Guest Julian Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 anyone out there have a good 352 or 390 engine for a 59 Ford Custom that I have.. I am in Concord, NC so anything with in 2 to 3oo miles will be considered. also condition.. let me know what you have.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 anyone out there have a good 352 or 390 engine for a 59 Ford Custom that I have.. I am in Concord, NC so anything with in 2 to 3oo miles will be considered. also condition.. let me know what you have..Lots of 390 FE blocks around but you will need a pre '65 as the bell housing bolt pattern was changed with the '65 model year. Given the 390 would not be correct for the '59 model year hopefully you can find a 352.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 thanks Jim.. this is a cool little car..6cy. 2 sp with 391 rear gear. bare bones custom 300. I figured a 352 coupled up to that might make the little car really scoot (didnt know about the bell housing--good info) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) Julian that 223c.i., 145 hp six sure won't set any land speed records, especially when compared to the high compression 352 4V engine of the same year. On the other hand that little six did a respectable job of moving the car for basic use. V8s for the year included 3 or 4 variations of the 352, and a couple of variations of the 292 "Y" block.Words of caution, the motor mounts for V8's of the year are a bit strange but are often found on ebay. The motor mounts for both the 292 "Y" block and 352 FE block are the same. However, I'd do a bit of study on the converting to a V8 from a six as I don't recall if the way the motor mounts for the six sit on the frame or spring tower is the same as the V8. Probably not! Good news is, if the swap is a bit easier than I think it may be, there is still great parts support for FE block engines, largely thanks to the guys that are into "mud" trucking. There are still a huge number of FE blocks turned into horsepower/torque monsters every year in spite of the FE blocks legacy of having upper engine oiling issues.I must say I would have some concerns about the 2 speed Ford-O-Matic transmission being able to take the torque of the FE block engines, but have no concerns about using a 292 or even a 312 "Y" block.Being the blocks are of different lengths I wouldn't be surprised if other issues may not come into play beyond the motor mount issue.Jim Edited February 7, 2011 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Mellor NJ Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 One way to tell the earlier FE block is the valve cover,the earlier ones were rounded like a half of a hoagie roll. It will have FORD in raised letters. The later covers are sort of angular. They also had a 332 in 58-59 but I don't know how to tell the difference and I have heard of a few 312s still being made. There was a 292 in the "For sale" section a couple days ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 One way to tell the earlier FE block is the valve cover,the earlier ones were rounded like a half of a hoagie roll. It will have FORD in raised letters. The later covers are sort of angular. They also had a 332 in 58-59 but I don't know how to tell the difference and I have heard of a few 312s still being made. There was a 292 in the "For sale" section a couple days ago.It's virtually impossible to visually tell the differences in the various displacements of the early FE block engines. 332s were only produced for the '58-'59 model years and had cylinder bores that were .20 less than the 352. The heads were also different particularly with '59 332s, which were much lower compression than their '58 counterparts and significantly lower than any of the 390s. 390s didn't show up until the 1961 model year and had both bore and stroke that was different than the 332s and 352s. The dead give away to accurate identification of any unmolested early FE block will be found in the head casting numbers.312 "Y" blocks dropped out of Ford car production with the 1958 model year but continued on through the 1960 model year as the basic engine offered for full size Mercury automobiles. The old "Y" block was a dead duck in automobile production with the end of the 1962 model year after which the basic V8 became the 260/289 small block for all Ford domestically produced automobiles until it became the 302.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Mellor NJ Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Here are a couple in Michigan,from Auto-Roundup. Good information,Jim. I'd just like to add that you could still get the 292 in the truck till 64. Edited February 9, 2011 by Dave Mellor NJ (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Here are a couple in Michigan,from Auto-Roundup. Good information,Jim. I'd just like to add that you could still get the 292 in the truck till 64.Yeah, that's something that made little sense to me unless Ford simply had a pile of "Y" block castings and rotating assemblies they needed to use up. In the back of my mind I recall a neighbor of years ago that had an even later year model Ford pickup that had a 272 in it, at least that's what he claimed the engine was. Not having a lot of references on '60s era pickups I don't know if he was blowing smoke or was just suffering from bad memory.For whatever reason, Ford in times past was slow to change what was going into trucks. A real boon to anyone having Ford cars to maintain as often critical parts are carried on for years and years after car parts support would have ended. Even some electrical and interior trim items were given extended availability because of that phenomenon. For example I have an old beat up 1990 F-150 that has the exact same dome light used in '72 to early '80s Lincolns and Mercurys. Same holds true for radios an climate controls in many cases.