the summer project

[billcreller]

I'm getting organized to get back on my El Camino project.  It's been on the back burner for over a year.
I can't walk away from it, now that I have a ton of money in repair/restoration parts.
  I need to swap out the rear end (Chev 10 bolt, 8.5 ring gear) for the 9-inch Ford rear that I bought from Currie, made to fit the El Camino.  Replacing the floorboards, front and rear, is the first project, then I rebuild the front suspension and steering.
  Also have a TH400 transmission to rebuild, to support the 500 Caddy I built up for this project.  All kinds of summer fun ;D

[panhead]

This summer I plan on restoring my 1973 Norton Commando 750. I have a spare motor and tranny I'm taking my time rebuilding. I'll strip it down to the frame and probably have that powder-coated. Need a new gas tank - preferably steel. Most of them after '72 had fiberglass gas tanks, and the one I have leaks. The new E10 ethanol gas sucks for glass. Just ask any boat owner.

Good luck with the El Camino. I always liked that car (truck?).

[Dynaflow]

I'm getting organized to get back on my El Camino project.  It's been on the back burner for over a year.
I can't walk away from it, now that I have a ton of money in repair/restoration parts.
  I need to swap out the rear end (Chev 10 bolt, 8.5 ring gear) for the 9-inch Ford rear that I bought from Currie, made to fit the El Camino.  Replacing the floorboards, front and rear, is the first project, then I rebuild the front suspension and steering.
  Also have a TH400 transmission to rebuild, to support the 500 Caddy I built up for this project.  All kinds of summer fun ;D

 Thats gonna be one sweet El Camino. What year? Should be quite a runner with a 500 cad in there. :D


Regards,

Dyna

[DummyLoad]

This summer I plan on restoring my 1973 Norton Commando 750. I have a spare motor and tranny I'm taking my time rebuilding. I'll strip it down to the frame and probably have that powder-coated. Need a new gas tank - preferably steel. Most of them after '72 had fiberglass gas tanks, and the one I have leaks. The new E10 ethanol gas sucks for glass. Just ask any boat owner.

Good luck with the El Camino. I always liked that car (truck?).

very  8)

pleeeze post some pics as you progress.  :)

[billcreller]

I was thinking the Norton is an English bike, is it??  A friend had one many years ago, like in the 60s.
My Elco is a 1977.  I bought it new. It had a 305 SB in it new, but around the mid 80s I put a 400 SB in it. The 400 (406) was built somewhat, and ate TH 350 transmissions until I did my own o/h on them.
It's a heavy car, at a bit over 4200 when I weighed it at the local grain elevator a few years back, so it needs cubic inches up front!
  The 400, now 408 at .040" over since last summer, is now in my '74 Mailbu Classic, and it's a real strong runner.
The Mailbu is a Georgia car...no rust!!, so I didn't want to modify it for the Caddy 500. The El Camino is a better candidate for that swap.

[Dynaflow]

 Yeah Norton's IMHO are the best of the brit bikes. Fast, good looking, and the chicks they used for advertisements back then were HOT. :D I'm sure the caddy's torque will have no problem against 4200 pounds. Heck the caddies were well over 5000 I'd bet. Do post pictures please when you get to that project, I'd sure be interested seeing it come together.

Regards,

Dyna

[panhead]

I've had Triumphs, Nortons, and BSA's, and from my experience Nortons are the fastest and most reliable (once you rip out the Lucas ignition and replace it with a Boyer electronic unit). The "isolastic" motor mounting scheme is great, too. The motor, tranny and rear swing arm are isolated from the rest of the frame by rubber bushings and the faster you go the smoother the ride gets.

[billcreller]

The Caddy my engine came from was a '76 Coupe DeVille that I had fixed up for one of my kids, who trashed it , one fender at a time.  The Title said it weighed 5300 lbs, which sounds about right for those years. The interesting thing about the Cad 472 and 500 is that they weigh 60 lbs more than a Chevy small block. Using an Edelbrock aluminum intake will get rid of 30 lbs.  The original intake is a heavy monster.  A light weight Power Master starter will shed some pounds too.  I've had a lot of machine work done on the engine, like over-sized valves, a clean-up cut on the heads, and decked the block because of some pits around the coolant passages.  I have Comp Cams roller rocker arms that came with a kit from a guy in Memphis, who built the adapting parts for that set-up. I have Keith Black Hyper-Eutectic pistons in it.  It should be a good runner. It's around 508 CI now with the + .030 over-bore.

 A guy who worked for me in the 80s had a Triumph bike. He kept a pan under the engine when he parked it at home. He said it was a real oil leaker.
  In the late 40s, I had a '38 Harley for a while. It wasn't a very good bike but I had fun with it.

