Skip Navigation Links.
 |  What cam are we talking about? -- Mike McQuesten, 01/11/2002
Nick asked a good concise question with regard to a C6ME-A block. I give some muddled answer where I start talking camshafts. Mikeb gives me a descent response and I start thinking all about PI cams, HP cams and 427 cams. Bob tells us about his '66 PI that he ran the 427 cam in without any consideration for hydraulic lifter passage blockage. So I just have to ask a few things and I know I'll get a response or two 'cause I'm going to throw in the name Shelby.
First q's: Which exact camshaft did Ford use in the 1966 428PI?
I don't believe it was the 306d/500L shaft. My theory is that it was the same mild solid lifter version that was used in the 1965 last 390/330 horse PI. I'm looking at a little Ford brochure right now titled High Performance Equipment Owners Manual. It tells a little about the 289HP, the 427 and the 390PI. It's a 1965 publication. It gives some cam specs and mentions that the 390PI has a cam duration of 282. However, they also say that the 427 has a duration of 324. Well, we know that the 324 cam was an over the counter shaft. The standard automotive '27 solid cam for all those year was the 306/500 cam. So what is this 282 solid cam? Was there a special grind marine camshaft that saw 390 PI useage? Was it the same 390PI cam as used in '63/'64? I'd like to know.
Second q's: Was the '67-'68 428PI cam the C6OZ-6250-B 390GT cam? I know for a fact that the '68 428 PI and Shelby GT500 428 engine were the same and that they were hydraulic liftered. I do know that the earlier GT500 of '68 wasn't a KR which got the Cobra Jet. How about the '67 PI?
I thought the '67 428 PI was still a solid liftered engine like the '66. But I'm right now looking over at a '67 Full Size Ford/Merc shop manual that gives the cam specs for the 428PI as Lobe Lift: .278 - I & .283 - E with theoretical: .481 - L & .490 - E. Do those specs look familiar? Lets look at the '67 Shop Manual for the Mustang & Cougar. 390GT cam specs: yes indeed, exactly the same as the Ford shop manual listed for the 428PI. So that would tell me that the '67 Ford 428PI ran the 390GT cam.
Okay Fortunate Shelby owners, what camshaft did Carroll allow to be used in the '67 GT500? I had assumed it to be the exact same cam that was run in the '66 428PI. For many years I thought it was just the old trusty 306/500 cam like Mikeb told me. Is that true? Did ol'Shel just have the mechanics install a very cool C7ZX dual quad intake right on the standard '66 428PI?
I don't know why these things matter to me. They just get me thinking about these useless things and I can't stop until somebody here sets me straight.
I'm so nuts I just ended up "winning" a set of Isky FE solid lifters on Ebay! I do have an old Isky 505B, hardface thumper that will fit only old FEs '62 & back. I guess I think I need the lifters to go with it?
Thanks.
|
|  | RE: What cam are we talking about? -- Royce Peterson, 01/11/2002
Mike,
The 1966 428 Police engine (VIN code P) used camshaft P/N C3AZ 6250-T. This cam is marked with an upside down "A" followed by "AA". It is a solid lift cam and has specs of 282 / 282 advertised duration with lift at the valve of .440". The same cam was used in the 1963 thru 1965 390 Police engine. It is very mild for a solid grind in a 428, would be a pretty good grind for a performance 352.
Royce Peterson |
| |  | RE: Thank you! -- Mike McQuesten, 01/11/2002
Thanks Royce! That's what I suspected. It does look like a very mild cam. I pumped fuel into a lot of '66 Washington State Patrol Fords while working in a Shell Station. I knew they were solids but they had a very smooth idle. That's what made me quite certain they weren't cammed with the 306/500 cam.
The C3AZ-T might have been a great cam for the High Performance 390 GT that never was built. The one that would have been the "Step Up" 390 over the smooth 335 horse GT. I could never bring myself to call my 390GT a High Performance 390.
And thanks to mikeb for checking it out too. Which Off Highway Parts Publication do you have mike? |
| | | | RE: just one more ? -- Mike McQuesten, 01/11/2002
So was the C3AZ-T cam the one that the Q, er S, or ? '67 Shelby GT 500 dual quad 428 PI engine was equipped with? |
| | | | | RE: just one more ? -- Royce Peterson, 01/11/2002
Mike,
Mike,
According to the best information I have the 1967 Shelby GT 500 engines started life as 1967 "P" code, police spec 428 engines with the hydraulic cam C60Z 6250-B which is shared also with 390 GT and 428CJ applications. I am a huge fan of the 1967 Shelby GT500 engine, that was a great running 8V engine. If you can stand 6 - 10 MPG it is truly awesome as a street motor.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | RE: '67 GT500 had hydraulic cam? -- Mike McQuesten, 01/11/2002
So I was completely out of it on this one? The '67 GT500 didn't have solid lifters? I don't know why I couldn't remember if the '67 428PI had hydraulics or not. And then the '67 shop manual confirmed it. Same specs as the GT/CJ cam.
If the '67 GT500 did use the C6OZ-B cam, essentially what was offered there is a 428GT with dual fours!
It just seems that the '67 500 had solids?
Royce, what source are you using for the cam specs? I'd like to find one myself.
|
| | | | | |  | Reference materials & ramblings - long. -- Royce Peterson, 01/11/2002
Mike,
I have a book that I bought in high school titled "289 - 302-390-427-428-429 FORD PERFORMANCE GUIDE & CATALOG". It was authored by Joel Rosen and has a lot of handy data like cam specs etc. I sent $3.98 to Motion Performance in New York for it back in 1972. Most of the data appears elsewhere for example the cam specs are in the shop manual, but not the part numbers or casting marks. The part number / application data and engine tag data is from the FOMOCO illustrated parts catalog. I have a partial set from April 1968 and the complete final issue November 1975, both on paper. I find the microfiche version very clumsy.
The 1968 data is very useful to my understanding of Cobra Jet and 1967 Fairlane 427/ 1968 Cougar 427 GTE engines because the replacement parts are consolidated somewhat in the 1975 edition. The parts catalog gives extremely detailed piece by piece breakdowns of every component and it's applications so it is quite easy to know exactly which cam was used in a given application. Blocks, intakes and heads were a problem until I actually was able to find NOS examples to match up part numbers with casting numbers. So I can say with authority that a C8AZ 6049-K head is casting # C80E 6090-N for example.
