Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Found a few numbers, -- 390fastback, 06/09/2001
But couldn't find the block numbers. Anyway here is what I did find; heads- C7AE-A, intake- D5TE9A25M B. If any one can tell me exactly what they are, It would make me very happy. The guy I bought it from told me it had the GT heads and I'd like to know for sure. Thanks. |
|  | RE: Found a few numbers, -- Paul M, 06/10/2001
Not sure what block you have, but the heads are second year (third maybe) emissions heads, which have the smaller emissions style port runners/valves, with a bigger, CJ style/size combustion chamber. I'm not sure what all heads they used for the GT's, but if they have 14 bolt holes on each exhaust face, they could be GT's. Or they could have been altered for the GT use.
I have a set of those heads that came stock on a `66 T-bird, with only the standard 8 hole pattern.
CJ size valves and port polishing/matching will do wonders for those heads, depending on your cost outlook. I guess the Edelbrock heads can be had for around $1200, so figure in the cost of a total overhaul on your heads, plus the porting, to determine which route you want to go. Some people claim the Edel's still need work, though, but I don't have experience with them personally.
The intake looks like a 75 truck intake, and is worth about as much as the local scrap iron yard is willing to pay you for it, except for on a truck. Weight doesnt matter much, but even then, it still doesnt flow worth beans.
Hope this helps. |
|  | RE: Found a few numbers, -- John R. Barnes, 06/10/2001
My info says 1967 390, 428, GT 500, 14 exhaust manifold holes on some castings for 390 GT and 67-8 GT 500 except GT 500 KR. Port match them and use the large exhaust valve (1.66) if it doesn't have it and use a Ford PI intake and you will be in business. |
 | engine ID #'s -- 390fastback, 06/09/2001
Finally found a good 390 for my '68 S-code Mustang fastback and would like to know what year and what type it is. Where would I find the ID #'s on the block and heads. I looked behind the starter and couldn't find anything. Any help is appreciated. Thanks. |
| | RE: engine ID #'s -- Paul M, 06/09/2001
The casting numbers for the block should be on the side of the block, on the #1 cylinder area.
I believe the date code is on the machined surface at the bottom of the block below the oil filter adapter.
The head casting #'s are between the middle spark plugs on each head.
Hope this helps.
|
| Headers for 390 in a Boid -- Boidman of ATL, 06/09/2001
I havent seen this done yet,but im sure someone has tried and failed or suceeded.Has there been a manufacturer of headers for 390 FE engines that could squeez into the confines of the t-bird engine bay.Im guessing whoever did put some in theirs probably had the shock towers modified for extra clearance.However,it looks as if the steering box is going to be in the way just like in my 70 Buick Electra i am currenting using as a daily driver. |
| c-6 tranny -- bear, 06/08/2001
I have been having trouble with burning up clutches. I am running a 3000 rpm stall. and a trany cooler at first i thought it was a problem with line pressure. i bought a tci manual valve body. now i think it is the line running to the trany cooler. i up graded from 5/16 to 3/8 . any idea's
bear |
| | RE: c-6 tranny -- RJP, 06/08/2001
Cooler lines don't have anything to do with your problem. Cooling is done on fluid exiting from the converter. The only thing that can cause clutches to burn is low line pressure, leakage or not enough clutch capacity. You didn't say what clutch pack is burning up. Forward clutch or hi/rev? In any case more clutches should help. For any sort of high performance application there should be at least 4 [min.] clutches in the hi/rev clutch pack and at least 5 clutches in the forward pack. |
| |  | RE: c-6 tranny -- bear, 06/09/2001
it is the hi/rev clutch. it has four clutches in it. wouldn't the manual vale body make the line pressure were it should be. actually the forward cluth pack had signs of wear. but the hi/rev clutches were burnt and the steels were blued. any suggestions on how to correct the line pressure if that is the problem. |
| | | | What kinda fluid are you using? -- Dave Shoe, 06/09/2001
Just curious.
Also, what kinda mileage are you getting between clutchpack replacements.
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: What kinda fluid are you using? -- bear, 06/09/2001
I have tried a few different brands of type f. coastal,aamco, automaster. Not more than a couple hundred, five at the most. I read somewhere that if i change the length of the modulator pin i will increase my line pressure is this true and if so were do i get a longer pin. I am a bout ready to scrap the C-6 and go for a toploader. |
| | | | | RE: What kinda fluid are you using? -- bear, 06/09/2001
is it common to chew up clutches on the C-6. is this something i am going to have to live with. i wouldn't mind it if i was racing but i mostly drive on the street and i am getting way to good at tearing down the c-6. i have been running the thing for two years and i have had it apart about 4 times. |
| | | | | | A C6 build should last a couple of years behind a heavy vehicle. -- Dave Shoe, 06/09/2001
I got three solid, punishing years outta my C6 overhaul behing the 427. I updated the forward clutch to the 5-disk setup and used the B&M rebuild kit. In the first week I'd break the tires loose as I hit third gear in the 3.50:1 lockered LTD, but it softened to a solid chirp after that. It took three years before 3rd and 2nd started showing their age, and a couple more years before they started to slip significantly (it ran so well I couldn't just park it for slipping!).
