Skip Navigation Links.
 |  68, 69 - 390 Heads -- Perry Kleine, 07/28/2002
I've built a 390 4V engine and installed it in my S-CODE 69 xR7. goes really well, but here's my problem. Engine was, I believe, from a 68 LTD. Heads are so big I had to squeeze in headers and the car looks like crap with headers about 4" from the road. Anyone know what heads I need and whether they will bolt on to my 68 block. Otherwise car looks stock, would give up a little performance to go back to stock appearance If possible, I need source for 69 Cougar-Mustang 390 heads, need to switch. Thanks car at www.recycleaclassic.com |
|  | RE: You need GT or CJ heads -- David Thayer, 07/28/2002
You need to find 66-70 390 GT heads, these have the horizontal exhaust bolt pattern that lets you use factory cast iron (GT, similar to CJ) exhaust manifolds.
These should not be hard to find, or recognizie, just look for the horizontal bolt pattern on the exhaust ports.
The other alternative is to buy a set of the "Ball Glove" iron exhaust manifolds which usually sell for around $1000!!
David |
| |  | RE: You need GT or CJ heads -- John Saxon, 07/28/2002
David what manifolds are you referring to?The only manifolds I know will fit unibody Fords with an FE are 390GT or 428CJ.By the way I've seen reproduction 428CJ manifolds for sale for approx.$450 a pair,but have never seen any so I don't know about their quality or fit if anyone has experience with them I would appreciate their opinion. |
| | | | RE: You need GT or CJ heads -- Royce Peterson, 07/28/2002
The repro CJ manifolds are perfect except for the lack of a date code. Mustangs Unlimited, Semo Mustang and Perogie are only a few of the dealers selling them.
David is referring to 1966 / 67 Fairlane or Comet manifolds which are rare as hen's teeth and very expensive.
Perry, your '68 LTD 390 heads are identical to those on a 390 GT escept they need 8 more holes drilled and tapped for use of stock 390 GT exhaust manifolds. Take them to you machinist with a set of the right manifolds, he can drill them easily.
Royce Peterson |
| | | |  | Oops. 1966-67 "427" Fairlane/Comet manifolds -- Dave Shoe, 07/29/2002
Royce mentioned: "David is referring to 1966 / 67 Fairlane or Comet manifolds which are rare as hen's teeth and very expensive."
I believe he mean't the 1966-67 "427" Fairlane / Comet manifolds, which the 427 Galaxie inherited once they became available for the Fairlane in 1966. Ford apparently preferred the "ball glove manifold" (one side looks like a mitt), also known as "fan manifold" to the expensive full-sized cast iron headers formerly used in 427 Galaxie applications.
Note the "fan" manifold used the common 8-bolt vertical bolt pattern. I believe Fairlane/Comet shock towers were drilled to allow socket wrench access to the lower bolt heads.
Note also that all non-427 heads cast since 1966 can be redrilled for the 390 Fairlane/Mustang exhaust manifold bolt pattern, as the bolt bosses had been cast into the head. Be sure you don't drill deeper than stock (use lower holes as a depth guide), or you may hit antifreeze. Don't expect much performance out of 390 Fairlane/Mustang style manifolds.
Cast iron is easy to drill. Just be sure you don't overheat the iron. Use cutting oil, water, or a light oil), as the flake graphite in the cast iron qickly turns to carbide when his happens, making further drilling impossible.
JMO,
Shoe.
|
| | RE: 68, 69 - 390 Heads -- DennyR, 07/28/2002
Perry, I've got a 69 mustang that I am putting cobra jet heads on so the 390 heads and stock manifolds are available for someone in need. Heads are suppose to have around 500 miles since gone thru. What is your location? I'm in Dallas. Email me if interested as I haven't bought headers yet. Denny |
| Edelbrock RPM -- Old Bird, 07/27/2002
The Edelbrock specs. says that there is no exhaust cross over passage on the RPM intake manifold. What's this mean? Also how hard of an install is this? Anything I should know. |
| | RE: Edelbrock RPM -- Louie, 07/27/2002
An exhaust crossover is a channel at allows hot exhaust gases coming from the cylinder head to pass across the bottom of the intake to heat the incoming mixture. It is not wanted in high perfomance appilcation as you want cool air/fuel mixture which is more dense. It does make for a cleaner burn. |
| Anyone have trouble with Crane Hi Intensity... -- Dan Davis, 07/26/2002
...lifters? I have a set with very few miles and one is collapsed (you can push it down as if there is no oil inside). Oil pressure and volume were OK -- tho' I haven't checked volume since the collapse (don't want to run it).
