Adding turbo to classic FE block

[AndrewZ]

I'm interested in adding a turbo to an early Ford FE 361, '59 vintage. I'm wondering if anyone has suggestions for a kit. I see kits for Mustangs and more recent FE's, not so much for the older models.

[KULTULZ]

The 'kit' would be for the engine (FE) and would have to be able to be fitted into the chassis you have.

Where did you find a 59 361?

[5851a]

Maybe an F600, Wasn't the 360 the first FE in the Edsel line? Thought 361 referred to HD truck engines. Not a rant or rave but lot's of possibilities. FE line is like genetic tree, lots of limbs.

[scicala]

I thought 361's were available in '58 Edsels only. In '59 it was substituted with the 292. Ford trucks called it a 360. Not sure which years trucks had it.

Sal

[KULTULZ]

1959 EDSEL -

223ci
292ci (FYB) - RANGER
332ci (FE) - EXPRESS V8
361ci (FE) - SUPER EXPRESS V8

All 361 EDSEL -360 LT - FT 361 had the same bore and stroke.

[craig]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

The 330HD, 361FT and 391FT were all truck engines. These were in F500 and F600 trucks, as well as a few F750's and many industrial applications.
They used an FE style block, but there are some differences. These engines had a larger oil pump drive shaft, consequently the pilot hole in the block for the distributor is larger than an FE block. The 361 and 391 blocks were sonic tested for cylinder wall thickness, just as an FE 427 was. I have rebuilt several blocks that were cast, but not drilled for the side oiler design as was used in side oiler 427's. The FT series also had steel cranks, but not cross drilled and the snout of the crank was much larger than an FE. These cranks can be used in an FE block by turning the snout down to the smaller diameter. The heads had sodium filled exhaust valves with a 7/16" stem. The exhaust seats were stellite and both intake and exhaust used one piece rotators. The intakes had 3/8" stems like a FE head, but the valve head diameter on both valves is much smaller. The pistons were much longer and heavier than an FE. The exhaust crossover in the heads is different than an FE and so the intake manifold is different too. These engines used either a 2 or 4 barrel Holley, with a governor controlled by the distributor.
Just like the Dodge 413 HD and Chevy 366 these were purpose built heavy duty engines that were not put in pickup trucks or cars

[KULTULZ]

Let me go further regarding the 1958/59 EDSEL 361 FE and/or FORD LT 360 FE. Either engine had a different bore size. The 1958 361 (4.0469" BORE X 3.50" STROKE) was a different casting from the 1968-1976 360 (4.052 " BORE X 3.50" STROKE).

The 360 LT (1968-1975) replaced the 352CI used in LT 1965-67. It was simply a 390 block with a 352 crank (4.052" BORE X 3.50" STROKE). Only one block casting was now necessary.

The 361 FE was also available as a one year only FORD POLICE ENGINE OPTION in 1958. It was also used in CAN PRODUCTION (1958-59) in lieu (Fr.) of the 352.

[frnkeore]

I'm the proud owner of a '58 Edsel 361, cast in Sept of '57. They were also in the '59 line up and were a 2 year only engine.

The stated bore size was always a mystery to me. It was called out at 4 3/64 (4.046875). But, you have to remember that it was 1958 and MANY things were still given in fractions. My assumption, is that Ford used the fractional bore size, thinking it would be better understood by the public. But all of Fords parts drawing are in decimals, usually 2 digits, like using .38, instead of 3/8 (.375). That goes back to 1932 and most likely model A's and T's before that (I don't have any of those drawings).

I had always thought that the bore on the '58 361 was 4.05, because if you run the math for the 4 3/64 x 3 1/2 engine, it comes to only 360.154 ci, where as the 4.05 x 3.5 is 360.71, not to mention that the '61 390 was 4.05 and I learned that bore first, as a mechanic in the '60's.

