Skip Navigation Links.
 |  390 overbore -- Tom, 12/12/2001
ok there was this guy ot a 390 to 427 bore dont know where he went what i wanna know now is if i take 390 overbore it sleeve it and make it 427 bore and 427 crank cam heads intake and whatnot will i have a 427 with no problems then can i get the 650-600 HP i want |
|  | RE: 390 overbore -- Gerry Proctor, 12/12/2001
The only thing you will get trying to get a 4.23 bore out of a 4.05 block is about $5.00 in scrap metal. You couldn't make 20-horsepower with this engine. |
| | | RE: 390 overbore -- Tom, 12/12/2001
oh even ifi slevved it after wards |
| | | | Won't matter what you do. -- Gerry Proctor, 12/12/2001
It's time to let this notion of making a 427 go, Tom. It just isn't going to happen no matter what scheme you imagine. If you want a 427, you're going to have to buy one. |
| | | | | RE: Won't matter what you do. -- Terry, 12/15/2001
Gerry is right Tom,who ever told you could get a 427 out of a 390 is a great story teller. |
| | | | | | But you CAN make a 428 -- T1m, 12/15/2001
I believe that's true, if you get a 428 crank and bore out the cylinders to the right diameter. Not sure what it is. But I hear about people doing this all the time. So why not go that route Tom?
I'm right about that aren't I everyone? |
| | | | | | | That's very block-dependant, -- Paul M, 12/15/2001
making a 428 out of a 390. Majority of 390's weren't meant to be bored .080 over, and .060 over is pushing your luck. Best blocks for doing this with seem to be the FT391 truck blocks. ( DT4E, I think) They are cast heavier, and genereally can take more of a beating. Only problem is making the distributor fit. You'll need to make a bushing to fit into the block, as the FT's dizzy is bigger in diameter than the FE's.
Search back through the archives, and you'll find Dave Shoe, as well as others, shed quite a bit of light on the subject, as well as some easy ways to check if you have a good candidate block. |
| | | | | | |  | RE: That's very block-dependant, -- Bob, 12/15/2001
The 390's bore is 4.05, the 428's is 4.13. A few blocks will bore out the additional 0.080 but not always and certainly not always on 8 cylinders.
Have the engine sonic checked so you know that you have enough wall thickness to support the bore you want. Anything else is just a waste of time and money. |
 | Sonic testing & overboring an FE (long) -- Dan Davis, 12/12/2001
The attached pic shows the results from a sonic test of the RH bank of a 428 cylinder block that has been bored 0.40" over (4.17" bore). Sonic test measurements are taken at four locations around the bore, and at three different depths (approximately the top, the middle and the bottom of the bore).
First off, the measurements have to be examined carefully. Not every data point is a valid representation of the actual block thickness at that particular location. Sometimes a localized pit in the cylinder wall, or a flake of rust inside the water jacket can lead to a thickness measurement which is completely out of bed with the other measurements in the same vicinity. Such erroneous data points have to be filtered out in order to ascertain an average wall thickness in the region.
To get a truly accurate map of the wall thickness around each cylinder would require that many more data points be measured and probably that each point be measured two or three times and the results averaged out. But this would be prohibitively expensive. All we are really trying to do here is figure out what a safe bore size is for a rebuild.
It is important to remember how increasing the bore size will reduce the cylinder wall thickness. The meat between the cylinder bores will be reduced by an amount equal to the increase in bore size creating more localized heat. However, the rest of the cylinder wall will only be reduced by half of the increase in bore size.
It is also important to consider exactly where block thickness is critical and about how the thickness of the cylinder walls affects block integrity and overall performance. In the world of maximum performance (engines putting out 600 HP and up), the general consensus is that the minimum cylinder wall thickness should be above 0.180" - 0.200". In the world of street performance engines (350-450 HP) engines can remain happy with 0.140" - 0.160". I've seen a few "grocery-getter" rebuilds that have taken it down to 0.100" without any problems, but that seems extreme.
But where is the thickness most important? Certainly it is important in the region between the cylinder bores. If for no other reason than that there must be sufficient meat to absorb and transfer the heat generated by combustion.
Things like block flex are probably not an issue at the power levels (<500) most of us will achieve, but this does not mean that the cylinders can be made paper thin. The cylinders must still contain the pressures of combustion. Also, as the pistons move down on the expansion stroke they exert a force on the outside of the cylinder wall. This force is proportional to rod angularity, thus on big stroke engines the side loading on the cylinder walls is increased. So on a 3.98" stroke 428 engine one might want to play it conservatively with the thickness of the cylinders. 390s and 427s would be put less loading on this region.
Fortunately, in this regard the 428 block (this one anyway) appears to be thickest on the outside of the cylinder walls. Unfortunately, it is thinnest between the cylinders. This area therefore is the limiting situation in determining how far one can go when over-boring the block. Even going to 0.30" over would leave these regions at around 0.120" with an offset bore. This is at the extreme lower limit of what most engine builders find acceptable, and it is only over a small area of the total cylinder. Going too large in this region might lead to bore distortion during the expansion stroke. This can cause blow-by (and an associated loss in power) and it can also cause premature wear via piston scuffing due to localized hot spots.
Ultimately when deciding how big to go with an over-bore on an FE, you should sonic check the block and make a plan to offset bore the block to get the most uniform cylinder walls as possible. Offset boring seems to be a necessity on the FE as this 428 block was marginal at best before the overbore and scrap now.
