Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - pbf777

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
Concours Talk / Re: 289 Hi-Po timing chain
« on: May 21, 2020, 02:13:03 PM »
     If you have your original gear set and it's still in reasonable condition, perhaps you might just buy the chain, part #C358, which is apparently still available, and be O.K..  Realize that most of these cars aren't being driven that much anymore so "some" wear exhibited on the gears may not really be of any real concern.

     Also, I think the cam gear part number is/was #S350 for use with the "C" spacer, (I believe the S406T is for without the "C" spacer?) and this with the crank gear #S351 both no longer available from Cloyes.

     I have in the past re-machined the non HI-Po application crank-gears to allow retention of the counter weight, (and also for the "C" spacer)but I can't recall what the problem was that was encountered in fitment?  I think it was the double roller chains' overhang of the crank gear wanting to scrub the hatchet, which was solved by repositioning the timing set forward "some", which then required deletion of the crank oil slinger and narrowing of the fuel pump eccentric "some" for clearance of the timing cover (although not preferred, one could probably just double up on the timing cover gasket instead), with other than this additional task, no difficulties were encountered (that I remember anyway).     ???



     Linda says: Honey, it's gonna be painful, I've been the HURST SHIFTER GIRL for a while, take my word for it!         :o



The Lounge / Re: Happy Cinco de Mayo
« on: May 05, 2020, 01:27:40 PM »
      As I recall: the celebration of a singular battle won, in a war that was lost!           ::)


1968 Shelby GT350/500/500KR / Re: Oil Galley Plugs
« on: May 02, 2020, 12:35:27 PM »
     Yippee!      ;D


1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: Passenger side mirror
« on: April 22, 2020, 11:17:44 AM »
     How many point deductions do curb feelers cost you?      ::)


SAAC Forum Discussion Area / Re: Was This Really Necessary?
« on: April 10, 2020, 11:03:56 AM »
I guess if the combine does not have the brakes to slow down by the end of the track, he plows to a stop!🤣

     Or perhaps, it may prove to be case of: one shall reap that which one has sown!          ::)


Up For Auction / Re: I don't understand the logic
« on: April 09, 2020, 10:40:45 AM »
     It is cool, as is much of the memorabilia, but yeah, maybe not over two bills cool.  I especially like the reference of: "LIKELY FOR LEMANS CARBURETOR"; talk about trying to breathe some excitement into it!        ::)


Up For Auction / Re: '69 B429 with 13k miles
« on: April 08, 2020, 11:32:40 AM »
     that would mean that the description is leaving out a lot of pertainent details .That never happens in any of thees high dollar collector car ads does it? ::)

     I remember back in the late seventies there were frequently for sale low mileage BOSS 429s.  Although often with enticing prices (I wish I new then, what I know now!), the only problem was that often they came with a broken or no motor!  It seems back in the day the BOSS 429 engine wasn't an inexpensive proposition down at the Ford Parts Dept, so the mileage count remain low on many an example.       ::)

     Not saying that such is true with this particular car, but, if I were a player, this would be one of my concerns needing to be addressed.             ???


1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: why do I need 3/8" valve stems?
« on: April 06, 2020, 11:39:34 AM »
     6MM, equals .236", or in general terms something just short of 1/4"; well, I don't know if it's such a good idea for something that's not a max-effort where there is deemed a value in such, this coupled with a limited operating time between servicing application.  Remember, the FE is not an over-head-cam engine, and adopting what works in that arena, over here, even it it seems priced right, just might bite you!       :o


1969-1970 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: Brake rotor question
« on: April 06, 2020, 11:05:57 AM »
      The measurement you present is not of a critical concern, but do compare the distance from the back side rotor face to the front side wheel mounting surface, overall rotor diameter and of course as mentioned bearing cup/race sizing.         :)


1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: why do I need 3/8" valve stems?
« on: April 05, 2020, 04:13:41 PM »
     Converting from the 3/8" to an 11/32" valve stem on the FE is not new news, as we have practiced this for decades, and K-Line has been producing a thicker than the standard bronze valve guide liner for as long as I can remember for this purpose, a particularly effective product when working with the iron cylinder heads.          8)

     Adoption of the larger stem diameter by the O.E.s was a natural progression as the valve head diameters increased, as examples from both Ford with the FE, GM with the BBC, and others, this if only for the retention of the larger valve heads as most valves were of two piece construction in the period with the head and stem welded together.  And I,m also sure the greater diameter and hence increased circumference providing greater surface area to support this larger, heaver unit, aids in extended guide bore/valve stem life, was also deemed preferable.  Remember, at the then intended engine R.P.M.s for standard production applications the increased weight was not really a problem.

     And, only if your intentions include pushing the performance envelope to the upper extremes would I get to concerned in any great values anticipated, as there are always trade-offs in most any change of engineering.          ;)


Damn guys, showing me the beefed up rocker assemblies has me thinking that they're now a must have.

I like the idea of the shaft end mounts, and the rocker arm spacers, at a minimum. The roller tip rockers with inline, left, or right offset adjusters looks like it solves any valve stem to rocker head miss-alignment issues. Do all 428s have a bad valve stem to rocker head alignment issues with the stock setup?


