Skip Navigation Links.
![Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=12116&Reply=12116><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a> <b>Large port 390 heads - Anyone know the REAL story?</b> -- <font color=#0000ff>Derek, <i>03/20/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>We've all read and heard stories over the years, about where the 428CJ heads originated from. Most prominent is that Ford 'dipped into their parts bin' and chose low-riser 427 heads for this new motor, based on prompting from Bob Tasca, a major impetus behind the engine's development.<br><br>Unfortunately, there's something missing in this story, since according to Ford's info, these low-riser 427's from '63-'64 were outfitted with heads having only 1.34" x 1.93" intake ports. We all know the CJ heads have 1.34" x 2.34" intake ports. Medium-riser heads are different again, listed as having 1.34" x 2.06" ports, and Hi-risers are 1.34" x 2.72". <br><br>Years ago, I helped pull apart a '66 390 for a rebuild, and found that it had heads with big 1.34" x 2.34" intakes, although it had only the 2.03" & 1.56" valves. Since this was over two years before the release of the CJ, as well as being a specification that supposedly hadn't existed before, I'm wondering what prompted Ford to enlarge the ports, but do no other significant work on these heads?<br><br>Further, there is now an auction on eBay for a set of..."Early Ford 390 Hi-port heads. Casting # EDC-6090-E. Intake ports are 1.34 x 2.34 inches. Valves are 2.02/1.55. Early machined combustion chambers."<br>[<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1813960472]">http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1813960472]</a> <br><br>Aside from the later 427's, and the early ('58-'60) 352 heads, the only 'machined chambers' I've seen on FE heads were on some of the Edsel ones, so does this casting number jive with that?<br><br> </blockquote>](/WebResource.axd?d=lIhYVYeLZitD6XlgNHhEd8lhjYSE8koepbMUt_baXgPGFvcbwV14jNdEiJM2TmVMOxrdnzT3fncUbdrlYzR7T0MDcpCto5K-RL_gpcxRnc6Snl4INXIQFGhni-U1OW-U0&t=637814653746327080) |  Large port 390 heads - Anyone know the REAL story? -- Derek, 03/20/2002
We've all read and heard stories over the years, about where the 428CJ heads originated from. Most prominent is that Ford 'dipped into their parts bin' and chose low-riser 427 heads for this new motor, based on prompting from Bob Tasca, a major impetus behind the engine's development.
Unfortunately, there's something missing in this story, since according to Ford's info, these low-riser 427's from '63-'64 were outfitted with heads having only 1.34" x 1.93" intake ports. We all know the CJ heads have 1.34" x 2.34" intake ports. Medium-riser heads are different again, listed as having 1.34" x 2.06" ports, and Hi-risers are 1.34" x 2.72".
Years ago, I helped pull apart a '66 390 for a rebuild, and found that it had heads with big 1.34" x 2.34" intakes, although it had only the 2.03" & 1.56" valves. Since this was over two years before the release of the CJ, as well as being a specification that supposedly hadn't existed before, I'm wondering what prompted Ford to enlarge the ports, but do no other significant work on these heads?
Further, there is now an auction on eBay for a set of..."Early Ford 390 Hi-port heads. Casting # EDC-6090-E. Intake ports are 1.34 x 2.34 inches. Valves are 2.02/1.55. Early machined combustion chambers."
[http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1813960472]
Aside from the later 427's, and the early ('58-'60) 352 heads, the only 'machined chambers' I've seen on FE heads were on some of the Edsel ones, so does this casting number jive with that?
|
|  | Here's my opinion. -- Royce Peterson, 03/20/2002
Derek,
The CJ heads do have the Low Riser style intake port but that is not why they were chosen. The real advantage to these heads is the higher and larger exhaust port which flows as well as any unported FE exhaust. The 2.09 / 166 valve sizes also help.
The Low Riser intake port was used on all the early FE heads. It is too low for intake manifolds to feed properly. That is why the slightly smaller Medium Riser style intake port was used for mid - 1965 and later 427 production.
All the early 1958 Edsel and Ford 352 / 332 engines had machined combustion chambers. It was found that money could be saved by casting them the right shape and skipping that machining operation. They are sought after more for the small combustion chamber size than any other reason, ports are in need of work to flow well.
Royce Peterson |
| | | RE:Head games... -- Mike McQuesten, 03/20/2002
Very well written Derek. Good thoughts and questions. Royce hits some important points as usual.
I just want to add one thing with regard to Royce's idea that the early heads are sought for their small chamber. I don't think, and I don't have the resources at hand, the early heads(produced in just the first three months of new big block production, i.e., 332, 252, Edsel 361) had significantly smaller combustion chambers than did most common Ford-Edsel engines from '58 on. Notice I did say common heads. we continue to learn about all the exceptions.
The head that some seek that has the small combustion chamber is the COAE-D. This is the 58cc figure 8 style that was used on the '60HP352 & '61HP390. And then again there all kinds of varying combustion chambers like C2S; C3AE-C, etc.
A little indicator I've noticed on the very early machined combustion chamber heads is that they have a small, quarter size/approximately expansion hole-plug on the ends of the head. Just a quickie thing to spot if you wonder about which early heads you're looking at. |
| | | | Small runner FE heads first appeared in 1966. -- Dave Shoe, 03/20/2002
The beginning of the 1966 model year marked a major change for FE production heads.
The very first small runner "velocity" heads appeared at the start of 1966 as a consequence of new emissions legislation. Prior to this, zero FEs got small-runner heads. Period. They didn't yet exist. Screw the misleading or erroneous literature that says otherwise.
The smaller runners and more aerodynamically shaped valve pockets of the new design allowed for efficient, powerful combustion at low RPMs, with some performance sacrifice at the higher RPMs.
