These are the old FoMoCo Obsolete Forums and are being hosted by JCOConsulting.com. While you're here, check out my articles or have a look around at some of the Ford Stuff we have for sale. You might find something you can't live without.

Skip Navigation Links.
 390 id -- Bob Travis, 08/17/2003
How can I id the 390 vs the 352? Is there a casting number I can look for?
Thanks for the help!!
Bob
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18139&Reply=18139><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>C4AE-C 9060 head</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>P, <i>08/14/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I've seen a lot of info on the C3AE-C and the C4AE-G, but I have not seen anything on the C4AE-C 9060.  Anyone have a proof positive ID on this one??<br><br>P </blockquote> C4AE-C 9060 head -- P, 08/14/2003
I've seen a lot of info on the C3AE-C and the C4AE-G, but I have not seen anything on the C4AE-C 9060. Anyone have a proof positive ID on this one??

P
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18140&Reply=18139><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>maybe it's a C4AE-G head</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Barry B, <i>08/14/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I've seen some of those heads where the G looks like a C because the screwhead impression was overlapping and covering up part of the right-side of the letter.  Just a guess 'cause other than that they look just like G heads. </blockquote> maybe it's a C4AE-G head -- Barry B, 08/14/2003
I've seen some of those heads where the G looks like a C because the screwhead impression was overlapping and covering up part of the right-side of the letter. Just a guess 'cause other than that they look just like G heads.
 It is supposedly a "C" -- P, 08/14/2003
I came to that conclusion too, but the guy says it's a "C", so if nothing turns up, then it may well be a "G". There is supposedly a "C" version out there, but I don't have the data. Thanks for the note, P
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18155&Reply=18139><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: maybe it's a C4AE-G head</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John Saxon, <i>08/17/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Have you ever seen a C4AE-H head?If so what are they off of? </blockquote> RE: maybe it's a C4AE-G head -- John Saxon, 08/17/2003
Have you ever seen a C4AE-H head?If so what are they off of?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18160&Reply=18139><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: maybe it's a C4AE-G head</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Barry B, <i>08/17/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Lowriser heads, at least that's what I have read from several different places.  Some had pretty late date codes like Nov. '66 so looks like a service part too.  Do they have spring seats?  Sorry I've not personally run across any though.  Hope this helps. </blockquote> RE: maybe it's a C4AE-G head -- Barry B, 08/17/2003
Lowriser heads, at least that's what I have read from several different places. Some had pretty late date codes like Nov. '66 so looks like a service part too. Do they have spring seats? Sorry I've not personally run across any though. Hope this helps.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18162&Reply=18139><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: maybe it's a C4AE-G head</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John Saxon, <i>08/17/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Yeah mine have later date codes,they have spring seats too.where did you read about them,I haven't been able to find them mentioned anywhere. Thanks </blockquote> RE: maybe it's a C4AE-G head -- John Saxon, 08/17/2003
Yeah mine have later date codes,they have spring seats too.where did you read about them,I haven't been able to find them mentioned anywhere. Thanks
 RE: maybe it's a C4AE-G head -- Barry B, 08/18/2003
It was quite a few years ago when I did a search on that number and can't remember exactly were I found them, sorry. I think a few were hardcore racing boards that may not be there anymore. Maybe fordfe.com too. (sorry Mr.F) The info came first-hand from people who had those heads. Can't verify it but I think they were also used on the early Marine engines.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18115&Reply=18115><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>1966 Harmonic Balancer Size</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Chad Zeilenga, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Hey,<br>Does anyone know how to measure the harmonic balancer.  I am going to buy some timing tape from Summit and they list a 6&somethin and then a 7" Balancer for the FE Ford.  I have a 1966 Galaxie w/390.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Chad </blockquote> 1966 Harmonic Balancer Size -- Chad Zeilenga, 08/13/2003
Hey,
Does anyone know how to measure the harmonic balancer. I am going to buy some timing tape from Summit and they list a 6&somethin and then a 7" Balancer for the FE Ford. I have a 1966 Galaxie w/390.

Thanks,
Chad
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18121&Reply=18115><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 1966 Harmonic Balancer Size</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>salid, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>careful what you are actually looking at.  Some 66 FEs used a stamped metal 3 belt pulley that mounts over the top of the small damper that has a single belt groove cut into it.  The timing marks are stamped into the back edge of this 3 belt pulley.  I don't think you'll find a timing tape that will fit this </blockquote> RE: 1966 Harmonic Balancer Size -- salid, 08/13/2003
careful what you are actually looking at. Some 66 FEs used a stamped metal 3 belt pulley that mounts over the top of the small damper that has a single belt groove cut into it. The timing marks are stamped into the back edge of this 3 belt pulley. I don't think you'll find a timing tape that will fit this
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=19744&Reply=18115><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 1966 Harmonic Balancer Size</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John, <i>01/13/2004</i></font><br /><blockquote>Say...does anyone know where to get a new or rebuilt harmonic balancer like the one "salid" just described...the small 6.5" narrow pulley from a 66 FE.  I need one BAD!<br><br>Thanks! </blockquote> RE: 1966 Harmonic Balancer Size -- John, 01/13/2004
Say...does anyone know where to get a new or rebuilt harmonic balancer like the one "salid" just described...the small 6.5" narrow pulley from a 66 FE. I need one BAD!

Thanks!
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=19766&Reply=18115><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Here.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce, <i>01/15/2004</i></font><br /><blockquote><a href="http://www.perogie.com">http://www.perogie.com</a> </blockquote> Here. -- Royce, 01/15/2004
http://www.perogie.com
 better yet.... -- hawkrod, 01/15/2004
any good parts place has the balancers brand new. i got mine at NAPA and all of my Tbird catalogs list them. apparently it is one of those items that nobody realizes is still made! hawkrod
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18110&Reply=18110><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>FE Oil System ARGH!</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Eric, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have enjoyed all the wisdom available on the variuos FE forums. I have a cronic low oil pressure problem on a fresh 352 rebuild. Main and rod clearance is .001 to .0015. I'm running 10-40w and a melling HV pump. In the morning, about 60DEGF, I get 60 PSI at 1,000 RPM. Has the engine heats up, idle pressure drops to 5 PSI. Here are the readings at 185DEGF engine temp. Idle 5 PSI, 1000RPM 10PSI, 1500 18PSI, 2000 28PSI, 2500 39PSI, 4000RPM 50PSI. All readings from a calibrated guage. <br><br>Rocker shafts are remanufactured. At idle, the shafts are dripping oil but not "running" oil. At idle, I get an occasional oil light. The engine runs good and there is no valve train noise. Melling tech support advises they suspect engine clearance issues. The original brake-in went bad as a had a cam lobe go flat. On teardown, I found cam bearing #3 totally destroyed. I tore down the engine, cleaned it and installed new bearings, using the poper tools. The new cam turned freely. When the second cam broke in, I had 80PSI, at 3500RPM, at first. As the engine warmed up, pressure dropped. <br><br>I suspect that #3 cam bearing is bad again.  What are the chances of misalignment?  What other problems could be causing bearing failure?<br><br>I need to get back on to my twin turbo Mustang Fastback project so I'm thinking about using 20-50W and forgetting about this for a while. The truck is a ranch truck with occasional use. This FE has taken way to much time. I could have rebuilt three SBF fords in the time I spent on this truck engine. What a pain! </blockquote> FE Oil System ARGH! -- Eric, 08/13/2003
I have enjoyed all the wisdom available on the variuos FE forums. I have a cronic low oil pressure problem on a fresh 352 rebuild. Main and rod clearance is .001 to .0015. I'm running 10-40w and a melling HV pump. In the morning, about 60DEGF, I get 60 PSI at 1,000 RPM. Has the engine heats up, idle pressure drops to 5 PSI. Here are the readings at 185DEGF engine temp. Idle 5 PSI, 1000RPM 10PSI, 1500 18PSI, 2000 28PSI, 2500 39PSI, 4000RPM 50PSI. All readings from a calibrated guage.