A cylinder block assy C8AZ 6010-B is a 427 GTE block with casting numbers C8AE-A. These blocks are side oiler, hydraulic lifter drilled and have screw in freeze plugs. I have personally own such a block that was brand new in the box still bolted to its shipping pallet prior to my building it and installing it in my GTE. Several others have come before me for sale or owned by good friends, they are a bankable investment these days. This block was superceded by P/N C8AZ 6010 -G. These are also side oiler, hydraulic lifter blocks but were saline aged (treated?)and have cuts in the cylinder bores for tunnel port valve airflow improvement. These blocks have no casting number, only date and foundry codes. Again I found a brand new one in the original box and it is still in my possesion........
Also interesting is that in 1968 Ford cataloged complete crate replacement motors for the Cobra Jet and 427 in various versions, for example the 427 GTE engine was code 359 J. I couldn't have afforded any of them at the time and struggle to afford them now.
I also own original complete sets of all the 1968 Autolite Shop Tips, 1967 and 1968 Service Bulletins, Hot Rod Magazines from 1966 thru 1970, Car Craft for all of 1968, Motor Trend for all of 1967 and 1968 and any known issue of any other 60's magazine that features an original test on a 390, 427 or 428 Cougar like Super Stock, Playboy, and so on. I have been collecting anything Cougar since the late 1970's so virtually any advertising material, dealer catalog or brochure is probably in my collection along with the stuff I picked up at the auto shows from the late 1960's onward.
Oh, forgot to mention my complete set of Ford shop manuals from 1965 thru 1970, plus several other years from 1952 thru 1976.
Just recently I have had to relocate from California to Cincinnati, OH so some stuff is not right at my fingertips but slowly it is becoming organized again. I have some earlier stuff like Hot Rod magazine engine annuals from 1962 for example and the Hot Rod Ford Engine annual from that year but don't consider myself any kind of expert on the 352/390 HI Po or the 406 because I have not owned or studied them extensively.
Well that's enough, lets see how much controversy this will start.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | The cover's missing, but by the contents, -- mikeb, 01/11/2002
I would say 70-71. Talks about the small blocks, Clevelands, FE's 385's. 6 bangers, 1600-2000 cc 4 bangers.
Nice article on building a H/MP Maverick Six.
the cars name is Preparation H!
11 sec record holding car(back then) |
| | | | | RE: The cover's missing, but by the contents, -- Mike McQuesten, 01/11/2002
Ya, if it's talkin' about Cleve's, it's post '70. Is this a Ford publication? |
| | | | | | yeah, a reprint of Ford's Off Highway book. -- mikeb, 01/11/2002
11.sec 6 banger Maverick is interesting though!
They recommend using a 240 cid cylinder head,saying to polish the ports to a square configuration, saying they flow better than rounded ports. Hmm. Can that be extrapolated into saying maybe the FE had a better shaped port than the 385? |
| | | RE: What cam are we talking about? -- Bob, 01/11/2002
The 1966 PI cam was a solid lifter cam, had 0.525 lift (or was it 0.516 not sure as it has been thirty years). I believe it was the same cam used in the single 4 BBL 427s.
On page 39 of Supplement No. 1 of the Muscle Parts Story published by Ford in 1970, the second line in the table for cam C3AZ-6250-D shows it used in the 428 P/C [Police Cruiser] for the year 66.
The 1966 Ford shop manual, page 8-121 - about the middle of the right hand column - shows the camshaft lobe lift for the 427 and 428 Police as 0.298 which is 0.52448 with the 1.76 ratio adjustable rocker arms.
I can find no book or official reference to a 0.516 lift cam except in the NHRA specs for the 360 HP 428 in 1966 but as I recall this was the lift used for some 390-406 HP cams.
I found a reference in the 1962 Ford High Performance 406 pamphlet to a C2AZ-6250-A cam with a 276 for the '62 406 but no lift is given.
Now having said all that, I found numerous references that disagreed with much of the above. Those references are, of course, WRONG. :-) These references are often mixed in with correct data and many are obviously references to the standard 345 HP 428 but mistakenly linked to the 360 HP 428 PI engine.
Also the '67 and up 428 PI used the 390GT - 428CJ hydraulic lifter camshaft - or did they use the '67 428 PI camshaft . Well, whatever.
And that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
|
| | | | RE: stick with it Bob! -- Mike McQuesten, 01/12/2002
I've been doing a little reading tonight. Before I got back on here. Here's what I think I know. Just like you say Bob, the '67 428 PI got the GT hydraulic cam, C6OZ-B. I'm assuming the '68 428PI stuck with this cam too but I think it received a cast iron intake. I shouldn't say that because it may open a whole new can. But that's what I like and how I learn and refresh the matter.
As for the mighty Shelby GT 500, yup, it received the new & "improved?" '67 PI 428 with hydraulic GT cam. They just bolted on the C7ZX dual quad intake w/Holleys. There you are, 355 hp.
Here's something I'm looking at that does add support to your '66 shop manual source: It's S.Christ's book, page 85 where he shows cam specs. I totally forgot about this page! But there it is, the '66 428 PI having the same specs you've indicated. Same specs for the '63-'67 427. Then the '63 - '65 PI 390 cam has the milder specs that Royce indicates which are also the same for Marine apps. 352 & 390.
Now it's all straightened out for me. I'll sleep like a baby tonight.
I found page 85 in a book I've had for 18 years! |
| | | | | RE: stick with it Bob! -- Bob, 01/12/2002
Thank you. I was certain that I had it right.
I again want to say I converted a standard 4'66 428 to the solid lifter cam and ran hard for a couple of years without the old restrictions we now believe in. Drove it daily and raced it every weekend the track was open.
Either dumb luck or maybe the slightly modified pan (2 inches deeper with an extended pickup and a single baffle0 kept things alive. |
| intake manifolds ? -- LPCORDLE, 01/10/2002
I am currently building a 390 high performance for a67 Galaxie 500,the heads are completed also ported and polished, With 1.7 adjustiable roller rockers ,high lift solid cam ,and lifters double roller timing set ,new stock crank ,0.60 flat top pistons ,etc, I have a 3 duece aluminum intake also aluminum 4bbl intake which is best for this applacation? THANK YOU ! |
| | RE: intake manifolds ? -- Mike McQuesten, 01/10/2002
Which aluminum 4V intake do you have? That can be a contributing factor in making your decision.
I think this is a tough call for me anyway. It sounds like you've got the 390 well built. I like the Ford tri power system. It's easy to set up. As long as everything is in good shape, i.e., good carbs, complete linkage and a good crack free intake that hasn't been butchered.
Also which heads are you running? I ask because you want to make sure you have a good intake port to head match. If you have the C7AE or C8AE you will notice the smaller intake port on those heads. Now look at the tri power manifold's port.....not good for those heads. But if you have the C6AE-R, C4AE-G, etc. - '66 and back tall port heads,you have more intake manifold flexibility.
The most recent issue of Mustangs & FORDS has a great article about a '67 Mustang 390GT that's built with the C6AE-R heads and the Ford tri power. Worth reading.
