FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => Member Projects => Topic started by: ChiefDanGeorge on November 16, 2015, 02:51:05 PM
-
I've been posting questions in various threads and thought I probably should start a projects thread.
My wagon:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5608/15489900827_f8e4121c56_t.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pAMMRD)1963 Mercury Colony Park (https://flic.kr/p/pAMMRD)
Why am I not rebuilding the motor that's in there?
I love driving the car and also know my tendency to let projects linger.
What have I got so far?
I've got a '68 390 from a GT. Seems to be an X code block, although with all the various casting numbers for FE series engines I really don't know if that means too much. It's been bored 0.040 and is ready to build.
I also picked up an old supposed early 60s FE aluminum 4V intake, I need to get a picture of it and maybe get it ID'd. There are no casting numbers on it. The reason I got it was it was setup with the oil filler tube in the intake. I'm not married to it, I just thought it might be a cool OEM piece to use and I love the Mercury valve covers I have now(no oil filler holes).
What am I trying to do?
Build another 390 to replace the current tired motor, but with a bit more power. Looking at the build sheet, the stock setup was 250Hp and 400lb/ft tq. I'd like to go a bit more than that, say around 350-400Hp and 450-500 lb/ft tq.
The car has a Merc O'matic that was just rebuild last year and I really want to keep that transmission. It really is nice on the highway(aside from having to stop about every hour to check oil from blowby loss). The read end is a 3.00 according to the door plate code.
Looks like the Survival Prison Break stroker package is pretty popular here and after talking with Barry that seems like a good choice for me. I read through the Hot Rod article on the budget 390 build linked on this site and while comprehensive, I am not looking to go street/strip, just a good cruiser that I'd love to try and do a Hot Rod power tour with.
I'd really appreciate any advice/feedback on heads, cam, rocker and intake setups I should consider. This is my first engine build, so I will most likely ask some dumb questions for sure.
Dan
-
Cool friggin car.
-
Thanks! I actually read your truck build project thread and got some ideas there. I thought about doing Edlebrok heads, but they are pricey, and it looks like with your stock heads you hit the power range I am interested in. If you don't mind me asking, what did the machine work cost for your heads?
Cool friggin car.
-
Not expensive.
I can't remember it's been so long but it was basically replace the guides, new seals, a valve job and just barely touch up the ports. The only pain in the "a" expense was redoing the guides as they were hacked a bit the first time and I took it to another shop.
I did get a nice valve job so that was a bit more.
When I get a day off Ill find my build sheet. It has prices.
Meanwhile I'll bet one of the younger guys that still has a memory will chime in.
Cheers
-
Love the car -- I've got a thing for wagons. How about some inside pics, I'm tempted to put a Merc gage cluster in my Ford. Can't help on your questions, but it sounds like you're heading the right direction. Later, Travis
-
Yeah man, I get some inside pics. It's a red interior. The gauge cluster in these are the coolest, love the individual instrument pods.
Love the car -- I've got a thing for wagons. How about some inside pics, I'm tempted to put a Merc gage cluster in my Ford. Can't help on your questions, but it sounds like you're heading the right direction. Later, Travis
-
Great looking car! One you really don't see anymore.
On your build, maybe figure out how much you want to spend first. Usually, folks way underestimate the $ involved in attempting what you want to do.
The stroker kit is a natural for such a big, heavy ride. Yet, if it's a highway star and max hp isn't needed, the iron heads, stock rockers and such s/b fine topped with nice intake. Doesn't sound like the 3.0 gear is going anywhere yet a lower gear would wake things up at the expense of fuel mileage.
What's with the tranny kicking out fluid btw? Sounds like a few $ spent there would be part of the build-up.
-
The transmission isn't spitting fluid, it's the engine. Lots of blowby at moderate highway speeds.
Great looking car! One you really don't see anymore.
On your build, maybe figure out how much you want to spend first. Usually, folks way underestimate the $ involved in attempting what you want to do.
The stroker kit is a natural for such a big, heavy ride. Yet, if it's a highway star and max hp isn't needed, the iron heads, stock rockers and such s/b fine topped with nice intake. Doesn't sound like the 3.0 gear is going anywhere yet a lower gear would wake things up at the expense of fuel mileage.
What's with the tranny kicking out fluid btw? Sound slike a few $ spent there would be part of the build-up.
-
It needs State Park stickers in the side windows.. :)
-
Yep, I've been looking online for some of the vintage ones.
It needs State Park stickers in the side windows.. :)
-
Very nice Merc, I'm partial to wagons myself also. On the subject of intake manifolds it would be best if you could post a picture of the Ford aluminum intake you have and we could help you I.D. it. There were many Ford aluminum intakes that didn't have a casting number and Jay found quite a variation in how they perform, even on a mild build. Some examples of 4V aluminum manifolds that didn't have a casting number ( although many have a date code ) are the '60 352 HP, the '61 390 HP, some 406 & 427 LR, and some 427 Medium Riser manifolds. They all have a provision for the oil filler tube. In general the manifolds got better with each later version as time went on. In particular, Jay found the '60 352 HP manifold was a poor performer even on his mild 410 horse dyno motor, making less power than a stock "S" iron intake which itself is a pretty poor performer for anything beyond a stock rebuild. Now if it turns out you have a early 427 MR manifold that will be a good choice. Jay and some of the other members can give you some good build advice, but you'll want to figure out what you have first. It will be fun to follow along.
-
I actually posted a thread in the main tech forum and think I got it ID. This (http://www.mustangtek.com/Intake/C3AE-9424-E.html) is the one it most closely matches.
