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=8227&Reply=8227><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Carb selection for a 390 Mustang</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Jeff Tepper, <i>09/20/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>At the very least, I need to rebuild the Holley 600 double pump that came on my car when I bought it.  The noxious smell of unburned gas coming from the tailpipes is starting to get to me.  Problem is, I've been getting "advice" that a mechanical secondary carb is not the best choice for a street driven car with a C6.  Unfortunately, there is no consensus about the best option for me.  I've been told that a 600 cfm is plenty big for a 390;  I've also been told that I should be running a 750 cfm.  I've been told that Edelbrock carbs are great as a set it and forget it carb;  I've been told that they are a pain to tune if they aren't just right out of the box.  I've been told that Holley is the way to go for power and tuneablilty;  I've been told that Holleys require near constant tweaking and the cost of jets, gaskets, etc. can get up there in a hurry.<br><br>Recognizing that there are no absolutes here, I'm hoping to get some first hand experience from those of you that have already faced and (hopefully) solved this dilemma.  At present, I'm leaning toward a Holley with vacuum secondaries.  My apparent choices are the 600 (80457S), the 650 (80783C) and the 670 Street Avenger ( 80670).  Any others worth considering?<br><br>The engine has a Holley Street Dominator Intake, Edelbrock aluminum heads, Hooker Super Comp headers with Hooker mufflers (2 1/2"), Unknown cam (possibly stock), unknown stall speed (possibly stock) and a shift kit in the C6.<br><br>Thanks in advance for any insight.<br><br> </blockquote> Carb selection for a 390 Mustang -- Jeff Tepper, 09/20/2001
At the very least, I need to rebuild the Holley 600 double pump that came on my car when I bought it. The noxious smell of unburned gas coming from the tailpipes is starting to get to me. Problem is, I've been getting "advice" that a mechanical secondary carb is not the best choice for a street driven car with a C6. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about the best option for me. I've been told that a 600 cfm is plenty big for a 390; I've also been told that I should be running a 750 cfm. I've been told that Edelbrock carbs are great as a set it and forget it carb; I've been told that they are a pain to tune if they aren't just right out of the box. I've been told that Holley is the way to go for power and tuneablilty; I've been told that Holleys require near constant tweaking and the cost of jets, gaskets, etc. can get up there in a hurry.

Recognizing that there are no absolutes here, I'm hoping to get some first hand experience from those of you that have already faced and (hopefully) solved this dilemma. At present, I'm leaning toward a Holley with vacuum secondaries. My apparent choices are the 600 (80457S), the 650 (80783C) and the 670 Street Avenger ( 80670). Any others worth considering?

The engine has a Holley Street Dominator Intake, Edelbrock aluminum heads, Hooker Super Comp headers with Hooker mufflers (2 1/2"), Unknown cam (possibly stock), unknown stall speed (possibly stock) and a shift kit in the C6.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8232&Reply=8227><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Carb selection for a 390 Mustang</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>09/20/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Carb selection can be an emotion filled opinion fest for sure.  So here's mine with as little emotion as possible.  The facts...I've had problems over the years with Holleys indeed.  Especially with the GT 600 CFM of '66-'68.  Leaking floats, needle/seat probs, throttle shafts, etc.  But I've had good ones too.  I had an excellent original 735 on a CJ.  It worked well always. Oh....yes 600 CFM is plenty on a standard/mild 390GT and I believe vacuum secondaries are best for all around performance.  Now as for Edelbrocks...I love 'em!  I've run three of them. I wouldn't say they're right-outta-the-box perfect.  I did have to read the little booklet that came in the first 750 I bought(for that same 428CJ) and then buy their little tuning kit from Jegs.  Called Edelbrock tech line about a bog/stumble I was having off the line.  The tech guy was extremely friendly and helpful.  He even hinted to me about the up coming FE Performer RPM.  Anyway, his recommendations on step up spring and metering rod selection did the trick the first time.  Oh, and I do remember reducing primary jet size.  All of these changes were made with the carb on the intake with absolutely no gasoline mess flowing all over.  My ET/MPH were the same as the 735 Holley.  Of course, I had good luck with a jetted up '62 4100 600CFM Autolite too.  So what do you like..blonds, red heads or brunettes?  You got a try a few before you know right?  </blockquote> RE: Carb selection for a 390 Mustang -- Mike McQuesten, 09/20/2001
Carb selection can be an emotion filled opinion fest for sure. So here's mine with as little emotion as possible. The facts...I've had problems over the years with Holleys indeed. Especially with the GT 600 CFM of '66-'68. Leaking floats, needle/seat probs, throttle shafts, etc. But I've had good ones too. I had an excellent original 735 on a CJ. It worked well always. Oh....yes 600 CFM is plenty on a standard/mild 390GT and I believe vacuum secondaries are best for all around performance. Now as for Edelbrocks...I love 'em! I've run three of them. I wouldn't say they're right-outta-the-box perfect. I did have to read the little booklet that came in the first 750 I bought(for that same 428CJ) and then buy their little tuning kit from Jegs. Called Edelbrock tech line about a bog/stumble I was having off the line. The tech guy was extremely friendly and helpful. He even hinted to me about the up coming FE Performer RPM. Anyway, his recommendations on step up spring and metering rod selection did the trick the first time. Oh, and I do remember reducing primary jet size. All of these changes were made with the carb on the intake with absolutely no gasoline mess flowing all over. My ET/MPH were the same as the 735 Holley. Of course, I had good luck with a jetted up '62 4100 600CFM Autolite too. So what do you like..blonds, red heads or brunettes? You got a try a few before you know right?
 RE: Carb selection for a 390 Mustang -- richard, 09/20/2001
first i have never been impressed with double pumpers for the street. i like then on race cars though.
i too have had good and bad luck with holleys(mostly ok though). my favorite carb at this point is the 4100 autolite. they are reliable, easy to rebuild and tune. you cant go wrong with them. the edelbrock's are basically improved carters. i have had ok luck with carters( like the holley's). vacuum or air valve secondaries for the street and you can go wrong. for the 390 stay around 600 cfm, you dont need more than that unless you are making more than 450 hp.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8235&Reply=8227><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Carb selection for a 390 Mustang</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Will, <i>09/20/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>You *will* get all kinds of opinions on carb selection.  Everyone has their favorite.<br><br>I like Holleys.  They just look right, and they work fine.  They're pretty simple, but I guess the others are okay too if you know how to work 'em.<br><br>You'll probably get better results with the vac secondary, but the double pumper is more fun.  There's something about being able to stomp on it and hear the "vooooom".<br><br>600cfm is probably enough, but I'd go with something more like 700-750cfm.  If I could choose any carb, I'd pick the 735 CJ carb (dual line, vac secondary, annular discharge boosters).  Scratch that, I'd choose the Holley Pro? Series.  You know, the ones w/out the choke housing.  Hell, I can't even settle on one opinion. </blockquote> RE: Carb selection for a 390 Mustang -- Will, 09/20/2001
You *will* get all kinds of opinions on carb selection. Everyone has their favorite.