Now if your single 4V intake is a Ford PI? With the right carb, that would be tough to beat.
|
| FE 390 build up -- MustangRacer'67, 01/10/2002
I'm building a 390 to throw into my '67 coupe, but I'm having problems finding forged internals for this engine.
And I have a 360 out of a '71 F250, will this work, or should I find a different 360/390 block?
Thanks! |
| | RE: FE 390 build up -- Bob, 01/10/2002
The onyl forged internals that you really need are forged pistons. |
| | | RE: FE 390 build up -- MustangRacer'67, 01/11/2002
Do they even make forged cranks for the FE 390? If so, where do I get one?
I have yet to find a 390 forged crank, whether I need one or not. |
| | | | RE: FE 390 build up -- Bob, 01/11/2002
The only forged cranks is the one for the 427 engine and they are expensive and hard to find. You can have a 391 truck crank cut down but this is somewhat expensive.
The forged crank weighs more so it hurts performance. Most drag racers use the standard crank. Endurance racing (500 mile or longer races) could use one but with todays lighter pistons and rods that probably isn't necessary either. |
| | | | | RE: FE 390 build up -- MustangRacer'67, 01/11/2002
Hmmm... I was hoping some one at least made an aftermarket forged crank for the 390 or 428. It really supprises me that noone makes one for the 428!! |
| | | | | | RE: FE 390 build up -- RJP, 01/11/2002
Several companys make steel cranks for FE or any other engine for that matter. Try Moldex, Crower, CSC, Scat, ect. Plan on spending about $2200. for it. |
| | | | | | | RE: FE 390 build up -- Bob, 01/11/2002
Your are correct. I was mistaken. I never consider them becuase my wallet is not that deep. |
| Carbs -- john, 01/10/2002
Two carbs.
1. Marked C5AFAA and 112 in a "clock".
2. Marked C6AA and 108 in a "clock".
What was they originaly made for? 260/289/Mustang/ Shelby or?
Would they be correct on a 66/67 GT 350.
John |
| | 'C5AF-AA' = '65 352 Galaxie/Merc; 'C6AA' = incomplete [n/m] -- Mr F, 01/13/2002
n/m |
| C6ME-A with a A in back of block is it a 390 or 42 -- nick, 01/09/2002
n/m |
| | RE: C6ME-A with a A in back of block is it a 390 or 42 -- Greg, 01/09/2002
Most likely a 428 std. But you'll need to measure bore and stroke to be positive.
|
| | | RE: C6ME-A with a A in back of block is it a 390 or 42 -- nick, 01/09/2002
could it be a PI block? |
| | | | RE: C6ME-A with a A in back of block is it a 390 or 42 -- Greg, 01/09/2002
There aren't any differences that I know of between the 428 std block and the pi block. The pi engines had an aluminum intake while the std "Q" motor sported a cast iron intake.
If I'm wrong on this someone will surely correct me.
|
| | | | | RE: '66 PI 428 is solid lifter block -- Mike McQuesten, 01/10/2002
I'm not sure on the '67 PI 428, honestly I used to know for sure...., but know for a fact that the '66 PI 428 engine was equipped with a solid lifter camshaft thus the block would be unique and not have provision for oil to the hydraulics. I've never looked at a '66 PI close enough to know how Ford did this. Either a unique block casting or factory plugs to block the oil flow? I'd like to know.
Since I'm asking that, does anyone know the specs on the '66 428 PI cam? Was it the same cam as the '65 390 PI? I know that it was mild enough to be responsive at low rpms with an automatic and high gear ratio differential. Just wondering what the cam specs were.
And my opinion on C6ME-A....I've seen them as standard run-o-the-mill 352s & 390s. Same with C7AE-A or C7AE being the original 360 in my '68 F-100. |
| | | | | | '66 428 PI cam specs -- mikeb, 01/10/2002
My source says it was mechanical, 306 duration intake/exhaust, .500 valve lift , 78 degrees overlap, and marked with a upside down triangle and a "B" between the last lobe and last journal.
1965 390 PI 282 duration intake/exhaust, .440 valve lift with 54 degrees overlap, marked with a upside down triangle and two 'A' s.
Looks like the 428 PI of '66 was the same 390/406 4v,6v 8v cam, #C3AZ-6250-D
This info came out of one of the old OFF-HIGHWAY parts books. I didn't know ford put a mechanical cam in the 428. Maybe they did or maybe they had a hydraulic one with the same specs. |
| | | | | |  | Old cop I know says the 428 PI was the -- mikeb, 01/10/2002
best running cruiser he ever had. Thats a nice compliment, as he had all makes at one time or another. |
| | | | | | | RE: '66 428 PI cam specs -- Mike McQuesten, 01/10/2002
I don't think the '66 PI used the 306 cam...? But I don't know that for sure so maybe you're right. One thing I know is that the solid lifter cam used in the 352/390/406HP engines was not the 306 cam but a 276 cam. |
| | | | | | | | Looks like a job for Shoe/perman! n/m -- mikeb, 01/11/2002
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | My info is all mixed up. -- Dave Shoe, 01/12/2002
I can't tell what cam's were used in 1966-67.
I do believe the 390GT cam was used from 1967-70, but I see indications that it may have seen some duty in 1966, too.
It's possible only the toploader 4-speed PI cars got the solids in 1966, as these were all geared at either 3.25:1 or 3.50:1. 1966 was the last year for 4-speed PI cars. The 1966 C6 428PIs got 3.00:1 or 3.25:1 rears.
A couple indications disagree on whether the '66 428PI got the same cam as the '65 390PI, and I can't tell whether this is the .440 lift/282 degree cam or the .499(.500) lift/306 degree cam. I suspect the latter cam was used in the '66 428PI, in part because octane ratings were improving yearly back then, valve spring steels were lasting longer, and the 428PI had higher compression than the 390PI due entirely to the smaller chamber in the all-new full-emissions heads of 1966.
Here's my guess, based on info provided:
Because of competition from the new Chrysler 440 police cars, and because small-runner "emissions" heads were being used, all 428PI cars got the high lift .499/306 cam at the start of 1966. After a couple months, the C6 428PIs may have been approved to use the 390GT cam, but the slow-selling toploader cars kept the solids. By 1967, the toploader was no longer offered, only 2.80:1 rears were offered in 1967, and all 428PI cars got the 390GT cam from then on. Note also the 345 horse 428 was also offered in police cars in 1967 only, but it was a step below the Interceptor and may have gone into Police Cruisers, not persuit cars. Due to lower compression and older valve spring technology, the 1963-65 390PI cars got the .440/288 cam.
