390 short block ????

[George vega]

 :-\I picked up a c6me 390 short block. I did the drill bit test and the 13/64 bit fit between the cyl. I tried a 17/64 and definitely didn't fit. Do I have a block that can be bored to 4.130 (428)? Or am I better off rebuilding the 390 and installing my ebock heads on it? My heads have 2.15 and 172 valves. Will those valves clear the 4.05 bore? If not what is the minimum bore size that I will need. Thanks

[fekbmax]

id go .030 on the 390, use your heads, should be fine with the valve combo in those at 4.080 . make up your cid with a good stroker kit and have a stout FE.

[George vega]

Thanks

[jayb]

+1 on what Keith said, the drill bit test won't tell you about core shift, only a sonic test will do that.  So, the drill bit test might make you think you have thick enough walls, but if there is core shift involved you could get dangerously thin...

[George vega]

Thanks, I thought about that. .030 over is good for me. I'll have it checked out first.

[George vega]

This is the current engine I want to replace the bock.
It's  making about 600 + hp.

[gdaddy01]

why ?

[George vega]

Because it has 3 sleeves and they are leaking water into the combustion chambs.

[fekbmax]

that be a good reason..

[scott foxwell]

Why not go 4.10 or 4.11? Pistons are available. Take advantage of a bigger bore but don't push it all the way to 4.13. I have the same block and that's my plan. Seems a lot of early 428 blocks used this same enginering number. I will probably have mine sonic checked and even if I can I really don't want to punch it all the way out. I'm shooting for the same HP level and like the idea of a little more wall thickness in the cyls.
JMO

[thatdarncat]

The C6ME casting number is meaningless to determine if it is a 428. A 428 block will have actual 428 cylinder cores. George has a 390 block. In my opinion it would be a better idea to keep the cylinder walls as thick as possible, you get better ring seal, along with the strength. Going from 4.08 ( .030 over ) to 4.10 only gives you 4 more cubic inches, the risk vs reward isn't there. There are better ways to gain a few hp. Again, just my .02

[George vega]

I cleaned the block today and chased all the threaded holes. All the bores were 3.050 and the rod journal's were 2.378. I haven't measured the mains but they look very nice. This block was originally painted light blue and someone else painted it black. It will get the dark blue when I paint it.

[scott foxwell]

The C6ME casting number is meaningless to determine if it is a 428. A 428 block will have actual 428 cylinder cores. George has a 390 block. In my opinion it would be a better idea to keep the cylinder walls as thick as possible, you get better ring seal, along with the strength. Going from 4.08 ( .030 over ) to 4.10 only gives you 4 more cubic inches, the risk vs reward isn't there. There are better ways to gain a few hp. Again, just my .02

Well, now, I didn't say it was a 428 block. The C6ME casting is not meaningless. It's not the holy grail but go back and re-read what I said...a lot of the early 428 blocks had the C6ME engineering number. His block passed the drill bit test which again, isn't the holy grail but another indicator that it has the thicker "428" cylinders. Not a 428 block, but maybe the predecessor? The idea behind going bigger on the bore is not more displacement, it's breathing ability, and going another .050-.060 on the bore can be significant when it comes to breathing and that's one of the best ways to make more than just a few extra HP. -IF- the block can "safely" be bored to 4.13 I still wouldn't do it because I agree...keeping the cylinders thicker is better but there's no reason to not take advantage of the available bore without getting excessive.

[scott foxwell]

I cleaned the block today and chased all the threaded holes. All the bores were 3.050 and the rod journal's were 2.378. I haven't measured the mains but they look very nice. This block was originally painted light blue and someone else painted it black. It will get the dark blue when I paint it.

George, what's your current combination?

[George vega]

My current combo is an early 64 390 block  with the nubs that was cross bolted, filled with hard block and then bored to 4.130 and lined honed. It has an eagle crank, rods, weisco 13 to 1 pistons, Crain roller cam and lifters, ebock heads fully ported, with 2.15 and 1.72 valves, Crain springs, victor intake ported to match the heads, msd ignition. Use a cobrajet c6 with a tci kit and brake. In my mustang it has run 10.19 at 130 mph leaving at 3500 and shifting at 6000.

[unclewill]

Nice!

[scott foxwell]

My current combo is an early 64 390 block  with the nubs that was cross bolted, filled with hard block and then bored to 4.130 and lined honed. It has an eagle crank, rods, weisco 13 to 1 pistons, Crain roller cam and lifters, ebock heads fully ported, with 2.15 and 1.72 valves, Crain springs, victor intake ported to match the heads, msd ignition. Use a cobrajet c6 with a tci kit and brake. In my mustang it has run 10.19 at 130 mph leaving at 3500 and shifting at 6000.

What stroke?

[George vega]

3.98, 428.

The marking pics are on my new block.

[scott foxwell]

I have an identical complete S code engine.

[George vega]

So far it looks like a good solid core.

[jayb]

George, do you have any pictures of the deck of the block?  From those you can tell if it has the 428 water jacket cores (and thicker cylinders).

[scott foxwell]

The block I have which I'm guessing is the same as the one George has does not have the 428 water passages but does pass the drill test and it passes the test between all the cylinders so you can rule out at least front to back core shift.
I'm going to punch mine out to 4.11 and use the Icon IC868 piston, 3.98 stroke steel crank and a 6.80 Chevy rod. I'm having Adney Brown build me an offset ground truck crank with a 3.98 stroke and 2.20 Chevy journal. The piston has a pretty big dish but it's going to be .008 out of the hole so I'll take another .010 off the deck, take .018 off the piston and bring the compression up to a little over 10:1. Only thing I wish I could do is get a better ring pack but 1/16 x 2, 3/16 isn't the end of the world for a 600hp street engine. I really like the Icon pistons.

[blykins]

Scott, sent you a PM....

[George vega]

George, do you have any pictures of the deck of the block?  From those you can tell if it has the 428 water jacket cores (and thicker cylinders).

I've  already looked Jay. The water passages are real clean. I looked at the center freeze plugs and at the floor of the rear water jacket. It does pass the drill test in all the cylinders.

[jayb]

I was talking about the shape of the water jacket holes in the deck.  The 428 water jacket cores leave a hole in the deck that extends down below the head bolt hole, while a 390 water jacket core hole doesn't, see the pics below.

390:





428:

[thatdarncat]

Jay, one thing for everyone to note - Dennis K, who supplied that blueprint you have referenced, has commented on the FE Facebook page, that the FE block deck water passage shape info ( short triangle for 390, tall triangle for 428, round hole for 427 ) ONLY applies to DIF cast blocks. The later MCC cast blocks ( like the D3TE & D4TE ) will tend to have the "428" style water passage shape, but do not have the 428 cylinder cores since MCC never cast 428 blocks. Just something to know so people don't mistakenly apply that tip to those blocks.

[fomocoloco]

i have one of those 64 blocks. it is at a fresh .030 bore. i have not had it sonic tested.

jim oberg

[blykins]

I would be very leery about taking any 390 block to 4.130".  I've tried several times and was able to do it 1 out of 4 times...wasted 3 blocks in the process, even after sonic testing them.  You would have to sonic test every square inch of a cylinder and even if you get a block that looks thick, it can really be thin in spots.  In addition to that, there's really no reason to do it, especially when you can make up the displacement (and a ton more) with a crankshaft.  Ring seal and reliability are paramount.

[Gregwill16]

+1 Brent. After Dale showed me how to sonic check one block and then let me sonic several others of my own, the person doing it has to have some integrity and move around and record the thinnest spot or the check is very misleading.

[George vega]

I was talking about the shape of the water jacket holes in the deck.  The 428 water jacket cores leave a hole in the deck that extends down below the head bolt hole, while a 390 water jacket core hole doesn't, see the pics below.

390:





428:

This is a pic of the deck Jay. It has flashing that hasn't been removed yet in some of the cooling holes.

[George vega]

Jay if you are referring to the triangular hole to the right of the bolt hole, yes the floor is way beyond the bottom of the threads of the head bolts.
Nevermind I get it. I guess my block failed that test also. I'm convinced it's just a regular block. It doesn't even have the ribs.

[mike7570]

I was talking about the shape of the water jacket holes in the deck.  The 428 water jacket cores leave a hole in the deck that extends down below the head bolt hole, while a 390 water jacket core hole doesn't, see the pics below.

390:




428:

This is a pic of the deck Jay. It has flashing that hasn't been removed yet in some of the cooling holes.

We had this conversation before about my block. I have the same (I think) 390 block. Mine is crossbolted and it's already bored to 4.13.
I have it in being sonic checked right now and should have it back on Friday.

[George vega]

It's getting harder to find virgin fe blocks of any kind. I'm going to keep my eyes and ears out there from now on. I won't turn down any 390 blocks. I've only interest in 428 and 427 but not any more.

[jayb]

Jay if you are referring to the triangular hole to the right of the bolt hole, yes the floor is way beyond the bottom of the threads of the head bolts.

I was talking about the water jacket holes at the top of the deck, next to the head bolt holes.  What you have there is a normal 390 water jacket block.

