Can you guys help me out on a price for this beast. I'm wanting to sell this to raise the funds to rebuild a 351 big block in my 73' Ford Mustang Grande/Mach wannabe. Any help in this matter would be appreciated. The motor has 21,400 miles on it. It runs good and dosen't smoke. Thanks, Joedaddy
Well, if you can prove it's really a 428 and not a 390 then a at least a couple grand MINIMUM, of course that might change if it's been bored .060 or the crank is .030/.030, lots of factors. A std bore block is probably worth a grand by itself. Although right now things aren't selling so well do to the economy.
At first my uncle and myself thought it was a 390 but after some research found it to be a 428. This is the original motor that was in a 1966/67 Ford Thunderbird. The car has set for almost 4 decades and the body is rough with rust. The motor however is in good shape and runs fine. We replaced a few things like gaskets and brass freeze plugs were added. Nothing has been changed internally from factory.
IMO as a Ford guy
there are too many variables.
428 is externally balanced. Are you sure it is a 428? Casting numbers?
Has it been rebuilt? bore? Actual mileage or not,
Sitting that long there IS an internal rust issue. Even if you got it running. It might become a smoker in 2000 miles.
How would anyone know if it was an overheated ruined mess when it got parked?
Blocks are not rare and nothin special.
3.98 cranks are available in aftermarket.
Itsa standard 428 not a unique 427.
It is worth what somebody is willing to pay for it.
It is pretty, but in actuality it is probably worth $ 6-800.
I will ask again how you are sure that it is a 428 instead of a 390?? the 390 was the base engine in the T-bird and the 428 an option. The VIN code would tell you what it is SUPPOSED to be, but they share casting #'s on most components. The crank is the most valuable part in it. Because they were used in 428 CJ engines( not all of them), I have seen them go for as much as $750 and still not be pristine. The external balance on the flywheel, as mentioned is another indicator, but could have been replaced with the wrong one. The block is nothing special unless it has 428 cast into the center casting core hole on the sides. Many Cobra guys have had 390s bored to the 428 size after a sonic check. IF it is a 428( the crank # is the only absolute there) It probably is not more than $1500 worth complete, contrary to the $200 minimum someone else pointed out. I have just completed the 3rd 428 in the shop('67 GT500) and am about to do the fourth for a Cobra. As mentioned, the variables make or break it. A .030 over block is probably maxed out, so it leaves no room for boring..just sleeving. Because of the aftermarkets growing influx of new parts, you can get a new cast iron 427 block for around $3500 and stroker cranks for app.$800(or a little less). These are new casting metalurgy and standard size. That's the reason I stated that the crank is the most valuable piece in it. rods are same as 390, as are heads and all other external pieces.
I have a complete 351C Cobra Jet ( the 351 C is not a big block, it's really a large small block) if you are interested after selling your FE parts. I would verify WHAT it is by pulling the pan and getting the crank # before selling. I have seen several irate people voice issues with 390s they bought that were sold as 428s. It all comes back around.
As I looked at the pics I realize that it has a carb on it that wasn't introduced until '69 or '70. That means, to anyone with Ford knowledge, that it isn't stock. If the carb isn't, it's hard to say what else isn't. It may be a truck engine from the early 70s that was transplanted....so it is a questionable engine without head ,block ,intake and exhaust casting #'s...but it is the crank number that's the most important. That carb was only used on bread and butter engines, so it's not a CJ (they ran Holleys and that is an Autolite/Motorcraft 4300(?). It was the later carb that replaced the 4100 that should be on a T-bird of that era.
I have checked 2 things on this motor. The first thing i did was confirm that the bore stroke was 3.98. The second thing i did was the drill bit test. A 13/64 drill bit was snug between the cylinder walls and the 15/64 drill bit wouldn't fit. It also has the letters and numbers on the block C6ME-A. Is there any thing else i can look at? Joedaddy
I have checked 2 things on this motor. The first thing i did was confirm that the bore stroke was 3.98. The second thing i did was the drill bit test. A 13/64 drill bit was snug between the cylinder walls and the 15/64 drill bit wouldn't fit. It also has the letters and numbers on the block C6ME-A. Is there any thing else i can look at? Joedaddy
That is all interesting, but if you knew FE engines you would realize that block casting # is on many engines. Without pulling the pan and getting a casting #, I wouldn't accept your stroke dimension if I were a buyer.You are only 0.10" difference(up and down) and going through a plug hole can be fairly inaccurate since they don't enter straight downward. The head casting #( between the center 2 ports) and Intake casting # would also be pertinent. An explanation of how an engine that was supposed to have been unaltered in the 'bird for so many years has a carb on it that was produced several years after the car would be nice.The drill test only illustrates how far it MIGHT be bored to, not what it is currently. Casting shift can limit that, that's why they are sonic tested prior to boring. If you pull the pan, you apparently knocked out the center core plug or you couldn't have done the drill bit test, you can get the casting # on the crank and rods, and can usually see the underside of the piston and get the Ford # there. The 3.98 crank was also in 410 Merc engines, which would also use that block #, as well as some 352s,360s,390s,410s as well as several truck engines. Finally, on the block where the filter housing is attached, they stamp the date code that the engine was assembled at the factory.
