Skip Navigation Links.
 |  396 in a Torino? -- Mac, 02/07/2002
I saw an old nascar race from I think 1968, and the Torino's & Cyclones had "396 C.I." written on the hood. are these bored over 390's, and why not use 427 or 428's.
Thanks |
|  | Sure was. -- Royce Peterson, 02/07/2002
It's a destroked 427 to allow the car to be lighter for some tracks.
Royce Peterson
|
|  | RE: 396 in a Torino? -- Ron Vesterby, 02/08/2002
The shorter stroke motor will rev faster than its comparable longer stroke brother - so as stated you run these engines on the short tracks and can pull out of the corners quicker - some sacrifice in HP, but HP came more into play down the straights, and short tracks have limited straights - engine probably weighed about the same I would guess |
| | | Bass ackwards.... -- kevin, 02/08/2002
I own and have raced these, and can tell you on the short tracks the long arm is king. The 396 is my favorite, but they are better on the longer straights. One car length off the corner is worth two at the end of the straights. The 396 had an advantage in total car weight being less which made the tires live longer. Also when the track went dry slick as opposed to tacky. |
| | | | RE: Bass ackwards.... -- Ron Vesterby, 02/09/2002
Not being argumentative, just inquisitive, but how is a destroked 427 lighter, I would think maybe a couple of lbs in the reciprocating assembly, but would not everything else be the same ? Inquiring minds want to know - Thanks .... Never drove them but I do recall sitting in the stands at he 1965 Iowa State fairgrounds 1/2 mile dirt track and watching. What I recall most vividly was the Fords hauling butt through the turns passingthe mopars, and then on the straights, the mopars catching back up, to much front weight, but alot of power. And bye the way those GM products were also rans, mostly cluttered up the track. |
| | | |  | RE: Bass ackwards.... -- Travis Miller, 02/09/2002
The lighter they are talking about means the total weight of the car. Some sanctioning bodies go by pounds per cubic inch. If there were less cubic inches in the engine, the overall weight of the car got to be lighter.
Example: A car with a 427 at 9 pounds per cubic inch would weigh 3843. Using a 396 at 9 pounds per cubic inch would put the weight at 3564. Quite a difference for a few cubic inches. |
| | | | |  | RE: Bass ackwards.... -- Ron Vesterby, 02/09/2002
Now that you put it that way, It makes alot of sense, and as Paul Harvey says " Now you know the rest of the story" appreciate the input !! |
| | | | | In the stands, 1965?? -- P, 02/11/2002
If you were in the stands watching a NASCAR race in '65, you are a lucky guy. sounds like great fun. You'll note that 1965 was the year when nobody else won except Ford, well a few here and there.
In the years 1963, 64, and 65, Ford won 101 races, and Chevrolet won 9 (nine). Mopar won something like 51 or 54 in this time frame, and some of the wins (and losses) were with the hemi prototype that was not yet a legal stock car (production) motor.
P |
| | | | | | RE: In the stands, 1965?? -- BOB HOPKINS, 02/11/2002
MY best memory of a NASCAR race was 1967 at MID-AMERICA in MO. a road race track ,me and first Ex-wife got pit passes and were down in middle of infield wandering around 427 Fairlanes/ Coments,426 Dodges / Plymouths and 427brand X's 40+ of them on a tree covered roadrace circutt. Lissing to the 40+ cars go down front staight 7a 90* turn and they dissappeared into the trees ,you followed them aroung by the sound, and man when they came up the back turn out of the hollow at full throttle IT WAS UNREAL YOU CANNOT DISCRIBE "THE SOUND" I have never forgott that probably never will . All real carsthat you could buy a street version of and not a tube framed never made replica. |
| | | | | Iowa state fairgrounds... -- kevin, 02/12/2002
I came within two feet of having my head run over in the pits there once. Yes, Fords ruled the place, along with other tracks around like Oskaloosa, What Cheer, West Liberty, Burlington, Cedar Rapids, and many more in a small area that was really supported by the fans. There were so many tracks you could go someplace else if it was raining at one and make it in time to race. There was around 40 tracks within 100 or so miles from my house. People think of IMCA as just a modified series, but the stock cars were the staple of entertainment for many decades. DesMoines even had a 1-1/2 mile board track after WW-I. |
| | | | | | Mid America.....Wentzville!...USAC Stock cars.. -- kevin, 02/12/2002
ran there. And some of the "Keokuk gang" ran there. Ramo Stott, Dick Hutcherson, Don White, and others. They were like the "Alabama gang" wherever they went, stealing the checkers. Ah those were the days, real cars, real men, real guts, glory days, like Bruce Springsteen sings. Almost brings tears to my eyes, LOL. |
| | | | | | | Big Guy -- Ron Vesterby, 02/12/2002
Trying to recall his name - wanna say Tiny Lund, something like that, anyway I recall watching TV in the early 60's and I think this guy was a racer from Iowa running the nascar circuit - do you recall - not sure if he was a Ford man or not |
| | | | | | | | Dewayne "Tiny" Lund... -- kevin, 02/12/2002
