1
FE Technical Forum / Re: Over boring a 330FT block
« on: June 03, 2026, 01:44:51 PM »
We know that every CJ block will go to a 4.130" bore. But will every FT block? 
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: valve spring pressure for sohc heads
« on: June 03, 2026, 01:10:56 PM »
No duration split? Leaving a lot of power on the table there...
No idea on spring loads without knowing the rest of the cam specs. Lots of info missing.
No idea on spring loads without knowing the rest of the cam specs. Lots of info missing.
3
FE Technical Forum / Re: Over boring a 330FT block
« on: June 03, 2026, 12:15:09 PM »
Let's be very clear. Just because you can get away with something doesn't mean it's optimal.
Scott, that's why in my response up above, I said to keep your fingers crossed, even after boring. Back in 2006 I was trying to find a 390 block that would go to a 428 bore. Sonic tested one. It tested great in the spots I chose. Started boring it, then bored a cylinder and ran into a bunch of pin holes where it was thin. Sonic tested another one, it looked great. Started boring it, got to a specific cylinder, and found thin spots in it as well.
You know what would have worked? 4.080" LOL
A sonic test is a good test, but you can't map every single spot in a cylinder. There will be spots on the backside where there has been pitting. You just don't know until you start machining.
Ring seal is paramount especially with modern thinner ring packs. That's why with aftermarket blocks, such as a Dart/World/Ford Racing SBF block, even at a 4.185" bore size, the wall thicknesses sit at a .250" minimum. When you're cylinder wall is flexing like a piece of cardboard, you're losing power.
Scott, that's why in my response up above, I said to keep your fingers crossed, even after boring. Back in 2006 I was trying to find a 390 block that would go to a 428 bore. Sonic tested one. It tested great in the spots I chose. Started boring it, then bored a cylinder and ran into a bunch of pin holes where it was thin. Sonic tested another one, it looked great. Started boring it, got to a specific cylinder, and found thin spots in it as well.
You know what would have worked? 4.080" LOL
A sonic test is a good test, but you can't map every single spot in a cylinder. There will be spots on the backside where there has been pitting. You just don't know until you start machining.
Ring seal is paramount especially with modern thinner ring packs. That's why with aftermarket blocks, such as a Dart/World/Ford Racing SBF block, even at a 4.185" bore size, the wall thicknesses sit at a .250" minimum. When you're cylinder wall is flexing like a piece of cardboard, you're losing power.
4
FE Technical Forum / Re: Over boring a 330FT block
« on: June 02, 2026, 04:35:18 AM »
Bob, I wouldn't even take time to mess with drill bits. Find a local machinist/engine builder with a sonic tester and have it tested, and even then, keep your fingers crossed.
You can't see all the places behind the cylinders where it can be thin/pitted.
In addition, the cylinder wall thickness is paramount to ring seal. You're better off with a thicker cylinder wall than a thinner one.
You can't see all the places behind the cylinders where it can be thin/pitted.
In addition, the cylinder wall thickness is paramount to ring seal. You're better off with a thicker cylinder wall than a thinner one.
5
FE Technical Forum / Hey chilly460, regarding spring loads...
« on: May 30, 2026, 05:55:58 PM »
When I'm not logged in, I can read your last post. When I log in to answer, the page has an error. Not sure what's up.
But no, 170 is not too much.
But no, 170 is not too much.
6
FE Technical Forum / Re: Valve spring pressure
« on: May 29, 2026, 03:59:22 AM »
Just make sure that you measure with all the parts that you will be using on the engine, no spares, mock-up parts, etc., because it all makes a difference.
If your retainers are already +.100”, you won’t find one that’s +.150”.
You can, however, use +.050” valve locks.
FWIW, I like the 160 lbs seat, but 450 lbs over the nose with a hydraulic roller could cause you problems with lifter function. I’ve ran Morels at 425-430, and it was fine, but I don’t know about anything higher than that.
If your retainers are already +.100”, you won’t find one that’s +.150”.
You can, however, use +.050” valve locks.
FWIW, I like the 160 lbs seat, but 450 lbs over the nose with a hydraulic roller could cause you problems with lifter function. I’ve ran Morels at 425-430, and it was fine, but I don’t know about anything higher than that.
7
FE Technical Forum / Re: SOHC Heads with Cracks Between Valves
« on: May 26, 2026, 10:49:15 AM »
Pond doesn't have any in stock? It would be a shame to pay $10k for some mock-up heads when you can buy what you'll be running for just over half that.
