Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Intake I.D. -- Warren, 10/28/2002
Hello. What type of a manifold is a C9ZE 9425 B? |
|  | 390 IP manifold n/m -- Barry B, 10/28/2002
n/m |
| | | RE: 390 IP manifold n/m -- Warren, 10/28/2002
Thanks, Barry. What does n/m stand for? Do you have any dimentions of this intake and how it compared to the CJ intakes? |
| | |  | RE: 390 IP manifold n/m -- Barry B, 10/28/2002
Hi, n/m stands for "no message". I have plenty of pics but no dimensions for that intake. It's a pretty flat design, lower than the "S" intake. I don't know why they went to that intake in '69, maybe for smog reasons. Shoe and the others probably know more details about it. The late model pickup 4V's are very similar in design, a CJ intake would blow it away. |
| | | |  | RE: 390 IP manifold n/m -- Warren, 10/29/2002
Thanks for the info, Barry. |
| Options for 390gt exhaust manifolds -- Leroy, 10/28/2002
What part numbered manifolds, right and left are suitable for a 67 390-gt. It looks like the left goes down and out, and the right goes straight out. |
| | RE: Options for 390gt exhaust manifolds -- Mike McQuesten, 10/28/2002
Hey Leroy, just scan down a little bit on this forum and you'll see an exact thread about what you're asking. Hawkrod has it pretty clearly layed out for you there. |
| Starting Problems -390 -- Patrick, 10/28/2002
hi all.
I have a '68 390. When cold, the engine starts up without a hitch. When hot, the engine does not crank over....have to wait 5-10 minutes before it comes up. Is this due to a bad solenoid? Do they overheat? Any ideas?
Thank you! -Patrick,NY
PS - I have a short somewhere..but I use a disconnect on the battery. |
| | Weak stock starter. -- Dave Shoe, 10/28/2002
You didn't mention the engine specs, but it's likely the starter just ain't got the guts to spin the engine.
It's possible you're using wimpy battery cables (all insulation and no wire), or possibly have an aged battery which is the source of the problem. The starter relay is also a possibility.
The most likely scenario is the starter offers insufficient torque. I've delt with this problem on the past half dozen starters, because I tend to run a stout, but street quiet, FE.
The answer is to get a ministarter. This not only offers more torque for starting, but it weighs less. There are a number of brands out there which work well.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: Weak stock starter. -- Patrick, 10/28/2002
Thanks Shoe!
I will definitely replace batt cables., might as well do the relay as well......
can you recommend a mini starter for 390 4V? I'll let everyone know the results. |
| | 'Hot re-start' problem is usually due to faulty battery or cables. [n/m] -- Mr F, 10/28/2002
n/m |
| | | RE: 'Hot re-start' problem is usually due to faulty battery or cables. [n/m] -- Patrick, 10/28/2002
Thanks Mr.F * I will definitely replace ** |
| | | | Cool - starting with the cables, I hope. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 10/29/2002
n/m |
| Engine dipstick problem -- James, 10/28/2002
'68 390 GT Mustang
The dipstick never fitted properly, just located'on' the hole, rather than 'in' the hole. Previous owner had cable-tied it at the top.
Dipstick was very bent as well, and was hard getting it in.
Noticed a tapping on the dipstick, but too late, and now the end is missing! I reckon it must have been the crank?
I took the pan off, and found the bit of metal - but now have no dip-stick! (It's now too short!!)
I'm trying to get a replacement - how should a proper dipstick fit??
thanks
James
|
|  | Here's where to get a new one -- Royce Peterson, 10/28/2002
www.carlsfordparts.com
|
| COAE-D Heads ? C8ZX-A Card? -- Mike, 10/27/2002
I just picked up some heads with casting #COAE-A with a date code of June 24 61. I know these are the small chamber heads for the 352HP, But were they used on the early 390HP's also? And what does a set of these heads go for? (bare with all valves but 1 exh., other wise great condition with no machining).
And the carb that went with the deal was a C8ZX-A. I can not figure out if this a CJ 735cfm, or for a regular 68 GT500 428. Also what is a going price for one of these that is nearly N.O.S? (it was bolted on a engine 30 years ago and only ran once to pass inspection in a stock class, still has all the ink stampings). Thanks! |
| | RE: COAE-D Heads ? C8ZX-A Card? -- Mike McQuesten, 10/28/2002
The COAE-D(you typoed -A- in the post) is the HP head for the '60 HP352, '61 HP390. Your, 6/24/61, date(both heads?) would indicate these castings to be late '61. As for your reference to "early" 390HP, do you mean the '61, thus a "late" 390HP would be what was installed in the early '62 Fords? Which the early '62HP are reported to have run a different C2A..HP replacement for the COAE-D. I'm not positive on this.
