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=7067&Reply=7067><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>427 2 1/4 air filter needed</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Ive heard that the K&N filters dont fit, i like the low restriction of them, but if they dont fit around the mounting ring, they wont work, anyone got any ideas about a 2 1/4 element?? or the K&N's? HELP I need one!! </blockquote> 427 2 1/4 air filter needed -- John, 06/27/2001
Ive heard that the K&N filters dont fit, i like the low restriction of them, but if they dont fit around the mounting ring, they wont work, anyone got any ideas about a 2 1/4 element?? or the K&N's? HELP I need one!!
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7070&Reply=7067><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 427 2 1/4 air filter needed</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>06/28/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Are you talking about the dual four aluminum air filter?  I have a K&N with my tri power air cleaner and it fits very nicely.   Or are you asking about the single four filter?  I have found the E-1650 K&N to be an excellent fit for the Ford HP open element filter used from '63 up.  It's a tight fit but it does fit all the way to the edges.  It's also quite tall. Fits nicely under the hood of my '68 F-100.  But I suspect you're asking about the dual 4V.  I haven't got the number handy on that one but mine is the 2" and as I said, it's a great fit in my '61 tri power air cleaner.    </blockquote> RE: 427 2 1/4 air filter needed -- Mike McQuesten, 06/28/2001
Are you talking about the dual four aluminum air filter? I have a K&N with my tri power air cleaner and it fits very nicely. Or are you asking about the single four filter? I have found the E-1650 K&N to be an excellent fit for the Ford HP open element filter used from '63 up. It's a tight fit but it does fit all the way to the edges. It's also quite tall. Fits nicely under the hood of my '68 F-100. But I suspect you're asking about the dual 4V. I haven't got the number handy on that one but mine is the 2" and as I said, it's a great fit in my '61 tri power air cleaner.
 RE: 427 2 1/4 air filter needed -- Mike McQuesten, 06/28/2001
I measured those K&N air filters this morning. The tri-power air cleaner is the K&N 2 1/2" filter. The E-1650 single 4V HP is a 3". Again, they're both a snug fit to the edge but they fit fine to me.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7089&Reply=7067><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 427 2 1/4 air filter needed</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John, <i>06/29/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Yes, i need it  for 2x4 air cleaner,..sorry i didnt put that in, .i was reading the messages on the "other FE forum", the answer was from 2 people that the K&N didnt fit right, and they were returned, too close to the center mounting rib, .....Mike, was the snug fit at the ring?, or at the outer edge? from what these other guys are saying it seems a little small, thanx for the comeback, John </blockquote> RE: 427 2 1/4 air filter needed -- John, 06/29/2001
Yes, i need it for 2x4 air cleaner,..sorry i didnt put that in, .i was reading the messages on the "other FE forum", the answer was from 2 people that the K&N didnt fit right, and they were returned, too close to the center mounting rib, .....Mike, was the snug fit at the ring?, or at the outer edge? from what these other guys are saying it seems a little small, thanx for the comeback, John
 I've seen a few guys use a K&N - no problem. [n/m] -- Mr F, 06/30/2001
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7096&Reply=7067><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 427 2 1/4 air filter needed</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>06/30/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Okay, I went and got it off the shelf.  Looking at it right here.  It's a K & N with a number on it:<br>C210A12.   I can't find the catalog or box right now.   The point is though, it fits perfectly.  Inside, the 2 1/2" filter fits snug right to the inner ring.  Outside, it also fits nicely nearly to the outer edge of the lower plate.  Same for the top lid.  I've always been pleased with the way this fits.  I don't have a dual four filter.  This is a '61 Ford Tri Power.   But I think that K & N sells the same filter for these multi carb FE app air cleaners. </blockquote> RE: 427 2 1/4 air filter needed -- Mike McQuesten, 06/30/2001
Okay, I went and got it off the shelf. Looking at it right here. It's a K & N with a number on it:
C210A12. I can't find the catalog or box right now. The point is though, it fits perfectly. Inside, the 2 1/2" filter fits snug right to the inner ring. Outside, it also fits nicely nearly to the outer edge of the lower plate. Same for the top lid. I've always been pleased with the way this fits. I don't have a dual four filter. This is a '61 Ford Tri Power. But I think that K & N sells the same filter for these multi carb FE app air cleaners.
 Thanx !! -- John, 06/30/2001
I think your right Mike, the 3x2 are the same as 2x4, the fit you mention sounds like what i can use, next, get the 427 MR dropped in the 67 Fairlane and see if the height is right, i have the original glass hood, should plenty of clearance, thanx Mike, Mr F
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7056&Reply=7056><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Will a 390 eng from a 76 2-ton Truck fit</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Gustavo Chavez, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>My Questions is as follows:  I got an original 1967 Galaxie 500XL w/ a 390 eng., a Cruiso - matic C6 Tranny.  I need a new eng.  & a guy has a 1976 2-ton Ford Truck 390 engine for $300.00.   <br><br>Will it fit my 67 ?  Vin# 7E58H222285.<br> TRANS  AXLE  BODY  COLOR  TRIM  DATE  DSO<br>  U      8     636    X     8A   09E    11<br><br>What do you guys Think. </blockquote> Will a 390 eng from a 76 2-ton Truck fit -- Gustavo Chavez, 06/27/2001
My Questions is as follows: I got an original 1967 Galaxie 500XL w/ a 390 eng., a Cruiso - matic C6 Tranny. I need a new eng. & a guy has a 1976 2-ton Ford Truck 390 engine for $300.00.

Will it fit my 67 ? Vin# 7E58H222285.
TRANS AXLE BODY COLOR TRIM DATE DSO
U 8 636 X 8A 09E 11

What do you guys Think.
 Yup. -- Dave Shoe, 06/27/2001
Some of the parts won't fit, like possibly the oil filter adapter and oil pan - depending on the truck.

Note that the '76 will have EGR port on the carb-flange of the intake manifold (a port which feeds raw exhaust into the emissons-type carburetor), so you'll probably wanna select which of the two you prefer, and it may even have thermactor emissions.

The only major difference will be the very low compression pistons in the '76 truck, probably hanging around 7.5:1 or so.

There is an OK chance the 2-ton block will have reinforced crankwebs, but it probably does NOT have reinforced cylinder walls - that's pretty much limited to the FT, or maybe heavier FE trucks like the 500-series.

If your '67 has C6AE-R heads, you'll probably wanna use them, as they have big runners and work with pre-emissions-era race headers.

If you have C6AE-U, or C7AE-A heads, they're basically the same as the D2TE-AA heads on the heavy truck, so you can just select the ones in better shape. If you run headers, make sure you get the type that work with the lower-positioned runner of the emissions head.

Both engines are tough as hell, so either can be built to make serious horsepower.

