Skip Navigation Links.
 |  cam specs -- mike.s, 11/18/2000
Could anyone tell me the factory cam specs for a 69 428cj.Intake,exhaust,duration.Thanks mike |
|  | RE: cam specs -- Greg B, 11/18/2000
428CJ cam C6OZ-6250-B
Duration 270int 290ex
Lift@valve 481int 490ex
Lift@lobe 278int 283ex
|
 | Need FE help quick!!! -- Morgan, 11/17/2000
In the process of switching the intake/carb on my 67 Shelby, I pulled appart in June and i am know just getting back to finishing it. My questions are:
Is there a torque spec for the rocker assembly bolts that screw into the heads?
There washer that go under the rocker assembly right? Are do the washers go under the oil return pans that sit under the rocker assembly?
What color should the stearing box be?
Is it raw metal or cast color or black? |
| | RE: Need FE help quick!!! -- Will, 11/17/2000
The rocker shaft bolts should be 40-45 ft-lbs.
The long one (necked down) goes in the stand that has the oiling hole. That should be #3 and #6 cylinders.
The oil return pan goes on first, then the rocker shafts (with stands). The washer's go right under the heads of the bolts.
Make sure you have the shaft right side up. The oil holes should be on the bottom.
I think the steering box was unpainted, so it should be painted with cast-blast to prevent it from rusting. I think that looks a lot nicer than painting with clear. The tags, etc on the steering box are not cast, though. I'm not sure how you can restore them. Since you've got a real Shelby, I'd call one of the better Mustang/Shelby parts houses and ask them. Personally, I'd call Branda. |
| | | RE: Thanks Will, further clarification -- Morgan, 11/18/2000
The washers which I am referring to are large flat and say "This side up on one side". I think they go between the rocker stands and the trip pan. I just wanted to be certain. I was not talking about the bolt washers.
Thanks for the info on the other items. |
|  | Never seen this before -- Alan, 11/18/2000
I have been messing with FE motors a long time and I have never encountered the washers you are talking about. I am by no means the absolute authority on FEs so I am interested in what others have to say on this. |
| | | RE: Never seen this before -- Brian, 11/18/2000
Morgan you need to buy a book like how to rebuild your big block ford But to answer your question the (this side up)shims your refering to are valve spring shims and have nothing to do with the rocker asembly of your engine |
| | | | RE: Never seen this before -- KarlJay, 11/19/2000
Brians right, these sound like valve spring shims. However some people have used shims to alter the valve train setup. Standard FE's do NOT have any shims / washers under the rocker arm stands. |
| | | | | RE: Never seen this before -- Brian, 11/19/2000
Yea I've heard of that but I don't think
anyone would stamp (this side up)on them shims I mean doing this shimming the rockers up messes up the valve train geometry |
| | | | | | cheap tricks -- CWagner, 11/19/2000
On FE's when you surface the heads a lot of engine rebuilders will put valve spring shims under the rocker stands to gain extra clearance instead of using shorter push rods. You can gain the clearance you need by using different thickness shims and 8 shims are a lot cheaper than 16 push rods. |
| | | | | | | RE: cheap tricks -- Brian, 11/19/2000
Thats true shims are cheaper than pushrods but with hyd. lifters you would have to surface the heads 3/8 of an inch which as you know would junk them
the lifter has more than ample travel for surfacing the heads without SHIMS
the pushros can run anywhere in the travel of the lifter piston as long as it dosen't bottm out which will shut off your oil hope you can understand what I'm saying? |
| | | | | | | | RE: cheap tricks -- CWagner, 11/20/2000
I'm not looking for a fight, just trying to explain one possible reason for valve shims being under the rocker stands. Remember hydralic lifters have a large tolerance to compensate for production variations.Ford spec. calls for .100 to .200 clearance at the valve tip which back thru a 1.73 rocker translates to a minimum of .057 of collapse left in the lifter, much less than the .375 you feel it would take. It use to be a common practice to mill smog heads .060 to raise compression, which considering production tolerances would collapse the lifter and hold the valve open. It was used on 6 cylinder engines quite often also. So no, I don't understand what you are saying. From personal experience, not guessing, I know that it does not take a large cut on a FE head to collapse the lifters. And if you are not making much money on a rebuild you find every way possible to cut costs. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: cheap tricks -- Brian, 11/20/2000
Well CWagner I can tell you I'm not looking for a pissing contest either and if you want the last word your next post will be it cause I won't respond to this any more but I'd like to add were probably way off where this started cause I answered what type shims these were but with all
your experience om these FE engines just try this the next time your building one with your hyd.lifters (empty) install 2 or all if you prefer in there bores with the heads on the engine with or with out head gaskets bolts installed in head to hold to the block firmly no need to torque now install 2 or all if you prefer pushrods and lastly the rockers with or with out the drip rails now find 1 2 or as many as you would like that are on the base circle of the cam this is getting long and I type slow so I wom't go through how to find the base circle you already know that but the ones that are on the base circle take a feelers guage and insert between the rocker and the valve tip keep adding blades from the gauge until it bottoms the lifter add all the blades you have installed and NOW you see what I have said the first time alright then |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: Well this should clear it up I hope! -- Morgan, 11/21/2000
I just completed the intake and carb swap last night on the Shelby.
