Skip Navigation Links.
 |  CJ/SCJ/3.91s & 4.30s.. -- Mike McQuesten, 11/21/2001
Thanks Scott for getting us revved up on these questions regarding Cobra Jet vs. Super Cobra Jet, rods, pistons, trays, gears........like a discussion could get any better than this! So many questions/comments have been brought up that I felt a new post would be in order.
I'd like to preface my comments/opinons with a disclaimer: I'm not trying to be a smart ass or know-it-all. I really enjoy the exchange of information that this forum brings forth. It's interesting. Just when I think I know most of it, up pops something new & previously unknown. As an example, a year ago I learned from another forum on CJs that the Drag Pack was available in a non ram air vehicle, thus a Q code. I'd always "thought" that the drag pack option included the ram air package (thus my thinking was that all Drag Pack equipped cars were at least -R- codes) along with all the other goodies that came with the drag pack. I knew that an R code ram air car was not necessarily a drag pack car. My point is that I continue to learn from the wealth of knowledge and experience that many of you have.
I've been an FE fan(atic) since '61 when my neighbor drove up in his brand new Sunliner, rangoon red, with tri power and stick overdrive. A genuine 390High Performance/401 horser. He traded in his slug '60 Impala 348,tri power, stick car for the Ford! I was a happy 13 year old Ford boy for sure. From then on I've watched, read, followed most things FE. But I continue to learn.
Okay, enough BS here's my comment & question with regard to the mighty Cobra Jet:
Mel's points are well taken as ususal. This time specific to the windage tray/CJ application. I agree with him that it's very possible that the early 428 standard CJs did not come with the windage tray. I had thought that they had based on some limited experience. Something I read somewhere. Mostly based on the one and only genuine 428 Cobra Jet I've owned. It came from a '69 lime gold Fairlane Cobra. The Cobra was totalled sitting high in a bone yard in 1976. The car was VIN coded as a 3.50 open, R code with 4 speed. It was NOT a drag pack car. The rear & trans were gone. But the apparently original engine was still there. I got it for an honest to goodness $112.50. I offered a $100 to the yard owner's $125 asking. He countered and I took it. I don't know or remember the build date but I believe it was a "later" build car due to the factory Ford low finned aluminum valve covers. All early Cobras and Mustangs with 428s I'd seen in '69 were dressed with the later '67 through '68 chrome tin Power by Ford v-covers. So I hauled the complete powerplant home, carb to flywheel, exhaust manifolds and all. A hundred and twelve damn dollars. I still have the receipt hanging on the wall to remind myself that I got a good deal once.
I eventually tore the engine down. The odometer on the Cobra was in the 60s, can't remember exactly. The engine appeared virgin. Original Ford head gaskets, etc. Timing sprocket was a mess. It was a nylon sprocket with many teeth in the pan. But it had a windage tray. I believe it was assembled at the engine plant that way. That's all I know 'bout that. But now I know more.
Now for Royce's contention that you could buy a Ford built car with factory installed 3.91s or 4.30s and the car was NOT optioned with the drag pack or traction lock. I want to make sure to give Royce due credit on the numerous posts he has made to help and enlighten many. You seem to know your stuff for sure. But this one I have to open mindidly question. I'm up for some learnin' on this.
I had always thought that a buyer could not buy a 428 Cobra Jet powered car with the axle code -V- (3.91:1) or the axle code -W-(4.30:1) without the drag package. Here's why I think this at this time. I was working at a Ford dealer in '69. We were a small dealership but we sold a few Performance cars. Up the Yakima valley was the big dealer that sold truck loads of CJ performance cars. I was there a lot checking any performance car out. The few of us performance boys (we always wished for a performance girl...)in the podunk dealership got the owner's approval to order a special car for pure stock drag racing. Just to have some fun and show the Mopar dealer across the alley that there was a Ford product that could beat their vaunted Roadtoads, Six Packs, and on and on. You gotta admit, that damn Mopar sure offered a lot of cool packages back then. So anyway, we spent a great deal of time selecting our promotional vehicle. We went with a formal roof Fairlane Cobra, drag pack, automatic, 3.91:1 with Ram Air. I can't site a specific written document at this time and frankly I don't care to go do any research on it right now,but I do NOT believe that Ford would sell a car with 3.91s/4.30s without the beefier lower end that was part of the "Super Cobra Jet" drag pack option. Not with any warrantly that's for sure. The 3.91s/4.30s were there for a purpose and the engineers knew it. They knew 5,000 rpms were going to be a rather regular thing. Thus you had to order the drag pack to get 'em and get the "427 style" (they were not sideoiler 427 rods) capscrew rods.
Of course, 3.91s/4.30s/4.11s/4.56s/4.88s/5.14s and many other ring & pinion sets were available over the counter. You, a friend, or your friendly Ford service department could install them into your nine inch housing in whatever vehicle you wanted and there was no traction lock requirement.
So I'd like to learn or know more about which cars you could buy with open 3.91/4.30s? Honestly I'm not saying it ain't so, I'm just wonderin' what & when? My mind is wide open on this one.
