FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: Fordman on April 15, 2020, 06:03:47 PM
-
I have never looked at a 391FT from any performance angle but even from a stock utilitatuan standpoint (F500/600) why on earth such low compression?(stock is like 7.5-1?). That being said, with today's fuel being worse than yesterday's, would there be any advantages to upping the compression , like a
Swapping out the head gasket from the stock to regular FE gaskets?. What about to regular FE heads which much flow a world above FT heads. I realize these engines are built for torque but we must be able to build a better tourqe monster today!??. Any thoughts on an improved FT engine?
-
What's the application? How you use it will determine what build options you'll want to explore.
-
I would want one to pull a 28 foot car hauler with drag car , or a 24 foot camper trailer , with something like a 1949 F-5 with a c-6 with gear vendors od , 4.11 gears , 32 inch tall tires .
-
They were made for lugging. And the trucks they came in had some pretty wide drops between gears so going up a several mile hill grunting away and not being able to upshift was a common thing. If you raised the compression and used a transmission that didn't have terrible gear ratios it would make more power, better mileage and wouldn't lug.
-
Picked up a 61 Starliner a few years ago where the guy made a 406 out of a 391. Never ran very good even after I repaired a few problems. Finally decided to go through the engine even though the PO said he had just rebuilt it. After I got the heads off I could see the pistons were waaay in the hole but don't recall how much. Sent the block out to have it decked. Don't recall where I saw the spec but 427's were supposed to be 0.023 in the hole. When I got it back and reassembled that's where the pistons ended up. Runs a lot better now. If nothing else l have the satisfaction of having an engine I put together and not having to trust one put together by someone I don't know.
-
... why on earth such low compression?(stock is like 7.5-1?) ... would there be any advantages to upping the compression ... What about to regular FE heads which much flow a world above FT heads ... Any thoughts on an improved FT engine?
I also would like to have answers to Fordman's questions.
I have always assumed the low compression was mostly related to TomP's response "They were made for lugging", and to avoid detonation from the heat generated in heavy work load use.
In 1976, I crossed the 7,834 foot Raton Pass on the Colorado-New Mexico border in a loaded 330XD V8 DRW 14' U-Haul. Ascending the pass my speed was dropping, requiring me to downshift from 4th to 3rd in the NP-435 "4 speed". "OK" I thought, "it's starting to lug in 3rd, I need to downshift to 2nd now, and that should get me over the top". Nope - my speed slowed and I started to think I wasn't going to make the pass.
The New Process 435 has a 6.68/1 first gear (2nd is 3.34/1, which is much "lower" than the Ford Toploader's wide ratio 2.78 1st gear). So, 1st gear it was, and I creeped over the pass at what seemed like walking speed. I suspect the engine's governor was maxed out.
I have a rust-free 1979 14' U-Haul with the same 330XD and NP-435 (minus the governor on it's Ford 2V). I think the rear axle is a Dana 70 4.11. With 2 spare FE blocks and 3 pairs of FE heads, I have thought of building a 390 stroker for it. Anyone care to speculate on a 445 cu in build for it?
-
Hello Dr.---
And welcome! Long time no hear. Glad you're here.
KS
-
Yes, same. Long time, no see.
A 445 stroker with low compression, like under 9, should do OK.
I drove an old F600 lightly loaded moving van with a 330 to Horsefly BC, that is 250 miles of uphill all the way and even the downhill coming back was slow because what seems like flat ground to every other car or bicycle on the road is a steep hill to that pig. It was in granny low and going walking speed for 15 minutes up every mile long hill that even a four cylinder car goes up at 50mph in a minute or less.
Sign would say "Spence's Bridge 20 miles" and in an hour we wouldn't be there yet. I think the four way flashers were going for half the trip. I remember 500 miles return with less than an hour stop in Horsefly taking us something like 18 hours.
-
What about adding a turbo. It seems to have the right compression for that application or is the rotating assembly to heavy?.
-
I have a 390 that I got from Blair that was originally intended for a fun heavy street car, and I use it in my '70 F350 dually to pull 9k+ lbs through some hills in Pennsylvania and Ohio. It's about 9.5 compression, C4 heads, Edel RPM intake, Holley 750 with an unknown spec cam that has a nice little rumble to it. I kept the performance timing curve that Faron put in it, used an MSD Blaster ignition to fire it, and with 93 octane it pulls fine with no hint of detonation. That's with the NP 435 and 4.11 gears with 29" tires. I DO keep the RPMs up though, and never lug it in anything but 1st gear. I'd never have to drop to first, and I'm confident that it would pull fine in 3rd up about any hill that I'd encounter in it. I've actually never had to drop a gear to get up a hill yet, although from a takeoff I've held it for all she's worth before going into 4th. I do wish there was an easy 5 spd to bolt into it, but it is what it is for now.
The 390 doesn't have any issues pulling up the hills, but I've still got a 445 that I'm about to drop in it. I went that route for the extra torque. It'll use the same type C4 heads and RPM intake, and about the same compression. Maybe a bit less at around 9.3. As long as I use good fuel and don't lug it, I don't expect any issues pulling with it either.