Cheers,
Dan
 |
|  | RE: Sonic testing & overboring an FE (long) -- Gerry Proctor, 12/12/2001
Most of your thrust-side numbers look pretty good, Dan. Although I would agree that some of the walls are a little thin between the bores. That block must have had some massive core shift. I'd not be too hasty to consider the block scrap, but I guess it depends on how many 428 blocks you have laying around. |
| | Unreal! -- Orin, 12/12/2001
I am truely amazed at the new things I learn here every day -- and it's free.
Is this a great forum, or what?
Thanks Dan, thanks Allen.
|
| | | Thans Orin. This problem is near to my heart... -- Dan Davis, 12/12/2001
...as I went through a few years back while racing offshore powerboats. The configuration was 4.060 bore and 3.5625 stroke for 369 inches (class limit was 370).
We blew through the walls of two different 350 4 bolt (aka 010) Chevy (sorry) blocks during the course of one season. We were making about 650HP and the stock blocks simply couldn't take it. Luckily Chevy (sorry) had special "BowTie" blocks available from their NASCAR program. The only real difference between the BowTies and the 010s were the thicker walls .
FYI, the measure wall thickness on the 010 blocks we were using was in the .140-.160 range.
Cheers,
Dan |
| | | | RE: Thans Orin. This problem is near to my heart... -- Ray, 12/12/2001
Heres something that might help to keep your engine together a lot longer, even with thin walls. One use a longer rod, no less than a 6.25 for chevy 1.75 rod ratio or more if you can.This help unload the cylinder walls because it moves the pin higher up into the piston and has better rod angle! And for my fords, it goes with out saying I will follow these rules. I will go a step further after sonic checking, I will use block fill up to 3" from top of the deck to stiffin those cylinder walls. The oil and water heat stays about the same, but make sure you have a good oil cooler and radiator. Thin O.K. to point. and that magic number .120 . Just one other thing, you want to live Then Balance It but thats another story. |
| | | | | Good points! But I wouldn't fill anything other... -- Dan Davis, 12/12/2001
...than a drag racing only block. With a street engine or any form of endurance racing application that will also lead to problems. In my experience anyway.
FYI, I was using a 6.000" Carillo rod in those Chevys.
Cheers,
Dan |
| | RE: Sonic testing & overboring an FE (long) -- garrett, 12/12/2001
Dan,
Thanks for the amazing amount of info in your post. I still have a few questions that I hope you can answer.
In your post, you say "The meat between the cylinder bores will be reduced by an amount equal to the increase in bore size creating more localized heat. However, the rest of the cylinder wall will only be reduced by half of the increase in bore size." If I read that correctly, the front and rear of the cylinder is bored .040, but the outside and inside is .020 over? Am I understanding correctly?
It is my understanding that the symptoms of the thin walls would be the engine running hot. At the bottom of the cylinders where it is most often the thinnest, would heat still be an issue, if there's oil splash down there as well? Are there any other symptoms that would result from this wall thickness?
In your opinion, would sleeving be a viable option? That could put the block back at stock bore, but would it hurt reliability and integrity of the block? I'd also have to find out how much it would cost.
And if they sonic checked the block before they bored it like i wanted, they would've been able to see the core shift and offset bore it safely, correct?
thanks again, you've been an awful great help.
garrett |
| | | RE: Sonic testing & overboring an FE (long) -- Bob, 12/12/2001
If that had spomic checked it then then could have/should have offset bored the cylinders.
If your work order asked for sonic checking then they should put sleeves in those cylinders that are now sub standard and that would have been OK with the offset boring. JMO. |
| | | That was a cumbersome way of saying... -- Dan Davis, 12/12/2001
...that the "places of combustion" will be closer to each other generating more heat. This is different from when the bores are not next to each other -- they are then simply that much closer to water. Sorry, sometimes I get into "engineer speak."
The least troublesome symptom of thin walls is the inability to keep the temperature regulated (i.e., overheating). This can be localized, which is worse 'cuz you don't necessarily know that it is happening. Oil splash can help, but likely not. The other effects of thin walls are the inability of the rings to seal (bore distortion) and catastrophic wall failure (the dam* thing breaks!).
They do sleeve even racing blocks. If the sleeve is properly installed, it will be reliable. But if it were me, I would hold out for a different block because of the variables it introduces.
In my humble opinion, if they would have sonic checked it first, they would have seen the core shift. However, keep in mind that even with an offset bore, the rear of #2 cylinder would still be at the bare minimum wall thickness as it came from the factory (from Ford, that block was .122, .101, .108). Between cylinders, I would really like to see .140 as the lower limit. One can stretch that limit on the inside walls, the front wall of #1/5 and back walls of #4/8., but .100 would be the absolute minimum and only for less than 25% of the circumfrence. If you are trying to make some HP(500+), .150+ is required.
