C7ME-A is probably a 428 PI or CJ

8C19 might be a little early for a CJ, so I might lean toward the block being a PI

C6AER could be found on just about anything from 66 or 67, real good heads, some came with injector holes drilled, some without, put in the CJ sized valves and it is every bit as good as CJ

C7AE-F is the PI intake for the 428

put this all together and you might presume you have a 428 PI engine. When you take it apart, you'll probably be able to guess if it has been apart before. Look for things like gaskets and Ford stamp on the bearing. Check the bore and the crank. To confirm that it is a 428 block, look for the 428 cast into the water jacket and the letters on the back of the block. Then try Shoe's drill bit test to see if the cylnder walls were thick enough to have been a 428.

All of this because it could just be a group of parts or it could be an as built engine. Ford part numbers do not always mean what we think they mean, and even when they do, you could find just about any FE in any car or any combination of FE parts on any FE. You can't stop the production line, and whatever fits might get used. According to SAAC, some Shelby GT-500 owners actually got 390s. You really can't tell from the outside and nobody was the wiser until they took your engine apart and said "Hey, what are these little pistions and crank doing in my 428?"

yes i saw it. it was great i own a 1970 boss 302 and i now that the boss 9s were not the fasests things around i really thought the ls6 would beat it. that hemi was a piece of %hit I wish they woukd have done some older cars like a 1962 421sd or a 1961 galaxie with a 390hipo or 63 with a 427

fe in a ranger...big job....302 nice....

theres someone here named 390ranger so looks like it can be done

n/m

I think their Badger pistons (cast). Go to Autozone and look at their Badger catalog.

//////////

i,d try to find a v8 parts car and start stealing every thing off of it......

The 8" will work fine with a mild 302. Shouldn't have any problems there. Trans wise you should use a 289/302 transmission, i.e., 3 speed stick top loader, 4 speed top loader or the common small block C4.

It seems strange to be typing numbers like 302, 289 and C4....although there are more folks backing their FE's with C4's. Thanks to all those mid sixties Canadian Mail Trucks or were they Milk Trucks or Mystic Trucks? I'll keep my eyes open for one them Canadian Special Trucks with an Fe & C4.

Hey Bill if you're not satisfied with this answer you might try the small block forum. There is one isn't there? I never go there.

I believe that Holley 850 DP is too much for your 390GT.

Interesting combination you've put together for what sounds like a temporary power source for your '71 Mustang. Not many FE's are installed in the '71-'73 'stang. I've seen one other and that's it.

Again, an 850 DP is too much for a standard/stock 390GT.

Not going to happen at that weight.

the comp cams solid cams as any solid cam set up have a more agresive profile to the lift and close of the valve wich makes the engin more responsive, then the hydraulic cams the hydraulic setup is my first choice for the streat i use a 270 solid cam in my cyclone for racing i almost used the 305 hydraulic but my experance felt the 270s to be a better choice for a 390 setup, i,v sean many large cam set ups flop on thear face be couse of thear narow bower band and type of auto weight gears tranesmissions ect, not maching,horse power figurers are great but wen selecting a cam i try to make the engin as responceive and rev quicklie even if the horse power figure is lower.i love comp cams thear fe, cams work as avertized but remember bigger douse not alwayes mean better or more horse power...........

I've thought about this part of your question Barry, "With which cam will equal FE's make the most power?"

On that question I'll offer my .02:

As for flat tappet cams I believe a solid lifter cam will provide the most power overall. There have, obviously, been great strides made in hydraulic cams over the last couple of decades. I just have personally never been very satisfied with the hydraulic performance cams I ran in my 428 CJ. I did only run four hydraulics but it was the one solid lifter cam that I was most pleased with. And it was rather mild, something in the mid 230's duration @ .050. It idled very well in the CJ and it provided a broad power range to 6,200 easily.

Now I was impressed with that comparison test that Mustang & FORDS did between the 428 and the 427W. That was an Edelbrock RPM. That cam gets a lot of negative comments here it seems. I've never run one but my mind is open about the RPM.

Also consider this, with the exception of the CJ, the only really hot performing FE's were factory equipped with....that's right, solid lifters. Okay, the early '58 was a dog but that cam was not a performance grind. It started with the '60HP, through the 390HP, 406, 427, Police app FE's through '66. Now I just thought about the '68 427-390 horse FE. It was a tremendous performer but there weren't too many that got out there except to the rare(and fortunate) Cougar GTE 427 buyers.

Solid lifters and FE's go well together!

Spacer plates were not used on the early FEs just a lower inspection plate on the bottom side. Assuming you have all OE components, if you have one in there and it's not supposed to be, your torque converter is not fully seating in the tranny pump and the starter drive throw is now misaligned . Get it out of there. I believe the spacers started showing up about 65 when the new style starter was put in the FE, not too sure

the newer plates wer used for the new styal starters for alinement of the starter. the older starters that drew the drive towards the starter did not have the plat betwean the engin and trans,i,v sean them both ways work go figure?