Skip Navigation Links.
 |  370" Cammer! -- Mike McQuesten, 04/15/2002
I've mentioned this FE in passing a few times. Thought it was about time to lay some proof on you FEnatics. Tonight I'll just post three pics I took this afternoon when I stopped by Dick Flynn's shop.
He has the mill out of an all steel deuce Bonneville roadster for freshening/prepping for some dyno flogging. This particular '32 Ford has been run at Bonneville for many years powered by a variety engines/powertrains. I think it was originally built by the Markley Brothers of Calif. but now is owned by Gary Harms, Spokane, WA. Dick is the engine owner/builder.
Just the basic facts tonight:
'68 427 hydraulic service block. Sleeve reduced bores and 361 steel crank = 370 C.I. For a specific Salt Flat class. Dick Flynn rods/pistons/cams and oh yes, those cammer heads he made hisself from a big chunk-o-billet aluminum. He ran modified original cammer heads(Still has 'em) but did some damage thanks to mallory metal letting loose from the crankshaft at 8,000 rpms on a chassis dyno. So what the hey, Dick makes a new set and makes them much better.
 |
|  | RE:shot #2 -- Mike McQuesten, 04/15/2002
"Mellow" Yellow...matches the screaming deuce roadster. Another shot:
 |
| |  | RE:shot #3 -- Mike McQuesten, 04/15/2002
Again, I'll post some more as the lil'370 incher starts to come apart. The work on this Ford-Edsel is beautiful. I chose Dick Flynn to be the man to build my 427. My block & the variety of parts I'd collected over the years had to wait in line but I felt the wait was worth it.
 |
|  | RE: 370" Cammer! -- SDP, 04/15/2002
Sure like those "370" valve covers! A nice touch. Whats up with the intake? A custom made peice as well? |
| | | RE: 370" Cammer! -- Mike McQuesten, 04/15/2002
Hey Steve, yup, the induction is a totally custom built injector system. I'll put this on my list of questions to ask Dick. I always mean to ask him stuff but my mouth is generally hanging open and babbling with whoa, what the hell is this? I'm going in with pen/paper the next time. Mr. Reporter boy that's me....what? when? what was that? whoa.
I was thinking of you today Steve when I stopped in at a NAPA store and saw they sell those Rancho 9000 shocks you recommended. May be a little cheaper than Les Schwab's tire stores? |
| | |  | RE: 370" Cammer! -- John Saxon, 04/16/2002
The heads use a totally custon intake mounting flange,he extended the port up and changed the angle of the flange so that he could get a straight shot all the way from the injector to the intake valve and not have to have the stacks run into each other.He also made some similar changes to the exhaust side of the head but not as extreme. |
| | | | mike -shocks! -- Bob H., 04/16/2002
I just read your post I beleive Summit has the Rancho shocks on sale right now 4for 3 FYI |
| 427 Cougar versus Road Runner -- Royce Peterson, 04/15/2002
My good friend Mike Johns needs your votes on this website to become car of the month. His W code 427 GTE has a little less than 40,000 original miles and is the nicest one on the planet. Please help! Don't let the Mopar win!
Vote here:
http://www.musclecarplanet.com/Show/Show.htm
Royce Peterson |
| | 55% so Far It got my vote Go the FE's n/m -- Poida, 04/15/2002
n/m |
| | Hey, Royce - go ahead & post this on the main board. [n/m] -- Mr F, 04/15/2002
n/m |
| | RE: 427 Cougar versus Road Runner -- Bill Brady, 04/15/2002
You can also go to the Musclecar Forum on that same site and vote for a 1970 Mustang Boss 428 Cobra Jet :-) |
| | | What - no 'Super GT Cobra 500s'? ::hee-hee:: :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 04/15/2002
n/m |
| | RE: 427 Cougar versus Road Runner -- P, 04/22/2002
I voted for the Cougar, of course, and it would take a LOT more than a hemi to make me vote for that ugly pig of a Road Runner. It's going to get the MoPar vote, but dern, it's uglier than a boxcar.