I like Holleys. They just look right, and they work fine. They're pretty simple, but I guess the others are okay too if you know how to work 'em.

You'll probably get better results with the vac secondary, but the double pumper is more fun. There's something about being able to stomp on it and hear the "vooooom".

600cfm is probably enough, but I'd go with something more like 700-750cfm. If I could choose any carb, I'd pick the 735 CJ carb (dual line, vac secondary, annular discharge boosters). Scratch that, I'd choose the Holley Pro? Series. You know, the ones w/out the choke housing. Hell, I can't even settle on one opinion.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8251&Reply=8227><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Carb selection for a 390 Mustang</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Steve E., <i>09/21/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have a Holley 750 double pumper on my 390 Mustang & I have had no problems at all, it runs great! </blockquote> RE: Carb selection for a 390 Mustang -- Steve E., 09/21/2001
I have a Holley 750 double pumper on my 390 Mustang & I have had no problems at all, it runs great!
 RE: Carb selection for a 390 Mustang -- Darren, 09/21/2001
I just read a great artical in the last Car Craft magazine wrigten by the guy that owns Demond Carburators. And it had a lot of great pointers. Here are some

Larger CFM means better high end and lighter car. Small CFM means better low end and a heavyier car.
Higher comp. Larger CFM
Lower Comp. Samller CFM
Anual discharges better Low end
Down Legger Discharges better High end

Carb, Intake, Cam, and Gears it's all about where you want your money made.
Up Front but not as much (Low End)
Up in RPMs and more (High End)

Really think If your makeing this thing to fly down the highway doing a Buck Twenty go. Go for RPMs that's what your useing. 6-7000RPMs
If your hiding out on some small road doing 1/4 mile go for the middle 5-6000RPMs
Just messing around at street lights and getting so so mileage go mild 3-4000 RPMs

Rember RPMs = More coast

I have a 64 Glaxie with a 390 with an RPM Performer intake & Cam, and stock heads with 3 way valve job, C-6 with 2400 stall funning a Edlebrook 750.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8218&Reply=8218><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>FE intake</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Don Moyer, <i>09/19/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Trying to find out what this intake is for and value?  Alum dual quad ford part#C7ZX-7425-A   thank you... </blockquote> FE intake -- Don Moyer, 09/19/2001
Trying to find out what this intake is for and value? Alum dual quad ford part#C7ZX-7425-A thank you...
 RE: FE intake -- Mel Clark, 09/20/2001
Does it look like two 4 legged spiders?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8222&Reply=8218><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>1967 GT500 Shelby Intake</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>09/20/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>That intake is the original equipment unit for all 1967 Shelby GT500's. It was also available over the counter. Nice intake!<br><br>Royce Peterson </blockquote> 1967 GT500 Shelby Intake -- Royce Peterson, 09/20/2001
That intake is the original equipment unit for all 1967 Shelby GT500's. It was also available over the counter. Nice intake!

Royce Peterson
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8224&Reply=8218><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 1967 GT500 Shelby Intake</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mel Clark, <i>09/20/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>The '67 GT 500 I had was equipped with a "S7MS" intake. </blockquote> RE: 1967 GT500 Shelby Intake -- Mel Clark, 09/20/2001
The '67 GT 500 I had was equipped with a "S7MS" intake.
 RE: 1967 GT500 Shelby Intake -- Royce Peterson, 09/20/2001
Mel,
The S7MS 9424- Shelby part number intake has a casting number of C7ZX-______. They are one and the same.