was from Iowa. He got his start at the Shelby Co. fairgrounds (Harlan, been there too). He was bigger than life itself not to mention he was the biggest driver in Nascar history (340 lbs). He once chased Larry Frank (winner of the 62 Southern 500) out in a parking lot stark ass naked! He had a fishing ranch in South Carolina and was the Nascar Sportsman Champion. He did run Grand National (#55) ocassionaly, but was severly underfunded. He used to drive with one hand and wave at the grandstands with the other. He did win Daytona 500 in 63 after saving the life of Marvin Panch who was testing a Lamborghini with a 427 Ford in it. He pulled him from the burning upside down car, and Marvin suggested him as a substitute driver to car owners Len and Glen woods. There was a hairline crack in the fuel line on the #21 Galaxie, and he could not achieve top speed, but made one less stop for fuel and won the race. Storybook ending huh? He drove for Bud Moore in a Cougar for Trans am and Nascar Baby Grand Ams. Switched to a Camaro in 70's. There is a book written after his death called "As Fast As White Lightning" if you are interested. |
| | | | | | | | | Kevin -- Ron Vesterby, 02/12/2002
Kevin - email me your direct email if you dont mind - thanks
You probably made a few rounds at Algona also
ron.vesterby@attglobal.net |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Dewayne "Tiny" Lund... -- Just Strokin, 02/14/2002
Was sitting in the grand stands at Talladega when Tiny got kiled. I don't remember the year, but in the mid 70's. When they towed his car around, it wasn't damaged that badly. |
| FE project -- Paul G., 02/07/2002
Hello all,
After many years of faithful service my 74-F250 finally fell apart around the engine. I have pulled the engine and am trying to decide what to do with it. The block is a D4TE 390 4 bbl truck block and the heads are C7AE 390 gt heads I aquired 5 years ago when I freshened up the motor. I am considering dropping the FE in my 69 Cougar convertible. Can anyone tell me what I could do to get more cubes from the block. Can it be bored? Can I swap in the rotating assembly from a 428? Are the D4TE blocks any good or should I just junk it and sell the heads? The guy who sold me the heads has a whole basement full of FE parts and several 6.5 & 7.0 galaxies. I can probably obtain any parts I would need to build up this motor, Is it worth it?
Thanks,
Paul G. |
| | RE: FE Cougar project -- Mike McQuesten, 02/07/2002
First, is your '69 Cougar an FE car?
Yes? Great this'll be pretty easy if most of the equipment is still with you, i.e., mounts, exhaust, etc.
No? Then a "Project" it will be.
As for the D4TE block. It should be great for a 428 crank & correct pistons. But do have that block sonic tested for cylinder wall thickness. This is to make sure that it will take a 4.13 428 bore. Or you may want to keep it 4.05 and have custom 410 pistons made. If you convert to the '28 crank obtain a 410/428 external balance flywheel or flexplate, depending on whether you're running a stick or automatic. This makes the switch a little easier.
The C7AE heads I hate to tell you aren't too special. They have the GT 390 exhaust manifold provisions but who wants to run 390GT exhaust manifolds? Some people who like their GT390s to run just as badly as they did from the factory do. There are those of us who would like the 390GT to run like it shoulda and so we like to see exhausting improvements. Oh and the C7AE heads are the short port too. A much better set of heads are the C6AE-R that have tall ports and combustion chambers very similar to 428CJ. And they can be drilled to take any exhaust manifold or headers you want.
So there ya go. FE Coug? Great. Non FE Coug....good luck. |
| | | RE: FE Cougar project -- Paul G., 02/07/2002
Mike,
Thanks for the info. The car is currently a small block C-6 convertible with the big block radiator,shroud, and fan. I believe that the convertible has the big block frame mounts to lower the engine already. Also it has headers and non factory duals so exhaust should be pretty easy. As for the C7AE-A heads, are they really that ordinary? I had been told that they were pretty good heads as far as FE's go. Also, the heads are not drilled for more than 8 holes per side on the exhaust. What car would they have come from? They also seem to have the double springs like the CJ heads that my original FE heads did not have? If I decide to go 428 rotating assembly I assume I'll have to replace the crank, rods, pistons, flywheel, harmonic balancer and add the external 428 balancer as well. Anything else?
Thanks,
Paul |
| | | | RE: C7AE heads, etc. -- Mike McQuesten, 02/07/2002
Really the C7AE heads are very common. And I don't personally think they have any more potential than the C8AE head that replaced them. With work they'll be fine. But I don't think they've got what the C6AE-R offers.
Yes on the 428 stuff except the rods are the same for a 390 or 428 except CJ or PI rods with the larger bolts/nuts. I also believe now that '63 & later 390 standard 428 rods are the way to go with ARP bolt kits. But everything else you'll need, wait, that external balancer you mention is only for the Super Cobra Jet 428. If you find that with your 428 crank.....get it. But you won't need one with a standard 410/428 crank. The harmonic balancer is good to have too.
