Skip Navigation Links.
 |  autolite 4100 -- mike, 07/20/2005
Were there any changes made to the autolite 4100 carb from 64 to 67? It seems like 64 thru 66 are easier to find than 67's. I'm looking for a 67 to rebuild but will consider a different year if they are all the same. Thanks. |
 | 67 ranchero build up -- davis, 07/19/2005
i'm looking to beef up the old beast, but not all-out race. $$ are tight, and this is what i'm thinkin-
stock 390, .480/.490 lift cam (GT grind), non-adjustable rockers, Edel heads, and RPM manifold. right now, i've got a holley 600 w/vac seconds. C6 tranny. also plan on FPA headers.
Am i missing anything?
thanks |
|  | RE: 67 ranchero build up -- giacamo, 07/20/2005
4.v tipe pistons 10.10.5 conpression |
| help with 427 manifolds -- Greg Westphall, 07/19/2005
Trying to install 427 full length exhaust manifolds C5AE on 1967 Merc Monterey. Running into clearance issues with power steering box. Did full size mercs/Fords not come with power steering when equipped with the 427 power plant? Any recommendations? |
| ![Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=25353&Reply=25352><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a> <b>In '67, Ford used shorter (and flatter) 427CID manifolds. [n/m]</b> -- <font color=#0000ff>Mr F, <i>07/19/2005</i></font><br /><blockquote>n/m </blockquote>](/WebResource.axd?d=5j1V7IJBhc-qdmzmrXlobrDbfonHkLrU79j1hKbMnhlAmybp22RCXmOksoj2wpk3zcnchMISt5smlmsDciJj_veDkNegJdJf8aEnio_s_DjzUu7iM5-oDyD3b_vPwach0&t=637814653746327080) | In '67, Ford used shorter (and flatter) 427CID manifolds. [n/m] -- Mr F, 07/19/2005
n/m |
| | | I thought that those were used only in Fairlanes -- Greg Westphall, 07/19/2005
n/m |
| | | | RE: I thought that those were used only in Fairlanes -- Tony P., 07/20/2005
Gary, You're right. The full size 427 cars were not available with power steering or brakes. On 63 and 64s the manual and power steering boxes were the same casting with a different ratio and you could get the factory headers in by making a bracket and lowering the power steering cylinder but the 65,66+ 67 used a different power steering system which had different power/manual boxes. I suppose with a lot of fabrication work they could be made to fit but the easiest way is to change over to manual steering. |
| | | | | RE: I thought that those were used only in Fairlanes -- Greg Westphall, 07/20/2005
Thanks for the information. I will let you all know how it goes with the fab work. Just in case, anyone have a 1967 manual steering box?
Greg |
| | | | | | RE: I thought that those were used only in Fairlanes -- Royce Peterson, 07/21/2005
They were the only 427 exhaust manifold in '67. |
| | | | | | | RE:I don't think so... -- McQ, 07/22/2005
I'm looking right at section 8, page 96 of an official 1967 Full Size Ford & Mercury SHop Manual. On p. 96 there's a nice view of the left side of a 427, with the starting for '67 "Power by Ford" valve covers. I mention the valve covers because this picture is different than the '66 shop manual which shows the high pentroof valve covers. Anyway, the exhaust manifold pictured is....the "Long Style" as introduced in 1965 for the new frame. On the next page, 97, there's a picture of the right side of a dual quad 427 with the "long style" HP manifold.
I speculate, and that's all it is because I have no hard figures/facts in front of me, that a 1967 Full Size 427 -R- or -W- code is more rare than the very rare 1967 Fairlane or Comet.
I believe the block-hugging uni-body 427 exhaust manifolds were cast and introduced in late '66 for the very limited production of the 427 Fairlanes. These manifolds were carried into '67 for the limited number of Fairlanes/Comets built with the 427. Many of these "block-huggers" got thrown to the side with the quick installation of headers as most '67 powered unibodys saw quick action of the drag strip.
I have a '67 Fairlane/Comet/Mustang shop manual out-on-loan to a friend who's working on a '67 -S- code GT. That manual does have a picture of a 427 too....and it has the unibody block huggers.