Cheers,
Dan |
| Opinions on my 428 Sonic Test -- garrett, 12/12/2001
Hey guys, I need some opinions on this...I got the sonic test results for my C6ME-A 428 block back today, and I need some input. They only checked cylinders 1-4 so far, and they want my OK before they do the other bank. Some of the numbers seem really low, .078, .083, etc. What do you guys recommend? What would you do if it was your block? It's gonna be a street motor w/ roller cam, roller rockers, C1AE-A heads and a tripower intake. Just something to haul my Edsel around, maybe I'll visit the 1/4 once in a while. But I want it to last.
thanks,
Garrett
Specs: 4.13 +.040 bore
*#1 Cylinder*
Top Front .153
Top Outside .228
Top Rear .171
Top Inside .190
Middle Front .154
Middle Outside .136
Middle Rear .120
Middle Inside .163
Bottom Front .150
Bottom Outside .190
Bottom Rear .149
Bottom Inside .118
*#2 Cylinder*
Top Front .155
Top Outside .195
Top Rear .112
Top Inside .172
Middle Front .150
Middle Outside .169
Middle Rear .081
Middle Inside .160
Bottom Front .140
Bottom Outside .188
Bottom Rear .088
Bottom Inside .155
*#3 Cylinder*
Top Front .165
Top Outside .206
Top Rear .162
Top Inside .175
Middle Front .160
Middle Outside .164
Middle Rear .092
Middle Inside .144
Bottom Front .153
Bottom Outside .148
Bottom Rear .114
Bottom Inside .193
*#4 Cylinder*
Top Front .194
Top Outside .220
Top Rear .101
Top Inside .177
Middle Front .154
Middle Outside .153
Middle Rear .083
Middle Inside .170
Bottom Front .173
Bottom Outside .174
Bottom Rear .078
Bottom Inside .175
|
| | RE: Opinions on my 428 Sonic Test -- Tom, 12/12/2001
why bore it 40 over go with 10 if you can find pistons |
| | | RE: Opinions on my 428 Sonic Test -- garrett, 12/12/2001
it's already been bored 40 over |
| | | | RE: Opinions on my 428 Sonic Test -- Tom, 12/12/2001
oh then why are you trying to rebore it ? |
| | | | | RE: Opinions on my 428 Sonic Test -- garrett, 12/12/2001
i'm not, the shop bored it .040 over without me knowing, so I had them sonic check it to see if there is still enough meat in the block to be worthwhile. I'm not exactly sure how to read sonic test results properly, so I need to find out if this block is ok, or should be sleeved, or is junk.
thanks |
| | | | | | RE: Opinions on my 428 Sonic Test -- Tom, 12/12/2001
oh ok they did that to my frind bored his 302 80 over on 2 holes and 30 on 4 and 10 on 2 he made then buy him a new block im pretty sure you can do the same |
| | RE: Opinions on my 428 Sonic Test -- Dan Davis, 12/12/2001
Garrett,
Ignore young Tom. He is still learning and hasn't figured out that he should be lurking, not posting.
There are two areas on the bore that are critically important and need the max wall thickness. These areas are between the bores (for proper cooling) and the lower outside walls (most stressed area as the piston wants to "push" through here).
Anyway, I don't have very good news for you. High power engines (600+HP) like wall thicknesses of 0.180"-0.200". Performance street engines should have 0.140"-0.160". Minimal wall thickness even for a grocery getter should be over 0.100" in the above critical areas.
If you look at my graphic (I think in pix, not charts), you'll see that your thin areas are in the worst possible place. I'd scrap that block -- you'd be doing yourself a favor in the long run.
Cheers,
Dan
|
| 410 FE pistons -- Ed, 12/11/2001
Anyone out there know of a source for 410 pistons in either .030 or.060 oversize. I have a 390 block that could stand a bore along with a 428 crank I would like to assemble. Not quite a 428, but a little more cubes than a 390. I have tried K-B, Hastings,Sterling and Speed-Pro with no luck. Any thoughts on going out to 4.130 with a 1967 390 block to get a Std. 428 bore? Thanks, Ed |
| | RE: 410 FE pistons -- Bob, 12/11/2001
There is a low compression Stirling .030 over 390 truck piston that works fot this. If you sonic check your block you may find that it will go out to 4.13 but it probably won't. |
| | | RE: 410 FE pistons -- Ed, 12/11/2001
I believe I need a piston specifically for a 410 - the pin location is .100 higher in a 410 piston than a 390 due to the .200 difference in stroke. Please correct me if I am wrong in this assumption. Thanks, Ed |
| | | Truck pistons -- Royce Peterson, 12/13/2001
The light truck pistons from the 1970's are indeed the same pin height as a 410, I was quite surprised the first time I took one apart and found the piston marked "410" in the pin area. This put the piston well over .100" down in the hole. Ford did this as a cheap way of reducing compression while still using the D2TE marked cylinder heads. So Mr. Nickleson you owe FE427TP an apology, you are both stating the same thing here.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | RE: Truck pistons -- DynoDon, 12/13/2001
Only point I am making is the 390 and the 410 have a different compression height /Pin location and are really not interchangable. I beleive what Ed is seeking to do is get as many CI out of a 390 block using a 428 crank, hence a 390 specfic piston will not help him out.
Don |
| | | | | Please read this slowly and carefully. -- Royce Peterson, 12/13/2001
Read this carefully Don:
The 1972 - 1978 390 piston is the 410 piston from 1966-1967 Mercury. They therefore have the same compression height and pin height. They are the same piston. It started life as a 410 piston that gives something like 10 1/2 to 1 compression. In a 390 it results in 8.0 to 1 compression.
Understand?