Shoe.
 RE: Will a 390 eng from a 76 2-ton Truck fit -- matt, 06/28/2001
if i were you i would drop that one intact and start to rebuild my old one with all of the goodies
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7052&Reply=7052><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Need spark plug gap recommendation</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Gary T, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Have a 70 Shelby with a fairly stock 428 CJ motor, pertronics ignitor, stock ford coil and autolight plugs.   The books says the plug gap should be .034.   With the pertronics, can anyone recommend a larger gap which they have been successsfully running?  This way I don't need to experiment.....Thanks </blockquote> Need spark plug gap recommendation -- Gary T, 06/27/2001
Have a 70 Shelby with a fairly stock 428 CJ motor, pertronics ignitor, stock ford coil and autolight plugs. The books says the plug gap should be .034. With the pertronics, can anyone recommend a larger gap which they have been successsfully running? This way I don't need to experiment.....Thanks
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7063&Reply=7052><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Don't go with a larger gap unless...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>...you upgrade the cap to a DuraSpark type and install the fatter Duraspark plug wires.<br><br>I'm just talking "book knowledge" right now - I don't have enough experience with this to verify my claims, but a larger plug gap only buys you a higher spark voltage - not a higher spark energy.  Energy is what makes plasma - voltage only gets the plasma started.  Since the plasma starts just fine at stock voltages, you don't need higher voltages.<br><br>Higher voltages work well in lean-burning emissions vehicles where it's tough to excite a reaction, and also in tough-to-combust racing fuel environments where either the fuel is tough to ignite (like alcohol) or there is just so much fuel it's tough to punch a spark through the dense mix (supercharged, nitromethane, etc).<br><br>By keeping the gap around .032-.035", you assure the plug will fire before the spark voltage climbs high enough to start leaking in other locations (like under the ozone-filled distributor cap or plug wire boot), and thus cause misfiring.  A larger Duraspark cap spreads the plugwire electrodes farther apart, making it tougher to create problems under the cap when voltages climb.<br><br>If you're running gasoline and not climbing past 7000RPM, you can probably do well with a standard gap plug and a fairly stock coil.  The Pertronix will definitely give you more spark energy than points could above 5000RPM.  Because your spark 'energy" is determined by both the "dwell" time and the energy which the pink resistor wire under your dash allows through it into the coil, you won't gain anything by simply switching to a hotter coil.  In fact, you can reduce the spark energy if you stick a coil in there which demands a lower ballast resistance wire than the car has.  Ditto on changing the gap - a larger gap may give you higher voltage, but it may be a weak (cold) spark compared to the lower-voltage spark.<br><br>If you gotta have a wilder spark, you'll need to either bypass the pink resistor wire (the pink wire often starts at the fusebox and stops at the engine harness connector) and select a properly-sized (lower resistance) ballast resistor to replace it, or you need to buy an ignition amplifier (like the MSD) which uses the resistance wire as a timing reference only and draws it's spark energy straight from the battery.<br><br>JMO,<br>Shoe.<br><br><br><br> </blockquote> Don't go with a larger gap unless... -- Dave Shoe, 06/27/2001
...you upgrade the cap to a DuraSpark type and install the fatter Duraspark plug wires.

I'm just talking "book knowledge" right now - I don't have enough experience with this to verify my claims, but a larger plug gap only buys you a higher spark voltage - not a higher spark energy. Energy is what makes plasma - voltage only gets the plasma started. Since the plasma starts just fine at stock voltages, you don't need higher voltages.

Higher voltages work well in lean-burning emissions vehicles where it's tough to excite a reaction, and also in tough-to-combust racing fuel environments where either the fuel is tough to ignite (like alcohol) or there is just so much fuel it's tough to punch a spark through the dense mix (supercharged, nitromethane, etc).

By keeping the gap around .032-.035", you assure the plug will fire before the spark voltage climbs high enough to start leaking in other locations (like under the ozone-filled distributor cap or plug wire boot), and thus cause misfiring. A larger Duraspark cap spreads the plugwire electrodes farther apart, making it tougher to create problems under the cap when voltages climb.

If you're running gasoline and not climbing past 7000RPM, you can probably do well with a standard gap plug and a fairly stock coil. The Pertronix will definitely give you more spark energy than points could above 5000RPM. Because your spark 'energy" is determined by both the "dwell" time and the energy which the pink resistor wire under your dash allows through it into the coil, you won't gain anything by simply switching to a hotter coil. In fact, you can reduce the spark energy if you stick a coil in there which demands a lower ballast resistance wire than the car has. Ditto on changing the gap - a larger gap may give you higher voltage, but it may be a weak (cold) spark compared to the lower-voltage spark.

If you gotta have a wilder spark, you'll need to either bypass the pink resistor wire (the pink wire often starts at the fusebox and stops at the engine harness connector) and select a properly-sized (lower resistance) ballast resistor to replace it, or you need to buy an ignition amplifier (like the MSD) which uses the resistance wire as a timing reference only and draws it's spark energy straight from the battery.

JMO,
Shoe.



Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7073&Reply=7052><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Just speaking from experience...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Don V, <i>06/28/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I am running a 66 GTA 390 stock Fairlane, been using Pentronix for 6 yrs now. I too thought a bigger plug gap would make a difference so I tried it at the strip and on street. I found there is no difference at all between .035 and .045. so I split the difference at .040.<br>Fires every time at any rpm under 5300 rpm, don't know about higher rpm, I don't go there.<br><br> </blockquote> Just speaking from experience... -- Don V, 06/28/2001
I am running a 66 GTA 390 stock Fairlane, been using Pentronix for 6 yrs now. I too thought a bigger plug gap would make a difference so I tried it at the strip and on street. I found there is no difference at all between .035 and .045. so I split the difference at .040.
Fires every time at any rpm under 5300 rpm, don't know about higher rpm, I don't go there.

 Oh one more thing.... -- Don V, 06/28/2001
For these unofficial tests, I used Bosch platinum plugs.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7046&Reply=7046><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Article in latest Musclecar Review about the 428CJ</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>slumbering CJ, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Nice article.   Does anyone know what the 'B' curve is?<br>William Barr, one of the engineers on the project, said it made 330hp on the 'B" curve. Then it goes on to say as installed they had over 315hp and420lb-ft of torque.<br>I was wondering if that is a misprint on the hp or maybe the "B" curve standard would explain it.<br>In another article I seen in the past, Barr said in in house Ford tests, a 429CJ never beat the 428CJ. </blockquote> Article in latest Musclecar Review about the 428CJ -- slumbering CJ, 06/27/2001
Nice article. Does anyone know what the 'B' curve is?
William Barr, one of the engineers on the project, said it made 330hp on the 'B" curve. Then it goes on to say as installed they had over 315hp and420lb-ft of torque.
I was wondering if that is a misprint on the hp or maybe the "B" curve standard would explain it.
In another article I seen in the past, Barr said in in house Ford tests, a 429CJ never beat the 428CJ.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7051&Reply=7046><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>50 Fastest Musclecars?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Tim B, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Great magazine, great article on the 428CJ........but I think their 50 Fastest "Pure Stock"is pure BS.  "Stock" Nova running 12's! I would say they think we are stupid or someone is lying, but the kicker is they are fully aware of the extensive prepping on the car. They've done articles on it's modifications, but there it is "The Fastest Stock Musclecar!"<br><br>They asked for feedback on the article, and I gave them some LOL.<br>Mcmail@emapUSA.com<br><br>As I told them, I have nothing against modifying a muscle car, but don't penalize the purists either. They need to run different class for modifieds/stock appearing.<br><br>Tim B<br>1969 XR7 428 CJR convertible<br><a href="http://members.aol.com/timbrands/index.html">http://members.aol.com/timbrands/index.html</a> </blockquote> 50 Fastest Musclecars? -- Tim B, 06/27/2001
Great magazine, great article on the 428CJ........but I think their 50 Fastest "Pure Stock"is pure BS. "Stock" Nova running 12's! I would say they think we are stupid or someone is lying, but the kicker is they are fully aware of the extensive prepping on the car. They've done articles on it's modifications, but there it is "The Fastest Stock Musclecar!"

