Skip Navigation Links.
 |  428 adj. rocker frustration! -- doc, 03/06/2001
I have a recently rebuilt 66 428. I'm having trouble getting the valves adj. properly. I'm close,but no trophy. One or two ticking, or after a hard run the motor is rough at idle! I was running ersons, I just switched to a new set of sealed powerand new shafts. helpppp!doc
|
|  | RE: 428 adj. rocker frustration! -- C700, 03/07/2001
Hyd. or solid? |
| | | RE: 428 adj. rocker frustration! -- doc, 03/07/2001
I'm running a comp hyd. cam w/ sealed power 2083 lifters. Comp cam 270h-10 .519 gross lift. ANY HELP GREATLY APPRECIATED ! |
| | |  | come on guy's ,a little help!! -- doc, 03/10/2001
What's the best valve adj. method?
doc |
| | | | | RE: come on guy's ,a little help!! -- Will, 03/10/2001
Make sure the lifter is on the base circle, adjust to zero lash, plus 1/4 turn. There are several ways to get to the base circle. I can't remember them that well, so I try to remember what's going on in the cam. I adjust the exhaust when the intake is almost closed. I adjust the intake when the exhaust is just starting to open.
If you've properly adjusted your valves, you shouldn't hear the lifter clack. I would assume you'd have a lifter or oiling problem if you can't make it go away. Of course, you may have some other problem causing the clicking. I'm not a machinist, so maybe someone else would know. |
| | | | | | I've switched to solids. -- Dave Shoe, 03/10/2001
I've asked about the hyd lifter ticking I get whenever I come off a sustained high-RPM romp and determined that standard lifters have their drawbacks, anti-pumpups have their drawbacks (they don't pump up, they seem to pump down for me "at speed") and these are just the facts I gotta deal with.
There are some folk that have good luck (Edelbrock makes highly engineered systems and selected hyds for their RPM kit, so there MUST be redeeming cxharacteristics), but I've lost patience and decided that future premium builds get solid lifters.
I've considered "rollers", as they have some gnarly ramps and can make extra horsepower, but hyd rollers have beed boycotted by my mind and most solid rollers are only recommended for race motors due to the valve lash, which apparently allows the lifter to seaprate slightly from the cam lobe and thus scuff when it recontacts the lobe a few microseconds later. Preloaded hard rollers wich use external springs apparently solve this, so now I gotta decide whether the cost of the fancy-version solid roller is worth the HP boost over a flat-tappet solid gring (I don't build for max HP).
Anyhow, you're apparently dealing with the same thing I'm dealing with. I've found no fix, though I've focused on the problem during the last half-dozen builds of my different FEs.
I've tossed in the towel until someone comes onto the forum and posts an solution that offers the enlightenment necessary for me to pretend I actually understand how those little hydraulic horrors work.
Good luck,
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | 428 roller lifters -- Dwayne Domangue, 03/10/2001
where can i find set of roller lifter for a 428 |
| | | | | | | | RE: 428 roller lifters -- Dave Shoe, 03/11/2001
I don't have any details handy, mainly because I'm gathering general theory info right now - not specific info.
The easiest way to find roller lifters for an FE is to find a roller camshaft - the same manufacturer will have the lifters. And there aren't many.
I've heard the "preloaded" type of solid roller lifter can be created rather easily using, I believe, a 429/460 type of preloaded solid roller. Again, I've got some details somewhere, but I wouldn't be able to find them quickly.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: 428 roller lifters -- Dwayne, 03/13/2001
thanks dave all im looking for is 450 to500 hp is roller lifters nessesary |
| | | | | | | | |  | RE: 428 roller lifters -- Dave Shoe, 03/14/2001
450-500 HP is easy in a 428 with a flat-tappet cam. Also, you can bet the roller setup will end up maybe a grand extra after it's all over. Probably more, as a roller build will likely include a deluxe rockershaft upgrade to keep them fancy lobes happy.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: I've switched to solids. -- BOB HOPKINS, 03/12/2001
Dave Shoe;
Back in old days 60's they made a set of extra springs that was in lifter valley and preloaded onto lifters tocked under heads on ch##*y's ,but I remember a angle bracket that attached to cyl. block for FE'S .This was back in dark days to hel git enough spring pressure to make thing RPM enough , but would enshure youe worries about rollers staying in contact with cam . |
| | | | RE: 428 adj. rocker frustration! -- Travis Miller, 03/10/2001
Hydraulics need to be adjusted with the engine running. In order to keep from making an oily mess, cut the top open of an old valve cover. Bend the flap up and toward the exhaust side of the head making an area where the oil will be thrown up against and can run back down in the head. Install with a gasket to for a leak free seal. One other item you will need is a length of heater hose so you can listen to each rocker arm and pick out the ones that are clicking.
Loosen a rocker until you can hear it clicking. Slowly tighten it back down until it just stops clicking. For performance applications tighten the adjusting nut no more than 1/4 turn after the clicking stops. This will allow a few more RPM's before valve float occurs.
