1961 Thunderbird 390...

[blykins]

In a world of 445's and 482's, something different is welcomed....

Got this one en route to me. 



This is a 390 out of a 1961 T-Bird.  Numbers matching, original engine/trans. 

The owner is wanting to keep everything period correct on the outside, using the factory intake, cylinder heads, and even the exhaust manifolds and wants to keep the factory crankshaft and rods.  On the inside, we have a little creative license, in the way of modern machine work, modern pistons/rings, and a hydraulic roller camshaft. 

I'm going to dyno this one as soon as I get it, just to get a baseline.  It's interesting to me to see how the differences in modern parts affects the horsepower and torque.  I have strict orders to keep everything very streetable and mild, but I think there's lots of room for improvement. 

I'm still waiting for the winner of the last game to speak up so he can collect his prize.  But in the time being, what's the guess on what this 390 will make on the dyno?   There will be a little luck involved on this one.  The owner said the engine was rebuilt back in 2002.   Not sure on whether it's had a cam upgrade or anything else, but I know it's sporting a Quick Fuel Slayer 600.   Closest guess without going over will win some goodies (if the winner decides to speak up....)

[RustyCrankshaft]

It's too bad it's already been apart, but still will be very interesting to see the difference modern parts will make in a similar package. A lot of little gains adds up when put together.

[Stangman]

Yeah this one should be fun.
295 just the way it sits.
369 when your done.

[WerbyFord]

Some easy checks:
Can you check what casting numbers are on the intake and heads? Should be c1ae-a heads.

Will the dyno be with the flat log manifolds or the 2" dyno headers? BOTH would be interesting but since he plans to keep the iron logs....

Is it (and will it be) a 4.05 bore or a 4.08 bore etc?

Harder check: I would degree the cam that's in there first, not much cost compared to dyno time, just pull 1 side's rockers & a degree wheel.

The 61-63 390/300 had 9.6 CR factory with a slight dish & valve cuts. About 9.3 CR with todays thicker gaskets. About 285hp on the Gonkulator.
The 64-65 390/300 had 10.0 CR with factory shims, no dish, just valve cuts.

I ran a quick Gonkulator on this one:

Stone stock 1961 390/300 Bird, log iron exhaust, big 186-186 .400 .400 cam:
Torq 391 at 2600
Powr 285 at 4300

This engine, with log iron, 9.3 CR, 600 Holley, and log iron:
Torq 377 at 2700
Powr 282 at 4300
And with the big 2" dyno headers (too big):
Torq 371 at 2700
Powr 288 at 4700

On the plus side, all the dogs and cats we've had tend to like THIS kind of engine. Mild, quiet, smooth.
They do NOT like solid cams, open or loud pipes, or high RPM's.

[runthatjunk]

Mostly just want to say looking forward to this.

323 hp

[blykins]

Werb, I will dyno with headers, but everything else will be left up to fate/chance. 

Just to remind everyone, this GTH game is for the engine *as it sits right now*.  Not sure what state it is in, but we'll see.

[70tp]

275

[wowens]

257

[CV355]

310

[chilly460]

275hp

Are you going to have the heads ported as part of the update?

[shady]

299     BTW I have a '64 t-bird 390 and it has dished pistons with no valve relief.

[Twinibeam66]

308 HP

[Falcon67]

312 - number right out of my...back pocket.  WTH, fun to guess.  Unknown what was done during the touch up so be interesting for sure.

[blykins]

275hp

Are you going to have the heads ported as part of the update?

No sir, just a rebuild with modern pieces inside.   He's not focused on horsepower, but just wants a solid driver.

[WerbyFord]

299     BTW I have a '64 t-bird 390 and it has dished pistons with no valve relief.

Shady,
Just curious - when was your Bird built?

Our early 64 Gal (October 1963 build) came with a 1963 engine - c1ae-a heads, c3 intake, c3af-bv carb, dished pistons. All the later 64's we've torn down had flat tops with valve cuts.

