POP Rocker stands

[galaxiex]

I've seen it mentioned that Precision Oil Pumps has rocker stands that are cut (shortened) to fit with the raised mount pads on the TFS FE heads.


I can't find these cut stands on the POP website.

[My427stang]

Call him, he sells a set of .080 that will get you pretty close.  He is still working out a final number with all us fussy know-it-all builders LOL

[galaxiex]

Call him, he sells a set of .080 that will get you pretty close.  He is still working out a final number with all us fussy know-it-all builders LOL

Thanks!

I'll do that as I get closer to assembly day. (still a ways off)

[blykins]

He will make whatever you need for an additional $50.

Different rockers will require different cuts.  Factory rockers and T&D's will need about .200" cut off.  My rockers need about .080-.100". 

I suggested to Doug that instead of doing custom orders, just to mass produce a set of .200" cut stands and then customers can shim up as needed. 

If you plan on ordering a set, you'll need to know what rockers you will be using. 

[67xr7cat]

Get some 3/8" all thread.  Use it to mount the rocker arm shafts. with a thin nut below and one above to be able move the shaft up or down.  Use some light checker springs. Using this setup with a adjustable pushrod is an easy way to figure out the stand height and pushrod length. Once you determine the stand height just order them from POP or have a set cut down. This is the best way as a lot of variables can change the numbers from the expected results.

[67xr7cat]

He will make whatever you need for an additional $50.

Different rockers will require different cuts.  Factory rockers and T&D's will need about .200" cut off.  My rockers need about .080-.100". 

I suggested to Doug that instead of doing custom orders, just to mass produce a set of .200" cut stands and then customers can shim up as needed. 

If you plan on ordering a set, you'll need to know what rockers you will be using.

Shimming up a rocker system being retained by four 3/8" bolts just seems like asking for more unwanted movement with more surfaces sliding against each other and layers needing to conform to each other.   

[galaxiex]

Thanks for all the good info and ideas.

I currently have a complete set of Crane aluminum roller tip rockers with shafts, stands etc. Never run.
Not feeling good about them since I changed direction with the engine build.

I now have a custom hyd roller and Morel lifters from Brent (Thanks Brent )

Have TFS-5641T703-C00 heads for this 428 build. (previously had Edelbrock RPM, sold them)

If anyone can set my mind at ease on using the Crane rocker setup I'll keep and use them.

Otherwise, I'll sell the Crane stuff and I'm open to suggestions for rockers for this build.

Have not mocked up the top of the engine yet, that is some months away.
Short block is assembled.

Street cruiser, no racing but I may take it to the 1/4 to see what it will do.

More info....

1966 Galaxie 500XL H/T. C6 with wide ratio gear set and Gear Vendors O/D.
3.70 gears
Hooker 6130 long tubes.
61 Ford 3X2 manifold extensively ported and welded on to match the TFS heads.
Throttle bores hogged out to 45mm.
FITech 3X2 fuel injection.
factory 428 crank .020 .020
factory rods with ARP 2000 bolts
Speed Pro .040 over forged dished pistons (ya I know, old school)

Old pic of the short block with one ED head still on it...

[blykins]

He will make whatever you need for an additional $50.

Different rockers will require different cuts.  Factory rockers and T&D's will need about .200" cut off.  My rockers need about .080-.100". 

I suggested to Doug that instead of doing custom orders, just to mass produce a set of .200" cut stands and then customers can shim up as needed. 

If you plan on ordering a set, you'll need to know what rockers you will be using.

Shimming up a rocker system being retained by four 3/8" bolts just seems like asking for more unwanted movement with more surfaces sliding against each other and layers needing to conform to each other.

When the stands need to be raised there is no other choice. 

It may "seem" bad, but in reality it works quite well.  Even Jesel and T&D on their very high end rocker systems have 3/8" bolts to hold the rocker mounting bar down to the sub plate and they supply a bag of shims to raise the stands if necessary.  I've done that very thing on applications where the spring pressures are up over 1200 lbs. 

In most cases with factory heads, most of your rocker systems need to be shimmed up anyway.  Factory rockers often need to be raised by .100" or more in order to perfect the geometry and complete Harland Sharp rocker systems often have to be shimmed up.  I've found that you can very seldom set a rocker system down on an FE without having to adjust the stand height either up or down.

It's common place and that's why I supply one piece laser cut shims in different thicknesses that support the entire system from end stand to end stand.

[blykins]

Thanks for all the good info and ideas.

I currently have a complete set of Crane aluminum roller tip rockers with shafts, stands etc. Never run.
Not feeling good about them since I changed direction with the engine build.

I now have a custom hyd roller and Morel lifters from Brent (Thanks Brent )

Have TFS-5641T703-C00 heads for this 428 build. (previously had Edelbrock RPM, sold them)

If anyone can set my mind at ease on using the Crane rocker setup I'll keep and use them.

Otherwise, I'll sell the Crane stuff and I'm open to suggestions for rockers for this build.

Have not mocked up the top of the engine yet, that is some months away.
Short block is assembled.

Street cruiser, no racing but I may take it to the 1/4 to see what it will do.

More info....

1966 Galaxie 500XL H/T. C6 with wide ratio gear set and Gear Vendors O/D.
3.70 gears
Hooker 6130 long tubes.
61 Ford 3X2 manifold extensively ported and welded on to match the TFS heads.
Throttle bores hogged out to 45mm.
FITech 3X2 fuel injection.
factory 428 crank .020 .020
factory rods with ARP 2000 bolts
Speed Pro .040 over forged dished pistons (ya I know, old school)

Old pic of the short block with one ED head still on it...

I have never used the Crane setup but I don't see why it won't work with some careful geometry checking.

BTW, if you're going to sell anything and buy new, I'd get rid of those factory rods.   

[67xr7cat]

Well if it works all that matters. Ford did put the rocker tins under them too. Still don't like it from a technical standpoint, but don't like the whole 4 bolt stilts arrangement either... 

[galaxiex]

I have never used the Crane setup but I don't see why it won't work with some careful geometry checking.

BTW, if you're going to sell anything and buy new, I'd get rid of those factory rods.   

Ok, for now I'll tentatively keep the Crane setup...

I have changed directions on this build quite a few times....


What I'd "really like" is a BBM iron block with stroker etc, etc... $$$$


I have seriously considered laying down the cash for a complete stroker bottom end for this 428,
but the .040 overbore has me worried...


Do the stroker kits put more stress on the cyl walls?


I did check for wall thickness (drill bit test) a long time ago, and recall it was "ok",
but it's never been sonic tested.


I bought the block used at .030 over. It had been raced and cyl's notched for bigger valves.


The machine shop I bought it from (since closed) built lots of FE's and this block came from one of their customers.
He raced it with a solid cam (lifter galleys plugged) and the aforementioned valve notches.
I assume he had 427 heads on it.


I suggested to the shop (at the time) that we sonic check it but they said it would be ok.
They bored/honed it to .040 and decked it, also line bore was supposedly checked and deemed good.


I figured if it had been beat on at .030 and held up, .040 "should be" ok.....?


Opinions?


Edit; It is a genuwine 428 block, has the "428" in the bottom of the water jacket, and a "C" scratch on the rear bulkhead.
I was told it came from a 69 Mustang CJ.


8J5 date code  so Sept 5 68

[My427stang]

I had a set of Crane in 2006 when I did my 489, they a new full set that had just came out and a very affordable and complete kit.  No amount of realistic shimming could get me there with Edelbrock heads and they pushed the pushrods way out toward the intake manifold that hurt clearance.

If they are that style, I was not too happy.

[galaxiex]

I had a set of Crane in 2006 when I did my 489, they a new full set that had just came out and a very affordable and complete kit.  No amount of realistic shimming could get me there with Edelbrock heads and they pushed the pushrods way out toward the intake manifold that hurt clearance.

If they are that style, I was not too happy.

I have the Crane set 34791-1


I did have these mocked up on the Edel heads some time ago.
The geometry looked ok but ya, pushrod to intake clearance may have been an issue.

[67xr7cat]

GalaxieX  I'd put it together and run it.  If it was fine at .030", should be fine at .040".  Keep in mind it is only another .005" off the bore wall thickness.  Most important part of engine building is machine work and attention to detail. Is all too easy to keep changing the combo which is a good way of never getting any place and end up with a pile of parts and a lightened wallet.  Finish it up and get it running.  If you want more worry about that then. With what you have it should run good on the street and be lots of fun. 

[galaxiex]

GalaxieX  I'd put it together and run it.  If it was fine at .030", should be fine at .040".  Keep in mind it is only another .005" off the bore wall thickness.  Most important part of engine building is machine work and attention to detail. Is all too easy to keep changing the combo which is a good way of never getting any place and end up with a pile of parts and a lightened wallet.  Finish it up and get it running.  If you want more worry about that then. With what you have it should run good on the street and be lots of fun. 

Well that is just eminently sensible and practical advice. 👍

FWIW the stock rods have been beam polished, magged, resized big end, new pin bushings and balanced along with the reciprocating assembly.
I didn’t mention before but it’s a 1U crank.

[67xr7cat]

GalaxieX  I'd put it together and run it.  If it was fine at .030", should be fine at .040".  Keep in mind it is only another .005" off the bore wall thickness.  Most important part of engine building is machine work and attention to detail. Is all too easy to keep changing the combo which is a good way of never getting any place and end up with a pile of parts and a lightened wallet.  Finish it up and get it running.  If you want more worry about that then. With what you have it should run good on the street and be lots of fun. 

