390FE (406ci) for #50, built by Tom Lucas at FE Specialties.

[DuckRyder]

My exact camshaft specs are (I'm quoting from Tom's e-mail): .320 lobe lift for .563 gross lift on a 110 degree lobe sep. 212 degree .050 intake 228 degree .050 exhaust.

Are the lift specifications the same for intake and exhaust? That would be somewhat unusual and with the differing .050 durations would make the intake lobe rate of lift a good bit more aggressive. That is O.K., but would be unusual.

The cam is fairly mild, it should idle well and be very streetable. I'd expect it to make power from right off idle.

I trust Tom knows what he is doing here, I think it will do what you want it to do.

[robroy]

Good day Robert, thanks for replying!

Are the lift specifications the same for intake and exhaust? That would be somewhat unusual and with the differing .050 durations would make the intake lobe rate of lift a good bit more aggressive. That is O.K., but would be unusual.

I sent Tom an e-mail to find out!

The cam is fairly mild, it should idle well and be very streetable. I'd expect it to make power from right off idle.

I trust Tom knows what he is doing here, I think it will do what you want it to do.

Excellent! I gather that considering the amount of power than can be generated with this camshaft, Tom believed that the gains offered by a more aggressive camshaft would be offset (and then some) by the sacrifices to streetability. Since my transmission has such wide gear ratios, I think Tom wanted to make sure this engine would make power across a wide range of RPMs!

Plus, I honestly confessed to him my preference for a low idle speed, as long as it didn't require dramatic sacrifices to attain one.

Thanks for your fantastic reply Robert! I'll let you know what Tom says about your lift question.

Robroy

[DuckRyder]

{off topic, inflamatory post deleted}

[robroy]

Good morning!

I heard from Tom yesterday! Here are the main points we covered:

1. Since Crower closes for two weeks around Christmas time, Tom just heard back from them on his custom camshaft order. They said that they can't do it, because they don't have the proper core for that!
2. Tom now plans to get the custom camshaft from Comp' instead. And according to Tom, the Comp' hydraulic roller camshafts are of excellent quality.
3. Despite the camshaft switch, Tom still plans on using Crower lifters.
4. For some reason, the Comp' camshaft will, by necessity, have slightly different specifications than the Crower camshaft had. Tom revealed several numbers but let me know that they weren't the exact, final numbers, so I didn't write them down. I'll post the exact numbers as soon as I hear them!
5. The approximate numbers for the new Comp' camshaft increase Dyno 2000's estimation of the engine's performance to around 427 horsepower, and 528 ft/lbs of torque at 2,500 RPM. Naturally a more accurate estimate will be available when Tom runs the final camshaft numbers through Dyno 2000.
6. The custom Diamond pistons will arrive soon!
7. Regarding Tom's plan to use a 160 degree thermostat in the engine, I presented him with the operating temperature to cylinder wear chart from the Steve Christ book. Tom said that he's seen that chart before, and he doesn't have any reason not to believe it. He mentioned that he usually chooses 160 degree thermostats because he's noticed that the engines tend to run better, avoid detonation issues, and produce more power at lower temperatures.
8. He added that most of his customers are buying their FE engines for "street rod" types of cars, where they're not concerned with the engine having super high longevity--most of those cars simply don't get driven large numbers of miles! (He has plenty of exotic cars in his shop--I've seen them!)
9. With high longevity in mind, Tom agreed that a 180 degree thermostat would be perfectly fine to run in my engine. He added that with the targeted 9.7:1 compression ratio, I probably wouldn't suffer any detonation problems with the higher temperature, which is one reason he often runs 160 degree thermostats. For engines with higher compression ratios that still run on pump gas, the cooler temperature can help to avoid detonation issues.
10. Note that the 160 degree thermostat topic has also been discussed in, Is cylinder wear dramatically increased at low temperatures?
11. We discussed the new engine's paint, and I agreed to e-mail him a photo of the exact yellow that I'm looking for! Since different computer screens reproduce colors differently, I'll send a few photos of acceptable shades of yellow--that should give him a good ballpark for what I'm looking for. Come to think of it, it may be best to ship him a physical object that's the yellow I'm looking for. Computer screen color representations can vary a lot!

Thanks for all the superb guidance on this great adventure!
Robroy

[Ranchero50]

Friggin junk, I just lost a nice long post, POS puter.

Going back to the woodpile to cool off and try to remember what I typed...

Jamie

[robroy]

Good morning!

Jamie, thanks for trying to respond! I've lost long posts before too and I know how frustrating that is. A lot of mental energy and time goes in to organizing and writing quality posts, and I really appreciate your fantastic advice!

Here's a scan of the photo I'm going to mail Tom Lucas--this is the color I want the engine painted. I'm not super picky about the exact color, but this should give him the idea! For the fun of it, I also posted this photo in bumps with lowered altitude!! (lots of great custom bumps!!). You can click on it for a larger edition if you wish!

