www.fortesparts.com is where I got my TKO with the preshortened input

n/m

http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=13501&Reply=13493

dies again. LOL hawkrod

With a stock-stroke 3.78 crank, you'll end up at 406ci. Do a search on boring a 4.05-bore 390 out to 4.13 (.080 over). I'm not going to repeat everthing that has been written on this board, but you need to see it all. It's rather exhausting to have to go over it every couple of weeks.

The magazine articles that wholesale advise boring 390 blocks to 428 dimensions are flat wrong.

There are some FE and some FT blocks that can handle the overbore, but the screening technique is not what you think it is.

It is likely that an .080-over 390 block is going to be a delicate engine. Fast, maybe, but not durable. It's alternately possible the engine will rock better than ever, but you do need to investigate what you've got before taking a leap. Well, you need to investigate if you don't like pouring money into a lost cause.

The search engine here is a great place to start. use the keyword "overbore" as a starting point and go from there.

Good luck and tell us what you find out.

I agree that repeating this info so often is tough, but it's necessary because the info has been covered so poorly in print up until now. With luck, a new document should be available within a year which describes the FE in better detail. When this happens, the need to repeat will become a thing of the past.

Shoe.

Cylinder wall thickness will be very poor (most likely). I'd recommend you find another block. It would be cheaper than purchasing specialty pistons anyway (or should be). Of course you might need to buy pistons anyway unless the engine you have is already bored out...say 30 thou. In that case you can re-use the pistons with another block that is stock cept needs a 30 thou overbore.

but the limitations come into play. You can always have a sleeve installed, works fine if done right. Sonic checking will cost almost as much. You can pretty safely go .030 over if the bores clean up. I never soniced them years ago, neither did anybody else, as H/M was about the only pace you could get it done. I went .080 and grenaded a few, and #4 seemed to be the leader in this catagory for some strange reasons that I kick around to this day. These were in some extreme conditions though, that I doubt you will duplicate (short track dirt) with a street car. One went six years, and when I mic'd the cylinder wall, it was under .090. All seem to crack at the bottom of the cylinders (on the ones that split and got a sleeve) and migrate upwards. There were plenty that survived too. You will gain some free power by putting notches in the top of the deck if you want to do a little grinder work to make up for the smaller bore.

sonic checked to go this far. Coe shift was a problem,, so some blocks can go .080 over and many cannot. A sonic check is the only way to tell. It costs about $100 to have it done, cheap insurance.

That, as you've observed from practical experience, is true. There was a Salisbury axle used (though not universally) in Ford full-size coil-sprung vehicles. The Hotchkiss (or banjo) housing, though, is the far more common in most applications except as you've noted. It just doesn't get talked about much, if at all, since the Ford Salisbury axle has no performance application and is easily recognizable from the vaunted 9" housing. It's the lepper of Ford rear ends.

Hey quote me and use my name. I'll stand by my statement as I hav enever seen or even heard of such an axle in a '67-'72 Galxie or LTD. I'll check my shop manuals when I get home tonight.

those are exactly the same castings that i'm running on my topoiler in my 66GT fairlane 4 speed and 3.55's. about all i can tell you is as they're CJ heads, with probe flattops i have around a 10:8 compression ratio with no pinging or detonation issues. i did a mild port and polish on the exhaust side, hardened seats, brinze guides and ferrea stainless valves with the teflon seals(machined to fit). i'm running the crane 568-587 solid cam kit with it. i'm impressed with the upper powerband as it comes on HARD from about 3500 to redline(not yet determined). also, they were a PERFECT port match with my 428CJ bluethunder intake. i'm glad i used them. jmo, joe

it does not add up. That would mean he had a compression height of over 2-1/4 inches. This makes for a piston that would weigh over 900 grams when they would have been made from the material that was around then. At 353 cubic inches, he would have to have been making close to two horsepower per cubic inch. Since a Tunnel Port was "only" 620 horses in peak Nascar form at 427 size meaning he was producing an output that was never matched by Robert Yates, Waddel Wilson, Joe Rumph, Jack Sullivan, and the rest of the H/M crew. I dont like to call names, but it was not possible, and somebody is playing Pinochio. Also, the aerodynamics involved, and gearing, and the tires of the day are against it. I was working on a factory acid dipped Pro Stock Hemi-Cuda race car that was a state of the art National event winner then, and with two Chuck Nuyten 1050 Dominators and a Racer Brown roller with the D-5 twin plug heads, (they were not worth any improvement) and crank trigger ignition, turning 9,400 RPM's, it was able to go 9.40's and had over 700 horsepower at 3,200 pounds. Sorry if you take offense, I dont mean any by any means, and people here will vouch for that. If you have this engine, what are you gonna do with it? I've run de-strokers like that for years, mostly 427 blocks, and 600 horsepower is achievable with todays cam grinds. Can you post pics of it?

if i m not rong he hsed a 390 amc piston
i think they were 200 or 250 rods i do not
know what he did to prep to make it all work but
i do have the time ticket my dad in d.b.fourndy ford
un till 1971 and was a t&d man befor he opend his
shop and it was nothing to see ralph moody or
mr hallman and hear is mr ralph's #704-664-3766
he was not there but he an my dad are steal close
an i know he will rember becous he told dad what
to do to buld that motor

n/m

http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=13595&Reply=13570
http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=12948&Reply=12939
http://fomoco.com/ford-forum-fe/reply.asp?ID=8321&Reply=8321

nm

n/m

The screw doesn't plug off any lifter galleries. It plugs off the gallery to the distributor. If the screw is properly torqued, it shouldn't leak at all, at least not significantly, so I suspect the screw is loose. This is not surprising as Ford only calls for 12 - 15 ft-lbs which I don't think is enough, plus any amount of torque at all is difficult to achieve with a Philips head screw like this one. I would put a little red loctite on the screw and retighten it to more like 20 ft-lbs. As far as the knocking is concerned, if the screw is loose, the cam retaining plate could be causing the sound, or the screw head could even be in contact with the sprocket, but I suspect your knocking may be unrelated to this problem. How's your oil pressure anyway?

Actually, I've never heard of the oil leaking inthat spot before, but it is sensible that a leak exists.

First off, I always get confused about "left" and "right" when dealing with an engine. I assume you are referring to the passenger side retaining screw.

Since this screw provides the double-duty of blocking the front of the passenger side lifter bank as well as clamping the cam plate to the block, it would seem reasonable, at first, that oil would not trickle from the screw head.

On thinking a bit longer, it becomes reasonable that a trickle is logical.

The cam plate's phillips screw has a split-lock washer on it. While technically splitlock washers are a "use once and throw away" item, I always reuse them. Not wise, but I use threadlock. In stock form, splitlock washers mean threadlocker is NOT required. If the threads are clean, it's very reasonable to expect a column of oil will spiral up the clearance in the threads between the screw and hole. Since the splitlock washer is slotted, it's very reasonable to EXPECT that oil will flow past the split after climbing the spiral.

Since the standard FE oil pump moves about 12 gallons of oil a minute at elevated RPMS, and HV pumps flow even more, the tablespoonish loss past the screw each high-revving minute may not be the finest example of "controlled leakage" in the world, but it doesn't seem to pose a performance threat at all.

Think of the seepage as additional lubrication of the timing chain to promote longer life if you require a comforting side to the logic.

Now I'm gonna have to try priming the pump with the timing cover off just to see what happens.

Shoe.