Royce
 Re: c7zx -- Mike McQuesten, 09/20/2001
I have a C7ZX-7425-A intake on the shelf and it's a confirmed 1967 Shelby GT500, 428 dual four manifold. The guy I got it from knew exactly from where it came, and it was the real thing.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8228&Reply=8218><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: FE intake</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>gerald, <i>09/20/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>so   that   a67   2==4s    is  it   plain  no  carbs<br>i  just   got  one    for   275.oo     it was also   a c7zx<br>looked new    at  swap meet    and thats   the  going <br>price    and   he  said it was shelby       </blockquote> RE: FE intake -- gerald, 09/20/2001
so that a67 2==4s is it plain no carbs
i just got one for 275.oo it was also a c7zx
looked new at swap meet and thats the going
price and he said it was shelby
 RE: FE intake -- Mike McQuesten, 09/20/2001
That's a great price! They are being reproduced by Blue Thunder for $500. And yes mine is an original, no carbs, clean and perfect. I will use it someday..soon.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8214&Reply=8214><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Gasket P/N</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John, <i>09/19/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I know this souonds a bit silly as I can make one, but does anyone know a P/N, Fel-Pro, or Detroit Gasket, or other, for the gasket between the block and the oil filter adapter?  Last time I rebuilt an FE, I purchased a Fel-Pro R.A.C.E. kit (Rest of Assemly to Complete Engine?) through Summit which had the gasket in the kit.  The local Auto Parts store couldn't find a listing for either the R.A.C.E. kit or the gasket in their Fel-Pro catalog. </blockquote> Gasket P/N -- John, 09/19/2001
I know this souonds a bit silly as I can make one, but does anyone know a P/N, Fel-Pro, or Detroit Gasket, or other, for the gasket between the block and the oil filter adapter? Last time I rebuilt an FE, I purchased a Fel-Pro R.A.C.E. kit (Rest of Assemly to Complete Engine?) through Summit which had the gasket in the kit. The local Auto Parts store couldn't find a listing for either the R.A.C.E. kit or the gasket in their Fel-Pro catalog.
 Here's the FOMOCO P/N -- Royce Peterson, 09/19/2001
C0AE 6A636-A

You should be able to get one at any Ford dealer. About $1.00.


Royce Peterson


Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8210&Reply=8210><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>427 ?'s I'm new help!!</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Jim, <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Hi, I just purchased a 68 MustangGT with a 427 in it. The previous owner said that it came from a early Galaxie.."a 63 or 64, I'm not really sure" Can someone tell me where I can look and what I should look for that will tell me what this came out of and what year  and etc it is?<br>thanks<br>Jim </blockquote> 427 ?'s I'm new help!! -- Jim, 09/18/2001
Hi, I just purchased a 68 MustangGT with a 427 in it. The previous owner said that it came from a early Galaxie.."a 63 or 64, I'm not really sure" Can someone tell me where I can look and what I should look for that will tell me what this came out of and what year and etc it is?
thanks
Jim
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8211&Reply=8210><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 427 ?'s I'm new help!!</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Darren, <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Well I'm not sure of a way to tell what it came out of and no real reason to know other than for the story.<br>But on the Passanger side of the block by the shock towers there are some numbers and those numbers will tell you what the block is. Then go to the libray or book story and get an interchange manual for 59-73 and then it'll tell you what the block is. </blockquote> RE: 427 ?'s I'm new help!! -- Darren, 09/18/2001
Well I'm not sure of a way to tell what it came out of and no real reason to know other than for the story.
But on the Passanger side of the block by the shock towers there are some numbers and those numbers will tell you what the block is. Then go to the libray or book story and get an interchange manual for 59-73 and then it'll tell you what the block is.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8212&Reply=8210><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 427 's</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mel Clark, <i>09/19/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>First you have to look at the area just above the oil pan rails to see if there are 3 equally spaced "castle" type bolts with solid washers about 3/16" thick. If you have these bolts you may have a 427, there were 4 bolt main 406s as well as 2 bolt main 427s. While you're under the car you should also look at the core/freeze plugs to see if they are the normal, drive in type or if they look like a very large allen head set screw, the latter were, for the most part, installed in the later blocks. Then you should look for a narrow bulge that runs the length of the block, just above the cross bolts, which will also have what looks like set screws, which would indicate that the engine is a side oiler. I hope this helps. </blockquote> RE: 427 's -- Mel Clark, 09/19/2001
First you have to look at the area just above the oil pan rails to see if there are 3 equally spaced "castle" type bolts with solid washers about 3/16" thick. If you have these bolts you may have a 427, there were 4 bolt main 406s as well as 2 bolt main 427s. While you're under the car you should also look at the core/freeze plugs to see if they are the normal, drive in type or if they look like a very large allen head set screw, the latter were, for the most part, installed in the later blocks. Then you should look for a narrow bulge that runs the length of the block, just above the cross bolts, which will also have what looks like set screws, which would indicate that the engine is a side oiler. I hope this helps.
 RE: 427 's -- John R. Barnes, 09/20/2001
61 390 HP, C1AE 6010 V or AD, 62 406 C2AE 6010 B,J, K, V, or BD, 62 390 HP, C2AE 6010 BC, BE, BR or BS, 63 406, C3AE 6015 D or V, 63 427, C3AE 6015 N, M, Z, or AB.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8207&Reply=8207><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>clutch linkage</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>stephen, <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I need a complete clutch linkage for a 67 fairlane with a 390gt motor.<br>Thank you<br>Stephen </blockquote> clutch linkage -- stephen, 09/18/2001
I need a complete clutch linkage for a 67 fairlane with a 390gt motor.
Thank you
Stephen
 RE: clutch linkage -- richard, 09/18/2001
try auto krafters at autokrafters.com. they carry a large number of parts for the fairlanes.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8203&Reply=8203><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Crank questions</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Greg Gilliam, <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote> Can anyone tell me about the crank in my motor?<br> It's in a '66 428 "Q"  the numbers on the crank are IU.<br>Is this a reliable crank? What kind of rpm's are safe/unsafe. Nitrous ok? Advantages/disadvantages,pros/cons. love it / hate it.<br> Sorry to sound like an amateur, but I'd rather build this right than build it twice.<br>  Thanks <br>     Greg<br> </blockquote> Crank questions -- Greg Gilliam, 09/18/2001
Can anyone tell me about the crank in my motor?
It's in a '66 428 "Q" the numbers on the crank are IU.
Is this a reliable crank? What kind of rpm's are safe/unsafe. Nitrous ok? Advantages/disadvantages,pros/cons. love it / hate it.
Sorry to sound like an amateur, but I'd rather build this right than build it twice.
Thanks
Greg
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8204&Reply=8203><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Crank questions</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Greg,<br>I run mine to 6200. It's a super strong cast crank, like all FE cast cranks. I know people who spin them to 9000 but they have more money than I do. Usually something else will break long before an FE cast iron crank. <br><br>You should be careful about using good engine assembly techniques and parts throughout the entire motor. Plenty of valve to piston clearance, good quality forged pistons, the lightest, strongest rods you can afford with the best rod bolts (ARP). Use high quality one piece valves, valve springs that match your intended cam, etc. Screw up on any one detail and it wipes out the rest. <br><br>The IU crank should be the least of your worries. Just have it magged and balance everything before final assembly.<br><br>Royce Peterson<br>68 Cougar 427 GTE (two of them)<br>68 1/2 Cougar 428 CJ Ram Air </blockquote> RE: Crank questions -- Royce Peterson, 09/18/2001
Greg,
I run mine to 6200. It's a super strong cast crank, like all FE cast cranks. I know people who spin them to 9000 but they have more money than I do. Usually something else will break long before an FE cast iron crank.

