FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: jayb on January 22, 2017, 01:02:10 PM
-
Just got back from a trip out west to look at a bunch of FE engine blocks. I ended up buying a bunch of 428 blocks, some of which I may put up for sale in the classifieds soon, but what was really intriguing about my visit was the information on industrial 427 blocks that I found. The gentleman I was dealing with had been collecting these FE blocks since the 1980s, and used to have a machine shop where he would rebuild them. Apparently they were all from industrial irrigation systems, where they would pump water. They ran on natural gas. On the way to his place I saw several examples of these pumping stations; here's a picture of one that looks like it uses a big block Chevrolet for power:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/pump.jpg)
Apparently FEs were used extensively in these applications back in the day, and I saw four 427 industrial pump engines at this gentleman's place. One of them looked pretty standard, like a normal 427 you would find in a passenger car. It had the screw in core plugs, was a sideoiler, was crossbolted, etc. But the odd thing was that the center crossbolt cap was not actually crossbolted. Picture below:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/427ind1.jpg)
The holes were drilled in the block for the center crossbolts, but they were plugged. It looked like one of the bosses in the block had been machined off for a spacer, but the other side was left as cast. Kind of an odd deal, really, but I don't think it would take much to get that center cap crossbolted and you'd have a nice 427 sideoiler block, standard bore.
The other three 427 blocks were like nothing I had ever seen before, and I'm curious what you guys think of them. He had one of the blocks cleaned up for me to look at. Here's a picture of the deck of the block. You can tell it is a 427 block by the round water jacket holes at the top of the deck; no other FE blocks have those. This block was standard 4.23" bore, and I looked in the core plug holes and the bores were very close together, so by that and water jacket holes I was certain that this was not a bored 428 block:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/427ind5.jpg)
The picture below shows the block from the passenger side. No crossbolts, and press in frost plugs:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/427ind4.jpg)
Here's a picture from the side. The block is drilled as a center oiler, and part of the side oiler casting has been machined away, probably to make room for the engine mounts. You can see the bosses for the side oiler plugs:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/427ind3.jpg)
Finally a shot from the back, with an "H" scratched into the casting core. I haven't seen that before either:
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/427ind2.jpg)
My guess on the background of this block is that it was a left over 427 casting, that Ford machined later for use in the industrial engine market. Maybe they ran out of crossbolted caps, or just decided not to use them. Anybody know more about these types of FEs? From a value perspective, without the sideoiler oiling system and the crossbolted caps, I didn't think this block was worth that much more than a 428 block. But it does have the 427 bore, so that's a plus. What do you guys think?
-
From what I read on the other forum Jay I do remember a lot of talk about these engines over the years. Perhaps you should post this over there for some more commentary. A search of that forum's archive under "industrial engines" or similar variations might reward you.
I do remember reading that Ford did kinda' slap together these engines after the demise of the 427 FE series, sadly just to be rid of them, as the Boss engines took over, both events occurring just before '73 oil crisis helped kill the muscle car era. Perhaps that's why you found some odd looking main caps and block machining.
Some of our posters here too like Rod C and others who actually worked for Ford can hopefully shed more light on this little known area of FE's hard at work as pumping stations!
-
"Just got back from a trip out west to look at a bunch of FE engine blocks."
And you didn't take me with? lol
Looking at your pictures, it looks like 2 of those blocks have a small hole drilled and tapped on the #3 pan rail / cross bolt boss, and the one has a bolt there - maybe to hold an extended oil pickup tube ( or something similar )? That may be why Ford skipped the cross bolts on #3, the two bolts would have interfered?
Ford Industrial is mainly a separate division - different part books, different dealers, different distribution chain, and so on. Another division Ford can sell a franchise to! I'm guessing they have engineers and corporate sales people that put these packages together, decide what machining is needed, etc. I saw paperwork someone had once that had a breakdown of 427's in a certain time period - how many to production, how many to race teams, how many to industrial - corporate accountants have all this stuff tracked to the penny. And all that information is used too when new tooling is being developed, the more places you can use ( or sell something ) the better.
I think even the industrial 427's will command a little more money than a 428, It's been my experience people just have 427 fever - they want to be able to tell their buddies or the gang at the coffee cruise they have a real 427, there is just a mystique.
-
Does this mean you're giving up on new blocks being available anytime soon?
-
I'm not giving up on new blocks, but the guy who was doing the design is moving pretty slowly. I'm actually thinking about doing the design myself at this point...
