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 - BH107

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21
31
FE Technical Forum / Re: Does anyone know of a source for....
« on: February 14, 2019, 09:22:34 PM »
I have an old friend who had a pair of those Paxton/McCulloch superchargers on a 312 in a 57 T-Bird in 1962. It was quite the custom setup he put together and it really moved the bird around. After about 10 years the engine was getting s little tired so he pulled it and dropped a new Cammer in its place. The old 312 sat in the corner of his garage for the next 40 years and still is around today.

32
FE Technical Forum / Re: Does anyone know of a source for....
« on: February 13, 2019, 07:12:47 PM »
There were no vintage centrifugals big enough for a FE. But if you do go with the old Paxton’s Craig is great to work with and knows his stuff. Aside from the Paxton business he restores and races vintage trans am and stock cars and they really push them.

33
Member Projects / Re: Original 427 SOHC Engine Rebuild
« on: December 14, 2018, 09:38:52 PM »
Leny, we have plenty in stock.

34
FE Technical Forum / Re: Availability of Jerico replacement parts..
« on: December 14, 2018, 09:32:52 PM »
Doug,

I have a buddy with a DR4 all ready to go with a Ford input shaft. It’s at least fresh, might even be brand new. He bought it with some other parts.

I do know that Jerico doesn’t make parts for them, but I imagine that you’ll start to see more come up for sale as other racers upgrade and get rid of their spares.

35
Private Classifieds / Re: Was someone looking for Chrome 1963 427 VC?
« on: October 07, 2018, 11:13:48 AM »
The new repops do not have the raised area around the bolt holes like the originals do.

36
Tom has been around for quite awhile and knows his stuff. Like any salesman he’s going to say his is the best while not giving away and “secrets”. Never used his carbs but wouldn’t be afraid to try.

37
FE Technical Forum / Re: Scott Foxwell I apologize if I....
« on: July 11, 2018, 12:37:36 PM »
He’s had the same problems on some of the Facebook FE groups as well, and didn’t take too lightly to being called out on it.

“Ben, you need to put a sock in it. I'm not going to disrespect that thread by responding to your crap, but here: Jays' site is mostly good guys but there are a couple clowns over there that I have zero patience for. Kinda like you... I have never had a problem admitting when I'm wrong. I do have a problem with jokers who think they're "accomplished engine builders" that want to argue just for the sake of arguing. Kinda like you right now. Oh, and FYI, Jay's a liar. I did not ask him to cancel my membership on that site. I told him what I thought of him and his puppet Lykens, and if he didn't like it he could cancel it. That was his choice not mine. Trust me, there are plenty of people who see the other side of that coin plain as day. And Chris did what he thought was right, I had no idea he posted that. Finally, I sure don't need your approval or opinion on anything. How about you just mind your own business, kid. You really don't have a clue what you;re talking about.”

38
Private Classifieds / Re: Holman Moody air scoop
« on: June 14, 2018, 06:55:56 AM »
They actually look like C3AE-BJ/BK carbs based on the fuel bowls.

39
FE Technical Forum / Re: Mega-stash of old Fords and Mercurys
« on: June 07, 2018, 10:18:14 PM »
Good guy, been in his yard a few times.

40
FE Technical Forum / Re: Help me get 700hp out of a 482
« on: April 10, 2018, 07:47:08 PM »
Another note, an aggressive engine like that will be tough for a C6 to handle and keep the streetable nature, just my opinion. The cams they are taking about will probably require a pretty high stall converter, which in turn takes away from being street friendly.

41
FE Technical Forum / Re: Odd HiPo Block - Help Identify
« on: March 05, 2018, 09:10:31 PM »
Well it isn’t a true hipo block, as the only hipo FE in 64 was the 427.

Have you checked to see if the oiling to the lifters has been blocked? Might be a 390 PI block if they are. Either way I’m fairly certain it started life as a 390.

42
FE Technical Forum / Re: Shelby standard block question
« on: December 30, 2017, 08:36:25 PM »
Y'all keep talking, just makes me hate 'em more.......LOL
Something doesn't sound right with this whole argument.  If what some of you are claiming is true, no new car manufacturer would build an engine with aluminum block and heads.  I know they are on a weight savings mandate to improve fuel mileage, but the easiest way to improve fuel mileage is compression, and good fuel.  Also, if Lance Smith did R&R the internals from an iron block and install them in an aluminum block, did he blueprint the aluminum block just a carefully as the iron block, did he use new rings, bearings, did he heat the oil, water, engine cycles to the same amount before testing?  Did he do this on the same day? Weather the same, barometer the same?  Etc., etc., I have to say that with all my years of experience, automotive degree, teaching experience, have I ever heard such an argument that cannot be substantiated with back to back dyno testing in a laboratory environment to eliminate all differences but the material used in the block.  A simple gasket mismatch in the intake tract can change the horsepower level on a highly tuned engine, and I have seen 20 hp difference back to back with that situation on the dyno.  I have also seen 20 hp difference with spacers turned around differently, or different timing, fuel pressures, different oil level in oil pan, all make differences in back to back horsepower testing to find the ultimate combination.  A carburetor not opening fully and not caught when installing on the dyno.  I have to call this an argument that I cannot agree with until I see it performed under the same testing environment on the same day with identically prepared engines, and have all the same pulls to break in, all the same temperatures, and same individuals monitoring the testing procedures to verify.  JMO, but skeptical to say the least at 20-40hp level.  Joe-JDC

This wasn’t just something mentioned in passing, it was something Lance actually advertised with dyno sheets.

“We often have people ask what the horsepower difference is between cast iron and aluminum blocks. It often depends on the engine specs, but here is one that we ran on the dyno in a cast iron Pond block then swapped everything to a Pond aluminum. This is a 482ci, 11.5:1 comp, Stage III Edelbrock heads, and a street solid roller camshaft. Torque was basically the same but hp definitely dropped off on the aluminum. Back to back dyno play is always fun. — at Craft Performance Engines LLC.”

“I think there are several factors. Heat rejection being one, unlike cylinder heads, in a cylinder heat is power. The aluminum will distort more than cast iron under load and rpm, distorted cylinders = ring seal loss.  I believe this is the 4th back to back we have done and they are normally 25-40 hp difference depending on engine specs.”




43
FE Technical Forum / Re: Shelby standard block question
« on: December 30, 2017, 04:38:31 PM »
Lance Smith down at Craft Performance did a back to back test with Pond blocks. First one was 711hp cast iron. All of the components were swapped into an aluminum block and it was down almost 40hp.

44
It's a gamble, and definitely have it sonic tested first. Not many will go to 4.13 bore without being thin.

45
Not a 428, but I used a FT block to repair a 406. I found the deck height with the FT left the pistons waaay more in the hole than I wanted. I think I had 0.015-0.020 taken off the deck and the pistons ended up where factory 406/427's in a FE block sat. Don't recall what the spec was.

Not sure about your combo, but 406 pistons were way down in the hole from the factory. All FE/FT blocks have the same deck height.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 21