Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Oposite Rotation FE Question -- John, 01/18/2002
I am rebuiling, or should I say, building a 390 Ford for marine use. The engine needs to be oposite rotation. My old engine was destroyed by a rod that snapped at the wrist pin, punched the block, cam,and broke the crank (sad day).
Anyway, I noticed that the only real difference in the crankshaft that made it 'oposite rotation' was at the rear seal where there were raised diagonal lines at a 45 deg angle around the circumfrence, I would assume to push any oil back into the engine. Is this a feature that any good machine shop can reproduce on a standard crank to enable it for oposite rotation or do I need to search the world for an original crank. Good news is that I found an NOS reverse camshaft. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. |
|  | RE: Oposite Rotation FE Question -- Mike, 01/18/2002
yes, i have seen these cranks, i talked to a couple people about running the crank in the opposiate direction of the grooves. its just a chance situation it can be run pushing the oil out no problem with a neoprene seal. i would run the engine on a test stand first to be sure it doesnt leak and make sure they install the seal correctly or it will leak anyways. Machine shops can also remove the grooves. I believe these grooves were designed for the rope seals, because they will always leak after a few 1000 miles or 50 hr of use. by the way standard recreational outboard boats see about 100 hrs per year, the Chris craft 427's would see much less than this i would think probably only 30-40 hours a year. the larger the yacht the more it cost to operate it. |
|  | The grooves are no longer needed. -- Dave Shoe, 01/19/2002
A crankshaft specialty house can easily remove the diagonal grooves. They are only a few thou deep, and were needed only for the old rope rear main seal.
The modern split-neoprene seal doesn't use the grooves (and frees up horsepower which the rope seal consumed), so any FE crankshaft can be stripped of the grooves and spun in either direction. Also, the metallurgy and design of FE cast cranks are all pretty much the same in a given year, so you don't need to wonder if one crank has a better grade of nodular iron than the next.
Shoe. |
 | Nitrous For 390 -- GRANT, 01/17/2002
Hi guys,
I've got a 390 with an Edlebrock intake, Carter Performance Series carb, roller cam, forged pistons, headers etc... all in a strong , well built street engine with low miles. The question is nitrous. Will 125hp plate kit hurt the engine? Is it worth using? Im looking for that extra power under full throttle, and wonder if this is the way to go. I know I need to upgrade the fuel pump. This is for a 67 mustang fastback.
Thanks
|
| | RE: Nitrous For 390 -- Mike, 01/18/2002
i see know problem with it, just rember to mount an enternal fuel presure gauge on your cowl. |
|  | RE: rod.. -- Mike, 01/18/2002
bolts make sure you have the current hp aftermarket, which will require resizing of your rods. |
| | | Go for it -- Greg, 01/20/2002
I ran n2o for years, with the proper precautions( forged pistons, good fuel & pressure and not too much timing) the results are breathtaking. You'll love it.
DON'T as I once did, accidentally advance timing 4 degrees instead of retard, or you'll hear what sounds like a large coffee can full of ball bearings being shaken as thetops come off the pistons(still ran though).
Good luck
Greg
|
| | | | RE: Go for it -- GRANT, 01/22/2002
Greg,
Thanks alot for the response. What system did you use, and what horsepower did you take it up to and still felt safe you wouldnt blow the engine. Also I'm thinking of an on /off switch under the dash, and a switch under the gas pedal that would actuate the nitrous only when I really mashed it. Any thoughts?
Thanks again guys for the response. |
| | | | | RE: Go for it -- Greg, 01/22/2002
I used a cheater system (plate style from nos) set at 250 horse on a 302. That's a little extreme for a street car but was what I had to work with at the time. I would fell very comfortable with a plate system set at 150 in your case,(not too hard on parts but loads of fun). Definately use an arming switch to activate the system with another switch to activate the juice. I dont like the w.o.t .micro switches because the can contribute to tire spin at low speed and overrevving. I used the nitrous T- handle shifter which was available from nos at the time (don't know about now). It had the n2o switch built into the shifter handle, so you used the n2o at your discretion. But by all means build a system your comfortable with, It's a blast either way.
