FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: fryedaddy on November 23, 2023, 09:55:28 AM
-
i have heard them called big blocks over the years,but really what is the FE.big,med,or small block.it needs to be one or the other.
-
It doesn't matter. If you are trying to distinguish the engine from other varieties, it's an FE. But if you had to, it is a big block. That is only because Ford made other engines with a more compact architecture. Some, like Pontiac, used the same basic architecture from their smallest displacement V8 to the largest 455CI, and in that regard, it becomes harder to call define what makes a 350 and small block and a 389 a big block. But, again, it's just a meaningless name.
-
The FE arrived in the '58 MY along with the big block MEL (383,410,430). All MEL's were bigger engines than the '58 FE's 361 Edsel. As a matter of fact, the FE never exceeded the MEL's displacement of 430 and latter 462.
The Y block, came in '54 at 239 and stretched to 312 in '56 so, in '58 it became a small block.
There was one more OHV V8, that came in '52, the Lincoln Y block, with the same bore centers as the FE but, it's last year was '57. It would have been a big block, between '54 and '57.
-
Term "Small Block" didn't arrive at Ford until the 221-260-289 thin wall casting nomenclature. The Ford Y Block has never been anything other than a Y Block in terms of engine family. The Ford Y included the 239-256-272-292-312. Most folks didn't start calling anything Ford Big Block until the 429-460 came on the scene. The SBF continued to include the 302-302B-351W-351C/Boss. The difficulty came with the 351M/400 due to their deck height and most folks called them a medium block. Most folks now just use SBF, FE, MEL, 335, 385, for different engine classes before the modular and all their different valve/camshaft variables. 2v-3v-4v to include the V-10. Joe-JDC
-
Good point, Joe.
In my day '60's - '70's, the term FE & MEL, weren't used, at at all. The engines were just called by their CID, i.e. 292, 352, 430 ect. You had no trouble at the parts counter when asking for parts by just saying I need a part for a 390.
Now the Y block was always call a Y block, because that was the way that it was advertised, by Ford, from the start.
-
Let me add, that in the days I mention, the experienced, parts counter guys, knew almost everything about almost all cars and what would interchange. For the most part, they didn't even need the parts books.
Those days are long gone!! It's very frustrating to go to a parts store and know more than the guy behind the counter!
-
Here is an actual 1968 Ford Motor Company publication. All the parts & tech inside are for the FE engine. That should settle the discussion.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfq2NPPs/6-D16-F45-C-6-D3-F-4-F97-980-C-898-FD993-FE49.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/K1sDrQbf)
-
And that was printed just before the new 429/460s came out. As one who owned a '56 Fairlane with Y Block, then bought a new 1966 Mustang, I never heard a FE called a "Big Block" Ford. Every body bragged on their 352HP, 390/401, 406, 410, 428 or 427 by engine size. It was not until the 429 came along in the Thunderbird/LTD/Torinos that the Big Block designation stuck. Just saying. Joe-JDC
-
I suppose you could get away with saying the FE was a BB in the Ford line only, IF they hadn't put the MEL in the 58 - 60 T-Birds.
What do you call the MEL, A non engine? It has bore centers and displacement larger than any factory FE.
The FE is about history and you can't change history, you have to accept it and should embrace it.
-
All those so called bad ass 327's and 350's that always picked a fight with me back in the day always said my 69 4 speed 390 mustang was a big block and that was OK by me. Also I'm pretty sure even the smallest fe always had the big block suspension setup. Call It what you want, no reason to haggle. It's our beloved FE..
-
Here is an actual 1968 Ford Motor Company publication. All the parts & tech inside are for the FE engine. That should settle the discussion.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfq2NPPs/6-D16-F45-C-6-D3-F-4-F97-980-C-898-FD993-FE49.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/K1sDrQbf)
I have that same book and a couple different ones i bought off of bob cook back in the early 80s
-
Ford always referred to the FE as a big block back in the 1960s. They were facing advertising from competitors which called their engines big blocks, and if they started calling the FE a "medium block", they would have looked like they weren't keeping up with the competition. Pontiac called their engines big blocks and they are dimensionally very similar to an FE. Calling an FE a medium block is stupid, IMO.
Also, despite what people may or may not have heard, Ford was referring to the engine as an FE back in the early 1960s. See the Ford memo below - Jay
(https://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/FE Letter from Ford.jpg)
-
Jay, yes, internal Ford memo's would call it a FE, as that was the designed designation, just as MEL was but, I was a mechanic between '62 and '70 and not once did I hear FE or MEL used to describe any of the engine series, even at the Ford dealers parts counter.
As good as the counter men were at old old parts stores, if you would have walked in a as for a FE part, they would want to know what you were talking about.
Here's a Shop Tips, listing all FoMoCo cars for '68, there is not one reference to a FE or MEL engine. All engines are listed by their CID.
-
Would have been interesting if Ford had stuck more closely to the plan outlined in that memo.
