Skip Navigation Links.
 |  stock 74 f100 390 cam specs? -- Tyrel Brandt, 03/09/2001
can anybody help me out?
i havent anyidea what my stock cam specs are and id like to compare them to the cams im looking at. its just a plain 74 f100 390 2barrel c6. any help is appreciated. |
|  | RE: stock 74 f100 390 cam specs? -- Dan Davis, 03/09/2001
All I have is specs from a 1967 390-2V cam (but it's probably not too different):
Lift at valve: 0.427 I, 0.431 Ex
Advertised duration: 256° In, 266° Ex
Overlap: 36°
Also found some really early specs (from 1960-62 352 and 390-2V):
Lift at valve: 0.401
Advertised duration: 270°
Overlap: 49°
And some specs from 1965-67 (352 & 390-2V):
Lift at valve: 0.401
Advertised duration: 270°
Overlap: 44°
Cheers,
Dan Davis |
 | Recommend A Spark plug brand?? -- Toltz, 03/08/2001
I've got a CJ Mach 1 that I don't want to have to change plugs in every other week for obvious reasons. Does anyone have a recomandation for a good spark plug,, Split Fire? Platinum? Also, should I run recommended plug gap? I'm running an ACCEL dual point with a little hotter coil, but not a super coil. Thanks
|
| 428 pistons -- Brad Wear, 03/08/2001
Has anyone found a good source for 428 pistons? I need a .040 piston set for a rebuild. Most places I've contcted do not carry 428 slugs. |
| | RE: 428 pistons -- 410cougar, 03/08/2001
try ross. their a bit expensive. ive found some 410 forged trw for 289 including wrist pins. try there it wouldnt hurt to look. |
| | RE: 428 pistons -- James, 03/09/2001
I don't know about the .040 oversize, but as someone posted, TRW does make 428 pistons in 2 flavors. The L2245F is a lower compression piston, with a 12.5cc dish (supposedly results in about 10:1 compression), and the L2303NF has a 5.5cc dish according to the catalog, but this is disputed by some. The latter piston is closer to 10.5:1, and resembles the OE CJ pistons from what I understand. Both of these are forged and can be found for less than $300 from Gessford, Summit, or also check Flatlander Racing, www.flatlanderracing.com. |
| | | RE: 428 pistons -- Brad Wear, 03/09/2001
Thanks for the leads. I saw the ones in Summit but when I called they didn't have any and thought it would be three weeks before they could get any. I know KeithBlack make a Silv-O-Lite version, but no one seems to carry it. Thanks, any other leads will be appreciated. |
| | RE: 428 pistons -- Leo, 03/10/2001
Did you try P.A.W.? They claim carry both forged (best choice with today's gas) and cast, but I've had some delivery problems with them on other FE stuff I ordered. I also recently bought a set of forged +.030 Venolia's off eBay. |
| 428cj port size -- Tim Craig, 03/08/2001
Hi all,anyone know the exhaust port size for a 1969....428 cobra jet.....?......Thanks |
| | RE: 428cj port size -- Jerry Wietzke, 03/08/2001
Casting # C8OE-N heads
Chamber cc ------- 73 to 76
Intake Valve Dia. ------- 2.08
Exhaust Valve Dia. ------ 1.66
Intake Width/Height ------ 1.34" x 2.34"
Exhaust Width/Height ------ 1.28" x 1.84"
Heads use 16-hole bolt pattern at exhaust ports
Air-pump holes are in the exhaust ports |
| Help with part numbers -- Patrick Lawrence, 03/07/2001
Hi I found an fe motor at the recking yard that looked interesting. The motor is in a truck but it has the mercury valve covers and the parts numbers on the heads are c6ae-y. So if I am reading the numbers correctly its a 66 from galaxie type car. But I cant find the c6ae-y in the list of parts numbers I have for heads. Thanks in advance to any one that can help.
|
| | RE: Help with part numbers -- Brad Wear, 03/08/2001
Patrick, Thonly thing close to that head number is c6oe-y from a 390 high perf. block. 66-68. check to see that it's an a or an o. |
| | | RE: Help with part numbers -- Patrick Lawrence, 03/08/2001
I just sure thats what it was but I will try and get back over there in a few days to double check and also see if I can find the casting numbers on the block. I did see the C6OE-Y in the book I have. Any way I will check just to make sure. Thanks:) |
| | RE: Help with part numbers -- John R. Barnes, 03/08/2001
C6AY 6090 Y are 1967 390, 428, GT 500. similar to C7AE A. 2.03 intake 1.55 exhaust |
| pushrod length -- Dale, 03/07/2001
If you have adjustable rockers, do you still need to
determine correct pushrod length, or is this only important with non-adjustables? |
| | RE: pushrod length -- Stanley Superior, 03/07/2001
You still need to find the correct length for adj. rockers,but its absolutely critical on non adj. ones. |
| 428 Wrist Pin Clearances -- Rollie H, 03/07/2001
I have a 428 with a few little problems that I am fixing and noticed something. The wrist pin on the piston I have out seems a touch loose. I dont have another one out to compare it to.