Greg
|
| Which distributor will work with 428? -- Greg, 01/17/2002
Will any fe dist. interchange with a '69 428 cj?
I need something to get running again until I can locate the correct one.
Thanks.
Greg
|
| Dreamers, Old school ford freaks, seen this one! -- R Shannon, 01/17/2002
DEALS on Wheels MAG. Wagner's of bonner springs KS. has a 62 Galaxie XL conv. with a 406 tri-power 4 speed and it's a great color. White with red interior. Pretty Rare car. It's on page 65 asking price is 32K. Also a 67 Failane GTA for $4800 on page 40, fair price in Davidson Canada. Should bring back some memories for us old school ford freaks.. |
| | RE: Dreamers, Old school ford freaks, seen this one! -- Travis Miller, 01/17/2002
I'm sorry, but while I can remember riding in a friends '62 XL 406 tri-power conv at a very high rate of speed on many occasions in the mid-60's, I do not remember it being worth $32,000. The car in the ad may be worth half that amount, but it would have to be really nice. I can see big bucks for the few factory racecars that were built. Someone is dreaming if they think they will get this price for a car like that. |
| | | RE: Beat their were less than 100! -- R Shannon, 01/18/2002
I agree, but it does bring back some memories don't it. about any conv. restored they want at least 20K for. Seen that high priced duffies got. |
| | | | 406 conv -- Lou, 01/18/2002
I looked at a 62 406 XL conv in Mass, for a clent, last spring with a asking of $20,000, It was correct, even the correct dated 15 inch wheels. Paint was a little weak but presentable, could have used a new top. I thought it was a fair price.
Napoli indoor in Milford Ct, sold a mint one last year for $23,000. |
| | | | | RE: 406 conv -- Travis Miller, 01/18/2002
As I mentioned earlier in this topic, my friend Charlie had a 62 XL 406 tri-power conv he bought used in the spring of 1966. While the car could hold its own in a drag race, it was never beaten on a top end run. It had a 3.50 gear with tall 15" tires.
One night in 1966 headed west on I-64 here in Kentucky, Charlie and I wanted to see what it would top out at. The car went to 105 MPH on the center carb alone. Bringing in the end carbs even at that speed pushed us back in the seats. When the speedo reached 120 MPH, the tach was reading 4200 RPMs. Charlie finally eased off the gas pedal at 5600 RPMs and that 406 still had more to go. Neither of us had the nerve to see more, especially in a convertible. |
| | | | | | RE: See I told you it would bring back mermories -- R Shannon, 01/18/2002
Going to a couple of collector car autions next month I'll bet that car will be their. See how much it goes for if it sells. Only the well off can afford them anyway. I still say it's a very rare car claims it's orginal and number matching, except for the paint and D spokes. High preformance was at a very fast pace back then. |
| | | | | | RE: 406 conv -- Travis Miller, 01/18/2002
Seems my memory was a little foggy today. It was actually 120 MPH at 4800 RPMs. Mathematically that makes 5600 RPMs right at 140 MPH.
Looking back, I remember that big heavy 406 convertible was actually pretty stable, even at that speed. Good thing we didn't know about the way 60's style tires were, it might have scared us. Nah, we were both just 18 at the time and we were fearless. I will admit that back then I ran 4.57 gears in my '63 406 boxtop Galaxie so I would not be tempted to play the top end game. |
| 427/428 head mill -- Ed, 01/17/2002
Any good method of determining if a 427/428 head has been milled other than CC the chamber - I have been tempted to purchase a pair of heads at a swap meet, but have been leary due to the lack of a quick way the verify if they have been milled. Can the oil transfer slot be measured for depth or a measurement taken with a depth mike from the head surface down to the valve seat area / spark plug area to check for a previous mill job? Thanks for your help. |
| | Measure the oil transfer slot depth -- Bill Conley, 01/17/2002
The oil transfer slot on the face is a good way to tell. It should be .250" deep according to Ford drawings and some virgin heads I have measured.