[George vega]

It's getting harder to find virgin fe blocks of any kind. I'm going to keep my eyes and ears out there from now on. I won't turn down any 390 blocks. I've only interest in 428 and 427 but not any more.

Let us know the results.

[fekbmax]

I'll probably get blasted for this (again) but i always liked using the 105 mirror blocks. Especially the D3TE and a few D4TE . Most all have the webbing around the mains, most have decently thick cylinders  BUT they should always be checked. I have had a couple D4TE blocks that checked out initially with thick cylinders but were so sloppy with core shift that by the time you straightened out the bores at 4.130 there would be some pretty thin spots.  I always use block fill though being there race only engine's.  As has been mentioned though, now with all the stroker cranks and custom piston's, theres really no need to force the issue and stretch out the bore so much. You can get a decently sized valve combo with modern aluminum heads in a 4.080 bore.

[George vega]

Agree. The block that I'm replacing is a c4te with the nubs and ribs. It's a race only block. I'm  looking to maybe converting my mustang back to a street and strip car.  If I start with a small bore it will leave material for growth.

[scott foxwell]

IMO adding a bunch of stroke just to increase displacement is not always the way to go. Adding stroke increases piston speed. Increasing piston speed increases induction demand, and induction is not the FE's strong point.

[blykins]

There are no absolutes....and there are a ton of STRONG 445's out there running with a 4.250" stroke. 

But trying to bore a block just to get a magic number is most certainly not the wisest thing to do. 

I had a BBM head that we did some R&D on....raised the floor, did a little SSR work, and with a 2.100" valve it got us 340 cfm with around 170cc port volume.  A 2.100" valve will work with pretty much any bore size.  On a 4.030" 352 bore, I could get to .800" lift before any valve/cylinder interference occurred.

[scott foxwell]

There are no absolutes....and there are a ton of STRONG 445's out there running with a 4.250" stroke. 

But trying to bore a block just to get a magic number is most certainly not the wisest thing to do. 

I had a BBM head that we did some R&D on....raised the floor, did a little SSR work, and with a 2.100" valve it got us 340 cfm with around 170cc port volume.  A 2.100" valve will work with pretty much any bore size.  On a 4.030" 352 bore, I could get to .800" lift before any valve/cylinder interference occurred.

This conversation could go in SO many directions...
I'm used to the BB Chev world where we work with much bigger displacements, bores, and heads but still, while
others are building 600 ci pump gas engines (4.60 x 4.5) and happy to get 700hp, we have focused on a 4" stroke combination (4.60 bore, 532ci) that makes 840hp and 720 lbs ft. at 6500/5000 respectively, hyd roller on 93 oct. "Philosophically" adding stroke, especially going over square, brings other things to the table that aren't very conducive to making power especially when rod ratio starts getting short. Making power is all about piston speed. Sure, you're going to make more power by increasing displacement, that's a given, but not at the rate you could be if the rest of the combination was there to match. A short stroke large bore 440ci engine is a lot less demanding than a long stroke, small bore engine of the same displacement and easier to make more hp/ci and without turning a bunch of rpm. RPM is an easy way to make HP but it also brings it's challenges.
I'm going to do an experiment this winter. I'm going to build a 422 ci combination that I started to describe above; 4.11 bore (.060 over 390) 3.98 stroke, but with a 6.8 rod and about 10.5:1 CR with a Straub hyd roller. I'm either going to use a set of Edelbrocks or FElony heads. My induction systems are all designed around cross sectional areas. Port volumes, especially with an FE head (because the port is so short) really don't tell me much. The "port" starts at the valve job and ends in the plenum. Where the head and intake come together is pretty arbitrary and insignificant. I'll have to do some cross sectional measurements on the FE heads and intakes to see what I'm working with. I work around a designed minimum cross section/restriction in the port ahead of the short turn and the location of that minimum restriction is relatively critical. I know all this stuff about a BB Chev like the back of my hand, but never dove onto the FE like this. I've made 1.57, almost 1.58 hp/ci with the 4" stroke combination BB Chev. No vac pump, no crank trigger, no trick oil pan, hyd roller, pump gas, but a lot of focus on induction and valve train. I'm going to see if I can apply everything to the FE that I've learned in the last few years developing this combination. If it works, I should be looking at somewhere around 665hp and hopefully high 500 tq, like 570 or so. A lot will depend on what intake I end up with. Not many good selections in that regard.
LOL...I'm rambling on...I know...

[blykins]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you have said, but I don't think it's a general rule and doesn't always apply.  Lots of very excellent small bore/large stroke combos out there. 

Good luck to you on the horsepower goal.  Barry had a similar combination for his 433 ci EMC entry.  You'll either need to approach it from that direction, or go catch a ride on Jim Morgan's dyno. 

[scott foxwell]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you have said, but I don't think it's a general rule and doesn't always apply.  Lots of very excellent small bore/large stroke combos out there. 

Good luck to you on the horsepower goal.  Barry had a similar combination for his 433 ci EMC entry.  You'll either need to approach it from that direction, or go catch a ride on Jim Morgan's dyno.

Sure there are some very good running small bore/large stroke combinations. They have the induction to support the demand. It's not an opinion, it's just physics.
I guess I don't get the dyno comment... 

[blykins]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you have said, but I don't think it's a general rule and doesn't always apply.  Lots of very excellent small bore/large stroke combos out there. 

Good luck to you on the horsepower goal.  Barry had a similar combination for his 433 ci EMC entry.  You'll either need to approach it from that direction, or go catch a ride on Jim Morgan's dyno.

Sure there are some very good running small bore/large stroke combinations. They have the induction to support the demand. It's not an opinion, it's just physics.
I guess I don't get the dyno comment... 

 

[Barry_R]

I have kinda kept quiet lately and stuck to getting projects finished - was pretty backed up.  But a couple thoughts need to be mentioned.

First is cylinder wall thickness needs to be sonic checked on any FE going beyond perhaps .030 or .040 over from the factory dimensions.  Its not an option - its a true necessity.  I have seen one 390 that would not safely go 4.100 - was already at .080 wall at 4.090.  And I have seen only a couple that were safe at 4.130 - one of those had all the 428 markings including "C" scratch even though it started at 4.050 bore.  The drill bit test is a useful quick tool for picking through cores, but is an exclusion tool only and not in any way definitive for block decisions.  Same is true for the deck ID.

Scott - compared to BBC stuff you are in a completely different universe when dealing with factory FE castings.  Your discard thickness on a Chevy block would be considered as a "really good thick one" in our universe.  The flexibility of the cylinder cores means that a thin cross section high conformability ring package is even more valuable in our FE engines than is normally the case.  In the FE environment another .020 or .030 in bore diameter is not anywhere near as important as wall thickness and ring seal when measured on a risk vs reward scale.  Aftermarket 427 blocks change the entire discussion.

I am generally in favor of bigger bore and shorter stroke for a given displacement, but when other factors are limiters, such as wall thickness, you go with the best available option.  I have built similar engines dues to rules that were radically different.  One was 429 cid with a 4.250 bore and a 3.780 stroke, another was at 4.33 with a 4.350 bore and a 3.640 stroke.  The big bore was (is - its still in my car) a better piece, but the variances were far smaller than I expected considering the investment and effort.  My larger displacement stuff is stronger anyways.

I agree with the head cross section and induction from valve to plenum concepts.  Remember that an FE head has the pushrod pinch in the intake, which changes things a bit.  It would be interesting if somebody developed a head package with a chunk of manifold mounted to the head (ooops - Cary and John did that with me in like '05). 

I am not as strongly "sold" on the piston speed as a big determinant of power deal.  I tend to look at cylinder volume delta instead - at a given displacement you are going to see one side of the bore options pull harder on that port initially and then they are going to equalize.  An initial hard pull might not be a bad thing on a flow limited port - use what you can steal early while overall flow is at a lower and less limited point.  Those long strokers on an FE outperform what should be the case and I think this is one of the reasons why.  If I sound a bit like Marcella its because I listen to him when he talks.  Sharp cat and just a bit scary smart....and he live 20 minutes away.

I tend to look at things from a torque per cubic inch viewpoint as a result of all the EMC efforts.  Horsepower is really an RPM equation - want more - spin any given combo higher and you will get more with cam/valvetrain until you run out of physics or money.  That is the path of every single successful professional race effort on earth.  Build as much displacement as the rules allow using bore first until you reach mechanical limitations, and then stroke, and then turn as many RPM as rules, parts, and wallet permit.

Torque ain't so easy to move.  Most of my street stuff seems to dwell between 1.15 and 1.25 to 1 on lbs per cube.  Your BBC example is at the 1.3+ range which would be a really strong street/race engine.  My best EMC FE stuff gets into the 1.42-1.44 TQ/cube range and takes a ton of cool parts, machining and tuning effort to get there.  When I see things posted with otherwise "normal" parts that are claiming 1.5-1.6:1 torque per cube I tend to question the data since that is EMC winning output from engines developed by really sharp folks using far better base architecture to start with.