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | RE: Please read this slowly and carefully. -- Ed, 12/13/2001
Hey Guys - lets not get into a battle over this - I dug out a old original 428SCJ piston (which is the same compression height as the 410 per the my Ford Muscle parts supplement #1) book along with a original 390 Ford piston and slid a wrist pin through the pair. The top of 390 piston is .100 taller than the top of the 428 piston. Assuming I'll be using a 428 crank (3.98 stroke) and if I use a 390 piston, at TDC the piston will protrude above the deck by approx .100. The pin location in a 410/428 piston is .100 nearer the top of the piston as per the Muscle parts book. The way I see it I'll need a 410 piston if I use the 428 crank in the 390 block. I think the point Royce is making that its OK to use a 410 piston with the 390 crank in the truck motor, but the deck height clearance will be approx .115-.130, resulting in a lower CR which was acceptable in the era of smog motors. Thanks to all for your suggestions - Maybe its just easier to find a good 428 block! Lets all play nice! Ed |
| | | | | | | Silvolite part number -- Alan Casida, 12/13/2001
Silvolite stocks a 390 piston with the same compression height as a 410/428 (1.66") as opposed to a early 390(1.76"). the number is #1139 and it should get you what you want.You can check out their website here:
http://www.kb-silvolite.com |
| | | | | | | RE: Please read this slowly and carefully. -- Ed, 12/13/2001
Alan - Thanks for the info - The Compression height is the same as the 428 - Ed |
| | | | | | | You need to look at a 390 truck piston. -- Dave Shoe, 12/13/2001
Naturally your 390 car piston is taller than the 428. This high-compression 390 piston is also unsatisfactory for heavy truck hauling use.
It's most versions of the 390 FE pickup truck piston that are about the same height as the 410/428 and will let you stroke a 390 with minimal cost.
If you're gonna mix-match parts, there are gonna be expensive ways, and there are gonna be cheap ways. If you have a fat wallet, either way will work. If you have a thin wallet, you may want to pay attention to these tricks, assuming you want to get back on the road sometime soon.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | a clearer explanation -- FE427TP, 12/14/2001
easiest way to break it down
390car pistons: 1.761-1.7919 compression height
390 truck piston: 1.68 compression height (1.66 for silvolite aftermarket replacement)
410/428 piston: 1.687 compression height
Do we note any similarities between the bold numbers? |
| | | | | | | | RE: a clearer explanation -- John Saxon, 12/15/2001
Good numbers on the compression heights FE427TP and incase anyone is wondering why the silvolite offering is .020 shorter,it is common practice for rebuild piston suppliers make their pistons .010-.020 shorter to compensate for any deck machinig done to the blocks.They often mistakenly refer to this as de-stroking.Most of their pistons are made that way and they usually note them as not de-stroked when they are made with proper compression distance. |
| Lift Question -- Rob, 12/11/2001
Ordering a Camshaft for my 65 stock 390... will a .550 lift and .225 exh./int. @.050 and .275 exh./int. advertised duration have enough clearance or should I look for less lift... thank you
Rob
PS. the cam is a Lunati part # 07501 |
| | RE: Lift Question / Just a enough -- Ray, 12/11/2001
One cam that you might look into is a Elgin E-965-P .510/.536 lift 214/224 degrees @ .050. I've used many different cams in my engines over the years, but I seem to back to these numbers for the street. On a .060 over 390 total seal ring engine w/ big heads and 750 carb, 440 H.P. was not hard to get ! |
| | RE: Lift Question -- kevin, 12/12/2001
You will have enough clearance without having to do anything to the piston. The problem is you will have to replace the stock retainers that are two piece, with a set of 390 GT type or buy some new aftermarket ones. The rotator style will start coming apart at anything much over 5,000 RPM. Other things to consider, if you have a stock motor is the wear patterns on the valve stems. You start adding lift to an engine that was running only .427 (stock) lift and it will "jump" as it hits the top of the guide (the valve) and wear rapidly. This is a common mistake that lots of people make when swapping cams. Now if you have it apart and mic the stems and measure the guides, that is a different story, (and the right way) so be warned that all is not so easy for a successful transplant. |
| 428CJ Windage Tray -- Rich Kutzner, 12/10/2001
Ford Motorsports carries a windage tray for FEs. I've been told there might be a built in windage tray in the CJ oil pan. Is this true? Or is it more of a baffle to stop sloshing? Would there be a clearance problem with installing a windage tray? |
| | RE: yes & yes -- Mike McQuesten, 12/10/2001
Yes, you're correct, Ford Motorsports does offer a windage tray for the FE. They are very similar to the original windage tray that was standard in most Cobra Jet 428s. I say most because a short time ago I thought the windage tray was standard on all 428 CJs and SCJs starting in 1969. Then someone on this forum said that wasn't necessarily true. They had seen 428 CJs without the windage tray. I personally have not seen this. I've had one '69 standard 428 CJ out of a wrecked '69 Fairlane Cobra and it had the tray.
The original windage tray in the 428 CJ is finished a little better than the one that Ford offers now.
The new ones have sharp edges on the cut out around the oil pump. I've filed them so they're a little smoother somewhat similar to the nice originals. |
| | | RE: yes & yes -- Rich Kutzner, 12/10/2001
Mike,
Thanks. So what I gather is that I need to pop my pan off and look and if there is one it is the same as or better than that offered by FM. Mine is in a June 1968 built Shelby KR and you mentioned they may have been standard since 1969 in the 428CJ. I'll let you know what I find! |
| | | | You've probably also got the old dipstick. -- Dave Shoe, 12/10/2001
Ford was apparently having warrantee problems with their early 428CJ motors. The problem was the cars were so fast that they managed to empty the oil pan excessively fast, apparently due to acceleration forces tossing ecxessive oil out of the pan to the rear of the engine, and allowing the oil pump to draw air.
