E0AE D3C engine "?".

Discussion in 'Technical' started by 1slow7t, Feb 20, 2007.

  1. 1slow7t

    1slow7t Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Vehicle:
    70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
    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.
  2. ratio411

    ratio411 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    6,060
    Media Gallery:
    15
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pensacola
    Vehicle:
    1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick
    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
  3. 1slow7t

    1slow7t Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Vehicle:
    70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
    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??
  4. ratio411

    ratio411 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    6,060
    Media Gallery:
    15
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pensacola
    Vehicle:
    1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick
    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.
    [​IMG]
  5. 1slow7t

    1slow7t Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Vehicle:
    70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
    Thanks Dave, great data.
  6. 1slow7t

    1slow7t Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Vehicle:
    70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
    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.:evilsmile 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: Mar 17, 2007
  7. ratio411

    ratio411 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    6,060
    Media Gallery:
    15
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pensacola
    Vehicle:
    1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick
    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.
  8. 1slow7t

    1slow7t Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Vehicle:
    70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
    Thanks again Dave. Out for the hunt again. :thumbs2:
  9. 1slow7t

    1slow7t Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Vehicle:
    70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
    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.:bananaman
  10. ratio411

    ratio411 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    6,060
    Media Gallery:
    15
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pensacola
    Vehicle:
    1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick
    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
  11. 1slow7t

    1slow7t Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Vehicle:
    70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
    Thanks for the advice on the head improvement. One of my concerns now is the tower modification. I might be sending the car to paint shop, prior engine instal, and don't want to have surprises while instaling the engine. Also, the trans is a pan fed C4, big bell? :hmmm: Maybe its better to instal everything, then remove to send to the paint shop.
  12. ratio411

    ratio411 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    6,060
    Media Gallery:
    15
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pensacola
    Vehicle:
    1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick
    The pan dipstick C4 is popularly known as a C5.
    It is a heavy duty C4.
    C4 performance parts will fit, but some require close attention to fit, like the converter. That is if you plan to bulk up the tranny any...

    I install my engines and trannys as a unit. Makes things quick that way, so it wouldn't be an issue to remove it if you have a way to transport the car.
  13. 1slow7t

    1slow7t Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Vehicle:
    70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
    Yes, the Torino has the 351W/C4 combo instaled, and I test ran the car, so I plan on instal it as is. Did you know if I can use the 351 exhaust manifolds in my Mav?
  14. ratio411

    ratio411 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    6,060
    Media Gallery:
    15
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pensacola
    Vehicle:
    1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick
    Manifolds are iffy.:huh:

    I know a Torino 351c with stock manifolds will fit in a Maverick...
    HOWEVER, they required some mods.
    We had to grind off all the bumps and ribs from the manifolds.
    They had all sorts of knots and ribs sticking off them. Had to grind them smooth with a big grinder to get them to fit. You may have to do the same to yours if they have all the same sorts of protrusions.
    Dave
  15. PaulS

    PaulS Member extrordiare

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle area
    Vehicle:
    1966 Mustang, 1972, 73, 73 and 73 Mavericks
    The "C5" was made after 81 - 1982 and up. The C4 and C5 both come in the case fill and pan fill, big bell housing and small bell housing, and the 157 and 164 tooth flywheels.
    The C5 has better cooling and better rear lubrication. The C5 also has a locking converter. The C4 does not.
    The pan fill cases have a thicker web around the front of the tranny that the bell bolts to instead of bolting on with the pump. The cases are marginally stronger because of the thicker web. It is of no concern unless you are running over 600 hp.
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2007
  16. ratio411

    ratio411 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    6,060
    Media Gallery:
    15
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pensacola
    Vehicle:
    1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick
    That is why I said it was "popularly known as a C5".
    The C4 came out in 64, just like the date code C4 suggests.
    The tranny he has is popularly known as a C5 because it is a beefy C4 that was introduced for trucks in 65.
    The version that Ford officially named "C5" came out in 81 and was closer to a C4 than the original C5, but some idiot named it "C5".
    It should have been called "E1" by Ford's own system up to that date.
    Ford may have called it C5, but to me and most tranny guys I know, it goes C4, C5, E1... To heck with Ford's brain fart in 81.
    C6=66
    E4OD was engineered in 84
    so why shouldn't a 65 tranny be C5?
    The E1 is closer related to a C4 than the C5.
  17. 1slow7t

    1slow7t Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Vehicle:
    70 Maverick, 6 cyl/auto trans, soon to become a 351W w/pan fed C4.
    Yup, read an article in that line, where the C4 was made originally in 64, and beefed up in 65 for bigger engines, but everyone kept calling it a C4 instead of a C5.:drive:
  18. PaulS

    PaulS Member extrordiare

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Messages:
    4,858
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Seattle area
    Vehicle:
    1966 Mustang, 1972, 73, 73 and 73 Mavericks
    The only thing that changed was where the bell housing bolted to the tranny - all the internals remained the same - no beefing up of anything. I have been in the tranny business for 35 years and I don't call any C4 a "C5" and there is no "E1" and the C5 was introduced in 82 not 81.
  19. baddad457

    baddad457 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    110
    Location:
    Opelousas La.
    I was told by a tranmission guy back in the 70's (when I had a 69 Ford van with the heavy duty C-4) that the pan fill had better internal parts than the car transmission. Don't know if that was true or not as that C-4/5 crapped out every two years. The 80's C-5 only came with the 164 tooth bell due to the lockup converter. Y'all are both right about the C-4/5 designations.
  20. ratio411

    ratio411 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    6,060
    Media Gallery:
    15
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pensacola
    Vehicle:
    1972 Sprint and 1975 Maverick

Share This Page