I just posted this to show that it is possible to tow with a stock type drivetrain. When pulling heavy loads with a gas engine, I think RPMs are your friend, to keep the engine load lighter and away from detonation. As long as the engine is built good, a good tune, timing and an eye on plugs is key to make sure you're in the safe zone.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rwWhH0R2/IMAG4675.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
Love seeing an old work horse still working. You need a Advance Adapters Road Ranger OD in that truck. Makes the split between 3rd and 4th into a very usable gear plus you gain an OD gear.
-
If you want to be really cool, how about an auxiliary transmission, or perhaps better known as a "Brownie-Box", thus creating a "Twin-Stick" arrangement for both over or under driving selection or as a "Splitter-Box" all the way up or down thru the gears? 8)
Perhaps one of the most commonly encountered units might be the Spicer model 5831, which is reasonably sized for your light duty application, but probably big enough to tolerate the out put behind the primary transmissions' engine torque multiplication. These are three speed manual units and there are several versions of available gearing; some are intended as a "splitter-box", some as "over-unders", and others are "double-unders"; this can be determined by the alfa suffix within the model designation, so one whats to investigate which unit that might be presented.
I chose to use an older Watson under-direct-over box for my 1937 Diamond T truck as it was period correct for the truck, and which provides for the original gearing, and reduction gearing for heavy pulling or just creeping along slowly thereby saving the clutch, or an overdrive so I can drive at reasonable speeds on the road. Watson was folded into Brown-Lippe (hence "Brownie-Box"), who latter went to Dana to become part of Spicer, who then sold to Tremec. :)
Scott.
-
My Dad had several 66-67 F-750 Ford dump trucks (10 wheel). They all had 391s with a 5 speed main and 3 speed splitter transmission. They weren't the fastest trucks on the road, the 477 and 534s were noticeably quicker. But, you could put 20 tons of blacktop or stone in them, and they'd haul it anywhere you wanted to go.
-
534's might have been noticeably faster, but they are noticeably hungry too! I still have a Lousiville with a 534 and it gets about 4.5-5.2 all the time no matter what you're doing. The older F750 with a 391 will get 8-9 if I drive it easy, but it's just a flat bed so the truck itself is pretty light. Sadly both of them are mostly not roadworthy anymore but cool old trucks, waiting for their turn in the shop.
-
What about adding a turbo. It seems to have the right compression for that application or is the rotating assembly to heavy?.
I think it would be a great application, if designed correctly. Keep boost really low and use a large intercooler. Assembly weight is only a concern with higher RPM I would say 4k is the max.
Always wondered how much a swap to regular say D2 FE heads and T intake would wake one up. Ever looked at FT heads? They are horrible. Keep the FT exhaust manifolds by welding the heat crossover up. Like to find a 70 F650 or similar to make a ramp truck.
-
Note that SeaMaster offered the Ford 534 engine in a twin turbo configuration providing in excess of 400 H.P. and 600 ft. lbs. torque for boat installations. :)
Scott.
-
Many good ideas and interesting comments ... if I ever modify my F-350 I would likely go with a 390/445 stroker and wish for a Gear Vendors overdrive, or some kind of automatic OD.
-
I have a TRW reference, that says that 1971 and earlier blocks, both 361 & 391's, have thicker cylinder walls.
-
I have a TRW reference, that says that 1971 and earlier blocks, both 361 & 391's, have thicker cylinder walls.
Sonic check everything, or at least a drill bit test if not very rusty inside. I wouldn't believe anything like that TRW reference from what I have seen. Not that I haven't seen thick blocks, but I haven't seen any pattern other than C scratch 428s, which seem to be more consistent
One point with sonic checking is that even if the block a decent drill bit test, fairly often a whole bank can be offset making a consistently thin side or sides, so it's always good to sonic check before the build
-
I have a TRW reference, that says that 1971 and earlier blocks, both 361 & 391's, have thicker cylinder walls.
Sonic check everything, or at least a drill bit test if not very rusty inside. I wouldn't believe anything like that TRW reference from what I have seen. Not that I haven't seen thick blocks, but I haven't seen any pattern other than C scratch 428s, which seem to be more consistent
Ross, how many pre-'72 361 - 391 blocks have you looked at?
My post was informational only, on what you might want to look for but, TRW, in their day, made pistons for some OEM Ford's and the reference was regarding how much you could bore a post '72 block.
-
I have a TRW reference, that says that 1971 and earlier blocks, both 361 & 391's, have thicker cylinder walls.
Sonic check everything, or at least a drill bit test if not very rusty inside. I wouldn't believe anything like that TRW reference from what I have seen. Not that I haven't seen thick blocks, but I haven't seen any pattern other than C scratch 428s, which seem to be more consistent
Ross, how many pre-'72 361 - 391 blocks have you looked at?
My post was informational only, on what you might want to look for but, TRW, in their day, made pistons for some OEM Ford's and the reference was regarding how much you could bore a post '72 block.
There are no "safe" years. All of them need to be sonic tested.
-
I have a TRW reference, that says that 1971 and earlier blocks, both 361 & 391's, have thicker cylinder walls.
