Skip Navigation Links.
 |  360 block to 428 -- john spindle, 11/04/2003
got a 1974 d3te 360 block with webs and the X in the top under intake area. is it any good to bore to a 428? havent done sonic check. will it hold up ? thanks john |
|  | RE: 360 block to 428 -- giacamo, 11/04/2003
if its thick enuf it will be just fine........... |
| |  | RE: 360 block to 428 -- hawkrod, 11/04/2003
until you sonic test it there is no way of knowing. hawkrod |
| | Probably not.... -- Royce Peterson, 11/04/2003
Search the forum for "drill bit test"
Royce |
| Cougar Shock Tower Removal -- Wade, 11/04/2003
I've located a 1969 big block Cougar in my local junkyard. It's been picked pretty clean but I want to remove the shock towers with the reinforcement plates and install them in my 1969 Mustang that has cracked towers. Any advice as to the best way to remove them, i.e. where to cut, sawsall?
Thanks! |
| | RE: Cougar Shock Tower Removal -- Bill, 11/06/2003
I would just sawzall it out and take it home so you can carefully disassemble. I bought a nice texas tower for my 68 1/2 cj that had been sawzalled out. The tower I bought did not have a brace so I left my brace installed while I swapped towers. Lots of spot welds to drill out but the end result was very nice. Bill |
| Trans mount -- Joe, 11/03/2003
Apon trying to put my trans back in my 69 CJ mach 1. The trans bracket and mount did not line up correctly. The old mount set off center of the trans and used one half inch bolt and a three eights bolt. Is this correct or is the tail on my trans incorrect. It is a four speed top loader. Also I know other people have put FPA headers on their cars, did you have to put a spacer under your frame bracket so the clutch linckage did not hit the header? Really starting to get frustrated putting humpty dumpty back together again. |
| | Is your metal support bracket correct for FE apps.? [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/07/2003
n/m |
| 352 / 390 1968 fe -- Jason, 11/03/2003
I have a 65 galaxie convertable, I have a 1968 390 with the tranny from a ltd, I got the motor compleat from fan to the rear of the tranny.
My question is kinda intresting, I'm looking to build this motor up, as one the 65 gal is not a "small" car by any means, but I want some power, cuttently this motor has been stripped down to the block, all that is left on it is the cam barings, freez plugs, and the dipstick tube.
I have heard of people using ither 428 or 427 motor parts for the 390, I want to build this motor up for everyday use, and at the strip for pure fun, I know a convertable isn't a race car, but I want to have some fun.
I would like all the info possable, what is cheep, but a sorce of power, here is what I kinda was thinkin
ford made a 410, I was going to go with that crank, bore it 40 over and get a mild cam, as I have an automatic, I'm not sure on what to do for heads, or intake, exaust is easy. I there is alot of stuff out there for this motor, I just need to know what to what all goes to this motor to get it the power! The 410 crank and the bore 40 over was an idea, nothing at this time has been done to this block.
Thanks for the help!!
Jason |
|  | RE: 352 / 390 1968 fe -- giacamo, 11/03/2003
Jason i,d stick with the 390, i love the extended rpm,s a 390 has over a 428.I have screazed 500 to 1000 more rpm out of them.I feal a 390 is more depenabe & easy to find parts the 410/428 are great engins but thay seam to be hard on bearings wen pushed hard.and i prefor a zero balinced 390/427 fly weals are easy to find.410 428 fly wealsare hard to find.Iv ben rebalancing 390 fly weals to make them work on 428,s.and the first thing i have found to make any power is you need flat top 10.5pistones............ |
|  | RE: 352 / 390 1968 fe -- McQ, 11/04/2003
Jason, I've got a few different theories and ideas than giacomo. And please giacomo, don't think I'm being too critical of your ideas but its your theories regarding the long stroke, external balance 428 that I take exception with. But Jason has asked for some ideas, I'll share mine.
First, a '65 Galaxie convertible is a very cool car in which to install a built FE. A long stroke 410/428 would really provide the torque necessary to move the two-tons-o-fun drop-top.
It doesn't sound like you're looking for a lot of high RPM horsepower as indicated by your street and occasional strip requirements. You will be much happier with an FE making 440+ lbs. of torque. It's torque that's going to turn the '65's rear tires.
