Skip Navigation Links.
 |  engine-number -- Christian Gustavson, 11/07/2001
Hello!
I wonder if someone could help me to identify a ford engine.
I found a number (O or 0) C5AE-6015E.
There is also another number 8B4.
I am pretty sure that it is an 289 or 302......
Best regards
Christian Gustavsson
|
 | modifications to a 351 boss -- doug heady, 11/06/2001
hey guys, i recently bought a 71 mach 1 with a 351 boss, Im trying to improve my quarter mile without blowing my engine. does anyone have any suggestions as to what improvements could be made by a 16 year old to improve my quarter mile? |
| correct air cleaner decal -- Eric, 11/06/2001
I've noticed there are several different air cleaner decals for a 428 cj, ie.
cobra jet - ford - 428-4v
cobra-ford-428-4v
428 cubic inches - premium fuel
and a couple more...
The first one is the one currently on my 69 Q-code.
Does anyone know which is MCA or concourse correct
thanks, eric
|
|  | Is this a Ford or Mercury vehicle? [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/06/2001
n/m |
| | RE: correct air cleaner decal -- Eric, 11/07/2001
it's a mustang convertible
manufactured in Dearborne |
| |  | RE: correct air cleaner decal -- peter, 11/07/2001
Whilst were on the subject do they have a air cleaner decal on the air filter lid on the ram air for the mustang cobra jets 1969.....
thanks peter.. |
|  | RE: correct air cleaner decal -- Greg, 11/10/2001
Eric,
I went through this with my 1969 Mach 1 428 CJ Q-code Mustang. I found, that the plain 428 cubic inches
with the orange and black checkerboard on each side was the correct sticker. I was told by a company specializing in mustang air cleaners that in 1970 and after certain dates, the Cobra Jet - Ford -428 4V sticker came out.
Again, it all depends on the build date of your car.
Same goes for the autolite 9600 sticker that goes on the base. If you have the build sheet of your car, it will tell you what air cleaner base(part #) your car came with.
My car had a build date of Dec. 1968 & came with a C80Z9600C air cleaner. |
| 390 Builders -- John T, 11/05/2001
I'm sorry to repeat, but... I asked about FE builders in the LA area, and got a good lead to the Long Beach / Signal Hill area. AND, I promptly lost it. Please help, again.
Thanks, JT |
| Sidewinder and 780cfm question... -- Gary Morris, 11/05/2001
I need some opinions and what better place to ask them. I'm a lurker from way back but now I need some help. I currently have a 427 sideoiler in a Cobra replica. It's running 10 to 1 comp, ported and polished C4AE6090G heads with Cobra Jet valves, Cross Drilled 428 crank, Offenhauser Port-O-Sonic with Holley 850 DP. Cam is Crane 226/226 @.50 with .537 lift. Car runs good and has plenty of power but someday I want to do another engine and have been collecting some parts for that time. I have acquired a Shelby lettered sidewinder intake that I would like to run someday along with aluminum heads etc..etc... This weekend a Holley C5AF9510BE carb was up for sale on e-bay.This was the 780 cfm with the Lemans bowls and all. From my research this was the correct carb for a 65 competition Cobra and I am trying to replicate a 65 S/C and thought this might be a cool addittion. I literally feel asleep and missed the end of the auction. My question is since this was a factory combination in 65 just how well would this setup work today? My car runs good now but not as strong as I would like down low. Personally I would like a combination that would run like stink down low and sacrfice the top end as it gets real spooky in a Cobra after 100. Are these carbs really hard to find? Any help appreciated.