Prior to 1966, every production FE engine had large runners. The CJ head simply inherited this 1958-65 runner design. Note that there was also an emissions "transition" head with only partial emissions mods in 1966-67 known as the C6AE-R which could be found randomly in any FE engine - there was about a 1-in-3 chance you'd find a C6AE-R large-runner head in your car or light truck these years. These had large runners just like earlier heads, too. All other heads in 1966-67 were all small "velocity" runners. By 1968 the C6AE-R was history, small runners were the norm, though the 427hyd and 428CJ would carry the old large-runner tradition into the '70s.
Recognize that all 428CJ heads, as well as 427LR heads, were cast to fit regular 2.03/1.55 valves. The cast heads were dressed out with a cutter to fit CJ valves. This makes CJ heads nothing more than 1959 332CID heads except they have stiffer valve springs, oversized valves, four extra bosses to fit exhaust gas reaction tubes, and eight extra bosses to fit Fairlane/Mustang exhaust manifolds, if required (this was another new feature in all 1966-later heads).
Since the 1959-1965 heads do not have restrictive thermactor bumps cast into them (which also first appeared in all 1966-later FE heads), a set of CJ valves will actually make these early heads flow better than stock CJ heads.
The magic of the CJ, however, is in the free-flowing intake manifold design. The MR/PI/CJ design was not available in the earlier years of the FE, so you'd never see CJ-type performance in an early 390.
As for the rationale of the machined chambers during the first three months of production, the idea was that equal chambers would provide for smooth engine operation, and would also allow maximizing the compression ratio because the combustion chamber size would be known nearly exactly. Unfortunately, the compressions were set for the planned octanes of the day, and these octane ratings were sometimes exaggerated. Because some gas failed to meet the rated octane at the pump, Ford was getting too many complaints about pinging. The extra cost was not worth it. Ford increased the combustion chamber size to reduce compression, and in doing so, they no longer needed to machine the chamber to an exact volume, saving money.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | Other questions...Other myths. -- Derek, 03/21/2002
Thanks to all for the answers here, and good explanations of what was going on at Ford. It's appreciated!
A couple more questions come to mind, one about the CJ vs. MR heads, and another about those early 332/352 motors.
It used to be common practice, when attempting to use any of Ford's 'better' aluminum intakes, like the C6AZ-H or M, Tunnel Wedge, etc., to have to weld-in extra material at the bottom of the runner entry in order to allow proper 'blending' with the larger CJ ports. Does this indicate that the MR head's port floors were actually 'raised' in relation to the ones on the CJ?
And going back to those early '58 332/352 motors, I have been told that (probably) the same ones that were equipped with the machined combustion chambers were also equipped with solid lifters. Further, that the original Ford system used a 'shell' lifter, not much different from what Crane Cams still tries to sell you with an FE mechanical cam.
The lifter in Ford's parts system for the 427 had a C4AZ-B number, indicating it originated in 1964. Yet the pushrod used in the 427's (B8AZ-C) clearly came from much earlier. Since the pushrod seat in a 'shell' lifter is over 1" lower than in the 'dumbell' design, obviously the same pushrod could not have been used, assuming there ever WAS a 'shell' type one used.
Anyone know the real story here? |
| | | | |  | CJ versus MR -- Royce Peterson, 03/21/2002
The Medium Riser intake port is a little wider and the port lower opening is higher allowing a straighter shot from intake to valve for the incoming charge. As Dave Shoe pointed out, even though the ports don't line up perfectly Ford used the Medium Riser intake design on the Cobra Jet cast iron intake. The 1967 - 1970 428 Police interceptor engines also used this intake manifold design (in aluminum) with small port C7AE-A and C8AE-H heads which means the head port opening was smaller than the intake port. Again the benefits outweighed the problems caused by a port mismatch.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | RE: CJ versus MR -- Joel, 03/21/2002
I'm still confused about the CJ's head lineage. It's a LR head with a MR intake manifold? It's a totally new design? Steve Christ's book says LR, while other publications say MR. What gives!? |
| | | | | | |  | RE: CJ versus MR -- Royce Peterson, 03/21/2002
True, the CJ heads are very similar to 427 Low Riser and the CJ intake manifold is a Medium Riser design. There is a mismatch at the ports but it works great none the less.
Royce Peterson
|
| | | | |  | RE: Other questions...Other myths. -- Bob, 03/21/2002
Bought a set of shell lifters, push rods, valve springs and a solid lifter 428 PI cam from the Ford dealer back in '70. He had everything in stock except the cam. |
| | | | | | RE:early '52/'32 solid engines -- Mike McQuesten, 03/21/2002
Here's what I know for sure about the early '58 Ford Edsel 332/352 that had the machined combustion chambers: They did have solid lifter cams with Ford "Shot-Gun" style shell lifters and the corresponding skinny ball & cup push rods and the adjustable B8A 1.76 rockers. I have one of these engines sitting in its original location, a '58 Country Sedan wagon. An "Interceptor" V-8(this one's a 352).
Now I'll do some speculating based on information I think I used to know for sure.....so JMO:
The '64 Ford Shell lifters were part of the high rev package that was offered over the counter with the C4AE-B cam(the 320 duration/500 lift shaft). They were shell lifters but of somewhat different design than the early '58 shells. Thus a new part #. As for the pushrods.....that amazes me that they would continue to use that '58 pushrod. The '58 pushrod is not a high performance item, it's very skinny and these early ones have a tendency to easily bend. As a matter of fact I found #5 intake p-rod in a nice long -S- configuration upon initial tear down of the C-sedan's 352. I think that may be why this '58 hasn't been under it's own power since 1967. Someone else may have more info on the B8AZ pushrod you've mentioned.
