Reverse Rotation to Standard Rotation

Okay, any boat guys in the house? What changes besides a standard rotation camshaft and distributor drive gear are needed to convert a reverse rotation 351w to standard rotation?
I know the engine in question isn't a 385 but you guys are extremely knowledgeable and I'm sure have experience with all kinds of engines, so I'm asking here.

Starter, camshaft

Forgot oil pump

1EFF100 wrote:Okay, any boat guys in the house? What changes besides a standard rotation camshaft and distributor drive gear are needed to convert a reverse rotation 351w to standard rotation?
I know the engine in question isn't a 385 but you guys are extremely knowledgeable and I'm sure have experience with all kinds of engines, so I'm asking here.

Some of those crankshafts have the knurls on the rear sealing area in the opposite direction and if the pistons are offset pin, sometimes they are installed on the opposite side.
Swapping the piston/rod assemblies is easy if they are backwards however, the knurls are there for good.

The engine will still run OK in the opposite direction but, those are some differences.

Thanks guys.

Randy, if that's the case then I need to make a decision to either pull it down and correct the crank and pistons or sell it and find a different engine. I picked it up to install into a 1989 F-150 short bed 2wd but this engine runs excellent and has all of the boat accoutrements still attached. It was removed from an early '80s inboard lake boat that had rotten stringers.
Seems like it would be a waste of a perfectly good marine engine just to gut everything and use it in the truck.

I'd rather have a Cleveland anyhow--if I can find one.

1EFF,was this engine 1 of a pair in a twin engine setup?If not then verify it is actually reverse rotation,singles were typically standard rotation,and not all twins used 1 reverse rotation if they had transmissions in them.

427John wrote:1EFF,was this engine 1 of a pair in a twin engine setup?If not then verify it is actually reverse rotation,singles were typically standard rotation,and not all twins used 1 reverse rotation if they had transmissions in them.

Hi John. The only reason I know it's reverse rotation is because it specifies which direction it rotates on the bell housing. Has a big arrow pointing clockwise (which would be counter-clockwise viewed from the front) with the word ROTATION written in it.

Thanks.

Bruce

Oh and if anyone's curious, I bought an engine yesterday. Always liking to be a little different than the next guy, I picked up a 410 FE engine.

Still need 1 428 CJ head....

Bruce,if you get skunked on finding a CJ head,you can build a pair of functional equivalents by using a set of 64,65 and early 66 FE heads the porting is the same on them and the combustion chamber difference is nearly insignificant.Just put the CJ/427LR valves in them and presto,if you plan to use them in a unibody car the early 66 heads the C6AE-R castings for sure have the additional bosses to drill the diagonal bolt pattern.

Hmmm... my response from yesterday seems to have disappeared.

I do have a couple sets of heads. One is the common C8AE-H heads and I'll have to check the others. I may just use the C7AE-E heads that came on the 410. They have the diagonal bosses cast but not drilled and tapped. I don't need diagonals anyhow since the engine will be going into the '89 truck I mentioned above.

Ultimately though, I'd REALLY like to run Cobra-Jet heads--just for the cool factor, if for no other reason.

Bruce the casting #'s you listed are both for small port heads,the ones I'm referring to are the same large ports the CJ used.Back in the day people used to refer to FE heads as 2 barrel and 4 barrel heads and while there was a definite difference in port size it had nothing to do with the carb they had it was all about whether they were early or later model years.1966 was the transition year before then they all had the big port heads and after that they were all small port except for high performance engines.To make it even more complicated there were also 2 exhaust port exit heights thats why it can be challenging to get the right exhaust gaskets and prevent leaks.Until the advent of the high riser,medium riser and tunnel port heads even the mighty 427 ran the same heads as the other more pedestrian FE's they just had bigger valves.

Thanks, John. Yeah, I realize my heads are the smaller port design however, I have come across a couple tid-bits online where guys were saying the small ports can actually work pretty well. I'm not looking to build a high-winding horsepower king. What I want is something that will slam you into the seat from a stop sign and have excellent part throttle response; a low RPM torque monster that will pull nicely to at least 5000.

My bad I thought from your post about looking for another CJ head that was what you were after.

P.S. Avoid any temptation to do any port work to them FE heads are easy to screw up,they can be ported but a lot attempts just make them flow worse,they seem to do pretty well as cast.

427John wrote:My bad I thought from your post about looking for another CJ head that was what you were after.

P.S. Avoid any temptation to do any port work to them FE heads are easy to screw up,they can be ported but a lot attempts just make them flow worse,they seem to do pretty well as cast.

Oh, I do want a CJ head--and I think I found one. Compared to the stock 460 and Cleveland heads, the 428 CJ head is really nothing to write home about, performance wise. I'm sure they will make a fine torque monster head.

I have heard that about porting.

Back in the late '80s early '90s, a buddy had a '67 Cyclone GT390/Top Loader 4 speed car that he had built a 428 for. It was a non-CJ engine. He did a bunch of port work (never ported a set of heads ever), polished the chambers, installed CJ valves, ran a Crane 222/234 @ .050 114 lobe sep. and mid .500s lift, Hooker Super Comp headers, STOCK intake and I believe a 750 Holley. I think it had 3.25 gears and traction loc.
That thing had so much low RPM torque it was incredible. It ran hard. Now I don't know if it was because of his porting or in spite of it but the thing ran great. Maybe he just stumbled upon the right combination of parts.

I'd kinda like to duplicate that engines performance with this 410 build.

Back in the same time frame, I had a '68 Cougar GT390/C6 car that I'd built a passenger car 428 for using Edelbrock heads, Performer RPM intake, SFT Comp Cam 252/260 @.050 108 LS and right around .600 lift. The C6 was built, 3000 stall, 3.89 traction loc in the 9". That thing ran awesome but it was a different kind of power. Wasn't as fun to drive around as my buddys Cycone. But, when you punched it, hang on. lol. With the stock street tires, you could take off from a stop with the trans in "D" and the thing would go through the gear smoking both rears just about as long as you wanted to stay in it.

Sorry for the long winded post. Just wanted to share a couple very fond memories.

Yeah I know exactly what your talking about on the different kind of power thing,I had a 73 Mach 1 back in the early 80's that I put a built 460 in and when I ran 3.25 gears in it was the most fun to drive,I think those engines make so much low end power that when you team it with numerically higher gears that it just blows the tires away on the street.