[fryedaddy]

311 hp now

[mn67]

302 HP now

[BigBlueIron]

289

Edit my 288 after seeing werbys guess

[chilly460]

275hp

Are you going to have the heads ported as part of the update?

No sir, just a rebuild with modern pieces inside.   He's not focused on horsepower, but just wants a solid driver.

Gotcha, figured that sticking with stock manifolds dictated it would not really be worth it. 

[shady]

299     BTW I have a '64 t-bird 390 and it has dished pistons with no valve relief.

Shady,
Just curious - when was your Bird built?

Our early 64 Gal (October 1963 build) came with a 1963 engine - c1ae-a heads, c3 intake, c3af-bv carb, dished pistons. All the later 64's we've torn down had flat tops with valve cuts.

werby, without crawling under to look at the block. the intake is a 3J24 but has a c4 part number. I just have the complete engine, no car. but saw the car it came out of and was a 64.

[Riderjeff]

280 as she sits.  Very curious where this goes after the Blykins Touch!

[68fecyclone]

    266 hp

[Joe-JDC]

My first inclination was 270ish hp, but with dyno headers, it is a guess at 284 since I don't want to be a triple guesser.  Joe-JDC

[BBFORDFAN]

292hp

[blykins]

I'll let you all edit your guesses up until the day of the dyno.  It will be a few weeks. 

I did get some new information that on the rebuild.  It was rebuilt by the "Proformance" guys in NJ.  If you remember them, they're the guys with the thick accents that had all the videos of their engines on run stands revving the poo-poo out of them.   They reused the old style cam retention. 

[WerbyFord]

299     BTW I have a '64 t-bird 390 and it has dished pistons with no valve relief.

Shady,
Just curious - when was your Bird built?

Our early 64 Gal (October 1963 build) came with a 1963 engine - c1ae-a heads, c3 intake, c3af-bv carb, dished pistons. All the later 64's we've torn down had flat tops with valve cuts.

werby, without crawling under to look at the block. the intake is a 3J24 but has a c4 part number. I just have the complete engine, no car. but saw the car it came out of and was a 64.

Shady,
Thanks for looking!
I know it's a aide-bar to this thread, but significant I think:
Yours is YET ANOTHER 1964 FoMoCo, with 1963-style pistons, and with an early (October 1963) build date.
Maybe the flat-top pistons were a running change or half-year or something, although IIRC even the early dealer literature says 10.0 CR for 1964 instead of 9.6 CR for 1963.
Thanks either way.

[Royce]

272 as it sits, 305 with Brent magic... OOOPs 305 is an evil number  make it 306

[shady]

299     BTW I have a '64 t-bird 390 and it has dished pistons with no valve relief.

Shady,
Just curious - when was your Bird built?

Our early 64 Gal (October 1963 build) came with a 1963 engine - c1ae-a heads, c3 intake, c3af-bv carb, dished pistons. All the later 64's we've torn down had flat tops with valve cuts.

werby, without crawling under to look at the block. the intake is a 3J24 but has a c4 part number. I just have the complete engine, no car. but saw the car it came out of and was a 64.

Shady,
Thanks for looking!
I know it's a aide-bar to this thread, but significant I think:
Yours is YET ANOTHER 1964 FoMoCo, with 1963-style pistons, and with an early (October 1963) build date.
Maybe the flat-top pistons were a running change or half-year or something, although IIRC even the early dealer literature says 10.0 CR for 1964 instead of 9.6 CR for 1963.
Thanks either way.

If that ain't crazy enough, I also have a 66 Merc 390 with the same pistons.

[wayne]

273 now 345 after built.

[gdaddy01]

242 now ,   probably was 290 before the performance build , by chevy guys .