P |
| | | Yep - says alot about Hemis if they can make that 'brick' fly.[n/m] -- Mr F, 04/22/2002
n/m |
| tri-power inquiry -- George, 04/14/2002
I have a friend with a 67 GTA convertible (1 of 2112) and he wants to outfit the 390 with a tri-power setup. He is concerned with tuning and synchronizing the system. Is there anybody who has all this info, or some link to a site that deals with this sort of thing? He has an Edelbrock/Holley setup. It seems to be in great shape, he just wants to be able to tune it when he gets rolling.
Danke,
George |
| | RE: tri-power inquiry -- Mr F, 04/14/2002
|
I have a friend with a 67 GTA convertible
(1 of 2112) and he wants to outfit the 390 with a tri-power setup.
I
think his biggest concern should be about how he'll fit that thing under
his stock hood! You can't use the factory ('oval') air cleaner
on a Mustangs, if you're starting with the Galaxie type ('inclined')
intake manifold....not unless you modify either hood
or air cleaner, anyway. Space is tight under there so something
has got to give way. Most folks notch the underhood
bracing.
He is concerned with tuning and
synchronizing the system.
I hate to sound unromantic but he's worried
about nothing. Very little fussing is required for six
'barrels' of fairly typical carburetion.
I
suppose he's thinking of Webers, which are (in)famous for being finicky.
By comparison, Ford's "3-deuce" system is
a snap
. He'll need just three things: (1) a complete 6v set-up, (2) a
good carb rebuilder and (2) the Ford Shop Manual for 1962 or 1963 Galaxies, because
6v was a factory option in those years. The only
trick is in adjusting the progressive linkage and that's where #3 comes
in.
Tell
him I said to relax and have fun! We sell reprints of the carb set-up
pages,
in case he wants to skip the Shop Manual. Hope this helps.
Mr
F
| |
| | | RE: tri-power inquiry -- Gary C, 04/15/2002
I just finished putting a complete Ford tri-power in my '64 with a 390. One word of advise--patience, lots of patiences. Don't expect it to act perfectly on the first try, but put some time in it and enjoy the sound of 'em tryin' to suck in the hood ;-)
Gary C |
| | | | RE: tri-power inquiry -- Mike McQuesten, 04/15/2002
Patience is always good advivce. I'd like to contribute a couple of humble opinions on this tri power installation to a '67 390 GTA (of course you mean Mustang right? Was there any other '67 390 GTA? Oh ya, there were Fairlanes....).
Mr. F has it right on with regard to adjusting/synchronizing the Ford tri power. Just follow the FoMoCo shop manual instructions to a T and your friend shouldn't have any problems. I wouldn't consider myself close to adept at air/fuel adjustment but my tri power works correctly and all I did was follow the instructions in that '63 shop manual supplement.
However, make sure the trio of Holleys are rebuilt properly. The man for this is Joe Bunetic. Search "Bunetic" and you'll find a number of links to Ford tri power. Joe did mine and they work perfectly. And they look like brand new.
Now for that Mustang GTA 390 I think there's a couple of minor obstacles he'll face. Vacuum source for the C-6? I think there's just one vacuum port on the Galaxie/full-size Ford/Merc tri power intake. It's on the back of the base of the back carb. His 390 GTA has power boost for the power brakes, right? So, plan for a dual vacuum pick up at this source. Shouldn't be too difficult.
Second concern is with the Mustang 390 Kick down system. I know the Fairlane 390 GT/A used the lever/paddle that actuated off of the accelerator pedal rod to a kickdown lever on the C-6. Nothing to the carb. Now for the 390 Mustang? I've learned from this forum that the '68 & later Mustang kickdown for the FE actuated in a "normal" full size car sytem, a kickdown rod to the carb accelerator/lever. How about the '67 'stang/Cougar FE automatic kickdown? It's important to have a kickdown system for yor C-6 transmission. He's going to have to "fabricate" a kickdown system for the for the Mustang.