How much play is allowed before replacing the bushing and or pin?
Rollie H. |
| | RE: 428 Wrist Pin Clearances -- kevin, 03/07/2001
In normal applications the pin clearance is about .003 but it can be increased to .007-.009 depending on application. I would look close at the wear pattern of the tin plating on the piston to see if it shows signs of a bent rod (common). also look at snap ring groove for slight mushrooming on end. It is not unusual to find pin end play that is excessive. You want more than .005 but no more than .025 if you can help that. there are differences snap ring thicknesses and groove width so beware. Good luck |
| |  | Oops! Need an extra zero. -- Dave Shoe, 03/08/2001
The 1968 FE pin-to-piston clearance is 0.0001" to 0.0003", with a wear limit of 0.0008", and pin-to-rod bushing clearance is 0.0001" to 0.0005", with a wear limit of 0.0010".
Standard pin diameter is 0.9750" to 0.9753".
If the piston, pin, and rod is wiped lightly dry of oil, you should feel minimal rocking. If it is lightly oiled, you often can't feel any type of slop. The pin fits with remarkable precision into the rod and piston (JMO).
Shoe.
|
| | | | Oh, also... -- Dave Shoe, 03/08/2001
...I've got my rod bushings reamed 0.0150" over to the 0.9900" Chevy size, so I can run cheap TRW forged 454 pistons in my FE452 stroker.
The rod bushings can be readily replaced, but often times it's easier to get 0.0010" or 0.0020" oversized pins so the rod and piston just get reamed to fit.
Note that the weight of the pin is a critical component of engine balance, so you should always keep an eye on this when swapping pins around. Some piston manufacturers use pins of various weights to "coarse balance" a piston/pin assy, because there is not much readily available aluminum material to remove from the piston. The piston is only slightly drilled for balance, and this is allows fine balancing the piston/pin pair. I believe this method is most common in low-cost, high-volume die-cast pistons where minimum extra piston material is available, and seems often to be the case with the stock FE piston.
Shoe. |
| | | |  | RE: Oh, also... -- Rollie H, 03/08/2001
Thanks!
It appears I will be making a trip to the machine shop. the amount of play appears to be much greater than the specs listed. There is at least 2 to 3 thousandths play with this rod and pin.
I might as well get this done before going back together.
Thanks again!
Rollie |
| | | | | RE: Oh, also... -- Jerry Wietzke, 03/08/2001
Dave:
What pistons, rods and crank are you running in your stroker?
I am about to rebuild my 428 and haven't quite decided how to configure the internals. I want to produce about 425 plus HP on an automatic for a daily driver not something that runs like a bracket car. The engine is bone stock now, how far can I safetly bore the 428 without sleeving?
Thanks Jerry |
| | | | | | What the heck you wanna overbore the thing for? -- Dave Shoe, 03/09/2001
If you wanna bore your block out to the last possible inch, your talking to the wrong dude. Overboring bores me.
Thin cylinders flex, blocks overheat, and engines just don't perform well. Fragile blocks are embarrasing, too, because they break when you push them.
Your goal of 425HP can be made reliably with a 352, no sweat.
A 425HP 428 sleeper would be cheap to build, dead smooth at idle, silent on the street and freeway, and only scream loudly when tromped on. You can make one loud, too, but with only 425HP it's NOT gonna sound all that menacing, especially if you make it loud using performance mufflers (the correct way to make a car loud is with the camshaft - a good cam will make Cadillac mufflers sound mean as hell, and make racing mufflers sound frightning).
I could look for a link to some posts that talk about different cylinder wall thicknesses in different FE engines, but you're way off the track and need a different kind of guidance.
You need to realize that cylinders don't just determine raw cubes, they also provide piston restraint at the "thrust faces" allowing the piston to travel in a straight line as it moves up and down the sleeve. You guessed it, thin walls flex and the piston no longer travels exactly straight. Very importantly too, the cylinder is used to communicate headbolt torque to the crankshaft (this is why most later 427 blocks have square cast "reinforced" cylinders, as these four corners to the cylinder reduce headbolt distortions and hold the whole block together better. Some 360-thru-428 blocks got thicker reinforced cylinders but 427 cylinders are so big they had to make them squarish to add any material). Flexible cylinders allow the whole block to flex more and the added strain promotes the collapse of cylinders.