[stubbie]

315. Curious as I have a 64 Tbird

[Royce]

Well just for giggles and since it is a T bird, I dug out an old 390 build.  63 Tbird M code 390 . .030 over  C3SE heads. good valve job and bowl cleanup  Rebuilt 3x2 carbs  I put a HMV 260 Crane cam in it.. Dyno headers   it made 340 horse and 440 torque

[WerbyFord]

Well just for giggles and since it is a T bird, I dug out an old 390 build.  63 Tbird M code 390 . .030 over  C3SE heads. good valve job and bowl cleanup  Rebuilt 3x2 carbs  I put a HMV 260 Crane cam in it.. Dyno headers   it made 340 horse and 440 torque

Awesome! More data!
Do you recall if the dyno was open headers or into mufflers?
Was the engine driving the water pump?

[cjshaker]

It was rebuilt by the "Proformance" guys in NJ.

In that case, I'd be surprised if it survives the dyno pulls. Those guys strike me as snake-oil salesmen.

[Royce]

Werby  This was about 20 yr ago  open headers running into 5 inch exhaust tubes... I THINK the water pump was belt driven but not 100% sure  Was done on a SuperFlow 901 which now resides at Jay Brown.. Done at R&R Performance who has a sterling reputation as an operator..IIRC the engine was all done by 5500 rpm.  It was the first FE I ever dynoed  The torque number was impressive to Ron the dyno operator, as he always considered FEs as underachievers

I may still have the dyno sheet somewhere

[blykins]

Well, it's here.



Gonna try to schedule a dyno session with it in the next few weeks. 

For you T-bird guys, are there any other intake manifold options?  Not too crazy about road draft tubes LOL

[WerbyFord]

Well, it's here.



Gonna try to schedule a dyno session with it in the next few weeks. 

For you T-bird guys, are there any other intake manifold options?  Not too crazy about road draft tubes LOL

I think it will dyno better with the (Ford/Merc) 1" 4-hole spacer on there - the PCV version of that has a PCV port on the back. Any 4-hole 1" would do of course. I don't know how much spacer the T-bird ran, and it probably had an angle to it as well, in fact yes they do, I sold one a few years ago.

Then, use the factory PCV setup, which runs a hose & pipe from the back of the intake into a steel PCV on a steel bracket, and then into the back of the carb spacer. Better than the road draft and will still look sort-of factory, unless the owner really wants a road draft tube.

[Joe-JDC]

There was an aluminum 4V intake for the 390 HP/406, and a 352 HP.  The 390/406 was a better intake, and a bunch lighter.  Painted, they are so much alike that only a points judge would know the difference.  Joe-JDC

[WerbyFord]

There was an aluminum 4V intake for the 390 HP/406, and a 352 HP.  The 390/406 was a better intake, and a bunch lighter.  Painted, they are so much alike that only a points judge would know the difference.  Joe-JDC

For sure on that. I tested 4 intakes on a heavy car, 4600 lb, 434ci-c6-3.00 gear, a too-tall geared heavy dog on purpose
* 406HP alum
* Ed RPM
* 428pi
* Iron "Z" intake (the one on this Bird)

That's roughly the order they finished in. The 406HP intake with 1" spacer beat all 3 others. That surprised me.
1/4 mile would be different but this was all at lower speeds.

Re-used the same intake gaskets SIX TIMES thanks to Permatex HiTemp Red, it was all I had laying around. I don't know if the HiTemp reall helped but I've never re-used intake gaskets that many times with success.

[blykins]

There was an aluminum 4V intake for the 390 HP/406, and a 352 HP.  The 390/406 was a better intake, and a bunch lighter.  Painted, they are so much alike that only a points judge would know the difference.  Joe-JDC

Joe, do you know the engineering number for that intake? 

[pbf777]

      I believe the 1960 352 HP aluminum intake will not have any casting/engineering numbers present, but most will have the date code cast just behind and on top of the thermostat flange.

      The 1961 390 HP aluminum intake along with date casting codes may also fail to exhibit any numbers, but may otherwise display C1AE-9424-C?   

      I'm not aware as to whether the intakes are truly different in performance potential, but the carburetor linkage mounting posts are moved in relation to one another.

      Also for consideration in the same range, but perhaps a better performer, might be the C3AE-9424-E or F aluminum 406/427 LR intake.