[billcreller]

update;

Today I milled the center web out of the carb flange on the intake manifold.  The Cadillac forum guys said it gets the job done better ;D  The aluminum Edelbrock intake that's available is lighter, but higher also, making hood clearance a problem. Also, the air conditioning pump wont fit it.  With a different pump and some expensive brackets, brings that to a bit over 600 bucks. I also have the old manifold port-matched and smoothed out a bit. I'll go with that one.
  Gotta get at that TH400 transmission........... :)

[Dynaflow]

 Just wondering if someone has done a TH700 for one of those motors, the OD sure is nice to have on the older cars. I had rather overkill on my hot rod Z car, 72 Z with a 350 chevy/6sp manual, darn OD gear in 6th was .62 the thing would tick over at about 1500 RPM's at 65. It had a crazy top end (enough where I backed out at 138 mph for fear of REALLY flying the front end over the back end). The TH400 is a great old trans though and probably cause less transmission tunnel clearance problems and well, you have it..  :)

Regards,

Dyna

[billcreller]

 I was warned about using the 700R4, which was later the 4L60.  The horsepower wasn't the factor here , it was the torque I guess.  The guys who know said the 4L80 was the way to go.  That's a big-buck transmission from what I've found. I'll stick with the 400. At least I'll know how to fix that one ;D

  Getting up over 130 causes a high pucker-factor ;D  I've seen it a few times but I'm too old for that kind of stress these days ;D

[PRR]

> the OD sure is nice to have on the older cars

Only on puny engines.

The 500 in an El Camino does NOT need your 4.11 gears to unpeel ALL the tread from the tires. If he isn't racing for pink-slips, a 3:1 rear may be more than street tires and thrust geometry can handle gracefully. He can get 2.5:1 gears in the Ford Nine; with a no-compression 351W and mush-a-matic that was un-thrilling, but a healthy 500 and a tight GM slushbox might pull 2.5:1 with authority, yet cruise mellowly.

If he's going for time-slips, he'll need to bolt an old block to the tailgate. Or fill the back bumper with concrete. The El Camino is beefy, but still relatively light in the rearend.

Lessee... 500 lb/ft torque, 3:1 low gear, 2.5:1 axle, over 3,000 lb/ft torque at the axle. Assuming 12" rolling radius, 3,000 pounds thrust. Assuming coefficient of traction is "1" (0.8 for good street rubber, 1.5 for DOT-legal race rubber), he needs 3,000 pounds effective weight on the axle. Weight transfer at stock height is small, he needs well over 2,000 pounds static weight. The Elco stands 3,500-4,200 pounds and at least 60:40 weight distribution, he has ~~1,600 pounds weight on the rear tires. I've pulled these numbers from my ear, they should be checked; but it appears that 2.5 axle is ample, any higher number is just more smoke and drama.

Bill, you do know the 500 does not quite clear the heater? It looks like it does, but when the 500 torques against the rubber mounts it hits. Apparently it is acceptable to let it "self adjust". But if you wanted to keep your heater "perfect", the head-shaped dent would be annoying.

An answer to both the weight distribution and the heater-bang is to put the 500 behind the cab. Need a shorty gearbox, a cut-down PowerGlide or a 2-speed clashbox.

[Dynaflow]

 True, with a 2.5 ratio rear end he would indeed have a very slow turn over at cruising speed (I'd personally go with something about 3.0 or there abouts as a compromise). If he did unleash 500 foot lbs (could well be closer to 600) with a 2.5 axle he'd pretty much turn the tires over for as long as he wanted to thats for sure. I suspect your right with the heater too, many of the GM cars I worked on had a horrendous bump holding all the heater core and A/C stuff sticking out of the firewall pretty good. Push comes to shove it could all be whacked off I'm sure Bill could do that being familiar with aircraft sheet metal. A unit from Vintage Air could be fitted, thats how most guys retrofitting A/C into older rods do it. A retaining strap could be made to keep the engine from torqing over if there is enough clearance, I would stay away from solid mounts, been there done that and even with a relatively smooth motor it shakes your teeth.

Regards,

Dyna

[billcreller]

 I actually DO have a 2.50:1 rear!! ;D  The beauty of the 9" Ford is the easily replaced third member.
     The Caddy this engine came from ('76) had a 2.08:1 rear.  Other ratios were available of course, like 2:73 and 3.15:1 etc.
     This engine gets it's power at fairly low RPM, like 4000 etc with the cam I'm using. I could have went with a bigger cam etc, but this is gonna be a daily driver, just like it always was.  The compression CC'd to 9.3:1 which will be fine with mid-grade gas.

  Thanks for the heads-up on the heater box PRR.  I'll have to see how it fits in there after the engine is bolted in. The heater box is made of some sort of fibreglas/plastic material, so it should be easy enough to modify.  A little carbon fiber should make a decent alteration.

 Last week I modified the stock intake manifold, by machining the dividers out, in the carb flange area, making a larger plenum, which was recommended by folks who have been there, and port matched the runners.  An after market manifold would be 30 lbs lighter, but is presents a hood clearance problem, and I don't want a Z28 looking hood.
  This evening I started on the front suspension, and have one side removed. I built a tool to fit my floor jack, similar to what the car dealers use, to lower the inner end of the bottom A frame, after the bolts are out, without getting killed by the front coil spring ;D It worked great.  New ball joints and poly bushings for everything :)
  Hey, I'm having fun!!

[bigsbybender]

I was warned about using the 700R4, which was later the 4L60.  The horsepower wasn't the factor here , it was the torque I guess

Correct....BUT 700R4 can be a good box as long as it isn't stock. There are plenty of aftermarket shops that build them for high performance purposes with great success. If it's stock from GM, even their detuned v-8s could eat it alive.

That caddy motor probably won't care about overdrive though.