Valve float occurs when the engine is revved higher than the valve springs can close the valves. The instant this happens, the hydraulic lifter pumps totally full of oil shoving its top piece against its retainer. With the lifter pumped up, the valves are kept from closing all the way causing the engine to run poorly until the lifter bleeds back down.
|
| | | | | RE: 428 adj. rocker frustration! -- doc, 03/12/2001
Thank's for the help! thought I was the only one. I've spent countless hours trying to master this task. I think I've got it perfect,remove those half covers clean-up the mess, polish those finned alum covers, go for a test
run and boom one or two tick at some rpm.I then start over and at idle, find a few more ticking. After tweaking I test it again. This time same thing or the beast of a motor shutters at idle!!Has anyone tried colapsing the lifter with a tool and giving it say 60 thou. Thought I read it in a book one time. The motor is fresh ,but I am gettin ' some oil down the guides.Could build up on the valves affect valve noise? Is there any thing better than standard seals? I may have run a couple of miles with the valves too tight. Despite these problems FE's are # 1 in my book and I refuse to give up DOC |
| | | | | | RE: 428 adj. rocker frustration! -- Chris Teeling, 03/12/2001
I run a Comp. Cams 288 hydraulic cam and lifters. I have the same problem with noisy lifters at hot idle. I tried manually bleeding down the lifters and adjusting to .150 (half way between the specified .100 & .200 range). The lifters still made about the same amount of noise! I think I did manage to dislodge one of the feet on one lifter's check valve retainer. After that, whenever I did a burnout, the pushrods on that cylinder would bend. This happened three times before I took the engine apart looking for valve problems.
Has anyone tried adjusting the valves on a running engine? I am about to try it but wonder how I will be able to keep a wrench on the end of a moving rocker arm. I have done this on engines with stud mounted rockers but never on the FE shaft mounted rockers. I am certainly willing to try if it will really help. From the comments in the posts above, I suspect the problem is with really the Comp Cams lifter. |
| | | | | | | RE: 428 adj. rocker frustration! -- Rusty, 03/12/2001
Hydraulic lifters are a pain. In the past I've run solid lifters on hydraulic cam grinds without any problems. I raced these them with 0.006 valve lash and turned the motor 7000 rpms through the lights. I did this for years without any problems. I used Sealed Power (AT-2000) 351 solid lifters and they worked fine with standard length push rods and adjustable rocker arms. I would think this would also work well for street/strip applications. Just my (2) cents worth.
Rusty |
| 360 rail rockers HELP! -- Allen, 03/06/2001
The 360 in my 69 F100 started makin a very loud knockin sound when I was crusin on the highway yesterday . I got home and traced it to the driver side valve cover. I have it pulled off but for the life of me I cant get it adjusted right. What are the torque specs for the rocker arm rail? Arent the FE heads oiled from the top of the rail studs like a Windsor? Ive only had the truck since December and that was the first time I had driven it over 55mph. Could they have been adjusted to tight and not been getting enought oil when it was runnin nat high speed/RPM? The guy I bought the truck from was not very knowledgeable about autos and could have do it himself or let someone else do it thinkin they were doin it right. |
| | RE: 360 rail rockers HELP! -- gerry, 03/07/2001
First, the rockers are oiled through the shaft by one oil supply hole in the head that is hidden by the shaft stand. To accommodate the head's oiling passage, the bolt that secures the stand for that location is a little longer than the other three stand bolts. If you remove the rocker shaft stands, you will see where the oil passage is in the head and be able to clearly identify that the correct stand and bolt are in their proper place. It is not possible to put the longer bolt in the other locations. Just to make this abundently clear, the valve train is not lubricated through the pushrods.
There is a proper orientation for the rocker shaft oil holes. They will always be pointing down.
As I recall, the proper final torque specification for the shaft stand bolts is 40 lb/ft. You have to gradually approach this number and the service manual adequately addresses this, but basically you give each bolt about a quarter turn at a time in order to evenly distribute the loading from spring tension across the length of the shaft.
As for adjusting lifter pre-load...unless you have adjustable rocker arms, you can't. Technically, you could shim the rocker shaft stands, but this would only decrease pre-load which, depending on the specific mechanical problem you are chasing, could be taking you in the wrong direction. You absolutely do not adjust pre-load by using the stand bolts.
I don't know what's causing you noise, but I would check the rocker shaft stands to ensure they are not loose, then move onto the other parts of the valve train. Try to find any pushrods that will easily spin with the valve fully closed since this will lead you to a collapsed lifter or other valve train problems. If you have to go deeper and remove the rocker assembly, pull off a rocker and make certain that the oiling holes are pointing down.
Hope some of this helps. |
| | | RE: 360 rail rockers HELP! -- Allen, 03/08/2001
The noise only occurs after the engine has warmed up to opperating temp. At first it only happened when I was on the road going over 50mph, now it just needs to warm up and it starts. Ive readjusted the rocker shaft and it still does it. I even took the ft/lbs out to 50(a site I found said 40-45). Im going to check the push rods next. Maybe I can get this stoped. |
| merc. pent roof valve covers -- swede, 03/06/2001
I have two pent roof covers that have cursive mercury stamped into them, also a double jagged lightening bolt underneath the mercury. anybody know what these came on? |
| | RE: merc. pent roof valve covers -- 410cougar, 03/06/2001
i just purchased a set of these last weak at a swap meet here at qualcom. dont quote me but ive been told that they were used for at least 2 years from 62-63 or even 63-64. thats what ive been told. i dont know if there is any truth to it. i just blasted mine and having a shop in san diego chrome them. then there going to scape the chome off the writing and lightning bolt and plate it in gold. should look pretty sweet. i also like these cause they seem to be taller then most pent roof valve covers ive seen. i got mine for $50. he ariginally had them for 100. but i was starting to rain. so i told him to take it or leave it. keep ahold of them. i think that their some of the nicest looking FE covers out there. |
