Thread: Bagging The 429 Back To The Ol' Fe.

Tweet

CAN ANY ONE TELL ME IF I CAN PUT 428 VALVES IN THE STANDERED 360/390 HEADS???? ( WITH MACHINE WORK )I THOUGHT THAT I HAD READ IT SOME WHERE ALLONG THE WAY, BUT CANT REMEMBER. I TRADED OFF 8 MOTORS TO A MACHINE SHOP (FOR SOME LABOR COST)THAT WILL BE DOING THE MACHINE WORK FOR ME. BUT OF COURSE I HAVE TO BUY THE PARTS FOR WHAT I WANT DONE. ANY WAYS ANY SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE APPRECIATED. THE WORST CASE IS I BUY ALL NEW SPRINGS (TO HANDLE A BIGGER CAM) VALVES, HARDENED SEATS, PORT MATCHING DEACKIN THE HEADS AND MAYBE THE BLOCK THIS TIME. THANKS SCS

Yes you can. Also a little port work will complement the CJ valves.

G.

fords suck dont yall agree

hello

Originally posted by shushcanbob
fords suck dont yall agree

Not as bad as that shushcan your driving....



I smell troll....

Just to keep the controversy going, what was the knock on the 390s? I though they were plentiful and cheap, so what was the problem, too heavy? I am well aware of the dominance of the SBC and have given in to it myself but maybe I should have looked at 390s? The SBC is at least 550 pounds, is the 390 that much heavier? I would have liked "Ford in Ford" for my '29 but all the frame stuff and aftermarket parts are overwhelmingly available for the SBC setup and I have my hands full as it is so doing a not-so-vanilla setup was beyond my talent, still 390 cubes at a low price looks like more low rpm torque than a 355 SBC; I avoided several opportunities for a 460 because of the low mpg but maybe a 390 would give reasonable mileage? You really have to look to find info on the 360/390 for street rods. Maybe someone here can brag on them some?

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

I HAVE A 390 BORED .080 OVER AND 428 CRANK AND PISTIONS. BUT HAVE STANDERED 390 HEADS. IM REDOING THE MOTOR AGAIN BUT UPGRADING THE HEADS THIS TIME TO ACOMADATE BIGGER VALVES AND CAM LIFT. I WAS GOING TO DO A 429 TO PUT IN MY 69 FORD PICKUP BUT I DONT HAVE ALL THE PARTS TO MAKE THE CLUTCH WORK(Z-BAR AND BLOCK AND FRAME MOUNT) SO ILL JUST REDO THE NOS 428. AS FOR THE WEIGHT OF THE 390 I BELIEVE ITS AROUND 600+ LBS FULLY DRESSED DUE TO THE EXTENDED SKIRTING ON THE BOTTOM OF THE BLOCK(OIL PAN MOUNTING) I ALSO PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THE 390 AND 460 GOT PRETTY CLOSE TO THE SAME FUEL MILEAGE (0 TO NONE)NEITHER WERE BUILT FOR MILEAGE.I HAVE DUAL 4'S, CAR 4-SPEED,3.55 GEARS AND A CRANE REV LIMITER ELECTRONIC CONVERSION THE BEST I HAVE EVER GOTTEN WITH THE TAIL GATE DOWN 70MPH, 3000 RPM IS 16MPG. IN TOWN I GET AS LOW AS 3MPG(DUAL 4'S AND IM NOT AFAID TO USE THEM )AND AS FOR SHUSHCANBOB NOT SURE WHAT YOUR TRING TO DO? ANYWAYS THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR HELP.

SCSTRANSPORT, after I asked the question I looked up some information on 390s and got some answers. First the longer stroke compared to SBC of the same years did provide a lot more torque for the Ford motor and second, the mpg was comparable. The reason the 390s did not catch on more with the Hot Rod folks seems to me to be due to the fact that Ford kept changing their designs and did not stay with the 332 development in large volume through the years while the SBC maintained the same bolt patterns for many years. In fact, it may be that the development of the Ford flathead was due to WWII and the many years which continued the same basic block design from '32 to '53, although the 21 stud block became the 24 stud block in 1938 (?). Also while the 221, 289, 302, 351 Ford small block emerged it was on the other extreme of a short stroke high rpm motor. I suppose you could say that Ford had a small block and a big block series the same as the GM folks, but I still have memories of confusion over how Ford could go from king of the road in 1952 (Mercury) to the dramatic dominance of the GM engines of the later '50s. I guess I am still miffed that Ford did not adopt the ARDUN heads and build a Ford hemi in the '50s, but I don't recall anyone at Ford calling and asking my opinion then either so I am just chatting now. Well with dual 4-barrel carbs I guess increasing the size of your valves should give more power but the mpg will go down more. I have a neighbor up the road in Ashland who has a 428/429 (I'm sorry I don't know which) with a big blower on it in a F150 and it just sits in his shop. He told me he just fires it up once in a while but he can't afford to drive it because it averages only 7 mpg. I guess he could trailer it to a track for racing but it's not a daily driver. Well maybe the longevity of the SBC is due to the many years the same block patterns have been maintained, but if GM gets wiped out the SBC may become a nostalgia engine?? Just chatting.

