As the saying goes, 'There's no replacement for displacement' so to my thinking a stroker may prove to be the best choice. Moves the power curve down in the RPM range and would promote cylinder filling with high mixture velocity. That makes the heads and intake a bit less important and should reduce the need for any exotic valve train bits. 445" kits are as little as $2K, spend a bit more and get forged pistons and better rods. The C6 is a power hog (up to 50 HP lost to internal drag), I'd go with a 3.03 toploader 3-speed. I don't remember all the specifics, but there's quite a few differences between the FE and FT motors so that you can't just swap parts with abandon.
Regarding the compression ratio and PTV clearance, would it be okay with a bigger cam? 6.48 or 6.540 rods? And what would the head casting numbers be?
Going off what he has now to keep budget down, Gene. I know guys use the FT block for drag racing. What's the skinny on those? ^^^ X 2 Joe
The mid 60's Nascar Fords where you saw a 396 ci callout on the hood was a combination of the 427 block with a 352/360 3.5"crank it gave 396 cubes with the 4.23" bore they did this to get the weight breaks for the smaller displacement not necessarily for an increased ability to rev. They wasted no time going back to the larger engines when the weight breaks no longer gave an advantage.
These are the pistons to make that happen- and trim-to-fit to get all the squeeze. Chrysler did the same thing with 404 Hammys. The FT and FE blocks are the same except how they are machined, bigger distributor bore and compressor oil return hole on the FT's. There is a bushing for the dist bore, and you can just plug the oil hole
Don't the FTs have webbed main journal reinforcement and forged crankshafts? Trying to remember. Those pistons.......woah. Joe
I would for sure look for something different than a C6 for transmission. Even a C4 would be better. What are the Chevy guts using for a intake to fit the Holley 500? That should tell if you can run a aftermarket intake or not.
Is everyone running automatics? If so, then a proper close ratio 303 Toploader would give you a HUGE advantage. A C6 is bulletproof, but as has been said a total slushbox power hog. I'm not giving up 50 ponies and unicorns for that....ever...
Yes, the FT engines had forged crankshafts. Also I believe there was a difference in the snout which can be corrected to use the car damper. This is one weird piston!:
We used a C6 with the 429/460 and ran 2nd gear. The transmission was one of the things we never even looked at in 3 hard seasons of running. We had a rear gear, forget if it was a 4.33 or 4.56 out of a junkyard Econoline with a spool. In all of our cars, gearing was key to getting the RPM range where we wanted it. We ran the same gear at 2 tracks, a 1/5th and a 1/4 mile. The longer track, I pulled less revs on the straights, not so much difference in the corners. You also want a cam that is speced out for a specific RPM range. We had a weight rule too, I think it was something like 3300 lbs minimum. One Saturday before a race, we weighed the car at a s**** yard sponsor before heading to the track, 3456 lbs. That night after the race, someone protested that we had a light car with "acid dipped" body panels. So onto the scale it went. My brother followed the track official around all 4 corners of the car and wrote down what the guy wrote down. We added it up, close to the 3456 number. The officials came up with over 3900 lbs. Nice job at adding. The car was known from then on as 2 tons.
Those pistons were called MAX compression, overbuilt so they could be precisely trimmed to the combustion chamber. Want them? They could be had pretty reasonable- love to see someone build a screamer with them
There are several differences in the FT and FEs. A**** them are different snouts on the FT crank, a larger distributor hole in the block for the FT, the FT has a drain hole in the block for a compressor, the heads on an FT have extra exhaust ports as do the exhaust manifolds , there are differences in the valve between the FT and the FE and also between different FTs. The carbs are usually different. Also the front timing covers are different. May be others but those are the main ones. Oh, the FT usually has four rings, too. Bones
As crazy and awesome as they look, I'll have to p*** right now. When I start building the engine, I'll have to get in contact with you
As far as a C-6 vs the C-4,I agree that the C-4 absorbs a lot less power and can be built to hold up to plenty provided that the budget allows for that and the adapter to mate it to the FE,but a C-6 is much lower buck for the cannon proof route.I also agree that if rules allow I would also use the 3.03 especially if he only uses 1 gear to get around the track.As far as the differences between the 360 and 361FT while there are differences between the internal parts composition for durability as Boneyard said there is absolutely no difference in displacement since they both have the same bore and stroke,the same with the 361 Edsel FE.The 360 was basically a .050 overbored 352 to allow Ford to use 390 pistons in it and save a little money.
Since your limited to the 500 cfm 2 barrel and a 352,360 or 390 cu in engine are all capable of making more power than the carb will support there's not much point in building something bigger,the challenge with the 352 and 360 will be finding off the shelf pistons that will give a high CR and a good quench distance which contributes to efficiency and good detonation resistance,of course if your budget supports it custom pistons can provide that.The 390 has a pretty good selection that along with zero decking can easily provide both,plus the longer stroke will provide more low and mid range power for the big Galaxie.As far as heads the 65 and earlier large port heads can be made to support lots of power and the later small port heads can also be made to make full use of the the 2 barrel carb also the higher velocity small port heads may provide better throttle response.As far as intakes while the aluminum pieces already mentioned will work well and give weight savings,if you can come across a factory 428CJ intake while it is the heavy cast iron and not as common and low buck as it used to be, it works really well.
I love the Ford FE engines, an FE was the first V-8 I ever owned. I’ve learned a lot on this post, and don’t know enough to add anything, but I would tell the “administrator” that I’m running an Edsel engine!