Sonic check everything, or at least a drill bit test if not very rusty inside. I wouldn't believe anything like that TRW reference from what I have seen. Not that I haven't seen thick blocks, but I haven't seen any pattern other than C scratch 428s, which seem to be more consistent
Ross, how many pre-'72 361 - 391 blocks have you looked at?
My post was informational only, on what you might want to look for but, TRW, in their day, made pistons for some OEM Ford's and the reference was regarding how much you could bore a post '72 block.
Between industrial of that era, dedicated large distributor bushing blocks, and 70s 360/390 (although not the topic of discussion) likely only 30-ish ? You can sneak in with the drill bit test, but shift is an issue, they need to be checked, like it or not
Additionally, your deduction with TRW does not lead to a viable solution, TRW made .040 and .060 over 427 pistons, just because something is sold or bought, doesn't infer the block can take it.
What I advise when building a stroker or healthy original engine is: Use whatever you want, but sonic check first, then if the block will work, align hone/square deck and torque plate hone.
In fact, although I haven't had a bad C scratch block, I wouldn't even use that as a filter, anything could happen back then and it seemed to get worse in the 70s
-
So then Brent, I ask the same question to you. How many pre '72 and post '72 361 - 391 blocks have you had your hands and examined?
I'm not discounting the use of sonic testing but, if the core is thicker, to begin with, then core sift has less effect on the amount a block can be bored.
While I'm at it, I will ask everyone on the forum.......... Has anyone either, allen wrench or sonic tested any pre '72 361 or 391, truck blocks?
It would be a interesting question to answer, right? And don't forget, you get a forged crank, with it, too.
-
So then Brent, I ask the same question to you. How many pre '72 and post '72 361 - 391 blocks have you had your hands and examined?
I'm not discounting the use of sonic testing but, if the core is thicker, to begin with, then core sift has less effect on the amount a block can be bored.
While I'm at it, I will ask everyone on the forum.......... Has anyone either, allen wrench or sonic tested any pre '72 361 or 391, truck blocks?
It would be a interesting question to answer, right? And don't forget, you get a forged crank, with it, too.
Frank, the shift can be significant, it's not just a little. I had an industrial 428 (which in 390 form would have passed the drill bit test) it was thin enough I sent it home with a note to bring me a better one and I am all about minor overbore to use a block.
I understand what you are asking, but in the end, there is no constant for the blocks, and even if the crank is added to the mix as beneficial, expect to: 1. pay more to modify it and buy FE connecting rods or 2. pay even more to modify it and use cheaper BBC rods. So unless you have a serious reason, it is really more cost effective to just grab whatever std bore block you can find, sonic test it for cheap money, and build a stroker with new parts
Granted desire for period correct accuracy, love for 391s, etc, all could lump in to the "serious reason" category, not my job to determine that for the guy who walks in, but no free chicken in a 391 IMO
-
Granted desire for period correct accuracy, love for 391s, etc, all could lump in to the "serious reason" category, not my job to determine that for the guy who walks in, but no free chicken in a 391 IMO
Only hands on testing of pre '72, 361 - 391 will prove it, or not but, it's something that could be beneficial for FE builders. Core shift is random and may or may not be present in any block.
-
So then Brent, I ask the same question to you. How many pre '72 and post '72 361 - 391 blocks have you had your hands and examined?
I'm not discounting the use of sonic testing but, if the core is thicker, to begin with, then core sift has less effect on the amount a block can be bored.
While I'm at it, I will ask everyone on the forum.......... Has anyone either, allen wrench or sonic tested any pre '72 361 or 391, truck blocks?
It would be a interesting question to answer, right? And don't forget, you get a forged crank, with it, too.
Frank, I build FE's. I build a lot of them. I'm a small, one-man shop but I have 9 builds going right now and 6 of them are FE's (the others are all SBF's; I'm a Ford shop). I don't know about other builders, but I don't keep a log book with every FE block I've touched.
I will tell you emphatically that the year doesn't matter as to how thick a block is or isn't. I have sonic tested (and drill bit tested when I was younger) all different years of blocks. They all vary. Back around 14-15 years ago, there was a time where I was trying to take 390 blocks out to a 428 bore and ruined quite a few to tell you the truth. We sonic tested many blocks, including some C4 blocks all the way up to the D4TE stuff. There is not a consistent standard to any of them. As Ross pointed out, core shift will ruin your day.
I'm sorry that TRW led you down the wrong road, but you're on the right forum to learn some new stuff. All of the FE gurus are *right here*.
-
For a heavy towing application, I like the idea of getting as many cubes as possible. That is, a 4.375" crank. With a 4.08" bore you're looking at 457 inches. Keep the cam very small, say 212 or less duration. Performer intake with a 600 Holley. 1-3/4" headers or maybe even 1-5/8" if you were to have them made. Compression at around 8.5:1 to 9:1 with forged pistons. Good ignition curve for the application. Almost any garden variety passenger car FE heads with pocket porting and a good valve job. ……...and as much gearing as you need, or can tolerate.
