Skip Navigation Links.
 |  '66 428 PI Valve Covers? -- Mike McQuesten, 12/03/2002
Does anyone have a set of '66 428 PI Valve Covers that they could share some pics of?
I've seen 'em. In pictures and looking under the hoods of Washington State Patrol Cruisers when the troopers would pull in to buy some Ethyl (with TCP! ...whatever that was?) at the Shell station I was working pumping fuel/changing oil at back in '66.
But now I can't find those pics and can you believe it? I can't find a '66 428PI car/engine! I do remember how similar they were to the 427 tall pentroofs of '65 & later but the PI v-covers had a breather and oil fill holes.
BTW, wouldn't the '65 390PI have had a similar or same set of valve covers as the '66 428PI? I know that the '67 & later got the Power by Ford covers.
Why am I asking? Okay, I'll confess that there's a guy who has a strange set of FE covers and I'm thinking too much about them. I can't id them. They've got an oil breather-PCV provision on what looks like it could be the left side(driver) right in the middle just behind the plug wire tab. The right side has an oil filler tube near the front in front of the plug wire tab. This would take a push in oil fill/breather cap. And they're tall sort of pentroof looking.
Might these be early/mid sixties FT covers?
I'd like to know before I start reaching for my wallet.
Thanks. |
| |  | RE: You mean like these...? -- MikeMcQ, 12/04/2002
Thanks Mr. F. They're not exactly like the pic of the '65 390PI you've provided. But similar. I'm speculating that the ones I'm looking at and considering are either industrial or Marine.
Again they have a PCV/breather hole w/groment in the middle of one cover just behind the plug wire clip and a oil fill raised tube on the other in front of the wire clip. This raised tube on the cover would need a push in style not twist in oil fill cap. Similar to the right side PI cover you've provided a pic of.
I'm thinking I should search back a ways to have a look at those industrial FEs Dave posted jpegs of. The ones running Frost Prevention Props... |
| ![Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=15499&Reply=15490><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a> <b>Beats me. I was responding to your request re: 'PI' covers. [n/m]</b> -- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>12/04/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote>](/WebResource.axd?d=vG1pKMaqyV2y6301aKyltvXl1CGNYE0-Mc9frsC84_DI222YFzc4rDnsbtQEmDUqpvejEaNBouvxkCimoUCCRqPKPqZvM9KOiQXtK2Lluvg9jVsH8qm10Sv05bPp6HuM0&t=637814653746327080) | Beats me. I was responding to your request re: 'PI' covers. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/04/2002
n/m |
| |  | RE: 390s, 428s whatever.. -- Mike McQuesten, 12/04/2002
Those might be the covers I'm looking at! Are there any more jpegs of those 390 Frost Killers? Or are there any Marine FE pics circa '65-'66 out there? Anything prior to the generic Power by Ford covers that were intro'ed in '67. |
| | Maybe these? -- Barry B, 12/04/2002
I'm not sure what they came off of but they sure look sweet!
 |
| | | RE: That's them!! -- Mike McQuesten, 12/04/2002
You found 'em Barry! And like you I don't know what they came off of. They don't look like the ones in the HP supplement of the '65 390 PI that Mr. F provided. And those in Mr. F's provided pic look like what I remember the '66 428PI looking like. Very similar to the '65-'66 Mercury tall covers.
The ones I'm looking at look just like the pic you've provided. A pcv/breather hole w/grommet in the middle and oil fill provision on what would be intended as the right(pass.) side which is not too common since most FE covers provided the intended oil add hole to be on the left cover. Although I know it doens't matter which side you add oil. I run two left side tall Mercs on my 390 with a '66 chrome 390GT twist in cap on the driver side of my F100 and a '70 chrome Boss 302 twist in breather w/pcv valve on the right side. Makes it twice as quick when adding oil during the change.
From the pics it does look like the covers you're showing are taller than the '65-'66 low standard style pentroof covers that were common to 352 & 390s during those two years. Is that right? But still they're very similar in style to the low pents, right?
BTW, I'm sure most know that the low pentroofs of '65/'66 were not compatible with adjustable rockers. They looked very nice dressed in chrome on the '66 Fairlane/Cyclone GTs.
