Thoughts on FE block?

[FESCJ]

Several years ago I had a "faux" 428SCJ built for a 69 Mach 1 Drag Pack clone. The engine builder was based in Arizona and had good feedback, seemed to know what he was doing. Keep in mind that this was before I knew that there was an FE power forum or any other related forum. Anyway, a while after I received the engine, I decided to trade out the stock oil pan for the Milodon deep sump SS style pan. I thought it was a good idea considering I was gonna run the oil cooler. When I had ordered the engine, the builder gave me the choice of an original service block or a mirror block. I chose the service block. So, I go to replace the pan only to find that once removed, the block was non reinforced. I tried contacting the builder whom is now out of business or retired. I have little doubt that this block is a 390 service block. I know that Ford made many different iterations of these blocks in standard or service block form. I guess there is a possibility that this block was conceived as a non reinforced 428 service block, but I find that unlikely. The pistons he used are Probe 428 .030 over. I am somewhat surprised at this, I mean if it is a true 390 service block, not sure why it wouldn't have machined to 428 standard bore? Anyway, for good or bad, this is the block that I have. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated! Thx, Brian

[GerryP]

It's a 428 block.  I have a Q-code 428 out of a 67 Thunderbird.  A-scratch on the back.  It does not the webbing of the later 428 C-scratch blocks.  There is no way you will be able to take a 390 block out .110".

[Gregwill16]

Two totally different animals from Gerry's A scratch that was most likely before the triple webbing (webbing started in late 66 on the A scratch blocks) and a later supposeded 428 service block. Most 390's would bore to a 428 bore, just be very thin and likelya ticking bomb. If your block doesn't have some sort of scratch on the rear bulkhead, I would be doing a sonic check to save you some grief.

[Tunnelwedge]

What is the date of the block and any id markings?

[1968galaxie]

Not all 428 blocks were 3 webbed blocks (visible inside pan rail when pan removed). (I think that is what you are asking about).
The service blocks had the external ribbing which is visible on the outside of the block.
I agree that a 390 block bored 0.110" would be paper thin.

[galaxiex]

Not all 428 blocks were 3 webbed blocks (visible inside pan rail when pan removed). (I think that is what you are asking about).
The service blocks had the external ribbing which is visible on the outside of the block.
I agree that a 390 block bored 0.110" would be paper thin.

Stick a light inside the bores and it would glow like a Chinese Lantern.

[frnkeore]

I wouldn't want to discourage FESCJ, to much.

We need more info on the block first. Pictures of the casting numbers and dates, would help, a lot.

It sounds like the engine isn't in the car yet so, he could pull a couple of expansion plugs and drill bit check it, too. It's a lot of money to be throwing away w/o doing a deep dive, into what the block is.

[FESCJ]

I appreciate the responses! To answer a few questions, there is no part number/engiNeering number on the block. I've never known service blocks to have that. The block is externally ribbed, no scratch on the back, and has date code of Dec 17th, 1971. And yes, I think the easiest thing to do at this point is the drill bit test which I will do. Engine is not yet in the car making anything I do much easier.

In my mind the numbers don't really add up. I mean, I asked this guy to build me a 428. If the block was standard bore 390 when he started, he only needed to go .080 for standard 428. Even if it was .030 over, he still only had to go .050. Were the bores really that bad to bore as far as he did? This is based on it being a 390. He used decent parts in building this engine, Scat crank, Probe pistons, and I sent him a set of Lemans rods. It would be hard for me to imagine him building an engine that he didn't expect to live?

Brian

[Gregwill16]

Brian there were 428 service blocks that didn't have any scratches on the rear bulkhead. But I was thinking they were later than 71 and also thought they had the triple webbing. What water passages does it have in the head decks? The 4.13" cores have a full triangle shape.
Definitely do some more checking on it as many 390's were punched out to 428 in the early days, by unfamiliar builders.

[Tunnelwedge]

The triangle.



Not the triangle.



I'd just run it. When it starts smoking then start worrying.

[Rory428]

The 428 in my 59 is one of those ribbed service blocks, with no rear bulkhead scratch, but as mentioned, it does have the triple webbing. Although it does not have a "C" scratch on the rear bulkhead, it had a yellow "C" , in yellow paint there, or at least did until the block was hot tanked over the winter. I bought the engine about 35 years ago, from a guy that had bought it in the mid 70s as an over the counter 428 Cobra Jet short block, and he gave me the Ford warranty card with it. I just had the engine laying around the shop for almost 30 years before I did anything with it, and when I tore it down, it had 1973 dated "DAB" crank bearings throughout, big bolt C7AE-B rods, which had 5/8" rod nuts, rather than the oddball 19/32" nuts all my regular production CJ rods had, standard bore pistons, with "428 Super" cast around the pin bosses, and a "1UB" crankshaft. It also had the 428 cast into the bottom of the water jacket, not between the center core plug holes, but rather visible thru the long slot at the rear of the deck surface. The 428 number was only really readable on one side, on the other side, it was hard to tell, as the engine had been installed in a PU truck for years, and had a lot of rusty scale and sediment in the water jackets. About 6 years ago, I did a ball hone on the block, and just put new rings on the original 428 Super pistons, had the crank ground  .010 and dynoed it with a small Oregon Cam solid flat tappet cam, which I posted on the dyno results page, under "near stock 428 CJ". After it hurt #8 rod bearing shortly before last years FE Reunion, I did a proper rebuild, including having the block sonic checked before having it bored .030", and the cylinder walls were all in the .175-.200" thickness range, at standard. I also did the drill bit test, and although I would have to look for the numbers, I seem to recall that they were all pretty narrow. I only have about 500-600 miles since the last build, and it runs great, with no issues of running hot. So if the OP has a similar block, he should be fine. I will have to double check, but I seem to recall the block casting date was for 1973, and it does have the triangle shaped water holes in the deck, but I have had several later triple web 360/390 "105" ribbed blocks, that also have the triangle water holes, so that alone is not definitive.

[67xr7cat]

Certainly want to check it out to find out what it is, but I doubt it is a 428 block.  A lot of guys believed all those blocks with the external ribs were 428 service blocks which is not true.  I have a DIF block just like the one the OP describes with a similar date code and std webbing. It is just a 360/390 block.  As for how it may be .030" over 428.  It likely started life with a 390 bore and at some point someone thought it was a 428 block and bored it out and ran it. Your builder gets it, is 428 std size and likely honestly believed it was a 428 service block not being an FE expert, rebuilds it, and bores it .030" over as part of the rebuild.  Would not be the first time.  Although I'd never recommend boring a 390 block out to 428 size, it has been done and a few did survive. 

Before using it I'd find out what it is, and I'd sonic check in any case. 

[Gaugster]

I'd just like to thank everyone for sharing accurate details and being thorough. Over the years this site in particular has helped me tremendously to search out real deal good parts without any of the "drama".

Cheers!