A C6 & small block in '69. I know the C6 was starting to be used with early '70s Cougars with 351s. Yours must be a 351W '69 with that C6? If it's a 351 then you do have the 9" rear. That's a better start than an 8" 302 car.
|
| | | | | Cougar 9" Rear axles -- Royce Peterson, 02/08/2002
Mike,
All 69 - 73 Cougars were factory equipped with 9" rear axles. For those wishing to convert their Mustang, a 1969 - 70 Cougar rear axle bolts in to any 1967 - 70 Mustang and is proper width, brake lines hook right up, etc. If it is a small block Mustang a 1968 Camaro (no kidding) u-joint can be purchased to get bearing caps that will adapt the small block u-joint to the 9" rear axle.
One of my favorite dirt cheap swaps!
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | RE: C7AE heads, etc. -- Paul G., 02/08/2002
Mike,
The car was originally a 351 4-V with FMX trans and 9" 3.00 trac-lok rear. When I built the engine a few years ago I was concerned about the FMX being able to handle the new motor and replaced it with a C6. Just to clarfy, In order to make the 390 a 428 I would need to bore the block (assuming it passes a sonic test) and the swap the crank, rods, pistons, flywheel, harmonic balancer and crank pulley. Is this a prudent swap or is there an easier, more economical way to get more horsepower from a 390.
Thanks,
Paul |
| | | | | | RE:prudent swap -- Mike McQuesten, 02/08/2002
If you have a 428 assembly like you've listed available to you then I would say yes it's a prudent swap. That's to convert you 390 to a 428 again if you sonic test the D4TE block. You've got the list down well of what you'll need to do. Of course, I'd recommend you have the entire reciprocating assembly balanced.
I appreciate your attitude and desire to have a powerful but streetable/driveable FE in you '69 Cougar. It will be a fun car that will provide a lot of pride.
As for James' idea of why not just do a 460......no flame from me to you James. No question the big Lima 385 series can make a lot of power. Just a personal preference. And I know it's a cliche but if we have to explain why we prefer an FE.......you just won't get it.
I personally get as big a kick out of dusting a Ford 385 series as I do the other off beat brands. |
| | | | | RE: C7AE heads, etc. -- Tim B, 02/08/2002
Hi Paul,
Nice Cougar BTW! Why don't you just build-up the 351? There are a lot more parts for 351s than there are for 390s, and cheaper too. If it was an original S, Q or R code I could see it. I certainly like FEs......just curious. How does the C6 work with the 351?
How about a stroked 351 with AOD and 4.11s? (Thinking out loud)
Tim B
1969 XR7 428 CJR convertible
http://members.aol.com/timbrands/index.html |
| | | | | | RE: C7AE heads, etc. -- Paul G., 02/08/2002
Tim,
The C-6 works well behind the 351 but gobbles up HP. The idea of a 351 stroker AOD 4.11 combo sounds great on paper. But I already have a the FE, an FE C-6 trans and a 9" 3.70 posi. It would probably take a lot more money and effort to get 350-400 HP from my 351 than it would from my 390. Since I already have both I figure I might as well use the big motor. No substitute for cubic inches!! I'm going to rebuild the FE while I have it out and I figure I might as well maximize the $ to power while doing it. I'd also like to find a smaller convertible such as a falcon or meteor for the 351. The 351 is not the original motor either so the only matching # part is the original FMX trans in my shed. I really like the idea a having a mildly tweaked FE motor that will pull like crazy up tp about 5000rpm and still behave well tooling around town.
Paul |
| | RE: FE project -- James, 02/08/2002
I know that I will get hate mail over this but here it goes. Get a 460. |
| How is a 428CJ balanced from the factory? -- Rich Kutzner, 02/07/2002
How is a 428CJ balanced from the factory? |
| | | Yes, so I need to balance match a new dampner? -- Rich Kutzner, 02/07/2002
Yes. So if I'm putting on an aftermarket dampner, I need to get it balance matched, right? (Not rebuilding the engine at this point).
What do I do when it's time to rebuild the engine? |
| | | | Just bolt it on. -- Royce Peterson, 02/07/2002
I disagree with Allen's answer in the post above. The 428 CJ balancer is "zero" balanced just like any other FE balancer. The standard CJ balancer (all years) is even the same part number as a 1968 390 GT or 390 2V for that matter. The aftermarket balancer should be neutral balance as well.
The flywheel or flex plate is "detroit balanced". The 428 Super CJ's have a different balancer spacer with a weight on it to effect additional "detroit balance" due to the very heavy "Le Mans" rods in those engines. The Super CJ also uses a slightly heavier balancer with a different part number but it is not offset balanced either.
For even more info about 428 CJ's and their balancers check out:
www.428cobrajet.com
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | RE: Just bolt it on. -- Rich Kutzner, 02/07/2002
Royce, would it seem normal that 5 1/4" deep holes are drilled in one side of the front to 'zero' balance the dampner? Seems like a lot of metal. Of course, so do the weights on my tires..............! |
| | | | | RE: Just bolt it on. -- Rich Kutzner, 02/07/2002
Royce,
Under the flexplate section of the 428CJ registry it says the CJ was externally balanced using the flexplate and harmonic dampner. I guess getting it balance matched will be the safe bet, even if it ends up that the dampner is zero balanced, at least I'll know. The dampner pictures on that site show the drilled holes on the outer rim, mine has five. |
| | | | | | RE: Just bolt it on. -- Royce Peterson, 02/07/2002
The dampers are not offset balanced, they are drilled to balance to zero.
