Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RJP

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
1
FE Technical Forum / Re: C6 Problems--Advice Needed
« on: Today at 02:10:04 PM »
If you do a complete rebuild I would check to confirm the forward and hi/rev clutch packs have an adequate amount of clutches, those would be the frictions, not the steels. Hi/rev should have 4 for a mildly built 390 and there should be 5 clutches in the forward. If clutches need to be added it is not a big deal if you have access to a shop with a lathe. The thick backing plate in each clutch assembly can be machined to add an extra friction and steel. Some people get away with regrooving the drum but that can lead to problems if the old groove interferes with a steel plate. It can hang up causing the clutch pack to drag or if it aligns up with the groove the steel will be useless, it will float. I've always done the backing plate machining. If you have access to a hard parts vendor you can use the beveled pressure plate that is found in the forward clutch that acts directly against the Belville spring. It is important to add here that setting your clutch clearances to spec. is very critical. I use the ".008" to .010" per friction clutch" rule. That has always served me well. I recently finished building a C6 for my 66 Galaxie 428. I started with a core that was from a low hp/tq. 352 or 390 2V. It had a 4 clutch forward and a 3 clutch hi/rev. I upgraded to a 5 clutch forward [machined backing plate method] and I had a couple extra 4 clutch hi/rev drums from some other cores I had. If you want to overkill this you can still buy a 5 clutch hi/rev drum new. It was OEM in a 428 CJ/SCJ and some Lincolns. I think it is still available from Ford or it is available thru some of the A/T parts vendors.     

2
FE Technical Forum / Re: C6 Problems--Advice Needed
« on: September 26, 2020, 11:06:14 AM »
 Generally an inoperative torque converter [stator] sprag will still allow the trans to operate but performance will be way off and sluggish. I've never seen a converter sprag failure cause a complete no drive condition. If the converter was a complete jumbled mess internally then perhaps yes.  Special tools: for Hi/rev clutch I use the forward clutch's Belville spring and 2 C clamps. For the low/rev I manipulate the inner sprag race using the 5 retaining bolts to compress the 24 low/rev springs in the piston. Strong word of advice: Install the low/rev piston's ball check valve at the 6 o'clock position. That is when the trans is in the up right operating position the check valve will be at the bottom. Easy to confuse since the trans case is usually up-side-down when doing the assembly. If the piston's check valve is not installed correctly a very harsh reverse engagement most likely will result. Don't ask me how I know. ::) Edit to correct spelling

3
FE Technical Forum / Re: C6 Problems--Advice Needed
« on: September 25, 2020, 06:46:11 PM »
A C6 is a relativity easy trans to rebuild. Just get a shop manual for help. If you have a 'no drive' in any gear I would first do a pressure test. There is a small plug near the band adjuster & nut on the driver side. For pressure confirmation test only you can use a 100lb engine oil pressure gauge, just don't rev the engine, it could ruin your gauge. At low idle there should be 60-65 lbs pressure. If there is no pressure the front pump would be the 1st thing I'd look at. It isn't common but sometimes the inner or outer pump gear breaks. I've had that happen on a C4, the outer gear broke into 5 or 6 pieces= instant 'no drive' in any gear.  Although personally I've never seen a C6 input shaft break or strip in mild street use I guess it is entirely possible. Be aware that there are 2 input shafts available. Early C6 up to about 1974 or 75 are 31/31 spline and will fit into the forward clutch hub either way, and later C6s use a 31/30 spline. I've seen a time or two where the 31/31 shaft is installed backwards [long spline into the converter] This pushes the converter forward loading the engine thrust bearing and I don't think I need to tell you what happens next. If you rebuild the trans I'd replace the converter just because, if for nothing else you will have a clean, debris free and confirmed good converter.  A rebuilt stock converter is only about $140-150.00 and not worth the effort to do the R&R twice.

4
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: Cleveland Powered Chevy
« on: September 23, 2020, 01:11:52 PM »
Tom, There can't be more than one... :o Gotta be the same one. I've seen that Chevy pick up here in the Bay Area, Hayward to be more precise. It was at a Vic Hubbard's parking lot show they used to have before they went t*ts up. Pretty clean then, looks even nicer now. Thanks for posting.

5
FE Technical Forum / Re: My 427/452 autopsy results are in
« on: September 22, 2020, 09:57:31 AM »
Alan, Did you check the crank pilot bore for clearance including depth of the bore? I've heard of aftermarket cranks that the bore diameter could be correct but the depth is too shallow and/or have a secondary bore for the 385 series converter pilot [1.375"?] Just another thought.

6
FE Technical Forum / Re: Bad news on my 427/452
« on: September 20, 2020, 01:35:40 PM »
Input shaft installed correctly...OK, now perhaps you need to check the torque converter hub engagement into the front pump. If the bevel of the inner pump gear is not facing forward it too will load the converter wrong. The 'witness' marks on the converter don't look normal. I think the tea leaves are trying to tell you something. 

7
FE Technical Forum / Re: Bad news on my 427/452
« on: September 20, 2020, 01:16:51 PM »
Alan, Are you running a C6? If so check this one thing first. See if the input shaft is in the correct position. On early C6s, say before 74 or 75 the input shaft can be installed either way as they are 31/31 spline. The correct position is the short spline end goes into the converter, the long spline goes into the forward clutch hub. If this is reversed where the input is in backwards the shaft will load the converter and will result in what you now have. BTW the later input shafts are 31/30 spline so they cannot be installed wrong. May not be your problem but it is worth checking. So sorry for the carnage. I know how frustrating [and expensive] it can be.

