 |
|
|
|
|
|
Received: with LISTAR (v0.129a; list 61-79-list); Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:29:17 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:29:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Ford Truck Enthusiasts List Server <listar  ford-trucks.com>
To: 61-79-list digest users <listar ford-trucks.com>
Reply-to: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Subject: 61-79-list Digest V2000 #205 Precedence: list ========================================================== Ford Truck Enthusiasts 1961-1979 Truck Mailing List Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com To unsubscribe, send email to: listar ford-trucks.com with
the words "unsubscribe 61-79-list" in the subject of the message. ========================================================== ------------------------------------ 61-79-list Digest Mon, 21 Aug 2000 Volume: 2000 Issue: 205 In This Issue: Re: M's, C's and W's. Re: Stroker W's unusual truck configuration ? Re: Engine Re: Engine Re: Engine Re: Electrical Drain Re: M's, C's and W's. Re: M's, C's and W's. Re: Engine Re: Engine Re: Engine Re: Engine Re: Engine Re: Engine Re: Stroked 351W Re: Engine 360-390/Oil pressure loss Re: Engine Re: FE cam bearings and oiling Re: Engine Re: FE cam bearings and oiling Re: Engine Re: Thanks Tom! Re: Engine Re: M's, C's and W's. Re: Engine Re: Engine Re: Engine ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 15:50:53 -0500 From: John Strauss <jstrauss inetport.com>
Subject: Re: M's, C's and W's. (snip) >Since Mr Ganahl's assertion that >the 351W crank was simply slapped into a 400 block to make the 351M is >incorrect it is highly likely that his assertion that the M means modified >is also incorrect. I have done lengthy research on the subject, including >emailing the former webmaster of the Ford V-8 Engine Workshop, Bill Lewis, a >man who has done more work with Ford V-8s than anyone I've ever met. His >response was: > I have to disagree with that. If we just had no earthly idea what the M stood for, I could go along with you. But Mr. Ganahl's version is the same as a lot of other folks on this list, folks I agree with. So I don't think because he said one thing that is patently wrong means that M does not stand for Modified. Nobody can be wrong ALL the time - even a broken clock is right twice a day. _ _| ~~. John Strauss \, *_} jstrauss inetport.com
\( Texas Fight! ------------------------------ From: "G & J Boling" <flash1 alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Stroker W's Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:56:40 -0400 ford motor sports has a stroker kit now for about 1500.00 or so gordon > > Dave Prasse writes: >>There is a company making stroker Windsors using 400 cranks.<< > > Tell me who/where this Co is, please!!! > > > Azie Magnusson > Ardmore, Al. > > ============================================================= > To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 > Please remove this footer when replying. > > ------------------------------ From: "Serian" <serian mailandnews.com>
Subject: unusual truck configuration ? Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:58:01 -0400 > Hold the phone. My (Henry's) dipstick goes in the > front timing cover, not the side of the oil pan. Ford > replaced the engine at about 6000 miles. > ??????? Hey John, did you get Henry new ? All the repair manuals that I have seen for the 78-79 trucks indicate that the "down the side" dipstick is the way Ford went for trucks. The parts places around here show that config for a truck, too. I don't doubt that Ford did some pretty funny things outside what they published "officially", but it does ofttimes makes it hard to get the counter guys at the parts stores to get the right one. Other than the oil pan, pump pickup, and dipstick tube, internally a 351M is a 351M regardless of where it is destined to go. The "truck" style pans were made to clear that "under the engine" frame piece (I know they are there ... got a '76 in my yard too :-P). I like the setup that has the front frame cross piece located directly under where the fan is and no under the engine crosspiece, with just two little brackets to hold the engine ... a lot more flexibility in what you can put in with less effort that way. I'll have to take a closer look at the late 70's F-series to see if this is a common occurrence, and confirm whether or not there is a BIG omission in my repair manuals ! ------------------------------ From: "Hogan, Tom" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: Engine Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:58:36 -0700 > On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, John LaGrone wrote: > > > I'll get this one started. The 390 and 360 are basically > the same engine. > > They are so similar that you can't tell them apart on the > outside. The > > stroke is different. There are a few internal parts that > you swap from a 360 > > for 390 parts (I think pistons and rods, and maybe crank? > Someone will fill > > in the details.) <snip> > if the 360 has a shorter stroke than the 390, the crank will > not swap. at > least, not without some, er...modifications. ;-) > > sorry. > > scott > No modification necessary. Different rods and pistons, yes but the 390 crank will drop right in no problem. Actually the block