Note also that all 428PI engines lost their aluminum intakes just a couple months after the 428CJ iron intake became available midyear 1968. The last couple years of 428PI engines all had iron intakes. Note also that in 1970, the 429 engine was offered in 10.5:1 2-barrel police trim, but it was a runner up to the top line 428PI.
I'd like to jump in and talk "A" and "C" blocks for a bit, but I can't right now.
Shoe.
|
| | | | | | | | | | RE: My info is all mixed up. -- Mike McQuesten, 01/12/2002
Here may be my last thoughts/words on this...right, like I'll ever shut up? As I said I pumped a lot of Shell ethyl into '66 Washington State Patrol Fords. Never did see one with a 4 speed although I know it was optional in '66. All were automatics. All had solid lifters. All were four doors too. But I have seen one two door Custom that a guy had locally that was originally a Nebraska patrol car.
Now, last year at a local swap meet here in Spokane, a guy name Buzz Rose, owner of Al & Buss Rose Wrecking Yard & Auto Repair, Helena, Montana, was offering a very genuine '66 WA State Patrol car for a very reasonable price (I think it was $3K). It was all there and unmolested but repainted over the original Nightmist Blue. It had a sticker on the inside door jam that was placed there by the State Parol in '66. It had the 140 mph speedo, C-6 automatic with the old shift pattern(Green Dot!), C6AE Aluminum intake, 4100 Autolite, open element air cleaner as per '66 but painted Ford blue like the rest of the engine, and the very cool and very rare tall pentroof valve covers with breathers as per regular engines. These of course were to accomodate the adjustable rockers. By '67 the Power by Ford became the standard. So I figure the tall pentroof covers with breathers were a 1966 only thing.
Buzz fired the car up for us and it had the wonderful sound of solid lifers clattering away. And it idled very nicely. Great car. If it had been a two door.......
He may still have it! Buzz: (406)458-5524 |
| | | | | | | | | | | My info (for what it’s worth) -- Barry B, 01/12/2002
Comparing the Ford service specs, Ford high-performance literature, Bill Carroll’s guide and other literature, they all seem to agree on this:
’65 390 PI
C3AE-T or C3AZ-T, Mech. 282* .440”
’66 428 PI
C3AZ-D, Mech. 306* .500”
’67 428 PI
C6OZ-B Hyd. 270*/290* .481”/490”
|
| | | | | | '66 pi -- Bob, 01/10/2002
I built a '66 PI and raced it back in '69-71 in my '66 7 Litre. Used the standard hydraulic block and didn't know enough to consider oil gallery mods or blocking off the lfter galleries. Just installed the solid lifter cam and ran it. It used the single 4 BBL 427 cam.
Set the Albuequerque NHRA H/Stock track record near the end of the first year and held it unti l was moved. Took the record away from '61 280 HP 283 (2x4) Corvette in doing so and that was the best part. |
| | | | | | | RE: '66 pi -- Mike McQuesten, 01/11/2002
Now we're gettin' way away from Nick's original question about a C6ME-A block. And who's fault is that? Oh right, mine. I started asking questions about camshafts. So your '66 428 was an original PI Bob?
I'm going to go start a new thread on this one. |
| | | | | | | | RE: '66 pi -- Bob, 01/11/2002
My '66 7 Litre PI was not factory. I built it from the Ford parts bin. See my reply to your new thread. |
| 427 sonic checked at .0650 -- Joshua Carroll, 01/09/2002
I have a 1965 center oiler 427 block that is bored .060 over. I had it sonic checked and the thinnest point is 65 thousands. Do I need to sleeve the block or is .065 OK? I do not want over heating problems? It is going in a street rod so reliability is important. Thanks.
Josh |
| | Ooooo, ya sure that was a 427 block... -- Dan Davis, 01/09/2002
...cuz that's way too thin. Either that or you'er a victim of a massive case of core shift. I have to say scrap a 427, but it sure looks that way. As they say, pay me now (new block or sleeves) or pay me later (broken block/low power/overheating).
I've been told that 427's were good for 0.080+ over and it looks like your's was marginal at standard bore -- 0.065 (current wall thickness) +0.060 (overbore) = 0.125 wall (original standard bore) which is the low end of acceptable.
Please refer to my earlier post on this subject...http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=9993&Reply=9993 -- this subject has cost me a lot of money over the years so learn from my experience, not someone else's hearsay!
Regards,
Dan |
| | | 0.080 over bore on a 427... -- Bob, 01/10/2002
Never heard of a 427 that could be bored much over 0.030. And 0.065 is way to thin you need a bunch of sleeves. Get ready to spend some bucks. |
| | | RE: Ooooo, ya sure that was a 427 block... -- Joshua Carroll, 01/11/2002
I am positive it is a 427. I checked the numbers, it is cross bolted, and there is no doubt. What should the minimuim cylinder wall thickness have been from the factory? I agree with your calculation of .065 + (.060 over bore) = .125! Would Ford have let this motor out the door at .125 or is there something more seriously wrong with this block? The reason it is bored 60 over is because it was built up as a drag motor in the early 70's. It dropped a valve after one run down the strip and has not been messed with since. The guy that built the motor was interested in max cubic inches! I want no heating problems and max reliability now for my street rod. Would you sleeve this block back to standard and run it in a street rod? I am just trying to figure out the next logical step. Thanks.
Josh |
| | | | You'll probably have more money than... -- Dan Davis, 01/11/2002
...it's worth if you sleeve all the cylinders, but that would work fine. Personally, I would look to sell it to a drag racer who could fill the water jackets of the block with Devcon (not good for the street driving). However, it may be too thin for that -- depends upon *where* it is too thin.
You could then pick up a 428 or even 390 block. Yeah, it's not a 427, but you will have less problems in the long run. Of course if you have lots of cash, there is always another 427 block (sonic check it first) or even the Genesis block!
FYI, in my opinion 0.125 would be OK for use in a passenger car. But it's a moot point as Ford wouldn't have checked it anyway and would have dealt with it if/when it came back for warranty. Certainly Ford would not have cared about rebuildability, just getting the product out the door.
Is this for show, go or both? Maybe we can generate some better ideas for you here.
Regards,
Dan |
| | | Bad Math Dan! -- Royce Peterson, 01/11/2002
Actually,
If the block is .060" over and the wall is .065" the original wall was only .095" because both sides get bored equally. A .060" overbore removes .030" from the wall thickness. This thing was a victim of poor quality control during manufacture.
If I had one hole with a wall thickness problem one sleeve would be the way to go. Eight sleeves is risky for a variety of reasons. One to three sleeves is my personal limit, none is of course best.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | Victim of cheap boring. -- Dave Shoe, 01/11/2002
Since the bore center is about 4.63, and the bore is about 4.23, there is only .400 between cylinders on a new 427 block. With a 1/8" drill bit between the bores, there is only .275" of metal remaining, divided between two cylinders you've got .135" each wall.
