Skip Navigation Links.
 |  FE to a 5 speed -- bill white, 12/20/2000
I have a 65 galaxie with a built 390(about 370 hp) I would love to put a late model 5 speed under her. Has anybody done this and how successful is it? And what parts do I need? Also looking for an XL interior for the same car. Which brings me to question #2. Will 64-66 T-birds seats fit into a galaxie? 61-63 t-bird seats? I have some FE parts for sale or trade, E-mail me for wants |
|  | RE: FE to a 5 speed -- John, 12/20/2000
Put a RichmondGear 5 speed in. It's BullitProof. Lakewood makes a great scattershield bellhousing which will mate everything up, although you may have to re-thread the bellhousing holes where the tranny bolts up. About $1800 from Summit for the tranny |
| |  | T-Bird Buckets -- Lou, 12/20/2000
The T- Bird buckets will fit but are lower, XL parts are not hard to find. See if you can find a ratty 65 or 66 XL and go from there. |
| |  | RE: FE to a 5 speed -- FE427TP, 12/20/2000
If you have a toploader already you can switch to a Tremec 5 speed which will have a overdrive and will live with your 390, it'll make 4.11's drive like 2.73's for the RPM drop in overdrive, just a different though so you dont have to pay for a richmond which wont do anything to drop RPM since it's got a 1:1 final drive ratio and you would still need a new rearend setup to drop RPM, and the transmissions are only about 1300 instead of 1800+ |
| | RE: FE to a 5 speed -- Neppy, 12/20/2000
A Tremec 3550 or TKO (maybe a TKO 2 also) will bolt right up the the Top-Loader bolt pattern on the Lakewood Blowproof Bellhousing. |
| Quick question? -- T1M, 12/20/2000
I finally got my new engine mounts on last night but they look strange poised seesaw-like on the frames brackets. The brackets curves slightly outwards and upwards and the mount is perfectly flat. Is this how it should be? Once it's broken in will it mate with the brackets better? In which case am I supposed to tighten the mount to frame bolts periodically?
Thanks |
| Wanted: Neutral Safety switch -- last piece needed, 12/20/2000
1968 C-6 behind a 390 in a Torino with a floor console shifter.
Anyone know of a source? NOS? Brand new?
Thanks |
| Final warning: off-topic 'baiting' will not be tolerated. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/20/2000
n/m |
| FE Motor -- John Fischer, 12/19/2000
So what does FE stand for? Is it just a name? I just bought a 63 1/2 Galaxie with a 352 engine. It has the original motor (yes, I'm sure) with a two barrel. I'm thinking I have alot of options when it comes to different head, carb, and exhaust. What do you think?
Thanks! |
| | Ford Edsel -- Ed Foral, 12/19/2000
There are varied opinions and rumors spread by all sorts of folks, but the most sensible one which is backed by most reputable individuals such as Mr. F, is indeed Ford Edsel.
Ed |
| |  | RE: Ford Edsel -- John Fischer, 12/19/2000
I can buy that. Any other ideas?
|
| | | | RE:It has also been called..... -- Stanley Superior, 12/19/2000
.....Ford Engine,as there was also a "MEL" series in the same year (1958),that it was introduced. MEL stands for "Mercury,Edsel,Lincoln". They were both in their infancy around the same time,so Ford had to distinguish between the two with these names. "Ford Edsel" is the most popular,because thats what it was first installed into,along with the "MEL" for the first year. Its kind of like the 1970 model year,in which you could get a 351 in Windsor or Cleveland flavors! |
| | | | | RE:It has also been called..... -- 427galaxie, 12/20/2000
a MEL is a 430 isn't it Stanley? made from 58 to 60? Are those engines worth a fart or are they like the 725lb FE? |
| | | | | Re: femel. 8^). -- S7MS, 12/20/2000
FE- FORD Engine
Introduced in the 1958 model year as the 332-352 in the FORD lineup. Introduced as the 361 in the EDSEL based on the FORD platform.
Discontinued in the 1970 model year in passenger car and 1976 model year in the light truck lineup.
