1961 Thunderbird 390...

[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.