These are the old FoMoCo Obsolete Forums and are being hosted by JCOConsulting.com. While you're here, check out my articles or have a look around at some of the Ford Stuff we have for sale. You might find something you can't live without.

Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3393&Reply=3393><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Anyone know where I can get a new or rebuilt...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Eric, <i>11/27/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>harmonic balancer for a 68 390 out of a truck. Oh yea, affordable would be nice too<br><br>thanks<br><br> </blockquote> Anyone know where I can get a new or rebuilt... -- Eric, 11/27/2000
harmonic balancer for a 68 390 out of a truck. Oh yea, affordable would be nice too

thanks

Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3396&Reply=3393><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Anyone know where I can get a new or rebuilt...</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Richard Bouman, <i>11/27/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>Try Damper Dudes in Redding, California </blockquote> RE: Anyone know where I can get a new or rebuilt... -- Richard Bouman, 11/27/2000
Try Damper Dudes in Redding, California
 RE: Anyone know where I can get a new or rebuilt... -- scott, 11/28/2000
I had Damper Dudes rebuild my balancer and they did an excellent job. I Beleive it ran about 90.00 or so
 RE: Anyone know where I can get a new or rebuilt... -- geo, 11/29/2000
do you want new or used?
i have a 65 390 and was able to grab a harmonic balancer out of a 74,75,76(don't exactly recall) truck (must have been a 391) - perfect fit other than the timing marks being off. They ran the FE (or to be correct, the FT) in trucks up to 76. If you don't neccesarily want a new one, go to the wreckers.
geo
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3388&Reply=3388><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>mix and match</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>john d, <i>11/27/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>ok here goes. im recieving a 390 4v out of a 65 thunderbird. completely intacked. ive been told that i can put a 428 cj crank into it with no clearance problems and turn it into a 410. what compression would i be looking at with a set of edlbrock heads with a 68 cc compression chambers. also with this setup what cam should i look at. so how hairy is this thing going to be? any help or ideas would be greatly appreciated. <br><br>ps its going into a 67 cougar.  </blockquote> mix and match -- john d, 11/27/2000
ok here goes. im recieving a 390 4v out of a 65 thunderbird. completely intacked. ive been told that i can put a 428 cj crank into it with no clearance problems and turn it into a 410. what compression would i be looking at with a set of edlbrock heads with a 68 cc compression chambers. also with this setup what cam should i look at. so how hairy is this thing going to be? any help or ideas would be greatly appreciated.