[scott foxwell]

Couldn't agree with you more Barry, especially about cyl wall thickness. I realize the difference between the BB Chev's I'm used to and the FE. My comparison was mostly philosophical regarding stroke, piston speed, induction, etc. Marcella is a sharp guy...I agree but we're probably not on the same page regarding a hard initial pull on a small port...if I understand you correctly. Also, when I refer to stroke being detrimental, that usually includes a shorter rod ratio. If you can keep the rod ratio decent then the added stroke is far less detrimental but you're right, at the end of the day (or beginning) the rings have to seal. This is the sort of thing I'm learning about the FE and it's limitations. I'll definitely be sonic checking my block before I do anything. Thanks for your input.
Curious, since you mentioned it, do you know where the minimum cross section is in the FE induction? Is it at the pushrod pinch or @ the opening, or is it in the port? Do you have an area number for your heads?
As far as tq/ci my best is 1.68 (611 BBF, 1030 tq)...I've had a few in the 1.42 - 1.44 range. The pump gas stuff usually runs in the 1.3 - 1.35 range but I have an unfair advantage with Straub doing the cams.
Thanks again.

[mike7570]

A lot will depend on what intake I end up with. Not many good selections in that regard.

There are many FE intakes (Jay has an entire book on them) and many more are now available with his adapter. There must be something out there that you would like?

[fekbmax]

Hell, with one of his adapters the selection is even greater

[blykins]

Yep, with CHI making 3V, 4V, and even dual plane 3V intakes, there's an excellent selection if you use Jay's adapter.

[fekbmax]

Brent,
In your opinion how does the 4v parker racing funnel web compare  to the CHI 4v ?

[blykins]

If you're trying to take advantage of a full sized 4V port, the CHI 4V intake won't work.  It's meant to be used with 4V ports that have port fillers, or tongues.  The Funnel Web is an excellent intake, as is the older Holley Strip Dominator.   Both of them kick booty. 

The 3V intakes are proprietary and are meant to be used with the 3V heads, which have very small (high velocity) ports.   CHI also has a "Pro" intake that does not have a valley plate cast into it and looks more like a Roush/Yates intake.  It will support 900 hp without any work, right out of the box.  The catch is that it's for the "Pro Port" 3V heads which have the intake ports 1/2" higher than the normal 3V heads.

[scott foxwell]

I'm pretty familiar with what's available for FE intakes. The adapter is a nice piece, but not one of the intakes that work with it are made for an FE so I'll stand by my statement. I don't even consider a $650.00 adapter, so I can use another $4-500.00 intake, a viable option. Like I said, not many GOOD intakes made for an FE. Lots of 60's technology. About the only real "modern" intake for teh FE is the Edelbrock Victor and it's hardly modern. The design has it's limitations.

[blykins]

Lots of 60's technology, but it works.  Some of them have limitations (the FE head/intake layout IS a limitation), but we work around them. 

A Performer RPM or a Blue Thunder 1x4 MR would support your theoretical horsepower goal.   A Victor FE or Tunnel Wedge will support insane amounts of power. 

As Barry noted, the FE doesn't translate power like a BBC or a SBF.  It's a different engine with a different learning curve.

[mike7570]

I'm pretty familiar with what's available for FE intakes. The adapter is a nice piece, but not one of the intakes that work with it are made for an FE so I'll stand by my statement. I don't even consider a $650.00 adapter, so I can use another $4-500.00 intake, a viable option. Like I said, not many GOOD intakes made for an FE. Lots of 60's technology. About the only real "modern" intake for teh FE is the Edelbrock Victor and it's hardly modern. The design has it's limitations.

Scott, reading your post I get you know what your talking about however if your going to build an FE you just can't be thinking in the back of your mind about what the cost are compared to a Chevy. Everything cost more (a lot more) than a Chevy. LOL 
That's just something you have to get use to, it's also part of the fun to build a strong engine from what others consider old or obsolete technology.
And if you just need that bowtie fix, the FE in my super-gas car had Chevy rods, pistons, pins, rings, water pump and a powerglide in it..

[Barry_R]

I'm pretty familiar with what's available for FE intakes. The adapter is a nice piece, but not one of the intakes that work with it are made for an FE so I'll stand by my statement. I don't even consider a $650.00 adapter, so I can use another $4-500.00 intake, a viable option. Like I said, not many GOOD intakes made for an FE. Lots of 60's technology. About the only real "modern" intake for teh FE is the Edelbrock Victor and it's hardly modern. The design has it's limitations.

Probably correct on that one.  Note the intakes I used on many EMC entries when the manifold rules were fairly open.  Mostly dual planes.  I have a really, really nicely modified Victor and the BT dual plane still usually came out on top - huge gains below torque peak and gave up essentially nothing at peak.  One of the issues is port positions on the head - the unobtanium BT high riser stuff fixes that nicely but you cannot buy any kind of decent intake for that combination - I can put a medium riser intake on one but the work required borders on the epic.  John wanted to do a real race quality intake & head package for the FE with radical changes, but the vast majority of the FE crowd is very traditional and I was afraid I would end up with a really bitchin' part and I would sell like six of them....

[scott foxwell]

Lots of 60's technology, but it works.  Some of them have limitations (the FE head/intake layout IS a limitation), but we work around them. 

A Performer RPM or a Blue Thunder 1x4 MR would support your theoretical horsepower goal.   A Victor FE or Tunnel Wedge will support insane amounts of power. 

As Barry noted, the FE doesn't translate power like a BBC or a SBF.  It's a different engine with a different learning curve.

Bingo. Every engine is a compromise.  To me, it's not an "FE", it's just a combination of parts that have their limitations. I try to not get roped into the thinking of "well, it's an "FE", so this or that must be true". I'll try not to expect too much.

[scott foxwell]

I'm pretty familiar with what's available for FE intakes. The adapter is a nice piece, but not one of the intakes that work with it are made for an FE so I'll stand by my statement. I don't even consider a $650.00 adapter, so I can use another $4-500.00 intake, a viable option. Like I said, not many GOOD intakes made for an FE. Lots of 60's technology. About the only real "modern" intake for teh FE is the Edelbrock Victor and it's hardly modern. The design has it's limitations.

Probably correct on that one.  Note the intakes I used on many EMC entries when the manifold rules were fairly open.  Mostly dual planes.  I have a really, really nicely modified Victor and the BT dual plane still usually came out on top - huge gains below torque peak and gave up essentially nothing at peak.  One of the issues is port positions on the head - the unobtanium BT high riser stuff fixes that nicely but you cannot buy any kind of decent intake for that combination - I can put a medium riser intake on one but the work required borders on the epic.  John wanted to do a real race quality intake & head package for the FE with radical changes, but the vast majority of the FE crowd is very traditional and I was afraid I would end up with a really bitchin' part and I would sell like six of them....

The demand definitely drives the supply. I'm used to, say, half a dozen really good choices that I can work with but even then, I very very seldom have less than about ten hours in an intake before it goes on an engine. Typically closer to 20-25 hours. A full-on race port on an intake can take 40 hrs. I'm looking forward to the challenge of learning the quirks of this platform and appreciate all the input everyone is offering here. I have total respect for you and others that have put the time and effort into something pretty archaic and bringing it into a comparable performance level. I think the FE is a very cool engine.

[scott foxwell]

I'm pretty familiar with what's available for FE intakes. The adapter is a nice piece, but not one of the intakes that work with it are made for an FE so I'll stand by my statement. I don't even consider a $650.00 adapter, so I can use another $4-500.00 intake, a viable option. Like I said, not many GOOD intakes made for an FE. Lots of 60's technology. About the only real "modern" intake for teh FE is the Edelbrock Victor and it's hardly modern. The design has it's limitations.

Scott, reading your post I get you know what your talking about however if your going to build an FE you just can't be thinking in the back of your mind about what the cost are compared to a Chevy. Everything cost more (a lot more) than a Chevy. LOL 
That's just something you have to get use to, it's also part of the fun to build a strong engine from what others consider old or obsolete technology.
And if you just need that bowtie fix, the FE in my super-gas car had Chevy rods, pistons, pins, rings, water pump and a powerglide in it..

The FE has become a niche engine. There are a lot of baby boomers who grew up with this engine who have their retirements and their 401K's to play with. It has become very popular again. They can afford a $1700 intake manifold and the sellers know it but it really hurts the grass roots guy who would like to build a nice FE but can no more afford a $1700 intake than could an original AC Cobra. Some of the prices I see guys putting on these parts is absurd and IMO no way justified other than they know SOMEONE out there will pay. I don't consider it fun at all. I don't mind paying a fair price for a good part and even a little of a premium for a "rare" part but greed and gouging I will never get used to.

[jayb]

I'm pretty familiar with what's available for FE intakes. The adapter is a nice piece, but not one of the intakes that work with it are made for an FE so I'll stand by my statement. I don't even consider a $650.00 adapter, so I can use another $4-500.00 intake, a viable option. Like I said, not many GOOD intakes made for an FE. Lots of 60's technology. About the only real "modern" intake for teh FE is the Edelbrock Victor and it's hardly modern. The design has it's limitations.