I'm assuming that you have, know of or have access to the 410 crankshaft you've mentioned. That's good. Now a big expense will be custom pistons. It's doubtful that your '68 390 block will take the .080 overbore necessary to accept standard 428 pistons. The 390 is a 4.05 bore, the 428 is 4.13 = .080 overbore. A standard 410 is a 390 bore and I don't know of any regularly available cast pistons for the 410 in standard or overbore sizes. But I do want to say that it would be wise to have your '68 390 block sonic tested for cylinder wall thickness because you might be fortunate to have a thicker cylinder wall block. Certainly worth the price to know for sure.
So custom forged(custom cast are not available)410 overbore pistons are going to be expensive. You have to decide if it's worth it to you. If it were me spending your money, I'd say yes it's worth it! By them high buck pistons and build a torque monster.
Don't throw the heads away on your '65 352. They're very likely C4AE-G and those are good heads that have been reviewed/discussed here numerous times. Giacomo and I are in agreement on these heads. Do not consider sinking money into the '68 heads...C8AE-H. They're great for a concours resto of a '68 GT390 engine. Sink a little money into a quality rebuild of the C4AE-G heads that include hardened exhaust seats. And the manufacturer recommended valve springs from the camshaft you select. And the cam can be an entire subject to itself. I'm not going there now. Giacomo will recommend the 268 Comp and that seems very sensible for a two ton car. Choosing a cam is like selecting a ..... mate? You'd be best talking directly with Comp/Crane/Edelbrock/Crower, etc. They're very happy to help and advise you. They want their customers to be happy.
Now back to giacomo's thoughts, experiences, theories regarding the long stroke, external balance '28. Hmmm, I'll only say that I've had very good fortune as have many people I know running warmed up, mildly modified 428 Fords. My personal '69 standard 428 CJ would rev problem free to 6,500 rpm running a Schneider solid lifter shaft. This particular cam was basically Schneider's grind of Ford's 324, C4AE, cam. It was a little different. A choppy idle but easy to drive on the street with a C6 and a TCI 2,800 stall converter. As I said it would rev to 6,500 but the power was done by 6,200 so that became my shift point. Never had a problem with nearly 200 passes down the local quarter. I switched the cam to the one available from Ford's currect race parts program. Very nice and mild allowing for 5,700 rpms. Sold that engine to a guy who installed it in a Mustang and the last I heard he was still grinning with pleasure at the performance that long stroke provided.
Currently a local friend is running a very mildly built 428, 10.5:1, solid liftered, long stroke 428, C6, 4.56's, at high 11's/110mph, in a '67 Fairlane GTA. It's not street driven but idles well enough that you'd think he could drive it on the street if he'd install an exhaust system, and other street amenities. Eric has run this and many 428's into the elevens with minimal work. |
| | | RE: 352 / 390 1968 fe -- Jason, 11/04/2003
Ok this is great, more info than I ever knew!! Some of this stuff is over my head, this is my first engin rebuild, i do not have the orignal motor or the tranny for the gal. So I'm kinda stuck with what the 68 ltd motor has, it has a 2 barl intake. The block is a cast of a 352, and I guess ford made it into a 390. this motor was pulled out of the ltd some time ago ( I had to beat a piston out with a sledge!!) I took the bare block to a guy who is going to (when I figure out what I want to do) going to dip the block, pressure test it, line bore it, and bore it out. I do not have any parts other than the stock stuff that came with the 390 that was out of the ltd, I have kinda no idea what I am getting myself into in a way. I kinda need a (do this, get this, and how to) I know this motor had hydro lifters I assume I'm going to stick with that set up, I was also going to go with rollor rockers?? But I think that is costly as well. I am building a car, I'm going to put some quite exast on it, make a sleeper, I want to be rid of the rice grinder and his fart can! I want the amarican pure power!
So with a little more insite on what I'm doin I think I need to pay e-bay a vist and see what is all there. 410 crank, and the orignal heads off a 65 gal.? and flat top pistons? This motor has had no work done to it, so it is all stock!!
Thanks,
Jason |
| | | | RE: 352 / 390 1968 fe -- jake, 11/04/2003
I have a 65 galaxie fastback--I love these cars. Most FE engines (352,390,410,428 etc) had "352" cast into the block, that is no help with identifying it. A 352 has a 4.00" bore a 390 has a 4.05 bore, if the motor has not been bored oversize, you could figure out which it was by that. From what I have learned many 352 blocks shared the same exact dimensions with the 390 and were just machined with a smaller bore from the factory-my 352 was like this.
