These are the old FoMoCo Obsolete Forums and are being hosted by JCOConsulting.com. While you're here, check out my articles or have a look around at some of the Ford Stuff we have for sale. You might find something you can't live without.

Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9251&Reply=9251><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390 engine fans</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>David Siedschlag, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have a 67 cougar s-code car that I am putting together. One of the parts I need is a fan.  I don't have air and it's not a GT.  What should be on this for a fan?  Some pictures I see they have clutch fans, whats the case?  Also would they have then a fan shroud on the radiator as well.   Another question is why are the motor mount plates for bolting the 390 into the cougar/mustangs so hard to find?  I mean you can buy the frame mount pieces all over,  and the new rubber mounts you can buy new anywhere, but I can't scrounge up the metal pieces to go to the block.  Is there a source of NOS ones that anyone knows of.  David </blockquote> 390 engine fans -- David Siedschlag, 11/11/2001
I have a 67 cougar s-code car that I am putting together. One of the parts I need is a fan. I don't have air and it's not a GT. What should be on this for a fan? Some pictures I see they have clutch fans, whats the case? Also would they have then a fan shroud on the radiator as well. Another question is why are the motor mount plates for bolting the 390 into the cougar/mustangs so hard to find? I mean you can buy the frame mount pieces all over, and the new rubber mounts you can buy new anywhere, but I can't scrounge up the metal pieces to go to the block. Is there a source of NOS ones that anyone knows of. David
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9255&Reply=9251><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 engine fans</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>The correct fan for your Cougar 390 S code is a 7 blade 18.25" diameter unit with a clutch. They are hard to find, a NOS one is not likely. The 390 used a 24" 3 core radiator with a fiberglas shroud.<br><br>The block plates are available from Perogie at www.perogie.com<br><br>Royce Peterson   </blockquote> RE: 390 engine fans -- Royce Peterson, 11/11/2001
The correct fan for your Cougar 390 S code is a 7 blade 18.25" diameter unit with a clutch. They are hard to find, a NOS one is not likely. The 390 used a 24" 3 core radiator with a fiberglas shroud.

The block plates are available from Perogie at www.perogie.com

Royce Peterson
 RE: 390 engine fans -- dave, 11/18/2001
I have a 67 M-tang with a 390 I just finished putting together and as Royce says, the fans are hard ro come by. I wound up putting a six blade fan from Hayden in. The fan is 18 inches and a clutch is also available. I believe the fan blane part number was 3618. I got it from Auto Zone.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9249&Reply=9249><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Aviation fuel for the CJ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mikeb, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>would it be ok to run  some aviation fuel in it or could it mess  something up?<br>thanks </blockquote> Aviation fuel for the CJ? -- mikeb, 11/11/2001
would it be ok to run some aviation fuel in it or could it mess something up?
thanks
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9253&Reply=9249><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I've been using 100LL Avgas for years in my FE's. It has a lot of lead in it, about 50/50 mix with super unleaded fixes the ping in my 11 to 1 427 stroker.<br><br>Royce Peterson </blockquote> RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ? -- Royce Peterson, 11/11/2001
I've been using 100LL Avgas for years in my FE's. It has a lot of lead in it, about 50/50 mix with super unleaded fixes the ping in my 11 to 1 427 stroker.

Royce Peterson
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9266&Reply=9249><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Steve Boulay, <i>11/12/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote> What's the recommended fix/combination (timing, distributor advance curve,  lead additive, etc, etc) to eliminate ping in a 10.5:1  428FE if AV gas is not available?  I've tried all sorts of tuning and not had much luck.  <br>    Any pointers will be appreciated.<br>     thx,<br>        SGB </blockquote> RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ? -- Steve Boulay, 11/12/2001
What's the recommended fix/combination (timing, distributor advance curve, lead additive, etc, etc) to eliminate ping in a 10.5:1 428FE if AV gas is not available? I've tried all sorts of tuning and not had much luck.
Any pointers will be appreciated.
thx,
SGB
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9267&Reply=9249><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Martin Edridge, <i>11/12/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I used to struggle with detonation in my 460, tried avgas, additives and retarded ignition. I know it's a diffenrent engine, but the principles are the same. AVgas and additives are expensive and inconvenient and some additives don't work anyway. Pulling the timing down cured the detonation but also killed the power. Then I made my first water injection system, very crude and linked to (near) full throttle but I was soon convinced that this was the way to do it! Timing can be at optimum and fuel quality can be 'everyday' so this is the best of both worlds. The water also helps keep the chambers clean which in turn helps prevent ping. I made better systems since, but without boring you, the best thing is to just buy one of the better quality systems available. When it's done properly, there is no loss of power and some say it even improves but anything which kills detonation and runs for free (water!) has to be good.<br>Cheers,  Martin. </blockquote> RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ? -- Martin Edridge, 11/12/2001
I used to struggle with detonation in my 460, tried avgas, additives and retarded ignition. I know it's a diffenrent engine, but the principles are the same. AVgas and additives are expensive and inconvenient and some additives don't work anyway. Pulling the timing down cured the detonation but also killed the power. Then I made my first water injection system, very crude and linked to (near) full throttle but I was soon convinced that this was the way to do it! Timing can be at optimum and fuel quality can be 'everyday' so this is the best of both worlds. The water also helps keep the chambers clean which in turn helps prevent ping. I made better systems since, but without boring you, the best thing is to just buy one of the better quality systems available. When it's done properly, there is no loss of power and some say it even improves but anything which kills detonation and runs for free (water!) has to be good.
Cheers, Martin.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9268&Reply=9249><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Steve Boulay, <i>11/12/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>    Martin,<br>          Thanks for the advice.... Can you recommend a brand and vendor?,,,,   Again, all help is appraciated.<br>     thx,<br>  SGB </blockquote> RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ? -- Steve Boulay, 11/12/2001
Martin,
Thanks for the advice.... Can you recommend a brand and vendor?,,,, Again, all help is appraciated.
thx,
SGB
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9270&Reply=9249><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Martin Edridge, <i>11/12/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I believe one of the best (if not THE best) kit is made by a company called Aquamist. I think they are British but sell in the US so look around for the best deal. Not cheap but then quality never is. Quite sophisticated with numerous parameter options (mainly for turbo cars) and most importantly, high pressure for excellent atomisation. This is very important, I have found. There may well be cheaper or similar kits for sale, look around and see. Even the cheaper 'squirt gun' type kits will save your engine by stopping detonation but the power may drop off a bit, which is a small price to pay for saving your CJ, but it would be better to stop the ping without hurting power, wouldn't it?<br>Cheers,  Martin.<br>PS If you want, you can make your own. Surf the 'net  for intrepid souls who have done this already. </blockquote> RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ? -- Martin Edridge, 11/12/2001
I believe one of the best (if not THE best) kit is made by a company called Aquamist. I think they are British but sell in the US so look around for the best deal. Not cheap but then quality never is. Quite sophisticated with numerous parameter options (mainly for turbo cars) and most importantly, high pressure for excellent atomisation. This is very important, I have found. There may well be cheaper or similar kits for sale, look around and see. Even the cheaper 'squirt gun' type kits will save your engine by stopping detonation but the power may drop off a bit, which is a small price to pay for saving your CJ, but it would be better to stop the ping without hurting power, wouldn't it?
Cheers, Martin.
PS If you want, you can make your own. Surf the 'net for intrepid souls who have done this already.
 RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ? -- darren, 11/17/2001
A Martin if you make a 50/50 mix with alochol pure or 25 water 75 rubbing alcohal you'll increase your hourse power. They did that on 747 when they first cam out it hot dry climates becaeuse the air was so thin. TWA did that till Tubro Fans came out. I've been try to think of away off useing an old NOS kit I have. for this
 RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ? -- P, 11/13/2001
Royce, we won't tell the Sierra Club.

