FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: Rory428 on November 28, 2021, 09:40:55 PM
-
I just pulled the 428 CJ out of my 59, which I have been running for almost 1 1/2 years now, a bit over 3000 miles. I have a Toploader 4 speed that was originally from a 1966 Fairlane with a 289, using a bellhousing from a 1961 Ford car, and the later style 184 tooth flywheel and starter. I know that some guys say that the longer tip of the SB input shaft would bottom out in the crankshaft, and the tip needed to be cut down, or a deeper bellhousing from a PU truck would be needed. At first I did try a C5T truck bellhousing, but that located the clutch fork about 1 1/2" lower than the car bellhousing, causing problems with the factory clutch linkage, so I went with the 61 car bell. Now, when I was first doing this, I did a rough measurement, and found that the SB trans would fit just fine with no modifications, so I put it all together. Now, 3000 miles later, I pulled the engine and trans, as I have a cylinder head issue, as well as need to upgrade my clutch. Anyhow, since I have everything out, I decided to check over the pilot bushing, trans input, and crankshaft hole to just see how much room there really is. What I found is, that from the back of the pilot bushing, to the bottom of the crank hole, is 1.49", at the center, and 1.37" at the outside edges of the hole. On the SB Toploader input shaft, the tip is 1.14" from the end of the tip to the beginning of the splines, which means, that even if the splines were to actually be touching the pilot bushing,(which they do not), there is still about 1/4" of space between the tip of the input and the bottom of the pilot bushing hole. I also measured the mark on my SB input shaft to see how far into the pilot bushing the tip actually went inside, in my case, it was .096", so in reality, I had over .400" of room between the tip and the bottom of the crankshaft hole. Now, it is probably still best to check there measurements on your own combination, but in my case, the pilot hole in my 1UB 428CJ crank has plenty of room to accept a small block input shaft without trimming the tip down, using an early FE (narrow pattern) car bellhousing. Your results may vary.
Oh, by the way, much like the discussion about the input shaft tips, the flat tappet cam and lifter " fiasco" is also not written in stone either. I inspected each of my plain old dumb bell flat tappet lifters (no fancy coatings, drilled oil feed holes, pre-broke in on a machine etc), and they all still look like brand new. So, it seems that not every new flat tappet cam "goes away" during or shortly after break in, if the correct steps are taken. This engine was assembled 5 or 6 years ago, broke in on an engine dyno, and then sat for a few years until I finally got my 59 on the road in the summer on 2020, and drove it over 3000 miles.
-
I've never had a problem with the "long" input length either. Ran a SB Toploader behind a 390, a 427 and then the 427 with a 428 crank. Only in the last instance did I have the info that made me actually check the depth of the crank hole. In my case I was using a Lakewood with their block plate which may or may not make a difference.
Also haven't had to break in a Solid Cam in a long time but was present when you did on your 427 and that went without issue. I did turn my engine upside down on the stand once only to have all the lifters land on the floor. Put them back randomly and never had a problem. It was an old Cam and well seasoned so results may vary.
-
I have an early center oiler engine 63 block .I has no oil going to those dumbbell lifters about 13 years running and at last check they were just fine .Good oil (vr1) and proper break in procedures means the sft will live .Sadly from what little I know the flat tappet is getting hard to find I wanted a spare set for my 460 and none are available right now .I don't know what the future holds for us old flat tappet guys but I have been looking at several roller grinds for my 460-502 engines .Glad to hear of your success Rory but no one would expect any less from you !Doug
-
Doug, I have no idea what brand my dumb bells are, but I got them from Ken at Oregon Cam , along with the cam. Maybe see if he has any 460 solid flat lifters, as he was running them in his 460 style Super Gas Mustang.
-
I have an early center oiler engine 63 block .I has no oil going to those dumbbell lifters about 13 years running and at last check they were just fine .Good oil (vr1) and proper break in procedures means the sft will live .Sadly from what little I know the flat tappet is getting hard to find I wanted a spare set for my 460 and none are available right now .I don't know what the future holds for us old flat tappet guys but I have been looking at several roller grinds for my 460-502 engines .Glad to hear of your success Rory but no one would expect any less from you !Doug
Doug ,
I have a couple of sets of NOS 429 460 sft lifters . $130/set shipped. I could take it off of the money I owe you.
Randy
-
So it was assembled 5yrs ago, before the current rash of lifter issues, makes sense.
Last few guys reporting an issue walked through the steps they took to mitigate lifter issues, and still had a problem.
-
Rory I just wanted a spare set since lifters had gotten hard to come by .I believe I waited to long .GT I will just wait it out and whenever you get the $$ all is good .Back in the 70s I needed a set of dumbbell lifters for this same block I went to my local parts store and purchased a set of trw lifters no problem with those either .From my understanding ARP is having production issues also .I guess us impatient mechanics will have to bulk up on certain parts whenever they become available .Does Oregon cams do many 460 cams on their web site it appears they specialize in FEs .Doug
-
Doug, regarding Oregon Cam, best to phone and talk to Ken. They do much more than just Ford cams, they do heavy equipment, antique cars and tractors, pretty much anything with a bumpstick. And since Ken has been racing his current 85 Mustang in Super Gas, with 460 based engines, for quite some time, pretty sure that he has a pretty good selection for the 385 series.
-
So it was assembled 5yrs ago, before the current rash of lifter issues, makes sense.
Last few guys reporting an issue walked through the steps they took to mitigate lifter issues, and still had a problem.