Engine displacements (production) were:
332-352-360-361-390-410(Mercury)-427-428
MEL- MERCURY/EDSEL/LINCOLN
Introduced in the 1958 model year as a 383 (Mercury)-410 (Edsel in the Mercury platform) 430 (Mercury Turnpike Cruiser and Lincoln series).
Discontinued in the 1959 model run in EDSEL/MERCURY as t hey went to FE power in the 1960 model run. The 430 continued in the LINCOLN line and was later increased to 462ci. Replaced in 1968 by the 429/460 385 series. |
| | | | | | RE: SAY WHAT????...sheesh...sob... -- S7MS, 12/20/2000
"FE- FORD Engine"
???????????????
FE stands for FORD EDSEL!!!
Getting hard to find good help...how embarrassing...sigh...
|
| | | | | | RE: Re: femel. 8^). -- Stanley Superior, 12/20/2000
Dont foget the Lincoln 368 motor was also of "MEL" family. |
| | | | | | | RE: The 368 Was... -- S7MS, 12/21/2000
...the Lincoln-Mercury version of the Y-Block. It was discontinued in the 1957 model run.
317/368 Linc/Merc. |
| | | | RE: Ford Edsel -- Jimbo, 12/26/2000
Yea, f**king equiped! |
| | It has also been called ... -- Will, 12/20/2000
It has also been called F***ing Expensive.
BTW, the FE weighs around 650 lbs. The MEL (430) is like the FE, only larger. It weighs around 740 lbs.
If you change the intake, you're down to around 570 lbs. That's about the same as a 351C. I'm basing these numbers on charts I've picked up off the web. I haven't weighed them myself, but I got similar numbers from multiple sources. |
| | | Thanks! -- John Fischer, 12/20/2000
I got a good laught on that one!!!
I own 4 Ford's now and I can relate to Fing expensive. '97 F250 4X4, '93 Aerostar AWD, '91 Ranger, and now '63 Galaxie. Ford parking only at my house.
They know me well at the parts store! |
| | Search the archived msgs. for "ford-edsel" [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/20/2000
n/m |
| | | Ferrari-Eater! (n/m) -- Rumour-spreader, 12/20/2000
n/m |
| | | | NOT a rumor!! -- DMA, 12/22/2000
Ford earned that title by whupping Ferrari 1-2-3 at Lemans in '66. With detuned engines no less!! Those were the days!!! |
| hhheeeeeellllllppppp!!! -- crazy dave, 12/19/2000
allright here we go im a junior in high school and have very little knowladge about fords. any way my shop class is doing an extreemly cheap resto on the instructors pick-up. its a 64 ford but we cant figure out what the engine displacment is. its not factory which is easy to tell by the jimmy rigged motor mounts. what i have figured out though is that its an "FE" style motor.
i cant find any of those magic #s behind the starter but on the drivers side just below the head on the block is the casting 56 352. also the intake #s are C9AE 9426-B. the timming chain cover reads C8AE 6059-B. and the exhast manifolds read C8AE 9430-A and 9431-B. any ones help would be greatly appreciated. |
| | Fe id -- Ed Foral, 12/19/2000
The block casting #'s on an FE are normally one the pass. side towards the front of the block, or pass. side center of the block very close to the head deck surface. A late 60's early 70's vintage like yours may have no casting number at all.
The casting date is on the drivers' side beneath where the oil filter housing bolts on the block and is viewed from the bottom in the format : 9A20......which would be Jan 20, 1969. (79, 89 or 99 would be appplicable to an engine having later casting numbers)
Your head casting numbers are between the center two exhaust ports on the heads.
Is this a 2V engine?
There may be a stamp on the block viewed from the back, below the head deck on the drivers' side.
