Performer RPM mis match

Smoke this over and see if it helps!

http://www.fordfe.info/Forum/Oil.html

That's a lot of info right there. 

I have done all the oiling mods, and have a heavy duty pump rod , high volume oil pump, good pan with a windage tray, drain back holes are opened up, MSD distributor with a good gear pin.

That was a good article. A ton of good information.

Again, I feel I have got this engine to where it has adequate oiling and good longevity for him to enjoy for a good long time of street driving.

Should be a hoot to drive.

Dont tell Snake what to do.......

richter69 wrote:Dont tell Snake what to do.......

Yea, don't hisssss him off.   

richter69 wrote:Dont tell Snake what to do.......

Intake manifold clearence is to loose  

It's big as a cows azz . Lol

:

maverick wrote:

cletus66 wrote:

61coon wrote:

richter69 wrote:0.002651    

 

X2 !!  That's the EXACT number I demand from The Shop.   

The 0.002 is the easy part...you won't get the 651 just anywhere, but somehow it's easy to get here. 

Did you miss the   ????    

Nope.

Needs more cow bell........

Blake,

I have a very similar solid flat tappet in a 418 inch engine, has ported iron heads and 11ish to 1 compression... runs on race gas etc... that motor is a heck of a lot of fun... has a very nice little choppy idle at 6-700 rpm smoothes out after about 1500 rpm. Damn thing pulls hard from idle to 5500 rpm... I think you made a wise choice there.... as far as clearances go.... with your attention to detail that thing will live a long and happy life... In a light car with a 4 speed that thing will be a tire burner for sure. Is it gonna see the dyno?

Thanks,

I'm trying to talk him into dynoing it. I think it will be a good running piece. Especially with the close ratio top loader.

I've only driven two cars with hand shakers... one was a 66 galaxie with a close ratio top loader... other was my dads 74 javelin... also a close ratio... with 4.10 gears you were really rowing the gears with a stockish 360. I would assume your build will be very similar... sounds like a fun deal.

Yes it will be, I have a 66 Mustang that I drove all through High school It had a hot 289 and a top loader. It was a hoot to drive.

I will get some pictures of this one and post them on here.

bluef100fe wrote:I've only driven two cars with hand shakers... one was a 66 galaxie with a close ratio top loader... other was my dads 74 javelin... also a close ratio... with 4.10 gears you were really rowing the gears with a stockish 360. I would assume your build will be very similar... sounds like a fun deal.

    Not trying to hi jack the thread, just wanted to compliment the owner of this truck. You are like me trying to shave weight off these heavy old trucks, I never pulled the hood yet,  might have to try that next, and the tail gate too. What did you get your weight down too? You can pm me with the weight and details if you like.

It used to weigh 3900lbs with me in it and a full tank... after the changes its gone through the last 8 years I don't have a clue where it is... getting it on the scales again is on my list of shit to do.... just haven't had the time. It might have lost another 100 or 200 since then... I know my hood and front bumper weigh 90... lol. The thing looks like hell but it seems to run alright for a 390 truck engine. Thanks

I like ole blue.hate that i missed it this year.  

The largest problem with running large bearing clearances on an FE engine, (other than the 427's), is the little diameter passageway between the pump and the filter pad.

What happens rather regularly with the FE engine is that someone ignorant of what will happen, puts their self proclaimed High Performance FE engine together with around .0027" bearing clearances, (with fully grooved main bearings, none the less), and spins the thing to 6,800 or so and oil pressure, (because of lack of available volume), goes down, (not a lot and most won't even notice the instant because it comes right back).
Eventually they hurt a bearing, take it apart and now think they need MORE clearance, (and a high volume pump), to help their problem AND, it happens again and even again.
The PROBLEM is that little 3/8" passageway between the pump and the filter pad.  You can't get enough oil through that passageway to feed larger clearances than about .0022" without a whole bunch of oil pressure. Big clearances with thicker oil just makes the problem worse; (although it puts a temporary band-aid on the symptom).
That passageway NEEDS to be a 1/2" minimum and that is why the 427 engines were manufactured that way.

I have seen big bearing clearances with thick oil hurt more FE engines, (because of this problem), than any other single oiling problem.  
Drill that passageway larger like the 427 and those problems go away.

Oh, by the way, EVERYBODY is uneducated about SOMETHING. That does not mean you are stupid but, are simply ignorant of that particular subject.  And, I have witnessed that a little knowledge is sometimes worse than none at all.

I never did understand why ford left the oil passage so small from the pump to the filter adaptor... I always drill all mine out... Seems odd that all the blocks I've seen the passage carrying the oil away from the filter adaptor are always half inch? Why ford didn't drill that other passage at least the same size is a mystery to me... My engine doesn't have great oil pressure but it's been together a long time and I'm not very nice too it either...  

What reputable FE engine builder leaves the factory oil passages untouched? None that I know of.
Even hobbyist builders perform the "standard" FE oiling mods.

Tight bearing clearances on an FE must be performed with a jewel of a crankshaft, and properly align bored.
Also a modern thin oil would be used.

68galaxie wrote:What reputable FE engine builder leaves the factory oil passages untouched? None that I know of.
Even hobbyist builders perform the "standard" FE oiling mods.

Tight bearing clearances on an FE must be performed with a jewel of a crankshaft, and properly align bored.
Also a modern thin oil would be used.

I guess the ones which have been built by their owners or regular engine rebuilders with a little knowledge who don't know any better and have this problem "over and over" again count for the many.

I have witnessed at least 100 previously built somewhere else come in the door because they just can't keep bearings in it; those should probably qualify for that "untouched" scenario...

Telling them to run bearing clearances of .0027", (or even more oil clearance), without also explaining to them about what they NEED to do to the oil passages is just a problem waiting to happen.

I agree with you 100% no argument here.


Cheers