They asked for feedback on the article, and I gave them some LOL.
Mcmail@emapUSA.com

As I told them, I have nothing against modifying a muscle car, but don't penalize the purists either. They need to run different class for modifieds/stock appearing.

Tim B
1969 XR7 428 CJR convertible
http://members.aol.com/timbrands/index.html
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7053&Reply=7046><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 428 vs. 429 CJ</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mike McQuesten, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>It's interesting that the engineer indicated that the '28 would outperform the '29 CJ.  I haven't seen the article yet but will pick it up.  Here's an honest to goodness true story comparison between the two big block Super CJ's.   I was working as a lot lizard gofer at a Ford dealership in '69.  We had a Fairlane Cobra Coupe(formal roof) that was a Super CJ/drag pack/ram-air with 3.91 gearing and C-6.  It was as plain as we could order it.   We would drive it to the drag strip that was 225+ miles away loaded with guys.   Change the plugs to BF-22s at the strip.  Run it in pure stock on the as equipped F70 X 14 Goodyear Polyglas rubber.  Oh, we did remove the thermactor a-pump, etc. plugged the holes in the heads of course.  That Fairlane Cobra would run 13.7 e.t. at 102 mph all night long.   We all took turns driving it.  It was so simple.  Just leave it in Drive.  Feather it out of the hole and drill the pedal to the floor with a little traction.  It would shift perfectly at 5,300 RPM.   There you go, high 13's for anybody. We dominated purer stock in that class that summer o'69.  I think it was C pure stock. The head parts man was so impressed he ordered a '70 Torino Cobra Drag Pack, ram-air(yup, the very cool shaker scoop system) with 3.91s and C-6.   It was a gorgeous car.  Vermillion(Orange) w/black interior.  It was the SCJ of course with solids and big Holley carb.  It felt fabulous.  It would torque rip the 15X7 Poly glas Goodyears on Magnums as it shifted into 2nd just like the 428 would do.  Spring of '70, we drove it to the same drag strip.  It ran okay but never better than a 14.00/99 mph in pure stock.   Eventually Bud added slicks, headers, and a few tweaks and it hit low 13's.   The '69 was long sold and totalled by its buyer.   But it was obvious to all of us which car was quickest right off the trailer.  The 428 '69 hands down.  Don't think of this as a slam on the 429.   Ford engineers were "developing" the series when performance development got squelched for the joy of the seventies.   The potential of the big Lima block is obvious with what we see at many strips today.   </blockquote> RE: 428 vs. 429 CJ -- Mike McQuesten, 06/27/2001
It's interesting that the engineer indicated that the '28 would outperform the '29 CJ. I haven't seen the article yet but will pick it up. Here's an honest to goodness true story comparison between the two big block Super CJ's. I was working as a lot lizard gofer at a Ford dealership in '69. We had a Fairlane Cobra Coupe(formal roof) that was a Super CJ/drag pack/ram-air with 3.91 gearing and C-6. It was as plain as we could order it. We would drive it to the drag strip that was 225+ miles away loaded with guys. Change the plugs to BF-22s at the strip. Run it in pure stock on the as equipped F70 X 14 Goodyear Polyglas rubber. Oh, we did remove the thermactor a-pump, etc. plugged the holes in the heads of course. That Fairlane Cobra would run 13.7 e.t. at 102 mph all night long. We all took turns driving it. It was so simple. Just leave it in Drive. Feather it out of the hole and drill the pedal to the floor with a little traction. It would shift perfectly at 5,300 RPM. There you go, high 13's for anybody. We dominated purer stock in that class that summer o'69. I think it was C pure stock. The head parts man was so impressed he ordered a '70 Torino Cobra Drag Pack, ram-air(yup, the very cool shaker scoop system) with 3.91s and C-6. It was a gorgeous car. Vermillion(Orange) w/black interior. It was the SCJ of course with solids and big Holley carb. It felt fabulous. It would torque rip the 15X7 Poly glas Goodyears on Magnums as it shifted into 2nd just like the 428 would do. Spring of '70, we drove it to the same drag strip. It ran okay but never better than a 14.00/99 mph in pure stock. Eventually Bud added slicks, headers, and a few tweaks and it hit low 13's. The '69 was long sold and totalled by its buyer. But it was obvious to all of us which car was quickest right off the trailer. The 428 '69 hands down. Don't think of this as a slam on the 429. Ford engineers were "developing" the series when performance development got squelched for the joy of the seventies. The potential of the big Lima block is obvious with what we see at many strips today.
 RE: 428 vs. 429 CJ Barr's comment NOT in latest -- slumbering CJ, 06/27/2001
musclecar review issue. I will try to find it and let you know. I had trouble getting connected to this site today, has anyone else?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7058&Reply=7046><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 428 vs. 429 CJ  Barr's comment in</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>slumbering CJ, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>June-July 1997 issue of Musclecar Review.  Here's a quote from the story.<br>The 428 Cobra Jet remained a strong street performance option through 1970, for Mustangs and Cougars only that last year.  Ford's new and improved Cobra-Jet, the 429 CJ, superseded its 428 forerunner in other 1970 models.  Even though he also contributed to the second edition Cobra Jet bigblock, Bill Barr wasn't necessarily convinced that progress in this case was an entirely good thing.   In in-house tests,  "a 429 Cobra Jet never beat a 428 Cobra Jet," he said. </blockquote> RE: 428 vs. 429 CJ Barr's comment in -- slumbering CJ, 06/27/2001
June-July 1997 issue of Musclecar Review. Here's a quote from the story.
The 428 Cobra Jet remained a strong street performance option through 1970, for Mustangs and Cougars only that last year. Ford's new and improved Cobra-Jet, the 429 CJ, superseded its 428 forerunner in other 1970 models. Even though he also contributed to the second edition Cobra Jet bigblock, Bill Barr wasn't necessarily convinced that progress in this case was an entirely good thing. In in-house tests, "a 429 Cobra Jet never beat a 428 Cobra Jet," he said.
 RE: 428 vs. 429 CJ Barr's comment in -- slumbering CJ, 06/27/2001
A lso interesting in the 1997 article was Barr's comment that when Hot Rod ran 13.56/106.64 in the famous CJ Mustang test, he figured they must have had a poor driver, as Barr's pilot car ran 13.4, and said that all CJ Mustangs sold in '68 were potentially that quick.
You mentioned the1969 Cobra coupe ran 13.7.
That would pretty much correspond with what Barr said about the 13.4 for the Mustangs, given the weight difference between the Fairlane and Mustang.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7061&Reply=7046><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>question</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>slumbering CJ, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Mike McQuesten mentioned that they plugged the holes in the head (thermactor system)  When my slumbering CJ  returns to duty that is one problem I will have to address, plugging the holes from the smog system  Does anyone know what the best way to fix this is?    I would appreciate details if possible.<br>I enjoyed Mike McQuestion's real life recollections.<br><br>Hey Mike,  If you or your friends back then took any pictures  of the 1969 Cobra  , especially in action at the strip,  that would be a good story to submit to Muscle Car Review.  They  run stories like that. </blockquote> question -- slumbering CJ, 06/27/2001
Mike McQuesten mentioned that they plugged the holes in the head (thermactor system) When my slumbering CJ returns to duty that is one problem I will have to address, plugging the holes from the smog system Does anyone know what the best way to fix this is? I would appreciate details if possible.
I enjoyed Mike McQuestion's real life recollections.