You should be careful about using good engine assembly techniques and parts throughout the entire motor. Plenty of valve to piston clearance, good quality forged pistons, the lightest, strongest rods you can afford with the best rod bolts (ARP). Use high quality one piece valves, valve springs that match your intended cam, etc. Screw up on any one detail and it wipes out the rest.

The IU crank should be the least of your worries. Just have it magged and balance everything before final assembly.

Royce Peterson
68 Cougar 427 GTE (two of them)
68 1/2 Cougar 428 CJ Ram Air
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8205&Reply=8203><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Crank questions</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Greg Gilliam, <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>  Any recommendations on the rods.  What about the stock ones? Who sells them?<br>   </blockquote> RE: Crank questions -- Greg Gilliam, 09/18/2001
Any recommendations on the rods. What about the stock ones? Who sells them?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8206&Reply=8203><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Crank questions</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Probably the best deal is Eagle rods, they are a couple hundred grams lighter (each) than Le Mans rods and you know they haven't been in an engine that blew up twenty years ago. Summit and Jeg's sell them. Ferrea and Crower also make FE rods but they are pricier due to U.S. manufacture. What kind of RPM's are you trying to achieve? Stock CJ / PI rods are OK to about 6500 if you use ARP bolts and balance everything.<br><br>                                        Royce Peterson </blockquote> RE: Crank questions -- Royce Peterson, 09/18/2001
Probably the best deal is Eagle rods, they are a couple hundred grams lighter (each) than Le Mans rods and you know they haven't been in an engine that blew up twenty years ago. Summit and Jeg's sell them. Ferrea and Crower also make FE rods but they are pricier due to U.S. manufacture. What kind of RPM's are you trying to achieve? Stock CJ / PI rods are OK to about 6500 if you use ARP bolts and balance everything.

Royce Peterson
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8208&Reply=8203><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Crank questions</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Greg Gilliam, <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote> no more than 6500 </blockquote> RE: Crank questions -- Greg Gilliam, 09/18/2001
no more than 6500
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8213&Reply=8203><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Crank questions</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>09/19/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Greg,<br><br>I think the stock reciprocating parts should be fine to that level except a good forged piston is insurance worth having. JE, Arias, Ross and Wiseco all make top quality forgings. TRW pistons are good quality but much heavier. The lighter the reciprocating assembly the faster the engine accelerates, all other things being equal. The TRW pistons for a 428 can be found for around $350.00 a set with pins. The others can be twice that price depending on how light you want to go.  Like I said before, use ARP rod bolts if you decide to use stock rods.<br><br>Royce Peterson </blockquote> RE: Crank questions -- Royce Peterson, 09/19/2001
Greg,

I think the stock reciprocating parts should be fine to that level except a good forged piston is insurance worth having. JE, Arias, Ross and Wiseco all make top quality forgings. TRW pistons are good quality but much heavier. The lighter the reciprocating assembly the faster the engine accelerates, all other things being equal. The TRW pistons for a 428 can be found for around $350.00 a set with pins. The others can be twice that price depending on how light you want to go. Like I said before, use ARP rod bolts if you decide to use stock rods.

