Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Quality of new 390 radiator -- blake fensler, 04/19/2004
I'm thinking of purchasing a new(brand new)radiator for a 68 Mustang with a 390 made by Scott Drake. It's a original style looking 3 core radiator of the 24" variety to fit 68-70 390's or small blocks with extra cooling. Has anyone used one of these, is the quality really good? I know some of those newer type aluminum ones are better but I can't afford them right now, I can get the Scott Drake one for $235 at a Mustang Shop. |
 | Can anybody recommend a good strong U-Joint -- Steve M, 04/19/2004
I put my new edelbrock manifold on my 390 and instantly found a weak link in the drive train. When it hits 2nd gear, clunk!!
It used to be a stock 2v motor and now she has some torque...Is there any brand that you like that is good and strong? Thanks...
|
|  | RE: Can anybody recommend a good strong U-Joint -- Scott Hollenbeck, 04/19/2004
Spicer, though almost any joint that doesn't come equipped with a zerk fitting will be stronger than a comparable one equipped with a fitting. |
| | | RE: Can anybody recommend a good strong U-Joint -- Steve M, 04/19/2004
Thanks. The ones that were on here lasted about a week of me playing around with the new motor.. |
| | | | U-Joint Installation -- Travis Miller, 04/20/2004
While it is true that u-joints without zerk fittings can be stronger, there is a right and wrong way to install the ones with the fittings. Always install the u-joint where the fitting is in compression. If not the u-joint can be split apart at the fitting under power. |
| | | | | Travis, how do I tell if I did it the wrong way? -- Steve M, 04/20/2004
Is there any way I can tell if I installed it wrong? I didnt take any heed to installation of them, I just threw them on the easiest way I could. I didnt use a press either. I heard it does a better job if they are pressed in with one of them C clamp type tool things. |
| | | | | | RE: Travis, how do I tell if I did it the wrong way? -- Travis Miller, 04/21/2004
To put the zerk fitting in compression you need to figure out which way the engine and transmission output shaft is turning. For the front u-joint the trans output shaft is the force and the resistance is the driveshaft. As the trans turns you want the zerk fitting to be squeezed in relation to the driveshaft turning. If installed wrong the zerk fitting has a tendency to be opened up in relation to the driveshaft resistance.
For the rear u-joint the driveshaft is the force and the rearend yoke is the resistance. Again you want the zerk fitting to be squeezed in relation to the rearend yoke. If installed wrong the zerk fitting has a tendency to be opened up in relation to the rearend resistance.
While this may be confusing to explain, when actually looking at the car it is simple to understand by studing the rotation of the parts.
Hopes this helps everyone understand the importance of installing u-joints (with zerk fittings) the correct way.
|
| | | | | |  | I had no idea -- Steve M, 04/23/2004
Thanks for the information. I am going to check them this weekend if it ever stops raining here. I learned something new again!!
Thanks for the explanation.
Steve |
| | | | | | In case an image would help, try this on-line excerpt... -- Mr F, 04/24/2004
Taken from http://dodgeram.org/tech/repair/U_joint/repair.htm:
For maximum u-joint strength, you want the zerk fitting to be under
compression when the driveshaft is turning to drive the vehicle forward. In the
case of this driveshaft, this shaft will rotate clockwise as viewed from the end
and the driveshaft yoke will be pushing against the zerk section of the
cross.
|
| Why so little help on rebuilds and parts ID? -- rhunt, 04/19/2004
I asked a basic rebuild question for a 428. Not any real help materialized. Does it matter here if the engine isn't for a mustang? What way does someone need to word the question to get someone interested enough to help? |
| | Hva e you tried using the search button? -- pop428, 04/19/2004
maybe your question has been asked over a number of times ?
Peter. |
| | What type of 428 / rebuild questions -- Royce P, 04/19/2004
Your 428 is either a service block or a punched out 390. Ford quit building 428's in 1970 for production use. Some replacement engines and marine / irrigation 428's were made using the D2 block you mentioned in the original post.