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Found a complete 63 Galaxie 4 dr car. 352 3 sp. auto... locally am trying to possibly buy the whole car. It is a complete car. I think it has no title but really dont need one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) Found a complete 63 Galaxie 4 dr car. 352 3 sp. auto... locally am trying to possibly buy the whole car. It is a complete car. I think it has no title but really dont need one.That would seem to be perfect for what you want to do. Nothing like having an exact example of any differences and all the parts you may need, not too mention extras you can glean for the future. Life will be a lot easier getting the swap to work with the original correct bell crank setup for the throttle. A decent parts car is a wonderful thing to have around just in case..If you go ahead with the buy of the donor car you have found, give me a PM or E-Mail and I'll give you a couple of clues about dealing with the upper engine oiling problems FE blocks have. I managed to completely solve them on the FE's big brother the MEL block in my '58 Mercury by using some of the valve train components for '68-'68 FE block 428CJ's.Jim Edited February 14, 2011 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 If you go ahead with the buy of the donor car you have found, give me a PM or E-Mail and I'll give you a couple of clues about dealing with the upper engine oiling problems FE blocks have. I managed to completely solve them on the FE's big brother the MEL block in my '58 Mercury by using some of the valve train components for '68-'68 FE block 428CJ's. very good. I will keep that in mind..gives me MORE reason to get this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 If you go ahead with the buy of the donor car you have found, give me a PM or E-Mail and I'll give you a couple of clues about dealing with the upper engine oiling problems FE blocks have. I managed to completely solve them on the FE's big brother the MEL block in my '58 Mercury by using some of the valve train components for '68-'68 FE block 428CJ's. very good. I will keep that in mind..gives me MORE reason to get this one.'63 was the last production year for the 352 in any configuration and were all 2bbl 220 hp low compression engines. But that isn't bad because it should run great on 87 octane crap from the local convenience store. To make it a serious go horse you'd have to come up with a 4bbl intake and 9.6:1 compression heads from 1960. (not too likely these days, but who cares?)Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Mellor NJ Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 If you get the 63 and take whatever you want,you can then put all the 59 stuff back in it and resell it to get most of your money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 '63 was the last production year for the 352 in any configuration and were all 2bbl 220 hp low compression engines.Hey Jim are you sure about that???.. When I was 16 to 18 we had a 65 Ford Galaxie 500 and it had a 352 4bbl. I remember that as the 1960 my mother traded for it also had the 352 2bbl. My aunt bought a 66 custom and it had the 289 in it. I loved that 65 and told my mother NOT to sell it as I wanted it. When I returned from boot camp in Dec of 67 she had traded it for a 68 Fairlane with a 302.. would have rather had the 65. Never saw it again after that and that was Sept. 1967... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 16, 2011 Share Posted February 16, 2011 (edited) '63 was the last production year for the 352 in any configuration and were all 2bbl 220 hp low compression engines.Hey Jim are you sure about that???.. When I was 16 to 18 we had a 65 Ford Galaxie 500 and it had a 352 4bbl. I remember that as the 1960 my mother traded for it also had the 352 2bbl. My aunt bought a 66 custom and it had the 289 in it. I loved that 65 and told my mother NOT to sell it as I wanted it. When I returned from boot camp in Dec of 67 she had traded it for a 68 Fairlane with a 302.. would have rather had the 65. Never saw it again after that and that was Sept. 1967...Well, let's put it this way; I thought I was sure. Getting into my references reveals I was out to lunch!The 352 was indeed offered in 1965 in the 4V version as you accurately remember. 352s continued to be offered through the '66 model year in a 4V version. Why? Only someone at Ford during the time would know. The reason I questioned why is the 2V version of the 390 supposedly produced more horsepower than the 352 4V, which produced only 30 more than the last 2V version of it in '64. In essence in my mind there was really no need for a 4V 352 in the offerings and considering the 352 in '66 only produced 250 hp.A '68 Fairlane with a 302 would have been a reasonable performer, but was certainly far from being the '68 LTD Brougham I purchased in '68 with a 390 2V (I really wanted a 4V but the dealer made me such a great deal I couldn't pass it up). That car was every bit as luxurious as a Lincoln. Wouldn't mind having it today.Of course I bet you would have been in Hog Heaven had your mother opted for a '67 Fairlane with a dual quad "R" code 427 in it like my idiot brother did. That sucker was good for three gas stations per mile or three tire shops per mile depending upon how hard one mashed the gas pedal. It would indeed run like a bat out of hell! It took about six months, a pile of tickets, and two sets of tires for him to trade out of that one.Jim Edited February 16, 2011 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 ok.. I am getting the 63 Galaxie.. Will go pick it up next weekend when the owner gets back in town. It is a complete car.