FYI- the cast "horseshoes" around the head face are NOT a reliable indicator. These features were not dimensionally controlled. A set of MR heads I had showed radically different horseshoe depth even though they had been milled the same. (One head was cast at Cleveland and the other ot Michigan Casting Center). All other features checked out identical, including chamber cc. |
| | Intake bolt hole to deck distance seems reliable. -- Dave Shoe, 01/17/2002
I've never thought of measuring the oil hole depth. I'll have to look at this.
I have checked for consistency in a couple dozen FE heads and found the intake manifold bolt hole center to the deck distance is the only reliable way to determine distance.
Sorry, I don't have the number handy, and I fidn it works best to stick a shanked bolt deep into the hole to be sure it's centrally located.
Shoe. |
| | | It looks like you're right Shoe! -- Bill Conley, 01/17/2002
The original poster (Ed) just e-mailed me indicating that he's seen different slot depths on various style virgin heads.
It's possible that the slot was machined differently on different style heads. The print I saw years ago was for the production C5AE-F medium riser. It matched the virgin set that I measured, hence the opinion in my post.
I would think your method with the intake bolts would be consistent across all styles of FE head.
I've learned something good!
-Bill
|
| | RE: 427/428 head mill -- Ed, 01/17/2002
Thanks Bill & Dave, I thought the oil slot might be a good area to get a indication of the amount of milling done, But i could not find any info on the depth. Ed |
| 427 marine, bored 20 over -- P, 01/16/2002
I found a 427 marine (don't know if it's a center oiler or side oiler, as I havent seen it yet) but the guy says it's been bored 20 over and has Keith Black pistons. The motor is supposedly rebuilt to the 300 HP Chris Craft spec. He did the work himself (owns a machine shop) and the guy has a good reputation and has every indication that he's not trying to hoodwink me, etc.
Being bored 20 over, with custom pistons, what would be the next potential bore job in the event it was needed in the future, with custom pistons of course. He says the motor has 400 hours on it since the rebuild.
Any comments are appreciated!
P |
| | RE: 427 marine, bored 20 over (clarification) -- P, 01/16/2002
Clarification: I've read the post about the motor that has been bored out to .060 or .065 (scarey), and I understand some opinions think .030 is the maximum for racing purposes, but my question is more along the line of how many miles can I milk out of this motor, presently bored .020 over.
Would the next logical step be to do a .025, or would you need to go to .030.
thanks, P |
| | | RE: 427 marine, bored 20 over (clarification) -- Bob, 01/16/2002
Going from .020 to .025 over would only be 0.0025 off each side. Even going .030 which is .005 may not work. |
| | | | RE: 427 marine, bored .020 -- P, 01/16/2002
Thanks Bob, this is what I need to know in advance. I'm concerned that the motor may not be able to be bored out again in the future, without adding sleeves, etc. I'm wondering about the viability of buying a marine motor that is already bored out .020 over.
Additional comments please!
thx, P |
| | | | | RE: 427 marine, bored .020 -- Bob, 01/16/2002
A sonic check is the only way to know for sure. You will have to have custom pistons for anything more that .030 over.
I can't relate to the 400 hours in terms of wear. If it's 400 of power boat racing its probably got a lot of wear. If its 400 of pulling skiers it may be fine.
You could try a leak down test. That would give you some idea of the ring seal. If they are OK then it may not be wore very much. |
| | | | | | RE: 427 marine, bored .020 -- P, 01/16/2002
Assuming non-racing wear and tear, would a .030 overbore with custom pistons still provide good service? I've heard of people racing a .060 overbore, which is obviously pushing the limits very far.
I don't have experience with FE overbores, but I do have a lot of experience with other motors, and with FE heads. Buying a motor with a .020 overbore seems to be a pretty good find at the moment, and I'm most likely going to get it. I just wanted to know if I have the option in the future to bore the thing out again without getting into the scarey territory.