JMO,
paulie
-
Granted desire for period correct accuracy, love for 391s, etc, all could lump in to the "serious reason" category, not my job to determine that for the guy who walks in, but no free chicken in a 391 IMO
Only hands on testing of pre '72, 361 - 391 will prove it, or not but, it's something that could be beneficial for FE builders. Core shift is random and may or may not be present in any block.
I posted a reference about the blocks and since you have no direct knowledge, what your saying has no bearing on the subject.
Frank, I am a polite poster but you have no idea of the extent of my experience or what I do.
Go for it, YOU do it, YOU see, YOU take the chance and report back. TRW catalogs are not an accurate source of block thickness. Sonic testers are cheap and so are 391 blocks. I would love to hear back your findings
-
And don't forget, you get a forged crank, with it, too.
Do you know what's entailed in using an FT crank in a normal application?
-
I would say that Ross and Brent are correct even if some 360/361 or 390/391 blocks are thicker than others. You never know for sure unless you check. And even then it is generally better to bore a block as little as possible. Thicker walls are better than the small gain in displacement and/or any gain in breathing from a slight bore increase.
I have two mirror 105 blocks and I did the drill bit test on them. According to that they might go .060" over, but I don't know for sure. I wouldn't actually do that without a sonic check.
JMO,
paulie
-
Ross, you just do not know that. It's just your opinion and speculation. Only hands on testing of pre '72, 361 - 391 will prove it, or not but, it's something that could be beneficial for FE builders. Core shift is random and may or may not be present in any block.
Frank, I do have direct knowledge, you don't. I just lumped it in a wide range of blocks for one constant, lack of consistency.
As far as helping builders, do it, measure some. I can say I do. I have an A-scratch I just completed and a std bore 68 390 behind it....4th drawer down on the right side of my engine-specific tool box sits a sonic tester.
My experience has shown me exactly what you are saying, "core shift is random" How do you think you check for it, call TRW? A sonic check, which is what we have consistently said, is only way to check it.
Quote me with your reply to remind me that this will be my last word because I have wasted the forum's time and let you get under my skin again :)
-
20 years of the FE forums, thousands of users that include pro racers and guys that have raced FE's from the early days to present (some of them gone now, from age), hundreds and hundreds of posts about block thicknesses of all the different FE blocks, and the vast consensus is that all blocks should be sonic checked at anything other than the smallest overbore. But Frank will believe what he wants to believe.
-
When did I say that sonic testing was not useful? Show me the post.
Regarding truck cranks, the crank snout is much larger and has to be machined to work with car accessory's. The timing cover, is also way different and cast in iron.
Go for it, YOU do it, YOU see, YOU take the chance and report back. TRW catalogs are not an accurate source of block thickness. Sonic testers are cheap and so are 391 blocks. I would love to hear back your findings
Ok, direct me to the first 10 or 12, 361/391 blocks, please. I'll take a look at them tomorrow. It would also be nice to see the log book that you've accumulated on sonic testing of the truck blocks. I used to have mine but, I lost it just before coming on this forum ;)
I'm a machinist of at least 47 years, for TRW to waist the ink that they put in that statement, I think they would have had to have know about a Ford revision. Are you guys saying that TRW, were intentionally misleading the automotive industry?
Again, I didn't post that info, to be attacked. I thought it was interesting and that it might be helpful. I didn't even say it was a fact, just that I found it in a TRW catalog!!!
-
While I'm at it, I will ask everyone on the forum.......... Has anyone either, allen wrench or sonic tested any pre '72 361 or 391, truck blocks?
Yes I have. I used to own several 391 and 534 powered Ford medium duty trucks (and still have a couple). I have 2 cabovers with 391's, a 69 and 70, both were purchased from the original company with complete service history. They were pretty tired when I got them and had to rebuild both shortly after I bought them. 1 block was definitely thicker and would go 80 over easily. The other one had enough core shift one bank would have been down to about .060-.070 at 30 over and I ended up having to replace that block. Might have been fine in a pickup or car, but I wasn't going to trust it running full throttle at 41k lbs 4k rpm hours at a time (at whopping 18mph heading up the hill to the landing). I don't remember if it was the 69 or 70 truck that had the bad block, both were pre 72 engines that were original to the trucks.
-
I'm a machinist of at least 47 years, for TRW to waist the ink that they put in that statement, I think they would have had to have know about a Ford revision. Are you guys saying that TRW, were intentionally misleading the automotive industry?
What they're saying is that, nearly 100% of the time, parts manufacturers get it wrong when posting general info about stuff. They're interested in selling products, nothing more. When you read a cam card, do you take the "cam characteristics" at face value? Because they're stated as if it were fact. But we all know a big stroker 480+ cube engine is going to act vastly different than a stock stroke 390, with the same cam. Manufacturers, and the internet in general, are full of wrong, misguided and generally stupid information. You can go to nearly every website or forum that doesn't cater to FE's, and when the subject comes up on a project about FE's, you will see bad information given as gospel. Only here, or the other forum, will you get good solid information that you can rely on and trust. But that's only if you actually listen.
-
I never chuck anything away so maybe I've still got the paper thin 361 block under the bench. That was bought because I expected it to be a thickwall block. It fit a larger drill bit than my 332 did. Bigger than 3/16".