One other difference, on all '58 FE engines, is that there is NO front oil drain hole, into the timing area, like all other FE's from '59 on. I guess they found that the "Jiggler Pin" wasn't sufficient to oil the timing chain and gears. I have to drill one for mine.

Last, the '58 Edsel 361, had the highest CR of any Ford engine @ 10.5 CR, until the HP FE's came out later. The deck clearance, was only .008 with no valve relief and a .030 thick head gasket.

Here is the Edsel specs, from the service manual.

[KULTULZ]

I also a$$-u-me(d) the EDSEL 361 was an early FE de-stroked 390 (4.05) but a discussion on another forum about special size pistons for the EDSEL 361 woke me up.

If you ever have a chance, can you post all available CASTING ID and DATE CODES from your engine? I assume yours had HYD LIFTERS but did you ever pull the heads and noticed if the combustion chambers were machined? Did it come through with a SPIN-ON oil filter?

I never had or was around an EDSEL to learn. And of course, all service and parts info was in specialty print.

[frnkeore]

I was a mechanic from '62, until '70. Most of that time (2 years in the Army as a mechanic), I worked in SoCal and the shop had a tow service and a wrecking yard. I had access to all kinds of things. Loved it!

As a life time Ford guy, the FE (wasn't called that, in those days) was MY engine of choice In '63 I had a '60 Ford with a 300 hp 352 and in '68 I bought a '63 427 LR engine.

I always new about the machined chamber heads and that was one reason that I bought this 361 so, I could work with them. There was probably a transition period in '59 but, all '58 and '59's (332/352 included) engines had them. Most '58's had Welch plug holes (1 1/4) in the heads, front and back.

My block is pretty early but, only has Welch plug holes, in the back of the block, some also had them in the front of the block and you can see the bosses for them on my block.

One last thing about the early blocks, Fords minimum cylinder wall thickness was .170 for a std bore engine. At least from the '58 to the '60 model year, these blocks were not thin wall castings. Fords first thin wall block, was the 1960 Falcon 144 & 170 6 cyl engines. I've yet to determine when the change over was but, it was somewhere between '60 and '63. I had my engine bored .060 over (4.110) and there is still enough meat to go to at least 4.13. It was common, in the '60's to bore ALL engines 1/8" (FH's up to 1/4") and I didn't know of anyone splitting a cyl wall, not that it wouldn't have happen but, I was a mechanic and a racer and didn't know of any. 283 SBC were done, all the time. A 1/8" over bore on a .170 wall, leaves .108 wall, mostly acceptable today in this world of sonic testers. I even have one and will post my results, on this block.

In the pictures of my heads, I've machined them for 2.09 x 1.656 valves (Stelite Ex seats) and deburred the chambers.

[frnkeore]

Here's the sonic test, after it was bored to 4.110 and a before and after chamber picture.

I'm installing a Eagle, 428 crank and .060 over 410 pistons in it so, it will be a 423 CI engine now, with a 390 HP aluminum manifold and will go in my '54 Tudor Mainliner.

[KULTULZ]

!!! WHEW !!!

You're a dead serious FE guy.

I really appreciate all that info. It is hard to find an EDSEL OWNER online that knows how to come across all of that. Do you still have the car or was it just an engine you came by?

Can you do me one more favor (standing in a bread line asking for toast). If you still have the original intake, can you post the CASTING ID NO.?

[frnkeore]

I must make a correction to the CR, it was 10.5, not 10.8 (hit wrong key) but, still the highest Ford CR for the FE.

I bought it from the guy that pulled the engine but, I didn't want the original intake, as I would have just thrown it away. I will not use a cast iron intake on any FE, not even a CJ intake. I changed to many when I was a mechanic!

I did get the door plate, here is a picture of that.


BTW, the car that I had, before the '60 Ford, was a '58 Edsel but, it was a Corsair, with the 410 MEL engine. My folks had a Citation, that they got in '59. They were also 410's. The Corsair & Citation, were on Merc chassis and the Pacer & Ranger (the FE's) were on the Ford chassis.

