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.
 |  Identification -- Timothy Minor, 08/21/2002
Im trying to find information on the FE Series engines as far as being able to identify them. Im trying to find an engine for my future Shelby Cobra kit car and I would like to put in a FE engine to make it look some what original. Where is the best place to find Casting number descriptions for the FE engines for all years.
Thank You
Timothy Minor |
|  | FE Casting numbers -- Royce Peterson, 08/21/2002
There is no good list available. This forum is probably the one best source of such information. Your moderator, Dave "Shoe" is working on a book to try and sort out all the casting data. In the meantime why don't you describe what you are trying to build and we can give you the casting information you need. It is not as simple as number = part for blocks or heads. Lots of pitfalls, many numbers mean different things depending upon other relevant information. The 427 and 428 stuff is getting very pricey, watch out for scam artists on Ebay peddling junk.
Royce Peterson
|
| |  | RE: FE Casting numbers -- Timothy Minor, 08/22/2002
OK. Im just looking to take a 352, 390 or just a good FE big block that I can build a strong 600 hp engine out of and also have some originallity in the car. I ve always enjoyed the FE and its originallity and just like that Carrol Shelby used it in the AC Cobra and could've used something else. Im not sure of the history of the FE big block but I know that I had a 352 in my 66" Ford F-100 back when I was 16. I know that you can build a 428 out of a 352 block and thats basically what I plan on doing, boring, a bigger stroke crank, more potent cam, porting heads and so forth and so on. Can yall still help me out here?
Thank you for your help
Timothy Minor |
| | | | Maybe -- Royce Peterson, 08/22/2002
The 600 Horsepower number will require some serious dollar investment to achieve. The myth of turning any 352 or 390 block into a 428 refuses to die, so I will just say here for the record it's mostly untrue.
Probably the best route for you to take to achieve your goal would be to start with either a 427 or 428 block from a reputable source that will guarantee it to be usable and authentic. Next you need an engine builder who will also stand behind his work and has FE experience. Post where you live and someone on this forum should know of a reputable builder in your area.
You will need a 428 crankshaft, preferably with casting identification IU or IUB. Try to stay clear of the IUB crank as it is a problem to balance in a high horsepower engine. There are rumors of aftermarket FE cranks but so far only custom billet versions are available and they are quite expensive ($2500.00).
I recommend using either Eagle or Crower aftermarket connecting rods. Be sure that even though they are new your builder magnufluxes them and checks straightness and size.
The lightest aftermarket piston you can afford is the next important thing. Your builder won't be able to bore the block until he has pistons. Venolia, Wiseco and Ross are good brands. JE is probably the best but substantially more expensive. Get plasma moly rings.
Camshaft for a 600 horsepower engine needs to be a solid roller type. I would talk to the tech guys at Crane and Comp Cams, see which you like dealing with and get their recommendations for grind. It's going to be in the .600" lift / .260 degree duration at .050" range. You will want serious high quality valve springs, titanium retainers and keepers.
The cylinder heads and intake manifold can be sourced from Edelbrock, the Victor FE will be the intake of choice. Edelbrock's heads are good, buy the bare heads and have them ported along with the intake. You will need serious valves, Milodon and Manley are good brands. You will need the biggest valve that will clear youre bore size. A 427 can use 2.25 / 1.76 valves in the Ed heads. If a 428 block is used then 2.14 / 1.76 is a better choice.
Carburetor needs to be a Holley 800 - 850 double pumper.
That's the basics I would recommend. There are other ways to get the HP you are after but this will be the cheapest I think.
Royce Peterson |
| | | |  | very rarely, i have to agree with royce -- hawkrod, 08/22/2002
few 390 blocks can safely be bored out to 4.13 and i would provide proof; the going price of a 428 block! if a 390 could bore out to 428 then a 428 block wouldn't be worth any premium. while some blocks are happy to accept .080 over the vast majority do not. this has been discussed a lot and maybe you might want to do some research and use the search function on this and the other FE forums. my hunch is you won't like what you find. hawkrod |
| | | | | Crank -- Royce Peterson, 08/22/2002
I meant to say stay away from IUA ceank (428 SCJ) because it is more difficult to balance.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | Re: location -- Timothy Minor, 08/22/2002
Well I appreciate you advice Royce. That will help me out alot. Im looking for this car to really dominate the road course at the classic car races or even some general races.
