Messages

I think it's an experimental head.
 

    Well, at least the "E" as of inquired upon wasn't intended as an identifier for "Experimental" as I have more sets of these so marked heads sitting on the shelf here. 

    Now, as for the intent in the plumping, though it would seem that it ties the two intake runners together, so . . . . . maybe a poorly executed plan for runner balancing/dampening with a Weber intake?  The springs and retainers are not O.E.M., maybe the rocker studs are also something different, so maybe was a "racin' thing"; or maybe even somebodies' '70's idea for better gas mileage?   
 
    But in the end, for what, I don't know?   
   
    But whatever, when you done starin' at 'em, if you strip the casting bare, then they make for 'great' wheel-chocks; or, if the "wifie" continually bounces the nose of the car off the back-side of the garage, then bolted down to the floor, these also make for 'great' parking stops!    
     
    Scott.

Oh and I am suprised no one has said .... this whole topic is a sales pitch for Edelbrock carbs 

    Please no! This is almost the same (and as bad) as the incessant "LS-Swap" advisories! 

    But, I will admit that there 'is' an Edelbrock on my '60 T-Bird (installed by the previous owner), but I've still got an out on that one, the "J"-codes came with Carter's originally.    

    As for the reason Holley's have won-out on the "muscle cars" and with racers isn't just because they 'are' easier to work with, but also because one for one they will "generally" always out horse-power the others!   

    Scott.   

     

Solid advice here gents. 

    DO NOT use "RTV" (or "most" any other of the "sealers" readily available at the auto-parts or hardware store) as these will most often prove soluble (in time) to fuel. 

    Scott.

    The idea of rebuilding the old pressure plate is a more than reasonable avenue to follow; that is, if you can find a "reasonable' rebuilder, and if not, might be willing to assert one's self into the endeavor; this as I attempted to present in my previous post, it really isn't that complicated.

    The only real pitfall might be any needed "parts".  As long as you don't have to find replacement parts, just a reworking of the old stuff and you'll be O.K..  In the "old-days", parts weren't a problem, I even still have the old catalogs from that industry listing all of the different applications and parts & pieces, and as often practiced in the automotive community, much being shared from one to another in the effort to reduce the "cost per unit" scenario, and note that clutches have always pretty much been a "buy-out product" for the automobile manufacturers; but today, I just don't know where to buy the O.E.M. replacement pieces?

    On the subject of a replacement clutch being of the "diaphragm" type vs. the original "long-style" in these cars has been discussed previously on this forum, and I would suggest that before anyone followed down that path that they familiarize themselves with the expected experience.

    Note that commenting is often intended as not only in aid to the O.P.'s inquire at this point in time, but also to provide to others whom may be "in the same boat" so to speak, this both today, and even perhaps, should any of this be available for review in future. 

    Scott.

      Most all of the "clutch rebuilders" are gone; but it isn't that difficult if you just have a "good" machine shop available.

      Assuming that you do have a "Long-Style" clutch, and it's not in a really bad state of condition, basically, for a "standard" rebuild as most often having been practiced by the shops in the past:

      Disassemble the unit via the three bolts located on the hat inline with the fork-fingers, loosening slowly and equally, the spring pressures "might" be released before you run out of threads, BUT! I prefer (and probably wiser & safer!  ) to utilize the hydraulic press (but could be accomplished with a couple of pieces of metal and a long threaded bolt or a section of all-thread acting as a clamp) and hold the hat down until all of the bolts are out and then release the hydraulic pressure (or start unscrewing your contraption) this allowing the springs to push the hat apart from the friction plate.

      Now just gather-up the parts; inspect the pieces and note any shims that might be under the fork-finger stands and the positioning of everything (there's not that much there!  ), including indexing.  Take the pressure plate friction ring to a ("general/industrial") machine shop that might have a magnetic plate for mounting on a surface grinder (and with "rotary table would be even better!) and have them dial-indicate the face level and cut a minimum off to "dress' the surface.  Sometimes (and actually best  ) an "automotive type" machine shop may have the ability to mount this in their "flywheel grinder" and will also generally be more affordable in costing.  But if you find your having to walk them through the process then your probably at the wrong place! 

      Take the springs to an automotive machine shop and have them run each of them across their valve-spring tester, this looking for any that might really be bad; if any show to be significantly "out of range" compared to the others, then you have a problem, as not "any" spring will do and all should be replaced as a set.  And then see if they might happen to have some valve spring shims (say... .060") that will fit under the spring and within any machined recess or boss that there might be on the back-side of the pressure plate ring, this to offset loss pressure due to fatigue, for the removed sum on the face of the ring, and just to "add-in" some for good measure.

      The fork-fingers might have some excessive wear on the tips, that might need to be "dressed", this where they come into contact with the release-bearing, if not too excessive, and with some technique, just grind them down "some', in a radius fashion, but 'do' try and make them somewhat equal. 

      Now, as stated in the manual, "assemble in the reverse of the disassembly process."    When done do look and establish that the three fork-fingers are "somewhat" equal in height, as bolted to the flywheel with the friction disc in place.   

      If you find that the hat is cracked somewhere, or any "broken stuff" or stuff that just looks overly "worn out", then it's just time to toss-it! 

      Scott.

     

With that in mind I typically suggest to port out the C0AE casting to look similar to the C8AE version inside passages. It doesn't take too long to do.

      Yes, one 'can' improve upon the "COAE" port flow, some, . . . . but it doesn't possess the material to make it equal to the later version.   