[KULTULZ]

OK ...

Thanks for all the info ... appreciated ...

[5851a]

We used to look for the black baldy non lettered valve covers on 58 Fords. Most of the time it meant machined chambers and solid lifters. Rumor was, it was for the first 90 days of Ford production then moved to FORD stamped covers and hydraulic lifters for the 332 and 352.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by 5851a

We used to look for the black baldy non lettered valve covers on 58 Fords. Most of the time it meant machined chambers and solid lifters. Rumor was, it was for the first 90 days of Ford production then moved to FORD stamped covers and hydraulic lifters for the 332 and 352.

You spil't the beans!

.


Few know that. The cylinder heads were also used on some 1960 352CI 360HP engines also.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by 5851a

We used to look for the black baldy non lettered valve covers on 58 Fords. Most of the time it meant machined chambers and solid lifters. Rumor was, it was for the first 90 days of Ford production then moved to FORD stamped covers and hydraulic lifters for the 332 and 352.

My understanding is that of course the 352 was going to be used in NASCAR. FORD then signed the agreement with AMA to not participate in racing any longer.

That and the fact that FORD MARKETING was concerned about possible customer dissatisfaction with a solid lifter engine in the later released TBIRD were two factors in backing off in the engine design. It was simply de-rated.

EDIT - That and the cost of machining the cyl head combustion chambers.

So now the the beans have been spilled ... ...

Below is a shot of the early FE rocker covers -

...hmmph ...

Now that I have run my mouth, I cannot find the photo. Well. it's just like PREGO, it has to be in there somewhere.

I shall return ...

... flip ... flip ...

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

Let me go further regarding the 1958/59 EDSEL 361 FE and/or FORD LT 360 FE. Either engine had a different bore size. The 1958 361 (4.0469" BORE X 3.50" STROKE) was a different casting from the 1968-1976 360 (4.052 " BORE X 3.50" STROKE).

This CRS is really getting annoying ...

I just noticed on the SPEC SHEET posted from the 1958 EDSEL WSM that the 361 EDSEL bore size is given @ 4.0500 - 4.0524

Now I am really confused.

MEL DIVISION didn't release EDSEL INFO freely, only through dedicated WSM and MPC. Wish I had paid more attention back when ...

Back to SQUARE ONE ...

[5851a]

Fuzzy memory here too, but I think the front and back of the block had core plugs that were eliminated later on.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by KULTULZ

So now the the beans have been spilled ... ...

Below is a shot of the early FE rocker covers -

...hmmph ...

Now that I have run my mouth, I cannot find the photo. Well. it's just like PREGO, it has to be in there somewhere.

I shall return ...

... flip ... flip ...

!!! FOUND IT !!!

It was not misfiled as thought, merely misplaced ...

[dmsfrr]

deleted

[frnkeore]

The cylinder heads were also used on some 1960 352CI 360HP engines also.

I don't think the above ever happened.

The 360 HP 352, had heads specifically designed for it, they were C0AE -D and had a minimum 59.7cc cast chamber. Same heads that were used on the 375/401 HP 390's, with dished pistons.

The HP 360 pistons, sat lower in the block, unlike the 300/352, that seat higher in the block than the HP 360. IMO, it wasn't the best arrangement for horsepower in the HP 360. I believe the reason for Ford lowering the piston, was for valve clearance, since they didn't use valve reliefs in those days.

I think the front and back of the block had core plugs that were eliminated later on.

My block is a early casting, dated Sept of '57. I don't know when the first production run was, possibly July? But, even though mine has bosses for front Welch plugs, they are not machined, only the rear and heads are. Also note that on the rear, there are 2 additional bosses for (I assume) Welch plugs. The 1 1/4 plug holes, in the heads, are like the ones in the SBF and very handy for me. I used them to hold the heads, in position for my machine work and do the same for the SBF.