You mention the, " 'shell lifter', not much different from what Crane Cams still tries to sell you with an FE mechanical cam". Do you think running the shell lifters is a bad thing? My opinion is that they are a good item. But only if used with the later style 3/8" hardened correct length pushrod. After advice from a few FE builders, I've decided to run the shells, mine are Crower but I have a hunch they all are made by a single source, with their pushrods. These will be riding a Comp 282S cam.
An interesting FE solid lifter that Royce has mentioned and I think he indicated he is running in one of his 427's is the Iskenderian style. At first blush you might think they look like hydraulics but upon a closer look you realize they're a unique solid design with a snap in plug that allows you to run the standard length cup & ball pushrod. I think Royce has indicated that these Isky lifters offer more strength yet are lighter than the Ford style dumbell solid. I picked up a set of these off of eBay a couple of months ago because......oh that's right, we don't have to explain why we buy parts like this here. |
| | | | | | | RE:early '52/'32 solid engines -- Bob, 03/21/2002
So what does the Isky lifter weigh and does anybody have the weight of the stock shell lifter? |
| | | | | | | | Info from the grey matter zone.... -- kevin, 03/22/2002
Ford did use the shell style initialy. They weigh one third the weight of the dumbell. The first pushrods were solid, and changed to tubular shortly. The T-Bird never recieved solid lifters, but had the machined chambers too. The fuel requirements that the engine needed were as Dave pointed out not kept up around the country. The Ethyl Corporation still was a powerful force back then, and unscrupulous station owners did not want to pay the price, but liked the profit of the fuel. This resulted in doctored gas that gave trouble on high compression engines such as this "new" design which featured a high rod ratio and the resultant spark knock that would occur. The B-9 through the C-6-R was essentially the same, with odd differences. There was as pointed out the Hi-Po heads for a little flavoring. The C3-H,G,J, and CJ have the advantage of the cores for the intake are offset slightly in the middle of the runner compared to the others for flow improvements, along with thicker decks. The lifters were all made by Johnson Tappet Co. There were some called "Skelcast" that were ribbed vertically and had three points of contact with the lifter bore, Engle and Manley sold them among others. The Isky's that Royce has, (me too) are very close to the TRW style with removable top pushrod seat with a different hold down clip (TRW's use a Tru-Arc snap ring like a piston pin has). |
| | | | | | | RE:'Shell' vs. 'Dumbbell -- Derek, 03/25/2002
Thanks for that info, Mike! I still find it somewhat confusing though.
Was there another Ford pushrod, a 'lost' one or something? As I mentioned, the 'shell' or 'bucket' lifters require quite a bit longer pushrod than do the 'dumbell' styles, so how do we reconcile that with the B8AZ having been a 'constant' for as long as anyone knows about?
As for thinking there might be anything wrong with using the 'shell' lifters...not at all! I was just pointing out that Crane sells nothing else, whereas most other cam grinders go with the 'dumbell' style.
I was told by a Tech Rep from a 'West Coast' cam company that Crane had 'hundreds of sets' of those (shell) lifters still in stock, and just wanted to get rid of them. However, I'd been told by several prominent Ford FE racers over 25 years ago that they were the preferred lifter for higher RPM operation, being considerably lighter.
Given that, and that Ford's valve spring for the 427's (C3AZ-B) netted < 300 lbs of open pressure with the C4AE-B cam, it seems odd that they would then introduce a 'heavier' lifter for use with it, the C4AZ-B??
|
| | | | | | | | RE:Dazed & Confused -- Mike McQuesten, 03/25/2002
Me too! I'm wondering the same thing about the "lost pushrod". It just isn't plausible that Ford was using the skinny solid pushrod from those early '58s. There's no way they could take the rpm range offered with the B4AE-B cam.
So I'm with you Derek, who can tell us about the Ford supplied pushrod that was with the high rev kit offered over the counter with the C4AE-B camshaft?
BTW, the shell lifters seem to still be the preferred lifter by most. Not all. There are varying opinions on this. No formal opinion study done. Not gonna do it.
My next solid cam may be lifting those new Isky solids I have with the stanard length cup/ball pushrod. I've got all kinds of plans....and all the money and time I need to do them! Right. |
| 360/390 id -- Elvis, 03/19/2002
Is there any way to tell a 1975 360 from a 390, just by looking on the outside? The casting numbers on the intake are: D5TE9425KB and the block under the oil filter is E1 and D22 and next to the top of the block near the head is a 36 DIF. I just purchased this block for $100 and it has the same heads as my 66 352 C8AE-H heads so thats no help excpet its not Hi-po because its a pickup truck motor. I am thinking of using the crank if its a 390, if not probably use it as a core for 390 reman. |
| | Pull the flywheel inspectiom cover. -- Dave Shoe, 03/19/2002
If you pull the flywheel/flexplate inspection cover while the engine is near TDC, you can tell by looking at the flywheel flange.
The flange on a 360 has a large, deep "half moon" cut out of it next the the small square notch. This "half moon" is necessart in order to drill out the rear throws on the short-stroke crank.
The 390 will only have a square notch on the flange, because the longer throw allows the drill bit to clear the flange. You will sometimes see some "roughning" of the flange next to the notch, but this looks nothing like a huge honking moon.
Shoe. |
| | | And the half moon slot -- John M. Sutton, 03/20/2002
is found on both the 352 and 360 cranks? I guess my question is, how can I tell the difference between a 360 and a 352 other than measuring the volume displacement.
Thanks, Shoe!
John M. Sutton |
| | | | 352/360 cranks are the same casting. -- Dave Shoe, 03/20/2002
352 and 390 cranks are the same thing, just a different year since the 360 replaced the 352 in 1968.
