Thread: Which way?

Tweet

Looking for a bit of direction on this project. The car is a daily driver 1964 Thunderbird. The problem was a real lack of punch off the line and very little reserve for Mountain driving (live near Denver). A compression check showed a real even reading of 135-140 pounds as compared to the manual spec of 175. Two guages were used and these reading were rechecked. There has never been an issue with oil consumption or smoking. The mill in the car is not original, and here are the details:

Block: C7ME-A
Crank: 2U
Intake: matches 1964 T-bird usage
Heads: C8AE-H with exhaust manifolds to match
Carb: Looks to be off a 1962 Galaxie, had mis-matched jets (way mis-matched)

The piston bores look clean, cross hatching still visable and only a slight carbon build up at the top, no real "ridge". Camshaft looks reasonable and the lifters also. Bottom end is clean and, prior to teardown, there was no major engine noise to note. Timing chain and gears were the beloved nylon coated variety (got stranded on a set of them in an old Pontiac once). I do have a steel replacement set in hand. What I also have is this:

Heads: C0AE-D set of two that look good, but might need new valves.

The questions are:

1.) Which heads should I use? The originals or the early 352 heads?

2.) While I have not pulled a piston yet, is there anyhting I would want to look at before I do?

3.) Carb? What would I want to put on? The old shoebox on there now is beat, beat real bad.

4.) I do not seem to be getting a bore reading that would match what the block says it is. I come up a bit short. Stroke matches the 2U crank perfectly. Is there anything here I would want to look at?

5.) Like everyone, budget is an issue. Cheaper is better and I'm not looking to make this into a 427 powerhouse....

At almost 4,000 lbs and only 300 advertised hp, these 3rd gen Birds weren't rocketships even when new. Are you saying the car is down on power compared to what it used to be for you, or do you not have that history on it? Your compression is even, which is good.

Being that the car is used in hilly Denver, with thin air, I would see what ratio gears are in the back and go to some deeper ones. Some cars used to have what we called Western rear ends with high ratios for flat land, and they were pigs on hills. Maybe you've got a set of tall gears in back.

Whatever changes you make are going to affect gas milage though, so take that into account.

Don

A nicely done set of heads with the right size chamber to produce a respectable compression ratio are important, as is the right camshaft! I'm not much on the altitude stuff, every time we go to Bandimere to race it's a good weeked if we make the quarter finals!!!

You might want to talk to Barry at Survival Motorsports, he's the FE guru and will definitely help you come up with a combination that will give you the best return on your investment!!!

Like Don said, these suffer in the differntial department - and may have something like a 3.00 ratio and a 4431 (unsprung probably) weighted car that in actuality was probably closer to 5000 pound is a recipe for being doggy on the hills. I driven even newer rentals out I70 towards Vail - and been passed by semi's.

http://automotivemileposts.com/tbird...fications.html

You said the bore readings don't match - C7ME-A says that the block is:

C= 1960's
7= 1967
M= Mercury
E= Engine
A= Version

http://mustangtek.com/FordDecode.html

Which would tell me that somewhere in the cars life the engine block at least was replaced by a 1967 Mercury, and it MAY have been a remanufactured engine with a camshaft of unknown performance characteristics and with a set of pistons that may have a different compression ratio used with that particular set of heads. Possibly a set of stamps exist on the block somplace that will identify it as a reman, but not necessarily. Some engine rebuilders do a batch of similar engines at the same time - and not necessarily do all of the "correct" parts end up together.

When you dig deeper, keep in touch

Thanks for all the replies so far. Let me address a few issues to see where else I should head.

1.) Itoldyouso: Say hello to one and all in the Fort Myers area. My son lived in Punta Gordo for several years and I did visit. The power issue is a comparative thing as I belong to the Rocky Mountain Thunderbird Club and have had a chance to drive a few other similar year models. Rocketships they are not, but mine is a real slug. That even low compression is matched by lower vacuum readings than I care to see. The rear ratio is no better than 3.25:1 and mine is as stock as they come. As to gas mileage, well it is still a 5000 pounder when loaded!

2.) Dave: Thanks for some direction on a local to deal with. I really looked over the cam last night and did not like what I saw. Nothing as wiped out as some of the old Chevy 265's I used to change out at the dealership, but the patterns didn't look good and more than a few lifter bases could be used for small shallow teacups. I'm thinking it has to go...

3.) IC2: This engine is a bastard, and I mean that in terms of parentage. With the intake, I suspect, from the original motor, it would have likely been a long block rebuild. That C7ME-A block is lumped together with the 428's of the late sixties, 67-68 to be precise, and that is a concern as to what exactly they put in it. The only other stampings I found were behind the front cover and were number punches into the block metal. In the valley area, after cleaning, some grease pencil marking were found. Factory or a rebuilder? Who knows... NO question this Bird will never be the quick-dog off the line, but I would like it to run a bit better that it has. As to the upstate location you profess, the car and owner (me) were from Western New York originally.... Lastly, always op for the upgrade when you get a rental in Denver. I could have pedaled faster than one of the PT Cruisers I got once...

So, here is where it stands: A timing chain that has seen better days (late valve timing?), Nylon gears I wouldn't trust on a kids go-kart, a cam with some wear pattern issues, lifters that are not what I wanted to see, and some valves (mostly exhuast) that are suspect.

I still have the possible of using the early 352 heads... anyone out there familar with them?