Since core shift of .030" can be considered miraculously small in all eight cylinders, it's not tough for a stock bore 427 block to have a wall of .105" or more. Bore it .060" over and you've got .075". This is not a good number to be racing with.
Offset boring would have been one good solution, as it allows the thin wall to receive a minimal cut, while cutting more from the thicker wall. Not many shops do this, and if you bring the block to a regular shop, they're just gonna bore down the center.
A sonic map will let you know what course of action should have been taken in prior borings of the block. Mapping after the bore can be painful and expensive.
You should give us more numbers from the map. .065" is too small for me to play with without more info. You should let us know whether it's got round water jackets or cloverleafed jackets, and also what the various cylinder thickness numbers look like, in particular whether the weak numbers are on the major thrust, minor thrust, or non-thrust surfaces, and what the numbers look like on the opposite face of the cylinder from the thin spots.
Also, how do you intend to drive it. Weekend track brawls (what brackets), or daily driving (what brackets). Compression, cam, and RPM plans also fit into the formula. Invariably, .065" is scary, though.
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: Victim of cheap boring. -- Joshua Carroll, 01/14/2002
Shoe,
You are right as normal. I will get and post the sonic map by the end of the week. This way we can try to determine what the best plan of attack is. Once again the fe tech form rocks and I really appreciate the help!
Thanks,
Josh |
| | | | Duh. Thanks Royce! [n/m] -- Dan Davis, 01/11/2002
nm |
| What's a good carb for a 360? -- John Boggs, 01/08/2002
360 with a stock 4 bbl manifold currently with a Holley 4bbl-4160 I think.
Carb is about shot-what's a good daily driver carb for this setup?
Thanks.
J. Boggs |
| 390 exhaust man. -- blake, 01/08/2002
does anyone out there know if a 1967 352 exhaust manifolds are the same as a 1966 390 4v exhaust manifolds? |
| | RE: 390 exhaust man. -- Bob, 01/08/2002
The 352-390 manifolds for the big Ford cars are the same from the early sixties until they quit putting these engines into them, 1969 I think. |
| | RE: 390 exhaust man. -- Barry B, 01/08/2002
If it’s really a ’67 352 then it came off a truck, last year for cars was ’66. That being said, the truck manifolds are a little different than the passenger cars. The driver’s side may work but the passenger side outlet comes straight out instead of angling down. |
| Cyclone -- Mac, 01/08/2002
i got a 69 cyclone dunno if im getting a 460 or a 427 either way i want 700-750 HP my dad says he might need to build a sub frame cause of all the torque this true? |
| | How does dad define a "subframe?" -- Gerry Proctor, 01/08/2002
If your referring to subframe connectors, then that wouldn't be enough to keep the body from twisting itself in half. If dad intends a full cage that ties the front and rear, then probably. But it depends on if you're really going to really be making enough torque to produce 750 hp and how you're going to attempt to use that much torque. I think you're underestimating how heavily you have to modify an engine to make that much power ;-) |
| | | RE: How does dad define a "subframe?" -- Mac, 01/08/2002
cant be that hard for a big block 427's at the cobra shop get that much on there high risers and tunnel ports and im sure i can get that much with a 460 but id rather have a 427 |
| | | | RE: How does dad define a "subframe?" -- Mac, 01/08/2002
oh and subframe like a complate sub frame |
| | | | Get ready to spend $25,000..or more.. -- kevin, 01/08/2002
if you want those kind of #'s. It is not as easy as you may have heard to do it "right" so you are'nt dragging parts off the track. Now a 385 is easier and cheaper to get there, but to each his own. As far as "frame" work goes there is a lot that has to be done other than just subframe connectors. Here goes another $10,000 easily. Unless you have a tubing bender, a finger brake, and lots of other fabrication tools and skills, you will pay. Look up Rick Jones Race Cars and get some ideas. I will tell you that on a 68 Ranchero that I was drag racing a long time ago, that as soon as I fabricated the connectors and welded them in, The clutch immediately went south it hooked so hard as compared to before. |
| | | | | RE: Get ready to spend $25,000..or more.. -- Mac, 01/08/2002
yes we have all the tools |
| | | | | | RE: Get ready to spend $25,000..or more.. -- Bob, 01/08/2002
Mac, Are you the same guy that is headed east to find all the 427's in the junkyards? |
| | | | | | | RE: Get ready to spend $25,000..or more.. -- Mac, 01/08/2002
head im going with a guy he searches for 351c 4v heads i figure ill go with and look for 427's he goes abut 1 time a month all year |
| | | | | | | | Junk Yard 427's -- Royce Peterson, 01/08/2002
Mac,
Here's how to find one the easiest way:
Get a really good education. Then go to work for a Fortune 500 company and try to work your way into management. That's a lot easier than searching the Junk Yards for a 427. I have spent a lot of time in Junk Yards over the past 25 - 30 years and finding a 410 or 428 is something that only happened a couple times. And when it did, the owner knew what it was and wouldn't sell for anything like the going rate. So just save your money for the day you find a good 427 for sale and then pounce before it gets away. They are really hard to find.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Junk Yard 427's -- Mac, 01/08/2002
i dont mind paying good money for one i can seem to find any for sale |
| | 700-750hp -- Ed Foral, 01/08/2002
Unless you want to call up Shelby or DOVE and order a new block, stick with a 460 based engine.
You can put one, fitting the bill, in for less than $10,000.
It is not a big deal, with a cage, making your Cyclone handle the power.
Ed |
| | | RE: 700-750hp -- Mac, 01/09/2002
dang alright thanks guys are talkin 10k for the motor?
orfor cage and all that |
| | | | RE: 700-750hp -- Ed Foral, 01/09/2002
The 514 stroker crate motor makes 600HP from Ford Racing. That motor could be duplicated for a bunch less than the near $7000 list price. You then can spray it with a 200 shot N2O system.
You should be able to put the cage and the other suspension stuff for less than $1500 including springs.
By the time you bolt your engine in, and give it spark, you will have spent the $10,000.
What isn't included is any transmission and diff. work.
Ed |
| | | | | RE: 700-750hp -- Mac, 01/09/2002
yeah im not buy ing a new block and i wont use Nos or a Blower im gettign 700-750 with out them |
| | | | | | RE: 700-750hp -- Ed Foral, 01/10/2002
You can do it on the engine, but plan on spending $3000+ on the heads, and not driving it on the street much.
Ed |
| | | | | | | RE: 700-750hp -- Tom, 01/10/2002
i plan on buying the Motorsport Cobra Jet Heads |
| | | | | | | | FRPP CJ Heads -- Ed Foral, 01/10/2002
That is going to be tough without a power adder unless you do some serious massaging $ of those heads. They are not intended to support that level of power.