A 410 engine is a 390 block with a 428 crank (3.98 stroke) and different pistons. These were put into Mercurys, but not Fords. I have heard that Ross stocks 410 pistons for these and of course they make good custom pistons too, but they will be $$.
By the time you pay for the 428 crank and custom pistons you could lay out a good bit of extra $. If that is not in your budget, you can always build a 390 with dirt cheep stock crank and non-custom pistons and still get great power.
Let us know how you do with your parts search. |
| | | | | RE: 352 / 390 1968 fe -- Jason, 11/04/2003
ok the guy who I took the motor to to see if it was a 390 or not measured the bore, and told me it is a stock 390 size, and that looking at the thickness of the walls it hasn't been bord over at all, so I know I have a 390, with what I'm talking about doing am I looking at a BIG increse in power?? or would going stock crank, mabe a over bore of 30 and flat top pistons with my current heads, and adding a good carb to it and, headders be about the same?? See this is were my delma is what is better or worth it? I mean this car is currently being sand blasted, putting in new floors, doing body work, and its going to be a custom interior (white with black) white top and black onix for the body color... this car I know is going to cost me! I was thinking 4000 for the motor and tranny and about the same if not more for the car, and only god knows what for the wheels!
Keep it comming I'm going to go out to barns and knoble (sp) for a book i was told about for these engins, apparently it is full info on this stuff
Thanks,
Jason |
| | | | | | RE: 352 / 390 1968 fe -- giacamo, 11/05/2003
Jason i will amit big 428,s more power or 427,s if you looking for big increase,s in h.p.but be realistic.in what the car will be used for.a hot 390 aint nouthing to snease at and are verry dependable............but biger is better and more$ |
| | | RE: 352 / 390 1968 fe -- Paul Garvin, 12/02/2003
Sealed power makes off the shelf standard and oversized cast pistons for the 410. I believe that KB make cast and hyper pistons as well.
Paul Garvin
69 XR7 Convertible |
| | | | RE: 352 / 390 1968 fe -- mikee likee, 12/02/2003
1.778-1.762 390 comp height-
1.678-1.672 410 comp height
both use 6.486-6.490 rod length
390 has 3.78 stroke
410 has 3.98 stroke
Thats .200 but in the Fedaral Mogul book it lists a lo compresion pickup piston for a 390 also as a 410 piston. I installed a set in a 70 390 and they were .120 below the deck. They might work with your combo without going to special pistons. As you can see Ford only had .100 difference in slugs and the same rod hmmmmm. |
| Marti Auto Works VIN Report. -- Brian Reilly, 11/03/2003
Just wanted to give Marti Auto Works a big "Thank you!" for their VIN reporting service.
For the past 10 years I have sporadically researched a 1968 Ford Fairlane 500 convertible that I own.
The car has peculiar data plate codes and the car is loaded. That made me curious as to what I had. The car has power windows, power steering, power disc brakes, an FE BB, 390 GT engine with dress-up pack and the car came with bucket seats and console with a C-6 auto and select shifter. The car has a VIN less than 15. I tracked down one of the previous owners in 1993 and he informed me that the car was used on the CBS-TV series, Hawaii Five-O.
Fast forward 10 years to September, 2003. I ordered the Marti Auto Works VIN report and within a week I received the report by Priority Mail.
The report confirmed that my Fairlane 500 convertible was ordered by Ford Corporate and the car was classified as an 'Introductory Show Unit'. Ford had no record of the car ever having been sold (which was consistent with show cars that were given away by Ford.) The report confirmed that my Fairlane was the only one of its kind (body style, body color and trim configuration) shipped to Hawaii. The report gave the same delivery address in Honolulu that the Hawaii Five-O production company picked up their Ford provided cars (as confirmed to me by the former VP of CBS Studio City). The car is an exact match to the Hawaii Five-O Fairlane filmed in four 1968 episodes. There's no doubt that my car is the Hawaii Five-O Fairlane 500.
Further independent research confirmed that film personalities, Jack Lord, Sal Mineo, Marj Dusay, Sam Melville and Kaz Garas were filmed on Hawaii Five-O with the car.
A former owner painted the car Ford Oxford White and reupholstered the interior in black vinyl with black & grey cloth inserts. I'm currently considering restoring the orignial colors.
Again, thank you very much Kevin. I highly recommend your Marti Auto Works VIN reporting service to those on this website.