I'll post more when I see the motor and get the numbers.
Regards, P |
| | | | | | | 427 marineengines - check cylinder wall pitting -- Royce Peterson, 01/16/2002
P,
Network 54 is undergoing more problems, I could not get a reply to go through. I was indeed referring to the water jacket side of the cylinder walls which can become deeply pitted in marine engines due to long periods of inactivity, neglect and the fact that no antifreeze or corrosion inhibitor is used. Of course I would scrutinize any block or head the same way. My experience with marine 427's has been with both salt water and fresh water types, probably seen ten total with no purchases to date.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | | Coolant side cylinder wall pitting -- P, 01/16/2002
This particular setup has the closed cooling (antifreeze) system. I would think it would be similar condition to an automotive system, but only time will tell. As you can tell from my posts, I'd rather find one that hasn't been bored out at all, but .020 probably isn't too bad.
I'm just fishing for some advice, and I appreciate your response.
Regards, P |
| | | | | | | RE: 427 overbore -- David Thayer, 01/17/2002
The 427 was really strictly a race motor, the thin wall casting did not allow much margin for overbore period. That is why you will see a lot of guys use custom pistons and try to clean them up a 10 over, using the 20 over is good as you can use the BB Chevy pistons. 30 over is proably the max and may not always be doable. |
| | | | | | RE: 427 marine, bored .020 -- hawkrod, 01/16/2002
if you can't relate to hours run, think in terms of similar situations. if it was chugger motor at 2000rpm type situations (most big watercraft) think 45 mph on the freeway. 45 X 400 is about 18,000 miles. while this is not a solid rule it will get you close as far as wear and will tell you the difference between 100k and 10k pretty quick. hawkrod |
| | RE: Some info on these -- David Thayer, 01/16/2002
Most of these motors were cast as SO but not machined as SO. Chris Craft specs would have been with the DEEEEEEP dish (about 9-1) pistons, could be hyd or solid lifters, and an iron (390) crank. 20 over usually means Chevy pistons using the 4.25 BB chevy bore size.
How much money$ What do you want to do with it? Remember, you are basically getting a crossbolted 390, yes, you can put MR, TP, HR heads on it. If you are not planning to use 427 (valve size) heads on it, then it boils down to $$
David |
| | | RE: cross bolted 390? -- Mike, 01/16/2002
no way , they are identical to the side oilier casting, with all the features and high nodular iron, but with the center oil system. Chris craft figured their motors woul rarely see 4000 rpm's this is why they are speced as centeroilers. They look nothing like a 390 or hvae any of the charcteristics. I would say $1000 for the block if it check out and you would be getting a deal. |
| | | | RE: I beg to differ -- David Thayer, 01/17/2002
As I said, these blocks were cast as Side Oilers but never machined as such. They ALL used stock iron (390) cranks, deep dish low comp pistons. Some had good guy C3AZ 427 rods.
What I was talking about is performance wise, if you are not going to use heads with 427 size valves and are on a budget, there is very little other than the 35 extra cubes to be gained from using one of these blocks over a 390. If you want a TP, MR, or HR then one of these could be a good deal as the valves will mostly clear the cylinder walls.
David |
| | | | | RE: my CC 427.. -- Mike, 01/17/2002
has C4AE-B 427 cast crankshaft and C7AE-B 427 connecting rods, solid lifters and has no resembalance to a 390. It has all the features of a sideoilier. |
| | | | RE: misinformation about these engines -- David Thayer, 01/17/2002
First, CC never Spec'd anything, this program was initiated by Ford as a way to sell enough Side Oiler blocks to help pay for the re-tool to side oiler. Ford did not want to sell more in cars due to warranty issues, and they did not want to sell a severly de-tuned 427 in cars as these motors did not put out anymore HP than a good 4 bbl 390. The CC program was perfect as they not only sold more SO blocks but also saved $ by not machining them as SO's.
