Skip Navigation Links.
 |  will any 68/69 steering col. be used in a 428 cobr -- mike blankenship, 08/02/2001
fairlane? also, how much do these things sell for? thanks |
|  | RE: will any 68/69 steering col. be used in a 428 cobr -- Dave Shoe, 08/02/2001
I believe '68-69 Fairlane steering columns are identical. Semi-major changes were made in 1970 when the locking column was incorporated. Even so, I suspect the 1970 can possibly be poorly retrofitted if you "mix-match" the parts properly and file a single small notch into the steel tube where necessary.
You will likely find that some '68-'69 columns have the column-shift mechanisms (either AT or column stick) in them, but if you are willing to live with these extra pieces, the column will fit just fine.
I'm not positive, but I'm pretty darned sure.
Shoe. |
 | 428CJ oil capacity -- Kyle, 08/02/2001
How much oil should I run in my rebuilt '69 428CJ Mustang with factory oil cooler and lines? Original Ford spec. called for 5 quarts (without cooler), but then Ford supposedly issued a service bulletin recommending an extra quart (for 6), and now how much does the oil cooler and lines add?
I am currently running 7 quarts with no oil aeration.
Thanks,
Kyle |
|  | RE: 428CJ oil capacity -- Paul M, 08/02/2001
My guess would be to try 6 quarts, and see where it ends up on the dipstick.
If that's not enough, add till it is, making sure to flow the oil before you recheck it.
|
|  | Early CJs got a 5-quart stick, later a 6-quart. -- Dave Shoe, 08/03/2001
Early CJs got a 5-quart dip stick (just like a 390 stick, but chromed at the handle), but the CJ was too fast for the standard front sump pan and five quarts was not enough.
Ford's economical solution to this warranty issue was to implement a TSB which added one more quart of oil to the pan. This was accomplished by "recalibrating" (shortening) the CJ dipstick to show "full" at six quarts.
It doesn't matter how much oil is in the lines and external cooler, just make sure you don't stop filling until the stick says "FULL". When it says "FULL" then you'll know the proper amount of oil to add next time.
Frankly, the 428CJ is just "too fast" for a plain FE oil pan. If you plan to run run a strong FE motor, you're gonna hafta buy a baffled pan (with the trap doors) and matching oil pickup, as the stock pan loses it's oil too quickly when it all gets sloshed to the rear of the engine on a hard acceleration.
Fortunately the windage tray permits the pan's oil reserve it to slosh to the rear of the engine without getting frothed-up too much by the crank, but unfortunately the oil pickup starts pumping air into the oil passages, quickly galling the bearings and other important stuff. Also, the lifters start to clack amazingly quickly when air is drawn in.
Note that high-capacity aluminum pans look better than anything else out there, but they don't handle road-scuffs as well as a steel pan (they sometimes shatter). If your original pan has a road-dent in it, you might strongly consider a sheet-steel racing pan. A nice "T" pan will hold extra oil, will baffle it to stay where it belongs under hard acceleration, and will not affect ground clearance the way a deep pan will.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: Early CJs got a 5-quart stick, later a 6-quart. -- Jeff H., 08/03/2001
Say What? I thought that the oil cooler and lines held about 1 quart. So wouldn't the SCJ assembly need 1 more quart than the std CJ? Am I missing something here? I have been putting 7 quarts in my SCJ for years. |
| | | | Yup. -- Dave Shoe, 08/03/2001
I'm referring only to the CJ. You'll have to factor in the extra needed for the SCJ, as I've never worked with one of them, and don't have an idea what the difference in capacity is.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: Early CJs got a 5-quart stick, later a 6-quart. -- Neppy, 08/05/2001
I always thought it was interesting that my '66 repair manual calls for the 352 and 427 to use 6 qts, while the 240-6, 289, 390, 410, 428 used 5 qts.