Rocker shafts are remanufactured. At idle, the shafts are dripping oil but not "running" oil. At idle, I get an occasional oil light. The engine runs good and there is no valve train noise. Melling tech support advises they suspect engine clearance issues. The original brake-in went bad as a had a cam lobe go flat. On teardown, I found cam bearing #3 totally destroyed. I tore down the engine, cleaned it and installed new bearings, using the poper tools. The new cam turned freely. When the second cam broke in, I had 80PSI, at 3500RPM, at first. As the engine warmed up, pressure dropped.

I suspect that #3 cam bearing is bad again. What are the chances of misalignment? What other problems could be causing bearing failure?

I need to get back on to my twin turbo Mustang Fastback project so I'm thinking about using 20-50W and forgetting about this for a while. The truck is a ranch truck with occasional use. This FE has taken way to much time. I could have rebuilt three SBF fords in the time I spent on this truck engine. What a pain!
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18149&Reply=18110><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: FE Oil System ARGH!</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Eric, <i>08/16/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Update 20w-50 oil raised idle pressure about 5 PSI.  Now it is 8-10 PSI.  I will try the 5/16 chebby push rod oil modification this weked. <br> </blockquote> RE: FE Oil System ARGH! -- Eric, 08/16/2003
Update 20w-50 oil raised idle pressure about 5 PSI. Now it is 8-10 PSI. I will try the 5/16 chebby push rod oil modification this weked.
 RE: FE Oil System ARGH! -- Petes Ponies, 08/16/2003
if you are referring to a oil restrictor at the rocker shafts...a SB Ford pushrod can be cut to produce a restrictor. Just drop it in the hole. You want about a .090 restriction hole.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18151&Reply=18110><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: FE Oil System ARGH!</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Gerry Proctor, <i>08/16/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>If you have low oil pressure, restricting rocker shaft oiling is nothing more than chicken soup when you're sick(won't hurt but won't help either).<br><br>I think you have a cam bearing problem...again.  Low oil pressure is usually attributable to the cam bearings.  Even with wide rod and main clearances, you'd have better pressure than that but oil will flood past cam bearings. </blockquote> RE: FE Oil System ARGH! -- Gerry Proctor, 08/16/2003
If you have low oil pressure, restricting rocker shaft oiling is nothing more than chicken soup when you're sick(won't hurt but won't help either).

I think you have a cam bearing problem...again. Low oil pressure is usually attributable to the cam bearings. Even with wide rod and main clearances, you'd have better pressure than that but oil will flood past cam bearings.
 RE: FE Oil System ARGH! -- Eric, 08/16/2003
I ran the motor, before the rebuild, and it had the same low oil pressure problem. The previous owner also observed low oil and the truck had been like that sence he bought it.

The second camshaft turned just fine in the bearings so I don't suspect alignment problems.

For now, I'm gona move on to the TT fastback.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18153&Reply=18110><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: FE Oil System ARGH!</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>tom, <i>08/17/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>what year is it some early eng. require mods. to the cam plate the had a button on them also did you rebuild the rocker shafts or some one else the is a solid shaft and a hyd. is the rear cam plug in right some guys put them in wrong and the cam will rub on it and shavings will kill the bearings . </blockquote> RE: FE Oil System ARGH! -- tom, 08/17/2003
what year is it some early eng. require mods. to the cam plate the had a button on them also did you rebuild the rocker shafts or some one else the is a solid shaft and a hyd. is the rear cam plug in right some guys put them in wrong and the cam will rub on it and shavings will kill the bearings .
 RE: FE Oil System ARGH! -- Eric, 08/17/2003
Its a '66 so it's after the stopped using the button. The shafts were from a local machine shop and they were remanufactured. Cam plug installed wih cup towrads cam and cam rotated freely.

Keep the ideas comming!
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18231&Reply=18110><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: FE Oil System ARGH!</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Joe, <i>08/24/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I am not a machanic so I am probably wrong but.  My engine rebuilder just rebuilt my engine and orginally ordered a pump for a 427 thinking it would not matter but as he researched it the 427 pumps out way to much pressure. I wonder if its pumping too much oil at first until the the pan dries up than the pressure drops. </blockquote> RE: FE Oil System ARGH! -- Joe, 08/24/2003
I am not a machanic so I am probably wrong but. My engine rebuilder just rebuilt my engine and orginally ordered a pump for a 427 thinking it would not matter but as he researched it the 427 pumps out way to much pressure. I wonder if its pumping too much oil at first until the the pan dries up than the pressure drops.
 RE: FE Oil System ARGH! -- Eric, 08/24/2003
No, I don't thinks so. Otherwise, the oil the pressure wouldn't come up with RPM like it does. My bet is still loose rocker shaft clearance. Right now, I'm working on the Twin Turbo project but I will try some restrictors soon.
 RE: FE Oil System ARGH! -- Allen, 08/18/2003
One thing you might want to try is just installing an external oil cooler. You can get them that have electric fans so that they cool even idling at a stop light. In my opinion, this will be the easiest thing, but I have never done it.