But your parts, like mine are 30 years old and could have been messed with along the way. It would not hurt to check.
Royce |
| | RE: How is a 428CJ balanced from the factory? -- James, 02/08/2002
The factory balanced those engines using a formula. This formula enabled Ford to mass produce these engine balancing parts to keep up with demand but some engine builders will tell you that it is not always right. It will be close but if you want one to be realy smooth spend the money while the engine is apart and take the crank, one rod and piston, flexplate or flywheel and the harmonic balancer to the machine shop and get the thing balanced right. You won't be sorry. |
| | RE: How is a 428CJ balanced from the factory? -- Ray, 02/08/2002
Rich, the balance formula for most automotive and ford engines goes like this. You take the piston and pin weights, along with the rings and small end of the connecting rod weight, thats is everything from middle of the rod to the piston as one total weight, say 1100 grams. Now you take the big end of the rod_weight , and bearing and some oil weight and say it comes out to 700 grams, then you double that weight to 1400 grams. Then you add the two weights together to get whats called ( bob weight factor) in this case 2500 grams. Then you simulate that weight on a rod journals and spin the crank on balancer to see if your over or under balance. The weight is adjusted by drilling out weight on the counter weights or adding weight. Most cranks should balance out to 50/50 staying within 2 to 3 grams of your total weight, zero is best. One of the most important most over looked items in a rebuild is the balancing! when piston or a rod is 8 or 9 grams out balance it's like a 250 pound sledge hammer beating on your motor at 6000 RPM . Most people will blame it on oil the or the lack of it for there engine destroying its self, not even concedering the balance being the problem. keep your balancer and your flywheel neutrol except 428 flywheel. Ray Tirri |
| | | So, is this what you're saying? -- Rich Kutzner, 02/08/2002
Ray,
Do I imply from your last sentence that the damper is zero balanced but my 428CJ flywheel is not?
If that is right then I should be able to just bolt on a zero balanced aftermarket damper, right?
What about when I rebuild the engine in a few years? Would I zero the damper and flywheel and then internally balance the engine?
Thanks alot for your help! Rich |
| | | | RE: So, is this what you're saying? -- Ray, 02/08/2002
Yes on the dampener rich! But you must understan 428's needs addition weight at the flywheel or behine the front dampener like for S.C.J. The reason for addition weight is because counter-weights on the crank would be to big of a diameter to fit into the case, or block as you would call it. To lay a 428 crank as it is now, you have rotate crank to clear block to install. It's always better build a motor without the additionly counter weight, getting away from what call flywheel affect is like adding cubic inches . It can be done on a 428, I'am doing it now but it's very expensive. It's a deal were you will decrease the amount of your rotating reciprocating mass were your bob weight factor will come in at about 400 grams less than a standard 428. Ray |
| | | | | Now I'm beginning to understand! -- Rich Kutzner, 02/09/2002
Thanks for taking the time to explain this all to me. Next time you see a KR getting beat at the track, come on up, I'll buy you lunch! So to clarify and put this all to rest, for the 428CJ:
1. The dampner was zero balanced using those 'holes' in the outer ring?
2. If the dampner had been used with the flywheel to balance the engine assembly (SCJ) it would have an externally visible weight on the back of it? i.e they would add weight, not take it out.
3. The damper was part of the rotating assembly during the balancing phase, but not actually used to adjust the balance. That was done at the flywheel.
4. The weight on the flywheel from the manufacturer was probably more than needed so that during the balancing phase weight could be taken out of the flywheel weight (mine has one 'hole') versus adding more?
This has been fun!
|
| | | | | | RE: Now I'm beginning to understand! -- Royce Peterson, 02/09/2002
1. Yes
2. The SCJ 428's had an aditional weight cast into the spacer behind the damper. The damper on all FE's are neutral or zero balanced from the factory.
3. True. The damper simply vibrates to absorb harmonic imbalance.
4. The weight on the flywheel is needed to counterbalance the reciprocating assembly the cheapest way possible for Ford to build the engine. Balancing the crankshaft / pistons / rods without the flywheel weight is superior and recommended if you can afford it at the next rebuild.
Make sense now?