Well that is just eminently sensible and practical advice. 👍

FWIW the stock rods have been beam polished, magged, resized big end, new pin bushings and balanced along with the reciprocating assembly.
I didn’t mention before but it’s a 1U crank.

Guys turned what you have 7k and got away with it. For what you have no reason to turn it more than 5,500 - 6k.  I'd just make sure you have a good 7qt. baffled oil pan and I like the factory windage tray too.  Not for power, but keep from blowing the oil around in the pan. 

Now a days everyone tell you to buy a stroker kit as cost to re-do the stock stuff not that much cheaper. Yes times have changed and most of this stuff these  days is get the plastic out and buy it, but what you have worked well for decades and still will. A 428 with those heads will make good useable power provided the rest of the combo is matched.  That intake may hold it back some, but trips are cool so is that to balance it out against.

[blykins]

GalaxieX  I'd put it together and run it.  If it was fine at .030", should be fine at .040".  Keep in mind it is only another .005" off the bore wall thickness.  Most important part of engine building is machine work and attention to detail. Is all too easy to keep changing the combo which is a good way of never getting any place and end up with a pile of parts and a lightened wallet.  Finish it up and get it running.  If you want more worry about that then. With what you have it should run good on the street and be lots of fun. 

Well that is just eminently sensible and practical advice. 👍

FWIW the stock rods have been beam polished, magged, resized big end, new pin bushings and balanced along with the reciprocating assembly.
I didn’t mention before but it’s a 1U crank.

I just don't trust factory rods on engines that are gonna make horsepower.   I have a shop rule that I don't use them on anything much more than a factory engine.   I did a 390 hp 5200 rpm 390 with them and that's about my limit. 

You can search the forum for all the factory rod failures.   Years of fatigue get to them and they break up in the beam.  One guy had some break while just cruising down the road. 

See if you can dial in the geometry on those Crane rockers.  I've had to shim some rockers up almost .200" to get the geometry right on them (not on TFS heads), so you may be able to use them on a TFS head without much finagling.  If so, save your rocker money and buy a set of Molnar rods for your engine. 

Also, I'm curious to see how your factory rods have ARP 2000 bolts.  Do you have pictures?

[67xr7cat]

and don't trust L-19 Rod bolts, Eagle crankshafts, or KB hyper pistons, but get off the internet and you find a lot of very knowledgeable guys that have not had such bad luck.  Of course everyone should do what makes them sleep good at night.

[blykins]

and don't trust L-19 Rod bolts, Eagle crankshafts, or KB hyper pistons, but get off the internet and you find a lot of very knowledgeable guys that have not had such bad luck.  Of course everyone should do what makes them sleep good at night.

I always look for trends.   There will be failures with any part, as any statistical analysis will have a bell curve with outliers.   Trends among respected builders also mean a lot to me. 

The L-19 bolt and Eagle crank warnings have some credibility though, even without looking on the internet.   Not sure about KB pistons, I don't see a lot of issues with those, except for guys who don't gap the top ring enough. 

[My427stang]

I had a set of Crane in 2006 when I did my 489, they a new full set that had just came out and a very affordable and complete kit.  No amount of realistic shimming could get me there with Edelbrock heads and they pushed the pushrods way out toward the intake manifold that hurt clearance.

If they are that style, I was not too happy.

I have the Crane set 34791-1

I did have these mocked up on the Edel heads some time ago.
The geometry looked ok but ya, pushrod to intake clearance may have been an issue.

I looked around the web, couldn't find a good pic, but did see a few "maybes".  Those do not seem to look, or be priced like, their early-2000s kit.  The kit I tried to use could not have been shimmed up, or I would have done it.  They were just unusable, but looked pretty.  Potentially reused from a different application.  At the time, Crane knew it and very easily refunded my money and at the time, quite a few guys were fighting them.   Pic of mine attached

[fe468stroker]

With all the talk about stand height and geometry, what is the best way to determine if anything needs moving?  Simple please for us back yard builders.

[galaxiex]

..................................

See if you can dial in the geometry on those Crane rockers.  I've had to shim some rockers up almost .200" to get the geometry right on them (not on TFS heads), so you may be able to use them on a TFS head without much finagling.  If so, save your rocker money and buy a set of Molnar rods for your engine. 

Also, I'm curious to see how your factory rods have ARP 2000 bolts.  Do you have pictures?

Thanks, I'll keep the Crane rockers for now and see how the geometry works out when I get to that stage.

I mis-remembered on the rod bolts, they are the ARP 255-6402 Pro Series Wave-Loc.
For some reason (old age) I thought they were the 2000 series.

If I go for some Molnar rods (or other) I'll likely have to re balance, Yes?
Currently it's still external balance with the weight on the flex plate.

[galaxiex]

I had a set of Crane in 2006 when I did my 489, they a new full set that had just came out and a very affordable and complete kit.  No amount of realistic shimming could get me there with Edelbrock heads and they pushed the pushrods way out toward the intake manifold that hurt clearance.

If they are that style, I was not too happy.

I have the Crane set 34791-1

I did have these mocked up on the Edel heads some time ago.
The geometry looked ok but ya, pushrod to intake clearance may have been an issue.

I looked around the web, couldn't find a good pic, but did see a few "maybes".  Those do not seem to look, or be priced like, their early-2000s kit.  The kit I tried to use could not have been shimmed up, or I would have done it.  They were just unusable, but looked pretty.  Potentially reused from a different application.  At the time, Crane knew it and very easily refunded my money and at the time, quite a few guys were fighting them.   Pic of mine attached

Mine are bright shiny aluminum, not the gold colored type.
Solid steel stands with end supports.
I'll try to get a pic up later.

[galaxiex]

Crane rockers and one end stand.


These have drilled 5/16 cup adjusters so pushrod oiling is possible.


Another question... how effective would the pushrod oiling be, since the oil comes in at the top of the rocker,
rather than under like oiling thru the shafts?


BTW that top oil slot in the rocker is also drilled to oil the roller tip.

[blykins]

..................................

See if you can dial in the geometry on those Crane rockers.  I've had to shim some rockers up almost .200" to get the geometry right on them (not on TFS heads), so you may be able to use them on a TFS head without much finagling.  If so, save your rocker money and buy a set of Molnar rods for your engine. 

Also, I'm curious to see how your factory rods have ARP 2000 bolts.  Do you have pictures?

Thanks, I'll keep the Crane rockers for now and see how the geometry works out when I get to that stage.

I mis-remembered on the rod bolts, they are the ARP 255-6402 Pro Series Wave-Loc.
For some reason (old age) I thought they were the 2000 series.

If I go for some Molnar rods (or other) I'll likely have to re balance, Yes?
Currently it's still external balance with the weight on the flex plate.

You would at least need to check your bobweight.  Molnar rods are pretty light and they may even be lighter than what you have. 

[manofmerc]

As far as the crane rockers and valve tip contact with my edelbrock heads I had to have my stands milled I believe it was .100 .After that I had a good centered up contact pattern .Before milling the contact pattern was way toward the exhaust side .I believe I bought one of the first sets of these about 2006 .At that time they were cheap (for Fe parts) about $490 from Barnett Performance in Atl. So far trouble free 6000 is all I turn this engine with its solid flat tappet cam .Doug

[67xr7cat]

If I go for some Molnar rods (or other) I'll likely have to re balance, Yes?
Currently it's still external balance with the weight on the flex plate.

The Molnar rod is listed as 769 grams. Have a stock rod that is 742 grams. That is a 27 gram difference, maybe yours are different don't know.  What I do know is big end weight difference will affect balance more then small end, but most will say rebalance at a 20 gram bobweight change (actually a lot will say so at 10 grams) and considering it will be heavier not lighter it matters more. I'd plan on a re-balance.

While we are on the suspect parts subject may want to replace that factory 428 crankshaft too. Are threads on here of them failing too for no good reason.  All I will say is either go buy that stroker kit or if you think the shop knew what they were doing trust in that.  Engine building is like Domino's when one falls a bunch of others do too and you can end up forever changing things. Well is all I will say on the subject. Good luck with it.

[galaxiex]

If I go for some Molnar rods (or other) I'll likely have to re balance, Yes?
Currently it's still external balance with the weight on the flex plate.

The Molnar rod is listed as 769 grams. Have a stock rod that is 742 grams. That is a 27 gram difference, maybe yours are different don't know.  What I do know is big end weight difference will affect balance more then small end, but most will say rebalance at a 20 gram bobweight change (actually a lot will say so at 10 grams) and considering it will be heavier not lighter it matters more. I'd plan on a re-balance.

While we are on the suspect parts subject may want to replace that factory 428 crankshaft too. Are threads on here of them failing too for no good reason.  All I will say is either go buy that stroker kit or if you think the shop knew what they were doing trust in that.  Engine building is like Domino's when one falls a bunch of others do too and you can end up forever changing things. Well is all I will say on the subject. Good luck with it.

Thanks.

A little more info...

I had the block, crank, and rod work done so long ago it's hard to remember,
tho the machine shop was well known and did good work. (Pro race engines)

Prior to assembling the short block, a buddy was over visiting and the crank was standing on end in the corner.
Well... he being a klutz somehow knocked it over and it hit the concrete floor with a big KLANG!

I took it back to the shop to check for straight and make sure it was still good.
Told them what happened and they checked it and said it was ok....

I'm still considering the stroker kit.
For what I have in the bottom end right now, (not much)
It wouldn't be too much of a hardship to spring for a stroker kit.

I can probably sell the existing bottom end to offset some of it.

