Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Block ID help -- Bill Howell, 04/11/2004
Can anyone ID the following FE block. It has a date code of 2E31 and a V beside it.
Thanks |
 | Questions about a 352 block -- Jacob, 04/11/2004
I am new to the FE world. I bought a '66 Galaxie 2 door with a 352 4 barrel on a wim just because it was in good shape.I asked the man I got it from what it would take to make it run in the 13's he said a 428 and that he had one to sell. I bought it to and it ended up being a 390 thow I don't see any casting numbers I messured bore and stroke. the heads have C4AE and the intake hase C4ME casted on them. My plans where to sell the Galaxie to finance my '66 Mustang I thought about putting the 390 in it but afterreading what you had to say I think I find something else to put it maybe keep the Galaxie. I'm caught up in the FE craze and what one. Heres my question my 390 is bored 30 over and two cyc look like they need to be bored again I read a lot about wall thickness and was woundering if I could use a 360 block and use my crank heads and intake the 360 is a 1975 truck engine I also need some input on the heads on the 352 cast# C6AE R I also have shorty headers cast# C1AE ?? that came on 390 Can I mix and match to build a 13 sec Galaxie thanks for the help I'm glad I found this site Thanks again |
| Can you put a 390 in a '66 Mustang? -- Jacob, 04/11/2004
I have a '66 Mustang that came with a 289.I also have a '64 390 w/ a C6. I saw that '67 this was a option. I mesured the engine and the distance between the shock towers it dosen't seem like it would work. What is the differance between the cars?? |
| | '67 Mustangs are bigger. It won't fit. -- Royce, 04/11/2004
|
|  | You can cram (literally) a 390 in there, but I wouldn't. [n/m] -- Mr F, 04/13/2004
n/m |
| intake -- kballerstein, 04/10/2004
What is the best intake for a 390. I dont care if it is a Edlebrock or Ford. I am jsut curious what everyones opinion is. I am using my 390 in my truck, which I take to the strip and want a substanial amount of power. Has any one used the stealth intake. Kurt |
| engine swapping -- Dale Cecil, 04/08/2004
Hello all,
I have been on this board but it's been a while. I am restoring a 68 Mustang GT 390 coupe w/4sp transmission. I noticed an engine knock and pulled the engine. The engine in the car is a 64 390 hipo block, which I don't necessarily have a problem with, except it doesn't mount the same way a correct engine would. It has these custom solid mounts and I would like to go back to an original setup.
My question is this. If I can't find a 390 out of a 67 or 68 Mustang, can I use one from a Galaxie/Fairlane/Thunderbird/LTD/Montego etc?. Would those have the correct mounting system or be adaptable to my car?
Thanks for your input, folks.
Dale |
| | RE: engine swapping -- Paul, 04/08/2004
`64 and earlier blocks only had the two motor mount bosses, like the one you have.
`65 and on they all had the 4 motor mount bosses, so you are safe with any servicable/rebuildable block from `65 on.
|
| Headers -- Chad, 04/08/2004
Are the Hooker Super Comps the same for a 1968 Torino with a 390 as a Mustang with a 390 or are there two different designs. |
| | RE: Different -- Gerry Proctor, 04/09/2004
While a casual observer may think that the engine bays of these unibody cars are similar, they are different enough that they might as well be different manufacturers.
Fairlane/Torino = 6113 header. Mustang calls for a 6114 header. This right from Hooker's site. Don't even try to fit one to the other unless you anticipate completely rebuilding the tubes because about all you'll have left are the flanges. |
|  | RE: Headers -- giacamo, 04/09/2004
Chad i have a set of hooker supercomps in my 69 390 cyclone thay are a nightmare i thought hooker sent me the wroung headers. but thay will fit with a lot of cussin and nuckel scraping. i only use headers for racing all the outher fe powerd unibodys i use cast iron stock on them...... |
| | | RE: Headers -- Chad, 04/09/2004
I know the Cobra Jet exhaust manifolds flow real well. Is there a big difference in power between them and headers? |
| | |  | RE: Headers -- giacamo, 04/09/2004
headers preform beter than any cast i,v ben told tri y headers are the easyest ones to instal never used them or sean them but hast to be beter then the hooker nightmair......... |
| | | | Tri-Ys are the only choice with your C8AE-H heads. -- Dave Shoe, 04/11/2004
Hooker car headers are fine with C6AE-R, CJ, Edelbrock, and 1958-65 castings, but not for the other heads of the era. They simply don't port match the heads. Note that 1958-65 castings are difficult to install in Fairlane and Mustang applications, due to the limited number of exhaust bolt bosses cast into the head.
You can expect exhaust leaks across the bottom of the port due to lack of gasket crush, and the added turbulents of the mismatch won't be working in your favor, either.
Your best (only) option is FPA headers for the 390GT Fairlane, not the 428 Fairlane. They will far outperform the wimpy 390 Fairlane/Mustang exhaust manifold, and sho a notable improvement over the CJ exhaust manifold.
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: Tri-Ys are the only choice with your C8AE-H heads. -- CHAD, 04/11/2004
Thanks Shoe. I will pass the info on to my dad. I am restoring a 69 Mach 1 R-Code. I am going to use the Edelbrock heads. Would you suggest Tri-Y's for my application also? |
| | | | | | Yup. -- Dave Shoe, 04/12/2004
Tri-Y headers from FPA are a great header for that application. If max horsepower, top RPMs, and hotter cams are your plan for the SCJ, Hooker will offer an edge. For the street/strip, FPA is the way to go.