Gary |
| | RE: Sidewinder and 780cfm question... -- Mel Clark, 11/05/2001
That carb and intake worked great for me in a '66 Cyclone with a 427/447 that I built just to keep from driving my '67. It gave me about 18 mpg at 80+ mph. In 4th gear at nearly any speed, you just step on the gas and as the secondaries open it's just like down shifting the car.
you might want to research your suspension a bit as the Cobra shouldn't get scarey until you're over 150 mph, depending on the twists and turns in the road of course. |
| | | RE: Sidewinder and 780cfm question... -- Gary Morris, 11/05/2001
Thanks for the info Mel. The car runs fine it's just that my cohones get smaller after 100 as I realize that if I screw up or someone darts in front of me I can probably kiss myself goodbye:-)
Gary |
| | RE: Sidewinder and 780cfm question... -- Bob, 11/05/2001
The 780 would do a lot for the low end as it has vacuum controlled secondaries and they won't open until the air flow in high enough need them.
This really helps low end fuel metering and thus torque. A double pumper is really a track carburetor with lousy street manners and poor gas mileage. |
| | | RE: Sidewinder and 780cfm question... -- Bob Enright, 11/05/2001
I am running a 428CJ in a 67 Mustang. Hooker super comp headers comp cam 296 duration & about a 550 lift. The rest of the motor is stock. I am using a sidewinder with a Holley 950HP series carb. The car screeeeams. I also have a 750DP but there is a noticable difference in power. If you have a stick there is nothing like a DP. I wouldent use anything else. The cool thing about using an HP series carb is that it hides under the air filter anyway!! I dressed my engine to look like the stock 390GT. Not many people if any notice...... Hope this helps... |
| | RE: Sidewinder and 780cfm question... -- Martin Edridge, 11/05/2001
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the sidewinder is a dual plane is it not? And the Port-o-Sonic is a single plane, which tends to kill off bottom end/ mid range power but enhances high-end power. The dual plane would work the other way round, which is what you indicate would suit you better. I will not put a single plane intake in any street car now, especially as advances have given us very good dual planes which work well at all but the highest rpm. Likewise, the double-pumper will tend to lose bottom end, so changing to a dual plane and V/S carb would likely change the whole character of the engine with no other changes. HTH
Cheers, Martin. |
| | | RE: Sidewinder and 780cfm question... -- Gary Morris, 11/06/2001
Thanks gentlemen.....ya'll are the greatest!!
Gary Morris |
| Autolite 4100 5 sizes -- Ed Jenkins, 11/04/2001
This is what I have found out from a reputable source.
Remeber that 1957 4100 that I was talking about?
It acutally flows 450 CFM. So there are 5 sizes of 4100's: The 1957 (450 CFM), the 1.08 (480 CFM), the 1.12 both Hipo and non Hipo (600 CFM), the 1.19 (669 CFM), and the Pony carbs spread bore 4100.
|
| | Why on earth count the Pony carbs abortion....er, model? [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/04/2001
n/m |
| | | It is another model....... -- Ed, 11/05/2001
...even though we don't like it, it still deserves to be counted. If just for hystrical and histrorical value. |
| | RE: Autolite 4100 5 sizes -- Travis Miller, 11/05/2001
Most everyone knows about the 1.08 and the 1.12 4100's. Could someone expand on the other three so everyone is schooled on what is out there? |
| | | RE: Autolite 4100 5 sizes -- ED Jenkins, 11/05/2001
The 1957 only uses 1 7/16" (looks like it has 0.5" venturis) bores like the 1.08" venturi (480 cfm). The 58 uses 1.19 venturis (669 cfm) and was only used on the 58 Merc "high torque" 383. It uses
1 9/16" bores like the 600 CFM models.
The Pony carbs model uses a 1.08 with one set throtle bores bored out to 1 9/16" and that bored out side uses a special large venturis created by Pony carbs. |
| | | | RE: Autolite 4100 5 sizes -- Bob, 11/06/2001
Found another reference on page 13 of the Muscle Parts Story Supplement No. 1, Copyright 1970, Ford Motor Company, Vol. MP 1045 July. On the lower right of this page they list the changes needed to take a 289-4V into the High Performance 271 HP 289. One of the items listed is "4-bbl, 480 cubic feet/minute carburetor".