A460 or Blue Thunder would be a better fit.
Ed |
| This is what a non-crossbolted 427 looks like: -- Dave Shoe, 01/08/2002
shoe.
 |
| | | This is part of Davy Gurley's collection. -- Dave Shoe, 01/08/2002
shoe.
 |
| | | | Note the six undrilled crossbolt bosses. -- Dave Shoe, 01/08/2002
shoe.
 |
| | | | | And the snug fit between the cylinder jackets. -- Dave Shoe, 01/08/2002
shoe.
 |
| | | | | | Are what make this block the real deal. -- Dave Shoe, 01/08/2002
shoe.
 |
| | | | | | | Uhhhh Ohhhhhh, time to bake some crow ! :-) -- P, 01/08/2002
Dave, you've thrown gasoline on the fire!
I've had claws in my back on a few occasions about the "two bolt main" 427 engines that have "supposedly" been out there, and now you post what sure looks like "PROOF".
What this does, of course, is to cast a shadow of doubt on the fact that "Ford never put a 2-bolt hydraulic 427 into the 390-HP Cougar". I think using the word "never" would be a bit too confident now, just for the sake of argument, of course. As some of you know, I've got some old articles collected in the 60's and 70's that make note of the 2-bolt 427, and I've been told that this is the result of a journalist who is trying to use a wrench. Since I respect this point of view about a journalist with a wrench, I've figured that they must have been wrong, but how did the "myth" get started in the first place??
Due to what (little) research I've done over the years, primarily on marine applications, I've seen a lot of strange hybrids show up in industrial/irrigation and marine applications that companies like Trojan, Chris Craft, Higgins, and Century, just to name a few, managed to get their hands on. I've got a buddy with what appear to be "twin industrial crate engines" in a Trojan, and to the best of our ability, we think they're 390's but won't probably know for sure until they're torn down. The 427 blocks that were only bored to 390 specs are also interesting hybrids. With all the hybrids out there that never show up in the record or specifications books, I always thought it was more than possible for Ford to have produced a 2-bolt 427 as well as a 4-bolt 390.
Also due to my (limited) research, I see lots and lots of information in period publications that people these days just don't seem to know about any more, or remember. This adds to the fun, and the forensic discovery you've posted. It's kind of like discovering Bigfoot in person, and finally having something to talk about other than the probability.
Thanks for the info. Royce, you know I can't let this one go by without a friendly poke in the ribs! The crow is a bit greasy so I'd suggest a red wine. (I know this from experience! :-)
P, Nashvegas, TN |
| | | | | | | | Caw. Caw. Ha. Ha. -- kevin, 01/08/2002
OK Dave I am hungry! Now in my post I forgot to mention Irrigation, Industrial types and stated the remark about the screw in core plugs. Now I had a brass screw in true S.O. block that I junked, took out the plugs, natch but never saw what it came out of. I am quite sure that there were application's other than CARS that had the press ins. I see that you have a 4 bolt mount there and wonder why you did not post the date as you are usually thorough about this. The one two bolt mount, two bolt main I saw was taken out of a wrecked Canadian car in 1970 and it was a 63 4-V engine. The block is in a Colorado junkyard (maybe still) after the owner I built it for (447) drove off the side of a mountain in his 57 Ranchero (black) for those of you who want to keep your eyes open, if its not crushed after 30 years, LOL. The second was a 68 side oiler "W" code Cyclone and it had 14 bolt heads and smog pump and "GT" style exhaust manifolds with a P.I. intake. It had chrome "Powered By Ford" valve covers, chrome open element filter, automatic and was orange with the white stripe and the 427 "lenghtwise" emblems on it. I, at the time did not buy it cause I was wanting a crossbolt car if I was going to shell out the big bucks for it. This car was a new car that the local Lincoln Mercury dealer had got for his wife. I did get her 67 "K" code GTA that had all the options, but that is irrelavent. I never mentioned this before as I saw the dogfight about all the non crossbolt blocks and that no 427's were ever put in anything but a Cougar. I had a very knowledgable friend tell me his brother had bought a new 68 Mustang with one in it but I never saw it so I cant say much about it, other than he described it perfectly. I have no idea what kind of pull at the factory it took to get what you wanted if you were a bigwig but I'm sure there were those with that kind of influence. I would like some more information if you have it on the use of 427's in PT boats in the 60's. I know that the Chevy's took over but have limited info about the Ford's. |
| | | | | | | | | 427 2-bolt mains -- Travis Miller, 01/08/2002
While the block Shoe has pictured proves to us that they do exist, at local dragstrips, round tracks, and truck pulls around the country enterprizing racers who used to claim 360, 390, or something else would delete the crossbolts and putty up the sides of the block where the holes were. This was a trick that many cheaters got away with for years. A 427 will run fine without the crossbolts. I am sure that the ones who did get caught never admitted to deleting the crossbolts. They probably just said they bored the 390 out to 427, so no one would put a magnet down on the side of the block and catch their trick. |
| | | | | | | | | 427 Mustang is an urban legend... -- Dan Davis, 01/08/2002
unless it was dealer installed. Kevin Marti's database shows for certain that none were built by the Ford factory.
Being around boats all my life, I do know that 427s were common in Chris-Craft cruisers although I do not know what "flavor."
Shame about that Ranchero and boy would I love to get my hands on that Cyclone :^)!
Cheers,
Dan |
| | | | | | | No passenger car came with one. Numbers Please! -- Royce Peterson, 01/08/2002
Dave,
Nice pictures. This one certainly has the inner webs of a 427 but externally is made to look like any other FE. What's the date code and is there a casting #? Looks like a great cheater motor for late 1960's match racing. Was it in a pump motor or oil field generating unit or what?
My engine builder showed me a "two bolt" 427 engine at his shop. It started life as a 406 but the cylinder walls were plenty thick enough to bore it to 4.231" and using a 428 crank it now is 448 CI. Casting was C3AE. No provisions for cross bolts but oddly enough it was drilled for hydraulic lifters! Once again, mistakes like these prove only that Ford made use of everything. Crow? Don't think so.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | | It tastes like chicken.......... :-) ........n/m -- P, 01/08/2002
|
| | | | | | | | I believe two to six GT-E Cougars did. -- Dave Shoe, 01/08/2002
I don't recall the numbers, but I recall speaking to a Cougar owner who had some familiarity with the rumored 2-bolt 427s. Ther were not at all common, but this person had first-hand info on from two to six Cougar 427s with two bolt mains. He may have owned one, but my memory is a bit foggy on the details. The discussion took place in the forums - I don't recall if it was also carried to email.