-
Sounds like a cool trip Jay! The above comments jibe well with what I have heard. There were apparently quite a few leftover 427 blocks with casting and machining imperfections sitting around. Your example with the center cap not cross-drilled is probably the result of a tool breaking during that operation, leaving the counterbored hole in the skirt out of spec. At some point they repaired it with a plain cap and spec'd it for the lowest level industrial application.
I saw quite a bit of similar stuff happen during my time at Ford. I once had the job to troubleshoot 40,000 1998 Escort engines built with improperly heat-treated pistons. The engines would rattle when really cold, but then warm up and sound fine. The fix? Our chief engineer drew a line on a map of the continental U.S. and said, "ship all of those cars south of that line!".
-
Jay, interesting stuff! Great to learn about more FE applications. My 427 Marine dated 6C11 (Originally built for LH rotation) has the side oiler casting but drilled for center oiling and the outer side oiling boss is machined away the same as yours. However it has screw-in core plugs and is cross-bolted. Agree with Kevin that it will always have the 427 mystique and be worth more than a 428 IMO. Are the blocks drilled for hydraulic lifters? Can you make out some of the date codes?
-
While I don't have personal experience working at Ford, my Dad worked at the Lima plant for 30 years, starting in '60. And while not an FE plant, they did have the MEL and 385 series, and similarities can be found throughout Ford concerning how they did things back then. I garnered a fairly good feel for how things were done "on the line" and in the offices.
I agree with Bill and Kevin. Ford Industrial is their own separate division, and from what I've gathered, they typically aren't on par with passenger car quality control. Things got mixed around a little more, more deviation from standard, and often used stuff that was deemed less-than-perfect. Of course we all know that quality control was less adhered to with the later castings and service blocks, where stuff was 'used up' to get rid of inventory, but that doesn't mean it's not good, or unusable.
Just my guess, but the lack of a center cross-bolt could have been because caps were running low (on the line or in inventory), or maybe a bad tooling incident, which they would not have shut the line down for unless it was fairly severe. Or maybe they just deemed it unnecessary at that point, depending on the date...or maybe a combination. Either way, it would have been a fairly certain 'non-issue', as far as Ford Ind. was concerned. I'm sure they would have felt that the engines would have performed fine. Judging by the pictures, mainly the lifter bores, the core shift doesn't look that bad, so unless a sonic check proved otherwise, they should be good usable blocks. Perhaps even correct for later hydraulic cammed 427's depending on dating. I assume those are standard cast cranks?
-
If I had one of those 428s, I had a 100, "super" pistons, crank snout cracked very common if big front drives, but as many as I have had I have never found a 427 block.
Very few around anywhere that has access to electricity now, electric motor is much easier, also saw a few twin turbo low RPM 385 series, and a zillion diesels.
-
Occasionally you will see 361 and 391's (and 385 series as you stated) used for emergency water pumps or generators power also, typically on natural gas fuel. Cool finds. I have talked to a couple people here in Cali that have searched out several usable cores from those water pump applications. I know of one 361 mechanical lifter engine that is a back-up drive for a sewage pump station, still in service today.
-
Our power stations in az use Cummins engines to run the generators.
-
I have one of those two bolt 427 blocks. Like yours, it came off an irrigation pump in Western Kansas. Same setup, has the bosses for the crossbolts but not drilled, press-in freeze plugs and mine has the cloverleaf looking cylinders. Mine also has "427" cast in the lifter valley. It is the basis of my 452 I am putting in my '65 Mustang. I had GessFord Machine do all the machine work and they sonic tested it and said that while it wasn't the thickest block they had ever seen it was far from the thinnest and was very usable with minimal core shift. I was going to have the crossbolt caps installed but George thought my money would be better spent with some nice rods since at the end of the day it will always be an industrial block so that's what I did. I think there might be a market for those with the F.A.S.T. guys. They could build a correct "looking" 482inch 390 for their Mustang/Fairlane/Comet...etc.
The guy I bought mine from had two at the time and I wish I had bought both of them.
-
Good advice from Ross, look out for bad cranks. Many irrigation motors were tasked with spinning a gearhead for a vertical shaft water pump from the flywheel AND generating 480 volt 3 phase electricity off the front of the automotive diameter crank snout.
Most center pivot irrigation machines operate on 3 phase power. This can be 10kw to 30kw generators driven with industrial grade multi-grooved v-belts. If the belts slip and the tension is overtightened, a severe side load is exerted on the front of the crank.