The Ford FE tri power system is one of the coolest, easiest multi carb systems ever. |
| | | | | RE: tri-power inquiry -- John Saxon, 04/17/2002
Amen to what Mike says about Joe Bunetic I drove the setup he is referring to and it worked as good or better than any induction system I've driven including single 4 ,definetly better than a buddies Dodge 440 six-pack ,and definetly better than any of my own junk. |
| C6AE-R porting ?'s -- mike allen, 04/14/2002
i picked up a set of C6AE-R heads at my local junkyard to put on a 428 i am building up to replace my stock CJ. By looking at the exhaust ports they obviously need some work i have heard about low floor and high floor exhaust ports this looks to be a mid floor almost. how much should i port them? and where should i take it out of on them? so it will work with cobra jet exhaust manifolds. I obviously need to work on taking out that bump on the lower corner of the ports. i have a set of mr gasket header gaskets here and if i stick them up to the head there is a lot of material i can take out can i just match the port to the gasket. i would look at my old exhaust manifolds but they are still in the car. Oh and is it worth it to make the jump from 2.02 intakes to 2.09 like on a cj? thanks
mike allen |
| | Those are raised-exit heads. -- Dave Shoe, 04/14/2002
C6AE-Rs differ from CJ heads in two ways - thay have an "anti-reversion" type lip at the exit of the exhaust port which can be ground away with little difficulty (making the high-exit more obvious), and they need to have the throats dressed to properly fit CJ valves. Once done, these flow about the same as CJ heads.
Note that CJ heads are cast for 2.03/1.55 valves just like all the other FE heads, but they were "dressed out" in the engine plant to fit the larger valves.
Also note the "AR" lip is probably not actually there for anti-reversion purposes. It's likely there to shrink up the high-exit exhaust runner in order to seal against the low-exit Fairlane/Mustang exhaust 390 manifold. I will refer to it as an "anti-reversion" lip until I lern more about it's design intent. It is a trianguular tab at the top of the exhaust port about 5/16" tall, and extends about 1/2" deep into the exhaust port, where it triangularly tapers down to nothing. Pretty darned easy to cut away. Easier than removing the thermactor bumps, for sure.
Shoe. |
| | RE: C6AE-R porting ?'s -- Ray, 04/15/2002
Hi Mike here's what I'am doing on my C4AE's. I ground off about half that bump out. I did not go any lower on floor exit other than making them even across the head. On the intake do not take anything off floor of the intake, just make them smooth. What we had found out on the flow bench was, from lower opening lip to high of arch or floor of the port there was a loss of CFM! when we added clay to bottom (1/4) we had 20 CFM increase. We are making to impovement at both ends. We have 300CFM on the intake now.
 |
| | | | Nice job on those photos & scans, Ray. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 04/15/2002
n/m |
| | | | | RE: Nice but needs work . Ray -- Ray Tirri, 04/15/2002
This one is one picture I was looking for in computor, it shows where problem area is. It's floor area of the intake, the air is flowing over floor area going over the radis ramming it self at the upper roof area slowing the flow down at list 20 CFM. Here's were I think the fix will probably be, I'am going to use zinc to raise up the port 1/4" or to the radis. Next raise the roof 1/8", hopefully I will 325 CFM when completed, the port dimension should be 2 7/8" x 1.50.
 |
| | | | | | Why not start with a better head for porting? -- Royce Peterson, 04/15/2002
The C8AE-H or D2TE-A casting is much more suited to extensive porting due to the intake floor being higher and the exhaust flange being suitable for either bolt pattern. You can use a Medium Riser intake gasket as a template, a very straight intake port is possible.
Those early heads have ports that measure larger but need to be welded at the bottom of the port to flow well. That can cause leaks and warpage, plus the weld is very hard to grind.
Royce Peterson
|
| | | | | | | RE: Why not start with a better head for porting? -- mike allen, 04/15/2002
well i was planning on not touching the intake side i think that is something best left to someone with lots of experience and the C6AE-R head has the same intake port as a CJ and they make tons of power. I was just wondering what about the exhaust side it seemed to have lots of restrictions that could be easily taken out and i don't think the exhaust side has to be as perfectly smooth as an intake side has to be. Does anyone know on the side of the exhaust port, right at the exit there is a big ridge cast on one side of the port, can this be taken out too? I am sure this will kill flow quite a bit |
| | | | | | | RE: Why not, Because there-there! -- Ray Tirri, 04/15/2002
I did not want use any HP big valved heads that I have for this project, there too few- far between. So idea was see what I could do with these heads that are much more commond. The heads flowed @ 270 even with problem area, which isn't bad. After doing it for 35 years for others i'ts fun doing it for myself now. So having 650 HP streetable engine for my retirement is O.K. Ray
 |
| | | | | | | | RE: Why not, Because there-there! -- Bob, 04/17/2002
What did yo8 uchamber volume wind up being? They sure look nice. I usually don't polish mine that much. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: C.C.s Bob I will this week -- Ray, 04/18/2002
You generally you take out 1 to 5 c.cs when you do chambers, I don't know what they will finish out to for 11to 1compression. Ray |
| | | | RE: C4AE-6090 porting ex n/m -- mike allen, 04/15/2002
does a C6AE-R head have the same exhaust ports as a C4AE?