Are these things dodgy or did I just get a bad one? Replace with another set of Hi Intensitys or normal Cranes. Opinions?
Thanks,
Dan
|
| | RE: Anyone have trouble with Crane Hi Intensity... -- SDP, 07/28/2002
Dan, I tried a set in a 410 I put together a few years ago and had the same trouble you have mentioned. I replaced the few bad lifters and they worked okay. My biggest bitch about these lifter is that the motor never performed the same depending on tempeture. Crane told me the oil temp/water temp plays a big role in how much they "bleed down". I eventually replaced them with some good old "anti pump-up" Fed Mogul lifters and liked them much better. The cam was an older Energizer 284 Cam Dynamics profile....................................................................................................... |
| | | RE: Anyone have trouble with Crane Hi Intensity... -- Tom, 07/28/2002
why not just go with roller lifters? |
| | | | RE: Anyone have trouble with lifters, YOU BET -- Ray, 07/28/2002
A major manufactory, who suppled 25% of all different types of lifters for auto industry had a bad run of lifters and i was lucky to get a set. I was told they went they chapter 11soon after. Hyd, rollers are a good choice, I use crane. |
| | | | | RE: Anyone have trouble with lifters, YOU BET -- Bob, 07/28/2002
Which cam and in what size engine with a few details about the engine and how it performs, please. |
| | | | | | RE: Anyone have trouble with lifters, YOU BET -- Ray, 07/28/2002
428 FE. It's not in there reg, catalog you'll have to ask for it. Master # 34HR000002 Hyd, roller. Lift .607x632 @.050 226x236. 112 lobe center. These particulars numbers were within 1 degree of the best HP numbers i could get on my desk top dyno. The desk top dyno is a good way to get what you want in numbers for particular cam and it's use. The heads are done, I have all parts but the short block but, is still waiting to assembled. Ray |
| Cylinder wall thickness -- Rob, 07/26/2002
Need to pick some brain power/experience out there. I am proposing to build a 428 block into a 450-500 HP motor and perhaps add nitrous (700HP?). I plan on using a FE block with three finger webbing and a bore of 4.13 or .30 over. Motor will go into a 69 Mach I with a C-6. I have seen several great posts and read in archives about cylinder wall thickness and sonic testing. I am considering using a 428CJ or 361/391 block. Is requiring a minimum cylinder wall thickness of .150 on all walls the smart way to go? I currently have a 361 block but the sonic test shows that even with off center boring I will have at least one area of a cylinder wall between cylinders of about .120 or .115 after boring.
Please provide any experience you have that I obviously don't have. Thanks in advance!
Rob |
| | RE: Cylinder wall thickness -- Tom, 07/26/2002
i read on here alot that 120+ is good for race Apps But i wold Reccomend a 429 or 460 block for 700 HP i dont think a 428 will take it or get a 427 cause we all know they wil hold up to it thats about all i can say on the subject |
| Anyone have a picture of a 2x4V OFFY 360 deg. -- Nathan, 07/25/2002
Hello All,
Would any of you happen to have a picture of the Offenhauser 2x4V 360 degree intake for an FE? I would appreciate any otehr info, but especially a picture. I have a chance at one but yet to see a picture. . .
Thanks,
Nathan |
| | RE: Anyone have a picture of a 2x4V OFFY 360 deg. -- Louie, 07/25/2002
I can get you one tomorrow. At first mine might look a little different; it has been machined for Q-jets. |
| | | ". . . been machined for Q-jets". . ? -- Nathan, 07/26/2002
Louie,
Did you do this due to distributor fitment problems? I am assuming that this OFFY is for teh FE Ford, but why did you want quadrajets?
Please do send me some pictures (eitehr posted or e-mailed. Also, please give me a little more info, how does it run, and are you pleased with it?