Just to correct any misconceptions, my intake adapters are $569, not $650, assuming you buy them through my web site (not ebay).  No one has done more FE intake testing than me, and after all the intake testing I've done, I'm confident in saying that the adapter plus a 351C Weiand tunnel ram is top of the mark for an FE intake.  There is nothing better (outside of a sheet metal manifold), and that includes a tunnel wedge or a Victor.  Plus, there are other advantages of the adapter, including options to use intakes that are just not available for the FE (the Trick Flow EFI intakes come to mind), access to the valley without removing the valve covers, distributor, or breaking the water jacket, better clearance to the pushrods (or custom pushrod hole locations, if you need that), custom porting options, and ease of swapping from one intake to another.  Its true that the adapter plus a 351C intake is going to be more expensive than a straight up FE intake like a Performer RPM or a Victor, but it would actually be cheaper than a lot of the older intakes that you see advertised (the crossram intakes and factory tunnel wedge intakes come to mind).  Induction systems can get expensive for the FE; we don't have the options that more mainstream engines have.  As a result the intake adapter fills a niche for FE enthusiasts, and offers intake flexibility that otherwise wouldn't exist.

[fekbmax]

Plus the fact that you offer several different adapters that can be worked to fit some of the trick 351c intakes that Brent was speaking of, as well as the straight port (which i want one of lol) that makes a nice base for a fabricated manifold. 

[fekbmax]

Id love to see a book of test with your adapters and several intakes. Would love to see how the funnel web and CHI along with others performed or if i lived close by i could drop my simi fabricated 2X4 off at your door for sbits and giggles testing..

[scott foxwell]

I'm pretty familiar with what's available for FE intakes. The adapter is a nice piece, but not one of the intakes that work with it are made for an FE so I'll stand by my statement. I don't even consider a $650.00 adapter, so I can use another $4-500.00 intake, a viable option. Like I said, not many GOOD intakes made for an FE. Lots of 60's technology. About the only real "modern" intake for teh FE is the Edelbrock Victor and it's hardly modern. The design has it's limitations.

Just to correct any misconceptions, my intake adapters are $569, not $650, assuming you buy them through my web site (not ebay).  No one has done more FE intake testing than me, and after all the intake testing I've done, I'm confident in saying that the adapter plus a 351C Weiand tunnel ram is top of the mark for an FE intake.  There is nothing better (outside of a sheet metal manifold), and that includes a tunnel wedge or a Victor.  Plus, there are other advantages of the adapter, including options to use intakes that are just not available for the FE (the Trick Flow EFI intakes come to mind), access to the valley without removing the valve covers, distributor, or breaking the water jacket, better clearance to the pushrods (or custom pushrod hole locations, if you need that), custom porting options, and ease of swapping from one intake to another.  Its true that the adapter plus a 351C intake is going to be more expensive than a straight up FE intake like a Performer RPM or a Victor, but it would actually be cheaper than a lot of the older intakes that you see advertised (the crossram intakes and factory tunnel wedge intakes come to mind).  Induction systems can get expensive for the FE; we don't have the options that more mainstream engines have.  As a result the intake adapter fills a niche for FE enthusiasts, and offers intake flexibility that otherwise wouldn't exist.

Do you have any idea how OLD a 351C TR is from a modern design stand point? Talk about 60's technology. If that's the "top of the mark" for teh FE, that's sad. I understand all the other benefits of your adapter but to say it's no more expensive than some of the other OUTDATED exotic intakes isn't much of a selling point...since they're also WAY overpriced. But, like everyone keeps saying...it is what it is with the FE when it comes to cost.
The biggest problem with the intake on an FE is 1) bore space on an FE limits displacement, and 2) deck height calls for LONG runners. It would be difficult to build a "correct" intake for an FE given runner length and positioning constraints.

[Joe-JDC]

You are on the wrong forum if you keep bashing the FE, and Jay's adapter.  I have ported all the intakes for a FE over the years, and most every Cleveland intake, small block ford intakes, and even EFI intakes and cut apart EFI plenums and ported them and welded them back together.  A Cleveland Tunnel Ram is not '60s technology by any means, and the cross sectional area promotes good velocity on a larger engines.  A Victor 427 intake will flow over 500 cfm when ported properly, and the RPM 430+cfm, Streetmaster 360+cfm, Street Dominator 370+, Blue Thunder 4V 390+ cfm, Ford Sidewinder 375+cfm, Ford PI 360+ cfm, CJ iron 350+, Ford 6V 340+, 8V MR 430+, 8V Tunnel Wedge 500+, Performer 300+, Blue Thunder 8V 430+, Dove 4V 500+, Motorsports Victor 500+, and Jay's adapter with Cleveland 4V over 500+cfm.  Need I go on???  There are more intakes I have ported over 45 years, but those came to mind for the FE after reading your cutting remarks about the FE.  I like other Ford engines as well as the next guy, but I do not bash the FE, especially on a FE forum.  Not cool!  Joe-JDC

[fekbmax]

we can only use whats available for us to use or have a custom manifold made. id dare say that since lets say 1970 the FE has less than 1% of RnD compared to the BB cheby by the major truly high performance parts manufactures so its up to a hand full of awesome FE engine builders, another hand full of awesome intake and head guys and a ton of dedicated garage and back yard guys to get all we can get and ring all the power we can out of this amazing , iconic, nostalgic FE engine. people forget that in its day, it went toe to toe with every american V8 as well as the best the rest of the world had to offer and 8 times outa 10 the FE KICKED THERE ASS ..                                  its been a slow, long, and expensive journey but i only see things continuing to get better for the FE.

[blykins]

Scott, in my years of being in the business, I've learned to be straight to the point to people....which means I sometimes come across as crass. 

With that being said, I may indeed come across as crass, but I'll echo Joe's comments.  Some of your posts have been a little inflammatory.   It's really not common courtesy to just pop onto a forum one day, speak over everyone with an assumption of authority, then proceed to knock on the shortcomings of the FE.  It's sort of a family here on this forum and on the other FE forum and we are all aware of the design issues of the FE.   For a Chevy guy to pop on and remind us of it and then take some pot shots at the forum owner's intake adapters, well.....it's just not in good taste.

[shady]

surely you googled him, right?

[blykins]

I knew of Scott way before he was ever on this forum. 

Doesn't really excuse him from taking shots at Jay's intake adapters or coming on here to tell us how lacking the FE design is. 

That's kinda like knowing that your sister is ugly, but hearing a stranger walk up and tell her so.   

[jayb]

For my part, I have no objection to any of Scott's comments, and welcome his contributions to the forum.  Sorry if my previous post seemed a little defensive, but the fact remains that the intake adapter plus Weiand tunnel ram outperforms any of the other readily available intakes.  Now, if you start thinking about putting lots of hours into hand porting an intake, I'm not sure that this statement is still true.  I've never done that with the intake adapter + tunnel ram setup, so I don't have any data to share on that.  But I think I'd still bet on it, given equal amounts of time in preparation. 

One issue that we all deal with in the FE world is that the basic cylinder head design was done in the mid 1950s.  Its not modern by any means.  Couple that with the unique design, where essentially part of the cylinder head is contained within the intake manifold, and your options for improvement of the basic induction design are pretty limited.    Despite that, a lot of folks are making real good power out of the FE.  I've seen several 850 to 950 HP versions (my high riser made 860), and of course there's Jim Gonia's max effort engine, which made 1100+ on the dyno.  With a sheet metal intake bolted to one of my intake adapters, I might add...

[Joe-JDC]

I would be glad to port a tunnel ram for you with adapter and let you do a back to back comparison between a stock one and a ported one.  Gratis!  Joe-JDC

[My427stang]

So late to the game here, but I think a lot of this is "master of the obvious"  Long runners, small CSA, wedge chamber, tight bore spacing, nothing we haven't talked about before.

A couple points I'll bring up are:

The intake was a bottleneck right behind the heads, when better (not BBC/BBF/CHI better, but better) heads came available, the available intakes became a problem, Jay's offering fixed that cheaper than sheetmetal and allowed those who want sheetmetal to not have to build a complex (and wet) custom intake. Good on Jay ......despite a C not being mainstream either, having the wet section of the intake separate uncomplicates things.

However,  overall intake runner length, taper, CSA (not so much volume for me other than recent discussion of some small fast ports), piston speed and acceleration, valve events, etc, these are not new things to many of this crowd, in fact I think this forum more than the other sort of supports that fix. I don't love the choices I have to work with, but some of us even play with water hammer theory intake tuning and plenum sizing to the best that we can.

Good luck on the 422, I think you will like a rocker design that doesn't take a posi locks and girdles, a crank that doesn't hang below the block casting and I am looking forward to see what you come up with.  Of course overlap in a wedge chamber behaves differently,  valve inclination is different, low flat intake ports are different, the chamber behaves differently than a dome.  No doubt with your experience you'll build a good engine, but I'd be cautious to think guys on this forum aren't thinking that way already.