Seriously, you can safely bore a non-sonic checked 428 +.000-over without sleeving. Yup - thats a "zero". Unless you know what the core shift is, you don't know how much you can safely overbore a block. Some stock bore 360/390/410/428 blocks will have walls as thin as .100" thick due to core shift and should not be bored if performance is a goal. They can only be "offset bored" after being "sonic mapped" if performance and reliability is desired.
Core shift is common with FEs, and the +.000-over situation is potentially present even in FE blocks sporting reinforced main webs, because many "reinforced main" blocks do not have thicker than-stock cylinders.
Any boring you do reduces the reliability and strength of your engine, and reduces the usable lifespan and resale value because it reduces the number of times you can bore it when it really needs it.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: What the heck you wanna overbore the thing for? -- Lew, 02/23/2004
Dave Shoe,
I have a 1967 390 Cast C7MEA. It has been OBed 60. I am concern about over heating. I have noticed that the 428 has the same casting number and is bored stock to 4.13. The 390 would be 4.05 + 0.06=4.11.
I tried the drill bit test on the front two core plugs. On one side, a 15/64 drill-bit would not go through. A 7/32 bit barely past in between the cylinders. On the other side, the 15/64 bit would only pass at the top of the cylinder. It would not penetrate between the cylinders at the center or below.
What does this tell me about the wall thickness and do you think I will have a problem with overheating?
Thanks in advance. |
| | | | | | | | Your drill bit numbers are good. -- Dave Shoe, 02/24/2004
The cylinders are typically thinnist at the top, as the patterns have a "draft angle" which allows the sand to slip out of the mold. The parting line of the water jacket pattern is about two inches below the deck surface, meaning the widest point is gonna be close to the deck.
It's not uncommon to find 360/390/410 blocks with 18/64 gaps in at least one place on the block. Your thicker numbers suggest you have a good water jacket. I don't know whether it's a 361/391/428 sized jacket, but it's apparently not far from those numbers.
Since the C7ME-A was used on any FE of that era, it could be cast as a 352, a 330FT, a 391FT, a 428, or others, it depends on which cores were stuffed into the mold. It's important that you ignore literature, all the crappy literature, which erroneously lists FE part numbers. The books are plain wrong, and all repeat early resources which improperly listed the numbers.
As for overheating, there are easy checks. Just do a sonic mapping of the block and look for thin areas. Overheating is most commonly a result of excessively thin cylinders which flex and allow combustion gasses to leak past the ring, thus overheating the piston skirt, expanding the aluminum and causing seizure.
Shoe. |
| | FE Wall Thickness -- Leo, 03/10/2001
Amen, brother! You should post these comments on all the FE-based pages!! Even considering boring any block without a sonic check FIRST lacks atmosphere (sucks). Off-set boring also requires some consious effort too as you have to consider moving the piston notches and a bunch of other things. If you really want to know what's safe wall thickness and where, especially if you want to go over 10:1, go talk to somebody who does block sleeving that knows what they're doing and you'll hear the real deal on safe wall thickness. |
| Chevy! -- Wrench, 03/07/2001
I know, I know!! But I need the application for a cast number,,, Any one got the library?
Chevy V8 not sure if 350 or 305 and year.
cast no at the rear on bell housing flange=
3970014. on the front block behind alternator mount= K459142 T1122CK?
Thank for any help
Wrench |
| 428 Cj oil pan -- Tim, 03/07/2001
My pan is dented and leaking. It's been poorly welded near the drain plug. I bought a 390/427 pan at the Qualcomm Swapmeet. But it doesn't look the same......the oil plug is on the passenger side on mine, and there are two dimples that appear to be necessary to clear the steering mechanism. Where can I get a CJ oil pan for a 1969 Cougar CJ 428? |
| | RE: 428 Cj oil pan -- Dave Shoe, 03/07/2001
I have a CJ pan question, too.
I know the two big dimples along the lower left and lower right edges of the pan are "new" to the FE for the 1966 Fairlane (to clear crossmember or steering, I forget). All car FEs seem to have gotten this pan by the late '60's (Galaxies seem to have eventually inherited the dimples, though I haven't yet seen the dimples on a front-sump truck pan).
My question is: Is the CJ pan different than a 390-2V Fairlane pan? I don't recall seeing any extra baffles in my CJ pan, but it's been a dozen years since I last looked at one and I really wouldn't remember.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: 428 Cj oil pan -- apo11o, 03/07/2001
Dave,
My CJ pan is off the car as I sort out my oil pump driveshaft fiaso.