| |  | Ouestion? -- Lou, 03/06/2001
By pent roof you mean the early style with the rounded tops, aka 1958/59/60? |
| | | RE: merc. pent roof valve covers -- swede, 03/12/2001
thanks for the info fella's these are in mint shape no dents. got them on a 427 med. riser. |
| | | RE: Check out this related post from last year... -- FE427TP, 03/07/2001
I have a set of chromed Mercury Pentroof valve covers I believe. I got them off of a Mercury 410 that was in a 1967 Ford pickup (not the original engine obviously) I did notice that the baffle on the passenger side didn't clear my stock replacement rocker arms on the last valve with .563 lift
 |
| | | RE: Mercury Valve Covers -- Mike McQuesten, 03/07/2001
Those Mercury "Pent Roof" valve covers were used on FE powered Mercs in '65 and '66. That's all I've ever seen them in. I've got a stack of them. I like to run two left bank covers because that's the side that accepts a normal twist in breather. The right side accepts the standard gromet/PCV. I just like the looks and convenience of being able to add oil in both covers. That's what I've got a stack of because I've used these on a number of vehicles. They looked especially nice chromed on a '28 CJ in a '66 Cyclone GT. My '68 F100/390GT has a set now. Anyway these came on 390,410 and 428 Mercs. The '67 Mercs started sporting the Power by Ford stanards for that year. |
| | RE: Marauder style -- RC Moser, 03/07/2001
The pent style came on merc. Marauder engines, I believe 410s and 428s only. Usually these engine also came with the cast iron shortie headers as mind did out of a 66 parklane.. |
| | | RE: Shorty Headers? -- Mike McQuesten, 03/07/2001
I can tell you for a fact that I bought a 1965 Merc Merauder, 4 door hardtop with 390-4V. That engine had orange Mercury pentroof style valve covers. I bought this car from the orginal owner. It was a leaking rust bucket of a car but the price was right for a 390-4V. But I've got a question for RC about those shorty cast iron headers on your '66 Parklane. How did they fit? I have found out personally that the '60-'64 HP/Police shorties do not fit properly on '65-up Galaxies. The right/passenger side will work but not that driver's side due to steering box interference. Although I did see a determined guy make 'em fit by shimming the motor mounts on a '65 XL/410 modified combination. So maybe you bought this car from someone who was as determined as my friend was? Police exhaust manifolds on '65-up are not at all like the good old shorty HPs. I was just wondering. |
| | | | RE: Shorty Headers? -- RC Moser, 03/07/2001
I installed the 66 410 in to a 55 ford F100, the cast iron factory manifolds were a 4 into 1 design and curled in close to the block, They had seperation between the exhaust ports. 10 years later I transplanted the 410 into a 67 F100 at that time I broke one of the studs of the manifold and disgarded them and brought a set of tubular headers for the 67. I know, I when back a few years later to look for them realizing the mistake I made. Your right I remember now that some merc 390s did have the orange style, but I still believe they were off a Maruder engine... |
| | | | RE: Shorty Headers? -- Mike McQuesten, 03/07/2001
Just a last note to RC. I agree with you that the tall cool Merc covers did come on Marauders in '65 & '66. Remember that '65 390 donor was a Marauder. I too have run one of the Ford shorty header style cast irons on my '68 F 100. On the right/passenger side. I had to notch the top portion of the frame rail on that side to make it fit. When I went to install the driver's side....oh oh, no go with that '68 Bendix power steering system. Fortunately I had a spare set of CJ 428s at the time. I used the left side CJ. I had to do it! The 428 CJ was all installed and I had to drive it. But I didn't waste either...with a 390 back in, (the '28 CJ had to go where it belonged) in went a set of Hedman's. The good Ford HP manifolds are back where they belong too. |
| | | | | RE: Shorty Headers more thoughts? -- RC Moser, 03/08/2001
I remember the diver side curling close to the block, they fit like a glove in my 55. And the left had the heat riser tube for the thermostatic choke coil and no flapper. When I put the headers on I ran a copper tube around the header tube and put the opening in between the two middle tubes to pick up heat for the auto. choke to work, I lived up north at the time and had to have the choke operational (It worked great) My 410 was blue. I have a picture of a poor mans engine bay dress up, but can't figure how to get it to up load. I also, had a 68 2DR HT Gal 428 PI car Black with red interior, I brought that car at a auction for 700 bucks in 73 and it ran like a top and would get huge second gear scratch, thought that was neat for a automatic tranny. I can't remember what style manifolds it had though. |
| 428cj? -- Earl, 03/06/2001
What can I do to find out whether or not I have an actual 428CJ motor?
If it is the real deal, who can I purchase new headers from?
Thank you tremendously! |
| | RE: 428cj? -- Earl, 03/06/2001
Nevermind the first question...Some disassembly required...
...But the second question still stands.... |
| | | Headers depend on application. -- Will, 03/06/2001
There are different sources for headers depending on your application. Those that come to mind are FPA, Crites, and Hooker. I've read a lot of good things about FPA and Crites. Everyone knows about Hooker. I have Hooker Super-comps (67 Mustang), but they hang a little low.
My opinion is that the FPA headers are the best for the Mustang body style. I've heard a lot of people recommend Crites for the larger body styles (possibly also Fairlane - I don't know). Of course, the factory manifolds are also options. |
| | | | RE: Headers depend on application. -- Earl, 03/07/2001
Thanks alot.....The engine is in a 1970 f100 4x4....it sounds like I'll be using Crites....
Do I really have to take the motor apart to find out what it is? I have enough projects floating around me....like a storm cloud......
Thanks again |
| | | | | RE: Headers depend on application. -- Will, 03/07/2001
You have to take the engine apart to see if it's a reinforced 428cj block. There may be a way, but I doubt it. (for ex, the reverse 501 block is supposed to be reinforced, so if you see a mirror image 501 where the 352 is supposed to be, your block should be reinforced. I'm not sure about this, but that's how I understand it.)
You can get the casting number from the heads. It's between the center spark plugs (between 2&3 or 5&6). If it says, C80E 6090N, you've got 428CJ heads. If it says something else, post the number and someone will look it up.