Regards,
Brian Reilly
|
| What Rocker Arms to use? -- Mike, 11/03/2003
I'm running a Comp Cam , lifters, pushrods,and springs. What is some suggestions on rocker arms etc for a 390. How good are the original ones.
thanks |
| | RE: What Rocker Arms to use? -- giacamo, 11/03/2003
mike comp cams are good cams use what thay recamend.i have found most aps stock type are just fine....... |
| Production numbers for the 427 -- P, 11/03/2003
I've picked up bits and pieces here and there but have never seen any totals. I understand there were 5000 units made in 1963, if you can trust the printed source of this info. I understand there were roughly 10,000 hemis made, and the 427 surely must have been way above that number.
In 1963 the 409 was selling at roughly 17,000 units. In 1964 that dropped to around 8,000, and in 1965 down to around 2,500. I attribute the 427 FE to killing the 409, heh heh, but I never saw any production numbers coming from FoMoCo.
regards, P |
| | a breakdown by type would be great -- blinker, 11/03/2003
low/medium/high/tunnel/ even SOHC. |
| | | You are comparing apples and oranges -- Lou, 11/03/2003
Yes the were a little more than 5000, 427 made in 1963. As for the Hemis 10,000 total for all years sounds good I belive the first was 1965.
The 409 was a piece of junk, it came unglued more than any engine ever made, it killed itself. |
| | | | RE: You are comparing apples and oranges -- hawkrod, 11/03/2003
i'm just going to pipe in here as a couple of comments were pretty strong, and i think innacurate. the 409 is not at all known for killing itself. in fact they have gone down in history as one of the most trouble free chevrolet engines based on warantee repair records. now i don't own one and don't have the desire to, but to make a statement like that that is contrary to the facts kind of rubs me the wrong way. also the only reason the 409 production tapered off is expense. they were expensive to manufacture due to the unusual design and they were near the cubic diplacement limit for the block design and so a new engine was designed in the early 60's to replace the 409. note that the replacement design was begun about the same time the first 409's were hitting the streets. the reason the 65 409 production was so low is because the 396 was cheaper and easier build and the savings were passed on making the 396 a better buy for the consumer. it also didn't hurt that the performance potential of the 396 was much greater than the 409 due to the excellent head design. the only thing that killed the 409 was the limitations of the design not the competition. keep in mind that teh vast majority of the big races were won by 409's not 427 fords. sad but true. hawkrod |
| | | | | RE: You are comparing apples and oranges -- blinker, 11/03/2003
this is starting to get depressing. First McQ informs me that a 427 can't take a LS6 in stock form, and now it couldn't beat the 409 either? |
| | | | | | RE: You are comparing apples and oranges -- hawkrod, 11/03/2003
i didn't say it couldn't take it, i said the 409's won more races in the day. there were a lot more chevy's than fords at the track, some things never change! LOL. also it was much easier to buy a Z11 chevy than it was to buy a ford lightweight. the other bit of trivia that many people miss is that most of the race 409's were actually specially designed and built 427 CI engines that only shared blocks and cranks with production cars. kind of like a high riser 427 versus a regular 427 only on a much more radical scale. "427 = 4.312" x 3.65" (6.135" rod) 1963 "Z11" SHP drag race" here is a nice page that says very little but is interesting: http://www.myclassiccar.com/CoolCars/closeups/chevrolet/chevy409/
hawkrod |
| | | | | | | RE:in defense of Lou -- McQ, 11/04/2003
We're just Ford guys who didn't like those "real fine" 409s!
From what I recall, and I even have a book somewhere about how wonderful the Z11 was, I must agree with what hawkrod says about the high dollar Z11 package. It was a very expensive package that GM built primarily for drag racing to maintain its image. But it does seem Ford proved the strength/design of the 427 in stock car racing. The '63 Chevy "Mystery" NASCAR motor was competitive but I don't think it cut it against the 427. I'm not citing any sources here other than just the deep recesses of my memory.....it's too late to root around looking for that dusty book.