Anyone have a clue on what these valve covers that Barry has provided were designed for? They might be great shop wall deco. They'd be on my living room wall but ..... we just celebrated our 33rd anniversary and I've learned to make a lot of compromises. |
| | | | RE: That's them!! -- Barry B, 12/05/2002
Hi Mike! You said:
“From the pics it does look like the covers you're showing are taller than the '65-'66 low standard style pentroof covers that were common to 352 & 390s during those two years. Is that right? But still they're very similar in style to the low pents, right?”
Well here’s a pic of a ’65 352 cover. The heights look similar to me except where if bumps up by the filler. What do you think? BTW I never did care for those wrinkles, why did it get 'em?
The ‘mystery’ covers look a lot like 330 covers except the one’s I’ve seen had a twist-in cap instead of a push-on and that hole was more centered like the PCV hole. Maybe it’s from an early 330?
 |
| | | | | RE: That's them!! -- Mike McQuesten, 12/06/2002
Yes they do look a lot like the low pentroofs but I think they might be high enough to clear adjustable rockers. I'm certain I've seen them on Marine FE engines. And you might be right about the 330 truck app.
As for the wrinkles in the low pents I think they were stress reliefs from the stamping process.....? Just a guess. I'm just not a fan of the low pents. They're okay on a standard performance FE w/non adjustables.
Thanks for the helpful info Barry. |
| | | | | | Got some of those..... -- kevin, 12/06/2002
off a boat I think. I think they were early 65's. Ford was pentroof crazy that year, as there was the PI, 427, Marine, and Industrial. What makes me think early 65 is, the emissions law for closed system was not in effect until then, I could be wrong. I have the short AND long rib short pentroof ones, (6 sets) and have been trying to remember which year was which in reference to the 390 GT, and 7 Litre cars they came off (66 and 67). The rounded "Power By Ford" ones were introduced in 1968. Congratulations on 33 years! I am jealous. I did not forget the starter housing, still have not got in touch with him. |
| | | | | | | RE: Got some of those..... -- Rory McNeil, 12/15/2002
I have a pair of those valve covers, they are from a 330-391 FT truck engine. I`m not sure what yearsthey were used on, however. Kevin, I believe the Power by Ford valve covers came out in 67. |
| Wouldn't it be nice.... -- fordfan, 12/03/2002
If Shelby had his own version of the GT40 with one of his 427's in place of the 5.4? The Shelby edition. I wonder if the regulations would allow this. Maybe even better, if he went ahead and built a 427 Daytona Coupe, if he can find a loophole big enough to get it through. It would be a nuke on the Ferrari's ENZO model.
I probably will never be able to afford any of his stuff, but I am a big fan and appreciate what he has done.
Given his competitive spirit, he might build turbo/blown camels guaranteed to leave Saddam's camels in the dust, or sand! |
| | RE: Wouldn't it be nice.... -- Larry F, 12/04/2002
I wouldn't be surprised if Shelby offers a kit to 'enhance performance'. Imagine a supercharged, injected all aluminum 427 nicely nestled in the chassis! Oops did you say 600 + horsepower on ethanol?
Say is the car midengine or front engined now? I haven't read much on the car since I found out it is actually being produced. Congrats to Ford for making a dream come true!! |
| | | Mid engined, Shelby is now a consultant on the -- ford fan, 12/04/2002
project. It might be possible if Shelby wants to. it would be great, Imagine, the FE on top yet again, outshining theother people , who could keep their multi valve, sophisticated engines! |
| | It will no longer be called GT40..... -- Royce Peterson, 12/05/2002
Ford lost use of the trademark and licensed its use for the show car. All the production versions will be called Ford GT.
Royce Peterson |
| why did the CJ's use a pollution pump and the -- ford fan, 12/03/2002
other FE's didn't? The 68 427 didn't have to use one I don't think, or the 390's. Why they would hinder their hot motor don't mkae much sense |
|  | '68 390'GT' & 427 needed Thermactor, too. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/03/2002
n/m |
| | you got it all wrong...... -- hawkrod, 12/03/2002
as Mr. F stated the other FE's did have thermactor as did almost all 68 stick shift fords with any engine size. but your real mistake is asking why hinder the 428.
actually a thermactor is to allow the engine to remain unhindered. the thermactor system does not rob horsepower to any degree. it, like the PCV, is a beneficial smog system as it requires so little power to operate and does not affect the way an engine runs.
