31
Private Classifieds / Re: Blue thunder
« Last post by Drew Pojedinec on October 19, 2026, 05:28:41 PM »Mine aren’t stainless otherwise I’d have replied.
Dedicated to Building and Racing the Ford FE Engine
News:
SMF - Just Installed!
Recent Posts
33
Private Classifieds / Blue thunder
« Last post by v8Dave on October 18, 2026, 05:20:37 PM »Hello everyone.
Blue thunder used to make a stainless steel 427 2x4 fuel log that was plated in the gold cadmium to look original but was stainless.
Does anyone have a new one that's not been used for sale?
Also looking for a Blue thunder stainless steel 90° heater elbow that was also gold cadmium plated to look original however was stainless steel for better durability, again does anyone have a new one not used for sale?
Pm me if anyone has the items above.
Many thanks
Have a nice day
Blue thunder used to make a stainless steel 427 2x4 fuel log that was plated in the gold cadmium to look original but was stainless.
Does anyone have a new one that's not been used for sale?
Also looking for a Blue thunder stainless steel 90° heater elbow that was also gold cadmium plated to look original however was stainless steel for better durability, again does anyone have a new one not used for sale?
Pm me if anyone has the items above.
Many thanks
Have a nice day
34
FE Technical Forum / Re: 428 cobra jet exhaust manifolds vs gt390
« Last post by v8Dave on October 18, 2026, 05:11:22 PM »Hello everyone.
Thanks for the information and time to reply everyone.
Rory428 I apologise I thought the great fe book by Jay browns compared the difference between 428 cobra jet manifolds(some of the best shock tower car manifolds) to headers I didn't realise it compared other standard exhaust manifolds too. I must of forgotten as I do have that book somewhere...
Thanks for confirming the fitment of the exhaust manifolds, I believe he wants to get a set of the 1970 428 cobra jet exhaust manifolds that don't use the spacer/exhaust valve chock set up as he has a electronic choke conversion on his carburetor and is not using a heat style choke and by doing away with the spacer as the 70 version of manifolds do is just simplifying the installation and eliminating one less hassle or area to worry about ever leaking or degrading with the extra exhaust donuts and spacer used I guess.
I also believe he will purchase a 1970 mustang h pipe to fit the 1970 exhaust manifolds but it will be a 2 1/2 diameter h pipe with a 2 and 1/2 inch exhaust running all the way out back where as I believe the 68 gt500kr and later 69/70mach 1 used factory 2 1/4 h pipe with 2 1/4 exhaust system all the way out to the back.
So it will be a slight improvement in that area with a 1/4 inch more from front to back on the entire exhaust system than the factory performance cars of the era(68gt500kr ect)
I also read somewhere that the reproduction 428 cobra jet exhaust manifolds flow abit better due to better casting then the originals, not sure if that's true
Thanks everyone for all the help and advice it's much appreciated I will pass it on.
Have a nice day
Dave
Thanks for the information and time to reply everyone.
Rory428 I apologise I thought the great fe book by Jay browns compared the difference between 428 cobra jet manifolds(some of the best shock tower car manifolds) to headers I didn't realise it compared other standard exhaust manifolds too. I must of forgotten as I do have that book somewhere...
Thanks for confirming the fitment of the exhaust manifolds, I believe he wants to get a set of the 1970 428 cobra jet exhaust manifolds that don't use the spacer/exhaust valve chock set up as he has a electronic choke conversion on his carburetor and is not using a heat style choke and by doing away with the spacer as the 70 version of manifolds do is just simplifying the installation and eliminating one less hassle or area to worry about ever leaking or degrading with the extra exhaust donuts and spacer used I guess.
I also believe he will purchase a 1970 mustang h pipe to fit the 1970 exhaust manifolds but it will be a 2 1/2 diameter h pipe with a 2 and 1/2 inch exhaust running all the way out back where as I believe the 68 gt500kr and later 69/70mach 1 used factory 2 1/4 h pipe with 2 1/4 exhaust system all the way out to the back.
So it will be a slight improvement in that area with a 1/4 inch more from front to back on the entire exhaust system than the factory performance cars of the era(68gt500kr ect)
I also read somewhere that the reproduction 428 cobra jet exhaust manifolds flow abit better due to better casting then the originals, not sure if that's true
Thanks everyone for all the help and advice it's much appreciated I will pass it on.
Have a nice day
Dave
35
FE Technical Forum / Re: 428 cobra jet exhaust manifolds vs gt390
« Last post by 427Fastback on October 18, 2026, 10:40:01 AM »Just reread it. I missed the trick flow head part...