      Just stick with the Crane ductile iron units, as they have proven to be simple and reliable, and more than adequate for your camshaft application.  But I do recommend replacement of the O.E. shafts with a pair of the hardened steel units, again with your camshaft this sum should prove more than sufficient without the additional end-stand supports.  But O.K., some of the other stuff does look cooler, but remember, they're hard to see with the valve covers on.          ;)

      As far as the "miss-alignment", sometimes swapping around the rockers for different positions aids; also realize that you can bump the rocker stands, both individually or as a hole, fore and aft some which may help.  Be sure than concerns are truly existent versus perhaps just an awkward appearing presentation, and don't forget you'll be simultaneously changing the pushrod position as it passes thru the intake, so weigh that observation also.          :o   

       And, concerning the single spring with damper as you described being present, although such do exist, I also would question whether yours' truly are capable; as although the rocker arm is supported on the shaft providing a minor advantage, I find that the FE still exhibits what one would consider a somewhat heavy valve train package as compared to many others.  So perhaps a little inquiry of concern would not be misconstrued; as a matter of fact, on all cylinder heads we set-up we always supply the specifications on ones' invoice received, of the spring pressures as measured (not printed claims) at the established and also listed installed height, at .500" lift, with a statement of the observed spring rates (all 16 being measured), coil-bind position, guide/seal to retainer clearance, etc., so this inquiry shouldn't prove to be of any professional impropriety.         :)




Even though I could use a remote start switch to crank the engine, previous to asking for help, I decided to take out the spark plugs and spin the engine manually with a socket and ratchet on the harmonic balancer bolt. I did that because I thought it gave me more control on positioning the crank and cam shafts to determine when the lifters were on the heel of the cam. I removed the distributor because I thought that I needed to spin the oil pump to pump up the lifters. Now, if I understand your comments there is no need to pump up the lifters when I set rocker arm preload. And, I should adjust each rocker for zero lash and then add another 1/2 turn for preload. Zero lash is when the rocker arm adjuster applies enough pressure that spinning the push rod starts to become difficult.

     Agreed, best procedure, remove the plugs, turn by hand. 

     No need to pump-up the lifters, as a mater choice I prefer them bled-down for better feel, but that's me. 

     Generally, the suggested sum of .020" - .040" "lifter-punger-preload" is that which one is targeting, if the adjusting ball stud in the rocker is 3/8" x 24 tread per inch, then 1/2 turn equals just over .020".   But less is often chosen by racers who will maintenance this more frequently.

He also recommended that I replace the stock rocker arms with Crane adjustable rockers, with locking nuts, and the associated ball & cup push rods. After reading your comments, I was reminded of his reasons for going with adjustable rocker arms. So I feel better about his rationale for the recommendation.

In 2007 I had a professional engine builder, Doug Meyers, rebuild my engine. He installed Crower cam 16243, the associated flat tappet hydraulic lifters, and push rods. He also reused my adjustable rocker arms.
So, that's the whole story as to why I have adjustable rocker arms on an engine that uses an hydraulic flat tappet cam.

      I would consider it to have been a good choice to use the Crane rocker arms in your build, and prefer them particularly, but even O.E.M. adjustable versus the nonadjustable rockers even in hydraulic camshaft applications whenever possible for a number of reasons.

      And as one consideration for the naysayers, consider the scenario if you were to try adjusting for the lash value of a mechanical camshaft on the FE, using nonadjustable rockers, by only shimming up or down under the four rocker stands (equally)?  Although I agree that perhaps the lash value of the mechanical camshaft is more critical then the lifter plunger preload value, but perhaps just the thought of the reasons why it wouldn't work (well ideally anyway) is what will spark the understanding of the preference for the possibility of individual setting of each versus an averaging of the whole.  It may only prove to be a question of how accurate do you want to be?            :-\

      And, it would be better to use the E.O.I.C. process in adjusting with the more aggressive after market camshafts.    ;)


SAAC Forum Discussion Area / Re: Bellhousing interchange 302-351
« on: April 01, 2020, 11:01:45 AM »
I have a 164 tooth bellhousing, I will buy a 28oz  flywheel for 11" clutch, I am converting a 69 mach 1 automatic to a 4spd , will the automatic starter work with the 4spd,................

     If using a period O.E.M. 164 tooth application bell housing.........NO!  Bolt pattern is the same but starter gear position and nose housing length/depth is different.       ;)


1967 Shelby GT350/500 / Re: 110 Octane Sunoco ?
« on: March 28, 2020, 02:20:14 PM »
On reason aircraft piston engines make such good power on takeoff is that they have an an extra control that you don't see in an auto engine, a mixture control. On takeoff, the pilot sets the mixture to full rich. This control also allows the mixture to be set for best power at altitude.

      Just a note: as I mentioned previously, the air-cooled aircraft engine designs often utilize an over-rich fueling condition for the purpose of an additional engine cooling function, and this being beyond best jetting for performance is generally the result of the "Full-Rich" mixture control setting; but this is required for some of these air-cooled engines as otherwise they may suffer a cylinder over heat and detonation scenario under their maximum usable power routine of takeoff and maximum climb particularly if of tropic air temperatures and at higher air pressures of sea level thru low altitude are included.            :)

      This is not so unlike the current tuning exploits of over-rich values being executed today, particularly on the street vehicles with forced induction sums beyond that which the intended to run 93 octane pump gas will support.  This is often with the misunderstanding that even so, when the engine still experiences a detonation failure, the statement often made is that it apparently must have gone "lean", when in fact, it may have actually only been leaner to the point of better, or shall we say closer to "ideal" for best power, to bad the fuel wasn't more capable!           :o


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18