will take a 427 or a 428 crank as well no problem. (I forget which one of those is longer, heck might be neither is longer than the 390 but I don't think so.) Tom H. ------------------------------ From: "Hogan, Tom" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: Engine Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 13:58:37 -0700 <snip> > Someone else mentioned a high compression 360 and I'm not > sure if you can get > pistons for such a beast, but that would be my route too, > except that I found > a deal on a 390 that made it just as viable as a 360 rebuild, > so I decided on > the bigger is better, cammed it and beefed the compression > ratio up (a bit too > far I might add) ... I've always thought about building a > high compression high > revving 360 ... hmm, we just picked up an 88 mustang 4cyl > parts car ... I could > scrounge up a C6 .. ;) ><snip> Wish, what compression are you running? How bad does it ping? What rear end gear/tranny combo? How is your gas mileage or lack thereof? Reason I ask the 20 (30?) questions is that I've heard that higher compression engines are more efficient and have been considering this myself (after home remodling of course). I was hoping to get some input from someone who is there. Tom H. ------------------------------ From: "G & J Boling" <flash1 alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Engine Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:04:54 -0400 the 390 piston is notched for rod > clearance. Darrell&Tweety ============================================================= i have 2 360s with the notched rods in them that are OEM so Some mustve came with them at least they also are notched or butterflied on the tops as well for valve clearence gordon ------------------------------ From: "Serian" <serian mailandnews.com>
Subject: Re: Electrical Drain Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:10:30 -0400 >>> I have run into a problem, however- my truck (71 f250 >>> recently rebuilt 360, c6) >>> has a slow electrical drain such that if i dont run it >>> regularly (i.e. if it >>> sits for 5-7 days) the battery runs dead. >>> It is a brand new battery. >> >> Voltage Regulator or hung brake light switch >> due to non-returning brake >> pedal or under hood light that doesn't turn off..... >> ever try to see if a >> refrigerator light goes out..........:-) > > What do you think about shorted field coil in > the alternator? Wouldn't the lack of a field magnet in the alternator due to a shorted field coil make it not charge the battery though ? It might be ... several parts stores will test your alternator, starter, etc. for free, so it is certainly worth having it tested. > Also, I'd try a different battery, regardless of the > age of the battery. > Actually, you might eliminate the battery as a > problem by disconnecting it for the typical go > dead time and see if it goes dead just sitting > in the truck. A brand new battery shouldn't be doing that though ... I suppose it is possible, but not very likely. Had the same problem on my '79 bronco ... A bad voltage regulator was the culprit. These are inexpensive units, so I would be inclined to try a new regulator first if the alternator tests good. ------------------------------ From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer99 home.com>
Subject: Re: M's, C's and W's. Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:20:47 -0700 Look I'm not trying to impugn the knowledge of anyone on this list...M could very well stand for modified but I'll match Tom Monroe, Bill Lewis and Dave Resch up against Pat Ganahl and whoever else you can find anytime. There's 3 guys who have a TON of knowledge about both Ford V-8s and the 335 series in particular who say that M does NOT mean modified. Ganahl even says he's never seen the inside of a 351M so how much knowledge about them can he possibly have? The consensus of the list is that everyone is tired of this thread and it really doesn't make much difference what the hell M really means. My personal preference is to take whatever 351M I find and do an "emonectomy", remove the M and make it a 400 so I don't have to worry about people asking "What does M stand for anyway?" "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Strauss" <jstrauss inetport.com>
To: "Ford Trucks List" <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 1:50 PM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: M's, C's and W's. > (snip) > I have to disagree with that. If we just had no earthly idea what the M > stood for, I could go along with you. But Mr. Ganahl's version is the same > as a lot of other folks on this list, folks I agree with. So I don't think > because he said one thing that is patently wrong means that M does not > stand for Modified. ------------------------------ From: "Bill Beyer" <bbeyer99 home.com>
Subject: Re: M's, C's and W's. Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:24:13 -0700 Look I'm not trying to impugn the knowledge of anyone on this list...M could very well stand for modified but I'll match Tom Monroe, Bill Lewis and Dave Resch up against Pat Ganahl and whoever else you can find anytime. There's 3 guys who have a TON of knowledge about both Ford V-8s and the 335 series in particular who say that M does NOT mean modified. Ganahl even says he's never seen the inside of a 351M so how much knowledge about them can he possibly have? The consensus of the list is that everyone is tired of this thread and it really doesn't make much difference what the hell M really means. My personal preference is to take whatever 351M I find and do an "emonectomy", remove the M and make it a 400 so I don't have to worry about people asking "What does M stand for anyway?" "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Strauss" <jstrauss inetport.com>