ps its going into a 67 cougar.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3389&Reply=3388><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: mix and match</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>dj, <i>11/27/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>The 410 was available in '66 & '67. The factory compression ratio was10.5:1 with 71.2-74.2cc combustion chambers. So with 68cc heads you will of course be making more compression. The factory rated them at 330HP@ 4600 and 444ft/lb@ 2800. My favorite cam is the stock Cobra Jet camshaft. It's fairly mild, doesn't lope, but will scream when you hit the throttle. By the way, don't believe what the factory says about horsepower. </blockquote> RE: mix and match -- dj, 11/27/2000
The 410 was available in '66 & '67. The factory compression ratio was10.5:1 with 71.2-74.2cc combustion chambers. So with 68cc heads you will of course be making more compression. The factory rated them at 330HP@ 4600 and 444ft/lb@ 2800. My favorite cam is the stock Cobra Jet camshaft. It's fairly mild, doesn't lope, but will scream when you hit the throttle. By the way, don't believe what the factory says about horsepower.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3391&Reply=3388><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: mix and match</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>ANT, <i>11/27/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>remember, you have to have different pistons for a 428 crank.<br>Since you have to get new pistons,  you should get the block bored .08" over to a 4.13 bore and you will have 428 cubic inches. You have to get the block sonic tested first before boring it this much. </blockquote> RE: mix and match -- ANT, 11/27/2000
remember, you have to have different pistons for a 428 crank.
Since you have to get new pistons, you should get the block bored .08" over to a 4.13 bore and you will have 428 cubic inches. You have to get the block sonic tested first before boring it this much.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3398&Reply=3388><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: mix and match</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>John, <i>11/27/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>410...great engine....lots of torgue...good for the street...FPP makes pistons for 9.5 CR...right where you want it...I think it's based on 72cc chambers...BUT...good luck getting them, or any 410 piston that's based on the 390 bore and the 428 stroke.  Don't bore a 390 block as a 428...I am meaning to check into this more, but I have never got the cylinder wall thickness claimed by others when they do this...and I'm not talking about offset boring to compensate for 1 thin side...just 0.090 seems to ring a bell as typical, and 0.125 should be the minimum that isn't even the thickness for the original factory bore.  Except for locating pistons, this block makes sense...428 crank(a little hard to find) and a 390 block(easy to find)...excellent street torque...damned fine motor I think </blockquote> RE: mix and match -- John, 11/27/2000
410...great engine....lots of torgue...good for the street...FPP makes pistons for 9.5 CR...right where you want it...I think it's based on 72cc chambers...BUT...good luck getting them, or any 410 piston that's based on the 390 bore and the 428 stroke. Don't bore a 390 block as a 428...I am meaning to check into this more, but I have never got the cylinder wall thickness claimed by others when they do this...and I'm not talking about offset boring to compensate for 1 thin side...just 0.090 seems to ring a bell as typical, and 0.125 should be the minimum that isn't even the thickness for the original factory bore. Except for locating pistons, this block makes sense...428 crank(a little hard to find) and a 390 block(easy to find)...excellent street torque...damned fine motor I think
 RE: mix and match -- dj, 11/28/2000
The NAPA engine parts catalog shows stock pistons for a 410. Part # 224-1831. Call your local NAPA and ask about a price...............DJ
 RE: mix and match -- Will, 11/28/2000
Ed heads are more like 74-77 cc. I think they claim 72-77, but someone recently cc'd them and they came out to around 77.
 WANTED: FE bell housing bolt pattern -- WLT, 11/26/2000
Looking for an accurate dimensional layout of the bell housing bolt pattern in relation to the crank centerline for the FE. I have the same for the six-bolt SBF for trade.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3378&Reply=3378><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>SIDEWINDER intake?????</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mark beaver, <i>11/25/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have a FE alum. intake cast.#C7AE9425-F can anyone tell me what this intake came off of an the value????  i have pics to send if you want to see.... thanks. mark   11-25-2000 </blockquote> SIDEWINDER intake????? -- mark beaver, 11/25/2000
I have a FE alum. intake cast.#C7AE9425-F can anyone tell me what this intake came off of an the value???? i have pics to send if you want to see.... thanks. mark 11-25-2000
 RE: SIDEWINDER intake????? -- Stryder, 11/25/2000
Yep, its a sidewinder. Its probably off a 427, but some PIs had them as well. Value? That depends on condition. If its it perfect shape, it ususally brings between $400-500.

Stryder
 RE: SIDEWINDER intake????? -- Brian, 11/25/2000
Hi Mark your intake is a 428 PI (Police Interceptor) not a sidewinder
value depends on condition if perfect uncut no welds or repairs average price is $400 to $450
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3381&Reply=3378><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>PI Intake</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Ed Foral, <i>11/25/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>Mark<br>Your intake should have the carb mounting in the conventional center location.<br>A Sidewinder has the carb mounting offset to one side.  The difference is very obvious when you see it.<br><br>Ed </blockquote> PI Intake -- Ed Foral, 11/25/2000
Mark
Your intake should have the carb mounting in the conventional center location.
A Sidewinder has the carb mounting offset to one side. The difference is very obvious when you see it.