Thanks again to all of you for making this forum one of my fav lunch time reading endeavors and happy Thanksgiving to everyone.
|
|  | RE:Cougars & Mustangs & Bosses, oh my. -- Mike McQuesten, 11/21/2001
Hey Royce I just read your answer about documentation with regard to open 3.91s & 4.30s. I do believe that open 3.91s & low gearing like that may have been available with Boss 302 Mustangs & Cougars, Boss 429 'stangs. My mind was running along just FE & Cobra Jet 428 thoughts. I agree that you may be right on because the Boss engines were built from the get-go with HD internals. But the standard 428 CJ was not that strong on the bottom end to handle a regular dose of R's that the low gears would provide. We know how to build them now to withstand it but back then, the standard CJ FE was not really that tough. Not like a Boss. |
| | | RE:Cougars & Mustangs & Bosses, oh my. -- Royce Peterson, 11/21/2001
Mike,
My dog is not in this hunt so to speak in that I really don't think a 428 SCJ will resist blowing up with a Drag Pac equipped engine any better than a regular CJ would. Revving either of them above 6000 is inviting trouble in stock form. Those cast pistons and cheesey original valve springs.......... I am only offering information from a source that I feel is credible and which might be interesting to either prove or disprove here. I have known Frank Bowers for a long time and his information is usually pretty good. Scott might have access to more build sheets if he questioned some folks from his registry. The problem is that anyone who owns such a car has a vested interest in disproving such a notion due to it's effect on value.
The Drag Pac option cost the same for Boss 302's as it did for CJ's. Not much of a bargain was it? I have never heard of a Drag Pac Boss 429.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | RE:I'm still learnin' -- Mike McQuesten, 11/21/2001
See....I didn't remember that the drag pack was available for the Boss 302s. I would have assumed that the lower gears were just optional for the well built Boss engines either 302/351 or 429. I agree that I don't believe a drag pack was available for the Boss 429. I do know and I know you know that there was for the '70 429 CJ which like the 428 made it a Super CJ 429. But that chat is for a whole different forum and I'm not going there at this time.
Now I have to go help get the house picked up for all the family coming out for the big dinner tomorrow. I have orders to unscrew my face from this 'puter! And where do we keep that vacuum....... |
| | | |  | RE: Once you've learned it, -- Mel Clark, 11/21/2001
They change it! That's called catch 22!
The 3.91 and 4.30 gearset that was offered as an option was only offered with the optional traction lock dif. and that was only offered, in 1968, with the 428 engines.
The next item to consider is the connecting rods for the SCJ engines. The rods used in the SCJ and the 427 medium risers were the same with the exception of the rod bolts which changed the part number. Even the forging numbers may be different but the rods are the same specifications right down to the weight , which is rarely identical until the engine is balanced. To those that are interested I will email the pages from the salesmans price booklet which explains the option packages available for both the Fairlane and the Mustang lines. |
 | I need advice on milling pistons -- John S., 11/20/2001
I have a set of L2292TRW .030 390 pistons with a .255 dome. I am going to mill and balance them to get the compression down. I have C8OZ-N cj heads. My cam is a performer RPM with 236 duration at .050. How much should I take off. It will be driven on the street 95% of the time on 92 octane. Thanks for any help |
| | RE: I need advice on milling pistons -- kevin, 11/21/2001
These are 12.0:1 with the small port head. With the C-J's and the #1020 Fel Pro head gasket I would not be surprised if it was not more that 10.7 or 8 to one with the dome. Milling it off should drop another .7 or so. |
 | Tranie swop -- darren, 11/20/2001
I have a Galaxie that came stock with a 289 and a 3spd Automatice. I also have a 390 that came with a torque convertor and bellhouseing. Can I swop out engines use the tranie and generator. |
| Bellhousing questions -- Paul M, 11/20/2001
Anyone know this casting # off a bellhousing, from prior experience, or from one sitting in the garage? # is C5AA-6394-A, and it's supposed to be out of a 390 car. It has the z-bar mount on it, rather than on the engine block, like my truck. It also has the flat, spring-steel style mount for the release fork.
Reason I ask is, my truck has the wire clip style fork, and the mount shattered, leaving me with no clutch. I want to change over to the other style, and this bellhousing is close and affordable, and I don't have to pull it!
I havent pulled my tranny yet, so I can't lay them side by side to compare, (to much rain) and I need to know if it will be compatable, ie; release fork location in particular, but length from engine block to tranny as well.
The bolt pattern for the trans is the bigger style, with the bosses for a smaller pattern cast-in.
Any thoughts?
|
| | Forgot to mention: -- Paul M, 11/20/2001
My truck is a `69 F100, 390 with a T-18 trans. |
| | RE: Bellhousing questions -- Bob, 11/20/2001
My '66 Galaxie has the z-bar mount on the bellhousing, so you probably have a big car bellhousing. |
| | RE: Bellhousing questions -- Martin, 11/27/2001
If you need another truck bellhousing I have one that I don't need. It's a C5TA I believe.
The depth of the bellhousing is different with trucks and most cars like the Mustang |
| Fe Heads -- James Gehret, 11/20/2001
I am looking for parts for fe heads rockers and rocker shafts i was told there is a place called Dove ?? any one ever hear of them thanks |
| | RE: Fe Heads -- Ranch, 11/20/2001
Dove 1-440-236-5139
27100 Royalton Road P.O. Box 1003
Clolumbia Station, Ohio 44028
No web site that I'm aware of.
These are high perfomance rockers with high perfomance prices. Maybe not exactly what you are looking for. <Good Luck> |
| | | RE: Fe Heads -- James Gehret, 11/20/2001
no that is exactly what i am looking for thanks |
| | RE: Fe Heads -- Morgan, 11/20/2001
James,
Give Doug a call at Precision Oil Pumps. Doug used to work for Ford Power Parts. He now has his own business where he also sells Performance rockers, Shafts and Spacers as well as End Stands. He also sell blue printed oil pumps for the FE motors as well as heavy duty pump drives shafts and ARP fasteners. Tell him Morgan told you to call, his phone number is (559)645-1951.