I always wondered why. |
| compression ratios? -- Earl Wood, 08/02/2001
I have 2 sets of head for my 75 390. The set that is on the engine is D2TE-AA (68.1-71.1cc) and the other is C6AE-R (71.2-74.2cc) The engine has stock 75 dished pistons. My question is this..... If I change to the C6AE-R with its bigger ports and larger cc will I need to change the pistons to flat tops or will the dished pistons be OK. What would the CR be with the dished pistons? |
| | RE: compression ratios? -- Paul M, 08/02/2001
You're going to lose compression with the C6AE-R heads.
A good piston for that purpose, with those heads, would be Sealed Power 381P. Inexpensive, (compared to flattops) and rated at 10.1:1, IIRC, which would be a little less with those heads.
What intake/carb setup you have? The -R heads will flow well, if you have the right intake.
Just remember that you'll be changing the exhaust port height, if you do switch heads. Not sure, but I think there's abot a 1/2 inch of difference in heights.
Dave Shoe knows this one real well, and can explain it better than I, but basically your exhaust will develop leaks quickly, I believe, if you're running stock manifolds, or the wrong headers. |
| 64 427 crank & rods? -- Earl Wood, 08/02/2001
In another 390 I purchased recently I found a C4AE-B crank and C3AE-C rods. Were these used only in 427? The block is C6ME so I know someone switched parts. Is this crank better than other 390 cranks? It has grooved mains for more lubrication but is that advantageous on a street machine, possibly even a truck? |
| | RE: 64 427 crank & rods? -- Paul M, 08/02/2001
The C4AE-B crank is listed as a 427 cast-iron unit, in two different sources. Don't see anything about 390's anywhere for it. One book states that the grooved journals were part of the "first" performance cranks.
Mainly the grooves are to increase oiling to the rods at high RPM's.
As for the C3AE-C rods, they seem to be a standard early `60's short rod, designated for the `63-`65 427. |
| | | RE: 64 427 crank & rods? -- John R. Barnes, 08/03/2001
My source book lists the C4AE B as used both in the 390 and 427. I once thought that the grooved version was the 427 and the non grooved for 390 but the book says either way in 64. This book has been right in the past.
|
| | | | RE: 64 427 crank & rods? -- Earl Wood, 08/04/2001
John, What is "your source"? |
| | | | | RE: 64 427 crank & rods? -- John R. Barnes, 08/04/2001
1960-1973 ford & Mercury Muscle Parts Identifier from Warner Roberts. It has always proven to be correct. It even lists heads I never heard of and later learn to exist. |
| 428 CJ Holley 735 carb -- etm63, 08/02/2001
I've got a good CJ 735 cfm carburetor that I need to replace the primary fuel bowl (the needle and seat threads are stripped). I'm thinking that a primary fuel bowl from a Holley 4500 Dominator P/N 134-108 would work (it's a dual feed, center hung bowl)? I've emailed Holley but haven't heard back yet. Does anybody know if this will work? If not, any ideas on where I can get a replacement (other then finding an old one at a swap meet or something - don't want to wait that long...)? Thanks for any information!! |
| | RE: 428 CJ Holley 735 carb -- Royce Peterson, 08/03/2001
The Dominator bowl works great.
Royce Peterson |
| C7AE-B rods -- Earl Wood, 08/02/2001
I have 2 390 engines with the C7AE-B rods in them. I can only find that rod listed as 428 rods in the limited literature I have. What is the story on these rods? |
| | These rods are used in any 390/410/428 FE. -- Dave Shoe, 08/02/2001
These rods ar best rumored to be "CJ only" rods, but this is not correct.
All FE/FT "short length" rods since about 1963 or so are basically identical heavy duty forgings. They use the same SAE1041 steel, and are very well made. The CJ/PI rods get drilled using a larger drill bit to fit the larger bolt shank, but that's the only difference.
In the end the "small bolted" rod and "large bolted" rod are even balanced identically at the large end and small end, because the steel in the bolt and steel in the rod rod are basically the same mass.