I haven't yet seen the "Technical Service Bulletin", but Ford apparently redesigned the CJ's dip stick to read "full" after six quarts instead of five quarts as all previous CJs had been cabibrated. I suspect the windage tray was also designed and added at the time of this production modification. I don't yet know if this was a late-1968 model year thing, or an early 1969 model year thing, but I believe the windage tray was specifically developed to reduce the cost impact of the 428CJ warrantee failures.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: interesting possibility -- Mike McQuesten, 12/10/2001
I do remember there being some problems with 428CJs in relationship to oil starvation as you described it. The possibility of the windage tray helping this is interesting. I'd always thought it was just a cheap way to assure a few more horses to the whopping 335 Ford rated the mighty Jet. But it does make sense that if there's six quarts in a crankcase originally designed to hold just five, the tray would be helpful to keep that extra oil from sloshing up and over the crankshaft.
Hey Rich, you should be able to see the windage tray sandwiched between two pan gaskets. That's if you can get a good look at the KR's pan. It would be interesting to know if your early production CJ does or doesn't have the windage tray. |
| | | | | | It has a 'baffle', not a windage tray -- Rich Kutzner, 12/11/2001
I decided to open it up, since I had a new oil pump to put in anyways (interesting, the pump had a C2 (1962) part number). It has a sheet that comes out along the top of the higher back of the pan and comes about halfway forward. Seems it would keep oil from sloshing back. No windage tray so I think I'm gonna buy one and see, the baffle isn't even close to where the crank would turn. My car takes 5 1/2 quarts at an oil change with the filter so I dont have the 6 quart stick. My car was built June 68, that's a late 68 but is it still considered an 'early' CJ. Not Sure. |
| | | | | | RE: interesting possibility -- salid, 12/11/2001
my 68 KR, built in early May did not have the tray. It also showed full with 5 quarts on the original dip stick. It would also pull the pan dry on a hard launch if it did not show absolutely full on the stick. I thought the problem was the electric oil pressure gauge so I changed to a 270 degree sweep mechanical gauge. I broke the handle off the original stick and the replacement shows full with 5.5 quarts. I put on one (not an original) of the windage trays when I had the engine apart a couple years ago. You should be able to look at the pan mating area to see if there are 2 gaskets. |
| | | | | | | 428cj pan v.s 390 pan -- stephen, 12/11/2001
I am rebuilding my 390gt motor for my 67fairline gt. I want to know if i can put a 428cj pan with the tray and shortened dipstick or can i run 6 quarts in my 390 pan? |
| | | | | | | | RE: 428cj pan v.s 390 pan -- Mike McQuesten, 12/11/2001
The windage tray is definitley a good idea. I don't know if the internal baffling in your '67 GT 390 pan is much different than the 428 CJ. It may be the same? One thing, Ford did not change the pan or its capacity to handle the additional quart of oil. I think Dave's opinion on the windage tray being added help keep oil from the crank has a lot of merit. And the windage tray does give a few horsepower by keeping that oil off the crank too.
BTW, as I was reading the old '69 Muscle Parts book last night while attempting to answer the question regarding a solid cam installed in a hydraulic block, I noticed the windage tray picture and the part # below it. It was a C9Z number thus leading one to believe that the windage tray was introduced sometime in 1969 if not right at the beginning of production for that year.
One thing I'd recommend you consider is the new FE pan that is offered by Ford Motorsports right now. It's looks just like the 428 CJs that I've seen. There are two
offered, one is chrome and one is plain for painting. This pan has the necessary dimples to clear the steering rods in uni body cars. |
| | | | | | | | They're the same pan. -- Dave Shoe, 12/11/2001
The CJ and 390 pan are bound to be identical. I know the design changed a little as the years passed (the Fairlane compatible pan (which simply has two new dents to clear the frame's crossmember) was a significant change.
As for the inside pan scrapers and baffles, I wouldn't even blink at whatever style the pan happened to have (if it even has any spot-welded in) - just run the windage tray and just be sure that any pan baffling clears it.
I've got a few different styles of stock pan, but don't know which type was used in any specific application. Someday maybe I will learn, just for fun.
Shoe.
|
| | | | | | | | RE: 428cj pan v.s 390 pan / How about 8 quarts -- Ray, 12/11/2001
Has any body used a 8/9 quart truck F.T. pan on any 69 mustangs / w tri-y headers |
| | | | | Well, you'll soon be seeing that TSB. ;-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/11/2001
n/m |
| | | Never seen a stock, orig. CJ w/ windage tray [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/11/2001
n/m |
| | | | RE: I have.. -- Mike McQuesten, 12/12/2001
I have seen three 428 CJs with factory installed windage trays. All three that come to mind were from 1969 vehicles, two Fairlane Cobras, one Cyclone CJ; all three NON drag pack/NON SCJ cars. One of the Cobras was totalled in a wrecking yard in 1976. From that vehicle is where I obtained my one and only complete/genuine 428 Cobra Jet. It didn't appear to have ever been apart. All original Ford items, i.e., gaskets, seals, timing set. The odometer was still in the Fairlane Cobra and I think it had 60 some thousand miles. And as I tore the 428 down, carefully inspecting along the way, it appeared to be about the right condition for that many miles. A number of teeth missing from the nylon timing sprocket. I found the sprocket teeth when I pulled the pan with two gaskets and a windage tray. |
| | | | | | RE: I have.. and thanks! -- Rich Kutzner, 12/12/2001
Sounds like we have some sort of concensus on the 69-70's! Like I said, my 68 doesn't, I have a Canton on the way. Thanks for the info on the timing gear teeth, while the engine is out I think I'll replace that too...