This carburetor is listed on page 10-70 of the 1966 Mustang Shop Manual (Carburetor Part Number C6ZF-C) with throttle bores of 1.562 Primary and 1.562 Secondary, a Primary Venturi of 1.125 and a Secondary Venturi of 1.187.
The shop manuals before 1967 do not list the CFM rating for any carburetor to the best of my knowledge. |
| | | | | Are you sure that this........ -- Ed, 11/06/2001
...is the total CFM of the carb and not just how much the carb will flow on the given engine? |
| | | | | | RE: Are you sure that this........ -- Bob, 11/06/2001
The established standard is J228, Carburetor Airflow Reference Standards set by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). This standard is a 1.5 inches vacuum for 4 BBL carburetors and a 3.0 inch vacuum for 1 and 2 BBL carburetors. This standard is followed by Holley and Edelbrock (and everybody else) except Pony Carbs to the best of my knowledge.
The standard method is to install the carburetor in the test fixture, create a 1.5 (or 3.0) inch vacuum with the throttle plate(s) open and measure the air flow. Adjust this air flow for standard barometric pressure (sea level) using established tables.
It has NOTHING to do with any engine, any camshaft or any head. Just the carburetor and the test stand. Go to your college library and look it up in the latest SAE Handbook (or even an old one the standard has not changed in any significant way for twenty years that I know of). |
| | | | | | | Oh, it's the old SAE vs old Ford rating again.... -- Ed Jenkins, 11/06/2001
.......kind of like adevertised Horsepower vs acutal horsepower or brake vs net. Ford's old system wasn't too acurate. |
| | | | | | | | RE: Oh, it's the old SAE vs old Ford rating again.... -- Bob, 11/06/2001
Every automobile manufacturer prior to 1971 or 1972 advertised their vehicle engines at gross horspower. One of the Federal emission rules that came out at about that time made all of the vehicle manufacturers rate their engines at net horsepower, i.e., make the engine test with the fan water pump, the as it be will be installed exhaust manifolds and header pipes, alternator, and all other pumps, belts and pulleys typically installed with the motor when measuring the power produced.
This reduced all horsepower ratings for all engines for all manufacturers not just Ford. Its not an SAE verus NET rating, its a Federal rule about advertised horsepower and how it will be measured.
I do believe that SAE developed a standard that covers this so that the manufacturer's would follow a more definitive guideline that the vaguely written Federal outline however. |
| | RE: Autolite 4100 5 sizes -- Bob, 11/05/2001
What Ford shop manual shows any Autolite 4100 flowing over 480 CFM? What's a tag number for any 4100 flowing over 480 CFM.
What is your source for these numbers? Don't tell me Pony Carbs as they are full of it.
Give me a source much like the following:
In the 1969 Ford Shop Manual, Page 10-11-04, it shows the 4100 with tag number C8AF-AE with throttle bores of 1.562 Primary and 1.562 Secondary, a Primary Venturi of 1.125 and a Secondary Venturi of 1.187 with "Maximum Air Flow (cfm) 472" |
| | Let's make a sixth... -- Louie, 11/06/2001
I have a 1.08 and a few 1.12's and was going to try using the 1.08 top on a 1.12 base just as an experiment to see if it would help to add some muscle to the ol' 4100.. The 1.08 top has shooters going to both the primary and the secondary.
Has anyone ever seen a matrix showing the jet / venturi cluster combinations? With the simplicity of the 4100, I've always thought that knowing this combination and understaing their relationship to each other is the only key necessary to precisely tune a 4100. |
| | | RE: Let's make a sixth... -- Bob, 11/06/2001
I've got one like that ans it really doesn't seem to amke any sense. I use it and ignore the extra tube.
Let us know what you find out after you try it. |
| | | I have wanted to try a combo of -- Ed Jenkins, 11/06/2001
1.08 primaries and 1.12 secondaries for some time and now I can.
