390 build from Mustang 360 forum

[winr1]

http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/1706-how-to-build-a-brute-390-fe



Ricky.

[blykins]

Why is it that nobody has oil drain back issues without that stupid Glyptal?  I hate seeing that junk inside an engine. 

[My427stang]

Why is it that nobody has oil drain back issues without that stupid Glyptal?  I hate seeing that junk inside an engine.

Great stuff, until it isn't LOL   Waste of time and money for a gimmick you'll have to undo at some point

[blykins]

I’d be ashamed to tell anyone that I made 430 hp with a stroked 390. LOL

[plovett]

It looks like they used a stock 3.78" stroke 390 crank, and they did not dyno it.   Plus unknown cam spec's so it's hard to judge.  I agree that using Glyptal is a weird phenomena.  I guess it just looks neato?

The not dynoing the engine and then posting dyno numbers from another build or from a simulator seems to be Jim Smart's hallmark.  I remember he once did a whole series of articles on different Ford builds and didn't dyno a single one, but posted numbers anyway. 

pl

[My427stang]

"Gregg has opted for an aggressive Crane street hydraulic roller cam with excellent road manners and a civilized idle at the traffic light. This is an off-the-shelf piece that will deliver a broad torque curve right off idle and will rev to 6,000rpm without breaking a sweat"

"Gregg confirms true top dead center on all eight bores, then goes through a very detailed cam degreeing process, leaving no stone unturned.  Valve timing is retarded for better high-rpm performance or advanced for improved low-end torque."

"That’s GE Glyptal coating the valley for improved oil drain back and block sealing"

"Lifter bores have been honed for improved oil control and stability"

I hate to be a hater, but all of that above is malarkey LOL  He did port the heads which looked pretty good in the pictures, so it likely ran OK, would have been better if we knew more parts

As far as Jim Smart, I saw him sitting ON an open Boss 302 door during a Pony Trail event, this was a top of the line resto/hot rod Boss 302 Mustang  The owner and I led the run, and I had to call the owner on his cell to run over and tell him not to sit on his car door.  Not saying leaning, sitting on the surface with his feet inside the car taking pictures.  Admittedly, a very nice guy, odd cat, but this looked like a last minute throw together of an article, even for him

[jayb]

If I understand the history correctly, for LeMans in 68 and 69 the 7.0 liter engine was outlawed, and the Ford GTs that won that year were powered by small blocks.  So, right off the bat, the first sentence in the article is wrong; FEs only won at LeMans twice.

I had nothing to do with that article, but I also see that I was misquoted in there.  The oil holes going from the mains to the cam journals are offset slightly in FE blocks because they are drilled to line up with the cam journals, and the cam journals are on different spacings than the mains.  So that's why there is an offset between the center of those oil holes and the center of the main bearing journals.  It has nothing to do with oil control, which was a statement attributed to me   More incorrect info out there in the mainstream...

[blykins]

It looks like they used a stock 3.78" stroke 390 crank, and they did not dyno it.   Plus unknown cam spec's so it's hard to judge.  I agree that using Glyptal is a weird phenomena.  I guess it just looks neato?

The not dynoing the engine and then posting dyno numbers from another build or from a simulator seems to be Jim Smart's hallmark.  I remember he once did a whole series of articles on different Ford builds and didn't dyno a single one, but posted numbers anyway. 

pl

Ah, it mentioned a cast stroker crank in the first page, at 431 cubes, so I thought it was going to be a stroker.   

I have little faith that those guys have ever seen an FE before.  The only saving grace is that they mentioned Jay, even if it was an incorrect quote.   

[My427stang]

If I understand the history correctly, for LeMans in 68 and 69 the 7.0 liter engine was outlawed, and the Ford GTs that won that year were powered by small blocks.  So, right off the bat, the first sentence in the article is wrong; FEs only won at LeMans twice.

I had nothing to do with that article, but I also see that I was misquoted in there.  The oil holes going from the mains to the cam journals are offset slightly in FE blocks because they are drilled to line up with the cam journals, and the cam journals are on different spacings than the mains.  So that's why there is an offset between the center of those oil holes and the center of the main bearing journals.  It has nothing to do with oil control, which was a statement attributed to me   More incorrect info out there in the mainstream...

I saw that too, although depending on how you read it, it could be controlling oil by drilling in a straight line LOL

[plovett]

It looks like they used a stock 3.78" stroke 390 crank, and they did not dyno it.   Plus unknown cam spec's so it's hard to judge.  I agree that using Glyptal is a weird phenomena.  I guess it just looks neato?

The not dynoing the engine and then posting dyno numbers from another build or from a simulator seems to be Jim Smart's hallmark.  I remember he once did a whole series of articles on different Ford builds and didn't dyno a single one, but posted numbers anyway. 

pl

Ah, it mentioned a cast stroker crank in the first page, at 431 cubes, so I thought it was going to be a stroker.   

I have little faith that those guys have ever seen an FE before.  The only saving grace is that they mentioned Jay, even if it was an incorrect quote.