As far as RPM, the entire SO program had nothing to do with high RPM, it had to do with oil supply to mains on the high bank tracks and at LeMans. Any center oiler 427 can run rpms with the SO. If anything, the true side oilers with the LeMans rods were a LOWER rpm motor due to the beefier LeMans and NASCAR rods.
Once again, these motors had 390 cranks, 390 low performance cylinder heads and cast 390 type 4 bbl intakes. Though they displaced 425 CI, they were virtually 390's with a 427 crossbolted block. With thtat said, if the block is in good condition, it is well worth 1K. Why with only 400 hours did it get replaced? I would ask that question. The CC boats are replacing these as parts and tuning (on the solid lifter versions) takes more effort than more modern marine engines.
David |
| | | | | Thanks guys, here's some more info -- P, 01/17/2002
I'm going to look at the motor later this morning. It was pulled out of a boat that was sold, and the guy didn't want an "old motor" in it. The 400 hours would be mostly at chugging speed, hopefully.
Regarding the comments about the marine motor being essentially the same as a 390 (performance wise) but with cross bolted mains, I'd have to agree. They were 9:5 to 1 as I recall. I think CC did have something to do with the spec. Here's why I think this.
For many years prior to the 427 being used, CC utilized the 430 MEL, SBC, some Chrysler motors and even a Cadilliac or two. In 1966 when there were strikes by the UAW, CC had to list a supplemtary engine list just to find products and this included the Chrysler 413, amoung others. With all this experience, they knew (and I'm sure Ford knew too) that a marine engine had to have a low compression and a torque cam, etc., etc. , so I think it was probably a quick consensus decision of what would be needed and what would be supplied.
Now I can personally tell you that CC did, indeed, without any question whatsoever, install side oiler engines in their boats. I know three individuals who have them, and I've seen them. I believe that in the shuffle of sending out motors, some side oilers did get shipped to CC, and they probably didn't even know the difference or care. They slapped the hundreds of pounds of cast iron on em and off they went. They had a CC engine plant, as they called it, in Galipolis, Ohio, where I assume they fitted the motors with all of the marine equipment, perhaps even the cast iron oil pan, but nothing interna.. There was another Chris Craft "engine plant" in Michigan somewhere. If sideoilers appeared in the boats, and I can attest that they did on occasion, then perhaps these engines also came with the steel cranks. Again, with the FE, there were a lot of variations. I own two 427's (in a 38' cruiser right now) and they are both center oilers, and I haven't seen the insides of em (yet). The new motor will be used in a boat one way or another, either in my cruiser or in a speedboat at "reasonable RPM's". Cruisers don't exceed 4000, and a wood inboard speedboat wouldn't really need to go above 4500 or 5000 at the absolute max.
I'll post more info when I can. Don't know if I'll be able to get all the numbers I'll need at this time. We'll see. Thanks for all the info and comments guys.
P |
| | | | | | RE: Cool info -- David Thayer, 01/17/2002
Thanks for the great info. I agree, that some side oilers found their way into both marine and Ag use. My guess is that they may have failed a quality test after the SO machining process and been squaked for racing use but OK'd for AG or Marine use.
do you have any idea why there were some solid and some hydraulic lifter engines used in the marine program? |
| | | | | | | RE: Cool info -- P, 01/17/2002
Dave, I think the whole business about marine engines "failing the quality test" is a myth. If you've ever lifted the hatch and have seen (and heard) a pair of 427 marines working in a cruiser, you'll quickly see that nothing but the highest quality would go into a marine application. When they work, they work very hard. Marine engines actually spend a lot of time lounging at the marina, and this is their secret to longevity.
Any inferior product put into a cruiser would represent a call back for the boat and engine manufacturer. I think the side oilers that got into boats, did so as a function of when they were purchased, and what happened to be on the skids at the time the obligation to ship occurred, but that's just the opinion I've formed over the years. The UAW strikes, for instance, caused a lot of hybrid applications, and some Chris Craft boats, for instance, had frames specially made for the FE, but were hacked a bit at the last momemt to receive the Chrysler 413 (Oooohh, what a disappointment that would have been, ha ha).