I have also found that there are 6 different types of needle and seat combos that can be used in the 4100. Stock, over size stock ( must be rare Pony carbs dose not even mention them), early replacement 2 kinds ( the seats with the nut top), late replacement, and Carter AFB.
I have 1 1957 4100, 2 1.08s and about 5 1.12's so I will be trying some interesting combos over the next few months.
I need a 1.19!
|
| | | | RE: I have wanted to try a combo of -- Bob, 11/06/2001
All he was talking about was changing the air horn. One air horn has two vacuum pickup tubes that go to the secandary diagaphm, instead of the much more common single vacuum pickup tube.
That won't make another model of the carburetor. It may delay the opening of the secondaries and it probably will keep them open a bit longer. But it is not a whole 'nother carburetor! |
| | | RE: Let's make a sixth... -- Ed Jenkins, 11/08/2001
I have a short list of a few 1966 4100 jets to carbs it only has the carb number and vernturi size so we would have to figure out which carbs got which venturis as some 4100 venturis of the same size have different flow rates. |
| | | | RE: Let's make a sixth... -- Bob, 11/08/2001
How much different flow rates? Would you give some examples? Please list specific carburetors and their venturis, etc.
I believe the original carburetor from my '66 7 Litre Convertible, Tag No. C6AF-E, flows 430 CFM. It has a Primary Venturi of 1.08 inches, a Primary Throttle Bore of 1.437 inches, a Secondary Venturi of 1.18 inches and a Secondary Throttle Bore of 1.437 inches. This is smaller than your 352 carburetor – which is probably Tag number C6AF-C, with a Primary Venturi of 1.12 inches, a Primary Throttle Bore of 1.562 inches, a Secondary Venturi of 1.18 inches and a Secondary Throttle Bore of 1.562 inches.
This small difference of .040 in the primary venturis coupled with the increase by 0.125 inches in the throttle bore sizes gives your carburetor a 470 CFM rating or so.
I know you disagree with this so again please provide your references. Mine are:
In the 1968 Ford Shop Manual, Page 10-87, it shows the 4100 with tag number C8AF-AE with throttle bores of 1.562 Primary and 1.562 Secondary, a Primary Venturi of 1.125 and a Secondary Venturi of 1.187 with "Maximum Air Flow (cfm) 467".
In the 1969 Ford Shop Manual, Page 10-11-04, it shows the 4100 with tag number C8AF-AE with throttle bores of 1.562 Primary and 1.562 Secondary, a Primary Venturi of 1.125 and a Secondary Venturi of 1.187 with "Maximum Air Flow (cfm) 472". Don't know why or how it gained 5 CFM when it changed model years.
Another reference is on page 13 of the Muscle Parts Story Supplement No. 1, Copyright 1970 Ford Motor Company, Vol. MP 1045 July. On the lower right of this page they list the changes needed to take a 289-4V into the High Performance 271 HP 289. One of the items listed is "4-bbl, 480 cubic feet/minute carburetor". This carburetor is listed on page 10-70 of the 1966 Mustang Shop Manual (Carburetor Part Number C6ZF-C) with throttle bores of 1.562 Primary and 1.562 Secondary, a Primary Venturi of 1.125 and a Secondary Venturi of 1.187. The shop manuals before 1968 do not list the CFM rating for any carburetor to the best of my knowledge.
|
| | | | | My only examples are from Pony Carbs....... -- Ed, 11/08/2001
....which you and I have limited faith in. However I do belive that each venturi cluster is calibrated differently for each carb and jet size.
I belive that 5 CFM change is a marketing technique. As is Pony Carbs use of 480, 600, and 669 CFM. This is the answer that I recived when I asked how they know what CFM's that there carbs flow:
" Because we have worked with these Ford carburetors for several years and the
owner has put out a book that has all this information in it. The book is
Ford Carburetor Guide (1955 - 1973) it sells for $12.95. Bill "
Ya, sure I belive you Ponycarbs. |
| | | | | | RE: My only examples are from Pony Carbs....... -- Bob, 11/08/2001
Please don't believe them. It's all marketinig hype. Most people buy based on size and 400-500 CFM carburetors just don't sell. Go look up the SAE standard quoted a few posts ago. The engine size, the cam, none of that is part of the standard.