      Note that these intakes may provide a different carburetor mating flange angle than the original Thunderbird unit which may need addressing.

      Scott.

[WerbyFord]

x2 what pbf said.
My intake has a date code but no casting number.
I do find both in the Gonkulator and with GTECH in car data that the aluminum 390HP/406 intake is about 10-15hp stronger than the iron 390/300 "Z" intake (and 50 lb lighter).

The later 427/410 c3ae-e,f intake is probably a bit better still but I've never tested one. We had one on our car back in the day and it was a torque monster (yup, the 427/410-4v in a 4100 lb Gal) but no hard data on it.

[blykins]

Thanks for the info guys.  I bought a 390/406 intake.  I actually bought the very intake that Jay used in his book. 

It's a win/win for me, even if it doesn't bump the performance.  It's lighter (I dread messing with the iron one with a herniated disc) and it doesn't have a road draft tube. 

[blykins]

In anticipation for the preliminary dyno session, I pulled a valve cover to check things out.  Smell of gas smacked me right in the face, so I imagine that this thing is gonna be lacking on ring seal. 

I also pulled the factory distributor to drop in an MSD and decided to check TDC against the pointer/balancer. 

It was 6° off.

I fixed that with some strategically placed white paint dabs.  I'll fix it more permanently when the build starts. 

New intake manifold will be here on Tuesday.  I appreciate everyone's help with the data, Joe, Werb, Scott, et al. 

[pbf777]

............................ and it doesn't have a road draft tube.

     Please do give this devise of antiquity the admiration it deserves, as many of these old cars clearly benefited over the decades from the oil emission under the vehicle if only providing for a corrosion inhibitor.       

     And if equipped, but not desired, the orifice proves applicable for an additional crankcase breather mounting point if desired (note: perhaps "required" if utilizing the "Bald" valve covers).             

     Scott.

[stubbie]

A 1" spacer would be good as a lot of birds suffer from heat soak. The spacers are angled also.

[wayne]

I had a 390 out of a bird like that years ago in a 69 ranger pickup put a small crane cam 300- 500 or something like that.Stock iron cj intake headers and a 3310 -780 holley it ran real good.A friend had a chevy 1/2 ton with a 396-325 with headers it could bust his butt with  half a load of wood in it. This will be a fun build to watch.

[blykins]

Gonna try and dyno it next week to get a baseline.  New intake manifold will be here Tuesday, so I may even try and swap it on the dyno to see what difference it makes. 

[blykins]

Dyno'ing the "before" on Monday.

[philips66]

Brent glad the intake will work for you.  Hopefully it was packaged good enough to survive the journey.

[64gal482]

My guess is 261 as is

Jose

[blykins]

Brent glad the intake will work for you.  Hopefully it was packaged good enough to survive the journey.

It would have survived Nagasaki the way it was packaged.   

[WerbyFord]

Gonna try and dyno it next week to get a baseline.  New intake manifold will be here Tuesday, so I may even try and swap it on the dyno to see what difference it makes.

Don't forget the 1" 4-hole spacers on top, both those old intakes like that.
Maybe even try a fancy cloverleaf high-dollar spacer or something.
Plenty of room under most hoods for the spacer on those.
Good luck Brent!

[blykins]

Gonna try and dyno it next week to get a baseline.  New intake manifold will be here Tuesday, so I may even try and swap it on the dyno to see what difference it makes.

Don't forget the 1" 4-hole spacers on top, both those old intakes like that.
Maybe even try a fancy cloverleaf high-dollar spacer or something.
Plenty of room under most hoods for the spacer on those.
Good luck Brent!

I don't think I own any 4 hole spacers.  I will try a Super Sucker though. 

This thing is a complete variable.  Have no clue what's gonna happen LOL

Got new plugs and an MSD in it, filled it with oil and primed the pump.  We will see. 

[wayne]

WerbyFord do you know how much a t bird 3x2 intake gives up to a full size car 3x2 setup.I think it is flat and dont have a rise front to back i had one years ago and sold it to the t bird store (now npd).I know it had a fitting under the center carb for power brakes.Not much i am sure but some i would think.