Ed
 RE: PI Intake -- mark beaver, 11/26/2000
thanks guys the carb. mount in the middle so it must be PI intake. i was told along time ago it came off a 67 mer. police car out of okc but i wasnt sure thanks again.....an yes it is in prefect cond.
 Beware of thiefs -- jgb, 11/23/2000
beware of Greg Thomas posting ads on the net using the name
Prairie Pony Parts
1439 Connaught st
Regina Saskatghewan Canada
S4t4t1
I've been trying to get my parts or money back since August.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3360&Reply=3360><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Need engine Help</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>alan zinniker, <i>11/20/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>I have a 289 Automatic transmision 1968 ford mustang and want a bigger engine in it. Which Kind of an engine is available<br> </blockquote> Need engine Help -- alan zinniker, 11/20/2000
I have a 289 Automatic transmision 1968 ford mustang and want a bigger engine in it. Which Kind of an engine is available
 RE: Need engine Help -- Faron Rhoads, 11/21/2000
Well since this is a FE Fourm and I have a 68 Mustang, My advice is a 390 , as FEs go its the best bang for the buck. You can build it with stock parts or go Wild, its up to your wallet, Me I like Em 671-BLOWN
 351W is probably the easiest/best HP option [n/m] -- Mr Fomoco, 11/21/2000
n/m
 351w -- Ed Foral, 11/22/2000
With the low price of stroker kits, and the huge selection of heads, you can build a 351 and make gobs of power with alot less weight and for less money than a big block, with big block cubes if you want. MM&FF magazine made 537HP @ 5900RPM by taking a FRPP crate 392 short block and adding a set of good heads.
You can take the extra money you would spend on the conversion to a big block and stick it into the engine itself.
Only if weight and money are not an issue should you look at the big block option.
I don't think that you can beat the looks and uniqueness of an FE.
460 based engines will make more power for less money than an FE, but they are heavier yet.