[KULTULZ]

The cylinder heads were also used on some 1960 352CI 360HP engines also.

I don't think the above ever happened.

The 360 HP 352, had heads specifically designed for it, they were C0AE -D and had a minimum 59.7cc cast chamber. Same heads that were used on the 375/401 HP 390's, with dished pistons.

Correct, but that was late production. EDC blocks were also used as they were plumbed for solids.

[KULTULZ]

My block is a early casting, dated Sept of '57. I don't know when the first production run was, possibly July?

The FE 361 (and MEL 410) was introduced earlier than the 332/352 as the 1958 EDSEL(S) had an early release date.

The MEL 410 was actually intended for the 57 MERC TPC but casting problems moved back production and it went to the EDSEL. MERC then used the 368 LYB for HP in 1957.

[frnkeore]

KULTULZ, I'm afraid I will need some documentation of the things you are stating.

The HP 360, was not a first release, it came after Dec of '59. The block could have been a EDC -B or C but, a original engine has a B9AE block, dated 9M. In order for it to be a 360 HP 352, it has to have the C0AE - D heads, shorter CH pistons (1.844) and a 352 HP, aluminum intake. Most likely with a 9M or later 0 date.

Regarding the release of the Edsel, I believe it was released 7/15/57, 2 months before the '58 Fords, almost a month later in the West. So, there must be, at least June dated 361's

Where do you get your documentation of the 410 MEL being slated for the '57 model year of the Merc? I have never heard that. I owned a '58 Corsair, with the 410, it was just a 430 with a 4.200 bore and it would seem unusual that Ford would release a the MEL in the Merc, before it's release in the in the Edsel and Linc.

The release of the Edsel was a very special event, to honor Henry II's father. The Edsel had BOTH the Ford and Merc chassis (only Ford product to have that) and many options that the Merc & Linc didn't have. I had a mechanical tach in my Corsair and no other car, had the push button shift control, also included in the Edsel options was, optional 9 tube, auto tuning radio with antenna trimmer, fuel level warning light, settable speed warning light, oil level warning light, "Edsel Lubricator" vacuum operated chassis lubing, Electric wipers. Very advanced stuff for '58.

[KULTULZ]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by frnkeore

KULTULZ

I'm afraid I will need some documentation of the things you are stating.

And I in return would like to see some documentation countering it.

[Patrick brophy]

And in the far corner wearing the red trunks........

[frnkeore]

KULTULZ,
To begin with HR Mag tested a prototype 360 HP, in Dec of '59. Proto because it had non standard equip, such as power brakes, never offered on the Regular Production 360 HP. MT Mag, tested a RP 360 HP, in Jan of '60.

The RP heads for 1960 were cast chamber C0AE -C, 73cc, 9.6 CR not EDC heads. The 360 HP heads were C0AE -D, 59.7cc, 10.6 CR.

My 1960 first year, Service Manual, does not list a 360 HP. I have searched for a later editions or supplements, for this very issue and as yet, can not find any.

The info, in my last paragraph, regarding the Edsel, comes from my 1958 Edsel, Service Manual.

I've documented my EDC Edsel block and heads, with pictures.

Regarding the EDC-B & C blocks being used in the 360 HP, I found a reference for that here:
http://www.erareplicas.com/427man/engine/partnums.htm

Regarding the B9AE block being used for the 360 HP, you'll find a marked original block here:
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesfor...?topic=9585.50

There is more but, they are bits and pieces, connected with math, to prove CR and deck height.

Now, with all do respect, I ask for your documentation showing EDC heads being used for the 360 HP and how they could get 10.6 CR out of them and especially for your reference of the 410 MEL, being slated for use in the regular product year, for the '57 Merc.

[KULTULZ]

Listen and this is in all due respect also ...

The reason that you cannot find service info on the engine is that it was not a regular production engine but an experimental engine in that it went through many phases as did all HP engines. Most saw several upgrades as a result of failures on the track. It cannot be stated that all were built to the same specs with the same parts.