I've got his name in my archives, but am a bit too swamped with another FE project these days to do much searching.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | What about numbers on the block? -- Royce Peterson, 01/08/2002
Dave,
If you know his name I have his phone number if he ever has owned a GTE. What about those numbers on the block?
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | | | | I dont know Dave... -- kevin, 01/09/2002
I dont see a relief valve, nor the counterbored main saddle for oil to line up with the bearing. I would like a close up cause it is borderline on the image that I see. If it has the 1/8th" drill bit trick, that proves a thick wall. I bored 406's .100 to get that. At least that Canadian motor had the valve and reliefs. I still have the crank, rods & pistons. According to some my Shelby does not exist, (thats fine by me). I only relayed what I observed, and dont care about it if it is an "impossibility". I dont believe in ghosts, astrology, voodoo, god, (did god invent man or did man invent god?) or life after death, but I can't prove it does not exist. We are waiting for a date casting cause it is an interesting subject irregardless. |
| | | | | | | | | | | Date codes are pending. -- Dave Shoe, 01/09/2002
I requested date codes and other markings when I received the photos late Sunday (Jan 6), but also advised I was in no rush.
I'm sure not gonna rush someone that sends cool photos like this. They're proof positive for me that such an animal existed out in the irrigation fields of Texas, and I presently have no reason to believe the production line at the Dearborn Engine Plant would stop if it ran short on a couple sets of crossbolted caps for a hydraulic cammed 427 car engine, thus substituting plain (but "brinnel marked" nodular) caps instead. Not many engine plant employees could be found bowing to the god of thermactor-emissions equipped "race(?)" engines back in early 1968.
I can wait for the sequel (casting info). Until then, I like these photos a bunch.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | Good stuff Dave -- P, 01/09/2002
This is a "forensic" approach to the subject matter, now that the trail is so cold.
Ovens are warm on each side of the issue!
P |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: Good stuff Dave -- Davy Gurley, 01/10/2002
I had a little time this evening so I ran out and looked at two of these non-crossbolted 427 blocks. They were both date stamped '6C11' and had 12 DIF cast into the left bank. The only one that I could see the back of the block had 66-427 with a big 'H' scratched on it. I will try to get more specific info this weekend on the other two blocks. Enjoy the crow. Davy |
| | | | | | | | | | | Crow -- P, 01/11/2002
Davy,
Just as a point of information, if you keep posting factual information like this, along with the info Dave Shoe and some others have posted, I won't be the one eating the crow (this time anyway). You see, I've already voluntarily eaten crow on this very subject, and now it appears that it was eaten prematurely. At least I had some red wine with it at the time (tasted a bit like chicken).
I've been "instructed" in the past that "Ford never built such a motor", but yet here they are! I've been "instructed" that "Ford never put such a motor in this and that car", yet there's some credible information to the contrary, including articles in credible publications to the contrary. This Forum's own tech pages make reference to the fact that crossbolted mains did not appear on some of the 427 blocks. That seems to back up the "myth" of the 2-bolt 427 prett strongly. Now that we have people sending in serial numbers and photos of em, guess I'll believe the guy who has one.
Knowing that Ford did a LOT of things that never made it to the reference books, makes the reference books somewhat ineffective when you're looking at something like this. This is especially true on low volume high performance applications. The 427 Cobra, for instance, was sold to a lot of unsuspecting buyers with a 428 motor.
The consumption of crow around here is voluntary, only time will tell........................!!
:-)
P |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Crow -- R Shannon, 01/11/2002
I heard back in the late 60s that some of the Country Squire wagons in 66/67 could of had these 427 motors instead of the 428s depending on what was available coming down the line. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Crow -- Davy Gurley, 01/11/2002
This is for 'P' and all others.. I am only showing what I have in my shop. I am not claiming to be an expert on this subject but I brought this up for all of us to learn from. We need to learn to grin and bear it when someone pokes us in the ribs. I, too, have tasted crow and have been seen with my foot in my mouth more than once and have lived through it. I will continue to get numbers (and more photos) as time allows, for us to all look at. Pass the red wine....... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Crow -- Bob, 01/11/2002
I'd prefer white wine when I have to eat crow. And I have several times.
I believe that the midnight crews in the Ford Foundry liked to make weird combinations and see what they could get past Quality Control just for the fun of it.
And the machinists and engine assembly guys liked to see just what weird stuff they could make/glue together for fun also.
They proably had betting pools about whether certain combinations would be caught by QC and laughed it up thinking about how guys like us would go crazy trying to figure out just what was actually made. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Raven's watchful eye... -- kevin, 01/12/2002
OK, now that the date code is in, how about the jury! I did not want to say anything before, but that block has hydraulic lifters! This would mean it was cast two years before any known hydraulic 68 side oiler. I dont think employees really gave a damn about anything other than getting the hell out of work, same as most shops anywhere. Use whatever you have to, to get the order filled can be a logical point. I was appalled at what I saw in the shops and did not want to be a "shoppee" the rest of my life. This can only conclude in my mind (until I hear more) that for industrial use on low po, low rpm motors like these, Ford offered some stock hydraulic cammed, (no not the GT profile either) lug motors with nothing more than a more durable block casting to equipment manufacturers. I bet this block was bored over from its original 4.13 configuration as a 428 by a previous owner (again that is JMO) If you can tell us more on its history Mr. Gurley, please do. Ford would not use a forged piston in a 427 irrigation motor due to the forged piston needing the extra operating clearance and the fact that cast pistons have a longer life span as per the ring groove wear on forged is too great. I want to hear more on this as it is a variable can of worms. I do have a 428 block that a neighbor bought. It came in his new 66 motorhome. It is a date code of May 65 and is the earliest one I can think of. It has thick walls too. One thing, I have a digital camera now and will be able to post some pics for you all coming up. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Question about your 428. -- Dave Shoe, 01/12/2002
Does your 428 have the side oiler channel running down the side of the block?
I've seen plenty of lo-po FEs with the sideoiler "figure-8" on the tail, but never yet have seen a non-427 with the side-oiler channel running down the drivers side.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | Dave, stick with the facts. -- Royce Peterson, 01/12/2002
What we have now that the date codes are known is a block that could probably have started life as a 428 with exceptionally thick cylinder walls and an accidental bottom end core set from a 427. It certainly has nothing to do with any GTE Cougar. As I have said many times in the past, the GTE 427's were all cross bolted and used screw in core plugs. The earliest ones were cast in August 1967 and we have date codes found in un - molested original owner cars which go as late as January 1968. While my personal opinion can be changed if there are facts which prove me wrong, so far none have been presented other than rumor or hearsay.