My main concern is the .040 overbore and how much the stroker would stress the cyl walls.

I guess I could always go for a stock stroke aftermarket crank and related parts.

[67xr7cat]

Well getting knocked over and hitting the floor would concern me. Is hard to argue against a stroker kit if you have the money.  Get a Scat cast crank and Molnar 6.7 rods and the Mahle pistons certainly an upgrade both in strength and more modern stuff.  Also the BBC rod journal is a better deal and you end up with a lighter piston.  I would not be concerned with a stroker being any harder on the cylinder walls.  If you are concerned have the block sonic checked, but if it was good at .030" another .005" off the wall is not going to kill it.

[blykins]

If I go for some Molnar rods (or other) I'll likely have to re balance, Yes?
Currently it's still external balance with the weight on the flex plate.

The Molnar rod is listed as 769 grams. Have a stock rod that is 742 grams. That is a 27 gram difference, maybe yours are different don't know.  What I do know is big end weight difference will affect balance more then small end, but most will say rebalance at a 20 gram bobweight change (actually a lot will say so at 10 grams) and considering it will be heavier not lighter it matters more. I'd plan on a re-balance.

While we are on the suspect parts subject may want to replace that factory 428 crankshaft too. Are threads on here of them failing too for no good reason.  All I will say is either go buy that stroker kit or if you think the shop knew what they were doing trust in that.  Engine building is like Domino's when one falls a bunch of others do too and you can end up forever changing things. Well is all I will say on the subject. Good luck with it.

Thanks.

A little more info...

I had the block, crank, and rod work done so long ago it's hard to remember,
tho the machine shop was well known and did good work. (Pro race engines)

Prior to assembling the short block, a buddy was over visiting and the crank was standing on end in the corner.
Well... he being a klutz somehow knocked it over and it hit the concrete floor with a big KLANG!

I took it back to the shop to check for straight and make sure it was still good.
Told them what happened and they checked it and said it was ok....

I'm still considering the stroker kit.
For what I have in the bottom end right now, (not much)
It wouldn't be too much of a hardship to spring for a stroker kit.

I can probably sell the existing bottom end to offset some of it.

My main concern is the .040 overbore and how much the stroker would stress the cyl walls.

I guess I could always go for a stock stroke aftermarket crank and related parts.

I'd base it all on how much horsepower you want and then do a pro/con of each scenario.  The TFS heads make a lot of power, but I think the cork would be your 3x2 intake and that would become more apparent on a larger engine. 

It's hard to know what to do in this situation.  When you start looking at other options, then you open Pandora's box. 

I don't think I'd be scared to run the stock 428 crank and remember, when you add displacement, the camshaft needs change.  It takes more duration to fill the cylinders of a larger engine.  Keeping the same cam and adding cubes would make the peak hp rpm go down.

I just built two 428's and used Molnar rods.  One rod set averaged 757g and the other set averaged 759.  I haven't built a factory rod FE in awhile, but a reference book lists 62-up factory rods at 761-775g.   Not sure how ARP rod bolts play into that, but it could be that you may not need a re-balance at all.  Just have to weigh some parts and see, or ask for the balance card from where your crank was balanced.

Factory cranks don't really scare me, I've used a lot of them over the years.  This isn't a race application, or high rpm application, and the factory cranks are pretty stout.  I was going to stick a 428 crank in JJ but decided to stick with the 3.500" stroke just because it's an underdog stroke.   I'm sure if it's been ground that it's been magged as most crank grinders do that as a default. 

[galaxiex]

If I go for some Molnar rods (or other) I'll likely have to re balance, Yes?
Currently it's still external balance with the weight on the flex plate.

The Molnar rod is listed as 769 grams. Have a stock rod that is 742 grams. That is a 27 gram difference, maybe yours are different don't know.  What I do know is big end weight difference will affect balance more then small end, but most will say rebalance at a 20 gram bobweight change (actually a lot will say so at 10 grams) and considering it will be heavier not lighter it matters more. I'd plan on a re-balance.

While we are on the suspect parts subject may want to replace that factory 428 crankshaft too. Are threads on here of them failing too for no good reason.  All I will say is either go buy that stroker kit or if you think the shop knew what they were doing trust in that.  Engine building is like Domino's when one falls a bunch of others do too and you can end up forever changing things. Well is all I will say on the subject. Good luck with it.

Thanks.

A little more info...

I had the block, crank, and rod work done so long ago it's hard to remember,
tho the machine shop was well known and did good work. (Pro race engines)

Prior to assembling the short block, a buddy was over visiting and the crank was standing on end in the corner.
Well... he being a klutz somehow knocked it over and it hit the concrete floor with a big KLANG!

I took it back to the shop to check for straight and make sure it was still good.
Told them what happened and they checked it and said it was ok....

I'm still considering the stroker kit.
For what I have in the bottom end right now, (not much)
It wouldn't be too much of a hardship to spring for a stroker kit.

I can probably sell the existing bottom end to offset some of it.

My main concern is the .040 overbore and how much the stroker would stress the cyl walls.

I guess I could always go for a stock stroke aftermarket crank and related parts.

I'd base it all on how much horsepower you want and then do a pro/con of each scenario.  The TFS heads make a lot of power, but I think the cork would be your 3x2 intake and that would become more apparent on a larger engine. 

It's hard to know what to do in this situation.  When you start looking at other options, then you open Pandora's box. 

I don't think I'd be scared to run the stock 428 crank and remember, when you add displacement, the camshaft needs change.  It takes more duration to fill the cylinders of a larger engine.  Keeping the same cam and adding cubes would make the peak hp rpm go down.

I just built two 428's and used Molnar rods.  One rod set averaged 757g and the other set averaged 759.  I haven't built a factory rod FE in awhile, but a reference book lists 62-up factory rods at 761-775g.   Not sure how ARP rod bolts play into that, but it could be that you may not need a re-balance at all.  Just have to weigh some parts and see, or ask for the balance card from where your crank was balanced.

Factory cranks don't really scare me, I've used a lot of them over the years.  This isn't a race application, or high rpm application, and the factory cranks are pretty stout.  I was going to stick a 428 crank in JJ but decided to stick with the 3.500" stroke just because it's an underdog stroke.   I'm sure if it's been ground that it's been magged as most crank grinders do that as a default. 

Thanks for weighing in Brent.

Since I got the cam from you and that part of the build is pretty much set, (heads, cam, intake),
and I don't intend to run this too hard, (spirited street driving) I'm leaning towards keeping the 428 crank,
maybe just get some better rods and re-balance, and have the crank checked again while it's apart.

If the crank shows any issues I'll decide at that time which way to go.

To go with the new rods and I have to re-balance anyway, maybe some modern pistons too?

[galaxiex]

I better get out in the garage and start tearing down the short block..... again....

This will be the fourth time.... 

[67xr7cat]

I'd base it all on how much horsepower you want and then do a pro/con of each scenario.  The TFS heads make a lot of power, but I think the cork would be your 3x2 intake and that would become more apparent on a larger engine. 

It's hard to know what to do in this situation.  When you start looking at other options, then you open Pandora's box. 

I don't think I'd be scared to run the stock 428 crank and remember, when you add displacement, the camshaft needs change.  It takes more duration to fill the cylinders of a larger engine.  Keeping the same cam and adding cubes would make the peak hp rpm go down.

I just built two 428's and used Molnar rods.  One rod set averaged 757g and the other set averaged 759.  I haven't built a factory rod FE in awhile, but a reference book lists 62-up factory rods at 761-775g.   Not sure how ARP rod bolts play into that, but it could be that you may not need a re-balance at all.  Just have to weigh some parts and see, or ask for the balance card from where your crank was balanced.

Factory cranks don't really scare me, I've used a lot of them over the years.  This isn't a race application, or high rpm application, and the factory cranks are pretty stout.  I was going to stick a 428 crank in JJ but decided to stick with the 3.500" stroke just because it's an underdog stroke.   I'm sure if it's been ground that it's been magged as most crank grinders do that as a default.

OK so here are a few examples of factory 428 cranks that failed:

In this case he just shifted into 5th gear at 50mph and felt a vibration and that was it.  The broken crank took out the block. You may note in the pictures the nice H beam rods...
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=7597.15

General discussion that has some comments and opinions on the factory 428 crankshafts.
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=8539.0

Just like the rods they have a fatigue life and the same concerns apply. 

Regarding the rod weight the number I had was from an old bobweight sheet.  May have been an early rod, the sheet did not say.  So I just weighted a C7AE rod that came out of a virgin 1969 390-2V motor.  So that one weights in at 774 grams.  Now keep in mind you really need to know what the big end and little end weight. Reason is the balance factor is 2 x big end and 1 x small end.  So any change on the big end will be twice as big as far as how it affects the bobweight.  I'd say plan on a rebalance.  If it was within 10 grams on the bobweight I'd buy a lottery ticket as is your lucky day.

Glad to see Brent agrees with me that the 3x2 intake is holding you back.  428 or 462 it is leaving power on the table, but not everything is about the last HP on a street/strip deal IMHO. Add another 30 cubes and change nothing your peaks will likely come down 200 - 300 RPM.  You likely will not make much if any more peak HP, but everything down lower will be more.  You will be making a good bit more torque at 3k-4k for sure. If we want to talk about what is hard on an engine it is RPM.  the magnitude of the forces go up exponentially with RPM.  So if you get it done at say 5,500 RPM instead of 6,000 RPM it is easier on everything. Now yes a 1/4" longer stroke your piston speed for a given RPM is higher, but your piston weight is less and that matters.