:-)

P
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9277&Reply=9249><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Phil, <i>11/12/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Ave gas is really not made to be run in car motors.The additives in ave gas are made for altitude changes and not at sea level or there abouts.It slows the burn rate down which is not what you want in a stout car motor.Buy good fuel as it's not that much higher or put Super in with octane boost.However you choose it's the price you pay for performance......LOL </blockquote> RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ? -- Phil, 11/12/2001
Ave gas is really not made to be run in car motors.The additives in ave gas are made for altitude changes and not at sea level or there abouts.It slows the burn rate down which is not what you want in a stout car motor.Buy good fuel as it's not that much higher or put Super in with octane boost.However you choose it's the price you pay for performance......LOL
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9337&Reply=9249><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>darren, <i>11/17/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Avegas is the same thing you put in you car in the 60. Blue gas of 80 L is 80 octane 86 antine nock with Ticaeathan Lead. Aircraft engine have a mixture control in the cockpit for the allitude. The higher you are the less oxygen so the less fuel you run. The down side of Ave gas is the coast with it being $2.50ish a gallon for the green or red stuff, Lead build up in the cyclender, and the smell. Beleave this guy I went to school did ave gas all the time it smells nasty. Once the lead builds up you get your detination problem again just like in a Lycoming. </blockquote> RE: Aviation fuel for the CJ? -- darren, 11/17/2001
Avegas is the same thing you put in you car in the 60. Blue gas of 80 L is 80 octane 86 antine nock with Ticaeathan Lead. Aircraft engine have a mixture control in the cockpit for the allitude. The higher you are the less oxygen so the less fuel you run. The down side of Ave gas is the coast with it being $2.50ish a gallon for the green or red stuff, Lead build up in the cyclender, and the smell. Beleave this guy I went to school did ave gas all the time it smells nasty. Once the lead builds up you get your detination problem again just like in a Lycoming.
 colors of AV gas -- Wayne, 11/17/2001
Red is 80/87 octane blue is 100/110 low lead Green is 100/130 and purple is 115/145 . Most available at airports is the 100/110 LL (blue) the others have quite a bit of lead in it and the EPA is making it rough for the suppliers. The 100/130 and the 115/145 are impossible to find anymore. Bummer.

Wayne From Way up North (A&P Mech for over 15 years)
 RE: Homemade fuel for the CJ? -- Ranch, 11/13/2001
You might want to take a look at this site.
http://www.vtr.rorg/maintain/gasoline-octane.html
No guarantee and never tried any, just FYI
 Aviation fuel for the CJ? -- Orin, 11/13/2001
I don't know about CJs but it work REAL well in my 2-litre, 4 cylinder 1970 Volvo back in 1982 -- but I found out the hard way.
One day in 1982 a mechanic was taxiing my Cessna to the work shop in a 45-plus knot wind. He turned the nose into the wind and the wind picked up the plane and laid it on its back, crushing the vertical stabilizer and the wing tips. Before we could dismantle it to truck it off to the fix-it guys, we had to drain about 40 gallons of 100LL (at $2.25/gallon!) avgas from the wing tanks. I put 15 gallons in the Volvo and sold the rest for half price to one of the line boys.
The Volvo was designed for 100-plus octane in 1970 but by the early 80s the best you could get on the street was 91-92 octane. It never pinged on the 91/92-octane but there was a noticable drop in performance. After adding the avgas that Volvo performed real well for about a week until I had to fill it up on some 91 octane Shell and then it slowed down a lot. Oh, well it was fun while it lasted.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9245&Reply=9245><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Word of advise to Mustang owners in FL [complaint]</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Eric, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I've had unsatisfactory dealings with a company called "Orlando Mustang". Contact me for details. <br><br>[Post edited by Admin.]<br> </blockquote> Word of advise to Mustang owners in FL [complaint] -- Eric, 11/11/2001
I've had unsatisfactory dealings with a company called "Orlando Mustang". Contact me for details.

