Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Fule Log for Sidewinder Intake -- Gary Morris, 03/17/2004
Looking for an origianl style yellow zinc coated fuel log for a Sidewinder intake. Cobra Restorers use to sell them but no more. There are repros of 3x2 and 2x4 everywhere but no single 4V. Looking at the picture it is the one on the bottom. Any help appreciated.
Gary
 |
|  | Fuel Log -- Gary Morris, 03/17/2004
sorry guys, my spelling is off today and I don't see any info for editing a post.
should read "Fuel Log for Sidewinder Intake"
and original instead of orgianl
Gary |
| |  | RE: Fuel Log -- jim shaver, 03/18/2004
what year you lookin for?
|
| | RE: Fule Log for Sidewinder Intake -- Gary Morris, 03/18/2004
What were the differences in years? I'm just looking for one that looks like the bottom picture in my original post, It mounts on the 2nd and 3rd intake bolt from the back. I'm wanting it for a Cobra replica.
Gary |
| oil pan. -- jeff, 03/17/2004
my oil pressure is low, 50 p.s.i. cold and 20 psi at 60 m.p.h. when really hot on the highway. idle at 5-7 p.s.i.? hot. running 15w40 oil, eng. is still quiet. now i want to pull the pan and change oil pump. i do not have a hoist or want to rent one. do i loosen trans. and eng. mounts? also where can i jack up eng. so i do not cause damage to anything? |
| | RE: Sort of depends on what kind of car (or truck) -- Gerry Proctor, 03/17/2004
Jack the engine up under the oil pan and put a nice big square block under the pan to spread the load. Once the engine is up, put wood spacers between the mounts to keep the engine blocked up.
You don't need to get the engine up very far to gain enough clearance to get the pan out so you also don't need to concern yourself with the trans mount.
Different car have different techniques and if you fill in that blank you can get better advice. |
| | | RE: Sort of depends on what kind of car (or truck) -- jim shaver, 03/18/2004
may be able to drop a cross member if theres one in the way
|
| | RE: oil pan. -- giacamo, 03/17/2004
you may need more than a oil pump. with that low of oil pres.................. |
| Tune up specs for 65 falcon, six cylinder -- George, 03/17/2004
Anybody point me to where I can get dwell / point gap / timing info for my 65 falcon?
straight six, 170 I think.
THanks,
George |
| How to tell a 390 from 352 easily -- Steve Waite, 03/17/2004
How can I look at a motor in the car and tell right away if it is a 390 or a 352?
|
|  | RE: You can't. -- Gerry Proctor, 03/17/2004
If the engine is pristine and you're double-damn sure of it, there will be a little metal tag, usually on the coil mount, that will list the engine displacement, configuration, and change level.
If the tag isn't there or there is some question about the engine's virginity you will only be left to guessing. You'll have to pull a head (or the oil pan) to measure the bore and stroke to know absolutely. |
| | | 1966-later 390s can be distinguished. -- Dave Shoe, 03/17/2004
The 390 crank flange was changed about the time the 410/428 came out in 1966.
Up until 1966, the 390 crank flange was machined identically to the 352 flange. There were two features on the 352/390 flange prior to this time: 1) the square indexing notch which pointed straight down at TDC, and 2) the half circle cutout next to the notch which was there to permit drilling the throws out on the short stroke FEs, such as 332/352, and 361Edsel. When the 390 came out in 1961, the stroke was long enough that the half-circle wasn't required to hollow the rear throw, but Ford kept it in so the machining process could be uniform across all cast FE cranks.
when the 410/428 arrived in 1966, Ford apparently decided there were enough large displacement FEs being produced that savings could be realized by removing the extra machining process.
If the engine remains in the car or truck, you can crank the damper to TDC, remove the bellhousing inspection cover, and easily view the flange notch and half-circle if it's a 332, 352, 360 pickup, 361Edsel, 406, 427 cast (all FE cranks are the same nodular), or early 390.
If the half circle is not there but the notch is, you can be sure it's a 390, or possibly even a 410/428. If you cannot find a notch or any other edge feature on the flange, it's a forged steel FE or FT crank.
Shoe. |
| Largest Size Intake Valve for 428 -- Brian, 03/17/2004
Will 2.15 Intakes fit ok with a .040 over 428 block? I will be isung C6AE-R heads and probably a Comp Cams 280H. Any clearance issues or performance gains?
Thanks,
Brian |
| | Has nothing to do with bore size. -- Royce, 03/17/2004
You can use 2.15 / 1.66 or 2.09 / 1.76. The problem is that the valves hit each other if anything bigger is used.