I am with Brian on this one, so to speak. I am mechanically inclined and have worked on many cars in the last 25 years, although this is my first FE. This was the first time that I saw this, which the reason for my original post. The yahoo that worked on this motor (long before I purchased it) put the shims in under the rocker and above the drip pan. The guy I purchased the car from swears that the engine was never rebuilt, Of course when it came to cars he knew very little. Now I am concerned that it may have been rebuilt in the past and down the road I may have to resleave the block because it had already been bored out.
When I assembled the motor, I did so without adding those stupid shims. My buddy Mark, who owns Capps Mustang's helped me get it dialed in last night and it runs better than it ever has in the past. The factory dual carbs may be sitting on the shelf for a long time. |
| | | | | | | | | | | RE: Well this should clear it up I hope! -- Will, 11/22/2000
I'm glad you got it together. If you need a place to hang those 2x4's, I've got just the place. :-)
My only complaint with the 2x4's is the back carb starts opening too soon. I'm going to make a new linkage that allows the front carb to open almost all the way before the back carb starts. If it works, I'll post a picture or something.
Unless you're at the strip, I think you'll have a hard time beating a single 4. Some would say, you can't even beat them at the strip. They sure are a lot easier to dial in than dual 4's. I prefer the dual 4's for the visual. It's fun poppin' the hood and watchin' eyes pop.
later,
wk. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Yeah, Thanks and hear is more -- Morgan, 11/22/2000
It certainly feels good to have it back together and running great.
The intake is a Holley Street Dominator which was given to me by my buddy Mark. Its a single plane and certainly does not have the bottom end that a dual plane intake has, so I am on the hunt for a dual plane aluminum intake, anybody out there have one?
Another change was adding pertronix in place of the dual point set-up along with a pertronix coil. It starts so much easier than in the past.
I recommend this change to everyone who is still running points
|
| | | | | | | | | | RE: cheap tricks -- Jamie, 11/22/2000
Hey Brian - how about putting some periods in your next post to break up the sentences? Man, I started reading and almost ran out of air before I got to the end!!
And I'm glad you guys used some restraint. There is no sense arguing over a difference of opinion, right? lets all remember why we're here - we love FEs !!
-J
|
| This is my LAST POST -- RH, 11/16/2000
I have asked Mr F very nicely many times to answer a question regarding location of a power brake booster hose, I felt he had the info to give & would not even take the time to answer when, IF he could. He even went as far as said to remind him in a few days. Times UP. So for this reason I will no longer answer any questions here or by email. See you all around randy h |
| 427,428,429 Trivia Question -- RH, 11/16/2000
What is the correct cubic inches of the 427,428,429 engines? (ACTUAL)
.
Everyone will love the answers! rh |
| | RE: 427,428,429 Trivia Question -- Will, 11/16/2000
There was a long thread on this on one of the other forums.
You can't simply do the math, because the 427's had different bores depending on the quality of the casting (that's what the thread said, anyway) Also, the older engines used 3 significant digits instead of two, so instead of the bore being 4.23, it may be 4.235 or 4.237, etc.
