Technical Ok, Ford FE gurus let’s talk

This popped up on my youtube feed:

 

That because they are watching you….

 

An article on a 390 street build.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/1706-how-to-build-a-brute-390-fe/

 

How much can a 390 be bored? This seems like you would have to use an after market block with this.
https://www.scatcrankshafts.com/product/1-47737/

 

With most all FEs you want to bore just the minimum. There are a few 390s that were actually cast as 428s and can be bored out to 4.130+ otrher 399s no more that .030. Have to Sonic check FEs if you bore more than .030. It’s a good idea to Sonic chrck all FEs be Fire boring.




Bones

 

This kit uses a 4.250" bore. I am guessing that would have to be an aftermarket block then.

 

Or 427 block.

 

This looks like a very doable combination.
https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/1410-how-to-build-a-390fe-stroker-500-pound-feet/

 

Are we still talking about a commuter shop truck motor or a 10 mpg street brawler

 

Bones,
Somehow i have it stuck in my head that the last 390's made for the pickups had thicker walled blocks. Am I wrong on this?

 

Shop truck with a big cubic inch motor. Something that can tow without a lot of effort. Something that would be pretty tame but still gets close to 500 ft lbs of torque.

 

Broken crank in an FE? Hahahaha

 

If you stay away from the mileage-killing C6, you can get reasonably decent economy with a FE. I'll give two personal examples.... I used to own a stone-stock '68 F100, 360/three on the tree/2.9 rear axle. This gave 20+ MPG on the highway and mid-teens in town if driven with sanity. No rocket though, and the rear gearing was too tall for serious hauling/towing. When I bought the truck, the PO swore it got good mileage, I assumed he was lying... he wasn't.

The other one more-or-less addresses what Root wants. This was a '67 Cougar GT, 390/4-speed/3.25 rear gears. When the car came to me in the early '70s, the motor was toast. The POs girlfriend was driving it when it dropped a valve, she managed to drive it home. It totally destroyed one piston/cylinder and the bits went everywhere inside the motor for virtually no salvageable parts in the long block, just exterior pieces. The motor that ended up in it was a 455", basically the crank/rods/heads from a 428 SCJ in a .030-over 427 center oiler block (long story on how that came to be). Add in a .530" lift solid cam, sidewinder intake, 4-tube headers (what a bitch to install!) and the 735 Holley off the GT motor. This was a monster! Melt the tires at will at almost any speed. Of course, if you got carried away with the throttle you could almost watch the gas gauge move. But it would give about 17 MPG on the freeway if driven at the posted limit which to be honest surprised me. Less around town of course, but still in double digits if you didn't get on it much.

With a modern OD trans, I don't see any reason these results couldn't be duplicated or even improved with some attention paid to trans/rear axle ratios. With another 1/4" of stroke, a 445" should have even more grunt.

One question I would ask is the advisability of using OD when towing/hauling heavy loads. I know most of the factory ODs aren't rated for that.

 

I like most things about this build, but I wonder what the figures would have been if they would have gone with the 4.250 crankshaft kit. It would have given the engine 14 more cubes and an 1/8 inch more stroke, at about the same price!
I have always been a stroke and cube guy! More low end torque and less chance of scattering parts.




Bones

 

No, those are the Mirror 105 blocks. They have stronger bottom ends ,due to extra webbing and are thought to have less core shift, making the cylinder walls stronger. Some say thicker, but either way they are usually thought to be good blocks to build!



Bones

 

What transmission are you thinking of using? What size tires?



Bones

 

I'll agree with Bones, why not go for more stroke. The longer arm will give more torque. The price difference is negligible and as they say, there's no re-placement for dis-placement!

 

I am thinking of running a TKX 5 speed.
Probably a 30" tire.
I may still do the 445. It is probably the most cost efficient.

 

Kool! If you go with the TKX 5, go with a medium ratio rear end, with the torque of the 445 a 3:50 would be my choice , for power and ease of cruising down the high way. A 3:89 would be nice, but with that huge torque engine , I would definitely not go any lower.
Back in the day, 4:11s and 4:30s were the bomb, but that was with smaller engines!
Remember, when hauling or pulling, it is not necessary to go into overdrive! In fact it is better to pull in direct! No friction going through gears!
I went all the way across S. Dakota in third gear on a 351 Windsor with a 435 and a 3:50 with 35 inch tires, pulling a gooseneck, loaded, with a motorcycle trailer behind it! Not that I recommend that….lol just happened to me! Direct in your five speed would make it about right. That is why transmissions have multiple gears!
Back in the late eighties, I put a basicly stock 428 CJ in my 1974 long wheel base dual wheeled long wheelbase flatbed one ton with 4:10 gears and an 435 NP four speed and probably 31 inch tires. We used that on the ranch to haul cattle! We pulled a gooseneck trailer that weighed 6000lbs empty! I smoked many diesels of that era on Tiger Mountain on I - 40! I would have to “ get out of it” there to avoid breaking the speed limit with that huge load!
That truck now sets in the barn on the ranch!


Bones said that!

 

Don't forget, the C6 can be rollerized, dropping its drag down to E4OD levels, although it will still be without overdrive. Anyone that is going to rebuild one would be well advised to do so.

 

I have talking with Brent Lykins about this build. He is saying that due to crap gas, we should shoot for 9:1 compression. He says what I give up 10-15 hp, I could pick up easily enough. He is going to spec out a cam that comes in full on by 4,000.

 

Back in the mid 70's I was towing my race car with a 71 F250 with a 360. It did okay, but wasn't a power house. It broke a rod (had been bent from hydrostatic lock). I bought a 63 Mercury with a bad transmission and a 390. I was just going to drop it in the truck but found a lot of sludge when I pulled a valve cover. Ended up going completely through the 390. I put in a cam that Ford used in the 335 hp 390's along with a 4 bbl intake and a Ford Holley carb that came on the 335 hp engine. It pulled a lot better than the 360 and I was pretty happy with it until I bought a 76 F250 with a 460. Fuel mileage was maybe a tad better (maybe not), but that 460 pulled my big race car trailer like it wasn't even there. While I had a good number of vehicles with FE engines, the 429/460 made a lot more power stock.

 

I have been wondering about that. I hear different stories based on their experiences. From this it looks about the same. I need to look at torque ratings.

68-71 429 4V=360HP
69-70 429 Boss=375HP
70-71 429 CJ=370HP
70-71 429 SCJ=375HP
68-71 460 4V=365HP
1972 460 4V=245HP
73-78 460 4V=212HP


68-71 390 320 HP
1967 390 320 HP
1968-76 Truck 215 HP
1966-68 390 335 HP
1968-71 390 265 HP

 

With aluminum or iron heads?

 

1968-71 Lincoln 460’s were rated at 500 ft lbs. torque. Take it for what it’s worth for factory ratings.

 

Anybody know what year they went from rating gross at the crank to net at the wheels? I was thinking early 70's but I dont really know for sure. I have also heard that some of the Hi Po options were somewhat derated to get the insurance bills down. Anybody know if that's a fact or just another urban legend?

 

Aluminum

 

Chris, I often build street engines in the area of 10.00 to 10.5 with aluminum heads with 0 issues. With Iron heads I try to stay around 9 to 1.

 

does that work on trucks as well as cars?

 

Just did a bbc in a c30 with 10.00 to 1 thing weighs 5500 lbs no problems. And now that I think about it the 396 that came in it was rated at 10.25 to 1...