the thermactor is a low volume air pump that just pumps cool air into the exhaust at its hotest point allowing unburned gasses to continue to burn after they leave the cylinder. the only figures i have seen are from a dyno test and they showed that at 5000 rpm a thermactor pump used between 3 and 4 horsepower.
considering the little power needed to run one and the fact that they reduce emission considerably they were used to allow the motor to be "hotter" than would otherwise be allowed. all in all it is kind of foolish to remove a thermactor system considering the benefits and low cost power wise.
hawkrod
[Edited by Admin.] |
| Cj heads -- WAYNE S., 12/02/2002
what type of cj heads are C8OE-6080N?THEY HAVE 2.09 INT. 1.66 EXH. PIPE PLUGS IN EXH. PORTS L
IKE MAYBE FOR SOME KIND OF PORT INJECTION .THEY HAVE 16 PATTERN ON EXH |
| | RE: Cj heads -- S.Vincent, 12/02/2002
They are 1968 428 Cobra Jet heads. |
| | | RE: Cj heads -- WAYNE S., 12/03/2002
thank you for the info, do you know cc's |
| | | | Mine cc'd out to an average 73.4 -- Paul M, 12/03/2002
They ranged anywhere from 72.6-74.2 between both heads. |
| | | | | RE: Mine cc'd out to an average 73.4 -- WAYNE S., 12/04/2002
wow thats quite a range in cc's but that helps me to know what i have thank you |
| | | | | | RE: Mine cc'd out to an average 73.4 -- Paul M, 12/05/2002
Methinks that was because a couple exhaust valves were slightly sunk. That's how it looks to me, at least. They needed hardened seats anyway, looking like they had been run for a long time.
Once they are rebuilt I was going to have them cc'd again, just to see. As it's part of the overhaul price, it's a no-brainer! |
| | | | | | | RE: Mine cc'd out to an average 73.4 -- WAYNE S., 12/05/2002
these heads i have are in need of rebiuld even intake ports have oil residue in them and tops of valve stems are slightly dished from roller rockers or previous stock rockers i think new seals are in order along with what you are condending with-valve seats/seal but wanted to know if these heads are worht putting money into sure app. your onfo too thanks |
| | | | | | | | RE: Mine cc'd out to an average 73.4 -- Paul M, 12/05/2002
That all depends on what you want out of them, and whether you want the weight of iron heads. Alot of people say it's cheaper, in the long run, to go with Edelbrocks. Some say it's better to go with the iron CJ's.
For me, it's a matter of what I have. I have the heads, and intend to build a complete 428CJ in a future project (namely, a `56 F100). Weight wont be a factor, and I already have the heads on hand. They just need an overhaul, which I can do for around $600, and I have a set of brand new heads.
I weight isn't a factor, I say go for it. If you're in it for racing, (even occasionally) you'll probably want to spring for the Ed's.
Just my $0.01 (kinda broke at the moment, can't spare the extra penny!) |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Mine cc'd out to an average 73.4 -- WAYNE S., 12/05/2002
heads fit cobra replica and are for street go preety quick now but 600 in junk heads isnt smart so before doing just wanted to be sure that only thing better is alum heads which i have no need for on street cruising i think |
| 352 engine weight? -- nimartin, 12/02/2002
I have a 1961 Galaxie with a 352 cid engine. It is all iron with a 2-barrel carb. What does this engine weigh? I'm thinking about swapping in a 429 with a C6 tranny and would like to compare weights first. |
| | A 429 would be significantly (~#50) heavier. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/04/2002
n/m |
| | New comprehensive Ford engine weight info. -- Styletone58, 12/07/2002
Dave Shoe was gracious enough to go into his extensive archive of Ford data and posted some fantastic Ford-sourced engine weight data, including part-by-part analysis. I transcribed it into a spreadsheet, and then converted that into HTML. You will see the data as it is presented on the individual forms, so make use of the page tabs. The comparison pages are quite interesting, and certainly quiets the folks who, inexplicably, insist on saying the 400 is a pig. Anyway, it is available here:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tcrocker/FordEngineWeightsV1.html
Mr. F, can you shed some light on what exacly comprises a 6007 engine assembly?