Morgan |
| Damn it's getting cold. I need an FE Frost-Killer! -- Dave Shoe, 11/20/2001
On Saturday it was pushing the mid-'70s. My last comfty opportunity to snatch heavy metal from outstate graveyards - and I did. Tonite it's hitting the low 20s. My nipples are freezing, dammit! At this rate, my grapes are gonna FREEZE SOLID!
I need something that's gonna break the ice and keep things lucid up here in Minnesota.
A few weeks back, I mentioned something about FT engines being used as ground heaters for aircraft. I'd be set if I had a Learjet, but I'm stuck in this flightless stucco cave instead.
What I need has got to put the coals to the corn. It's gotta keep the frost off the flax. It's gotta put warm wind to the wheat.
What I need is an FE Frost-Killer!
Officially known as "Wind Machines", these Bear River Manufacturing, Inc. devices (Wheatland, California) are really much more. They are exactly what is need to warm the cockles of any FEr's heart.
Here is a picture of two 390-powered Frost Killers, and one 428 Frost Killer:
 |
| | A closer look is rather scary. -- Dave Shoe, 11/20/2001
This is a 390 Frost killer up close and friendly.
I'm not so sure I want to learn how to start or stop one of these things. As I understand it, the wide-open exhaust can be readily heard more than a mile away. They apparently sound like low-flying airplanes. While they have starters bolted to them, I understand the favored method of starting these fellers is by yanking on the prop in the proper direction. Perhaps they lack a battery, because My favored method of starting these things would be via remote control from a bunker. My favorite way to turn them off would be to wait for them to run out of gas.
 |
| | | RE: A closer look is rather scary. -- RC Moser, 11/20/2001
Hey, a those would look nice on a air boat. Give some of those 455s a run for their money! Well maybe. If you want to save the grapes better go south snowbird. Never seen such contrapsions, rather neat. |
| | Not really, Dave, they're . . . -- Orin, 11/20/2001
. . .actually annular wings. This is one of those often-explored but seldom-developed arms of aviation that has intrigued inventors for years.
The outside ring is actually an air foil; it's the same as a regular wing but instead of being straight it is rounded. The principal is that the prop sucks the air over the airfoil and creates lift, allowing the device to fly. Several examples of these things were built -- and flown! -- in the 40s and 50s. The most recent example being the Custer (yes, the grandnephew of THAT Custer) Channel Wing.
The examples you've shown here are early Minneapolis-Moline model #145AW ('145' = square feet of wing surface, 'AW' = annular wing)that can be tethered to the ground and flown in circles about 15-20 feet over fields to help dissipate frost, fog, etc. Larger models were also built but were not sucessful because they scared the cows so much they wouldn't give milk. |
| | | RE: Those are super cool-Dave! -- pete, 11/20/2001
How did you locate them? |
| | | Now I'm having NIGHTMARES! -- Dave Shoe, 11/21/2001
Your description sounds like something from a doppelganger planet. Now I'm chilled for a whole different reason.
As it turns out, these things do rotate on their own little built-in platform. The platform is possibly belt driven and powered by the engine so they will blow warm air in all directions.
Once again I gotta wonder how you are supposed to turn them off, or even start them without getting hacked up.
Here's a little bit of tech info which was sent to me about these three machines: 428-ribbed no "352" on the front, 41 dif, C7TE-C heads, fuel is gas-2bbl. Decal indicates Ford Industrial Engine . One 390 machine is a ribbed block, 91/352 on front, 43 dif, C8AE-H heads, fuel is gas 2bbl. The third is a 390 non-ribbed, 352 over 83, DIF. This one appears to be a replacment engine for or from a car. The valve cover decal mentions Auto-Trans idle speed.
Shoe.
|
| | | | unfknblvble nm -- ANDY, 11/22/2001
nm |
| value of a 66 427 -- Jack, 11/19/2001
I have a 1966 427 engine. It has C8AE-H heads, exhaust manifolds, and no intake manifold. It has 90,000 original miles and uses oil. This engine has not been run for about 35 years and you can turn it over by hand. I would like to know what the value of this engine would be as is. |
| | RE: value of a 66 427 -- Mel Clark, 11/19/2001
Is it a side oiler? Marine or passenger car? |
| | Is ita 390 with 66-427 markings? -- Dave Shoe, 11/20/2001
Those heads tell me it's just a 360 or 390 engine with some casting patterns designed for the 427. These blocks typically do NOT have any performance 427 features in them.
Can you tell us more of the history?
Shoe. |
| | | RE: Is ita 390 with 66-427 markings? -- Jack, 11/20/2001
On the back of the block by the flywheel area are the numbers 66 427. The engine came out of a 1969 Mac 1 mustang but I know it is not the original enine. It is not a side oiler. |
| | | | It's most likely a 390. -- Dave Shoe, 11/20/2001
It may be a 360, and there is the teeniest of chances it's a plain vanilla 428 (it's not), but it's not a 427.
Ford mix-matched casting patterns like they were sprinkling cheese on a pizza back in the early pollution control years of 1966-1971. I suspect the foundry became a crowded place with all the newly-legislated casting requirements, and the workers were forced to "make do" with what could fit in the work area.