My tbird has a 390ci mounted to a 3 speed auto... originally had a 2.00:1 rear axle for lazy rpms at cruising speed.  I replaced the unit with a limited slip differential with 3.25:1. I hardly notice the difference other than it leaves two strips of rubber on the pavement rather than one. It's still a cruiser.. The engine turns fairly mildly at 70MPH....So slowly in fact that the tachometer got boring and was removed.

j.

[billcreller]

Sounds like the T Bird was a fun car.  My oldest son ( a guitar player too) has two older coupes, one is a turbo coupe, 4 banger, and the other is called a super-coupe, with a (I think) belt driven supercharger. He drives them only in the summer.  He also has a Cobra, a kit-car the someone else built, and it was built very good.  It has a 390 in it with two 4bbl carbs and a Comp 292 cam.  It's a bit lumpy, and needs some work on the engine since last summer.  I would imagine the Cobra is a fairly light car.  I've bee teasing him a bit about running me in my Malibu (408 SB)  I think he isn't too sure how that will go ;D

  BILL

[PRR]

29" tires turn 700RPM at 60MPH, 820RPM at 72MPH.

We still had 55MPH limits when I got the 2.50:1 geared T-burd, so it cruised near 1,750, or wudda, except no lock-up torque converter and ~~~1,600RPM stall, it was mushy all the way to the legal limit.

A '76 Eldo probably had lock-up, so wudda cruised near 1,456RPM at 60MPH. It probably still had most of its torque at that speed (before you ruined the 2-plane manifold). 500 lb-ft times 2.08:1 is 1,000 lb-ft torque at the axle. with 29" tire, 14.5" radius, that's 820 lbs thrust at the road (in high gear). That pimpmobile must weigh 4,800 pounds. Neglecting air drag, it has 0.17 Gee thrust in high gear. IIRC, my Burd was closer to 0.13 Gee thrust. It would hold speed, but to gain speed it had to downshift. And it would downshift at insanely high MPH.

[billcreller]

That '76 Caddy was really heavy alright. I scrapped it after pulling the engine and got over 200 bucks for it at the time.  The price of scrap has gone down though since a year or so ago.  It was worth almost as much dead as it was alive ;D

When I get it together and running, I'll know if I "ruined" the manifold ;D  You really know how to hurt a guy  ;D

[billcreller]

The past few days have been taken up rebuilding the front suspension, and cleaning/painting the frame from the firewall forward. Replacing the rubber bushings in th A frames is a challenge. Best method, I've been told, is to heat the metal shell with a torch to let the bushings burn out, leaving a shell that comes out fairly easy (??) That's where I'm at. When that's together, I'll lift the body off the frame.  You guys don't know how much fun you are missing ;D

[Dynaflow]

 Front end work? Oh yeah, I know exactly how much fun I'm missing...  ;)  ;D Good luck with it.

Regards,

Dyna

[billcreller]

 ;D ;D
   Today I figured out the way of burning the rubber out of the A frames, and slitting the metal bushings enough to  knock them out.  I'm using poly bushings when it goes back together. I have all new parts for the steering except the steering box. I plan to use a quicker ratio than original.  I have more sand blasting to do to clean and paint the parts.  I have new front springs coming tomorrow, the heavy duty version like it had when new.
  The body should be fairly light with the doors and tail gate off. Interior is gutted.  I may be able to pick it off with my hoist.  I built an extension some years back for it, to remove airplane wings, and that should get the job done. :)

[PRR]

> You really know how to hurt a guy

Divided, it will "wake up" a bit better above 2,400, significantly better above 4,800.

But a 2-plane is smoother at idle and more torque at 1,400.

How often/long can you afford to hold 500 cubic inches wide-open above 3,000 RPM?

Depends on the job. In a "stock" drag racer, you sure want all you can get as high as you can get it.

But I picture a Caddy El Camino as a hay-hauler, which could haul hay a thousand miles to the opera-house in complete comfort and fair style, while blowing-off a few pesky imports along the way. It would take a lot more than a divided manifold to terrorize the tuner-cars on Venice or Mulholland.

There's also the Chevy 502. There's no replacement for displacement, 2 inches bigger, wow. Perhaps a better fit, being a drilled Chevy 396, which was available on that platform. Always sold woken-up. The mild wake-ups can be had with a full GM Warranty (2 years or Chapter 11, whichever comes first). The wild ones are rated mega-horsepower with ample torque. But that's real cash, $7K and up.

This One claims 750HP, but probably needs Hi-Test fuel and a hood-bump. Note that even their 510HP model runs a low-rise divided dual-plane manifold.

[AZJimC]

Years ago I read about a chevy engine build, using Ford 6 cyl rods, and special order pistons with the wrist pin high in the piston. This design was used to produce huge amounts of low end torque, by having the longer rods, the ratio of rod length to crank journal swing increase produces a more direct force on the crank a little earlier in the rotation, so torque was huge. I have always wanted to build one of these, I think they rated the torque at over 530ft lbs, @ low rpm, with a stock top end. This was small block, but the same could likely be done with the big ones.