Since ARP makes excellent bolts for the 3/8" rod, the 390/410/428plain rod is often considered superior the the 13/32" CJ/PI rod. Sure, ARP also makes a 13/32" bolt that fits the CJ/PI rod, but it is a compromise design which uses a 3/8" thread and nut with a 13/32" shank, and the shanked-down bolt logically lacks some of the desirable "bolt stretch" clamping characteristics of the 390 ARP bolt, as well as some of the "shank registration" characteristics, which means if you aren't careful when torquing, you might be able to bend the bolt while torquing. Also, since the rod with the 3/8" drill size has more forged steel remaining, it is sometimes thought to be a stronger rod, when resized with ARP bolts.
Whether C4, C7, or any other year (since about 1963 - I forget exactly) is immaterial. The common heavy-duty FE 390 rod is a great cheap way to go racing. The CJ/PI rod is great, too, but the decision to switch bolts to the ARP is tougher. I run CJ rods in my 427 stroker, but use the stock 13/32" bolts with shortened nuts so the bolt sticks out 2-1/2 threads or so (Ford's use of a nut which extends beyond the bolt is not a good idea - you MUST always use threadlock with the long nut). I've decided to let my hi-tech ARP 13/32" bolts sit on the shelf until I find a set of CJ/PI rods which seem to have bolts which show at least minimal signs of fatigue.
Shoe. |
| 83 motor in 65 Mustang -- Ken, 08/01/2001
I need help, I bought a 65 Mustang with a 302 from an 83 Mustang. I believe it is a HO motor. When I replaced the timing set, it had a double row chain. Is there a way to tell if this is a HO motor or a regular 302?? The only other thing that I can think of is that it has an alumium 4V intake. I"ve heard that the firing order is different on the 302 and HO. Also, what is the timing spec for a manual trans car. Any info on this setup will be greatly appreciated.
|
| | You might try the "general" FoMoCo forum. -- Dave Shoe, 08/01/2001
This forum knows the FE engine family best. The general FoMoCo forum probably has answers to your questions.
Here's the general forum link:
http://www.fomoco.com/forummain/
Shoe. |
| C4AE-G vs. C3AE-C -- Mike McQuesten, 08/01/2001
Just returned from the Emerald City excursion and didn't see much at the Music Experience in reference to who Steve Miller learned to play guitar from but ...... another time on that.
I noticed that Eric asked about C4AE-G heads on that thread I started by asking the correct cc for the C3AE-C heads. As you may have noticed, Dave Shoe is quite a proponent of these heads and I must totally agree. They're junk yard plentiful and still cheap. John Saxon is running a set on his '63 427 and they work great. We've run the car on the strip here in Spokane and it runs consistent low 14's at a hundred flat. This is a 3,800 lb. fully streetable '61 Starliner with 4 speed and 3.89 gearing. On street tires. Stock shorty hp exhaust manifolds. All we had done was have one of our friendly FE machinists install CJ intake and exhaust valves...2.09/1.66 along with a little pocket clean up. The pistons are the original stock standard 427s. These are good heads.
About those C3AE-Cs.....I can't help it, I'm excited to have them. They have the exact c-chamber of the early '63 406 tri power. I'll have the 2.09/1.66 valves installed with the mandatory bowl work. Have them machined for spring cups and voila! A perfect set of HP heads! For very little dollars. John cc'd one of them last night and I think he said it came out at 62cc. Just what I wanted.
Hey Mr. F.....when will the 352HP be added to the engine spec page? |
| The Lentech AOD for the FE, a report. -- WEM, 08/01/2001
I ordered, received and installed a Lentech AOD for a FE. The trans came with a 10” stall converter of my choice and I chose a 2400 stall. The following is report for those whom are interested.
PRICE: $3000, shipping included, delivery time was 3 weeks. The trans arrived in 2x4 framed box and looked great.
ADD ONS: Shifter cable (fabricate brackets), throttle cable (fabricate brackets), trans air cooler
MODS: dip stick tube (bend a little), cooler lines (used fittings out of C-6, bend and cut), The yoke needs to be changed – the Lentech uses a 5.0 yoke for a manual trans – not AOD.
NOTABLE: The x-member on my 68’ torino fit perfect. The D/S needs to be lengthed about ½ “ I just left mine for now.