-
Worked at Ford dealers over 40yrs. and never heard them referred to as FE's. In fact we never called them by their model lines (FE's, 335's, 385's). We always called them by their cubic inches or later on liters. It was in the 90's when I heard the about the different model lines from a retired Ford employee that came to work as car porter.
-
Worked at Ford dealers over 40yrs. and never heard them referred to as FE's. In fact we never called them by their model lines (FE's, 335's, 385's). We always called them by their cubic inches or later on liters. It was in the 90's when I heard the about the different model lines from a retired Ford employee that came to work as car porter.
I would imagine that just refering to a Ford V8 as a "351", could have caused some confusion, what with the 351W, 351C, and 351M, and all their many differences. Not to mention, that although many modern parts sources use Liters, the older Ford designations did not, so in addition to 3 very different 351s, you could add the FE 352 to the "5.8 Liter" club, and the 427 and 428 FEs, as well as the 429 and 430 MEL to the "7.0 Liter" group.At least the 427, 428, and 429 had different bore and stroke measurements, the 3 351s and the 352 FE all have the same bore and stroke.
Concerning GMs, interesting how a Chevy 396 is a "Big Block", but a 400 is a small block, and the Pontiac V8s all used the same external dimensions, EXCEPT for the 301, which was shorter than any other Pontiac. And the later Buick V8s all looked the same, except the 350 and smaller models were shorter height and narrower than the 400,430, and 455, similar to a 302 to a 351W . And Oldsmobile made their V8s with 2 different lifter bore angles, and even made the Olds 400 with 2 very different bore and stroke combinations. And Chrysler had tall and low deck (B/RB) "big blocks", 3 totally different 318s, even tall and short deck slant 6s. So Ford was hardly the only manufacturer with some head scratching going on, trying to ID what you were looking at! And don`t forget, that for a time, GM offered totally different engines of the same displacement, depending on the brand. Chevy,Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Buick all had their own 350s and 400s, and the Chevy 454/BOP 455s, that were totally different from each other. Some had the starter on the left side, some on the right, distributors up front or in back, stud , shaft, or pedestal rocker arms, oil filters up front, out back, left side, right side, etc. GMs different divisions even had their own unique transmissions and rear axles. Somewhat confusing, but I personally liked it when there was more to one brand vs another form the same manufacturer, than some emblems, grill, and tail lights between them.
-
i always wondered why the other guys called the 390 boat anchors when they weigh less than the other guys.
-
i always wondered why the other guys called the 390 boat anchors when they weigh less than the other guys.
I also found it odd and somewhat frustrating that the "other guys" ripped the Fairlane GT/GTA 390 4V as a pooch when compared to their SS 396... The Fairlane was quicker/faster than their 325hp/396. Now considering that the Fairlane's 335hp/390 was the only big block option whereas the Chevy also had a 350 hp 396 and a 375 hp 396 option [same engine that was in the Corvette and rated at 425 hp] that was quicker and faster than the Fairlane. Ford's 390 was not a high performance engine. The only true high performance 390 Ford built was the 1961 375/401 hp 390. I would bet things would have been a whole lot different if a true high performance 390 was offered in the Fairlane. All that would have been needed is a slightly hotter cam, an aluminum performance manifold [police interceptor] with a 735 Holley and a better exhaust. A little tweaking of the ignition curve and you would have a Fairlane [or Mustang] that would have run with and beat the best of anything GM had to offer....Just my 2 cents and worth every penny.
-
The reason a 390GT can't run with a 396/375 is obvious when you look at the flow comparisons. The 390FE heads of the era only flowed in the 235-240cfm with the 406-427 heads flowing 250-260cfm. The best FE MR heads only flowed ~280cfm in 1966/67. Any 396 head would flow 290-310cfm and the hp heads flowed 320-330cfm. A 396 aluminum intake manifold would flow 390-410cfm, where the C6/7-F/H intakes would only flow ~285-290cfm, with the sidewinder J averaging 305cfm. I just within the last 3 months flowed 4 sets of 396 Stock Eliminator heads and 3 unported intake manifolds for a local racer who went to INDY this year. His heads flowed 320-330cfm and the intakes flowed 409-420 cfm average. The best SS FE heads I have had on my flow bench only flowed 305-320 cfm. The 428CJ heads only flow 260ish cfm and they would keep up with the 396SS in pure stock trim. The 427HR heads as cast flowed 285-290cfm, and the 8V intake manifold would flow 365cfm as cast and they were used in lightweight cars to make them competitive. All these FE heads could be improved by 10-15% but that is still not on par with the BBC if we are honest about them. Joe-JDC
-
Joe everything you said is true, however a MR head will outflow a big port bbc head up to about .300 lift and stock eliminator camshafts are limited to stock .500/.525 lift, so at these levels the MR head actually could have a slight advantage......Jim Kramer