Thanks,
Nathan |
| | | | RE: ". . . been machined for Q-jets". . ? -- Louie, 07/26/2002
I bought it like that. Thought it would be unique and something to try. It isn't on the engine yet. I'll get out to the garage tonight and take some pics. |
| | | | |  | Cut-n-paste the links into your address bar -- Louie, 07/27/2002
Always problems with prohosting.com |
| | | | | | RE: Pics I wonder why. . . -- Nathan, 07/27/2002
Louie,
Thanks for the pictures. I wonder why Offenhauser designed it that way when Ford had no problem placing two Holleys on the FE with no clearance problems. . ?
Thanks,
Nathan
PS: You wouldn't happen to be Rainy from the network54 FE forum would you? Pleas forgive me for asking, but I noticed the picture post's name. . . |
| | | | | | | RE: Pics I wonder why. . . -- Louie, 07/27/2002
I had purchased two Holley spreadbores and when I got them I saw why a prior owner had said to use qjet on it. There isn't much room. I am very interested in seeing how the qjet perform with the 2X4. With the secondaries of the qjet operating as a true air valve I think they should work really good when tuned properly. And they will fit with no problem.
BTW, I'm not Rainy. I post on n54 as Louie (login King_Louie). |
| | | | | | | | Q-Jets. . . -- Nathan, 07/27/2002
Louie,
Sorry about suspecting you. If you post on N54 then you know why I asked. Rainy is a thorn in my side. . .
Anyway, concerning the Q-Jets. I know of a few people , even Ford fanatics that really like teh GM carbs, but I wouldn't use them on anything. I would however use spreadbore E-bocks. . .
Thanks for the help!
Nathan |
| | RE: Anyone have a picture of a 2x4V OFFY 360 deg. -- DennyR, 07/26/2002
I don't have pictures but do remember that with 450 holleys I had to use 2" spacer plates to clear the distributor. I think they are designed for AFBs in mind. Denny |
| | | "designed for AFBs in mind". . ? -- Nathan, 07/26/2002
Denny,
Thanks for the response. Which distributor were you running? How did it run with those spacers? Can you give me any more info about the combination you were/are running with it? Did/do you like the intake? Perhaps enough to reccommend it?
Thanks,
Nathan |
| | | | RE: "designed for AFBs in mind". . ? -- DennyR, 07/26/2002
I was running a Mallory Unilite distributor. This was in a cobra kit car, and I didn't like the looks of the carbs that high with the small air cleaners I had to use. I changed to 1" spacers and 600 AFBs but that was too much for street driving. I then dumped the intake and installed a PI with a 750 double pump. This combo ran the best but it didn't look as impressive. The engine was a 390 bored 40 over, ported machined chamber heads with a 292H cam. The best time in the 1/4 with the PI intake was 12.82 at 109 mph. The best time with the Offy 360 was 13.02 at 107. The car with driver weighed 2800 lbs. Denny |
| | | | | RE: "designed for AFBs in mind". . ? -- John, 07/26/2002
I use one on my 428. Here's the scoop:
1/ It works just fine though I dare say strip times might say otherwise. In my 2500 lb Cobra, I can't put the throttle more than 1/3 of the way down as the front wheels start to lift up and I get very, very frightened...chuckle.
2/ Offenhauser still offers the correct spacers. They are only about 3/8ths to 1/2 an inch thick and are offset to allow clearance for the distributor. They look awful, but the whole package looks impressive.
3/ The manifold ports are to high and too narrow. I think they might be for the 390GT heads, but am not sure. There is a large amount of cylinder head at the top and bottom of the ports that is in the way for smooth air/fuel delivery from the manifold to the heads. It goes against everything one's heard about port matching, but it still works incredibly well.
4/ You will have to get the correct linkage for the twin carbs. Be carefull with aftermarket linkage as the return spring starts to pull against the linkage shaft as the throttle is depressed causing less and less return force on the gas pedal the deeper you go into the throttle.
5/ If you use regular Holley's, you will have to decrease the size of the idle jets or even after bottoming out the idle screws, the whole thing will idle rich. Also, you will need the vacumn covers with the nipples for the balance vacumn hose. You can make these by drilling and tapping the top of the c\vacumn chamber covers for a 90 deg grease fitting with the "guts" removed.
6/ Remember....HP is the work done...if you can't get the traction, or if the car is light and quick, you'll never blame this manifold for losing races.