If you use 4.230 * 3.784, you get 425.4, but if you use 4.239 * 3.784, you get 427.22. I don't know how large they would bore/hone the 427, so maybe they chose 4.235 * 3.784 when they decided to call it a 427. That would give us, 426.41. Oh yeah, another bit of trivia is that the common engineering practice was to round up when sizing engines, so 426.41 becomes 427, not 426.
If you use 4.13 * 3.984, the 428 comes out to 427.07, but again, rounding up, you get 428.
The 429 is a little different, because it only uses 2 significant digits on the bore & stroke, so it should be 4.36 x 3.59 or 428.79. Rounded up it's 429.
I doubt the 427 was called the 427 so it wouldnt' be the same as the 426 Chrysler. When did Chrysler come out with the 426 wedge anyway. Didn't the 427 Ford come out first?
I make no claims that I'm right on any of this ('cept the math). I'm simply repeating what the other thread said. |
| | | RE: 427,428,429 Trivia Question -- RH, 11/16/2000
Chrysler came out with the 413 Wedge in 62 they had 3 diff 413's a single 4 @ 365 hp, 2x4 @ 385hp, 2x4 Ram @ 410.Then the 426 wedge came out in 63 (I think) I know in 64 they had the 413 & 426 wedge engines the 64 426 wedges had either a 11:1 or a 13.5 comp engine designated the TMP HC for high comp the dropped it slightly in 65 to 11.1 & 12.5 To 1. 66 they came out with the 440 & in 67 the 426 Hemi. A question What did you use for pi as that also makes a diff if you carry other numbers out all the way you need to carry pi also rh
|
| | | | RE: 427,428,429 Trivia Question -- ...., 11/16/2000
Funny, this question came up. I currently work at Chrysler, and am currently involved in naming a new engine. We do discuss other engine designations as well as other manufacturers. I can't really discuss the details beyond that though. |
| | | | | RE: 427,428,429 Trivia Question -- Hot Rod Lorenzen, 11/17/2000
Answer me this, why does the new Chrysler Hemi that is coming out, with blatent "HEMI" casted into the valvecovers have actually twisted wedge heads and prechambers? This is not a hemi design, it is a cheap stab at copying Yates technology (just like SB2 Chevy heads) which is basically all trying to be Clevelands. If you are naming this Hemi, call it a Chryland. Boss 429 a semi-hemi? yeah, right. Hot Rod Lorenzen |
| | | | | | Chrysler has been living on Hemi coat-tails...... -- P, 11/17/2000
.....for a long time. The engine wasn't even produced in large enough numbers for much of the general public to even get one. By comaprison, the 427 FE was "plentiful" and you could actually buy a car that had one in it.
Question:
Do you know how to pronounce Daimler-Chrysler?
Answer:
Chrysler is silent. |
| | | | RE: 427,428,429 Trivia Question -- Will, 11/17/2000
I think I was using 3.14159. I know I should have stopped at 3.141 (or maybe 3.142 to round pi correctly). I don't think it matters though. Yeah, it'll make a difference at 2 or 3 decimal places, but I don't think it'll change the final numbers.
I remember doing this calc when I was in high school and I think I came up with 425.6 for the 427. I think I only had 2 decimal places for the stroke, though. I always figured they called it the 427 'cause it sounded cool.
Who cares about 1.5 cubic inches anyway. I guess that's why they call it trivia. :-) |
| | | |  | RE: 427,428,429 Trivia Question -- Hot Rod Lorenzen, 11/17/2000
Who cares? they are all seven liters of fun, spanning 50-or-so years with two engine families. Not much variety in the seven-litre range for GM and Mopar, you only got to choose one engine family. Hot Rod Lorenzen |
| | | | | A Ford 427 is 426 CID plus change -- Dave Shoe, 11/17/2000
The base 427 bore was 4.2330+-.0002 (grade 1 bore diameter) with 3.784 stroke. This gives it a 426.017" displacement. A grade 2 bore is .0004" larger. Grade 3 another .0004" larger and these first three all used one piston grade ('color code red' piston). The next three bore grades, 4, 5, 6, used the 'color code blue' piston. There were two more grades, called A and B, which were got a third sized piston known as the '.003" oversize' piston. It wasn't exactly .003" over, but more accurately .0024" over the base piston. A 427 with all grade "B" cylinders (4.2358+-.0002") had a displacement of 426.581 CID.