|
| | | | | Almost. -- Dave Shoe, 04/15/2002
Except for the AR lip and thermactor boss, the exhausts are the same.
There is a qualifier, however, as some C6AE-R heads have a vertical lip along the outermost portion of the exhaust runner (a head-bolt clearance feature). and some are blended (filled in). I don't know which you have, but they are basically the same exhaust runners as all FE heads from 1958-65.
Shoe. |
| 428cj dipstick -- Stephen, 04/13/2002
Were can I get a six quart 428cj dipstick for my 390gt. I put a windage tray in my 390 and I want to put six quarts in it. I also need the dipstick tube. Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
Stephen |
| 67 FE frame mounts question -- George, 04/13/2002
Will the frame mount (not the engine mount and not the insulator) from a 68 FE Torino work in a 67 FE Fairlane? I cannot find it in any of my literature. I don't think they will work, but you never know. There's an auction for a pair of Torino mounts on ebay right now and it ends in a couple of days.
Thanks all. Ford rools. Ok.
George |
| | RE: 67 FE frame mounts question -- Bob, 04/13/2002
Yes The Fairlane - Torino, etc FE mount is the same from '66 to '69 |
| | | RE: 67 FE frame mounts question -- George, 04/13/2002
THANK you! I must go win an auction now.
George |
| | | | RE: 67 FE frame mounts question -- Bob, 04/13/2002
If you lose let me know may be able to find a set around here someplace. |
| | | | | RE: 67 FE frame mounts question -- George, 04/14/2002
I have not bid on those yet. The auction ends the 16th. If you have a pair, I will gladly open up your storage space a little, AND I'll probably get them cheaper, as I won't have 87 other people to compete with! Look around, and we may both be happy!
Thanks for the heads up,
George |
| | | | | | RE: 67 FE frame mounts question -- George, 04/17/2002
No luck, Bob. I got outbid at the last minute. Additionally, I got outbid by a guy who sold me export braces for a 66/67 Fairlane and they DON'T fit. Not even close. If you have frame mounts, I will buy them. Additionally, if I've already written you about this, I don't remember, so forgive if you already told me you didn't have any or whatever... Too busy to use the memory part of my brain sometimes!
Thanks pal,
George
cyclone65afx@aol.com |
| | | | | | | RE: Export brace. -- Gerry Proctor, 04/18/2002
Hey, George, just FYI on export braces. They aren't very, if at all, functional on Fairlanes. Mustangs benefit from the braces (including the Monte Carlo bar) because the shock towers are not tied together by a crossmember and lack structural rigidity. Fairlanes have a rigid crossmember and sturdy torque boxes so unless you do a lot of autocrossing on very sticky tires, they're more for show and making it harder to work on the engine. While Fairlanes are not nearly as prolific as Mustangs, you'd think that the aftermarket would support a Fairlane export brace since they are relatively simple to manufacture and could add a few bucks to the corporate coffers, but they don't because there is no market for them. |
| 352 in Merc. -- Tim C, 04/12/2002
Was the 352 installed in Mercurys from the factory in 1965?... .....Thanks! |
| | Yes, in '65 only (X Code 352) n/m -- Barry B, 04/12/2002
n/m |
| | | RE: Yes, in '65 only (X Code 352) n/m -- Tim C, 04/12/2002
Hummm....250HP ? |
| | | | RE: Yes, in '65 only (X Code 352) n/m -- Tim C, 04/12/2002
Just wondering..my book indicates 390 and larger went into the full size 65 Mercs.. |
| | | | | Mercury didn't get 352's after 1962. -- Royce Peterson, 04/13/2002
The last year of availability for the 352 engine in any Mercury was 1962 when a 220 horsepower 352-2V was optional. Base engine that year was the old 223 six, the Y-block 292 was also optional and in its last year of production. Info from "Standard Catalog of American Cars" second edition published 1987.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | Oops, I looked that up too fast! -- Barry B, 04/13/2002
And really goofed things up. Royce is right, only the 220 horse 2V 352 in ’61 and ’62 for US production. Canadian Mercurys could still have the 2V 352 in the Monterey sedans at least in ’63, maybe more years but I can’t find reliable information after that. Data taken from the “1963 Ford Galaxie and Mercury Monterey Shop Manual Supplement, SE-703-63”.