Jim

[billcreller]

   The big-block Chevy is a bit heavier than my Caddy ( which is 508 cubic inches now)  The Cad 500 is 60 lbs heavier than a SB chevy. The stock 500 Caddy got 495 ft lb torque on the dyno, so even a mild wake-up gets results.  This isn't gonna be a Sunday fun car, it will be a daily fun driver like it always was. :)
  My cam has a duration of 274 and 283 degrees, not too mild, and not too wild, and still has the vacuum to run power brakes and all the heater/AC controls etc.
  I have Comp Cams roller rockers with 1.72 ratio, as opposed to the stock 1.65 ratio, which is good for some HP even if the engine was in stock configuration.  I've also ported and polished the heads/combustion chambers.  If it gets a bit over 400 HP I'll be happy enough.
  On the dyno tests, the stock Q-jet carb held it's own up to around 460 HP before a Holley Dominator was used.  A Dominator would not be a very good daily driver carb in my opinion.  No choke provisions etc.
   I built an oil pan to fit the El Camino chassis also. The original pan was a center sump. Now its a 7 quart rear sump

  The front suspension is somewhat time consuming right now, with all the cleaning/ sand blasting and painting.

  I can hardly wait to do the first burn-out ;D

[Dynaflow]

 Thats gonna be a potent package. I didn't know the Caddy motor was that light. That cam should work out pretty good, lumpy enough for the drive-in but not super radical. Thats a mistake people tend to make, over cam, over carb, makes the car a absolute toad unless its turning quite a few RPM's. My brother had a cherry 63 T-bird that he decided to hot rod. Had the full Edelbrock aluminum RPM heads, manifold, carb and they're cam. Fired it up and it sounded like a rail, had no torque unless it was really ticking over and it barely would idle. It was ridiculous. Maybe OK if you were after that Fairlane Thunderbolt type motor, but not for a cherried out stock (otherwise) 63 bird. We ended up pulling the cam, had Crower grind up something mellower and it ran pretty strong, course when he sold it he lost his ass, but hot rods are that way...  ;D Anyway, thats gonna a pretty neat camino for sure.

Regards,

Dyna

[PRR]

> by having the longer rods, the ratio of rod length to crank

Rod-ratios have effects. But not huge effects on torque. Apparently some NASCAR teams use different rod-ratios for long or short tracks; but this is hair-splitting in an endeavor where 1st and 4th can be a hair-split apart.

Rod ratio has major effect on cylinder wear. Though for a given stroke in a given block, not huge. Ideally you want a medium long rod, but that makes a tall heavy engine.

> 530ft lbs, @ low rpm, with a stock top end.

You can do that with narrow cam timing. Many engines have "8:1" compression ratio (it is actually the expansion ratio that builds torque, but ER is approximately the same as CR) but close/open the valves far up from BDC so effective CR/ER is more like 6:1. This gives more top end but hurts the bottom end. Since you can always gear-down to use your top-end, mega-bottom is a special-application trick.
________________________

> The big-block Chevy is a bit heavier than my Caddy

OK, that makes sense several ways.

The instigation for the BB Chev was NASCAR. Mopar had real trouble casting B-blocks which would hold together under Hemis in NASCAR. (Ford had less trouble because the FE heads wouldn't breathe.) GM knew this would be an issue and put lots of meat in the bottom. NASCAR is weight-conscious but not weight-crazed. (Yes, GM pulled out of racing just before the 396/427 was released.)

The cover-story for the BB Chev included trucks, which again may need a beefy block, and are not adverse to some weight.

BB Chev is 1965, when Thin Wall casting was common but maybe not mature. And if successful, the BB Chev would be produced by the millions, so ease-of-casting was vital. Extra thickness of iron casts easier.

Caddy's 472/500 was an all-new casting, in 1968, when Thin Wall was maybe better controlled, production was small and Caddy could afford a little care in casting. The Caddy was NOT going into trucks or racers. While the 390 was sometimes rated as high as 4,800RPM, and the BB Chev sometimes for 6,400(!)RPM, the 472/500 was rated "only" 4,400RPM. And worst-case would never run over 2,800 for more than a few minutes.

> If it gets a bit over 400 HP I'll be happy enough.

Early Caddy 500, with 10:1 compression, are rated 400HP stock. True, this is old-SAE, which is unrealistically optimistic. Between 1972 HP-rule changes, smog, etc, HP rating fell to 180HP, and then they de-bored/stroked it for a 425CID because NObody wanted to buy a 500.

Good compression, more cam, free exhaust, check for port casting slop, let it past 4,400RPM, there should be 400 honest HP easy. But note that you can't use 400HP in a 2WD 3,900 pound pickup at any legal speed. You may be able to smoke rubber all the way to 75MPH. At say 50MPH you only "need" 300HP for good acceleration. You can use the full 400HP from 90MPH toward 130MPH. You may need to down-shift, or run 2.8:1 gears, to beat 115MPH. With Caddy's extra-tall gears, the car would top-out at maybe 110MPH, running a not-high RPM, which it could hold all day long cris-crossing Nevada say.

> would not be a very good daily driver carb in my opinion.  No choke provisions

Bosh. I drove the Cougar though a couple NJ winters without a choke. The AutoCrap carb got worse. I got a good price on a "race only" Holley 2bbl. (There's a short-track series which has a 2bbl limit.) It tuned right up for clean economical street use; the Holley is a good carb. And it actually had a choke, but manual, and the Cougar didn't have a choke cable. Yeah, easy to add, but that fall I just pumped the accelerator pump, got ignition, half-fast idle for a minute, and drove away. The un-choked Holley ran SO much better than the AutoCrap ever did, that I didn't got around to installing a cable for a while.

