These are the old FoMoCo Obsolete Forums and are being hosted by JCOConsulting.com. While you're here, check out my articles or have a look around at some of the Ford Stuff we have for sale. You might find something you can't live without.

Skip Navigation Links.
 Shelby exhaust outlet -- John, 02/12/2002
E-bay had a NOS 69/70 exhaust outlet some week ago. Does any know the e-bay number or know how much $ it went for?

John
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11310&Reply=11310><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Fact or fiction. 69 390GT was a 390 with ...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>James, <i>02/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have heard alot of talk about the last year that Ford offered the 390 in the Mustang. The story that I have heard so many times was that in 1969 the car had a 390 with 428 CJ heads and the 390 GT cam. Is this fact or fiction? </blockquote> Fact or fiction. 69 390GT was a 390 with ... -- James, 02/12/2002
I have heard alot of talk about the last year that Ford offered the 390 in the Mustang. The story that I have heard so many times was that in 1969 the car had a 390 with 428 CJ heads and the 390 GT cam. Is this fact or fiction?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11311&Reply=11310><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Fact or fiction. 69 390GT was a 390 with ...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Tim B, <i>02/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>No, the 390s didn't have CJ heads. The cam was milder than previous years. Remember that the 428CJ had a smog pump on it, while the 390 didn't. It was detuned slightly to meet smog requirements. <br><br>Tim B </blockquote> RE: Fact or fiction. 69 390GT was a 390 with ... -- Tim B, 02/12/2002
No, the 390s didn't have CJ heads. The cam was milder than previous years. Remember that the 428CJ had a smog pump on it, while the 390 didn't. It was detuned slightly to meet smog requirements.

Tim B
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11319&Reply=11310><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>There was no 390GT engine in 1969.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>02/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>The 428CJ took over the performance limelight for 1969.<br><br>To keep costs in line, Ford's second-tier engine offering was "economized" by removing the expensive Thermactor emissions package.  The high-overlap GT cam, which allowed raw gasoline to pass through to the exhaust, could not pass emissions without an exhaust gas reactor, so a standard FE cam was implemented. The Holley was also replaced by a less expensive Autolite.<br><br>The resulting engine for 1969 was formally named the 390IP, an "Improved Performance" engine which fell between the "High Performance" and "Standard Performance" category.  The 390IP was actually much like a standard Galaxie 390-4V engine, except it got a free-flow air cleaner and the restrictive Fairlane/Mustang 390 exhaust manifolds.<br><br>For specs and more info, here's Mr F's page on this engine:<br><a href="http://fomoco.com/index.asp?Dept=Resources&Tool=Textbook&Eng=35">http://fomoco.com/index.asp?Dept=Resources&Tool=Textbook&Eng=35</a><br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> There was no 390GT engine in 1969. -- Dave Shoe, 02/12/2002
The 428CJ took over the performance limelight for 1969.

To keep costs in line, Ford's second-tier engine offering was "economized" by removing the expensive Thermactor emissions package. The high-overlap GT cam, which allowed raw gasoline to pass through to the exhaust, could not pass emissions without an exhaust gas reactor, so a standard FE cam was implemented. The Holley was also replaced by a less expensive Autolite.

The resulting engine for 1969 was formally named the 390IP, an "Improved Performance" engine which fell between the "High Performance" and "Standard Performance" category. The 390IP was actually much like a standard Galaxie 390-4V engine, except it got a free-flow air cleaner and the restrictive Fairlane/Mustang 390 exhaust manifolds.

For specs and more info, here's Mr F's page on this engine:
http://fomoco.com/index.asp?Dept=Resources&Tool=Textbook&Eng=35

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11331&Reply=11310><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: S coding remained</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>02/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>What seems to contribute to the confusion on this subject is the fact that Ford coded this 390IP as an -S- code which was the code for '66 - '68 genuine 390GT engines.<br><br>So folks refer to the 390GT powered cars, Fairlanes, Comets, Mustangs, Cougars, Torinos, Montegos, etc. as S codes.   So when a person sees a '69 Mustang, Torino, etc. as an S code,  well it must be.....  but it's not.<br><br>Just like Dave defined so well, the '69 390IP is a standard 390-4V very similar to the '67 & later full size 390-4V package. </blockquote> RE: S coding remained -- Mike McQuesten, 02/12/2002
What seems to contribute to the confusion on this subject is the fact that Ford coded this 390IP as an -S- code which was the code for '66 - '68 genuine 390GT engines.