-
In 1965 when the FE went into pickups the stock 352 got the 390 cores. In most cases those are good for a 4.11" bore and likely the cores were straighter than the latter standard webbed blocks. Maybe that fact turned into the argued point above? I can see how someone could take part truth and print a marketing magnet.
Around 1971/2 my dad bought a 63 drag wagon with one of those .120" overbore 390's. One night a couple of the "paper thin" cylinder walls collapsed. He didn't believe anymore 390 to 428 builds.
It has been a while back so if you remember the post feel free to tag it here.
I had a D3TE block that was a 4.080" bore. Although 6 or 7 cylinders were good for a 4.16" bore seems it was #3 that was at .095" wall. Maybe that was the only thin cylinder. It's been a while.
EDIT: it was .030" over 428 NOT 4.19"
-
I have a 390 that I got from Blair that was originally intended for a fun heavy street car, and I use it in my '70 F350 dually to pull 9k+ lbs through some hills in Pennsylvania and Ohio. It's about 9.5 compression, C4 heads, Edel RPM intake, Holley 750 with an unknown spec cam that has a nice little rumble to it. I kept the performance timing curve that Faron put in it, used an MSD Blaster ignition to fire it, and with 93 octane it pulls fine with no hint of detonation. That's with the NP 435 and 4.11 gears with 29" tires. I DO keep the RPMs up though, and never lug it in anything but 1st gear. I'd never have to drop to first, and I'm confident that it would pull fine in 3rd up about any hill that I'd encounter in it. I've actually never had to drop a gear to get up a hill yet, although from a takeoff I've held it for all she's worth before going into 4th. I do wish there was an easy 5 spd to bolt into it, but it is what it is for now.
The 390 doesn't have any issues pulling up the hills, but I've still got a 445 that I'm about to drop in it. I went that route for the extra torque. It'll use the same type C4 heads and RPM intake, and about the same compression. Maybe a bit less at around 9.3. As long as I use good fuel and don't lug it, I don't expect any issues pulling with it either.
I just posted this to show that it is possible to tow with a stock type drivetrain. When pulling heavy loads with a gas engine, I think RPMs are your friend, to keep the engine load lighter and away from detonation. As long as the engine is built good, a good tune, timing and an eye on plugs is key to make sure you're in the safe zone.
(https://i.postimg.cc/rwWhH0R2/IMAG4675.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Careful Doug. Do you have the frail 16 spline Dana? With that undrivable drivetrain your just a couple of rpms away from my gas rig with a cork intake and a carburetor that only looks good on paper.
-
When did I say that sonic testing was not useful? Show me the post.
Regarding truck cranks, the crank snout is much larger and has to be machined to work with car accessory's. The timing cover, is also way different and cast in iron.
Go for it, YOU do it, YOU see, YOU take the chance and report back. TRW catalogs are not an accurate source of block thickness. Sonic testers are cheap and so are 391 blocks. I would love to hear back your findings
Ok, direct me to the first 10 or 12, 361/391 blocks, please. I'll take a look at them tomorrow. It would also be nice to see the log book that you've accumulated on sonic testing of the truck blocks. I used to have mine but, I lost it just before coming on this forum ;)
I'm a machinist of at least 47 years, for TRW to waist the ink that they put in that statement, I think they would have had to have know about a Ford revision. Are you guys saying that TRW, were intentionally misleading the automotive industry?
Again, I didn't post that info, to be attacked. I thought it was interesting and that it might be helpful. I didn't even say it was a fact, just that I found it in a TRW catalog!!!
TRW obviously had some wrong information.
-
I'm currently putting together an early 391 block that is .080 over and half filled. The drivers side bank on the valley side cylinders all check out at .170"-.180" thick. Outside of the cylinders are all around .120"-125". The passenger side has minimal shift and all cylinders check out around .140"- .150".. I'm glad I half filled the block after seeing the shift on the drivers bank. A drill bit test isn't going to tell you whats happening on the thrust sides of a cylinder.
Fred
-
Careful Doug. Do you have the frail 16 spline Dana? With that undrivable drivetrain your just a couple of rpms away from my gas rig with a cork intake and a carburetor that only looks good on paper.
Chris, I couldn't even tell you what a 16 spline Dana is..lol I assume the axle spline count? I never bothered to count the splines whenever I've replace bearings and seals in them, but I know the axles are big, and heavy! I've hauled 5000 lbs in the bed of my old '68 Highboy with a Dana 60, and it never had an issue with it (except for nearly killing the tires and ripping my bed apart in the process ::)), so I figured the Dana 70 would be fine with any loads I'd put on this truck. This is my 4th truck with a Dana rear, and I've never had to do more than replace some leaking seals and a few bearings on them...ever, so I couldn't tell you much about them, except they seem pretty much bullet proof. All I did on this truck was replace all the bearings and seals and put in a heavy synthetic gear oil, and called it good.
With such a heavy load, I was slightly concerned about braking, but that has turned into a non-issue. I have the trailer brakes set a bit on the heavy side, so they initially pull on the truck when first activated. After the initial hit of the controller, and the subsequent rolling back, I can barely even tell the trailer is back there. Trailer brakes are cheap enough and easy to replace though.
