Conference napalm::musclecars

    
    Can anyone tell me if the 428 Cobrajet is an internally or
    externally balanced motor?  Specifically, I'm wondering whether
    a 390 flywheel would work on my CJ.  Being that I'm away from home
    right now I have no access to my parts books that would answer this
    question......
    
    Thanks in advance,
    
    Tom

    
    	Tom,
    		The 428, 428c, and 428sc, are all zero balance at the
    	harmonic balancer and externally balanced at the flywheel.
    
    		The 390 is internally balanced.
    
    		Per the factory specs.
    
    		Of course that can be changed at the machine shop
    	for the right price.
    
    	Jeff

    
    RE .3
    
    That's what I thought.  However, it may not be an issue because
    the 428 CJ flywheel is STILL available new through Ford at a very
    reasonable cost...
    
    Thanks for the prompt reply.
    
    Tom

    
    For the longest time the single point distributor in my 428
    has been giving me fits.  The dwell would fluctuate all over the
    map, which made tuning the car shaky at best.
    Well, I puuled the distributor last week and here's what I found;
    
    1. Upper bushing was worn
    2. Lower bushing was GONE.  Not worn, but completely ABSENT, as in
       never installed!
    
    Consequently the shaft and breaker cam were not running true in
    relation to the breaker plate and points.  The bushings are no longer 
    available from Ford, so a machine shop is rebushing the housing with 
    oilite bushings, about $20.  Also, the breaker plate pivot was worn out, 
    allowing the points to move in relation to the cam.  The breaker plates 
    are still available new through Ford at $7 or so.  A word of caution.  Most
    manuals claim that the drive gear can easily be removed from the shaft after
    driving out the roll pin.  Bullshit.  Save yourself some aggravation
    and use a gear puller.  After 20+ years that gear doesn't want to
    budge!
    To replace the gear I destroyed using the manual recommended method, I 
    ordered a new drive gear from Mallory, about $12.
    
    Bottom line?  For under $50 I'll have a perfect, yet still original 
    distributor.  Many Hemmings sources charge $150 and more for the same.
    
    Tom
    
    When it goes back together I'll post results.  AJ Sanclemente, your 
    distributor may need the same.  Don't send it out without talking to
    me first, it'll save you some dough.
    
    
    
    
    

    
    
    	Tom,
    
    		yeah, I had mine rebuilt when the motor was done. The
    guy that did the engine also has a machine that he puts it in to
    set it up.
    
    		- A.J.

    
    Recieved my new breaker plate assembly today from Ford.
    The assembly is now sold as a preassembled unit, and appears to
    have been re-engineered for improved durability.
    
    I'm hoping the distributor rebuild solves my sparking woes!
    
    Next, the intake comes off for a port matching to the heads.
    Yes, I'm getting ready for epping!
    
    Tom

    
    It's alive!!!  The fresh, tight distributor was reinstalled on
    Saturday, and I'm thrilled.  The car now idles smoothly, and appears
    to be running much "cleaner"  Probably because the more steady dwell
    is allowing better coil saturation and a more consistent hot spark.
    All in all, another episode of how "little things mean a lot" or "funny
    how that little point gap can bring a big block to it's knees"
    
    The best ~$50 I've spent in a long time.  based on a few laps around
    the yard (car's not registered) I can tell it's running much stronger
    than before.  Next comes the intake port match, and then the new 3.50
    carrier from Summit.  Then we're going racing come spring!
    
    Tom
    
    

As suggested: Cross-posted from DLOACT::CARBUFFS


             <<< DLOACT::APP$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CARBUFFS.NOTE;1 >>>
                                 -< Carbuffs >-
================================================================================
Note 226.43                  Ford Big Block V8 Note                     43 of 45
CGOOA::RATHNOW "It compiles, therefore it works..."  11 lines   7-JAN-1993 10:53
                           -< 429 vs 429 Cobra-Jet >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I've been tossing around the idea of building a Cobra replica and have been
researching what kits are available.  One kit vendor has suggested a Ford 429
or 429 Cobra-Jet engine as the power plant.

Can someone tell me what the differences are between a normal Ford 429 and
a 429 Cobra-Jet?  What vehicles were the Cora-Jet use in?

Thanks,
Dave.


------------------------------ NEW NOTE ------------------------------------

The reply that suggested posting the note here also suggested using a 460
engine instead.  Any comments??

Thanks again,
Dave.