The Silvolite pistons give different compression depending on the volume of your combustion chamber and how far the engine has been bored. There are few options for cast pistons available off the shelf for a 428 because demand is low. You might have a more ideal piston made by one of the custom piston manufacturers from a forged blank. I have used Ross, JE and Wiseco pistons with great success but there are a half dozen other manufacturers too.
Another option would be a set of used pistons. Companies like DSC, Perogie, Carl's Ford Parts, Precision Oil Pumps and FPP have good usable sets available. This is probably the best option for your application, you can get a high quality forged piston at very low cost in this manner by shopping around. I would not buy a used set from just anyone and they need to be thoroughly cleaned and inspected before use of course.
Royce |
| | | RE: What type of 428 / rebuild questions -- rhunt, 04/19/2004
My 428 is the type you would find in a Galaxie. It is a plain 428 and not a CJ or SCJ.
I am being educated on how hard it is to find 428 pistons. I did figure out from my old post what the pistons in this 428 are now. The number cast into them is B174. The Badger P174 is supposed to replace it. The compression ratio for the P174 piston is supposed to be 10.7:1 with a compression height of 1.667 and a dish depth of .150. What are your thoughts on this piston? The P174 is supposed to give a 10.7:1 compression ratio in a 428 SCJ engine, but with the heads I have (D2TE AA) what should the compression ratio be?
|
| | | | Badger pistons -- Royce P, 04/19/2004
Badger makes the cheapest parts on the market. By this I mean they sell for the lowest possible price. I have no intention of ever being the person to try the cheapest possible part in a rare, expensive engine. So I have no experience to offer on the use of those pistons. They are a cast piston as were all stock 428 pistons.
The CJ and SCJ both used the same heads which have 4 - 8 CC's more chamber volume than the D2TE-A pickup truck castings you have. Because of this the compression would be much higher when using the D2TE-A heads. You would have to measure your chamber volume to know exactly how much compression to expect but I would expect 11 : 1 at least.
Royce |
| | | |  | Compression Ratio -- Martin Micheelsen, 04/19/2004
In regard to desired compression ratio I would think a 10 to 1 would be safe on pump gas, though some on this forum are doing fine with 10.5 to 1. I personally would not go over 10 to 1 to leave a little safety margin. |
| | | | | RE: Badger pistons -- rhunt, 04/22/2004
Does $261 for a set of cast pistons fall into the cheapest category? I can't imagine paying more than that without going to a forged piston.
Paying too much for the same product quality will only make me poorer and not a bit more confident in the product. If a human being had anything to do with the parts in your engine then any of them could break.
The heads (D2TE-AA) on my 428 are listed for use on several FEs including 428s. So there must be some pistons for a 428 with these heads that result in a more reasonable compression ratio closer to 10:1.
I am going to take a piston to the machine shop and have it checked again for specs. I'll post what I find out.
|
| | | RE: What type of 428 / rebuild questions -- rhunt, 04/22/2004
This block has no VIN stamped into it. What could it have been used for when new and not have had any VIN numbers stamped into it?
I know that a service block wouldn't have gotten them. I am assuming that a service block was used to replace a blown engine block, right? |
| Crankshaft ID -- Karl, 04/18/2004
Got used FE last week, I cannot find the crankshaft code in any of my books. This is a "2U" crankshaft. The crankshaft in my 410 is a "1U" Does anyone know what the "2U" crankshaft was originally from?
Thanks |
| | RE: Crankshaft ID -- giacamo, 04/18/2004
390 ford |
| four speed interchange -- Don F, 04/17/2004
OK I know this sounds sacreligious,but I have a 64 galaxie 390/3speed.I also have a Saginaw 4 speed laying around.Does anyone know if the four speed can be used behind the FE?Maybe redrill the bellhousing?I haven't pulled the 3 speed so I have done no measurements yet.Just wondering... |
| | No, it will not work, for several reasons, -- Lou, 04/17/2004
Won't bolt up, clutch will not bolt up, even if you redrill the bell housing no way to center trans on housing, also pilot bearing will not fit, I can go on and on.