[Post edited by Admin.]
 RE: Word of advise to Mustang owners in FL -- R Shannon, 11/11/2001
Get a good old shyter lawyer or go to small claims court. If you have sound facts you could recoupe some of you money.
 RE: HOW, What, WHY? -- Morgan, 11/12/2001
How could you let a vehicle stay anywhere for that long a period. I would have gone mid evil on their ass. All the more reason to invest in some manuals and learn how to do the work yourself. Man five month, What were they doing to it? One time I had a mustang painted in it took them 60 days. I was calling them twice a week to check out the progress after the first week. Make sure you document everything.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9242&Reply=9242><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>'67 Fairlane S code?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Here's what I'd like to know more about:<br>In 1966, The Fairlane was offered with a variety of 390s. I know there was two 2Vs and there was two 4Vs.  One being the Z code 300 horse standard engine very similar if not almost exactly like the standard full size Ford/Merc offering.  I know the heads were C6AE-Rs that would accept the uni body exhaust manifolds.  Then there was the S code 390 GT/335 horse which was only available as standard equipment with the GT/GTA packages for the Fairlane and Comet (Cyclone).  So that's simple and understood.<br>Now for 1967.... The shop manual that I have shows only one 4V 390 engine for the unibody cars and it has an S code designation.   And I also know that Ford saw fit to make the S code 390 which became rated at 320 horse for '67 as an option for the Fairlane/Comet/Mustang etc.  Even the GT/GTA came standard with a 289.  This was crazy.  But my point and question is:  <br>Was the 390-4V that was available to a '67 Fairlane 500 buyer in reality a GT?  I knew a guy who had, and I saw this with my own eyes and even raced him with my '66 GTA, a 1967 Fairlane 500, bench seat, 4 speed, 390-4V car.  It had standard blue paint all over everything and a rather regular air cleaner.  It didn't look at all like the spiffed up chrome accessorized GT engine package.  I don't remember looking under the air cleaner to see if it had a holley or a Ford carb.  We went out and made two runs and I barely pulled him.....like by 3 or 4 feet.  We were neck & neck most of the way.  He had wheel hop probs due to the stick and I had none of that with my C6 equipped GTA.  I figured that was the only reason I got him.  I had a better start off the invisable line.  <br>So if a person ordered a '67 Fairlane/Comet non GT car for that year with a 390-4V, did that person get an actual GT 390?  <br>I didn't care a lot back then like we didn't care a lot about VIN designations, etc.  But in recent years I've wondered about this once in awhile.  I try to wonder about more important things sometimes but then I always revert back to thinking about car stuff it seems. Hmm, what might that be called? </blockquote> '67 Fairlane S code? -- Mike McQuesten, 11/11/2001
Here's what I'd like to know more about:
In 1966, The Fairlane was offered with a variety of 390s. I know there was two 2Vs and there was two 4Vs. One being the Z code 300 horse standard engine very similar if not almost exactly like the standard full size Ford/Merc offering. I know the heads were C6AE-Rs that would accept the uni body exhaust manifolds. Then there was the S code 390 GT/335 horse which was only available as standard equipment with the GT/GTA packages for the Fairlane and Comet (Cyclone). So that's simple and understood.
Now for 1967.... The shop manual that I have shows only one 4V 390 engine for the unibody cars and it has an S code designation. And I also know that Ford saw fit to make the S code 390 which became rated at 320 horse for '67 as an option for the Fairlane/Comet/Mustang etc. Even the GT/GTA came standard with a 289. This was crazy. But my point and question is:
Was the 390-4V that was available to a '67 Fairlane 500 buyer in reality a GT? I knew a guy who had, and I saw this with my own eyes and even raced him with my '66 GTA, a 1967 Fairlane 500, bench seat, 4 speed, 390-4V car. It had standard blue paint all over everything and a rather regular air cleaner. It didn't look at all like the spiffed up chrome accessorized GT engine package. I don't remember looking under the air cleaner to see if it had a holley or a Ford carb. We went out and made two runs and I barely pulled him.....like by 3 or 4 feet. We were neck & neck most of the way. He had wheel hop probs due to the stick and I had none of that with my C6 equipped GTA. I figured that was the only reason I got him. I had a better start off the invisable line.
So if a person ordered a '67 Fairlane/Comet non GT car for that year with a 390-4V, did that person get an actual GT 390?
I didn't care a lot back then like we didn't care a lot about VIN designations, etc. But in recent years I've wondered about this once in awhile. I try to wonder about more important things sometimes but then I always revert back to thinking about car stuff it seems. Hmm, what might that be called?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9243&Reply=9242><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: '67 Fairlane S code?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Mike,<br><br>The 390 GT engine was available without the GT package and would still have an "S" engine code. So in that case the engine would have been the same. <br><br>There was also a "Z" code engine optional in the '66 Fairlane and Comet rated at 315 horsepower. It used a Ford model 4100 Autolite carb rated at 600 CFM. This engine appears to have the same specs as a Galaxie 390 - 4V but I suspect it used the GT style exhaust manifolds. <br><br>Royce Peterson </blockquote> RE: '67 Fairlane S code? -- Royce Peterson, 11/11/2001
Mike,

The 390 GT engine was available without the GT package and would still have an "S" engine code. So in that case the engine would have been the same.

There was also a "Z" code engine optional in the '66 Fairlane and Comet rated at 315 horsepower. It used a Ford model 4100 Autolite carb rated at 600 CFM. This engine appears to have the same specs as a Galaxie 390 - 4V but I suspect it used the GT style exhaust manifolds.

Royce Peterson
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9244&Reply=9242><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: '67 Fairlane S code?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>You're right about that 315 horse rating for the Z code in '66 Royce.<br><br>Thanks for the information on this.  I kinda thought this was the case.  Interesting that the '67 S code came in two dress trims.  I say this because this guy's '67 Fairlane 500 had a totally Blue engine with no chrome trim as per the GT package 390 S code.  <br><br>So what a buyer got with a '67 Fairlane 390 4V S code, non GT/GTA package was a sleeper.  That '67 I mention sure surprised me. </blockquote> RE: '67 Fairlane S code? -- Mike McQuesten, 11/11/2001
You're right about that 315 horse rating for the Z code in '66 Royce.

Thanks for the information on this. I kinda thought this was the case. Interesting that the '67 S code came in two dress trims. I say this because this guy's '67 Fairlane 500 had a totally Blue engine with no chrome trim as per the GT package 390 S code.