    Hi Dave,
     There are several differences between the 429 and the 429CJ. The 429
    is usually found in T-Birds, LTD's etc, and is a good tourqey motor.
    The CJ adds a hotter cam, different heads with bigger intake valves, a
    freer flowing intake manifold, and 4 bolt mains. Also, a Holly 780CFM
    carb. and an external oil cooler. They were available in 70-71 Torino 
    Cobra's and GT's, Cyclone Spoilers, and GT's and 71 Mustang Mach 1's and 
    some Cougars. 
     I am currently restoring a 70 Torino GT, and have recently began
    building a 71 460 for it. Check out note 73 for many details on the
    engine. Dean Hawke has a built 460 in his Torino, and one of the notes
    describes it very well. I decided to use a 460 because they are more
    plentiful, cheaper, and can be built up just as strong with the right
    choice of parts. Besides, there is no substitute for cubic inches.
    The engines are identical externally also, thedifference is in the 
    stroke of the crankshaft. 
     I plan on using the stock 71 pistons and crank, with a set of 73
    heads, that are set for unleaded fuel, with a valve job and some
    porting/polishing. Also I plan on using an aftermarket intake, most
    likely a Weind or Edlebrock Performer, as these flow better than even a
    CJ intake, and they are aluminum, so are much lighter. A good cam and
    Holly 750-850 carb, and headers should give me all the power I can use.
    Now if I only had all the money I need to buy this stuff. 
     This notes file has been a great source of information and
    encouragement to me, you should also have similar luck.
                                                                  John M.
    

Thanks for the reply John,

If I go ahead with it, this project will definitely take some time to complete. 
I figured I may as well start by finding and rebuilding an engine first.

I'm sure I'll be asking more questions.

Dave.


P.S. Is there any advantage to getting a earlier version of the 460 versus
     getting one of the later models.  I'm thinking in terms of emission
     control, better engineering, better availability of parts, etc.

    460's built before 71 may not have the crank end machined for a pilot
    bearing, check before you invest a lot of money and are planning to
    use a manual trans.
    
    1969   429CJ,429SCJ  = 4bolt mains, Adj valve train
    1970+71   429CJ      = 2Bolt mains + Non-adj valve train
    1970_71   429SCJ     = 4bolt mains + adj valve train
    
    1969 429S = hemi, 4bolt, Mech cam (Mustang + Couger)
    1970 429T = hemi, 4bolt, Hyd cam  (Mustang + Couger)
    
    Ford Motorsport 460 shrt blk  10.5/1   2.9k
                    600 shrt blk           4k
    
    ""     ""       al 429 SCJ heads  $800 ea bare
    
    Motorsport price is list... If you know the parts man you can get it
    cheaper.
    
    If you want a 427 look alike, use a 428 and add cross bolts. you
    can make it appear like a 427.. (Bosses were in the 428 casting
    because the 428 is the 1963 406 ford engine block without the extra
    machine work)
    One of the old ford Muscle Parts Book (69-71) described how to add the
    cross bolts.
    
    JJ
    
    
    
    

    
    The 429 CJ came on the scene in '70.  However, the 429 was first
    installed in T-birds beginning in '68 under the "Thunder Jet" moniker.
    This engine was a 2 bolt main, hydraulic cammed, around 10:1 squeeze
    and rated at 360 gross horsepower.  
    
    Like all 385 series motors (429/460) the rods will be forged units, not
    sure if the crank is forged or cast though.
    
    The 460 also came into existence in '68 in the Lincoln Mark III.  It's
    a stroked 429.  Nothing more.  Horsepower in the Lincoln is 365 gross
    or something like that.
    
    o The 429 was available in Mustangs/Cougars ('71 only) in base, CJ, and 
      SCJ forms
    
    o The 429 became available in the Torino/Montego/Cyclone line in '70, 
      in base, CJ, and SCJ forms.  Early '70 promotional literature listed
      the Boss 429 as an RPO for Torino Cobra, but few (if any, more likely) 
      came so equipped from Ford.
    
    o The 429 Was available in Thunderbirds in base form only from '68-71
    
    o The 429 in base form was also available in LTD from '68-71 including
      The XL/GT model
    
    FWIW, yes the 428 does share the same bore dimension as the 406, but
    there really isn't (except for correct appearance) any need to convert 
    to cross-bolted mains.  This was only required for superspeedway 
    applications where prolonged high revs were causing non cross-bolted
    main bearing caps to "walk"  The FE ford is extremely tough on the
    bottom end due to the deep skirt block design.  CJ's are even stronger 
    with beefy main caps, extra block ribbing, and 13/32" rod bolts.  In
    fact, even for appearances sake, a good eye would easily be able to
    distinguish a side oiler 427 from a 428.  Save your money on the fancy
    cross bolted main caps, this is an expensive modification.
    
