Boingk

Blue cap you say?
 
Pro-cooomp.... Prooooooooooooooooooo  -  coooooooooooooomp....
 
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Ford-SB-289-302-Windsor-65K-Coil-HEI-Electronic-Distributor-Blue-Cap/133188909040?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649

I don't see why not mate, mic the stab hole and check the hold-down. I think they're the same from memory but may be wrong.

The Action+ anifold is on sale at the moment, 380 shipped.
 
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Weiand-Action-2V-Head-Intake-Manifold-Ford-V8-351M-400M-WM8010/264469277572?hash=item3d9398eb84:g:i1oAAOSw24hdgW-t:sc:AU_StandardDelivery!2880!AU!-1&frcectupt=true

Forget that OEM replacement rubbish, do it once, do it right.

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

GT40Ps I think are close to 200 cfm, probably what a good set of untouched open 2V clevos flow.

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

Yeah that seems like a very reasonable approach if you are to go with 302 heads. One thing with the 400 is that despite its similarities with the Clevo, it has a limited amount of go-fast parts available, so you're forced to work with what you've got. The point I was trying to make is to not expect it to behave like a closed chamber motor even if you go bolting the 302 heads on.

I would personally stretch my budget for the right pistons rather than work with an unknown just to save $. I have been down that path and have learnt for myself what the saying "the poor man pays twice" really means. Chestnut was worried about the 400 smog heads having that bump in the exhaust but I think that would give minimal restriction. If it was a choke point, it's not hard to smooth it off.

I also reckon, from pics I've seen of the ports on US 2Vs vs my own set of 302s, that the bowl area is better finished on theirs. Mine had horrible ridges around the throat and a really shitty short turn. I did a very basic port job on mine and I reckon 10% would be a conservative guess for a flow increase.

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

Yeah thats why you need the specs. Without a listing for a direct part number, or failing that a compresison height and head volume, you can't tell jack.
 
Often these things are a generic listing for 'part X' that will work with most combinations no matter the year - take the $200 piston set in my crossflow for example. Its designed for a stock mid 60's non-crossflow motor but because of the compression height and mild dish it works a treat. I think it was advertised as a "9.0:1" piston but in my combo it's more like 11:1.
 
 
Fair enough. Still, I'd be tempted to run it anyway. Like I said, I've done it on the 351C and had no dramas at all running around on Caltex 95. Its cheap compression and had plenty of performance for what it was. I think I was into the whole combo for about $1000, being for 302C heads & tanking/machining, gaskets, lifters & cam, intake and ignition. One thing I did need to do, though, was set the timing so it only ran to 32' total timing. Any more it pinged when hot.
 
For the 400 a 10.4 ratio is a 'best case scanario' with 8cc pistons and 65 deck. If the piston is actually 80 down the hole then you're at 10:1. If the pistons aren't 8cc items then you're lower again. I'd go with the smallest volume head you can and go from there - it just opens up a lot more choice with the other components.

Yeah thats why you need the specs. Without a listing for a direct part number, or failing that a compresison height and head volume, you can't tell jack.
 
Often these things are a generic listing for 'part X' that will work with most combinations no matter the year - take the $200 piston set in my crossflow for example. Its designed for a stock mid 60's non-crossflow motor but because of the compression height and mild dish it works a treat. I think it was advertised as a "9.0:1" piston but in my combo it's more like 11:1.
 
 
Fair enough. Still, I'd be tempted to run it anyway. Like I said, I've done it on the 351C and had no dramas at all running around on Caltex 95. Its cheap compression and had plenty of performance for what it was. I think I was into the whole combo for about $1000, being for 302C heads & tanking/machining, gaskets, lifters & cam, intake and ignition. One thing I did need to do, though, was set the timing so it only ran to 32' total timing. Any more it pinged when hot.
 
For the 400 a 10.4 ratio is a 'best case scanario' with 8cc pistons and 65 deck. If the piston is actually 80 down the hole then you're at 10:1. If the pistons aren't 8cc items then you're lower again. I'd go with the smallest volume head you can and go from there - it just opens up a lot more choice with the other components.

well spotted ,thats the place i was gunna buy the master rebuild kit from,those pistons are probly spot on,but you can see by the casting they are the cheap made in india ones but ok for a std rebuild i guess,i will message them and see what cc they are,or maybe they can make me a kit to suit the actual year of the engine,but i do not like the std factory timing chain kit as its proberly retarded,some where ,some were not.