The FE foundry life seemed so much simpler in the years 1958 thru 1965.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: It's most likely a 390. -- Jack, 11/20/2001
I guess the best way to tell would be to pull the heads and see what the bore is. If it is a 4.232 bore and a 3.784 stroke, maybe that will solve the question. And also the casting number off the crank. |
| | | | | | It may not be worth the bother. -- Dave Shoe, 11/20/2001
The C8AE-H heads pretty much spell out the notion that it is most likely NOT a 427 block. The 66-427 marking is quite common on ordinary 360 and 390 blocks - these blocks generally have no extraordinary reinforcements, such as extra thick cylinder walls or crossbolt bosses. You will often find generic reinforcements to the cranksaddle bulkheads and ribs are common in the early '70 blocks, but these are present in many FE blocks of the era.
You might check out this comical ebay auction: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=598116762 . Thanks to Tom P. for bringing it to the attention of the fordfe.com forum, this is a carefully-worded swindle currently "in-process".
It'll be fun to watch, especially since I just notified all the current bidders about it and invited them to this thread. I wonder if anyone else will hop atop the heap? I guess we can just wait-and-see.
Newcomers to the FE forums may wish to check out both this forum's main page ( http://www.fomoco.com/ford-forum-FE ) and the fordFE.com main page ( http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/74182 ) to see what is going on around the FE world.
Digging my own grave, as usual,
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | Check the cross-bolts visible just above the pan -- P, 11/20/2001
If it's any of the various versions of the 427 it "should" have crossbolted mains, which are visible above the oil pan on each side.
There have been some rumors and some light evidence that there were some special order industrial versions of the 427 that might have been built without the 4-bolt (cross-bolted) mains, however it would be considered a real rarity if you found one. There's also quite a lot of published info out there about the 2-bolt 427 that was put in the 1968 Cougar, but despite the two articles I have in my files, I am convinced (by Royce and others) that this is not correct information.
I’d think the easiest way to tell a 427 would be to look at the cross bolted mains, and then start looking at other things to be sure you didn’t have a late model 406, which also had the cross bolts. There are “rumors” that a few 390’s had cross bolts, but based on what I’ve heard, these would have been a small handful sent to Holman Moody, or even prepared by Holman, and if they exist at all, they were never put on the street. So basically, if it doesn't have the cross bolts, it's not a 427.
P |
| | | | | | | | RE: Check the cross-bolts visible just above the pan -- Davy Gurley, 11/22/2001
You are wrong 'P'. Go to search and check out 4 bolt 427 from about a week ago. I wrote a piece on these and I know what I am talking about. All 427s were not crossbolted. Jack needs to yank a head and measure the bore and then he would know what he has. |
| | | | | | | | | Check the cross-bolts -- P, 11/26/2001
Like I said, "check the cross bolts to see if it's a 427".
Technically, you ~~MAY~~ be right about the 2-bolt 427. I can't argue one way or another, because I've been on both sides of the story, and true information about the subject apparently does not exist from Ford. I can say the number of so-called 2-bolt 427's is undoubtedly ~~SO LOW~~ as to be insignificant and almost statistically zero.
Even if your claim is true about the 2-bolt 427's, 99.99999% of all of them came with cross-bolted mains. Therefore, I advise the guy to check the cross bolts, because the probability of him having one of these "almost mythical" 2-bolt engines seems to be just a bit lower than low. :-)
P |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: Check the cross-bolts -- Davy Gurley, 11/26/2001
Statistically they may be rare,but I have in my possession 'only' 4 blocks that are side oiler castings but not cross drilled or drilled for side oiling. I know what I have. One is currently in use in a 66 F-100 as a stroker (428 crank). The others are just sitting, gathering dust, but they ARE 427 blocks as nothing else was cast as sideoilers. I can photograph these if I have to. Ford did a lot of things in the industial engine area that the car guys didn't know about. I just happen to live in an area where they use(d) a these engines as stationary power plants. The FE engines all had 361-391 heads and intakes with 8 qt. oil pans and 13 in. clutches and truck flywheels. The 428s all had CJ pistons and C7ae rods. We ran a bunch of these and even tied 2 428s together when one wasn't enough. This wasn't too successfull as the crank on the back one wouldn't take the power, usually breaking off the snout just in front of the cam sprocket. We solved that by using a 391 forged crank in the back engine resulting in a 391-428 combo. We never broke a crank with this setup. These engines were running on natural gas 24-7 and would usually last 2 summers if you would change oil in them every week. We even tied a 390 in front of a 534 on one well and it lasted longer than the 391-428 combo. Looked odd but it worked. You just set the mixture with an exhaust gas analizer and set the throttle so that the vacumm was the same on both engines. Incidentally, every FE that blew up was a result of oil starvation on the 4-8 throw on the crank. I learned a lot and it was an expensive lesson sometimes. |
| 428 CJ and SCJ Connecting Rods -- Scott Hollenbeck, 11/19/2001
I've seen many different references to casting numbers used on 428 CJ and SCJ connecting rods, including the following:
CJ (part number C6AZ-C): C9AE-C, C7AE-B, C6AE-C, C6AE-D, C6AE-F
SCJ: (part number C9ZZ-A) C9ZE-A, C6AE-E
Can anyone shed any light on which of these might be real, and which might be examples of literary license?