So what a buyer got with a '67 Fairlane 390 4V S code, non GT/GTA package was a sleeper. That '67 I mention sure surprised me.
 RE: '67 Fairlane S code? -- mikeb, 11/11/2001
Well, knowing how Ford was, anything might be possible. I don't think they followed any strict standardization procedures in anything, whether it was vehicle trim, engines, or anything else. I even read that they built a429CJ stationwagon in 1970!
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9248&Reply=9242><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: '67 Fairlane S code? FEscapism, of course!</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mikeb, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> RE: '67 Fairlane S code? FEscapism, of course! -- mikeb, 11/11/2001
n/m
 RE: '67 Fairlane S code? FEscapism, of course! -- Mike McQuesten, 11/11/2001
You got that right mikeb! It helps to have a reason to believe.
Anyone else out there know of or know anyone who has a '67 Fairlane/Comet, non GT or GTA with a S code 390?
There's a very nice '67 Fairlane XL for sale locally that's a 4 speed Y code. Asking price is $10,900....seems a little high to me.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9273&Reply=9242><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>I 've not seen  an S code in a non GT yet .....</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Don V, <i>11/12/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>and I have been looking for 6 yrs, as this would make a good  66-67 Fairlane to bring to the Pure Stock Shootouts if only for the wgt savings over a GT. This isn't to say they were not produced, only that I haven't seen one. I am also looking for anyone who has seen a Z code 2dr base sedan, again  a good basis for pure stock racing from a wgt savings standpoint. </blockquote> I 've not seen an S code in a non GT yet ..... -- Don V, 11/12/2001
and I have been looking for 6 yrs, as this would make a good 66-67 Fairlane to bring to the Pure Stock Shootouts if only for the wgt savings over a GT. This isn't to say they were not produced, only that I haven't seen one. I am also looking for anyone who has seen a Z code 2dr base sedan, again a good basis for pure stock racing from a wgt savings standpoint.
 RE: Z code, S code -- Mike McQuesten, 11/12/2001
I agree that any base '67 Fairlane/Comet with an S code engine would make a great pure stock car. What with a few "tweeks" you'd provide some competition for those "pure stock" 396s, 389s, 400s, 440s, etc.
As for a Z code Fairlane/Comet, it'd have to be a 1966 since there was apparently no standard 390-4V offered in '67. But a Z code '66 2 door sedan with a C6OZ-B cam.....that'd be a good one.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9229&Reply=9229><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390 questions...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Brandon Grams, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I was recently on another Ford website and was told that the 390 GT engine came with a holley 600 cfm carb, cobra jet cam, intake and so on. But that the 390 IP (1969) did not come with any of these goodies, my main question is if any 390 IP's came with the Holley carb. Mine has one and I am wondering if it is stock or not? If you guys could clear this up for me it would be greatly appreciated! </blockquote> 390 questions... -- Brandon Grams, 11/11/2001
I was recently on another Ford website and was told that the 390 GT engine came with a holley 600 cfm carb, cobra jet cam, intake and so on. But that the 390 IP (1969) did not come with any of these goodies, my main question is if any 390 IP's came with the Holley carb. Mine has one and I am wondering if it is stock or not? If you guys could clear this up for me it would be greatly appreciated!
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9231&Reply=9229><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 questions...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Bob, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Using the '69 Ford Shop manul as a reference:  <br><br>The 390 and 428 CJ had the similar cams, sharinng the same lift but the 428CJ had longer duration.<br><br>The only caburetor a 390GT in '69 was  was the Autolite 4300 (C9OZ-E, C9ZF-F on Automatics and C9ZF-E on sticks).<br><br>What is the list number on the Holley you have? </blockquote> RE: 390 questions... -- Bob, 11/11/2001
Using the '69 Ford Shop manul as a reference:

The 390 and 428 CJ had the similar cams, sharinng the same lift but the 428CJ had longer duration.

The only caburetor a 390GT in '69 was was the Autolite 4300 (C9OZ-E, C9ZF-F on Automatics and C9ZF-E on sticks).

What is the list number on the Holley you have?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9235&Reply=9229><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 questions...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Brandon Grams, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I went out to my car and found the list number on the Carb, it is List #4452-1 then below that 1336. I also copied down my intake casting number C9ZE9425B and below that number 9E7. I tried to find my head casting number but all I found was 9E24 in the rocker valley. Is it a normal 390 thing to have the intake and the head mated together to form your valve cover mating surface?  </blockquote> RE: 390 questions... -- Brandon Grams, 11/11/2001
I went out to my car and found the list number on the Carb, it is List #4452-1 then below that 1336. I also copied down my intake casting number C9ZE9425B and below that number 9E7. I tried to find my head casting number but all I found was 9E24 in the rocker valley. Is it a normal 390 thing to have the intake and the head mated together to form your valve cover mating surface?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9236&Reply=9229><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 questions...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>A couple of points that may help you:<br><br>First the "Cobra Jet Cam" is part # C6OZ-6250B.  Which may be nit picky but the CJ cam is in reality a 390GT cam.  Introduced in '66 for the new uni body Fairlane/Comet GT 390 package.  The cam was/still is in my opinion, a very nice all around performance cam.  The Ford engineers thought enough of it to make it the cam choice for the CJ and Super CJ too.  That's for those of you who may think a Super CJ had a different cam.  This GT/CJ/C6OZ cam was used in the 390 GT through '68.  Then the powers to be decided the old lo-po cam was good enough for the 390 in '69 and back in it went.  Top it off with a spiffy 4300.  Whoa, nice plan on how to kill a mild performance engine.<br>Your intake C9ZE is the stocker.  It has a 'stang designation with that third letter Z.  That intake was cast , 1969, May 7...9E7.<br>Your heads were cast a few days later, 1969, May 24....9E24.   See how that works?  Who knows why, it was just the way the Dearborn engineers like to code castings.<br>As for the normal 390 thing....yup, that's very normal for us FEnatics.  It's an excellent design that is obviously unique.   Awhile back Dave Shoe provided some early pomo materials circa 1958 that specifically mentions the benefits of this intake/head design.  Good info.  Like a lot that Dave provides, I actually download it & print it and throw it in a file labeled: "Dave Shoe Stuff".  <br>Like what in the hay are C6TE-G heads?  Obviously '66 pick up or truck app heads?  I'm searchin' for a set of those now.  </blockquote> RE: 390 questions... -- Mike McQuesten, 11/11/2001
A couple of points that may help you:

First the "Cobra Jet Cam" is part # C6OZ-6250B. Which may be nit picky but the CJ cam is in reality a 390GT cam. Introduced in '66 for the new uni body Fairlane/Comet GT 390 package. The cam was/still is in my opinion, a very nice all around performance cam. The Ford engineers thought enough of it to make it the cam choice for the CJ and Super CJ too. That's for those of you who may think a Super CJ had a different cam. This GT/CJ/C6OZ cam was used in the 390 GT through '68. Then the powers to be decided the old lo-po cam was good enough for the 390 in '69 and back in it went. Top it off with a spiffy 4300. Whoa, nice plan on how to kill a mild performance engine.
Your intake C9ZE is the stocker. It has a 'stang designation with that third letter Z. That intake was cast , 1969, May 7...9E7.
Your heads were cast a few days later, 1969, May 24....9E24. See how that works? Who knows why, it was just the way the Dearborn engineers like to code castings.
As for the normal 390 thing....yup, that's very normal for us FEnatics. It's an excellent design that is obviously unique. Awhile back Dave Shoe provided some early pomo materials circa 1958 that specifically mentions the benefits of this intake/head design. Good info. Like a lot that Dave provides, I actually download it & print it and throw it in a file labeled: "Dave Shoe Stuff".
Like what in the hay are C6TE-G heads? Obviously '66 pick up or truck app heads? I'm searchin' for a set of those now.
 RE: 390 questions... -- Brandon Grams, 11/11/2001
Do you know where I can find a copy of this information that David Shoe provided a while back, I would like to get a copy of it before I rebuild my motor.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9239&Reply=9229><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 questions...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Bob, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Well the shop manual shows a longer set of duration numbers for the '69 428CJ.<br><br>And NHRA shows the 1969 390GT as using the standard 390 camshaft and Autolite Carburetor. </blockquote> RE: 390 questions... -- Bob, 11/11/2001
Well the shop manual shows a longer set of duration numbers for the '69 428CJ.