Finding non power steering equipment for a '67 Merc may be a bit of a challenge. Most full size Fords/Mercs built from '65 on were equipped with PS but there's bound to be a few 4 dr. sedan, 6 cylinder/289 low optioned full size out there somewhere....good luck.
|
| | | | | | | | Just barely fit -- Greg Westphall, 07/25/2005
Thanks for all the replys. Regardless of what chassis these long length exhaust manifolds are intended for, they are finally in. Had to remove the steering box to get the manifold in place, then reinstall steering box. It is a very close fit. When the car is placed in reverse you can sometimes feel a slight vibration through the steering wheel and on large bumps when in drive. To alleviate this, the best idea seems to be to remove the steering box and machine .020 - .040 off of the mounting surface and do the same with the left exhaust manifold. This will gain the required clearance. We still need to do this. Also, we could shim the motor mounts to raise the engine slightly. The problem with this is that the dual quad intake air cleaners appear to be very close to the underside of the hood. They (exhaust manifolds) look great when in place. No other clearance issues. Can turn lock to lock with no linkage interfence. We had a stainless steel exhaust bent up for it with a cross-over. They did a great job.
Greg |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Just barely fit -- walt, 07/25/2005
we tried to put a set in pick up truck,had to heat the frame and bend out the channel lip slighty to clear,they do take up some room |
| 390 water pump to intake hose -- Paul Ingraham, 07/16/2005
I have a slightly warmed 390 with a Ford Cast water pump, a PI alum. intake and want to know if I can eliminate the connection from the waterpump to the intake manifold. This has the short heater hose that will occasionally fail and leak all over everything.
I have heard from a mechanic that plugging that water pump to manifold connection will result in a cooler running motor. Is this true or B.S.? This mechanic is strong on BB Chebbies and not so strong on FE's and he's putting the motor in my car.
Any help appreciated. Please reply to my email.
Thanks. |
| | RE: 390 water pump to intake hose -- McQ, 07/17/2005
I'd like to hear more about this! If anyone responds to Paul's question, please let us know. I've never heard of this theory. |
| | RE: 390 water pump to intake hose -- giacamo, 07/17/2005
don,t do it you nead a littel flow to keep the temp more uniform thoughout the entier system |
| | | RE: 390 water pump to intake hose -- Barry B, 07/17/2005
Exactly! The coolent will remain stagnet in the engine when the Tstat is closed and cause hot spots in the heads while the temp. sender 'sees' cold coolent. The Tstat will open late and not come to a state of equlibrium for quite a while. The coolent needs to circulate around the block when the Tstat's closed to even out the temperatures.
This will only work if you don't run a Tstat which I don't recommend. |
|  | Don't do that. -- Royce, 07/17/2005
You need the bypass hose on any street driven vehicle. Be sure to run at least a 180 degree thermostat too.
I've put several hundred thousand miles on FE's and never had one of these leak. You need to install a new piece of rubber 5/8" hose, tighten the clamps and stop listening to advice from Chebby guys.
Royce |
| | RE: 390 water pump to intake hose -- Paul Ingraham, 07/18/2005
Well, based on the excellent advice I got here, I told my mechanic to cease disabling the water pump to manifold hose and put it back the way it was. He was using his BB Chebby experience with a Ford FE motor and actually thought he was correct. Thanks, guys.
Paul |
| | | RE: Chevy or otherwise, makes no difference. -- Gerry Proctor, 07/19/2005
All water-cooled engines have a coolant bypass either interally or externally. It works the same on any Chevy as it does in an FE since the design intentions are exactly the same. If your trusted mechanic is doing this to small or big block Chevys, Mopars, or Ramblers, he's just as wrong and as big of a dumb-assed Bubba as you're going to find.
The purpose of the bypass is as noted -to circulate the water in the block for a faster, more even warmup thoughout the entire engine. It also has a secondary purpose -to keep the engine from doing a China Syndrome. If the T-stat sticks, the temp will come up gradually and give you enough time to note the problem and get yourself off the road. Without the bypass, no coolant is circulating and the engine will go into a near immediate meltdown. |
| 375hp 390 vs 396/375 -- rtd, 07/15/2005
equal match? |
| | Not really -- Royce, 07/16/2005
Chevy installed the 396 / 375 HP engine in Corvettes and Chevelles.
The high horsepower 390 Ford variants were only used in Full size Fords and Mercurys. So there would be a huge weight penalty between the cars.
IF you mean comparing the engines on the engine dyno then I think either made about the same horsepower.
