What's a 1966 428 FE out of a Ford T-Bird Worth? - Page 2 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

View Poll Results: Is a 66' 428 a bettter motor than a 73' big block 351?
Yes it is 16 88.89%
No it isn't 2 11.11%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2008, 11:31 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 201
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Motor number update, heads-C6AE-U manifolds-C3SE9431-B intake-C6AE-9425-O carb C7AF-AP Wormy

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2008, 11:51 AM
woodz428's Avatar
Troll Hunter
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Philo,Il
Posts: 2,702
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wormy
Motor number update, heads-C6AE-U manifolds-C3SE9431-B intake-C6AE-9425-O carb C7AF-AP Wormy
The heads are listed as '68 390 Merc 4v or high compression 2v. The exhausts are standard T-bird of the era used up until the new chassis that had a perimeter frame. I'll have to check the intake #. The 4300 carb was introduced on some models in 1967, so that would correspond.(edited to correct error)

Last edited by woodz428; 07-11-2008 at 12:12 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2008, 11:51 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,172
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wormy
Motor number update, heads-C6AE-U manifolds-C3SE9431-B intake-C6AE-9425-O carb C7AF-AP Wormy
That's Z code 390 parts and inconclusive since same were used on 428 Q code engines.

You need the crank number as the only positive ID

and look at harmonic damper and see if it is externally balanced for long stroke crank (if someone has not installed the wrong one).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2008, 11:55 AM
woodz428's Avatar
Troll Hunter
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Philo,Il
Posts: 2,702
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoTFrenzel
That's Z code 390 parts and inconclusive since same were used on 428 Q code engines.

You need the crank number as the only positive ID

and look at harmonic damper and see if it is externally balanced for long stroke crank (if someone has not installed the wrong one).
Actually the balancer is the same one on all but the 427 and CJ engines, the external balance was added on the flywheel/flexplate.Blancers are neutral balance and can be used on all FE engines without affecting balance...now the flywheel on the 410/428 is weighted and can create a real out of balance if not used on the correct crank.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2008, 12:56 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,172
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by woodz428
Actually the balancer is the same one on all but the 427 and CJ engines, the external balance was added on the flywheel/flexplate.Blancers are neutral balance and can be used on all FE engines without affecting balance...now the flywheel on the 410/428 is weighted and can create a real out of balance if not used on the correct crank.
All 427 engines are internally balanced.

410s ,P, Q, and R code and SCJ 428s are externally balanced,
and I will defer to you about the damper being zero balanced the same as 390 = right now, I'm still checking. My friend has a 427/454 and a 428 on the stands, I must go look again and consult him also. He is a real FE fanatic.

I am not sure why all the additional balance weight for .200 more stroke would be put on only the flywheel end of the crankshaft. That is contrary to good balance procedure.

Most (not all) SCJ engines used the LeMans rods and the damper was the same as the P,Q,R engines but with the addition of a counterweight on the front seal sleeve to correct for more rod weight. (what about the rear?)

Unmolested CJ engines have been found with standard 428 blocks.
Unmolested SCJ engines have been found with regular CJ rods.
I had a new 68 Fairlane sports roof CJ automatic.

(there were different piston and balance combinations on the CJ,
NON-mix and match parts due to weight) CJ engines vary as per date of manufacture, not just rod type.

Things must have been hectic at the engine plant.

Thanks for the information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2008, 01:12 PM
Ripped's Avatar
Member
 

Last journal entry: First RoadCourse Video
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver Canada
Posts: 360
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Check the back of the block for a large welded letter.
What does it say?

Pop the freeze plugs. Inside and underneath is a 428 stamp cast into the block , if it's the real deal.

Honestly the block is only going to be worth something once you disassemble it and check it.

I had a 428 once, supposedly .030 block.

It was a rusty 040 block. Spent 175$ on a sonic test = boat anchor.

Short block;
Tbird engine standard bore = 800
030 = 600

heads = 0
timing cover 25

if there are other engine parts which swap over to Mustangs and Shelby's (ie emissions) you might get some
$ for those
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2008, 04:12 PM
woodz428's Avatar
Troll Hunter
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Philo,Il
Posts: 2,702
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoTFrenzel
All 427 engines are internally balanced.

410s ,P, Q, and R code and SCJ 428s are externally balanced,
and I will defer to you about the damper being zero balanced the same as 390 = right now, I'm still checking. My friend has a 427/454 and a 428 on the stands, I must go look again and consult him also. He is a real FE fanatic.

I am not sure why all the additional balance weight for .200 more stroke would be put on only the flywheel end of the crankshaft. That is contrary to good balance procedure.

Most (not all) SCJ engines used the LeMans rods and the damper was the same as the P,Q,R engines but with the addition of a counterweight on the front seal sleeve to correct for more rod weight. (what about the rear?)