Ed
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3358&Reply=3358><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Heat riser</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>T1M, <i>11/20/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>Well, not actually the heat riser. My question has to do with the part the runs the warm air around the exhaust manifold to the heat riser. I took it off and forgot to put it back on when I replaced the head gaskets two years ago. It takes noticeably longer for the engine to warm up now. Can I simply remove the three or so bolts that hold this part on and re torque them or do I have to take off all the bolts and put them back in in the tigtening sequence? <br> I used exhaust manifold gaskets btw. I have a 68' Galaxie with a 390 2-V.<br>  Thanks </blockquote> Heat riser -- T1M, 11/20/2000
Well, not actually the heat riser. My question has to do with the part the runs the warm air around the exhaust manifold to the heat riser. I took it off and forgot to put it back on when I replaced the head gaskets two years ago. It takes noticeably longer for the engine to warm up now. Can I simply remove the three or so bolts that hold this part on and re torque them or do I have to take off all the bolts and put them back in in the tigtening sequence?
I used exhaust manifold gaskets btw. I have a 68' Galaxie with a 390 2-V.
Thanks
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3359&Reply=3358><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Heat riser</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>RC Moser, <i>11/20/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>MY opinion you should be able to remove the bolts and reinstall the heat collector and connect the metal tube to the thermostatic housing and retorque all the bolts. The reason you engine stays on fast idle longer is their is not enough hot air generated by the exhaust manifolds to heat the bi-metal coil spring in the choke themostatic housing. Their should be a metal tube running up to the thermostatic housing from the exhaust manifold, inconjunction with vacuum pressure these two control amount of time the engine is on fast idle. Also, the bi-metal coil spring move the fast idle linkage about 1/4 of a inch to kick the engine off fast idle. So, it is very important that all the setting are set correct for winter or summer settings. In your case the engine generated from under the hood will finally heat the bi-metal coil spring enough to allow the it to be kicked off fast idle. Only problem is when it is colder the longer this will take and your engine will be running rich due to the choke restricting the amount of air entering the engine. Hope this helps or maybe you will get a different view. RC </blockquote> RE: Heat riser -- RC Moser, 11/20/2000
MY opinion you should be able to remove the bolts and reinstall the heat collector and connect the metal tube to the thermostatic housing and retorque all the bolts. The reason you engine stays on fast idle longer is their is not enough hot air generated by the exhaust manifolds to heat the bi-metal coil spring in the choke themostatic housing. Their should be a metal tube running up to the thermostatic housing from the exhaust manifold, inconjunction with vacuum pressure these two control amount of time the engine is on fast idle. Also, the bi-metal coil spring move the fast idle linkage about 1/4 of a inch to kick the engine off fast idle. So, it is very important that all the setting are set correct for winter or summer settings. In your case the engine generated from under the hood will finally heat the bi-metal coil spring enough to allow the it to be kicked off fast idle. Only problem is when it is colder the longer this will take and your engine will be running rich due to the choke restricting the amount of air entering the engine. Hope this helps or maybe you will get a different view. RC
 Thanks, very helpful -- T1M, 11/20/2000
That might explain why the engine was dying before. The engine was chugging badly, not matter how I set the points it would chug like a steam boat and had no power and died constantly. That was awhile ago. I've had the car in a garage since and have taken off the intake, had it cleaned and repainted and the carbuerator rebuilt (by myself with a kit) and I'm doing a bunch of other stuff as well. So even if I dont' need to do all this and the heatriser was causing it all I'm still getting stuff done that needs to be done. It's all a learning experience.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3350&Reply=3350><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Actual 428 SCJ Horsepower</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Brian T, <i>11/19/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>Since they rate 428's at 335 hp for insurance rate purposes, what is a reasonable actual horsepower rating for my car? It is a factory SCJ with cast iron exhaust manifolds and a "C7" prefix aluminum intake with factory 735 Holley. It also has a Mallory Electronic Ignition, other than that it is basically stock. </blockquote> Actual 428 SCJ Horsepower -- Brian T, 11/19/2000
Since they rate 428's at 335 hp for insurance rate purposes, what is a reasonable actual horsepower rating for my car? It is a factory SCJ with cast iron exhaust manifolds and a "C7" prefix aluminum intake with factory 735 Holley. It also has a Mallory Electronic Ignition, other than that it is basically stock.
 RE: Actual 428 SCJ Horsepower -- Brian, 11/19/2000
NHRA refactored the HP on these engines at 400 which is close
 RE: Actual 428 SCJ Horsepower -- Greg B, 11/19/2000
A look at the NHRA web site shows the Factored HP at 375 for the 428scj
http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/classification/classfiles/1969FORD.xls
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3390&Reply=3350><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: Actual 428 SCJ Horsepower</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>dj, <i>11/27/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>Ford under rated the 428CJ by 100 horsepower. They rated the torque correctly however at 440/3400. </blockquote> RE: Actual 428 SCJ Horsepower -- dj, 11/27/2000
Ford under rated the 428CJ by 100 horsepower. They rated the torque correctly however at 440/3400.
  428 SCJ Horsepower -- Greg B, 11/28/2000
Ok I'll bite on this one.
DJ where can we find the info that will support the claim of 435hp for the 428cj's
Back when the CJ's were new the NHRA was factoring them at 360hp later revising it to 375hp.If the true output was 435 you can bet the Chevy boys would be crying loud and long for the Factor number to be raised
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3418&Reply=3350><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>Ford admits specs were finagled by using dyno's "B"-curve. [n/m]</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>11/28/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote> Ford admits specs were finagled by using dyno's "B"-curve. [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/28/2000
n/m
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3419&Reply=3350><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>I'm not letting you off the hook so easy, Mr.F</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>11/28/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>You've got some juicy info that I wanna hear, and what the heck is a "B" curve anyway (I suspect it's an alternate to the "A" curve)?<br><br>Shoe. </blockquote> I'm not letting you off the hook so easy, Mr.F -- Dave Shoe, 11/28/2000
You've got some juicy info that I wanna hear, and what the heck is a "B" curve anyway (I suspect it's an alternate to the "A" curve)?