Whatever you do, be sure to post your results

[scott foxwell]

You are on the wrong forum if you keep bashing the FE, and Jay's adapter.  I have ported all the intakes for a FE over the years, and most every Cleveland intake, small block ford intakes, and even EFI intakes and cut apart EFI plenums and ported them and welded them back together.  A Cleveland Tunnel Ram is not '60s technology by any means, and the cross sectional area promotes good velocity on a larger engines.  A Victor 427 intake will flow over 500 cfm when ported properly, and the RPM 430+cfm, Streetmaster 360+cfm, Street Dominator 370+, Blue Thunder 4V 390+ cfm, Ford Sidewinder 375+cfm, Ford PI 360+ cfm, CJ iron 350+, Ford 6V 340+, 8V MR 430+, 8V Tunnel Wedge 500+, Performer 300+, Blue Thunder 8V 430+, Dove 4V 500+, Motorsports Victor 500+, and Jay's adapter with Cleveland 4V over 500+cfm.  Need I go on???  There are more intakes I have ported over 45 years, but those came to mind for the FE after reading your cutting remarks about the FE.  I like other Ford engines as well as the next guy, but I do not bash the FE, especially on a FE forum.  Not cool!  Joe-JDC

I'm hardly bashing the FE or Jay's adapter. Just stating observations. I'm a non denominational engine builder. I don't see labels and don't have loyalties that blind me to what's at hand. I'm sorry if that offends you. And I've never ported an intake for cfm. Quick way to ruin a good intake.

[scott foxwell]

we can only use whats available for us to use or have a custom manifold made. id dare say that since lets say 1970 the FE has less than 1% of RnD compared to the BB cheby by the major truly high performance parts manufactures so its up to a hand full of awesome FE engine builders, another hand full of awesome intake and head guys and a ton of dedicated garage and back yard guys to get all we can get and ring all the power we can out of this amazing , iconic, nostalgic FE engine. people forget that in its day, it went toe to toe with every american V8 as well as the best the rest of the world had to offer and 8 times outa 10 the FE KICKED THERE ASS ..                                  its been a slow, long, and expensive journey but i only see things continuing to get better for the FE.

I completely agree other than to say I doubt it's even been 1%.

[scott foxwell]

Scott, in my years of being in the business, I've learned to be straight to the point to people....which means I sometimes come across as crass. 

With that being said, I may indeed come across as crass, but I'll echo Joe's comments.  Some of your posts have been a little inflammatory.   It's really not common courtesy to just pop onto a forum one day, speak over everyone with an assumption of authority, then proceed to knock on the shortcomings of the FE.  It's sort of a family here on this forum and on the other FE forum and we are all aware of the design issues of the FE.   For a Chevy guy to pop on and remind us of it and then take some pot shots at the forum owner's intake adapters, well.....it's just not in good taste.

Well if that's how it comes across I apologize. I have a habit of just saying what's on my mind. I realize there is a pretty strong emotional attachment to the FE so I'll try to keep that in mind from now on. For me, it's just an engine but I will say this; my first car was a 69 Ranchero with a factory 428 CJ. It's what I learned to drive in. I was raised on Fords and hardly a Chevy guy. Sorry about that.

[scott foxwell]

OK, everybody take a deep breath here.
I apologize.
I meant nothing personal at all toward anyone or anything. I was simply discussing tech and didn't mean to offend anyone and I do sincerely apologize.
I've been doing this a LONG time now. I've been building mostly BB Chevs because that's where my bread and butter is. My personal love and preference is Fords. I just bought my childhood dream car which is my 67 Fairlane GTA. I could build any engine I want for it...it's not a restoration worthy car. I could go 385 series or big cube Windsor but I really love the FE, for all it is, and even for what it's not but I sure don't want to get off on the wrong foot here and piss everyone off. I do primarily induction development. I do things a little different, even from the main stream Chevy guys and I seem to usually get really good results. I'm hoping to take some of what I've learned about induction and bring it to the FE table. Maybe I just need t shut up here and do what i'm going to do.
Again, I really apologize. Good people here, good minds, good talent. No doubt about it.
Thanks.

[blykins]

Thanks for the apology. 

It's often hard to read a post and hear the intent behind it.   Sometimes it's easy to get off on the wrong foot with that being the case.

There's a lot of good guys on this forum and a lot of real sharp cats.  Joe-JDC is a head porter from WAY back and has done developmental work for all the builders on this forum, including myself, Jay, and Barry.   He's also retired from the USAF and will be very blunt in how he answers someone.  My427stang is also high rank in the USAF, but is an FE guy from way back and is a very sharp guy on EFI, troubleshooting, and wrench-turning in general.   I've been building FE's for a long time (they are 75% of my business) and have FE's across several continents, but when these guys speak, I listen to what they have to say. 

As all of us have tried to subtly point out, a 650+ hp small inch FE on lower compression with a hydraulic roller will be extremely challenging but short of offering up secrets, all of us will try to help out.  My first attempt at helping was PM'ing you about ditching those Icon pistons and using something more modern. 

The hydraulic roller camshaft will be a hurdle for you and if Straub doesn't have a lot of experience with FE's and hydraulic rollers, feel free to pipe up here.  It takes the correct combination of lobe shapes, lifter tweaks, valve springs, valve/retainer weight, and even rocker arm weight to get them to pull any rpms at all past 6000.   You can't just throw in a lobe that has worked for another engine family and expect it to fly. 

[scott foxwell]

For my part, I have no objection to any of Scott's comments, and welcome his contributions to the forum.  Sorry if my previous post seemed a little defensive, but the fact remains that the intake adapter plus Weiand tunnel ram outperforms any of the other readily available intakes.  Now, if you start thinking about putting lots of hours into hand porting an intake, I'm not sure that this statement is still true.  I've never done that with the intake adapter + tunnel ram setup, so I don't have any data to share on that.  But I think I'd still bet on it, given equal amounts of time in preparation. 

One issue that we all deal with in the FE world is that the basic cylinder head design was done in the mid 1950s.  Its not modern by any means.  Couple that with the unique design, where essentially part of the cylinder head is contained within the intake manifold, and your options for improvement of the basic induction design are pretty limited.    Despite that, a lot of folks are making real good power out of the FE.  I've seen several 850 to 950 HP versions (my high riser made 860), and of course there's Jim Gonia's max effort engine, which made 1100+ on the dyno.  With a sheet metal intake bolted to one of my intake adapters, I might add...

Jay, I re-read my response to you earlier and I can say it did sound a bit offensive. Sorry about that. I really didn't mean to take a dig at your adapter. It's a really nice piece and does open up a lot of options for the FE. And thanks for not taking anything personal.
The 351C TR is light years better than most anything else available for the FE, yes, but none the less, the plenum design is what makes it so archaic. If it had a more modern sheet metal box type plenum like a Dart BB Chev intake, or the Edelbrock Vic Ram, or Profiler, or even the TFS BB Ford TR for the A460... any of the modern (and we're still talking 20+ years old) cast TR's, imagine how THAT would work! That's all I really meant. Unfortunately, there has been no reason for anyone to come up with that type of "improved" TR for the Cleveland or the FE. The "spider" design of the single plane is quickly becoming a thing of the past as designers are learning more about plenums and trying to equalize runner length- even in a single plane- like some of the new intakes from John @ CID in Australia. These are what I call "modern" intake designs and I've had some pretty lengthy discussions with John about his intakes.
I'm trying to pick up Victor 427 and hope I can get it for a decent price. I'm going to start doing a little R&D of my own.
One of the tings about the FE is they will always be displacement limited. (A 500 ci BB Chev these days is a small motor.) This means that cross sections for runners will always be on the small side especially compared to their length. If you try to shorten the runner or stand it up, the plenum becomes problematic it seems. Just something I'm beginning to see about FE induction.

[Barry_R]

Be cautious with the "shorten the runner" direction.  Darn traditional FE does not lend itself to that because the center two runners are already rather short while the outer runners are long and aimed the wrong way coming out of the head.  John wanted to "fix that" with my head, but requiring everybody to acquire a round core cam was not real good from a sales volume perspective....

[Joe-JDC]

You are on the wrong forum if you keep bashing the FE, and Jay's adapter.  I have ported all the intakes for a FE over the years, and most every Cleveland intake, small block ford intakes, and even EFI intakes and cut apart EFI plenums and ported them and welded them back together.  A Cleveland Tunnel Ram is not '60s technology by any means, and the cross sectional area promotes good velocity on a larger engines.  A Victor 427 intake will flow over 500 cfm when ported properly, and the RPM 430+cfm, Streetmaster 360+cfm, Street Dominator 370+, Blue Thunder 4V 390+ cfm, Ford Sidewinder 375+cfm, Ford PI 360+ cfm, CJ iron 350+, Ford 6V 340+, 8V MR 430+, 8V Tunnel Wedge 500+, Performer 300+, Blue Thunder 8V 430+, Dove 4V 500+, Motorsports Victor 500+, and Jay's adapter with Cleveland 4V over 500+cfm.  Need I go on???  There are more intakes I have ported over 45 years, but those came to mind for the FE after reading your cutting remarks about the FE.  I like other Ford engines as well as the next guy, but I do not bash the FE, especially on a FE forum.  Not cool!  Joe-JDC

I'm hardly bashing the FE or Jay's adapter. Just stating observations. I'm a non denominational engine builder. I don't see labels and don't have loyalties that blind me to what's at hand. I'm sorry if that offends you. And I've never ported an intake for cfm. Quick way to ruin a good intake.