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 394's forever Hey Jim you an Oldsmobile guy too?? IF SO I have a technical question for you about my 57 with the 371.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 394's forever Hey Jim you an Oldsmobile guy too?? IF SO I have a technical question for you about my 57 with the 371....Yep, I'm also an Oldsmobile guy. The Olds V8 that ultimately evolved into the 394 is unquestionably one of the best internal combustion engines ever designed, in spite of it being a rocker tube engine. Ranks right up there with Ford's 385 series (429s & 460s) and the ever popular small block that started out as a 221. I'll try to answer whatever question you may have about your '57, though I've never had one; I have three '62 Starfires. Lots of basic characteristics seem to exist among '57-'62 Oldsmobiles. I'd love to have either a 4dr '56 S88 Holiday or a '57 in the stable. Both are very attractive.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I have a problem with a recent 57 Olds that I purchased. Several weeks ago I bought a 57 Olds with 68k miles on it. When I brought it home I discovered that the crank case was full of gas so I replaced the fuel/vacuum pump and that worked ok. One Saturday I started the car warmed it up and drove it to breakfast. It ran fine. Came out of the restaurant and it started fine as well. When I left the lot and stopped at the first light it began to idle a bit rough. By the time I got to the second light it died. It started back up and I discovered that the only way it would idle was if I kept feathering the pedal or depressed the pedal to keep it running. I decided to bring it home. I put it in the garage and that is where it has sat for about 3 weeks trying to figure out WHY it wont idle. When cold, it will start and run seemingly ok but as it approaches 1k rpm it begins to idle rough then as it warms up further and gets under 1k rpm it dies every time. I purchased a newly rebuilt carb (4GC) and it does the same thing. Starts when cold--dies when warm. I have looked for some sort of vacuum leak but have not found one. At first I thought it might be the power brake system so I disconnected it and plugged the port on the back of the carb. Still no difference. Do you have ANY suggestions for me?? This really has me stumped. I have other Oldsmobile's and have never experienced this problem with any of them. I have not checked the compression on the engine but it does start when cold and seems to run ok then. There has to be something that I am missing.. I began to look at the intake manifold but have not completed a check of that. I have the same issue with the old (original carb) and the newly rebuilt one. I am stumped for sure...ANY and ALL help is greatly appreciated. thanks.. Julian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 I have a problem with a recent 57 Olds that I purchased. Several weeks ago I bought a 57 Olds with 68k miles on it. When I brought it home I discovered that the crank case was full of gas so I replaced the fuel/vacuum pump and that worked ok. One Saturday I started the car warmed it up and drove it to breakfast. It ran fine. Came out of the restaurant and it started fine as well. When I left the lot and stopped at the first light it began to idle a bit rough. By the time I got to the second light it died. It started back up and I discovered that the only way it would idle was if I kept feathering the pedal or depressed the pedal to keep it running. I decided to bring it home. I put it in the garage and that is where it has sat for about 3 weeks trying to figure out WHY it wont idle. When cold, it will start and run seemingly ok but as it approaches 1k rpm it begins to idle rough then as it warms up further and gets under 1k rpm it dies every time. I purchased a newly rebuilt carb (4GC) and it does the same thing. Starts when cold--dies when warm. I have looked for some sort of vacuum leak but have not found one. At first I thought it might be the power brake system so I disconnected it and plugged the port on the back of the carb. Still no difference. Do you have ANY suggestions for me?? This really has me stumped. I have other Oldsmobile's and have never experienced this problem with any of them. I have not checked the compression on the engine but it does start when cold and seems to run ok then. There has to be something that I am missing.. I began to look at the intake manifold but have not completed a check of that. I have the same issue with the old (original carb) and the newly rebuilt one. I am stumped for sure...ANY and ALL help is greatly appreciated. thanks.. Julian.My first inclination is to think the heat riser is stuck and causing the choke to keep the butterfly on the carburetor closed. Have you checked for gasoline in the pan since swapping out the fuel pump? If the fuel pump was an old NOS or even rebuild that has sit on a shelf for years it might have diaphragm issues from just being old.