What does make the Autolite almost unique and what does make it perofrm better that most other carburetors is its anular fuel discharge in the booster venturi. The anular discharge atomizes the fuel much better which gives a better fuel distribution and allows the fuel to burn more completely for less emissions problems and more power. The 4100 line is also easy to work on and doesn't leak like the Holley and Quadrajets.
I have no idea why Ford/Autolite stopped using this design but Holley uses it in the 4010 line. In any case you might like to see the results of the following:
Today I talked to a local speed shop, Steve Alsworth's in Fuquay -Varina, NC and they will flow test three carburetors for $100. I'm going to have them test my one small 4100, a large one and one I've modified by taking the lip out of the venturi with small files and sand paper.
They're backlogged so it may be a few weeks. Send your e-mail address to me if you want and I'll keep you posted. In any case I'll put the results here when I get them. |
| | | | | | | Great!, Finaly updated flow numbers on modern..... -- Ed Jenkins, 11/09/2001
equipment!!
Here is my email address fbejen@mtco.com.
With a little work the 4100 should be able to flow even more cfm.
The fuel inlet at the filter seems to be very small for one thing.
What kind of needles and seats are you going to run for the tests? This could make a differance in overall flow.
From what I have read the 4100 is considered to be an open emmissions (gross polluter) carb. The 4300
(I have 2 in my collection) that replaced it isn't half the carb that the 4100 (I have 6) is. |
| | | 66 and later 1.12 tops have an undrilled.......... -- Ed, 11/08/2001
..boss cast in for the secondary verturi tube. A well placed drill bit and an extra tube to stick in could mean more power for 66 and up 1.12 Autolites. |
| | | | Great info, guys, now . . . -- Orin, 11/09/2001
. . . as long we're beating up on Pony Carburetors, what sayth the experts regarding their "4100 Spreadbore?"
Truth or fiction? is it worth a look? |
| Question on a Low Riser Head -- Rich, 11/04/2001
I have a set of 427 Low Riser Heads, casting # C7JE 6090A. I am trying to find out what they were originally used for. I was thinking of having them rebuilt to use. They are not listed in Steve Christs Big Block Book. Anyone ever come across these? They came off a 427 TO. I am thinking they may have been marine use heads. Thanks for any help. |
| 428 cj bore size maximum? -- peter, 11/04/2001
I just pulled down my factory 1969 cj in a mach1 and the bore size is 30 thou over, the crank and rods are mint and heads in good shape as well..
Can anyone tell me what the maximum bore size for a FE/ 428cj...Any tips with the rebuild would also be of greatly received...Any old hands out there who no what works!
Thanks
Peter
(Australia) |
| | RE: 428 cj bore size maximum? -- Mel Clark, 11/04/2001
The best is not to over bore unless it's really needed but if it must be done I would consider sleeving the engine when you've reached .060 some may have gone bigger but it's dangerous. Many will say not over .030 or .040 maximum. |
| | | RE: 428 cj bore size maximum? -- peter, 11/04/2001
Mel, thanks.
My next option was to sleeve. I actually have two engines one was reconditioned about 6 yrs ago by the previous owner and not used.. I brought the mach 1 and it came with the original engine and another engine which as i said above is recon i don't think is a cj block but is a early 428 it has cj crank (1UB) and rods . This engine is 30 thou over with new forged pistons . My problem is my cj block is 30 over and in need of a bore. So do I sleeve the original engine and use the new parts or do I get bigger pistons to suite the 40 over cj block. What do you think?
|
| | | | Check the back of the block. -- Dave Shoe, 11/05/2001
If the back of the block has a large "A" protruding from it, then a rough guess is you can go +.030 with no problem. If it's got a "C" you may be able to go .060" with no problem. These are only rough guidelines based on a limited sampling of blocks I've seen.