Some 360s got lighter pistons (semi slipper skirt instead of full slipper skirt), and these will be balanced a little differently, but otherwise a 352 crank is the same as a 360.
Shoe. |
| | | | I'd heard about them, now I've seen one. -- Dave Shoe, 03/21/2002
I'd heard of the half-moon on early 390s, but hadn't had a chance to see one until now.
I wonder if Ford changed the drill-bit angle on later 390 cranks so the flange would no longer need the half-moon (I doubt it). Maybe it took a year or two for the engineers to realize the extra machining step to cut the moon was unnecessary on the new-for-1961 390. I'll have to look into this further.
Thanks for the link.
Shoe. |
| | RE: 360/390 id -- Bob, 03/19/2002
Here's the easy way to check the stroke without removing the head. Get a straight 12 inch piece of coat hanger wire. Get a magic marker. Remove the number 1 and number 4 spark plugs. Turn the engine over until the timing mark is at TDC. Put the wire in the number 1 spark plug hole with wire resting on the top of the piston. Make a mark on the wire even with the lip on the valve cover. Now move the wire over to the number 4 cylinder and mark the wire again. Measure the distance between the two marks.
For those that don't know: 3.98 is the stroke for the 410 and 428 engines; 3.78 is the stroke for the 390, 406 and 427 engines and 3.5 is the stroke for the 352 and 360 engines.
Thanks to John Wilkerson for giving me the idea for the stroke checking.
|
| | | RE: 360/390 id -- Elvis, 03/20/2002
Thanks All,
It is a 390. now any one tell me if i can use the 6.540 rods with it, or stick with the 6.488 rods?
Elvis |
| | | | RE: 360/390 id -- Bob, 03/20/2002
No on the longer 6.54 rods. They are weaker than the 390 and up stock ones. |
| | | | | 352/360 crank differences... -- kevin, 03/22/2002
there are some. I cant remember them all but, one is the thrust bearing flange width. Also on the center main the 360 has more metal cast on the outside of the area. Also the early 352's have a different (wider) keyway. |
| | | | | | I believe there are two different 360 cranks. -- Dave Shoe, 03/22/2002
I believe the 360 may have a crank counterweighted for the slipper skirt piston, and also a version for the early semi-slipper piston.
I suspect that since both the 352 and the 360 had the longer skirt pistons in 1967-68 (I'm not sure whether the 352 was semi-slipper or full slipper - hey, it's an SAE term, not mine) at the time of transition, the pistons may have weighed the same, and so the 1967-68 352-360 cranks might have been identical. Variations may simply be evolutionary changes over the design life if the FE.
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: Long rod 390's? -- Barry B, 03/22/2002
I hear from time to time that Ford put the long rods in some of the 2V 390's. This word comes from some machinists and old-time mechanics. Anybody have any insight? |
| | I found one in a '60 t-bird. -- Greg, 03/18/2002
Surprise surprise. All I needed from the car was the hood release handle but the owner wanted it gone, so we struck a deal...I would take the whole car to get the handle. I believe I made out ok. The engine turned out to be a '66 428 "Q" .
MORAL.... Look everywhere; )
Greg |
| | For years a picture in Ford's Engine Toolroom... -- Bill Conley, 03/19/2002
showed a 427 cammer in a '57 t-bird. Looked like it fit no sweat.
Interesting how they chose that vehicle to put on the wall of the room where the first cammers were assembled.
-Bill |
| | | You mean Bill Coon's famous race car? N/M -- kevin, 03/19/2002
|
| | | | Yeah I think you're right -- Bill Conley, 03/19/2002
The picture showed the car being prepped for competition, as I remember. |
| | | How long were you at Ford? Any stories? :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/19/2002
n/m |
| | | | RE: How long were you at Ford? Any stories? :-) [n/m] -- Bill Conley, 03/19/2002
I was a Ford engine engineer from 1988 thru 1993 (my first job out of school).
Lots of stories! For instance- I did a stint in the dyno building when they were shaking the bugs out of the supercharged 3.8L T-Bird engine. The original design called for a cast crank. During one test at sustained max HP, the crank let go and the flywheel got loose.
The flywheel went up the wall and half way across the ceilng of the test cell. Looked like a chainsaw massacre! The dyno operator needed a new pair of shorts. From that point on nobody was allowed in the test cell.
Around the same time they let Bill Ford Jr. test drive a prototype S/C bird on one of the tracks (I think Arizona Proving Ground). Well he "drove over the crankshaft" at 140 + mph. Needless to say it hit the fan at Engine Engineering!!
They eventually gave up on the cast crank and sourced a forged unit from Japan.
I could also spend days writing about my stint on the assembly line at Cleveland Engine Plant ... or how two engineers crashed the company's Ferrari Testarossa on the way back from a strip club. The Ferrari was purchased for "competitive evaluation" - translation: executive toy.
Oh- I also participated in the unintentional demolition of a $250,000.00 test vehicle.
So are you sorry you asked?
-Bill |
| | | | | Stories !! -- P, 03/19/2002
Bill, In case you were wondering, there are hoards of us out here in cyberspace, just sitting on a tree like a vulture, hungry, waiting to swoop down on any little tasty tidbit.
Let the stories fly. I certainly enjoyed reading your previous posts!
P
|
| | | | | | Ok- Twist my arm! -- Bill Conley, 03/20/2002
Each department had "pool" cars for going to meetings, etc. We'd have cars in the pool for maybe six months and then they'd be sold.
Sometimes a supervisor or manager would pull strings to get first crack at buying one of these pool cars. (The price was great but I'd never touch one- these things were abused worse than rental cars!)