|
| fomoco/holley carb ID -- allan, 12/02/2002
I have a Holley double pump carb on my 65 Tbird with 390 engine. It has a tag on it that says:
Fomoco
C5SF A
C5EC
I have not been able to verify that the tag and the carb go together. Was the Holley carb built for Fomoco in 65? Are there any specs available for this carb that would show CFM?
|
| haveing valve spring dilema -- stangs_fer_blud, 12/01/2002
I have a `69 390cid , 2bbl. motor in my 68 P/u. The motor has 6,000 miles on it. Heads were fitted with hardened seats, new guides(bronze) and new valves. They were also plained .011 on the block side,.008 on the exaust side, and cj springs from comp cams. The rest of the motor is run-of -the -mill, crank turned twenty,bored .010, decked.005. new cam & bearings, double roller chain an gears. My dilema is this, with only six k on it, the motor misses out, but never on the same cylinder. Just replaced wires, cap, rotor and plugs. new kit in carb. just replaced the timing advance plate in distributor as well, and bushings, points,and condenser. this is more noticeable at lower r.p.m. anybody have any ideas? |
| | RE: haveing valve spring dilema -- stangs_fer_blud, 12/01/2002
i forgot to add, any ideas as to why the valve springs would go bad this soon? |
| | Lower RPM problems are not caused by valve springs -- Royce Peterson, 12/02/2002
How did you compensate for the pushrod length problem caused by the milling? You would need shorter pushrods or adjustable rockers to make it work.
Royce Peterson |
| | | RE: Lower RPM problems are not caused by valve springs -- stangs_fer_blud, 12/02/2002
I had asked that question to the fella that did the machine work, His reply was that since I was useing stock cam with hydralic lifters, the lifters would compensate. So your saying that .016 is too much for this? |
| | | | I am saying there is a potential for trouble. -- Royce Peterson, 12/02/2002
The non adjustable rockers work in the all stock motor because the geometry is close enough using all new factory parts. Change anything and it can be wrong in a hurry.
While you know how much it got milled THIS time you can't know how many times the engine or heads were rebuilt in the past. You probably don't know how thick the current head gaskets are compared to the originals. You probably don't know if the base circle on the cam is the same as the original. All these things can add up to trouble that is most easily solved by installing adjustable rocker assemblies.
After the heads were rebuilt could you lay a straight edge on the valve tips and see no gap on any of them? It's possible to use non adjustable rockers if the machine work is damn good and you check everything along the way.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | RE: You better be right on for non adj! -- Ray, 12/02/2002
If you'r going to use non adjustable on your FE, you better be using a machinist thats been in the business for at lest 30 years. I think thats good possibility, but not the only scenario ( Push Rod Lenght .100 to play with ). But here's one that came to mind that happened recently, the seats were loose in the heads and the miss would go from one cylinder to next. We could see throught the spark plug holes that the valves were off the seat!! both banks were like that. What did I say about machinists, look for the one with lots of grey hair. |
| | | | | | HEY NOW!, I resemble that remark........ -- kevin, 12/03/2002
as my once "Redbeard" nicname is long gone, but have to ask, did you try testing your primary voltage to the coil, as this is surely a culprit, and sounds like it may be it? |
| | | | | | | RE: HEY NOW!, I resemble that remark........ -- stangs_fer_blud, 12/08/2002
Thanks for all the input. We took off the intake to pull a couple of the lifters that was noisy. I believe royce is pretty close on this geometry thing. According to my buddy, they was "bottomed out"? Again, thanks for the input, and by the way,,Awsome web-site! |
| Preventing oil leaks -- Larry F, 12/01/2002
I know this is a bit of a trivial question , but does a person use some type of gasket silicone or sealer on gaskets before assembly? I'm using Fel Pro gaskets and the instructions say that I don't need anything else other than at the intake corners. My rebuild books say use a thin line of silicone. What about the oil pan? Can I just lay it on the pan rail and bolt it up with nothing on it? I really don't feel like pulling the motor again to fix these leaks. Is there anyone out there who makes rubber valve cover gaskets? Help? Thank you in advance. |
| | Gaskets -- Royce Peterson, 12/02/2002
Fel Pro makes both rubber and cork valve cover gaskets. Who ever sold you the gaskets you own should be able to sell the other kind too. I like the cork better personally.