Shoe.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3436&Reply=3350><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: I'm not letting you off the hook so easy, Mr.F</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>11/30/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote><table width="75%" align=center cellpadding=1 cellspacing=1 border=0><tr><td>
<FONT face=arial><FONT size=2><i>You've got some juicy info that I wanna hear</i></FONT>
<p align=justify><FONT size=2>
Well, its not all <i>that</i> juicy, Dave. However well-documented, anything I get is usually third-hand....its not as though I was there in '68, you know. :-) </FONT>
<p align=justify><FONT size=2>
All I know is that a former company engineer has gone on record to say that they (whoever <U>that</U> was) selected the lower of several figures produced by dynamometer tests. Further admissions: <i>(a)</i> This practice was not SOP, at the time, plus <i>(b)</i> It was done with the <i>specific intent of understating horsepower</i>.</FONT>
<p><FONT size=2>
<i>and what the heck is a "B" curve anyway (I suspect it's an alternate to the "A" curve)?</i></FONT>
<p align=justify><FONT size=2>
Exactly. I'm told  that typical Ford dyno results of the period included (at least) three output curves, namely the <i>A-</i>, <i>B-</i> and <i>C-</i>curves. These were derived from - duh! - three different methodologies, each accepted by SAE for stated ratings tho' producing dissimilar <A href="../index.asp?Dept=4&amp;Tool=0&amp;Eng=0#bhp" >Bhp figures</A>.</FONT>
<p align=justify><FONT size=2>
Off-hand, I forget which is which. But, for example, one curve might include the drag from bolt-on accessories, while another did not. And, while everyone involved knew that the <i>B-</i>curve result was always numerically lower than <i>A-</i>curve results, both were equally legitimate. That's how Ford got away with their creative accounting.</FONT>
<p><FONT size=2>
Hope that explains it.
<br><br>
<font color="#b40000"><b>Mr F</b></font></font></p></td></tr>
</table></blockquote> RE: I'm not letting you off the hook so easy, Mr.F -- Mr F, 11/30/2000
You've got some juicy info that I wanna hear

Well, its not all that juicy, Dave. However well-documented, anything I get is usually third-hand....its not as though I was there in '68, you know. :-)

All I know is that a former company engineer has gone on record to say that they (whoever that was) selected the lower of several figures produced by dynamometer tests. Further admissions: (a) This practice was not SOP, at the time, plus (b) It was done with the specific intent of understating horsepower.

and what the heck is a "B" curve anyway (I suspect it's an alternate to the "A" curve)?

Exactly. I'm told that typical Ford dyno results of the period included (at least) three output curves, namely the A-, B- and C-curves. These were derived from - duh! - three different methodologies, each accepted by SAE for stated ratings tho' producing dissimilar Bhp figures.

Off-hand, I forget which is which. But, for example, one curve might include the drag from bolt-on accessories, while another did not. And, while everyone involved knew that the B-curve result was always numerically lower than A-curve results, both were equally legitimate. That's how Ford got away with their creative accounting.

Hope that explains it.

Mr F

Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=3437&Reply=3350><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<b>RE: I'm not letting you off the hook so easy, Mr.F</b>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>11/30/2000</i></font><br /><blockquote>Mr. F,<br><br>As you probably recognize, third hand info is far more legitimate than some of the concoctions I come up with.<br><br>Thanks for the info.<br><br>Shoe.<br><br> </blockquote> RE: I'm not letting you off the hook so easy, Mr.F -- Dave Shoe, 11/30/2000
Mr. F,

As you probably recognize, third hand info is far more legitimate than some of the concoctions I come up with.

Thanks for the info.

Shoe.

 Sure, but you're darn good at collating disparate input. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 12/01/2000
n/m
 CobraJet Tech and Parts Pages -- John, 11/18/2000
Another good page (but not as good as this one, as it appears to be less read) is:
www.p-c-net.net/~fordman/Tech-page/Tech-page.html

There is also a related "for sale" page at:

www.p-c-net.net/~fordman/wwwboard/wwwboard.html

Hope this may be of help.
 New ford carburator forum!!! -- Ed Jenkins, 11/18/2000
FORD carb FORUM open to any carburated FORD engine and its carb.
by Ed Jenkins
http://network54.com/Forum/88781

check it out, Right now I need answer guys, those with losts of carburator exprience. I know about Autolite 4100's but not much else.

Go to the top of this page
Go back one page Back    Next Go forward one page

441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460