Royce |
| | | RE: Not really -- McQ, 07/16/2005
The 375 horse 390HP of '61/early '62 was a great engine. It's the combination of parts that FoMoCo should have offered as an up-grade over the '66-'68 390GT/335/320 horse engine.
I'm not an expert on the 396/375 engine but I've been told by Chevy fans that the engine was very similar to the first 396 true HP engine offered in mid '65 - the 425 horse rated 396. There's no doubts that the 396 Chevy with 350/360/375 or 425 was also a great engine.
I beleive Ford did not over rate the 390HP @375 horsepower with the single Holley or @ 401 horsepower with the tri power induction. If you look at how the '61 Fords ran with this engine, you'd see they easily ran mid to low 13's with minimal effort.
Whereas I believe the 335 horsepower rating was too high on the 3990GT. An engine that took a lot of work/tweaking to get into the 13's in a Mustang or Fairlane or whatever.
I believe the 375 horse 396 Chevy was underrated. In a Nova/Chevelle/Camaro, a person could hit 12's easily with 7" cheater slicks/headers.
Fun question rtd. |
| | RE: 375hp 390 vs 396/375 -- giacamo, 07/16/2005
no way the 390 for would rev up conpaired to the 396 cheavy.most 396 cheavys would top off at 6000 the hp 390 with solids would go 7000+ and be more responive to the pedel thoughs old fords wear great cars but just neaded to go on a diet. |
| | | RE: the actual weight of a '61 Starliner -- McQ, 07/16/2005
On a digital, very reliable, county scale I weighed my '61 Starliner a few years ago. The 'liner had a 428 CJ/cast iron shorty HP ex. manifolds/Aluminum '67 PI intake/a hefty CJ-R servo C-6 tranny, a half a tank of fuel, full interior, power steering. It was fully equipped for the street.
It weighed in at 3,820 lbs.
I'd like to know the weight of a '68-'70 Malibu with 396/454 and Turbo 400 transmission. I would speculate that a fully equipped Chevelle with big block would weigh 3,900 lbs. +.
|
| | | RE: 375hp 390 vs 396/375 -- rtd, 07/16/2005
fords history in the old days may have been a bit different had they offered the 375hp or the 401 in the mustangs, fairlanes and cyclones. certainly more fond memories would have been made, and perhaps fords would be worth as much as the chrysler/gm cars. I dont know why they didn't use the better heads on later 390's. those pretty exhaust manifolds probably wouldn't fit the unibody cars though.
If the 396 was done at 6k and the 390 would go to 7, at least it should take it on the salt flats |
| | | | RE: Bonneville/Karol Miller -- McQ, 07/17/2005
Interesting that you mention the salt flats. A guy from Texas, Karol Miller, used to drive his Fords to Bonneville to rum 'em. He ran a '56 Y block car and then in '60 drove a '60 Starliner with 352-4V, built with HP equipment himself, and set a record at well over 150 mph.
I agree completely with you regarding the lack of an reasonably priced, reasonably economical optional HP package for the '66-'68 Fairlanes/Mustangs, etc. I've beat that thread to death. The 427 was available but it was very limited, very expensive, and had a very limited 90 day warranty. Ford did not want to sell many 427 powered cars in '66-'68. They had the right idea for sure for '68 with the hydraulic liftered 390 horsepower 427 but it never was actually released except for the fortunate few who bought the very rare '68 Cougar GT/E's. The 428CJ was Ford's answer by mid '68 and it was a great but late response to the GM/Mopar options.
A 390 built to '61 390HP specs in a '66-'68 whatever would have been an instant legend. Even with the extremely restrictive exhaust manifolds used in the unibody cars, it would have been a killer. |
| swapping a 390 into a 67 mustang? -- matt, 07/15/2005
My 67 originally had a 289 in it. Would like any info that anyone can give on problems that I will or might run into.
Thanks,
Matt |
| c4ae-g heads -- gary goblirsch, 07/13/2005
Much has been talked about these heads(C4AE-G) and there intake portsize. My question is are they the same as 428 cobra jet head? I need to know whether I should buy a blue thunder 427medium rise intake or will yhe 428 cj intake.Which intake ports will match better .
Thanks |
| | RE: c4ae-g heads -- McQ, 07/14/2005
From all that I've read, personally "looked at", the C4AE-G head is essentially a basic C8OE-N, CJ, casting. The main exception, of course, is the valve size, plus the exhaust manifold bolt hole location.
