Technical Ok, Ford FE gurus let’s talk

What do you consider an early 352

 

You are not wrong, they were available in pickups until 76

 

The '68 427 only existed to keep it NASCAR legal as a 'production' motor until the Boss 429 arrived in '69. Sold only in the Cougar GT-E model as a detuned (to 390 HP) version to meet smog standards. The only production version with hydraulic lifters and also the only 427-equipped model sold using an automatic transmission (other than a handful of factory race versions). There have been rumors that it was optional in other Fords, but none have ever surfaced. The service blocks from that point forward were drilled for hydraulics.

You are incorrect about the 390 however. While all of the FEs disappeared from cars after 1970, it (and the 360) remained as an option in trucks until the end of FE production in '76. The truck 390 was equipped with a 4V carb and only available in 2WD trucks and I believe only with the C6 (at least I've never seen one with a manual trans). The real rarity is the '70 truck 428 option. Only briefly available in 2WD Camper Special models with the C6, rumor has it that Ford had a small surplus of 428s, so offered it until supplies ran out. I've personally seen three of these over the years.

 

The '58-62 352s weren't thinwall cast, Ford didn't switch to that on the FE until '63.

 

That’s how I remember it. After that the 351m and 400 took the place of the FE in pickups, and the FT was replaced by the (379?) small bore version of the 429 in medium trucks.

There’s conflicting info on 390 availability in big Ford passenger cars. Some references claim 71 was the last year, others 70.

 

The 429 came out in '68 I think... Those were installed in Lincolns and Mercs....

 

I have a call into a guy on FB marketplace. It was a running 390 that was just pulled. It was supossed to smoke after it warmed up. $300 carb to oil pan. Pulled from a pickup.

 

Probably worth it.

 

So, what is the deal with the mirror 105 castings? How long were they made? Was this something in a certain year range? What makes the casting a "mirror" casting?

 

When you put the rocker shaft assemblies together, be careful of bolt placement. On my Edsel, there was one bolt that is shorter than the rest meaning there is one threaded hole shorter than the rest. The reason I got a great deal on my Edsel is the car was running on 6 of 8 cylinders because the long bolt was placed where the short bolt goes. The thread bottomed out and tightened but still left 1/4" of play for the shaft to move up so a few push rods slip out and damaged a couple of lifters.

Also, get some headers as it seems most Ford's with FE's have exhaust leaks due to cracked exhaust manifolds.

They are great engines with plenty of torque and run fairly smooth. Good luck

 

Also, the Edsel 361 heads have nice machined combustion chambers and are 10.5:1 compression. The guy at the engine builder I used was impressed with the stock heads. The Edsel 361 is 400 lbs of torque and 335 (ish) HP.

 

So, I have been reading for a few days on this. I am wondering if the 445 stroker kit would be cost effective for a daily driven car/truck?

Or would I be better served just rebuilding a 390 and throwing an aluminum intake and heads, pop in a hyd roller cam and call it a day?

I have only owned one FE in my life and that was 35 years ago, so my knowledge is very limited. I am deferring to the FE gurus for guidance.

 

Shouldn't be a problem for any stroker engine to work good and last long time if it is a well thought out platform and machine work and assembly is proper.

 

A late buddy bought this 56 in 58, and put a 427 with a tri-power in 1970. Drove it very little, as it has 34 thousand original miles. Sure looks and sounds good !

 

One doesn't have to buy the biggest stroker kit. A 4 inch stroke crank would sure be good for something to be towing with.

 

If yaw folks go to tossing out 352s, let me know

 

Yeah, that's pretty much it. I wonder if the bigger cubic inch would work less , since it would make more tq lower in the rpm band. With that said, gas mileage could be affected as well. Just thinking out loud here. In a big cubic inch motor, you can run a cam that would be a real monster in a smaller cubic inch and barely have a rump in a 445.

 

Personally, I believe a 390 with a nice small cam, aluminum 4V intake, and headers would make for a great daily driver and trailer tow rig. Remember, the big Ford Trucks got 391’s and while there are some differences, they still had 390 cubic inches. One of my first jobs 26 years ago after I just started at my company, was to replace a blown up 391 in a Ford C-800 tandem axle concrete pump truck. This thing was enormous and heavy. It had a manual transmission, but I don’t remember the exact model, and for its weight, it ran very respectable.

 

No, you fellows are correct, now I'll have to actually look hard at the '76 engine I have here.

 

The "mirror 105" blocks have that cast into the block on the left front, instead of the "352" numbers that were found there on earlier ones. Usually found in pickups, I have one here from 1976, some have the larger hole for the distributor like the FT blocks do, and some are rumored to have thicker cylinder walls. I believe when they quit casting at Dearborn, is when the 105 blocks began. From 1974, perhaps earlier, through 1976.

 

Looking at hydraulic roller cams , the best one I can find is a Howards 250705-10. It's a steel billet which requires a bronze gear unless there is a composite gear available . Maybe call Bullit and see what they can grind.

 

With a stroker kit there is more piston travel and higher piston speed at the same rpm vs. a stock engine, so one would think that there would be proportionally more wear.

But with modern oils and good maintenance either one will presumably last a very long time.

 

No FE experience here, but if you build the 445 with forged pistons, I think they are less desirable in a daily/ tow vehicle. (piston clearance cold/ wear/noise/slap). Just a general quip.

 

I'd use a steel gear instead of using a bronze version....

 

I think the ticket would be hypereutectic pistons. Better than cast, less clearance. On a daily beater they would be ideal.

 

I vote for stock stroke 390. I had a long history with the fe's years ago. I only had one that made good fuel mileage. It was in a 67 mustang with a 4 speed. It had the same Holley that several of the others did. It was 20 on the highway and 8 around town just like all of the others. If you were to build a 9-1 comp engine with any of the better cylinder heads and even the cast iron 4 barrel intake and you are sorry, I think you should look at a different engine to start with. I would spend the cost of the stroker kit on better heads and intake.

 

It's getting a set of aluminum heads and intake, regardless.
I was surprised at the specs on Edelbrocks Performer Cam for this motor. They are usually pretty tame.
Performer #2220
Advertised Exhaust Duration 236 deg
Advertised Intake Duration 229 deg
Intake Duration at .050 Inch Lift 228.7 deg
Intake Valve Lift 0.618 in
Intake Valve Lift with Factory Rocker Arm Ratio 0.618 in
Lifter Type Hydraulic Roller
Lobe Separation 112 deg

 

I found a pic of the infamous mirror 105.

 

I ran a 390 Ford bored out to 406 and a mild cam in my 40 Ford Pickup for 15 years and had no trouble other than keeping it cool in the summer. Took the hood off and that solved the heating problem.