To: "Ford Trucks List" <61-79-list ford-trucks.com>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 1:50 PM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: M's, C's and W's. > (snip) > I have to disagree with that. If we just had no earthly idea what the M > stood for, I could go along with you. But Mr. Ganahl's version is the same > as a lot of other folks on this list, folks I agree with. So I don't think > because he said one thing that is patently wrong means that M does not > stand for Modified. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:38:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Scott Hall <sch8489 garnet.acns.fsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Engine On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Hogan, Tom wrote: > > if the 360 has a shorter stroke than the 390, the crank will > > not swap. at > > least, not without some, er...modifications. ;-) > > > > sorry. > > > > scott > > > > No modification necessary. Different rods and pistons, yes but the 390 > crank will drop right in no problem. Actually the block will take a 427 or > a 428 crank as well no problem. (I forget which one of those is longer, heck > might be neither is longer than the 390 but I don't think so.) tom, perhaps I said it wrong. the crank will fit in the block, but if you put the 360 crank in the 390 block, you get a 360, not a 390. if you want the 360 crank to make your engine displace 390 c.i., you'll have to get different rods, regrind the crank, maybe weld on more meat for longer throws, if it can be done at all. that is, if the difference between the 360 and 390 is the stroke. scott ------------------------------ From: "wish" <wish ford-trucks.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:53:44 GMT Subject: Re: Engine >the 390 piston is notched for rod >> clearance. >============================================================= >i have 2 360s with the notched rods in them that are OEM so Some mustve came >with them at least they also are notched or butterflied on the tops as well >for valve clearence Gordon, here's a question for you, if you have the pistons out can you check the casting in the side near the wrist pin hole, I've got a beer that says you'll find it to say 390 ... the pistons I pulled out of my 390 said 410 on them ... Here's our take of what happened, Ford built some okay motors in the late 60's, decent compression and all to haul loads and such. The emissions police came around and said you are running too much fuel and too polluting so clean it up .. their answer was lower compression motors with different cams and such in them, to save costs, Ford simply swapped the higher compression pistons they already had and were making into smaller displacement motors where applicable and the compression ratio fell as they wanted ... That's just a theory, but the way things are shaping up for what people are finding that holds. My motor was a 76 390 when I tore it apart and found the 410 pistons, they'd stopped making the 410 nearly a decade earlier, so why would they still be putting those pistons in "new" 390's ? Just my $.02 wish 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L 73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish Ford Truck Enthusiasts http://www.ford-trucks.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:53:00 -0500 From: "Howard Bottles" <Howard.Bottles austin.ppdi.com>
Subject: Re: Engine 360 rods are weak compared to 390 rods. Definately not HiPerf, just LoPerf for LoCompression pickups. Howardb Scott Hall wrote: > On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Hogan, Tom wrote: > > > > if the 360 has a shorter stroke than the 390, the crank will > > > not swap. at > > > least, not without some, er...modifications. ;-) > > > > > > sorry. > > > > > > scott > > > > > > > No modification necessary. Different rods and pistons, yes but the 390 > > crank will drop right in no problem. Actually the block will take a 427 or > > a 428 crank as well no problem. (I forget which one of those is longer, heck > > might be neither is longer than the 390 but I don't think so.) > > tom, > > perhaps I said it wrong. the crank will fit in the block, but if you put > the 360 crank in the 390 block, you get a 360, not a 390. if you want the > 360 crank to make your engine displace 390 c.i., you'll have to get > different rods, regrind the crank, maybe weld on more meat for longer > throws, if it can be done at all. > > that is, if the difference between the 360 and 390 is the stroke. > > scott > > ============================================================= > To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 > Please remove this footer when replying. ------------------------------ From: "wish" <wish ford-trucks.