Allen
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18217&Reply=18110><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: FE Oil System ARGH!</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>giacamo, <i>08/22/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>you have a oil galiery plug out or cocked lose in its bore i have sean this before those little pluges are a bitch i tap them on my rebilds and instale littel allen plugs to insure i dont have this problem </blockquote> RE: FE Oil System ARGH! -- giacamo, 08/22/2003
you have a oil galiery plug out or cocked lose in its bore i have sean this before those little pluges are a bitch i tap them on my rebilds and instale littel allen plugs to insure i dont have this problem
 RE: FE Oil System ARGH! -- Barry R, 08/27/2003
I think I mentioned the same thing on another post - - the galley plug that closes one of the lifter galleys is hidden behind the cam timing sprocket & distributor. Its really easy to miss during assembly...trust me....
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18100&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike, <i>08/12/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I posted this question quite awhile ago....and at that time i figured i had a 390 with a 428 intake on my '66 Fairlane GT...But this summer i have met a couple a guys who appear to "know FE's" at a local cruise night,and looked at my engine...The 1st guy said that it looked like a 428,...pointing out the valve covers (chrome and say "powered by ford") the alt. is mounted "low"..he said like a 428 not a 390..??..also that i have room for 3 belts on the front ?......these last two didn't make any sense to me!...he then said on the outside it looked lik a 428...but added that i would have to tear it down to be sure(I figured that!)...Last week I met a guy.who drove in with a cherry 70 429 cobra jet...After talking with him and finding out he has another 429 engine,3- 428 cj's and a 427 engine at home (wow),I asked him if he would look at my engine,walking over to my GT he said you got a 390 in it huh? I said i wasn't sure..right away he spots the 428cj intake on it...then he looked at the fan and said i have a 428cj fan...I showed him how the heads don't match the exhaust manifolds,he said that the heads were made for a bigger car. and that they were either 390 hipo or 428 heads?and added.that if the exhaust manifolds would match they wouldn't fit inbetween the shock towers...(extra bolt hole in front.on top of the heads) he said an easy way to tell was to look at the flywheel? (counter balance)and tryed to get under the car but it sits a little too low in the front....we kept talk'in ...but he kept peek'in at it....<br>  So anyway this is what i have...intake C8OE-9425-C....Heads are C8AE-H......Exhaust manifold (right side)C80E-9430-A....fan C80E-B...alt. mounting bracket C8AE-10156-A....Can't find any block casting numbers ..but did find date casting..which decoded showed it was cast on Jan.12th 1969..I did try to measure the stroke a couple of years ago...with the wooden dowel method..and came up with something inbetween a 390 and a 428 stroke....but I didn't have a socket big enough to get on the flywheel so i turned by hand as far as i could each way...this last guy suggested taking all the plugs out ...to get rid of the compression,i'll be able to get a full stroke..(never thought of that!)....I know that the intake is 428cj,the heads are "generic" heads used from 68-72? (360,390,428?),and I was told the exhaust is a 390 GT....<br> So my question is... are these two "experts" just getting my hopes up or is there any truth to what they say,?I'm curious about the fan and the other #'s......I'm just a "rookie"when it comes to FE's!<br>                 Thanks inadvance<br>                  Mike ,'66 fairlane GT </blockquote> 390...or 428? (long) -- mike, 08/12/2003
I posted this question quite awhile ago....and at that time i figured i had a 390 with a 428 intake on my '66 Fairlane GT...But this summer i have met a couple a guys who appear to "know FE's" at a local cruise night,and looked at my engine...The 1st guy said that it looked like a 428,...pointing out the valve covers (chrome and say "powered by ford") the alt. is mounted "low"..he said like a 428 not a 390..??..also that i have room for 3 belts on the front ?......these last two didn't make any sense to me!...he then said on the outside it looked lik a 428...but added that i would have to tear it down to be sure(I figured that!)...Last week I met a guy.who drove in with a cherry 70 429 cobra jet...After talking with him and finding out he has another 429 engine,3- 428 cj's and a 427 engine at home (wow),I asked him if he would look at my engine,walking over to my GT he said you got a 390 in it huh? I said i wasn't sure..right away he spots the 428cj intake on it...then he looked at the fan and said i have a 428cj fan...I showed him how the heads don't match the exhaust manifolds,he said that the heads were made for a bigger car. and that they were either 390 hipo or 428 heads?and added.that if the exhaust manifolds would match they wouldn't fit inbetween the shock towers...(extra bolt hole in front.on top of the heads) he said an easy way to tell was to look at the flywheel? (counter balance)and tryed to get under the car but it sits a little too low in the front....we kept talk'in ...but he kept peek'in at it....
So anyway this is what i have...intake C8OE-9425-C....Heads are C8AE-H......Exhaust manifold (right side)C80E-9430-A....fan C80E-B...alt. mounting bracket C8AE-10156-A....Can't find any block casting numbers ..but did find date casting..which decoded showed it was cast on Jan.12th 1969..I did try to measure the stroke a couple of years ago...with the wooden dowel method..and came up with something inbetween a 390 and a 428 stroke....but I didn't have a socket big enough to get on the flywheel so i turned by hand as far as i could each way...this last guy suggested taking all the plugs out ...to get rid of the compression,i'll be able to get a full stroke..(never thought of that!)....I know that the intake is 428cj,the heads are "generic" heads used from 68-72? (360,390,428?),and I was told the exhaust is a 390 GT....
So my question is... are these two "experts" just getting my hopes up or is there any truth to what they say,?I'm curious about the fan and the other #'s......I'm just a "rookie"when it comes to FE's!
Thanks inadvance
Mike ,'66 fairlane GT
 RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- Martin Micheelsen, 08/13/2003
Hi Mike, I used to think the "upgraded" engine, put in my 69 Cougar XR7 by the previous owner, was a 428CJ - It had the 428CJ cylinder heads, fan etc. Testing the stroke of the engine can give you a good indication of what you have. Remove the spark plugs in cylinder 1 and 4 and place the piston in cylinder 1 at tdc. Then with a metal rod measure the distance from the edge of the valve cover to the piston in 1 and 4. The difference is the stroke. 352s are 3.5 inches, 390s 3.75 and 428s 4.0.

Good luck. I hope yours is a 428.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18107&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>The heads are common to 68 - 72 360,390 and 428 passenger car and light truck. The intake was used on 428CJ and 428 passenger car and police. The fan was used on 68 - 69 390 and 428CJ in Mustang, Cougar, Fairlane and Comet.<br><br>Truthfully it sounds like a 390 with a 428 intake.<br><br>Royce  </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- Royce Peterson, 08/13/2003
The heads are common to 68 - 72 360,390 and 428 passenger car and light truck. The intake was used on 428CJ and 428 passenger car and police. The fan was used on 68 - 69 390 and 428CJ in Mustang, Cougar, Fairlane and Comet.

Truthfully it sounds like a 390 with a 428 intake.