Fel pro intake gskets are a molded rubberized substance that shrivels up and shrinks over time. I've had terrible luck with them, you might think about using Victor Reinz intake gaskets. They are asbestos over steel and don't deform over time like the Fel Pro's.
You should glue the oil pan gasket to the oil pan using Hi - Tack glue. Put a small bead of silicone at the front cover parting line and at the parting lines on the rear main cap. Small! You don't want excess silicone floating around in the oil system.
The intake gaskets should be glued to the head so they can't slip while tightening the manifold. The cork end pieces should be glued to the block, some have a peel and stick tape on them that works great. A small bead of silicone needs to be applied at the corners where the intake meets the block / head junction. Start all the bolts, install the distributor and torque the intake.
Royce Peterson |
| | | RE: Gaskets -- Larry F, 12/04/2002
Thank you Royce! You mean use that Permatex Spray a Gasket Aerosol right? It's really tacky and comes out red? Takes a few minutes to set.
The reason for using rubber intake gaskets is that I have adjustable rockers so I don't want to use a new set of gaskets every time. |
| | RE: Preventing oil leaks -- Rollie H., 12/04/2002
I use the rubber valve cover gaskets and don't have any problems like I do with the cork ones. Cork or any form of it combined with other materials are somewhat porous which is why you see the oil seeping around cork valve cover gaskets. The rubber ones are not all the same. You can get some junk thats for sure. I have used Fel Pro and can't give them a bad rating. This is from my personal experience. If for some reason you need to take the valve covers off several times during some engine adjusting and checking you can absolutely forget about cork gaskets. |
| eng/head codes -- WAYNE S., 11/28/2002
have 428 with code D4TE-WHAT YEAR MODEL HAS NO OIL FILTER ADAPTOR ON BLOCK ,ONLY REMOTE ADAPTOR BLOCK BOLTED TO BLOCK, HEADS ARE MARKED C80E ARE THEY GOOD HEADS AND WHAT MAKE CJ OR SCJ OR GARBAGE NEW FORD COBRA OWNER IN NEED TO KNOW THANKS |
| 67 gta 390 fairlane -- jr, 11/28/2002
need to get magnum 500 maby i will get rid of it
if i cant find all the 427 change over tis a good
car runs strong but i think i wont moore go
can some some one help me with the things to
find thanks guys |
| | All you gotta change is... -- Dave Shoe, 11/29/2002
...the manifolding.
First, remove those very restrictive exhaust manifolds and put them in storage. Deep storage. Install a set of FPA headers from www.fordpowertrian.com . Be sure to get the type that is right for your head casting. If you have C6AE-R heads, get the FPA headers for the 428CJ, if you've got C6AE-J, -L, -Y, or C7AE-A, then get the headers for a 390 Fairlane. This upgrade will buy you a lot.
Next, get an Edelbrock "Performer RPM" intake manifold and stick the stock intake into deep storage. Make sure it's the "RPM" version. At this point, you've got a 390 that feels very much like a 428CJ, and I think it'll cause you to smile instead of frown.
Stock manifolding is just not good for a 390GT engine.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | RE: thanks dave,= -- jr, 11/29/2002
thanks dave i will try that my heads are c6ae-r
what are they an what do i use on them
thanks agan for your help
gerald |
| | | | Those are great heads for horsies. -- Dave Shoe, 12/01/2002
1966 marked the only year the FE head underwent major changes. The changes were primarily emissions related.
The C6AE-R is known as a "transition" head, because it kept the large runners of the pre-emissions era head, but it gained the bosses necessary to install Thermactor emissions controls and also to install Fairlane exhaust manifolding. It's quite similar to a CJ head casting, and readily accepts CJ valves. C6AE-R heads were only available in cars and light trucks in 1966-67. They were available in some marine and industrial applications into the 1970s.
Shoe. |
| | | | | Manifolding -- Mike, 12/04/2002
Yep, I have a 67 GTA Fairlane. The motor was just "thrown" together 20 years ago with what was laying around. 390 2V short block (std. cam and all), C8AE-H heads, BUT a CJ intake, and some "off-brand" headers. Even with the 9.5:1 comp and small cam, it runs GOOD. Much stronger than a 10.5:1 comp 390 with the "GT" cam and "S" intake with the manifolds. |
|