Medium Riser / High Riser / Tunnel port valves are spaced further apart, they can hit the bores.
2.09 / 1.66 is probably the best because the valve seats if cut for bigger sizes are very prone to cracking. There is just very little material between them.
Royce |
| What is the expansion tank for on the old 390's? -- Steve M, 03/16/2004
I am new to these motors as you can tell by this question. I have a 67 galaxie with a 390 that I put in it. It does not have one of those expansion tanks on it. Do I need one? Just curious as to what it's function is.
Thanks |
| | RE: What is the expansion tank for on the old 390's? -- Gerry Proctor, 03/16/2004
The expansion tank was used on engines where the radiator height was lower than the engine height. Pretty common on Thunderbirds with a low front hoodline.
If there was no tank, it would be impossible for the coolant to fill into the heads. And even if you could get coolant into the heads through burping the system, the expansion space would still quickly occur in the heads and create massive steam pockets.
Don't use the tank on a chassis that doesn't require it. It will be useless and create another path for things to go wrong.
|
| | | Could that be why my radiator spits all the time? -- Steve M, 03/16/2004
I remember seeing these on other galaxies, and I was wondering if I needed one for the 67 model. On some pictures I see them on there. My radiator spits through the overflow tube most of the time even when the motor temperature is decent at 190 when I turn the car off. It is not much unless the radiator is completely full. |
| | | | It could be the wrong type of cap. -- Dave Shoe, 03/16/2004
You may have one of those newfangled caps (around since the 1970s) that is designed to work with an overflow cannister. You can tell because that dime-sized valve in the center of the cap that rests in the coolant simply dangles instead of being spring-loaded closed.
I've had this problem in the past, so I thought I'd mention it. Obviously, keeping your radiator too full will cause some spitting until it levels out, but spitting after it stops suggests you aren't holding pressure properly at the cap.
The reason for the extra hotness after turning off the engine is the cooland stops flowing, and the coolant nearest the exhaust valves can boil and create steam pockets in the head if there is insufficient pressure capacity at the cap to prevent this steam.
An ancient radiator cap can also do the same, since it may have lost a seal or two to petrification.
Focus on the cap, and the spitting should disappear.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: It could be the wrong type of cap. -- Steve M, 03/17/2004
Dave, I will check that cap. Thanks. I am glad I asked the question. I learned a lot about the when and why of these tanks. |
| | | old style motormounts used the expansion tank. -- Dave Shoe, 03/16/2004
The old FE motormounts which required only 2 bolts forced the engine to sit up a little higher in the engine bay.
In 1965 the full-sized Ford was completely redesigned, and one of the changes was an all new style motor mount that was flat and allowed the engine to sit lower in the engine bay than the old mount, thus lowering the hood near the windshield and flattening it.
This flatter motor mount required an extra bolt to fasten to the block, since it wasn't as rigid as the earlier design. This change forced the 1965 FE block casting to grow some extra motor mount bosses, and all 1965-later FE/FT blocks have four motor mount holes machined into each side, instead of two.
The T-Bird was not redesigned until 1967, so it retained the old 2-bolt motor mount for a couple years, as well as the sloping hood styling, and so it kept the expansion tank, too.
The Fairlane never used the 2-bolt FE motor mount, so it never got the expansion tank.
Note a related change involved the thermostat diameter. The expansion tank used a larger diameter thermostat and T-stat housing to offer a little extra support for all the hanging weight. When the expansion tank disappeared, the thermostat soon shrank, reducing the size of the thermostat hole cast into the manifold. The bolts were the same, but the small thermostat falls completely inside a large-hole intake, and the large T-stat just plain don't fit the small hole intake.
To make matters worse, either large or small hole intakes can be found randomly on some cars without expansion tanks, so it's sometimes a crapshoot which size of T-stat you need. You either have to calibrate your eye to recognize which type of thermostat housing you have, or you have to buy both sizes and return the one you don't need.
The T-stat issue is a mid-60s era thing only, but is nice to know, since it can be a temporary nuisance if you buy a used intake and don't have both types of t-stat housings on hand to complete the assembly. Fortunately, both types of housings remain cheap and easy to get ahold of.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | |  | RE: old style motormounts used the expansion tank. -- giacamo, 03/16/2004
your water level hasto be 1 inch below top the tank for expanison not conpleaty full. the expanson tank on the older models is really handy for remote raidater aps........ |
| | | | RE: old style motormounts used the expansion tank. -- Travis Miller, 03/16/2004
1962 was the last year that used the raised motor mounts. The '63 and '64 Galaxies with FE engines used the flat motor mounts, although they were still 2 bolt blocks. The radiator was still low enough that the expansion tank was needed. |
| | | | | Thanks for the update. -- Dave Shoe, 03/16/2004
The 1960-64 Ford Master Parts Catalog illustrates these years as being the same, but the illustrations are listed as "typical".