Royce
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18108&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Thanks guys,<br>      I'll try and measure the stroke again today,..I'am think'in the last time I did it,. it was 3 13/16....but I don't remember..the numbers on the valve covers was something like C80E...??I'l post anything I find out..I know that some 428 blocks had no casting numbers..were there some 390's missing casting numbers also? I found the date cast below the starter...but that was all... </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- mike, 08/13/2003
Thanks guys,
I'll try and measure the stroke again today,..I'am think'in the last time I did it,. it was 3 13/16....but I don't remember..the numbers on the valve covers was something like C80E...??I'l post anything I find out..I know that some 428 blocks had no casting numbers..were there some 390's missing casting numbers also? I found the date cast below the starter...but that was all...
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18109&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>tom, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>the cast # are on the drives side in front o a fe check your flywheel for a weight  </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- tom, 08/13/2003
the cast # are on the drives side in front o a fe check your flywheel for a weight
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18111&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I just measured the stroke...with #1 tdc,and #4...(I borrowed a 15/16 socket from the neighbor)...and I don't know what to think now!,..measured twice and came up with a difference of 4 1/2 and 4 3/8....??<br>  They are both at an angle of course,..so i tryed to get a true measurment..but didn't expect this??....by the way...the # on the valve cover is C80E 9C4 (8 or E) 5 B<br>        any ideas?? </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- mike, 08/13/2003
I just measured the stroke...with #1 tdc,and #4...(I borrowed a 15/16 socket from the neighbor)...and I don't know what to think now!,..measured twice and came up with a difference of 4 1/2 and 4 3/8....??
They are both at an angle of course,..so i tryed to get a true measurment..but didn't expect this??....by the way...the # on the valve cover is C80E 9C4 (8 or E) 5 B
any ideas??
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18113&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Since the 390 and 428 are balanced differently isnt the flywheel and balancer differant? I would think the balancer would have the part number or something to show it goes to a 428 or 390.I know the fly wheel has to be completely differant.    </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- mike, 08/13/2003
Since the 390 and 428 are balanced differently isnt the flywheel and balancer differant? I would think the balancer would have the part number or something to show it goes to a 428 or 390.I know the fly wheel has to be completely differant.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18116&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>rusty, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote> 390 is internally balanced 428 is externally </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- rusty, 08/13/2003
390 is internally balanced 428 is externally
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18125&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Harmonic balancers are the same for any given year</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>1966 428's used the same harmonic balancers as 1966 390's and 352's. <br><br>1968 390's used the same balancer as 1968 360's and 390's and so on.<br><br>You are measuring the stroke improperly, no FE came from the factory with more than a 3.98" stroke.<br><br>Any and all block casting numbers are meaningless other than the date which won't help you.<br><br>Royce </blockquote> Harmonic balancers are the same for any given year -- Royce Peterson, 08/13/2003
1966 428's used the same harmonic balancers as 1966 390's and 352's.

1968 390's used the same balancer as 1968 360's and 390's and so on.

You are measuring the stroke improperly, no FE came from the factory with more than a 3.98" stroke.

Any and all block casting numbers are meaningless other than the date which won't help you.

Royce
 RE: Harmonic balancers are the same for any given year -- mike, 08/14/2003
royce,
thanks for the input....I kinda knew about the block casting numbers.....If I get a chance i'll measure the stroke again tomorrow.....somebody mentioned something about a "scat crank"??that would put the stroke at 4 1/4"...a stroker??
I also think i got a "false" measurement on the #1..cause of the angle and the shock tower was right there..but I think I got a pretty good reading on # 4
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18117&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>flywheel/balencer</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>the engine is in my car....is there anything i can see,while in the car?....that I haven't looked for?.......remember,...I no mechanic!!,.. </blockquote> flywheel/balencer -- mike, 08/13/2003
the engine is in my car....is there anything i can see,while in the car?....that I haven't looked for?.......remember,...I no mechanic!!,..
 RE: flywheel/balencer -- rusty, 08/13/2003
if you can see casting # on block c6me-a ,c7me-a or c7me-c are 428;s the c7me a &c are cj;s
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18119&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>rusty, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>c8ae-h heads are stock 390 428 not cj;s there thermactor heads right ?not sure about intake but c8oz9424-b is factory cj scj iron 4v </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- rusty, 08/13/2003
c8ae-h heads are stock 390 428 not cj;s there thermactor heads right ?not sure about intake but c8oz9424-b is factory cj scj iron 4v
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18122&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>rusty,<br> yeah, there thermactor heads...<br> I couldn't find any casting numbers on the block beside the date casting ..on the pass. side under the starter. </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- mike, 08/13/2003
rusty,
yeah, there thermactor heads...
I couldn't find any casting numbers on the block beside the date casting ..on the pass. side under the starter.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18123&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>My block is C7me-a,its a 390</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>steve, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> My block is C7me-a,its a 390 -- steve, 08/13/2003
n/m
  Those numbers don"t mean anything. -- steve, 08/13/2003
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18127&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John, <i>08/14/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Mike double check the casting #s on the exhaust manifolds,if they are C8OE like you said in the original post they are 428CJ and that would be very good thing even if your engine turns out to be a 390. </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- John, 08/14/2003
Mike double check the casting #s on the exhaust manifolds,if they are C8OE like you said in the original post they are 428CJ and that would be very good thing even if your engine turns out to be a 390.
 RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- Brien, 08/14/2003
In my experience block mumbers don't mean a thing, I have seen 390s with block numbers that "supposedly" indicated a 427 in one case and a 428CJ in another. The best way to see what cubic inch motor you have is to check with local dirt track shops and see if they know who has a "P&G" meter that will tell you exactly the cubic inches you have. You simply screw it into the spark plug hole and turn the motor over, you may have to pull the rocker arm assembly loose so the valves don't open to get a good reading.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18133&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike, <i>08/14/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>John,<br>     The casting number on the exhaust manifold is C80E-9430-A...(right/passenger side)....years ago, I had a book that said that it was a 428cj manifold...but after talking to some people,and actually someone sent me a pic, I think that it is a 390 GT manifold...apparently 428 manifolds are bigger and longer "ending up" below the starter? at least for 428cj's...mine is shorter..now i'am wondering about non cj 428 manifolds?? </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- mike, 08/14/2003
John,
The casting number on the exhaust manifold is C80E-9430-A...(right/passenger side)....years ago, I had a book that said that it was a 428cj manifold...but after talking to some people,and actually someone sent me a pic, I think that it is a 390 GT manifold...apparently 428 manifolds are bigger and longer "ending up" below the starter? at least for 428cj's...mine is shorter..now i'am wondering about non cj 428 manifolds??
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18136&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Manifolds</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>08/14/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Non CJ 428 manifolds were the same as any 390 passenger car and used the vertical 8 bolt pattern.<br><br>Royce </blockquote> Manifolds -- Royce Peterson, 08/14/2003
Non CJ 428 manifolds were the same as any 390 passenger car and used the vertical 8 bolt pattern.