If you don't port an intake with cfm in consideration, you don't know what you are doing.  Just won EMC with my ported, cfm controlled, modified intake manifold.  Anything else is just leaving horsepower and torque wasted.  Joe-JDC

[scott foxwell]

You are on the wrong forum if you keep bashing the FE, and Jay's adapter.  I have ported all the intakes for a FE over the years, and most every Cleveland intake, small block ford intakes, and even EFI intakes and cut apart EFI plenums and ported them and welded them back together.  A Cleveland Tunnel Ram is not '60s technology by any means, and the cross sectional area promotes good velocity on a larger engines.  A Victor 427 intake will flow over 500 cfm when ported properly, and the RPM 430+cfm, Streetmaster 360+cfm, Street Dominator 370+, Blue Thunder 4V 390+ cfm, Ford Sidewinder 375+cfm, Ford PI 360+ cfm, CJ iron 350+, Ford 6V 340+, 8V MR 430+, 8V Tunnel Wedge 500+, Performer 300+, Blue Thunder 8V 430+, Dove 4V 500+, Motorsports Victor 500+, and Jay's adapter with Cleveland 4V over 500+cfm.  Need I go on???  There are more intakes I have ported over 45 years, but those came to mind for the FE after reading your cutting remarks about the FE.  I like other Ford engines as well as the next guy, but I do not bash the FE, especially on a FE forum.  Not cool!  Joe-JDC

I'm hardly bashing the FE or Jay's adapter. Just stating observations. I'm a non denominational engine builder. I don't see labels and don't have loyalties that blind me to what's at hand. I'm sorry if that offends you. And I've never ported an intake for cfm. Quick way to ruin a good intake.

If you don't port an intake with cfm in consideration, you don't know what you are doing.  Just won EMC with my ported, cfm controlled, modified intake manifold.  Anything else is just leaving horsepower and torque wasted.  Joe-JDC

LOL... really? Congratulations and good for you, but I don't consider EMC as the holy grail of engine performance.
You might want to do a little research on what I do, and what I've done before you start making stupid statements like that. I will never tell someone else they don't know what they're doing. There are WAY too many ways to skin this cat.
When you're ready to learn something, let me know.

[scott foxwell]

Be cautious with the "shorten the runner" direction.  Darn traditional FE does not lend itself to that because the center two runners are already rather short while the outer runners are long and aimed the wrong way coming out of the head.  John wanted to "fix that" with my head, but requiring everybody to acquire a round core cam was not real good from a sales volume perspective....

I think you know me well enough to know I'm not just going to arbitrarily shorten runners. But thanks for the heads up. It's kinda like the R07 head, only backwards.
I know a guy that knows a guy that does cams...

[Joe-JDC]

I did not call you ignorant or stupid, I said you don't know what you are doing.  If you don't know the cfm or velocity of an intake manifold runner, you are just guessing at making something work.   EMC might not be the "holy grail" but it sets the bar high and it takes a lot of talent to win or place in the competition.  As for learning something, I have an automotive degree, taught automotive in Jr College, have an aircraft degree, and a master instructor rating when I was in the USAF.  Been a loyal Ford owner since 1962, raced Fords since 1969, and have ported heads and intakes for a Factory racing team as well as independently for over 45 years.  My heads and intakes have been featured in several magazine articles since 1988, and at 71 years young I still think I can still teach a few things to those who will listen.  Joe-JDC

[scott foxwell]

I did not call you ignorant or stupid, I said you don't know what you are doing.  If you don't know the cfm or velocity of an intake manifold runner, you are just guessing at making something work.   EMC might not be the "holy grail" but it sets the bar high and it takes a lot of talent to win or place in the competition.  As for learning something, I have an automotive degree, taught automotive in Jr College, have an aircraft degree, and a master instructor rating when I was in the USAF.  Been a loyal Ford owner since 1962, raced Fords since 1969, and have ported heads and intakes for a Factory racing team as well as independently for over 45 years.  My heads and intakes have been featured in several magazine articles since 1988, and at 71 years young I still think I can still teach a few things to those who will listen.  Joe-JDC

Ahhh, but I DO know the velocity and that's all I care about with the intake. CFM is what it is. The engine will get it's air, and at a lot more than a 28" depression. Port an intake to a specific velocity profile and you'll make more power. I promise- I'm not guessing on this.
As far as the rest of the stuff, meh, I can say most of the same thing but it's really irrelevant. I'm not going to get into a pissing/bragging contest with you other than to say I have plenty of the same credentials.
You sound like you're done learning and that's too bad...but you are kinda old...
(lighten up Francis, I'm just kidding) 

[FElony]

... I'm not going to get into a pissing/bragging contest with you...

Too late, asshole.

[jayb]

Gentlemen, gentlemen, let's maintain a CIVIL tone, please...

[garyv]

Interesting discussion and we may all learn something here if everyone can put their ego's aside.
There are some pretty smart guys that hang out here and all have something to contribute.
Stay tuned for the next go round. 
Jay you da referee.

garyv

[George vega]

I dont know how this post wound up like this but i want to point out a couple of other things on my build
 While doing the oil mods I couldn't find any restriction st the rear of the main oil gallery to drill out. The passage from the filter adapter to the main was already 7/16. Is that common? And just to keep the conversation gping, I read an article that used Allen wrenches in between cylinders to gauge the thickness of the cylinders. I did this check and the result was that the block can be bored to 4.180 max. Of course a sonic check to verify is always a good idea. I plan to only take off minimum material to make sure the cylinders are roumd.

[Barry_R]

Similar to Ford casting numbers - use the drill bit test as a "disqualifier" rather than as a max bore defining tool.  If a block does not "pass" the drill bit test you know that it's not a real 428, or not a good candidate for other stuff.  It tells you about the outside of the cylinder core, but does not tell you anything about the relative position of the inside of that core/bore.

[scott foxwell]

... I'm not going to get into a pissing/bragging contest with you...

Too late, asshole.

LOL...nice.

[scott foxwell]

Similar to Ford casting numbers - use the drill bit test as a "disqualifier" rather than as a max bore defining tool.  If a block does not "pass" the drill bit test you know that it's not a real 428, or not a good candidate for other stuff.  It tells you about the outside of the cylinder core, but does not tell you anything about the relative position of the inside of that core/bore.

That's a good point.

[scott foxwell]

 

As all of us have tried to subtly point out, a 650+ hp small inch FE on lower compression with a hydraulic roller will be extremely challenging but short of offering up secrets, all of us will try to help out.  My first attempt at helping was PM'ing you about ditching those Icon pistons and using something more modern. 

The hydraulic roller camshaft will be a hurdle for you and if Straub doesn't have a lot of experience with FE's and hydraulic rollers, feel free to pipe up here.  It takes the correct combination of lobe shapes, lifter tweaks, valve springs, valve/retainer weight, and even rocker arm weight to get them to pull any rpms at all past 6000.   You can't just throw in a lobe that has worked for another engine family and expect it to fly.

I appreciate the offer but I'm going to point out that the Icon piston is an excellent piston and has all the modern features as anything Racetec will make, except for the ring pack. I think the Icon is one of the very best values on the market for a fully featured 2618 SHELF piston and they have way more offerings than most manufacturers. My firs choice would be Mahle, but they don't offer the bore and compression ht I want. I'm gong to definitely take you up on the offer. Thanks for that.
Now, I'm really curious as to what's so "special" about the FE when it comes to hyd. rollers so anything you're willing to offer, I'm all ears. I build hyd. roller valve train to run 8K rpm with BIG stainless valves, BIG (BB Chevy) stud mount rocker arms, compound pushrod and lifter angles and heavy .903 dia. lifters. Currently we are using >.700" (at the valve) solid roller lobes with our .903 hyd. rollers and ~260 on the seat, 650 open 1.550" springs. With the FE I see straight lifter and pushrod angles, shaft rockers, relatively light, steel rocker arms (or aluminum for aftermarket stuff) and a lighter, overall better valve train. I do see long pushrods and I haven't spent much time looking at the cam cores yet. The Morel hyd. roller lifters available for the FE are good. I don't know if I'll use a .903 on my build or not. I have some ideas there. As far as Straub's experience with the FE... not sure how much I'm allowed to say but suffice to say it's plenty. Hyd rollers, I'm not sure. I'll have to see what he says about that. Thanks again for anything you have to offer.

[My427stang]

Hard to make room for the diameter pushrod I'd run on Rat for one, but I'd expect the rockers to be at least as stable as a Rat with good girdles

After that, the solid flat tappet guy doesn't have much more to say about hyd rollers

[FElony]

... I'm not going to get into a pissing/bragging contest with you...

Too late, asshole.

LOL...nice.

You don't see anybody arguing with me , do ya?

[scott foxwell]

... I'm not going to get into a pissing/bragging contest with you...

Too late, asshole.

LOL...nice.

You don't see anybody arguing with me , do ya?

You don't see me arguing with you, do ya?
Takes one to know one. 