Note that in 1966 the piston diameter spec for the 427 was 4.2287+-.0003" (red), 4.2299+-.0003" (blue), and 4.2311+-.0003" (.003" oversize). I believe the piston diameter spec would have sometimes changed depending on year or application, but the cylinder diameter spec would have always been the same.
Note that there were probably no blocks which had only grade 1 or only grade B cylinder bores. It's tough to keep all bores identical on a production line because the cutting stones wear so rapidly (pistons are made with hard tooling, and are probably much easier to control the size of) and all 8 bores are cut with 8 different cutting tools. Each cylinder was typically different from the neighboring cylinder. The large characters painted in the galley of the new blocks indicated the cylinder bore grade, and thus told the production line assemblers which piston to put into the bore.
Ford engineers, no doubt, picked the bore and stroke so that it would be as close to 7.0 liters (427.166 CID) as possible without being so close that some engines would end up being over the class limit due to machining tolerances.
The 428FE was 4.1302 X 3.984 (grade 1 cylinder) which is 427.013 CID, keeping it legal for 7-liter racing. A Grade B cylindered 428 weighed in at 427.592 CID, so I don't quite understand how this motor squeaked in under the limit. Additionally, a 428 bore is spec'd at 68 degrees F, so even a grade 1 cylindered block block would teeter right over the 7-liter wall due to thermal expansion when outdoor temperature reached 96 degrees. Does this mean the 428 was not allowed to race on hot days???
I also don't know why the 427 had a slightly longer stroke than the 390 (at 3.781"), but this is a fairly consistent spec in the manuals I've run across.
Final note: I generally round pi to eight decimal places in my calculations.
As usual, my facts are mixed with rumor,
Shoe.
|
| | or 426 "ChryBenz" (n/m) -- Orin, 11/17/2000
nm |
| 1965 Galaxie 500 -- Pig Iron, 11/15/2000
I'm looking for some input on my 1965 Galaxie 500 2 door fastback. This car was ordered in a nearby town by the fire dept for the fire chief. The car arrived with the ragoon red paint and 390 4V and bench seat they had ordered but they refused the car because it also had a toploader 4speed instead of a C-6. So the car was sold to a local couple and driven until 1986 when it was parked. The car was never undercoated or in a wreak and is rust free. I'm a Ford nut and have all the catalogs but I'm finding 1965 seems to be a forgotten and ignored year. What gives? This was an awesome year for NASCAR and to a lesser extent NHRA. Should I modify this car or repaint and upholster it and keep it stock? |
| | RE: 1965 Galaxie 500 -- Buddy, 11/15/2000
If you've got a car that you know the complete history of and is in such great origional condition I'd keep it stock. You really lucked out to get ahold of a stock toploader. The 65's are awesome. I'm fumbling around with a NASCAR replica of a 65 and use a 67 fastback as my daily driver. You are right about Galaxies being somewhat overlooked but not totally. Sixty five was great because it saw a redesign of the total car and a frame change that would last until the downsizing of 79 so parts are easy to get. The design of the 65 Galaxie was so innovative that NASCARS changed to incorporate its suspension and still use it today. The change in 65 also lightened the car considerably.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Buddy |
| | | RE: 1965 Galaxie 500 -- Pig Iron, 11/15/2000
Thanks for the input Buddy. A few things I also need to know, dash pad is rotted away, what's a good fix? This 390 does not have a pcv but has a road draft tube. I thought all 1965 cars had pcv systems. Did the 390 use a 11" or 11 1/2" clutch? And did Ford lose all the records for 65, I would think not many would be equipted like this one. No power anything not even brakes. |
| | | | RE: 1965 Galaxie 500 -- eddie, 11/21/2000
My 67 only has power steering but not brakes, or lock, or anything else. I think that the draft tube is correct. I've some with that and some with pcv. I think the recordd only go back to 67. I don't know about the clutch.