The only difference I see in my junk and new junk is.....they have better creature comforts, and they get better gas mileage unloaded. Once loaded, that equals out pretty darned quick! Oh, and I don't have (and can't afford), a $500-$600 truck payment..lol ;D
-
From my research, the 16 spline (and 30 spline) break while rock crawling with it in 4 wheel low, granny 1st, and a hard locker in the rear. I think you’ll be fine if you behave. Every once in a while I have the idea to switch to the chrome moly axles and the claimed stronger ring and pinion but haven’t yet. I have an open differential and don’t mash the gas in low gears.
My truck is a ‘65F250, btw. Towed 5 ton many times outta state. Was a 390 for a while. Now it’s a 482.
-
Since this is not Facebook, name calling and sarcastic remarks are not required. I have edited and/or deleted some of the posts in this thread as a result of commentary not appropriate to this forum. Please keep a civil tone, guys...
-
Well - I can't add much to this thread other then a public service announcement. You really need to know the health of the block and what you are getting into. Sonic testing is cheap insurance. There are plenty of examples of Ford trucks purchased for a few hundred bucks and dragged out of a field that yield a "$4000 428 CJ blocks". I am not saying that anyone here has ever done that but the market for FT/FE blocks is tricky to say the least.
-
In doing a little research, last night, I found is, citing a FordFE.com post:
This one test is the single best way to quickly identify an assembled FE block, and credit for it goes to FordFE.com forum member David “Shoe” Schouweiler. You only need the simplest of measuring tools– some drill bits.
Remove the center freeze plug from the side of the engine block. Using common drill bits, then slip the shank portion of the largest possible bit in between the center cylinder cores through the freeze plug opening. The size of this largest drill bit indicates which water-jacket core was used to cast the block.
If you can only fit a 1/8- or 9/64- inch drill bit shank between the cylinders at the largest gap position on the block, and a 10/64-inch bit doesn’t fit anywhere, then they are 427 water jackets.
406/428/DIF361/DIF391 blocks allow a 13/64-inch drill bit shank to fit into the gap at the largest position.
MCC361FT/MCC391FT blocks (MCC = “mirror 105” marking) allow a 14/64-inch bit to fit between the cores.
Regular 360/390/410 blocks hang around the 17/64- to 19/64-inch water-jacket space at the largest position on the block.
These are only approximations, but tend to be close.
I've included the TRW warning. It applied to 359, 361, 389 & 391, truck engines. There are no warnings of this nature, for any car engines. By that, I'm not saying car engines were thick wall, just that TRW had a reason to relate is info for FT engines, only.
-
In doing a little research, last night, I found is, citing a FordFE.com post:
This one test is the single best way to quickly identify an assembled FE block, and credit for it goes to FordFE.com forum member David “Shoe” Schouweiler. You only need the simplest of measuring tools– some drill bits.
Remove the center freeze plug from the side of the engine block. Using common drill bits, then slip the shank portion of the largest possible bit in between the center cylinder cores through the freeze plug opening. The size of this largest drill bit indicates which water-jacket core was used to cast the block.
If you can only fit a 1/8- or 9/64- inch drill bit shank between the cylinders at the largest gap position on the block, and a 10/64-inch bit doesn’t fit anywhere, then they are 427 water jackets.
406/428/DIF361/DIF391 blocks allow a 13/64-inch drill bit shank to fit into the gap at the largest position.
MCC361FT/MCC391FT blocks (MCC = “mirror 105” marking) allow a 14/64-inch bit to fit between the cores.
Regular 360/390/410 blocks hang around the 17/64- to 19/64-inch water-jacket space at the largest position on the block.
These are only approximations, but tend to be close.
I've included the TRW warning. It applied to 359, 361, 389 & 391, truck engines. There are no warnings of this nature, for any car engines. By that, I'm not saying car engines were thick wall, just that TRW had a reason to relate is info for FT engines, only.
I remember Shoe's post. That is what got me into checking them for potential with a drill bit. That TRW foot note goes hand in glove with my posted theory. Remember Steve Christ printed an excellent book, only the identification chart has since been proven incorrect. Seems either Shoe, Kevin or another with official Ford documents mentioned Mr. Christ info matched what Ford provided at the time. It is possible TRW was using the same inconsistent documents.
Heck, for all we know a former TRW engineer and fellow forum member could have prank printed those on his way out the door.
Kidding Mr. BR
-
Yeah that document is incorrect.
-
Ah, never mind.
-
...
Manufacturers, and the internet in general, are full of wrong, misguided and generally stupid information. You can go to nearly every website or forum that doesn't cater to FE's, and when the subject comes up on a project about FE's, you will see bad information given as gospel. Only here, or the other forum, will you get good solid information that you can rely on and trust ...
I just read another FE specs website today that started out well written, until I got to the "high nickel" iron in FE block reference. Along with all of the incorrect casting number crossover references in printed books, they will never go away.
When I worked for a large Ford car and truck dealership from 1969 to 1976, I occasionally tried to use the large quantity of O.S.I. (Obsolete * Supersede * Interchange) reference books we had on hand. In those pre-computer days, Ford regularly came out with (quarterly?) new issues.