You should do a sonic test in order to map out the wall thicknesses around each cylinder. If you find a thin spot (with associated thick spot opposite it), then you might consider an "offset bore" job to preserve the thin side as much as possible.
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: Check the back of the block. -- peter, 11/05/2001
dave,
when you say back of block do you mean where the bell housing bolts?
This being a cobra jet block i know it has a large C is there, this I have been told was put there whenthey cast cobra jet blocks.......
Thanks heaps Mate! for your responses....
Peter.... |
| | | | | | RE: Check the back of the block. -- Hugo, 11/06/2001
Peter, The ONLY way to find out if its safe to bore over the .030 is a Sonic Check, I have sonic checked over a hundred 428 blocks and have found great core shift on most. Many at .030 will have under .075 thou thickness, if its not on the thrust side its not so bad. I like to see .100 minimum after boring or slightly more. Someone suggested offset boring this may help the cylinderwall but can cause other problems. An easy way to check for core shift is to look at the lifter bore's as the material around them should be even if it is offset there it for sure will have cylinders the same way. The sonic test should only cost about 40-50$ american to have this done in the states, not sure in your area. Be very careful of having all 8 holes sleeved. It can be done but MUST be done by someone who has had great success in the past as probably 90% or more here that have it done have at least a couple cylinders leak afterwards. Hugo |
| | | | | | | RE: Check the back of the block. -- peter, 11/06/2001
I will check the lifter bores and go from there. I think .040 over will be O.K.
Thanks my freind for everything!
|
| | | | | | | | RE: Check the back of the block. -- Bob, 11/06/2001
Avoid a lot of problems down the road and get it sonic checked. Then you will know how much, if any ,over bore it will take. Get all of your blocks done. Anybody who overbores an FE and doesn't sonic check first is asking for trouble. |
| | | | | | | | | My 2 cents...worth 1.2 cents American -- John, 11/06/2001
First...sleeving...It weakens the block incredibly if done on all 8 cylinders I am told. Sleeving is meant to be a repair for a single cylinder due to unusual damage and should be limited to one sleeve per cylinder bank.
Second....Sonic Checking...Yes, by all means have this done...then you can go "offset bore" the little bugger. But what do the actual results mean? Just remember....no one has ever set "exact limits" on the actual thickness that should be OK. It would be impossible anyway as different HP levels command different wall thicknesses. I hear Chev guys say 0.125" min wall thickness, but most FE's will be well under 0.100" and be OK.
So...what to do...here's a few options that make sense to me:
Option 1/ Bore 0.040" over as you intend...after all, that's only 0.005" thinner than what you had before which worked fine..er....did it? I guess so...you didn't mention any cracks in the block.
Option 2/ Get another block...hey, a 390 block is easy to find...some will bore out OK, but usually not. If it will, you can reuse your pistons...ooops...not such a good idea, they arn't stock, but already 0.030" over,... so obtain 410 pistons and overbore the 390 to 0.030". You probably won't notice the difference between a 410 and a 428 in a street car unless you intend to race it.
Option 3/ forget about the 428 problems....spend the money on a tweaked out 390 and sell me the 428 crank cheap!....chuckle! (not such a bad idea actually)
OK...I have to tell 1 joke seeing you are from Australia......What do you get when you cross a mink with a kangaroo?
A fur coat with pockets!
(learned that one in grade 3, but I also learned that you spell it "know" vs "no" ...hehehe..yes, I make lots of typo's too.....chuckle)
John (a Shoe wannabe.....lol.....not really, I just like cars and engines and think the general consensus about Chevy small blocks is for lemmings who follow each other over the cliff) |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: My 2 cents...worth 1.2 cents American -- peter, 11/07/2001
I've sent the block away for sonic test. It will have to go out to 0.060 as 0.040 is not enough....
