Unless you use hard chromed valve stems, and I mean good as in Eaton brand and not the junk Manleys you will wear the cheapo "flash" hard chrome off in less than 10k miles with some guide materials, when you use a teflon seal w/ring around it but not cast iron. The problem you are having sounds to me like your oil. I had an unexplainable consumption problem once and it turned out that the oil was being passed by the rings. If you switch to a lighter grade of oil you may find the cure for cheap. Try using 10w30 or just 30 weight and see what happens. Thick oil is hard for the oil control rings to scrape off the cylinder walls and that is their job. Consider the price of an oil change before you tear into it. The oil I use is Havoline and it works for me. I also use 1 qt of Mobil-1 in eveything I ever run and it makes a lot of difference in the wear patterns visable. I run straight Mobil-1 in racecars and expensive machinery ad it is worth the money to me from the protection it gives.

I have been running teflon type on the intakes but stock Ford type on the exhaust for quite some time. That is if it has new guides. If they are a little worn but still good, you can run teflon on both sides.

In my opinion, the exhaust side runs too hot (dry not a problem with melting them) for the teflon seals plus vacuum on the intake side sneaks some oil to the guides but pressure on the exhaust side doesnt do much. The stock seals do fine on the exh side and keep from wearing guides

Attach a small paperclip on secondary linlage so you can see if it moves when they open test drive the car,if it mover down theslot their opening at some point inthe rpm range.

Actually, if your carb is set-up properly, you won't feel or hear the transfer as the secondaries open. That "kicking-in" feeling is actually a "bog", and you don't want that kind of hesitation. Bob's paperclip idea is a good one though.

I think they're at: http://www.lentech.com

Another question... Does anyone know of an automatic flexplate/flywheel that's the diameter of a SBF 5.0L and
is balanced correctly for an FE(428) engine? Is it practical to have a SBF flexplate redrilled(crank shaft pattern) and rebalanced to work properly with a 428?
thanx, again
sgb

try this web site to figure comp.ratio
http://www.prestage.com/carmath/calc_compression.asp

I get 11.725:1 (precision carried out beyond LSD for comparison purposes), but I used the 410/428 stroke specification of 3.984", not the "rounded" figure of 3.98.

Shoe.

Unless your FE is intalled in an F-16 Falcon fighter jet, it's going to be a General Kenetics or Cam Dymanics. I can probably hook you up easily with General Dynamics for info on the F-16, if that's really what you want.;-)

What info have you found as they were bought out/moved years ago; used to be in Detroit, I live in the area. I'd be interested too. Leo

While they are on vibration dampers, I've never seen them in the flywheel, but the designers of the Cammer apparently have.

This excellent 21 page document is available at sae.org for $13.51 as "paper number 650497".

Shoe.

Cast iron flywheels were used on all 410-428 and have a small raised portion cast in for balance. The holes are normal if they are symetrical all the way around and about 3/4 inch from the ring gear.Ford used little pins in some holes for balance, only one usually. If its a 390 type it would have a significant # of holes in one area and a few maybe opposite depending on the skill of the man balancing it. Lets hear more info on the car

Bill;
I took a stock 390 flywheel, made a weight of 1/4" steel and mounted it in the recess on the back of the wheel with 5/16 countersunk allen bolts.

The balancing was done mounting it and a 428 flexplate on a balancing stand and adjusting the weight so the combo would stop anywhere with the flexplate & homemade weights 180 degrees from each other. Works perfect, no vibes. Don't forget to spot weld the bolt heads.
Kam

U-Haul get $160 for noon Friday to 8:00 AM Monday here in Connecticut.

No comment on the trailer BUT as far as the oil goes.....Once I found that Mobil 1 synthetic dropped the operating temp of my air cooled 91 Fatboy by just over 15 degrees (not a scientific test.....just observed my average temperature in similiar conditions) I figured that that is quite a drop in friction (or gain in thermal transfer) so I have been a loyal user ever since and have not a single regret. That whole leak thing is related to cars running non synthetic oil for loads of miles, then switching to synthetic.......the non synthetic "congeals" and "crusts" and block minor leaks, then when the synthetic is used, the sludge breaks down and the leaks become evident.......not the fault of the synthetic oil.

Brian Crisman
67 Cougar GT 4spd

You could make that 4.11 seem like a 3.11 (or so) with an overdrive unit. At $160 per rental, it would pay for itself in 15 weekends, not including the savings in gas costs (which are becoming more significant with each passing day).

Just a thought.

...In the 1970 "Ford Muscle Parts Story Supplement#1", reference:

http://gessford.com/images/fordsup-29.gif

I always read the statement on that page as meaning, "Move over ferrum, there's now a second meaning for those two letters, and it runs on gasoline".

This is also apparently the catalog that first publically released the term FE. Reference:

http://gessford.com/images/fordsup-05.gif

I don't believe Ford EVER publically released the "meanings" of the MEL or FE acronym (or any other engine family name). Back in the Edsel days, "M-E-L Division" (note the dashes) was the brand new formal name for the Mercury, Edsel, Lincoln Division of Ford. I think this is the only reason why MEL is accepted as correct, however, MEL does not equal M-E-L. Still, momentum rules, and "MEL" is accepted as being correctly understood, and FE remains controversial - mainly due to some bozo writers.

Hey, the FE is not alone in this confusion. Following the precedent which Ford used to define the 351W and 351C, the oft misunderstood 351M obviously refers to the new-for-1971 "Michigan Casting Center" (fully on line in Dec 1972), not the erroneous name given it by unknowing writers of the time, and propagated by the same unqualified bozo who published the wrong family name for both the FE and 335 families (referring to the 332 family).

I agree this is fun stuff. I also suspect we'll eventually resolve this question with a definitive document.

Until then, my ears are propped and listening for a good, solid reason for calling it something other than a Ford-Edsel.

Shoe.

my research says it's a '64 full size (galaxie). '58-60 edsel was "K"
3rd letter is model of car.

I have had a set for 18 years. They came off a Cobra 3151 and were stamped on the front of each head CSX 3151. I sold them but before I did they were verified by the Shelby Club to be 427 low riser.

n/m

The ONLY sure way to discover the displacement, Derek, is to measure the bore and stroke. The originator didn't even know the theoretical displacement of the engine series so everything else should be suspect. If the intake is stock, it's more than likely to be a 390...if that.

There are very few slam-dunks for non-invasive identification when it comes to the FE series.

Fe blocks ( 390-428, etc.) have a vertical wall extending up from the pan rail about 3 1/2 " to the vee of the block. 429-460 bocks (385 series) the vee extends to the bottom of the block.