[blykins]

It was rebuilt by the "Proformance" guys in NJ.

In that case, I'd be surprised if it survives the dyno pulls. Those guys strike me as snake-oil salesmen.

Doug called it.  Couldn't even make a pull on it, got it up and running and the thing was so noisy we shut it down. 

I got it home and stripped some of it down.  Cam was trashed and it wasn't because the lobes were wiped, it was because there was a problem with the installation so that lifters were contacting adjoining cam lobes. 







So this is a '61 engine that did not come with a thrust plate.  However, when I tore it down, it had a spring/button that was located on the cam bolt.  One-piece eccentric, with a newer style cam gear.

I'm a newbie to these old style setups, I don't recall seeing one before.  Did the original old style camshafts have anything different on the front of them?  This one has a typical nose like I'm used to seeing.

[Heo]

The Earlier cam is different in the nose if memmory dont fail me

[blykins]

Should be a washer in there too I think.  This one didn't have it.

[Royce]

Brent when you redo it chuck the old cam hardware drill the block for a thrust plate, and proceed as normal.  That is not the first 390 to suffer from old and new parts mix..

[blykins]

Its hydraulic roller cam came in the other day but was hoping to get a nice before/after dyno session.

Had already planned on converting it.

[WConley]

I've heard that sound - hair raising!  It was a friend's 427 which he put together.  He added the old spacer to the new chain sprocket, even though the new one had a spacer built in.  Same result as your pictures.

I bet it was bad inside that closed room.  Detonation inside a dyno cell is enough to make you want to run away.

[My427stang]

Flanged cam and the right timing set, or two cam retainer bolts and a cam retainer...if the original builder did EITHER it’d be running. Poor engine, glad to see it will be fixed

[WerbyFord]

WerbyFord do you know how much a t bird 3x2 intake gives up to a full size car 3x2 setup.I think it is flat and dont have a rise front to back i had one years ago and sold it to the t bird store (now npd).I know it had a fitting under the center carb for power brakes.Not much i am sure but some i would think.

Wayne,
A very good question. I can only find 2 dyno tests of the BIRD 6v intake in the Gonkulator database.
The Gonkulator's intake model says about 5hp less with the BIRD intake at the ~350hp level, and the two dyno tests are consistent with that though this is not definitive.

So the 390/340-6v M-Bird Gonkulates at 318hp with the Ford-6v intake, and 315hp with the Bird-6v intake.
About a wheel well difference in the 1/4 mile.

The "M" Bird comes really close to its 340hp rating if I Gonkulate it with the Ford-6v intake and 390HiPo shorty iron, neither of which will fit in the Bird. I wonder if that's how it got the 340hp rating, and was then "de-tuned" to fit in the car!

[blykins]

So as an afterthought, this little engine should have been a nice little piece for the guy.  Not optimal, but just a typical 390 rebuild. 

Some of the parts that we were guessing at, at the beginning of the thread have been brought to light since I've been doing a tear down.  It's got H304P pistons, .030" over, and about .030" down.  The cam is a CWC core, EP19 grind.  I think that's a factory replacement camshaft from Sealed Power. 

The hone job looks like it was done with an egg beater and I could tell it was not torque plate honed as it's showing some shadows and the bores were pretty round/straight with the heads off. 

I really wish we could have dyno'd it.  I love before and after tests.  It just wasn't in the cards. 

[Royce]

Werby, Did you have my Tbird 6v test in your data base.  IIRC it made 340 horse and 440 torque with dyno headers.  I substituted a Crane HMV 260 cam for the original..

[pbf777]

Flanged cam and the right timing set, or two cam retainer bolts and a cam retainer...if the original builder did EITHER it’d be running.

     
     The earlier FE's utilized a camshaft with a thrust face flange facing rearward on the first journal, this contacting the machined finish on the block face, with a thrust preload spring and washer/"button" acting against the timing cover, which of early examples was of steel not aluminum.