Most Midwest center pivots are operated 500 to 2000 hours per year depending on the area and the weather (season by season ). Estimate a twenty year life ( 1970-1990 ) times 1200 hours per year, that would equal spinning full throttle and delivering full power for 24,000 hours.
Jay, did you have to purchase all of the FT truck heads that came on those irrigation 428/427 motors? Does anyone really have a use for FT truck heads, except to scrap iron.
Were did you go? Kansas or Nebraska? (maybe eastern Colorado?)
-
No heads, I just bought the blocks themselves, they were already all disassembled.
-
Kevin mentioned the bolt might interfere with the cross bolt. I have wondered how that pan's pickup would work out on a crossbolt Industrial 427. That tab is present in all FE/FT blocks from (unverified 64) 65 forward to accommodate the "Bread Pan" full sump FT/Industrial oil pan's pickup. Thanks for posting pictures.
-
The 428 in my Mach 1 is an industrial block out of Nebraska. Purchased it about 15 years ago for $350 - standard bore. Bored to .030 over and have been running it ever since. Great way to go IMO. Grab as many as you can.
-
What a cool find, you mentioned you might sell one or more of these? I'm not looking for one at the moment, got a BBM block to build, but a co-worker and good freind of mine is a fellow FE frantic. He would love to get a good big bore block to replace the bored over 390 block he is running now.
So if you do end up grabbing some of these and want to part with one, I would love to have a chance at it.
Awesome find.
-
Kevin mentioned the bolt might interfere with the cross bolt. I have wondered how that pan's pickup would work out on a crossbolt Industrial 427. That tab is present in all FE/FT blocks from (unverified 64) 65 forward to accommodate the "Bread Pan" full sump FT/Industrial oil pan's pickup. Thanks for posting pictures.
Picture of my 428 FT (not drilled)
-
Kevin mentioned the bolt might interfere with the cross bolt. I have wondered how that pan's pickup would work out on a crossbolt Industrial 427. That tab is present in all FE/FT blocks from (unverified 64) 65 forward to accommodate the "Bread Pan" full sump FT/Industrial oil pan's pickup. Thanks for posting pictures.
Picture of my 428 FT (not drilled)
Did your 428 FT come with this pan and a main stud mounted (common 4X4) oil pickup?
5 out of 5 brad pans I have seen had this pickup. Three were 352 crank 330 MD, one a 428I and the other a 4 barrel HD FT.
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff469/white65ford/FE%20Parts/20170125_172105.jpg) (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/white65ford/media/FE%20Parts/20170125_172105.jpg.html)
(http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff469/white65ford/FE%20Parts/20170125_171951.jpg) (http://s1237.photobucket.com/user/white65ford/media/FE%20Parts/20170125_171951.jpg.html)
-
I have never seen the H either , very interesting that 428 industrial block i picked up came from S E New Mexico where it ran an irrigation pump . No markings at all on it .. Bud
-
The 428 industrial blocks that I picked up from this guy run the gamut from unmarked to one with the C scratch, one with an XJ scratch, one with a CX scratch, and a couple with a C1 scratch. Most have the ribs on the outside, but two don't. In all but a couple cylinders the sonic data shows that on the thrust sides of the block the walls are pretty thick, well over 0.125". I'm beginning to think that despite all the external differences, the blocks are more alike than they are different in the key areas, despite the markings or sand scratches...
-
[/quote] Did your 428 FT come with this pan and a main stud mounted (common 4X4) oil pickup?
5 out of 5 brad pans I have seen had this pickup. Three were 352 crank 330 MD, one a 428I and the other a 4 barrel HD FT.
[/quote]
I only got the bare block from Sol Stewart, I don't know what kind of pan or pick up it had. Also the block is void of markings.
-
My industrial block is at the machine shop now , and when i get it home i will go over it again .. It s interesting to see all the different markings on these blocks ..
-
Mike, the picture of the block you posted showing the deck appears to have the 390 water jackets, not the 428 water jackets. See the drawings posted below, courtesy of my friend Kevin (thatdarncat). The water jacket opening in the deck, shown in the picture, extends down below the head bolt hole on the 428, but not on the 390. Are you sure the block you have is a 428 block, and not an overbored 390 block? I have never seen a 428 block with those water jacket holes on the deck...
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Water Jacket Hole 390.jpg)
(http://fepower.net/Photos/Posts/Water Jacket Hole 428.JPG)
-
I had an Industrial 428 cast in March 1974 without markings. It looked just like a common 1971-1972 360/390 block. I see Photobucket has deleted or lost a good number of random pictures in my folders labled FE. I think it had the 428 water jackets but no scratch on the back. It was 4.16 bore with a couple of non thrust .96 and a .103 walls.