    Tom  
    

Okay, 

I have show my ignorance and ask this:

What does "4 bolt main" or "2 bolt main" mean?


Dave.

    It's a reference to "how many" bolts hold the "main bearing" caps
    to the block.
    
    re

What are the benefits/draw-backs of 2 vs 4 bolts?

Dave

    4-bolt blocks are usually preferred "for strength" when 
    building up an engine.
    
    The 4-bolt blocks have thicker webbing supporting the main
    bearing saddles, and are less susceptible to cap walk.
    
    re

    
    I've often read that a motor with, or close to, zero deck height is
    preferable.  For a motor with negative deck height, how does a
    machinist usually bring it up to zero:
    
    1. Stroker crank
    2. Alter rod length
    3. Alter piston pin height or crown to pin height
    4. Deck the block 
    
    How is this customarily done?  #4 seems out due to the manifold fit
    issues of a massive block decking.  Cost would seem to rule out #1 and
    #2, so is it #3 or a combination???
    
    Tom 
     

A local engine builder/machine shop that I deal with is a big proponent of zero
deck height.  He achievs it by decking the block for zero deck height.  I plan
on doing the zero deck height thing next time that I have the Vega engine apart.
I am hoping that it will bump the compression to about 11.5:1 in the process.

You are correct that it will cause you to have to have some work done to the
intake to get to bolt up correctly.

Mark

>                     For a motor with negative deck height, how does a
>    machinist usually bring it up to zero:

As a nit, I believe a negative deck height would indicate that the piston crown
actually *protrudes* above the block.

That aside, to reduce deck height, the normal and least expensive procedure is
to deck the block, and any machining that would have to be done to the intake
manifold is a known quantity for all reasonably popular engines. That is, "On a
Pontiac 455, take .008" off the intake manifold gasket surfaces for every .010"
inches taken off the deck."

The numbers are arbitrary, but the real ones are known, and the process is an
automatic one at most machine shops. In general, deck heights are close enough
so that you're typically not talking about any "massive block decking", unless
you've got the wrong parts and are trying to jury rig.

Bruce

PS - As an aside, such factors as pushrod length, valve train geometry,
hydraulic lifter positioning (within a preferred range) and valve-to-piston
clearance also have to be considered when decking a block. In most cases,
however, you're only talking about shaving a few thousandths, so you can often
get away without messing with anything except the intake manifold.

    Yep, any good machine shop should be able to machine the intake to fit
    the new location of the heads.
    
    Harry
    

I just read an article in the current SuperFord magazine which describes the 1960 "352 Special",
aka the Interceptor.

Other than a certain amount of silliness that I've come to take for granted in any single-marque
magazine, the article is pretty informative.

The Interceptor was rated at 360 HP @ 6000 rpm, but the article talks about a "public relations
nightmare" wherein the first examples of this early-winter release had valve springs that were all
done at 5800 rpm. The fix was in by February, with "proper" springs that were good to 6800 or so.

So, Tom, ol' Roger was right, sort of, when he spoke about bad springs.

The article has a chart showing the results of a comparison drag test of five hot '60s cars, done
back then by a now defunct magazine. The Starliner went 14.8 @ 94 and change, with a 3-speed (the
only trans available) and 4.11 gears. A Chevy 348 with 320 HP (single 4-bbl) and 4-speed went 15.3,
while a Pontiac with 348 HP 389 (3-twos) went 14.5 with 4.55 gears and some dealer-installed stuff
(common Pontiac practice at the time). A pair of Mopars (Dodge and Plymouth) with 330 HP 383s went
15.0 and 15.3, with the difference between the two attributed to a 3.23 vs 4.56 gearset. The 4.56
car went 15.3, due largely to traction woes and the narrow (but extremely beefy) torque curve that
the cross ram manifold generated.

I remember reading that article, and wishing at the time that they had gotten Chevy's hottest 3-twos
offering, instead of the 4-bbl model, and had a Pontiac straight from the assembly line. I doubt if
it would have changed things all that much, but at least there'd have been a definitive test that used
everybody's hottest setup, instead of the hottest setup of three out of five manufacturers, with one
ho-hum and one ringer.

Bruce

PS - Cars were pretty hot back in '60, eh?

    How do I read the right side of the screen which is cut off?  I love
    reading about old iron but I can't follow this.
    Wayne

    Yo' Bruce....I know I need to change my glasses, but I believe that your
    margins are running off the end of the right side of the screen.
    