Royce
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18137&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Manifolds</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike, <i>08/14/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>royce,<br>        What about my casting number?...Went to the 428 cj registry web site and the "say" # C80E-9430-A is a 428 cj manifold.."bogus info"?....On the FE big block forum I was told it was  390GT manifold?<br>         I'am gonna go back out to the garage and look around somemore... </blockquote> RE: Manifolds -- mike, 08/14/2003
royce,
What about my casting number?...Went to the 428 cj registry web site and the "say" # C80E-9430-A is a 428 cj manifold.."bogus info"?....On the FE big block forum I was told it was 390GT manifold?
I'am gonna go back out to the garage and look around somemore...
 RE:water pump/manifolds -- mike, 08/14/2003
got a # off the water pump ..if that tells anything....C8AE-8505-B...I think...Also the heads have 3 unused bolt hole on each side..that i can see.. the front 3..only the last top bolt holes are bolted the exhaust...
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18142&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>rusty, <i>08/15/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>the heads are std. 67-70 cc  out of a mid compact fairlane ,mustang comet etc. those are for sure 428cj exh. but  out of a larger car  the mid size cars used 14 bolt pattern thats why you see extra bolt holes. this still does;t tell you much. you can do the bore thing  etc but the only way to know for sure is take the center freeze out on the right side of the block and look inside if there;s a 428 cast inside that;s what you got.my 66 gta has 14 bolt patternexh. and heads. </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- rusty, 08/15/2003
the heads are std. 67-70 cc out of a mid compact fairlane ,mustang comet etc. those are for sure 428cj exh. but out of a larger car the mid size cars used 14 bolt pattern thats why you see extra bolt holes. this still does;t tell you much. you can do the bore thing etc but the only way to know for sure is take the center freeze out on the right side of the block and look inside if there;s a 428 cast inside that;s what you got.my 66 gta has 14 bolt patternexh. and heads.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18145&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390...or 428? (long)</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike, <i>08/15/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>rusty,<br>       to me it looks like its the heads that were made for a "larger" car...cause the heads have un-used bolt holes on the top front 3 spots...an only the back top holes in the heads are bolted to the ex. manifolds...It looks like if the manifolds matched up exactly with the heads it wouldn't fit in-between the shock towers...Also i heard that 428cj ex. manifold were larger with the pass. side ends up below the starter?...Mine ends above the starter..... </blockquote> RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- mike, 08/15/2003
rusty,
to me it looks like its the heads that were made for a "larger" car...cause the heads have un-used bolt holes on the top front 3 spots...an only the back top holes in the heads are bolted to the ex. manifolds...It looks like if the manifolds matched up exactly with the heads it wouldn't fit in-between the shock towers...Also i heard that 428cj ex. manifold were larger with the pass. side ends up below the starter?...Mine ends above the starter.....
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18148&Reply=18100><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>exhaust?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>salid, <i>08/15/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Mike, check this site for an excellent discussion on FE exhausts.  I think it will answer your question about which exhaust?<br><a href="http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/b/s/bsprowl/Exhaust/Exhaust.htm">http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/b/s/bsprowl/Exhaust/Exhaust.htm</a> </blockquote> exhaust? -- salid, 08/15/2003
Mike, check this site for an excellent discussion on FE exhausts. I think it will answer your question about which exhaust?
http://personal.atl.bellsouth.net/b/s/bsprowl/Exhaust/Exhaust.htm
 RE: exhaust? -- dave, 09/10/2003
good grief.....drop the lower crossmember.....drop the oil pan and check the stamp in the crank....it will take less time than reading this thread
 RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- giacamo, 09/10/2003
the way i can tell is take off the tranes inspection cover and take a good look at the flex plate or fliweel if it is counter ballanced it is a 428 if it is zero ballanced it may be a 390 352 most 428 and 390 intake and heads are the same.dont feal so bad if if its onley a 390 i feal a 390 is a lot better engine then the 428 i would take azero ballanced 390 over a counter balanced rod tosser 428 any day
 RE: 390...or 428? (long) -- giacamo, 09/10/2003
ps if the wrong flex plate or flyweel is in thear your engin will shaek like a bitch.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18098&Reply=18098><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>rocker arms, shafts and pedetals</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>67stang, <i>08/12/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>mild built 390,  customer wants to upgrade to new system so we can adjust out the little bit of lifter noise that he hears,  i feel it is quite but hey it is the customers money,  what have you guys experianced as the best set-up for replacing the rocker arms, shafts and pedestals .  the heads are the aluminum edelbrock <br><br>thanks </blockquote> rocker arms, shafts and pedetals -- 67stang, 08/12/2003
mild built 390, customer wants to upgrade to new system so we can adjust out the little bit of lifter noise that he hears, i feel it is quite but hey it is the customers money, what have you guys experianced as the best set-up for replacing the rocker arms, shafts and pedestals . the heads are the aluminum edelbrock

thanks
 RE: rocker arms, shafts and pedetals -- Geoff McNew, 08/13/2003
Erson makes a great set of billet roller rockers, a fat $600.00 complete with the shafts & billet bases.

The factory adjustable set up is fine too for street spring rates/rpms.

Either way, you need to get new pushrods with cup end instead of ball at the rocker end, and with aluminum heads USE THE ROCKER SHAFT STUD KIT ESON RECOMMENDS or you risk backing out the helicoil inserts.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18097&Reply=18097><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Clutch return springs</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Joe, <i>08/12/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have a 69 428CJ Mach 1 that I am restoring and I got it in pieces and a lot are missing. Can someone tell me how and where the clutch return springs hook up on it. Or where there may be a sketch or something. Thanks<br>                              Joe at JWM59@aol.com </blockquote> Clutch return springs -- Joe, 08/12/2003
I have a 69 428CJ Mach 1 that I am restoring and I got it in pieces and a lot are missing. Can someone tell me how and where the clutch return springs hook up on it. Or where there may be a sketch or something. Thanks
Joe at JWM59@aol.com
 RE: Clutch return springs -- Geoff McNew, 08/13/2003
The small diameter spring goes from the little hole at the very end of the clutch fork to a large hole on the inside of the frame rail.

The larger spring goes from a v-shaped tab welded to the firewall below the power brake vacuum booster...it's an absolute bitch to get hooked...blind and cramped. The other end goes to the notch in the equalizer bar just below where the round clutch pedal rod attaches.