-
Mike, the picture of the block you posted showing the deck appears to have the 390 water jackets, not the 428 water jackets. See the drawings posted below, courtesy of my friend Kevin (thatdarncat). The water jacket opening in the deck, shown in the picture, extends down below the head bolt hole on the 428, but not on the 390. Are you sure the block you have is a 428 block, and not an overbored 390 block? I have never seen a 428 block with those water jacket holes on the deck..."quote ]
You can thank Dennis K for bringing this alternate 428 block ID method to us. First proposed several years ago and only now gaining a following.
-
I grew up in an area where the local cherry orchards were protected by wind machines from the spring frost. A large majority of these wind machines were Ford Industrial 428 powered in the '70s and early '80s. My dad and I were first row and center when these wind machine companies were selling off their old equipment in the mid-80s. Barely used complete engine assemblies we were able to get for $200-$300 at auction. The short blocks were basically the same as the factory 428CJ. We kept a few and sold a bunch.
-
I had an Industrial 428 cast in March 1974 without markings. It looked just like a common 1971-1972 360/390 block. I see Photobucket has deleted or lost a good number of random pictures in my folders labled FE. I think it had the 428 water jackets but no scratch on the back. It was 4.16 bore with a couple of non thrust .96 and a .103 walls.
I have had several early '74 casting date 428 blocks just as you describe and I still have one at the machine shop that has an April '74 casting date. The DIF was on the road to closing in early '74 and Ford ramped up 428/427 service block production while they still could to meet the 10 yr service part demand requirement before the foundry shut down production forever.
-
Mike, the picture of the block you posted showing the deck appears to have the 390 water jackets, not the 428 water jackets. See the drawings posted below, courtesy of my friend Kevin (thatdarncat). The water jacket opening in the deck, shown in the picture, extends down below the head bolt hole on the 428, but not on the 390. Are you sure the block you have is a 428 block, and not an overbored 390 block? I have never seen a 428 block with those water jacket holes on the deck...
I measured the bore a while back and it was either 4.13 or 4.16, I'll check it again. I plan to have it sonic checked soon as I may be selling it if the new BBM iron blocks are available soon.
I remember Sol telling me it was a 428, he didn't say anything about it being a bored 390.
-
I think a sonic check is a good idea. Hopefully it is plenty thick - Jay
-
I think i seen one in a pea stoner that puts the stones on the road the county road comm had it it had so much tar on it it was hard to see but it had cross bolts .
-
Mike, the picture of the block you posted showing the deck appears to have the 390 water jackets, not the 428 water jackets. See the drawings posted below, courtesy of my friend Kevin (thatdarncat). The water jacket opening in the deck, shown in the picture, extends down below the head bolt hole on the 428, but not on the 390. Are you sure the block you have is a 428 block, and not an overbored 390 block? I have never seen a 428 block with those water jacket holes on the deck...
I now believe it's a 391 FT block that was cross bolted (does it have the same water jackets as a 390?) currently has a 4.16 bore. A 13/64 drill bit was the largest that would fit so I guess it leaves the cylinder walls about .133 ?
Okay I guess if I hard block it. I think I'm going to wait on the new BBM 428 iron blocks and heard they might be available soon.
-
Something to add to the discussion on the water jackets, I just looked at one of the 105 blocks and it has the 428 style that drops below the head bolt.
-
Something to add to the discussion on the water jackets, I just looked at one of the 105 blocks and it has the 428 style that drops below the head bolt.
Yes the tall versus short water jacket passage block ID method only works for DIF blocks cast from '66 and up. The 406 blocks have the short passages even though they are 4.13" bore.
-
Mike, the picture of the block you posted showing the deck appears to have the 390 water jackets, not the 428 water jackets. See the drawings posted below, courtesy of my friend Kevin (thatdarncat). The water jacket opening in the deck, shown in the picture, extends down below the head bolt hole on the 428, but not on the 390. Are you sure the block you have is a 428 block, and not an overbored 390 block? I have never seen a 428 block with those water jacket holes on the deck...
I now believe it's a 391 FT block that was cross bolted (does it have the same water jackets as a 390?) currently has a 4.16 bore. A 13/64 drill bit was the largest that would fit so I guess it leaves the cylinder walls about .133 ?
Okay I guess if I hard block it. I think I'm going to wait on the new BBM 428 iron blocks and heard they might be available soon.
Mike what is the casting date of your block?