     The earlier blocks can be converted for the later style thrust-plate use camshaft applications readily with the thread-tapping of two of the located oiling gallery passages currently stuffed with cup-plugs. And note as stated previously, that the later timing gear & chain set will also be required.       

     Scott.

[My427stang]

Flanged cam and the right timing set, or two cam retainer bolts and a cam retainer...if the original builder did EITHER it’d be running.

     
     The earlier FE's utilized a camshaft with a thrust face flange facing rearward on the first journal, this contacting the machined finish on the block face, with a thrust preload spring and washer/"button" acting against the timing cover, which of early examples was of steel not aluminum.

     The earlier blocks can be converted for the later style thrust-plate use camshaft applications readily with the thread-tapping of two of the located oiling gallery passages currently stuffed with cup-plugs. And note as stated previously, that the later timing gear & chain set will also be required.       

     Scott.

Scott, aren't we saying the same thing? 

He had a late cam, and a late timing set, with an early spring button, but no cam retainer.  Two things that the LAST builder (just want to make it clear it wasn't Brent LOL) could have done

1 - Use the right cam, but also would need the right timing set and the spring button
2 - Ditch the button, use the parts he had, and add a cam retainer and two bolts (the right thing to do)

I can only imagine the noise, even first start, when the lifters were pushing back on the "next" lone as the button tried to send it to the back of the block

[KsHighboy]

Is that common for the H304p piston to be that far down? I thought the 304 was closer than that. To get zero deck with a 304 would require an excessive amount of cutting the deck wouldn't it? Or is there a better piston to use in a 390 to get it closer to the top?

[WerbyFord]

Werby, Did you have my Tbird 6v test in your data base.  IIRC it made 340 horse and 440 torque with dyno headers.  I substituted a Crane HMV 260 cam for the original..

Royce,
Yes I've got that one thanks.
For a minute I was hoping we could make it 3 Bird-6v dyno tests instead of 2, but not to be.

[pbf777]

   
Scott, aren't we saying the same thing? 

     I'm not at odds with anything you stated.  I just wanted to add to your statement, as yours was clear for those who are familiar, but for others whom might be unknowing but interested I wished to just add some to the picture.     

     Scott.

[My427stang]

   
Scott, aren't we saying the same thing? 

     I'm not at odds with anything you stated.  I just wanted to add to your statement, as yours was clear for those who are familiar, but for others whom might be unknowing but interested I wished to just add some to the picture.     

     Scott.

No worries with me!

Is that common for the H304p piston to be that far down? I thought the 304 was closer than that. To get zero deck with a 304 would require an excessive amount of cutting the deck wouldn't it? Or is there a better piston to use in a 390 to get it closer to the top?

1.759 pin height = 10.139 stack, .031 below on an uncut block

L2291 TRW/Speedpro forged are a nice choice at 1.78

[KsHighboy]

Thanks Ross.

Question since you brought up the 2291. My 390 is a .060 over with 2291's. I'm running a cam research. 218@50 int 225@050 exh. WITH A .530 lift. Head gasket is just a blue fellow and I don't know what tr he thickness is. Heads are C8Ae. When run a compression test I only get about 145-150psi. Is that what I should expect from this  combination?

[WerbyFord]

Thanks Ross.

Question since you brought up the 2291. My 390 is a .060 over with 2291's. I'm running a cam research. 218@50 int 225@050 exh. WITH A .530 lift. Head gasket is just a blue fellow and I don't know what tr he thickness is. Heads are C8Ae. When run a compression test I only get about 145-150psi. Is that what I should expect from this  combination?

KS,
It would also help to know the LSA and advance or ICL of the cam. I assumed LSA=110 and ICL=106 which is 4 advanced. Given that, and assuming a .040 gasket, my Compressolator gets:
9.7 CR
90 Octane requirement (assuming aluminum intake and blocked heat crossover, no cold air, 180F water)
178 psi compression, give or take 20 psi, that's as good as the model is.
Are you measuring hot or cold?
Is the carb (what carb is on there?) blocked open?
I usually let the gauge see 6 "hits" for consistency.