[cjshaker]

You don't see anybody arguing with me , do ya?

You don't see me arguing with you, do ya?
Takes one to know one. 

LOL, now that was kinda funny

For Georges sake, it'd be nice if the posts stayed on his topic.

Scott, I hope you'll share some information, or even better, have a thread on the engine that you build. I, for one, would be interested in seeing what improvements and ideas you come up with. I'm sure they'd be interesting to others as well.

[FElony]

Takes one to know one. 

Yeah, I used to say that all the time. When I was eight.

[scott foxwell]

Takes one to know one. 

Yeah, I used to say that all the time. When I was eight.

LOL...now you just call people names cuz you're all growd up.
Come on man, enough is enough.

[scott foxwell]

You don't see anybody arguing with me , do ya?

You don't see me arguing with you, do ya?
Takes one to know one. 

LOL, now that was kinda funny

For Georges sake, it'd be nice if the posts stayed on his topic.

Scott, I hope you'll share some information, or even better, have a thread on the engine that you build. I, for one, would be interested in seeing what improvements and ideas you come up with. I'm sure they'd be interesting to others as well.

Thanks cjshaker.

[George vega]

Similar to Ford casting numbers - use the drill bit test as a "disqualifier" rather than as a max bore defining tool.  If a block does not "pass" the drill bit test you know that it's not a real 428, or not a good candidate for other stuff.  It tells you about the outside of the cylinder core, but does not tell you anything about the relative position of the inside of that core/bore.

Thanks, that makes sense to me.

[scott foxwell]

Similar to Ford casting numbers - use the drill bit test as a "disqualifier" rather than as a max bore defining tool.  If a block does not "pass" the drill bit test you know that it's not a real 428, or not a good candidate for other stuff.  It tells you about the outside of the cylinder core, but does not tell you anything about the relative position of the inside of that core/bore.

Thanks, that makes sense to me.

George, are you going to sonic check your block?

[George vega]

Yes definitely, like someone said, the drill bit or Allen wrench methods of checking the cyl thickness just tells you wether the block is a candidate for further checking with a sonic check.

[FElony]

Takes one to know one. 

Yeah, I used to say that all the time. When I was eight.

LOL...now you just call people names cuz you're all growd up.
Come on man, enough is enough.

Enough is when you learn a more dignified approach in offering your opinions to vested members here who know a bunch more than you do about this subject. Building an FE in your garage 7 years ago does not make you king shit.

As for myself, I am a known factor. When Jay posts "Gentlemen...." I know he ain't talking to me.

[funsummer]

Gentlemen and those that refer to themselves as not.
This is a FE forum and people like me, 43 years young and of no FE experience enjoy reading and learning from some very smart and innovative fe engine builders.
This is a fantastic forum for learning about FE performance modification and tuning.
On here there is a very broad and respectful bunch of people.
Please try to respect one another and don't drag the conversations into personal disagreements.
It's a great forum let's keep it that way.
Cause I still got a heap to learn!
Thanks
Joel

[scott foxwell]

Takes one to know one. 

Yeah, I used to say that all the time. When I was eight.

LOL...now you just call people names cuz you're all growd up.
Come on man, enough is enough.

Enough is when you learn a more dignified approach in offering your opinions to vested members here who know a bunch more than you do about this subject. Building an FE in your garage 7 years ago does not make you king shit.

As for myself, I am a known factor. When Jay posts "Gentlemen...." I know he ain't talking to me.

LOL...hey, send me a pm, or don't, but lets stop crapping on George's thread, OK?

[FElony]

Takes one to know one. 

Yeah, I used to say that all the time. When I was eight.

LOL...now you just call people names cuz you're all growd up.
Come on man, enough is enough.

Enough is when you learn a more dignified approach in offering your opinions to vested members here who know a bunch more than you do about this subject. Building an FE in your garage 7 years ago does not make you king shit.

As for myself, I am a known factor. When Jay posts "Gentlemen...." I know he ain't talking to me.

LOL...hey, send me a pm, or don't, but lets stop crapping on George's thread, OK?

You had already been squawking from the commode long before I showed up, so take your own advice and STFU.

[Tommy-T]

Squawking from the commode! That's funny.

While Scott's comments are bit brash to we very sensitive FE types, I believe his intentions are genuine. Maybe we can learn from the Rat Motor Man.

I've given a lesson to more than one Rat in a  street confrontation with my FE...BUT...I've TAKEN a lesson from RAT a time or 2(3,4,5 or more) as well.

The swipe at Joe Craine needs to be apologized for.   

[George vega]

Hey guys, thanks for all the replies. Lots of good info. I'll post after I get a little more into it. Still have to tapp all the plugs and drill out #2, 3  and 4 main to cam holes and changed all the bearing holes.

[blykins]

George, don't drill anything out.....you don't want to enlarge the hole going from the mains to the cam....just flare the ends to match the bearing holes.

[TimeWarpF100]

You are on the wrong forum if you keep bashing the FE, and Jay's adapter.  I have ported all the intakes for a FE over the years, and most every Cleveland intake, small block ford intakes, and even EFI intakes and cut apart EFI plenums and ported them and welded them back together.  A Cleveland Tunnel Ram is not '60s technology by any means, and the cross sectional area promotes good velocity on a larger engines.  A Victor 427 intake will flow over 500 cfm when ported properly, and the RPM 430+cfm, Streetmaster 360+cfm, Street Dominator 370+, Blue Thunder 4V 390+ cfm, Ford Sidewinder 375+cfm, Ford PI 360+ cfm, CJ iron 350+, Ford 6V 340+, 8V MR 430+, 8V Tunnel Wedge 500+, Performer 300+, Blue Thunder 8V 430+, Dove 4V 500+, Motorsports Victor 500+, and Jay's adapter with Cleveland 4V over 500+cfm.  Need I go on???  There are more intakes I have ported over 45 years, but those came to mind for the FE after reading your cutting remarks about the FE.  I like other Ford engines as well as the next guy, but I do not bash the FE, especially on a FE forum.  Not cool!  Joe-JDC

I'm hardly bashing the FE or Jay's adapter. Just stating observations. I'm a non denominational engine builder. I don't see labels and don't have loyalties that blind me to what's at hand. I'm sorry if that offends you. And I've never ported an intake for cfm. Quick way to ruin a good intake.

If you don't port an intake with cfm in consideration, you don't know what you are doing.  Just won EMC with my ported, cfm controlled, modified intake manifold.  Anything else is just leaving horsepower and torque wasted.  Joe-JDC

LOL... really? Congratulations and good for you, but I don't consider EMC as the holy grail of engine performance.
You might want to do a little research on what I do, and what I've done before you start making stupid statements like that. I will never tell someone else they don't know what they're doing. There are WAY too many ways to skin this cat.
When you're ready to learn something, let me know.

You mentioned to look you up so I did.

82,000.00 $$ for a 385 series engine and it blew up in short order?  All I did was type your name into google.

$82,000.00 for a engine you built and it lasted for 11 passes?


 Scott Foxwell.
Like · Reply · 2 · Jun 1, 2016 1:32pm

Barry Wiebe · Winkler, Manitoba
Well I ran the engine down the track 11 times and broke a piston because they were fit way to loose and wrecked the whole engine and does not look like they are giving any warranty at all $82000 down the tube
Like · Reply · Jul 3, 2017 8:20pm

[scott foxwell]

You are on the wrong forum if you keep bashing the FE, and Jay's adapter.  I have ported all the intakes for a FE over the years, and most every Cleveland intake, small block ford intakes, and even EFI intakes and cut apart EFI plenums and ported them and welded them back together.  A Cleveland Tunnel Ram is not '60s technology by any means, and the cross sectional area promotes good velocity on a larger engines.  A Victor 427 intake will flow over 500 cfm when ported properly, and the RPM 430+cfm, Streetmaster 360+cfm, Street Dominator 370+, Blue Thunder 4V 390+ cfm, Ford Sidewinder 375+cfm, Ford PI 360+ cfm, CJ iron 350+, Ford 6V 340+, 8V MR 430+, 8V Tunnel Wedge 500+, Performer 300+, Blue Thunder 8V 430+, Dove 4V 500+, Motorsports Victor 500+, and Jay's adapter with Cleveland 4V over 500+cfm.  Need I go on???  There are more intakes I have ported over 45 years, but those came to mind for the FE after reading your cutting remarks about the FE.  I like other Ford engines as well as the next guy, but I do not bash the FE, especially on a FE forum.  Not cool!  Joe-JDC

I'm hardly bashing the FE or Jay's adapter. Just stating observations. I'm a non denominational engine builder. I don't see labels and don't have loyalties that blind me to what's at hand. I'm sorry if that offends you. And I've never ported an intake for cfm. Quick way to ruin a good intake.

If you don't port an intake with cfm in consideration, you don't know what you are doing.  Just won EMC with my ported, cfm controlled, modified intake manifold.  Anything else is just leaving horsepower and torque wasted.  Joe-JDC

LOL... really? Congratulations and good for you, but I don't consider EMC as the holy grail of engine performance.
You might want to do a little research on what I do, and what I've done before you start making stupid statements like that. I will never tell someone else they don't know what they're doing. There are WAY too many ways to skin this cat.
When you're ready to learn something, let me know.