If it was mine I would either leave it alone or put a stroker in it as I said.  Only thing that bothers me is it took a fall.  My concern would be that there is not an internal crack in that crankshaft.  Magging the crank will not detect an internal crack.  You would have to x-ray it.  Now I've seen stuff that took a fall, I did it years ago with a 351w.  That engine would see 7,000 RPM every time I drove the car because I was young and stupid. It never broke.  Now that I am old and know what can happen I'd be concerned.  Guess sometimes is better not to know too much...

Anyway good luck with it.

[galaxiex]

I'd base it all on how much horsepower you want and then do a pro/con of each scenario.  The TFS heads make a lot of power, but I think the cork would be your 3x2 intake and that would become more apparent on a larger engine. 

It's hard to know what to do in this situation.  When you start looking at other options, then you open Pandora's box. 

I don't think I'd be scared to run the stock 428 crank and remember, when you add displacement, the camshaft needs change.  It takes more duration to fill the cylinders of a larger engine.  Keeping the same cam and adding cubes would make the peak hp rpm go down.

I just built two 428's and used Molnar rods.  One rod set averaged 757g and the other set averaged 759.  I haven't built a factory rod FE in awhile, but a reference book lists 62-up factory rods at 761-775g.   Not sure how ARP rod bolts play into that, but it could be that you may not need a re-balance at all.  Just have to weigh some parts and see, or ask for the balance card from where your crank was balanced.

Factory cranks don't really scare me, I've used a lot of them over the years.  This isn't a race application, or high rpm application, and the factory cranks are pretty stout.  I was going to stick a 428 crank in JJ but decided to stick with the 3.500" stroke just because it's an underdog stroke.   I'm sure if it's been ground that it's been magged as most crank grinders do that as a default.

OK so here are a few examples of factory 428 cranks that failed:

In this case he just shifted into 5th gear at 50mph and felt a vibration and that was it.  The broken crank took out the block. You may note in the pictures the nice H beam rods...
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=7597.15

General discussion that has some comments and opinions on the factory 428 crankshafts.
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=8539.0

Just like the rods they have a fatigue life and the same concerns apply. 

Regarding the rod weight the number I had was from an old bobweight sheet.  May have been an early rod, the sheet did not say.  So I just weighted a C7AE rod that came out of a virgin 1969 390-2V motor.  So that one weights in at 774 grams.  Now keep in mind you really need to know what the big end and little end weight. Reason is the balance factor is 2 x big end and 1 x small end.  So any change on the big end will be twice as big as far as how it affects the bobweight.  I'd say plan on a rebalance.  If it was within 10 grams on the bobweight I'd buy a lottery ticket as is your lucky day.

Glad to see Brent agrees with me that the 3x2 intake is holding you back.  428 or 462 it is leaving power on the table, but not everything is about the last HP on a street/strip deal IMHO. Add another 30 cubes and change nothing your peaks will likely come down 200 - 300 RPM.  You likely will not make much if any more peak HP, but everything down lower will be more.  You will be making a good bit more torque at 3k-4k for sure. If we want to talk about what is hard on an engine it is RPM.  the magnitude of the forces go up exponentially with RPM.  So if you get it done at say 5,500 RPM instead of 6,000 RPM it is easier on everything. Now yes a 1/4" longer stroke your piston speed for a given RPM is higher, but your piston weight is less and that matters.

If it was mine I would either leave it alone or put a stroker in it as I said.  Only thing that bothers me is it took a fall.  My concern would be that there is not an internal crack in that crankshaft.  Magging the crank will not detect an internal crack.  You would have to x-ray it.  Now I've seen stuff that took a fall, I did it years ago with a 351w.  That engine would see 7,000 RPM every time I drove the car because I was young and stupid. It never broke.  Now that I am old and know what can happen I'd be concerned.  Guess sometimes is better not to know too much...

Anyway good luck with it.

I appreciate the insights on this.

Ya wow those broken cranks look nasty.

This 428 crank came to me as an unknown, bought from another shop.
Aside from the .020 .020 cut and the fall it took, I know nothing of it's history.

Rods came from yet another shop that parts out engines, so are also an unknown. C7XX casting
Basically I "pieced together" a 428.
The block did come with it's original main caps.

Thinking more on this.... I may just run it the way it is.

I have tucked in a corner of my garage, a spare used (was a good running) 2V 390 from a truck of unknown year,
(maybe early 70's) that has been torn down to the short block.
Std bore still. Probably clean up at .030.

I can use this as a back-up to build a stroker in case the 428 pukes the crank and/or rods.

On the 3X2 holding it back...

The manifold has been ported to within an inch of it's life.
Runners hogged out waaaaay far in, and all 6 throttle bores opened up to 45mm, approx 1.75"
Welded and port matched to the TFS heads.
The FITech 3X2 throttle bodys each flow 500 cfm with 45mm bores, so 1500 cfm potential.
I'm not so sure that the manifold will be all that much of a restriction.....

[blykins]

I'd base it all on how much horsepower you want and then do a pro/con of each scenario.  The TFS heads make a lot of power, but I think the cork would be your 3x2 intake and that would become more apparent on a larger engine. 

It's hard to know what to do in this situation.  When you start looking at other options, then you open Pandora's box. 

I don't think I'd be scared to run the stock 428 crank and remember, when you add displacement, the camshaft needs change.  It takes more duration to fill the cylinders of a larger engine.  Keeping the same cam and adding cubes would make the peak hp rpm go down.

I just built two 428's and used Molnar rods.  One rod set averaged 757g and the other set averaged 759.  I haven't built a factory rod FE in awhile, but a reference book lists 62-up factory rods at 761-775g.   Not sure how ARP rod bolts play into that, but it could be that you may not need a re-balance at all.  Just have to weigh some parts and see, or ask for the balance card from where your crank was balanced.

Factory cranks don't really scare me, I've used a lot of them over the years.  This isn't a race application, or high rpm application, and the factory cranks are pretty stout.  I was going to stick a 428 crank in JJ but decided to stick with the 3.500" stroke just because it's an underdog stroke.   I'm sure if it's been ground that it's been magged as most crank grinders do that as a default.

OK so here are a few examples of factory 428 cranks that failed:

In this case he just shifted into 5th gear at 50mph and felt a vibration and that was it.  The broken crank took out the block. You may note in the pictures the nice H beam rods...
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=7597.15

General discussion that has some comments and opinions on the factory 428 crankshafts.
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=8539.0

Just like the rods they have a fatigue life and the same concerns apply. 

Regarding the rod weight the number I had was from an old bobweight sheet.  May have been an early rod, the sheet did not say.  So I just weighted a C7AE rod that came out of a virgin 1969 390-2V motor.  So that one weights in at 774 grams.  Now keep in mind you really need to know what the big end and little end weight. Reason is the balance factor is 2 x big end and 1 x small end.  So any change on the big end will be twice as big as far as how it affects the bobweight.  I'd say plan on a rebalance.  If it was within 10 grams on the bobweight I'd buy a lottery ticket as is your lucky day.

Glad to see Brent agrees with me that the 3x2 intake is holding you back.  428 or 462 it is leaving power on the table, but not everything is about the last HP on a street/strip deal IMHO. Add another 30 cubes and change nothing your peaks will likely come down 200 - 300 RPM.  You likely will not make much if any more peak HP, but everything down lower will be more.  You will be making a good bit more torque at 3k-4k for sure. If we want to talk about what is hard on an engine it is RPM.  the magnitude of the forces go up exponentially with RPM.  So if you get it done at say 5,500 RPM instead of 6,000 RPM it is easier on everything. Now yes a 1/4" longer stroke your piston speed for a given RPM is higher, but your piston weight is less and that matters.

If it was mine I would either leave it alone or put a stroker in it as I said.  Only thing that bothers me is it took a fall.  My concern would be that there is not an internal crack in that crankshaft.  Magging the crank will not detect an internal crack.  You would have to x-ray it.  Now I've seen stuff that took a fall, I did it years ago with a 351w.  That engine would see 7,000 RPM every time I drove the car because I was young and stupid. It never broke.  Now that I am old and know what can happen I'd be concerned.  Guess sometimes is better not to know too much...

Anyway good luck with it.

I appreciate the insights on this.

Ya wow those broken cranks look nasty.

This 428 crank came to me as an unknown, bought from another shop.
Aside from the .020 .020 cut and the fall it took, I know nothing of it's history.

Rods came from yet another shop that parts out engines, so are also an unknown. C7XX casting
Basically I "pieced together" a 428.
The block did come with it's original main caps.

Thinking more on this.... I may just run it the way it is.

I have tucked in a corner of my garage, a spare used (was a good running) 2V 390 from a truck of unknown year,
(maybe early 70's) that has been torn down to the short block.
Std bore still. Probably clean up at .030.

I can use this as a back-up to build a stroker in case the 428 pukes the crank and/or rods.

On the 3X2 holding it back...

The manifold has been ported to within an inch of it's life.
Runners hogged out waaaaay far in, and all 6 throttle bores opened up to 45mm, approx 1.75"
Welded and port matched to the TFS heads.
The FITech 3X2 throttle bodys each flow 500 cfm with 45mm bores, so 1500 cfm potential.
I'm not so sure that the manifold will be all that much of a restriction.....

The issue isn't so much the port opening or the bore sizes, it's the directions that the air/fuel charge has to travel.  The 3x2 intakes are designed the way that the early 352/406 intakes are.  The runners go straight down from the bores and then have to come back up in order to meet the port opening.  In addition, the angles are almost 90°. 