Hey Mike, If you or your friends back then took any pictures of the 1969 Cobra , especially in action at the strip, that would be a good story to submit to Muscle Car Review. They run stories like that.
 RE: plugs -- Mike McQuesten, 06/28/2001
I believe that there were actual FoMoCo provided plugs for plugging the holes in the heads for the thermactor air pump. I have some stashed around somewhere that I pulled from a set of CJ heads years ago. A machinist friend said that he'd seen those plugs before. They were an odd looking thing. I'll have to dig around for them in my small parts bucket. What I used to plug the holes on my personal CJ heads were just the correct thread allen plugs. Painted the heads and they hardly showed.
Thanks for appreciating the recollections. They're the truth. It was Muggli Ford in Grandview Washington. We ran the '69 Cobra Coupe at Deer Park Drag Strip north of Spokane, WA, almost every Saturday night. We ordered the car late in '69, like early June. It was just within the deadline for ordering a '69. As I said it was a cheap as we could order it. We specified nothing for the interior and expected the cheapo cloth/vinyl bench seat with column control automatic. What came was the nice comfort weave buckets/interior. No console. Column control shift as we thought it would be. The car was black on black. Dog dish hub caps and the nice chrome exhaust extensions were in the trunk. We added Cragar SS's all around. That was it. A little carb adjusting. Removed the T-air pump (Which was such an ugly thing on that engine) and went dealer drag racing. The owner of the dealership, George Muggli, was a wonderful guy who was not into performance in anyway. He liked to sell LTDs/Pick-ups to the community farm folks. His high school age son Danny was the performance nut along with me, a 21 year old fanatic at the time. Nothing much has changed...I'm still a fantaic! It was that little 120 pound Danny that could cut the best times! The rest of us were 200+ lbs.
There was a Mopar dealership right next door. Only an alley seperated us. Anderson Motors and they were very performance oriented, hell, what Mopar dealership wasn't in the sixties? I was so proud that we had one true performance Ford in that little farm town dealership. I don't want to go on here but honest to goodness I beat one of there Six-Pack Super Bees w/4 speed in a country road drag race on hot summer afternoon. Well, I beat him once by just a fender and then the Mopar salesman beat me on the return race...by only a fender. I was looking right at his rear wheel/tire all the way until we ran out of road and high tailed it before the state troopers showed. I felt very good about beating him one out of two. The S-bee was B-stock. I got in a little bit of trouble from George for doing this during my lunch half hour so we didn't get a rematch.
As for pics.....sad to say that I don't have any. The sales manager was really enthused and I know he took some pictures before the car got sold in October. He has passed away and I know longer live in that valley. But I still have my "racing jacket"!! We got four or five of those muscle parts blue w/white racing stripes wind breakers. I remember us wearing those to the drags one night and getting a group picture. I never got a copy. I wasn't living in one place very regular then. My 19 year old son will pull that wind breaker out of the closet sometimes and wear it out with his friends for that current industrial look that's so popular. He's cool.
Thanks again. '69 Cobra Coupes are one of my favorites for sure. Was there that much weight difference with a '68/'69 big block Mustang?
 RE: question -- peter, 07/04/2001
Hello,
I'm from Australia and I recently brought a Mach 1 cobra jet and the heads have a plug in them. they have a flat slot in the heads which will take a large flat scew driver to remove. My car i was told was drag raced at one time in it's life so I don't know if they might of been purchased through ford years ago....
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7072&Reply=7046><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: 428 vs. 429 CJ</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Don V, <i>06/28/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>The Pure Stock Drags at Stanton MI confirms the what is being said about the 428/429 matchup. The  stock 428's  are showing mid to high 13's. The stock 429's are at best low 14's( at least at the last four events I attended anyhow. ) But these are supposed to be stock, and in my opinion they were,  if you were to modify the two types, it would be a different story. </blockquote> RE: 428 vs. 429 CJ -- Don V, 06/28/2001
The Pure Stock Drags at Stanton MI confirms the what is being said about the 428/429 matchup. The stock 428's are showing mid to high 13's. The stock 429's are at best low 14's( at least at the last four events I attended anyhow. ) But these are supposed to be stock, and in my opinion they were, if you were to modify the two types, it would be a different story.
 RE: 428 vs. 429 CJ -- Bob Enright, 07/04/2001
The first CJ I rode in was a 69 fairlane cobra auto. The feel of the torque in this car was most memorable. I year or so later another one of my friends had a 71 429 CJ mach 1. While this car was pretty quick it def. did not have that jam you in your seat the fairlane had. I never forgot that car & today I own a 67GT stang with a 69 428CJ motor. Its a restored show car but I drive it often. It always makes me smile!!
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7044&Reply=7044><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>390 conversion</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Krinn, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have purchased a 1971 390 and c-6 transmission to replace the 302 and c-4 transmission in my 1973 mustang.  I also purchased some 67-68 mustang headers for the 390.  Has anyone done this conversion and if so do you know the pitfalls? </blockquote> 390 conversion -- Krinn, 06/27/2001
I have purchased a 1971 390 and c-6 transmission to replace the 302 and c-4 transmission in my 1973 mustang. I also purchased some 67-68 mustang headers for the 390. Has anyone done this conversion and if so do you know the pitfalls?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7064&Reply=7044><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Not me.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I know the '71-'73 Mustang changed a little in the engine bay area compared the the earlier cars, but you might be able to fit that combo in there.  It'd be a cool transplant, if you ask me.<br><br>The biggest pitfall with headers is they come in two header-flange styles.  I'm not talking bolt positions (that's easy to fix), I'm talking about port position as referenced between the head and header (this can be a little tougher to adjust and still fit into the engine bay).<br><br>Make sure there is no port mismatch between the heads and the headers when you bolt them together.  If there is a 5/16" mismatch, then you've got the wrong style head for the selected header and you'll have leaking gaskets and poor exhaust flow.<br><br>Also, if push comes to shove, avoid using the 390 unibody type exhaust manifold (sometimes called the 390GT exhaust manifold), as they don't flow well at all.  428CJ manifolds are fine, though I don't know whether they fit.<br><br>I suspect Crites Restorations has some answers for you, too.<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> Not me. -- Dave Shoe, 06/27/2001
I know the '71-'73 Mustang changed a little in the engine bay area compared the the earlier cars, but you might be able to fit that combo in there. It'd be a cool transplant, if you ask me.

