Skip Navigation Links.
 | edelbrock victor jr for FE -- bear, 03/30/2001
I was checking edelbrock site for some info on my heads and i looked at the new section and they are planning to put a single plane on the market this year i was wondering if anyone has seen it. |
 | radiator help.... -- cd, 03/30/2001
since i am replacing my 302 with a 390,i need to change radiators.can i use a radiator from a 360 truck?it's going into a 69 mustang. |
 | FE head Id -- Gary Ellsworth, 03/29/2001
Have a set of heads C7AE - A 6L17 I think they are GT heads bottom hole for exhaust not drilled on two center exhaust ports, but had GT exhaust attached in correct holes. Anyone out there that can help me ID? |
|  | RE: FE head Id -- Stroker FE, 03/29/2001
The casting im wondering is C8AE-H. I think its the 390 GT hypo heads, and if this is true, how well do they flow compared to the stock 4v heads in 66-68. They are in a motor that i had done that they say now is 375-385HP@ 6000 rpms, 390 FP@ 5200.THANKS! |
| |  | C8AE-H head -- Ed Foral, 03/30/2001
The heads on a 390 "GT" engine are not any type of "hypo" head. The only difference between them and a set of full size car 390 2V heads is the number and location of drilled exhaust bolt holes. The C8AE-H head was used on 2V and 4V 390 and 360 engines into the 70's. The 66 352 head is cast with the extra material on the exhaust side for the 14 or 16 bolt pattern manifold, but retains the earlier style tall intake ports.
Ed |
|  | FE head -- Ed Foral, 03/30/2001
If the top two outer holes on the heads are slightly lower than the center two top holes, and all but the two center lower holes are drilled (14 bolt pattern) then yes they are Mustang/Midsize heads which were used on 2V and 4V engines including the 390GT.
Ed |
 | I D - Heads and Manifold -- dirty dog, 03/28/2001
I've got some heads C5AE-F and manifold C6AE-9425H. I have not been able to get exact match on the #s---Any body know -- I think they are medium-risers? |
 | Tri Power Intake -- Jesse Schemm, 03/28/2001
Hello, I am in need of a tri power intake for an FE Ford. All I need is the bare manifold in decent shape, flat carb bases. Please email me if you have one available. Thanks! |
|  | RE: Tri Power Intake -- 410cougar, 03/28/2001
where are you located. any of the all ford or eveen the annual swap meets whould have what you need. if im not mistaked there is two versions one vor the galaxy and one for the t-bird. im not to sure what the differences are probably in the hight of the carbs. well good luck to you. you said that you were looking for a bare setup. i might know where a full setup is its not stock though it has carbs from a vette try power on it with full linkage. i was told its not for a stocker so dont think your going to be able to cruise the drive in's with out fouling plugs let me know what you budget is. here is a link as well their a bit pricy but worth a try : http://www.orwell.net/~hptrends/about.htm |
| |  | RE: Tri Power Intake -- mojo, 03/28/2001
I bought one today! complete intake to air cleaner. will sell $900 complete only! |
|  | RE: Tri Power Intake -- kevin, 03/28/2001
Try e-bay, Isaw a couple of them yesterday, one complete and one with missing stuff that was not much money. There is a difference in styles, the flat version came only on the "M" code Thunderbird cause the engine sat level. It is easily identified by the pipe plug opening on drivers side center carb for the fitting for the line going to the power brake booster. The carbs are different numbers too. The Galaxie manifold has tilted carb pads due to the angle the engine sits in the car. If you dont find what you want, this summer I will be selling one off and it is new. |
|  | RE: Tri Power Intake -- Jesse Schemm, 03/28/2001
Hey Kevin and 410cougar, I searched ebay and could not find any ford FE tri power setups listed on there. I am located in the Detroit area. Time is of the essence on this deal so any help you could provide would be appreciated. Thanks! |
| | |  | RE: if in a real hurry, this ends within the hour: -- 410cougar, 03/29/2001
ya ebays your best bet is your trying to get one quick. whats the hurry though, just curious. ussually if you hurry on a buy you passup the deals under your nose. (man i should have wrote fortune cookies) lol. good luck hope you find what your looking for. j |
|  | RE: Tri Power Intake -- BrettL, 03/30/2001
I'm running a Tri Power on my 64 Galaxy. Descent fuel economy for a 428, looks great and plenty of cfm"s. Have you looked at Ford FE Tri Power Systems? They have tech info and classifieds. |