Sorry about the misinformation, It’s been hell week doing taxes.
BTW that C5AE-9425-C 4V intake was used on both the 352 and 390 in ’65 and ‘66.
|
| Replacement Lemans rod bolts -- Ed, 04/12/2002
Any suggestions on a good replacement rod bolt for use in Lemans Rods - The bolts I have seen from ARP are full bodied, not necked down at the shank like the original Ford bolt, but to have a thicker head on them, much thicker than the original Ford bolt . My concern is clearance of the rod bolt head once the rods are installed. Anyone run into this before? - Thanks, Ed |
| | If you can find them... -- kevin, 04/13/2002
the factory used SPS silver plated normal threaded cap screws in their Nascar rod offering that was wider and heavier. They weigh 7 grams apiece, heavier than the LeMans bolt. Otherwise,...ARP. I ran the stock long head LeMans bolts in std bore 428's without interference. Need to check every engine before final assembly anyway. Get yourself a new 7/16th's-20-NF class J-3 tap first and run it down the threads if switching from the tri lobe bolts. |
| 352-390 Identification -- Tim C, 04/11/2002
Ok..Found an engine the guy says is a 390 out of a 65 Merc...The # on the intake is..C5AE-9425 C...Do these # indicate a 352 or 390 ?.....It does have Merc valve covers on it and it's a 4brl.........Thanks! |
| | | RE: Intake ID # is useless. Start by reading this... -- Tim C, 04/11/2002
I read it....Does not tell me how to determin if this is a 390 or 352...Most c#stell you what the hello it is.. |
| | | | RE: Intake ID # is useless. Start by reading this... -- Mr F, 04/12/2002
|
I read it....Does not tell me how to
determin if this is a 390 or 352.
No, not directly - because there's no way
to do that. If there were, I'd have told you.
Rather, my earlier post explained how to
get the cast ID from the block. You'll have to trust me on this,
but many 'FE' engines use the same
intake...and for that matter most of them also share the same block, heads,
manifolds etc. I've found that its best to begin with the block
because its the biggest, heaviest part of the engine - one that
very few people would be willing to swap. So its the best indicator of
what was there, originally.
Hope that explains it for you.
Mr
F | |
| | | RE: Intake ID # is useless. Start by reading this... -- Tim C, 04/11/2002
Hey Mr.....What does the F stand for??...Several things come to mind... |
| | | | It varies. This week it stands for 'Forum Sponsor'. ;-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 04/12/2002
n/m |
| | | | | RE: It varies. This week it stands for 'Forum Sponsor'. ;-) [n/m] -- Tim C, 04/12/2002
Oh ok, thought it might stand for Ford |
| Dream machine . . . -- Orin, 04/11/2002
I posted this on the General Forum but in case you BB guys don't get over there here it is . . .a Q-code 4-speed Country Squire wagon with buckets etc. It is a one-of-one car -- how rare is that?! TFC (Too F..Cool)!
Go here . . .
http://www.fordregistry.com/1967_RN_1120.htm
|
| | RE: Dream machine . . . -- Poida, 04/11/2002
Imagine pulling up be side that at the lights and then getting Nailed as he pulls away.....and then changes Gear "WHAT THE".
What a great car and even better Story. How good would that be cruisin' around with 9 guy's in it......
And a B/B manual to top it off........ |
| | | RE: Dream machine . . . -- phil, 04/12/2002
Hey! isn't that Adrian Clement's car? he runs the '67 registry. if it's not he has something very similar. |
| | | | Yes, it is Adrian's. n/m -- Orin, 04/12/2002
nm |
|