Thanks,
Scott Hollenbeck
http://www.428cobrajet.org |
| | RE: 428 CJ and SCJ Connecting Rods -- Bob, 11/19/2001
According to the Muscle Parts Story, published by Ford in 1969: the C6AZ-C rod is the 428 PI rod but was used in the CJ (page 53-54). The SCJ used the 427 rod C9ZZ-A (page 54). C5AZ-D was used after 12-26-68 (page 58).
According to the Muscle Parts Story, Supplement 1, published in July of 1970: C6AZ-C is a CJ rod. C9ZZ-A is a SCJ rod. But both of these are listed as service parts only.
|
| | RE: 428 CJ and SCJ Connecting Rods -- Mel Clark, 11/19/2001
The C6AZ-C rod is usually refered to as a CJ or police interceptor rod using a nut and bolt fastener system and the C9ZZ-A is the SCJ rod which for all intents and purposes is the 427 LeMans rod which uses a aircraft type capscrew. The Lemans rods have a slightly taller bolt head than the SCJ bolt and they are both lightened on the shank between the washer and thread section of the bolt, which is a weak point. The best bolts to use are the NASCAR bolts #C7OE 6214 A, I've never seen one break. They were $3.45 @ back in 1969. :-) |
| | | I think we should screw the "Z"s. -- Dave Shoe, 11/20/2001
If the fourth digit of the part number is a "Z". you can forget about it. It's a service replacement "PART" number.
Even if it's not a "Z", the numbers you are likely looking at are "production" part numbers gleaned from a goddam book. Screw them, too.
The ONLY number I'd give a twinkie for is the "casting" number. (Actually, it's a forging number, but let's just call it a casting number for simplicity.) This is a raw "pre-part-number" marking which gets right to the heart of what the hotrodder is looking for.
Since "part" numbers are NEVER found on a rod, you need to learn to look for "casting" numbers, and to learn what are the good casting numbers.
It all boils down to some simple-ass rules: There are only three FE rods worth thinking about. You've got the skinny-ass rod found on FE displacements from 360CID on down. You've got the husky-ass rod found on most all 390+CID FEs since mid-1963, and you've got the heavy-ass rod found in racing 427s and all SCJ FEs since 1964-1/2.
Does that mean the 428CJ rod, with the oddly dimensined 13/32" nut-and-bolt is the same as the 3/8" bolted rod on Mom's 1965 390-2V Galaxie wagon? You bet your sweet ass it does. Except for the drill bit used to cut the bolt hole, these rods are IDENTICAL. Same steel, same forging tool, same thing completely. It just depends on the drill bit selected by the machinist.
But what about the year? Some rods are C5, others are C7. "Who gives a rip", is what I say. The design didn't change, only the paperwork. Wait a minute! - maybe I need the rod with the latest paperwork! Perhaps this is a concern best left to weenies, as this is a HOT-RODDERS forum, not a forum to discuss the merits of proper document control procedures.
Screw production part numbers. Screw service part numbers. Just give me casting numbers and a wrench.
Shoe. |
| | | | RE: I think we should screw the "Z"s. -- Scott Hollenbeck, 11/20/2001
Shoe,
It's the casting numbers that I'm most interested in. Which were factory installed in 428 CJs and SCJs?
Scott |
| | | | | I beleve they are C7AE-B and C6AE-E. -- Dave Shoe, 11/20/2001
You will likely find occasional deviations, but the most common numbers are C7AE-B for the CJ (and also for the plain 390 of the era), and C6AE-E for the SCJ.
Since the C6AE-E was faithfully repopped by Ford in 1980, these are often available "new in the Ford box" for a reasonable price.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | RE: I beleve they are C7AE-B and C6AE-E. -- Bob, 11/20/2001
Got a set of new part number C6ZZ-A with casting number C6AE-E.
But what rod is casting number C6AE-C? |
| | | | | | | #C6AE-C = p/n C6AZ-6200-C. And you meant 'C9ZZ-A', right? [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/20/2001
n/m |
| | | | | | | | RE: #C6AE-C = p/n C6AZ-6200-C. And you meant... [n/m] -- Bob, 11/20/2001
Oops. My mistake Part number C9ZZ-A with Casting Number C6AE-E is correct. But the basic part number is 6200 not 2200. (Gotcha!) |
| | | | | | | | | "2200"? Why, whatever do you mean? ::hee-hee:: :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/20/2001
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: "2200"? Why, whatever do you mean? ::hee-hee:: :-) [n/m] -- Bob, 11/20/2001
That's Cheating! |
| | | | | | | | | | | I know. But all work & no play makes a crabby Admin. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/20/2001
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: I know. But all work & no play makes a crabby Admin. :-) [n/m] -- Bob, 11/21/2001
Didn't know you were the Admin. I thought you were a Ford Technical person with great resources. I both cases you do a great job. Thank you. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Thanks and yes - believe it or not, I own the place. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/22/2001
n/m |
| | RE: 428 CJ and SCJ Connecting Rods -- Mel Clark, 11/20/2001
The large diameter nut and bolt rods are the same as early 427 and were used in the CJ engines as well as many others. The cap screw bolt or LeMans rod was used in the 427 with a different cap screw as well as the CJ with the drag pack and in all SCJ engines. If you find a Virgin :-) 428 car all you need to do is see if it has an oem oil cooler or a windage tray sandwiched between the block and oil pan. That will indicate an SCJ engine regardless of the engine code. Happy hunting :-), Virgins are hard to find now days. ;-( |
| | | RE: Windage tray -- Mike McQuesten, 11/20/2001
Hey Mel, remember that the windage tray was standard on all CJ's starting in '69. You're right on that oil cooler thing being what should be an obvious hint to the vehicle being an SCJ car which meant it was ordered and built with the drag pack. The other current thinking about id'ing these drag pack/Super CJ cars is to look at the VIN plate to id the rear axle code. If it's 3.91 or 4.30 car, it will be a track lock id with an alpha letter identifying the axle. As opposed to a number that indicates an open rear. I can't remember which one....it seems like a V is one and a ....W is the other. There are many out there who have this memorized by now.