And you know blinker, I think I said the LS6 was pretty much unbeatable in stock form. A nicely prepped 427 Ford in a mildly prepared Fairlane/Mustang chassis could easily hold its own with the LS6. And I did mention the Shelby 427 Cobra. If a stock '66 Cobra 427 pulled up next to a '70 Malibu SS454.... the bulbous chevy would just look whimpy and it would be an absolute laugher if it attempted to get it on with the Cobra. Same could be said even for a 454 LS6 'vette against the Cobra. Remember too that the Shelby Cobra's 427 was a stock out of the box medium riser. There was not a lot he or his boys could do to make it better than how it came from Ford. |
| | | | | | | | The 409 boat anchor was a PLANK HEAD motor -- P, 11/04/2003
It is essentially the same as the MEL, with the top of the block cut off at an angle so the dead flat head (with no combustion chamber) just forms the top of a combustion chamber formed inside the cut off cylinder bore. I can't remember who did what, but MEL was 16-degrees, and the 409 was cut off at 10-degrees, or vice versa. The fact of the matter is, the FE heads flowed light years better than a plank head will, especially at the high rpm necessary to compete in NASCAR. When they tried to run a torque machine like the 409 at continual high rpm, well it wasn't a pretty sight (or sound).
As for the mystery motor, it was basically a prototype 396, which was a new generation design, untested, with lots of promise, but not worthy of stepping onto the NASCAR tracks and competing against a bruiser like the FE, and then the 429 Shotgun, sheesh, Ford was spending millions and would have literally buried GM. As it was, Chrysler only won more than 505 of the Nascar races during the 1960 during TWO YEARS. Yes, only two years did the hemi rule in the 1960's. Talk to some Chrysler guys and they'll swear the hemi "dominated", and if you look at the ultimate win count, the FE is the dominate motor.
Ahh well, it is time for me to run for that rock now, as I feel the sharp talons aimed at my back. Dangit, I feel like a softshell crab without my shell, halp!!
:-)
P |
| | | | | | | RE: You are comparing apples and oranges -- P, 11/04/2003
> i didn't say it couldn't take it, i said the 409's won more races in the
> day. there were a lot more chevy's than fords at the track, some things
> never change! LOL. also it was much easier to buy a Z11 chevy than it was
> to buy a ford lightweight. the other bit of trivia that many people miss
> is that most of the race 409's were actually specially designed and built
> 427 CI engines that only shared blocks and cranks with production cars.
> kind of like a high riser 427 versus a regular 427 only on a much more
> radical scale. "427 = 4.312" x 3.65" (6.135" rod) 1963 "Z11" SHP drag race"
> here is a nice page that says very little but is interesting: <a href="http://www.myclassiccar.com/CoolCars/closeups/chevrolet/chevy409/"target=_new>http://www.myclassiccar.com/CoolCars/closeups/chevrolet/chevy409/</a>
>
> hawkrod
Well I'm going to settle the race count real quick. GM was a NO SHOW on the endurance racing circut. They chose to tip toe into the local scene where they managed to make a lot of noise, but as far as being able to step up to the plate, in front of the world, and take on anyone in high rpm endurance racing, the 409 was, indeed (gentlemen) a boat anchor. They were offered with a lot of power, yes, but they couldn't compete with the 406 or the 427 solid lifter motors.
Racing in a lighter weight car, secretly funded by GM, making noise in the local drag strips is a far cry from doing it "publically" and taking the heat or the defeat in front of the entire world. We can all be proud of what Ford did with the FE against Chrysler, worthy competition, but in the world of big block big bucks balls-to-the-wall endurance racing, GM was a NOooooooooo Showwwwwwww.
Reason, they didn't have a motor, heh heh heh
(they had a quarter mile noise maker)
:-) P
|
| | | | | | GM had great drivers, too: Dyno Don, Ron Sox, M. Durham, etc. [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/04/2003
n/m |
| | | | | | | | He drove 409 A/FX Chevs, through 1963. [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/04/2003
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | Thaanx for the info, learn something every day! -- P, 11/05/2003
So Don jumped from the 409 eh? Hmmm, interesting. Interesting time to make the switch too.
regards, P |
| | | | | | | | | | Ford really wanted the '64 A/FX Comets to do well. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/05/2003
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | AMC's S/S AMX faster than the T-BOLT? -- blinker, 11/07/2003
Thats hard to imagine that the AMC product ran so much better than the High Riser cars.
I read someplace back then the S/S AMX or Javelin ran a best time of 10.79. Weren't the Tbolts low to mid 11's? |
| | | | | Don't forget trans. availability (409, 4-speed) as a major factor. [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/04/2003
n/m |
| | | | | | RE: Don't forget trans. availability (409, 4-speed) as a major factor. [n/m] -- P, 11/04/2003
GM had a torqy motor and a 4-speed transmission in a lighter weight car.