You mentioned to look you up so I did.

82,000.00 $$ for a 385 series engine and it blew up in short order?  All I did was type your name into google.

$82,000.00 for a engine you built and it lasted for 11 passes?


 Scott Foxwell.
Like · Reply · 2 · Jun 1, 2016 1:32pm

Barry Wiebe · Winkler, Manitoba
Well I ran the engine down the track 11 times and broke a piston because they were fit way to loose and wrecked the whole engine and does not look like they are giving any warranty at all $82000 down the tube
Like · Reply · Jul 3, 2017 8:20pm

LOL...well that didn't take long.
What can I say. Just remember, there are ALWAYS two sides to every story.
This engine made excellent, winning, record setting power. It ran on our dyno, it ran on their dyno and it ran a full season winning every pull but one against some very big name very expensive engines and we never heard a single complaint. Over the winter they decided to do their own maintenance, make their own changes and they go out, pull twice and stick a rod through the pan. They basically destroyed a very very nice engine and now they want someone else to pay for it. It's as simple as that.
And it was NOT $82K. Hardly.
I'm not commenting on this any further.

[George vega]

George, don't drill anything out.....you don't want to enlarge the hole going from the mains to the cam....just flare the ends to match the bearing holes.

I read that they should be 5/16 dia.they say that 2,3 and 4 feed more than one rod therefore they need to be drilled while 1 and five only feed one rod and can be left the stock size. Is this wrong?

[blykins]

George, don't drill anything out.....you don't want to enlarge the hole going from the mains to the cam....just flare the ends to match the bearing holes.

I read that they should be 5/16 dia.they say that 2,3 and 4 feed more than one rod therefore they need to be drilled while 1 and five only feed one rod and can be left the stock size. Is this wrong?

If you are referring to the holes between the cam bearings and the main bearings, don't drill anything.  You will weaken that area.  At the VERY MOST, blend in the very ends of the oil passages so that they match the bearings.  You don't have to do anything else there. 

[George vega]

Yeah, I meant the passage from the cam bearing to the main oil gallery at top. Ok then I'll leave them as they are. Thanks

[Jim Comet]

Now I you have me worried about my 390 block. I drilled all the oil passages to 5/16 from the saddle to the cam bores. I am hoping to make a power upgrade to near 500hp soon. If a block does crack there does it just loose oil pressure or can it cause catastrophic failure? I would hate to throw away a fully prepped/machined block because of it. I never turn it over 6300-6400rpm. Jim

[jayb]

Jim, if the block cracks there the oil pressure will go out the crack and you won't have enough oil for the mains, rods, and cam bearing at that position.  Are you going to use the block in your race car?  Stick or auto?  Rory McNeil has seen this problem with his 428 blocks, at about 500 horsepower with dropping the clutch at high RPM.  An automatic would make this less likely, and street tires less likely still; anything to minimize stress on the block will help keep the crack from starting.  Crossbolting the block will also minimize the possibility of a problem.

[blykins]

Most likely you will just lose oil pressure. 

You can get carried away opening holes up.  I've never drilled out even one of those holes before, just a small blend at the very top of the hole. 

Here's what can happen on a sideoiler block:

[Jim Comet]

It has a C6 and a 4000 stall that I foot brake. It does have main studs if that is any help. Jim

[jayb]

Most likely you will just lose oil pressure. 

You can get carried away opening holes up.  I've never drilled out even one of those holes before, just a small blend at the very top of the hole. 

Here's what can happen on a sideoiler block:

Wow, I've never seen that happen with a crossbolted block before.  Any idea how much power it was making Brent?

[blykins]

No sir.

A customer brought me that block to use as a foundation for a build.  It was nasty dirty when I got it and still had the bearings in the mains.  We stripped it down and then baked/tumbled the block.  Cracks stood out like a sore thumb then. 

I don't necessarily know if it was horsepower that split the mains, but since it was the middle 3 mains, the chances are high. 

As you can tell, the feed holes have all been opened up, and instead of a blend at the mouth of the hole, they have been hit with a mill, which stepped the holes down....without any smooth transitions.

What stunk is that I had to call my customer and tell him that his prized possession S/O block that he had been saving for years was nothing but a paperweight. 

Separate story....I had another guy bring me a block that had been machined.  It had HUGE holes between the mains and the cam bearings.  They were drilled and tapped for Holley jets.  I told him there was no way I was going to use that block. 

[scott foxwell]

No sir.

A customer brought me that block to use as a foundation for a build.  It was nasty dirty when I got it and still had the bearings in the mains.  We stripped it down and then baked/tumbled the block.  Cracks stood out like a sore thumb then. 

I don't necessarily know if it was horsepower that split the mains, but since it was the middle 3 mains, the chances are high. 

As you can tell, the feed holes have all been opened up, and instead of a blend at the mouth of the hole, they have been hit with a mill, which stepped the holes down....without any smooth transitions.

What stunk is that I had to call my customer and tell him that his prized possession S/O block that he had been saving for years was nothing but a paperweight. 

Separate story....I had another guy bring me a block that had been machined.  It had HUGE holes between the mains and the cam bearings.  They were drilled and tapped for Holley jets.  I told him there was no way I was going to use that block.

Are you or is anyone else here a fan of a main stud girdle for the standard FE block?

[blykins]

I have set one up and it's a tremendous amount of machine work.

I'd personally rather have aftermarket cross bolt main caps.

[jimeast]

Do you know what year the block was made?  Was that a flat end mill or a ball nose end mill that opened up the  oil line? 

No sir.

A customer brought me that block to use as a foundation for a build.  It was nasty dirty when I got it and still had the bearings in the mains.  We stripped it down and then baked/tumbled the block.  Cracks stood out like a sore thumb then. 

I don't necessarily know if it was horsepower that split the mains, but since it was the middle 3 mains, the chances are high. 

As you can tell, the feed holes have all been opened up, and instead of a blend at the mouth of the hole, they have been hit with a mill, which stepped the holes down....without any smooth transitions.

What stunk is that I had to call my customer and tell him that his prized possession S/O block that he had been saving for years was nothing but a paperweight. 

Separate story....I had another guy bring me a block that had been machined.  It had HUGE holes between the mains and the cam bearings.  They were drilled and tapped for Holley jets.  I told him there was no way I was going to use that block.

[fekbmax]

I'm a fan of the main stud girdle. Have used 3. One on a 390 based block with cut down factory caps. Its still going strong in a well used and abused f250 4X4. Still cringe a bit when thinking about cutting down the factory cast caps but its still going strong.
Second build was a 105 mirror 3 web block with a full set of program 2 bolt caps. Expensive  for sure but i felt much better cutting those caps down. Its at .040 over with a 3.98 stroke steel crank with ford size rod and mains. Still running strong in a 3000lb 69 coup mustang , crash boxed drag car.
Then my currant A scratch block build with cross bolt program mains.
There is definitely some extra machine work to be done but personally i feel any high performance build should have all the surfaces square decked off the mains including the oil pan rails, bellhousing,  water pump and timing cover surfaces.  JMO. Of course you need to do your align boring with all your hardware and girdle in place. Be sure all your block filling is done before any of the machining.

[jayb]

There was an article about Ed Pink's SOHC engines back in the day posted here a few weeks ago, which showed them using a 1" thick block girdle on a 427 sideoiler block, to make the block live (for a while at least) in blown fuel applications.  To me that says a lot.  For sure, a girdle can only help, especially on a non-crossbolted block.

[FERoadster]

I was going to post earlier today about my 390 block that cracked in the main saddle.
Just a stock 1973 390 2bbl PU. Driving back from Wyoming on the expressway @ the then 55MPH speed limit I lost almost all oil pressure in eastern Nebraska. Put a mechanical oil pressure gague in and made it back to SE Michigan with about 15 # oil pressure. Needless to say I scrapped the block. It doesn't need alot of HP to do this.

Richard

[66FAIRLANE]

Now I you have me worried about my 390 block. I drilled all the oil passages to 5/16 from the saddle to the cam bores. I am hoping to make a power upgrade to near 500hp soon. If a block does crack there does it just loose oil pressure or can it cause catastrophic failure? I would hate to throw away a fully prepped/machined block because of it. I never turn it over 6300-6400rpm. Jim

I suppose like everything it depends. When I rebuilt my 390 it looked like someone had enlarged the passages but only part way down to the cam bore. Not liking this I made a longer drill bit and opened them up all the way through to the top oil passage. It wasn't much and can't remember what size, I will have to dig out the drill bit and check. This was all done 20+ years ago before I knew any better. Saddles were modified to the bearings also. Not a race car & softened with an auto & converter but this engine sees 6000rpm numerous times every time I drive it, has gone to 6500 countless times and even ventured to 7K on a few occasions. Hasn't broke yet....... I suppose now I have said that my days are numbered!

[steinauge]

Just curious-is there any way that S O block could be repaired for non racing use? Reason I am asking is I have repaired some very broken early HD cases succesfully just because there were no spares.