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 - MT63AFX

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
16
FE Technical Forum / Re: Whats Your Iron Head Prefference?
« on: October 31, 2013, 12:58:34 PM »
So the C6-R heads have the "misaligned" exhaust ports like the C8AE-H?  So much for the R heads being "poor man's CJ".  Or am I reading this incorrectly?
Ive never owned CJ heads but I can say that the Chicago Foundry C6AE-R heads I had were slightly off from the H, D and G exhaust port location. Learned this when I bought some truck headers and found they would only mate well (compared with the above 3) with the C6AE-R location. Ill dig up the pictures and mesurements in the next couple of weeks and post here.

Cleveland Foundry, not Chicago's.... ;)

17
This is a tip from the latest Engine Builder Magazine......Sure hate to think if IT fails:

It's how my uncle did it 50yrs ago. I've mentioned it a few times on the FE Forum, RodC.

18


My hood scoop has the holes for the badges too, but not for the "CJ" script, thinkin' of adding the "427" badge to fill those holes. I may add "x .468" after the badges to conform to truth in advertising (besides, there weren't any CJs in 66), RodC.

http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/979234/fullsize/img_20130503_111319_240.jpg

http://www.supermotors.net/getfile/989008/fullsize/img_0268.jpg

19
FE Technical Forum / Re: Clutch Fork
« on: September 19, 2013, 03:45:46 PM »
I'm planning on replacing the 1 1/16th inch input shaft toploader in my 66 Fairlane 427 with the 1 3/8th inch trans. Will I need to get a different fork? If so what is the part #7515-? and does anyone out there have one for sale? Thanks, Denis

IIRC, my 1 3/8" fork in my 63 LWG (same one from my first 63 427) is from the 65-66 Galaxie?. It has the 'pocket' where the clutch rod sits (not a hole), hell, it may be from a truck, lol, Rod.

20
Vendor Classifieds / Re: FE Intake Adapters
« on: August 19, 2013, 12:57:31 PM »
Thanks Jay, sheetmetal intakes are outside my realm or goals, since the bling-factor would detract a skosh in my case,  ;). For those looking to buy Barry's new heads how does the adapter line up to his ports? You've found a quality foundry, just by looking at the photos, the density seems spot-on, Rod.

21
Vendor Classifieds / Re: FE Intake Adapters
« on: August 19, 2013, 08:16:34 AM »
Great looking piece Jay. My question concerns the HR-TP pieces, maybe Mr. Joe D Craine can help answer this. Is there really an improvement or advantage by using a 351C intake on a HR or TP? I can see where it'd be a great piece for a custom steel intake, but I question whether the 351C will flow better. Not knowing much about 351Cs, but using one on a TP looks like there'd be some interference issues with the intake mounting bolts being 'infringed upon' by the wider TP port. Have you had a chance to test the HR-TP intakes? Thanks for all your hard work, Rod.

22
FE Technical Forum / Re: Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang! Bang!
« on: August 08, 2013, 03:11:34 PM »
You got lucky, that flywheel was getting ready to 'fly the coop'; exit stage right; get outta Dodge; leave the scene of a crime. The crank-flange opening is no longer a perfect, symmetrically round opening with evidence of material loss just to the right of the crack. I don't know Fidanza, but do know Hayes, Rod.

23
In the time period BCJ (before Cobra Jets), Ford's 3/8" fuel line would adequately feed a stock 2x4 427 spinning to 7,000rpm, without a hiccup, using a mechanical fuel pump that the Ford engineers deemed sufficient enough (i.e. engineered) to accomplish their goal of having one badass engine that didn't need to be reengineered or use aftermarket parts (which were few and far between for the FE in the BCJ-world). Ford did quite well at Daytona in 63 didn't they? JMO, Rod. BTW, to stick a 352-390 2v fuel pump on an FE and expect it to reach 6,000rpms is iffy at best,  ;D.

24
Fairlane XL had bucket seats if you want a seat
that bolts in.Then you have all the mustang seats
cheap to get new upholstry
 If you want modern seats one good alternativ is
Mercedes SL from the 90s(97 or later look the best)
 integrated seat belts in the seat, nice quality leather,availibel with
ortopedic option with cussions you adjust with air
full Power including headrest
Or Mercedes SEC from the mid 80s and later

Thanks HEO, at my age the Mercedes with the orthopedic option sounds sweet,  ;). I think for my Falcon, I need to look into low-back style seats, not the Recaro-ish race-style high backs. Never thought of the Mercedes as I recall they had some low-back seats too. Need to find out if they'll fit between the hump and door sill, RodC.

25
Thanks Howie, looks nice. The Falcon Sport Coupe had buckets as an option as well as the XL Fairlane. I'm thinking OE buckets would be too pricey for my budget and will look into some of the more common/newer Mustangs. I may get lucky and stumble on a set of Falcon/Fairlane buckets,  ;D, RodC.

26
Not sure if the floor pans are the same between the Fairlane and Falcon listed in the Subject above, but I'm curious to what bucket seats people have used when replacing a bench seat in their Fairlane/Falcon. I will hopefully be replacing the 2.77 3-spd with a T-5 and my bench seat is shot anyways,  :-\, thanks, RodC. BTW, photos would be nice too.