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Well that valve is stuck and I am thinking the vacuum advance is not working as well. Would a combination of that prevent it from idleing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 20, 2011 Share Posted February 20, 2011 (edited) Well that valve is stuck and I am thinking the vacuum advance is not working as well. Would a combination of that prevent it from idleing?Either condition would probably not be noticed with a cold start. The heat riser/choke issue should be quite noticeable in all operating conditions once the engine has reached normal operational temperature. I.e.; when the engine is warm restarts might be more difficult and acceleration at all rpms would be sluggish due to totally improper air/fuel mixture (too much fuel for the air volume).A bad vacuum advance would have no great affect on idle nor would it likely create any severe starting issues at any engine temperature. A punctured or split diaphragm in the advance would create a vacuum leak that could lead to one believing the carburetor was not properly adjusted at idle rpms. If the vacuum advance is non functional there would be a major stumble on sudden acceleration attempts and generally sluggish performance at all rpms above normal idle rpms, even to the extent that attempts to increase rpms will at some point likely result in backfiring.The basic tool needed to determine if the advance is bad is one of those hand operated vacuum pumps with a gauge on it, or without a gauge remove the distributor cap so you can see if the plate is moving as vacuum is drawn. Of course to get everything running absolutely right once any deficiencies are corrected it would be a good idea to hook up an old fashioned dwell tac to get that distributor adjusted to dead on for all operational rpm levels. Jim Edited February 20, 2011 by Jim_Edwards (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkyardjeff Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I had three 65 galaxies that originally came with 352s,two ended up with 390s and the other got a 302. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I disconntected the vacuum advance and plugged it. It DID run at idle although somewhat rough but was idleing. Two other issues I discovered was two wires literally hanging on by threads (strands) one from the ballast resistor to the coil and the other from the coil to the distributor. I decided to change it all. put a new vacuum chamber on it, new coil, new ballast resistor and repaired the wires.. But not started it yet. HOPEFULLY that will fix it and then all I will need to do is smooth out the idle with the air/fuel mixtures and curb idle screw..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I had three 65 galaxies that originally came with 352s,two ended up with 390s those sure were nice cars werent they...ours was ivy green with tan interior..super car...my girlfriends loved it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 I disconntected the vacuum advance and plugged it. It DID run at idle although somewhat rough but was idleing. Two other issues I discovered was two wires literally hanging on by threads (strands) one from the ballast resistor to the coil and the other from the coil to the distributor. I decided to change it all. put a new vacuum chamber on it, new coil, new ballast resistor and repaired the wires.. But not started it yet. HOPEFULLY that will fix it and then all I will need to do is smooth out the idle with the air/fuel mixtures and curb idle screw.....Yeah, old wiring can be the source of many issues. Fifty some year old wiring really should be replaced whether under the hood or under the dash, but most of us don't set that as a high priority unless the rodents have been chewing on it to the point repair is impractical. Old wiring jackets, particularly plastic insulated, can be the source of many, many operational issues, just like old spark plug wires can be shorting out all over the place from jacket failures.Obviously replacing the wires, coil, and vacuum advance motor are going to improve things, but if the heat riser and choke are still failing to allow the butterfly on the carb to fully open when it should things are not going to be satisfactory. Automatic chokes of any nature seem like a good thing, but regardless of the heat source that is supposed to release them, they are always potentially problematic. A good argument in favor of good old fashioned mechanical chokes.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Julian Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 A good argument in favor of good old fashioned mechanical chokes.The little 59 six banger has a mechanical choke.. starts right up and runs like a champ...nothing fancy there...and as "Larry the cable guy" would say...."gets-er done"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim_Edwards Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 A good argument in favor of good old fashioned mechanical chokes.The little 59 six banger has a mechanical choke.. starts right up and runs like a champ...nothing fancy there...and as "Larry the cable guy" would say...."gets-er done"...It's been years since I drove anything larger than a lawn tractor that had a manual/mechanical choke. But as I best recall one only had to use the choke for a few seconds and then like my lawn tractor it was normal carburetor operation thereafter. Stupid automatic chokes running on a heat riser or heat chamber take forever to release and the same is true for a coolant temperature operated choke. Both wasted a lot of gas! Electric Chokes? Not significantly better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now