My Location is
Dallas TX |
| | | | |  | That's my old home town! -- Royce Peterson, 08/22/2002
I sent you an email with a recommendation.
Royce Peterson |
| | RE: Identification -- John Saxon, 08/24/2002
Timothy if you still want to invest some time trying to find a good block for boring to 428 possible candidates are heavy duty truck blocks from the mid 60's up to mid 70's and some industrial blocks the earlier blocks will be hard to distinguish from the regular passenger car blocks casting # wise but the later ones have the mirror image 105on the left front corner and will have a D3TE or D4TE casting # earlier blocks with extra main webbing and a large distibutor pilot hole indicate truck application.Before spending money on sonic checking a block knock out the center freeze plugs and look for the # 428 cast inside the water jacket if it is there It is almost a sure bet it will bore safely if not you can still use that old trick of sticking different size drill bits between the cylinders I don't remember the sizes off the top of my head but I'm sure someone on the forum does if not I can try to dig them up.This wil give a rough indication of water space between the cylinders which will indicate thicker or thinner cylinder walls.A block passing this test will also be a good candidate for sonic checking.There are quite a few blocks out there that will bore safely but it would be cost prohibitive sonic test the number blocks necessary to find one these tests will narrow the field considerably.A while back one of the magazines did an article called the poor mans 428 and they ended up sonic testing like 9 or 10 blocks before they found one that would go out that far but I don't think they used the tests to narrow their search.So if you are inclined to scour the wrecking yards and engine rebuilders core piles you should be able to find one it is just a matter of whether it is worth your time and effort. |
| | | P. S. -- John Saxon, 08/24/2002
The D3TE and D4TE blocks have credibility as being good candidates because Ford used some of them as 428CJ service blocks in the mid 70's I know of a particular 69 Cyclone GT 428CJ ram-air car that suffered engine failure in 1974 prior to the end of its 5year 50,000 mile powertrain warranty,and the warranty shortblock was built around a D4TE block machined to 4.13 bore,evidently the supply of original CJ blocks had dried up by then. |
| | | | Re: p. S. -- hawkrod, 08/24/2002
i don't think that D4TE block was a 360/390 bored to 4.13. ford made service engines and blocks well into the 70's and used the same tooling for the castings. the difference was in the internal core tooling. that is not to say some D4TE blocks won't bore but ford did not just take a 4.05 block and bore it to 4.13 to make replacements. they just made more 4.13 blocks using the same external casting parts so they look the same. hawkrod |
| | | | | RE: Re: p. S. -- John Saxon, 08/25/2002
Hawkrod,the point I was making was that D3TE and D4TE blocks were cast with thicker cylinder walls for heavy duty truck use and if there was minimal core shift which Ford could determine thru inspection then the block could be machined to 4.13 bore.I find it hard to believe that Ford would recore later block molds to cast up some blocks simply for service use. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Ford cast some blocks with thicker cylinder walls and would inspect some for use in applications they were not originally designed for.Case in point would be the very large experimental483 cubic inch motors Ford built to put in a Starliner and take to Bonneville in the early 60's.Those engines were built around a 406 block that was inspected and found would accept a .100 over bore to 427 size.This predated 427 production by at least 2 years.Industrial engines are another good example there is absolutely no rhyme or reason to what Ford was doing there,bottom line is they used what they had available and would work. |
| | | | | | RE: Re: p. S. -- John Saxon, 08/25/2002
By the way has anyone seen a 428 block witha casting date later than 1970?I.E. service block cast after production use of the 428 ended? |
| | | | | | | RE: Re: p. S. -- Greg, 09/03/2002
Hi John.I have seen NOS 428 SCJ service blocks with a 1K15 date code.This block is brand new in the original Ford box.If I remember correctly,the part number on the Ford box was a C6AZ number.They had vertical webbing on sides.There were 20 something blocks still in Ford box. |
| | | | | | RE: Re: p. S. -- hawkrod, 08/25/2002
i understand your logic but i don't think it worked that way. inspecting parts to check to see if they could be bored bigger would be more work than casting them to be made bigger. the 428 block was available as a service part as late as 75 for sure. i have a block that was an NOS sevice assy #D0OZ-6009-E and is dated january 23 1973 and the assembly date stamped on the pad is february 3rd. the block has ribs but no casting number and is a 105 block. the box is dated 2/73 also. hawkrod |
| | | | | | | RE: D0OZ service assy. -- Mike McQuesten, 08/25/2002
That's a nice chunk of iron to have on hand Hawkrod. So what you're saying is that you have a 105 block with external skirt casting ribs that has a Ford PART # D0OAZ-6009-E on its shipping container. This is interesting but it still doesn't fully refute John's theory that Ford offered a 428 service block that may have had D3TE/D4TE external casting numbers. And John is not saying that all D3TE/D4TE blocks are able to take a 4.13 bore. However, in my admittidly somewhat limited experience of personally seeing two D3TE 360 pickup blocks become excellent running standard bore 4.13 street 428s, I believe any early 70's FE block is worth a close look using the techniques John has described.