So folks refer to the 390GT powered cars, Fairlanes, Comets, Mustangs, Cougars, Torinos, Montegos, etc. as S codes. So when a person sees a '69 Mustang, Torino, etc. as an S code, well it must be..... but it's not.

Just like Dave defined so well, the '69 390IP is a standard 390-4V very similar to the '67 & later full size 390-4V package.
 S coding -- Orin, 02/12/2002
Now, that is a handy piece of information to have! Thanks for the tip.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11304&Reply=11304><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>EDC-E heads high compression? and can a sidewinder</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>federico, <i>02/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>intake be used with these heads? </blockquote> EDC-E heads high compression? and can a sidewinder -- federico, 02/11/2002
intake be used with these heads?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11314&Reply=11304><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: EDC-E heads high compression? and can a sidewinder</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>kevin, <i>02/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>There was only one sidewinder that would fit "comfortably" on the low port heads. I think it had a "K" suffix. Ive only seen a couple in my life so dont expect to find one. You can get the others to seal, but you have to choose your gasket wisely or make your own. A lot of people add material to the lower lip. The EDC or "Edsel" heads as I nic-name them are a really good set to run, and respond very well to modification. For mid range torque they are unbeatable if ported right. You can put a good hump and ring in the bowl area like the Hi-Riser had if you put larger valves in. This will permit a large radius under the intake seat. They will have about 69 cc if you just put C-J valves in with a .015 skim cut and you dont have to mill the intake face to get them to seal right at this amount. You will need to weld the corners to get them to hold the C3AZ 6051-B 406 head gaskets on them, or else use the Fel Pro #1020 with 427 bore size. If you are using a smaller bore block, the #1154 BS gasket will work fine.  </blockquote> RE: EDC-E heads high compression? and can a sidewinder -- kevin, 02/12/2002
There was only one sidewinder that would fit "comfortably" on the low port heads. I think it had a "K" suffix. Ive only seen a couple in my life so dont expect to find one. You can get the others to seal, but you have to choose your gasket wisely or make your own. A lot of people add material to the lower lip. The EDC or "Edsel" heads as I nic-name them are a really good set to run, and respond very well to modification. For mid range torque they are unbeatable if ported right. You can put a good hump and ring in the bowl area like the Hi-Riser had if you put larger valves in. This will permit a large radius under the intake seat. They will have about 69 cc if you just put C-J valves in with a .015 skim cut and you dont have to mill the intake face to get them to seal right at this amount. You will need to weld the corners to get them to hold the C3AZ 6051-B 406 head gaskets on them, or else use the Fel Pro #1020 with 427 bore size. If you are using a smaller bore block, the #1154 BS gasket will work fine.
 RE: EDC-E questions? -- Mike McQuesten, 02/12/2002
This is very interesting to me Kevin. I have a set of these heads spare, actually still on the early '58 352 Interceptor in the '58 Country Sedan, (I'm assuming the EDC-E Edsel heads are the machined combustion chamber units...? that's what mine are but I'm not home right now to check this). I've always wondered about the potential of these heads. Many years ago they were often disregarded as needing too much work to be worth the time and effort. Of course this was when a large variety of HP FE heads was available. Those days are gone and there are still quite a few Edsel heads stored on shelves.

So what I need learnin' about is:

Why do you have to weld the corners to make the C3AZ-B head gaskets to hold?

Please explain the usage of the F-pro #1020 and/or the #1154 BS(?) head gasket with a smaller bore.