Neat note, when I replaced the oil pump, it had a C2 (1962) part number on it.......all other dates on my KRs engine pieces are within a month of the car's build date so I'm assuming it's some higher output leftover from maybe the 427s ...........or maybe just a leftover! |
| 4100 CFM test -- Bob, 12/10/2001
I've gotten tried of all of the arguments about the CFM capacity of the Autolite 4100s. Last week I took five of them in a local speed shop and put them on Superflow 1020 flow bench, one with the small 1.08 primary venturi and the rest with the larger 1.12 primary venturi. The small one flowed 441 CFM, the larger ones flowed 503 to 528 averaging 520.
These results were very close to what I expected for the 1.08 but 50 CFM higher for the 1.12. Still the 1.12 does not flow 600 CFM as claimed by some vendors.
The testing was done at Charlie's Automotive in Apex, NC. They are an engine builder for the local NASCAR guys. The tests were done a Superflow 1020 flow bench which is computerized and automatically corrects the output data to standard temperature and pressure.
Type or No. Primary , , Primary , , Scndry , , Scndry , , CFM test
Tag or ID , , Venturi , , , Bore , , , , Venturi , , Bore , , , , Results
C6AF-E , , , ,1.08 , , , , , 1.437 , , , , 1.18 , , , , 1.437 , , , , 441
EDT 84D , , 1.12 , , , , , 1.562 , , , , 1.18 , , , , 1.562 , , , , 503
EDT-17BR, 1.12 , , , , , 1.562 , , , , 1.18 , , , , 1.562 , , , , 523
C4SF-B, , , ,1.12 , , , , , 1.562 , , , , 1.18,, , , , 1.562 , , , , 526
C4AF-DG, , 1.12 , , , , , 1.562 , , , , 1.18 , , , , 1.562 , , , , 528
These less than 5% variation between the average for the 1.12 models is within normal manufacturing tolerances.
|
| | RE: very interesting -- Mike McQuesten, 12/10/2001
Very interesting flow testing Bob. I read this last night and gave it some thought before responding. I know that there are some regular readers/posters on this forum who are avid proponents of the good old 4100. I'll say right up front that I'm one of them. They are simple. They work pretty well. They don't leak often. Just all around decent carburetors.
What I have wondered about is in relationship to the 1960 High Performance 352. I've ofen wondered why Ford chose to run a Holley with just 540 rated CFM instead of the supposedly 600 CFM 1.12 Autolite. I think you've given me a clue Bob. I know that a team of Ford engine engineers put a lot of time into research and development on the HP352. They were tired of the poor reviews the new FE had been receiving for two years. It is my opinion now that they found through testing both on dynos and on proving grounds that the Holley 540 out performed the 4100-600 CFM.
Again, I like the 4100 Autolite. I've used lots of them. My best 4100 is off of a '62 Mercury 390. I put a kit in it. Bumped the jet sizes up one step both on the primaries and the secondaries. I don't know what years for sure but I do know that these earlier 4100s use Holley jets. That's all I did. This carb works very well. I've loaned it to friends who are having carb problems and they want to check things out with a tried and proven carb. This is the carb that I will fire my 427 up with and do the cam break in and overall engine break in for a few months. Then I'll bolt on the Holley 540. I'll keep a close eye on that Holley to see when it starts to spit & pop and do the things I've seen lots of old Holleys do. |
| | | RE: very interesting -- Bob, 12/10/2001
I agree that they are great carburetors; it's just that they are not big carburetors. I ran one on a '66 7 Litre 428 PI in '69 and 70 in Albuquerque and ran high twelves on a low twelves national record.
I've put them on a number of engines and when they are set up right they work well.
|
| | | | RE: great running 7 Litre! -- Mike McQuesten, 12/10/2001
What mods did you do to that 428PI to allow the big & beautiful '66 Galaxie 7 Litre to run high 12's? I believe those mods would be interesting to this forum. I'd like to know things like cam, heads/mods to heads, pistons, intake under that 4100, transmission, gearing, exhaust, tires, I'm sure there are other things...... |
| | | | | RE: great running 7 Litre! -- Bob, 12/11/2001
I was running H stock using a blue printed PI engine (427 single 4bbl solid lifter cam), close ratio top loader with the blocker ring teeth removed, Hurst Shifter and Link lock, traction lock 4.57 gears, Firestone wrinkle walls, Hooker headers, aluminum PI manifold and MSD 2.
Suspension mods included airlifts, pinion snubber, and removal of the sway bar links. |
| | Excelent info, Bob. Thanks for the effort :-)[n/m] -- Mr F, 12/11/2001
n/m |
| | | RE: Excelent info, Bob. Thanks for the effort :-)[n/m] -- Bob, 12/11/2001
If you want to move this over to the General Subjects forum, please do so. I probably should have posted it there. |
| | Nice work, ever do anything with Weber DCOE carbs? -- P, 12/11/2001
http://www.carbs.net/images/weber/dualdcoea.jpg
Here's the file for the photo (above)
I've got the Edelbrock Performer, with a Carter AFB sitting on it now, and I've got three of the Weber DCOE's from a previous project. The adaptor between the carb and the intake looks pretty affordable. Got any flow data on these?