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | RE: I'm beginning to understand! Bad Harmonics -- Ray, 02/09/2002
Bad harmonics or frequencys in a motor are there, even if you have the most perfect balance job! Useing the best harmonic dampener you can buy is advisable, useing 30 year dampener is not. The main job that it does is to turn vibration frequency into heat to dissipate through the dampener the more the better. Ray P. S. so don't look oil as only reason you lost the motor or engine won't run right. |
| | | | | | | Got it! -- Rich Kutzner, 02/09/2002
Thanks to both of you. The ATI s going on. |
| | | | | | long detailed note on original 428 balance -- hawkrod, 02/10/2002
more info on points #1 and 4. from the factory ford does not use the balancer or the flywheel to adjust the weight of the rotating assembly. first the harmonic balancer is balanced to zero by the holes you see. sometimes there will be more or less meat that needs to be removed to make it "zero". second the flywheel is balanced to have a certain amount of weight at a certain spot that ford determined that a 428 needs. then the crank is spun using the predertimined standards and weight is added or removed from the crank. by doing it this way the parts are interchangeable in an assembly line process and thus no added expense down the road. to simplify this, all 428 cj flywheels are balanced the same but they may have more or less weight removed to get where they need to be due to casting density, flaws, shift, etc...so some will have more or less holes and machining. where it gets really confusing is that a 428 cj flywheel is balanced different from a 428 pi flywheel! many people think they are the same and while they can be interchanged they are balanced ever so slightly different. that is why ford had different flywheels for what appears to be an identical part. they also did this on hipo 289 and boss 302 flywheels (i learned this from someone who was able to show me engineering specs) the differences are so minor that the vibrations are within acceptable limits and thus not an issue but at 7000 rpm in a boss i am sure it would show! also when the piston weights are changed the balance changes so that is why there are so many different 428 cranks. they had different balances for the changes in piston weights on regular CJ's and for piston and rod weights on SCJ's so that is why there are actually 6 different cranks for 428's (doubters stick with me) there are two totally different 1U cranks! one is a 428/428PI and carries a C6AZ part number, the second is the 68 1/2 and early 69 before the november change and carries a C8OE part number (the only reference i have for this is an august 68 parts book), after the november 68 piston change the cranks are usually 1UB (but i have seen 1U's in #'s matching cars), the 1st SCJ crank is 1UA, then in late 69 they changed again to the B and the A cranks. the parts books break all of this down by production dates and it is my understanding it is all tied to the piston changes. then the last odd thing i will add is that the non-SCJ 428 cars with an automatic all used the same flexplate (except the early 2 piece ones) and i have never figured out why it was necessary for the sticks to have two? so the last word would be to have your engine balanced by taking or adding weight to the crank only as that will, in theory ,allow you to swap balancers and flywheels without affecting balance (at least not significantly!). hawkrod (i knew that i should have marketed a trivial pursuit for Fordophiles!) |
| | | | | | | RE: long detailed note on original 428 balance -- Rich Kutzner, 02/10/2002
Thanks, that adds the missing peice, how did they effect a smooth assembly line process? Now it all makes sense.
At this point I am just replacing a damper, not rebuilding the engine. If you were rebuilding the engine (I plan to in a few years but it's SO strong right now at 85000 miles), how would you balance it? I was thinking a neutral balance damper and flywheel (like an ATI unit) and have the internal parts balanced? Can aftermarket cranks be bought that are nuetral balance so that the rod piston combo wights just have to be matched? |
| | | | | | | | RE: long detailed note on original 428 balance -- Bob, 02/10/2002
All FE vibration dampers are neutral balanced. Almost all shops that balance cranks can add mallory metal to any 428 crank and get it to balance internally, ie, for use with the 390-427 flywheel. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: 428 balance True @ what cost for mallory? -- Ray, 02/10/2002
Very true bob, but at what cost to get there. It would take about four slugs of mallory and labor ($500) to get to that point, and the you have balance the rest of parts at addition costs. At this time of the build, if there is a concideration for costs. I would use a set of eagles profiled rods for about the same amount of money, as the heavy metal would cost. Now the pistons! you can go after market, or custom but alwas think lite, so you can use that 427 flywheel . Then when slam the gas pedal down, a part of your body is going to pucker like never befor ! Ray |
| Need flywheel/flex plate diameter info...thx. -- Steve Boulay, 02/07/2002
Flex plate diameter needed....... can someone tell me
the outside diameter of the flywheel/flex plate of a '67 Shelby 428 w/ C6 ? Any help will be appreciated.
regards,
Steve Boulay
|
| Marine 427 info from Holman Moody -- David Thayer, 02/07/2002
This information is from Lee Holman at Homan Moody.
Per Lee,
"The side oiler tooling was available for use. The "gun drilling" for the side oiling feature was not done to save money and also because that machining process caused the most scrapped blocks. The nickle content of these blocks was lower to allow easier machining.
Lee also says "it is hard to understand why Chris Craft paid $1400 per engine for those marine engines when Ford could have supplied them ours with race blocks, medium riser heads, and steel cranks for only $1500. " Per Lee, it makes you wonder if anybody at Chris Craft even knew what a 427 was".
I think from mr. Holmans remarks it is quite clear that Ford could have made a profit from selling goody guy 427 side oilers at $1500 each but hey why, when you can sell low nickle centeroilers with crappy 352 heads and intakes and cast 390 cranks for $1400. Any of you guys who want to believe anything different should note that around this same time , the decision was made to put 428's and 390's in 427 Cobras as "know one can tell the difference". Also remeber that many a 68 GT500 (pre KR) has been know (upon engine rebuild) to have a 390 in it.
David |
| | Kevin Marti question - 390's in Shelbys -- Royce Peterson, 02/07/2002
This would be an interesting question for Kevin Marti. I think I know the answer but here is the question:
What engine tag code is shown on a 1968 GT500 Shelby with substituted 390 engine?
They could not install an engine without it being called out on the computer printout (build sheet).
Kevin are you out there?
Royce |
| | | RE: engine tag stuff -- David Thayer, 02/07/2002
It would also be interesting to know what engine tag code was on all of the trucks around 68 that said 360 on them but actually had 390 cranks.