I do think you'll be ok with the factory crank.  I tend to look at things in risks and trends.  Aftermarket parts tend to be the least troublesome and the least risky (except for Eagle cast cranks).  All factory parts will hold some degree of risk, but I've seen far more instances of factory rods failing than factory crankshafts. 

I also wouldn't worry too much about the crankshaft falling.  Have it checked out and go from there. 

[galaxiex]

Ok, Here we go......
Molnar rods are ordered.

$771.80 USD = about a million bucks CAD.      


Actually $966.71 CAD Whew!


Now to get the crank back out and when the rods get here,
find a local shop I can trust to check and balance everything.


These ones...

[blykins]

I'm confused on the pricing.  These rods sell for $656 USD.   How did you get to $771.80?  Is that with shipping to Canada?

[galaxiex]

I'm confused on the pricing.  These rods sell for $656 USD.   How did you get to $771.80?  Is that with shipping to Canada?

Yep, shipping and handling charges.

Probably gonna be Duty charges on top of that...

[galaxiex]

Well I'm not too surprised...

Molnar cancelled my connecting rod order. 


Here's a snippet from the email I got from them...


"Thank you for your order for a set of FH6488ANPB-FE8-A connecting rods.
Unfortunately those are currently out of stock and on national back order.
I checked with Mr. Molnar and it is going to be a while before more are available.
Until he receives the cores required to make those rods it is hard to give an accurate estimate of when more will be ready to ship.
It is probably going to be at least 8 more weeks."

So project on hold for now unless I can come up with a plan B.

[Gregwill16]

I'm probably in the minority, but if you have a competent shop that you trust, put that thing together with them factory rods and crank and get rolling. There is probably far more FE's out there on the street with factory rods and crack than there is aftermarket. I just don't see this application needing a $1k set of rods.

[galaxiex]

I'm probably in the minority, but if you have a competent shop that you trust, put that thing together with them factory rods and crank and get rolling. There is probably far more FE's out there on the street with factory rods and crack than there is aftermarket. I just don't see this application needing a $1k set of rods.

Yep, I get that.

I'm gonna mull it over for a while.

I do trust Brents advice tho, he has the build and dyno experience,and might have a good idea on how much power this would make,
since he supplied the custom Hyd roller.

Maybe Brent could weigh in on a guesstimate range of what my combo would make? 

[blykins]

I'm probably in the minority, but if you have a competent shop that you trust, put that thing together with them factory rods and crank and get rolling. There is probably far more FE's out there on the street with factory rods and crack than there is aftermarket. I just don't see this application needing a $1k set of rods.

Yep, I get that.

I'm gonna mull it over for a while.

I do trust Brents advice tho, he has the build and dyno experience,and might have a good idea on how much power this would make,
since he supplied the custom Hyd roller.

Maybe Brent could weigh in on a guesstimate range of what my combo would make? 

If it had another intake on it, I'd say it would make 520-525 hp.  Your intake is the variable and I just don't see it performing well, I could be wrong. 

The issue with the rods is that not only have they been subject to fatigue stress, but factory rods can deform the big end with loading because the strength just isn't there, like a modern rod.  I know this doesn't apply to you, but "back in the day", builders would hone the big ends out of round so that they wouldn't pinch a bearing under load.   If your shop is comfortable with it, knows how to prep them, and knows how to setup the rod bearing clearances correctly, you could potentially take the chance on them.  Remember, these rods were mainly designed for 250-300 hp applications with 4000-4500 rpm operating constraints.  I know that guys obviously subjected them to a lot more than that and still do, but just remember that the instant you hit the key, everything in the bottom end of an engine is trying to get out. 

[galaxiex]

Well I didn’t mention this before but I have a Performer RPM intake new in box down in the basement that I originally was going to use, until I got the bug for the 3X2 setup.

Obviously I could swap the RPM on any time.

I got the trips mostly for the cool factor.
I knew going in the trips would not be as good as the RPM.


Having said that, there are other forum posts where they made well North of 500 hp with a 3X2 on a stroker.

[My427stang]

Just my opinion but, if you want the 3x2, I'd do a couple things

1 - Work on the top side, consider the roof of the plenum and port entry to be the short side radius of that first turn.  As much of a nice tailored curve as you can will help, any sharp edge anywhere in the plenum will try to pull fuel out of suspension too

2 - Make some spacers, and not sure how the 3x2 works, never used a Ford one, but you could consider something sorta tall if it fits, and open, to give it a little more plenum volume.  A big inch motor likes a decent size plenum to soften pulses, and the more you can give it the better.  Also, if not trying to keep it stock, the spacers may let you be more bold on the top side of the intake. 

3 - If there are bigger carb options, by all means do it.  Again, I don't know my 3x2s but almost as a rule, more carb the better, especially if you have #1 and #2 done

That being said, my feeling is that it will be down compared to the RPM, and even less effort on the RPM would bring that intake to the next level, but multiple carbs are cool to look at

[67xr7cat]

HP is not what kills rods is RPM. Longer the stroke and weight hanging off the rod is what matters.  Stock 428 cj with factory rev limiter was what 5,800 rpm? 

Doubt your going turn it more than 6,500 rpm and you probably not making power up there anyways.

As I ask everyone what are your goals? What is needed to meet them?  Shift at 5,500 rpm and is all a non-issue. 

Just bought a 427 SO off a friend a few days ago. He is an old SS racer. He said you know I had a 390 used to race. Made 580hp at 7,500 rpm and had stock rods. Never broke it. 

Just JMHO but sounds like a street cruiser and your getting hung up on a HP number. If you really interested in making the car faster you have to look at the power range not peak hp. As to the rod to me is a non-issue, but whatever makes you happy.

[galaxiex]

Just my opinion but, if you want the 3x2, I'd do a couple things

1 - Work on the top side, consider the roof of the plenum and port entry to be the short side radius of that first turn.  As much of a nice tailored curve as you can will help, any sharp edge anywhere in the plenum will try to pull fuel out of suspension too

2 - Make some spacers, and not sure how the 3x2 works, never used a Ford one, but you could consider something sorta tall if it fits, and open, to give it a little more plenum volume.  A big inch motor likes a decent size plenum to soften pulses, and the more you can give it the better.  Also, if not trying to keep it stock, the spacers may let you be more bold on the top side of the intake. 

3 - If there are bigger carb options, by all means do it.  Again, I don't know my 3x2s but almost as a rule, more carb the better, especially if you have #1 and #2 done

That being said, my feeling is that it will be down compared to the RPM, and even less effort on the RPM would bring that intake to the next level, but multiple carbs are cool to look at

Thanks!

1. Some work on the top side already done, but based on this I'll work on it some more.
Mentioned this before, but the throttle bores in the manifold are hogged out to 45mm from carb base all the way in to the runners.
Done at my work place on the milling machine.

2. Have 1 inch spacers already, mainly to raise the carbs/throttle bodies so the bottom of the huge oval air cleaner will clear the large cap Duraspark.
These spacers are also bored out to 45mm. They do add to plenum volume somewhat.

3. I have repro original style Holley carbs, and the FITech 3X2 throttle body injection setup. FiTech bores are 45mm.
The Holleys are much smaller. Holley setup rated at approx 725 CFM total.

FI setup is 500 CFM per body, so 1500 CFM potential.

[galaxiex]

HP is not what kills rods is RPM. Longer the stroke and weight hanging off the rod is what matters.  Stock 428 cj with factory rev limiter was what 5,800 rpm? 

Doubt your going turn it more than 6,500 rpm and you probably not making power up there anyways.

As I ask everyone what are your goals? What is needed to meet them?  Shift at 5,500 rpm and is all a non-issue. 

Just bought a 427 SO off a friend a few days ago. He is an old SS racer. He said you know I had a 390 used to race. Made 580hp at 7,500 rpm and had stock rods. Never broke it. 

Just JMHO but sounds like a street cruiser and your getting hung up on a HP number. If you really interested in making the car faster you have to look at the power range not peak hp. As to the rod to me is a non-issue, but whatever makes you happy.

Thanks!

Yes, it will likely never see the high side of 6500, probably limit it to 6000.

Goals are a sorta well mannered but reasonably quick street cruiser.
Brent did tell me this cam will have a noticeable idle.


I'd love it if I could get this big barge of a Galaxie into the 12's.
Be cool if it would do that with the A/C on.  It's not gonna be a race car, but I will go to the 1/4 once in a while.

I'm not hung up on any particular HP number. If it will run even high 12's I'll be happy.
Actually if I'm hung up on a number, its how much torque will it make.
My thinking (for a street car) is that torque is what moves the car.
HP is just a number calculated from torque.
Big torque and throttle response is what excites me.


Interesting about that 427 SO and stock rods.


I'm not rich, but I do have a fairly generous budget for this project.

[galaxiex]

I'm probably in the minority, but if you have a competent shop that you trust, put that thing together with them factory rods and crank and get rolling. There is probably far more FE's out there on the street with factory rods and crack than there is aftermarket. I just don't see this application needing a $1k set of rods.

Yep, I get that.

I'm gonna mull it over for a while.

I do trust Brents advice tho, he has the build and dyno experience,and might have a good idea on how much power this would make,
since he supplied the custom Hyd roller.

Maybe Brent could weigh in on a guesstimate range of what my combo would make? 

If it had another intake on it, I'd say it would make 520-525 hp.  Your intake is the variable and I just don't see it performing well, I could be wrong. 