Unmolested CJ engines have been found with standard 428 blocks.
Unmolested SCJ engines have been found with regular CJ rods.
I had a new 68 Fairlane sports roof CJ automatic.

(there were different piston and balance combinations on the CJ,
NON-mix and match parts due to weight) CJ engines vary as per date of manufacture, not just rod type.

Thanks for the information.
ALL FE engines with the exception of the 410 and 428 are internally balanced.CJs were select fit, that's why different combos, to allow closer "balance". If you examine a parts book from the era you will see that the same pistons and rods were mixed an matched for the crank used. Some are used in all years, some just a few. The '68s were the ones most likely to have standard blocks, I have never seen a '69/70 without the reinforced block.The SCJ has the same flywheel counterweight as the CJ( or regular 428s/410s), that's why the hatchet weight is up front. Instead of making another flywheel for a low production engine it was easier.That's why some SCJs use the same flywheel as CJs/regular 428s and 410s. There is not enough room within the block to balance it internally, without the expense of heavy metal. More costly and time consuming.I always have the reciprocating assembly balanced because factory balance, while O.K. for production, is lacking when you want precision. While I have seen some CJs with regular blocks I have yet to see a SCJ without capscrew rods. I worked on my first CJs in 1969 and have seen many. I would more likely believe that a SCJ was blown up and a CJ replaced it because of easier availabilty. I do know that if 428 CJ was run with the hatchet and not the rods it would have vibrated to beat hell. Likely breaking something. The only difference between an SCJ an a CJ were the cooler,rods and hatchet weight. If it doesn't have the rods, it's not a SCJ. If Ford had sold SCJs without those rods they would have had a lawsuit that made the Boss 429 one look like love talk.You can see some of the 428s, CJs and Shelby's, I have done at my website www.gearheadcity.com . The Shelby just left last Friday, a beautiful '67 GT500.
By the way ALL Ford small blocks are externally balanced.Once again it has to do with room in the block. They use a damper with the weight...I don't think the flywheel is weighted it is just the damper. That way they could use the same flywheel on the 289,302 and the 351,and they did.

Last edited by woodz428; 07-11-2008 at 04:23 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2008, 10:36 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 1,172
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Good info. Thanks.
I still don't get the zero balance damper with the longer .200 stroke. Was weight added to the front of the crank but not the rear?

And vice versa, 8 heavier LeMans rods with only a weight added to the nose seal sleeve/damper area.

Also when Ford switched pistons in the CJ, the crank was different part # to match, wasn't it?

Sure have been some authoritative stories about SCJs with std rods, etc. probably due to quick production and what they needed on the line and what was available.
Ahhhh Ford?

I'm more of a small block guy.
The 221, 260, 289, 302, W, C,
all balance 28 oz/in at the damper, and 28 oz/in at the flywheel.

ALL 5.0 one piece seal cranks balance 35 oz/in at the damper, and 50 oz/in at the flywheel.

But there is two different diameter flywheels/ ring gears depending on year and vehicle installation.

The only common parts between a 302 and a 5.0 are the rods and all the bearings.

Regardless of the metric nomenclature, I insist on calling 2 piece seals engines 302 through 81, and one piece seal engines 5.0s, both flat tappet and roller blocks.

Thank you David for your time and thoughtful reply

Last edited by ScoTFrenzel; 07-12-2008 at 10:45 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2008, 06:50 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 201
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Where on crank do you look for numbers, i will also look for numbers on bottom of pistons when i have pan off, any other tell tale things i should look for, the motor was full of oil and had no signs of rust inside, no lose rod or mains, timing chain was tight and clean. I got motor running in car before we pulled it. ran better than i thought it should no knocks or rattels, fuel pump was bad so i used a electric pump and a 5 gallon gas can to run it for 10 minutes after i got oil up to rockers, motor runs good whatever it is he just wants to be sure, whatever its worth he will get half in N.C. people are naturaly stingy here, I would say motor has never been apart before now, old gaskets looked to be original an had residue of non detergent oil in valve covers and oil pan, oil pump screen was clean, i am not a ford person all my toys are of the bowtie varity but i know how you ford guys are, want to be sure on this one Wormy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2008, 07:46 AM
woodz428's Avatar
Troll Hunter
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Philo,Il
Posts: 2,702
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
The # for the crank is on one of the cheeks, I would have to look at the ones in the shop to verify...but I believe it is one of the rear ones. It is cast in. As I read some of the other posts, just for clarity...it is a scratched in letter on the back of the block. It is scratched in to the casting sand.
One final effort to clarify the balance issue. It is really very simple. All 3.98 stroke cranks(410/428) have an external weight attached on the flywheel end. They use a regular non weighetd balancer on the front. The SCJ's have the heavier capscrew rods and have the weighted flywheel AND a weighted "hatchet" behind the non weighted balancer to compensate for the additional weight.FE balancers( really harmonic dampers)have separate sleeves that go into the seal, they are not intregal withe damper. The matching of the pistons and rods was done to make the balance, from the factory a little closer. You can have the same piston, or rod, on 2 different crank #'s(there are only about 3 #s). But they matched them by what weight they came machined at. Some pistons are a little heavier/lighter as are the rods. The cranks are spun to determine what amount of balance they might need and then Ford would pick the closest and that is what creates the variations. There are no aftermarket pistons of differing weights(except for manufacturing tolerances and that's what Ford acted to minimize in each engine, although a professional balance would still have been superior), and Ford didn't offer different weight rods.It was expected that you would match them when you built the engine. Since excessive vibration "eats" up HP, it was a way for Ford to make the engines just a little stronger so that they could have a better chance in the very popular, at the time, Pure Stock,Stock and S/S classes. www.gearheadcity.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2008, 10:24 AM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 201
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
No sand scratch number on rear of motor, will check crank numbers and take pics for you[ if i can get them resized] balancer looks like a non balanced unit, flex plate looks unbalanced as well. Wormy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2008, 11:38 AM
pmeisel's Avatar
Glad the Jeep is on the road
 