The biggest pitfall with headers is they come in two header-flange styles. I'm not talking bolt positions (that's easy to fix), I'm talking about port position as referenced between the head and header (this can be a little tougher to adjust and still fit into the engine bay).

Make sure there is no port mismatch between the heads and the headers when you bolt them together. If there is a 5/16" mismatch, then you've got the wrong style head for the selected header and you'll have leaking gaskets and poor exhaust flow.

Also, if push comes to shove, avoid using the 390 unibody type exhaust manifold (sometimes called the 390GT exhaust manifold), as they don't flow well at all. 428CJ manifolds are fine, though I don't know whether they fit.

I suspect Crites Restorations has some answers for you, too.

Shoe.
 Thanks shoe! -- Krinn, 06/28/2001
Thanks shoe!
 RE: Not me. -- John Saxon, 06/29/2001
I once bought a 73 Mach 1 that had a 69 428CJ out of a ranchero in it.They had used the original 3 peice engine mount setup out of the ranchero that set the engine in fine and was compatible with the stock C-6 tranny mount.But they had used stock flat exhaust manifolds,so I don't know what headers would fit.I soon swapped to a 460.I also know a guy that put a 428CJ into a 73 convertible using 428CJ exhaust manifolds but I don't know what he used for motor mounts.It did seem that the engine sat farther forward than I would have liked.The ranchero motor mounts are bolt-in and position motor correctly.Crites may be able shed more light on this subject since he manufactures both motor mounts and exhaust headers.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7036&Reply=7036><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Engine paint code</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Jeff C., <i>06/26/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Hi looking for gold used on 64, 390 valve covers PPg or Dupont  # would be great.  Thanks! </blockquote> Engine paint code -- Jeff C., 06/26/2001
Hi looking for gold used on 64, 390 valve covers PPg or Dupont # would be great. Thanks!
 I searched the General Forum archive and.... -- Mr F, 06/26/2001
http://www.fomoco.com/forummain/reply.asp?ID=18842&Reply=18840
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7034&Reply=7034><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>68 GT-500 Identification</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Lebeis, <i>06/26/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>  I am looking for any help to identify a 68 Mustang Shelby GT-500 I am thinking about buying. The looks to be what the owner says it is, but there are a lot of good clones out there. The car also has a 427 in it that the owner says was a dealer installed option and I have heard that this did actually happen. I know the numbers will all check out but does that mean that it is not a non Shelby that was fixed up to replace a destroyed car. I am wondering if there are any other ways to tell other than the obvious ones. The car is said to be original and it sure looks like it is. It is a very fine example and looks to be complete inside and out. Any and all help would be appreciated.<br>  Thanks,<br>  Dave </blockquote> 68 GT-500 Identification -- Dave Lebeis, 06/26/2001
I am looking for any help to identify a 68 Mustang Shelby GT-500 I am thinking about buying. The looks to be what the owner says it is, but there are a lot of good clones out there. The car also has a 427 in it that the owner says was a dealer installed option and I have heard that this did actually happen. I know the numbers will all check out but does that mean that it is not a non Shelby that was fixed up to replace a destroyed car. I am wondering if there are any other ways to tell other than the obvious ones. The car is said to be original and it sure looks like it is. It is a very fine example and looks to be complete inside and out. Any and all help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Dave
 RE: 68 GT-500 Identification -- Will, 06/27/2001
The best way is to see if it is registered with SAAC. They may have the original and subsequent owners names plus a full history. I don't have the contact numbers, but I believe Rick Kopec is the prez.

You should be able to find them by searching the net.
 RE: 68 GT-500 Identification -- Gary T., 06/28/2001
If you Email the Shelby and Ford serial number I will look it up in my registry. I think SAAC's email is "saac.li.com".
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7033&Reply=7033><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Edelbrock Streetmaster  single plane for FE</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Rick Croom, <i>06/26/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Has anyone heard of one of these before. i went to Edelbrock's home page and could not find a listing. I was wondering how it flows compared to the victor series. </blockquote> Edelbrock Streetmaster single plane for FE -- Rick Croom, 06/26/2001
Has anyone heard of one of these before. i went to Edelbrock's home page and could not find a listing. I was wondering how it flows compared to the victor series.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7037&Reply=7033><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Edelbrock Streetmaster  single plane for FE</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Styleline58, <i>06/26/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>It's an old design.  Sold from the early 1070s through to 70s.  It's single plane, but with small runners, small ports (gotta hog them out to match a CJ port) and a small plenum area.  To get them to work with modified engines, you gotta port match, blend way in, enlarge the plenum area, cut back the runner walls in the plenum and use an open spacer.  No, really!  You would be better off saving up for a Ebok Performer RPM or, even better, a Blue Thinder PI.  A CJ intake, PI, Sidewainder or F427 will work better on a mild engine, from what I understand.  I did have a Streetmaster on a mild 351W and it worked OK, but I can tell with today's eyes that with more cam and some headwork I would have outgrown it.<br><br>Now, on a mild engine, it may work well.  There no arguing the fact that it is a cool looking intake. </blockquote> RE: Edelbrock Streetmaster single plane for FE -- Styleline58, 06/26/2001
It's an old design. Sold from the early 1070s through to 70s. It's single plane, but with small runners, small ports (gotta hog them out to match a CJ port) and a small plenum area. To get them to work with modified engines, you gotta port match, blend way in, enlarge the plenum area, cut back the runner walls in the plenum and use an open spacer. No, really! You would be better off saving up for a Ebok Performer RPM or, even better, a Blue Thinder PI. A CJ intake, PI, Sidewainder or F427 will work better on a mild engine, from what I understand. I did have a Streetmaster on a mild 351W and it worked OK, but I can tell with today's eyes that with more cam and some headwork I would have outgrown it.

Now, on a mild engine, it may work well. There no arguing the fact that it is a cool looking intake.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7040&Reply=7033><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Edelbrock Streetmaster  single plane for FE</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Paul M, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>How is it for low end torque on a low-budget build up, with say, a mild step up on the cam, port matched to ported and polished C7AE-A heads (which I already have) with headers and a 650cfm dropped into a truck with a 4 speed?<br><br>This being a .030 over 390, btw.   </blockquote> RE: Edelbrock Streetmaster single plane for FE -- Paul M, 06/27/2001
How is it for low end torque on a low-budget build up, with say, a mild step up on the cam, port matched to ported and polished C7AE-A heads (which I already have) with headers and a 650cfm dropped into a truck with a 4 speed?