7/ I used to get oil seeping up around the distributor hole even with a new O-ring on the distributor. I think this is another Mallory problem vs the manifold, but it's a nuisance. To cure it, I cut a piece of thick gasket paper to completely go around the o-ring groove and then put the o-ring on top of it. Problem solved.
8/ I'd buy another one. In fact, if you buy this one you are talking about, and it turns out you don't like it, let me know and if the price is right, I'll take it off your hands as a spare. |
| | | | | | Here's a Pic -- John, 07/27/2002
It's not very good as it was meant to show the rocker assembly. I got rid of the springs since the pic was taken by the way. But you can see some of the intake in the pic.
 |
| | | | | | Ports -- Louie, 07/27/2002
The ports match a C1AE-A head perfectly. |
| | | | | | | RE: Ports -- Nathan, 07/27/2002
Louie,
If they fit C1AE-As then they'd fit C4AE-Gs. However, as there are different versions with different mounting flanges, there might be different versions of the runners. Are you sure that your's hasn't been port matched?
Thanks for the post,
Nathan |
| | | | | | | | RE: Ports -- Louie, 07/27/2002
If they have been port matched, someone did a VERY good job. No grinding or machining marks and the dimensions are very precise between ports. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Ports -- Nathan, 07/27/2002
I asked the question before I looked at the pictures. from what little of teh ports I saw I would doubt that they have been port matched.
Thanks,
Nathan |
| | | | | | Thanks John. . . -- Nathan, 07/27/2002
John,
Thanks a bunch for the picture and the info. You mentioned a few things that interest me a great deal about this intake. . . I will try and respond point for point:
2) "Offenhauser still offers the correct spacers." If there is any way that you could e-mail or post me a picture of at least these spacers (prefer your whole set-up), I would appreciate it. Also, which carbs are you running and which distributor? What's the diameter of the dist, and how much room does it have with the spacers?
3) "The manifold ports are to high and too narrow." I have seen intakes (such an Edelbrock for a torquey 460) that were designed for maximum velocity and as a result had TINY ports. However, I wouldn't think that OFFY would make a dual quad this way. Which heads are you running? The 66 & later have a taller floor, maybe it was made for them. . ?
4) "You will have to get the correct linkage for the twin carbs." Are you running progressive or non-progressive?
5) ". . , you will have to decrease the size of the idle jets. . " This really does not sound right. Are you sure that your power valves aren't opening at idle? Also, I was not aware that you could change the idle jets on a Holley; they are a machined needle and seat. As such you can only adjust them. . . Please do correct me if I am wrong.
8) "I'd buy another one. In fact. . ." Well, I don't possess this intake yet. However, I do a great deal of trading/swapping. E-mail me and we'll discuss it.
Thanks,
Nathan |
| | | | | | | RE: Thanks John. . . -- John, 07/28/2002
To answer your questions as best I can right now:
2) "Offenhauser still offers the correct spacers." If there is any way that you could e-mail or post me a picture of at least these spacers (prefer your whole set-up), I would appreciate it. Also,
which carbs are you running and which distributor? What's the diameter of the dist, and how much room does it have with the spacers?
I called Offenhauser and got a P/N. Ordered them through Sumitt with no problem. Don't have a good pic at this time, but here's a couple old ones (not much detail). I am running a Mallory dual point and there's about 3/4 of an inch to spare I think. Can't measure it today, but the Ford will fit with a little less clearance.
3) "The manifold ports are to high and too narrow." I have seen intakes (such an Edelbrock for a torquey 460) that were designed for maximum velocity and as a result had TINY ports. However,
I wouldn't think that OFFY would make a dual quad this way. Which heads are you running? The
66 & later have a taller floor, maybe it was made for them. . ?
Both sets of Heads I have, have the same port sizes. One set is from a 68 428 and the other form a 74 360 truck engine. One would have to do a LOT of grinding to port match them properly.
4) "You will have to get the correct linkage for the twin carbs." Are you running progressive or
non-progressive?
Progressive
5) ". . , you will have to decrease the size of the idle jets. . " This really does not sound right. Are you sure that your power valves aren't opening at idle? Also, I was not aware that you could change the idle jets on a Holley; they are a machined needle and seat. As such you can only
adjust them. . . Please do correct me if I am wrong.