    TMW.....who has tri-focals...and is hoping not to get "quad-focals"
    next.                                                           

Sorry for the screw up. I'm breaking in a 486 as my only office toy, and
this is one of many little problems I'm coming across when switching from
MOTIF.

I just read an article in the current SuperFord magazine which describes the
1960 "352 Special",aka the Interceptor.

Other than a certain amount of silliness that I've come to take for granted in
any single-marque magazine, the article is pretty informative.

The Interceptor was rated at 360 HP @ 6000 rpm, but the article talks about a
"public relations nightmare" wherein the first examples of this early-winter
release had valve springs that were all done at 5800 rpm. The fix was in by
February, with "proper" springs that were good to 6800 or so.

So, Tom, ol' Roger was right, sort of, when he spoke about bad springs.

The article has a chart showing the results of a comparison drag test of five
hot '60s cars, done back then by a now defunct magazine. The Starliner went
14.8 @ 94 and change, with a 3-speed (the only trans available) and 4.11 gears.
A Chevy 348 with 320 HP (single 4-bbl) and 4-speed went 15.3, while a Pontiac
with 348 HP 389 (3-twos) went 14.5 with 4.55 gears and some dealer-installed
stuff(common Pontiac practice at the time). A pair of Mopars (Dodge and
Plymouth) with 330 HP 383s went 15.0 and 15.3, with the difference between the
two attributed to a 3.23 vs 4.56 gearset. The 4.56 car went 15.3, due largely
to traction woes and the narrow (but extremely beefy) torque curve that
the cross ram manifold generated.

I remember reading that article, and wishing at the time that they had gotten
Chevy's hottest 3-twos offering, instead of the 4-bbl model, and had a Pontiac
straight from the assembly line. I doubt if it would have changed things all
that much, but at least there'd have been a definitive test that used
everybody's hottest setup, instead of the hottest setup of three out of five
manufacturers, with one ho-hum and one ringer.

Bruce

PS - Cars were pretty hot back in '60, eh?

    
    Hey Bruce,
    
    You beat me to the punch.  I went back to the home library and
    boned up on the 352 Interceptor.  Basically read the same stuff
    as you.  Those 1/4 times/speeds are pretty good for 1960, especially
    given the bad tire technology...
    
    On another topic, boy have I seen some neat stuff here!  Australia,
    that is....
    
    Tom

>     given the bad tire technology...

I  know it's popular to think that today's street tires are simply better in
every way than those of the musclecar era, and that's largely true - but one
advantage that *yesterday's* tires had over today's is that they were easier to
launch. The fact is that those wimpy donuts back then were tolerant of the kind
of wheelspin that simply blows away today's radials, so you could be more
consistent when you were probing the limits.

In the early to mid '60s, there was a brief flurry of activity around butyl
rubber donuts in the stock classes. Tires such as the Atlas "Bucron" became a
hot favorite for awhile, because they simply had more traction than other
available (and legal) compounds. It was said they were good for up to a tenth
when competing in the hot stockers at the national level - unless you got a
little too greedy and spun too hard, in which case they'd blow away a lot like
today's tires.

Bottom line? After a couple of years, the fad petered out, largely because
nobody could be consistent with the butyl miracles.

I have no doubt that, given today's street sneaker technology, Skip would have
his 440 running 13.8s or .9s (instead of consistent 14.0s) with no other
changes, but I pretty much guarantee you he wouldn't be as consistent as he was
back then, and there'd be some 14.4s in the mix, as well. He launched pretty
much the way I used to. Pick an RPM, pop the clutch at part throttle, and when
the tires start to "make" with the pavement, floor it. In my Goat, it was
generally 3000 RPM, and half throttle, due to a solid detent in the pedal at
that position which you needed to push past in order to pop the first and third
carburetors. Somewhere near a car-length out, I'd push past the detent, and
away we'd go. Dead nuts simple.

Nowadays, I need to do the dance of the sugar plum fairies on the throttle and
clutch to do a good launch. I believe that I could be just as quick (possibly a
tick quicker) on a perfect run by picking the right RPM and nailing it, but I'd
be all over the track on one run out of three (instead of one run out of five
:-) ), and bogging for another run out of three - instead of one out of ten or
twenty.

Of course, there are specialty tires available today that are softer and of
more forgiving construction that are a breeze to drag race on, but, let me tell
you, there was some pretty good stuff available back then, as well. One of the
hot tips in the pure stock classes was to use *recaps*, with really soft rubber
(like durometer 60 or so, if memory serves) at all four corners (to get by the
rule that said you had to have the same rubber all around). The old 440s could
launch well enough to give you a nosebleed with those puppies installed.