(Assuming not) Nice work on the flow data from your carbs, and thanks for posting it.
P
 |
| | At what inches of mercury did you test? n/m -- Styletone58, 12/11/2001
n/m |
| | | RE: At what inches of mercury did you test? n/m -- Bob, 12/11/2001
1.5 inches of mercury, just like in the SAE standard. |
| | | | So, these are REAL numbers. Cool! n/m -- Styletone58, 12/13/2001
n/m |
| | | | | RE: So, these are REAL numbers. Cool! n/m -- Bob, 12/13/2001
Yes they are. I got tired of reading all of the BS about the 4100 CFM ratings and spent a few dollars so I would KNOW what the ratings truly are. And I believe that sharing knowledge is good. |
| Pertronix Gimmick? -- Rob, 12/09/2001
I bought the pertronix electronic conversion module for my single point 390 this june.. at the same time of putting on the module .. I put on a MSD 6A ignition box... I have noticed a pretty big power decrease.. Hoping it was not the MSD 6A box (most expensive)...this weekend I removed the pertronix and replaced it with points and kept the MSD 6A box.. I immediatly noticed a difference such that 10 horsepower makes. now the strip is closed so I can't test it technically... but I do feel the increase in power... I mean i was bummed with the pertronix... anyways.. I heard how it increased power right off and helped starting and everyting... yet my pertronix reduced power and it still started like it hard points in it... I set it up like the instructions said and even like the MSD instructions said.... Heck.. maybe i have a dud.... my luck
Does anyone else have this problem with the pertronix.. its pretty sad to think points can be better than an electionic conversion tho.. im sure the points are gonna be a little less efficient... but id rather have the ponies..... anyone's feedback or experiences will be appreciated.. thanks...
rOB |
| | RE: Pertronix Gimmick? -- Bob, 12/09/2001
I had such poor performance that I took it off and went back to points. I'm glad I'm not alone. |
| | RE: Pertronix Gimmick? -- Will, 12/10/2001
Did you reset your timing after you installed the Pertronix?
An often overlooked step in the installation is that it will retard the initial timing, so you've got to bump it back. I wouldn't be surprised if your after-installation timing were retarded 6 degrees.
I don't remember if resetting the timing were mentioned in the installation, but I *do* remember it being mentioned in the mag's.
I have a Pertronix on my 428, and it works great. I don't consider it a performance upgrade, though. I consider it a maintenance upgrade. |
| | | RE: Pertronix -- P, 12/10/2001
I installed Pertronix on twin 427's in a marine application and am very pleased with them. Engines did need to be retimed, and need to be sure to use the same ballast resistor, etc. I dropped back to stock coils, as the so called "electronic" coils weren't really doing anything for me, just got a good NAPA and they run great.
I didn't consider it a performance upgrade either, but I sure do like the reliability factor, much much better than the crappy Mallory (Eaton Dearborn) single point setup with those horrible parts sources.
P |
| | | | RE: Pertronix -- Bob, 12/10/2001
I had so much advance that it pinged constantly. I changed the vacuum advance, then the whole distributor, checked timing many times and finally went back to my original points. Engine ran fine. Installed the Pertronix a second time and the engine again pinged like mad. Back to the points and the engine again runs fine.
Pertronixs are JUNK! |
| | | | | RE: Pertronix -- Morgan, 12/10/2001
I have run pertronix in two Mustangs, one a 67 Convertible witha 351 Windsor the other a Shelby GT-500 with the FE motor of course. I felt the performance was much improved on both from the stand point that it was easier to start and idles better. But, this is not the first time that I have heard people complain about them. |
| | | | | Sounds like you got your "wires crossed"? -- P, 12/10/2001
Can't understand why you had the problems. Perhaps it's a faulty unit. These things are very simple.
Good luck.
P |
| | | | | | RE: Sounds like you got your "wires crossed"? -- Rob, 12/10/2001
Maybe I did get a faulty unit.... I set the timing from retarded to all over the dial... and it wouldn't even break the rear tires loose... hooked it up just like pertronix and msd recommended.. I realized there's a mantainance advantage to the pertronix... but my blue streak points will EASILY break the tires loose.. and start up just as fine as that pertronix.. idles a little rough now. but i still gotta change the timing back...
Haha.. just my luck.. 52 bucks down the drain...
Thanks for all your opinions... :)
Rob |
| | | | | | | RE: Sounds like you got your "wires crossed"? -- Chuck Brandt, 12/11/2001
I haven't noticed any substantial performance difference but I wondered why the rotating part rattles when you shake it. I envision magnets floating around in there which doesn't give me much confidence in the consistency of the timing. Does anyone else have a rattle like that?
Chuck |
| | | | | | | | No rattle!! -- P, 12/11/2001
The Pertronix Ignitor I installed (2 of em) uses the standard rotor, and a little plastic collar that's a tight fit. the brains of the unit bolts tight to the distributor housing. Nothing should shake, everything should be a tight press-fit. They also have a spacer collar, but this shouldn't rattle either. Perhaps you got the wrong model for your application??
I've had exceptionally good results with mine.
P |
| | | | | | | | | RE: No rattle!! -- Chuck Brandt, 12/11/2001
The thing you describe as a "little plastic collar" that fits on the standard "cam" bumped wheel that used to open the points. That's what rattles before it's installed. I've had mine for over a year, maybe they improved the design of that part.