Yeah, they mentioned two different crankshafts, two induction systems, two engines, two dyno results for the engine not in the article( 430hp, 500hp), and also said the engine in the article was a blueprint for 500 hp.   Holy moly! What a mess. Less than awesome article, but I'd guess the actual 390 that was built is a decent engine. 

pl

[Nightmist66]

As far as Glyptal, some of us have been "lucky" with it for decades of use. If the oil returns are addressed prior to application, and you don't glop it on, it'll work just fine. Some parts we have coated, the Glyptal could barely be cleaned off with a sand blaster. It's like any other paint project, it's all in the prepwork and some in curing. Kaase still does it, so it can't be that stupid...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dIrvPfrnXjM

[blykins]

I would be interested in hearing anyone's testimony in which they had an oil control problem that was remedied by it.   It does look nice, but for as many people that use it successfully, there are as many that don't use it successfully. 

[My427stang]

As far as Glyptal, some of us have been "lucky" with it for decades of use. If the oil returns are addressed prior to application, and you don't glop it on, it'll work just fine. Some parts we have coated, the Glyptal could barely be cleaned off with a sand blaster. It's like any other paint project, it's all in the prepwork and some in curing. Kaase still does it, so it can't be that stupid...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dIrvPfrnXjM

I have to agree with Brent.   I think it looks really nice, feels good on your fingers, etc, but as far as oil control, I can't see it doing anything to change a significant quantity of returning oil in a hot engine

I would also have to agree that lots of people have been using it for a long time with success,  but I recently had a set of heads in here, from a known builder who has also used it a long time, and it was not great.  If fact, I didn't use the heads because of many other issues, and admittedly, the Glyptal was by no means the primary cause for sending them back... but it sure added to it

The guides and area around the springs were pretty, but it was thick enough I couldn't fit a spring cup over the guide, when I slid it over, it peeled right off the guide and sheeted/flaked off.  As I was measuring installed heights, the base of the spring mike was causing damage to it as well.  All I could think it the valves loading and unloading and those flakes coming apart and going through the bearings. 

Certainly must have been a bum application, or maybe it needs to NOT be loaded or near moving parts, but this was done by a company that probably buys it by the tank.  My thought is, how would you know?  If you have a procedure and trust it, it's cool and does smooth things out a little, but I think if it was that critical for the build, I'd likely just go at the valley with a stone before machining. 

In no way am I throwing stones at your beautiful builds, needless to say you do nice stuff, and no doubt you don't take shortcuts, but I see more risk than reward for the ones I do.

[Nightmist66]

The guides and area around the springs were pretty, but it was thick enough I couldn't fit a spring cup over the guide, when I slid it over, it peeled right off the guide and sheeted/flaked off.  As I was measuring installed heights, the base of the spring mike was causing damage to it as well.  All I could think it the valves loading and unloading and those flakes coming apart and going through the bearings. 

Certainly must have been a bum application, or maybe it needs to NOT be loaded or near moving parts, but this was done by a company that probably buys it by the tank. 

I absolutely agree it should never be applied somewhere where it will make contact with something. Not to mention it will be taking up some kind of clearance. I go around spring seats, lifter bores, threaded holes, thrust plate surface, distributor seat/bore, etc... That IS asking for the paint to chip/flake. If the paint goes into a hole or something, then I will quickly clean it out with a little brake cleaner on a towel or cotton swab. I never leave that stuff before I cure a part. I feel the paint has a shelf life like anything else, too. Don't use old paint.

[cjshaker]

As far as Glyptal, some of us have been "lucky" with it for decades of use. If the oil returns are addressed prior to application, and you don't glop it on, it'll work just fine. Some parts we have coated, the Glyptal could barely be cleaned off with a sand blaster. It's like any other paint project, it's all in the prepwork and some in curing. Kaase still does it, so it can't be that stupid...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dIrvPfrnXjM

Notable quote from the video from Kaase concerning the 'improved airflow' from reworking his exhaust ports: "It'll flow a little bit better. It also hurts it about 30-50 horsepower, so we don't care as much about the airflow as we do about what that needle says on the dyno".

Good stuff. Theory and intuition take a back seat to experience.

I would be interested in hearing anyone's testimony in which they had an oil control problem that was remedied by it.   It does look nice, but for as many people that use it successfully, there are as many that don't use it successfully. 

The glyptol doesn't cure an oil control problem. I don't believe anyone has ever said that. It does aid in getting it back to the pan faster, and when you're turning 7000+ RPM and making 1000-4000 horsepower, anything that can aid in getting oil to the pan faster, to keep from sucking the pan dry, is a good thing. Wouldn't you agree? This would be especially important on engines that run at high throttle inputs for extended periods of time, such as the boat engines he mentioned. It also seals porosity on the block, which can hide grit and impurities that can contaminate the oil, or cause caking. 

Spending hours and hours and hours with a stone (sending abrasive grit to every crevice in the block) to smooth the casting finish seems pretty stupid when properly applied Glyptol will do it better, and quicker. Not using it in areas where parts are touching or moving should be common sense.

John Kaase has every right to brag about his accolades and accomplishments, but he is one of the most humble guys you will ever meet. A lesson that seems lost on a lot of people.