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:03:25 GMT Subject: Re: Engine >Wish, what compression are you running? How bad does it ping? Isn't that the question of the century ... the machinist didn't tell me how much he took off of the head or the block to get it flat, as a result I don't know what the compression ratio is, I know I put 9.5:1 pistons in it, so its a bit over that ... it pings pretty bad with a load and light acceleration, but I backed it down to about 7° advance and it is much better. I could probably run 93 octane and boost it up, but i'm cheap that way. Estimates on my final compression ratio are from 9.7:1 as high as 10.1:1 ... its probably somewhere in that range. > What rear >end gear/tranny combo? Its a C6 with 3.50 gears. > How is your gas mileage or lack thereof? > Its a 4x4 so mileage is never really an issue (I don't get any) The old 360 was pretty tired and got 12 no matter what (even 30+ mph headwinds or 800lb + loads) it would get 12 (well 11.9 in the headwind issue, and that was at 55 (nearly floored) for 3.5 hours... I put a 4V on the 360 and mileage was 10-12 depending on how lead footed I was, I never really checked it, but it seemed about the same. Same carb/intake on this 390 and its about 10mpg, but the motor's finally gettin broke in and I haven't started driving it enough to check the mileage this year. >Reason I ask the 20 (30?) questions is that I've heard that higher >compression engines are more efficient and have been considering this myself >(after home remodling of course). I was hoping to get some input from >someone who is there. > I guess I'm there ... it would definitely be interesting to see what a high compression 360 would do ... Oh yeah John, there are LOTS of 360's around here, seems like every other 1/2ton came with one, but just the one's that didn't come with 6's :) Just my $.02 wish 96 Mustang GT 5spd 4.6L 73ish 1/2ton 4x4 6.4L http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.public.iastate.edu/~wish Ford Truck Enthusiasts http://www.ford-trucks.com ------------------------------ From: Seventy4SCab aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:07:23 EDT Subject: Re: Engine FTEers, I have been on the pre61 list for about 3 years now and have dabbled on this list a few times. I have a question for any who can help! Is a $950 price tag for a 74 Supercab with 360 and possibly C6 - small tear in passenger side sheet metal under the side window even with the door rocker panel - a good deal? I have a 40 mile round trip to work (gas mileage). It is a yellow and white 2 tone. Please chime in soon as I might buy it tonight! Glenn in TN 57 F100 -- in progress 74 F100 Supercab -- daily driver???? ------------------------------ From: "Michael" <danger csolutions.net>
Subject: Re: Engine Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:41:04 -0700 > So you FE nuts, there's the question.....why not more 360's? Is power the > ONLY reason? ~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, more power is the only reason that I'm aware of. Why settle for a mild mannered 360 2bbl (175hp 4000 RPM), when you could drop a 390 4bbl
(with headers of course) in its place. You can easily obtain an extra 125+ horsepower (even using hydraulic cam/lifter) with such a conversion, and there is no real difference in MPG between the two engines. The FE big block really comes alive if you use a 4bbl intake and headers which allow the engine to breath better. It is real easy to convert a 352 or 360 into a 390 (all you need to do is swap crankshafts, connecting rods, and pistons). I've done this conversion before in my 69 F250 and am VERY happy that I did. Michael ------------------------------ From: Rubberducky23 webtv.net (Danny Ling)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:18:26 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: Stroked 351W A buddy of mine did a 351W buildup for his little Fox Body Mercury Capri (drag car). He said he had to have the crank turned in a lathe to get it to fit in his 351W block (he still needed to to some grinding on the block also). He also says they drilled the counterweights and added tungston to regain true balance. I'm not too sure if he had too, but he offset ground the rod journals on the crank to use Chrysler rods. Doing so he stroked it even further for a total displacement of 427 cid. Keith Black makes pistons just for this buildup. They even have different part numbers to match the length of rods you want to run (KB189 and KB261). I can call him if you need more info. Laters, Danny Ling ------------------------------ From: "Ted and Sarah Freeman" <oldparts ford-trucks.com>