You've got another problem of some sort. I dunno whether it's a valve body problem or a structural probmel, but you should definitely get more miles outta your C6 before problems surface.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | RE: c-6 tranny -- greg(australia), 06/09/2001
I believe the problem lies in the relationship between the v.b + the selector linkage.Some c6's have the detents for the manaul valve in the v.b.These dont usually give a prob as long as the shift linkages are adjusted correctly.Some c6's have a small roller mounted in the case above the selector linkage.Ihave seen these small rollers wear a little flat spot on them which puts the manual valve in the position in relation the the shift linkage.
Here's a prob i came across that also burned the direct clutch + marked the band.
The trans shifted fine 1-2-3 but when shifting from 3-2 there was a delay.Because of the wear on the roller for the detent ,the manual valve was in such a position that it would select '2' but wasn't moving far enough to exhaust the oil from the direct clutch which effectively momentarily gives two gears at once.The easiest way to check this is,does the trans downshift immediately when shifting from 3-2?
I hope this makes sense ,if not i'll try to explain some more.Ihave some measurements to measure the manual valve in the valve body in each gear position i could post if you think this is the prob.
No matter how many rebuilds are done this prob will keep cropping up because it's just there.
Most shop manuals for GM give specs to set the manual valve on assembly,but on fords it is often overlooked.
Also here is a tech bulletin that also relates to the selector linkage .
Hope this helps.
 |
| | | RE: c-6 tranny -- RJP, 06/09/2001
You have a unique problem with your trans. I would do a complete line pressure test as outlined in a Ford shop manual. If the pressure is low and the pressure regulator is working properly then I would look for leakage in the hydraulic circuit from valve body to clutch servos and seals. Inspect front pump housing and gears for scoring and other abnormal wear and damage. Also check for case cracking. Its not uncommon for a C6 case to crack, usually around the band anchor or the band servo. Your problem can be something as silly as a weak or mis-adjusted modulator and the line pressure test should find this. I have built, run and raced C6s for many years and never had this problem. |
| | | | Thanks for the Idea's n/m -- bear, 06/09/2001
n/m
|
| 1968 "W" 427 (4V) 2-bolt Cougar GT-E?? -- P, 06/08/2001
Mr. F, your tech info page, which is greatly revered, shows a spec for the 1968 W code engine with the annotation at the bottom of the page that the blocks were cast for 4-bolt but not machined. Please clarify this, as I have heard that the 1968 Cougar 427 hydraulic motor was a two bolt, and this is something that I'm very curious about and want to learn more.
Any help will be appreciated.
Thank you!
P |
| | RE: 1968 "W" 427 (4V) 2-bolt Cougar GT-E?? -- Dave Shoe, 06/08/2001
My latest suspicion is that most 427 GTE Cougars were fully crossbolted, but there may have been a half dozen (gut-feel number, not based on fact - maybe it's closer to 50) which ended up with uncrossbolted nodular "police interceptor" caps, possibly because the foundry didn't cast enough for the full quantity of cars, or perhaps the cars were all built in too short of a timespan, on too short of a notice, and on too small a budget, to commission a special-order batch of cross-bolted caps to be cast.
Because crossbolt holes are drilled in the block after the maincaps have been selected for the block, it's logical that these 427 blocks would not have been drilled for crossbolts. It's also logical that the engine plant might authorize such an assembly deviation because it was recognized these were detuned emissions-certified 427 engines with cast iron cranks that would not be capable of spinning up to the race-engine RPM levels.
This "fabricated story" is based on info I've learned in the FE forums over the past two years. It may be incorrect, but it makes sense to me based on what I've heard from numerous 427 GTE owners and also on numerous rumors.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: 1968 "W" 427 (4V) 2-bolt Cougar GT-E?? -- Mike McQuesten, 06/09/2001
I have seen and rolled over on the shop floor a '68 hydraulic W code 427 block. It came out of a genuine '68 Cougar GTE. My friend still has the block. It's a true factory cross bolt main cap, side oiler, hydraulic lifter block.
I also speculate that very few were cast since so few Cougar 427s were built for '68. The early literature for the Mustang, Torino, Cougar and Cyclone listed the 390 horse hydraulic 427 as an option with automatic trans only. This is old stuff I know. The program never got off the ground. The bean counters put an early end to it sometime around the major UAW strike with Ford in October '67. Please don't think I'm blaming the union for the end of the 427 option. I think the end was near before the strike. Soon after new literature began to arrive in the FoMoCo showrooms......no more 427!