If you drop the pan, you can find out a lot. The CJ had extra ribs along the main webbing. It's pretty suttle, so you need to see a picture to know what you're looking for. The CJ rods have larger rod bolts (11/32 I think). I don't know the pn's, but you probably can't see them by just dropping the pan, anyway.
I'm rambling now, so I'll shut up. |
| | | | RE: 428cj? -- Earl, 03/12/2001
Thanks tons!...I'll probably get to work on it within the next 2 weeks....Since you know so much already, whats the big secret about the engine. What was Ford hidding that couldn't be made blatantly obvious?
Thanks! |
| tunnelport engine -- John, 03/06/2001
I purchased a tunnelport engine that has not been run since complete overhaul 10 years ago. It has the sodium exhaust valves, should I replace them with SS valves? Also at what RPM will these heads out perform the medium riser heads? What can I expect to gain by installing a 428 crank in this engine? What are the downfalls? I was also told to replace the rockerarm assembly with Dove roller rocker arm assembly, what do you think? Thanks for imput. |
| | What I think... -- Walker, 03/06/2001
definitely replace the sodium valves.
definitely a high RPM engine, benefits won't appear until 6,000+ RPM's.
with a 428 crank, top revs go down, streetability goes up. Overall, probably a good switch. Don't know the specifics of your planned application.
an aftermarket rocker assembly is a good idea, especially one with end stand supports. Dove is pricey, but have a good rep (for their rockers).
JMO |
| | | RE: What I think... -- John, 03/07/2001
Thank you for your response! John |
| | RE: tunnelport engine -- JESS, 03/06/2001
Yes,replace the valves.But I am not sure you can use tunnel port heads on a 428.Tunnel port heads have 2.25 intakes.And I don't think you can notch the cylinders to clear the intake valves. |
| | | RE: tunnelport engine -- John, 03/07/2001
Not a 428 block. a 428 crank to put in this 427 block. Thanks, John |
| | RE: tunnelport engine -- RC Moser, 03/06/2001
I'd say you first need to let us know what your going to use the engine for? If you put it in a show car and putt around in it then I would do nothing to it if it runs good. If you plan on doing some drag racing and had the bucks then the valves and aftermarket rocker arms are a good Idea. As for the 428 crank You should get 454 cubes or more depending on the overbore out of your 427. Guess it just depends on what you plan and expect out of the engine...High cost, don't expect to thrash a well prepped 460 though unless you have a remarkable weight advantage. You've got a pretty rare engine. I would think this would come in to play if you decide to all out race it. There is always the change of blowing the bottom end out and trashing the heads with debris above 7000 RPM. Just want you to see all sides before you sink maybe 10K more into it. |
| | | RE: tunnelport engine -- John, 03/07/2001
Thanks for the input, The car will be street legal for shows but I plan on taking it to the strip from time to time. I thought of the 460 in the mustang but its a cow and the fe fits so much better. But your right I can not compete with a 385 series 514 cubic inch stroker with 600 ponies. I will say this an fe looks more impressive and will draw a lot more attention. Check my response to Shoe and see if you can answer some of my questions. Thank you, John |
| | RE: tunnelport engine -- Dave Shoe, 03/06/2001
You MUST not run that motor with sodium filled valves. Don't even turn it over by hand. The valves age horribly and are now almost ready to pop their heads off just sitting in the motor with the valve springs pushing against them. One piece SS is a good start.
The Tunnelport has a much higher and narrower powerband than the MR. You can expect to outgun the MR rev-to-rev at about 4500-5000 RPM, but a lot of that has to do with your overall engine setup. If you are looking to "run against" a MR, you'd pick some higher ratio gears in back, because you'll be making power well through 8000RPM, but the MR will likely fall sharply after 7000.
The Tunnelport needs a steel crankshaft if it's gonna operate in it's intended range. Unless you run something like this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=552648378
you're gonna want to either run a stock steel crank for that 427 block or you can detune the cam and design the engine to run in the range that a cast crank can live. FE cast cranks are good stuff, but Tunnelports need more than "good" to live any amount of time.
I suspect you're gonna want to put more street time than track time into that motor, as it's a visual dazzler and deserves to be out in the public eye. For this a detuned cam and 428 crank make sense. The extra cubes will increase the velocity in those gargantuan runners, and the less-than-NASCAR cam and carb you select will allow the motor to idle and cruise in fine fashion.
Rockershafts will snap almost as fast as the valves, if you use a cam with modern fast-ramp profiles. End supports are a minimum, and Dove offers a great system for your setup.
JMO,
Shoe.
|
| | | RE: tunnelport engine -- John, 03/07/2001
The engine is a true 427 tunnelport with the single plain 2x4 intake. It is a 1966 sideoiler block at .030 over. Steel lemans crank at 10/10 and lemans rods. 12:1 domed pistons. The engine is going in a 67 GT 390 4 speed mustang car that will be for the local drag strip from time to time and car show and also a street car to eat the local chevy from time to time. Here is some more Questions? I need carbs where would I get them and what would you recommend? Im taking off the heads and replacing the valves. I also know who has a dove rocker assembly for $500.00 that he never did use. What do you think I should run for a distributor? MSD? I was told I would not be able to drive on street without fouling plugs? Also will I be able to shut the hood of the car with this engine in it? sorry all the questions but this seems to be the only way I can find this stuff out. This is an expensive engine so I want to do it right. Thank you for the help, John |
| | | | What I think now... -- Walker, 03/07/2001
If you swap in the 428 crank, you're going to have to lose the rods and pistons.
For primarily street use, the tunnel port is serious overkill, especially after you get done emasculating it with lower compression. You're gelding the stallion.