Does anyone know of any piston makers that can supply a set of 0.060+ pistons? I know ROSS & JE don't they stop at 0.030+....John I've given up the idea of sleeving as you said to risky. And i have another block which is reconditioned with all cj internals...Yes I know I'm mad, but I want to keep the original number matching engine in the car as it will be a concorse restoration......So no choice. Original or nothing for me.
And yes I will be selling the other crank and rods in a later date.......
John did you also think that when you cross a mink with a kangaroo you might end up with a fur "Jumper"
Get it a Fur "Jumper" Ha! cracked myself up!
Thanks to all who have replied to my posting I really appreciate it...GOD BLESS AMERICA AND THE FREE WORLD.
PETER....
AUSTRALIA....ENGLAND ...U.S..FREEDOM FIGHTERS |
| 428 oil pan -- joe, 11/04/2001
I have a 428 CJ coming out of a engine shop soon ,and i am looking for a aftermarket oil pan,i was wondering if anyone has any suggestions.Thanks for any info........Joe |
| | RE: 428 oil pan -- Mike McQuesten, 11/04/2001
The one that I have bolted onto my C3AE 427 is the Milodon # 31130. There's a Milodon pickup that goes with this pan too. It's a seven quart and looks very similar to the one Ford offered through the Muscle Parts program. In other words, a stock pan with a spacer welded in to add the depth.
You still have the windage tary right? There are a number of aftermarket ones out there. The one I chose is the one currently offered by the Ford Special Parts Program, I can't remember what they call it now...SVT or SVO or whatever Jacque Nasser wanted to call it.....er, wait, is he still there? Whatever, this windage tray looks very similar to the original that was sandwiched between the block/pan of all CJ 428s like yours.
And why did I choose these? They were reasonably priced and were designed to do what I thought best. More oil supply in the pan with decent baffling. And cheap horsepower via the windage tray which was around $30 a couple of years ago. |
| | | RE: 428 oil pan -- peter, 11/04/2001
Mike ,
I see those windage tray's on ebay motor's (search under 428* )all the time I brought one for around $30 they are genuine Ford racing part.....they come with two pan gaskets as well........ |
| | | | RE: 428 oil pan -- joe, 11/05/2001
Thanks for the info,I was wondering about the 428 T-pan they sell at Mustang Unlimited and Tony Branda i know they are big bucks but look good on the engine.Do you think its worth the money?Is the quality good on these oil pans? Thanks...............Joe |
| | | | | RE: 428 oil pan -- John, 11/05/2001
I used one. The capacity proved a little small for my engine. Quality isn't great. Mine had one porosity hole in it...a smear of gasket shellac on the inside of the pan did the trick. Cast Aluminum...hit something on the road....they crack like an eggshell...stamped steel takes a little more punishment. Try to get one off if you've used gasket shellac.....they stick to the block like s#@* to a shirt-tale! Steel ones will loosen under the vibration of a wooden or rubber mallet. Cast Aluminum won't budge loose! You have to put long bolts into the block above the T part, then jam in wedges between the T and the bolt head (both sides) and then back out the bolts to force the pan loose. A real pain in the ptui. What's the Pro s about them? They look cool,... if you ever see the pan once the engine is in the car. And, they provide a little more cooling effect for the hot oil. I am about to use the incredibly expensive AVAID 427 Cobra Oil Pan...comes with windage tray, baffles and special pick-up...looks like crap...like a Frankenstein Monster with all the exposed welds...but it holds 10 quarts and is well baffled for a light high powered superb cornering car(read high G-Forces in all directions here)...and no-one will see it. My Branda unit?...is going to be a plant pot...and No...I don't want to sell it....chuckle! Good Luck! |
| | | | | | RE: 428 oil pan -- joe, 11/07/2001
Thanks John,I was just ready to shell out 450.00 for the T pan,i am interested in that AVAID oil pan,is their a web site that i can check them out?I don't mind spending the extra money if its worth it...Thanks |