Ed |
| | | Ed's right - ID# location varies by year [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/19/2000
n/m |
| | | RE: Fe id -- crazy dave, 12/20/2000
thank you ed,
you were correct. the motor has no casting numbers on it. the number you mentioned under the oil filter bracket is: E3 and directly below that HI. does anyone know what this means? and were still stuck on how to find the displacement of this motor anything will help at this point. Thank you much.
crazy dave |
| | | | RE: Fe id -- David D, 12/20/2000
Pull a head off, measure the bore diameter and measure the stroke length. Post the measurements and someone will be able to give engine displacement. |
| | | | | RE: Fe id -- crazy dave, 12/21/2000
thanks david d ill do that apreciate it
have a happy holiday season
dave
|
| Weak 428 cranks -- Stanley Superior, 12/19/2000
The 428 crank into a 427 block is a popular swap,but its also a big mistake. Why replace a forged steel crank with a cast iron unit? I know about the stroke increase,but for the little bit of cubic inches it gives,its not worth the trouble. If the 427 is supposedly bullitproof,then why weaken it? I say keep it all forged. It just may have a fighting chance against pesky Windsors and 460's (and of coarse Chevy's). |
| | cranky -- Alan, 12/19/2000
I believe the precious Windsors and 460s also contain cast cranks. Are they equally weak?!?!?! |
| | | RE: cranky -- Stanley Superior, 12/19/2000
Actually they are much stronger,their oiling holes arent as close to the surface edge of the journals as the FE cranks are. Also they are made out of an improved nodular iron,than the FE cranks were. Plus a better oiling system than the FE has,ensures the crank gets the oil first,not the rockers! |
| | | | Explain, please... -- galaxie427, 12/19/2000
Explain, exactly, how the 460 oiling system is superior to the FE. Then explain, exactly, the nodularity, hardness and exact chemical makeup of the various 428 FE cranks and how it differs to those in the 460 (never offered with a performance-oriented crank) and the 351W (never offered with a performance-oriented crank). Also, explain, exactly, the same details of the 460 and 351W cranks. Give references/proof. Thank you. |
| | | | | RE: Explain, please... -- Stanley Superior, 12/19/2000
Mr.Galaxie,with all your knowledge of Ford cars and parts,you dont know the differences? You want me to go thru all that trouble to enlighten you? What about others? |
| | | | | | I'm sorry. I must admit I am ignorant about FEs. -- Stanley Superior, 12/20/2000
I have been trolling this forum and others, using many different names. I have been using several ISPs to try to disguise my identity, while I insult and annoy normal people who want to discuss the engines of their choice. I really don't have a clue about engines in general, and FEs in particular. I am a hateful fool. I always get angry and beligerant this time of year. Please hate me, because I hate myself.
I am Stanley, Steve Wyatt, Melanie, 427galaxie. I am a troll. Hate me. Hate me. Hate me. |
| | | | | | | Abusive posts reported to ISP, 12/20. (TSTOnRamp) [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/20/2000
n/m |
| | | | | RE: Explain, please... -- 427galaxie, 12/20/2000
I'll tell you Mr. FE lover, the fact that Ford still makes the 460, and dropped the FE way back when ('76) because of oiling problems. A block doesn't have any other problems that causes it to be discarded. FE's are garbage unless you are trying to restore a T-Bird or Galaxie to original Specifications. To choose an FE to put in a car that did not come with one, would nothing short of totally stupid. That engine is pretty reliable, but nothing like a modern 460, not even close.
AND , Somebody keeps pretending to be me for whatever reason. Probably because I supoort Stanley on Network54. |
| | RE: Weak 428 cranks -- 427galaxie, 12/20/2000
If you think it has a chance against a Chevrolet 502 ramjet (roller engine) you are wrong. No ford will even come close. I am waiting for a Fuel injected Ford crate motor that will tow-up to the $8000 wonder. If anyone has seen one, please tell me. a 427 is nowhere near a 502 Chevy, not even close. Looks cool when in a cobra or something, but the cost is never justified, never. |
| | RE: Weak 428 cranks -- Will, 12/20/2000
How often do 428 cranks break? What about 390 cranks?
I agree that if I were building a max-effort race engine, I'd make sure I had a forged crank, but for everything else, I'll keep my 428CJ crank.