 | 406 -- bear, 03/28/2001
Hi all, I considering building a 406 out of a standrad bore 390 block i have. The block is an X block which from everything i have read is either a high nickle block or is cast heavier. I have two such blocks. Can these safely be bored out to 4.13 or should i just build another standard bore 390. I also am figuring on running around 14.1 compression. This motor will be strictly race. I figured the money it would cost to build a 428 i could build a bullet proof 406. I basically looking for info on pistons, if i can bore the bock this far, and if a cast crank is strong enough to take 14.1 at 6,500 rpms with eagle rods. The motor will be going into a 69 mach one. |
|  | RE: 406, why not 415, Lets here some thoughts! -- RC Moser, 03/30/2001
Have you considered stroking it using a 428 crank/flywheel and like 30 over would produce 415 and change. With the added stroke you wouldn't have to Rev it so high to produce the same result as the big bore high winder. I say 80 over would be pushing it for a all out race engine, but most say sonic testing will let you know how much it can be overbored if you know how to read the test. Pistons either way my be hard to come by. |
| |  | RE: 406, why not 415, Lets here some thoughts! -- bear, 03/30/2001
I was hoping to save money on the crank and spend it on the rods and pistons. If i could find a 428 crank for a reason able price i probably would do that. But i really like those r's. and I figure a 406 is unigue. everybody is building 428's. And i don't have the money to build a 427. Thanks for your info. |
| | |  | if you're saving money, don't overbore that block. -- Walker, 03/30/2001
in the not so long run, you'll just split a cylinder, and then where will you be? If you really like revs, go for an old 352 crank, probably very cheap, clean up the bores, spend on the rods, pistons, and rev.
don't be penny wise and dollar foolish. |
| | | |  | RE: I like the D stroke theroy. -- RC Moser, 03/30/2001
R's equal $. You'll have to spend on valve train components. and preventive maintenance. I like the short throw theroy of Mr. Walker. I once was going to build a 390 with a 332 crank and the small CCs head of a 332 to create the 14 to 1 ratio of a D stroke motor to get the high winding of the SB's. (this was the way to make HP in the 60s high lift, high compression, and RPMs) I had done the research and found all the factory pieces to do the job, but, back in the late 60s I figured the valve train parts wouldn't allow the 7 to 8 grand I planned cranking this baby in a 63 falcon. Lack of money and time premitted me form doing this. Maybe someone else will respond with more ideas. |
| | | | |  | RE: I like the D stroke theroy. -- 410cougar, 03/30/2001
you know i like that my self. everyone says you cant replace displacement. but if you think about it its the horsepower that gets you off the line and the R's that get you down the line. think about it, many of us cant afford to build a funny car that can stick it to the ground. so right there 20% or your horse power is getting wasted in plume of smoke. a lesser horsepowered engine is morelikly to get more of its power to the ground and keep it there while pulling away like a frieght train. i guess its a very arguable theory debating on driving skills and suspension. oh well just rammbling on and on and on..... :) j |
| | | | | |  | RE: I like the D stroke theroy. -- Travis Miller, 04/01/2001
In addition to teching for NHRA, I used to tech truck and tractor pulls. One of the popular 4-wheel drive truck classes was S/S. It was 1-4bl carb with 370 cubic inch limit on the engine size. The top puller had a FE in his Ford truck. He claimed a destroked 427. His high winding destroker won almost everywhere he went and was pumped several times, each time being legal. A few other guys tried destroking their 427's but could not come close to him.
The Kentuckiana Truck pull association paid me special to come in and work a pull late in the season. They figured he would probably win and they wanted me there to measure his bore and stroke. Sure enough he won but refused to pull the head, saying he wanted to keep the bore/stroke combination a secret. The association agreed to allow the engine to be pumped, but this time by me.
When I pumped the engine it wound up being a 454 (.030 over 427 with a 428 crank). So what was the difference when I pumped it vs everyone else? I blew in the hose before attaching it to the P&G pump. It was a leaker. When we went to a sealed up cylinder, it pumped the real cubic inch.