Both Holleys will provide fuel from the idle circuit. The idle adjusting screws only "fine tune" the amount. The coarse adjustment is always there. Therefore, you get about twice the fuel you need when using twin Holeys originally designed for single unit operation. A profesional shop can rejet them. A home remebdy is to take a fine diameter wire and bend it into a "V" with little "feet" bent at 90 degrees at the ends of the "V". Insert these into the jets to effectively reduce the jet size.
8) "I'd buy another one. In fact. . ." Well, I don't possess this intake yet. However, I do a great deal of trading/swapping. E-mail me and we'll discuss it.
I'm in no rush, however I'm always on the scrounge for a good 428 Crank if the price is right. |
| | | | | | | | Thanks John, what's the p/n? -- Nathan, 07/28/2002
John,
Thanks a bunch! Your set up looks very interesting. I still cannot figure out the situation with your ports, but oh well.
If you still have it, or can remember it, would you please give me the part number for those spacers? Also, could you please decribe these in a little more detail? From looking at the intake, these spacers would have to scoot the carb back quite a bit to clear the distributor. I can't visualize a spacer that thin that could scoot the carbs back far enough and still have any kind of flow. Please help me visualize-or is this what you meant when you said they were ugly?
Concerning the clearance on the Mallory: I have a vintage W&H DuCoil dist that is pretty large. It uses a 30's Ward LaFrance spec distributor cap that measures 4 7/16" in diameter. So, I don't think it would clear, even with the spacers. . . |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Thanks John, what's the p/n? -- John, 07/28/2002
OK...here goes:
1/ The ports on the manifold are tall and narrow. When they match up, the top and bottom of the cylinder head is in the way for air flow. The sides of the manifold port overlap the head material for an outwards "step" and does not seriously hinder airflow. I no longer have details as to the measurements of the manifold ports, but I remmebr they really didn't match up with any head dimensions I could find literature on, though one type was close.
2/ Offenhauser 5880 is the P/N I have. Can't remember if that was for a set or individually, but I think it was each. I can't remember the price. I checked and they are 1/2 inch think and move the carbs back 1/2 inch. They have two oblong holes for each carb. Each hole is "angled" so that it matches with the carb on top and the intake in the bottom. They are ugly as the outline of them neither matches the carb or the manifold. They hangover the manifold in weird places. They just do not appear to be an upwards "extension" of the manifold and look a bit bad cosmetically.
3/ It might fit. I went and made rough dimensions. Looks like the mallory dist is about 3.5 inches in dia, and that there is still about 1/2 inch of clearance. This should allow for a 4.5 inch diameter dist. Keep in mind, it isn't an easy measurement to make as you are measuring from the Holley float bowl to a dist cap which is usually tapered (i.e. narrower at the top than at the bottom)
If you really want this manifold and all that's stopping you is your dist, just get a different dist. I don't recommend Mallory. They are poorly made. The gear is sloppy on the shaft, the oil ring groove is too deep which allows oil leakage around the dist, the split pin will break under the load of a HV oil pump (Mallory has admitted this), the points need constant adjustment and cleaning....etc. But a Ford unit should be "almost free". |
| | | | | | | | | | Concerning my distributor. . . (no more questions) -- Nathan, 07/28/2002
John,
Thanks for all of the info, pictures, and part #. I really do appreciate it, all of it. The way that you described the spacers make perfect sense now, and sound like a good solution.
The guy that has the intake is going to let me mock everything up before I get the intake, so I'll be able to make sure of things.
Yes, I would like to have this intake, but I am NOT going to get another intake that prevents me from running this distributor. I have already decided against running an Edelbrock X F-66 cross ram that I have because it wont let me run it. I will hand make my own sheet metal intake before I decide to not run my DuCoil. I know it sounds a bit crazy, but oh well. . . |
| '66 428 transplant to '68 Mustang?? -- Chris, 07/25/2002
Will a 428 from a '66 full-sized Ford fit into a '68 Mustang without modification? I've heard that the heads on the 428 need to be changed to accomodate the Mustang. Is this true?