Hope this helps
Buddy |
| | | | RE: 1965 Galaxie 500 -- Bill, 11/26/2000
Some 1965's had draft tubes some pcv's I have a NOS dash pad that I might sell along with a used instrument panel pad. The color is blue-green. There is a company in Washington state that rebuilds these. I will look for the name of this company for you, |
| | | | | I have a 66 Galaxie Convertible with......... -- Ed Jenkins, 11/27/2000
Power sterring, auto trans (cruise-o-matic FX ), manual brakes, with a 352 V8, and the car was originaly painted Dark Metalic Green with a black interior. I think that this a a fairly rare setup. Many 65 and 66 Galaxie parts are the same. The chassi is exaclty the same. |
| | Sounds like a neat car. Its just tough finding parts. [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/27/2000
n/m |
| | RE: 1965 Galaxie 500 -- john, 11/27/2000
what a great find! keep it stock would be my recommendation, but it is your car. enjoy any way you want. i bet it hauls a... with a 390 and 4 speed. you may want to add power steering, easy to do and worth trouble. find a donor 65-66-67 galaxie and make the switch. dash caps for the full width of the dash is available from new england mustang. about $70.00 is what i paid and then color keyed to car. looks excellent.
have fun and if you ever want to sell............just e mail. |
| | | RE: 1965 Galaxie 500 -- Bill, 11/30/2000
John do you have a phone number or e-mail address for New England Mustang |
| | RE: 1965 Galaxie 500 -- Orin, 11/29/2000
A matching numbers '65 2-door hardtop 390-4V, 4-speed with no damage and no rust in unrestored "original used" condition? Sounds like a no-brainer to me. If at all possible, keep it stock.
You bringing that beauty to Carlisle in June? Let us know. Congrats on your fantastic luck!! |
| temp fix for compression leak? -- geo, 11/15/2000
I've got a problem,
In my 65 390 4v i've got a compression leak that causes breather to puke oil residue on underside of hood,
Eventually I'm going to have to do a rebuild, but seeing as how I've never done one before it is a daunting task.
I was wondering if i could use some sort of supplement to temporarily fix my problem?
like an "engine restorer" or the like
would you suggest such a fix or will it only compound my problems?
thanks for any help
geo |
| | RE: temp fix for compression leak? -- Jim Raymond, 11/15/2000
The only fix I would do is to replace the head gaskets.
Jim |
| | | RE: temp fix for compression leak? -- geo, 11/17/2000
thnks
could it be something more serious though?
you'll have to forgive my ignorance for nearly everything i've learned has been in my backyard.
a compression leak could be worse than a mere head gasket leak - no. If i'm mistaken then i am happy.
geo |
| | RE: temp fix for compression leak? -- Will, 11/16/2000
Make sure the pcv is working. If the pcv valve is plugged, you'll vent vapor through the breather and oil will condense all over the place. It makes quite a mess - and smells too.
I think the correct way is to remove the pcv valve from the valve cover and start the engine. You should feel vacuum on the end that goes into the valve cover. You know, put your thumb over the hole and see if it sucks. If it doesn't, you can pull the valve off the hose and see if the hose sucks. If it does, your valve may be stuck. They are only a couple of dollars at the parts store. |
| | | pcv works, thanks anyhow (n/m) -- geo, 11/17/2000
(n,m) |
| Will a 427 MR Fit Under Hood of '68 Shelby -- Rick Thompson, 11/15/2000
I am ready to install a 427 with MR heads and MR dual 4 bbl intake in a '68 Shelby. I want to run the original Cobra oval air cleaner. Does anyone know if this will fit under the hood? It looks tall..... |
| | RE: Will a 427 MR Fit Under Hood of '68 Shelby -- Will, 11/15/2000
I wouldn't think it would be a problem. In my 67 shelby clone, I've got a 428 with the 2x4 intake Shelby used in 67. With the oval air cleaner on, I've got a little more than an inch from the top of the cleaner to the bottom of the hood scoop.
I plan on running a k&n 3 inch tall oval cleaner pn E-1963. I'm going to measure today or tomorrow to make sure it'll fit. If I don't have enough room, I'll run the k&n 1 15/16 inch tall filter, pn E-1960.