Maybe now that we have the date codes you could start saying that 1966 Fairlane 427's were actually 2 bolt hydraulic motors. (sarcasm intended)
Royce Peterson
No crow, just facts. |
| | | | | | | | | | If I only posted facts, I'd rarely ever post. -- Dave Shoe, 01/12/2002
Fortunately, plenty of others can offer facts, so these forums offer a value anyway.
I may sound like I'm presenting "production line" facts, but that's just my writing style. I'm actually presenting "post facto" information. Bit's of info mixed with opinion and irony.
I'm honestly not prepared to completely believe anybody on the GT-E front, but I do hold out hope, and I continue to keep my eyes open, for a two-bolter 427 sighting. I believe the person I spoke to ran an established GTE registry or something similar, so the story had some weight to it. Until I speak to the right Engine Plant machinist (This was not a foundry anomaly), or inspect one of these GT-Es myself, I won't know for sure.
In the future, if perple request genuine facts on this topic, I'll be sure to refer them to you. Thanks for the update.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | | | Opinions should be based on fact to be respected. -- Royce Peterson, 01/12/2002
Here are all the GTE registrar's names since its inception:
Jim Rakowsky
Tom Cherry
Randy Marble
Jim Pinkerton
All of these gentlemen are available for interview, and I have spoken to all personally. The registry has been in my grasp during Randy Marble's tenure and more recently at Jim Pinkerton's house. I have viewed every page of it and have access to any of it. Should you ever have a chance to go to Seattle I would be glad to arrange for you to go through the information. It is quite overwhelming at first but any questions are quickly answerable. Kevin Marti's information was purchased for all the cars a few years ago by Jim Pinkerton and really cleared up a lot of rumor and speculation.
This forum wouldn't be any fun if we all agreed upon everything would it?
Visit the GTE registry at:
www.theclassiccougarnetwork.com/gte
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Shoe, that motorhome block.... -- kevin, 01/12/2002
was neither a side oiler casting, or a triple web block. It did feature the thick walls. How thick? I dont know until I get back north. It was run at .040 last and was tooling that turd around the country. I only wanted to let you know that the thick wall deal can extend beyond the norm (whatever that is lol). Now I have owned, new in crate, a 360 that has the full configured sde oiler passage and have seen many others like it with thick walls. No big deal until you need a 4.23 block for the racecar and it gets used, (bored). There are plenty of blocks still out there that we have never discovered and a whole lot more that were melted by now i'm sure. So now if eveyone will start to check out the castings more carefully in the yards before they are gone, we will all benefit. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | funny blocks and other odds and ends. -- hawkrod, 01/13/2002
all i can say is WOW! i just stumbled on this forum tonight and was looking around and saw this post and the other about a C6 block with the A on the back and started reading as i have an odd motor in my garage and lo and behold i saw my name referenced in one of the posts! what a small world we live in. i will have to agree i have never found a documented original GTE with anything but a 4 bolt block but since i am very aware that odd things happen (i'll get to that in a minute) i will never say never with any degree of certainty. i will say i believe ford INTENDED the GTE to have crossbolts. now that being said i saw an NOS C8WZ 427 engine assembly on a pallet that was not crossbolted but had screw in plugs but it had a 71 date code. i have seen several marine engines (i live on the pacific and we have fishing fleets here) that were supposed to be 427's that were not crossbolted (and i never checked now i am wondering). and to muddy the waters i have in my possesion the oddest 428 i have ever seen. in 1988 i was down rumaging auto wreckers along the mexican border in the imperial valley california. the first great find of the day was a 63 mercury squire wagon with an unmolested P code engine (390 police solid lifter)! the 390 was so virgin that it still had original plug wires! then i spotted a q code 67 bird and grabbed the shortblock. the wrecker pulled the engines and i went back to pick them up and got the shock of my life. the 428 had bolts on the side and the 427 mark in the back as well as the undrilled oil passage. i popped the pan and it was crossbolted and had PI rods. the block is dated jan 67 and is a C7ME block and has a big P on the back (i assume police?) it does not have screw in plugs but after seeing the pics i have to go pull a plug and see how close the cylinders are (might need a visit to a boring bar now!) i figure it was cast with 427 cores and was going down the line somebody saw the bosses and drilled them and then somebody else saw the holes and slapped caps on it and.... who knows how many beers they had that day at lunch. i saved it as the basis of a race motor for my CJ cougar although i have often thought of selling it to a shelby guy because of the 67 date code. my next thought is although these must be rare (i have only heard reliable reports of a couple of others) how many of these blocks found their way into shelbys to spawn the myth of 427 GT-500's? you see bolts outside you assume 427 inside right? well i hope this doesn't start my dining a'la black fowl but i am glad i found this place. tom cherry AKA hawkrod |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: funny blocks and other odds and ends. -- Davy Gurley, 01/13/2002
Well I just spent some time going ove these 427 industrial blocks. They are not crossbolted , see pictures in earlier thread, or drilled for sideoiling. They were delivered with hydralic lifters and double bump pistons. Now bear with me while I give you some details. Block #1 (pictured above)- Casting no. C7AF-A, Date cast- 7C3, Stamped in boss below #5 cyl.-7D12, "HP" stamped into front of block just to the right of lower left front cover bolt, 12 DIF cast into left side along with 'E' and clock @ 10, 32 over 325 in front of block, 352 over 38 cast into block in lifter galley, 66-427 cast in back of block with big 'V' scratched in casting. Block #2 (engine assembled) Casting no. C5AE-H, Date cast- 6B11, Stamped into boss under #5-6L20 7, "P" stamped into block just to the right of lower front cover bolt, 12 DIF and W with clock pointing at 9:30 on left bank, 25 over 352 cast in front, 66-427 with large H scratched into back of block. Block #3- C5AE-H casting no., date cast-6C11, Stamped into boss under #5- 7D3 -8, 'W' and clock casting pointing at 8 on left bank, 66-427 with 'H-1' scratched into back of block, C2AE main caps. Block 4(engine assembled and installed in 66 F-100)- Casting no. C7AE-A,, date casting unreadable, Stamping on boss under #5 - 7D4 V. I don't make any claims as to knowing what this all means but I do know that what I have reported is correct. I reported the other day that blocks 1 and 2 had 6C11 date casting, but after getting some good light and a cleaning rag we found out different. We initially had 6 of these, one went to happy hunting grounds and the other was sold and installed in a pickup. It still had the DATA plate on it. I will get the information as I can. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Welcome, Tom - interesting info. Got any photos? [n/m] -- Mr F, 01/13/2002
n/m |
| | | And the close proximity of the water jackets. -- Dave Shoe, 01/08/2002
shoe.
|
| | | | Are what make this block the real deal. -- Dave Shoe, 01/08/2002
shoe.
|
|