I see that Blue Thunder has 3 different Weber manifolds for the FE listed in their catalog.  The standard cut F.E. IDA Weber manifold, angle cut F.E. IDA Weber manifold, and eight ( 8 ) venturi FE IDA fuel injection manifold. Due to lack of information in their catalog and my inability to obtain additional information about the f.i. version of the manifold, I'm making this post in hopes of getting some useful information to determine if it would be a good fit for my project. As always, any information is appreciated.

As noted in the subject, I purchased a lightweight flywheel and new set of pistons and sent the rotating assembly (crank, flywheel and bolts, rods, rod bearings, rings, pistons, and damper) to be balanced again.  I can see that the flywheel was bolted to the crankshaft at some point and I think small amounts of filing might have been performed on the pistons.  The part I'm a bit confused by is the rod bearings still being shrink wrapped in their original packaging.  I'm re-using the rings from the previous set of pistons, so I have no way of knowing if their weight was factored in since they were just tied together as a set from each cylinder and were not packaged like the rod bearings. I don't see any markings on the pistons in relation to the connecting rods either (i.e., #1 piston to be used on #1 connecting rod).

It has literally been decades since I had this assembly balanced the first time so I don't remember all of the particulars, but I think I recall particular pistons being paired with particular rods. The other note of interest is that after the machine shop had the assembly for a month (with no contact of any sort), I called to inquire about the progress and had the rotating assembly back in my shop 2 days later. Either my timing is impeccable, or the job was being ignored until an inquiry was made and then fast tracked to completion. The last experience I had with a machine shop doing work on this engine (different one from the shop doing the current work) resulted in missing oil gallery plugs and the rear cam plug being installed backwards. In short, I have no faith in the local shops (all of the veterans have retired) but figured balancing the rotating assembly should be fairly straight forward.

So my question is, should I be concerned about the rotating assembly being balanced properly?  I am inclined to think the answer is yes.

So I thought it would be nice to "unclutter" the engine bay a bit by doing away with the steering box and reduce the number of bushings and joints in the steering linkage. The Unisteer option would be the easiest route from what I've seen after a bit of searching. Bolts up to the frame where the steering box and idler arm bracket attach. Power steering would be a nice addition (the car is currently manual steer which is super fun with the 390 sitting in the engine bay and not in motion), but pumps, lines, and power steering fluid are soooooo 2001.  EPAS attached to the steering column would address that issue and allow a manual rack to be used but why add clutter to one area while removing it from another?  Modern racks have EPAS built in of course, but most (if not all) rear steer EPAS racks have the electric motor mounted vertically since the vehicles are FWD by default and present clearance issues.  Vehicles like Mustangs or Navigators have racks with the motors mounted horizontally but they are a front steer configuration.

So my thoughts are:

1) Use a rack like the one in the picture (front steer) only modified so it will be a rear steer center take-off style. That means replacing the tie rods on the rack with something to attach to the existing spindle connector rods. Also, some sort of setup will be needed to turn the input shaft of the rack in the opposite direction the steering wheel is being turned so turning the steering wheel left or right will result in a turn in the same direction.  Yeesh!

2) Use the rack as designed by switching the spindles to opposite sides and converting to front steer.  Then the only hurdles would be mounting the rack, attaching the steering column to the rack's input shaft, wiring it up, and most likely an alignment.

I'm not sure what clearance issues the oil pan might present if going the front steer route, but elimination of the spindle connector rods means a rear sump oil pan would be an option.  I believe the rack could be mounted and not interfere with the strut that attaches to the frame and lower arm or the stabilizer bar. That leaves my biggest concern.  What effect will swapping the spindles have regarding caster? Adjustments to caster can be made of course, but a visual inspection with the spindles installed is a bit inconclusive when trying to determine if a swap would be feasible or not.  Thoughts?

According to my handy dandy framing square, the deck of the block and the face of the welch plug holes are perpendicular to each other.  I couldn't help myself after tapping the oil galleries and making this small discovery and thought "Might as well tap those too."  My plan is to use the deck to bolt on a jig for the tap and machine down a chunk of aluminum bar stock I had sitting around to center the tap in relation to the hole.  Since the body of the tap is 1.499" and the hole in the block is 1.750" it makes sense to me the bar stock can be machined to match the body of the tap on one end and the block hole on the other.  Should do a very good job of centering the jig before tightening things down and switching to the tap. After that, some cutting oil and a bit of elbow grease should produce a nicely prepped hole ready for the screw in plug.

As always, I like to take into account I might not be perfect in my approach to things. If I may have overlooked something or their are other points of interest I'm not aware of, feel free to let me know.

After reading various posts and watching an excellent video of Brent's, I brought out the reamer and tap and went to work.  I'm assuming this isn't an issue but thought it would be prudent to ask about the depth on the 4 rear plugs.  On all other plugs I ended up with 2 or so threads from being flush, with a slightly different result on the rear plugs as shown in the picture.  On the plus side, the plug between the distributor and lifter bores turned out perfect.    Do I need to worry about the rear plugs sticking out farther than a couple threads? Any feedback is appreciated. 

Fun fact.  If you search for "machine shop" on this forum, you get 14 pages of results to check out. 

I'm looking to have some OE cross bolt caps that I purchased a few years ago installed into a '64 block that was cast with the thicker main webs as well as the casting for cross bolt caps on #2, 3 and 4.  I'm in central Iowa and don't have much faith in the machine shops around here since the last one this block was at installed the cam plug backwards resulting in an oil leak.  I did find a post from Jay detailing his experience with girdle and cross bolt main cap machining which really makes me want to find someplace that can do the job and do it correctly. I also found this thread from 2019 inquiring about shops in the KC area but have no idea how current that info is since it is almost 4 years old now.

Anyone know of a knowledgeable/trustworthy machine shop around central Iowa that isn't 1/2 way across the country that could do something like this?

On a side note, I pulled out the micrometers and measured a cap currently used in the block and one of the cross bolt caps.  I measured from where the bolt seats on the cap to where the cap mates against the block.  I'm certain this isn't a definitive measurement, but I was after some sort of basic comparison.  The cap currently being used measured 2.521" and the cross bolt cap measured exactly 2.5". I did this since my paranoia kicked in and the thought of "Did I purchase a set of useless cross bolt caps?" ran through my head as I was working on the game plan to get them installed. 

My apologies if I missed a previous topic that covers this particular issue, but my search of this forum didn't come up with anything useful.

In a nutshell, the secondaries on the 4100 I'm using on a 390 open easily and smoothly if I have the engine off and operate the primaries and secondaries by hand but if the engine is running the secondaries are difficult to open.  I have even tested with the engine running and the rod that attaches the secondaries to the arm and vacuum diaphragm disconnected.  I assume this indicates wear on either the shaft or the carb housing itself and when vacuum is being applied to the closed throttle plates with the engine running, the end result is sticky secondaries.  Any information or insight would be appreciated.