Hope this helps.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18083&Reply=18083><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390gt heads</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Steve, <i>08/12/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>are 66 390Gt cylinder heads classed as medium riser heads. </blockquote> 390gt heads -- Steve, 08/12/2003
are 66 390Gt cylinder heads classed as medium riser heads.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18085&Reply=18083><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: No.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Gerry Proctor, <i>08/12/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>They are ordinary passenger car heads.  The only difference between a "GT" head on a Fairlane or Mustang and the heads on a 390 2bbl Galaxy station wagon are the valve springs and the bolt location on the exhaust flange.  They are really nothing special.<br><br>Post the casting number on the heads and we can give you more information on them.  If they are the C6AE-R heads (casting number located between the two inboard spark plug holes), they are the more desireable of the smog-era heads since they can equal the flow of the 428CJ head with the installation of the CJ valve sizes and a bit of port work in the bowl. </blockquote> RE: No. -- Gerry Proctor, 08/12/2003
They are ordinary passenger car heads. The only difference between a "GT" head on a Fairlane or Mustang and the heads on a 390 2bbl Galaxy station wagon are the valve springs and the bolt location on the exhaust flange. They are really nothing special.

Post the casting number on the heads and we can give you more information on them. If they are the C6AE-R heads (casting number located between the two inboard spark plug holes), they are the more desireable of the smog-era heads since they can equal the flow of the 428CJ head with the installation of the CJ valve sizes and a bit of port work in the bowl.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18091&Reply=18083><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: No.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Steve, <i>08/12/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>The casting# on the heads is C6AE-R, are these good performace heads & are they considered low or medium riser heads. </blockquote> RE: No. -- Steve, 08/12/2003
The casting# on the heads is C6AE-R, are these good performace heads & are they considered low or medium riser heads.
 RE: No. -- Gerry Proctor, 08/12/2003
They are the more preferred smog-era passenger car heads. And, no, they are not considered low-riser, medium-riser, or any other riser. The only heads that are classified that way are the 427 heads. But if you insist, they are closest to low risers.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18077&Reply=18077><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Valve train noise</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Gregory Westphall, <i>08/11/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Hello all,<br>This is my first posting.  I have reviewed the forum and have been impressed with the number of responses and insight that its participants have.  I have a question regarding valve train noise that I have been experiencing since the engine was rebuilt.  Here are the specs.  1969 Mercury Cyclone CJ.  428 + .040, 10.5:1 pistons, A/T, FPA tri-y, Unilite, Performer RPM Heads, RPM Intake and waterpump, Crower Solid Lifter #16356 level 3 camshaft, std shaft rockers, ball cup push rods, mechanical holley fuel pump, 800 dp.<br><br>As stated my engine has been making valve train noise and giving me problems since day one of the rebuild.  When the engine starts up cold the noise is barely legible.  As the engine warms up the noise becomes more and more pronounced.  Just the opposite as one would expect for rocker arm noise.  I have always looked to places other than the rocker arms like a header leak, fuel pump or timing chains because of this.  This weekend I decided to pull the valve covers with the engine cold and measure the clearance.  To my surprise the clearance was around .015 for the intakes and around .017 for the exhausts.  This is less than what I set them 2-weeks prior (.020 I, .022 E) not to mention the engine was stone cold.  How could this be?  I put the valve covers back on and started the car up and let it warm up as it warmed up the noise returned.  Then I pulled one of the valve covers again and remeasured the clearance.  To my surprise the clearance had grown and in some cases beyond the spec thus producing the tappet noise.  It seemed as though the valves I set last had the most clearance.  I normally set them from front to back with the engine hot.  This time I set them from back to front.  As I got towards the frond of the engine the clearances were spot on.  I installed the valve cover on the passenger side, started the engine and let it get hot again and then removed the valve cover on the drivers side only to find the same thing.  I reset those valves and installed the valve cover and sure enough the valve train noise disppeared and has remained that way since Saturday.  I have driven the car pretty hard with several 5800 rpm shifts and it seems to still sound great.  Can anyone explain to me why the valve lash would increase as the engine gets hotter?  This has me baffled.<br>Some additonal information. I threw a rod in it in 1984.  The broken rod split the camshaft in two and sent parts flying all over the engine.  The car sat for 10 years before I was able to get back to it and give it the proper restoration it deserved.  My dad is the original owner.  I had the same noise with hydraulic lifters when the engine was first started up after the rebuild.  That is why I went to solid lifters. I thought that maybe the machinist had removed the restricter at the back of the block that helps keep up oil presuure for the lifters.  It also made the same noise with the stock CJ cast iron heads.<br><br>I know it probably sounds like I am an idiot and can't adjust a valve train properly but that really isn't the case.  I have never run into this problem on any other engine I have worked on.  Is it possible that the camshaft is walking or the rocker shafts or arms are flexing as the engine gets hot.  Could I have damaged something in the structure of the block that would cause things to move around.  During assembly we found that we had to slightly scrape 2 of the cam bearings in order to get the camshaft to spin properly.  I have read that this can be required in older engines and is not uncommon.  The rocker shaft assemblies are over the counter standard adjustable units with aluminum pedestals.  The rocker arms are Ford Power Parts.    <br>Any help would be appreciated.  For now I am going to enjoy the peace and quiet and hope the noise only returns after 3000 miles. </blockquote> Valve train noise -- Gregory Westphall, 08/11/2003
Hello all,
This is my first posting. I have reviewed the forum and have been impressed with the number of responses and insight that its participants have. I have a question regarding valve train noise that I have been experiencing since the engine was rebuilt. Here are the specs. 1969 Mercury Cyclone CJ. 428 + .040, 10.5:1 pistons, A/T, FPA tri-y, Unilite, Performer RPM Heads, RPM Intake and waterpump, Crower Solid Lifter #16356 level 3 camshaft, std shaft rockers, ball cup push rods, mechanical holley fuel pump, 800 dp.

As stated my engine has been making valve train noise and giving me problems since day one of the rebuild. When the engine starts up cold the noise is barely legible. As the engine warms up the noise becomes more and more pronounced. Just the opposite as one would expect for rocker arm noise. I have always looked to places other than the rocker arms like a header leak, fuel pump or timing chains because of this. This weekend I decided to pull the valve covers with the engine cold and measure the clearance. To my surprise the clearance was around .015 for the intakes and around .017 for the exhausts. This is less than what I set them 2-weeks prior (.020 I, .022 E) not to mention the engine was stone cold. How could this be? I put the valve covers back on and started the car up and let it warm up as it warmed up the noise returned. Then I pulled one of the valve covers again and remeasured the clearance. To my surprise the clearance had grown and in some cases beyond the spec thus producing the tappet noise. It seemed as though the valves I set last had the most clearance. I normally set them from front to back with the engine hot. This time I set them from back to front. As I got towards the frond of the engine the clearances were spot on. I installed the valve cover on the passenger side, started the engine and let it get hot again and then removed the valve cover on the drivers side only to find the same thing. I reset those valves and installed the valve cover and sure enough the valve train noise disppeared and has remained that way since Saturday. I have driven the car pretty hard with several 5800 rpm shifts and it seems to still sound great. Can anyone explain to me why the valve lash would increase as the engine gets hotter? This has me baffled.
Some additonal information. I threw a rod in it in 1984. The broken rod split the camshaft in two and sent parts flying all over the engine. The car sat for 10 years before I was able to get back to it and give it the proper restoration it deserved. My dad is the original owner. I had the same noise with hydraulic lifters when the engine was first started up after the rebuild. That is why I went to solid lifters. I thought that maybe the machinist had removed the restricter at the back of the block that helps keep up oil presuure for the lifters. It also made the same noise with the stock CJ cast iron heads.

