Dumb question about FE motors

[Danr55]

WHere the heck are the part numbers marked on these things? So far I've identified a 427 intake manifold from a 1966 Galaxie and the heads from a 1966 428 Thunderbird. I wouldn't be surprised to find a block from a 1965 Pinto.. I can't find the numbers.. Can anyone help?

[Dwight]

Dan are you looking for the numbers on the block? Remember, Ford used what was on the shelf. You can find '66 rods in a '67-'68 motor. '67 motor in a 68 model car. Waste not, want not.
My "High Performance Ford Engine Parts Interchange" book said there were 24 different 427 blocks.

Dwight

OK 7 for the year A for Jan 20 for the 20th day of the month.



scrape a little grease off and you can find the casting numbers




on the back of this 428 block I found a "S"

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Danr55

WHere the heck are the part numbers marked on these things? So far I've identified a 427 intake manifold from a 1966 Galaxie and the heads from a 1966 428 Thunderbird. I wouldn't be surprised to find a block from a 1965 Pinto.. I can't find the numbers.. Can anyone help?

The truth is, you can not rely on any of the markings on the block, other than the date code. If you're interested in where castings are on other parts, here's a decent page: http://www.428cobrajet.org/id-main.html

[Bob In Ct]

Good luck on that 65 Pinto!

Bob

[Danr55]

THanks guys.. Patrick, I found that page using Google.. Actually I found lots of good information including the info on the letters on the back of the block. As long as it is an A or a C, I can tell you what it means. An S .. I've not a clue. I'll keep looking until I figure this rascal out. Thanks again..

[Ronbo]

Back in those days about 90% of the employees working at the brookpark plant were West Virginia "Mountain folk" so that would explain the the backward "S"...

I think at the time Ford had a policy to provide them with a pair of shoes when hired and someone to teach them how to tie them.

Ahh, those were the days; the police would raid the local whore houses around the plant about every couple of months, the parking lot was a great "unofficial" fea market (although the police did take issue with the guy selling machine guns out of his trunk), if you were one of the unfortunates that didn't have a "deal" with the gate guards, you could simply dispose of your empty Jack Daniels bottles in the doors, fender or quarter panel bottoms of one of the cars. You drank Jack at work because it was too hard to hide a six pack of Stroh's beer (Rolling Rock for the southern Ohio boys) in your lunch box.

The GM plant was basically the same...

Don't get me wrong, working on cars while sober does suck.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Danr55

THanks guys.. Patrick, I found that page using Google.. Actually I found lots of good information including the info on the letters on the back of the block. As long as it is an A or a C, I can tell you what it means. An S .. I've not a clue. I'll keep looking until I figure this rascal out. Thanks again..

Dan, the problem is that the scratch marks are not always consistent. There are examples over on www.fordfe.com of almost every type of block with almost every type of mark. The definitive method of testing is to measure the bore, look at the crank saddle for extra webbing, and then the next time your freeze plugs are out peek inside and measure between the bores. The date code is reliable, though. FWIW, my 428 FE has no casting numbers over on the side of the block. This is fairly common.

[Ron61]

About the only thing I have ever found consistent an an FE block so far as number go is every one that i have owned from my 332 PI to the 427 TP had a 352 on them. The engine in my 69 Cobra also has that 352 and I never did know what it meant unless it was just a series stamp meaning FE series or something.
If the heads came with the engine, inside the valve covers and about the center of the heads they will have the same date code stamped there.

Ron

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Ron61

About the only thing I have ever found consistent an an FE block so far as number go is every one that i have owned from my 332 PI to the 427 TP had a 352 on them. The engine in my 69 Cobra also has that 352 and I never did know what it meant unless it was just a series stamp meaning FE series or something.

One of the better answers floating around www.fordfe.com as to 352 is that, since the front on most FE's are machined the same, the jobsetter on the machining line set his tooling according to "352" specifications. Who knows.

[Ron61]

Originally Posted by patrickt

One of the better answers floating around www.fordfe.com as to 352 is that, since the front on most FE's are machined the same, the jobsetter on the machining line set his tooling according to "352" specifications. Who knows.

Patrickt,

That would make as much sense as anything else I have heard. Only one thing wrong with that IMHO. The 352 wasn't the first FE engine. The 332 was. So if the 352 came a year after the 332, which had the same front as every FE from it on up through all the rest, how did the machinist know the 352 specs?

Ron

[Bill Bess]

Dan, I copied a list of FE engine codes numbers a few years ago. I don't know how to attach them to this thread...send me your E-mail address and I can send them.

I was told that your block I. D. numbers are down near the starter, but I'm not sure.

Bill

[Danr55]

Thanks Bill. danr55@msn.com.. I look forward to seeing what you've found. What I've found is that every FE motor has a date code and the numbers 352 cast into the left front of the block. Not sure why, but three different sources said the same thing. From what I'm finding, that in itself is unique.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Danr55

What I've found is that every FE motor has... 352 cast into the left front of the block.

No, after 1972 most FE blocks had the upside down 105 instead of the 352, but not all. Some blocks still had the 352 (like the 427 service blocks, for instance). If you watch Ebay, from time to time you'll see "bargain 427 blocks" that are labeled "66-427" so they must be 427s! Of course, the end up being 390s, if that.