[PRR]

> a mistake people tend to make, over cam, over carb, makes the car a absolute toad

That Cougar came to me half-"hot", which was really not-hot. He'd opened the replacement engine, put in a hotter cam and headers, dual exhaust, but kept the stock 2bbl intake (and worn lifters and springs!). The headers melted the power steering hoses, so it was a beast to drive. The mufflers hung low and wanted to be knocked-off. With the open cam and headers, it was a "toad" below 3,300RPM. Then it woke-up... and toaded-out again by 3,800RPM due to 2bbl carb/manifold (and softened springs).

It was worse than my mom's dead-stock neglected Mustang, which I knew very well.

I knew it could be a bomb with new springs, manifold, carb, and an axle ratio change. But it would be nice to have power steering. It would be nice if it just ran as good as Mom's Mustang. A stock '67 289 Stang is not a muscle car, but as near-enough as the chassis can handle.

So I de-hotrodded it. Pair of stock iron exhaust manifolds. Crane stock-like cam, WITH new lifters that were not hollow underneath. Stock pipes and muffler.

In this form, it was a warm bomb from 1,800 to over 4,000RPM. And at the time I had it, late 1980s, very few new cars could pull as good as it. The only car ever BLEW past me looked like a 1967 Chevelle SS, and I felt no shame for that. OTOH, with stock tuning the car could be so quiet that I could come up behind pedestrians unaware. There were no sidewalks, so sometimes I had to thunk the shifter to get them to notice I was creeping behind them. OTOH, late night near Wheeling WV, leapfrogging uphill trucks, the Cougar would leap from 40MPH to "over the limit" with utter ease.

[billcreller]

 In regard to connecting rod length, I have the 350 rods in my 400 Chev in the Malibu.  Partly because the 400 rods looked wimpy, and partly my idea of less piston skirt scuffing. The first time I did the engine, it went into the El Camino in the mid 80s in place of the original 305.  I didn't bore it at that time, just a rings/bearings/valve grind type fix up with a new cam/lifters. But I did use the longer 350 rods.  I milled 0.135" off the tops of the dished pistons and cut valve reliefs in with home made cutters. Made the cutters from and intake and exhaust valve, with a carbide insert sweated into the edge and relief ground the diameter. It worked fine actually, with a stop collar on the stem , adjusted for each cut.  I ended up with a 9.8:1 comp ratio and a strong engine , for a quickie overhaul.  It didn't like anything but premium gas though, and loved  100LL avgas.   On the next O/h I bought Keith Black pistons to match the rod length, but with less compression, 9.2:1. That was last summer.  Replaced the crank too.....cracked.  The 400 didn't like 7 grand on the tach, and it was dumb to push it that high. ::)
The cam is a 280 degree Comp Cams, with Rhoads lifters, which "tick"at low RPMs from a calibrated leak-down (killing off some duration I believe), and pumping up when oil press and RpM come up.  Works great for having good vacuum for power brakes etc.  Don't have a 1000 miles on that yet, but it will do a nice burn-out ;D  Almost time to get it out of winter storage.

   PRR, I'm gonna think of you when I do the next tire smoker ;D

[bigsbybender]

(Ford had less trouble because the FE heads wouldn't breathe.)

Isn't that the truth... It kills me how big the valves were in FE heads but then they put in wee little ports. Incredibly restrictive and with that head design there isn't much you can to to ream the ports out to a decent size.
Some of the aftermarket stuff solves this but it's pricey (in Chevrolet terms) and probably not worth it on most of Ford's big heavy lineup of cars. Also they often used very restrictive exhaust manifolds, I see people tossing on headers but the exhaust is already hanging up in the exhaust port.

I still like that engine though  :D

j.

[billcreller]

  Yeah, there's likely some good after market heads to make that engine series breath good. Maybe even in aluminum.

  I haven't done many Ford engines. Just the old small block, like even the first version, a 221 cubic inch in a '63 Fairlane I had.  It had amazing power for a little engine, and that was even with the Fordomatic slush box.  I also did a 360 for my buddy's pickup truck.
 I actually did the flat heads in the old days.  I wish I would have not given away the special tools I had for those.  There are getting popular again lately, but I see that the parts are pricey.


 Just finished the front suspension A arms for my Elco.  That's a job I wont do for anyone else. Too time consuming, but at least I'll have a nice tight front end.  ( PRR will find a joke in there someplace) :)

[Dynaflow]

 Yeah the FE didn't breath for diddly.. The 427 side oiler had a pretty high plain manifold with 2x4 bbls's (at least as configured for the Galaxy Light and Thunderbolt, required quite the hood bubble to fit the 'High Riser' version of that motor). They load up and want to flood real easily, but oh baby twist that cats tail and that motor would get with the program. The cobra's I believe ran one 4 bbl but it was so light and even at that was seeing probably 500 lbs of torque through a top loader.  I was a kid when we used to go to Autocrosses (pylon racing) at the Cal state fair ground and watch the Cobra's run. Ain't nothing like the sound of a 427 with open headers at full chat. (Well thats not true, we used to have a dirt sprint car track in town and a small block chevy with hilborn injectors running long headers is pretty damn amazing sounding too...). My ex father in law used to get to hot lap a sprint car occasionally. At 600+ hp on alcohol on about 1700 lbs or there abouts, under 2000 definitely, he says the car's response to throttle was like instantaneous. Those world of outlaw guys run even more power these days and probably some of the most phenomenal drivers I've ever seen.

