As I said, he has blocked off the return hole on the right side, channeling the oil return, to the rear. giving a flow directly across the lifters on it's return path.

The left side flows forward, in the same way. Because of that, I see no reason to supply pressurized oil to the lifters with a solid roller cam. I don't know if he did but, I would then block the pressurized oil to the lifters, as it isn't needed and eliminates that oil bleed off.

It looks to me, that he is raising the oil level, to oil the lifters, in the valley. Then draining the right side, to the rear and the left side, to the front, to even the flow back, away from the crank.

It looks like he has siliconed the front drain back closed, on the right front, to that end.

I would also guess that the oil to the lifter galley has been blocked, to get more available flow to the crank.

It doesn't, if you drain the coolant and run it to operating temp, at a idle. Use a heat gun for temp, the sende won't pick the true temp, w/o water.

Pull the plugs and squirt light oil in the cylinders spin it with the starter and it should be fine, until you get to it.

In '63, I had a '58 Edsel, with a 345 hp, 410 MEL engine and a 2.91 rear gear. Cursing at 65 mph I could get 18 mpg. It had a Cruise a Matic and didn't lock up, of course but, we had good gas in those days. Also, it was a 4000+ lb, boxy shaped car.

 I think a T-5 is to light duty, if you plan to romp on it very much. If you can, go with the 4R trans and a 3.89 or 3.74 rear.

I'm a old dog but, can be taught new tricks

I will concede that they are fairly thin wall with the early block measurement of that EDC block (I'll call it .281) by thatdarncat. But, on a well centered core, it would still give you a .112 wall and doable for a 4.125 bore, at least in my day. Sonic testing would have only been a dream, in my early years. Maybe my Unicorn is the '58 Edsel 361 engine, the first 4.05 bore FE.

To that end, yesterday, I did a search of 1958 Ford advertising to see if I could find a reference of the "New Ford Thin Wall technology" I did not find anything that said that. If anyone has any real literature on the '58 FE's new thin wall castings, I would appreciate it being posted. It has to be out there, Ford was never silent about new developments.

I do appreciate everyone input and I am surprised at the length of this thread. I'm a retired  machinist and do like and appereciate the measurements that your giving.



'58 was a big year for Ford, they also came out with the MEL and a new line of truck engines

What kind/type of traction bars are you using?

Since you asked. What I'm looking for is free HP and a less expensive build.

4.125 adds 10 cubic inches, over 4.080 and I have a set of 4.125 forged pistons.

Whether or not, in your opinion Ak Miller and others, are wrong, is irrelevant to me, I only know that it was done by many and a usable platform.

The OP was only about when the FE changed to a thin wall casting and at this point, no one seems to know or where to point me, to find out. But, I did ask how much you can bore a late engine and find out that if you bore a later FE to .040, it will not last.

I thought that there might be some technical info from Fords engineering dept available on this forum.

Thank you all, for your input.

Frank, I don't claim any special information. Having said that, I have never read anywhere that early FEs were not thin wall. I have read that Ford's reason for the FE architecture was the thin wall casting to create a lighter block. My mention of 4.63 spacing is that it tends to limit production bore sizes, and later over bores, particularly when combined with the casting techniques and metallurgy of the period. The Lincoln Y-block 368 was a 4 inch bore, I imagine limited to some degree by the spacing.

BTW, the comment in the article about 428 bore sizes on 390 blocks does NOT describe what tests he did to do it, you can almost guarantee a lot of blocks didn't pass the test, and that some that did still failed.

Sadly, there isn't a treasure trove of special FEs out there we can use.

What you do not realize, is that Fords "Thin Wall" technology  did not occur until the release of the 1960 Falcon 144/170 engine. It was advertised a lot when it was released. It was again advertised when the 221/260 came out in '62, never before that. I would be interested in your citation of the FE being designed as a thin wall engine.

The FE engine was not, what you would call a light weight engine. The industrial engines, weighed in at 711-720 lb (I have the specs for those) based on that and my recollection, the car engine was in the 670-680 lb class, with cast iron intake and water pump. Has anyone weighed their engines with aluminum intake and water pump?

The 317-368 Linc/Merc engine was another one commonly bored 1/8". All engines, designed before '60, where commonly bore 1/8", including the SBC 283's. Although, I don't remember 327 and 350's being bored 1/8" but .060, for sure.  For those that say a Ford can not be bored even  a 1/8th, I have to refer you to the flathead engine, that was commonly bored 3/16 (I had one) and could be bored 1/4" on some blocks.

With the "thin wall" engines, Ford was able to decrease the distance between bores to .38 and still use .040 over, SBC to .40 with .060 over and Siamesed cylinders to .255-.275  and still allow a overbore. Take that technology to the FE and you get 4.25 - 4.375. Only the limited production, 427 had anything like that. Another reason I don't believe the early engines were "thin Wall".

Regarding block testing, I don't think anyone did that, prior to '80 and as a mechanic, between '62 and '70, I never heard of a cracked FE (hell, they weren't even called FE's before at least '75). The only racked blocks I ever saw was a std bore 350 SBC, cracked in the bore and a 312 cracked in the main bearing web. You also have to remember that the FE stands for Ford Edsel and that Edsel engine started life, in '58 at a 4.05 bore with .060 over pistons available.

Just a guess on my part but, the 352 casting numbers might mean that they used the original 352 sand cores on those blocks.

I'm not trying to say, the criteria that you are using is wrong not at all! What I started out looking for was the approx date that the FE was changed to a "thin wall" type engine and I would be interested in knowing the weight difference from that, if so.

I do not have a citation to back up, that they where changed, it's just something I read, at some time. From the response, that I'm getting, it sound like the if there was a change it may have occurred early (like '65/'68) and then a change that involved truck and 428 type blocks?