DISLIKED: The trans requires spacers to be placed between the flexplate and the torque converter. To do this Lentech supplies bolts to fasten to the flexplate and not studs. I couldn’t think of how to hold the spacer (with out glueing) and put in the bolts so I opted for hardened studs that I had to cut from threaded rod. Maybe I just missed something?
LIKED: The Lentech AOD has transformed my mild mannered 390 (I couldn’t even break the tires loose with an open rearend) in to a tire screeching muscle car - the way it should be. The motor revs now - the 10 inch converter really lightens things up! The car burns the tires all the way thru first with a good second gear chirp. Then I get on the freeway doing 75 mph and tack 2400 rpm w/ a 3:25 gear. Crisp, firm shifts give the car a racey feel and the OD increases drivability by eliminating excessive engine noise. Top down cruises to the beach just got better.
SUGGESTIONS: I think Lentech should include some options that are actually required for the install. (However, until more folks decide to by the trans its difficult to do)· A tv cable assembly from Lokar.· A cable assembly from B&M with bracket for hooking the shifter up.· Someway to calibrate the dip stick fluid level by measuring the dip stick (I’m going to get the info. by comparing my father in law’s 5.0.That’s all I can think of to make the job flow better (without sit and think sessions followed by parts runs……)
TUNING: The TV cable tells the trans when to shifts happen (it’s a combination of the modulator and kickdown linkage in function), any binding in the cable will screw it up and the rate and starting point at which the cable is pulled is important to achieve the shift you like. I spend about 2 days working with mine (1 hour in time) and I’m happy.
MILEAGE: I working on that, the base line mileage was 12 mpg (390 – c6 – 2:75’s) so well see. The biggest reason I can’t quote the new mileage is that the car now burns rubber so I’m kinda flooring it a lot and screwing up the numbers ;) I should calm down in a month or so. Another interesting aspect of the mileage will be the gas save by not spending the money on hipo parts! LOL
FINAL THOUGHTS: I’m happy with the trans and with Lentech’s 3 year warrantee I feel confident its money well spent (I also spoke with Len of Lentech 2 out of 3 times when I called the tech line and got good answers). The main reason for getting the trans was to enjoy the added performance of lower gears (I know 3:25’s aren’t that low, but 4:1’s are definitely streetable with a AOD) and the ability to cruise the highway at a low rpm – I accomplished all my goals. Too bad it wasn’t cheaper, but I’d do it again. My next drive train project will be a fuel injection conversion of some sorts…..
Later, Bill the Ginnepig...
|
| | Great analysis! -- Dave Shoe, 08/01/2001
Thanks for posting these technical details in such concise fashion. It'll definitely be a great guide for FErs who want to move toward an automatic 4-speed (as I've often wondered about).
As for "lightening up" on the gas pedal within the month, I suspect you're gonna find this will be the hardest part of the whole project.
Shoe.
|
| | | RE: Great analysis! -- WEM, 08/02/2001
Ya, I got yelled at by the wife last night on the way to visit grandma! So far I'm up one mpg but its been floored alot an I do 80 on the highway now, I'm expecting some gain but not alot. |
| | Nice report, but... -- Dan Davis, 08/02/2001
...wouldn't a Gear Vendors OD unit be a better choice? You can get them for about $2000 and turn your C6 into a six speed! Add a converter for another $200 and you are $800+ bucks ahead for more HiPo parts.
Just a thought,
Dan |
| | | A OD isn't a 6spd without a LOT of button pushing -- Walker, 08/02/2001
You put it in first,
then turn on the OD;
You turn off the OD,
and put it in second;
you turn on the OD;
then you put it in....
In real life, you run with the OD on all the time or just turn it on after 3rd runs out for a 4th speed.
As for why? Why not just put a Windsor in front of that AOD? Wouldn't THAT be easier, and cheaper?
For the uniqueness, for the challenge, for the glory.
Personally, I'm looking at some sort of OD behind my FE. I'm interested in what he did, his experience. My own personal experience from doing what I thought was a simple transplant of a '70 302/C-4 combo into a '68 Torino that had had a 289/C-4 in it, is that making linkages work is the most critical goal of putting in a transmission. It was years before that 'simple' change was sorted out. Putting an AOD in a car that never saw such a thing in original life quite frankly scares me, and I'd probably lean towards the GV OD just because I can keep my original trans with its original/working linkages.