8
FE Technical Forum / Re: ignition timing moving
« on: May 26, 2026, 08:14:17 AM »I have been running an MDS locked out distributor, Pertonix digital 510 control box, HVC coil and have new MSD plug wires. For the last few years with this setup, I set the timing at idle to 32 degrees. But when I rev the motor to 2000 to 4000rpms the timing retarded 4 to 6 degrees. I was told this was due to the magnetic pickup in the distributor. Over the winter I installed an Innovators West crank trigger as everything I've read said this should solve the timing moving issue. I installed this and it fired right up and ran great. I then checked the timing, only to see it moving less but still retarding 2-3 degrees. Do any of you have experience with a crank trigger setup. Any Ideas what might be causing this. I set the gap on the crank trigger to .060. Thanks, Jim
You can run that pickup tighter than .060". I like to sneak them up pretty close.
9
FE Technical Forum / Re: scat stroker crank balance
« on: May 24, 2026, 12:42:30 PM »
I'd think real hard and long about using the bolts that are in those Oliver rods, unless they're CA625 bolts.
If they're not CA625, they're L19. Lots of people use them without issue, but I personally know of two instances where an L19 bolt failed: one was my engine, idling on the dyno, the other was an engine builder buddy of mine who had a bolt head pop off while the engine was on the stand.
The L19 bolt is more subject to hydrogen embrittlement.
You don't hear of this happening with 8740, 2000, or CA625 bolts.
If they're not CA625, they're L19. Lots of people use them without issue, but I personally know of two instances where an L19 bolt failed: one was my engine, idling on the dyno, the other was an engine builder buddy of mine who had a bolt head pop off while the engine was on the stand.
The L19 bolt is more subject to hydrogen embrittlement.
You don't hear of this happening with 8740, 2000, or CA625 bolts.
10
FE Technical Forum / Re: Water In The Oil
« on: May 23, 2026, 02:27:42 PM »
If the intake gaskets were not glued to both the head and the intake, then anything is possible.
99.999% of the time, a water leak inside the engine is because someone messed up an intake install.
Other remotely possible causes are: 1. Crack/porosity in lifter bores/lifter valley 2. Condensation under the intake/valve covers are possible.
99.999% of the time, a water leak inside the engine is because someone messed up an intake install.
Other remotely possible causes are: 1. Crack/porosity in lifter bores/lifter valley 2. Condensation under the intake/valve covers are possible.
11
Vendor Classifieds / I have adjustable timing pointers back in stock...
« on: May 08, 2026, 05:27:25 PM »12
FE Technical Forum / Re: 605" SOHC, 1040 HP
« on: May 07, 2026, 05:11:03 AM »i read that the rod thats not centerd in the piston,can cost some power.are these the maxed out hi port heads?and what about cams?i think you hit the max cubic inch for any fe or sohc with the stock block sizes thats for sure.
The uncentered rod power loss theory was started by Molnar.
I know several builders who have tested both ways and saw zero horsepower difference.
13
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: E-85
« on: April 29, 2026, 06:29:43 AM »
I don't have a lot of experience with it, but the fuel system needs to be E-85 proof.
14
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: The calandar
« on: April 27, 2026, 01:19:13 PM »
And the two after that...
15
FE Technical Forum / Re: Wilson Manifolds offers ported Trick Flow Tunnel Wedge intake manifolds
« on: April 27, 2026, 04:47:05 AM »
$1100 upcharge for porting. Hmm.
While we're on the topic of balancing intake runners, I threw up a video to my YouTube channel the other day about what the horsepower difference is worth between port matched intakes and fully ported intakes.
A lot of the intakes that we use out of the box have horrible flow differences from runner to runner. Joe has pointed this out to me many times: sometimes the difference can be 60-80 cfm between ports. "Port matching", that everyone is hung up on doing, won't fix it and can sometimes make it worse.
While we're on the topic of balancing intake runners, I threw up a video to my YouTube channel the other day about what the horsepower difference is worth between port matched intakes and fully ported intakes.
A lot of the intakes that we use out of the box have horrible flow differences from runner to runner. Joe has pointed this out to me many times: sometimes the difference can be 60-80 cfm between ports. "Port matching", that everyone is hung up on doing, won't fix it and can sometimes make it worse.