Isn't it true that late sixties and early seventies 427 service blocks came as hydraulic units? |
| | | | I sometimes wonder if the deviation was actually just a writer mis-remembering the "cast iron" crankshaft change. -- Dave Shoe, 06/09/2001
Writers are writers. They are not necessarily any more factual than an advertisement. George Reid is a perfect example.
I've heard about the 2-bolt main rumor since I heard of the 427 Cougar. I sometimes wonder if it wasn't originated by a confused writer who mistakenly mixed-up the new cast iron crank with a phantom 2-bolt maincap. The confusion would be logical, as maincaps and cranks are pretty much one-and-the-same in a racing FE.
As for the UAW killing the 427, there's nothing to support that because the W-code 427 was offered as a 1969 option until the SCJ brainstorm was hatched in the 25th hour.
Emissions laws and limited performance budgets forced the 4-speed outta the 427 in 1968 (it's cheaper to certify only one engine than two), and production costs (casting and machining) made the 427 a tough block to stick into any car. The SCJ was promoted into the place of the emissions-laden 427 in 1969, requiring only a set of heavy rods and quickly-designed super-cheap cast piston which would hold together at high-RPMS (a piston which would also be inherited by the CJ when they became available).
The reason 427s and 428s became popular industrial blocks in the late 60's and early/mid 70s is because the 413 Chrysler was romping reliably in this territory and Ford wanted a piece of the action. The Chrysler powerplant, however, was specifically designed to handle the power take-off duties, as it had a forged steel crank and it's snout was supported by a ball bearing in the timing cover when needed. Apparently, FE crankshafts just didn't fare as well against the Chrysler offerings.
JMO,
Shoe. |
| | | | | Hey guys, why not ask an expert? Go to this guy.. -- Styleline, 58, 06/09/2001
JIM PINKERTON GT-E REGISTRAR;
20727 -106 TH AVE. S.E.
SNOHOMISH, WA 98296;
(360) 668-0243;
E-MAIL =
pinktwo@gte.net
|
| | | | | RE: UAW not blamed -- Mike McQuesten, 06/10/2001
One thing I want to make very clear is that I did not in any way blame the UAW for the death of the 427 powered uni-bodys. I don't want to get into politics but I am a card carrying teamster and I believe the union had grounds for that strike in '67. I was only 18 at the time and I didn't blame 'em then. All I remember is that the strike delayed delivery on FE powered 'stangs for a little while. I was chompin' at the bit to drive a new big block pony to compare it to my '66 GTA. BTW, I was not impressed when I finally got the opportunity. I was never beaten by a '67/'68 390 GT/GTA Mustang. I was thouroughly trounced by Jerry Pruitt's (Yakima, WA) '69 Mach, SCJ w/3.91s demonstrator.
So Shoe are you saying that the 427 GTE Cougars were built throughout '68? I'm stating my opinion here based on memory from "those good ol'days". I read everything I could and followed every piece of news on Ford High Performance in them thar years through '72 when more pressing obligations started to take over. I thought the 427 was dropped completely as an option in anything by November, '67. The Coug GTE was very hard to get. I "know" of no '68 Mustangs/Torinos that were ever built with the 390 horse 427. I'm not talking about prototypes. Anyone know of any, anywhere that were ever tested? Also I remember that Ford wasn't building the W-code 427 with 4 speed option because of warranty problems that would result from the unibody's structure and suspension not being up to the torque shock that the 427 would provide. I'm not making that up! I might have to dig through old mags for a few hours but it was a big point late in '67 with the announcement of the 427. We were pissed! Why no stick?! It was embarassing. GM/Mopar had no such ridiculous limitations. But Ford had not yet engineered the staggered shocks for stick cars ala late '68, etc. Also the improved tracLok/31 spline axles weren't available either. Maybe the 31 splines were with the W-code. I mean a 390 4 speed Mustang/Fairlane wound the leaf springs up for major hop. Just imagine what the torque of that 390 horse 427 would do to a stock leaf springed uni-body? One thing I do remember reading was about the awesome street power/torque that hydraulic '27 put to the pavement.
|
| | | | | | You've got some neat info there. -- Dave Shoe, 06/10/2001
I made up the part about the auto-tranny requisite being due to emissions limitations, because I'd heard that stick-shift engines failed idle emissions or something like that.
The 427 torque damage is interesting to learn, though it doesn't make a heckuva lotta sense since the 428CJ was stronger than the 427 hyd (because of the new CJ exhaust manifolds), though the staggered shock and extra welding may have solved this problem by the time the CJ came to town.
Keep the info coming. I'm digging it a bunch.