If you don't accept my statements and disagree, simply state that I don't agree. It's not the end of the world to me.

I am not about to get into a 'show me yours and I will show you mine'.

Oh, forgot. The 410 was slated for 1957 intro into the MERC. FORD had a lot of casting problems with the series and intro was delayed. Research MEL DIVISION history and you will find it.

[frnkeore]

All I can say, is that I've showed you the documentation that you asked for and you and when I ask for the same thing, your response is:

"I am not about to get into a 'show me yours and I will show you mine'."

As near as I can tell, you only offer opinion w/o any documentation, at all. I'm sorry but, that is another fact, that has come from this discussion.

Lastly, I went to the trouble of providing my references to you and the best you can do, is write this?

"Research MEL DIVISION history and you will find it."

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by frnkeore

All I can say, is that I've showed you the documentation that you asked for and you and when I ask for the same thing, your response is:

"I am not about to get into a 'show me yours and I will show you mine'."

As near as I can tell, you only offer opinion w/o any documentation, at all. I'm sorry but, that is another fact, that has come from this discussion.

Lastly, I went to the trouble of providing my references to you and the best you can do, is write this?

"Research MEL DIVISION history and you will find it."

You reference is HR MAGAZINE regarding an article written by a TECH WRITER. You need to go in further with actual FORD data.

But concerning my statement(s), you are correct, none of it happened. I am just trying to bolster myself among my peers at this one message board.

All of this is info packed away and I have no desire to rummage through it. So let's just leave the subject(s) with my making casual statements with no actual hard facts to back them up.

... sheesh ... why me? ...

[frnkeore]

But concerning my statement(s), you are correct, none of it happened. I am just trying to bolster myself among my peers at this one message board.

Thank you for your honesty.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by frnkeore

Thank you for your honesty.

There is no honesty, just trying to get you off my back.

HR MAGAZINE ...

[frnkeore]

As they say......"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen"

The Dec '59, Hot Rod Mag's proto type and Motor Trends production car test, in Jan of '60, prove the time line!

Show me anything that has a available 360 HP 352 at the beginning of the '60 model year, ANYTHING!

I posted Ford's available engines, from Ford's 1960 Service Manual. No HC engine and no 360HP engine.

Also, you might explain, from any Ford source, when the C0AE -C and C0AE -D heads were manufactured and what engines they were manufactured for.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by frnkeore

As they say......"If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen"

Unless, of course, the kitchen is on fire. And who is they. For that matter, where the hell is OZONA, TX?

The Dec '59, Hot Rod Mag's proto type and Motor Trends production car test, in Jan of '60, prove the time line!

Show me anything that has a available 360 HP 352 at the beginning of the '60 model year, ANYTHING!

I posted Ford's available engines, from Ford's 1960 Service Manual. No HC engine and no 360HP engine.

Again, FORD did not usually include a HP engine in SERVICE LITERATURE. It was supplied in TSB or through someone like HOLMAN-MOODY.

Also, you might explain, from any Ford source, when the C0AE -C and C0AE -D heads were manufactured and what engines they were manufactured for.

Where did I ever say the 360hp was available at start of the production year? The HP was not to my knowledge in any issue of the 1960 FORD WSM.

I would need the CASTING ID INFO from all castings for 1960. Can you provide that? Maybe HR or MOTOR-TREND has that information in a missed issue. That's where I always go for factual tech info.

And where did I say (or post) that COAE-A & D heads were not on the engine? This what I said (posted) ...

The cylinder heads were also used on some 1960 352CI 360HP engines.

You know, I am beginning to enjoy this. You never mud wrestle with a pig as the pig really enjoys it.

[frnkeore]

Again, FORD did not usually include a HP engine in SERVICE LITERATURE. It was supplied in TSB or through someone like HOLMAN-MOODY.