BTW, in my C3AE 427, I cleaned off a shelf of mixed "Big Nut" rods. I've got some C3AE, some C6AE and a couple of C7AE. All were magged, shot peened & polished, re-sized, re-numbered and fitted with ARP's CJ/low riser bolt & nut kit. They'll be swingin' from a C5AE - $ cross drilled, forged steel side oiler crank. Pumpin' C3JE forged Industrial/marine pistons(they have a D shaped dish. Topped with C0AE-D '60 High Performance 352 heads. Ya, I cleaned off a couple of shelves of parts I'd been stashing for a few years.
Now I have to get the 2 ton+ land yacht together that this mill will launch. It has been sitting on my engine stand for two full damn years! Full of oil, primed and ready for a fire.
Hey, the Boss Martians have a great web site. Can even download a couple of MP3s of theirs. |
| | | RE: oh!yeh!yeh!yeh! -- dale, 11/22/2001
mel,check out www.fordfairlane.com and click on 68 codes,dale |
| | RE: 428 CJ and SCJ Connecting Rods -- marty vogler, 11/20/2001
A couple of years ago, I tach'ed my '69 r-code Mustang a little too much and because of that, I have an office paper wieght and very intresting convesation piece. Anyway, the connecting rod is C7AE-B, the piston has 428 SUPER on each side of piston . This is the original assembly and the car was not a SCJ. I don't know if this info. is worth anything or not. It is sitting right here beside my computer if anyone wants more info. |
| | | Later CJs got SCJ pistons. -- Dave Shoe, 11/20/2001
As soon as the SCJ cast piston became available in early November 1968, both the CJ and SCJ inherited this reinforced design.
After initial testing, the new SCJ piston was tweaked in late December 1968, and the CJ and SCJ engines after that time got the revised, even stronger, version of the SCJ cast piston.
CJ and SCJ engines did not get identical pistons specs, however. Since thge SCJ was intended to rev out farther, the SCJ piston got a looser fit in the cylinder bore, therefore a standard grade SCJ has a slightly smaller diameter spec than a standard grade CJ piston.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | RE: 428 CJ and SCJ Connecting Rods -- Mel Clark, 11/20/2001
I don't recall the windage tray as being on all CJs, only those equipped with the Drag Pack, which included the locker and oil cooler. The Muscle parts book says that the windage tray was standard on the "later model" CJs, so there must have been a running change while the cars were being built. If I remember right, the SCJs were the Ram Air also and had engine code R in 1969. The Q designated the standard CJ car with or without the Drag Pack also in 1969. Rear axle codes were V for the 3.91 and W for the 4.30. |
| | | To be a Drag Pac or Not to be........... -- Royce Peterson, 11/20/2001
Actually,
The 3.91 and 4.30 rear axle ratios were available without the Drag Pac option both with and without posi or (1970 only) Detroit Locker. So the door data plate will not prove that a car is a Drag Pac.
On the other hand all Drag Pac cars came with either 3.91 or 4.30 locking diff. So you can only prove a car is NOT a Drag Pac by looking at the VIN.
Now as far as I am concerned the Drag Pac is unimportant but some folks attach a lot of value to it, so let's be aware that a copy of an original invoice or a Marti Report is the only true way to tell at this late date. Sure the Drag Pac cars came with oil coolers, Lemans rods and hatchet weight etc. but all those parts can and do get installed by people for the funniest reasons.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | RE: To be a Drag Pac or Not to be........... -- Scott Hollenbeck, 11/21/2001
Royce,
Do you know of any documention to confirm that you could order up a 3.91 or 4.30 rear end ratio without getting the SCJ in the process? Invoice or build sheet maybe? I've heard of this possibility, too, but haven't yet seen a paper trail that confirms anything.
Scott |
| | | | RE: Codes, Q vs R -- Mel Clark, 11/21/2001
I have the salesmans bible (price and option book) for April 1968 which states that the 3.91 and 4.30 gears were available in the Mustang, only with a traction lock diff. and could only be ordered with the 428 engine. The same held true in 1969 but, all cars factory equipped wilt the locker and higher gears in '69 and '70 were automatically upgraded to SCJ engine specs.
To my knowledge the Ram Air was only on the "R" code cars and the "Q" code cars were all non-Ram Air cars even with the Drag Pack. This was mainly to have Ford racers in competition in several classes as Ford wanted to dominate the pony car classes. Unfortunately my books for '69 and newer have been lost over the years so I don't have that information readily available. |
| | | | | RE: Codes, Q vs R -- Tim B, 11/21/2001
Cougars are a little different. The R code was only available in 1969. The Q code was available both years. Ram Air was still available for 1970, it was made an option.