Oh, also, I believe the GTE Cougars were all built in one predefined batch within just a week or two of each other early in the 1968 model year. Ford didn't even want to build ANY of these expensive machines, but the marketing department apparently convinced the brass that SOMETHING needed to be built to keep the "faster-than-390GT" competition off the front page. I only recognize the 427hyd was going to be carried over into 1969 because the 1969 Ford Preliminary shop manual lists it as the top-gun (even above the 428CJ Ram Air) for that year. The lower-cost SCJ was invented after 1969 was underway in order to put the emissions-saddled 427 to sleep.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: Found some stuff -- Mike McQuesten, 06/11/2001
Okay Shoe you got me diggin' through those old musty file cabinets out in the shop tonight. I too enjoy this thread and I'm finding it enlightening to go back on this stuff. Here's a little of what I found that "kinda" affirms my theories on the why no clutch was allowed with the brute 427 and why the 427 hydraulic never became available in anything other than the handful of Cougar GTE's that were built.
"Super Stock & Drag Illustrated", June, 1967, "Hot 427 Fairlane(The Mind Boggles)":
This is a full story where Ford racer Phil Bonner rings out a "prototype that will not be built until the '68 model year". The Fairlane is a '67 GTA. "The engine is a single-four barrel 427 wedge with hydraulic lifters, and was built in the Ford Experimental Garage with off-the-shelf Ford parts, in an effort to cut costs./ .....The cam used is the GT 390 model, non-adjustables, and C14B truck lifters./..On the lower end, there's a production cast crank with 8 shiny 406 rods./ It's got the '67 police transmission with the '66 GT/A governor and a 12 in. GT/A convertor. The rear end uses a 9" ring gear with 28 spline axles. Engineer Holbrook stated that if they hold up under abuse, the 28's will go into the production models but he thinks that 31 spline will replace the 28's for added insurance. The differential is an ordinary clutch locking unit."
There's a lot more, the Fairlane ran a best of 13.99/101.8 mph on F70x14 bias tires.
The most important support here may be the running development that Ford engineers were doing to put together a solid street performer that would eliminate some of the embarassment caused by the 390GTs lackluster performance.
"1968 Car & Driver Yearbook": From their description of the up-coming Torino GT-427: "Ford has seen fit to make it's 3-speed automatic transmission mandatory with the 427 engine, and it's a sensible decision. The automatic is capable of handling all that torque(which this magazine lists as 460 ft-lbs. at 3200 rpm)smoothly yet positively, and goes a long way towards cutting down the impact loading on the rest of the driveline."
This may be where I formed my long standing belief that FoMoCo wasn't ready to release this much torque loose in the unibody cars. I believe they were working/testing the staggered shock system, preparing the big input 4 speed tranny for production for both the Mustang/Cougar and the different tailshafted Torino/Montego. The stick also required unique (larger) throwout fork for the big input 4 speed. The C-6 was tough and ready to take the power of the 427.
"Popular Hot Rodding, April, 1968": "As we stated in our final Project Mustang article(February), the 428 Cobra Jet will definitely give the street rodder a competitive package. One question immediately comes to mind about the 428. Why bring out the Cobra Jet when the 427 high performance engine had already been announced as a performance option for '68? There are a couple of reasons for the new Cobra Jet introduction. First, the Cobra Jet will be priced about $400 less than the 427 street version, and second, the 428 is a much more streetable engine than the 427."
Personally, I can't imagine the 427 "S" as it was referred to as being too wild on the street what with the C6OZ-B cam. My opinion reaffirmed, it was too expensive - bean counters win again!
Lastly, this is the one that kinda supports my theory about the '67 UAW strike contributing to the early death of the 427 hydraulic Street engine.
"Super Stock & Drag Illustrated", February, 1968,: "Well, the engineers went at it full tilt, working on not one, but two complete power systems to fit n all of the Ford cars. Enter a gigantic labor problem. Sixty-one days of non-production, and multiple setbacks for all advance programs and regular production as well, due to a strike.......... By selecting the 428 as a base, and combining the block with already mass-produced parts from such engines as the 390GT, new tooling and casting costs were eliminated, making the finished product cheaper by hundreds of dollars and more readily available....."
So I admit nothing that totally affirms my opinions on what happened to the 427 hydraulic. Same for my opinion on why no stick option was available with the 427. I can only say that Ford and we Ford fanatics were struggling to come up with a competitive, affordable street package. Thanks to the men at Tasca Ford for switching on the light. The all set, Cobra Jet was born. |
| | | | | | | RE: You've got some neat info there. -- Kevin Marti, 06/11/2001
Whereas because so few were built, it would seem logical to expect them to be built as a batch, actually, the 427 GTE Cougars for 1968 were built first as an initial order of 12 in August of '67, then as regular production from January through June of '68. They were spread all through production, therefore.