SInce this is my project thread, I'll post the pics here too:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5683/23086983125_4acf7547ab_t.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Bb7PKc)
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5669/22668595647_cabf6ca758_t.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Ax9tHZ)
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/732/23098164571_b51b55e92c_t.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/Bc78AK)
Very nice Merc, I'm partial to wagons myself also. On the subject of intake manifolds it would be best if you could post a picture of the Ford aluminum intake you have and we could help you I.D. it. There were many Ford aluminum intakes that didn't have a casting number and Jay found quite a variation in how they perform, even on a mild build. Some examples of 4V aluminum manifolds that didn't have a casting number ( although many have a date code ) are the '60 352 HP, the '61 390 HP, some 406 & 427 LR, and some 427 Medium Riser manifolds. They all have a provision for the oil filler tube. In general the manifolds got better with each later version as time went on. In particular, Jay found the '60 352 HP manifold was a poor performer even on his mild 410 horse dyno motor, making less power than a stock "S" iron intake which itself is a pretty poor performer for anything beyond a stock rebuild. Now if it turns out you have a early 427 MR manifold that will be a good choice. Jay and some of the other members can give you some good build advice, but you'll want to figure out what you have first. It will be fun to follow along.
-
Odd that it has no marks on it of any kind, other than the paw prints, which are a nice touch.
Love the old wagons. Just bought a 2010 Flex because it is a wagon.
-
Keeper! Going to be following this project. You keeping the faux wood treatment? (pretty please!!!!, let the answer be yes)
-
Yep, if anything I'll redo with a more period appropriate wood vinyl, I think it's supposed to be darker.
It's a great driver, so much power steering there is no road feel. I just sofa down the road, I just want to do it faster!
Keeper! Going to be following this project. You keeping the faux wood treatment? (pretty please!!!!, let the answer be yes)
-
ADding a link to another 390 buildup: http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/1410-how-to-build-a-390fe-stroker-500-pound-feet/
-
Another 390 Build: http://www.fordification.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40531
-
if your going with the stroker kit, id if at all possible take the extra time needed to get the funds and have barry set you up with a basic set of edlebrok heads to go along with it, ..
JMO.
-
Yet another build for reference: http://fefordtech.com/index.php?topic=29.0
-
Thread on water pumps: http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/thread/1377437235/Cool+Shootout+%28waterpumps-pulleys%29
-
Hi,
You mentioned you are swapping a 68 block into a 63. The bolt pattern on the block for the mounts are different. I took a look at my 68 Monterey 390 and 64 Marauder 390. It wasn't the easiest thing to see looking in a mirror, but they look different. It looks like the mount stud to the frame stand ends up in a different spot even if you use the 68 mounts. Is there a swap mount for this?
-
Its just 2extra holes for the
Newer mount 2holes is on
The same place as on the
Old block
-
It sounds like you can move a later block back, but not an early block forward.
Its just 2extra holes for the
Newer mount 2holes is on
The same place as on the
Old block
-
The early block have two mounting
Points for the Rubber mount
The new block have the two same
Mounting points.Butt there is two
Extra mounting points added behind
them spaced closer together
Just use the Rubber mount for your
Car
An FE fits in a Y-block car IF you
Swap sides of the rubbermounts
Or turn them around i dont remember
exactly
-
This is my understanding that the post 63/64 blocks had a couple new mounts, but were backwards compatible.
The early block have two mounting
Points for the Rubber mount
The new block have the two same
Mounting points.Butt there is two
Extra mounting points added behind
them spaced closer together
Just use the Rubber mount for your
Car
An FE fits in a Y-block car IF you
Swap sides of the rubbermounts
Or turn them around i dont remember
exactly
-
One issue that has crept into, well basically all vintage car stuff, is generic parts.
The engine mounts that are coming from India"?" now is basically one size fits all.
And the parts stores, online and brick and mortar are selling them as correct
for "your" car.
But the stud that mounts on the frame mount can be as much as 1" in the wrong spot.
It don't seem like much, but try and get that 1" to move and it's not going to happen. :P
Just something to keep in mined.
-
I might be pie in the skying, but Mac's Auto (http://www.macsautoparts.com/ford_mercury_passenger/catalogsearch/result/?q=motor+mount&x=0&y=0) seems to have them.
One issue that has crept into, well basically all vintage car stuff, is generic parts.
The engine mounts that are coming from India"?" now is basically one size fits all.
And the parts stores, online and brick and mortar are selling them as correct
for "your" car.
But the stud that mounts on the frame mount can be as much as 1" in the wrong spot.
It don't seem like much, but try and get that 1" to move and it's not going to happen. :P
Just something to keep in mined.
-
I might be pie in the skying, but Mac's Auto (http://www.macsautoparts.com/ford_mercury_passenger/catalogsearch/result/?q=motor+mount&x=0&y=0) seems to have them.
One issue that has crept into, well basically all vintage car stuff, is generic parts.
The engine mounts that are coming from India"?" now is basically one size fits all.
And the parts stores, online and brick and mortar are selling them as correct
for "your" car.
But the stud that mounts on the frame mount can be as much as 1" in the wrong spot.
It don't seem like much, but try and get that 1" to move and it's not going to happen. :P
Just something to keep in mined.
I'm pretty sure all of those mounts are made by the same company.
It took me a couple of tries to get the right mounts.
I went through a local purchase though.
It could be that I was just seeing the crappy end of the bell curve. ::)
Guaranteed they are not as well made as the old stuff though.
They just don't have the finished look.
-
Deck Height: 10.154 after squaring.
Stroke: 4.125
Rod Length: 6.7
Piston compression dist: 1.39
Piston volume: 17cc
Assembly: 4.125 / 2 + 6.7 + 1.39 = 10.1525
Piston in the hole: 10.154 - 10.1525 = 0.0015