Timothy's original question/proposal was to obtain 600 horses from an FE. This can be done more easily with cubic inches and I think it's possible from even 390 cubes. But does Tim really have to look for a genuine 428/427 block? Nope. Many 361/391 blocks offer all the structural integrity you need for 600 horses. And they're plentiful. You have to be willing to go to the bone yards and get sweaty/dirty in that Texas heat. I was just in Dallas two weeks ago visiting my son. I was so glad to get back to cool Washington.
I remember reading many years ago that a certain very experienced super stock 428CJ racer preferred to run C6ME blocks over the '68-'70 CJ blocks. He'd broken many CJ blocks and had much fewer problems with C6MEs. I'm not saying all C6ME's will take 4.13. Or that a C7ME wouldn't work as well. It's been said numerous times here....have that big FE sonic tested for cylinder wall thickness. |
| | | | | | | | actually i screwed up it is a C9ZZ-E i don't.... -- hawkrod, 08/26/2002
why i typed D0OZ except i had just logged on to send an e-mail about a 429 smog system for a guy. i know what you are saying and you are right. my point is just that it would have been easier for ford to cast blocks as 428's than machine 390's into 428's. and since they were still available as a regular item at the dealer (remember the cars were only 3-5 years old, many were still in warantee!) ford would probably still be manufacturing them at least up to the mid 70's as opposed to something like the 427's which they probably dropped sooner. hawkrod |
| | | | | | Much rhyme, much reason. -- Dave Shoe, 08/26/2002
The 483 Starlifter was created months before the 427 became available, not two years. In fact, I believe it set international land speed records after the 7-liter rule was adopted. It's logical the bore would have been 4.1300+.1000=4.2300, but note this is not the same as the 427s base bore of 4.2328".
While some D3 and D4 blocks would have had 361/391/428 type cylinder jackets, I've found most only got the 360/390 jackets. I do suspect that most 428 blocks cast in the early-mid '70s also got 428-sized cylinder bore cores rather than 360/361/390/391 cylinder bore cores, because there was heavy industrial use of the 428 during this time and it takes longer on the prodution line to bore out a 361/391 block to 428 numbers than to cut a 428 casting to a 428 bore. I've not yet heard of the concept of slowing down the production line for an overbore operation.