Chuck |
| FE duel carbs -- Eric Hook, 12/09/2001
Did Ford ever factory produce a 1968 Mustang with an FE engine fitted with duel carbs ? |
| Solid cam in a hydraulic block? -- Rick Croom, 12/09/2001
Cn I run a solid cam in a 390 hydraulic block. If so how often do the valves need to be adjusted on a daily driver? |
| | RE: Solid cam in a hydraulic block? -- Charlie Pagel, 12/10/2001
I read about a way to block off oil passages in a fe series by Pat Ganahl a while back. I can't remember the spec, but you should be able to find one of his books. He did "Ford Performance" and wrote for Fast Fords for a while. I know you should block the oil passages to the lifter gallery with threaded pipe plugs so you don't have to waste any oil pressure. You'll have to tap further down than the push in plugs go to get the screww in studs to block the oil. Why do you want to use a solid cam? |
| | RE: Solid cam in a hydraulic block? -- Mike McQuesten, 12/10/2001
Charlie is right that it is kinda standard thinking that you should plug the oil passages as he described it. However, I did run a solid lifter cam in my '69 428CJ without any problems. Well, except for two "self locking" adjusting screws losing their ability to stay locked. That had nothing to do with oiling. Even at the time I installed this cam I'd heard and read about doing the minor oil passage modification to block oil to the lifters. But it's interesting to note that Ford didn't make the recommendation in their Muscle Parts/Performance book published back in '69. One of the steps in their recommended "staged" performance up grades was to install the C3AE-AA solid lifter cam. By this stage they'd recommended pop up pistons and other mods like P.I. connecting rods. But nothing about blocking the hydraulic lifter passages.
With the solid lifter cam in the CJ, I'd shift the C6 I was running at that time at 6,200 rpms. It was a Schneider and it worked very well. The best cam I ran of the four I ran in that engine. But I will say that if you have the block out and are doing a rebuild, do make the modifications to block the oil to the hydraulics. It makes sense and it doesn't hurt a thing. I'm doing that to a C6ME 391 block at the same time I'm having machine work done to install a set of 427 cross bolt main caps. I'm having allen head set screws threaded in to the oil passages so that I can remove them easily and allow for solid or hydraulics.
As for lifter/valve lash adjustment, it was a normal maintenance procedure every ten thousand miles or so. Just part of a tune up that was normal about at that mileage interval back in the days of points, condensor, rotor, plugs, etc.
Why run a solid lifter cam Charlie asks? Good quesiton. I guess there are those of us who still like the clatter of solid lifters from any American V-8, especially the FE. To me, solid lifters in an FE meant high performance. Think about it, with the exception of the first three months of FE production when a low performance solid lifter cam was standard, FoMoCo saw fit to use solid lifters in the HP352,390,406, 427, and '66 428P.I. That ain't bad company.
I know there are great hydraulic grinds available. I've always been a proponent of the old GT/CJ cam, C6OZ-B, I even run one in my '68 F100 for hauling trash, parts, Christmas trees and sometimes I step on it just to haul ass. But ahh, solid lifters. I just enjoy pulling the valve covers and adjusting that valve lash....just because I can. |
| | | RE: Solid cam in a hydraulic block? -- Rick Croom, 12/10/2001
The mainreason I wanted to run the solid lift cam isthat I bought it for a PI block that I cracked #3 after only 2 hrs of running. Besides it has more lift and duration than thehydraulic cam I have. Solid has 523 lift and 294 duration as posed to 494 lift and 218 duration on the hydraulic. THis is going into a brown 74 F100 street sleeper. I just love the look on those kids faces when that old guy in the old truck smokes their 5.0 or camaro.
Most ofthem don't even realize what the solid lifter sound is.
Thanks for your help. I thinkI'll just run the block like it is and do my adjustments evey 10,000 or so.
|
| | | | RE: Solid cam in a hydraulic block? -- charlie, 12/14/2001
I have a Compcams 270S in my otherwise stock 70 428 Mach 1. Oil mods to block off with allen screws were performed, as well as using adjustable rockers. That and the PI intake make this car a rush to drive around, with C6 and 3:00 rear. The 270S is the mildest solid grind they make. With a solid, steeper ramps are used, and full lift is avaible at idle speeds. Throttle response is sharper. Steeper ramps allows one to back off on duration and get the same flow. In my case, I have 6,000 mi since installation and am just now thinking about new pugs and valve adjustment checking, to be prudent. |
| | | | | RE: Comp 282S -- Mike McQuesten, 12/14/2001
I'm glad to hear that you're pleased with your Comp 272S. I chose the Comp 282S for my 427 along with Comps matching springs. I've decided to run the shell lifters (these are Crower but I think they're all made by the same mystery company somewhere?) instead of the normal dumb bell style that Ford mostly used, the ones that Comp included with their kit.
And as of last Sunday, the 427 is actually bolted into the frame of my '60. The Hayes clutch is in. Bell housing and T-85 maybe later today or tomorrow. These are big fun steps for me in this over three year process so far.
I had the water pump mounted and it turned out to be wrong! My FE parts friend ordered me a pump for '61 - '64. There is a difference from the '58 - '60 water pump. It's in shaft length and spacing of the back side plate. I could have lived with and adjusted for the short shaft of the '61/'64 pump but I couldn't live with the back plate rubbng against the one year only steel/tin 1960 352 HP timing cover. Trying to find that timing cover would be like the fun and success I've had in locating a 1960 HP air cleaner.
|
|