I had a bright red 68 GT 500 long ago. I lunched the motor around 1980. I knew nothing about numbers or anything else at that time only dissapointment to find out what I though was a 428 only had a 4.00 bore. I ended up putting a 68 427 service block back in the car purchased from Fred Jones Ford. In addition, there was no rebalancing required as the tranny setup too was 390. |
| | | RE: Hey Royce, here is a question -- David Thayer, 02/07/2002
Before we get causght up in the GAF (Gospel according to Ford) let me ask this question. The next time you look under the hood of a 67 or 68 (pre KR) GT500, observe the exhaust manifolds and you will make an interesting discovery.
The 67 and 68 PI 428 (what was adveretised as being in the Shelby's) heads used exhaust bolts in a verticle position, same as 427 heads. Now Ford developed an exhaust manifold for Mustangs, Fairlanes (and bro mercs) to allow the installation of 427 or PI428 in them. It was the "ball glove" exhaust manifold, a very rare piece today. The problem is that when you look under the hood of a 67 or 68 GT500 you will not find this manifold. What you will find is plain jane 390 GT exhaust manifolds with their horizontal bolt patterns bolted to the 390 GT cylinder heads with their horizontal bolt patterns. 428 heads with horizontal bolt patterns didi not appear until they debuted with the CJ and respective CJ exhaust manifolds. Now Ford certainly could have used the Ball Glove manifold and installed PI 428 in Mustangs or they could have used 390 GTmanifolds with 390' or even possibly 428 blocks with 390 gt heads and manifolds. One fact however is they did not use PI 428 in GT500 as advertised.
David |
| | | | 67 Fairlane / Comet 427 manifolds -- Royce Peterson, 02/07/2002
There was a recent string on these manifolds on network 54 where a guy was wondering aloud why so many of these manifolds seem to be for sale, often NOS. The reason that seems obvious to me is that there were so few of the cars made, even though many more were planned. Because the side oiler blocks were rejected at such a high rate there were very few 1966 - 67 427 cars produced resulting in, I think, lots of extra manifolds.
The Shelbys would have been more powerful with them for sure.
Kevin Marti stated in an earlier post on this forum that the Shelby GT500 1967 - 68 428's were indeed P code hydraulic lifter engines with manifold changes to allow use in the Mustang and of course the 8V intake on 1967's. The PI intake was used with the Holley carb in 1968. I bet Kevin checks in with a comment here.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | RE: the problem is the heads -- David Thayer, 02/07/2002
The heads on the 67 and 68 GT500 had horizontal bolt patterns on the exhaust prts. 67 and 68 428PI heads had verticle pattern bolts. These heads were 390 GT heads as the exhaust manifolds used on shelby's was the 390GT exhaust, not the ball glove type which would have allowed the 428PI heads to be used. Why would Ford switch heads out when they already had an exhaust manifold that would work in the mustang.
So, Ford either put 390GT heads on the 428 and called it a PI ,,,,,,or the engines were 390's. My point is, either way they were NOT what was advertised. |
| | | | | | The problem is NOT the heads -- Royce Peterson, 02/07/2002
Actually the C7AE-A heads used in the 1967 Shelby GT500 had 14 bolt pattern just like any other FE. The PI received garden variety FE heads.
In the 1968 GT500 the PI had C8AE-H heads drilled once again with a 14 hole pattern for Shelby GT500 use.
The PI engines for police cars used the same heads, they were just drilled differently on the exhaust side.
Again, I wish Kevin Marti would weigh in on the documentation of 390 engines in 1968 Shelby GT500's. I hate to speculate on something that is somewhere between urban legend and legendary car.
Royce Peterson |
| | | Shoes answere explains the heads -- David Thayer, 02/07/2002
That does explain the heads, |
| 360 -- kenny, 02/07/2002
does any oe know the hp on a 75 360 truck motor? |
| C-4 -- Rick, 02/06/2002
I have a guy wanting to buy my drag car & use a 427 & C-4. Anyone have a bellhousing? |
| | Re: c-4 -- Travis Miller, 02/06/2002
Cut the front off a FE C-6 trans case and the rear off a C-4 bellhousing. Have them welded together. That is how they are made because Ford never made one. It is a piece that someone made up and spread rumors that they were on Canadian 352 pickups. It ain't so. |
| | | RE: Re: c-4 -- Rick, 02/07/2002
I have a friend with 2 but he won't sell. He got one from me out of a '63 Galaxie. |
| | | | RE: Re: c-4 -- Travis Miller, 02/07/2002
If you are talking about the bellhousing coming from an original '63 with a FE, that is the one for a cast iron Cruise-O-Matic also known as the MX and will not fit a C-4. The Cruise-O-Matic (correct spelling from Ford parts book) trans bolted to the bellhousing with 4 bolts similar to the way a manual trans bolts up. The C-4 attaches inside the bellhousing with bolts behind the torque convertor.