GM had the wisdom to build a car for the streets. Ford was busy satisfying his own ego by wiping the racetracks of the world with his FE. Ford only got into drag racing in a casual way. Yes, they did spend money, but generally only on the Cammer after it was banned by Nascar, and then that was very short lived.
GM in the meantime, had a "409" with 425-advertized horsepower and it did make a hit on the streets and on the drag strips. It was a combination of good power, good transmission, and lighter weight. Ford in the interim, was building a "racing-only" series of FE motors called the 406 and 427, and these were ONLY released on the streets to satisfy the NASCAR requirements. Without that, I doubt if we would have seen many of them, or any of the Boss 429 Shotguns either. Yes, once they got into mandatory production, Ford did make a relative bunch of em, and I'm really interested in how many.
The 409 was a carry over from the 348, which was badly trounced by the 352. It was just a less effective engine design than the FE was. When the FE was able to be bored out to 406 and then 425 (427) cubes, it was OVER for the heavy obsolete GM boat anchor.
P |
| | | | | Take a peek at the 409 NASCAR history -- P, 11/04/2003
It sure doesn't look like a heavy breather, winning 9 races in three seasons against 101 for the FE. It was a powerful motor, but it couldn't finish.
JMHO
P |
| | | | You may be right -- P, 11/04/2003
......but they hooked 17,000 suckers the year the 427 was introduced. I believe there was some tie here, even though the 409 was junk.
Like they said, GM didn't have a racing program, or they didn't have a competitive motor, whichever you chose to believe.
:-)
P |
| | | | | In my own defense: -- Lou, 11/04/2003
I stand by the statement I made that the 409 was a piece of junk. I base this on what I saw on the streets of Fairfield county, Connecticut in 1962 /63/64 . Yes it would go, but would not stay together. I worked not far from a Chevrolet dealer and there seem to always be a 409 in the place with a blown engine. One I knew of had 3 engines put in it under warrantee. Yea I know, we all know a guy that could blow up a D8 Cat. I saw a few blow up a Dover Drag strip, in Dover Plains, NY. They (the 409 cars) had no resale value in fact in 1968 I turned down a 409, 63 Impala conv for $500 from a dealer. Maybe they ran better on the track but on the street they were fast but short lived.
|
| | | | | | Note about the 426 Hemis: -- Lou, 11/04/2003
We referred to them as "King Kong" and they were ! |
| | | | | | | RE: Note about the 426 -- P, 11/05/2003
Indeed, they were very powerful, but they were heavy, and they were really no more durable than the FE, therefore the lightweight Ford was a VERY good motor to go racing with. The hemi always appeared to have a power advantage, but at the advent of the aero wars, Chrysler was FORCED to go with the wing thing because they didn't have the motor to win otherwise. In the end, the aero wars ended with Ford having a slight winning advantage, which is due to a lot of FE wins and of course, the Boss 429 semi-hemi coming onto the scene too.
I'm a realist, I know the limitations of the FE in history, but I also want to help "clear the air". A lot of ChryCo guys will swear the hemi dominated, but in reality, they only won more than 50% of the races during TWO YEARS in the 1960's. That would be 1966 and 1967.
Regards, all the best, anyone out there have a lead on 427 production numbers??
P |
| | | | | | | | RE: Note about the 426 -- P, 11/05/2003
One thing I believe, is the 426 hemi was a purpose designed motor to counter the success Ford was having with the new FE. Ford began major wins in the early 1960's and Chrysler needed something.
They came out with a racing prototype in '64 and it was a new design INTENDED to beat the FE, which was the only competition on the endurance tracks at the time. Had it not been for the FE, there would have been no hemi.
The FE, in turn, was developed to counter what Chevrolet had at the time, which was the 409. Boat anchor as it was, the 409 WAS the flagship motor of GM at the time, and we must recognize that Ford was using the GM flagship as a milestone to beat. Therefore the racing FE was designed to kill the next best motor of the day, which was the 409, and the hemi was designed to beat the next best motor of the day, which was the FE. In the end, Ford scrambled with development of the tunnelport, and the ole FE remained a racing workhorse and managed to beat the hemi during the 1966 and 1967 seasons, but the hemi clearly had the advantage those years. You won't however, find any hemi motors in sports racing cars like the Cobra or Shelby cars, as they were just too heavy to be used in that manner. Nobody would want a 200 or 250-pound disadvantage hanging out there on the chassis.