The issue with the rods is that not only have they been subject to fatigue stress, but factory rods can deform the big end with loading because the strength just isn't there, like a modern rod.  I know this doesn't apply to you, but "back in the day", builders would hone the big ends out of round so that they wouldn't pinch a bearing under load.   If your shop is comfortable with it, knows how to prep them, and knows how to setup the rod bearing clearances correctly, you could potentially take the chance on them.  Remember, these rods were mainly designed for 250-300 hp applications with 4000-4500 rpm operating constraints.  I know that guys obviously subjected them to a lot more than that and still do, but just remember that the instant you hit the key, everything in the bottom end of an engine is trying to get out. 

Thanks Brent!

The stock rods are as prepped as much as they are gonna be.
I won't sink any more money into them.

I do understand about cycle and fatigue stress on rods, which is why I ordered the (now cancelled) Molnar rods.
I can wait for them to come back into stock/production, unless you happen to have a set? 

[galaxiex]

Here's a thread from Barry R. on the 3X2 making decent power with a limitation of poor carbs. 706 CFM.


https://www.fordfe.com/dyno-days-one-of-many-tri-power-the-hard-way-t91027.html


I'm certainly NOT in the same league as JDC when it comes to porting, but I did take some cues from him in that thread.

[frnkeore]

Since your manifold bores, are already 45mm, don't forget about the 500 cfm Holley 2v carb. They are almost 43mm throttle bores and don't forget that the cfm rating of 2v carbs, is 1.41 more than a 4v. The 2v are rated for 3 hg, as opposed to 4v @ 1,5 hg.

If you swap out the bowls on the 4412 (500 cfm) Holley's that would get 1500 2v cfm or 1070 4v cfm. You'd have to hook up a vacuum gauge and run at WOT to see of the manifold might be a restriction to the carbs but, that's part of the fun.

[galaxiex]

Sine your manifold bores, are already 45mm, don't forget about the 500 cfm Holley 2v arb. They are almost 43mm throttle bores and don't forget that the cfm rating of 2v carbs, is 1.41 more than a 4v. The 2v are rated for 3 hg, as opposed to 4v @ 1,5 hg.

If you swap out the bowls on the 4412 (500 cfm) Holley's that would get 1500 2v cfm or 1070 4v cfm. You'd have to hook up a vacuum gauge and run at WOT to see of the manifold might be a restriction to the carbs but, that's part of the fun.

Thanks!

I'm aware of the hg rating differences for 2bbl and 4bbl.

The stock Ford 2bbl's are rated at 320 center and 350 X 2 for the outboard carbs.

So 1020 CFM at the 2 bbl rating = 721 CFM at the 4bbl rating.

The FITech 3X2 says they can support up to 600 HP and each throttle body is 500 CFM.
I'm not sure which flow rating they are using, but I "assume" it's the 4bbl at 1.5hg.

[frnkeore]

So 1020 CFM at the 2 bbl rating = 721 CFM at the 4bbl rating.

Yes.

I would check with the mfg of the FI 500's to see if they're rated at 1.5 hg. The Holley 6425, 650 cfm 2v, with it's 44.45 throttles, would be 470 cfm so, it certainly could be rated at 1.5.

A quick and cheaper option, would be to replace only the center, with a 4412, giving 1200 @ 3hg or 849 @ 1.5hg. Good reason for that option, is that the center carb, is in the middle of 4 runners, while the end carbs are closest to just 2 runners.

[My427stang]

Given the spacers, some careful rubbing and the FITech TBs, I'd go for it.  It'll run.  Not sure I'd mess with any carb if I had the 3x2 EFI setup

Like some others, I am not a big fan of the stock rods if you are going to make some power.  They are pretty strong, unless they aren't, and it's hard to judge from the outside.  If they have new bolts, resized, and small end is good or rebushed, assuming a mag when it was done and a good balance, you will likely be fine. 

It's just sort of like cylinder heads nowadays, by the time you do all that, you have a relatively expensive but carefully checked 50 year old part, but you can't see it all.  Of course you can't see in a new part either, but it hasn't been trying to throw 2 1/2 lbs through the head for the better part of 50 years

Now, I have certainly used stock rods, the last 397 I did used resized, new bolts, and magged stockers, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but for anything making big power, I'd likely wait, or rebalance and use the strong but HEAVY SCAT pieces

[galaxiex]

Given the spacers, some careful rubbing and the FITech TBs, I'd go for it.  It'll run.  Not sure I'd mess with any carb if I had the 3x2 EFI setup

Like some others, I am not a big fan of the stock rods if you are going to make some power.  They are pretty strong, unless they aren't, and it's hard to judge from the outside.  If they have new bolts, resized, and small end is good or rebushed, assuming a mag when it was done and a good balance, you will likely be fine. 

It's just sort of like cylinder heads nowadays, by the time you do all that, you have a relatively expensive but carefully checked 50 year old part, but you can't see it all.  Of course you can't see in a new part either, but it hasn't been trying to throw 2 1/2 lbs through the head for the better part of 50 years

Now, I have certainly used stock rods, the last 397 I did used resized, new bolts, and magged stockers, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but for anything making big power, I'd likely wait, or rebalance and use the strong but HEAVY SCAT pieces

Well, I don't know if this qualifies as "big power" but I'd feel a lot better having the Molnar's in there.

I think I'll wait.
I've come this far, and this project has been on a very slow burn for quite a few years, so a little longer won't hurt.

The chassis is ready but the body still needs some attention.
The sheet metal welding etc is all done, but needs assembled, wiring and paint yet.

[My427stang]

SCAT makes a 6.49 H beam too, they are porky but strong and likely available

[galaxiex]

Scat rods not in stock at Summit.

[frnkeore]

While I liked the Tri Power, alot, when it first came out on the 390 & 406, I liked the 8v 427's much better so, I never had the urge to get one.

After talking about your 6v, I looked it up in Jay's intake book. It is really not a bad intake for strokers. It didn't do well on the 428 (down just a few tq/hp) but, it kinda shines on his 390 stroker eng. It came out almost dead even with the Holley Dominator and was close to the Edel Victor also, it was only behind 2 ft/lb and 2 hp on the Interceptor manifold.

Average TQ/HP, 3k - 6k rpm

Tri Power
468.1/398.7

Dominator
465.9/398.1

Victor
474.8/406.2

Interceptor
470.7/400.6

I was concerned that the internal volume, might not be large enough but, after looking those up, I think it's fine. Now I'd be very interested in what a 500 cfm, center carb might do for those numbers.

[blykins]

Scat rods not in stock at Summit.

I have 2 sets of Scat FE rods, but I would urge you to wait on the Molnars.  They are a better rod all the way around.

[67xr7cat]

Scat rods not in stock at Summit.

I have 2 sets of Scat FE rods, but I would urge you to wait on the Molnars.  They are a better rod all the way around.

And a Carrillo rod is a better all around rod then the Molnar.  Both the Molnar and the Carrillo are not needed.  You tell him his rods will likely fail and then say don't use a rod (scat) that in reality is plenty stronger for the application then what he will subject it to. If he turns it up in the future unless he goes power adder, the path will be a stoker in which case he will need a different rod anyway. 

Is sad guy has a perfectly good short block and now tear it all apart, delay everything and spend $900 in rods and rebalance.  Still has a 50 year old 428 crank which could break too.  Metal fatigue happens to cranks too and guys have them fail, some on here won't use them at all. Still has that heavy, outdated piston with tractor rings.

Then there is metal fatigue.  These stock rod debates been going on as long as all the cheap aftermarket rods have been around. In 1990 everyone used stock unless it was a big buck racer. Shops knew how to assess the condition of a connecting rod. I know as I was taught this back then.  There are rods that go 200,000, 300,000 miles and do not break. There are reasons and if you look at how a bolt has to be pre-tensioned you will start to understand the failure mode. The fatigue resistance of the FE forged rods is about 1/3 better than a powdered metal rod which most OEM's use in engines today and rod breakage is not an issue. In the old days the stock FE rods were considered one of the better rods, now you would think they are only fit for a trailer queen.

Most rod failures are caused by something other than the rod. If it was mine I'd run what you have.  If you are going to spend a bunch of money buy a stoker as said before. The benefits are many. After you sell off your current rotating assembly to someone not scared of it the money you will have into it will not be all that much more than what you will spend on a set of Molnar rods and a re-balance.

[67xr7cat]

One other thing I'd be more concerned with then the rods is what your CR is.  With that Speed-pro piston if you have a stock 10.170" deck it is .020" in the hole and your CR is 10.26 with the TFS heads and a .040" gasket. If the block has been cut and they are at zero deck then you are at 10.72 CR.  I'd rather be at 10:1 or a little less then pushing it. All it takes is get some bad gas and detonate the thing.

[My427stang]

I lost track of what this build is LOL

However, I do agree, the Molnars are really nice, and if they will deliver as soon as you want, then go for it. All the benefits of a modern rod and lighter than the SCAT, and really it's as close to a "big dollar" connecting rod as you can get for an FE without paying a big premium.  Strokers have more choices.  Downsides, if you don't have one, you'll need a torque/angle style torque wrench

Nothing wrong with the SCAT, but, it's a sledgehammer, they are heavier.  If you need a rebalance, it can take more to correct. The nice thing about them is availability, strength, standard torque procedures, and like the Molnars (and all capscrew rods) the cap is located by a bushing instead of the shank of the bolt.  Not to many aftermarket rods rely on a bolt to locate the cap like a stocker.  Overkill?  Depends on the power and RPM you end up turning. 

