Ford Maverick / Mercury Comet Forums  

Mobile Tags Register Gallery
Go Back   Ford Maverick / Mercury Comet Forums > Maverick/Comet Forums > Technical

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2007-02-20, 19:36   #1
1slow7t
Member
 
Join Date: 2006-12-17
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 60
Vehicle(s): 70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
iTrader: 1 (100%)
Question E0AE D3C engine "?".

The donor 66 Falcon I scored the other day came with a top loader from a 69 Mustang 390 ci, as I could decode by "RUG M3". Might be wrong tho. But my concern is the 302. The casting numbers behind the starter motor are the following; "E0AE D3C". Is it a 1980 engine from a full size car, or a 1980 casting, used in a later year? I understand the HP rating is kinda low for this years, but which was exactly the HP? The cylinder heads have like a by pass pipe, connected from the rear end of the each head. What is it? Is it necessary? Thanks in advance for your help.
1slow7t is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 2007-02-20, 19:45   #2
ratio411
Member
 
ratio411's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2002-04-22
Location: Pensacola
Posts: 6,060
Vehicle(s): 1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick
iTrader: 5 (100%)
Images: 16
Be careful.
390 Toploaders are notorious for being mistaken for SBF Toploaders.
They are close, but not the same.
You can ruin the tranny by running it on an SBF.

If it is a 390 Toploader, make sure the input shaft bushing, in the back of the crank, is a very long one.
There is a non-stock long bushing that you can get to retrofit a 390 Toploader behind an SBF. If it was not used, and the tranny spent any time in use behind the SBF, there is likely internal damage.

The block is an 80 design.
It would have been cast from 80 until whatever year the next engineering change was made to the block.
The heads are junk.
That bypass you see is a big part of the smog/EGR system.

Dave
ratio411 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-20, 19:54   #3
1slow7t
Member
 
Join Date: 2006-12-17
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 60
Vehicle(s): 70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
iTrader: 1 (100%)
Question

I'm planning to take the tranny to a friend who's a manual trans expert, specially Ford's, so thanks for the advice. I'll mention the bushing part. I noticed the heads have little ports. Can they be upgraded, or are they a waste of time/money to have some work done to them? Is it possible to know the exact year of the engine??
1slow7t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-20, 20:06   #4
ratio411
Member
 
ratio411's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2002-04-22
Location: Pensacola
Posts: 6,060
Vehicle(s): 1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick
iTrader: 5 (100%)
Images: 16
Here is the difference.
Print, email, sketch, whatever, this info for your tranny man, and he will see exactly what you are talking about.
The short FE nose does not engage the SBF crank bushing.
The tranny then spins unsupported and ruins all sorts of internal parts.
Nothing that can't be rebuilt, but it is not cheap.
ratio411 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-02-20, 20:11   #5
1slow7t
Member
 
Join Date: 2006-12-17
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 60
Vehicle(s): 70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
iTrader: 1 (100%)
Thanks Dave, great data.
1slow7t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-17, 16:28   #6
1slow7t
Member
 
Join Date: 2006-12-17
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 60
Vehicle(s): 70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
iTrader: 1 (100%)
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by ratio411 View Post
The heads are junk.
That bypass you see is a big part of the smog/EGR system.
Dave
Dave, is there an alternative for a head swap, to make this engine a bit better, 'til I can score a 89-90 HO 5.0? Gonna instal this engine in the Mav, but everyone have something bad to say 'bout those heads. I have an "original" 65 Falcon Futura, 289/auto project car, and I'm starting to look at those heads. But in reality, I don't want to bother the bird. For a Chevy, I can order fair priced new cast iron stock heads, with improvement potential; is that the case on Fords??

Last edited by 1slow7t; 2007-03-17 at 16:30.
1slow7t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-17, 18:05   #7
ratio411
Member
 
ratio411's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2002-04-22
Location: Pensacola
Posts: 6,060
Vehicle(s): 1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick
iTrader: 5 (100%)
Images: 16
351w heads from 69-75 are about the best stock castings.
74-75 have the same attributes as the earlier ones, but are a little less desirable due to smog plumbing. They were on everything from Stangs to big land yachts around those years. Should be easy to find.
The ones cast "C9" and "D0" can actually be made to flow as well as most aftermarket 'street' heads, however the cost is almost the same unless you do all the work yourself. They need lots of porting, but unlike other SBFs, they can take it because the ports and valves start out significantly larger.
If you go aftermarket, pay a couple bux extra for aluminum.
Just the material alone allows you to either run more compression on the same octane fuel, or run lesser octane on the same compression you have now. They don't heat soak like iron, therefore they don't preignite the fuel as easily.
Those 80 model heads just happen to come from the absolute worst era in SBF history. About 75-87... Even beyond that, there are few good castings IMO.
ratio411 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-03-19, 10:45   #8
1slow7t
Member
 
Join Date: 2006-12-17
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 60
Vehicle(s): 70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
iTrader: 1 (100%)
Thumbs up

Thanks again Dave. Out for the hunt again.
1slow7t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-25, 07:10   #9
1slow7t
Member
 
Join Date: 2006-12-17
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 60
Vehicle(s): 70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
iTrader: 1 (100%)
Thumbs up

Well Dave, while trying to find those heads, I ended up getting a complete 74 Grand Torino Sport, w/351W in great conditions, and its C4. Going to strip the Torino, sell the 302/top loader and instal the 351W/C4 combo instead.
1slow7t is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2007-04-25, 09:03   #10
ratio411
Member
 
ratio411's Avatar
 
Join Date: 2002-04-22
Location: Pensacola
Posts: 6,060
Vehicle(s): 1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick
iTrader: 5 (100%)
Images: 16
Cool!
If the car has the stock 74 heads, those are big port, big valve, small chamber heads. Actually they are very good 302 heads, but the cubes are good too.
The only thing those heads need to perform really well is some quality time spent on porting. They have a very nasty lump in the roof that extends all the way down to the valve guide. Do it yourself, but be very careful and take your time. It is not a fast process to do it right and safely, but that is why you will save big bux over having someone do it for you.
Good luck
__________________
A redneck's last words:
"Hey ya'll, watch this!"
ratio411 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Interested in this thread?
Receive email updates and post your own response by registering today, it's free!

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is smog-legal in California? DarthMaverick General Maverick/Comet 14 2006-04-05 14:58
Latest project with an explorer 5.0 engine jeremy Parts Interchange 15 2004-11-20 09:44
another 347 post xpsnake Technical 46 2004-10-19 18:55
Bad news, my engine passed away today! Swede General Maverick/Comet 23 2004-09-17 16:09
5.4" vs 5.315"Rods cityboy General Maverick/Comet 19 2003-08-19 16:58


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:21.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.