[KsHighboy]

Webby, you are correct on the separation and C/L. Its been awhile since I checked it but I believe it was cold and no the carb was not open.

[My427stang]

Webby, you are correct on the separation and C/L. Its been awhile since I checked it but I believe it was cold and no the carb was not open.

Sounds ballpark to me, a L2291 with a .053 Felpro and a .010 cut deck, C8s, would be around 9.25-9.40 static compression

Can't really calculate without advertised (.006) duration, but assuming around 272 adv, I would say you are in the ballpark, especially if throttle closed

[frnkeore]

The H304P has a CH of 1.759 and .031 nominal deck clearance but, the L2143AF, with it's 1.776 CH, has .014 DC with a 6.49 rod (nominal is actually 6.488). They both have valve reliefs and a recess but, I don't know how many cc they the recess is.

When figuring CR don't forget the area down to the first ring, it's about 1.2cc on a 4.08 bore if, the first ring is .300 down.

Guessing 12cc (probably more like 15cc) for the recess, that gives 8.92 with 72cc heads for the H304P's, 9.21 with the L2143AF and 9.63, for the later L2291 (1.775 CH). All with a .040 head gasket and stock 10.17 deck.

If you use the .053 gasket, take about .3 off of those figures. That would give 8.48, with .053 gasket and 15cc recess, for the H304P. Going with L2291, .04 gasket and .010 off the deck, you get about 9.8/1, with a good quench and a much better combo.

[KsHighboy]

Thank you guys for the info. Very helpful.

[blykins]

Working on this one again. 

Bores actually cleaned up with just a thou taken out.   All parts are ordered including new custom Racetec forged pistons, crank is at the grinder's shop, rods are being resized with ARP bolts, camshaft is here, and we have a new (to us) factory aluminum intake manifold. 

Cylinder heads are all finished, decks surfaces cut, bronze valve guides with SI stainless 11/32" valves, valve job, and all new hardware on top including PAC valve springs, Comp locators/retainers, and Viton valve seals. 

[blykins]

Following up here....

Engine is almost ready to dyno:



The Argent Silver valve covers against a satin black engine sure look nice. 

Hope to get it on the dyno in a few weeks. 

[machoneman]

Looks great Brent!

[WConley]

Agreed!  That's a great looking FE 

[frnkeore]

I've always liked black, over the newer blue.

[427John]

It was rebuilt by the "Proformance" guys in NJ.

In that case, I'd be surprised if it survives the dyno pulls. Those guys strike me as snake-oil salesmen.

Doug called it.  Couldn't even make a pull on it, got it up and running and the thing was so noisy we shut it down. 

I got it home and stripped some of it down.  Cam was trashed and it wasn't because the lobes were wiped, it was because there was a problem with the installation so that lifters were contacting adjoining cam lobes. 







So this is a '61 engine that did not come with a thrust plate.  However, when I tore it down, it had a spring/button that was located on the cam bolt.  One-piece eccentric, with a newer style cam gear.

I'm a newbie to these old style setups, I don't recall seeing one before.  Did the original old style camshafts have anything different on the front of them?  This one has a typical nose like I'm used to seeing.

Brent the old style cams were different,they had kind of a flange on the front used the thrust button that rode against the timing cover,used a narrower timing set,you should be able to convert the block to use the retainer plate,cant remember if you have to tap the oil galleys or if there is a boss that has to be drilled and tapped,but I'm pretty sure the block has whatever is needed to do it.Also check the the main thrust bearing flange in the block,it probably has the earlier smaller diameter flange.

[blykins]

It was rebuilt by the "Proformance" guys in NJ.

In that case, I'd be surprised if it survives the dyno pulls. Those guys strike me as snake-oil salesmen.

Doug called it.  Couldn't even make a pull on it, got it up and running and the thing was so noisy we shut it down. 

I got it home and stripped some of it down.  Cam was trashed and it wasn't because the lobes were wiped, it was because there was a problem with the installation so that lifters were contacting adjoining cam lobes. 