| | | | | | | RE: 428 oil pan -- John, 11/07/2001
The web site is :
http://www.aviaid.com/index2.html
It will take a bit of looking to find it the pan listing and there is no picture ...yet. The rep says they will be updating the website fairly soon as the web-site isn't that informative. The pan is supposed to have been original equipment on 427 AC Cobras. I believe that as I found reference to the AVIAD pan in an old Cobra magazine article. It is well made of Aluminum, but not that pleasing to look at. It is a shallow (6" deep)pan with a center resavoir with 4 swinging doors feeding it. It comes with a special pick-up for the oil pump and an internal top baffle to help contain the oil. It also comes with a windage tray that has some mesh welded into it vs the solid type. It has a bung hole at the front of the pan for an oil temp probe and the drain plug is in the front bottom corner. I got them to put an extra bunghole in the back of the pan for an easier fit for my oil temp probe. It has two tubes on the top of the passenger side "T" . One is for a dipstick tube (you need an extension tube and a fitting which they can supply) and the other larger tube is if you want to hook up a PCV hose to the crankcase. The price is high, but it is obviously a lot of work to fabricate. The holes along the edge match up reasonably well to the block, but if a socket wrench is used, you must use an extension as the end of the wrench will hit the side of the pan. Around the "T" you need to use a box end wrench. The Branda Pan holes didn't line up very well at all. Two holes even had to be enlarged slightly if I remember correctly. I wouldn't rest the weight of the engine on the AVIAD pan if I were you . It is only aluminum sheet after all. |
| | | RE: 428 oil pan -- Greg, 11/07/2001
Do you have any idea what one of the old factory extended pans is worth? I have one in a '69 428 cj mustang. Ugly as a mud fence but looks like it wasn't designed to be pretty.
Just curious.
Greg |
| 428PI Ignition Harness -- Bob, 11/03/2001
I was in the process of cleaning and rewrapping my electrical harnesses on my 428PI when I came across the harness (14289) that connects to the coil. In looking this up in every wiring diagram I could find, it only shows 1 lead that connects to the coil. The other two are labled "not applicable to this circuit". I can't find any other circuits that use this 14289 harness. Of the 3 leads on this harness, one goes to the coil terminal (red w/grn stripe), one goes ? (red w/white stripe) and the last one was snipped (white w/red stripe). Can anyone decipher this for me? Thanks in advance! Bob |
| | RE: 428PI Ignition Harness -- Bob, 11/03/2001
What year?
I have wiring diagrams for the '66 - '69 Galaxies which show red green to coil, red white to hot water lamp, white green to cold water lamp, and white red to oil pressure sending unit. |
| | | RE: 428PI Ignition Harness -- Bob, 11/03/2001
Thanks for the info, that might be exactly what I was looking for myself. Every book I have (Chiltons, Ford) show the harness, but not the connections. Maybe I missed it somewhere. Under what system did you find this info in your Galaxie diagrams? Thanks, Bob |
| | | | RE: 428PI Ignition Harness -- Bob, 11/03/2001
Used the '68 shop manual and looked up the engine and guages - idiot lights. I'd check the right year but you haven't said what it is. |
| | | | | RE: 428PI Ignition Harness -- Bob, 11/03/2001
Have a regular Bob-fest going on here... It is a 68. I have the shop manual for the Mustang, but I haven't found anything on it except some arrows pointing to it. Nothing stating exactly what connects except the coil.
Not even on the wiring diagrams. |
| | | | | | RE: 428PI Ignition Harness -- Bob, 11/03/2001
I'm using the '68 Ford Mercury Shop manual that has a set of wiring diagrams in the back.
I have a '66 7 Litre, 4 speed, Sidewinder, etc.
My direct e-mail is bsprowl at bellsouth dot net.
Where are you? I'm just outside Raleigh NC |
| | Sub #14289 is "engine gauge feed" for Temp & Oil. [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/03/2001
n/m |
|