If I were unsure, I'd talk to some "pro-FE" shops. Gessford is one, Kuntz is another (although he specializes in max-effort racing), FPP is another. There are more, but these three are enough. |
| | RE: Weak 428 cranks -- Jim Raymond, 12/20/2000
I'm pretty sure every stock center oiler 427 came with a cast crank from the factory, mine was. Using a cast 428 crank in place of a cast 427, in this case, is a big advantage over buying a stock steel or after-market billet steel crank.
|
| | | RE: Weak 428 cranks -- Brian, 12/23/2000
Sounds to me like this guy gets his kicks trying to stir up Sh__.
I have run these cranks for many years including IU IUB IUA with very good results. Stanley why don't you blow your smoke
with your Chevy? And be happy dude
Brian |
| 428 CJ.....Trans Swap -- Tim Craig, 12/19/2000
Ok,Ihave a 69 Mach 1,428 CJ with C6...Was 4-speed..Thinking about buying a 1970 Torino Cobra,428 CJ with 4-speed..Want to swap trans in each car..Want my Mach back to a 4-speed !!..Put the C6 in the Torino and sell it..See any problems with this swap ??...My Mach still has the clutch pedal in it and thats about all..Will parts from the Torino work ? Also I know the 428 CJ is externally balanced by the flywheel..Will the Torino standard shift flywheel work or will it have to be balanced for the 428 in the Mustang??.....Rather have a 69 Mustang big input toploader and other things needed but can't afford it at this time..By doing the above,I figure I will come out ok if I can get the Torino at a good price.............Thanks !!!!!!!! |
| Difficult to diagnose on internet but.......... -- Mark, 12/18/2000
......I am having troubles with my 390 smoking (blue) and the lifters are tickin' now that the weather is getting cold. It doesn't always do this, just enough that I worry that I will bugger something up if I continue to drive it this way. The smoke will stop after about a minute of warm up but the lifters will continue to tick all the way to work-about a mile. My question is this. Do you guys think it is time for a complete going over. It has 110,000 miles on it. Or........is there anything else I might look for or is there something else I can do to minimize the problem till spring? Other than the intermittant smoke and tickin' it is a good strong engine! Before the weather started getting cold I was running a straight 50 weight oil and all was fine. It wasn't until changing over to 10w30 did the problems begin.
Thanks guys!!!!! |
| | RE: Difficult to diagnose on internet but.......... -- martin edridge, 12/18/2000
Before I even read down as far as your last sentence I was going to suggest you try changing the oil and filter. Since this problem only arose after you switched to a thinner grade oil, that looks like the problem, which I think you already knew! With 110,000 miles on it now, I think your engine is entitled to be a little rattly with thin oil in it! I don't know how cold it is there but if I was you I would go back to something thicker as your engine's clearances are talking to you and they don't sound too happy! HTH
Cheers, Martin. |
| | Martin's got it - raise the viscosity to at least 20W. [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/18/2000
n/m |
| | RE: Difficult to diagnose on internet but.......... -- RC Moser, 12/18/2000
IN addition to the above I'd do a compression check. If the bottom end is healthy say 130 or above you could do the top end. Most smoking on start up if compression is good and the PCV valve, vacuum hoses, and intake gaskets are in good shape is usually the valve guides/seals. The lifter chatter could be a gunk build-up in the lifters. With the miles you have on it I'd be more concerned with the oil pressure and the compression. These two indicated the how much wear you have between cylinder walls and mains. FE's ventilation system builds alot of moisture in cold climates, (means more oil changes and PCV valve maintenance). If you have weak compression rings the blow by effect makes it worse. I ran a dump truck years ago and I had to change the oil every three weeks due to the moisture deluting the oil. This was my bread and butter back the and I couldn't afford the down time or a rebuild. If the bottom end is healthy you should be able to fix the top end and lifter chatter. I agree a straight 20W would be better than a 10W blend Unless you are in far north were tempertures stay consistently below zero. In that case a block heater would be a good idea. |
| | | RE: Difficult to diagnose on internet but.......... -- Mark, 12/18/2000
Thanks y'all. I am here in the mountainous region of central AZ and I suppose I can get by with a thicker oil. Our lows rarely get below about 20 and the daytime highs are almost always above freezing!
