Thread: 396 Chevy- 390 Ford

Tweet

I took a liittle different route.. My 390 is really a 445 Stroker using a 4.250" Stroker crankshaft,forged pistons. Has aluminum cylinder heads,aluminum intake,750 cfm carb,custom ground Comp Cams hydraulic roller.
Just went back to long tube headers which drag sometimes but shortys just weren't cutting it. Switched from C-6 with stall to 4spd manual. Somebody's getting a real beating lol....

You are right Mike. I know that Ranchero and Fairlane were to small then. Later had enough room for even larger than 406 engine. I also agree with T-bird being overweight.

My brothers 2008 SRT/8 Charger weighs more than my 1969 Ford fullsize and has 2 more doors. So not all hot rods are losing weight. or getting smaller.....

‘…..There is always one, I mean you and the Thunderbolt. Wikipedia lists 390 as coming in Thunderbolt but of course it does not……’

Ain’t that the truth, and god knows if you read it on the internet it must be true


You do realize the 100 Thunderbolts were actually put together at Dearborn Steel Tubing, not the regular Ford production line. This was due in large part to the shock tower mods that had to be made in order for the 427 to physically fit into that body. If you’ve never seen a Thunderbolt or clone first hand I can tell you it is 10 pounds of crap in a 5 pound bag.

“….Your statement about 406 is not quite true as Ranchero, Fairlane,
Thunderbird all could fit 406.…..”

1963 was the last year of the 406 (although I have heard rumors of a few early productions 64s with them). The 63 Fairlanes had an engine compartment that was close to the same as the 64s meaning they would require the same shock tower mods to fit an FE in. As far as the Ranchero, these were falcon based in 63 meaning an even tighter engine compartment than the Fairlanes …..there was definitely a reason the FE wasn’t available from the factory in these bodies.

I will give you that Ford could have fit the 406 into a 61-3 Thunderbird, but frankly it would have been a wasted effort. Again even in that body the shock towers were so tight with the FE that only the factory flat log type manifolds fit without modifications. There was a reason that that majority of all the 406s came with factory cast iron headers….they needed them to breathe. Additionally the banana nose birds optimistically weighed about 4200 pounds with no options, check a few boxes for things like AC, power seats etc and they easily were in the 4500+ pound range…….a bit portly to be considered a hotrod.

I’m not trying to rain on your parade…..I actually like the FEs but I’m also realistic about their strong and weak points.


.

the flat exhaust manifolds were because of the steering box location

I think that series of T birds had the Lincoln engines

"....I think that series of T birds had the Lincoln engines......"

".....the flat exhaust manifolds were because of the steering box location...."

Jerry the banana nose birds (61-63) were the first ones with the 390……there was no other engine option. The previous generation (58-60) could be had with either the 352 FE or the 430 Lincoln motor.

The flat manifolds were definitely there because of the shock towers. I happen to know about the clearance issues because I spent a lot of time trying to figure out a better exhaust system for the 61 Bird I used to own after I put the Tri-Power setup on it. Even the factory installed Tri-Power Birds used the same exhaust manifolds as the standard 300 HP 390.

.

the 396 is a good engine use to buy the 396 325hp engines for not much in the good old days it did not take much to wake one up headers and cam and like all bbc bottom end could take a hell of a beating . but the 325/350 hp was not the nasty 396 that chevy built the 396 425hp was the nasty one. around town in the late 70s there was mild 396s with headers and intake with a l88 cam that that did the job for the low buck

Originally Posted by pat mccarthy

the 396 is a good engine use to buy the 396 325hp engines for not much in the good old days it did not take much to wake one up headers and cam and like all bbc bottom end could take a hell of a beating . but the 325/350 hp was not the nasty 396 that chevy built the 396 425hp was the nasty one. around town in the late 70s there was mild 396s with headers and intake with a l88 cam that that did the job for the low buck

That's what I ran back in the early seventies. Had a '68 SS396, 325 hp, our first "family" car; got it when our first baby was in the incubating organ, because Mrs. Rr was having trouble getting into the 4 x 4 truck, and the ride was better on her, too. But, I couldn't let it be. Tore it down, put an Isky cam in it, an Offy high rise manifold and a Holley 750, some Hedman Hedders, and went to play on Thursday nights and an occasional Saturday. Running with cars from Ford, 390's and MoPar, 383's, of the same basic sort of build, it was pretty much a toss up most of the time - one time I'd beat them, and next, they'd beat me - we all got to do the strut.

Originally Posted by pat mccarthy

the 396 is a good engine use to buy the 396 325hp engines for not much in the good old days it did not take much to wake one up headers and cam and like all bbc bottom end could take a hell of a beating . but the 325/350 hp was not the nasty 396 that chevy built the 396 425hp was the nasty one. around town in the late 70s there was mild 396s with headers and intake with a l88 cam that that did the job for the low buck

That set up while fine in 70's when I was a. newborn . Will not net you same results today. I promise you. Times they are a changing....

Originally Posted by slincoln 3

That set up while fine in 70's when I was a. newborn . Will not net you same results toda.y. I promise you. Times they are a changing....

Really ?? i did not know this ? you are talking 390 a 396 that made 425hp on a dyno in the 60s still can do it in 2014 there is better ways to do it. yes the 396 engine is still being used i still machine them and build them and sell them .myself have had many bbc over the years i build and sell bigger stuff same with the fords still have a spot in my heart for the 396 as they took a every day beating from me and still was runing when in pulled it out of the car

No Pat you misunderstood my post. What I was saying was about guys taking a 396/325 hp putting in a cam and throwing on some headers and then going racing. That said what I meant was their % of wins would drop in 2014 with that setup. That's what I meant by would not net same results snd thats a fact!!!!



I certainly know that 396 will make as much power even more now as it did in 60's.
We clear now cuz maybe I didn't explain it properly .
Oh and please take it easy your last post didn't sound so good. wow...

I never did get into the "store bought muscle car" thing, other then a Vet I bought when I got our of the Air Force. Always had too much money stuck in race cars (circle burners on Friday and Saturday night, drag racing on Sunday), never enough left to go buy a new one.... Always got a much bigger kick out of putting together my own "street muscle", then go out and kick butt on the rich kids with the "store bought" stuff!!!! Nothing much has changed over the years I guess, still having a blast building my own!

apples and oranges. Consider dollars per horsepower. Especially over the last 60 years.

Originally Posted by desert dog

apples and oranges. Consider dollars per horsepower. Especially over the last 60 years.

Agreed!!! But apples and oranges are both fruits,both round and both grow on trees. Close enough for me!!!

Oh I know nothing about last 60years. I've only been alive 40,but I'm sure your right....

Slincoln---------Altho a dyed in the wool ford guy -I would have to disagree with you on not only your comments, but also your line of thoughts----------the 396 chev block as a piece of cast iron , has most of the attributes on all the late dart and similar aftermarket blocks----it is probably the most copied design out there and for many excellent reasons ( I'm not talking about the segment of 350/350 and/or crate engine folks)---the bore spacing, deck height, pan rail spacing, main bore to cam bore, cylinder wall thickness (will easily take .160 overbore) number and location of main/head bolts, etc-------
This doesn't even start to go near the canted valves, port sizes, port heights, water flow and not even a blink toward the side oil groove( remember all the Ford side oiler talk) feeding upper end oil thru the push rods, lots of drain back , oil pump /dist at rear of cam shaft/block/pan--------