For a long time I have wished they'd add a capscrew I-beam to the SCAT FE line up, but unless we all start squealing I don't see it happening.  It would be a good match for what I think you are doing.

The compression is a thing to watch though, I haven't measured as many TFS chambers as Brent, but have had a few through here, and 2 sets on the shelf that I recently measured.  They have all come in at 69.7-69.9 cc, that's quite a bit smaller than a Ford or other aftermarket head.  I would add another thing to check though, if you are running Speed Pro pistons, look very close at radial valve clearance too.  They have both shallow and small diameter valve reliefs, and to add to the confusion, left and right banks tend to be slightly different when installed with notch forward

Too many cooks in the kitchen here though, just remember, plan the flight, fly the plan....   Since you are taking a knee waiting for rods, maybe mock it all up and check clearances, to include valve, deck height, intake fitment, thrust, mains, etc, and then when the rods come in you'll have everything ready

[galaxiex]

Sincere thanks to all for the thoughts and info.

Block has been decked and pistons are within .010 of the deck. Probably less than .010. Likely close to zero.
I don't remember the spec, but easy enough for me to get.
I'll get out in the garage sometime this weekend and measure.
I don't have a bridge tool, but I do have a depth mic.

I will probably end up re-checking all setup/mockup clearances and keep records this time... 


I didn't keep a build log on first assembly (dumb) since I didn't anticipate changing directions on the build.
I just checked stuff as I went along and called it good.


Can't rely on the memory anymore, so I'll recheck it all.

[My427stang]

Be sure to check the radial valve clearance with clay and slug the lifter or get a solid.  The speedpro pistons are marginal at 2.09/1.67 and you are at 2.19 intake...better save than sorry and best to do both banks (or even all if very close to good)

Edited for valve size typo

[galaxiex]

Be sure to check the radial valve clearance with clay and slug the lifter or get a solid.  The speedpro pistons are marginal at 2.05/1.67 and you are at 2.19 intake...better save than sorry and best to do both banks (or even all if very close to good)

Yep, I will do that for sure.

Pistons are L2303N +.040

Deck heights measured a very consistent .004" in the hole.
Rocked the pistons, took several measurements each on all 8 holes.


BTW didja hear about the guy that asked his machine shop to put a line under #6 so he wouldn't confuse it with #9?


 

 


I DO remember the first time I mocked up the short block.


Deck heights were all over the place, so I took it back to the shop and had them cut it.

[galaxiex]

So a slightly different topic....

Drilling an oiling hole in the galley plugs.

I have typically drilled approx .030 hole in the main galley plug right above the cam gear, on the few FE builds I have done.

"Some" of the shop manuals I have, show a hole with a "jiggle pin" at that location.
Others don't show any hole at all.
I figured it can't hurt esp with a HV pump.

Now, what about drilling a .030 hole in the plug behind the distributor?
Thinking it would provide extra lube to the steel cam and dist gear.

What say you?

[blykins]

So a slightly different topic....

Drilling an oiling hole in the galley plugs.

I have typically drilled approx .030 hole in the main galley plug right above the cam gear, on the few FE builds I have done.

"Some" of the shop manuals I have, show a hole with a "jiggle pin" at that location.
Others don't show any hole at all.
I figured it can't hurt esp with a HV pump.

Now, what about drilling a .030 hole in the plug behind the distributor?
Thinking it would provide extra lube to the steel cam and dist gear.

What say you?

The distributor shaft and gear get lubricated by the oil feed coming from the front cam bearing.   They get plenty of oil from the pressurized oil plus the splash oiling.  I do not do anything different here and have never seen any evidence of wear. 

One thing you do need to double check, though, is to make sure the lower/right thrust plate bolt doesn't go too deep.  Any aftermarket bolt will be too long and it will block the oil feed.  I use aftermarket bolts, but I cut them off at 5/8".  At that length, you will not block the feed. 

On a similar but separate note, if you have an early block that's been converted from cam button to thrust plate, you will need to groove a thrust plate bolt so that it will pass oil.  The factory hole there is counterbored and you have to use a longer bolt or you won't have enough thread engagement.  The longer bolt blocks the feed, so you have to slot the bolt so it can move oil.

As for drilling the galley plug above the cam gear, I don't do that either, as there is a huge drain hole coming from the lifter valley that dumps out right above the timing gear. 

[galaxiex]

So a slightly different topic....

Drilling an oiling hole in the galley plugs.

I have typically drilled approx .030 hole in the main galley plug right above the cam gear, on the few FE builds I have done.

"Some" of the shop manuals I have, show a hole with a "jiggle pin" at that location.
Others don't show any hole at all.
I figured it can't hurt esp with a HV pump.

Now, what about drilling a .030 hole in the plug behind the distributor?
Thinking it would provide extra lube to the steel cam and dist gear.

What say you?

The distributor shaft and gear get lubricated by the oil feed coming from the front cam bearing.   They get plenty of oil from the pressurized oil plus the splash oiling.  I do not do anything different here and have never seen any evidence of wear. 

One thing you do need to double check, though, is to make sure the lower/right thrust plate bolt doesn't go too deep.  Any aftermarket bolt will be too long and it will block the oil feed.  I use aftermarket bolts, but I cut them off at 5/8".  At that length, you will not block the feed. 

On a similar but separate note, if you have an early block that's been converted from cam button to thrust plate, you will need to groove a thrust plate bolt so that it will pass oil.  The factory hole there is counterbored and you have to use a longer bolt or you won't have enough thread engagement.  The longer bolt blocks the feed, so you have to slot the bolt so it can move oil.

As for drilling the galley plug above the cam gear, I don't do that either, as there is a huge drain hole coming from the lifter valley that dumps out right above the timing gear. 

Thanks Brent,
This is a  later block and I have the factory cam thrust plate with the slot, and the factory plate retainer screws.
Good to know about the dist oiling and no mods needed there.

Was thinking to put some ARP cam plate retainer bolts in it.
They have the shallow hex heads, but I would check and make sure the threads aren't too long.

Ya, with that huge drain hole in the valley that dumps on the cam gear, makes me wonder why some engines have that jiggle pin.
I refreshed a 65 352 timing chain a number of years ago, and I remember it had the jiggle pin.

[blykins]

So a slightly different topic....

Drilling an oiling hole in the galley plugs.

I have typically drilled approx .030 hole in the main galley plug right above the cam gear, on the few FE builds I have done.

"Some" of the shop manuals I have, show a hole with a "jiggle pin" at that location.
Others don't show any hole at all.
I figured it can't hurt esp with a HV pump.

Now, what about drilling a .030 hole in the plug behind the distributor?
Thinking it would provide extra lube to the steel cam and dist gear.

What say you?

The distributor shaft and gear get lubricated by the oil feed coming from the front cam bearing.   They get plenty of oil from the pressurized oil plus the splash oiling.  I do not do anything different here and have never seen any evidence of wear. 

One thing you do need to double check, though, is to make sure the lower/right thrust plate bolt doesn't go too deep.  Any aftermarket bolt will be too long and it will block the oil feed.  I use aftermarket bolts, but I cut them off at 5/8".  At that length, you will not block the feed. 

On a similar but separate note, if you have an early block that's been converted from cam button to thrust plate, you will need to groove a thrust plate bolt so that it will pass oil.  The factory hole there is counterbored and you have to use a longer bolt or you won't have enough thread engagement.  The longer bolt blocks the feed, so you have to slot the bolt so it can move oil.

As for drilling the galley plug above the cam gear, I don't do that either, as there is a huge drain hole coming from the lifter valley that dumps out right above the timing gear. 

Thanks Brent,
This is a  later block and I have the factory cam thrust plate with the slot, and the factory plate retainer screws.
Good to know about the dist oiling and no mods needed there.

Was thinking to put some ARP cam plate retainer bolts in it.
They have the shallow hex heads, but I would check and make sure the threads aren't too long.

Ya, with that huge drain hole in the valley that dumps on the cam gear, makes me wonder why some engines have that jiggle pin.
I refreshed a 65 352 timing chain a number of years ago, and I remember it had the jiggle pin.

I've always heard that the jiggle pin was to bleed air out.   Not sure, but Ford didn't use them on all FE's.  I just tap that hole for a pipe plug and plug it. 

I think there were a lot of things that Ford phased out over time because of technology updates.

[67xr7cat]

The jiggle pin is to make sure no air gets trapped in the passage. Think at some point Ford realized it was not needed.

[blykins]

So a slightly different topic....

Drilling an oiling hole in the galley plugs.

I have typically drilled approx .030 hole in the main galley plug right above the cam gear, on the few FE builds I have done.

"Some" of the shop manuals I have, show a hole with a "jiggle pin" at that location.
Others don't show any hole at all.
I figured it can't hurt esp with a HV pump.

Now, what about drilling a .030 hole in the plug behind the distributor?
Thinking it would provide extra lube to the steel cam and dist gear.

What say you?

The distributor shaft and gear get lubricated by the oil feed coming from the front cam bearing.   They get plenty of oil from the pressurized oil plus the splash oiling.  I do not do anything different here and have never seen any evidence of wear. 

One thing you do need to double check, though, is to make sure the lower/right thrust plate bolt doesn't go too deep.  Any aftermarket bolt will be too long and it will block the oil feed.  I use aftermarket bolts, but I cut them off at 5/8".  At that length, you will not block the feed. 

On a similar but separate note, if you have an early block that's been converted from cam button to thrust plate, you will need to groove a thrust plate bolt so that it will pass oil.  The factory hole there is counterbored and you have to use a longer bolt or you won't have enough thread engagement.  The longer bolt blocks the feed, so you have to slot the bolt so it can move oil.