Subject: Re: Engine Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:09:00 -0400 Hope you guys don't mind if I throw my .02 in. >Gordon, here's a question for you, if you have the pistons out can you check >the casting in the side near the wrist pin hole, I've got a beer that says you'll >find it to say 390 ... the pistons I pulled out of my 390 said 410 on them ... The 390 and 360 shared the same pin heights so in some cases the 390 pistons were used in 360's. The tin can style piston is mainly found on older 360's. Later they went to the 390 and after that they started using the surplus 410's to decrease compression. The 352 and 360 share the crank and long rods (to me these are small and weak) the bore was the difference. The 360 and 390 share the piston. The crank and rods are different. The 390 shares rods with the 410, 406, 427 and 428 and shares the crank with the 427 with the difference being the bore. The 410 has the same bore as the 390, but has a 428 crank and rod. The pistons are unique to the 410 and later models of 390's. The reason is the wrist pin height is higher to keep the piston from smacking the head at TDC. A standard 390 piston will pop out of the bore. The 406 share the crank and rods with the 390 and 427 but has a shares a bore size with the 428. 4.13 vs. 4.05 and 4.23 respectivly. Of course the bad boy, the 427 has the largest bore as metioned above and some came with steel cranks and most if not all were cross bolted. It share the same crank and rod deminsions as the 390. The 428 has the longest crank throw of all and shares the crank with the 410 and share rods with the 390 and above. It share a bore size with the 406. Of course there are variations to all of the above. Most of this I learned while stroking my 360 to a 410 (which is STILL on the bench. AAArrrrgggghhh) I hope this helps some. For my money, I'd make a 390 out of a 360. Change the crank and get a set of beefy rods, let her breath and don't worry about it. Same gas mileage (roughly) more power and torque. A more solid bottom end with the beefier rods. The stock 360 rods look like tooth picks compared to the 390's. Anyway, again, I hope this helps some one. -Ted ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:46:57 -0700 From: scott <scott ford-trucks.com>
Subject: 360-390/Oil pressure loss >>>I'm curious....I always read and see just 390 in trucks, but never any 360's. I realize the longer stroke equals more torque, but with a decent rebuild the 360 ought to present some respectable torque numbers. Used to have a 360 W//headers,duals and a 4 bbl.in my 76 and it ran very well.No complaints. >>> 390 out in the barn, but in questionable condition (it's not apart). I pulled the 360 out and replaced it with a 390.Even fewer complaints than the 360... So, if I had a 390 in my barn and a 360 in my truck I would check the condition of the engine in the barn and see what I had. If the crank and rods are O.K. I would us the better of the two blocks and build a 390. BTW I noticed absolutely no difference in gas mileage between the 360 and 390.(And the 390 had a hotter cam) A high windin' 360 definitely sounds intriguing tho...... I may be going into my FE myself.I pulled the distributor out of the 428 and reinstalled it without engaging the oil pump properly. (I know,I know..rookie mistake and I have been messing with FEs for 20 + years, my butt still hurts from kicking myself) Started engine and noticed 0 oil pressure.Pulled dist and reinstalled it correctly and now I have good oil pressure but not as much as I had. Went from 25-30 at idle to 10-15.Engine still runs fine and makes no noise. In the other FEs I have had 10-15 was the norm but... I plan on tearing it down this winter,but in the mean time I gotta know What did I hurt? ------------------------------ From: "Jason and Kathy" <kendrick mddc.com>
Subject: Re: Engine Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:48:29 -0500 Hey, Michael, if you're gonna stuff some 390 pistons in a 352 block, may I recommend a good pair of safety glasses? A 352 block has a bore of 4.000, and a 360/390 has a 4.050 bore. You'll need to bore your 352 block .050 over before a 360/390 piston will fit in your 352 block. Just a safety short, Jason ----- Original Message ----- Michael wrote: > It is real easy to convert a 352 or 360 into a 390 (all you need to do > is swap crankshafts, connecting rods, and pistons). I've done this > conversion before in my 69 F250 and am VERY happy that I did. > > Michael ------------------------------ From: "Garrett Nelson" <garrettnelson writeme.com>
Subject: Re: FE cam bearings and oiling Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:08:55 -0500 If I remember correctly the cam bearings only have one oil hole. ---Garrett www.1966ford.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Howard Bottles To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 11:48 AM Subject: [61-79-list] FE cam bearings and oiling Does anyone know if FE cam bearings have one or 2 oil holes? I am working on a 390 and am having lots of problems with it. It appears to me that the oiling path is as follows for a hydraulic lifter block, top oiler: oil pump, to top gallery, oils cam bearings, then down to mains. I had new cam bearings installed and they only have oil holes pointing to the top, but I can't figure out how the mains get oil. Thanks Howardb ============================================================= To unsubscribe: www.ford-trucks.com/mailinglist.html#item3 Please remove this footer when replying. ------------------------------ From: "Hogan, Tom" <Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com>