Please forgive my ignorance. I've already printed out your response to federico. I would just like to know more. I may someday build these '58 Ford-Edsel machined CC heads and I appreciate your knowledge.
 RE: EDC-E heads high compression? and can a sidewinder -- federico, 02/12/2002
what aluminum intake 428 or 427 would best accomodate these heads without modifying them i would just like to put cj valves and that is all. does anybody have a good aluminum intake Ford Only to trade this sidewinder is in excellent shape.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11299&Reply=11299><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>is this a 427 ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Phill O., <i>02/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote> Hi all, I've misplaced my ford lit. can anyone tell me<br>what this block number is? C3AE - D. supposed to be <br>a 63 427 but it has 62 406 heads. Thanks for any<br>help. </blockquote> is this a 427 ? -- Phill O., 02/11/2002
Hi all, I've misplaced my ford lit. can anyone tell me
what this block number is? C3AE - D. supposed to be
a 63 427 but it has 62 406 heads. Thanks for any
help.
 RE: is this a 427 ? -- Ranch, 02/11/2002
C3AE-D is a 1963 "406" (no crossbolts but you should have the bosses)
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11294&Reply=11294><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>which is better 428pi or 427</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike allen, <i>02/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>i just bought a aluminum intake from a guy and it was suppose to be a 428pi when i got home i checked the numbers and it is a 427 sidewinder intake the number on it is C7AE-F. Is the sidewinder anybetter than the PI or not really? </blockquote> which is better 428pi or 427 -- mike allen, 02/11/2002
i just bought a aluminum intake from a guy and it was suppose to be a 428pi when i got home i checked the numbers and it is a 427 sidewinder intake the number on it is C7AE-F. Is the sidewinder anybetter than the PI or not really?
 RE: which is better 428pi or 427 -- BOB HOPKINS, 02/11/2002
That like asking wich is better Coke or Pepse, both are excelent manafold's the sidewinder has the carb mounting ofset to drivers side by 1" ,for more top end {equalize runner lenght's} will you noitice the diff?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11300&Reply=11294><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: which is better 428pi or 427</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Ranch, <i>02/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>If that C7AE-F is your casting number then you have a PI.  That is my nuber and my carb. is centered.  &lt;&lt;Have Fun&gt;&gt; </blockquote> RE: which is better 428pi or 427 -- Ranch, 02/11/2002
If that C7AE-F is your casting number then you have a PI. That is my nuber and my carb. is centered. <<Have Fun>>
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11303&Reply=11294><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: which is better 428pi or 427</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>federico, <i>02/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>thats a confirmation of it being a PI  </blockquote> RE: which is better 428pi or 427 -- federico, 02/11/2002
thats a confirmation of it being a PI
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11305&Reply=11294><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: PI casting # is C6AE9425-H</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>James, <i>02/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have this intake on my 428 and have researched throught Ford literature and the 428 Cobra Jet regestry and know it to be the casting # of the 428 Police Intercepter intake. </blockquote> RE: PI casting # is C6AE9425-H -- James, 02/12/2002
I have this intake on my 428 and have researched throught Ford literature and the 428 Cobra Jet regestry and know it to be the casting # of the 428 Police Intercepter intake.
 PI casting # is C6AE9425-H -- hawkrod, 02/12/2002
there is a C6 and a C7 PI intake. they are identical with the exception of the underside. the C7 casting was revised to eliminate the splash sheild as most other intakes were when ford started using the splash sheild in the lifter valley. ford may have called them something else but i had an NOS one and it had a C7 casting number and was in the C6 crate so it is obvious to me that they revised the casting but did not change the part number. hawkrod
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11320&Reply=11294><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: which is better 428pi or 427</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Travis Miller, <i>02/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Looking in some old Ford performance books, this is what I found.  The regular 427 single 4v aluminum is C7AE-9425-F while the sidewinder 427 single 4v is C7AE-9425-C.   </blockquote> RE: which is better 428pi or 427 -- Travis Miller, 02/12/2002
Looking in some old Ford performance books, this is what I found. The regular 427 single 4v aluminum is C7AE-9425-F while the sidewinder 427 single 4v is C7AE-9425-C.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11328&Reply=11294><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Hawk & Travis</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Ranch, <i>02/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote><br> Between you two you narrowed it down good. <br> I can't tell the difference between the two, course I don't have two to put side by side, carb. is centered. But I'll tell what I know about my  C7AE- F. I did get it with a set of  "427" heads C8AE-J. These are (suppose to be) the low riser style said to have come on GTE's (Theo might fill in).  <br>So It sounds like "427" but looks like a  PI. &lt;&lt;JMO&gt;&gt; </blockquote> RE: Hawk & Travis -- Ranch, 02/12/2002