I have heard rumors that some "390" blocks were overbored to 428 at the factory, but I'm willing to bet, if it happened, they were not actually 360/390 castings, but were instead 361/391 castings. The external casting number would have been the same for all blocks, as this was apparently the practice back then.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: Much rhyme, much reason. -- John Saxon, 08/26/2002
Dave,I believe there is some misunderstanding of what I'm trying to say I'm not saying ford took a block that was already machined to 390 specs and remachined it the only unmachined cylinder block I've ever seen the inside diameter was nowhere near the finished bore size,it was my contention that ford just checked external cylinder for core shift and then machined the block to 4.13 bore size as far as being easier to recore molds than inspect some blocks for suitability,while I've never been to a ford foundry I have been to other foundries and it is neither easy or cost effective to recore molds for a limited production run.The bottom line is it is my contention that there a lot of 390 type blocks out there that are suitable for overboring to 4.13 and have plenty of wall thickness left.It is not necessary to run out and buy 427 or 428 blocks to build a 600 horse FE,and anyone that is adamant about saying that obviously have some 427 or 428 blocks they are trying to sell. |
| | | | | | | | RE: Much rhyme, much reason. -- hawkrod, 08/26/2002
john, i do understand what you are saying but i think your theory is a little misguided. the first problem is what you label limited production. this leads me to think that you did not realize that 428's were actually still in production in the early 70's. ford had contracts for industrial and marine engines as well as supplying replacement parts for production cars. the foundry and machine process' that ford uses are also probably a little different from what you might be familiar with. it would be far easier to make a run of larger bore blocks using 428 cores than it would be to over bore 390's. and since 428's were still in production they would designate a specific amount of time and run 428's and then 360/390 and then and then and then.... the 428 run would have 428 marked cores to identify them for the foundry workers and would also be marked for the machining line. everything is done in batches and it would not be an extra process. it would reduce costs for machining time and tooling as the more you cut the longer it takes and the more wear on the tools. trust me the bean counters would never have allowed it. it is possible that special blocks may be prepared like you suggest but it would be after the fact and after initial maching process were complete. unfortunately i think ford is too big to be flexible. hawkrod |
| | RE: Identification -- John Saxon, 08/26/2002
Timothy I got so caught up in this squabble about bore size that I lost sight of your original question.By all means follow Royces advice on finding a reputable engine builder try to find one that uses the philosophy of doing only what needs to be done to meet your goal because it is very easy to spend someone elses money.As far as block choice I still have to pick the HD truck block find one that shows signs of having thick walls and have it sonic mapped and follow your engine builders advice on how much to bore and still leave plenty of wall thickness for structural integrity and good ring seal.The sad fact is that even NOS 427 and 428 blocks are marginal when approaching the power levels you are shooting for.Just look at the Nascar teams experience back in the 60's with cylinder wall cracks the revised blocks with the squared off cylinders helped the situation but did not eliminate it.And more recently Super stock racers running 428's as they exceed 600HP they begin to have problems with ring seal due to bore flexibility.So try to minimize overbore and if more cubes are needed run a 428 crank or investigate the new Scat cast stokers,I believe they are advertised as being good for over 600HP but see if you can find someone who has used them.With head and intake offerings from edelbrock and modern street roller cams 600HP should easily be within grasp from a 390 based engine.Face it if some Chevy driving geek can get 600 steertable HP from a small block and backwards cap wearing punks can get 450-500HP from a honda 4 cylinder then surely a mighty FE can fill the bill right? |
| 360 idea? -- Greg, 08/21/2002
What would be the result of changing the two barrel intake on a '69 360 over to an aluminum four barrel intake like the edelbrock performer 390? Would this help or would it just over carburate an already anemic engine assuming using a 600 cfm holley (maybe 650).
I've been led to believe that the heads and block are identical to the 390, if that's true, would more airflow help. If you've got any other good hop up ideas I'd certainly like to hear them.
Greg
|
| | RE: 360 idea? -- Louie, 08/21/2002
It would spark it up pretty good. You might even try going with a cast iron GT intake (big S on #1 runner, C6 casting) which can be had for around $50. Or an Edelbrock Streetmaster which is a small runner single plane. Put an Autolite 4100 (flows around 580 cfm) on it. Just don't go to hog wild and you will be fine. What ever you decide on, make sure that the mating surfaces are even and flat. |
| What is it? -- BF, 08/21/2002
2FABP33GXBB128087 " Vin" |
| | RE: What is it? -- joe schepker, 08/21/2002
i'm gonna guess an early sixties' galaxie with the police solid lifter 390........maybe. joe |
| | RE: What is it? -- Tim B, 08/21/2002
It seems long for an early 60's Ford VIN #. My 1969 Cougar is 11 digits. The 5th denotes the engine code: M, Q, R or whatever.