|
| | | RE: No, it will not work, for several reasons, -- Don F, 04/18/2004
I knew it would not just bolt in.I figured if the input shaft and collar are the right length then it might work.The pilot bushing and clutch I don't think are a big problem to overcome.I have seen B&B style clutches sold for Fords in the past. The trans should be centered if the input shaft was in the pilot bearing.But, it may be more trouble than its worth. |
| | | | OK, so try it......let us know how you make out. -- Lou, 04/19/2004
n/m |
| | | | | RE: OK, so try it......let us know how you make out. -- Don F, 04/20/2004
Well I took the measurements.It isn't worth the trouble.GM stuff is all too long.I just wish Ford 4 speeds were as cheap to get as these Saginaws are. |
| | | | | | History Lesson -- Travis Miller, 04/21/2004
While this may vary a little from the original subject, GM transmission parts have been used in the past to improve Ford performance.
Back in the days before the top loader Ford trans, Borg Warner was the 4-speed used by both Ford and Chevy. Of course the cases mounted differently so the complete tranny would not interchange. However serious Ford racers soon discovered the Chevy tranny had a better low gear ratio (2.54). They would put the entire B-W Chevy gearset in the Ford B-W case. At the time it was a speed secret known only to a few factory Ford racers.
|
| | | | | | | RE: History Lesson -- Lou, 04/22/2004
Not much of a secret as HotRod did a story on the interchange in 1962. But the real GM set we wanted and used was the 2.20 first gear set. Ford had a 2.32 low, in fact by late 1963 J.C. Whitney offered all the gear set in their catalog. |
| | | | | | | | RE: History Lesson -- Travis Miller, 04/23/2004
While some claimed the 2.20 low gear set was the hot set up, the fast guys were using the 2.54 low gear and keeping it secret. When the top loader came out, a Mustang or Fairlane with a 2.78 low gear trans would run circles around the 2.32 trans. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: History Lesson -- Lou, 04/23/2004
I never raced small blocks or mid-size only FE powered Galaxies. The only small block I had was my HiPo 63 Falcon and that was my main transport. By the time the Fairlanes got interesting my friends and myself were into short track cars mostly Flatheads. |
| right or wrong engine -- will, 04/16/2004
I bought a 67 GTA convertable S code 390. The car has a build date of "K" and the engine says C7AE with build date of "C". The guy said it is the original engine?? Is it? |
| | RE: right or wrong engine -- McQ, 04/17/2004
I think......and that can be dangerous that if what you're indicating by the codes is correct that you may not have a "correct numbers-dated" block. Why it matters I'm not sure but I know it does to some.
The C7AE is okay but I've seen '68 Ford vehicles with C7AE blocks. A -C- build date code would indicate March as the month that the block was cast.
The -K- production date of your car would indicate an October production and that would be 10/66 since your car is a '67. |
| | RE: right or wrong engine -- Phil, 05/06/2004
I hate to say this but, according to your dates given, you have a march 1967 motor but your car was built in october of 1966.. I also have a 67 390 GT convertible (mustang) built in october (K). The engine is a C6 casting number with a build date of (J), a few weeks prior to the chasis build date. Sorry! |
| Comp Cams 280?? -- Scott A. Ekleberry, 04/16/2004
Anyone have any experience with this cam?? I would like to stay hydraulic if I can, but I need vacuum becuase I have power brakes and A/C. Here is what is done to the engine:
390 Ford + .060 over
Forged 10.5:1 pistons (flat tops)
C6AE-R 390 heads with 428 CJ style valves in them (2.19 and 1.60) with Crane #99893-16 springs, locks, and retainers with mild port on exhaust. I am assuming a 68.1 CC chamber volume here but I may be wrong. Heads are fitted with HD stands and shafts and stock adjustable rockers for now (plan to add roller rockers latter on).
Edelbrock Performer RPM intake
engine has been balanced
high volume Melling oil pump with oil mods done to block and windage tray in pan
double roller timing chain
Holley 750 vac. secondary carb.
C6 automatic with 2,000 rpm stall converter
3:50 rear-end gears with new Ford posi-trac unit
1 3/4" tube headers (biggest that will fit with power steering) and dual 2.5" exhaust
Car is 1969 Mach 1 Mustang (original 390 car) with power brakes, A/C, and power steering, I do need vacuum to run the power brakes and the A/C.
