So my my 390 in my galaxie started burning a little coolant on the right bank. Pulled the heads suspecting a bad gasket. During inspection I find these tool marked on the firewall side of cylinders 3/4 and 7/8. Anyone recognize what they might be from? Cylinder 4 was sucking coolant suspiciously close from that mark. They supposed to be there? I’ve never seen them on a block before. Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.
Do the valves in those two have a shiney rub mark that would match the cyl? I've never seen any marks like that before. Maybe to large of valve?
Ya, no valve issues, Valves are well within the bore. It’s a new one for me. Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.
Pulled the valve, and you can barely see it, but yes valve was rubbing. I guess CJ heads don’t clear a .030 over 390. Funny it was only the back 4 cylinders. Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.
Further investigation reveals the 428 Cj heads have had 1.75” exh valves installed, stock should be 1.65” hence the rubbing. Always measure twice!!! Lesson learned. Well that was fun [emoji53] Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.
390 is 4". .030" over is 4.030". 406 and 428 are 4.130". Don't blindly bore a 390 to 4.130" UNLESS it has thick cylinder castings. This can be found out by removing a freeze plug and 'gauging' the distance between cylinder casting 'sleeves' with a drill bit, ("go-no go") Drill bit size is available, slips my mind right now...
Check your valve sizes. It looks to me looks to me that there oversize. Stock CJ valves I believe are 2.090 / 1.650. Some people used to put 427 valves in and port the heads. I have run 428 CJ heads on stock bore 390 without any problem.
Ever see a factory 406 with its notched upper cylinders? Unusual, but I had seen pics of the new 406 in HRM. Still, seeing an engine with 'cylinder notches' was awakening. Good thinking as usual, Squirrel!
348 chevy truck engines had notched bores. On the OP;s engine. I doubt those heads added any HP. the low comp eyebrow pistons are found on low HP two bbl 390,s
Back in the day (late '68/69) when the 428 first came to the attention of rodders, the availability of it's inexpensive stroker crank for the FE prompted quite a few 428 'conversions'. One of the car mags did an article on this, and the general opinion at the time was that the early '58-60 352 block was one of the better if not the best candidate for this. The reasoning given was this: The FE was Fords first use of 'thinwall' casting, but early on Ford was conservative about just how thin they tried to make it, so the early motors still had fairly meaty cylinder walls. The early ('61-62) 390 was the best second choice. By '63 or so, Ford was perfecting the process so the blocks had less wall thickness which made it much tougher to achieve the 428 bore size. This was supposedly borne out by sonic checking of the finished blocks (which was strongly recommended no matter which block you used). By the mid/late '60s current 352 blocks would no longer work, and the 390 blocks could be very iffy. Core shift in the water jackets was a critical factor, particularly with later blocks. The 332 block could be used as well, but it's lack of hydraulic lifters and a few other peculiarities limited it's popularity.
In my hoard I have a 58-332 a 59 -352 a 60 -352 and a 62 390 T bird engine. and at least a dozen other FE's including a 66 -428.
The mighty FE , they are brutes to say the least . The question now is what are you goin to do to fix the issue ? When I was a youngster , I think careful work with a burr , would have I would have wished it well . Today I’m not sure that is the answer .
Yes it came from a 66 ford my father bought new. Had 325,000 miles on it never even had a valve cover off. oil & filter changed every 3000 miles with Valvoline 10w40 . three transmissions the last was a C6 . the frame on the car metal fatuged and the timing chain got very loose & valves got carboned and it began running poorly. Its worn out.
The Jalopy Journal