Tim B
1969 XR7 428 CJR convertible
http://members.aol.com/timbrands/index.html |
| | | | RE: To be a Drag Pac or Not to be........... -- Scott Hollenbeck, 11/21/2001
Royce,
I got back Kevin's reply and it looks like things were indeed different for 428CJs vs. the other cars:
"It was a package deal. SCJ if and only if 3.91 or 4.30 and vice versa."
Scott |
| | | | | RE: To be a Drag Pac or Not to be........... -- Royce Peterson, 11/21/2001
Kevin is the man with all the information here. With the availability of repro door tags from other folks for any of these cars, I would still not believe a car's Drag Pac history unless it was accompanied by an original invoice or a report from Kevin himself.
Thanks Scott!
Royce
|
| | | RE: 428 CJ and SCJ Connecting Rods -- Scott Hollenbeck, 11/21/2001
Mel,
CJs and SCJs could both be had in Q-code (no ram air) and R-code (ram air) configurations.
Scott |
| | | | RE: 428 CJ and SCJ Connecting Rods -- Royce Peterson, 11/21/2001
Scott,
You are absolutely correct regarding SCJ's being available with or without Ram Air. No, I don't have documentation of the SCJ not being denoted by a Rear axle ratio but came by this information while talking to my friends Frank Bowers and Kevin Marti. Frank owns several Boss Mustangs (302 and 429) and some Boss and CJ Cougar Eliminators. He has shown me a Lois Eminger report on one of the cars showing the 3.91 axle without Drag Pac. You can contact Frank at :
bowers@clnk.com
Frank runs the Eliminator Registry for the Cougar Club of America. You guys should talk.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | RE: 428 CJ and SCJ Connecting Rods -- Scott Hollenbeck, 11/21/2001
Interesting... I have a mail note in to Kevin Marti to see what he has to say about Mustangs and this possibility. I'll drop a note to Frank, too -- thanks! |
| | | | | | RE: 428 CJ and SCJ Connecting Rods -- dale, 11/21/2001
i know of a 68 fairlane 500 in jersey r code no ram air,auto 428cj,x-code rearend which i beleive is a 391 traction lock,and it is not a scj motor and no oil cooler,dale |
| | | | | | | RE: Huh? -- Mel Clark, 11/22/2001
Dale, that's one I'd have to see 'cause Ford shows the R code and the W codes as 427. R = 8V and W = 4V, the 428 is listed as P = police and Q = 4V. There is no X listed for the Differential but it is listed for the FMX cruise-O-matic. Something seems bogus with this one. The max gear offered in '68 was the 3.50 except with the 428 CJs and the codes as I know them are the same as the '69 to '72s. |
| | | | | | | | RE:oh! yeh! -- dale, 11/22/2001
the fairlane 500 is 1 of 22 made in 68.the id is 8a33r294? the body is 65b,color w,trim 5u,date 26u,dso 16,trans u,and axle is X which is a 391 traction lock\\\\\\\
mel,the 68 fairlane 500 is 1 of 22 made.the plate reads 8a33r29??.the body 63b,color w,trim 5u , date,26u,dso 16,axle x,trans u.the rear axle code x stands for 391 traction lock?,dale
|
| | | | | | | | | RE:oh! yeh! YEH! -- Mel Clark, 11/22/2001
Read this
 |
| | | | | | | | | | RE:oh! yeh! YEH! oh! -- dale, 11/22/2001
look at www.fordfairlane.com,look at 68 codes |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE:oh! yeh! YEH! oh! -- Mel Clark, 11/23/2001
Okay, Books are not the be all, end all but Fords publications are fairly accurate. I do have a '71 Mercury manual that shows some pics of the Boss 429 for that year but, I've never seen or heard of one being produced. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE:oh! yeh! YEH! oh! -- Scott Hollenbeck, 11/23/2001
It's little known and not usually found in most Ford manuals I've seen, but Ford did indeed install 3.91 (X-code) and 4.30 (Y-code) rear end gears in 1968 Mustangs; they could very well have been offered in othjer car lines as well. The CodeCracker [1] data plate decoder found on this web site decodes both X and Y code rear gears accurately, and Kevin Marti's data confirms factory installation.
Scott Hollenbeck
http://www.428cobrajet.org
[1] http://www.fomoco.com/mustang-vin-decoder.shtml |
| | | | | | | RE: 428 CJ and SCJ Connecting Rods -- Royce Peterson, 11/23/2001
Dale,
Makes sense to me. I own a 68 1/2 R Code Cougar. The 391 and 4.30 ratios were available in 68 1/2 but the Drag Pac option was not available until much later, I think toward the end of the 69 model year. There were no SCJ's in 68 model year cars either. And yes the R is the code for the 428CJ Ram Air in 1968.
Royce Peterson |
| '66 Cobras with 428-what differences from 427 -- charlie, 11/19/2001
For 1966 Shelby Cobras that came with 428 versus 427, what type of lifter setup-solid or hydraulic for each? Also, were intake and exhaust system configurations similar ? What about head types LR/MR ? Finally, was there any appreciable difference in performance noted in those days ?
Charlie |
| | RE: '66 Cobras with 428-what differences from 427 -- Mel Clark, 11/19/2001
To my knowledge the main difference to Ol' Carroll was the co$t. The 428 was probably less than half the cost of even a Low Riser 427. There was a huge difference in performance but, the Yups of the day had no idea as most of them were perfectly happy that it sounded tough and would light the tires at almost any speed. If you really get into researching the Cobras you will find that there were constant changes going on in the power plants as well as the chassis, consequently there were very few that were exactly the same as the others. |
| | | RE: '66 Cobras with 428-what differences from 427 -- P, 11/20/2001
Don't know where I read it, but Shelby (and perhaps Ford) had a rebate plan already established in the event the "yups of the day" discovered they had a 428 in lieu of the 427. All the Cobras had 427 on the fender, so it was a bit shady to sell someone a 428.