They were just part number and engineering number lists that were supposed to show if a certain part number that was no longer in the price book had been updated with a new part number. They would also have some engineering numbers with cross references, but as a general rule, they were not very useful.
-
...
Manufacturers, and the internet in general, are full of wrong, misguided and generally stupid information. You can go to nearly every website or forum that doesn't cater to FE's, and when the subject comes up on a project about FE's, you will see bad information given as gospel. Only here, or the other forum, will you get good solid information that you can rely on and trust ...
I just read another FE specs website today that started out well written, until I got to the "high nickel" iron in FE block reference. Along with all of the incorrect casting number crossover references in printed books, they will never go away.
When I worked for a large Ford car and truck dealership from 1969 to 1976, I occasionally tried to use the large quantity of O.S.I. (Obsolete * Supersede * Interchange) reference books we had on hand. In those pre-computer days, Ford regularly came out with (quarterly?) new issues.
They were just part number and engineering number lists that were supposed to show if a certain part number that was no longer in the price book had been updated with a new part number. They would also have some engineering numbers with cross references, but as a general rule, they were not very useful.
I started with Ford in 2004 as a tech just as the parts man was coming to his twilight years. Wes just about said the same thing you did when I was looking for a good set of iron FE heads.
Brent I wasn't asking if it was correct but was playing the unpopular middle man that figures out a common ground.
-
I have a TRW reference, that says that 1971 and earlier blocks, both 361 & 391's, have thicker cylinder walls.
Frank, this is my perspective after reading all the posts up to this point.
Your initial post, in this thread, stated you have a TRW reference indicating thicker cylinder walls in 1971 and older blocks.
Nothing wrong with this post and statment. It is a neat "fun fact" kind of thing.
Really though, this is a general assumption type of statement, not a measurement.
Next you go on to challenge the abilities and validity of those who are literally builders of FE engines, either currently or in the past.
While there is no harm in asking questions when trying to verify certain things, the manner in which you have gone about asking in this thread is more a challenge of validity and worth, rather than a question of mechanical measurements and determination of cylinder wall thickness.
You then continue to hammer the TRW reference information into the ground while seemingly ignoring the actual, hands on, useful, and prudent, information that basically says "don't trust the books, measure what you have to be sure."
Keep in mind, even if the books were spot on correct, it is still good machining practice to measure what you have in order to know what you are working with prior to doing any machine work.
What is it you are trying to help others learn with your statements and direction regarding this TRW reference?
You have an old TRW reference...Good...Neat to have, and a nice general idea, but hardly a direct measurement of the literal FE engine block currently being machined, and evaluated, in order to know what is there to be worked with.
There are MANY things to take into consideration when it comes to anything FE engine.
There are plenty of books and reference materials out there to be had, some of which have been directly found faulty in certain aspects.
There is a plethora of wives tales, it worked for me anecdotes, and poor practices being used to guide those who don't know unfortunately in a wrong...or at least lesser, direction.
When it comes to measuring an FE block cylinder wall thickness in order to help determine a safe overbore capacity, NOTHING any reference book, technical sheet, engineering drawing, or other written words will be better than literally measuring the block as it is, on the bench, directly in front of you, right now in the present.
Currently the most useful method of making this determination is a sonic test.
A sonic test is relatively cheap, relatively easy, relatively quick.
A sonic test is what some of the members are recommending as a better measure than your TRW reference...Because it is better.
This all boils down to two questions I ask of you directly.
1) Why so cemented in your TRW reference as to argue about a sonic test recommendation?
2) What is your reasoning for not performing a sonic test prior to machining the cylinder walls of an FE block during a rebuild?
-
...
Manufacturers, and the internet in general, are full of wrong, misguided and generally stupid information. You can go to nearly every website or forum that doesn't cater to FE's, and when the subject comes up on a project about FE's, you will see bad information given as gospel. Only here, or the other forum, will you get good solid information that you can rely on and trust ...
I just read another FE specs website today that started out well written, until I got to the "high nickel" iron in FE block reference. Along with all of the incorrect casting number crossover references in printed books, they will never go away.
When I worked for a large Ford car and truck dealership from 1969 to 1976, I occasionally tried to use the large quantity of O.S.I. (Obsolete * Supersede * Interchange) reference books we had on hand. In those pre-computer days, Ford regularly came out with (quarterly?) new issues.
They were just part number and engineering number lists that were supposed to show if a certain part number that was no longer in the price book had been updated with a new part number. They would also have some engineering numbers with cross references, but as a general rule, they were not very useful.
I started with Ford in 2004 as a tech just as the parts man was coming to his twilight years. Wes just about said the same thing you did when I was looking for a good set of iron FE heads.
Brent I wasn't asking if it was correct but was playing the unpopular middle man that figures out a common ground.
Yes sir, I was replying to Frank. Didn’t mean for you to take collateral damage.
-
This all boils down to two questions I ask of you directly.
1) Why so cemented in your TRW reference as to argue about a sonic test recommendation?
2) What is your reasoning for not performing a sonic test prior to machining the cylinder walls of an FE block during a rebuild?
