Author Topic: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing  (Read 6476 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

gwingard

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« on: January 11, 2021, 06:20:45 PM »
I'm curious to know if anyone out there in FE-land can tell me what vehicles used the MG9394 bellhousing.  I got one of these when I bought solid lifter 390 block but I'm not sure if it actually belonged with said block.  This bellhousing gave me additional pressure plate clearance when I was building a 410 motor with a McLeod clutch for my 1964 Mercury Marauder.  This bell had a smaller release lever window which I modified to accept the modern rubber boot for the release lever.  The release lever fulcrum need to be moved .355 in the direction of the crankshaft to accommodate my Mercury release lever.  After these mods everything worked just fine.  Any info on this bellhousing would be greatly appreciated.

Geoffrey

thatdarncat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2021, 07:46:15 PM »
I don’t really have any specific info, but looking through my date code notebook log I was reminded there is currently one for sale on the FE Fanatics Garage Sale Facebook page. I’ve seen a few others, but this one has a nice clear picture of the date code so I noted it. The date code of this one is “8 1 (backwards) E” which is 1958 January 30th, which is in the 1958 model year. The only FE powered vehicles at that time would be a full size Ford, T-Bird, & Edsel, so one could maybe assume those are the applications, but that’s just speculation. The next generation of bellhousings I tend to see, going by date codes, are the ones with the “4848339” casting number. The MG 6394-A bellhousings may only have been used for the first couple model years, but that’s just speculation at this time too. It would be nice if some more people would note the date codes of this stuff, if anyone has one of these lying around, or a known application, hopefully they post it up. Here’s the one on Facebook.

Kevin Rolph

1967 Cougar Drag Car ( under constuction )
1966 7 litre Galaxie
1966 Country Squire 390
1966 Cyclone GT 390
1968 Torino GT 390
1972 Gran Torino wagon
1978 Lincoln Mk V

427John

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #2 on: January 11, 2021, 08:07:44 PM »
I've got 1 of those too,I think they were used in the 58 model year,mine has a late 1957 casting date,the smaller window was due to use of a leather boot with metal clips instead of the rubber.I'm not sure which lever it used,obviously not the same as the later bells.I've got a couple more that have a number of 4848339 that have  59 and 61 casting dates on them,so they must have switched to them at some point,and then they started using the C3AA in 63.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2021, 08:18:48 PM by 427John »

Gregwill16

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2021, 08:17:03 PM »
I've never seen one of the MG bellhousings, but I sold one of the 4848339 versions last year with a 4C or D date. It had one of the leather boots with it as well.

427John

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2021, 08:17:44 PM »
Kevin another possible use could be early Edsel and Mercury MEL motors supposedly FE bells fit them too.When I get a chance I will take a closer look at mine to see if any have the PP clearance hump like the C5AA and C6OA bells,since Geoffrey mentioned that it gave him additional PP clearance maybe one is for a 11.5" PP.

427John

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2021, 08:24:45 PM »
Geoffrey what brand PP were you running the reason I ask is a buddy had a clearance problem with a centerforce PP in an early Galaxie bell but I don't remember which number it was.

Rory428

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1006
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2021, 11:41:06 PM »
I don`t recall the casting number on it, but I have a similar looking bellhousing behind the 428 in my 59 2 door sedan. The casting date was for a late 1960 or early 61 as I recall. I prefer the later style clutch forks with the flat leaf retaining spring, so I replaced the pivot fulcrum and clutch fork with McLeod pieces, which works fine with the 59s factory mechanical clutch linkage. I also used a new McLeod steel flywheel and 11" Long Style "Street Pro" clutch kit. I am using a small block wide ratio Toploader, and had to use the inside mounting holes, as the early only has the narrow pattern. Biggest concern is these early bellhousings have a smaller hole for the transmissions front bearing retainer. I had 3 options, 1 is to find a 1964 only Toploader bearing retainer, 2nd is to have your existing retaining machined down to the smaller diameter, or finally, do as I did, have the bellhousings hole opened up to the 65& newer size. I went that route so than if needed, any other Toploader would fit. Although these early bells are designed to use the early long shaft "follow Thru" starter motor, that did not use a steel block plate between the engine block and bellhousing, and had a smaller flywheel, I used the later 184 tooth flywheel, and short nose starter, and a block plate, and it starts up great with no funny noises.
1978 Fairmont,FE 427 with 428 crank, 4 speed Jerico best of 9.972@132.54MPH 1.29 60 foot
1985 Mustang HB 331 SB Ford, 4 speed Jerico, best of 10.29@128 MPH 1.40 60 foot.
1974 F350 race car hauler 390 NP435 4 speed
1959 Ford Meteor 2 dr sedan. 428 Cobra Jet, 4 speed Toploader. 12.54@ 108 MPH