Regards,

Dyna

[PRR]

> 427 side oiler .... Cobra

Remember what the "E" in "FE" stands for. Every true 427 Cobra has the heart of an Edsel.

> Yeah the FE didn't breath for diddly..

The pushrods were in the way. Ford never figured out that two ports hadda fit between two pushrods, and kept putting pushrods too close together all through the 1950s. They ran the ports vertical, they ran them more vertical, they even laid them sideways. The only one which didn't wheeze had pushrods -through- the intake tract. And of course the SOHC.

This is an intrinsic problem on OHV V-8s. However many good GMs ran without such tight ports. I wonder if GM actually dealt with the problem, picked rod-spacing to allow for ports. And if Ford was using the same 1929 cam-grinder they used for all the Flatheads (which do not have rod-port conflict), and could not change cam/rod locations.

GM built an experimental "porcupine" engine for NASCAR. All previous engines, valve guides were drilled all the same, first straight-up and later biased toward intake. Well, the Hemi had two angles seen from the front, but from the side it was still straight-up. The "porcupine" tilted valves toward ports and also front-rear. Onlookers thought that was odd, hence the nickname. Combined with ball-rockers, now the pushrods came out not-in-line with ports. Costs more? Only the cost of a few-degree wedge and two passes under the drill-press. With less radical angles, this became the BB Chev, and Ford used the same ideas in the 429/460 which replaced the FE in the T-Burd and eventually all down the line to trucks.

There was a "hemi" for the 429/460 pattern. Made in small numbers and had real problems with leakage. One of the aftermarket head-companies has semi-reproduced it: avoiding the need for a special block casting, fixing the deck issues so that normal head gaskets hold, and using new notions of port shapes.

[Dynaflow]

 Yeah, you only have to look as far as the intake manifold on a FE to see an edsel. The heads split near the edge of the valve cover which makes it weigh much more than it had to. The cast iron manifold weighs a ton (ok, probably 60 lbs) and you nearly need a engine crane to separate said manifold from the block. Oh yeah, whats up with that one hose thats three inches long to cover that 1" gap between the water pump and the block, changing that without removing the water pump can be done, but it makes it pretty hard (to do it you need to cut things short, but its not a substitute for doing it right and removing all that jazz.
 It wasn't until IMHO the small block 221-260-289 that Ford finally had a pretty decent little engine. Had they had that motor in 55 perhaps they're 55-57 fairlanes would have surpassed Chevy. That Y-block pathetically didn't oil the top end and wore out real fast, I put on several of those oiling kits that feed the rocker arm assembly through the valve cover. I personally think the 55-57 fairlanes were nicer cars, but that Y block was terrible.

 Not trying to hijack ya here Bill buddy, consider this a musical interlude between progress reports...  ;)

Regards,

Dyna

[billcreller]

 ;D ;D
  No problem here.

 My oldest son has a kit-built Cobra like I mentioned before. with a 390 in it.  I know nothing about that engine. It has 2 4bbls on it, and idles like crap. Of course the cam has a bit of lumpy idle anyway.  It's a Comp 292.  He has some engine problems, but hasn't asked me to get into it yet.  Two yeas ago he damaged the drain plug area on the cast aluminum oil pan ( it's too low for some driveways I guess). He removed the pan, and I moved the drain plug boss over to one side so it's not likely to get hit again.
  The car itself is very well built, likely by a pro builder. It has a 5 speed Doug Nash gear box..

[billcreller]

  Progress (??) report:  I finally have the A frames done for the front suspension.  My partner (in aviation) and I,  have lots of tools and equipment, including a hyd press & front end tools, but I still had to make some sleeves for the press..  I'm now painting the front section of the frame. I may even have the front wheels on this thing this week. :)   The rear end may be the next heavy job, dragging it under and bolting it in.

[PRR]

> with a 390 in it.  I know nothing about that engine.

There is a Caddy 390 and a Ford 390. I assume you know a difference; anyway a Caddy would be odd in a Cobra-kit.

Ford V-8s:

Flathead. Radical to get such smoothness at the price. By today's standards, a weak fussy mill, but for the time it was pretty OK. 

Y-block. Around 300CID. Poor power/weight ratio, small/wimpy in the larger cars of the late 1950s. (Ford did not care that they wore-out.)

Ford used the Edsel project to develop two newer engines. The Big Y-block, MEL, was around 400CID, had sideways ports, but was just a big Y-block. It ran 1958-1960 in Mercury Edsel Lincoln; T-bird had it 1959-1960. It was a lump. After 1960 it was used only in Lincoln and only in 430 and 462 sizes.

1958 also brought the FE. Still a Y-block, but somewhat less obsolete than the others. "FE" means Ford and low-end Edsel. The MEL was supposed to be the better mill. However after 1960 the FE was used for anything bigger than a Six and smaller than a Lincoln. Swapping cranks and bores gave nine sizes from 332 to 429CID. Well, eight sizes: the 360 and the 361 were really the same. And while the 406 and 410 were truly different (410 was "unique to Edsel"), who could care?

The smaller FEs faded when the Windsor came out in 1964. The "385 project" project of 1968, needed because the '68 Bird was awful fat for the FE, still didn't kill the FE. The "385" (sold as 429 and 460) has a lighter block but heavier heads, and weighs more than an FE. The FE 360FT and 390, originally Edsel and Thunderbird luxo-cruiser engines, served in trucks most of the 1970s.