Ok, here we go again. I was going to leave a sleeping dog lye after posting the finding of "Shoe", showing that the core thickness of FT blocks is the same as 406 & 428's.
My only defense of the TRW reference was that there must have been a reason for them to add that to the FT engines only, for them to have wasted the ink, to do so.
Please cite my post, where I say that I do not recommend sonic testing prior to boring! Core shift can effect the amount that you can bore a engine but, core shift is random and effects all FE's and all other engines that are cast, using sand casting.
When I post something on this forum, it is immediately "suspect" by some! But, there are people on this forum, that are well respected people, held in high regard, that do such things as bore a 427 to 4.280, giving a maximum cylinder thickness of .110. With that, there will be some overall core shift, using a sonic tester, that will give areas of under .100, not to mention the erosion of 55 years. If I suggested that "some people" would be all over me. If it is acceptable to have .100 cylinder walls on a 427, why is it not, on a 390.
I was a mechanic, for 8 years, in the 60's. I was also, a hot rodder. When I first joined this forum, I asked about boring FE's and suggested that the early engines had thicker cylinder walls. I was told NO! But, there was this one response:
ThatDarnCat:
I just went to the garage and popped a core plug from a EDC-6015-C 1958 model year block I have. Date code is “7 0 B”, which is 1957 October 2nd. So a pretty early FE. A 1/4” ( 16/64” ) drill bit fits totally loose between the cylinders, the same as pretty much every other 352-390. You could easily get 17/64” or 18/64” in there.
There was a picture with it. It showed that 1/4" drill, with no side clearance so, I'll call it 17/64 or .265 (the shanks are slightly smaller on drills).
In that thread, I said that it was common, to bore 352 blocks 1/8", to 4.125, as well as most early V8's. So, w/o core shift, boring a early 352, .125 would leave .120, thick walls. 427's, commonly bored 4.26, leaves cylinder walls of .120. Factory walls are .133, on that engine, based on a gap of .13, between the cores.
In my 8 years, I only saw 2 cracked blocks, a unrelated 312, cracked from the main to cam bores and a 350 sbc, std bore, with a cylinder wall crack.
I ran with all the "racers" in my area (Orange Co, up to South LA) and heard no reports of cracked cylinder walls, from boring 1/8". Maybe racers were luckier in those days, I don't know..........
-
Thanks for the answers Frank. I do appreciate your efforts.
1) You did not directly state that sonic testing is not recommended. I will admit my perception of your arguements seems as if you are trying to give reasons for not sonic testing...but you did not directly state such words verbatim.
2) EVERYTHING else in your reply is nothing more than great bonfire talk. All the drill bit tests in the world give an approximation of what might be, rather than a useful measurement prior to boring.
All the anectdotes from some past event have ZERO bearing on the actual measurements of an engine block being machined at the moment.
I guess my real perspective on this situation is one of wonderment.
I am wondering why go to all the trouble of your round the bend examples when the usefulness, validity, and sense of a sonic test are tangible and apparent?
I think you simply want to make a point, but you are not able, or are at least unwilling, to understand your point is mostly pointless specifically because of what a sonic test provides.
The methods you are fighting for are all approximations and guesstimates, where the sonic test is far more precise when it comes to direct measurements of what you have to work with.
Your methods are useful when you find a block laying on its side in a wrecking yard, in the back corner of a garage, or at a swap meet. They can help you determine what MIGHT be there.
But, even after the drill bit tests, TRW reports, and technical papers encouraged you to give this block a try...the sonic test will tell you exactly what IS there.
Because of this, and because of the way you are addressing this thread, I just don't understand your point.
I'll move along now. No need to get up. I'll close the door behind me.
-
To day we have sonic checkers and they are a good thing but 40-50 yrs ago no one had them.At least small town shops did not they just bored what ever it took to keep them on the road.My friends dad owned a machine shop i seen a lot of 352-390 at .060 over some 289 also with no problems.
-
Dan,
All I can say, is that I lived through the "hay day" of the FE. I was 14 when the FE was released and I was 32, in '76, when I had to throw my LR, long block, in a scrape pile, TRW forged pop-up's and all, because I couldn't sell it before moving to Nor Cal (sold the heads & intake, cheap, to my brother for his 390 GT)!
As you exit, have a very nice day and don't let the door hit you, where the good lord split you :)
-
Read Jim Doves ( tips on building a fe) its on the web he has done a lot of them. It talks about a 352 .080 over for a street engine.
-
...
-
Read Jim Doves ( tips on building a fe) its on the web he has done a lot of them. It talks about a 352 .080 over for a street engine.
That would essentially be a .030” over 390 bore which isn’t too far out of line but I think I’d still get a sonic before setting up the boring bar.
-
Mr Dove goes on to say "This method does not check for core shift, but it does qualify the block for further interest and inspection, such as a sonic test, which will find thin spots from core shifts or broken cores."
Just curious- when was the TRW material published?
I'm no expert in anything but it just seems to be proper procedure to not short cut any machine process including inspections, cleaning, measurements and setup before hitting the power button on any machine.
-
It's TRW's Engine Parts Catalog, E178, published in 1978.