As for $ value on these heads, I don't like getting into this because there's so many variables. And I hate to "quote" eBay but I've seen them sell in the $300 - $400 range there. It's all a matter of need. They're heads that will offer a lot of compression with their small combustion chamber. A person with a '60/'61 HP car missing these heads might be willing to pay the price. |
| GT 390 exhaust manifolds -- ponieboy, 10/26/2002
If pt #s c6oe-a and c6oe-a will fit on the left side of a 67 gt 390 mustang, what are the pt#s for the right?, feeling rather stupid sitting here in my basement painting two lefts, and not a right and a left. (I'm not to anal about correct #s, just so they will fit) Thanks |
| | RE: GT 390 exhaust manifolds -- hawkrod, 10/26/2002
the drivers side of a 67 mustang should be a C7OE and the passenger side a C6OE. the drivers side had a change on the rear port bolt configuration between 66 and 67. the 66 is up and down and the 67 is front to back. hawkrod |
| | | RE: GT 390 exhaust manifolds -- ponieboy, 10/28/2002
Typo, sorry, I DO have a C7OE-9431A, and
a C6OE-9431A
I swear their both for the same side.
Now I'm really feeling stupid.
|
| | | | You are correct. -- Dave Shoe, 10/28/2002
9431 is for one side of the vehicle, 9430 for the other.
C6OE-9430-A and C6OE09431-A are a pair of 1966 Fairlane exhaust manifolds (2V, 4V, and GT). The rear ports on both have vertical bolt pattern. The drivers side won't fit a Mustang, so Ford redesigned the drivers side manifold when the 1967 Mustang showed up. Expect a C7 casting number on the drivers side if you want it to fit both Mustang and Fairlane.
Shoe.
|
| | | | | RE: You are correct. -- ponieboy, 10/28/2002
SO.... What the heck am I looking for , for a 67 Mustang /390. Can I use either the C7oe 9431A
or the C6oe 9431A for one side?, what about the other? |
| FE weight? -- Terry, 10/26/2002
Can anyone tell me the weight of a FE complete engine? Thanks Terry. |
| Sonic results............................ -- Pete, 10/25/2002
I have two 428s at the present time, but wanted a third; blame me ? I have a 360 block from a 69 F100. I had it sonic checked and it came out with flying colors. Recently we have had some discussions about this topic, so I wanted to pass on some good news about a "transformation" in process. It's not like losing a 360, it like gaining another 428 for the world. |
| scat cranks -- jeff, 10/25/2002
i called scatcranks and they are offering 3 different strokes for the FE engine now...all the same price, would anyone be able to tell me if i go for the longest stroke crank on a 390, what connecting rods + pistons i can use, i plan on having the block sonic tested and boring to 428 specs if possible. Thanks for any advice
jeff |
| Do I need to notch my bores? -- Darel, 10/23/2002
I have a '66 390 with C1AE-6090-A heads. I have the heads at the machine shop now, and it needs all new valves. I would like to put the larger 2.09 CJ intake (only) valves in it, since they're getting replaced anyway. I know a CJ head will bolt onto any 4.05-bore block without notching, but does the same hold true for the bigger valves in a different head?
Thanks,
Darel
|
| | Nope. Valve spacing is the same. -- Dave Shoe, 10/24/2002
The CJ valves should work just fin in a standard bore 390 with CJ valved FE heads.
To be sure, the CJ was cast to fit the standard FE valves, but were machined on the production line to fit the larger valves.
It's always a good idea to check clearances, especially if you have a higher lift cam. It's actually good to check every cylinder, due to notable cylinder-to-cylinder positioning variances in both the head and block.
Just stick the head on a bare block and shine the flashlight up through the cranksaddles to view clearances.
With CJ intakes and exhausts in that head, you'll likely outflow a CJ head by just a little, as the early heads did not have the Thermactor bumps to flow around.
Another nice thing about increasing the valve size is the valves will sit higher on their seats (closer to the piston) because stock seats have likely been worn into the head a bit as the years, and the valve grinds, have taken metal away.
Sounds like a great Galaxie or truck application.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: Nope. Valve spacing is the same. -- Darel, 10/24/2002
Thanks Shoe. Unfortunately it's a '61 T-Bird, so I can't get any other exhaust in there, and I can't afford an intake yet (but will eventually). I figured since the heads needed "the works" it was something to look into. And boy, were my old valves worn into the seat! They were sitting well below the chamber surface. Sounds like it should work pretty well, then. Thanks!
Darel |
|