-
Mike, the picture of the block you posted showing the deck appears to have the 390 water jackets, not the 428 water jackets. See the drawings posted below, courtesy of my friend Kevin (thatdarncat). The water jacket opening in the deck, shown in the picture, extends down below the head bolt hole on the 428, but not on the 390. Are you sure the block you have is a 428 block, and not an overbored 390 block? I have never seen a 428 block with those water jacket holes on the deck...
I now believe it's a 391 FT block that was cross bolted (does it have the same water jackets as a 390?) currently has a 4.16 bore. A 13/64 drill bit was the largest that would fit so I guess it leaves the cylinder walls about .133 ?
Okay I guess if I hard block it. I think I'm going to wait on the new BBM 428 iron blocks and heard they might be available soon.
Mike what is the casting date of your block?
There were a lot of 352 and 390 blocks cast with 427 bottom ends in the 1964 model year (July '63 to July '64 casting dates). These blocks have the cross bolting bosses and the extra main webbing. I have never heard of a 391 block with these features but the first year for the FT was 1964.
-
Yes the tall versus short water jacket passage block ID method only works for DIF blocks cast from '66 and up. The 406 blocks have the short passages even though they are 4.13" bore.
Thanks for that info, its very interesting. Regarding the extra webbing around the mains on the 391 truck blocks, all the ones I've seen have that, although that only totals 6-8 blocks. Those blocks did not have the cross bolting bosses, though, and they were early '70s castings.
-
1964 390: i had one that was fully ready for cross bolting, so they did cast them that way some times.
-
Yes i have one of those to C4AE-A I think Dogh have one in his truck to
sew one other block at a friends house that he rebuilt for a customer
-
Yes the tall versus short water jacket passage block ID method only works for DIF blocks cast from '66 and up. The 406 blocks have the short passages even though they are 4.13" bore.
Thanks for that info, its very interesting. Regarding the extra webbing around the mains on the 391 truck blocks, all the ones I've seen have that, although that only totals 6-8 blocks. Those blocks did not have the cross bolting bosses, though, and they were early '70s castings.
Yes all of the FT blocks I have had or seen have the extra webbing around the mains. I was just saying that I have never seen an FT block that had the cross bolting bosses. Jay of all of the 391 truck blocks that you have seen how many had the thick cylinder walls that would safely support a 4.13" bore? In my experience these seem to be pretty rare.
-
Mike, the picture of the block you posted showing the deck appears to have the 390 water jackets, not the 428 water jackets. See the drawings posted below, courtesy of my friend Kevin (thatdarncat). The water jacket opening in the deck, shown in the picture, extends down below the head bolt hole on the 428, but not on the 390. Are you sure the block you have is a 428 block, and not an overbored 390 block? I have never seen a 428 block with those water jacket holes on the deck...
I now believe it's a 391 FT block that was cross bolted (does it have the same water jackets as a 390?) currently has a 4.16 bore. A 13/64 drill bit was the largest that would fit so I guess it leaves the cylinder walls about .133 ?
Okay I guess if I hard block it. I think I'm going to wait on the new BBM 428 iron blocks and heard they might be available soon.
Mike what is the casting date of your block?
The block is a C4AE-A, I'll see if I can dig up some more pictures.
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq80/mike7570/428%20block4_zpsl0fmwdws.jpeg) (http://s435.photobucket.com/user/mike7570/media/428%20block4_zpsl0fmwdws.jpeg.html)
-
Mike, the picture of the block you posted showing the deck appears to have the 390 water jackets, not the 428 water jackets. See the drawings posted below, courtesy of my friend Kevin (thatdarncat). The water jacket opening in the deck, shown in the picture, extends down below the head bolt hole on the 428, but not on the 390. Are you sure the block you have is a 428 block, and not an overbored 390 block? I have never seen a 428 block with those water jacket holes on the deck...
I now believe it's a 391 FT block that was cross bolted (does it have the same water jackets as a 390?) currently has a 4.16 bore. A 13/64 drill bit was the largest that would fit so I guess it leaves the cylinder walls about .133 ?
Okay I guess if I hard block it. I think I'm going to wait on the new BBM 428 iron blocks and heard they might be available soon.
Mike what is the casting date of your block?
The block is a C4AE-A, I'll see if I can dig up some more pictures.
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq80/mike7570/428%20block4_zpsl0fmwdws.jpeg) (http://s435.photobucket.com/user/mike7570/media/428%20block4_zpsl0fmwdws.jpeg.html)
It's easy to determine if it's an FT block. All FT blocks have a tapped hole just above the pan rail on the passenger side of the block. It was used as an oil drain back for the air brake air compressor.