Anyway, a first year employee (female :-) took a Tempo pool car to a meeting in Toledo - 75 miles away. When she got back she told a story about "the Check Engine light coming on, but the car still ran fine". She drove at least an hour on the highway with the light on.
We took a look at the car, and discovered that the drain plug had fallen out of the oil pan and the car had no oil! Now the good part. We knew the manager who was going to buy the car a week later. Everybody hated him.
The engineering team made the decision to pop in a new plug, top off the oil, ......... and say nothing.
-Bill
|
| | | | | | | RE: Ok- Twist my arm! -- Bob, 03/20/2002
Love that one. Fords are very well built - shoot the engineer's even test drive them without oil then the manager's buy them!
Keep the stories coming. |
| | | | | | | | 32-valve modular 4.6L valve angles. -- Dave Shoe, 03/20/2002
How'd Ford chose the optimal valve angle when optimizing flow in the 4-valve head of the 4.6Liter modular motor which the Cobra uses?
Also, is there any correlation between a 2.3Liter inline-4 cylinder and a 4.6Liter V-8? The displacements suggest they could use the same piston.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: 32-valve modular 4.6L valve angles. -- Bill Conley, 03/20/2002
Unfortunately Dave, the 4-valve head got the short end of the stick when it came to valve included angle. Part of the "modular engine" concept was that the 2-valve and 4-valve heads had to run down the same machining line at Romeo Engine Plant. This means valve angle relative to head deck had to be the same for both types.
The 2-valve was planned to outsell the 4-valve by at least 10:1 so the angle was optimized for the 2-valve. Unfortunately a 2-valve wedge chamber and a 4-valve pentroof chamber are two very different animals. This limits the performance potential of the Cobra engine.
Here's an even more significant limitation designed into these engines. The block was designed to be very short (for FWD transverse installations). The main and rod bearing widths were reduced accordingly. Through lots of analysis and testing, they got a minimal bearing width that would work at 100 HP/liter. That means 460 HP and no more. (Note that the stroked 5.4 blocks have the same bottom end as the 4.6 blocks.)
I would be extremely surprised if they tried to release the new GT-40 with that 500 HP supercharged engine. It won't live if pushed hard.
Oh- regarding the 2.3L question. No the old 2.3L and the 4.6L don't share the same piston. There was originally a new 2.3L four cylinder planned for the modular family. 2.3L was chosen because it was considered the biggest displacement for a 4-cylinder before you needed balance shafts. It also happened to make a respectable V8 displacement when multiplied by two. There was also supposed to be 3.5L 90 degree V6- but that's another story...
A funny story that ties into the 2.3L. Just before the launch of the 4-valve modular (Lincoln MK VII), Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and threatened the world oil supply. The next day Hank Lenox, our chief engine engineer was in the drafting room screaming. "What the hell am I going to do with 100,000 4-valve V8 cylinder heads?" He and a few guys burned the midnight oil to lay out a new project. You guessed it- Graft the 4.6L 4-valve head to the existing 2.3L iron block. Yuck!! As it turned out the existing block had almost exactly the right bore diameter and spacing.
Fortunately the situation calmed down and the project was abandoned. Good thing for you Cobra guys!
Man you all are taking me back to some pretty wild days!
-Bill |
| | | | | | | | | | Wow, there's a name outta my past... -- Dan Davis, 03/20/2002
...Hank Lenox. I enjoyed working for him. One of his lines to our team was "I don't care if it's right or wrong, just do something!"
Even futher back, I was attached to FPSD. We were sent out to the Bondurant School because their PP-level 1990 Towncars were mysteriously stalling. This caused all kinds of concern as the vehicle was being released at that minute. Well it turns out that they *were* stalling...when a driver did a "bootlegger's turn" (a 180 using the parking brake). They neglected to mention that fact and of course that is not a test metric. Two of us flew out to AZ and suggested that they install foam in the tanks to solve the problem (on these hi-end limos only), which was that the tank pickup was being uncovered at low engine rpm.
Of course we had to stay a few days to be sure that the fix really worked and to develop a service part foamed fuel. That kind of thing couldn't have been done in the office ;^) We also learned that the minimum speed to do a 180 in a Lincoln Towncar Limo is 18MPH and lots of other neat stuff taught in the chauffer defensive driving course. Way big fun and on the company $$ too.
Cheers,
Dan |
| | | | | | | | | | | Unnatural adaptations. -- Dave Shoe, 03/20/2002
YOur comment about the possible need to install 4-valve heads onto "approximately similar" four cylinder blocks due to a possible fuel crunch got me thinking...
When reviewing the 427 block prints a week ago, ref a reduced resolution image here:
http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?forumid=74182&messageid=1015555058
I noticed the cam bearings are spaced on 1/8" wider centers (4.75") than the bores or mains (4.63"). This seems very odd. This does, however, explain the "offset oil holes" which lead into the cranksaddles.
I wonder if this allowed Ford to make cams using the same machinery which cut MEL cams. I guess I gotta look to see whether Ford offered any engines with 4.75" bore centers about that time. Also, I'll have to see whether there is always a discrepancy in any engine, as this variation may provide a necessary function.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Cam Bearing Spacing -- Bill Conley, 03/20/2002
I've never considered the cam design of a V- type engine but I would guess the following:
The bigger cam bearing spacing probably stems from the need to have the front face of the cam at the very front of the block. Remember that one cylinder bank is staggered relative to the other.
If you had cam bearing spacing = bore spacing and wanted equal cam bearing spacing, the front of the cam would be sunken in by half the cylinder bank offset. They probably just took that extra length and divided it evenly. This would even out bending loads along the camshaft.