Shoe. |
| | | | | Shoe I have a question -- 390ranger, 04/12/2004
Does the hooker flange match the edelbrock head, or does it have to be the 16 bolt flange? |
| | | | | | RE: Shoe I have a question -- Gerry Proctor, 04/12/2004
The Hooker flange will actually allow you to bolt up the header to any of the FE heads but that's not exactly what Dave is addressing. He's pointing out that with the 14-bolt unibody heads (with noted exceptions) that the header port opening overhangs the floor of the head's exhaust exit by about a 1/4 inch.
While exhaust flow is minimal at the port's floor and will minimally affect header performance, the opportunity for a leak is pretty good. The problem is that Hooker (and nearly every other production line header) uses a weld on the mating surface of the flange. Many think, wrongly, that this weld bead helps gasket seal. Unfortunately, it's quite the opposite. It's a much better situation to have the entire surface of the flange contribute to gasket sealing rather than this narrow weld bead. If you look at custom headers, the tube is welded from the outside and the flange is flat. So rather than rely on a 1/16" weld bead to do the sealing, the entire flange does the sealing.
On the Hooker, this weld bead runs right on the edge, or even inside the port depending on how the header is fitted. The opportunity for the dreaded "pffft, pffft, pffft..." is pretty high when this header is fitted to 14-bolt unibody heads.
Hookers do match the port on either of the Edelbrock aluminum heads, pre-67 8-bolt iron heads, and 16-bolt Cobra Jet heads. |
| | | | | | | Pre-66 heads are a match. -- Dave Shoe, 04/12/2004
Just to clarify: The change for FE heads came into play at the start of the 1966 model year. The C6AE-R casting, available in much of 1966 and a little of 1967 was an exception, but all FE heads with casting numbers C6AE-J, C6AE-L, C6AE-U, C6AE-Y, C7AE-A, C8AE, C8AE-H, and D2TE-AA have the repositioned exhaust port, regardless of which drill pattern was machined in. Hooker car headers do not match these castins, but apparently Hooker truck headers do.
The repositioning of the exhaust port was apparently executed to simplify exhaust manifold design for shock-towered Fairlanes. It appears to have been an excessively conservative idea which did not help with performance.
Shoe. |
| | RE: machined combustion chambers -- giacamo, 04/09/2004
i,d by cheap thay my have the early machined chambers but the cost of valves guides seats laber ect.will eat you up thay do preform better than the 65 and newer standerd fe heads becouse of the biger ports and a pre 65 intake must be used to mach heads.. |
| | Old junk.... -- Royce, 04/09/2004
Those old 332 - 352 heads are no better than any other old 352 - 390 heads. The fact that the combustion chambers were machined had little to do with performance.
Really if your current heads are usable you should keep them. If you wish to have better performance save up for a set of Edelbrocks. You will never achieve the performance of out of the box Edelbrocks for the same price by starting with a set of junk heads.
Royce |
| intake ports on heads... -- kuch73, 04/08/2004
I am going to clean up the intake ports on my 406 heads and notice that two of the ports have a protrusion where the rocker stand bolts mount. Can these be safely ground out or just smoothed out. I would hate to ruin these heads. Thanks |
| This sounds good -- Lane, 04/07/2004
I just read back a few pages and found a guy with similar issues. It sounds like the comp 270h would fit my situtaion pretty well. Let me know if I'm wrong. I will also get the comp[ springs and one piece retainers. |
| 390 Camshaft Help. Please? -- Lane, 04/07/2004
I am building up a 66' 390 with my dad. I am having trouble selecting a cam. I want to keep the fairlane streetable but with some attitude at the stop lights. I have went .020" over on the bore, .010 & .010 on the crank and had the heads milled. The projected compression ratio is 10:1. I originally planned to use the edelbrock performer power package including: 750 carb, performer manifold, and performer plus cam & lifters. After looking at the cam sppec sheet on woody's fairlane site it seems to me that the performmer cam is not even as aggressive as the stock 390 gt cam. My heads are rebuilt oem with new valves and guides but stock valve springs. The springs can be changed but I would like to stick with the stock pushrods and rocker arm assembly. Any help with this problem would be greatly appreciated. |
| | RE: You said it yourself... -- Gerry Proctor, 04/08/2004
You can still get the 390GT/428CJ cam from Crane. A very good street cam if you're not looking for 6k rpm performance.
Otherwise, you need to contact a couple of the cam companies and discuss your needs. Cam selection is such an individual thing...a bit like asking what kind of wife would we recommend. Eveyone has a different opinion and you might as well get that opinion from the experts at the company.
I'd give Comp Cams a call first since they are very devoted to the street market. Then pick any of the other grinders. I like Crane myself but everyone has their favorite and that doesn't mean they're better or worse for your needs. |
| | Edelbrock Performer Plus Cam -- Royce, 04/08/2004
Lane,
The Performer Plus cam for FE is a little more lumpy than the stock 390 GT cam. It has about the same specs at .050" and advertised duration but the important spec to notice is the 110 degree lobe seperation angle. That will give better midrange power than the stock cam which uses a 114 degree centerline.
Edelbrock makes great intake manifolds and cylinder heads. They buy camshafts and carburetors from other companies to be able to offer you a package. These components are not necessarily the best for the job but will work. They are trying to maximize profit. You can do better.
Call Comp Cams help desk and tell them what you have and what kind of performance you expect.
Royce |
| | | RE: Edelbrock Performer Plus Cam -- Lane, 04/08/2004
Thanks for the quick help. I'll make the calls right away. |
| | RE: 390 Camshaft Help. Please? -- Mike, 04/08/2004
Here is a Cam that i recently installed in my 1969 390 Cougar Convertible
Comp Cams # 33-234-4 XE 256H-10
int exh
lift 487 493
dur @.050 212 219
lobe separation is 110
my engine is balanced, 9.5 comp , FPA headers, latest performer intake, recurved blueprinted distributor and holley 600.
It runs bitchen
Hope this help
Mike |
|