So this is a '61 engine that did not come with a thrust plate.  However, when I tore it down, it had a spring/button that was located on the cam bolt.  One-piece eccentric, with a newer style cam gear.

I'm a newbie to these old style setups, I don't recall seeing one before.  Did the original old style camshafts have anything different on the front of them?  This one has a typical nose like I'm used to seeing.

Brent the old style cams were different,they had kind of a flange on the front used the thrust button that rode against the timing cover,used a narrower timing set,you should be able to convert the block to use the retainer plate,cant remember if you have to tap the oil galleys or if there is a boss that has to be drilled and tapped,but I'm pretty sure the block has whatever is needed to do it.Also check the the main thrust bearing flange in the block,it probably has the earlier smaller diameter flange.

Way ahead of you, sir....

This one is ready, has been fully machined, converted to thrust plate, new custom roller cam, new custom pistons, roller rockers, etc.  It's ready to dyno. 

To answer your question, the ends of the galleries are where you drill/tap.  One hole is the passenger side lifter gallery, the other hole is the hole that feeds the distributor shaft/gear.

It does have an earlier thrust flange.  That's easy to deal with, it doesn't take much dressing of a King bearing to get it to slide on.  If you do choose to use something like a Federal Mogul bearing, then it's easy to clamp them around a mandrel and quickly cut the flange down in a lathe. 

The picture of the finished engine is up above. 

[427John]

It was rebuilt by the "Proformance" guys in NJ.

In that case, I'd be surprised if it survives the dyno pulls. Those guys strike me as snake-oil salesmen.

Doug called it.  Couldn't even make a pull on it, got it up and running and the thing was so noisy we shut it down. 

I got it home and stripped some of it down.  Cam was trashed and it wasn't because the lobes were wiped, it was because there was a problem with the installation so that lifters were contacting adjoining cam lobes. 







So this is a '61 engine that did not come with a thrust plate.  However, when I tore it down, it had a spring/button that was located on the cam bolt.  One-piece eccentric, with a newer style cam gear.

I'm a newbie to these old style setups, I don't recall seeing one before.  Did the original old style camshafts have anything different on the front of them?  This one has a typical nose like I'm used to seeing.

Brent the old style cams were different,they had kind of a flange on the front used the thrust button that rode against the timing cover,used a narrower timing set,you should be able to convert the block to use the retainer plate,cant remember if you have to tap the oil galleys or if there is a boss that has to be drilled and tapped,but I'm pretty sure the block has whatever is needed to do it.Also check the the main thrust bearing flange in the block,it probably has the earlier smaller diameter flange.

Way ahead of you, sir....

This one is ready, has been fully machined, converted to thrust plate, new custom roller cam, new custom pistons, roller rockers, etc.  It's ready to dyno. 

To answer your question, the ends of the galleries are where you drill/tap.  One hole is the passenger side lifter gallery, the other hole is the hole that feeds the distributor shaft/gear.

It does have an earlier thrust flange.  That's easy to deal with, it doesn't take much dressing of a King bearing to get it to slide on.  If you do choose to use something like a Federal Mogul bearing, then it's easy to clamp them around a mandrel and quickly cut the flange down in a lathe. 

The picture of the finished engine is up above.

Oops my bad ,guess I need to finish reading the whole thread before reply.

[blykins]

Finally got this one dyno'd today.....

Final numbers are 390 hp @ 5400 and 458 lb-ft at 3600. 

Who got the closest?

[winr1]

Nice build !!

Did you post the cam specs or that between you and owner ??

CJ sized valves ??




Ricky.

[blykins]

Nice build !!

Did you post the cam specs or that between you and owner ??

CJ sized valves ??




Ricky.

I can give most of them....LOL

219/227 @ .050", 109 LSA, .605" lift.

[KsHighboy]

Looks like Shady guessed 390hp.

[Val406]

Guessing 237 as it sits.

[Val406]

Ooops, disregard. I'm way late to this thread.