C6ME 390 block sonic check

[scott foxwell]

your bottom # are not possible

Sure they are. It just means there's only .166 between cylinders (center two, driver side, assuming 4.055 bore).

[chris_r]

what ever   Good luck

[blykins]

Chris, they are possible. 

FE's have a 4.600" bore spacing.  If you take a 4.600" bore center, subtract the 4.050" bore size, then subtract the wall thicknesses, he still has room for water. 

For instance, if you look at the area between cylinders 5 and 6, you have 4.600"-4.050"-.184"-.229" = .137". 

[Barry_R]

He only checked one location with the drill bit.

[XR7]

Chris, they are possible. 

FE's have a 4.600" bore spacing.  If you take a 4.600" bore center, subtract the 4.050" bore size, then subtract the wall thicknesses, he still has room for water. 

For instance, if you look at the area between cylinders 5 and 6, you have 4.600"-4.050"-.184"-.229" = .137".

I am thinking the FE bore spacing is 4.630" not 4.600. Also from what I have seen on a limited amount of FE block sonic tests that I have had done, the 428 and 427 blocks have a thicker wall thickness on the major and minor thrust sides, versus a little thinner between cylinders to allow for (more) water.. so more like an "oval" shape on the outside of the bores. On 390 blocks they seem to be more "round". I also like the "clover-leaf", outside shape of some 427 blocks. I am not sure which one had it and which ones did not, but my early 65 center -oiler has them, thicker walls with a ridge or corner at say 1:30, 4:30, 7;30 and 10:30 on a clock.

[jayb]

XR7 is correct, FE bore spacing is 4.630".  Also I have noticed the same thing with 428 blocks, thicker on the thrust sides than a standard 390 block.  Finally, every factory 427 block I've checked has those cloverleaf-shaped outsides of the bore (the bore "jugs", I call them).  I can't remember if I've checked the 63-64 blocks for that though.

[blykins]

Yep, 4.630"....thanks for catching that. 

It was pre-coffee this morning. 

[edgarval]

Sorry to go off topic but I thought this was you jay

[jayb]

Nope, not my car.

[cjshaker]

I could be wrong, but I remember Shoe having the Ford documents and engineering drawings that showed the cloverleaf design showed up when Ford designed the sideoiler blocks, so from '65 and up? All I've had are '65 and up blocks, and they all had the cloverleaf cylinders.

[scott foxwell]

Yep, 4.630"....thanks for catching that. 

It was pre-coffee this morning.

4.63 was the number I was using.
Pre-coffee is a waste for me...I don't even try.

[XR7]

I could be wrong, but I remember Shoe having the Ford documents and engineering drawings that showed the cloverleaf design showed up when Ford designed the sideoiler blocks, so from '65 and up? All I've had are '65 and up blocks, and they all had the cloverleaf cylinders.

I had heard that also, but my block is a C5AE-A center oiler, and has a date code of (November) L23 64 and it does have the clover leaf cylinders with good thick walls. It has a sand scratch on the back of XE1, but does not have any of the side oiler bulkheads, so it was not one of the blocks that could be drilled either way, center oiler, solid lifter only. I did drill the lifter galleys since I do run T&D race rockers.

[cjshaker]

I had heard that also, but my block is a C5AE-A center oiler, and has a date code of (November) L23 64 and it does have the clover leaf cylinders with good thick walls. It has a sand scratch on the back of XE1, but does not have any of the side oiler bulkheads, so it was not one of the blocks that could be drilled either way, center oiler, solid lifter only. I did drill the lifter galleys since I do run T&D race rockers.

Being that late in '64, it may well have been that Ford experimented with the design before incorporating it into the 'new' block for the Le Mans program. I'm sure some of the older racers know for sure. Sometimes I wish I had saved all that info that Shoe had collected and posted, which was pretty extensive, but it just didn't interest me enough.