Oh, by the way, I'm not sure how tall your intake is, but I doubt it's much taller (if any) than the 67 intake. I could do some kind of measurement if you like. |
| | | RE: Will a 427 MR Fit Under Hood of '68 Shelby -- Brian, 11/15/2000
It will fit fine |
| | RE: Will a 427 MR Fit Under Hood of '68 Shelby -- RH, 11/15/2000
As you are aware the Mr 2x4 setup is
13 1/4" tall from base of intake to top of aircleaner lid. How much clearance did you have prior as this setup is much taller than what you had. Come to think of it I had a 2x4 Tunnel Port set up in a 67 Mustang Gt fastback & it fit just fine so I am sure it will fit yours also. Good luck with the 427 shelby
What all has been done to the engine? If built right not much will run with them.
I think a totally stock 427 medium riser with just a set of headers would not be touched even by the hemi's and LS-6 454 chevy's even if they had modifications |
| | | RE: Will a 427 MR Fit Under Hood of '68 Shelby -- Rick Thompson, 11/15/2000
Thanks for the replies. The 13 1/4" tall is accurate. I do not know what the original hood clearance was. FYI the engine is a full roller with custom 12.8 compression pistons, extrude honed HM intake, Valley Head Service built heads. and .650 lift cam. Side oiler block and forged 10/10 crank. Should be interesting. |
| | | | RE: Will a 427 MR Fit Under Hood of '68 Shelby -- RH, 11/16/2000
Rick, Sounds like I am not the only one having a ball with these engines, sounds like you will have a hot one. Kind of nice to see someone make a Shelby Go fast instead of just adding chrome & having a 250hp 428 instead of stock 360.I see so many of these 428 cars that cannot get out of their own way. What carbs are you running? the BT/BU- BC/BD or other.. Randy h |
| | | | | RE: Will a 427 MR Fit Under Hood of '68 Shelby -- Rick Thompson, 11/16/2000
Carbs are 1971 dated twin 652's. I think they are AC and AD. The 67 Shelby carbs are just too much cfm |
| | | | | | RE: Will a 427 MR Fit Under Hood of '68 Shelby -- Will, 11/16/2000
The 67 shelby had 600 cfm carbs. |
| | | | Probably NOT!!! -- Will, 11/16/2000
Okay, so I just measured mine (and remembered the measurement this time!)
From the top of the air cleaner to the base of the block. That's the part of the block just under the intake and gasket, it is 11".
From the top of the air cleaner to the top of the hood, it is somewhere around 1".
So... unless the 68 shelby hood is taller than the 67 shelby hood, I think you're going to have a problem - about an inch of it.
You might try the stellings & hellings air cleaners. They're a bit shorter and look really trick on an FE. Unfortunately, they're expensive.
Sorry - I guess you'll just have to send that engine to me. :-) |
| | | | | RE: Probably NOT!!! -- Rick Thompson, 11/16/2000
I think the 68 Shelby hood is overall slightly taller because the entire hood is raised. The 67 is only raised under the scoop. I'm not sure if there is a difference where I need the height. Looks like I need to measure from the motor mount up, on the car and the engine, to be sure. No reply has said they have specifically had this combination. |
| | | | | | RE: Probably NOT!!! -- Will, 11/17/2000
I've got a couple of stellings & hellings air cleaners. I'll measure them tomorrow. They're shorter than the cobra oval cleaner, but I don't know by how much. The stamped steel is a lot thinner than the cast aluminum, plus, they're tallest in the middle, so they match the contours of the hood better.
I know you wanted to have the oval cleaner fit, but a close second would be using the s&h cleaners. |
| | | | | | | RE: Probably NOT!!! -- Rick Thompson, 11/17/2000
Thanks. Where do you get the S&H air cleaners? |
| | | | | | | | most likely WILL get it WILL -- PI, 11/17/2000
someone did post they had a tunnel port 2x4's in a 67 and it fit fine. you have to remember where you are measuring the set up as I believe the 13 1/4 is at the rear end of oval aircleaner. the engine sits in engine bay slightly down in rear making up for any taller height it will fit trust me pi |
| | | | | | | | | RE: most likely yeah, you're right... -- Will, 11/17/2000
I forgot about the back sitting higher than the front. |
| | | | | | | | RE: Probably NOT!!! -- Will, 11/17/2000
I got 'em from Branda. They come with cheesy elements, though. I bought k/n elements. After a lot of searching, I found that E-9181 was the correct element. I think that's a replacement for a Mazda or something, but it fits the s&h cleaner perfectly.