The 390 was sold in several tune-levels, all moot now. The only "special" has "HP" cast in the block, it has bigger webs and oil passages. But the non-HP 390 block has proven itself over the decades.

So a "390" is just a small 427. If you MUST get the MOST, you want the extra 37CID and you want to re-work the oiling, which is easier if you start with the side-oiler 427. For Vette-blasting, a truck 390 motor with tweaks is fine.

> It has 2 4bbls on it

More for show than go. That was not even necessary with the smaller 4bbls of the 1950s. You used one 550cfm 4bbl, or you used three 2bbls. Three deuces is overkill, but rigged so it runs on the center carb 90% of the time, it can be driven in town. One medium Holley 4bbl is all the 390 needs, until you get a LOT of porting done. I really think it would run fabulous in a Cobra with the truck cam and 2bbl carb, albeit idling like a dead-stock 1963 Galaxie (a mellow rumble you don't hear much today).

> and idles like crap

That's not the FE 390. I drove a badly neglected 5-ton truck, which was barely able to run in traffic, but it idled like an electric rock, and pulled strong from a stop despite grabby clutch linkage. The obvious thing is the fat cam, and so much carb throat that the idle circuits can't sense the engine's air demand.

But if someone installed AutoLite carbs, trade them for a dime of scrap value, get a pair of Holley's smallest 4bbls. The Motor/AutoCrap carbs never idled right when new, and go downhill from there. I still have foot-habits learned from AutoCraps stalling off-idle.

When Son is ready. Can't tell the kid what to do.

[billcreller]

  His engine is a Ford 390 alright, with 427 rocker covers.  I think he said the previous owner lunched the 427, and put the 390 in it's place.  It's both over-carbed and over-cammed in my own opinion. It makes power when it gets off-idle a bit  I wouldn't tolerate an engine that runs like that for myself, but I figure it's his problem :)
   The flatheads I had were quite good runners ( in the 40s and 50s)  In '49 they put the distributor up where it was more accessable,  than down on the front of the cam.
  I also had two  Lincoln Zephyrs with the flat head V12. Now that was a real sludge pump!  It had a float in the oil pan for oil level, with a rod coming up thru the intake manifold, with a scale mounted there for the quantity.  It probably worked OK when the car was new, but with the oil in those days, it sludged up, and would stick. Real engineering .  The first one was a '37 coupe, with the usual solid Ford lifters, and the second one ( I was a glutton for punishment in those days) was a '40 club coupe. It had hydraulic lifters, which would clatter a bit when the oil got low, and the "bobber" was stuck so it couldn't be read. ;D

[DummyLoad]

odd... never heard of a 429 FE block... 429/460 Lima "385 series" on the mind, or KB glitch? but you did say swapping parts, so i'm unaware of the combination to make a FE 429...

there was a "SD Truck" block as well, 401/477/534 - they made big torque numbers for "stock" powerplants.  

car & light truck: 332/352/352HP/360/361E/390, HP/406/410/427/428, CJ, SCJ
med./heavy duty trucks: 330HD, MD/359/361/389/391  

as already stated, 427 was it's own class of block, side oiler with cross-bolt mains designed for the race track... 427 SOHC was based on 427 SO block, but machined for the SOHC cam chain covers, idlers, oiling sytem, etc. i don't know anyone who's seen one in the flesh.

intake manifold was a PITA - have to remove the push rods to take it off...  >:(  header bolts were a bitch on the GT heads with shock tower clearance that make a preacher cuss, still thought, not as bad as 390 GT mustang/6.5L cougar XR-7...

i had a 68 torino GT FB 4 speed w/ 390GT - got drunk one night, we both ended up in a drainage ditch... i fared better than the car.  :-[

in late 70's i bought a complete 428CJ motor & top-loader that was in a 1950 chevy 5 window P/U  - the truck was a complete rust bucket and not worth salvaging. 428 was going to find a home in 69-70 stang or 68-69 torino...  i sold them both about 10 years later. <head banging on wall>

these days i drive a 95 impala SS. it's a another love/hate relationship on a totally different level.  :-\

[DummyLoad]

nice to see other ford nuts on the forum...  8)

FORD = First On Race Day  :D

backwards... Driver Returns On Foot... sadly, i can relate...  ;D   

[billcreller]

My son with the Cobra will hear that second saying tonight when comes over to jam with me.  He's a Ford nut for sure. ;D

[PRR]

> never heard of a 429 FE block...

This darn keyboard stupidly put the "8" and the "9" keys next to each other.

[DummyLoad]

> never heard of a 429 FE block...

This darn keyboard stupidly put the "8" and the "9" keys next to each other.

doncha' hate it when that happens?  ;D

[billcreller]

 
  I've heard of the 428 but have never seen one.  My friend across the road here just bought  1996 Ford pickup, an XLT, whatever that is.  Looks like a deluxe model.  He did OK I think, 1500 bucks.  It needs a set of tires, and muffler and tail pipe.  Good part, to me at least, is that it has a 5.0 engine and not an OHC 4.6 variety.  Also has one little bubble in the paint (rust). Interior is like new.
  He bought a Ford van last summer, like a 2003, for 500 bucks from a roofing company.  Same deal almost, no rust.  We spent a few weekends cleaning the roofing pucky off the rear door sills etc, and now it's quite nice.  He does remodeling etc for a living.  His last Chevy van, a 1993 1 ton, had the rear springs come through the floor in the back end.  No frame. Suspension is attached to hat-sections, spotwelded to the floor.  What ever happened to good manufacturing??  I don't think I'll be buying any more GM stuff, even though I have four cars and two pickups from them.  At least the Fords have a frame (yet).