Subject: Re: Engine Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 18:20:47 -0700 > > > FTEers, > > I have been on the pre61 list for about 3 years now and have > dabbled on this > list a few times. I have a question for any who can help! Is > a $950 price tag > for a 74 Supercab with 360 and possibly C6 - small tear in > passenger side > sheet metal under the side window even with the door rocker > panel - a good > deal? I have a 40 mile round trip to work (gas mileage). It > is a yellow and > white 2 tone. Please chime in soon as I might buy it tonight! > > Glenn in TN Glenn, I have a '76 Supercab with a 390. If the 74 has an automatic then it is a C6. Mine has a C6 and 3.00 rear gears. I get 11-12 mpg on the highway. I would expect a 360 to get about the same. Mine has dual tanks and has about a 400 mile range. I am very happy with my truck. However I retired it from daily driver status when I got my T-bird. 4 trips to town per tankfull vs week and a half between fillups doesn't compare. If you are in a carpool or are carrying something then the supercab can't be beat. You will also probably find the mileage the same or better than any new suv on the market today. $950 sounds good to me if the truck is sound. Tom H. ------------------------------ From: "Jason and Kathy" <kendrick mddc.com>
Subject: Re: FE cam bearings and oiling Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:21:01 -0500 Steve Christ has pics of FE cam bearings in his book with two oil holes in the bearings. Keep in mind, this also depends on how the block is set up. For all I know, the bearings I looked at could have been from a 427 SOHC. The caption didn't give any application. Jason ------------------------------ From: "Michael" <danger csolutions.net>
Subject: Re: Engine Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:31:28 -0700 Ooops,.. Guess I could have phrased that differently. Silly me. Michael > Hey, Michael, if you're gonna stuff some 390 pistons in a 352 block, may I > recommend a good pair of safety glasses? A 352 block has a bore of 4.000, > and a 360/390 has a 4.050 bore. You'll need to bore your 352 block .050 over > before a 360/390 piston will fit in your 352 block. Just a safety short, > Jason > > ----- Original Message ----- > Michael wrote: > > It is real easy to convert a 352 or 360 into a 390 (all you need to do > > is swap crankshafts, connecting rods, and pistons). I've done this > > conversion before in my 69 F250 and am VERY happy that I did. > > > > Michael ------------------------------ From: Seventy4SCab aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:32:36 EDT Subject: Re: Thanks Tom! Tom, Thanks. I looked at a 72 Suburban today and the SCab is still on the 1st of the list. Ford's paint has held up a lot better! Is your truck the one on the PIC list? Glenn in TN 57 F100 -- in progress 74 F100 Supercab -- daily driver???? ------------------------------ From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:08:23 EDT Subject: Re: Engine In a message dated 8/21/00 1:59:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com writes:
<< Actually the block will take a 427 or a 428 crank as well no problem. (I forget which one of those is longer, heck might be neither is longer than the 390 but I don't think so.) >> 428 is a longer stoke than a 390, the 427 and 390 share a stroke length, but the 427 got some HUGE pistons. Darrell & Tweety ------------------------------ From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:10:27 EDT Subject: Re: M's, C's and W's. In a message dated 8/21/00 2:21:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, bbeyer99 home.com writes:
<<A lot of stuff snipped......>> << "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, riddle them with bullets" >> Isnt it about time to start poppin rounds?????? Darrell & Tweety ------------------------------ From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 22:15:12 EDT Subject: Re: Engine In a message dated 8/21/00 5:08:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, oldparts ford-trucks.com writes:
<< The 390 shares rods with the 410, 406, 427 and 428 and shares the crank with the 427 with the difference being the bore. >> Shares the crank with the 406 too. Darrell & Tweety ------------------------------ From: "Garrett Nelson" <garrettnelson writeme.com>
Subject: Re: Engine Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 21:16:13 -0500 Putting a 428 crank into a 390 makes a 410, a high compression super high torque motor. If I would have know about that when I built my 390 I would have done it! ---Garrett www.1966ford.com ----- Original Message ----- From: JUMPINFORD aol.com
To: 61-79-list ford-trucks.com
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 9:08 PM Subject: [61-79-list] Re: Engine In a message dated 8/21/00 1:59:51 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Tom.Hogan kla-tencor.com writes:
<< Actually the block will take a 427 or a 428 crank as well no problem. (I forget which one of those is longer, heck might be neither is longer than the 390 but I don't think so.) >> 428 is a longer stoke than a 390, the 427 and 390 share a stroke length, but the 427 got some HUGE pistons. Darrell & Tweety ------------------------------ From: canzus seanet.com
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 19:26:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Engine At 11:10 AM 21:08:2000 EST, Dave Emerick wrote: >I've got a 390 out in the barn, but in questionable condition (it's not >apart). This engine was originally in a car, and I bought it in non-running .... To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session
cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.
Advertising -
Terms of Use - Privacy Policy -
Jobs
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company. 
|