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

Well Don I dont have any solution to this, but humans are creatures of habit and comfort. It seems after Henry 1 died that Ford was reeling from poor leadership. Guys like Robert Mc Namara who thot everyone should drive strictly economy cars worked against the new world that came after WW2. Remember the Mobil economy runs where they used up thousands of gallons of fuel to show how we could save gas ???? In my opinion Ford Motor was competing against all of Gm not just Chevy. So they needed? differentiated engines. And many hve forgotten GM has produced a lot of short sighted engines that were later orphaned. Then there was the idea that putting something like an engine from a chevy into a Ford was one way to have one up and impress people who say those things cant be done. That was a powerful statement in its day, but it dont excite me. And there are some that liken it to cross dressing too. Personally, I always thot this was about having fun and being creative and making friends and memorys.

I DONT KNOW MUCH ON THE HISTORY SIDE OF EVERY THING (TO HIGH BACK IN SCHOOL) DIDNT PAY MUCH ATTENTION ANYWAYS. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF FORD WOULD HAVE LEFT A FEW BOLT PATTERNS THE SAME OVER THE YEARS MAKE SWAPS A HOLE LOT SIMPLER FOR THOSE OF US THAT NEVER LEAVE ANY THING ALONE. ANY WAYS IM JUST A LITTLE OL' RED NECK THAT LOVES ALL THE OLD IRON AND I DONT LIKE TO WORK ON ANY THING AFTER 1979. AFTER THAT THE HAND SPACE WAS GETTING PRETTY SMALL AND NOW......TO CHANGE THE HEATER CORE IN SOME THING NEWER THEN THE 1990'S. DO I HAVE A FEW CHOICE THINGS TO SAY WHEN DOING THAT. I OWN 3/1969'S--1/1968--1/1972 AND MY WIFE GETS THE 2000 TOYOTA RAV4. OLDED IRON FOR THIS DOG ALL THE WAY. OOPS I LIED MY SEMI TRACTOR IS A 1995, (OPERATING COST SAY NEWER IS BETTER ESSPECIALY WHEN A NEW CAT MOTOR COST 16,000 NEW AND THATS WITHOUT ANY GOODIES. ANYWAYS TALK AT YOU ALL LATER OFF TO ABERDEEN WA. DRIVE SAFE THANKS AGAIN SCS

SCSTRANSPORT, I know what you mean about heater cores. I gave up on a '66 Ranchero precisely because of all the fuss with a heater core and of course I should have hung in there and got past it somehow. An even worse case was the replacement of a windshield on a MG midget which had bolts where I could only get two fingers and after about an hour on each side I was sure I had whittled away the rest of my fingers on the edge of the sheet metal, but I finally got the nuts started and a long-handle box wrench did the rest. Well have fun with your 390, it sure sounds like an impressive street machine. Just think if Ford would have kept the same bolt pattern on the bell housing and adapted the ARDUN heads with just adding two additional bearing webs in the block the way the Dodge Red Ram hemi did. Then the older engines could have bolted on the newer heads AND the new blocks would have been stronger. Hind sight is 20/20 but the crazy thing is that it could have been done! Give me a time machine and after I make a lot of money on past lotteries I will go back and fix this problem!

http://www.oogabooga.ca/oogaboogapag40.htm

Don Shillady
Retired Scientist/teen rodder

And we all know that NASCAR played a big role in the FE development. First with the 352HP and then the later 390HP at the time was the hot ticket. Then as the cubes went up the short lived 406 appeared in 62 1/2 and was replaced in 63 1/2 by the 427. The 406 was the foundation block for the crossbolt mains. Most of the 406's have the crossbolt bosses cast in the block but used 2 bolt caps. There were a handful that were crossbolted and used in NASCAR. Also some 406 blocks used the thicker 427 cyl wall cores. From 63 1/2 on the 427 took over the performance spotlight and the rest is history. First in top or centeroiler design then the 65 sideoiler was introduced for extensive NASCAR use. Also the sideoiler block was designed for the 427 SOHC cammer to run with the HEMI in NASCAR. Unfortunatly it was banned by NASCAR but did see much use in NHRA top fuel. In 66 Ford went to the 428 as a cheaper production car alternative being the 427's were so expensive to produce. The longer stroke offered gobs of torque and performance was close to the 427 at half the cost to produce. Then in 68 1/2 the 428CJ was unveiled after TASCA Ford built a few test mules. Ford was so impressed they adapted the 428 to top level performance with pretty much bolt on parts they put it into production. The 428's did not see any NASCAR action but set records in NHRA. 69 was the year the 428SCJ came out which was built into the drag pac cars standard from the factory. The SCJ used the 427's heavier LeMans rods which were a capscrew rod rather then the std CJ bolt and nut rods. The SCJ cranks were a little differnet missing the balance weight on the 7th counterweight that the std 428 cranks used. They put a counterweight on the front crank spacer to help even out the weight and to balance to compensate for the heavier 427 LeMans rods. Late 69 introduced the 385 series and the Boss 429 which later replaced the 427 in NASCAR until the cubic inch displacments were lowered. I'm not much of a 385 fan so that's another story. There is much more than this. Just a very short summary and most likely missing a few things. Through the FE performance years the 390 remained a good performance engine seeing much use in the GT packages. Steve McQueen made pretty good use of a certain green 68 fastback as I remember?? LOL. The FE had an average weight fully dressed with accesories of around 650 lbs. I have the exact figure somewhere with breakdown of the weight of each part if anyone needs it.

G.