Tim B |
| | not an FE powered vehicle thats for sure -- hawkrod, 08/21/2002
it is late model ford because it has 17 digit VIN. sorry i am not going to look it up as the newer books are not in front of me. try the general forum as you may get a response but this forum is for FE's and they quit making them long before they changed the VIN sequencing. hawkrod |
| | RE: What is it? -- mutangoldtimer, 08/21/2002
c=canada,f=ford,a=pass,b=active belts,p=pass,33=4dr ltd,g=351-2bb,x=check,b=81,b=oakville,ontario,can,.814drLTD,3512bb.Thats want I think |
| What are my trans options for swap '69 f100? -- Greg, 08/20/2002
I would like to trash this crappy three speed column shifted trans. for a five speed or even a c-6.
This is a '69 swb f100 w/360. Any advice or ideas?
Greg
|
| | RE: What are my trans options for swap '69 f100? -- FE427TP, 08/23/2002
you could put in a toploader, a TKO, a Clark 5 speed, or the C-6 I suppose if you have to
I've personally have both a wide ratio toploader and a TKO in my truck 68F100SWB aand it currently has a 360 in it |
| Bellhousings -- Pete, 08/19/2002
I put a 428 with a toploader in my 69 F100. I used the stock truck FE bell which is 7/16 deeper than a car bell. The extra thickness allowed two things, first it allowed me to use a SB toploader which its longer input nose and also allowed me to use 11 1/2 clutch as it fit in the deeper and angled differently, bellhousing. Follow all that ? :o) Anyway, I see a lot of the Truck bells for sale, not saying anything about the fact that they are deeper. Does this not cause any problems in cars? Input depth? Shifter location etc? I am building a 64 TBolt now and will need a bell and .. well the truck bells are everywhere and are cheap. And I did get an 11 1/2 clutch in it! |
| | RE: Bellhousings -- Pete, 08/22/2002
anyone? |
| | | RE: Bellhousings -- joe schepker, 08/23/2002
now i'm curious, as i've always been on the assumption that unless you had the GT/CJ bellhousing with the "bump" on the top you couldn't use any larger than an 11.5 clutch. i fit a 12" in my 66GT fairlane with no mods, even the flywheel accepted it. i'm getting ready to convert a 65 3/4 ton 4x4 from a 66 352 4 speed to a 410 auto. i'll have to see what bell and clutch it has...........joe |
| | | | RE: Bellhousings -- Pete, 08/23/2002
I put a 11 1/2 in the truck bell. Because of the different angle created by being 7/16 deeper, there was no interference. But what I really want to know is if this 7/16 difference causes a problem when this bell is put in a car? Shifter location? |
| | | | | RE: Bellhousings -- joe schepker, 08/23/2002
i'm curious now about the 7/16" difference. is it that much longer from the block flange to the trans mounting pad, or is it the curve at the top just more round for clearance ant they're both the same total length? does your bellhousing have the ribs at the top or is it smooth? i'd like to lay a car and a truck bellhousing on the floor and measure the difference, then measure a car and a truck input shaft. i know that i did a 460 to a 79 f-250 where it had a 351m, and i had to take approx. 1/4" off the end of the input shaft to allow the assembly to go together, as the 460 didn't have a deep enough hole in the crank for the end of the shaft. i suppose the actual length of the input shaft would be the deciding factor.......anybody have any ideas? joe |
| | | | | | I've done... -- Pete, 08/25/2002
what you have said. I layed a CJ bellhousing on the floor, right next to a truck bellhousing. The truck is 7 /16 taller ( or deeper ) than the CJ car bellhousing. My stock three speed trans had an input nose that looked just like a SB input, rather than the shorter FE type of input. So when I put a toploader behind the 428 in the truck, I used a SB toploader with the longer input nose. It worked perfectly. |
| | | | | | | RE: I've done... -- Mike McQuesten, 08/26/2002
Pete this is great advice and offers a great combination, i.e., wide ratio/2.76 low gear toploader easily bolted to an FE without need for inpurt shaft modification.