Ford introduced the C-4 behind the 289 in 1964. The C-4 never came behind a FE. |
| | | | | RE: Re: c-4 -- Rick, 02/07/2002
MX, Cruise-O-Matic, & FMX are all basically the same. The bellhousing he has is DEFINATELY for a C-4. Ford used them in early 352 cars until the C-6 came out. I have Ford's literature here somewhere. If Ford didn't make them, whay do so many NHRA Stock class 428's use them? They can't modify any part of it to use it in stock. |
| | | | | | RE: Re: c-4 -- Travis Miller, 02/07/2002
Yes they can. I work for NHRA classing the Stock and S/S cars and was the one who discovered the altered bellhousings. The rules committee decided not to put a burden on racers who had bought the bogus bellhousings in good faith. The rule now reads in Stock class on page 60 of the 2002 NHRA rulebook under Transmissions, Automatic - "NHRA-accepted adapter plates permitted." It is also accepted for S/S.
The bellhousings out there that adapt a C-4 to the FE blocks are just that, an accepted adapter plate. Anyone who wants to start making them could do so. Just take the front part of a C-6 case cut off at the front pump and weld the rear section of a C-4 bellhousing to it. Works real good.
|
| | | | | | RE: FE & C4 Literature? -- Mike McQuesten, 02/07/2002
I'll be waiting at the edge of my chair for that Ford literature documenting the use of a C4 and an FE of any cubic inch dimensions.
Excuse me I'm going to get up and go do some work but I'll be checking back in real soon for this literature.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to see all of us nay sayers wrong with regard to the mythical FE C4?
|
| | | | | | | RE: FE & C4 Literature? -- Rick, 02/07/2002
I'm a lookin' fer it! Would a bellhousing pic do? It may be easier... a little |
| | | | | | | | RE: Rick's original? -- Mike McQuesten, 02/07/2002
If your buyer really wants to run a C4 with the 427 he can just check in with JW transmissions. I think that's it. Used to be Winter's Trans ..... anyway they offer a custom made FE bellhousing to match the C4. I checked a few months ago and they're around $600 if I remember right.
|
| | | | | | | | | RE: Rick's original? -- Rick, 02/07/2002
Ouch! I pain $250 for my 460 one. I'll call them in the AM. He needs a SFI unit anyway. |
| | | | | | | RE: FE & C4 Literature? -- Travis Miller, 02/07/2002
It was kinda neat how we caught the bogus bellhousings. NHRA had a techman in Division 6 who lived in Canada and had a transmission shop. He and I had been swapping notes trying to track down the elusive Canadian 352 pickups with a C-4. He said he had seen several 352 pickups over the years but none with a C-4. A friend of mine had two S/S cars, each with a 428 Cobra Jet and C-4. But he said the bellhousings looked different. After he had taken the engine/ trans out of one of the cars and the trans out of the other, he invited me out to look at the bellhousings. Neither had a casting number or even a Ford logo. One was a painted up piece, the other was bare aluminum. I started digging around under the paint and found bondo. When I dug out the bondo I found the weld where it had been put together. My friend had a C-6 under his workbench, so we brought it out and compared the C-6 case to the welded one. It was an identical match. The other one had been cast similar to the welded one. When NHRA confronted the guy who was selling them, he admitted what he had done. NHRA felt there were too many racers who had been running this combination and so as not to penalize them, the rule was changed to allow accepted adaptors. So there is the FE C-4 story from the guy who uncovered it. |
| | | | | | | | RE: FE & C4 Literature? -- Rick, 02/07/2002
Makes ya wonder. My feet/life is worth a lot more to me than that! Even a stock engine... like they really are, makes enough power to rip a car open, especially a low 11 or high 10 second car! At least you guys caught it before someone got hurt. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: FE & C4 Literature? -- Mario428, 02/08/2002
There is no more protection in a stock C-6 which is what they ran before. A flexplate shield will take care of the problem. But exploding flexplate are not nearly as common as exploding flywheels. SFI certified flexplates are available for an FE. Even the correct balance for a 428.
I made my own C-4 bellhousing but I just welded a flat plate to a cutoff C-6 housing and machined it for the C-4 pattern. |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: FE/C4 Martins FMX -- SDP, 02/09/2002
Travis, just imagine if Martin's Galaxie would have had a C4 when he was running the car. Or even atleast a C6 with the normal mods. JPT was the originator for these "bogus" bellhousings right?? |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: FE/C4 Martins FMX -- Travis Miller, 02/09/2002
Do not count out the FMX. It can be a quick transmission in the hands of someone who knows what he is doing. While not as quick as the C-4, it got the job done for Kip Martin.
For those not aware of what Kip Martin did, here is the story. In the mid 1980's, Kip Martin took a 1964 Galaxie 500XL with a 352 using the 4100 Autolite 4v and went into the sacred Chevy territory of SS/OA. He set the NHRA National Record then followed up by qualifying no. 1 at Pomona. The Chevy guys were fit to be tied. Earlier that year at the INDY US Nationals, Kip was sent to teardown. While I was working teardown, NHRA told me to hang close to Kip's Ford and make sure everything was legal. The car passed with flying colors. When everyone asked what he had done to make it run, I just smiled and said that he knew what he was doing with a Ford.