If you must, I'd go with small carbs (390cfm's?) to keep some kind of low end response. Though this engine does seems to be some kind of transexual genetic miscoding in the making. Like a supermodel being prepped for a weight-lifting competion. Personally, I'd hang the intake on the wall, the heads on a display and use the rods for paperweights before asking a piece of performance history like a fully-functional tunnelport engine to mince around the drive-in a little above idle. |
| | | | | RE: What I think now... -- John, 03/08/2001
Wait a minute! This is not a daily driver I have my Honda for that. Nobody in there right mind would use it for that. This is a toy that is built for show and the strip but will be street legal if I want to shut down the local Chevy. I would not even think of lowering the compression as I will run Aviation fuel and the local gas station sells 100 octane for the cars at the local race track. And by stroking a 427 you do not need to change the rods only the pistons. As for carbs I was thinking 650's or 700's |
| | | | RE: tunnelport engine -- Dave Shoe, 03/07/2001
Keep in mind that I'm not a racer, so my opinion isn't generally the best.
You've dumped the valves - that's good.
You'll want to take the motor to a qualified builder. Don't go to any old high-perf shop or rebuild shop. Unless you've learned the shop you go to KNOWS FEs or has an engine guru you already trust, you want to avoid them. I was surprised to learn, after many years, there are still three top-notch FE427 builders right here in Minneapolis. It was tough for me to learn, as none advertised. I know it'll be tough for you to find a good shop, but ask around a whole bunch and you'll find someone near you, or possibly - someone worth shipping your engine to. I know there are several worthy shops who frequent this forum.
I'll bet the current setup will NOT permit this car to run on the street, it'll simply load up, foul out, and repeatedly kill if you run it under 4000RPM and below 90mph.
You'll need to determine a cam/compression/carb combo that'll let you keep a streetable amount of the Tunnelport personality. A mild cam will allow the motor to run smooth and quiet - but you DON'T want this. I'm not experienced enough to tell you which way to go, but I'll take a S.W.A.G. and suspect your lift will end up around .580, your compression around 11.0:1, your twin Holleys around 650 each, your header pipes around 2-1/8", and your rocker assemblies very non-stock.
You'll need a ministarter to crank it over, as stock starters just aren't up to it. The stock distributor is good. Install the plain Ford, Pertronix, or Mallory conversion kit into it and it'll look stock and run great. You'll need an ignition amplifier like MSD to protect the distributor electronics and also drive an aftermarket coul with sufficient energy. You don't need a high-voltage ignition as much as you need a high-power ignition. The MSD will deliver. If you also decide to bump the voltage a bunch (sparkplug gap pretty much determines the voltage at which plasma occurs), you'll wanna install the Duraspark cap, rotor, and fatter wires to keep the voltage contained. Other alternatives exist, but if you keep the sparkplug gap stock, you can get away with a stock-type cap, and make enough plasma to supply an army hospital.
Since streeting the motor will require a reduction of compression (IMO), you can switch to a CJ crank and stroke it out, but I'd probably keep the steel stuff in and let the motor rev to make power - you know, like a Tunnelport is supposed to make power. If the pistons still fit well, maybe you can shave them to 11.5:1 and run small airplane gas like I do (low-lead 100 octane). The low-lead does still foul plugs regularly, but you sorta get used to it and learn when to change plugs before misfiring becomes a problem.
Be careful - Even I wouldn't listen to most of this advise. Still, it's fun to toss out ideas.
Shoe. |
| | | | | Stilling thinking... -- Walker, 03/08/2001
and the rods with the wider big ends won't just wrap around the 428 crank without a little persuasion also.
So, where we're at:
Change crank
New rods
New pistons
New cam
New rockers
New valves
don't forget new springs for the cam...
New rings...
New carbs
anything else?
The dove rocker setup that his friend has, TP support stands are different, not clear if he has these, if his friend's setup was for a TP or what.
|
| | | | | | RE: Stilling thinking... -- John, 03/08/2001
I was told that the medium riser set up is the same for the tunnelport. Sorry Im not going to change any of the stuff mentioned except exhaust valves and I need some carbs. Thanks for the imput though. |
| | | | | RE: tunnelport engine -- John, 03/08/2001
Shoe, I was told that running a MSD ignition would eliminate the fouling of spark plugs. I will not lower the compression as 100 octane fuel is available. This is not a daily driver it is a toy built to run like a bat out of hell. I was thinking a couple 650's or maybe 700's |
| | | | | | RE: tunnelport engine -- Dave Shoe, 03/08/2001
It sounds like you're gonna have one heck of a weekend warrior.
As for the MSD preventing fouling: I've never heard that, but it does make sense. I'll be on the lookout for more info on that. Thanks for the tip.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: tunnelport engine -- John, 03/09/2001
Shoe, I person called Cougar runs his tunnelport and says he fouls no plugs since he installed a MSD ignition set up. Thanks for all the info! |
| | | | | | | | TP Cam profile query. -- Dave Shoe, 03/09/2001
Thanks for your help too.
I've had a new MSD 6A box sitting around for 8 years or so and never installed it because I don't run a hot enough coil to overwork my Mallory Unilite conversion kit. I also can't find a flat, inconspicuous place to mount thee box under the hoods of my LTD, Fairlane, or Mustang. I guess it might be time to look harder.
I have fouled many plugs in the past (and sometimes run a tank of pure unleaded 93 to unfoul them because they look so new) and look forward to "soaking" on the idea that an MSD and hotter coil will likely buy me a buncha sparkplug life.