[convincor]

here's a list of casting #'s
http://www.fordification.com/FEcasting-numbers.htm

[patrickt]

... I remember reading this when Shoe posted it. It may be right, it may be wrong, but either way it makes for interesting reading:

I'm presently working on the theory that when MCC took over FE block casting after DIF was shut down for the superfund(?guessing?) cleanup, the MCC factory had reason to refer to the block as a "105" rather than a "352". "352" was simply a legacy of DIF - Why should DIF change it if the process works?

It probably refers to the primary project number, and since MCC began molding operations in September 1971, and their fifth mold line came fully on line by December 1972, I'm guessing that "primary project numbers" started at 100 or 101. I'll be looking for numbers like this on other MCC castings, as time permits. Since I don't have any non-FE stuff from the 1970s, it may take a while.

This suggests that "105" markings replaced "352" markings in ALL FE applications from about 1972 or so. Since cars were no longer getting any FEs, this explains why you'll never see a "105" block in a stock automobile.

As for "105" blocks all being FT blocks, forget it! This is just as wrong as saying all 1964-1971 "352" marked castings are FT blocks. Most "105" blocks were cast with standard thickness 360/390/410-type cylinder jackets for 360/390 light truck use. Far fewer were cast with the heavier FT/428-type cylinder jackets.

Since MCC was apparently Ford's first venture into arc melting operations (former Ford foundries used the cupola method - I'm still learning about this), there was a lot of interesting debug going on in the MCC foundry operations. I hypothesize the first FE blocks to emerge from MCC had some "iron chilling" issues in parts of the casting (I've got NO info that supports this). I suspect that adding ribs to the block skirts resolved the "chilling" issue until the MCC processes could be fine tuned. Thickening the walls to reduce chilling would require a notable change to the block design, ribs didn't - suggesting it was an interim reinforcement. This hypothesis matches well with the great frequency which FE blocks were cast with skirt ribs from 1972 to 1975 or so.

Note that "chilling" occurs when certain sections of iron cool too quickly, preventing proper formation of flake graphite and thus promoting formation of solid carbides. Chilling is often used purposely to create wear-resistant and non-deformable features in an otherwise non-chilled casting. Thin cast sections tend to chill more than thick sections.

As for the popular rumor that the ribs were installed because the patterns were wearing out - this doesn't hold much water. Wearing patterns would ttend to thicken wall sections, not thin them as the folklore states. Also, patternmakers were part of the UAW, and I don't think they'd allow Ford to run worn patterns without making lots of fuss about how they were being underfunded. Also, MCC was brand new - patterns would have tended to be brand new about the time the skirt ribs were showing up. It still doesn't make sense, but it'll eventually become clearer.

On a different note, a greater percentage of "105" blocks were cast with reinforced cranksaddles than were "352" blocks. I suspect this was due to the fact that 2.80:1-geared station wagons were no longer getting 390s dropped into them, and a greater percentage of 3.50:1-geared FEs were being put to hauling, plowing, and back-road duty. Ford probably saw a statistical trend in block failures which suggested increased use of reinforced cranksaddle bulkheads would be cheaper than warranty repairs.

It's also been determined that a small but real percentage of FT engines did get plain 360/390 blocks, and a small but real percentage of 360/390 light truck FEs got FT castings. Yes, FT blocks always got the larger distributor pilot hole drilled into them, but this is not a final determination as to whether it originated from an FT casting. To verify it's a genuine FT casting, the best method I've so far come up with is to pop-out the core plugs in the block and feeler-gauge the between the bores to determine nominal cylinder wall thickness.

All just theory at this time,
Shoe.

Source: http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182...S+A+105+BLOCK-

[Bill Bess]

Dan, I have the same list of castings Convincor has listed above.

Bill

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Bill Bess

Dan, I have the same list of castings Convincor has listed above.

The lists are wrong, the books are wrong (some of our favorite FE books are really wrong), and those wrongs just keep getting perpetuated, replicated, and copied down as if gospel... but they are wrong. What's even more wrong than the casting numbers lists for FEs are the camshaft specs for FEs. There are even more errors on those lists because of Ford's use of engineering numbers that can look like parts numbers that can look like other numbers, coupled with letters like "Z" that can look like a "2", and then throw in the mix that durations are not always published for the same point of lift, and then don't bother mentioning what that lift was. ehhrrrgggg... Yes, and the always popular rumor that Ford actually used the same numbers on parts that they changed the specs for. OK, don't get me started -- just remember, the list you are looking at is wrong....

[Karl Bebout]

And to think that some people ridicule GM. Whoda thunk it.

[Danr55]

Well guys, I don't really care what block it was cast as originally. I've measured the bore and the stroke and it is definitely a 428 motor. Bore (4.128 measured) and stroke (3.982 MEASURED) can't be anything else. The given dimensions for the bore and stroke are bore: 4.132 and stroke: 3.98. So it could have started life as a 302, but it's a big boy now.

Thanks for all your help guys.

[mikiec]

I have heard the more you stroke it, the bigger it gets.

Mike