This being a .030 over 390, btw.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7041&Reply=7033><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Edelbrock Streetmaster  single plane for FE</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>gerry, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>While you could do worse than a Streetmaster, Paul, if you haven't purchased a manifold yet a better choice for producing low-end torque would be the Performer. </blockquote> RE: Edelbrock Streetmaster single plane for FE -- gerry, 06/27/2001
While you could do worse than a Streetmaster, Paul, if you haven't purchased a manifold yet a better choice for producing low-end torque would be the Performer.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7045&Reply=7033><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Edelbrock Streetmaster  single plane for FE</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>bear, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have run the street master,f427, and the rpm performer.  save your money and buy the RPM.  you will not be disappointed.<br><br> </blockquote> RE: Edelbrock Streetmaster single plane for FE -- bear, 06/27/2001
I have run the street master,f427, and the rpm performer. save your money and buy the RPM. you will not be disappointed.

 Thanks for the opinions. [n/m] -- Paul M, 06/27/2001
~.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7047&Reply=7033><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Edelbrock Streetmaster  single plane for FE</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Tim B, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>What is a Blue Thunder PI? </blockquote> RE: Edelbrock Streetmaster single plane for FE -- Tim B, 06/27/2001
What is a Blue Thunder PI?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7048&Reply=7033><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>BT-PI intake</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Styleline, 58, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Blue Thunder manufactures an intake based on the Police Interceptor (same as CJ, but PI is alum, and CJ is cast iron) intake, but with larger runners and tweaks for better flow.  It is the same height as a PI, so it will go on a CJ without affecting how the ram air fits.  It breaths very well without sacrificing low RPM performance.  I have one with a Dominator flange, and made my own adapter to use a 4150 Holley.  I am very happy with it. </blockquote> BT-PI intake -- Styleline, 58, 06/27/2001
Blue Thunder manufactures an intake based on the Police Interceptor (same as CJ, but PI is alum, and CJ is cast iron) intake, but with larger runners and tweaks for better flow. It is the same height as a PI, so it will go on a CJ without affecting how the ram air fits. It breaths very well without sacrificing low RPM performance. I have one with a Dominator flange, and made my own adapter to use a 4150 Holley. I am very happy with it.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7049&Reply=7033><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: BT-PI intake</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Tim B, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Is the BT PI aluminum? Are they still being made?<br><br>Tim B<br>1969 XR7 428 CJR convertible<br><a href="http://members.aol.com/timbrands/index.html">http://members.aol.com/timbrands/index.html</a> </blockquote> RE: BT-PI intake -- Tim B, 06/27/2001
Is the BT PI aluminum? Are they still being made?

Tim B
1969 XR7 428 CJR convertible
http://members.aol.com/timbrands/index.html
 Yes x2. -- Styleline58, 06/27/2001
Blue Thunder's ugly and nearly pintless website:

http://www.bluethunderauto.com/

FPP is a dealer, and they don't have a website. There are other dealers. It is pricey, being near $400.00. The Ebok Performer is cheaper, but I like my BT.
 RE: BT-PI intake -- Paul, 06/27/2001
Here's a picture of a B/T 428 manifold.
http://sites.netscape.net/blueovalperf/information
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7018&Reply=7018><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Fe Iron</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>T1M, <i>06/26/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote> I just realized that "Fe" on the table of elements is the name for iron. Is it possible that that's where the Ford "FE" gets it's name? </blockquote> Fe Iron -- T1M, 06/26/2001
I just realized that "Fe" on the table of elements is the name for iron. Is it possible that that's where the Ford "FE" gets it's name?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7020&Reply=7018><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Fe Iron</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>gerry, <i>06/26/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>No.  Do a search on Ford Edsel.  You'll see that this topic has been thoroughly reviewed.  It also makes no sense because, using that logic,  why would ALL Ford engines cast in iron not be referred to as FE? </blockquote> RE: Fe Iron -- gerry, 06/26/2001
No. Do a search on Ford Edsel. You'll see that this topic has been thoroughly reviewed. It also makes no sense because, using that logic, why would ALL Ford engines cast in iron not be referred to as FE?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7022&Reply=7018><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Fe Iron</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>T1M, <i>06/26/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I see your point. It is still possible though I think. Names are sometimes sort of arbitrarily given like the mustang that says GT-350 on the side that has a 302 in it. </blockquote> RE: Fe Iron -- T1M, 06/26/2001
I see your point. It is still possible though I think. Names are sometimes sort of arbitrarily given like the mustang that says GT-350 on the side that has a 302 in it.
 RE: Fe Iron -- gerry, 06/26/2001
You're assuming that the 350 in GT-350 relates to engine displacement, which would be an incorrect assumption. Beyond that, there are no Mustang GT-350s and any Shelby owner would gladly bring this to your attention. Matt is on the right track (it has to do with distance) and you are somewhat correct in that some things are arbitrary but everything has some element of reason behind it even if it seems mysterious.

Using your Fe reaoning, why didn't Ford name their aluminum engines Al? No, I think this horse is dead. You can quit beating it.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7024&Reply=7018><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Fe Iron</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>matt, <i>06/26/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>i think the 350 came from the length of the place he was working at if i remember right. many think the fe stands for ford edsel. well what if it stood for ford engine, or fast engine or flimsy engine?? would that make it any less of an engine or change it in any way to you??  </blockquote> RE: Fe Iron -- matt, 06/26/2001
i think the 350 came from the length of the place he was working at if i remember right. many think the fe stands for ford edsel. well what if it stood for ford engine, or fast engine or flimsy engine?? would that make it any less of an engine or change it in any way to you??
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7039&Reply=7018><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Kill the horse already.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Paul M, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>EVERY piece of literature, including books, mag articles, documents (Like old parts books) etc, etc, state that FE stands for Ford-Edsel.  <br><br>And no, it doesnt make any difference to the engine as to what you call it.  Just remember what you called it when it breaks down on you though. (If it does)<br><br>`Nuff said. </blockquote> Kill the horse already. -- Paul M, 06/27/2001
EVERY piece of literature, including books, mag articles, documents (Like old parts books) etc, etc, state that FE stands for Ford-Edsel.