-
My friend is an x-Ford Industrial Salesman. I learned much about the Ford Industrial Division from him and witnessing the goings on of him and my other friend that was a top-ten Ford Racing Distributor.
My x-Ford Ind Salesman had much experience with Holman & Moody who was also a Ford Ind Dist. He was on a first name basis at H&M. In the 90s there was much buying at the best price between Ford auto dealerships/parts, Ford Industrial and Ford Racing that I winessed. My x-Ford salesman sold hundreds of GT40 302/351 heads, 302/351/429/460 short blocks, long blocks and even engines to Ford Racing Distributors and Ford car dealers/parts dept's. FORD's pricing structure was very broad across the different distributors. His assoc salesman working at Highway Equip actually came from H&M and was in south Florida. My Ind Salesman bud told me he sold a few dozen 427's to savvy racers that went shopping for their motors/parts.
Just a note: The 93-95 Ford Lightning's 351 used right out of the Ind book a Marine longblock right down to it's cam and grey paint-- the guys at SVT that designed the Lightning simply grabbed an off-the shelf 351 longblock that was built tough for Marine use. The Pantera engines were in the Ford Industrial Parts books/microfiche. They were sold/delivered to Italy via Ford Industrial to install in the cars. He showed me and explained how Ford Industrial specified and sold the Marine 427's to Chris Craft... There were part numbers and batches that that spanned years. H&M being a Ford Racing and Ford Industrial Dist obviously would "buy" from the FORD division that offered up the cheapest price.
When I see that oddball 427 "missing the center cross-bolting" motor Jay posted I figure that some Ford Ind Salesman had sat down and priced out a proposal to provide x-many 427s with every unique characteristic on Jay's pictured block. When you see that BBC Jay pictured you know that Chevy also had a salesman that wanted nothing but to keep the Ford salesman from getting that order. Hence if we can save a buck here or there so be it. Maybe that deduction of the main x-bolts saved $10./per motor?....and brought home the order.
One time my Ford Ind bud sold me a NOS set of 429CJ bare heads he had scored by looking through another Ford Ind Dist's "surplus parts list" . I've got a H&M marine pamphlet (6 page) showing everything from 302 -to on the cover a BOSS 429 Marine Engine.
-
Mike, the picture of the block you posted showing the deck appears to have the 390 water jackets, not the 428 water jackets. See the drawings posted below, courtesy of my friend Kevin (thatdarncat). The water jacket opening in the deck, shown in the picture, extends down below the head bolt hole on the 428, but not on the 390. Are you sure the block you have is a 428 block, and not an overbored 390 block? I have never seen a 428 block with those water jacket holes on the deck...
I now believe it's a 391 FT block that was cross bolted (does it have the same water jackets as a 390?) currently has a 4.16 bore. A 13/64 drill bit was the largest that would fit so I guess it leaves the cylinder walls about .133 ?
Okay I guess if I hard block it. I think I'm going to wait on the new BBM 428 iron blocks and heard they might be available soon.
Mike what is the casting date of your block?
What date do these work out to?
-
The lower picture shows a date code of 3C17, which is March 17, 1963.
-
That's what I thought, Thanks
I still need to have it sonic checked. It's currently at 4.16 and if it's a 390 block I'm guessing the walls are pretty thin.
-
I agree it looks like a "C" but because it's a C4AE-A casting I wonder if it is a poorly formed "G" for July.
Did you check for the small pipe plug in the block skirt just above the pan rail on the passenger side? All of the evidence so far is pointing to a thick walled 361/391 FT block (1964 was the first year for the FT engine) and if so it will have that plug.
-
No pipe plug and my FT distributor bushing won't fit in the distributor hole. So now it looks like a cross bolted 390 block?
I think I will get it in to a shop in the next couple of weeks and have it cleaned and sonic checked.
-
No pipe plug and my FT distributor bushing won't fit in the distributor hole. So now it looks like a cross bolted 390 block?
I think I will get it in to a shop in the next couple of weeks and have it cleaned and sonic checked.
Yes a sonic check will tell the story and it is most likely one of the very common C4AE-A 390 blocks cast with the 427 lower end casting features (cross bolt bosses, extra main support webbing and thicker cross-sections). The fact that you said that you could only fit a 13/64" drill bit between the cylinders inside the water jacket is intriguing though. There were some 406 service blocks cast as C4AE-A blocks.