You're right that the pickup/truck stick FE bells are readily available. I think I have a couple laying around that I've never given much thought to. But I am now!
I don't think the ribbed/pickup truck bellhousing will fit a unibody application properly. I "think" there will be interference with the firewall of the unibody 'stang/coug/'lane/comet, etc. And I know the pick up/truck bell does not have the casting provision on the left side to accept the pivot ball/stud necessary for the equalizer shaft on a '65 & later full size Merc/Ford.
But the pickup bell might work well on a '64 & earlier full size car. Very interesting. I'm going to do your measurement test tomorrow with a '60 FE car stick bell and one of those PU bells. I know the trans bolt patterns are different but the idea of being able to easily run a small block 2.76 toploader or even a 3.03 small block top loader 3 speed with an 11 1/2" clutch is an interesting possiblity.
Again, great information, thanks. |
| | | | | | | | RE: I've done... -- Pete, 08/26/2002
yes, let me know what you find out. The bell from by 69 F100 didn't seem to have any ribs that would cause a problem?? |
| | | | | | | | | Re: c5te -- Mike McQuesten, 08/27/2002
I could find just one of the pickup/truck bells at my place today. But they're easy to find in wrecking yards around here. I did the measurement test with a COAE 352 stick bell and found just what you had found in comparison to a C6OE GT/CJ bell. The C5TE I have is 7/16" taller or longer. Then I had a close look at the existing early Galaxie bellhousing in my '60 and it sure appears that there is plenty of clearance to accept a bell such as the C5TE I have which does have external ribs.
However, I got to thinking about some problems a person might run into with your idea. Things like shift mechanisms/rods lengths and driveline length. These are concerns for those who want to keep things original. I don't always want to do that. So if you are building a high powered FE and would like to run an 11 1/2" clutch and would also like the benefits of running a low first gear wide ratio 4 or 3 speed stick, the use of a pickup bellhousing may be a great way to go. Especially if you have the fairly plentiful small block top loader trans at hand. |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: Re: c5te -- Pete, 08/30/2002
good, glad you found the same measurements. What I was hoping to find was someone using a C5T bell in a car and if they did or did not have any problems with shifter location etc. I even saw on ebay a C5T bell that the person said is the stock bell from his Galaxie.?? |
| | | | RE: Bellhousings -- John Saxon, 08/27/2002
Just a comment on the possibility of a 12" clutch working in that bell.If look at a 11.5&12" Ford clutch side by side you will see that they apparently use the same hat and just used different pressure plates the attaching bolt pattern is even the same.So you could bolt up a 12" clutch to your 11.5 flywheel and shouldn't have any clearance problems in a bell where a 11.5 works.I've got a McLeod 11.5 clutch that even has 11.5-12" stamped right on the hat so apparently they are interchangeable as far as the aftermarket is concerned. |
| aluminum water pumps? -- Pete, 08/19/2002
are there any aluminum pumps available that are cheap? :o) Not looking for a race pump, just an OEM style that is aluminum to shed 1000 lbs off the front of the car :o) |
| | RE: aluminum water pumps? -- Gerry Proctor, 08/20/2002
There are the Edelbrock, Shelby, and Dove pumps. Ford also had an aluminum pump but it falls well outside of the bounds of affordable. The Edelbrock pump is the most available...around $160.00 through Jeg's, Summit, or your favorite re-seller. I don't know if that qualifies as cheap for you but that's as cheap as they get. |
| 1962 Galaxie XL 406 -- 8T6 SVO, 08/19/2002
In the August edition of Mustang & Fords, In the Readers Roundup, they talked about a one of one 1962 Galaxie XL with a G code 406. The car came set up with a three-deuce, T-10 4 speed, 9" 3:50 rear and special 1955-56 T-bird hubcaps.
Yesterday, I was at a local car show and saw a 1962 Galaxie XL convertible, T-10 4-speed, A/C, with the original motor - 390 (supposedly a three-deuce, now a 4 barrel).
My question is - could this have been a 406 car? I didn't inquire about the G code (I had to research this just now) and the owner seemed to not really know much about Fords. He said he was a Chevy guy who just happen upon this car that had been in a barn the last 15 years.