Royce Peterson
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8220&Reply=8203><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Hey Royce, 428CJ or 427GTE which is faster ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Skip C., <i>09/20/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> Hey Royce, 428CJ or 427GTE which is faster ? -- Skip C., 09/20/2001
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8221&Reply=8203><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Hey Royce, 428CJ or 427GTE which is faster ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>09/20/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Skip,<br>They are all three pretty impressive. The 427 seems to rev a bit easier. I would have to say the 427 was slightly faster stock. Mine ran 13.80 at 104 when bone stock on a hot day at the Texas Motorplex back in 1995. Since then I have installed Edelbrock heads, Hooker headers, a Comp 280H cam, and  a '67 Medium Riser 2-4V intake and carbs. At the same time a 428CJ crank and Wiseco pistons went in. It is much stronger but has so much low end torque that I can't get any traction on the street tires I am running. <br><br>The 428 CJ car is totally stock and runs 13.90's at 99 MPH.<br><br>The other 427 has never been on the strip but it feels pretty strong too. I am still working out carb jetting and can't sem to get the valves adjusted perfectly. It is a stock appearing 427 GTE motor but has a CJ crank and Isky solid cam hiding inside. I am going to install a set of Erson rockers this weekend and may try the carb from the 428 CJ to see what happens when a known good carb is installed.<br><br>Royce Peterson </blockquote> RE: Hey Royce, 428CJ or 427GTE which is faster ? -- Royce Peterson, 09/20/2001
Skip,
They are all three pretty impressive. The 427 seems to rev a bit easier. I would have to say the 427 was slightly faster stock. Mine ran 13.80 at 104 when bone stock on a hot day at the Texas Motorplex back in 1995. Since then I have installed Edelbrock heads, Hooker headers, a Comp 280H cam, and a '67 Medium Riser 2-4V intake and carbs. At the same time a 428CJ crank and Wiseco pistons went in. It is much stronger but has so much low end torque that I can't get any traction on the street tires I am running.

The 428 CJ car is totally stock and runs 13.90's at 99 MPH.

The other 427 has never been on the strip but it feels pretty strong too. I am still working out carb jetting and can't sem to get the valves adjusted perfectly. It is a stock appearing 427 GTE motor but has a CJ crank and Isky solid cam hiding inside. I am going to install a set of Erson rockers this weekend and may try the carb from the 428 CJ to see what happens when a known good carb is installed.

Royce Peterson
 RE: Hey Royce, Thanks for the input ! -- Skip C., 09/20/2001
Great info !! I've never known anyone who has owned both CJ & GTE at the same time. I've got a friend who has a '70 Cougar XR7 convertible with a 428 CJ (Ram Air). His is totally stock & I've spent a lot of time driving it. I've no experience with 427s. Thanks again for the enlightenment. Skip
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8254&Reply=8203><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Hey Royce, 428CJ or 427GTE which is faster ?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mikeb, <i>09/21/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Now did the '68 427 use the same heads as the CJ, same intake manifold, and same camshaft profile?<br>thanks </blockquote> RE: Hey Royce, 428CJ or 427GTE which is faster ? -- mikeb, 09/21/2001
Now did the '68 427 use the same heads as the CJ, same intake manifold, and same camshaft profile?
thanks
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8261&Reply=8203><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>68 427 Heads vs 68 1/2 CJ heads</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Royce Peterson, <i>09/22/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>The heads are machined the same on the intake side with CJ / Low Riser style ports. On the exhaust side the 428CJ has a higher port opening and 16 bolt pattern to match the CJ exhaust manifolds. The 68 427 used Mustang ex - manifolds with 14 holes drilled in the heads and a lower hole in the casting. <br>427 head castings: C80E-H, C80E-J, C80E-N<br>68 1/2 428CJ  head castings : C80E-J, C80E-N<br>Note that these castings must be identified by their machining characteristics on the exhaust side,  the same number can mean different things. <br><br>Intake manifold on the 68 427 is the aluminum C7 AE intake sometimes called the PI. 68 1/2 CJ engines have the cast iron intake which is similar in appearance but actually changed quite a bit if you look at them side by side.<br><br>The 427 uses a 600 CFM Holley and the CJ a 735 CFM Holley.<br><br>Royce Peterson </blockquote> 68 427 Heads vs 68 1/2 CJ heads -- Royce Peterson, 09/22/2001
The heads are machined the same on the intake side with CJ / Low Riser style ports. On the exhaust side the 428CJ has a higher port opening and 16 bolt pattern to match the CJ exhaust manifolds. The 68 427 used Mustang ex - manifolds with 14 holes drilled in the heads and a lower hole in the casting.
427 head castings: C80E-H, C80E-J, C80E-N
68 1/2 428CJ head castings : C80E-J, C80E-N
Note that these castings must be identified by their machining characteristics on the exhaust side, the same number can mean different things.

Intake manifold on the 68 427 is the aluminum C7 AE intake sometimes called the PI. 68 1/2 CJ engines have the cast iron intake which is similar in appearance but actually changed quite a bit if you look at them side by side.

The 427 uses a 600 CFM Holley and the CJ a 735 CFM Holley.

Royce Peterson
 Picture C80E-N 427 head -- Royce Peterson, 09/22/2001
1968 427 head [.photo.]
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8201&Reply=8201><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>330 ci</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mike n, <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>My 390 block is no good but I picked up another block that is in good shape.The casting # is c5ae-a which my book states is a 330 ci md block and 5a27 block date.Can I use this block to replace the 390 block to put in my 69 mustang It has already been bored out for 60 over 390 pistons. </blockquote> 330 ci -- mike n, 09/18/2001
My 390 block is no good but I picked up another block that is in good shape.The casting # is c5ae-a which my book states is a 330 ci md block and 5a27 block date.Can I use this block to replace the 390 block to put in my 69 mustang It has already been bored out for 60 over 390 pistons.
 RE: 330 ci -- richard, 09/19/2001
have the block sonic checked and mag checked. if it checks out ok then use it.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8237&Reply=8201><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 330 ci</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Neppy, <i>09/20/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Also remember that  a 330 (or a 352) bored .060 over is the same as a .010 over  390. Just in case you didn't know. A .050 over 330 would be a standard 390. </blockquote> RE: 330 ci -- Neppy, 09/20/2001
Also remember that a 330 (or a 352) bored .060 over is the same as a .010 over 390. Just in case you didn't know. A .050 over 330 would be a standard 390.
 You're thinking of a 332 -- Dave Shoe, 09/23/2001
The 330 is an FT engine with a 3.875 bore.