427John

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2021, 01:32:17 AM »
That doesn't surprise me on the flywheel clearance the early flywheel is actually no smaller than the late one just the ring gear pitch is different,supposedly you can even switch the ring gear if you want.Did you have any issues with longer input shaft small block toploader working with the shallower car bell?The truck bell is deeper and works fine with the small block trans,I measured them once but can't remember how much difference there was.

GerryP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 568
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2021, 09:13:15 AM »
...I measured them once but can't remember how much difference there was.

5/8"

thatdarncat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2021, 10:34:53 AM »
...I measured them once but can't remember how much difference there was.

5/8"

I don’t want the post to go sideways, one of our members a while ago endeavored to get an accurate measurement of the difference between the passenger car and pickup truck bellhousings. He came up with .400”. Here’s a screenshot of the post from one of the FE Facebook pages. This of course is just a sample of two bellhousings, but so far it’s best documented measurement I’ve seen.

Kevin Rolph

1967 Cougar Drag Car ( under constuction )
1966 7 litre Galaxie
1966 Country Squire 390
1966 Cyclone GT 390
1968 Torino GT 390
1972 Gran Torino wagon
1978 Lincoln Mk V

Rory428

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1006
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2021, 11:15:34 AM »
That doesn't surprise me on the flywheel clearance the early flywheel is actually no smaller than the late one just the ring gear pitch is different,supposedly you can even switch the ring gear if you want.Did you have any issues with longer input shaft small block toploader working with the shallower car bell?The truck bell is deeper and works fine with the small block trans,I measured them once but can't remember how much difference there was.
Not at all. I bolted up the bellhousing and block plate, with no flywheel or clutch, and there was sufficient clearance between the splined nose and the pilot bushing. I then measured the length of the input tip, and compared it to the distance from the backside of pilot bushing to the bottom of the hole in the crankshaft, and there was lots of room, no need to trim the top down. Now, this was with a factory Ford 1UB 428CJ crank, I can`t say that every FE crank has the same depth hole(s), but in my case, it was a non issue. Makes you wonder if this "problem" was an urban myth, or has anybody actually had such an issue, first hand in real life? Maybe earlier, or later cranks had a shallower hole, I can`t say myself.
1978 Fairmont,FE 427 with 428 crank, 4 speed Jerico best of 9.972@132.54MPH 1.29 60 foot
1985 Mustang HB 331 SB Ford, 4 speed Jerico, best of 10.29@128 MPH 1.40 60 foot.
1974 F350 race car hauler 390 NP435 4 speed
1959 Ford Meteor 2 dr sedan. 428 Cobra Jet, 4 speed Toploader. 12.54@ 108 MPH

Heo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2021, 11:28:35 AM »
I had one bottoming out but that was on a Y-block,62 truck 292with 56 passenger bell. Maybe the "myth"
comes from there?



The defenition of a Gentleman, is a man that can play the accordion.But dont do it

allrightmike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2021, 11:37:52 AM »
Were '58 T-birds available with a manual transmission?

SSdynosaur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2021, 01:40:30 PM »
Yes. Three speed on the tree. I don't know if availability covered the MEL engine or not but definitely the 352 FE.

427John

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: Ford MG9394 Bellhousing
« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2021, 02:41:20 PM »
Were '58 T-birds available with a manual transmission?
I'm not sure about all 3 years(58-60)but I've got some squarebird clutch stuff around here somewhere,and if I remember right it came out of a 58.