Between you two you narrowed it down good.
I can't tell the difference between the two, course I don't have two to put side by side, carb. is centered. But I'll tell what I know about my C7AE- F. I did get it with a set of "427" heads C8AE-J. These are (suppose to be) the low riser style said to have come on GTE's (Theo might fill in).
So It sounds like "427" but looks like a PI. <<JMO>>
 RE: Hawk & Travis -- Bob, 02/12/2002
All sidewinders have an offset carb base Also watch out for part numbers vice casting numbers. Ignore most comments about part numbers unless you are head towards the parts counter.
 RE: Hawk & Travis -- federico, 02/12/2002
are the j heads for sale? email me at cobrajetset@aol.com
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11337&Reply=11294><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>C8AE 6090-J Cylinder head casting</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>02/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>This casting was used to produce three different heads. The Cobra Jet (before January 1968) head can be identified by 16 holes on the exhaust port and the higher port location.<br><br>The Cougar GTE 427 LR head can be identified by its lower port location and 14 hole exhaust pattern.<br><br>The 427 LR service replacement head can be identified by its high port location and eight hole bolt pattern on the exhaust. <br><br>All these heads have thermactor holes which are plugged in the case of 427 LR service replacement heads.<br><br>All of these applications were replaced by the C80E 6090-N head after January 1, 1968 and all three variations of the C80E 6090-N head exist.<br><br>Royce Peterson </blockquote> C8AE 6090-J Cylinder head casting -- Royce Peterson, 02/12/2002
This casting was used to produce three different heads. The Cobra Jet (before January 1968) head can be identified by 16 holes on the exhaust port and the higher port location.

The Cougar GTE 427 LR head can be identified by its lower port location and 14 hole exhaust pattern.

The 427 LR service replacement head can be identified by its high port location and eight hole bolt pattern on the exhaust.

All these heads have thermactor holes which are plugged in the case of 427 LR service replacement heads.

All of these applications were replaced by the C80E 6090-N head after January 1, 1968 and all three variations of the C80E 6090-N head exist.