DETAILS: The pan has FOMOCO stamed on the bottom, in the middle on the front sump. The drain plug is on on passenger side, and has a baffle plate tack welded inside, behind the front sump. The baffle is raised in the middle, with two channels on the the side (flow path for oil back to front sump). In the middle of the baffle there are 4 holes in the shape of a 1 X 5 rectangle (roughly). One short side and one long side of this rectangle are cut-out and bent-up to form a scraper. But the windage tray makes this useless.
Apo11o |
| | | | RE:Still available -- Mike McQuesten, 03/07/2001
I believe the pan you need is still available from Ford Racing Parts. I bought one just a couple of years ago from what was then called SVO parts. They are duplicates of the CJ pan and were available in chrome or plain. They were baffled and have the little indents for clearance in uni-body FE cars. Dave was correct that by the late sixties FE passenger car pans inherited these dimples. Windage trays available too. |
| | | | | RE:Still available -- Tim, 03/07/2001
I found one today at Hilltop Classics in Escondido. I assume (possibly incorrectly) that I have the windage tray already in it. Is there a way to tell before I take the pan off?
Also, does it take two gaskets? Is the order: pan, gasket, tray, gasket, block? According to Mansfield Mustang it takes two. And is it 6 quarts of oil? I thought I'd read it somewhere on here that it was. What kind and weight is everbody using?
Thanks,
Tim |
| | | | | | RE:Still available -- Dave Shoe, 03/07/2001
Windage trays do use two gaskets. You can usually see the windage tray with little difficulty, and can definitely see an extra fat sandwiching of material between the pan and block.
From what I've heard, the six quart suggestion is based on a Technical Service Bulletin issued on the CJ motor shortly after it went into production which involved a recalibrated dipstick and overfilling all CJ motors by one quart to prevent oil starvation at the pickup tube. Apparently, CJ cars were the first production FEs fast enough to readily create a starvation problem with a non-performance pan.
You can bet the Hilltop pan is a plain old five quart pan, but that they advise adding an extra quart based on the TSB (and because it adds value to the sales pitch). The extra quart makes running a windage tray important, too, as it's all the easier to dump the contents of the oil pan onto the crankshaft when turning or accelerating.
Thanks for the info on the extra baffling, as I thought I remembered some extra sheetmetal in the CJ and PI pans, but never really studied the stuff back then.
I agree that the baffling has little effect on performance, since a CJ pan shouldn't be used in high-performance applications. You gotta get a deep pan or baffled T-pan if you expect to pull some "g's" on a fast front-sump FE and expect oil to stay in it's veins.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | | RE:Still available -- 410cougar, 03/08/2001
tim where you at im in ocean side. thats where i got my neet murcury covers. |
| | | | | RE:Still available -- Mike McK., 03/08/2001
I just looked up the oil pan in the Ford Racing Performance Parts (FRPP) 2000 Catalog.
They still list the oil pans.
pn/ M-6675-J390 Chrome, List price $74.95
pn/ M-6675-K390 Plain, List price $54.95
Windage tray
pn/ M-6687-A390 List price. $42.95
Not a bad price on the plain pan. I wonder if it has both the CJ baffles in it.
The prices may have gone up slightly. I haven't had a chance to pick up my 2001 catalog.
Most Motorsport / FRPP dealers will give you a discount off of list pricing.
Hope it helps,
Mike.
|
| | | | | | Remember... -- Dave Shoe, 03/08/2001
...you should only pay 75-80% of the list price at FRP.
Ford Motorsports ALWAYS gave an automatic 25% or 20% (different years, different rates) when ordering stuff. If a dealer doesn't openly give you the discount, he's screwing ya (they're pretty good with giving it atuomatically, from what I've seen).
I haven't yet ordered any FRP stuff, so I don't know the actual policies. It is REAL nice to hear they still carry FE stuff in there. I seem to recall my most recent Motorsports catalog from a couple years back completely abandoned the FE.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: Remember... -- Brad Wear, 03/08/2001
Look on ebay for oil pans. I just bought a cj pan with baffle for 9.95 and it's perfect. There are usually several on there. |
| | | | | | | | RE: Remember... -- J. Robb, 03/08/2001
I bought the Motorsports oil pan and windage tray last month. Total price was about 75 bucks. The pan has one baffle in it, at the rear of the sump, its not a large baffle, but it angles towards the center of the sump to keep oil in the sump. I don't know if that is the CJ baffle or not... |
| | RE: 428 Cj oil pan -- John R. Barnes, 03/08/2001
I have had several like the one you have. They came on 67 Mustangs and are normally 6 quart if the pan is more square on the edges. Many have C7AE 6675 A stamped on the bottom of the sump. I found one on a 67 Galaxie. Hope that helps. |
|