Next time I'm under the hood of a '63 or '64, I'll do some looking to see what these mounts look like.
Thanks.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | RE: Thanks for the update. -- Travis Miller, 03/17/2004
My '63 406 boxtop and my '64 R-code Galaxie 500 2dr sedan had the flat mounts. I just wish I still owned both cars. |
| | RE: What is the expansion tank for on the old 390's? -- jeff, 03/17/2004
i have a 1967 gal.500 w/390. when i got it ,it would run hot and spit fluid after shutting it down. i rebuilt radiator and put on a $10.00 over flow tank and a cap that would allow overflow fluid to tank. i run a 180 f. stat, see if you can find a robert shaw stat,but hard to find now? i have not lost any fluid since. |
| exhaust manifolds -- Don F, 03/15/2004
Are aftermarket headers the only choice for a 390Gt in a 66 Fairlane?Would the cobra jet cast iron or the police interceptor manifolds clear?I searched and found out the gt manifolds are junk. |
| | RE: exhaust manifolds -- giacamo, 03/15/2004
i,d wish every body thought thay wer junk. i ,m in a sesto project and every body thinks thear made out of gold. |
| | RE: exhaust manifolds -- T.O., 03/15/2004
The 390GT or 428CJ manifolds should work. Need to make sure your heads are matched according to the bolt holes. I had my 390GT manifolds Jet Hot coated and they turned out really nice. Don't know your intentions for use but they suit my weekend driver just fine. |
| | RE: They're not junk. -- Gerry Proctor, 03/16/2004
It's just that they don't have nearly the flow of even a poor set of headers. But then, the stock manifolds do fit without needing to modify anything.
If your engine is not too heavily modified and you're not trying to get to the 400 hp level, the stock manifolds will suit you very well. Would you notice an immediate improvement with headers? Sure. But you could say the same for the heads too if you compared them to 428CJ or Edelbrock heads.
If you were to try the CJ manifolds you'd need to have the head's exhaust flange re-drilled for the CJ's different bolt pattern. And even then you'd have a slight port mismatch since the CJ's port is a bit higher on the port's floor. It's not such a bit issue though since most of the flow is at the port's roof. In my opinion, though, you'd have such little gain that it's hardly worth it.
And as for headers if you should explore that route... The unibody (Mustang/Fairlane) head's 14-bolt exhaust flange requires a header specifically for that head. The only headers that I know of that fit that bill are the FPA headers. The fit of the Hooker and other brands for the eight and 16-bolt heads (428CJ) are iffy at best and are prone to header leaks. |
| | RE: Damn Shame.... : ( -- giacamo, 03/15/2004
if the floors are not that bad it,s still worth fixing looks like a great parts car depends on price and how far you haft to hall it. |
| Funniest thing I've seen, this month. Put down your coffee. :-) -- Mr F, 03/15/2004
|
| | RE: Funniest thing I've seen, this month. Put down your coffee. :-) -- jim shaver, 03/15/2004
THAT IS FRIGGIN AWESME DUDE heheheheheh
|
| ford holley carb cfm? -- blake fensler, 03/14/2004
i have a 4v ford holley and i'm not sure of the cfm rating. the part # is: d0pf-9510-u with a list 45-48 s and a 431 under that. i'm hoping it's a 500 cfm but it's probably the 600 variety. |
| | RE: ford holley carb cfm? -- raycfe, 03/14/2004
D0PF9510U....65/66 full size 352 holley 4bb..450 cfm vac sec. I think.. |
| | | yup, your correct 450 CFM N/M -- hawkrod, 03/15/2004
|
| | | | rebuild the holley or the autolite? -- blake fensler, 03/15/2004
thanks for sizing up the carb for me. here is the delimma-i have a 71 truck that is my daily driver with a c4 trans, it has a stock 68 302 4v(it will soon)and i have this 450 holley that is in nice shape-which would be more on tap with the cfm requirement(i read that the 480 was the factory cfm for a small block 302). i also have a 1965 autolite 4v carb that is a 600 cfm style. i know the autolites are better in quality but it's larger on the cfm than the holley. what would you guys go with? or say i did go with the autolite, can i put in smaller jets to cut down on the fuel rate to be equivalent to the 500 cfm range?
|
| | | | | RE: rebuild the holley or the autolite? -- Travis Miller, 03/15/2004
Use the Autolite carb. It will get much better fuel economy and you will still have good performance when you need it. |
|