And no, it doesnt make any difference to the engine as to what you call it. Just remember what you called it when it breaks down on you though. (If it does)

`Nuff said.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7111&Reply=7018><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Kill the horse already.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Richard, <i>07/02/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Not "every" piece of literature says it is Ford Edsel.  So... you may wish to end your beating with this claim if it makes you feel better, but don't pass it off as fact.   </blockquote> RE: Kill the horse already. -- Richard, 07/02/2001
Not "every" piece of literature says it is Ford Edsel. So... you may wish to end your beating with this claim if it makes you feel better, but don't pass it off as fact.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7113&Reply=7018><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>You're not referring to George Reid's fine book by any chance, are you?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>07/02/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Actually, every credible book I've read refers to it as the Ford-Edsel. The "most available" book which claims otherwise is so filled with errors that it's not difficult to find a dozen+ errors without turning the page - on pretty much any page of the book.<br><br>Without turning the page from the worthlessly ambiguous "Ford Engine" claim, George's book proudly exclaims the Cleveland is part of Ford's "332" engine family.  What a dolt!  That same book lists the 351M as being the 351 "Modified".  Obviously a joke.  It also describes the FE in the same chapter (and mixed together on the same pages) as the 385 Family, apparently not distinguishing between the two. What a mess!<br><br>Ford never apparently released the meaning of the acronym (which their marketing department apparently invented and first published in 1970), but the context does make the meaning obvious to those readers who recognize that not all authors know what their talking about.<br><br>Because the true meaning was apparently never released to the valued public, I continue to search for a single credible source with an alternate meaning. I continue to search.<br><br>Past references on the topic:<br><a href="http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=904&Reply=904">http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=904&Reply=904</a><br><a href="http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=6127&Reply=6127">http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=6127&Reply=6127</a><br><a href="http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=6299&Reply=6299">http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=6299&Reply=6299</a><br><a href="http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=6310&Reply=6310">http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=6310&Reply=6310</a><br><br>Shoe.  </blockquote> You're not referring to George Reid's fine book by any chance, are you? -- Dave Shoe, 07/02/2001
Actually, every credible book I've read refers to it as the Ford-Edsel. The "most available" book which claims otherwise is so filled with errors that it's not difficult to find a dozen+ errors without turning the page - on pretty much any page of the book.

Without turning the page from the worthlessly ambiguous "Ford Engine" claim, George's book proudly exclaims the Cleveland is part of Ford's "332" engine family. What a dolt! That same book lists the 351M as being the 351 "Modified". Obviously a joke. It also describes the FE in the same chapter (and mixed together on the same pages) as the 385 Family, apparently not distinguishing between the two. What a mess!

Ford never apparently released the meaning of the acronym (which their marketing department apparently invented and first published in 1970), but the context does make the meaning obvious to those readers who recognize that not all authors know what their talking about.

Because the true meaning was apparently never released to the valued public, I continue to search for a single credible source with an alternate meaning. I continue to search.

Past references on the topic:
http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=904&Reply=904
http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=6127&Reply=6127
http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=6299&Reply=6299
http://jcoconsulting.com/forumfe/reply.aspx?ID=6310&Reply=6310

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7115&Reply=7018><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: You're not referring to George Reid's fine book by any chance, are you?</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Richard, <i>07/02/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Dave,<br>I agree with you that there is no official word on  the matter.  Reid is certainly not my argument for FE meaning anything (especially Ford Engine), but there are many plausible explanations ranging from the periodic table of elements (iron) to the line that was introduced (Ford Edsel, Fairlane Engine et al) with the FE.  I don't claim to know the defacto answer and caution anybody who claims, without factual basis, that they do.<br><br>Thanks for the post. </blockquote> RE: You're not referring to George Reid's fine book by any chance, are you? -- Richard, 07/02/2001
Dave,
I agree with you that there is no official word on the matter. Reid is certainly not my argument for FE meaning anything (especially Ford Engine), but there are many plausible explanations ranging from the periodic table of elements (iron) to the line that was introduced (Ford Edsel, Fairlane Engine et al) with the FE. I don't claim to know the defacto answer and caution anybody who claims, without factual basis, that they do.

Thanks for the post.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7116&Reply=7018><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>The 221 was officially named the Fairlane engine.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>07/02/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Back in the early days, the 221/260 engine immediately picked up the "Fairlane Engine" nickname.  It seemed to get lost after just a short time, but that seems to eliminate it's potential use in the FE line.<br><br>I AM still looking for an alternative (other than "Ford Engine" or "Ferrum") and have never heard any.  If you can list a couple more of the "et als", I'd appreciate it.<br><br>This ain't a dead horse - this is a fun horse.<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> The 221 was officially named the Fairlane engine. -- Dave Shoe, 07/02/2001
Back in the early days, the 221/260 engine immediately picked up the "Fairlane Engine" nickname. It seemed to get lost after just a short time, but that seems to eliminate it's potential use in the FE line.

I AM still looking for an alternative (other than "Ford Engine" or "Ferrum") and have never heard any. If you can list a couple more of the "et als", I'd appreciate it.

This ain't a dead horse - this is a fun horse.

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7120&Reply=7018><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Didja forget the 221's official name of Challenger</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Styleline58, <i>07/02/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Didja forget the 221's official name of Challenger V8? </blockquote> Didja forget the 221's official name of Challenger -- Styleline58, 07/02/2001
Didja forget the 221's official name of Challenger V8?
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7121&Reply=7018><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Nah, just using the name the hot rod mags used.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>07/03/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>The 1958 FE was named the "Interceptor" by marketing, but it never caught on - probably because there were no FE engines in 1958 which were specifically designed for police persuit work.  I think "Challenger", though official and correct for the 221, wasn't sufficiently descriptive for the hot rod mags to use, probably because it evoked thoughts of the Studebaker or something.  The mags nicknamed it the "Fairlane V-8" (I was mistaken when I mentioned they called it the "Fairlane Engine").  I guess this name struck a chord with more people.<br><br>I also suspect that, had the FE picked up it's name in 1958, it would have been called the FET, not the FE.  The Thunderbird was all new for 1958 and, though technically a Ford, it seemed to carry a certain autonomy from the Ford line.  I believe the new engine family names would have been MEL and FET if they were given at birth.  By 1970 the Thunderbird had become "just another Ford", so the youngsters in the Ford marketing dept would not necessarily have realized the distinction that existed a dozen years earlier when they were assigned the task of deconfusing the public over the confusing variety of engines in the Ford lineup.<br><br>Just my opinion,<br>Shoe. </blockquote> Nah, just using the name the hot rod mags used. -- Dave Shoe, 07/03/2001
The 1958 FE was named the "Interceptor" by marketing, but it never caught on - probably because there were no FE engines in 1958 which were specifically designed for police persuit work. I think "Challenger", though official and correct for the 221, wasn't sufficiently descriptive for the hot rod mags to use, probably because it evoked thoughts of the Studebaker or something. The mags nicknamed it the "Fairlane V-8" (I was mistaken when I mentioned they called it the "Fairlane Engine"). I guess this name struck a chord with more people.

I also suspect that, had the FE picked up it's name in 1958, it would have been called the FET, not the FE. The Thunderbird was all new for 1958 and, though technically a Ford, it seemed to carry a certain autonomy from the Ford line. I believe the new engine family names would have been MEL and FET if they were given at birth. By 1970 the Thunderbird had become "just another Ford", so the youngsters in the Ford marketing dept would not necessarily have realized the distinction that existed a dozen years earlier when they were assigned the task of deconfusing the public over the confusing variety of engines in the Ford lineup.

Just my opinion,
Shoe.
 It was called the "Ford and Edsel engine" in '58. -- Dave Shoe, 07/08/2001
I'm wrong about the logic that the FE might have been called the FET when it first came out.

It was apparently referred to as the "small engine" or "small Ford and Edsel engine".