Check out PI's post. I was measuring from the front of the intake. The front carb sits lower than the back. The engine sits in the engine bay tilted front to rear, so if you're measuring from the back, we're comparing apples to oranges. |
| | Didn't the GT500 come with a MR 2x4 setup? -- Ed Foral, 11/17/2000
The 428 had 2x4's on a MR intake didn't it?
Ed |
| | | RE: Only the 1667 GT500, and ....... -- Morgan, 11/17/2000
The rest had a single carb set up.
I am in the process of putting a single four barrel on my 67 GT-500, at least for a little while. Oh and I am certain that the dual fours will fit under the fiberglass hood of a 68 Shelby. |
| Are Oiling System Modifications needed? - 428CJ -- Bob Zink, 11/15/2000
Are these oiling mods necessary on a street driven engine that will occasionally be driven hard? If so, what are the mods needed for my application? My engine will never see 6000rpms. I plan to use .010 over Ross pistons (9.5:1) on C7AE-B rods, iron CJ heads that have thread-in oil restrictors in them, iron CJ intake, and a 40/40 1U crank, comp cams 265 grind cam. Is it necessary to use torque plates for honing? Thanks for your time. |
| | RE: Are Oiling System Modifications needed? - 428CJ -- John Martin, 11/18/2000
I think so ... and I still have oil problems, but I will leave that one until I find out why. In the meantime, drilling out the hole between pump and oil filter adapter is easy. Chamfering the main oil galleries is also easy (unlike steel, cast iron can be ground with a soft rotary file). Restrictors in the heads is necessary also (0.090 hole in screw in or slip fit restrictor). Bearing clearances at 0.0025 or looser, require a HV oil pump and 50W oil. Solid lifters definately should have the lifter galleries plugged off.
It will only take an hour to rework the block this way ... maybe two if you are being meticulously careful. And most IMPORTANT...purchase an aftermarket oil pump driveshaft from FPP or Dove. So, isn't this easy?...so why not do it!!!
My mistake? I suspect I let my oil get down to 6 qts instead of the full 7, and under hard acceleration sucked some air. I have a light (2500 lb) car and should probably invest in a dry sump system, but they are expensive. |
| How much cam lift will my C1AE heads take? -- Mike, 11/14/2000
What is the most cam lift these heads will take before valve train geometry becomes a problem? This motor is in a boat that sees frequent high sustained rpms (3500-6000). The motor is a 410 .050 over,heads soon to have larger valves and port polish. Holley 750, Port-O-Sonic and open headers. Thanks Mike |
| | RE: How much cam lift will my C1AE heads take? -- R.H., 11/15/2000
.650 to .700 but I would suggest using a good set of roller rockers. The biggest thing about them is what springs/keepers/retainers you are using as it will make a big diff on your max lift. Use a roller cam as the FE's love them. rh |
| 390 leaks badly -- Eric, 11/14/2000
I have a 68 390 in my F250. PO rebuilt and hopped up a little, changes include:
Holley 780 Vac sec carb
Street dominater intake
Early MR heads
Forged pistons
RV type cam
Besides that pretty much stock w/ 50,000 miles and 15 years since rebuild (185psi compression on all cylinders). The motor is very strong and runs well. My problem is the dam thing leaks motor oil. When I first took ownership it leaked a little, now it leaks more than I am comfortable with and I am looking for general advise to aid me in my plan. I have to replace the torque converter so I figured I would pull the engine with the tranny and fix everything at once. I am planning on putting the engine on a stand and doing what it takes to fix this leak. I was thinking about buying a complete engine gasket set and replacing ALL the gaskets, but am wondering if thats such a good idea. What advise can you all lend on typical problems and things to watch out for. What seals would you all recommend, and how do you fix the real main seal leak problem that seems very typical with FE's? I only want to do this once so ALL advise will be appreciated.
Thanks all
P.S. I am on a budget
|
| | Is it just leaking through gaps or is oil burning, too? [n/m] -- Mr F, 11/15/2000
n/m |
| | | RE: Is it just leaking through gaps or is oil burning, too? [n/m] -- Eric, 11/15/2000
It just leaks through gaps. No oil burning that I know of. |
|