Shelby was reputed to have indicated that he thought the side-oiler 427 was a "waste of good machinery" in anything other than a race-track destined car; and he was reputed to have indicated that most people "wouldn't know the difference" in the horsepower ratings between the 427 and 428, and he was probably right. The Gucci loafers apparently didn't seem to know how much rubber a 427 was really supposed to lay, versus the 428.
Personally, I'd have been "royally pissed" if I bought a 427 anything and found it had a different motor in it, strong family resemblence or not.
P |
| | | | Re: amen! -- Mel Clark, 11/20/2001
n/m |
| | | | RE: '66 Cobras with 428-what differences from 427 -- charlie, 11/20/2001
Since this was 2 years before the CJ configuration of the 428, what type of heads and induction were used ? Was the cam solid lifter ? Too mundane (like a T-bird), and the idle would have been too smooth, even though the tourque would have been there. |
| | | | | RE: '66 Cobras with 428-what differences from 427 -- Mel Clark, 11/20/2001
I'm not certain which cam was used but, the engine was the same basic Police Interceptor engine that was used in the '67 GT 500 Shelby. |
| | | | | | '67 428 PI - that's the key. -- Dave Shoe, 11/20/2001
It was the 1967 Cobra that got the 428, not the 1966 or 1968.
Shelby was unable to get authorization for the expensive 427 in 1967, so they planted 428PI engines into the Cobra that year. Since only the 1966 428PI had solid lifters, the 1967-later 428PI was hydraulic. I don't remember whether the Cobra kept the PIs hyd cam or whether it was swapped out for a solid.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: '67 428 PI - that's the key. -- charlie, 11/21/2001
My friend is building a 428 Shelby replica, and is going hydraulic. I guess I'll calm down now. I don't know if they do 'years' for those cars, like, look....can't you see this is a true rendition of a '66 versus a '67 ? |
| | | | | | | | RE: What's he building? -- Mel Clark, 11/21/2001
A Shelby or a Cobra? one is a Mustang and the other is a knock off of the AC Bristol. There's a awful lot of difference between them. Please clarify. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: What's he building? -- charlie, 11/21/2001
Sorry about that. He is building the AC Cobra car.
Picture of my 428 is attached. It has a Compcams 270S grind, but he says that will be too noisy for his project.
 |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: What's he building? -- Mel Clark, 11/21/2001
Tell him to build a hydraulic cammed engine, either 427 or 428, depending on his wallet. The Ford over the counter drag cam for the 428 is awesome! The cam makes the car more of a pleasure to own as he will get to drive it more than work on it. :-) The cam to get is P.N.C8AX 6250 C if he can find it and it has a great sound when idling too. |
| | | | | | | Here's the 1968 spec for the GT 500 KR -- P, 11/21/2001
Well, let me say this is the spec I found, hope it's valid for the Shelby stage of tune.
GT 500 KR Engine Specifications
Horsepower 335 @ 5,600 RPM
Torque 440 @ 3,400 RPM
Displacement 428 CI
Bore 4.12 inches
Stroke 3.98 inches
Compression ratio 10.7:1
Cylinder Heads & Valves Large intake port with 2.06" intake valves, 1.625" exhaust valves
Intake Manifold Large iron version of aluminum manifold
Exhaust Manifold New version
Carburetor 735 cfm 4V
Rocker Arms 1.73:1
Tappet - Cam Hydraulic Lifters and Cam
Oil Pan Conventional Ford 428
Cam Shaft Lift .481 Intake.490 Exhaust
Cam Shaft Duration 290 Degrees
I'm going to have to say that horsepower rating looks a bit anemic, with what they're dealing with. My guess is the car was putting out 375-HP or so with these specs.
P
|
| | | | | | | | RE: Here's the 1968 spec for the GT 500 KR -- charlie, 11/21/2001
Thanks for the info, P. On HP figures, I noted in the 70 shop manual (engine) that Ford listed the PI 428 as 360 hp and the CJ as 335.
Charlie |
| | | | | | | | | RE: 1968 spec for the GT 500 KR -- P, 11/21/2001
Good info, but I'm a skeptic. I think the 428 CJ power rating looks low. The PI might even look low too. Look at the compression and all, and it just doesn't seem to add up. Perhaps I'm wrong, and it certainly won't be the first time today!
Hey, they had a 352 that was rated at 360-HP! The manufacturer's were playing games back then, and I guess the only way to really tell is to build one to the stock configuration and put it on the dyno. :-)
P |
| | | | | | | | RE: Here's the 1968 spec for the GT 500 KR -- Bob, 11/21/2001
The 428 PI HP numbers were the same in '66 thru '69. The first year it used athe 425 HP 427 cam and probably made the advertised HP; I built and blue printed one and it ran hard!
In the later years it was smoke and mirrors; the power wasn't there and couldn't be using the smaller cam 390GT cam. |
| 65 Shelby 289 valve covers -- curtis, 11/19/2001
I have a set of 1965 Shelby 289 valve covers on my 69 Cougar and was woundering if anyone can tell me how much their worth. |
| | You'll need to describe them better or post a pic [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/19/2001
n/m |
|