Kevin Marti
www.martiauto.com
|
| | | | | | | | All year? Interesting. Thanks for the great info, Kevin. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 06/11/2001
n/m |
| | | | | | Attn: Mike McQuesten -- Jeff H., 06/10/2001
Just out of curiousity was Pruitt's SCJ demonstrator black with red stripes? |
| | | | | | | RE: Lime Gold! -- Mike McQuesten, 06/11/2001
Hey Jeff, that particular week, Jerry Pruitt was running a lime gold Mach I. As I said it was a Drag Pack Ram Air, 3.91 geared car. Jerry is still a good friend. He was "the" salesman at Yakima Valley Ford back in those days. Eventually owned the business. Jerry is a phenominal tune/build man. He could tweak a Ford to run 2 tenths quicker in a half hour or less. He helped me, a dirt poor community college kid with barely enough money for Premium(Ethel- the pink stuff) for my '66 GTA. He re curved the distributor, "weakened" the vacuum secondary spring while chucking the little ball check valve. We installed BTF31 plugs in lew of the stock BF32. These minor changes dropped my best e.t. of 15.00 to 14.80. Not bad for all else totally stock, 3.25 gears.
Jerry was the high performance man of the Yakima Valley. He allowed me to drive anything that was on the lot, i.e., 390 GT whatever, 289HPs, Shelby GT350H, 427 Galaxies, eventually Boss 302s/429s. What a friend he was. He had just tuned my Fairlane in early summer of '69. I challenged him to race me with his demo. He said sure but not to blame his tuning when I lose. I was well prepared to see the taillights of the Green Mach. Sure enough, we came out of the hole even for approximately 40'. Then it was all I could do to keep the Mach's taillights visable.
As for Jerry's black Mustang? He did order a plain jane Sportsroof, NON-Mach I equipped with the
428SCJ, drag-pack, C-6 automatic w/4.30 gearing. Somehow, TWO of these came to Valley Ford! I can't remember exactly why this happened. It was some sort of ordering mix up. The cars were virtual twins one production number a part. One was sold very quickly and the other became Jerry's dealer backed drag 'stang. I don't remember a red stripe on it but he could have added some graphics after I returned to college in another city. I never got to actually see the car run but I think he was hitting low twelves with it quite easily. This was not in streetable condition.
Jerry is still living and selling Porsches/Audis in Yakima while in the process of restoring Portlands' Bill Ireland's '61 390/401 Super Stock Starliner. |
| | | | | | | | RE: Lime Gold! -- Jeff H., 06/11/2001
My father ,Allan Holter, used to be a line mechanic at Valley Ford back in the late sixties and has often told me stories about Jerry's exploits. He was also was also an avid Drag racer and often raced big block Fords out at renegade raceway north of Wapato. The story about Jerry's special order black drag pack cars especially peaks my interest as I have heard this same(almost) story from my father. According to the old man Jerry initially ordered a black 69 mach with 428scj/4speed and 3.91's but the car did not show up on schedule. Thinking that the order was lost Jerry re-ordered another car but this time he had changed his mind about what would be a good base for a dealer drag car and ordered a plain black sportsroof 428scj with auto and 4.30 rear. To Jerry's surprise BOTH cars were delivered from San Jose on the same trailer. Dad says he remembers watching the sales guys immediately take both cars out behind the dealership and race them (the auto car won). I thought that he said that Pruitt drove the mach for a while before it sold but when I asked him last night he said that they put it on the showrrom floor and it was sold that day to a kid from Zillah.
The reason I am so interested in this story is that I currently own the mach. My father ended up buying the car in '75 when the kid blew the motor for the second time and was having a hard time putting it back together. I finally bought the car from him in '98. Dad said that he saw Jerry five or so years ago and Jerry asked if dad would want to sell the car. Luckily, he did not and I am cuurently in the process of restoring the car. By the way, Jerry's drag car was eventually purchased by a friend of dads from Buena who, as far as I know, still has the car today. I tried to buy the car from him but he is a pack rat who never parts with anything he owns. It is a shame too because he lets the car sit exposed in his field of tall grass.
Any way I would appreciate it if you would e-mail me off-line so that we can move this discussion from the forum.
Jeff
jeffholter@yahoo.com |
| | | | | | | | | Very cool story, guys. I really enjoy the 'personal' angles. :-) [n/m] -- Mr F, 06/11/2001
n/m |
| | | | | | RE: UAW not blamed -- marty vogler, 06/11/2001
This is unbelivable. I own a '69 R-code Mustang and am knowledgable on cj's. Talked with someone who lives a couple of miles from me about his uncles basket case '68 427 Cougar. I asked him if it was for sale he said "yea probably so, its just siiting there" I said how much, he said "oh $300-$400. His dad bought a '68 W-code Mustang the same time his uncle
bought the Cougar. This guy has the Mustang,I've seen it. I am not making this up.Time for me to purchase this Cougar . |
| | | | | | | You haven't bought it yet? Get on it! ;-) [n/m] -- Paul M, 06/11/2001
~. |
| | | | | | | Info on that Mustang is welcome. Meanwhile, I don't believe it. [n/m] -- Mr F, 06/11/2001
n/m |
| | | | | | | RE: W-code '68? -- Mike McQuesten, 06/11/2001
Okay Marty Vogler, provide us the VIN & data on that W-code '68 Mustang. I'm one who believes that there may have been a few built. Production of the '68 Fords was up and running by the big strike. So it's possible? |
| | | | | | | W code Mustang -- Tim B, 06/12/2001
Could you post the Data plate and VIN numbers? A photo too. Virually all reliable sources say there wasn't a 427 W code 1968 Mustang produced.