Personally, I'm not aware of any Chris Craft 427's that were hydraulic. I think they were ALL solid lifter. There are other marine applications that are not Chris Craft, and most of what I know is about the Chris Crafts. Trojan, Century, Higgins, Riva, and several others used the FE in one form or another, many under the "Intercepter" name tag.
P |
| | | | | | | | RE: You may be right. -- David Thayer, 01/17/2002
You make some good points, so much of nothing is made over a person finding this or that in this or that and I can tell you that assembly line anomolies occur often, though such measures as TQM and ISO9000 make them happen less today than in the past. It would not be uncommon at all to find a product that we make (where I work) that got the wrong parts on it. The big difference is the products I make will NEVER be under the collectors magnifying glass, they will more than likely be in the landfills.
David |
| | | | | | RE: SO vs CO the difference is folklore -- David Thayer, 01/17/2002
Unless you think NASCAR may want to start racing these again or you could race one at LeMans again, the whole SO vs CO just depends on how much more you are willing to spend to see those little hex plugs sticking outside of the block!!
David |
| | | | | | | RE: SO vs CO the difference is folklore -- P, 01/17/2002
I totally agree. I'm not planning to join the 7,000 RPM club, or run the high bank ovals, or the 24-hours of LeMans.
P |
| | | | | | | | RE: I have one of these engines that -- David Thayer, 01/17/2002
I found a very good Marine engine that we were able to clean up and keep at STD. Bore. It is currently at RK machine being made into a 454 stroker.
If Rick ever gets finished with it!! ha ha ha
Rick if you are spending time reading this forum you should be working on my motor instead!!
David |
| | | | | | | | | Here's what I found today.......finally seen it... -- P, 01/17/2002
Well ya never know till you look. And this one didn't look anywhere as good as it sounded on the phone. Imagine that!
It's a C8AE-A block casting, got the cross bolts, but not a side oiler. Had some evidence of overheating (looked like coolant poured over the motor and dried, leaving a "lime deposit" look). The guy wasn't there, and his wife did all the talking, and didn't know much.....except that they had rebuilt the motor, blahhh blahhh. Saw a bit too much evidence of operating on the cheeep, such as liberal use of silicone glue here and there, rather than doing it "right". Kind of got a wave of cold feet at the moment......... I'm obviously going to need to talk to the guy again, but my tendency is to let this one pass........perhaps the motor spent too much time in Florida? Perhaps I should be looking in Michigan??
P |
| | | | | | | | | | RE:my CC block has no casting #'s.. -- Mike, 01/17/2002
and its dated 1968, has 427 in the valley area, i know its a high nickel block because you can actually see it in the right lighting. |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE:my CC block has no casting #'s.. -- P, 01/18/2002
Mike, are you sure there's no casting numbers, look at the front passenger side of the motor (front starboard) just a few inches above the oil pan.
Also, see any crossbolts down there?
Then check the other side of the motor (driver side, port side) and look a couple inches above each crossbolt (assuming you find crossbolts!) for the small plumbing taps for the side oiler engine. Perhaps you've got a sideoiler, who knows?? You should, however, have casting numbers on the side of the motor, passenger side, near the front.
P
P |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: yes i have crossbolts.. -- Mike, 01/18/2002
and a standard 4.23 bore, there is no casting # which would be on the pass side in a car #1 cylinder. on the drivers side i have 12 dif and a date code 1968 January cant make out the day. Also have 427 in the lifter valley were earlier blocks would have 352. |
| More NOS 427 Stories - ATTN Davy Gurley -- Royce Peterson, 01/15/2002
Jack Tarner called me tonight to discuss progress on my latest GTE 427 engine (cross bolted hydraulic sideoiler) and I asked about Ralph Alex with reference to your posts a couple days ago. He related a story of how he and Ralph were at a Ford Parts Distribution Warehouse auction and they both bid on a lot of 16 NOS 406 engine short block assemblies. These were not rebuilt, they were late service replacement short blocks with pistons, camshaft, timing chain etc. The blocks are possesing all 427 attributes except no crossbolts, although the provisions are there as in your "2 bolt 427".