I would like power 1500-5500 rpm if possible, don't want to risk blowing the engine up. My worry is this Comp Cam's 280 is not a large enough cam and that the 292 is too big (and no vacuum), any comments on that??
Again, I think hyd. would be better as this is mainly a street car. I am thinking of having a cam custom ground.
Thanks in advance!
Scott
|
| | RE: Comp Cams 280?? -- Barry McLarty, 04/16/2004
I used this cam on advice I received from Royce in this forum,and it should work fine in your application.I have enough vacumn to run power brakes with ease.Lots of mid range power+torque, and it idles good.Very driveable with good seat of the pants feel to it. |
| | | RE: Comp Cams 280?? -- Scott A. Ekleberry, 04/16/2004
Thanks, that is what I am looking for. Any horsepwer figures you can share? I would like to get about 400 HP out of the engine.
The other cam I considered was the Comp Cams 282S solid grind, but driving on the street a lot I am woried about wear to the rockers and constant adjustments.
Scott |
| | RE: Comp Cams 280?? -- Steven E, 02/12/2005
Scott, did you get your roller rockers installed. If so did you have any problems getting the roller rockers to fit under your valve covers? I've been told the tall valve covers won't fit next to the master cylinder. I've also got a 69 Mach 1 FE I'd like to put roller rockers on. |
| | | RE: Comp Cams 280?? -- Scott A. Ekleberry, 02/12/2005
Nope, still running stock adjustable rockers. I would think that tall covers would not clear the mater cylinder if you have power brakes.
Honestly, I don't think I will invest the extra $ in the roller rockers. I use the car mostly for shows, it wasn't even ever to the drag strip last year. I can spend the $ better places on the car for now.
Scott |
| | | | RE: Comp Cams 280?? -- Geoff, 02/13/2005
I have a '69 Mach1 428scj and the stock cast "Cobra Jet" covers (very desireable) would not clear my new Erson rollers. The tall "Cobra LeMans" style cast covers do clear my Ersons and the power brake booster (better than the headers clear the tower reinforcements). The closest point is the vacuum hose adapter on the booster interfering with the back of the cover, but you rotate the barb a fat 180 degrees (may need a longer hose) and it's fine. |
| | | | | RE: Comp Cams 280?? -- rarefords, 02/16/2005
I am planning a very similar build for my 69 Mach. Also a 390. I was considering the 280H as well. My machinist suggested I call Comp and get their reccomendation. I did and they reccomended the XE274H cam. He gave me all the specs on the phone and then I found them in the Sumitt on line catalog. Take a look there and see the specifics. The kit part no. is CCA-K33-248-4. |
| Piston Question -- Al C, 04/15/2004
Hey Guys, I hope you Guys might be able to give me an answer. I picked up some forged alum pistons, allong with some C3AE-C rods attached. The only markings that I have found sofar are- 2217P .030 and an arrow with front inside of it. These are supposed to be 10-1 cr ( they're flattops w/eyebrows ), I'm planning on using them with a D4TE block, and C1AE heads. Any body know what they might be? And if the above combo would give me a decent CR? I'm in the process of scrounging parts for a shortblock to build for my pickup ( 4x4 ). Thanks for any info you may offer, Al |
| | RE: For anyone with too much money and time... -- Chad, 04/15/2004
It is hard for me to believe that the floors are even in good shape. Looks like there is a lot of rust in the cowl area. |
| | | Yeah, the firewall and cowl look . . -- Orin, 04/21/2004
. . . pretty nasty. Sure hope it finds a good home. |
| | RE: For anyone with too much money and time... -- giacamo, 04/15/2004
Parts only |
| | And judging from the . . . -- Orin, 04/21/2004
. . . overspray on both doors (panels missing) it appear the original color was lime green, not red -- check out the colors by the VIN plate. |
| Hooker Headers -- Don, 04/14/2004
Does anyone have experience putting Hooker Headers (on a 427) in a '57 Fairlane or Ranchero? Just wondering if they are going to fit before going through the process. Don |
|