Tim B
1969 XR7 428 CJR convertible
http://members.aol.com/timbrands/index.html |
| | | RE: 1968 "W" 427 (4V) 2-bolt Cougar GT-E?? -- P, 06/11/2001
Thank you Dave, I always appreciate your objective posts, knowledge, and consistancy.
P |
| | 2-bolt, 4-bolt, 6-bolt, a dollar; screw-ups make me want to holler... -- Mr F, 06/09/2001
| Mr. F, your tech info page, which is greatly revered,
Thanks for the compliment. And I knew that some folks like it, since they've taken the liberty of lifting complete 'spec sheet' pages, practically intact....and with no credit given, of course. On a good day, this leaves me feeling flattered. :-\
[...] shows a spec for the 1968 W code engine with the annotation at the bottom of the page that the blocks were cast for 4-bolt but not machined. Please clarify this, as I have heard that the 1968 Cougar 427 hydraulic motor was a two bolt, and this is something that I'm very curious about and want to learn more.
I hate to bum your cool, P, but that passage has a very significant typo...a whopper, even. Its supposed to read as follows: "Some blocks are cast for crossbolts, but not machined." Makes all the difference in the world, doesn't it? And not just grammatically.
Of course, I'm betting the change began with late-production '68 blocks and then extended into service parts. Frankly though, the old literature I've seen is ambiguous. I had meant to return and add more info - like a cutoff date - but never got 'round to it. Please extend my apologies to the faithful...mea culpa, folks. ;-)
Mr F |
|
| | | ....mea culpa?? -- P, 06/11/2001
I think I've heard of her before. Didn't she star in that film Woody Allen directed??
Well hey, at least I didn't ask for a clarification of what "FE" stood for. Thx for the comments, the only reason I'm interested, is to learn more about how Ford made decisions, etc., and the posts that have been offered here are great, especially the ones about the strikes that influenced moving to the 428, etc. My typo is acknowledged, but you obviously got the point of the question. Thx for a great forum,
P |
| | | | I was referring to _my_ typo on the 'W' page.[n/m] -- Mr F, 06/11/2001
n/m |
| | | | | "some blocks" (typo) -- P, 06/12/2001
I understand the typo comment, and yes, this does make a lot of difference.
I've found that regardless of which reference book can be produced, for use as a guideline or to referee an issue, Ford probaly had several deviations on the machine line that deviated from what is published. This is one of the things that makes owning and working with these old motors such a challenge, (and so very interesting).
Part of the info search I have done shows that marine units (for Chris Craft) were interrupted due to strikes in 1966. As a result, CC published a "supplemental engine list" for that year, and they bought Chrysler 413's, among others, to fill their needs. As a result, you can find a 1966 38' CC Commander at one dock with 427 side-oilers, another dock will have the same boat with 427 top-oilers, and another dock will have the same boat with one of several Chrysler motors. They even had one version with small block Chevy, which was a dog in a boat weighing 8 tons. My 38 Commander has the 427 top-oiler, and the 876 footpounds of torque from the pair is awesome. These marine engines were tuned to 300-HP, and develope their max torque at a very low RPM right there where you can use it. When they bark in a tin shed marina, everyone turns their head to see what the heck it was.
Biggest problem with the marine units these days is the crappy Mallory (Eaton Dearborn) distributor, with those terrible "third-world" breaker points, and the rotor that strikes the underside of the "crab" type distributor cap. I changed over to the Pertronix ignitor system, and it makes ALL the difference in the world. The engines love that system, and it's cheap and very simple, and highly recommended.
All the best, and thanx again for all the info you provide
P |
| Hydraulic Roller Cam Available for FE ?? -- Skip C., 06/08/2001
Does anyone know if a hydraulic roller cam and assoc hardware is made for the FE ?? Perferably one that will allow use of stock hydraulic rocker arms. I've found solid rollers, but no hydraulic. Also, does anyone know how much lift the stock hyd rocker arm will support without premature valve guide wear ?
Thanks in advance, Skip |
| | RE: Hydraulic Roller Cam Available for FE ?? -- Paul M, 06/08/2001
Heres a link to one hydraulic roller cam.
http://www.cranecams.com/master/apps/ford46.htm
Check the notes at the bottom of that page.
Requires the adjustable rockers, but you can use stock 1.76.
They recommend their adjustable style rockers and pushrods, however.
Can't help with the wear question, as I don't have enough experience in that area.
|
| oil pressure springs -- Yooper, 06/08/2001
Where can I get a high pressure spring for the relief valve on a 67 side oiler and a hp spring for a Melling HV57 pump?