It turned out that only two sealed bids were placed on that lot. Ralph was the winner at $430.00 each. Jack had bid $94.00. It still seemed like a good deal for Ralph until he discovered that they were all locked up tight and no amount of penetrating oil applied to the rings seemed to help.
Ralph sold most of the engines for $430.00 to friends in the area who brought them to Jack to be repaired. It turned out that they had been assembled with Lubriplate (white lithium grease) which had dried out and kept the cranks from rotating. In one case Jack was offered and received one of the engines for fixing the other one belonging to the same person.
Fun to hear the stories about the good old days.
Royce Peterson |
| Cruise -- john, 01/15/2002
Was cruisecontroll a regular option in mustang 69/70?
John |
| New 428CJ with high RPM miss... -- Morgan, 01/15/2002
I recently installed a 428CJ in my 67 Shelby (25 miles ago). I am experiencing a high RPM miss (around 4300 rpm on up). To me it feel/sounds like ignition looking for advise to solve the problem.
The specs are: 428CJ bored 40 over with Edelbock heads with autolite plugs with a gap set at .042. FPA headers, Blue Thunder single four intake with 750 Holley carb (1 year old). Stock mechanical advance distributor with Pertronix ignition, Pertronix coil, 8.8 Accel wires. Most of the ignition components and carb are around a year old. timing is: initial 14 with total set at 34. Dont think its carb related and during the rebuild installed a hi volume cater fuel pump and I am showing 8 pounds of pressure at idle. I checked the air gap on the Pertronix last night and replaced the rotor and cap. Miss is still there.
Any help you can provide would be great.
Morgan
|
| | RE: New 428CJ with high RPM miss... -- Royce Peterson, 01/15/2002
Try putting the points back in. I am running the original distributor with points in my 428 CJ, along with the original carb etc. totally stock everything except valve springs and a set of Flowmasters. It pulls like a train up to 6000 with no misfire. Maybe your Pertronix unit is faulty?
I am running a Pertronix in one of my 427's and it has been trouble free but there is a human making them so it is a possibility.
Royce Peterson |
| Galaxy/Mustang 390 -- Jeremy Faulds, 01/15/2002
I've acquired a 390 (2bbl) out of a '67 Galaxy that I want to rebuild and install in my '68, which is a 4 speed S code car to begin with. I would really appreciate any specific advice I could extract from the vast body of knowledge that is this forum, with regards to;
What if any components will need to be changed for said Galaxy engine to be installed in a mustang
What modifications, say $2500.00 worth above and beyond the cost of the base rebuild, could be applied to the 390 to up the HP
Thanks in advance
|
| | RE: Galaxy/Mustang 390 -- Bob, 01/15/2002
The oil pan is sklightly different to clear the tie rod ends.
The heads on the Mustang have lower exhuast ports and use different exhaust manifolds.
|
| | | The pans are likely the same. -- Dave Shoe, 01/15/2002
Ford seems to have used the "Fairlane/Mustang" pan in the Galaxies of 1967. Front sump trucks still got the unindented pan.
Also, 1967 heads may have high-positioned exhaust ports or low positioned exhaust ports, depending on the head casting. In 1968, all 390s got the low-positioned exhaust ports.