8
FE Technical Forum / Re: 390 Block ID
« on: September 18, 2020, 11:24:36 AM »
C4 390 Police Interceptor blocks have the 3 rib "crowfoot" crank webbing and are usually cast for crossbolts. If it passes a cylinder and deck sonic test and has minimal core shift it is a good block to build. 

9
FE Technical Forum / Re: 360 horse 352
« on: September 11, 2020, 11:51:13 PM »
Werby, You are more than welcome to come to my shop and degree the 276* cam that I have in my 66 Galaxie 428. This is the same cam I purchased new, in the cardboard tube from Morris Landy Ford in Alameda, Ca. on or about 1967-68 when replacement parts were still supplied for the usual time honored 10 year period for part availability. As to your comment that the cam would "Idle like a kitten" it does. Idle is very smooth at it's typical idle speed of 650-675 rpm and still smooth while in-gear. Lashed at .028" now it has the music of the typical valve clatter most solid lifter cams have or should. As for the 306* cam idle wasn't quite as docile but did have the typical music of the solid lifters depending on the valve lash. I didn't play with the valve lash quite as often as I did with with the 276* cam. With that cam I would vary the valve lash anywhere from .021" to .030" with a distinct difference in where the power curve occurred. It is a very responsive cam. Regarding your doubt that a cam that mild would have the "well prepped" power/torque curve to only produce a 135 mph top speed...not a 150 mph, I wholeheartedly disagree. My 60 Starliner ran app. 140mph [dream wheel calculated, thats all I had] using this 276* cam in a forged dish-top piston .030" over 390, all else stock, single 4V, thru the mufflers.  With a 2.91 gear, T-10 4 speed, 5000rpm [and still pulling BTW] on a 28.5" tire...I pedaled it at 5K as I was on a public highway and thought this was not very prudent. ::) 

10
FE Technical Forum / Re: 360 horse 352
« on: September 11, 2020, 06:46:00 PM »
Not to take anything from the lady, but Karol Miller went 158 with his '60 at Bonneville.  Wonder what his horsepower level was?   Running at 4300 feet elevation is a lot different than sea level.   Joe-JDC
Joe, Reading the article from the 1962 Ford Performance Handbook Mr Miller's Ford had a few modifications. He started with a 300hp/352 and with that he bored the block .090" [.030" over 361 Edsel pistons] to take advantage of the BGC/Sedan class limit of 370" He borrowed a pair of 360hp/352 heads from a friend. Heads were milled .030" to produce a 11-1 c/r. The stock aluminum manifold was used but had a 59 Lincoln AFB carb instead of the 540 cfm Holley the hp. engines came with. Cam was an Isky RR8000 and spring kit, the only non-stock parts used. Taking into account the altitude difference and the aforementioned modifications I'm sure Mr Miller's Starliner produced a bit more power. Add the slight advantage he had using the Starliner body over that of Ms. Woods Fairlane. IMHO both are quite remarkable in their own right.

11
FE Technical Forum / Re: 360 horse 352
« on: September 10, 2020, 10:49:30 PM »

12
FE Technical Forum / Re: 360 horse 352
« on: September 10, 2020, 10:29:23 PM »
Werby, I can say with 99.9/10% certainty that the C2AZ 6250-A- 276/276 cam is not the same as the 306 cam, p/n C3AZ 6250-AA The timings are different. The 306 cam's timing are as followed: I/O 40* BTDC - I/C 86* ABDC  E/O 88* BBDC -  E/C 38* ATDC - 78* overlap.  Refer back to my other post for the 276* cam's timings. My experiences having used both cams I can say they don't act the same either. The 306 cam might have been used in the early optional 1963 406  8V drag race engine and IIRC it was used in the early 427 LR 4V and the 8V LR got the 324*cam. I would also like to point out that the 360/352 Ford only had a couple of months of development, if you want to call it that, as the 360hp/352 was released on or about mid Dec 1959, a couple of months after the 60 models hit the show room floors. It is almost comical the Ford beat the almighty 348 Chevy like a drum and came damn close to handing the Pontiac's ass to 'em with their 2 year head start and professional preparation by the Royal Pontiac dealership. BTW Pontiac cams were ground by Isky and had no Isky part number stamped on them. That was left to the Pontiac parts department to install a Pontiac part number. ;)

13
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: I gave up on the 1850 Holleys....
« on: September 10, 2020, 03:21:48 PM »
Thanks Chris...Had a letter "S" in brackets.  edited it and that did the trick.

14
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: I gave up on the 1850 Holleys....
« on: September 10, 2020, 01:36:30 PM »
Why is there a line across the last couple of text lines in my post? >:( >:(

15
Non-FE Discussion Forum / Re: I gave up on the 1850 Holleys....
« on: September 10, 2020, 01:33:47 PM »
Throttle shafts don't leak fuel on their own. Actual shaft "leakage" is from fuel dripping from the boosters. If you do not see fuel dripping from the boosters from above the leakage is elsewhere. That 'elsewhere' source of leakage externally can be from warpage between the throttle base plate and the main body. Separate the base from the main body and you will see 2 fuel passages from the primary to the secondary idle feed/transfer slot. Surface the main body to assure it is flat as they are almost always high in the attaching side screw areas. Leakage here will look like fuel dripping from the throttle shaft. Another source of leakage is the base plate itself. I've found base plates that had casting fissures that leaked fuel from these transfer passages, a quick pass with a flycutter in the mill cures that problem.   

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22