Thanks;
Yooper |
| | RE: oil pressure springs -- John R. Barnes, 06/08/2001
All 427 engines I run have the relief valve shimmed up so it cannot open at all. |
| Question For Mr. F. -- Skip C., 06/08/2001
On the Thunderbird 390, why did Ford switch from a cam with 270 degrees duration / .232" lift and a 600 CFM carb to a cam with 256 degrees duration / .253" lift and a 446 CFM carb in 1966 ? This question only applies to non-thermactor engines.
Thanks, Skip C. |
| | RE: Question For Mr. F. -- Dave Shoe, 06/08/2001
Emissions laws kicked-in in 1966.
Less overlap means less fuel get's drawn straight from the intake runner out the exhaust runner, never to see a combustion cycle, thus improving emissions of unburned hydrocarbons.
Thermactor was apparently a California-only thing for hot-cammed FEs in 1966-67, but I'm not certain of this - if you know otherwise, please tell me. As Thermactor provides "auxiliary exhaust manifold combustion", it'll turn any unburned fuel or carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide - all the engineers gotta do is dial the thermactor pulley size in so it'll pump sufficient air for the task at hand.
I didn't realize Ford used two different cams in the '66 Tbird 390. This is interesting.
Another possibility is that Ford found the C6AE-R head worked better with the old cam and the new C6AE-J and C6AE-U designs worked better with the new cam. I doubt this last thought is correct, but I figure I'd toss it out, anyway.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: Question For Mr. F. -- Skip C., 06/08/2001
Thanks Dave. I guess I wasn't clear. The shorter duration/greater lift cam started (I think) in 1966. There was only one cam in 1966. The longer duration/lower lift cam was from 1961-1965. The cam change seems to coinside with the change to the 446 carb. According to the '66 T-bird shop manual, some of the '66 Birds came with thermactor (and smaller jets in the carb). I guess the thermactor (air pump) was probably for California only. Do you know if there were any tailpipe emissions regulations (other than California) in 1966 ? This seems like the only reason to change the cam & carb, although the mileage probably improved a little. Skip |
| | A nip here and a tuck there... -- Mr F, 06/08/2001
| On the Thunderbird 390, why did Ford
switch from a cam with 270 degrees duration / .232" lift and a 600 CFM
carb to a cam with 256 degrees duration / .253" lift and a 446 CFM carb in
1966?
My understanding is that there was a
two-fold plan at work, here. Get ready for a long explanation:
As
Dave mentioned, this period saw important changes to federal
and state auto regulations. Among these were the mandating
of PCV valves in NY & elsewhere, replacing old-style
'road draft tube' ventilation. But the biggest problem for Ford
was CA's new, lower standards for hydrocarbon emissions.
Dearborn's 4v engines were already proving somewhat problematic in this
regard, so it was no surprise their workhorse 390 needed some tinkering to
pass.
And this was further complicated by another
change for '66: all grades of US pump gas had been reformulated. Premium
fuel, by now considered the de
facto touchstone of any 'personal luxury' car,
was bumped up from 99.0 octane to 99.8. Again, as with the
revised administrative laws, several Ford mills required
substantial rework to meet this challenge....or to take advantage of
it, as Ford's sales literature said at the
time.
So, the base 390 4v received a new carb,
heads, intake, cam and valve springs....not
to mention the in-line fuel filter & baffled oil
pan. All of this was designed around twin engineering ideals of (1) improving
warm-up & general driveability while (2) promoting lower emissions, both at
idle and at speed. This latter goal proved an elusive one,
revealing the stalwart Autolite 4100 as the weak link - hence 1967's
intro of the 4300 series and 'IMCO' engineering.
....but that's another story. Hope this helped. :-)
Mr
F |
|
| | | Thanks for the explanation ! -- Skip C., 06/12/2001
n/m |
| 1962 390 4v in Thunderbird -- Boidman of Atl, 06/08/2001
In looking for replacement parts for the thunderbird im working on,im confused as to which hear range i should use for a new thermostat.The choices are 160,180 and 190 degree.I have heard that these engines like to run hot so i would suspect 160 would be the right choice,but if the engine runs too cool that could also make trouble.Ive decided to use autolite platninum plugs and pertronix ignitor,coil and wires to provide the spark that has been missing since it was parked in the familly garage since it was bought for the princely sum of $250 by my dad in 1970.luckily its been inside the whole time so i do not have a basket case to deal with. |
| | RE: 1962 390 4v in Thunderbird -- Paul, 06/08/2001
Personally, I run a 160 in my 390 truck. Most people tell me thats to cold, but I spend most of my time in bumper-2-bumper traffic, and with a 180, it was overheating, from the lack of airflow through the radiator/constant idling. Shrouded fan, 3 core radiator, new water pump and hoses, and a relatively clean system didn't make much of a difference. Once the temp gets down below 50 everyday, I switch to a 180, however.