Royce Peterson
 RE: C8AE 6090-J Cylinder head casting -- Bill Howell, 02/12/2002
I'm also looking for a set of C8AE-J heads. If you decide to sell them or want to trade them for Cobra Jet or Medium Risers, please let me know.
My ph. number is 803 - 649-2545.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11292&Reply=11292><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>push rods for adjustable rockers</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>shagg, <i>02/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I just converted to adj rockers and now I need the ball/cup style rods instead of the ball/ball. but as I'm shoping I see stock ones to two piece even three piece, 1010 moly, 4130, moly heat treated. anyone have any input? are some junk? some good? someone? hello?......anyone? </blockquote> push rods for adjustable rockers -- shagg, 02/11/2002
I just converted to adj rockers and now I need the ball/cup style rods instead of the ball/ball. but as I'm shoping I see stock ones to two piece even three piece, 1010 moly, 4130, moly heat treated. anyone have any input? are some junk? some good? someone? hello?......anyone?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11293&Reply=11292><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: push rods for adjustable rockers</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>shagg, <i>02/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote> sorry forgot to add to my million questions some rods are 11/32" some are 3/8"?  </blockquote> RE: push rods for adjustable rockers -- shagg, 02/11/2002
sorry forgot to add to my million questions some rods are 11/32" some are 3/8"?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11306&Reply=11292><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Question about your lifters</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>James, <i>02/12/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>If you are running hydrolics then just call Summit (1-800-230-3030) and tell them that you have an FE (tell them which one) and that you need the push rods for adjustable rockers withe hydrolics. I called, got the tech department, took em 3 minutes to find what I needed. They went right in and work perfectly. This was the route that I took. Hope it helps you. The adjustable push rod offerings are for a non-adjustable rocker arm set ups. If you are running solids then your cam manufacturer (or summit) can tell you which ones to use. </blockquote> RE: Question about your lifters -- James, 02/12/2002
If you are running hydrolics then just call Summit (1-800-230-3030) and tell them that you have an FE (tell them which one) and that you need the push rods for adjustable rockers withe hydrolics. I called, got the tech department, took em 3 minutes to find what I needed. They went right in and work perfectly. This was the route that I took. Hope it helps you. The adjustable push rod offerings are for a non-adjustable rocker arm set ups. If you are running solids then your cam manufacturer (or summit) can tell you which ones to use.
 Push Rods -- Ron Vesterby, 02/12/2002
In the last few years I know of 2 instances where FE push rods had the wrong size size cup, not sure who was selling them - the point being make sure the cup is the correct size for the ball - the problem case I saw was the cup was to small, so just make sure they fit all the way over the ball
 push rods -- shagg, 02/12/2002
Thank you James and Ron. I've seen the listing for the 11/32 which is smaller than the 3/8". whenever I read about the push rods they say they are all the same. Guess not huh? thanks for the input- I'll call Summit.
 Building a 390 -- JESSE, 02/11/2002
i AM 15 AND MY MOM BOUGHT ME A 1965 F-100WITH A 352 ,C6 TRANS AND A 9INCH REAR END i WANT TO BUY A 390 LONG BLOCK AND I WANT TO GET SOME INPUT ON BUILDING AN ENGINE WITH HUGE BALLS. THANKS FOR YOUR HELP
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11275&Reply=11275><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390/428 question</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>jeff, <i>02/10/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>im new to FE engines so i had a basic question, if you put a 428 crank in a 390 does this yield a 406 engine or is it 410?  Their must be differences in the block to because i see it advised to have the walls sonic tested before boring them out much, can a 390 be bored to achieve 428 cid w/the 428 crank? thanks for any answers. </blockquote> 390/428 question -- jeff, 02/10/2002
im new to FE engines so i had a basic question, if you put a 428 crank in a 390 does this yield a 406 engine or is it 410? Their must be differences in the block to because i see it advised to have the walls sonic tested before boring them out much, can a 390 be bored to achieve 428 cid w/the 428 crank? thanks for any answers.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11277&Reply=11275><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390/428 question</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Ed Foral, <i>02/10/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>390 block makes a 410 with a 428 crank.  If verified by sonic testing, there are 390 blocks capable of a .080 overbore to make a 428 engine.  <br><br>Ed </blockquote> RE: 390/428 question -- Ed Foral, 02/10/2002
390 block makes a 410 with a 428 crank. If verified by sonic testing, there are 390 blocks capable of a .080 overbore to make a 428 engine.

Ed
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11280&Reply=11275><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: First 428's were 66 truck blocks. C6ME</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>James, <i>02/10/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Hope this gives you some encouragment. </blockquote> RE: First 428's were 66 truck blocks. C6ME -- James, 02/10/2002
Hope this gives you some encouragment.
 RE: First 428's were 66 truck blocks. C6ME -- jeff, 02/11/2002
thanks ed and james for your info.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11270&Reply=11270><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>427 side oiler</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mac, <i>02/10/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>Asside from the dry sump, what is the difference between a 427 & a 427 side oiler?<br>Thanks </blockquote> 427 side oiler -- Mac, 02/10/2002
Asside from the dry sump, what is the difference between a 427 & a 427 side oiler?
Thanks
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11282&Reply=11270><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 427 side oiler</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Bob, <i>02/10/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>The side oiler did not have a dry sump as standard; I've never heard of one in a Ford factory vehicle.  <br><br>The side oiler has an oil gallery, etc, down the driver's side of the engine that feeds oil to the main bearings, etc.  Most "regular" center oiler 427s have this gallery but is not drilled. I know of no other differences but there may be some.  </blockquote> RE: 427 side oiler -- Bob, 02/10/2002
The side oiler did not have a dry sump as standard; I've never heard of one in a Ford factory vehicle.