As for drilling the galley plug above the cam gear, I don't do that either, as there is a huge drain hole coming from the lifter valley that dumps out right above the timing gear. 

Thanks Brent,
This is a  later block and I have the factory cam thrust plate with the slot, and the factory plate retainer screws.
Good to know about the dist oiling and no mods needed there.

Was thinking to put some ARP cam plate retainer bolts in it.
They have the shallow hex heads, but I would check and make sure the threads aren't too long.

Ya, with that huge drain hole in the valley that dumps on the cam gear, makes me wonder why some engines have that jiggle pin.
I refreshed a 65 352 timing chain a number of years ago, and I remember it had the jiggle pin.

BTW, no need to buy ARP bolts for the thrust plate unless you already have them.  There isn't enough load on that thrust plate to really justify an ARP fastener.  Most hex head cap screws will clear the timing set, so I just buy 7/16-14 x 3/4 bolts in bulk and cut them off to 5/8 to clear that oiling passage.  The bolt that goes into the passenger side lifter gallery can be left long.

[67xr7cat]

I've always heard that the jiggle pin was to bleed air out.   Not sure, but Ford didn't use them on all FE's.  I just tap that hole for a pipe plug and plug it. 

I think there were a lot of things that Ford phased out over time because of technology updates.

Got treed... LOL. 

[Wayne l]

Any of you modify that large drain hole in the valley? Years ago the machine shop I used ground that hole into an oval shape, the guy said it would help get the oil down to the pan quicker. I'm still running the 428 with no problems so I guess it didn't hurt anything.
Just wondering if it really helps or just snake oil. 

[blykins]

Any of you modify that large drain hole in the valley? Years ago the machine shop I used ground that hole into an oval shape, the guy said it would help get the oil down to the pan quicker. I'm still running the 428 with no problems so I guess it didn't hurt anything.
Just wondering if it really helps or just snake oil.

In most cases, I grind the bottom of the hole to get rid of that casting flash.   But you're right, it doesn't seem to hurt anything.   Lots of oil coming through there.

[frnkeore]

Regarding the Jiggle pin, in my opinion it's only purpose (even though Ford say's it to purge air) was to oil the timing chain. On the early blocks, the front wall, does not have a hole, to drain oil into the timing area. I have to drill my Edsel block to get that return hole.

The jiggle pin is addressed in Ford manuals, until the 1963 year, when the trust plate was used. So, I assume, that was the year that the front return hole was added.

I felt the need to clarify that to point out that if you have a jiggle pin or a converted block, to a thrust plate, you need to make sure that there is a return hole on the passenger side, front wall, to get oil to the timing area.

[blykins]

Regarding the Jiggle pin, in my opinion it's only purpose (even though Ford say's it to purge air) was to oil the timing chain. On the early blocks, the front wall, does not have a hole, to drain oil into the timing area. I have to drill my Edsel block to get that return hole.

The jiggle pin is addressed in Ford manuals, until the 1963 year, when the trust plate was used. So, I assume, that was the year that the front return hole was added.

I felt the need to clarify that to point out that if you have a jiggle pin or a converted block, to a thrust plate, you need to make sure that there is a return hole on the passenger side, front wall, to get oil to the timing area.

I did a ‘61 T-Bird 390 that had the button and the big hole in the front. 

[frnkeore]

A picture of my block.

If that 390 had one, maybe they added it with the introduction of that engine.

Anyone have pictures of the front of the block for early engines? It would be good to know when that return hole was added.

[blykins]

Here's an auction for a '59 352 block.  It has it. 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/254620298918

[frnkeore]

And another 58 block that doesn't:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/154600919011?hash=item23feeecfe3:g:UfgAAOSwo6NhJ3bK

It looks like Ford found that the jiggler alone, wasn't enough to lube the timing chain.

[blykins]

And another 58 block that doesn't:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/154600919011?hash=item23feeecfe3:g:UfgAAOSwo6NhJ3bK

It looks like Ford found that the jiggler along, was enough to lube the timing chain.

My guess is that during that first year of FE production, they found out that something needed to be changed.  Apparently the drain hole showed up in 1959.   Lots of engines relied on certain component splash oiling, maybe this was the era of change. 

[frnkeore]

I didn't proof read my post. It was meant to say this:

It looks like Ford found that the jiggler alone, wasn't enough to lube the timing chain.

[galaxiex]

Sorry for resurrecting an old thread.

In here I talked about getting a set of Molnar rods for my 428.
I ordered them last year and they cancelled my order. No availability.

Well I finally got a set. These came today. 


Now I will be able to sleep at night with these in the engine. 

[Mr Woodys Garage]

As Far As The Rocker Geometry Goes, I Have BAsically What YouDo, With The Exception Of Eagle H Beam Rods.Once Everything Was Assembled And Set Up, The Harlan Sharp Rockers I Have Were Good To Go, With No Modifications Other Than Centering The Rollers On The Valve Tips.Block Has Had The Same Machining Done To It.Be Sure To Check Valve To Piston Clearance With Those Pistons And TFS Heads. The Heads Are Awesome. I Have A Set That i Purchased Soon After They Came Out. I Discovered, After Some Advise From One Of The Well Known Members Of This Forum, And Checking Clearance After/During Cam Degreeing, That The TFS Valves Do Not Play Well With The CJ Pistons. TFS Moved The Intake Valve Slightly Compared To Common FE Location The Intake Valve Radial Clearance Is Too Close To The Edge Of The Valve Reliefs In The CJ Pistons You Show In Your Photo. It Would Be Better, If You Don't Already Have The Engine Assembled, To Obtain A Set Of Modern Dished Pistons To Avoid The Clearance Issue. Please Be Sure To Do The Clay Test When You Get Around To Assembling The Engine And Degreeing The Cam. I Had To Use The Isky Fly Cutter Tool To Obtain The Proper Radial Valve Clearance. The Cutter Uses The TFS Heads To Locate, So The Clearance Is Dead On. Just One Of Those Things That Is Good To Know In Advance.

[Rory428]

Somehow I must have missed this post before, so I have a few thoughts.
First off, I would have zero concerns about using a factory Ford cast crankshaft in an engine like this. I have been racing FEs since the 70s, and over the years, I have broke about everything in a FE, stock rods, split cylinder walls, split main webbing,even tore all the main webbing out of a 105 block, while using nitrous almost 35 years ago, broke everything valve train related,etc, but I have never had a factory crankshaft break. I ran the same 1U 428 crank in my low 10 second 428 for 14 years, (the crank outlasted 2 428 blocks), and it still magged good, my 427/454 ran high 9s with a stock 428 crank, and DalePs 427/454 ran 9.6s with a 428 Ford crank, and at a lot more RPM than I turn my stuff. Not to mention, these were in 4 speed drag cars, I typically dropped the clutch at 6000 RPM or more, never an issue.
 
Concerning the drilling of the oil plug behind the distributor, I have not done that in decades, and I have never had any issues with lack of oiling of the distributor or cam gear, or timing chain set.
REgarding the stock type pistons and TFS heads, I am still running the original "428 Super" cast pistons in the standard bore 428CJ in my 59. It is currently on the engine stand, and I am in the the process of installing my new TFS heads. I have mocked up the heads, checking for piston to valve clearance, and although the larger TFS intake valves are the tight spot, at least with the mild (.528" lift) solid flat tappet cam I have been running, both the soft spring and clay method, show there is no issue, .098" min. (The exhaust has tons of room).
As for factory rods, I have used stock rods for decades, never had any issues for many years, however, when I started racing FEs in the 70s, there were not many other choices, and I have made thousands of low 10 second 1/4 mile passes with LeMans and regular C7AE=B and CJ rods with better bolts, but back then, these rods were not 1/2 century old. I did have the occasional rod failure a couple of times, but now, unless I know that the rods history, I won`t use them in a performance built. My 427/454 had Crower rods, I had Eagles in my 331 SB Ford, and my current 347 SBF has Scat. That said, the 428 CJ in my 59 still has factory 13/32" CJ rods, I am using them, because it is a fairly low mileage engine, that had been sitting around my garage for over 30 years before I decided to freshen it up for the 59. That said, if I decide to rebuild this 428 again, or modify it , I have a new set of Scat rods that I will use. I just figured that for this budget build that will not see 6000 RPM, I will roll the dice.

[galaxiex]

Thanks much for the thoughtful and informative reply's. 

I will def mock up and check P to V clearance and pay attention to valve radial clearance.

I'm using the 428 crank I currently have, and will likely stay with the Speed Pro pistons as well, unless balancing becomes an issue.
I still have yet to tear it back down and start checking everything.
Probably get started this weekend.

The hyd roller was spec'd by @blykins and I don't have the cam card in front of me at the moment,
but I recall the lift was a touch over 0.600"
I have a decent degree wheel..... it will be used....

Additional stuff I bought....
I got the POP machined and thrust bearing Billit ? timing set, and a B pump from him as well.

I'll not drill any extra holes in galley plugs ie; behind the dist, nor in the main galley for an air bleed/jiggle pin.
I kinda thought holes there were not needed, it's nice to have confirmation of that.

Also not using any rocker tins or valley pan.
I do have a nice Canton screen type windage tray I'll use, just cuz I already have it.


The Crane roller rockers have the option of oiling thru the pushrods or thru the block.
I think the Morel lifters I got from Brent are capable too, so I'm leaning to pushrod oiling.