Just my thoughts. |
| | | | RE: A OD isn't a 6spd without a LOT of button pushing -- WEM, 08/06/2001
Walker you read my mind,
I though about a windor, with late model EFI and a AOD but unless you went with a 302 you would have to upgrade the AOD anyway and then the costs just start rising. I admit it, I just fell in love with the 390 - its the most unique motor I've ever worked on, its impressive to look at and performs well- so for me the windor idea was out the door.
Also I agree about the button, my wife would never turn it on and I'd image that I'd go tired of it. So I'd have to spend the other $200 for the ECU.
Also the linkage isn't that bad! not easy either LOL! If you decide to do it and want it easy get a B&M shifter for a AOD ($200) and a lokar cable then your done.
Later, Bill.
Later
|
| | | RE: Nice report, but... -- WEM, 08/06/2001
Good point Dan,
I seriously though of the GearVendor's unit but came up with different results. First off I believe your mistaken about the price, I know GV advertises a unit for $2K but (as usual) its for a chevy, the C-6 price is $2,700. To get away from all the button pushing you'll have to do is another $200 for a ECU that GV sells. Also, $200 torque converters seem to have alot of problems behind FE's (all that lovely torque). So its been advised to me that a good converter is must and costs about $600 (the Lentech unit is $600 if bought separately, but is included w/ the AOD). Furthermore I've heard you should at least put a shift kit and some other bearing related stuff to the C-6 (minimal cost?) Having said all that I think if your looking at cost then the GV unit may not be the best choice (say $3500).
However, one other thing to consider is how much HP and TQ your application is producing - you may need a more expensive Lentech trans.... Then you'll have to re-evaluate cost again.
Also I've read that the C-6 does have a good amout of drag and my first reaction to the Lentech tends to verify that. The car revs in neutral alot better than before - I think this has alot to do w/ the 10" converter, but I'm not sure and I'm not paying for dyno time! LOL.
Later, Bill.
|
| Can a 332 MD be bore out to a 390? -- John, 08/01/2001
Can a 330MD ft block be bore out to a 390? I have been told that you can't do it. I would like for Dave Shoe to tell what he thinks. I am new to this FE world! Thanks |
| | RE: Can a 332 MD be bore out to a 390? -- Dave Shoe, 08/01/2001
I haven't had the chance to dig inside a 330FT yet. I'm not sure how thick the cylinders are. I'm sure they have lots of extra meat, but adding .125 or .175 to the stock bore is asking a bunch.
If you could tell me what drill bit sizes fit/don't fit between the cylinder jackets (from the core holes), that would allow me to do some calculations. Be aware that the cylinder jacket has a taper to it, so you'll want to check the cylinders at several locations, in particular, about two inches from the top of the bore.
Based on my experience with the 361/391 block, I'm gonna guess that 4.00 is a possibility, but 4.05 is probably a no-go.
Note that the drill-bit test does not check for core shift, only nominal thickness. If it turns out you have enough material to bore it out +.125, then you'll still want to do a sonic mapping of the cylinder walls to verify core shift is satisfactory. If core shift is not, then you'll have to use the sonic map to "offset bore" the block to prevent thin spots in the cylinder walls.
Shoe. |
| | After more looking! I'm not sure what this is? -- John, 08/01/2001
Did the 330 have the mirror image 105 like all the other FT's? This block has the 105 image on both ends. It also has an X on one side.That is really all the castings I see. I got this engine from a junk yard. It has a 2T crank, C7TE-A rods, and C8AE -611 pistons with slipper skirts. They look like 390 pistons. To top this frankenstein of, it had D2TE AA heads. I believe that I got the junkyard mutt! Can you tell me what size these pistons are? I have a 352 block that I believe I will probably use for my 390 project instead of this thing. Maybe I could use the pistons if there 4.05! Thanks |
|