The side oiler has an oil gallery, etc, down the driver's side of the engine that feeds oil to the main bearings, etc. Most "regular" center oiler 427s have this gallery but is not drilled. I know of no other differences but there may be some.
 Regular? -- kevin, 02/11/2002
All center oilers are just that. They have no provisions for the side oiler galley cast in the side. Some side oilers are dilled as center oilers instead of side oilers to save money.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11290&Reply=11270><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>The 427GT came with a dry sump.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>02/11/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>The 427GT engine was an extension of the 427MR.  These were found only in GT-40s and had lots of aluminum which replaced cast iron components.  The oiling system was a dry sump.  A heap of fun technical documentation (xeroxes of xeroxes) is available through www.sae.org, but I forget the "technical paper" numbers right now.<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> The 427GT came with a dry sump. -- Dave Shoe, 02/11/2002
The 427GT engine was an extension of the 427MR. These were found only in GT-40s and had lots of aluminum which replaced cast iron components. The oiling system was a dry sump. A heap of fun technical documentation (xeroxes of xeroxes) is available through www.sae.org, but I forget the "technical paper" numbers right now.

Shoe.
 RE: The 427GT came with a dry sump. -- Bob, 02/12/2002
I was referring to Ford production line cars and trucks. The GT40, Shelby Cobras of the '60s etc are not what I was thinking of.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=11266&Reply=11266><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>1964 tbird 3x2</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Al, <i>02/10/2002</i></font><br /><blockquote>I would to add a 3x2 unit to 64 tbird 390 ant ideas guys? </blockquote> 1964 tbird 3x2 -- Al, 02/10/2002
I would to add a 3x2 unit to 64 tbird 390 ant ideas guys?
 RE: 1964 tbird 3x2 -- Mike McQuesten, 02/10/2002
I'm just going to get the ball rolling for you on this one Al. FoMoCo did offer a tri power package factory installed in '63. I think it was factory installed unlike the mid '61 HP 390 package that came in the trunk and was dealer/owner installed that bumped the horsepower rating from 375 to 401. By '62 the tri power was installed on the engines at the factory. To both early '62 390HPs and then to 406-405 horse engines. And of course up to mid '63 on 406s.

The '63 Thunderbirds got a unique tri power intake manifold. The carb bases were flat vs. the full size intakes that were stepped from low in front to a little higher in the middle and a little higher on the last back base. There are a couple of other unique features about the 'bird tri intake too but the main difference is the height of the carb bases.

For a few years I believe a person could order this entire T-bird system over the counter from a Ford dealer. The full size car tri power package was available over the counter into '67 for sure. There are others that know way more than I do about these details.

The mythical car/package to me is the '64 Galaxie that supposedly was engine coded M. I say supposedly because I've never seen one in real life or in any article. An M code '64 is listed in various Ford publications so it may have been built. The myth is that a 390 PI engine was equipped with the tri power and it was rated at 340 horsepower. I've also been told that this 340 horse 390 was nothing more than the '63 T-bird tri power 390 which did have a unique and now very rare came...C2 or C3SE...? warm hydraulic camshaft. And that the Full size '64 ran the stepped tri power intake.

The variation in the intakes was due to the angle/mount system between the full size framed Fords were vs. the unibody system of the 'birds.

One thing is for sure......T-bird tri power intakes are very rare and they seem to bring a correspondingly higher $price than the full size tri power system.
Go to the top of this page
Go back one page Back    Next Go forward one page

301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320