I did ask him about the hub caps but he didn't know.
The car was mostly original, sheetmetal, glass, A/C, interior. He had just painted the car. The engine had been pulled out, but not rebuilt and had a 4 barrel carb on it.
How rare is this car? |
| Need info- 5 speed truck trans behind FE block -- Chris Rinehart, 08/19/2002
Hi, I have a '65 F250 truck with a huge 4 speed granny-gear truck trans (not sure of model). Engine is a '69 390. I am looking at the NV4500 GM/Dodge trans and the ZF S5-42 Ford trans in consideration for an overdrive conversion.
It appears the ZF only comes with an integral bellhousing that will not fit without an adapter, made only for small blocks or 429+ BB. Anybody know otherwise or of any adapter out there?
The NV4500 has a separate bellhousing and can surely fit with the right bellhousing- is there a bellhousing available for this? Can the stock clutch be used and if not, what is needed?
I'm open to other suggestions for overdrive solutions too. I know car transmissions such as those from Tremec can be adapted, but I need a heavier duty truck trans.
I'm not too concerned about the crossmember, I'll deal with that later- unless some has info on available adapter versions, etc. But any bellhousing/adapter info anyone has is much appreciated. thanks,
Chris |
| | RE: Need info- 5 speed truck trans behind FE block -- Davy Gurley, 08/19/2002
I installed a NV4500 out of a Dodge pu in my 72 F-250. You need and adapter from Advance Adapters to bolt the tranny to your bell housing. I had to make a pilot bushing to fit the tranny and I used a clutch plate for an International!? truck. It had the correct splines on it. You will have to modify the hole in the floor for the shifter but dodge has a huge boot that will cover it and look good. You will have to make your own rear crossmember and shorten your driveshaft. My pickup was a 4x4 so I didn't have to deal with a speedo and I can't help you with that. You will like this conversion. |
| | RE: Need info- 5 speed truck trans behind FE block -- Bill in Michigan, 08/22/2002
There is another option that uses "Ford" Parts.
Ford offered a Clark 265 5-speed overdrive in the late 60's early 70's medium duty F500-750 trucks behind the FT powertrains. It is a fairly beefy (heavy) trans and was offered with a .78 overdrive gear. I have retro-fitted these into a 1964 F250 4x4 and a 1966 F350 4x4. (Note: These vehicles use the same "tri-pod" engine/transmission mounting system as the medium duty trucks which minimizes the "customization" required.)
Items to consider when mounting into a early 70's Ford truck:
1. Clark transmission was equipped with an 1-1/8" coarse spline input shaft. A compatible 10-1/2" clutch will be required. (Easily obtained a good clutch shop.)
Also needed will be a FT throw-out bearing and a FT pilot bearing.
2. An FT bellhousing, inspection cover & clutch fork, etc. will be required. An FE spacer plate will be needed.
3. The FT uses a larger diameter flywheel than a FE which positions the starter motor further away from the crank centerline. The FT bellhousing will need to be re-drilled and tapped to position the starter motor in the FE location. (Easily done using the FE spacer plate as a template.)
4. The tailshaft of the Clark (as equipped in Ford 60's Ford trucks) does not have a provision for a transmission mount. Customization will be required. Possibly welding on a mounting boss?
5. The worst part of the conversion was lifting the trans in place. It is all cast iron and HEAVY! Good luck. |
| cams and rpm's -- William, 08/19/2002
I planned on building my 1966 Galaxie 390 with some street racing performance in mind, with that thought I've basically decided on a 3.50 gear, from what I can tell a good all round choice. I have a problem understanding at what actual RPM my best needs would take place, as far as cam selection. I've spoke in the past of the C6OZ-B cam as a choice that would do fine. But at the last minute I see a RPM rating at 3000-6000 next to the spec for this cam. It sounds high, am I right? Will it work for what I intend? Help is always appreciated, thanks,
William.