I know it probably sounds like I am an idiot and can't adjust a valve train properly but that really isn't the case. I have never run into this problem on any other engine I have worked on. Is it possible that the camshaft is walking or the rocker shafts or arms are flexing as the engine gets hot. Could I have damaged something in the structure of the block that would cause things to move around. During assembly we found that we had to slightly scrape 2 of the cam bearings in order to get the camshaft to spin properly. I have read that this can be required in older engines and is not uncommon. The rocker shaft assemblies are over the counter standard adjustable units with aluminum pedestals. The rocker arms are Ford Power Parts.
Any help would be appreciated. For now I am going to enjoy the peace and quiet and hope the noise only returns after 3000 miles.
 RE: Correction: Valve train noise -- Gregory Westphall, 08/11/2003
I incorrectly stated I had Ford Power Parts Rocker arms. Actually I have Ford Power Parts Push Rods and stock style adjustable rocker arms.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18079&Reply=18077><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Valve train noise</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>08/11/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Greg,<br><br>Did you check to see that the oil holes in the rocker shafts are facing down toward the heads? Wear in the rocker shaft results if the oil holes face upward.<br><br>Royce </blockquote> RE: Valve train noise -- Royce Peterson, 08/11/2003
Greg,

Did you check to see that the oil holes in the rocker shafts are facing down toward the heads? Wear in the rocker shaft results if the oil holes face upward.

Royce
 Yes. The shafts are at the right clock -- Gregory Westphall, 08/12/2003
position. I guess I have to wonder how much is too much noise. I reviewed some of the past stings regarding valve train noise and it would appear that other people have had similar problems with hydraulic lifters. I initially ran a hydraulic camshaft and decided to switch to solid for that very reason only to have the noise reappear. The noise is slightly different with the solids. So far though, since this most recent adjustment, the noise sounds like a typical solid lifter valve train, which is just fine with me.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18081&Reply=18077><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Valve train noise</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>ed cougar, <i>08/11/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I set lash at .024 .026 cold, and after about 200 miles after initial run in I re-set them and had .002-.003 from the initial setting. I also have a crower stage 3 solid flat tappet cam standard shaft and rockers the stands are cast iron 427 med riser type. The valve train noise does increase as the engine warms up I like the sound and consider it normal kinda sounds like collapsed hydraulic lifters. I set half the valves with #1 TDC and the other half with #6 TDC. You could try useing a paint daub on the adjusters to make sure they're staying put. Good luck 428scj eliminator. </blockquote> RE: Valve train noise -- ed cougar, 08/11/2003
I set lash at .024 .026 cold, and after about 200 miles after initial run in I re-set them and had .002-.003 from the initial setting. I also have a crower stage 3 solid flat tappet cam standard shaft and rockers the stands are cast iron 427 med riser type. The valve train noise does increase as the engine warms up I like the sound and consider it normal kinda sounds like collapsed hydraulic lifters. I set half the valves with #1 TDC and the other half with #6 TDC. You could try useing a paint daub on the adjusters to make sure they're staying put. Good luck 428scj eliminator.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18089&Reply=18077><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Thanks.  There is probably a reason why Ford</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Gregory Westphall, <i>08/12/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>Switched to Iron stands for the 427.  I have stock aluminum stands.  It might be a good idea to either find some iron stands or go ahead and drop the cash on a set of Erson assemblies.  Will they fit under stock chrome Power by Ford valve covers?<br>When does your power drop off with your Crower? I hesitate to take mine past 5800 since I don't have the Lemans Rods like you do and have lost a rod in the past.  Am i missing out?  What valve springs are you running? </blockquote> Thanks. There is probably a reason why Ford -- Gregory Westphall, 08/12/2003
Switched to Iron stands for the 427. I have stock aluminum stands. It might be a good idea to either find some iron stands or go ahead and drop the cash on a set of Erson assemblies. Will they fit under stock chrome Power by Ford valve covers?
When does your power drop off with your Crower? I hesitate to take mine past 5800 since I don't have the Lemans Rods like you do and have lost a rod in the past. Am i missing out? What valve springs are you running?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18096&Reply=18077><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Thanks.  There is probably a reason why Ford</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>ed cougar, <i>08/12/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>crower 16357- dur. 270 in 284 ex lift 530 in 535 ex. single spring/w damper 130#@1.800 closed seat pressure. The cast iron 427 med. riser stands are the same size as the standard alum. a no brainer to install. I don't know about the aftermarket stuff and valve cover clearance. My scj runs strong throughout the full Rpm range, and seems to really honk at about 2500 to 5000'ish, I'm sure it is capeable of higher RPM but I'm too coservative (ok chicken). If it was a chevy motor I wouldn't hasitate to wring it out. My scj is worth too much to me and I respect it.  </blockquote> RE: Thanks. There is probably a reason why Ford -- ed cougar, 08/12/2003
crower 16357- dur. 270 in 284 ex lift 530 in 535 ex. single spring/w damper 130#@1.800 closed seat pressure. The cast iron 427 med. riser stands are the same size as the standard alum. a no brainer to install. I don't know about the aftermarket stuff and valve cover clearance. My scj runs strong throughout the full Rpm range, and seems to really honk at about 2500 to 5000'ish, I'm sure it is capeable of higher RPM but I'm too coservative (ok chicken). If it was a chevy motor I wouldn't hasitate to wring it out. My scj is worth too much to me and I respect it.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18106&Reply=18077><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>How streetable is your set-up?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Gregory Westphall, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>I would have figured the performance level 4 camshaft would not have enough vacuum to run power brakes or idle well enough for A/C.  How many inches of vacuum do you pull at idle?<br><br>I am too chicken to run mine too hard as well.  I have already lost one rod and it was not very pretty.  The car sat for 6 years before I had the money or the space to rebuild it.  Luckily I did not have to sleeve it and everything checked out o.k.  Thnaks for the additional info.  If I find out that the Ersons fit under stock stamped rockers I think I know what I want for Christmas.  I just ordered the studs from summit yesterday and got laid away with a $8.45 handling fee the shipping was free though.  What the heck is that? </blockquote> How streetable is your set-up? -- Gregory Westphall, 08/13/2003
I would have figured the performance level 4 camshaft would not have enough vacuum to run power brakes or idle well enough for A/C. How many inches of vacuum do you pull at idle?