So much for high winding destrokers. How did he crank so many RPM's? He didn't. He had the tach fixed so it would read wrong! |
| | | | | | |  | RE: No excuse for cheating, but alot do it. -- RC Moser, 04/01/2001
Well, guess this is a case of cheater never wins, at least till he was caught. D stroking is no secret. Bigger and shorter must be better when their is a limit in inches but not R's I would think. |
| | | | | | | |  | RE: D-stroke, no joke -- kevin, 04/02/2001
I have run all the sizes of F-E in every form and combo and like my destrokers best. The pumping loses are not as bad at high rpm and they just sound happy! On a 1/4 mile dirt w/Hi riser heads it did need a 7:14 gear though. Kind of scarry coming off the corners at 6,500 rpm though. With tunnel ports they would make 575 horsepower at 7,500, and yes the cast cranks did live. With todays cams and technology they make much more. Todays Pro Stock NHRA engines are all short stroke, big bore 500 inchers. I like Warren Johnsons summary "The guy who makes more explosions is going to make more power" |
|  | 390 build -- Ed Foral, 03/31/2001
Keep the 390 bore, buy a set of good rods, and put your money into a set of heads. You will have the most reliable engine, and make all of the power that you want. If this is race only, you can run a stout roller cam and make 450+ HP from your .030 over 390. There is no need to go crazy on the compresssion either.
Ed |
| |  | RE: 390 build -- bear, 04/02/2001
Ed, i already am running a 10,1 390 with the edelbrock heads and intake. The only thing missing the roller and it runs like a raped ape. But, i wanted to try the big compression and see what i liked. I would like to thank everybody for there feedback. |
 | exhaust manifold spacer -- T1M, 03/28/2001
I have a 68' Galaxie 4 door sedan I want to restore but I have no plans to do any wild modifications to the 390 2-V except those which keep the stock appearance basically what it looked like originally. But besides purchasing a mild cam, porting the heads and port matching and possibly a larger crankshaft, I had an idea in mind. Would it help any as far as lessening the backend restriction by machining a piece of Aluminum or steel about, say, 1/2" to 3/4" of an inch thick with exhaust ports and bolt holes approximately the width and height of the exhaust manifold to act as a spacer of sorts which would be sandwiched between two gaskets and the cylinder head and exhaust manifold? And combine that with dual exhaust? Sort of a very very short shorty header. ( still just a manifold really) I'm really not looking for gobs of power, and I don't want to compromise the originality of the car by buying a different intake, carb, headers, etc. I just want the engine to run better without having to pour huge amounts into it and it not sounding like a dragster. |
|  | correction... -- T1M, 03/28/2001
The bolt holes and the exhaust ports in the spacer would NOT be the width and the height of the exhaust manifold. I meant to say the "spacer" would have the corresponding bolt holes and exhaust ports that the manifold and cylinder head has. Not that they would be the size of the manifold.... Another idea I had would be to take another set of the restricitive log type exhaust manifolds off a junker 390 so you have a set of 2 for each side and cut the front of them off so each has a yield of only two exhaust ports each; weld the shorn front closed; add the "spacer'" on underneath then each side of the engine could have two openings for the exhaust to because eliminated. Could I make millions on this idea? Curious Tim |
| |  | I think I know what you are saying -- Neppy, 03/28/2001
Do you mean to have two rear portions (with the collectors) on each side. Basically having four manifold collectors. Maybe have the two collectors one each side run onto a single Y-pipe then into the rest of the exhaust? Something like that?
Neppy |
| | |  | that's it, sorry i'm not good at describing it.. -- T1M, 03/28/2001
But I'm more interested in what you think of my spacers idea. Just like you have a spacer underneath the carbuerator to give better flow, you could have this spacer to have the gases not have to turn quite as abruptly down as the come out of the cylinder head into the exhaust manifold. But yeah, the second idea was an extension of the spacer idea. To take four exhaust manifold of the variety that usually comes on these cars, basically chop them in half and seal off the cut portion (which would be the portion with the collector) with a weld and then use them with (or without) the spacers to get as much out as cheaply as possible of the stock exhaust manifolds. is that better? |
| | | |  | ps. -- T1M, 03/28/2001
I don't mean seal of the collector with a weld. I mean, the half of the cut exhaust manifold that has the collector is the one you want to use. But that the part that needs to be sealed, is the part where the cut was made.......
...phew |
| | | | |  | Interesting idea, though I'm no airflow expert. -- Neppy, 03/28/2001
So I don't know if I'd be much help otherwise. It seems to me that the "logs" would still be very restrictive. With or without the spacers. Maybe it'd free up a little horse power but, I doubt much.
Anyone else have any ideas?