What kind of compression numbers should I be looking at to determine if the bottom 1/2 needs rebuilding? |
| | | | RE: Need To Perform FULL Diagnosis -- S7MS, 12/18/2000
"What kind of compression numbers should I be looking at to determine if the bottom 1/2 needs rebuilding?"
A compression test will not direct you to a bearing(s) clearance problem or weak oil pump, only a oil pressure test with a PROFESSIONAL oil pressure gauge will direct you to that problem.
If she smokes blue immediately on fire-up and then subsides as the engine warms, it would indicate leaking valve stem seals (park plug deposit(s) inspection would lead you to either bad seals or oil control rings). Of course if you have been running a straight 50W motor oil up to this point, it pretty well indicates engine wear.
I would try a 20W-40 multigrade motor oil and then run an oil pressure test. |
| | | | RE: Difficult to diagnose on internet but.......... -- Craig M, 12/19/2000
S7MS, covered the oil pretty good, only guestion I have about the oil system is how much pressure does the engine produce at idle when cold and when hot, and at 1800 RPM and above? Usually if the oil pressure drops off considerable after warm up this usually means the mains are worn enough to bleed off the oil pressure some, but not always.
Compression varies. But the reading you get should be within 10 PSI or so within each other. Also, Alitude, Barometric Pressure, and compression ratio effect compression readings. So if you like 4000 foot above sea level the reading would be alittle lower and 500 foot above seal level, sea level also has an effect on Vacuum pressure as well, which is another reading that tells you how healthy your engine is ( vacuum usually runs 17" to 20" HG depending on the altitude, the higher the lower the reading. .
Usually if no valves are leaking compression on a strong 9.0 to 1 ratio engine should be somewhere around 150 to 165 PSI. with the engine warm when testing and close to sea level. The more miles sometimes the less compression you will have I'd Say anything below 110 is pretty weak. But, most say the cylinder will still fire find with pressure as low as 80 PSI.
If you have a really weak cylinder you can isolate the problem by removing the valve stem from you compression test gauge and with that cylinder at TDC you can screw in the compression test guage apply shop air pressue to say 80 psi. ( engine must be at TDC or that cylinder valves will be open causing a false reading) Now remove the air cleaner and listen at the carb. if you hear a hissing sound your intake valve is leaking. Listen at the tail pipe, if you hear a hissing sound the exhaust valve is leaking. now remove you oil filler cap and listen at the hole if you hear a large amount of air the compession rings are leaking. ( the rings will bleed some air by a small amount may be normal) ( a rubber hose or doctor stenscope will magify the sound better) ( also, if you hear a leak rotate the crank alittle each way to ensure the valve was closed, you will hear a large amount of air when the either valve opens up.) This is kind of long and maybe more information than you wanted, sorry . RC |
| | | | | RE:Solution=replace engine with 351 Windsor. -- Stanley Superior, 12/19/2000
Its surprising that the engine has lasted more than 65,000 miles! Most FE's dont make it that long before things start going south. With that many miles on it,you owe it to yourself to upgrade to a better,more modern engine. I suggest a Windsor! You'll be much happier with it,and it will go 220,000 miles or more if properly maintained. |
| | | | | | RE:Solution=replace engine with 351 Windsor. -- Melanie, 12/19/2000
[deleted by Mr F] |
| | | | | | | RE:Solution=replace engine with 351 Windsor. -- Stanley Superior, 12/19/2000
You must be mistaken,we're talking about a 60's Ford truck,not a 9 second racer! Reliability,not repairability is the key,here! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND UNDERSTANDING. |
| | | | | | | | RE:Solution=replace engine with 351 Windsor. -- 427galaxie, 12/19/2000
[deleted by Mr F] |
| | | | | | | | | Didn't ask for engine swap advise! Plz read on -- Mark, 12/20/2000
Lately this board is getting polluted with posts from those on a soapbox touting ONLY their beliefs or conjectures about the downfalls of FE engines. Most of us post here looking for answers on ways to keep our beloved FE's running in optimal form, NOT wanting to hear about the FE weaknesses or how simple it is to swap out our old beast for a more "modern" 351W or a big block 429/460.