[PRR]

> I've heard of the 428 but have never seen one.

It looks just like any other FE. "Swapping cranks and bores gave nine sizes...". The 427 bore/stroke is meant to rev, the 428 bore/stroke is meant to lug, but the difference is insignificant. 428 were usually, I think, (I'm away from my references) sold with plenty of carb and cam as muscle engines; dunno why they were not just 427s. I think Ford just liked to have a lot of "different engines" to hide the fact there were just two basic mills most years (not counting the locomotive engine in the Lincoln). Remember GM still had brand-specific engines, and even when designed by the same guys a Olds a Buick and a Chevy were distinct.

> 1996 Ford pickup, ... it has a 5.0 engine and not an OHC

An excellent engine. I got jaundiced on the Windsor after years of 289s sludging and dying, and 351Ws down-tuned to less pep than a Falcon Six. But the theater has a 1990s Ford stakebed which, for its size, really gets up and goes. I wondered where Ford was buying good engines that year: the carb on top is funny runners with a giant 1bbl throttle and no fuel bowls, but underneath was "MY" engine, a 351W block. I knew it was W by the block-off where the fuel pump belongs. They also sold it on the 302 block, dunno why they changed the name to 5.0. Modern oils cured the sludge, computers finally got better than an AutoCrap carb, even better than a Holley. The 1990s 351W should be a near drop-in for my 1979 Thunderbird, but I never got around to yanking Theater's engine in the middle of the night. (Might take a week of going-back to find all the electronic doo-hickeys.)

[billcreller]

 It's always been amazing over the years, to come across an engine, regardless of what it's bolted into, that runs especially great.  Always makes me wonder how the production line got one done that matches the blue print ;D
  I haven't been a Ford guy since the 50s, but once they got past the "Y" block I paid more attention.  I had relatives, like brother-in-laws with Fords, which I helped fix.  One had a 1966 I think) Starliner. It was a really nice looking car, but had Y block problems.   We pulled that out and put a 1963 Pontiac 389 in it, with a Cad/Lasalle transmission behind it.  The only real problem there was the oil pan.  The Ford had a front sump, the Pontiac had a rear sump.  We cut the pan apart and made a front sump out of it, along with a modified oil pick-up tube.  The engine was only a two-barrel type, but it sure put life in that Ford!!
  I had a lot of fun doing engine swaps in those days.

[billcreller]

 For an update, I found a 1975 El Camino body that is is like 90% better than my '77.  The frame on mine is much worse that I originally though, as well as body rust.  My intention now is to scrap it, and use this other body I came across, which is an Arizona car, without Michigan cancer.  The bodies are mostly identical, and I have all the removable parts from mine refinished, and a lot of new parts.  And the fun continues...... ;D

[bigsbybender]

It hurts to switch up, but it's usually better in the long run.  I've probably restored 9 or 10 cars, and with 2 of them, I ended up restoring the "parts car" instead of the one that I'd originally intended....All my cars are from Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin....they suffer from the same disease that plagues you on the other side of the big lake....   My old man bought an old VW convertible from San Antonio, Texas a while back...I thought I knew old air-cooled vw's well, but this thing had parts that I'd never seen  :D  because they didn't rust off in 3 weeks down in TX.

As always, good luck!

[billcreller]

Thanks BB.  I now have the old body stripped, including the dash and the whole wiring harness, and ready to drag in out of the hangar.  Saturday I'm gonna look close at the '75, which has some surface rust where paint peeled etc, but It's my best way to go I believe.  I wondered if I should transfer the vin plate to the '75, since everything will be '77 El Camino Classic with all the new and restored parts when I'm done. The '75 is a plain-jane type. In '76 they went to 15 inch wheels, and 11 inch rear brakes, from 9 inch brakes and 14 inch wheels in the earlier models. Can never have brakes that are too good!!

[bigsbybender]

  I wondered if I should transfer the vin plate to the '75, since everything will be '77 El Camino Classic with all the new and restored parts when I'm done.

Hmmm..  That kind of depends on the state law.  Most states seem pretty strict about moving VIN's.  On the other hand some states say that a car must be a certain percentage of parts from one car to be titled as such. Most of the time one could get by with it.....

On the old VW Beetles that I've done, body and frame/pan swaps have always been incredibly common....but at least around here you have to title it to the pan/frame/chassis.....not the body's VIN.  I guess whatever it is the "most" of in the case of a chevrolet then title it to that. Although I have no clue what state guidelines or laws are in Michigan.

j.

[Dynaflow]

 Depends on some states too with emissions (I.E. some states use a rolling 30 year exemption and some don't), of course a 30 year rolling exemption wouldn't be a problem with these being 75 and 77 depending on your state and if your in the country or city. My 72 z was exempt for example from testing, but that doesn't mean if I got stuck in a random roadside emissions test (which they sometimes did in Cali for survey purposes) that I wouldn't have been in hot water with a 350 chevy V8, headers and no smog equip at all.. :D

Regards,

Dyna