instaled corect the oiling of the fe is very uniform and restricters are a wast of time.my 2 cents |
| | | RE: converting hydraulic block to solids -- McQ, 06/14/2004
I installed a solid lifter cam to a 428CJ. I also had the restrictors in the heads. That's all I did. I ran that cam for over two years with a rev limit at 6,300 rpms. It worked perfectly. It was the best that CJ ran. I "de-tuned" the CJ a little by installing the Ford Racing one and only FE cam offering. This cam worked very nicely but was limited to a similar max limit as the stock C6OZ-B CJ/GT cam - 5,600 rpms.
I am working a C6ME 391 block for performance use. I am tapping-plugging the hydraulic oiling provision thus allowing me to eliminate oiling the solids if I choose to run a solid cam. But based on my one experience of running a solid cam in a hydraulic FE, I don't think it's absolutely necessary.
As for restricting the oiling to the heads, I will continue to do this. I would personally prefer to keep as much oil on the bottom end as possible. It's my opinion based on some experience and based on the experience of many who have raced FEs for years, that restricting the oil in the heads is beneficial. But note...."opinion", take it for what it's worth.
|
| | | | RE: converting hydraulic block to solids -- Tim, 06/14/2004
I am also running solids, no mods. Just using the shell type lifters... no problems here either. |
| | | | RE: converting hydraulic block to solids -- Chad, 06/14/2004
I purchased a CJ block that was already plugged for a solid cam. Using Edelbrock heads(not that this makes a difference) is it that critical that I restrict oil to the heads. I am just nervous of limiting oil to $1500.00 aluminum heads. Thanks.
|
| | | | RE: converting hydraulic block to solids -- cuzncletus, 06/14/2004
There's obviously a hung jury on the issue of plugging the lifter galley. Here's all I can tell you about restrictors on Edelbrock heads; spinning the oil pump with a speedwrench by hand produces what appears to be plenty of oil, especially for roller rockers. With an HVLP pump the rockers are drenched and dripping in seconds. This is using a Holley .087 jet (sold by the camgrinder as a "restrictor") in the heads. I can only imagine what it would look like at RPM's. |
|