1
FE Technical Forum / Re: Uncle Tony's Garage: Basphemy upon the FE
« on: May 29, 2025, 01:24:07 PM »
I agree he is terrible, complete waste of internet space, dumbing down any gullible viewer.
Dedicated to Building and Racing the Ford FE Engine
News:
SMF - Just Installed!
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.
2
FE Technical Forum / Re: drive train losses
« on: May 29, 2025, 01:18:49 PM »
Fantastic! All the parts made a difference - C6 to 'glide being the biggest, switching to a Neal Chance convertor likely was the next biggest. Carbon fiber driveshafts have shown up to 10 rear wheel HP; same for numerically lower ring & pinion on a Dyno Jet.
3
FE Technical Forum / Re: 427 Automatic
« on: January 03, 2025, 05:38:46 PM »
I think Ohio George had the same trans behind his Supercharged SOHC. Thanks for sharing the article!!!!
4
FE Technical Forum / Re: Chassis Dyno Tips With C6
« on: October 03, 2024, 07:16:02 PM »
I have been on a chassis dyno 3 times. It's best for test & tuning, not absolute power of the engine since drive line loss is anywhere between 10 and 20%. Torque convertors totally skew the output, so I would not be trying for best effort. If however you're going for a best effort number, make sure your fuel filter is clean, fuel pressure is adequate, and your timing is correct. Slicks also hurt, use radials if possible, a 3.08 gear has less friction than 4.30 so swap that, carbon fiber driveshaft and light weight wheels of course...
5
FE Technical Forum / Re: Composite Rockers
« on: January 07, 2024, 10:29:19 AM »
The term composite is used too loosely. A component that handles a substantial load (rods, rockers, etc) will have carbon fiber. These are costly at the moment. Intake manifolds, radiators, etc. will have glass or hemp fiber. They are cheap. The type of resin is selected based on temperature and tolerance requirements.
7
FE Technical Forum / Torque Convertor
« on: February 23, 2023, 08:06:09 PM »
Looking for recommendations on a high stall convertor for the drag strip ~4500 stall...
8
Private Classifieds / Craiglist 428 CJ near Frederick, MD
« on: December 12, 2022, 07:21:42 PM »
Not mine but I work near the town:
https://frederick.craigslist.org/pts/d/boonsboro-ford-428-cobra-jet-block/7564483095.html
https://frederick.craigslist.org/pts/d/boonsboro-ford-428-cobra-jet-block/7564483095.html
10
FE Technical Forum / Re: 397ci Tunnel Port Dyno Mule Build
« on: July 10, 2022, 08:08:14 AM »
Brent - sorry if I missed it - what will you do on the 352 crankshaft journal sizes?
11
FE Technical Forum / Re: Why didn't Ford use a better camshaft in the 428 SCJ engines?
« on: June 13, 2022, 09:13:37 PM »
Looking back, nothing had a solid cam by 1968 - solid lifter cam was not an option on anything that model year, right? The next solid cam engine was 69 Boss 302. Boss 429's didn't even get solid cams at first, then magazines tested them and they added the solid design also used on 429 SCJ...so maybe Ford was hoping to get away from solids all together, but found that it wasn't going to make the grade. Or, it was simply the individual program budgets driving each decision...Where's John Vermiersch, he'll know...
12
FE Technical Forum / Re: Why didn't Ford use a better camshaft in the 428 SCJ engines?
« on: June 12, 2022, 06:43:34 PM »
I meant only 429 cars for 1970 but appreciate the correction. Another point that was made to me is maybe Ford decided the CJ power level potential with a solid cam would exceed the limits of a 2 bolt main in their durability testing.
13
FE Technical Forum / Re: Why didn't Ford use a better camshaft in the 428 SCJ engines?
« on: June 11, 2022, 08:05:32 PM »
1969-71 Boss Mustangs all had solid cams too! 302, 351 and 429
14
FE Technical Forum / Re: Why didn't Ford use a better camshaft in the 428 SCJ engines?
« on: June 11, 2022, 08:02:41 PM »
1969 Drag Pak - hydraulic cam. 1970-71 Drag Pak - solid cam. So I would disagree.
15
FE Technical Forum / Re: Why didn't Ford use a better camshaft in the 428 SCJ engines?
« on: June 10, 2022, 07:24:52 PM »
Back to the original question here; why did a Drag Pak not have a solid cam when it was widely known to add performance? The vast majority of people who wanted a Drag Pak, SCJ cared little about drive-ability, cold starts, etc. They were tolerating ratchety deep geared locker rears, tossing smog pumps and definitely no A/C. Ford knew the heads flowed more at higher lift than the given cam alotted, and lets add to it they had aluminum intakes available as well. So why not? My guess is FE tooling was at the end of life cycle and financing was all in the 429/460. Money to apply adjustable valvetrain and aluminum pieces just wasn't there for our beloved 428. Ford essentially admitted the solid cam would have been better, having applied it on next generation 429 SCJ Drag Pak.