-
The reason a 390GT can't run with a 396/375 is obvious when you look at the flow comparisons. The 390FE heads of the era only flowed in the 235-240cfm with the 406-427 heads flowing 250-260cfm. The best FE MR heads only flowed ~280cfm in 1966/67. Any 396 head would flow 290-310cfm and the hp heads flowed 320-330cfm. A 396 aluminum intake manifold would flow 390-410cfm, where the C6/7-F/H intakes would only flow ~285-290cfm, with the sidewinder J averaging 305cfm. I just within the last 3 months flowed 4 sets of 396 Stock Eliminator heads and 3 unported intake manifolds for a local racer who went to INDY this year. His heads flowed 320-330cfm and the intakes flowed 409-420 cfm average. The best SS FE heads I have had on my flow bench only flowed 305-320 cfm. The 428CJ heads only flow 260ish cfm and they would keep up with the 396SS in pure stock trim. The 427HR heads as cast flowed 285-290cfm, and the 8V intake manifold would flow 365cfm as cast and they were used in lightweight cars to make them competitive. All these FE heads could be improved by 10-15% but that is still not on par with the BBC if we are honest about them. Joe-JDC
Not to question your findings regarding head flow and to a slightly lesser degree manifold flow but it needs to be taken into consideration overall average flow not just the peak numbers. What about the flow under the curve at various valve lifts? What about the manifold flow between the 375hp/396 aluminum high-rise piece to the 390's iron "S" manifold? The comparison is laughable. I agree that the 396/427 BBC heads will or at least should out flow almost any FE Ford head. But when actual cars are matched up the Chevelle and others against the Fairlane/Comet, the Fairlane [or for the sake of this argument] it was the Comet Cyclone 325hp/390 beats the Chevelle 325hp/396 This was gleaned from a vehicle comparison tests done many years ago by an Oldsmobile club testing 7 of the base engine muscle cars offered in 1967 that anyone could walk into the dealer and drive out with a typical muscle car of that time. IIRC the only car quicker and faster was the Dodge GTX 440. The Comet was #2 in 1/4 mile speed and ET. The Chevelle was almost full second slower than the Comet. My comments were more directed to the 325hp/390 that was not a high performance built engine and the comparison of that to the 375hp/396...Apples and Oranges perhaps?
-
I agree that the Fairlane GT with 390GT engine and 4speed was a very competitive car of the time against similar horsepower vehicles. I drove my first 390HP back in 1964 in a Galaxie with 4 speed, and a 1966 Fairlane GT with 4 speed and bought a '66 mustang because the dealer said I couldn't qualify for the 7Litre Galaxie in 1966. I did buy a '69 Fairlane Cobra R code, formal roof line with 4 speed and 3:50 gear which was the quickest stock Ford I had owned to that date. The Cobra CJ with ram air would simply drive away from the Mopar 440s, Chevelle 454s, Nova 396/375, Z-28s, and even the Boss 429 in pure stock forms. I raced at Panama City Beach drag strip every weekend. The closest car to the Cobra in F Pure Stock at the time was an El Camino 396/375 with the tail gate down, but I could always run him down at the stripe when the ram air took over about 80mph. That Cobra ran 13.22 with street tires and pure stock. I had to sell the car when I got orders for Vietnam and I have regretted it to this very day. Joe-JDC
-
I hate when this conversation is brought up by Chebbie guys, you all are supposed to know better. It is an FE dammit, end of story. Just because Chebbie guys have to reduce everything to their nomenclature doesn't mean we can't be better than that. How many of us have heard the "Fords are so confusing" or "complicated" whine from a Bowtie fan? At that point I like to turn the conversation to Buick, Olds, Poncho, GMC, and Cad engines, and all the sudden it isn't so confusing. 351 ci GMC V6 anyone?
Ford introduced 3 V8 gasoline engine families in 1958. FE, MEL, and Superduty, and the Y-block remained in production through '64. If we let Bore Spacing and Deck height define block size.
Y-Block: 4.38" Bore Spacing and 9.755" Deck. Same BS as the later Windsor
FE: 4.63" Bore Spacing and 10.170" Deck. Same BS as the Lincoln Y-Block
MEL: 4.90" Bore Spacing and 10.482" Deck (at center of bore). Same BS as the later 385 series.
SuperDuty: 5.25" Bore Spacing and 11.25" Deck. (at center of bore). Similar BS to later 7.3L Diesels.
The Lincoln Y-Blocks had a 10.9375" Deck height, just a bit under the massive Super Duty's but never displaced more than 368 ci. Packard V8's had a bore spacing of 5.125", again just a hair under the Super Duty's, but never grew larger than 374 ci. Poncho's have been discussed at length already. NHRA has made life difficult for anyone wanting to run an engine with a bore spacing larger than GM's 4.84" Are all of those engines to be considered "Bigger" or "Huge" Blocks? "Big" and "Small" block is simply too narrow of description to be of much use.
-
LOL - same. Big block/small block is all Chevy talk. A guy like me with a 351C can sort 'em out when they look at my motor and say "big block". [facepalm].