By the way...I'm sorta curious: Do you by any chance know some of the specs on your cam (and it's age - to maybe identify the "era" of the grind profile). It'd be interesting to hear what cam beats inside the galley of a "relatively stock" sodium-valved Tunnelport.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: TP Cam profile query. -- John, 03/10/2001
Shoe, I took the pan off looking for some letters or numbers on the cam but no luck. I think I am going to have to take the timing cover and gear off to look for numbers on the front of the cam. The guy I bought it from forgot what was in it and can not find the spec sheet for it. What would be the max lift a person could run without any major modifications? |
| | RE: tunnelport engine -- Travis Miller, 03/06/2001
If you put the 428 crank in, you will bring the torque range down below the RPMs where the heads are designed to flow best. Is it a true tunnelport engine or is it a medium riser with a tunnelwedge intake.
At any rate you want to replace the sodium filled exhaust valves. A little history is in order here. Big trucks first used sodium filled exhaust valves and hardened seats in the head because of the extreme pressures put on the valves when lugging the engines pulling heavy loads. If an engine with sodium filled valves is used everyday or so, the valves will last forever. But if the valves do not get heated up periodically, the sodium will eventually eat the valve from the inside out and the spring pressure will pop the head off the valve. There have been cases where a sodium filled valve has popped the head off with the heads stored off the engine.
If this engine has been setting 10 years with sodium filled exhaust valves, replace them with SS ones before you start the engine. A dropped valve can really ruin your day. |
| | | RE: tunnelport engine -- John, 03/07/2001
Travis, Im going to take your advise! Change the exhaust valves and Im also going with Dove rocker assembly and leave in the 427 crank. I asked Shoe some questions could you help me with any of these questions. Any advise is greatly appreciated. Thank you, John |
| | | | RE: tunnelport engine -- Will, 03/07/2001
My opinion is to definitely put this beast on the street. Don't detune it too much. It should idle poorly and sound like a V-8 Harley. Build it to work best where it works best. That is, don't run a small cam or small carbs. Don't go for NASCAR size either, but it'd be a shame to cripple the top-end by trying to get low rpm grunt.
Don't forget the TP rocker shaft is different than the MR (right?). You can run standard Holley 1850's. I've heard rumors that the BJ/BK carbs from the 67 GT500 were going to be reproduced by Holley, so you may want to check that out. You may also want to try Carl's Ford Parts. I think he's got a few. I think I'd shoot for the 780's.
I agree with Shoe about the crank. A 428 crank will help velocity, but you wouldn't want to run too many rpm's. At any rate, it'll require new pistons, so it may be better to keep your steel crank & pistons.
If I had it, I'd keep most of it the same, but I'd use a roller cam, your Dove rocker's, and I'd have a good shop go through it thoroughly (balance, port, sonic, polish, new bolts, etc.).
Good luck, and if you get tired of it, send me an e-mail. I'd be happy to take it off your hands. :-) |
| | | | | RE: tunnelport engine -- Rusty, 03/07/2001
The TP and MR Rocker assemblies are the same....all this talk about Tunnel Ports reminds me that I've got one I want to sell. Check out my poor attempt at a website. http://216.25.237.10/main/rustypics/index.htm
Rusty |
| | | | | | THAT'S what we forgot! Block fill! n/m -- Walker, 03/08/2001
|
| | | | | | | RE: THAT'S what we forgot! Block fill! n/m -- John, 03/08/2001
Who the hell is this walker guy? |
| | | | | | | | I'm the guy who FINALLY got you to help yourself.. -- Walker, 03/08/2001
no one could help you until we knew what your planned use of the engine was.
And how many posts did it take you to dribble out your intentions?
Want help? Tell us not only what you have, but what you plan on doing with it.
Don't forget the smaller-headed bolts for those rods if you do stroke it. And if it really has been sitting for 10 years, you might want to replace the springs (and check the oil pump, water pump,...). Do you have an exhaust system for it?
Have fun.
|
| | | | | | | | | RE: I'm the guy who FINALLY got you to help yourself.. -- John, 03/09/2001
I was thinking of using the largest tube header that Hooker makes for the mustang. What would you recommend? Thanks, John |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: I'm the guy who FINALLY got you to help yourself.. -- Rusty, 03/09/2001
For street/strip, I would run a 2" Hooker Super Comp header. They are pricy, I think around 350-450.
Rusty |
| | | | | | | | | | Run the biggest you can fit in the 'stang. 2.125"+ -- Walker, 03/09/2001
|
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: Run the biggest you can fit in the 'stang. 2.125"+ -- Rusty, 03/09/2001
Walker, you're not really Stanley Superior using another name are you? I totally disagree with bigger headers. John did say street/strip. He will sacrice too much low-end torque (which is nice on the street) if he users headers larger than 2.00". Just my 2 cents.
Rusty |
| | | | | | | | | | | | with the crank, he's going to be at 454+ cu"... -- Walker, 03/09/2001
12:1 compression on aviation gas running through tunnelport heads.
he's asking for opinions, mine is 2.125"+,
your's is 2", ultimately he's spending the money and knows where/how he wants to run.
always JMO
Personally, I think SS is either BB, the guy always going on about carbs, or Dave Shoe. It's not me. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: with the crank, he's going to be at 454+ cu"... -- 410cougar, 03/10/2001
shoe's been here for awhile if you denie it dont point at others. this sites for knowledge not bickering.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | then don't accuse me. -- Walker, 03/10/2001
I've been around as long as anyone else. |
| | | | | RE: tunnelport engine -- John, 03/08/2001
I like your thinking! Rods are new and polished and it has been balanced. |
| | RE: tunnelport engine -- ANT, 03/07/2001
Definitly change the valves.
Soduim filled exhaust valves are really light and were used for racing. They had a problem of breaking off the heads even when they were new.
Forget a car that gets good mpg, idles well and has excellent drivability. If you want this so much sell the tunnel port and get a 4 cylinder.