Long live the FE. It is a major milestone in American culture, and that's the main reason I like the series so much. Generally lightweight, used as a flagship motor to win in this country and abroad, and an overall great design.
P |
| | | | | | You speak well in your own defense, Lou -- P, 11/05/2003
:-)
regards, P
|
| | RE: Production numbers for the 427 -- Travis Miller, 11/05/2003
These are taken from different sources over the years. I am in no way saying these numbers are complete or 100% accurate. Just passing along some notes I made years ago.
63-64 R code Galaxie.........6307
63-64 Q code Galaxie.........1692
64 Hi riser Galaxie.................50
64 T-bolt Fairlane.................100
64 Hi riser Comet..................11
65 Hi riser Comet....................5
65 Galaxie...................unknown
66 Galaxie...................unknown
66 Fairlane............................57
67 Galaxie...................unknown
67 Fairlane..........................153
67 Comet..............................20
68 Cougar...................unknown
That makes a total of 8395 without including the years listed as unknown. There were also 427 FE engines used in marine, military and industrial applications. Lets also not forget that the 427 was sold across the counter at dealerships and installed in Cobras. |
| | | if the SOHC hadn't been factored to death -- blinker, 11/05/2003
the Hemi's would not have won nearly as much as they did |
| | | | what was happening on the track meant -- Lou, 11/05/2003
very little to us guys who were on the street. It was fun to watch, but television treated auto racing like bowling, one or two races a year were televised, and the car mags only reported on strips for the most part. Nothing was said about the street or the outlaw strips. like Dover Plains.
The cars that were winning on the track and at the strips were set up just to race, on the other hand the street cars were more real world. Thse cars had to race on Friday night, go out on a date on Saturday, and take you to work on Monday.
With that said I will tell you my Ford record, between 1958 and 1966 I was beat 3 times on the street, twice by Fords once by a Plymouth. My Fords were everything from a 56 Victoria, to a 390 63 Galaxie and several in between including a 63 HiPo Falcon.
|
| | | Very interesting, thanks! -- P, 11/05/2003
Those numbers look a lot lower than I would have thought, however, the 1965 and 66 Galaxie numbers that are "unknown" at this time certainly could have bumped the numbers up, but even if it was 5000 units each year, that's still a pretty low number.
It seems even lower when you factor in 30-years of wear and tear and wonder about how many survivors are out there.
Good info, many thanks.
P |
| Crank #'s on a 390 -- Anthony, 11/03/2003
I am going to drop my oil pan and install a HV oil pump. Just for fun, I want to look at the #'s on the crank to make sure it is a 390. Where do I find the numbers and what should they be?
Thanks. |
| 390GT Engine Rebuild -- richard, 11/01/2003
Looking into a complete rebuild on "the Project's" (68 GT coupe) engine. PO threw a timing chain (or some other disaster) and the engine literally came apart. Broken camshaft, con rods out the side and wedged sideways in the cylinder, a total loss.
I have a bare block as part of the purchase and am looking at two options:
1. Go stock
2. Upgrade a bit for better performance. Not looking to make a tweaky monster engine, don't want to have an engine I'd have to fiddle with a lot. But as long as I'm rebuilding it's the time to provide a few add-ons if it's to be done.
Leaning to option 2 with a more agressive cam than stock, aluminum intake (heard Eidelbrock are good), headers (heard FPA bolt on and are quite good), but that's about all I've come to right now. Not sure about forged/cast pistons, dished/flat, heads/porting, etc., etc, etc...
Have been told by a local shop that they can move the engine back a couple inches to improve weight distribution.
Any other 390 owners or motor masters out there who've gone through this have experiences or opinions? |
| 302 tripower -- Aaron Meza, 10/31/2003
Does anyone know where I might find a tripower for a 302 ford? |
| | RE: 302 tripower -- polecat, 10/31/2003
How about pony carb's out of New York.
www.ponycarburetors.com/
Or, Carl's Ford Parts out of Ohio.
http://www.carlsfordparts.com/
I've done business with Pony Carbs and was happy. Don't know much about Carl's other than he sells his tripowers on ebay occassionally. Good luck. |
| | | RE: 302 tripower -- BarryMcLarty, 11/06/2003
I saw on complete set up at Obsolete Ford Parts in OK city.Cant recall the price but I paid them $995 for a tri power complete set up for my 390. |
|