To me, this color looks slightly less red (orange) than the color previously sprayed on this engine. It's a little more of a "banana" yellow.



Thanks very much for the truly excellent advice!
Robroy

[Ranchero50]

Well, part of what I said was why don't you buy a can of the different yellows out there and see which one you like and just spec it to him. I think you;ll find that there are only a few different Yellow engine paints on the market.

Jamie

[robroy]

Good day Jamie, thanks for replying!

Well, part of what I said was why don't you buy a can of the different yellows out there and see which one you like and just spec it to him. I think you;ll find that there are only a few different Yellow engine paints on the market.

Ah, this is a great suggestion, thanks Jamie! This may turn out to be the best thing to do--I'll ask Tom if that's a better way to proceed. But since I'm already done putting this letter together I'll go ahead and send it. I think Tom mentioned that his paint man can formulate quality engine paint in any color I liked, so we'll see!

Since I like to keep you guys insanely updated on this project, here's the letter I've included with the yellow truck photo to Tom:



If anybody has trouble viewing these PNG image files, would it be possible for you to PM me to let me know? Thanks!

Thanks for the superb guidance!
Robroy

[dustman_stx]

Just a couple of observations. It looks like you will have over $1000 in your stock heads. I did pretty much the same thing, except I did the porting and polishing myself. It may be too late in the game, but I think that if youd spend the extra $500 and get the Edelbrock heads youd get better performance and lose some weight. Also, be VERY careful about your oil pan selection. The MOROSO 20607 that Summit lists as fitting a 72 F100 will NOT fit. The passenger side bulge on the oil pan hits the engine perch. From my observation ANY oil pan that is enlarged at all on the passenger side most likely will not fit.

[robroy]

Good morning Dustman_Stx, thanks for your great reply!

Just a couple of observations. It looks like you will have over $1000 in your stock heads. I did pretty much the same thing, except I did the porting and polishing myself. It may be too late in the game, but I think that if youd spend the extra $500 and get the Edelbrock heads youd get better performance and lose some weight.

This is a good point! I asked Tom about the Edelbrock heads, and heard that for my application, he'd recommend the ported iron heads first. He explained that the shape, size, and location of the port openings on the Edelbrock heads lends itself to making horsepower first and torque second.

He thought he could achieve better torque per dollar with these ported iron heads than by using stock Edelbrock heads. And naturally, buying the Edelbrock heads only to turn around and put porting work in to them would start to add up cash-wise!

Also, be VERY careful about your oil pan selection. The MOROSO 20607 that Summit lists as fitting a 72 F100 will NOT fit. The passenger side bulge on the oil pan hits the engine perch. From my observation ANY oil pan that is enlarged at all on the passenger side most likely will not fit.

Gosh, thanks so much for letting me know this! May I ask how you came upon this knowledge? Did you try the Moroso 20607 in your truck?

While I'm not using the Ford engine perches (I'm using Autofab perches), I'd have no special reason to believe that they'd clear the pan any better. I could eyeball them or try to measure them, but the proof would come during the installation attempt, and I've had enough battles with oil pan clearances issues to want to get in to that!

Thankfully Tom is really careful about this. I heard that he was trying to contact Moroso on the phone to get them to confirm that it would work for this application, but so far they wouldn't confirm it, so he may not have ordered the pan yet.

I also heard from Tom that he was, in the past, aware of a pan "T" style pan that had the protrusion only on ONE side, not both, that was specifically made to fit these trucks. One of his customers told him about it. But he wasn't able to find his notes on that, at least not casually, and the Milodon pan looked like it might work.

Dustman_Stx, thanks very much for letting me know about this clearance problem! If you could let me know your source for this information, I'd pass it along to Tom and we'd probably consider another pan.

Even the pan that was on the engine when I delivered it to him may work. Milodon says that it's a five quart pan, and Tom was cautioning against using FOUR quart pans with the high volume oil pump.

Thanks for your most excellent reply Dustman_Stx!!!
Robroy

[robroy]

Good morning, and Happy Friday!!!

I just heard an update from Tom! He has completed the porting work on the heads, and the port matching work with the intake.

I also heard that the Diamond pistons should arrive pretty soon, and the Comp Cams hydraulic roller camshaft should arrive this coming week!

Things seem to be moving along pretty quickly.

Thanks for all the fantastic advice!
Robroy

[DuckRyder]

I think Canton may make the pan he heard about, I think I also heard something about it.

In my opinion the pan you have is a decent pan, it isn't heavily baffled but it does have the later CJ style baffle which is much better at keeping the oil in the sump than the standard truck pan.