You have a real man's engine that was made for high rpm. Put a fairly radical cam in it. You can still drive it around(not long distances though). If you keep a high compression you definitly need a radical cam.
|
| Intake manifold suggestions -- frank, 03/05/2001
I have a 69 428 cobra jet with 10.5:1 compression crane 272 hydro. cam. Stock CJ intake C8oe-c and never been ported CJ heads C8oe-n. I put the motor together and ran it then changed to the crane cam that is in it now. When I had the intake off you can see there is a big difference in ports on intake they are small; and ports on heads are big. I was wondering if I got an intake off of a early 390 like a 1960 model would it have bigger ports like the CJ heads or smaller ones like the CJ intake. Because don't all early FE heads have big ports. I don't want to port the intake and the miss match in ports has got to hurt the performance. Any Advise. Thanks. |
| | RE: Intake manifold suggestions -- Dave Shoe, 03/06/2001
The early intakes may port match, but the low-riser design of the early intake has circuitous and small runners and is just plain stuffy. The old-technology "low rise" intake approaches the head at such a low angle they really DO use the lower portion of the head's port.
The CJ intake is a MR design and it tends to ignore the lower part of the CJ port because the air shot comes from a higher angle and would have to kink a bit if it went down to use the bottom of the head.
You might find a smidgen of a gain in the lower plane of the CJ intake if you brought the manifold port down, but the upper plane has no use for the bottom of the CJ head and would probably just be more turbulent and restrictive if it had access to the lower part of the head's port.
The CJ intake DOES use the entire runner of the head, just not the lower 3/8" of the first half inch or so. Not a perfect marriage, but it sure runs like it is.
One version of the Blue Thunder does have CJ sized runners (sorta like a CJ intake on steroids) and it works really well with CJ heads, but that's a rare exception.
A good-performing single plane intake (i.e.: raised runner type, not the low crap) shouldn't be looking at the bottom 3/8" of the CJ port at all, as all these runners should "straight-shot" into the head without having to "kneel" as it enters.
The CJ iron intake will blow the doors off many aluminum intakes.
To be honest, I have no real concept of air flow technology. This is just my opinion.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: Intake manifold suggestions -- Barry B., 03/06/2001
I’ve studied this apparent port mismatch back when Edelbrock was playing with offset port matching in the ‘70s. If you look at the top and bottom of the intake on the CJ head, they taper in to the same height as the 427MR so they’re really not as overly tall as they look. The mismatch of the intake actually “points” the mixture at a better angle in the head to the valve and stays out of the dead area on the floor. Also the lip from the relatively smaller intake port acts as an antireversion dam. This is just my opinion but seems to correlate with what the bow-tie guys were doing at the time.
Barry
|
| Exhaust gaskets 390 -- Anthony, 03/05/2001
I have a 67 stang w/ a 390 and stock manifolds. Where the exhaust pipe connects to the manifold, there is a adapter between the pipe and the manifold. The bottom side gets a exhaust donut where the pipe bolts to it, and the top side of the adapter is a flat flange that meets the manifold. I need the gaskets for this flat flange, and I havent had any luck finding them. Can someone help?? |
| | RE: Exhaust gaskets 390 -- T1M, 03/05/2001
I'm confused. I have a 68 Galaxie with a 390 2-V. I know about the donut gasket you're talking about. I thought that was all you needed. Stick the donut around the exhaust pipe, push the pipe up to the manifold and tighten the bolts... |
| | my last attempt to help -- T1M, 03/07/2001
I think I know what you mean now. I'm an amateur so it takes me longer.
As far as that flat flange on the pipe that bolts to the manifold, I don't think it's purpose is to provide a seal and so I don't think there's even a gasket for it. I believe it's only there to physically mate the manifold to the pipe. The donut gasket provides the seal. |
| | | RE: my last attempt to help -- Jerry Wietzke, 03/08/2001
the adaptor you guys are talking about is a heat riser valve. Yes it is flat on one side and donut on the other.
Yes it does take a flat gasket and a donut type. Where to get it, if your auto parts dealer doesn't list a part number then do as Bob suggested take the old gasket down to a good muffler shop and have them match the gasket, they usually stock several sizes and types, probably a chevy/dodge or other ford will match and work fine. |
| | | | RE: my last attempt to help -- BOB HOPKINS, 03/08/2001
I think Ford made heatriser spacers without the shutoffvalve for hipo use I have seen some at swap meets for rediciousprices$85.00. Some overhaul gaskets have a large enough gasket to fit some dont ,jist carry with you and match |
| | | | | RE: my last attempt to help -- Anthony, 03/08/2001
Thanks guys, I'll do just that. |
| oil flow question -- C Warner, 03/05/2001
I am getting ready to rebuild my 65 352 and I have been hearing about restricting oil flow to the rockers to maintain a better flow and pressure to the mains. I have heard of a few ways to accomplish this, one being actually using carb. jets in the oil galleys. Am I hearing correctly and if any are there other ways to do this and how are they done? Also any other durability concerns I should have for a mild 275 or 300 hp buildup? Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. |
| | RE: oil flow question -- KarlJay, 03/06/2001
The standard FE oil mods are:
Drill out the passage from the oil pump to the oil filter pad from 3/8 to 7/16" or 1/2" and round off the corners.
Use a HV oil pump and add an extra qt of oil, at least 6qts
Heavy ARP oil pump shaft
Match oil holes to bearings in the mains
Use a Holley carb jet to restrict the oil to the rockers under the shaft mounts (one per head)
Other mods include
windage tray, drill passage from oil filter pad to cam, deep sump oil pan with baffles
275~300 for an FE is not hard, above 6000 rpm is another issue, the oil pan might go dry if you go above 6000. Pay careful attention to the bearing clearances.