And NHRA shows the 1969 390GT as using the standard 390 camshaft and Autolite Carburetor.
 RE: 390 questions... -- Mike McQuesten, 11/11/2001
You're right on there Bob with regards to what the '69 Shop Manual says. The cam specs for the '69 428 CJ will be the same specs as what the '66 - '68 shop manuals show for the 390GT of those years. And yup, the '69 390 "GT" (I like to put that GT for '69 in quotes) is nothing more than what was the standard 390-4V prior to '69.

As for checking on what Dave posted a month ago or so, you can check past postings somehow....I've never done it but it's simple right guys? Mr. F and lots of others can tell you how to go about it.

Hey, I've got a question about the 1967 Fairlane 390-4V cam vs. the GT 390? I'll do a seperate post/question on this one.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9305&Reply=9229><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 questions...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>brad losli, <i>11/13/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>are 390 parts interchangable with 428 engines,and if so what is the difference besides cubes and application </blockquote> RE: 390 questions... -- brad losli, 11/13/2001
are 390 parts interchangable with 428 engines,and if so what is the difference besides cubes and application
 RE: 390 questions... -- Mike McQuesten, 11/13/2001
Yes the parts are interchangeable. Essentials are:

428 = 4.13 bore X 3.98 stroke. External balance.
390 = 4.05 bore X 3.78 stroke.
The rods are the same.

That's as concise as I can be.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9226&Reply=9226><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390 buildup over winter</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Rob, <i>11/10/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Im planning on a mild budget 390 buildup over this winter... im definatly gonna get headers for the car (anyone know where i can find a set of headers for a 65 tbird 390 besides FPA... last time i checked they were remodeling them.. and im looking for something cheaper for now instead of nickel and chrome plating thats all FPA has)... im to the point where the stock manifold can handle what the engine is taking in... also plan on getting an aluminum intake from edelbrock.. gonna port and polish the heads... (and if i have money ill have a machine shop put hardened valve seats in it).. heres the ?... what cam statistics am i looking at.. im sure im gonna have to replace the valve springs for a more beefier cam... also im going for anti pump up hydraulic lifters. any other recommendations i should be aware of.... i changed ignition not too long ago over to pertronix and msd, works pretty good,... any suggestions or past experiences are very welcome... thank you<br><br>                              rob </blockquote> 390 buildup over winter -- Rob, 11/10/2001
Im planning on a mild budget 390 buildup over this winter... im definatly gonna get headers for the car (anyone know where i can find a set of headers for a 65 tbird 390 besides FPA... last time i checked they were remodeling them.. and im looking for something cheaper for now instead of nickel and chrome plating thats all FPA has)... im to the point where the stock manifold can handle what the engine is taking in... also plan on getting an aluminum intake from edelbrock.. gonna port and polish the heads... (and if i have money ill have a machine shop put hardened valve seats in it).. heres the ?... what cam statistics am i looking at.. im sure im gonna have to replace the valve springs for a more beefier cam... also im going for anti pump up hydraulic lifters. any other recommendations i should be aware of.... i changed ignition not too long ago over to pertronix and msd, works pretty good,... any suggestions or past experiences are very welcome... thank you

rob
 RE: 390 buildup over winter -- Rob, 11/11/2001
one more thing.. im running a beefier carb... i believe its a 750cfm holley..
Rob
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9232&Reply=9226><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 buildup over winter</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Bob, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Check you air cleaner to hood clearance before changeing manifolds.  As I recall there isn't much and the Performer may put the carburetor up to high.<br><br>Get the bigger CJ valves put in your heads with hardened exhaust valve seats; intake valve seats do not get as hot so hardened seats are a waste of money there.  <br><br>Porting and polishing is for all out Racers.  Porting can mess up  airflow if not done right.  Port matching is worth doing.  Instead of porting, CC your heads which is something you can do yourself.  Having the combustions chambers exactly the same size improves performance and makes the engine really idle smooth.  <br><br>Buy the cam and kit (valve springs, retainers, etc.) from a Cam Vendor as a package and you will get better prices and a setup that works together.  And Edelbrock is NOT a Cam Vendor.  <br><br>A Holley carburetor of 600 CFM or so is about right.  That's what was on the 390GT.  A larger carburetor is OK but will hurt low end torque a bit so I wouldn't use one useless I was racing.  Get the center pivot bowls if you want it to look hot.  Then you can tell everyone you have a 780 or an 850 and most people won't know the difference anyway.<br><br> </blockquote> RE: 390 buildup over winter -- Bob, 11/11/2001
Check you air cleaner to hood clearance before changeing manifolds. As I recall there isn't much and the Performer may put the carburetor up to high.

Get the bigger CJ valves put in your heads with hardened exhaust valve seats; intake valve seats do not get as hot so hardened seats are a waste of money there.

Porting and polishing is for all out Racers. Porting can mess up airflow if not done right. Port matching is worth doing. Instead of porting, CC your heads which is something you can do yourself. Having the combustions chambers exactly the same size improves performance and makes the engine really idle smooth.

Buy the cam and kit (valve springs, retainers, etc.) from a Cam Vendor as a package and you will get better prices and a setup that works together. And Edelbrock is NOT a Cam Vendor.

A Holley carburetor of 600 CFM or so is about right. That's what was on the 390GT. A larger carburetor is OK but will hurt low end torque a bit so I wouldn't use one useless I was racing. Get the center pivot bowls if you want it to look hot. Then you can tell everyone you have a 780 or an 850 and most people won't know the difference anyway.

Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9238&Reply=9226><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 buildup over winter</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Bob's rec to buy from a distributor like Cam Vendor seems like a good idea.  As for a cam, I sound like a stuck record here but you can't beat the Edelbrock Performer cam package.  Whether through Cam Vendor, or Jegs or Summit, you get a good deal on a cam that was engineered to be an all around street performer.  Idles well, makes power through a broad range of idle to 5,000 rpm.  The cam package comes with the proper lifters and valve springs to match this cam.   If not Edelbrock, go with a complete package like this from a reputable cam company.  Just keep it mild.  A '65 'bird is a hefty load.  You need a torque cam to move it.<br>Also I like Bob's recommendation on going with a 600 CFM carb.  The 750 isn't a good deal for your intended use.  <br>And really those old exhaust manifolds will work fine.  A good 2 1/2 full dual exhaust system will sound great.<br><br>I never gave those sixties 'birds much due.  My Dad & Mom loved 'em. Being that my Dad worked as a CPA for two Ford/Merc dealers, we seemed to have a new 'bird every six months parked in the driveway.  He got some kind of deal.  I'd hardly look at them.  I'd have to drive them once in awhile.  But now they're kind of appealing to me.   I'm seeing more of them being fixed and resto moded.  And prices are still reasonable to pick them up.  So good luck with what will be a nice cruiser. </blockquote> RE: 390 buildup over winter -- Mike McQuesten, 11/11/2001
Bob's rec to buy from a distributor like Cam Vendor seems like a good idea. As for a cam, I sound like a stuck record here but you can't beat the Edelbrock Performer cam package. Whether through Cam Vendor, or Jegs or Summit, you get a good deal on a cam that was engineered to be an all around street performer. Idles well, makes power through a broad range of idle to 5,000 rpm. The cam package comes with the proper lifters and valve springs to match this cam. If not Edelbrock, go with a complete package like this from a reputable cam company. Just keep it mild. A '65 'bird is a hefty load. You need a torque cam to move it.
Also I like Bob's recommendation on going with a 600 CFM carb. The 750 isn't a good deal for your intended use.
And really those old exhaust manifolds will work fine. A good 2 1/2 full dual exhaust system will sound great.

I never gave those sixties 'birds much due. My Dad & Mom loved 'em. Being that my Dad worked as a CPA for two Ford/Merc dealers, we seemed to have a new 'bird every six months parked in the driveway. He got some kind of deal. I'd hardly look at them. I'd have to drive them once in awhile. But now they're kind of appealing to me. I'm seeing more of them being fixed and resto moded. And prices are still reasonable to pick them up. So good luck with what will be a nice cruiser.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9246&Reply=9226><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 buildup over winter</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Bob, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I deagree strongly about the exhaust system.  The shorty headers will be worth every penny.  <br><br>You can buy you cam and kit from Jegs or Summit but get a complete kit </blockquote> RE: 390 buildup over winter -- Bob, 11/11/2001
I deagree strongly about the exhaust system. The shorty headers will be worth every penny.

You can buy you cam and kit from Jegs or Summit but get a complete kit
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9263&Reply=9226><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 buildup over winter</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>11/12/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Bob,<br>I agree that headers of any length would be helpful for Rob's "budget build" as he'd requested advice for.  He mentioned that he didn't want to spend the big bucks for the type of headers the FPA offers.  So where might Rob be able to buy the shorty headers you recommend for a 1965 Thunderbird 390? <br>Hey Rob, if you're willing to spend the money for these headers that Bob will recommend, indeed go for them. <br>As for FPA headers, I've heard many good things about them.  One guy I know runs a set in a '69 F100/390.  Another a nice set in a '57 with 428/4 speed. <br><br>And yes, the entire cam kit/package is the way to go in a mild build up. </blockquote> RE: 390 buildup over winter -- Mike McQuesten, 11/12/2001
Bob,
I agree that headers of any length would be helpful for Rob's "budget build" as he'd requested advice for. He mentioned that he didn't want to spend the big bucks for the type of headers the FPA offers. So where might Rob be able to buy the shorty headers you recommend for a 1965 Thunderbird 390?
Hey Rob, if you're willing to spend the money for these headers that Bob will recommend, indeed go for them.
As for FPA headers, I've heard many good things about them. One guy I know runs a set in a '69 F100/390. Another a nice set in a '57 with 428/4 speed.

And yes, the entire cam kit/package is the way to go in a mild build up.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9265&Reply=9226><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 buildup over winter</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Bob, <i>11/12/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I agree they are expensive and may be too costly but the stock log type manifolds are awful.  I don't have an alternative source. </blockquote> RE: 390 buildup over winter -- Bob, 11/12/2001
I agree they are expensive and may be too costly but the stock log type manifolds are awful. I don't have an alternative source.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9319&Reply=9226><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 390 buildup over winter</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Rob, <i>11/14/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Exactly.. the stock log type are just what i need to get rid of.... their holding the engine back just a little right now (rpms don't feel like like their building up as fast as they should).. and the motor is pretty much stock..... i already have the 750 carb on there at this moment and i have no problems with it... its not a double pumper but its a dual feed.. it doesn't bog the engine when i gun it so it should be alright...<br><br>One of my major problems that i found out the dragstrip is i don't have any top end power.. im not running out of rpms.... it hits 70 and dies.. and thats at 3500 4000 rpm.. with a 5200 redline i want some more power up the top end thats where i figure a little more beefier cam.. (doing something depending on my budget) with the heads.. and getting headers and a H pipe on there..<br><br>Im pretty much alright with the ignition right now running a pertronix module and a MSD-6 box with a super coil and 8.8 mm wires and autolite plugs... <br><br>now i know ill have to get a higher stall torque converter if im gonna get a beefier cam... <br><br>you guys have any experience with anti pump up hydraulic lifters? and what kinda cam am i looking at here... ill prolly end up calling some distributer and ask them what would be ideal.. but im trying to find a baseline... <br><br>your help has been appreciated and any more help would be too.... Thank You<br>                                           Rob </blockquote> RE: 390 buildup over winter -- Rob, 11/14/2001
Exactly.. the stock log type are just what i need to get rid of.... their holding the engine back just a little right now (rpms don't feel like like their building up as fast as they should).. and the motor is pretty much stock..... i already have the 750 carb on there at this moment and i have no problems with it... its not a double pumper but its a dual feed.. it doesn't bog the engine when i gun it so it should be alright...

One of my major problems that i found out the dragstrip is i don't have any top end power.. im not running out of rpms.... it hits 70 and dies.. and thats at 3500 4000 rpm.. with a 5200 redline i want some more power up the top end thats where i figure a little more beefier cam.. (doing something depending on my budget) with the heads.. and getting headers and a H pipe on there..