Neppy |
| | | | | |  | RE: Interesting idea, though I'm no airflow expert. -- kevin, 03/29/2001
It sounds nice, but you would not gain enough to make it worth while. The 427 cobra had the box manifolds on them, (other than the SC or race cars). They flow better than the 390 GT ex manifolds though. You could try to get ahold of the cast iron long headers that came on the medium riser galaxie in mid 65 to 67, (identified by a connector bar between the two center cylinders) but tube headers would be cheaper. If you did find these though and you have power steering you must put washers under the motor mounts to get the clearance you need. good luck |
| | | | | | |  | RE: Interesting idea, though I'm no airflow expert. -- Chris, 03/29/2001
If you wind up taking the heads off during the rebuild you could drill them for 428cj exaust manifolds? I did with a 390 its pretty easy. The hard part might be to get the CJ's. |
| | | | | | | |  | why not just weld some covers over real headers? -- Walker, 03/29/2001
seems like a lot of effort, and rod, to get a very slight boost in HP which could be better spent on replacing the cast iron intake with an aluminum one, or an "S" one, or coating the pistons and chambers with HPC and dry-film lubricant (definitely wouldn't be visible) or upgrading the ignition or any number of other paths to power.
Not to mention, you're talking about welding cast iron and you DON'T want leaks in your exhaust system. Have you considered an H pipe?
You could go whole hog and do the old cleveland exhaust port route, cut out half the head and weld in new, higher, better flowing exhaust ports. Aluminum heads are recommended for that though. |
| | | | | | | | |  | RE: why not just weld some covers over real headers? -- T1M, 03/29/2001
My problem is the noise. I don't want tube headers because of the noise. If I could find some 428 CJ cast iron headers from a 65 or 67 that would probably be the best. Thanks |
 | Engine ID Help! -- Rick Croom, 03/27/2001
Someone gave me an engine this weekend. He said it was a 390. After disassembling it I don't think it is. Here are the numbers: Block=D4TE Rods=C7TE-A Crank=2TA (stamped not Cast) Heads=D2TEAA I think it is an FT 330 with a reinforced block. If my suspisions are correct. Can I put a 390 Crank and rods in this block? Thanks for the help. Rick Croom Portland, Tx. |
|  | RE: Engine ID Help! -- kevin, 03/28/2001
You probably have a 360 cu in engine on your hands. Easiest way to tell is by bore size. Grab a rule and see if it is 4 inch bore, 4.05 actually. A 330 medium duty engine has less than a 4 inch bore. Look at the pistons and see if they say 390 or 360 on the side also, that would verify a 360 also. The 2TA crank and C7 rods were used in both. |
|  | RE: Engine ID Help! -- Tim, 03/31/2001
I have a D4TE block (360) that I installed a 428 Crank In. I used 410 Pistons and C3AE 390 Rods. If you need specs. on pistons, rods or cranks I can be of some assistance. |
 | Wanted - fe distributor -- dave p, 03/27/2001
I am looking for a 428 single or dual point distrubutor that will be used basically for parts.
I plan to do some machine work to adapt a low profile cap to it, and want to "practice" on one before I actually mess with the working one I have.
If you have one, please email me with a price.
Thanks
Dave P |
 | 390 engines -- cd, 03/27/2001
is the 64 thunderbird 390 the same as the 67-69 390.I'm trying to find 390 parts for my t-bird engine.i may just have to go with manifolds seeing how headers are very expensive. |
|  | All 390s are very similar, to say the least. [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/28/2001
n/m |
|  | RE: 390 engines -- 410cougar, 03/29/2001
there pretty much the same. im not an expert of any means but from what ive seen and read there are a few differences in motor mounts as to how many mounting bolt there are in the actuall frame part of the mount. not that that has anything to do with the motor its self. now you also have to remeber that there are 2 types of 390's hydralic and mechanical. so look out for that as well. ive heard that you can switch this over as well. dont ask me how ive got it in writing somewhere. look into the popular ford books ford interchangeability guide. and the "rebuilding a bigb block ford" these are two very helpfull books that any ford nut needs to have. just word of thumb. any engine you get you need to find out its history if posible from the previous owner and bounce the numbers to see what exaclty you have, befor you start droping that all mighty buck into it. j. |
|  | RE: T-bird q -- Mike McQuesten, 03/29/2001
It's difficult to tell what you need or want for your '64 bird. However, a couple suggestions: first, a '65 and later FE block will bolt right into your '64. The reverse is not true. That being, to install a '64/prior FE in a '65 later chassis requires some adapative skills. But you don't care about that. If you buy a FE from any year, it will fit your '64. My second suggestion is to not run your '64 T-bird 4V intake on short port heads, i.e., '66 and later. It's fine to run the small port intake, again '66 & later, on the early heads but the reverse isn't a good idea. |
|