The 332 is a short-stroke 352 (4.000 bore).

Shoe.

Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8195&Reply=8195><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Skip C., <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Hey Guys,  What combination makes the broadest torque curve (most power throughout the entire RPM band).  1)  A small combustion chamber and a dished piston, or 2) A flat top w/ eyebrows piston and a larger combustion chamber.  Assume the same compression ratio for both.  Info needed for the following cases: First - stock 66 T-bird 390 w/ stock exhaust manifolds, 600 CFM autolite carb & cam.  Second - same engine with CJ type cam, larger carb, and headers.  Thanks,  Skip </blockquote> Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power -- Skip C., 09/18/2001
Hey Guys, What combination makes the broadest torque curve (most power throughout the entire RPM band). 1) A small combustion chamber and a dished piston, or 2) A flat top w/ eyebrows piston and a larger combustion chamber. Assume the same compression ratio for both. Info needed for the following cases: First - stock 66 T-bird 390 w/ stock exhaust manifolds, 600 CFM autolite carb & cam. Second - same engine with CJ type cam, larger carb, and headers. Thanks, Skip
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8196&Reply=8195><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>richard, <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>as ong as you are talking the same compression ratio, a flat top piston engine(assuming everything else is the same also) will make better and more consistant power though out the rpm range. the reason for this is flame propogation is much more consistant. the difference is small but it can be measured. if you have a choice use the flattop pistons. other wise try to avoid dishes or domes that are too large. </blockquote> RE: Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power -- richard, 09/18/2001
as ong as you are talking the same compression ratio, a flat top piston engine(assuming everything else is the same also) will make better and more consistant power though out the rpm range. the reason for this is flame propogation is much more consistant. the difference is small but it can be measured. if you have a choice use the flattop pistons. other wise try to avoid dishes or domes that are too large.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8198&Reply=8195><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Skip C., <i>09/18/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Thanks, I did go with the flat tops.  I don't think my reasoning, at the time, was sound & wanted to bounce the choice off the forum & hopefully find out the real scoop.  At the time, I thought the dished pistons would defeat the purpose of the quench area and the result would be more prone to detonation. </blockquote> RE: Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power -- Skip C., 09/18/2001
Thanks, I did go with the flat tops. I don't think my reasoning, at the time, was sound & wanted to bounce the choice off the forum & hopefully find out the real scoop. At the time, I thought the dished pistons would defeat the purpose of the quench area and the result would be more prone to detonation.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8291&Reply=8195><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mark, <i>09/25/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>not to disagree but just for discussion - I've read a number of articles lately that<br>maintain that dished pistons and a small centrally located combustion chamber<br>are the better power producers - (that IS what the NASCAR guys use to get over<br>700 hp from a restricted 355 engine).  Something to do with the fact that a sphere<br>has the least surface area of any shape, and surface area, as in a large comb chamber,<br>takes heat hence energy out of the combustion process.  Also keeping the combustion<br>"in" the piston exerts more of the combustion force on the piston where it does the<br>most work. </blockquote> RE: Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power -- mark, 09/25/2001
not to disagree but just for discussion - I've read a number of articles lately that
maintain that dished pistons and a small centrally located combustion chamber
are the better power producers - (that IS what the NASCAR guys use to get over
700 hp from a restricted 355 engine). Something to do with the fact that a sphere
has the least surface area of any shape, and surface area, as in a large comb chamber,
takes heat hence energy out of the combustion process. Also keeping the combustion
"in" the piston exerts more of the combustion force on the piston where it does the
most work.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8292&Reply=8195><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Skip C., <i>09/25/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I agree with all you said.  They have the advantage of using race gas.  Maybe I didn't word it well, but what I was trying to ask is which configuration would produce more power for a street engine (where detonation, due to crappy gas, is a big factor).  Ultimately, if gas octane is high enough, I think you're correct and the same logic would apply to open chamber heads with large combustion chambers & flat top pistons (assuming the same compression ratio). </blockquote> RE: Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power -- Skip C., 09/25/2001
I agree with all you said. They have the advantage of using race gas. Maybe I didn't word it well, but what I was trying to ask is which configuration would produce more power for a street engine (where detonation, due to crappy gas, is a big factor). Ultimately, if gas octane is high enough, I think you're correct and the same logic would apply to open chamber heads with large combustion chambers & flat top pistons (assuming the same compression ratio).
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8294&Reply=8195><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>richard, <i>09/25/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>the yates type heads of which mark speaks were designed for high compression and high turbulance. this does make the second best setup as far as hp and torque are concerned in a normaly asperated engine. a pent roof combustion chamber would be the best as you put the plug in the exact center of the chamber. for the street however you would need too large of a dish in the piston and you would lose the advantages of the yates chamber although it would still be more effective than a hemi(that will start an argument). the problem with the hemi is the air is dead<br>as far as turbulance is concerned. with a supercharger things change though, the hemi becomes number 2 behind the pentroof chamber. </blockquote> RE: Pistons & Combustion Chambers - For Power -- richard, 09/25/2001
the yates type heads of which mark speaks were designed for high compression and high turbulance. this does make the second best setup as far as hp and torque are concerned in a normaly asperated engine. a pent roof combustion chamber would be the best as you put the plug in the exact center of the chamber. for the street however you would need too large of a dish in the piston and you would lose the advantages of the yates chamber although it would still be more effective than a hemi(that will start an argument). the problem with the hemi is the air is dead
as far as turbulance is concerned. with a supercharger things change though, the hemi becomes number 2 behind the pentroof chamber.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8295&Reply=8195><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Thanks, Interesting Info</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Skip C., <i>09/25/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> Thanks, Interesting Info -- Skip C., 09/25/2001
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8301&Reply=8195><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Coincidence!</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mark, <i>09/25/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Funny Richard should mention hemi - used to have a<br>426 that, back in the good old days, pretty much ruled<br>my little corner of the world.  Ruefully have to agree that<br>now with the more modern chambers, the hemi is not<br>competitive in normally aspirated - ala Pro Stock.<br>But what do ALL the funny cars and fuelers use?<br>:-)<br><br>ANYWAY - Detonation resistance comes from a couple<br>things - 1 of which is the most possible quench area -<br>where a flat top surface of the piston comes close to<br>a flat surface of the head which is around or alongside<br>the comb chamber.  That prevents a second flame front<br>from going to the edges of the cylinder and bouncing<br>back toward the main one (detonation).  The twist wedge<br>heads with the matching Yates style dish pistons provide<br>a good example of that.  I've got an article (emailable)<br>about a long rod 351w that ran a 220 duration 498 lift<br>cam, on efi, that could run 11-1 static comp ratio on 87<br>octane.  Depending on the size of the heads (street or "R")<br>it put out either 380 or 400hp at 5000 and 430 or 450 torque<br>at 4000.  About equal to a similarly cammed 393 stroker.<br>It also had excellent bsfc numbers, and was able to get<br>max power on only 32 deg max advance, another indication<br>of very efficient combustion. The twist wedge comb chamber <br>is a figure 8 as much in the center of the cylinder as is possible <br>to get a wedge and inline valve configuration.  The Yates pistons <br>have the roughly figure 8 shaped dish also in the center, which <br>gives about as much quench area as you can get in a 2 valve wedge.<br>The long rods also help as they keep the piston closer to<br>top center during combustion.<br><br>There is an article on brand C that is similar - on<br>www.airflowresearch.com.  They used an overbored<br>400 with a 327 crank and longer rods to also get 350+ cubes,<br> and of course AFR heads, that produced similar results.<br>The pent-roof is, of course, well proven.  Look at the power<br>they get out of 1300cc's of Suzuki bikes etc, not to mention<br>Indy motors, etc. </blockquote> Coincidence! -- mark, 09/25/2001
Funny Richard should mention hemi - used to have a
426 that, back in the good old days, pretty much ruled
my little corner of the world. Ruefully have to agree that
now with the more modern chambers, the hemi is not
competitive in normally aspirated - ala Pro Stock.
But what do ALL the funny cars and fuelers use?
:-)