Thanks for any insight,
Chris
'68 Mustang 'vert - xcode 390 |
| | RE: '66 428 transplant to '68 Mustang?? -- Mustang Mike, 07/25/2002
It will bolt in OK but you will have to use headers as the stock manifolds will not fit. I have a 70 Merc 428 in my my 67 Mustang and used Hooker headers but FPA makes some nice headers also. If you changed the heads to some with the 16 bolt Mustang exhaust pattern then you could use Mustang manifolds. |
| | | Header question follow-up . . . -- Chris, 07/26/2002
Thanks. Are your Hooker headers special order for the Mustang, or are they the standard ones for the '70 428? |
| | | | RE: Header question follow-up . . . -- Mustang Mike, 07/26/2002
They are off the shelf headers, Hooker #6114 for 67-70 Mustang with 390-428. |
| | | | | thanks n/m -- Chris, 07/26/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | RE: thanks n/m -- John Saxon, 07/28/2002
Chris one other alternative is to have your heads drilled and tapped with the extra bolt holes it is fairly simple to do and almost all 66 and later heads had the extra bosses cast into them allowing this to be done,though there are a few early 66 heads that don't have the extra bosses. |
| 428 Headgasket -- Rob, 07/25/2002
Can anyone provide some experience on headgaskets and offset boring on a 428? The machine shop I am using is considering offset boring a couple of the cylinders in a 361 truck block I hope to build into a 428. Passed sonic test but would like to keep the walls as thick as possible. The shop feels that the offset boring is going to be limited by the 428 head gasket since there isn't much width left in between the cylinders of the gasket on a 428 block. Seems logical to me but wonder if there is someone that makes a head gasket that would allow a little more room for offset boring?
Any help is appreciated.
Rob |
| | Use the 427 Headgasket. -- Royce Peterson, 07/25/2002
Hole measures 4.300 in the one hanging on the wall. Should allow plenty of offset bore on a 428 (4.130).
Royce Peterson |
| | RE: 428 Headgasket -- Rob, 07/25/2002
Thank you Royce! Appreciate your help.
Rob |
| '68 Disc Brakes - 428 -- Bill, 07/25/2002
I am looking to rebuild the front disc calipers on my '68 500KR. Can anybody recommend the best aftermarket kit to buy or perhaps a tell me of a place to locate an OEM rebuild kit?
(I already checked the parts board here.)
Thanks.
Bill |
| | RE: '68 Disc Brakes - 428 -- Royce Peterson, 07/25/2002
Bill,
I have an extra pair of '68 disc calipers rebuilt. Let me know if you are interested.
Royce Peterson |
| New Weiand Stealth Intake -- Steve Heidelberger, 07/24/2002
Has anyone out there in FE land tried using the new Weiand Stealth intake? It's supposed to make power from idle to 6,000 RPM. I am mainly looking for good bottom end torqe.I bought a new set of Edlebrock Performer RPM heads and a performer intake not the RPM intake.Once I got the new parts and started compairing port sizes I am very disappointed in the smallish ports on the Performer. The ports on the Weiand intake are a perfect match. My delima is witch intake to get Ebrock RPM or Weiand Stealth.This motor is a .040 over 390 10 -1 flat top pistons 516 lift 210 dur@.050 Crane energizer cam. Any help will be greatly appreaciated |
| Overheating -- Dave, 07/24/2002
My 428 in my 67 Mustang is running pretty hot. It has an edelbrock water pump, 180 thermostat, March pulleys for a FE, new Modine 3 core with stock fan shroud. The shroud does not come very far over the fan. Do I need to shim the shroud. Less then half the fan is inside the shroud. Has anyone run into heating problems with the March pulleys? The carb is a Holley that is pretty rich. 80primary 83 secondary 5.5 on the pump. Engine has a pretty mild cam. Ford A411, Edelbrock Performer RPM Intake. Temp is running up to 220 after running for a while on city streets. |
| | RE: Overheating -- Martin Edridge, 07/25/2002
I believe the fan should only be half in the shroud to work properly, so that bit sounds right. Did you notice the over heating since fitting the pulleys? I assume they are underdrive pulleys? I do not like the idea of underdriving the waterpump and people have found that overheating is frequently a result. Bigblocks are notoriously difficult to cool at the best of times and I am led to understand that the water pump should be *overdriven* for best cooling. Simple test (although labour intensive) is to refit the stock pulleys and see how the heat is then. HTH
Cheers, Martin. |
| | | RE: Overheating -- Dave, 07/25/2002
This is a new engine to the car, never run with anything but the March pulleys. I don't know if they are underdrive or not. I will contact March to find out. Thanks for the reply. |
|