JMO
|
| | RE: 1962 390 4v in Thunderbird -- Craig M,, 06/08/2001
I agree with paul, I don't think you can get it to run too cold in the summer time. Could be a problem way up north in the winter with the 160 but I would think any where south of the 47th would probably be OK. I would think the block water jackets are pretty full with sludge anyway setting for so long. you might have a overheating problem even with the 160 if you have poor circulation around the cylinder walls. I'd also go over the hoses real good if not replace all of them they are probably dry rotted any way. |
| | | RE: 1962 390 4v in Thunderbird -- Curtis J., 06/08/2001
I have to agree also with paul and Craig. Over the past ten years I have tried to eliminate a potential over heating problem with my '62 t-bird. The block and radiator been boiled, new pump, cool themostat, no thermostat, added five point flex fan and so on. Still had the temp rise high after 1/2-1 hour drive. The only thing that gave me some relief was a product I added to the antifreeze called "waterwetter". Came in a pint bottle. The color is pink. It seemed to help the system to cool down faster after getting out of traffic....The only reason I went back to a 180 themostat, was if the themostat is always open, the radiator does not get a chance to cool down the antifreeze before it re-enters the engine...Good luck. |
| | | | RE: 1962 390 4v in Thunderbird -- Skip C., 06/08/2001
I have a '66 T-bird with the same tendency to overheat. On a 90 degree summer day mine runs hotter & hotter going down the highway (the faster I drive the quicker & hotter it gets), but hasn't boiled over (yet). When I stop the temp spikes up briefly, then goes down to where the needle stabilized at when the thermostat first openned. I've tried 160 & 180 with no change in pattern. A high flow 160 delays the temp rise, but it still happens. Water Wetter worked better than the high flow thermostat AS LONG AS THERE WAS NOT MORE THAN 25% ANTI-FREEZE IN THE SYSTEM. Hope this helps someone, Skip |
| | | | | RE: 1962 390 4v in Thunderbird -- Boidman of ATL, 06/08/2001
Yes,i think i will order that 160 degree thermostat since this car will mainly be for the warmer months.As for the hoses,when i first got pecked by the bird back in 1990,i removed,(or should i say broke) all of the old heater hoses and changed them out.I did take notice of a praticular snotlike substance inside them that used to be coolant.So before i even think about taking this car outside the garage,i will have run about a gallon of prestone superflush thru the system for 20mins and then once more again with mostly water.There also is a product out there called 40 below that is is used in place of antifreeze.Anyone out there ever use it? Also,anyone need a free 5 gallon container of varnish(old gasoline) theres no way id try to start this car with this mess inside the tank.It be perfect for new wood furniture but it stank too much.Last question,since i have removed the carburetor,how can i tell if it is a ford,autolite or holley type and is it worth my time to rebuild it or is there a much better new alternative out there.
|
| | | | | | RE: 1962 390 4v in Thunderbird -- Paul M, 06/09/2001
I can do without the varnish, thank you very much!
As far as the carb, if it's a holley, it should SAY so, somewhere on it.
Autolites have a very flat top (hence the nick-name flattops) except for the venturi area, on the older cars like that, if the cobwebs are letting the right memories through. Look for a small clock-like casting mark on the side of the casing, with the #'s 1.12 or 1.08 in them. 1.12 is a 600 cfm, and the 1.08 is 448 or 484 cfm or some-such (not sure, but it's under 500)
I don't know if Ford had it's own carb or if they just labeled something else.
As far as rebuilding it goes, thats a question of nostalgia vs. new. I've heard the 4100 is a great carb for a 390 or smaller engine, unless you're going for all out performance. You can also get a rebuild kit from any NAPA store. Check backwards a couple days for prior posts in the forum about this carb for some more info.
Others might have some better ideas, as well.
|
| | | | | | | RE: 1962 390 4v in Thunderbird -- Boidman of ATL, 06/10/2001
I just took a look in the basement where i have the old carb sitting on the floor.It has the 1.12 stamped on the right side,which makes it a "flattop" 600 cfm carb.As long as the 4100 holley carb has the same fuel+vaccum inlets and the same type choke,ill probably go with it and keep the old autolite as one of those nostalgia trophies.There are gonna be certain thing ill keep on the car like the "Thunderbird" valve covers as it seems the suppliers only wanna make the replacment style ones.If the block turns out to be un rebuildable,i just may spring for the new 392 (just a thought) |
| Sideoiler out of a centeroiler via cross bolts?? -- robbie, 06/07/2001
I saw a posting on another site where a guy claims(on a 427 center oiler) to have drilled the main caps and the cross bolt itself to ,,in a round about way ,,,make a side oiler ,,oiled via the 427 oil filter adapter outlet,,have any of you heard of this and is it feasable??
robbie |
| | RE: Sideoiler out of a centeroiler via cross bolts?? -- John R. Barnes, 06/07/2001
It was done by Jerry Sasser in Gainesville, Texas. He has his own machine shop. |
|