Last wiki edit: How to identify a Ford V8
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Meridian MS & Vermilion Ohio
Age: 58
Posts: 814
Wiki Edits: 8

Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScoTFrenzel


Unmolested CJ engines have been found with standard 428 blocks.
Unmolested SCJ engines have been found with regular CJ rods.
I had a new 68 Fairlane sports roof CJ automatic.

(there were different piston and balance combinations on the CJ,
NON-mix and match parts due to weight) CJ engines vary as per date of manufacture, not just rod type.

Things must have been hectic at the engine plant.
Back in the sixties, seventies, and into the early eighties parts substitutions were often made to keep the line going. Some of these substitutions were authorized by engineering, and some "just happened". QC procedures tightened up in the 80s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2008, 11:47 AM
woodz428's Avatar
Troll Hunter
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Philo,Il
Posts: 2,702
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Wormy
No sand scratch number on rear of motor, will check crank numbers and take pics for you[ if i can get them resized] balancer looks like a non balanced unit, flex plate looks unbalanced as well. Wormy
As pointed out, the damper would be un-weighted regardless of the engine. The flywheel/flexplate would have a weighted area if it wasn't swapped with another that was missing it( another FE). The flexplate would have a weight that is welded on around the circumference inside of the ring gear area. It is cast into the flywheel and would probably have to be removed in order to see it. The flexplate should be easily visible on the engine, it would be on the block side, by the way. The #7 crank cheek would have the casting #, on the flat, not the curve. It will most likely be a 1U, but could be a C6ME.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2008, 02:47 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NC
Posts: 201
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
It is raining bad, and its sunday so i think we will let it go till monday, i see no weight on flex plate, will have pics and info later. thanks for all the help, yall dont have to help, but you do, it means alot. thanks again Wormy
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 07-13-2008, 03:16 PM
woodz428's Avatar
Troll Hunter
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Philo,Il
Posts: 2,702
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmeisel
Back in the sixties, seventies, and into the early eighties parts substitutions were often made to keep the line going. Some of these substitutions were authorized by engineering, and some "just happened". QC procedures tightened up in the 80s.
I am in full agreement, however the plain fact is that if it doesn't have the capscrew rods and has the hatchet the thing would have vibrated to pieces. If it doesn't have the rods or the hatchet it's a CJ not a SCJ. I doubt that Ford would have allowed that to happen on the line, warrantees are pricey and lawsuits are even more so. Ford had to deal with a lawsuit over the Boss 429s "undrivabilty" and released another cam to correct it, they paid for the change...after the lawsuit. With as many 428s produced, compared to the Boss 429 they looked like mass production, they would have had an enormous expense. So, as I said,I would more believe that the SCJ was blown and a more readily available CJ installed at some point. Then out of balance that would have created would do an enormous amount of vibrating and parts breaking. I repaired a 460 engine from a Cobra last year that had had the later flywheel ( weighted) inadvertantly installed and it snapped the oil pump of it's flange with only 3500 miles. If you held a hatchet weight you would understand the amount of inbalance that would have had to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
428 heads for a 390 Fe Crazy_John69 Engine 9 11-08-2011 06:21 PM
Ford FE engine in a Shoebox Ford Harley Monster General Rodding Tech 3 03-01-2008 01:17 PM
1966 Ford Galaxie 500 Dashboard alarik80 Interior 1 02-02-2008 05:17 PM
428 Ford Builder 47fordhotrod Engine 4 06-01-2002 03:21 PM
For Sale Ford builder 428 47fordhotrod Engine 2 05-31-2002 02:55 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.