Cylinder bank offset is the reason one cam on the 427 SOHC has an extra bearing.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: Wow, there's a name outta my past... -- Bob, 03/20/2002
You guys have got to keep these neat stories coming. Most entertaining. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | OK Bob - One more (not Ford) -- Bill Conley, 03/20/2002
One more and then I have to lay off for a week. I'm going to Europe!
BTW- I loved Dan's story about the Town Cars. Dan- did you have one of those jackets that the Town Car guys used to wear? They were beatiful, embroidered, and I'm sure pretty expensive. The front had the Lincoln logo and the guy's name. The back had a big embroidered image of the 1990 Town Car and the words, "Lincoln Town Car - Because Girth is Everyrhing!".
I've still got tons of adventures from my Ford days, but here's a great one I got from an old AMC pilot plant guy.
The AMC Pacer was a pretty important program for the company. When the first "body-in-white" (prototype) was being assembled at the pilot plant, the whip was really cracking on the techs.
They got the vehicle together in record time and then it came time to fire it up. One of the techs goes over to the rack, picks up a battery, and goes over to the car. He looks in the engine compartment - no luck. He looks in the trunk - no luck. Several minutes of head scratching, and finally he calls a supervisor. More phone calls, and within an hour a bunch of Body Engineers are swarming around the car. In walks the Chairman of the company, who rips everybody a new one for ..... forgetting to package the battery in the vehicle.
Apparently it took a month of round-the-clock work to get it fixed. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | That's a good one! Heads must have rolled... [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/21/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Welcome to Europe -- John, 03/21/2002
Your stories have been entertaining and have teached me a lot. Give us some more.
Welcome to Europe.
John |
| | | | | | | | | | | Gee, Dan - sounds like a tough gig. ::LOL:: [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/21/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | | RE: Ok- Twist my arm! -- P, 03/21/2002
Ha, that's hilarious !!
P
|
| Oil Capacity on 427 SO with Cobra T-Pan -- Rick Thompson, 03/18/2002
I have a 427 side oiler with a repro cobra t-pan in a 68 Shelby with the oil cooler that came on air conditioned cars. Anyone have experience with how much oil I should put in? Thanks |
| | RE: Oil Capacity on 427 SO with Cobra T-Pan -- John, 03/18/2002
Can't help you about the cooler, but there have been several quoted amounts for the pan. The correct amount for the pan (Tony Branda cast aluminum I presume) is 6.5 qts for the pan plus 1 qt for the filter. Even if the filter doesn't hold a complete quart, the total is 7.5 quarts without the oil cooler. Now, you could figure out the rest by filling the cooler and its lines with oil and measuring it. Maybe someone else has the exact data. |
| Hi, I found some C6AE-R heads and was wondering... -- WEM, 03/18/2002
what $$ I should offer for them. They appear to been home polished, no gouges, just smooth and they need to be rebuilt. Springs looked funny on them, like they were too big. The valves look larger than on my C8AE-H heads, but I didn't have a tool to measure them.
Thanks, WEM |
| | Here's what I paid. -- Royce Peterson, 03/18/2002
I bought a pair at a Junk Yard in Fort Worth, TX two months ago for $50.00. After all is said and done, I now have close to $1000.00 in them. I had bronze guides, PC teflon seals and 2.09/ 1.66 valves installed after a thourough bead blasting, vatting, pressure check, magnuflux and drilling for CJ exhaust manifolds. They are going on a 427 in one of my 68 Cougar GTE's.
Oddly, one of my heads was cast in Cleveland while the other is a Detroit casting. The Cleveland piece had less casting flash and has a big "R" near the #1 / #8 plug hole. The ports,combustion chamber etc all are identical.
Royce Peterson |
| | | RE: Here's what I paid. -- WEM, 03/18/2002
Wow, that turned out to be a project! Well with that info. I think I better run them buy a head shop to see what the cost of them would be to finish up b4 I make an offer. Also the combustion chamber appeared to be small than my C8AE-H's, any idea how many CC's they are?
Thanks, WEM |
| | | | C6AE-R, C8AE-H and C8AE-J -- Royce Peterson, 03/19/2002
Left to right C6AE-R, C8AE-H and C8AE-J. The -H heads have the smallest combustion chamber by far, about 70 CC typically. The C6AE-R and C8AE-J have 76 CC chambers.
Royce Peterson
[Image re-sized by Admin.]
 |
| | | | | RE: C6AE-R, C8AE-H and C8AE-J -- WEM, 03/19/2002
Thanks Royce!
That unfortunate for me. I have a 390 with 9:1 comp using the C8AE-H heads. I'm starting to believe that if I switch heads to the c6ae-r's I will loose hp do to the comp ratio....
One my reasons for wanting to switch is headers, I want to install them but the H heads require thier own header (port location). So if I upgraded in the future it would be costly.
Thanks for the info Royce, I need to do some thinking!
|
| | | | | | Headers -- Royce Peterson, 03/19/2002
The C6AE-R heads have the same exhaust port as your C8AE-H heads. If you buy headers designed to fit the Cobra Jet (C8AE-J, C80E-N) heads they will also work fine on the low port heads. The other way around is trouble, headers designed to fit low port FE heads will leak at the top on CJ / Low riser style ports which are much larger and extend higher on the casting.
I agree with your assesment, compression ratio is very important when you already have low compression. The H heads are probably best for your aspplication, why not think about installing bigger valves in them and do a little exhaust side porting?
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | RE: Headers -- WEM, 03/19/2002
Well Royce, considering the info you have kindly provided, I believe your right. Truth of the matter is the H heads are already on, they've been rebuilt and work fine. So I think I'll pursue headers (or CJ manifolds) as my next logical improvement. By the way my car is a '68 torino convertable, so I use it mostly for cruizing to the beach. But darn it - it must roast the tires out of respect to the FE family of motors!! LOL!