I'm familiar with the FE, had my hands in more than a few from the 332 to a 406. Still I was impressed as heck once I popped the heads off a 429. This was a coveted 1969 out of a big Mercury. Parts were reasonable and we always kept an eye peeled for a wrecked Lincoln as a donor for the next one. Plus the 429/460 has adjustable rockers, no shaft which was a plus for us. We went with a flat tappet solid lifter with a cheater cam... no wild idle so it went under the radar. They never checked the lift on it when we got protested.
So these 361 and 391 truck engines are not worth building into something moderately hi performance? By that I mean using the stock heads...
Wow, engine opinions all over the map- probably a lot of I heard, I read and I think in there. I did spend quite a bit of time on circle track stuff, the Galaxie street stocks up to a 410 sprinter with a high dollar Shaver engine- we even played with the WoA a few times when they came to town. Watching those crazy *******s on the 1/2 mile at Calistoga was a sight- they start the psychological warfare right off the bat, like to stick their RF tire right under your driver's left elbow First thing before I spent a dollar would be that talking to the "administrator" about you engine choice, so you don't get the bowtie hose job- and I didn't see anything about having to run pump gas? I stand by what I said about what I would build, a 410/416 from a 360/390/410 block, preferably a later D3 or D4 one with triple main webs and good cylinder walls. 3.98 crank, and spend the money for custom light pistons to get the quench tight and a modern ring pack, and some good aftermarket H-beam rods from ****, Molnar or DSC, keep the ***embly light. Small chamber heads for compression. I have a friend/ builder who could spec you out a good cam for the combo, he puts a lot of thought in them and is pretty sharp. Let that long stroke and cam work the little Holley hard, it will have a ton of torque without revving it hard, and be easy to drive. I'm done, listen to who you want. Lots of C6 bashing, "A C6 is bulletproof, but as has been said a total slushbox power hog" Same thing used to said about the TH400, now it is all the rage again, with new technology. The C6 is pretty bulletproof, and a lot of friction can be taken out of them with roller bearings etc. Manual would of course be the least friction, but I wouldn't be afraid of the C6 with mods. Don't overthink it, takes the fun out
This isn't entirely true.... Although a small carb will not let a big engine run to potential, the torque generated would still be better with more cubes. A 352 with a Holley 500 and a 428 with a Holly 500. Which would be quicker? Both pretty much the same weight, yhe larger engine makes more torque, and torque wins the race.
The FT blocks can be used by putting a bushing in the distributor hole. But they are no,better or worse that the FEs. But mostly nothing else can be used. Kinda depends on what you have….as to what you use! Bones
The 391 steel cranks used to be pretty popular as an alternative to the 427 unit, the major crank shops were well versed in converting them for car use, and they are very strong. I have one that was done by Adney Brown, who is is a pretty sharp fellow- it has been welded up and stroked to 3.98 with factory bearing sizes. It is also heavy as hell, as the truck cranks don't have the additional cross-drilling and is pretty beefy. It was a takeout that came from Barry in favor of a 4.25 setup, intended for my 454 that has Crower rods and factory-lightened Arias domes, but the weight makes me hesitate. Folks used to turn down the counterweights to lighten them, so I'd like to get my neighbor's builder to work up the ***embly for balance to see if that would work- would be a nice project for the big South Bend. Getting him to do stuff outside of his comfort zone is very difficult, as he is lifetime Chebby cross-threaded between the ears, he can build a very accurate engine, does a lot of pickup 390s and wind machine engines, but next-level FE stuff gives him a hairball The inexpensive **** strokers have pretty much done away with 391 conversions. My piston/rod ***embly will be pretty light, would probably be fine with a 428 crank, and I have a half dozen, the difference in weight is amazing
This is true the same applies to heads induction and exhaust,I should have said budget wise there's not much point the cost of building an FE much larger than 390 inches quickly skyrockets,while there are stroker cranks that are 410/428 replacements and allow the use of stock rods they aren't exactly cheap and contrary to popular belief they aren't ready to go out of the box.Larger displacement is almost always better for larger cars but cost is a major factor when compared to the relatively common and cheap 390 and under displacements.
If you can find a set of the early 1958 352 heads with the machined chamber and high ports put them on a 390. You can put a 390 crank in the 352. Put the 390 rods and 352 pistons. You will have to grind metal off the pistons to fit the heads call a cam manufacturer and tell them what you need. We used the stock 406 solid cam that works very well. 6000 rpm is plenty.
That sure looks like an MEL piston for a flat cylinder head like the 348-409. FE engines had a chamber in the head. I could be wrong and often am…
Sorry for the late response, and I'm pretty much done milking everyone's brains. I was given a set of '67 390 heads that came off a 4bbl engine. I don't know if it would be worth it, but I also got a T85 transmission cheap as well. As much as a dislike comp cams, I found this that I'm pondering https://www.summitracing.com/parts/cca-cl33-250-4 I talked to a few older guys who used to help in the pits and race around my state back in the 70s-90s, and they said almost everyone around here ran 5.43 gears on the ⅜ mile tracks. This car will probably be only racing on the ⅜ mile track around here, but there is a few ¼ and ½ here too that I might attend. As far as budget goes, I'm holding what it says in the rules to heart "budget-friendly racing!". And yes, rules say anything from 87 to 100 octane is allowed. I'd like to stay on 87, maybe 91.
The Jalopy Journal