The hysteria with flat tappet cams and lifters eating themselves has been around for much longer than 5 years. That said, it appears that Comp, and maybe others , are having issues with hydraulic lifters not pumping up, or being noisy in recent years, but that is a concern with the internals, of which a solid has no moving parts inside. I have heard of people having similar issues with hyd. roller lifters as well, so there must be something amiss in the quality of internal components or machining.
-
Nice real world info on the input length concern Rory. Next time someone does a search on it hopefully this thread will appear.
-
Fifteen + years ago my local cam grinder ( of 40 years) increased the lobe taper to insure lifter rotation due to the change in "modern oils". I haven't lost a lobe in any of those years. Comp's issues were said to be heat treat and lobe taper related. I never used them for a cam.
-
My own toys are flat tappet. Additionally, I have seen ZERO unexplained issues with flat tappets...however, it's far less risk and more choices nowadays in a hyd roller than a flat, so other than the initial bite, it's an easy choice
-
I used Steve Long Camshafts in Corona, Ca. Formerly Babe Erson Cams. I changed blocks with the internals and dropped the lifter tray.
Steve had mentioned he ground the lobes differently and despite the lifter shake up and the installing the cam that had about 600 miles if I followed the new break in procedure and removed the inner springs, ran it and then re-install the inner I had about a 75% chance of the cam surviving. Worked out perfectly.
-
Steve is who has done my stuff for forty years . Hard to believe it's been that long. NEVER a lobe failure.
-
Good information all around as usual. Thanks.
-
Small block input being longer on the nose, works perfectly with a truck bellhousing. The truck is deeper. And truck transmissions have the longer input nose as well, even behind the FEs.
-
But as I mentioned, the small blocks longer input shaft tip also worked just fine with a shallower depth passenger car bellhousing. At least with my 428 crank, there was plenty of room inside the pilot bushing bore for the tip. Not to mention that both my Jerico and G Force transmissions came with the longer SB tip, and I believe those are not available with a shorter FE tip. I can not say that every FE crankshaft ever made has the same depth pilot hole, but it would appear that relying on actual measurements on each combination is more reliable than blindly following "old wives tales".
Kinda like the "you MUST block off the hydraulic lifter feeds when you use solid lifters". On my drag engines I did that, but when I put this smallish solid flat tappet cam with dumb bell lifters into my 59s 428, I checked to ensure the narrow center section did not become exposed at full lift, and since it wasn`t even close, I just put them in. After 3000 miles, it still has 45 pounds hot idle oil pressure with 10-30 oil, and has 60 psi driving down the road. This is with a high volume, standard pressure Melling oil pump. Also much like I used to "fix" Fords "mistake", by grinding the main bearing oil feed holes to match the holes in the main bearings. After one of my 428 blocks split # 2 and 4 main webs, right thru the elongated oil holes, I stopped doing that, and I have not had a cracked main web since. When I think about some of the "Mandatory" oil passage modifications people did years ago, I have to wonder how many FE blocks were ruined by guys drilling and grinding too much, un necessarally.
-
Some years ago I lost an FE engine on the dyno during the break-in. Tore it apart and very soon thereafter happened to talk to Jim Dove. When I started to tell him about what happened, he stopped me and described the internal carnage I'd found. Then he told me he's had the same experience. He attributed it to the 'drive spud'---the splined, pilot-tipped replacement on a dyno for the trans input shaft. He said that the longer drive spud supposedly for a small-block Ford pushed far enough into the back of the crank as to push the crank forward enough to have created interference in the spacing of the crank, rods, etc. He told me to look at the thrust surface at the back of the center main bearing. Sure enough the flange showed witness marks suggesting front loading.
I also talked to Mose Noland and some others at Triple E. I was universally informed that it's possible, with the wrong combination of parts, and manufacturing tolerance stack-up to have, in fact, the interference spoken of above. It may not always happen, but I believe it's a possible trouble spot and something it makes sense to always look at.
KS
-
Of the ones that are clearing OK, I would bet that they aren't clearing by much. When I was playing with my first 427 in '77, it had my C4AE SPEC block and C4AE-B grooved crank, and when I put the 351W toploader in there (69 Mach1) it seemed to pull up normally to the bell (an RC scattershield out of one of Cantrell's Cobras). Went to turn it, and it was locked up. Backed off the trans bolts just a bit, and it was free. Being young and dumb, I put some 1/8" close tolerance washers between the trans and bell, and went rippin'
-
Again, it is always best to check and confirm, but as I mentioned in the first post, on MY 428, with MY car bellhousing, and MY small block Toploader, there was plenty of space between the bottom of the crank hole, and the end of the input shaft tip, over 1/4".
-
I'm wondering if some of these"small block" toploaders are really small input trans from behind a 390 FE ?. I don't think the 390 cars got large input shaft trans
-
I'm wondering if some of these"small block" toploaders are really small input trans from behind a 390 FE ?. I don't think the 390 cars got large input shaft trans
Phil, the 390s did not have the large 1 3/8" input, they had the same 1 1/16" x 10 spline input as the small block transmissions, with the same length splines. The only difference was the 390 input had a shorter tip that fits into the pilot bushing. My Toploader was originally installed in a 1966 289 Fairlane. If the tag is on, AND nothing has been changed over the years, Dave Kees website has a complete list of Toploader 4 speed applications, identified by the HEH or RUG code on the tag.
-
Not disputing that your trans was originally from a small block car, just that a lot of people think small input =orig small block trans. And that the 390 toploaders could account for a lot of "mine fit fine"
Also like you said no telling what got changed over the years 🙂