As far as JPT and bellhousings go, I caught a C-4 behind a 428 CJ in a Mustang Stocker long before NHRA allowed anything but a C-6 to be there. The next day at the track, the owner of JPT and I had a "lengthy" conversation. He had worked all night changing the C-4 back to a C-6 for his customer. After he calmed down, I explained that until the rules got changed, only a C-6 would be allowed as the automatic behind a 428 CJ. So the bogus bellhousings were already in use a long time ago. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Martins FMX? -- SDP, 02/09/2002
Did Martin do his own work on the FMX or was it Rossi? I remember seeing a Rossi decal on the side of the car.I Just wonder what Kip could have done with that car if he could have ported the heads like you can nowadays. Hey Travis you remember Pruitt out Div 6 that ran the 64 2dr Post 352 Stick car in SS/N around the same time as Martin? |
| HELP - Dampner on 428CJ -- Rich Kutzner, 02/06/2002
Anyone like to share experiences with aftermarket dampners on FEs, especially 428CJs?
I tried to research aftermarket dampners for my 428CJ and first bought a TCI Rattler. Other options were ATI and Fluidampner. TCI 'tech' reps misled me into thinking I didn't need a spacer and the pulley bolt pattern would work. They were clueless and wrong. So now I have an ATI super dampner, they said all I had to do was cut my crank sleeve(behind the dampner) back. They all said that, actually. And ATI had a part number for FE versus using a '385' series one like the other guys. So I buy their pulley adapter for my application and the 6 3/8" aluminum dampner. Upon checking heights, it has the same dimensions as the stock one and puts the pulley EXACTLY where it needs to be. Every critical measurment is the same. It's a little thicker overall but goes in deeper in the back where it hits the sleeve. Anyways, other than having to elongate the holes a hair on the pulley (it will be centered by the dampner like the stock one), it seems to be a perfect fit. Anyone have similar circumstances? |
| high riser intake -- Terry Tobolt, 02/06/2002
we had block decked,heads cut some,when putting on manfold with gaskets and those nice cork one's the holes do not line up shuld we not use them and us silcolne? |
| | RE: high riser intake -- Mike McQuesten, 02/07/2002
You had the heads cut "some"? How much is "some"? You can't just guess how much you're milling off a set of heads and then attempt to bolt on an FE intake. There's a specific formula for doing this.
You can just use a quality silicone to replace the cork seals if you want. Many and probably most do now. Even Edelbrock recommends this procedure in their directions with their intakes. But it's not the end seals that are causing your high riser intake to not line up properly. I don't think it's that anyway.
If you had the heads milled(were they High Risers?! - who told you to do that?)then you are going to have to mill that high riser intake which relegates it to nearly Zero $ value. But hey, it's yours. If you want to cut it up and paint 'er purple, go ahead.
Milling High Riser Heads and a HR intake.....I'm about to gag on my sandwich. |
| | | RE: high riser intake -- Terry Tobolt, 02/07/2002
mike McQuesten i hope you didn't gag on your sandwich. yes there high riser heads and they had to be milled.my problem is that since i had the block decked. the manfold does not line up.after all this motor is 37 years old.and has been raced a lot it was one of gas rondas motors.you must be the only with perfect parts.John at pro machine in LA did most of the work.Look in street rodder on FE motors.i might just paint it lavender now. i am going to eat pizza now |
| | | | RE: high riser intake -- Mike McQuesten, 02/07/2002
I made it. Got that sandwich down. Seriously Terry, if you "had" to mill those heads and you got more than just John's opinion at pro machine in LA, then I admire your desire to save them and use them. And if that block needed to be decked, again it's admirable that you're going to make it work and that's what a 427 is for. A powerhouse workhorse.
You never did explain why you had to mill the heads. Of course you don't have to explain why you'd mill a set of 427 Ford High Riser Heads. Maybe you just wanted to. And sure blocks need to be decked sometimes.
What we need to know is how much you milled those heads and how much you decked the block. There's a chart on page 15 of the original FoMoCo Muscle Parts book, 1969, that provides the amount that needs to be milled off of your High Riser intake to make it match correctly to the heads. If you can provide us with how much you had the heads milled we can provide you the amount you need to cut the intake. It seems like John at Pro Machine in LA should be able to provide you with this important information too.
The real point is if your High Riser intake is unmilled stock, it will never fit your milled High Riser heads and decked block.
And no I don't have the perfect parts. Like most of us, I've had to have numerous repairs and machine work done to make various FE combinations work properly. I was just a little stunned that you would have a set of high riser heads milled without an explanation as to why and then how much they were milled.
It's yours Terry. You do anything you want. |
| | | | | RE: high riser intake thanks mike -- Terry Tobolt, 02/09/2002
I want to thank you for info.the motor was run hard ,in the early days we raced on weekends and a lot of wednesdays.and then it was replaced with a cammer .and then it found it way into a sand rail in AZ.I took the heads apart and had intake side cut now everthing fits.just finshed putting motor together. but I am dire need of a dipstick tube,dipstick!! can"t find one |
| C6 for 64 Galaxie -- tulley, 02/06/2002
I need a C6 tranny that will fit my 64 Galaxie and bolt up to my 390. Does anyone know if the C6 will fit, and if so, which ones? |
|