|
| | RE: cams and rpm's -- Pete, 08/19/2002
you know a Dyno program is great for trying different cam profiles. You get started and cannot stop!! For $40, money well spent. Anyway, I think I would look for a cam that is best in the 2500-5000 range for your car. not that the other would n't work, but... it may fit the heavier car better and match the street rpms. |
| | RE: cams and rpm's -- bear, 08/22/2002
3000 to 6000 is not to big of a cam for a 390 for the street. It depends on a couple of things. What kind of intake, compression are you going to run. is it a stick or is it a automatic. if it is an automatic what size of converter are you running. The cam shaft is the heart of a motor. It cannot be just picked, the whole motor should match. that is my opinoin. you can build the motor right the first time or keep changing stuff till you get it right |
| | | RE: cams and rpm's -- rick, 08/25/2002
just my nickels worth; a cam 3000-6000 rpm
a 390 can handle that but...
heavy car, it is going to be driven on the street, probably most of the time. where is the torque that it is going to take to get the weight moving? there is no low end torque with a cam that size. so often, the mentality is, if a big cam is good, then bigger should be better. much of the time bigger is not better. keep all components in mind, so they all work together, in the same rpm range.
for mostly street driven something that is in the 1500 or 2000 to 5000 rpm range will work good and be very streetable. stay with shorter duration and go with more lift you will be much happier.
i just ran this from an rpm calculator ;
3.50 to 1 rear ratio - 60 mph - 28" tire = 2520 rpms
at cruizing speed you would still be 500 rpms short of the bottom of the power range of the 3000-6000. :-(
if it is a lot of race then things are all different.
good luck
rick |
| | | | RE: cams and rpm's -- bear, 08/26/2002
If you play with lobe center/angle you can bring the torque where ever you want it. The tighter the lobe center the further up the RPM range your torque curve will be. the wider the lobe center the lower the torque curve. 112 lobe center with 230 to 240 degrees of duration will make good torque the whole way through the RPM range of the motor. You can also go wider if you want. WIde lobe ecenter also give you a smoother idle and more manifold vacuum. Also consider that lift is free horse power. As long as you buy the springs that can handle the high lifts for street driving. You can make any thing fit for any application. If you call lunati or crower they will talk you through a cam selection. And most companies will special grind cam's for just a little more than and advertised cam, around $25. And if $25 dollars is a big issue maybe you should'nt build an FE. |
| | | | | RE: cams and rpm's -- Pete, 08/26/2002
true, tuning the cam will make a difference in the rpm range. But, you cannot say for absolute sure that the results you mention will definitely happen. Sometimes strange things will happen depending on the way the rest of the engine is set up. I'm not arguing you general statement, because overall, it is true. But sit and paly with a dyno program and sometimes things happen that you didn't think will............... |
| | | | | | RE: cams and rpm's -- bear, 08/27/2002
yep, that is why you blue print motors to avoid things happening you don't want to. however,you are right though sometimes you just get a lame duck.
|
| How much more? -- Dallas Fridley, 08/19/2002
Hey guys,
Just ran our new car at the track this weekend 1971 Ranchero (Tube chassis, assuming about 2500 lbs with car and driver) with a modified 390, 428 crank, Ross racing pistons (12.5:1 CR) Comp Cams .748 lift I & E 283 Duration at .050 Roller Cam and lifters, Milodon gear timing set (I know George ... I upgraded) Edelbrack Perfomrer Heads with the 427 Victor Aluminum Intake, Ferrea Valves, Harland Sharp Roller Rockers, MSD distributor with lightest springs and red bushing, an MSD Ignition 7AL-3 ignition with a 1050 cfm Holley double pumper. Running 34 degrees total advance.
Put 5 full runs on it hitting 127.841 mph for the fastest speed and 10.27, 10.37, 10.39, 10.43 and 10.44 et. (Unfortunately we had 20mph head winds both days). Shifting at 7000 rpm and hitting 7000 at the traps. BTW the 10.27 was run without a hood after it blew off LOL :-)
Any ideas what more or less to expect out of this setup? If more is expected what would you recommend looking at on the engine? Assuming the chassis is as good as it can be. I know we have a lot of playing to do yet on the chassis.
Thanks in advance
Dallas
|
|
|
|
|