[dustman_stx]

I found out the hard way about the oil pans. Had my 390 completely together, ready to drop in. Started lowering it in and realized there was no way it was gonna go. Passenger side of the oil pan was pushing the engine over- probably needed another inch or so of clearance. Had to pull the engine and figure out what to do next. I ended up welding a baffle in my stock pan and now use 6 quarts total in the system as opposed to 5. From what I read this causes no problems as long as a windage tray is used to keep oil from sloshing onto the crank.

Also, note that the Edelbrocks flow very well from what I hear straight out of the box. A couple of hours just doing some cleaning up on the ports and polishing would be all that is required, if you even do that. Also,the Performer RPM is supposedly already matched to these heads, but I can't confirm that.

[robroy]

Good afternoon Robert and Dustman_Stx, thanks for your excellent replies!

I think Canton may make the pan he heard about, I think I also heard something about it.

That is encouraging news Robert! I looked at all the FE pans on the Canton web site and didn't see it, and I tried to call them but they're already closed for the weekend. Perhaps I'll call on Monday!

In my opinion the pan you have is a decent pan, it isn't heavily baffled but it does have the later CJ style baffle which is much better at keeping the oil in the sump than the standard truck pan.

I think you're probably right! I'll have to chat with Tom about this again, since its capacity is five quarts, not four like Tom thought when he glanced at it. Maybe it will do the trick.

I found out the hard way about the oil pans. Had my 390 completely together, ready to drop in. Started lowering it in and realized there was no way it was gonna go. Passenger side of the oil pan was pushing the engine over- probably needed another inch or so of clearance. Had to pull the engine and figure out what to do next.

Dustman_Stx, thanks for filling me in on the story! Why does your story sound SO familiar to me? Good to know that you discovered this fact through first hand experience. I'll be sure to let Tom know that the Canton T pan is very unlikely to fit (the only reason it still could fit is that I'm using the Autofab engine perches).

I ended up welding a baffle in my stock pan and now use 6 quarts total in the system as opposed to 5. From what I read this causes no problems as long as a windage tray is used to keep oil from sloshing onto the crank.

That sounds like an excellent custom solution! I'm still holding out hope that either my existing Milodon 30740 will work, or I'll be able to find a larger pan that will work too (for a modest price). The only other pan that I've heard will fit this application is the Dooley full-sump pan, but with all the odds and ends it requires, it adds up to over $700!

Also, note that the Edelbrocks flow very well from what I hear straight out of the box. A couple of hours just doing some cleaning up on the ports and polishing would be all that is required, if you even do that.

You're probably right here--I'm sure they do have great flow! I heard from Tom that the way their ports are shaped lends itself more to horsepower rather than torque though. I'm sure I've forgotten some points he mentioned, but I heard something about a big torque potential difference between ports depending on their height--there was a big difference between the absence of material around the top of the port, versus the absence of material around the bottom.

For some applications, he ports by removing material from the tops of the ports, and for other applications, he removes material from the bottom. In his opinion, the shape of the ports in the Edelbrock heads makes them great for horsepower-oriented engines in cars, while ported cast iron heads provide more torque for truck and heavy car applications. I heard from Tom that if Edelbrock heads were used instead of my ported, cast iron heads, the engine's torque rating would actually decrease!

Also,the Performer RPM is supposedly already matched to these heads, but I can't confirm that.

That makes sense, and that's a good point! I guess that's one of the benefits of going with the Edelbrock stuff--I'm sure it's excellent.

At this stage, with the cast iron head ported and intake port matching complete, the analysis is academic (but still very interesting and informative--I appreciate you bringing it up).

I don't mean to imply that any conclusions can be drawn from this, but it's interesting to note that Tom chose ported cast iron heads for his insanely powerful 1967 Mustang. From his article on the Mustang, "C4AE-G heads off a stock 390 Galaxie. They have been filled, high ported, with 2.09 and 1.75 Ferrea valves. Heads flow 323 Intake and 220 exhaust."

Robert and Dustman_Stx, thank you again for your excellent, helpful replies!
Robroy

[DuckRyder]

I ended up welding a baffle in my stock pan and now use 6 quarts total in the system as opposed to 5. From what I read this causes no problems as long as a windage tray is used to keep oil from sloshing onto the crank.

That sounds like an excellent custom solution! I'm still holding out hope that either my existing Milodon 30740 will work, or I'll be able to find a larger pan that will work too (for a modest price). The only other pan that I've heard will fit this application is the Dooley full-sump pan, but with all the odds and ends it requires, it adds up to over $700!

There was apparently a factory Ford TSB advising to fill the pan with 6 qts (7 with filter and 8 with external cooler) and remark the dipstick on CJ cars. That is what I do as well.

http://www.428cobrajet.org

Edit, can't link it, go to the homepage and search TSB, you should get 4 results and if you click on the second one and scroll to the bottom it will have the TSB hot linked.