Im pretty much alright with the ignition right now running a pertronix module and a MSD-6 box with a super coil and 8.8 mm wires and autolite plugs...

now i know ill have to get a higher stall torque converter if im gonna get a beefier cam...

you guys have any experience with anti pump up hydraulic lifters? and what kinda cam am i looking at here... ill prolly end up calling some distributer and ask them what would be ideal.. but im trying to find a baseline...

your help has been appreciated and any more help would be too.... Thank You
Rob
 RE: 390 buildup over winter -- Bob, 11/15/2001
CAN selection is am art as much as it is a science. Many variables and at least one is very hard to define and that is just where the band band should be.

Talk to the experts at Isky, Crane and Crower then buy the cam and kit as set from Summit or Jegs.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9223&Reply=9223><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>do early 390 2bbl and 4bbl heads have the same</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mikeb, <i>11/10/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>port sizes?<br>thanks </blockquote> do early 390 2bbl and 4bbl heads have the same -- mikeb, 11/10/2001
port sizes?
thanks
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9240&Reply=9223><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: do early 390 2bbl and 4bbl heads have the same</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>11/11/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Since no one is giving you a simple answer on this one, here goes:<br><br>Yes, they do.  Early meaning.....'58 to ??  But essentially it's true that standard FE heads were the same for 2V or 4V.   One exception was the strange application of the C3AE heads in 1963.   Essentially they were 406 tri ower heads with the small stanard FE valves but they had a tight combustion chamber that bumped the compression ratio up on the '63 390 to 10.5:1.  The '63 390 was still running the dished piston like the '61/'62.  But now I've gone completely off your original question about port sizes....even the C3AE I mention had the same port sizes.<br>Now when you get to 1966.....I'd let Shoe take it from there.  C6AE-R & C6TE-G & C7AE-R & C8AE.......you have to start taking notes at this time. </blockquote> RE: do early 390 2bbl and 4bbl heads have the same -- Mike McQuesten, 11/11/2001
Since no one is giving you a simple answer on this one, here goes:

Yes, they do. Early meaning.....'58 to ?? But essentially it's true that standard FE heads were the same for 2V or 4V. One exception was the strange application of the C3AE heads in 1963. Essentially they were 406 tri ower heads with the small stanard FE valves but they had a tight combustion chamber that bumped the compression ratio up on the '63 390 to 10.5:1. The '63 390 was still running the dished piston like the '61/'62. But now I've gone completely off your original question about port sizes....even the C3AE I mention had the same port sizes.
Now when you get to 1966.....I'd let Shoe take it from there. C6AE-R & C6TE-G & C7AE-R & C8AE.......you have to start taking notes at this time.
 RE: do early 390 2bbl and 4bbl heads have the same -- mikeb, 11/11/2001
Thanks, I remember Shoe saying early heads were as good or better than CJ's because they don't have the emission stuff, but I didn't know if that was just for the 4bbl heads or not.
It would be nice if some of you experienced FE'rs would share some super tuning tips to get the most out of 'em
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9272&Reply=9223><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Yup.  They're the same.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>11/12/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>FE non-racing heads from mid-1958 thru the end of 1965 are all basically identical.  Early 1958 heads also have the same runners, but the chambers are machined.<br><br>The C6AE-R and CJ heads retained these runners, with the exception of Thermactor emissions bosses which were added (and sometimes drilled) in the roof of the exhaust runner.  The C6AE-R (as well as some industrial/truck/marine heads) got an additional AR lip, but that's a different story.<br><br>Otherwise 1966 was a big-change year for the FE head, as emissions regulations forced efficient "high-velocity" runners (also known as "small runners") into most of the FE's being produced from then-on.<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> Yup. They're the same. -- Dave Shoe, 11/12/2001
FE non-racing heads from mid-1958 thru the end of 1965 are all basically identical. Early 1958 heads also have the same runners, but the chambers are machined.

The C6AE-R and CJ heads retained these runners, with the exception of Thermactor emissions bosses which were added (and sometimes drilled) in the roof of the exhaust runner. The C6AE-R (as well as some industrial/truck/marine heads) got an additional AR lip, but that's a different story.

Otherwise 1966 was a big-change year for the FE head, as emissions regulations forced efficient "high-velocity" runners (also known as "small runners") into most of the FE's being produced from then-on.