ANYWAY - Detonation resistance comes from a couple
things - 1 of which is the most possible quench area -
where a flat top surface of the piston comes close to
a flat surface of the head which is around or alongside
the comb chamber. That prevents a second flame front
from going to the edges of the cylinder and bouncing
back toward the main one (detonation). The twist wedge
heads with the matching Yates style dish pistons provide
a good example of that. I've got an article (emailable)
about a long rod 351w that ran a 220 duration 498 lift
cam, on efi, that could run 11-1 static comp ratio on 87
octane. Depending on the size of the heads (street or "R")
it put out either 380 or 400hp at 5000 and 430 or 450 torque
at 4000. About equal to a similarly cammed 393 stroker.
It also had excellent bsfc numbers, and was able to get
max power on only 32 deg max advance, another indication
of very efficient combustion. The twist wedge comb chamber
is a figure 8 as much in the center of the cylinder as is possible
to get a wedge and inline valve configuration. The Yates pistons
have the roughly figure 8 shaped dish also in the center, which
gives about as much quench area as you can get in a 2 valve wedge.
The long rods also help as they keep the piston closer to
top center during combustion.

There is an article on brand C that is similar - on
www.airflowresearch.com. They used an overbored
400 with a 327 crank and longer rods to also get 350+ cubes,
and of course AFR heads, that produced similar results.
The pent-roof is, of course, well proven. Look at the power
they get out of 1300cc's of Suzuki bikes etc, not to mention
Indy motors, etc.
 RE: Coincidence! -- Skip C., 09/28/2001
Until reading these posts, I never realized that a pentroof combustion chamber was superior to a hemi (normally aspirated). I have always thought of the pentroof as an emissions hemi. I have some experience with hemis (4 cyl), but no experience with 2 valve pentroofs so I can't compare.
Thanks for the responses, Skip
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8193&Reply=8193><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>360 390 rebuild</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>sunnyb, <i>09/17/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>1974 Ford F-250 4x4 Highboy<br>dana 44 front,dana 60 rear, NP435, Spicer 24.<br>8000lb PTO, 33x16.5x12.5 <br><br>This is all the information I could get…<br><br>Present engine used in vehicle:<br>BLOCK CAST : C7ME-A with “352” cast on front<br>BLOCK DATE : 8H07<br>HEAD (L)C8AE-8<br>HEAD (R)C8AE-8<br>INTAKE MAN. 8G25, C9AE 9425 – B<br><br>Spare “rebuilt” engine came with vehicle:<br>BLOCK CAST : D3TE with backwards “105” cast<br>BLOCK DATE : 4E3 ?<br>HEAD (L) D2TE AA<br>HEAD (R) C7AE-A<br>INTAKE MAN. D4TE-9425B2A<br><br>What do I do? I need to rebuild one or a combination of the two before this winter. The engine that’s in it right now is missing on two cylinders, I need to rebuild but don’t know where to start. Maybe since the 360 is out of the vehicle I could get it sonic mapped and if the parameters are correct, bore it out to suit the need and rebuild from there? Are there any compatability issues regarding interchangeability of parts between the two? Heads, cams etc...? (I'm not sure but is the 360 actually a 361FT?) I’m going to be hauling my sled and possibly a trailer or camper this winter, I need a strong engine, wondering if anyone can give me some advice.<br>Thanks in advance,<br>Sunnyb. </blockquote> 360 390 rebuild -- sunnyb, 09/17/2001
1974 Ford F-250 4x4 Highboy
dana 44 front,dana 60 rear, NP435, Spicer 24.
8000lb PTO, 33x16.5x12.5