27
FE Technical Forum / Re: 427 high riser questions
« on: July 18, 2013, 10:57:28 AM »
Welcome aboard; glad to have you here.  The "3 KD" on the manifold is a date code.  3 is for 1963, K is for October (months are labeled A through M, but there is no I), and I'm not sure what the D means but it may signify the day of the casting, maybe the 13th if they start with 1-9 for the day, then go to letters.

I'm afraid I don't know which intake is which from the part numbers; can you post pics of the two intakes?  They are both 2X4 intakes?

I'm interested in learning more about the heads as well; I didn't know that high riser heads were available past 1964.  No idea what the chamber volume might be, unfortunately...

The "D" could represent the week it was cast. "3 K D" could be 1963 October fourth week. Similar to Holley's coding?

28
FE Technical Forum / Re: Oh no!
« on: July 17, 2013, 10:33:16 PM »
I've had two different sets of the so-called 'Chevy' rods in my TP. Neither said "Chevy" nor would either fit a Chevy piston. The rings and bearings didn't have a bowtie on the packages either ;), RodC

29
FE Technical Forum / Re: BK/BJ carbs lesson
« on: May 20, 2013, 06:48:27 PM »
Do you have the T-Bird specific 3x2 intake? It's different from the Galaxie 3x2 intake, which will not allow the hood to close because the carb bases are slanted, Rod.

30
Member Projects / Re: FE Intake Adapter
« on: May 01, 2013, 06:53:06 PM »
Things have gone WAY, WAY too slow on the project for my liking, but I'm finally to the point where the basic design is finished and I am currently out shopping it around to pattern shops and casting foundries.  Here's a picture of the finished manifold 3D model.  The parts colored in red, like the bolt holes and the machined groove for the O-ring around the center opening, will be machined, not cast.  Also, all the surfaces shown in yellow will get an addition of 0.100" or so of material, to allow for machining to the final dimension:



According to the CAD program the raw casting will be about 32 pounds, which is way heavier than I wanted it to be, but it turns out that those flanges that the 351C manifold bolts to add a lot of weight to the raw casting.  Once the machining is done the manifold should come in around 25 pounds.

Shown below is the water jacket core, which turned out to be a lot more complicated than expected:



Lots of stuff going on around that part of the casting, including two sets of manifold bolts, port locations, and the distributor location, making it fairly complicated.  But at least its done now and according to the 3D model everything fits.

While the designer was finishing up the 3D model I've been working on a machining fixture for the manifold castings.  A couple months ago I purchased a big rotary table for my new CNC machine, that can be set up on its side and will rotate a part with 0.001 degree accuracy.  I wanted to couple this with with a trunnion table, which bolts to the rotary table and turns with the rotary table.  Once the manifold castings are bolted to the trunnion table, they can be rotated like they are on a spit, to allow drilling all the bolt holes at the various angles required by both FE and 351C intake designs, plus machining the mating surfaces on both sides of the intake adapter, machining the valve cover rail, CNC porting all the ports, etc. 

There are tooling companies that will custom build one of these trunnion tables, but they are generally pretty expensive (~$3K).  Rather than buy one, I decided to buy about $500 in steel and do it myself.  I found some pictures of trunnion tables online and kind of used them for the basic ideas, then drew up the table in my CAD program.  About four weeks ago I started machining this stuff.  The material I selected was cold rolled steel, and the trunnion table itself was over 3 feet long.  I found out right away that machining long sections of steel was rather tricky; for example, when I tried to face a 1" X 8" X 38" piece of cold rolled, just taking off about .020" from one side caused the whole thing to warp signficantly.  I had to go back and forth, one side to the other, taking off a little less each time, before I finally got the piece reasonable straight within a few thousandths.  As I encountered this problem I did a little more research, and found that I probably should have purchased cast iron for this job; cold rolled steel apparently has a lot of stresses inside from the rolling process, and as soon as you start machining it these stresses will start warping the material.  Cast iron doesn't do that, and so would have been a superior material for this purpose.  But finally after a lot of screwing around, and sizing down the original table thickness somewhat to allow for the machining requirements, I got the main table completed.  I also had to machine some 2" X 1" steel bar in about the same length to use as supports for the bottom of the table; I wanted to be able to mount the manifold castings on the table, but also a vise for some operations, and so the table had to be very rigid. 

Finally this weekend I got this project finished up.  I have been machining on this thing in most of my spare time for the last several weeks, and am relieved that it is finally finished.  I still have to mount it onto the rotary table, and then finish machine the top surface once it is mounted on the CNC machine.  But the tough stuff is all done now; here are some photos:







I'll post another picture of the whole thing mounted on my CNC machine in the next week or so.  I plan to start using it right away, to machine the CVR water pump adapters for FE engines.  On the FE intake adapter, I expect it to be another 6-8 weeks before the patterns are completed, and then I can have a foundry start pouring the first parts.  That'll be fun  :D

The water cross-over core would give a Patternmaker nightmares, ;). Why some many compound angles when 'radiusing' (such a word? LOL) would seem to be simpler. I understand the angles needed for the bolt bosses, but a Wood Model Moldmaker could 'whittle' a prototype if there weren't so many compound angles, especially in the 'tunnel' portion of the cross-over, just a thought from an old foundry worker who's seen a gazillion cores, lol, Rod. OOPs, maybe those lines represent radii, nevermind

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4