Trust me. I know :-(.

Bruce

>back then, and there'd be some 14.4s in the mix, as well. He launched pretty
>much the way I used to. Pick an RPM, pop the clutch at part throttle, and when
>the tires start to "make" with the pavement, floor it. In my Goat, it was
>generally 3000 RPM, and half throttle, due to a solid detent in the pedal at

1800 and the tires'd spin for about a car length at best then I'd mush (not 
stab) the throttle.  I drove the hemi Road Runner the same way (with 
Goodyear G-70 14 street tires) but I came out at 1000, instead.

>  1800 and the tires'd spin for about a car length at best then I'd mush (not 
>  stab) the throttle.

In the Goat, I'd end up at around 2500 (dragged down from 3k) with the tires
spinning. The hot tip was to punch it when the tires started to grab, because
there was a mild bog (noticeable only to the driver) at that RPM when the very
large secondaries popped open. This allowed the tires a split second to really
hook before the power smacked them. If I just tickled the secondaries anywhere
in that range with the tires loose *at all*, I'd burn all the way through first.

Rapid Ray had his 327/275 Chevelle running 98 MPH, but couldn't get below 14.6s
until we mistakenly got really greedy with the secondary control spring on the
Quadrajet, and allowed it to pop open way too early. The resulting huge bog
killed the wheelspin and slowed him all the way down to a 14.2 :-).

Moral: Fuel injection is great, but there's always more than one way to skin a
cat.

Bruce

PS - In the interest of purity of notes, ain't big-block Fords great? :-)

    
    Bruce,
    
    About note purity -- you just need to downgrade your expectations.
    No problem......
    
    8^)
    
    Besides, ain't nothing wrong with wheelspin!  In fact there's nothing
    like a good positraction smokeshow in my twisted way `o thinking....
    
    BTW, I saw a nice Falcon GT (Shaker hood too) here in Sydney.  Cool
    car.  One quip though about Aussie hot rods -- Why so many 4 doors??
    

    Does anybody know how newer 460's (I believe something changed in '88
    when they added fuel injection) differ from older ones?  Edelbrock
    catalog says that their 460 manifolds won't fit 1988-later stock heads.
    There is no such mention of non-compatibility when one looks at
    aftermarket heads.  This would lead me to believe that the heads alone
    changed.  How about oil pans, accessory brackets, bellhousing bolt
    patterns, etc? 
    
    The reason I ask is because my friend just got a great deal on a 1970
    460 fuel injection motor for $600.  It only has 17K miles on it.  He
    wants to put it in his '55 Ford panel truck which is mounted on a '78
    Ford Bronco frame with 4WD.  The truck currently has the original 351M
    motor that came with the Bronco.  Would he be better off going with an
    older 460?  I heard that pre-'78 blocks were the best for strength.  I
    say keep this engine (with the fuel injection) because, seeing that it
    came out of an F250 Superduty pick-up with a tow rating of 12K - 14K,
    it probably has plenty of torque/HP as is for what he's building.  I
    assume there are aftermarket cams and performance chips available 
    because this is such a popular heavy duty towing engine.
    Any thoughts on this?
    Thanks, Wayne

    Previous note should say 1990 460 fuel injection motor, not 1970 (that
    would be quite rare!)
    Wayne

    whats the procedure for tightening the rocker arms on a 429
    Ford engine.  One of my buddies had to replace one and the 
    adjacent ones aren't bottomed on the studs and the nuts are
    some kinda locking nut so it doesn't seem like they would be
    torqued either.  Hydralic lifters FYI.
    
    		Dean

    Aw, that is really simple if you have the proper feeler guages, you
    loosen the lock nut, and set the tappet gap with the screwdriver, and 
    when set properly, you tighten the locking nut.
    
    I used to be able to do my brothers 49 buick straight eight in about
    20 minutes.  You have to adjust both intake and exhaust and I believe
    that they are different.
    
    Dave

If it's got hydraulic tappets, bring the cylinder up to TDC/compression 
stroke.  Tighten the nut until the rocker just touches the valve stem.  
go at least 1/4 turn beyond that point.

Fire up the engine.  Back off the nut until the rocker clicks (on the valve 
stem).  Gradually tighten the rocker down until the click stops.  Go 1/4 
turn more, wait a few seconds for the engine to recover.  do another 1/4 
turn and so forth

Most engines will tolerate anything between 5/8 and one full turn on the 
locknut.

The looser you leave them, the more top end you'll get.  Up to a point, the 
tighter (closer to "factory" specs) you go, the more bottom end you'll see.
Too tight and you'll burn valve seats.