The Ford Performance book has a lot of the details about this as well as Steve Christ's Big Block Ford book.
|
| | RE: oil flow question -- Mustang Mike, 03/06/2001
I used a couple of pieces of 5/16 OD steel with a hole drilled through it to restrict my motor. I cut them 1 3/4 long and faced them in my lathe. After some debate I decided on .093 for the hole size, still seem to get plenty of oil to the rockers but did notice an increase in pressure. They are easily removed with a magnet. |
| | RE: oil flow question -- Vic Yarberry, 03/11/2001
A Holley jet fits perfectly into the rocker arm oil
feed hole. It is located under the rocker arm
stand on either head. I used a #90 jet. Simple
and cheap. |
| | RE: oil flow question -- Rusty, 03/11/2001
Dropping a jet in each side is a great option if the engine is aready assembled. If your doing a rebuild, I take a couple of 1/8" pipe plugs and drill a 1/16" (0.0625) hole in them. Tap the hole with a 1/8" NPT tap and screw in the plugs.
Rusty |
| FE in a Fox Mustang -- Katauskas, 03/05/2001
I've got an FE with a toploader ready to go into a Fox Mustang. I have one item remaining for the swap, and I need your help.
The clutch setup...specifically, the Mustang has a cable assembly on the clutch pedal. Anyone have experience converting to early Ford clutch assembly (linkage or hydraulic)? Thanks...
|
| | What is a Fox Mustang? (n/m) -- Lou, 03/05/2001
n/m |
| | | RE: What is a Fox Mustang? (n/m) -- 410cougar, 03/05/2001
he ment fox body. its the frame style that those vehicles had. my father is currently building an 88 with a 460 using marine type motor plates to mount the engine. should be pretty hairy. he's got it backed by a c6 though. |
| | | 'Fox' is the 3rd Mustang body-series, begun in '79. [n/m] -- Mr F, 03/05/2001
n/m |
| | RE: FE in a Fox Mustang -- 410cougar, 03/05/2001
im not familiar with it but try west coast mustang. |
| | | RE: FE in a Fox Mustang -- Greg, 03/07/2001
I had a 289k motor with a big block toploader in a 1975
Mach 1 with the same problem.
I used a throw out arm from a chevy vega with a pivot
on the opposite side from the cable, modified the arm to accept the right throw out bearing, and it worked.
But it did not work very well. After years of frustration,
I ended up replacing the trans with a late model V-8
trans that also worked off a cable. It now worked
great.
With the f.e. motor, I don't think you'll be happy unless you do it right by somehow modifying the car to accept the bellcrank and use the trans as it was meant to be used - push the throw out arm, not pull it.
It might cost you more money, but nothing is worse that a clutch that doesn't work right.
|
| | | Looking for performance info on 410 engines?? -- 93coupe410, 05/24/2004
howdy! i was wondering if you might be intressed in telling me a little about the 410 motors? i have got a set of fully worked over 410 heads, port matched to an offy intake. i am prepping a 390 block i have, to try to build me something hot. thanks for anything you have to offer, jamie. |
| | RE: FE in a Fox Mustang -- Greg, 03/09/2001
Katauskas, one more thought. At the time I did this modification to my 1975 Mach 1, There was also some talk by the fabracator that I could use a different bell housing (after market). He never gave me any more info on the bell housing route, when ahead with the modification as I described before, and I don't know if he even researched this option. I definitely would(should) have gone with the new bell housing if in fact there was that option. Try giving lakewood or some other clutch/bell housing experts a call, you might find something that works.
Greg |
| | RE: FE in a Fox Mustang -- 93coupe410, 05/24/2004
howdy! i am getting ready to put a 410, in my 93 coupe. i am having trouble finding any info on this type of install, i would appreciate any info offered. pics would also be great, thanks, jamie. |
| and the battle goes on.... -- 410cougar, 03/05/2001
boy this weekend started out exciting.
i pulled out the crank i had just recieved a few weeks ago to look at it and daydream about how the cougar was going to snap my head back launching down the quarter mile. when i noticed a small box drawn on the front counter weight. (oh son of a &*()&) went thought my mind. all of the machine shops, even here on base circle or draw around cracks. so cursing and pouting cause it was to late to call the guy i bought it from, i paced around the house. to make matters worse i found an invoice attatch to the box saying that a 428 crank was being returned due to crack found during wet test.
after a sleepless night of how i was goign to get my money back from the internet bandit in washington. i called all over the country researching the invoince letter.
it ended up semo mustang sent a crank to one gentleman in washington. he sent it back in a differnt box. my guy sent my crank in the only box his machineshop could find. so luckily this other guy had met my guy and could vouch for him as being upstanding FE'r. saving me from having to fly to washinton to strangle someone...lol. exciting weekend huh. just thought id let you guys laugh and think about the scaryness of buying from a stranger.
dont worry i had i tested on base. alls good. wew. |
| | Battlefield observations from the other side... -- Mr F, 03/05/2001
Believe it or not, the other
end of this game can be equally....um, 'interesting'.
I enjoy my
job, especially talking to Ford owners - I really do. But
I've got a couple thousand dollars invested in things like, "I can't
figure out your credit card payment form", "I'll send payment in a week or
two" and a perennial favorite, "My dog ate my check!"
And its not that I doubt any of these folks, even for
a second. Still, its my bottom (-line) that's hanging in the
balance.
Ain't
nothin' easy, regardless what side of the fence you
live on. And I'll admit that sometimes its me who's spouting excuses. Hope this
unfortunate transaction works out to your satisfaction.
Mr
F |
|