Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - frnkeore

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 76
1
FE Technical Forum / Re: 1970 f250 390 build
« on: May 07, 2024, 02:29:18 PM »
I discovered that the pin in one of the roller lifters had worked it's way loose and the wheel is chewed up.  The corresponding lobe on the cam has a pretty good ridge in it.  One of the burned pushrods corresponds to that lifter, not sure if they're related.     

I'm not used to looking at cylinder heads.  They're C8-AEH castings.  They were advertised as being worked over and have hardened seats, bowl work, with matched cc chambers.  I can see that they have double springs (or helper springs?), one piece retainers, viton valve seals.  The bowls appear to have work done, there's casting flash in the intake runners.  The valves are  ~2.058" intake and 1.056"ex., 0.368" diameter.

Is there a good resource for FE heads with pictures and so forth to review in order to better evaluate what I'm looking at?             

None of the dimensions, that I high lighted in bold, are FE dimensions. Valves should be ~2.03 x 1.56, with ~.371 to .372 stems

I think we need pictures of your heads and rocker arm assemblys. The RA shaft grooves go to the bottom or the rockers can't get full oil.

You should be able to blow the restricter out with air, from the bottom of the head.

2
On the other side of the coin, as a owner of two K code cars (64 Fairlane and 65 Must 2+2), both with CR x 3.89, Even with the the 228° cams, I had no issues with city driving. The Mustang even had at least 27" stock car tires on it.

Of course in those days gas mileage wasn't a issue. It is for me now. I don't even remember what it might have been on the Must, as I never took long trips but, I think it was ~15 with the Fairlane. I took it from SoCal to WA state, when I first got it, in '67.

That said, I can see a advantage in the 2.78 gear today, not in drag racing but, in a street car. 2.78 x 3.25 would give the same overall first gear as the K code cars. Of course the K code cars were much lighter than the later 390/428 Fairlanes and Mustangs but, even though they have more weight, they have much more tq.

3
FE Technical Forum / Re: 1970 f250 390 build
« on: May 03, 2024, 06:06:40 PM »
The lifters have nothing to do with the push rod cup. Lack of oil is the only thing that can cause that.

4
My take, though no one will care.

We are not here for magic, we are here for info.

If you not going to fill out the dyno form, as accurately as possible, then Jay should get rid of it and let everyone post what ever info they want.

I had thought the the forum was to help everyone build these unique engines and don't believe in holding back anything.

I've never like the GM copied Clevelands so, I'm prejudice on that issue.

5
Private Classifieds / '70 Mustang Coupe
« on: April 28, 2024, 02:31:06 AM »
https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/832034998960432/?ref=search&referral_code=null&referral_story_type=post&tracking=browse_serp%3A67ef492a-6f7f-4715-8095-8b4a96b63c06

This is a local car to me. The price seems good for someone that has a lot of time.

His name is Dave Jones, 541 951 9368. I bought some SBF stuff from him and he seems like a good guy and will usually deal, at least a little. He clearing out his dad's 60 yr collection.

He has a couple of early 4 sp TL's and a big in, big out TL, as well as a FE, Ansen blow up proof bell housing. I saw some CJ tagged headers, don't know what brand. There are a lot of miscellaneous stuff including trim pieces.

I'm going back over to pick up my stuff in about a week or less if anyone wants me to look at something.

6
Private Classifieds / Re: holley has another big sale going
« on: April 17, 2024, 01:31:37 AM »

7
FE Technical Forum / Re: Need to quiet down our 484 FE...
« on: April 10, 2024, 02:50:40 AM »
There is a very interesting thread going on at ST, regarding exhaust noise:

https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=68357

It is something that should help in a street engine, too. Might be worth a try.

8
FE Technical Forum / Re: Quench
« on: March 31, 2024, 05:27:54 PM »
Brent, I went back and read the JJ thread and in it you purchased a set of aluminum rod for JJ and said you were going to install them. That's why I remembered that.

I'm now curious as to the deck height and head gasket you used. When I bought the adapter and TR, I asked you what deck height you used on it (for reference on gasket fit) and if it was your normally std 10.150 DH and you said, yes. Did you also use the 1020 head gasket that you use a lot?

9
FE Technical Forum / Re: 360 vs 390 rpm
« on: March 31, 2024, 05:13:50 PM »
Yes, a 390 (if in good shape) should wind up faster (take less time to get to a particular rpm) than a 360, especially under any load but, the cam timing and carburetion will also limit the rpm and time it takes to get to that rpm.

i.e. The 63, 352 2v was rated at 4300 rpm, while the 390 4v was rated at 4600 rpm. Different cams and carbs.

10
FE Technical Forum / Re: Quench
« on: March 30, 2024, 06:58:03 PM »
In Brent's defense, my 361 Edsel block was off .018 across the deck and cleaned up at 10.172. It had the same quench as a '58 352 but the heads had no evidence of contact of any sort and would have had a min quench of .038.

But, Ford would NOT have release a engine with a nominal .036 quench if it would not be enough, period. 5 yrs later they built a all aluminum SBF, reliable enough to finish the Indy 500.

Now, if Ross's engine, that had a deck height of 10.155, had been assembled with a nominal .036 quench, It could not have left the assembly line so, it would have never made it to the street.

Last, it is my recollection (please correct me, if I'm wrong) that the the engine that Brent ran .035 quench on, was his JJ, 352 and he had aluminum rods in it (most high strength alum expands at 3 times the rate of steel). It didn't make any noise and didn't hurt anything, either.

11
FE Technical Forum / Re: Quench
« on: March 30, 2024, 03:43:31 PM »
I have Edelbrock's with 56cc chambers. I am going to run E85, so running the .045 Cometic MLS head gasket would give me a little more compression. If you suspect I would see piston to head contact with .036-.037 clearance I would just get the .051. I wish they made a .048. Jim
Actually, I think you will be fine with .036 quench. I was asking because some specs on production head gaskets aren't accurate but, I'm sure the Cometic specs will be accurate.

BTW, Fords spec for the '58 300 hp 352 was .036 (1.875 CH piston and a .031 gasket).

12
FE Technical Forum / Re: Quench
« on: March 30, 2024, 10:57:49 AM »
How are you gauging the head gasket thickness and what head gaskets will do you have?


13
FE Technical Forum / Re: 3U crankshaft
« on: March 24, 2024, 10:34:05 AM »
djburton,
Where this got confusing, is when cleandan asked about what it takes to use a FT, steel crank and I gave him that info. That info doesn't apply to your crankshaft.

Sorry about that.

14
FE Technical Forum / Re: piston skirt clearance
« on: March 23, 2024, 04:21:25 PM »
My Sept, '57 dated 361 Edsel block was off .016 front to back on one side, about .012 on the other and both were higher than 10.17. I had it decked to clean up both sides and it came out @ 10.172.

15
FE Technical Forum / Re: 3U crankshaft
« on: March 22, 2024, 01:45:20 PM »
In my case, I'm running a 164 tooth FW ring and a 3 disk, 7.5" clutch, with a button FW.

All different stuff that has to be reworked, into a package.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 76