Skip Navigation Links
Setup
New Post
Search
Forum Home
Home
Decoder

Original Message
RE: Stock heads are better than the CJ heads.Shoe.
By Dave Shoe - 07/07/2001 6:46:33 PM; IP 216.243.158.108
Mid-1958 heads off a 332 FE would basically be the same as 1965-390 heads.

The emissions years started in 1966, as did the unibody years for the FE. The unibody exhaust manifolds of 1966 were stinkers. It's my opinion that when Ford finally made "satisfactory" unibody exhaust manifolds for the 428 in 1968-1/2, they should have buried the 390 unibody exhaust manifolds and gone forward with only the redesigned manifold.

In 1966-67 there was one large-runner head still available in any FE engine. It was called the C6AE-R, and is pretty much a small-valved CJ head with anti-reversion lips, whatever-the-hell they are. There was no way to know whether your '66'-'67 motor would get the C6AE-R because Ford did not seem to care which motor got them. It seems like maybe 1/3 of all FEs got the C6AE-Rs those two years, with the remainder of engines getting the emissions design C6AE-J, C6AE-U, or C7AE-A.

Shoe.
This thread, so far...
Skip Navigation Links.
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7151&Reply=7151><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<a href="#" id="anchor7151" onclick="return false;">1964 390 questions</a>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mrb, <i>07/06/2001</i></font><script type="text/javascript"> new HelpBalloon({ dataURL: 'replyb.aspx?ID=7151', contentMargin: 60, icon: $('anchor7151') }); </script>  1964 390 questions -- mrb, 07/06/2001
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7154&Reply=7151><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<a href="#" id="anchor7154" onclick="return false;">Stock heads are better than the CJ heads.</a>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>07/07/2001</i></font><script type="text/javascript"> new HelpBalloon({ dataURL: 'replyb.aspx?ID=7154', contentMargin: 60, icon: $('anchor7154') }); </script>  Stock heads are better than the CJ heads. -- Dave Shoe, 07/07/2001
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7158&Reply=7151><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<a href="#" id="anchor7158" onclick="return false;">RE: Stock heads are better than the CJ heads.Shoe.</a>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>mrb, <i>07/07/2001</i></font><script type="text/javascript"> new HelpBalloon({ dataURL: 'replyb.aspx?ID=7158', contentMargin: 60, icon: $('anchor7158') }); </script>  RE: Stock heads are better than the CJ heads.Shoe. -- mrb, 07/07/2001
RE: Stock heads are better than the CJ heads.Shoe. -- Dave Shoe, 07/07/2001
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7181&Reply=7151><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<a href="#" id="anchor7181" onclick="return false;">RE: Stock heads are better than the CJ heads.</a>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Randall Horn, <i>07/10/2001</i></font><script type="text/javascript"> new HelpBalloon({ dataURL: 'replyb.aspx?ID=7181', contentMargin: 60, icon: $('anchor7181') }); </script>  RE: Stock heads are better than the CJ heads. -- Randall Horn, 07/10/2001
 Casting variances. -- Dave Shoe, 07/10/2001
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7182&Reply=7151><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<a href="#" id="anchor7182" onclick="return false;">RE: Stock heads are better than the CJ heads.SHOE</a>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff> Robert, <i>07/10/2001</i></font><script type="text/javascript"> new HelpBalloon({ dataURL: 'replyb.aspx?ID=7182', contentMargin: 60, icon: $('anchor7182') }); </script>  RE: Stock heads are better than the CJ heads.SHOE -- Robert, 07/10/2001
Collapse <a href=../ForumFE/reply.aspx?ID=7184&Reply=7151><img src=../images/reply.png width=30 height=10></a>&nbsp;<a href="#" id="anchor7184" onclick="return false;">I haven't looked lately.</a>&nbsp;-- <font color=#0000ff>Dave Shoe, <i>07/10/2001</i></font><script type="text/javascript"> new HelpBalloon({ dataURL: 'replyb.aspx?ID=7184', contentMargin: 60, icon: $('anchor7184') }); </script>  I haven't looked lately. -- Dave Shoe, 07/10/2001
 RE: I haven't looked lately. -- Robert, 07/13/2001
 RE: 1964 390 questions -- Eric, 07/12/2001
Post A Response
Name:
Email Address:
Subject:
Post:
Upload Image:
Human Check:   Enter the code 2024165353 in the box