36
FE Technical Forum / Re: 428 cobra jet exhaust manifolds vs gt390
« Last post by GerryP on October 18, 2026, 08:28:40 AM »The CJ manifolds will fit the heads and the chassis just fine. The Trick Flow heads use the CJ 16-bolt exhaust flange. You will need a new H pipe for the CJ manifolds as the CJ manifolds exit in a different location. Don't get wrapped around the axle on the question of power loss when compared to headers. Yes. There is some power loss but does it really matter in his particular driving situation? On my '67 Fairlane, I switched from Hooker Super Comps to repro CJ manifolds and know I made the right choice for me.
37
FE Technical Forum / Re: 428 cobra jet exhaust manifolds vs gt390
« Last post by My427stang on October 18, 2026, 07:50:07 AM »All the info is there but just my 2 cents
- 390 GT manifolds will not bolt to the Trick Flows without modifying the head
- 428 CJ will bolt up
- 428 CJ likely a smidge better than the horrible GT, but leaving a ton of power on the table from headers. True for any head, but especially for a high flowing head and intake
- If this is remaining concourse-style, I also think he will need to change to a 428CJ exhaust (H-pipe back) and it should be larger diameter and shaped to match the manifolds for either year
- 390 GT manifolds will not bolt to the Trick Flows without modifying the head
- 428 CJ will bolt up
- 428 CJ likely a smidge better than the horrible GT, but leaving a ton of power on the table from headers. True for any head, but especially for a high flowing head and intake
- If this is remaining concourse-style, I also think he will need to change to a 428CJ exhaust (H-pipe back) and it should be larger diameter and shaped to match the manifolds for either year
38
FE Technical Forum / Re: 428 cobra jet exhaust manifolds vs gt390
« Last post by galaxiex on October 18, 2026, 06:32:58 AM »I had a set of 69 CJ exhaust manifolds (with the spacer) on my 68 Mustang Fastback.
They fit just fine.
The manifolds were from my 69 Cyclone GT R code.
Sadly that car got scrapped long ago...
The Mustang is also no longer in my possession...
Sold it long ago...
They fit just fine.
The manifolds were from my 69 Cyclone GT R code.
Sadly that car got scrapped long ago...
The Mustang is also no longer in my possession...
Sold it long ago...
39
FE Engine Dyno Results / Re: BP 475 FE For My Mach 1
« Last post by cjshaker on October 18, 2026, 12:51:27 AM »I think 69’s are about the same as ‘67 & ‘68 wheel well openings. (Correct me if I’m wrong) I didn’t want to cut my wheel wells for larger tires so I started off with 29” bias slicks, they rubbed, too much tire growth. I went down to a 28” Hoosier and they clear fine but put me through the lights at 7600rpm with 4.86 gear. After 20 runs I took them off and went to a 30” radial from Hoosier the one with the smaller roll out. They are actually about 29.5 but don’t grow like the bias tires. They clear ok, have to be a little careful exiting the track sharply with any speed, so far so good no rub marks and dropped 300rpm.
Mike, it's a stick shift car, and as far as I know, radials don't play well with stick cars. Pretty sure I'll have to go to a 4.5* gear to get my desired trap RPM, so I have another spare rear to look forward to, but I was debating on stepping up to 35 spline axles anyway.
40
FE Engine Dyno Results / Re: BP 475 FE For My Mach 1
« Last post by mike7570 on October 18, 2026, 12:15:08 AM »Not sure what you’re looking at in the fuel pump area, I went Magnafuel MP-4601. So, adjustable bypass, 10AN in and out, and the volume I wanted, then an adjustable 4 port regulator at the engine, so far very pleased.Wicked pump gas engine.
Might need more gear? How tall are the slicks?
Congrats!
I have 28" slicks, and I don't want to go modifying my wheelwells, so likely stuck with that size, although I may be able to pick up a couple of inches if I relocate the rear. My Currie housing is narrowed 2" so I could try and keep things tucked in, and I have clearance with my springs with the backspacing on my rims, so that's not an issue. Currently have 4.30 gears, which puts me through the traps at 6500 with my current tires and combo. I may be able to keep that gearing with the goal of going through at 7500, but I'll just have to wait and see how it plays out.
I think 69’s are about the same as ‘67 & ‘68 wheel well openings. (Correct me if I’m wrong) I didn’t want to cut my wheel wells for larger tires so I started off with 29” bias slicks, they rubbed, too much tire growth. I went down to a 28” Hoosier and they clear fine but put me through the lights at 7600rpm with 4.86 gear. After 20 runs I took them off and went to a 30” radial from Hoosier the one with the smaller roll out. They are actually about 29.5 but don’t grow like the bias tires. They clear ok, have to be a little careful exiting the track sharply with any speed, so far so good no rub marks and dropped 300rpm.