This is all the information I could get…

Present engine used in vehicle:
BLOCK CAST : C7ME-A with “352” cast on front
BLOCK DATE : 8H07
HEAD (L)C8AE-8
HEAD (R)C8AE-8
INTAKE MAN. 8G25, C9AE 9425 – B

Spare “rebuilt” engine came with vehicle:
BLOCK CAST : D3TE with backwards “105” cast
BLOCK DATE : 4E3 ?
HEAD (L) D2TE AA
HEAD (R) C7AE-A
INTAKE MAN. D4TE-9425B2A

What do I do? I need to rebuild one or a combination of the two before this winter. The engine that’s in it right now is missing on two cylinders, I need to rebuild but don’t know where to start. Maybe since the 360 is out of the vehicle I could get it sonic mapped and if the parameters are correct, bore it out to suit the need and rebuild from there? Are there any compatability issues regarding interchangeability of parts between the two? Heads, cams etc...? (I'm not sure but is the 360 actually a 361FT?) I’m going to be hauling my sled and possibly a trailer or camper this winter, I need a strong engine, wondering if anyone can give me some advice.
Thanks in advance,
Sunnyb.
 I'd mix the parts. -- Dave Shoe, 09/18/2001
I'd take the C8AE-H (not C8AE-8) heads and install hardened exhaust seats in them. The D2 and C7 heads are an improper combo, so I'd avoid them. If one C8 head is bad, feel free to drop the D2 head in it's place, as these heads are similat.

I'd look closer at the "105" block, as it may have some nice reinforcements, though this is not necessarily a fact. It is NOT an FT block (found on 600-800 series trucks), but it there is a slight chance it has some or all of the FT block reinforcements - don't be too cocky, as I've got a 105 block that is as wimpy as you'll find any FE block to be.

I suspect he D4 intake has an extra EGR hole on the carb surface of the intake. Also, you didn't mntion how many barrels you've got in the two intakes, so I'll avoid details. Go with the greater number of barrels, and I'd also likely lean toward using the manifold with the "T" on the intake, not the "S". I may be wrong, but I still think of the "S" intake as the smoothest FE manifold ever made, but the "T" intake likely offeres better torque.

JMO,
Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8189&Reply=8189><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>What are the HP limits</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Greg Gilliam, <i>09/17/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>  What are the HP limits on a '66 428. i.e. what are the limits to which the rods can be taken safely? Also the crank,block,etc.  Since I finally have a great engine for a '69 mach I,  I would really like to build a monster without having to fix broken parts in the first thousand miles.  The car will be driven from the street to the drag strip and needs to be well mannered.<br>  Thanks <br>    Greg<br> </blockquote> What are the HP limits -- Greg Gilliam, 09/17/2001
What are the HP limits on a '66 428. i.e. what are the limits to which the rods can be taken safely? Also the crank,block,etc. Since I finally have a great engine for a '69 mach I, I would really like to build a monster without having to fix broken parts in the first thousand miles. The car will be driven from the street to the drag strip and needs to be well mannered.
Thanks
Greg
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=8191&Reply=8189><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: What are the HP limits</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John, <i>09/17/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>It is sort of a redline max that dictates safety for the engine, not HP.  I built mine conservatively...Crane cams did a computer profile and said 480 HP (optomistic I think...more like 425 HP), but the next cam up was capable of 540 HP according to Crane...but at what rpm?  You are definately safe under 5500 rpm....I hear the rods are good to 6500 rpm without shotpeening and polishing, but it must be at a limit, so I don't do it.  Build a high torque low HP, low revver for the street, and you'll be safe...and Happy!.  The cam dictates this.  Compression ratio doesn't increase HP dramatically, but it allows you to use a cam that will.  Look for a cam with a broad torque curve down low for the street and forget HP figures,  For drag racing...go with the high rpm, high HP cam and be prepared for heartbreak from time to time.  Sorry I can't qualify this more. </blockquote> RE: What are the HP limits -- John, 09/17/2001
It is sort of a redline max that dictates safety for the engine, not HP. I built mine conservatively...Crane cams did a computer profile and said 480 HP (optomistic I think...more like 425 HP), but the next cam up was capable of 540 HP according to Crane...but at what rpm? You are definately safe under 5500 rpm....I hear the rods are good to 6500 rpm without shotpeening and polishing, but it must be at a limit, so I don't do it. Build a high torque low HP, low revver for the street, and you'll be safe...and Happy!. The cam dictates this. Compression ratio doesn't increase HP dramatically, but it allows you to use a cam that will. Look for a cam with a broad torque curve down low for the street and forget HP figures, For drag racing...go with the high rpm, high HP cam and be prepared for heartbreak from time to time. Sorry I can't qualify this more.
 RE: What are the HP limits -- richard, 09/19/2001
if you stay below 6500 rpm and 600 hp you should be ok.
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