Later WEM |
| | | | | | | 9:1 compression -- tbolt, 03/20/2002
Wem, you said that you have 9:1 comp. I was wondering how that came about? The piston / combustion chamber combinations that are available with out machine work seem to develop ratios above or below , but not 9:1. Please tell me witch combination of parts you used as i am trying to put a 9:1, 390 together and found that i either have to enlarge the c6ae-r chambers or enlarge the dish in the pistons
thx. tbolt
|
| | | | | | | | RE: 9:1 compression -- WEM, 03/20/2002
Hi tbolt,
I had my motor rebuilt about a year ago using the C8AE-H heads to get 9:1 so I do not know the parts combo for 9:1 using the C6AE-R heads. I found that if I swapped heads the CR would go below 9:1 and basically void any performance I may have gained. (Basically I found out the same thing you did).
Later, WEM
|
| | | | | | | | | RE: 9:1 compression -- tbolt, 03/20/2002
Do you know witch pistons were used & were they altered? |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: 9:1 compression -- WEM, 03/20/2002
Sorry tbolt,
I don't. I really doubt they were altered. They guy who rebuilt my motor is listed below. He won't remember me, only motor he's done for me and it was his most basic rebuild. He a nice guy (BUD is the name) give him a buz, I bet he'll help you.
Blair's High Performance Auto
621 N Citrus Ave, Covina, CA 91723
Phone: (626) 915-6642I
Later WEM
|
| | | | | | | | | | RE: 9:1 compression -- WEM, 03/20/2002
Tbolt,
I was wondering what the amount of the dish is (in CCs) for the pistons you've found. I'm just curious what the numbers add up to and if I really got a 9:1 motor!
Thanks, Bill |
| 1969, 390 GT Mustang Engine -- boB, 03/18/2002
This weekend I purchased a 1969, 390 GT engine from a salavage yard.
It is correct down to the "C9Z..." carb tag.
The elderly salvage yard owner couldn't remeber what it came out of.
The block is stamped "9K137111".
I would like to find out what model it was originally in.
Any information would be appreciated. |
| | Keep in mind there was no 390GT in 1969. -- Dave Shoe, 03/18/2002
The last 390GT engine was made in 1968. The 1969 model year saw the 390IP engine. This is likely what you've got.
You might try searching "390IP" in this forum if you want details.
Shoe. |
| | You sure that's a 'K'? [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/18/2002
n/m |
| | RE: 1969, 390 GT Mustang Engine -- hawkrod, 03/18/2002
the 9 is 69 the k is kansas city and the 137111 is the sequential number for a ford (not mercury, they start 5XXXXX). by default you have a 69 torino or fairlane 390 IP engine because they only used that engine in a mustang cougar torino montego and since cougars and mustangs weren't made in KC and we know it isn't a montego by the serial number. hawkrod |
| | | RE: 1969, 390 GT Mustang Engine -- boB, 03/19/2002
Thanks for the input. |
| | | | RE: 1969, 390 GT Mustang Engine -- boB, 03/19/2002
Were Torinos & Fairlanes built in Kansas City?
I thought the low end cars were built there (Falcons / Mavericks) and F-series.
What is does 390 "IP" stand for?
thanks. |
| | | | | RE: 1969, 390 GT Mustang Engine -- hawkrod, 03/19/2002
well, i am not positive about the production line, i made an assumption since you identified it as a GT engine and i know they did not make the cougar and mustang at kansas city. as far as IP is concerned it refers to the engine emission system and means improved performance. the 68 mustang type 390 engine had a new intake manifold design with an autolite 4300 carb. the cam and distributor were also redesigned to reduce emissions. the engine is virtually identical to a 68 GT engine except for the cam, dist, intake, and carb. by redesigning the engine components they were able to eliminate the thermactor parts (probably a cost cutting move as well as taking a little thunder from the 390 to help keep it from competing with the CJ on the sales floor). hawkrod |
| | | | | | RE: 1969, 390 GT Mustang Engine -- boB, 03/20/2002
Thanks for the education. |
| | | | | Yes - Fairlane & Maverick, among many other models. [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/19/2002
n/m |
| For Travis Miller.... -- kevin, 03/18/2002
They are trashing you on anoter site about this combo Bill Hawk has, What is the deal? I know and you know that there were no "F" head and PI intakes on the 67 GT-500 unless the dealer installed them. When I was ready for SS/F, Farmer made sure I had the "A" heads. What gives from your perspective, and what can you tell me about the car/combo and times/speed. Thanks, kevin |
| | RE: For Travis Miller.... -- Travis Miller, 03/19/2002
Bill Hawk showed up at the Gator Nationals with a set of C8OE-N Cobra Jet heads on his 1967 Shelby GT500 Mustang. He has a letter that he claims is from Carroll Shelby saying that the C8OE-N heads were used on late 1967 GT500's. Hawk also claims that '67 GT500's were built with single 4-barrel 428's.