Wrong, HP engines are included in the '61 (375HP), '62 (375HP) and the later 62 service manual with supplement, that includes the 375HP, 390, 385HP, 406 and the 405HP, 406. engine. I have all those manuals.

Where did I ever say the 360hp was available at start of the production year? The HP was not to my knowledge in any issue of the 1960 FORD WSM.

I would need the CASTING ID INFO from all castings for 1960. Can you provide that? Maybe HR or MOTOR-TREND has that information in a missed issue. That's where I always go for factual tech info.

And where did I say (or post) that COAE-A & D heads were not on the engine? This what I said (posted) ...

Quote:
The cylinder heads were also used on some 1960 352CI 360HP engines.

Someone needs to take that shovel, out of your hands or you'll be lost, forever.

EDC heads, could not have EVER been used on the 360 HP engine! You can not get 10.6 CR with them, ever w/o pop up pistons, not used until the 427.

A 360HP, 352, has to have the following to be real:

1. One year only aluminum manifold, with flat carb pad (no angle)
2. 540 CFM Holley carb (I can get you the Ford carb # if you want)
3. HP solid lifter cam
4. C0AE -D heads
5. "Shorty" cast headers
6. Dual point dist w/o vac adv. There may be a exception here and the very first engines (very few like <10) may have had VA and single points

[KULTULZ]

I see we are having a little trouble with reading comprehension. I said usually. Look it up in your FUNK AND WAGNAL.

I must have missed that issue of CAR CRAFT.

[5851a]

I actually find all of this interesting. Thanks for the block pics. Didn't know the carb pad was flat on intake. Did it use an angled spacer under carb like the 385 engine in Continentals? Probably just a miss type but don't think they had any D0AE -D heads in 60. Just a question, but on a casting isn't there an exact time it was cast in the casting? I mean like for example the 5th day of the 10th month on 2nd shift. Or is that something that came later. The parts books are full of revisions. I have a 67 Galaxie, it was built after March 67. So it came with nylon fuel line, plastic w/washer tank and small thermostat. Just don't say never about Ford. I work in an assembly plant and things and parts are changed and substitutions are made, but now they want serial number of first new part installed documentation. Not sure how they did back when.

[5851a]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84PbuAK3icQ

[KULTULZ]

Probably just a miss type but don't think they had any D0AE -D heads in 60.

You question the knowledge shared by FOMOCO through HOT ROD MAGAZINE?

Did it use an angled spacer under carb like the 385 engine in Continentals?

Just a question, but on a casting isn't there an exact time it was cast in the casting?

No angled carb spacer,

The 60 and 61 HP intake was cast at an outside vendor.

[KULTULZ]

Photo of the 1960 352HP and 1961 390 375HP below -

... hmmpf ... That didn't go well ...



Must not have been shown in HOT ROD MAGAZINE.



Got it that time ...

[KULTULZ]

I missed this one -

6. Dual point dist w/o vac adv. There may be a exception here and the very first engines (very few like <10) may have had VA and single points

... hmmpf ...

Did HOT ROD include that in their expose' (Fr.) all factual magazine article?(Fr.)

How come you get exceptions and I don't?

[frnkeore]

5851a, as you surmised, it was a typo, I corrected it.

KULUTZ, I'm sure you must then, be unaware that Ford releases cars to magazines, for advertising and promotional purposes. In doing so, they also supply information that they want to be publicly known but, beyond that my purpose for including that HR reference, was to prove a time line i.e. you can't do a article on something that doesn't exist.

If a new model is offered for promotion, from the factory, with non RPO equipment, it would likely be a sign, that it's a prototype and that is a way to date something.

The HR article was the first reference of the 360HP, if the 360HP was produced in Sept, because it was a big deal, it would have been promoted somewhere between Aug and Oct of '59 and not Dec & Jan (MT).

Lastly, I'm not like you, I document my info and include any thing that that I've heard, from what I consider a reliable source.