The CJ intake will work well on any standard FE head, especially the "tall-port" '58 into '66, starting with the EDC castings to the C6AE-R.
I've never looked at a Blue Thunder M-riser intake but I do have a C7ZX original intake. The intake runner port size on this intake looks just like the CJ and the '66 later -S- casting 4V intakes.
Hope this helps and maybe get some discussion going. |
| FE Rocker Shafts -- phil, 07/12/2005
Do the oiling holes on the rocker shafts go up, or down? |
| | RE: FE Rocker Shafts -- Barry B, 07/12/2005
The oiling holes go down but you also have to have the correct side facing the pushrods. On one end of the shaft is a notch. This notch should be facing down and to the front of the engine on the passenger side. On the driver's side, the notch should be down and to the rear of the engine. |
| msd and stock tach -- William MacKinnon, 07/12/2005
Has anyone hooked their stock tach up to an msd? I have a 68 gt w/ 390 and msd distributor and 6a box. can't get the stock tach to work off the msd tach lead. Do I need a tach adapter? |
| FE service blocks -- paul, 07/11/2005
hi, Looking at 428 FE service blocks, 70-74 dates. Did DIF & MCC both make the 428 FE reinforced blocks at that time? Any differences to check for? Cautions from the experts here to note... thanks |
| | RE: FE service blocks -- Royce Peterson, 07/12/2005
MCCand Cleveland made all FE blocks after 1971 model year.
Get it sonic checked to see if it is usable,
Royce |
| | That's interesting. -- Royce Peterson, 07/13/2005
Does it have the raised ribs cast into the passenger side and four bolt motor mount bosses? |
| | | RE: That's interesting. -- paul, 07/14/2005
Yes - I rechecked (sealed up in a bag), has (9) ribs on pass. side, and (4) bolt mounting boss patterns. I didn't think it was a Detroit Iron Foundry block untill I found the casting mark, either. Lots of 352 marks, understand that is on many FE sizes. thanks |
| | | | RE: That's interesting. -- Royce, 07/15/2005
I just emailed Shoe yesterday and he said this:
Royce,
As I understand it, MCC never cast the 428 or 427 blocks. DIF continued to do these specialty blocks deep into the 1970s. MCC apparently took over all the 360/361/390/391 castings, which were then shipped far north to be machined and built into engines in a small railroad town, the name of which I’ve posted but it escapes me right now. I’m not aware of CF blocks during the MCC era, but if you have one, it pretty much answers that question.
Shoe.
-----Original Message-----
From: Royce Peterson
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:00 AM
To: Dave Showeiler
Subject: Service blocks
Dave,
What do you think? I've always thought Dearborn production of FE blocks ended when MCC opened. Cleveland continued until at least 1975. I have a 1974 Cleveland cast 427 side oiler in my green GT-E.
Royce
|
| | | | | RE: That's interesting. -- paul, 07/15/2005
Thanks guys,
Yes, I've seen some other CJ 428 replacement type (Ford car service) blocks dated upto 74 on ebay. I can't remember if any were described as a DIF block, though.
I'm not that versed on the production of these blocks. But, it's is a 74 DIF 428 with all the CJ beefy stuff. Thanks for the input. |
| | | | | RE: That's interesting. -- walt, 07/17/2005
From what i uderstand(friends that worked at dearborn iron foundry (dif)and mcc(mich casting center)and the friends that bored and did the set ups for 427/28s 390,said the most bad caststing came from the mccbut mcc did run the service 428 /427 and hd truck blocks,if i remember correctly the dif,closed in 71,and the 427's were only run on sunday,had to be gone monday morning,passed off as industrial blocks,one the finish bore line. I had my friend who set up the 427's sneake me in one sunday. Pallets of 427's about 20 foot tall. Hundreds!!. |
| | | | | | RE: That's interesting. -- walt, 07/17/2005
got a hold f the guy that did the 427's,says he believed that some of the dif was still operating up till 74,but not sure,about what they were casting,all he said was a paint swab in the valley of the block,mean dif bores,.light blue was a 27,28 was another color,390 was another,never looked at the source,and that they would throww a 330 on the line to screw up the cutter for 390.if they wanted a break,or the foreman was an a hole |
|