I have checked 2 things on this motor. The first thing i did was confirm that the bore stroke was 3.98. The second thing i did was the drill bit test. A 13/64 drill bit was snug between the cylinder walls and the 15/64 drill bit wouldn't fit. It also has the letters and numbers on the block C6ME-A. Is there any thing else i can look at? Joedaddy
the casting date is correct for a '66-'67 T bird. in any case, it's better than a '73 351C.. '73 351C has low compression and big ports, not really good for any kind of performance.. you could mod it and make it better but what I would do is use the Tbird engine in your Mustang
This is my nephew, Here are all the block numbers on motor 2AE, CF60, C6A, CF58, C6EA,, CF60, 66F or 66T, We had pan off did not have heavy duty webbing on block, motor should be a 390 as the car was a TU DOR model, 428 went in FOR DOR models, its just that ford casting numbers are a pain to say for sure, didnt want to pull heads to check as is a running motor, the drill bit test was a hint from a ford site, he wants to sell the motor, but he wants to be sure what he is selling, like he said the car had been sitting for a very long time, the owners son was in college in the middle 70s so the motor or any of the parts of the motor could have been changed, but the motor did not have the look of a motor that had been messed with. All gaskets looked to be vintage 60s, but with all this and a dollar you can get a cup of coffee, should be a 390 but measured to be a 428, your guess is better than mine. P.S. thanks as always Wormy
As far as i know the guy could've done alot to the motor or changed it all together. He drove the car enough to get 21,000 out of it so i'm sure he might have changed the carb for performance. The windsheild has an inspection sticker and i have the big green title to verify the sit time. I guess i'll pull the pan back off and write those numbers down again to make sure. I just want to be positive before i sell the engine because i wouldn't want someone to tell me one thing and it turn out to be something else. Thanks guys :thumbup: , Joedaddy.
It sounds like you still have access to the car. The VIN # has the code of WHAT should have been in there. The numbers posted by Wormy are incomplete and since it wasn't stated from which part they come, are of little help. The numbers( other than the crank) should be at least 4 digits and have a suffix(i.e. C6AE-R). Remember that many FE parts were used throughout the line for, sometimes, many years. So it may have some #'s that start with a C5 or C4 (64 or 65). But the crank # is really the most critical. As I mentioned in an earlier post,the crank is probably the most valuable part there. Since they were used in CJ engines they can and have sold for as much as $800 in good shape. That was a couple years ago when I needed the correct one for an early '69 CJ, I doubt that they have gone down. Restoration people can be anal about #'s...even when they aren't visible.The heavy duty webbing is really spotty, I have had CJ's( always webbed) and a couple of PI blocks( some with the webbing and some with only partial) and a 390HP block('64) that has extra thick webbing as well as the crossbolt castings. Casting cores were used fairly liberally and the 428s didn't all have extra ribbing. Lastly, the door count is irrelevant as the 428 was an option, so it could have been optioned in a 2dr.
The car vin is 7Y62Z10456 body-65B color-N trim-2B date-19H DSO-19H axle-W1 trans-U ,this is all info from door tag will post more pics of casting numbers and motor in general Wormy
I think you mis-wrote those door tag numbers. DSO is wierd.
added
You also don't have enough numbers in the VIN, should be 6 last digits, not 5.
Car was built 19 August 1966, so maybe the 456 Bird off the Wixom production line.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :thumbup:
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
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
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 :thumbup:
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Hot Rod Forum
2.2M posts
175.7K members
Since 2001
A forum community dedicated to hot rod owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about restoration, builds, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!