Shoe.
 Yes, that is right.......... -- Ed, 11/12/2001
Also in 66 with many FE's it was a toss up weither you would get big port C6AE-R's or The small heads.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9222&Reply=9222><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>dist rotation?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Greg, <i>11/10/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>  Silly question......  What is the distributor rotation on a '69 428cj?  c.w or c.c.w.?<br>  Thanks <br>     Greg<br> </blockquote> dist rotation? -- Greg, 11/10/2001
Silly question...... What is the distributor rotation on a '69 428cj? c.w or c.c.w.?
Thanks
Greg
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9228&Reply=9222><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: dist rotation?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Robin, <i>11/10/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>According to the shop manual the distributor rotates CCW.  Robin </blockquote> RE: dist rotation? -- Robin, 11/10/2001
According to the shop manual the distributor rotates CCW. Robin
 thanks n.m. -- Greg, 11/11/2001
n.m.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9212&Reply=9212><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Aftermarket intake vs. stock</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Boyd, <i>11/10/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I'm getting ready to put my '67 410cid Merc back together and I have to replace the cam and lifters. The block was bored 30 over and I am using cast pistons. I am also using the stock heads.  I plan on buying an Edelbrock cam & lifters. I'm not going to the drag strip but I want to get a little more power out of the engine. I was wondering if there would be any advantage of getting a performer intake over using the stock cast iron intake (besides the weight difference). I also plan on using a Holley 750cfm carb. Would that be too much? Any help or comments appreciated. </blockquote> Aftermarket intake vs. stock -- Boyd, 11/10/2001
I'm getting ready to put my '67 410cid Merc back together and I have to replace the cam and lifters. The block was bored 30 over and I am using cast pistons. I am also using the stock heads. I plan on buying an Edelbrock cam & lifters. I'm not going to the drag strip but I want to get a little more power out of the engine. I was wondering if there would be any advantage of getting a performer intake over using the stock cast iron intake (besides the weight difference). I also plan on using a Holley 750cfm carb. Would that be too much? Any help or comments appreciated.
 RE: Aftermarket intake vs. stock -- Mike McQuesten, 11/10/2001
Yes, use the Edelbrock Performer. It's an excellent low end torque intake. That sounds like just what you want with your Merc. It's matched nicely with the E-brock Performer camshaft.
I ran this intake on a 428 CJ with the Motorsport cam, the only cam that is sold through the Ford Motorsports line for the FE. I had run a C7AE PI aluminum intake w/original 735 Holley and a 1.12 600 CFM 4100 Autolite; an Offy dual four w/500 Edelbrocks. Also ran a Edelbrock Streetmaster with the 735 Holley. Disastrous results with that one.....long story but I ran that intake exactly ten minutes and started the drain down process to get it off. So on went the Performer with a 750 manual choke Edelbrock carb. The bottem end, off the line power was tremendous. Best that '28 CJ had ever provided me.
Do you have the Holley 750 already? If so, sure, run it. Should be okay if it's in good shape. I've had a lot of mixed success with used Holleys. If you haven't purchased the carb yet, I'd recommend the Edelbrock 750 with Electric Choke for what you seem to be doing.
Just my opinions of course. Should be a fun cruise in your Mercury...if it's a Merc, still a fun cruise no matter which body you drop the big 410 into.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9210&Reply=9210><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Adjustable Vacuum Advance</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Phil, <i>11/10/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>OK, I've enjoyed learning from all these questions, and answers. Now it's my turn. '69 F100 w/390 mildly pumped up with a Crane energizer, Edlbk intake and 750 carb, and headers. I needed a new vacuum advance and opted for an adjustable one (don't know why?). I've twisted on it enough now, that I don't know where I am, or should be. Timing is 40 degrees total all in at 2,800 rpm, and 12 initial with vacuum hose off. I have a mild stumble from a stop, with excellent mid and top end. All the accelerator pump changes per Edblk manual had no effect. What is the proper sequence for setting adj. advance, and what am I adjusting? </blockquote> Adjustable Vacuum Advance -- Phil, 11/10/2001
OK, I've enjoyed learning from all these questions, and answers. Now it's my turn. '69 F100 w/390 mildly pumped up with a Crane energizer, Edlbk intake and 750 carb, and headers. I needed a new vacuum advance and opted for an adjustable one (don't know why?). I've twisted on it enough now, that I don't know where I am, or should be. Timing is 40 degrees total all in at 2,800 rpm, and 12 initial with vacuum hose off. I have a mild stumble from a stop, with excellent mid and top end. All the accelerator pump changes per Edblk manual had no effect. What is the proper sequence for setting adj. advance, and what am I adjusting?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9215&Reply=9210><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Adjustable Vacuum Advance</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>11/10/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I'm not going to give you advice on the timing adjustment.  I do it the "normal" shade tree way, with a timing light, drive it....keep trying until it feels good.   If it doesn't "feel good", I drive to my buddy  Steve's who is very good at timing.  Then go to the strip and see how it works....with the timing light in the tool box too.  <br>But about that stumble.....I'm assuming from what you've said that it's an Edelbrock 750?  But wait, "accelerator pump changes"....you must mean you have a Holley 750, right?  I was just going to tell about how I eliminated a similar stumble while running a 750 Edelbrock following their guidelines, adjusting metering rods and step up springs.  No stinkin' accelerator pump problems.  No runs, no drips, just a couple of minutes replacing metering rods/step up springs and off for a test.  No more stumble, just tires smokin'! </blockquote> RE: Adjustable Vacuum Advance -- Mike McQuesten, 11/10/2001
I'm not going to give you advice on the timing adjustment. I do it the "normal" shade tree way, with a timing light, drive it....keep trying until it feels good. If it doesn't "feel good", I drive to my buddy Steve's who is very good at timing. Then go to the strip and see how it works....with the timing light in the tool box too.
But about that stumble.....I'm assuming from what you've said that it's an Edelbrock 750? But wait, "accelerator pump changes"....you must mean you have a Holley 750, right? I was just going to tell about how I eliminated a similar stumble while running a 750 Edelbrock following their guidelines, adjusting metering rods and step up springs. No stinkin' accelerator pump problems. No runs, no drips, just a couple of minutes replacing metering rods/step up springs and off for a test. No more stumble, just tires smokin'!
 RE: Adjustable Vacuum Advance -- Mike McQuesten, 11/10/2001
Ya, I was thinking about those stinking power valves that I've had problems with on Holleys. I'm going from memory here, about 6-7 years ago when I "tuned" my E-brock but in talking directlyon the phone with a 'brock tech guy, he walked me through the steps. I did buy the "Strip kit" with a variety of metering rods, step up springs and jets. I think I reduced jet size one step, and then put a weaker step up spring with a larger metering rod. All of this was designed to cut down on the initial shot of fuel. It worked like I said. From then on, no problems ever with that carb. Good luck. Following Royce's directions and a little more carb tweeking, you'll have it.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=9216&Reply=9210><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Adjustable Vacuum Advance</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>11/10/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>You should first get rid of the stumble, usually done by adding more initial advance. Once you have the tip in respose problem cured then you use the adjustable vacuum advance to limit the total advance number. I would try something like 14 degrees initial (hose disconnected and plugged) and try to have full advance with everything connected by 2800 of 40 - 42 degrees. If it pings on a 3000 RPM punch , you might have to back it down again using the adjustable vacuum unit to get rid of the preignition. It is all dependent upon cylinder pressure versus octane versus vehicle weight versus gearing. This many variables means that you have to set it while driving it and the actual numbers are meaningless, the end result is all that mattters.<br><br>Good Luck,<br><br>Royce Peterson   </blockquote> RE: Adjustable Vacuum Advance -- Royce Peterson, 11/10/2001
You should first get rid of the stumble, usually done by adding more initial advance. Once you have the tip in respose problem cured then you use the adjustable vacuum advance to limit the total advance number. I would try something like 14 degrees initial (hose disconnected and plugged) and try to have full advance with everything connected by 2800 of 40 - 42 degrees. If it pings on a 3000 RPM punch , you might have to back it down again using the adjustable vacuum unit to get rid of the preignition. It is all dependent upon cylinder pressure versus octane versus vehicle weight versus gearing. This many variables means that you have to set it while driving it and the actual numbers are meaningless, the end result is all that mattters.

Good Luck,

Royce Peterson
 RE: Adjustable Vacuum Advance -- Phil, 11/10/2001
Thanks guys,
Mike, yep Edelbrock 750 and the pump changes I spoke of are the three pump travel holes and the three nozzle diameters available. Big E suggested more fuel discharge for a stumble. It didn't work, but I love the carbs adjustability, that's why I think it's in the timing. I'll keep tweekin' ,driving, and smokin'.
Go to the top of this page
Go back one page Back    Next Go forward one page

341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360