I am too chicken to run mine too hard as well. I have already lost one rod and it was not very pretty. The car sat for 6 years before I had the money or the space to rebuild it. Luckily I did not have to sleeve it and everything checked out o.k. Thnaks for the additional info. If I find out that the Ersons fit under stock stamped rockers I think I know what I want for Christmas. I just ordered the studs from summit yesterday and got laid away with a $8.45 handling fee the shipping was free though. What the heck is that?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18112&Reply=18077><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: How streetable is your set-up?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>ED, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>It's very streetable, with 391 gear and 4 speed it's a real blast to drive gets it in every gear, and a trip down the freeway at 60mph around 3200RPM is no problem but most of my pleasure is around town light to light. It's like 1st gear 2300 punch it- out of controll, back off and a nice easy shift to second, punch it again, out of controll, by 3rd gear I run out of street and hit the next light, never needed anything above 5000 RPM (yet) 235x60x15 goodrich TA. Factory 4bbl, police intake, factory exhaust manifolds/w 2-1/4 mufflers and pipe.  </blockquote> RE: How streetable is your set-up? -- ED, 08/13/2003
It's very streetable, with 391 gear and 4 speed it's a real blast to drive gets it in every gear, and a trip down the freeway at 60mph around 3200RPM is no problem but most of my pleasure is around town light to light. It's like 1st gear 2300 punch it- out of controll, back off and a nice easy shift to second, punch it again, out of controll, by 3rd gear I run out of street and hit the next light, never needed anything above 5000 RPM (yet) 235x60x15 goodrich TA. Factory 4bbl, police intake, factory exhaust manifolds/w 2-1/4 mufflers and pipe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18114&Reply=18077><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: How streetable is your set-up?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>ed cougar, <i>08/13/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>12" at idle 850RPM  </blockquote> RE: How streetable is your set-up? -- ed cougar, 08/13/2003
12" at idle 850RPM
 RE: How streetable is your set-up? -- ed cougar, 10/25/2003
I've grown a lot of confidence in my SCJ since the last post to this thread, I'm no longer babying the motor I been down at the local dragstrip every weekend it seems, I'm shifting at 6000 and ET's in the 13.90's@101MPH no headers, no slicks, Then I drive the car 40 mi. back home and a good cleaning, ready to go again. I really like the solid lifter cam and have no regrets.
 RE: Valve train noise -- Gregory Westphall, 08/20/2003
Well I may have answered my own question. After doing some research on the webv I stumbled on a Crane Cams site which explains that for cold adjusting valves with an iron block and aluminum heads you should subtract .006" from the recommended lash. Then, when the engine gets hot readjust to specification. This contrasts with the iron block and iron head combination where you add to the lash number when cold adjusting. This explains why I have little to no valve train noise when I start the engine up cold and then notice the noise start to appear as the engine warms. I found that the engine was cooling down while I was adjusting the valves because it took me too long to get the valve covers off. I sectioned some valve covers and removed the brake booster (1969 Cyclone) to assist this process. I also reduced the lash from specification, which according to Crane is perfectly acceptable within limits depending upon the type of camshaft. Also, I may have been adjusting the exhaust valve a little too early. They recommend that the exhaust be adjusted when the intake is 2/3 of the way closed. I was adjusting the exhaust when the intake was just about fully open. Engine is still running great with just the typical valve train noise one would expect from solid lifters. Installed the Edelbrock Rocker shaft studs last Friday. I now have much better peace of mind. I have pulled 2 heli coils out in the last 5 years.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18904&Reply=18077><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Valve train noise</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>JOHN SCHREIBER, <i>10/25/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote>probably no one will agree but here goes,<br>the rocker shafts,rockers,and valves as well as the head are made of iron  or steel.<br>however, the pedestels are aluminium.<br>aluminium expands roughly three times as fast as steel as well as cast iron.so the rocker shaft ends up moving farther away from the head,opening up the valve lash.this increase of lash causes the exessive noise that u have described.in my own experience,i have found that i could safely reduce valve lash(measured<br>cold)up to.004 under what was specified without danger of dameging anything.hope this helps.  </blockquote> RE: Valve train noise -- JOHN SCHREIBER, 10/25/2003
probably no one will agree but here goes,
the rocker shafts,rockers,and valves as well as the head are made of iron or steel.
however, the pedestels are aluminium.
aluminium expands roughly three times as fast as steel as well as cast iron.so the rocker shaft ends up moving farther away from the head,opening up the valve lash.this increase of lash causes the exessive noise that u have described.in my own experience,i have found that i could safely reduce valve lash(measured
cold)up to.004 under what was specified without danger of dameging anything.hope this helps.
 RE: Valve train noise -- Greg Westphall, 10/27/2003
It is true what you say regarding the expansion rate of aluminum but remember, the pedestals are held captive by the rocker shaft bolts. The expansion that you are speaking of will occur but to a much lesser degree because the stiffness of the bolt will prevent full expansion. In any case, the cylinder head in my application is made of aluminum and although it is held captive by head bolts there is enough area to expand around them. You are correct though that the cold lash should be set .004 -.006" tighter when dealing with aluminum heads tied to an iron block. This number nearly doubles when bolting aluminum heads to an aluminum block. Thanks for the feedback.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=18072&Reply=18072><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>need some help here about a 390</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>zack, <i>08/10/2003</i></font><br /><blockquote> i need to know what the best cubic inch to stroke my 390 to. I've heard 410, 427, 445, 456. I need to which gives me the most horsepower and torque. And what crank and pistons it  takes to make it. </blockquote> need some help here about a 390 -- zack, 08/10/2003
i need to know what the best cubic inch to stroke my 390 to. I've heard 410, 427, 445, 456. I need to which gives me the most horsepower and torque. And what crank and pistons it takes to make it.
 RE: need some help here about a 390 -- Charlie, 08/11/2003
I believe I've read it here in the past, if you have one a 428 crank in a 390 is always a good idea, less you have a 428 block to put it in.

A 428 crank will give you 410 ci in a 390

If power is really your goal, get a 428, in the long run its not really that much more money.

Charlie

PS
If your swapping around cranks good idea to have all rotating parts balanced before installl by a good shop, balancer to flywheel.
 RE: need some help here about a 390 -- rusty, 08/13/2003
charlie's right depends what you want to do . you can take a 390 out to 60 over but have it sonic tested mines not stroked and runs in the 12;s. put your money in other stuff to make her run.
 RE: need some help here about a 390 -- giacamo, 08/22/2003
stick with the 390 . 428;s 410; are rod bearing eaters if run hard.427,s are good same stroke as 390
Go to the top of this page
Go back one page Back    Next Go forward one page

181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200