      And do keep in mind, that apparently F.M.C. had determined that the design needed changing. 

      Scott.

      Agreed that it isn't going to be "correct", but if one were intending to "run the car hard", at all, I'd recommend going with the "updated" engineering of the "C8" product, which is more efficient at passing the oil volume, vs. the "CO" item. 

      Scott.

65/66 Mustang with factory 9 inch rear end used 28 spine axles.

    Yes I do understand that. 

    Rather, I was simply attempting to make reference to qualify what someone might consider "nothing outrageous"; and I chose the 31-spline axle as a possible analogy threshold for the reasonable application of the 8-inch axle unit, not an argument of actual fitment.   

    Scott.

    Some of the initial product examples from B.T. did have the "FoMoCo" as cast, but Ford Motor Co. was quick to point out to him that that was a "No-No"; so he removed this for later production examples.

    Then it seems he did make an agreement with F.M.C., as they then had started to chase him over the "COBRA" logo also, and it seems intermittently cast again "some" (mostly the 289 "Cobra") with the logos, but charged an additional fee to cover the royalty he said he had to pay Ford for doing so.

    So, when it comes to the intakes that B.T. may have made, with some of them (especially after use and then having been abrasive blast cleaned) and for some individuals not so familiar, may have to basically be holding them in your hand to determine for sure.

    Scott.

He running a modified 289, nothing outrageous.

    Yes, and to be honest, a "nothing outrageous" 289, would probably do just fine with an "8-inch"; this as many have. 

    But, if you feel that the project "needs" 31-spline axles, then a "9-inch" it shall be.   

    Scott.

    The threads in the back cover-plate are somewhat recessed as the hole is punched and the threads utilize the rolled material provided in the circumference bellow the 90 degree turn ; and therefore the beveled edge provides the service of aligning the greater diameter gasket needed in order to move the sealing surface out onto the flatter surface of the cover away from that radius. But the gasket thickness may be a concern so as that the bevel on the nut doesn't stop against the radius before compressing the gasket; where in the latter example such wouldn't be the case.   

    And although I do understand the possible intended purpose in the bevel as presented on the first as inquired of plug, that doesn't mean I'm attempting to state that it is "correct"; but somehow, as unique is that plug is, and that it does seem interesting "close", I'm thinking chances are that it 'is' a "rear differential housing fill-plug". just not sure if it the "right" one.   

    But then with an appropriate gasket (copper would be a good choice) there's the old adage: "if the shoe fits . . . . . . ."   

    Scott.

    My recommendation is to communicate with a knowledgeable shop whom can put together what it might be that you need and just order a newly made unit including internal componentry appropriate for your requirements. 

    If you would wish, we can help you, contact: 407-843-3673.

    Scott.

just want one with the proper 30.2 ounce imbalance. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

    Just a note:

    Ford never provided a specification for the "surfacing" of the flywheels; rather generally the statement was that, "if the used flywheels' surface is unacceptable to be put back into service, it should be replaced", or something along that line.   

    Part of the reasoning for this is that the flywheels' function includes a heat absorption capacity, and this requires a sum of mass.  So if due to in service usage, the flywheels' face is damaged due to excessive heat, causing scoring, metal movement, even heat shrinkage displayed as checking or cracking, then "resurfacing" it by the reduction in the mass also reduces its' tolerance to the heat when returned to the same environment, meaning the service life the next time around will be even shorter! 

    Now, I'm not sure if this was an observation or concern at F.M.C. but as one whom has surfaced a number of flywheels, if any real heat has been applied causing any significant damage to the face of the wheel, another result is that the flatness is also lost to uneven cupping, warping, waviness, etc.; which means the sum of material being removed to make the face flat again is not generally equal about the circumference and therefore the balance value is changed!  Sometimes significantly, but most always a sum greater than the tolerance acceptable in a proper balance effort. 

    Scott.   

       

The tool is used to bleed down the lifters to check clearance for engines with non-adjustable rocker arms.

    O.K. "FE", and yes I do understand the tools' intended purpose, but again just out of curiosity, in what procedure do you intend that this tool will aid in establishing which "clearance" values? 

    And please understand that my query is with the intent to possibly aid. 

    For example: since you're needing to "bleed the lifter(s) down", I'm guessing that your perhaps working on an already assembled and has been run engine; perhaps even in the vehicle?  If so, perhaps rather than having to chase down this tool and possibly having to pay a princely sum for it, all you have to do in order to acquire the same result (without as much work!) is:

    Rotate the engine (by hand or with a "bump-start switch") so as the lifter(s) that you want "bled down" is on the "nose" of the camshaft lobe this holding the associated valve in the open position.  Now the spring pressure, which will likely provide a greater force than that achieved with the lever tool, will push the hydraulic plunger to its' seat in the bottom of the lifter body bore, generally in less than a minute. If your intention is to involve many or all of the valve-train to be inspected, pull the sparkplugs to ease the turning effort in the process.  This achieving the same result as expected from the pry-bar "tool", but a just tad bit easier!   

    But of course, I may be off in "left field" as there may be other considerations being chased and the conditions may be different; so if you would prefer to call me, versus this back & forth on the forum, feel free to do such if you wish.

    407-843-3673

    Scott.

    It will probably be necessary for you to select an appropriate substitution and then have it match-weight balanced to the "H.P." specification. 

    Or you do like so many other H.P. owners have done, ignore the fact that it 'is' different and just move on! 

    Not that that's "my" recommendation.   

    Scott.