You guys continue on with your fun! There are too many other boards where good, sound advice can be had without having to weed out the constant rantings of those that choose to lead an anonymous "life" hidden behind the monitor in a dark corner of your home! |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: Didn't ask for engine swap advise! Plz read on -- Ken, 02/17/2005
At least they didn't recommend a 454ci engine or a 350! Don't go away Mark! We need your support! Mr F. is trying to police out the rif raf. |
| | | | | | | | | | | Sure am - and thanks. But this was back in '00. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 02/18/2005
n/m |
| | | | | | | | | Final warning: personal attacks will *not* be tolerated [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/20/2000
n/m |
| | | | | | RE: 351 Windsor. -- John, 02/16/2005
Do you know the point gap setting for the 1976 351 Windsor? |
| | | | | | | RE: 351 Windsor. -- Barry B, 02/17/2005
shouldn't have points in '76, what's it in? |
| | | | | | | | RE: 351 Windsor. -- john brooks, 02/18/2005
OK, I'm jusy a tinkerer of cars but under the dis. cap are points and a condenser. The guy I borut the car from said the engine was 1976 windosr 351. Another year, possibly? So, when you say "what's in it" I have no idea what you mean.
JB |
| | | | | | | | | RE: 351 Windsor. -- Barry B, 02/18/2005
Sorry John, I meant what car is the motor in. Last year for a 351W with points was '74 but a lot of them got breakerless ignition that year. The point gap could be either .017" or .021" if it has a dual vacuum advance (two hoses going to the distributor.)
|
| | | | | | | | | | RE: 351 Windsor. -- John, 02/19/2005
Thanks, its one hose to the distributor, and I believe it would be .017". That sound familiar. THe engine is in a 1941 ford business coupe. the guy I pick it up from had it as a street rod. I've made it look original, except the engine.
Thanks for your help.
John |
| 1962 Starlifter information -- Joe, 12/18/2000
I know this isn't an "engine" question but people using this forum may have information on these cars. I need information on the 1962 Galaxie "Starlifter" as raced in the Atlanta 500 in 1962. Five cars were entered by Holman Moody. These were 1962 models with a 1961 Starliner roof welded in place. I need pictures, tech information, or whatever info that is available. I have been to Holman Moody in Charlotte and talked with Lee Holman and Howard DeHart. I am recreating a street legal clone of the car driven by Fred Lorenzen.
Thanks guys,
Joe Jordan |
| | RE: Cheating Regarding "Production Vehicles" -- S7MS, 12/18/2000
The vehicle you are referring to was a 1962 Galaxie convertible body fitted with an early Starliner roof assembly available only via "Special Order" in a kit form(roof assembly) through FORD'S Parts and Accessories Division. It was an answer to FORD'S RACING PROGRAM not doing so well as they didn't offer a "Fast Back" car to compete in then what was known as Grand National Racing (NASCAR).
A quarter glass was not released for this kit as it was intended for "Racing Only." NASCAR later outlawed the vehicle as it was not "production", much the same as they outlawed the 427 SOHC engine a few years later.
SUPER FORD did an article on this vehicle in the 1970's. I will try to find it and E-Mail it to you.
|
| | | RE: Reference Sources-"Starlift" -- S7MS, 12/20/2000
The "Starlift" was actually a BOLT-ON Starliner roof assembly on a 1962 Sunliner (convertible). It was meant to be taken on/off so that the convertible feature could still be used.
This concept was actually a ploy by FOMOCO to legalize a fastback for Grand National Racing. NO production vehicles were offered by FOMOCO. Three such vehicles were assembled by Holman-Moody for stock car racing. They competed in only one event-The Atlanta 500 (Spring 1962) and then were banned by NASCAR as it wasn't considered a production vehicle.
Reference materials;
Fearsome Fords 1959-1793
Author: Phill Hall
Motorbooks International
Super Ford Magazine
September 1981
The 1962 Galaxie "483" |
|