You ask me for pictures and documentation and I provide it! I ask the same of you and you provide, only excuses of why you can't or won't!

It may be foolish on my part but, again, I'll ask you for documentation of your statement that a outside source cast the intakes.

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by frnkeore

Lastly, I'm not like you, I document my info and include any thing that that I've heard, from what I consider a reliable source.

You ask me for pictures and documentation and I provide it! I ask the same of you and you provide, only excuses of why you can't or won't!

It may be foolish on my part but, again, I'll ask you for documentation of your statement that a outside source cast the intakes.

If you had asked in a somewhat respectable manner to begin with, I would have started to dig ...

KULTULZ, I'm afraid I will need some documentation of the things you are stating.

I in turn asked for your documentation, which you have not supplied, only a reference to a car magazine which most often is not exact and/or to the point. A TECH WRITER supplied the text, not a FORD REP.

My asking you for documentation was my being facetious.

The SPECS you see in that article are most likely the same FOMOCO was required to submit as final product to NASCAR, NHRA, USAC or whomever as to be built for public purchase. It will not describe design, testing and assembly before final release of the engine.

If you want the absolute truth, you would have to search HOLMAN-MOODY as this who did most research/build for FOMOCO during this period or through FORD TSB release's.

Now do me a favor and step outside and check the parking meter as your WHITE STALLION is double parked.

Why Me!?

[KULTULZ]

Originally Posted by 5851a

I actually find all of this interesting.

I find it trying myself and I apologize for my behavior, but ...

Let me try and answer all your questions this time ...

1) Didn't know the carb pad was flat on intake. Did it use an angled spacer under carb like the 385 engine in Continentals?

The carb pad angle is directly tied to the install angle of the engine with a carburetor as the carb has to be somewhat level to get the calibration correct. What you see are engines installed at a higher angle and their using a wedged spacer so as not have to cast a special intake.

2) Just a question, but on a casting isn't there an exact time it was cast in the casting? I mean like for example the 5th day of the 10th month on 2nd shift. Or is that something that came later.

There are several types of CASTING ID MARKS. One when the casting was poured (DATE CODE) and info will vary according to the type of casting part. And these will vary over different periods. Two will be the foundry location. Three will be casting mold no. Four, usually there will be a STAMPING ID that will give date of assembly (engine in this example) and shift so as to allow FORD to go back if there has been trouble with the casting.

3) The parts books are full of revisions. I have a 67 Galaxie, it was built after March 67. So it came with nylon fuel line, plastic w/washer tank and small thermostat. Just don't say never about Ford. I work in an assembly plant and things and parts are changed and substitutions are made, but now they want serial number of first new part installed documentation. Not sure how they did back when.

The PARTS BOOK(s) are the last source for how a car was originally assembled for certainty. They are updated quarterly and as obsolete parts are dropped they are deleted from text. If a part is superseded by a replacing PN, it will be there for a short period then usually dropped from text (this was more common in the PRICE BOOK). There are different references to find replaced/deleted PN's as there are texts to cross CASTING ID NOS over to SERVICE PART NOS.

I think I covered it all ...

[frnkeore]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

I just noticed that you only included one picture and it's the flat carb pad 360HP manifold.

The 390HP was a completely different manifold and was also used on the 385HP, 406.

The 360HP, was a one year (actually 1/2 yr) use manifold.

The '61 390 has larger runners, that are higher to the ports. Note the #5 runner and it's relationship to the upper plane runners. No change for the 406. This is my manifold, dated 1C3. It was ground on before I bought it and I've remachined it and will weld the missing divider back in. The pad originally looked like the C3AE -F

The second picture is the next 4V manifold, the LR 427, C3AE -F

[KULTULZ]

I stand corrected.

Who hogged it out? Kinda valuable to take a grinder to it.

[frnkeore]

Here is a actual human, Ford source, quoted in Motor Life Magazine.