Shoe.
|
| | RE: Galaxie Heads? -- Mike McQuesten, 01/15/2002
The heads you are acquiring from the '67 donor Galaxie(note the correct spelling of Ford Galaxie...we Galaxie fans think that's important for some reason, we sometimes misspell Mustang so don't worry) are a key factor here. They may be a variety of castings. Check Dave Shoe's list that was just posted yesterday or the day before about exhaust ports. It's important because I'm assuming that you may be interested in running headers on this well built '68 S code Mustang. At least improve the exhaust to 428 Cobra Jet exhaust manifolds over the very restrictive 390GT manifolds. And the '28CJ are now available in repro from a variety of Mustang parts suppliers for around $400. Not a lot more than good headers. But I'd recommend headers as being the best buy for hp gain. More maintenance but that's one aspect of hot rodding. You're not trying to build it to concours are you? I hope not. There's a bunch of 'em out there. And I'm sorry, stock '68 S code 390 Mustangs are not competitive with lots of other stock '68 Muscle cars. Sorry, it's true. Now '68 R code CJ 'stangs or W- code Cougars...we're talking cream of the crop FE Muscle. But guys like Royce Peterson have them cornered. So we have to build 390 S codes to beat 'em.
My recommendation: Excellent headers from FPA for the correct heads you have.
Oh and gears and cam and valves and pistons and induction .....
Have you seen that latest issue of Mustangs & FORDS yet? I'm telling you there's inspirtation in them pages. There's '67 S code 390 GT Mustang that's built like they shoulda been. C6AE-R heads & headers. Tri Power. Now we're talking competitive muscle. |
| | | RE: Galaxie Heads? -- Jeremy Faulds, 01/15/2002
Thanks for the good advice. Galaxie Galaxie Galaxie...got it! What was I thinking. I'm not looking to go concourse by any means. Just a clean weekend ride. |
| | RE: Edelbrock? -- Mike McQuesten, 01/15/2002
Don't want to sound like a big promo for Edelbrock but they are making some good FE parts at reasonable prices. You said, $2,500 above the basic rebuild. Maybe this: Forged pistons, 4V, 10.5:1; forged pistons don't make horsepower but they do withstand it; recondition your '67 390 rods with ARP bolt kits; full cleaning and top notch machine work by competent builder; improve the oiling system as per commonly accepted procedures. Heads? Modify to accept the CJ intake/exhaust valves making sure to have the ports/bowl work done to allow the larger valves to do their job; Edelbrock RPM cam & full kit. I've not used one yet but I've read good reports from a couple of forums; Edelbrock RPM intake with their 750 CFM carb? Good ignition with Pertronix and MSD 6 box. There should be a lot more ideas coming forth. But this is how I would start the project. I'm really impressed with the looks and reports of the E-brock RPM intake. Starting with that intake as a basis, I think should be able to plan out a strong running 390 with coordinated parts.
Good luck. Again, check out that '67 GT 390. |
| | | RE: Edelbrock? -- mikeb, 01/15/2002
how about 64'-earlier 390 heads?
If I ain;t mistaken, seems like Shoe said they are good heads, using CJ size valves. But can you get a header to fit? |
| | | | Headers with C4 head are a pain in the Mustang. -- Dave Shoe, 01/15/2002
It's tough enough to work with headers in a Mustang when you've got 16 exhaust bolt bosses to work with.
C4 heads (actually, any common 1958-65 heads) flow great. These all have large runners and high-positioned exhaust ports without restrictive thermactor bosses. The complication arises when you try to drill the eight extra exhaust manifold holes in them. Since the Fairlane hadn't yet been converted to fit the FE in 1964, the extra bosses are not present in any FE head. By 1966, virtually all FE heads had the extra bosses cast into them, ready to be drilled if required.
C4 heads only offer the 8-bolt vertical header mounting pattern. Mounting the four lower header bolts on each side will positively suck. I've oft times heard it can be done, but it's a royal pain to wrench them on.
Just what I've heard,
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: Headers with C4 head are a pain in the Mustang. -- Bob, 01/15/2002
If the header doesn't have the lower bolt hole it can't be done. And some Mustang headers do not allow for its use since some heads do not have it drilled.
If you can't put a bolt thru the bottom hole with the header in your lap you sure won't be able to do it in the car. You may be able to cut a slot in the header flange for the bolt that will work but note that I said may. At least one header, brand name long forgotten, came down too tight and too close for any bolt in one of the bottom holes. |
|