Anyone knowledgeable on what heads and intake came on the '67 GT500's care to comment. |
| | | RE: For Travis Miller.... -- salid, 03/19/2002
The '97 Shelby registry says that the '67 GT500 came with C7AE-A heads and the C7ZX-A 2x4 intake. The only engine option listed for the 500 is the 427. I don't believe the C8OE-N heads were even available until early in '68, and I don't think the "first fifty" 68 and a half cobra jet mustangs used the C8OE-N heads cuz they weren't available yet. Not very likely that a 67 could even possibly have had C8OE-N heads. Having said that, it's also not very likely that any GT500 would have come with a 390, but SAAC has acknowledged that some did. I bet they didn't have N heads though. |
| | | | How fast is this car?... -- kevin, 03/20/2002
I dont go to many sites, so I dont know. Thanks for responding as I would possibly be interested in drag racing once again and need to find out more. Bill Dismuke specificly told me that the "A" head was my only choice. I know about the strike of 66 that saw "other" engines being used, but that's irrelevent to the issue at hand. The early C-J race cars were developed with tube headers, and the heads were 2 bolt vertical, so the C3-J and refinements off this one including the Canadian and SK are more believable than actual C-J's. In CS/A, he said I could run the 427 but, I hated automatics to the point that I would not even consider it. Is there porting allowed today in the S and SS classes? How about the site's that have the rules? Thanks |
| | | | | RE: How fast is this car?... -- Travis Miller, 03/20/2002
Bill Hawk qualified at 10.54 in his C/SA 1967 Shelby GT500 Mustang at the recently completed NHRA Gatornationals.
|
| | | | | | RE: How fast is this car?... -- Rory McNeil, 03/23/2002
On NHRA.com, the only head listed for a 67 Shelby 428 is the C7AE head, same head as a 390 GT, with the small (2.03, 1.56) valves. Considering that even the early 68 GT 500`s used the small valve heads, & that the 428CJ did not debut until WELL into the 68 calender year, I see no way that the "N" head was used in a 67. In fact, when the 428CJ first became available in a Shelby Mustang, the model was upgraded from GT500, to GT500KR. By the way, Travis, I have owned a pair of "early' CJ heads, they were casting # C8OE-J, same basic head as a "N", but they used the 14 bolt "390 GT" style exhaust bolt pattern, rather than the 16 bolt CJ setup. Considering that the Shelby 428 non CJ is allowed to run much more compression,& an aluminum intake, at a LOWER HP factor, I think someones getting a bit greedy.
Its well known that some questionable pieces have been allowed by NHRA over the years in Stock eliminator,ie: alum. PI intakes & 735 Holleys on 66-67 390 GT`s, alum. intake & Holley 780 on 71-73 351C`s,alum. SixPack Edelbrock intakes on 70-71 440 MoPars (only 69`s had the Edelbrock intake from the factory), 283 Chevs with larger 327 intakes etc.... However, these "superseded" parts ARE allowed in the NHRA blueprint guide, the CJ head on the 67 Shelby are not! |
| Thanks and Could You help my guys?? -- LINDEN JOHNSON, 03/18/2002
Thanks guys for helping me on more than one ocaission here on the FE
Fomoco Forum. I have a Ford Board on my 50's site also..........the only thing
we need there is some help from a few of you seasoned pro's. If you wouldn't
mind helping out some of our 50's Ford guys with their
questions...............they would greatly appreciate it!
Thanks,
LJ
www.59ford.com |
| 390 T5 tranny mate -- 410cougar, 03/17/2002
hey hows it going guys its been a while since ive been in here. just got back from over seas. time to pull out the cougar and hopefully have it on the road by july. heres the plan. ive got a c6 aready. but id like to have standard. a friend of mine has a T5 he wants to trade even up. is there a kit that will mate this to my 390. and will it hold up to it. ive got a 390 with a 428 au crank out of a shelby. and 2x4 with the possibility of running 2x3. im looking to get to the 400 mark. will a T5 hold. i dont see why it wouldnt but thought id better ask. thanx. nice to be back
john |
| | RE: 390 T5 tranny mate -- Bob Enright, 03/17/2002
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO! A T-5 will not hold up. Hell, they cant even take a 5.0! You need a Tremec TKO. I have one behind my 428CJ.... Look for my post. Good luck..... |
| | | RE: 390 T5 tranny mate -- 410cougar, 03/18/2002
how much am i looking at for a tko and clutch assembly. thanx
john |
| | | | RE: 390 T5 tranny mate -- Bob Enright, 03/18/2002
MMMM, Call Eric Swarr of Swarr automotive in P.A.. Lets see... If you go the way I did, the Trans kit with the modified input & crossmember will run ya about 1800.00. You will need a flywheel. & the clutch set up can cost up to 500.00 depending on which one ya go with.. Good luck. |
| | | | | RE: 390 T5 tranny mate -- Ian Dobson, 03/18/2002
http://www.fortesparts.com/cobratranspage.html
I was under the impression that they had the same input shaft as a toploader, do you don't even have to change the clutch, although I could be wrong, the people building the cobra kits seem to have been doing this for a few years so they may be the best people to ask, course after pushing the heck out of that 3 finger pressure plate for years one of those feminine diaphram clutches sounds pretty good :)
|
| | | | | | RE: 390 T5 tranny mate -- Bob Enright, 03/18/2002
You need the 26 spline disc. The rest of the clutch set up will work. If you are converting from an auto... You need a few more parts... |
| | | | | RE: 390 T5 tranny mate -- 410cougar, 03/18/2002
boy thats a good chunk-a change...hmmm might have to do something special to get the wife to go along with this one...lol. |
| | | | | | Welcome back Cougar 410 and questions for BOB... -- kevin, 03/19/2002
so the 26 will fit huh, what about the fork. I assume that the big spline is out, and the small 1 1/16th is required. I have a lot to learn about this as more are wanting this combo and I am ignorant for the most part about it. Reason I ask is that a friend wants his 67 GT-500 done and I have boxes of different forks for all the Hi-Po Ford cars with their little idiosynchronistic (whew!) differences. Is there one specific one to use? Does the Lakewood scattershield fit OK? I can get Patterson driveshaft (Penske's supplier)to custom make any shaft wth billet yoke and all for a reasonalble price. Thanks |
|