1961 390 401HP

[FEfun]

I believe I have a 1961 390 401HP from the carbs to the oil pan. $4,500.00 firm
Block cast # C1AE6015V , date 1B28:3 : Crankshaft cast # C1AE-A : Rod caps cast # C1AE-A : Oil pump cast # C0AE-6604-C : Heads cast # C0AE6090D , dates on both heads 1E24 : Exhaust manifolds cast # right C0AE-9430-B left C0AE-9431-B : Dual point dist. cast # C0AF12127K , date 1BC : Timing chain cover cast # C1AE 6059D : water pump cast # EDC8505B , date 1B22 : crankshaft pulley C0AE6316D ; Carbs all have the date of 183 cast # C1AE-9510-AU List 2437 and C1AE-9510-AV List 2436 : date on intake 1H1 : still has FOMOCO fan belt on it. I have been told it has been sitting since 1969.
314-480-2556
suehomeandgarden@aol.com
Sold 10/31/19

[Russ67Scode]

I was told that FORD over rated the HP figures back in that time period .  I hope that's not true.   If not why didn't FORD use this engine in the 67 mustang to compete with the 396 Camaro ? Instead of the truck engine they put in it ??

[plovett]

I have never had one, but I think the 1960 and 1961 high performance 390's were the only true high performance 390's.  And it is a shame that Ford didn't use something like them in the '67 and up Mustang.  Ford relegated the 390 to low performance status after 1961.

JMO,

paulie

[My427stang]

I was told that FORD over rated the HP figures back in that time period .  I hope that's not true.   If not why didn't FORD use this engine in the 67 mustang to compete with the 396 Camaro ? Instead of the truck engine they put in it ??

I don't think anyone has the answer, but even a 390 with good heads for the era would have had a hard time IMHO.  I think though, back then, advertising numbers were bigger than anything else and the Mustang was still the absolute leader in sales, so why bother?

I agree though, a super 390 would have done better, but might have delayed the CJ to boot.

[plovett]

For sure, the 428 CJ was the best answer,  but a "hot" 390 could have worked very well.  The 428 CJ was a "Blue collar brawler" in that in was a relatively inexpensive option at around $360.  Compared to an LS6 or Hemi or Ram Air II or Ram Air IV, it was a bargain.

But there was a lull of 6-7 years when Ford didn't have a good low cost high performance engine option.  The 406's and 427's were rare and expensive.   The 428 CJ was genius, in my opinion, but should have been there several years earlier.  A true hi-po 390 would have been so easy.  Of course hindsight is 20/20 and as you mentioned, Mustangs were selling like hotcakes anyway, so Ford's perspective and goals were not the same as mine.

JMO,

paulie

[plovett]

Also, 396 Camaros weren't THAT fast.  Well L78's were pretty fast.  The 325 hp version was as much of a dog as the 390 Mustang.  The 350 hp version was quite a bit better (more than 25 hp better), but still not "fast". 

It would not have been hard to make a fast and competive 390 Mustang.

Anyway, apologies to the original poster for getting off track.  I do think the 1960-1961 hi-po 390's are the only true hi-po 390's.

JMO,

paulie

[wowens]

Interested
Email sent

[FEfun]

heads with adjustable valve train dated 1E24

[FEfun]

Why Ford did not use this engine in a 1967 Mustang? Too expensive, would not fit with the high flow exhaust manifolds, I am not sure the average 1967 Mustang owner would want the extra maintenance of a solid lifter cam etc.

[plovett]

Ford could easily have made manifolds similar to CJ manifolds and used a hydraulic cam.   Most of the power is in the heads, intake manifold, and exhaust.  It doesn't matter now, but Ford could have done it.  In any case, you have a cool engine there.

JMO,

paulie

[FEfun]

FOMOCO fan belt

[FEfun]

block cast # C1AE6015V

[FEfun]

back of block

[FEfun]

took oil pan off

[FEfun]

front engine dress