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7003&Reply=7003><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Help...Oil Pump Releif Spring Plug</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John, <i>06/25/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I am trying to replace the high pressure spring in my MV57 pump with a regular one, but I have had no luck trying to press in the plug.  I have two plugs and ruined the first one by trying to use a vise.  It flattened slightly in the vise, then I tried a hammer, but that's not easy to get it started as the spring fights it.  I don't mind buying anohter pump as they're not expensive, but it is annoying I can't seem to install this plug.  Plus this pump has the larger hex shaft input which works with my "guarenteed for life shaft".  Incidentaly it was a FPP HP/HV pump..."blueprinted"...(whatever that means with regards to an oilpump)  which gave me 145 psi cold oil pressure...way too high!  This other spring should give me 70 to 80 psi max pressure which is about right.  Even if I purchase another pump, I would like to know how this plug is installed.  My guess is that the factory uses a special tool, but I always hear about people shimming springs, etc, so the home guy should be able to do it I would think. </blockquote> Help...Oil Pump Releif Spring Plug -- John, 06/25/2001
I am trying to replace the high pressure spring in my MV57 pump with a regular one, but I have had no luck trying to press in the plug. I have two plugs and ruined the first one by trying to use a vise. It flattened slightly in the vise, then I tried a hammer, but that's not easy to get it started as the spring fights it. I don't mind buying anohter pump as they're not expensive, but it is annoying I can't seem to install this plug. Plus this pump has the larger hex shaft input which works with my "guarenteed for life shaft". Incidentaly it was a FPP HP/HV pump..."blueprinted"...(whatever that means with regards to an oilpump) which gave me 145 psi cold oil pressure...way too high! This other spring should give me 70 to 80 psi max pressure which is about right. Even if I purchase another pump, I would like to know how this plug is installed. My guess is that the factory uses a special tool, but I always hear about people shimming springs, etc, so the home guy should be able to do it I would think.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7013&Reply=7003><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Help...Oil Pump Releif Spring Plug</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>390 gt, <i>06/26/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>John, What you need to do first is determine if you have the correct size plug using a set of dial or regular calipers. There will be a few thousandths interferance fit but not a lot. If correct size plug use a socket that fits the plug & tap it in with a hammer. (assuming you do not have a bushing driver). I have made a device for just what you are doing to test the pressure before installing pump as it takes an awful lot of work to find out by installing pump. Make a plate to cover end of pump that bolts to block use your oil pressure guage on center hole then use drill to turn pump counter clockwise while holding pickup in oil this will give you very close to running oil pressure when installed. a very low speed is needed to turn pump. This is assuming also your engine/brgs/clearance are ok </blockquote> RE: Help...Oil Pump Releif Spring Plug -- 390 gt, 06/26/2001
John, What you need to do first is determine if you have the correct size plug using a set of dial or regular calipers. There will be a few thousandths interferance fit but not a lot. If correct size plug use a socket that fits the plug & tap it in with a hammer. (assuming you do not have a bushing driver). I have made a device for just what you are doing to test the pressure before installing pump as it takes an awful lot of work to find out by installing pump. Make a plate to cover end of pump that bolts to block use your oil pressure guage on center hole then use drill to turn pump counter clockwise while holding pickup in oil this will give you very close to running oil pressure when installed. a very low speed is needed to turn pump. This is assuming also your engine/brgs/clearance are ok
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7029&Reply=7003><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Another SNAFU leads to learning</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John, <i>06/26/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>Another screw-up.  I have now ruined my second spare plug, but have learned something in the process.  First of all, the spare plugs included with the Melling pump bought under Blue Wolverine P/N WG-324X (just a reg M57HV pump with extra plugs and an extra HP spring) were of a very soft metal and easily distorted despite my most careful efforts (and I am usually good at this sort of finickety thing).  The original factory plug was a hard stainless steel and very well made ("true dimensions" vs roughly shaped).  So what have I learned?<br><br>1/ Don't be a cheapo about these things...BUY a new pump!<br><br>2/ Certain procedures, however apparently simple, if done improperly with inferior parts could wind up failing and cost the engine dearly.<br><br>3/ That a HP version of this oil pump creates way too much oil pressure (approx 145 psi) before the relief valve starts to limit the pressure.<br><br>4/ That a blue-printed oil-pump offers insignificant advantages and is money unwisely spent (all I can see is the addition of lock-wired allen-head cover bolts and a bit of flaring around the output hole)<br><br>I still have a question...anyone got a P/N for the M57V pump with the 3/8 hex drive vs the 1/4?  I think it was intended for the FT engines.  A Blue Wolverine P/N would be fine as I can order by that # through the local machine shop. </blockquote> Another SNAFU leads to learning -- John, 06/26/2001
Another screw-up. I have now ruined my second spare plug, but have learned something in the process. First of all, the spare plugs included with the Melling pump bought under Blue Wolverine P/N WG-324X (just a reg M57HV pump with extra plugs and an extra HP spring) were of a very soft metal and easily distorted despite my most careful efforts (and I am usually good at this sort of finickety thing). The original factory plug was a hard stainless steel and very well made ("true dimensions" vs roughly shaped). So what have I learned?

1/ Don't be a cheapo about these things...BUY a new pump!

2/ Certain procedures, however apparently simple, if done improperly with inferior parts could wind up failing and cost the engine dearly.

3/ That a HP version of this oil pump creates way too much oil pressure (approx 145 psi) before the relief valve starts to limit the pressure.

4/ That a blue-printed oil-pump offers insignificant advantages and is money unwisely spent (all I can see is the addition of lock-wired allen-head cover bolts and a bit of flaring around the output hole)

I still have a question...anyone got a P/N for the M57V pump with the 3/8 hex drive vs the 1/4? I think it was intended for the FT engines. A Blue Wolverine P/N would be fine as I can order by that # through the local machine shop.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7042&Reply=7003><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>I think you might be looking for a 5/16" drive.</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I'm not sure, but I think the large drive is a 5/16", not a 3/8".<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> I think you might be looking for a 5/16" drive. -- Dave Shoe, 06/27/2001
I'm not sure, but I think the large drive is a 5/16", not a 3/8".

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7055&Reply=7003><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Yes,  5/16" is correct. Need a P/N</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John, <i>06/27/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> Yes, 5/16" is correct. Need a P/N -- John, 06/27/2001
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7079&Reply=7003><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Yes,  5/16" is correct. Need a P/N</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Greg B, <i>06/28/2001</i></font><br /><blockquote>I think you might be looking for was the old <br> TRW #50091<br> </blockquote> RE: Yes, 5/16" is correct. Need a P/N -- Greg B, 06/28/2001
I think you might be looking for was the old
TRW #50091
 Thank-you -- John, 06/29/2001
Thank-you. I havn't checked your TRW P/N, but I did get it figured out and ordered through UAP. It will be here next week...sent from 2000 miles away in Alberta to here in Nova Scotia...at about $100 including shipping. See why I like ordering from Summitt instead of locally?...chuckle
Go to the top of this page
Go back one page Back    Next Go forward one page

381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400