Call me crazy but these things (if its the actual photo) wouldn't be anywhere near a 38cc dish.
 
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1977-1982-Ford-Truck-Van-SUV-400-6-6L-OHV-V8-DISH-TOP-PISTONS-MOLY-RINGS/282616362975?hash=item41cd3f77df:g:zpAAAOSw5dNWqRyQ
 
Might be worth messaging the seller and seeing what the specs or part numbers are.

Bingo gerg, stroked Clevo, whats not to like?
 
Sounds like a decent score there with the block year ChestnutXE, a shave of each surface and you'll be over the magic 9.5 number, or alternatively see what 302C heads would do to her.
 
Screw it, saved you the time. With a 4" stroke and bore, pistons .065" down the block, .040" gasket, 78cc chamber and an 8cc dish you're looking at a stock compression of 8.65 to 1, which is about a factory "9.2" I suppose. Hell, look at what Chrysler 318's were rated at and what they delivered...
 
Throw some 302C heads at 58cc onto it, everything else the same, and you're looking at 10.4 to 1. Much nicer, and you'd be getting the most out of the E-907-P I mentioned - my motor in the clip was about 10.7 to 1.
 
 - boingk

Bingo gerg, stroked Clevo, whats not to like?
 
Sounds like a decent score there with the block year ChestnutXE, a shave of each surface and you'll be over the magic 9.5 number, or alternatively see what 302C heads would do to her.
 
Screw it, saved you the time. With a 4" stroke and bore, pistons .065" down the block, .040" gasket, 78cc chamber and an 8cc dish you're looking at a stock compression of 8.65 to 1, which is about a factory "9.2" I suppose. Hell, look at what Chrysler 318's were rated at and what they delivered...
 
Throw some 302C heads at 58cc onto it, everything else the same, and you're looking at 10.4 to 1. Much nicer, and you'd be getting the most out of the E-907-P I mentioned - my motor in the clip was about 10.7 to 1.
 
 - boingk

They probably could have solved it all with a well thought out closed chamber along with a carefully dished piston to promote swirl (open chambers suffer from stagnant pockets and hot spots). They should also have pushed for further development of water injection. I like the idea myself... Water is pretty much free.

I know the first unleaded fuels were rubbish, including when they later introduced them here (Holden didn't even bother trying to get their own 6s to run on it). I think we started with 87 octane or something horrible like that.

Yet still, the 70s engineering approach to the problem of detonation was a case of diminishing returns... Keep decreasing compression to get around the fact that they used an inferior open chamber to decrease comp in the first place. They were really chasing their tails on that one.

I laugh when people talk about the 400 as if it's a dog of an engine, a boat anchor, etc. The only reason that they didn't produce decent HP is they came along just as the muscle car era was fading, and rode the smog era until 82 when that class of engine was no longer needed. Look at any other engine built in that time and you will find equally dismal performance. They're capable of great numbers if built up like any other donk.

Sent from my CPH1903 using Tapatalk

ok i found more chunky info on this 400 engine,when the first 400s hit the market they were leaded and had 10.2.1 comp with flat top pistons and 76 cc 2v heads,then ford didnt do there homework and had problems with detonation,so the next 400s up to late 1973 had a 8cc dish piston and 78.4cc 2v heads which gave 9.2.1 comp still using leaded fuel,but the next generation of 400s  these engines started to get the bad reputation ,unleaded fuel with very low octane saw pinging and all the rest and by 1975 even bigger dish pistons were fitted and cam timing was retarded ,and it gets worse late 70,s to 82 saw a piston with 38cc dish with 7.2.1 comp,so this engine i am buying is in the high comp era and i would say its the 72 or 73 red sticker leaded engine at 9.2.1,quite rare in australia and maybe now well worth having a go at it for a future project,also there is 3 types of 400 castings ,avoid MICHIGAN castings as they are prone to crack in the lifter valley area,then there is the DEARBORN CASTINGS which could be a lucky dip but later ones the castings were fixed,but the one that is considerd the go is the CLEVELAND CF foundry blocks as all have a good reputation,i think the one im buying is a CF  as most early 400s were cast there.

Heaters are over rated....... cut hole in firewall, weld in flat plate. Shoehorn 400 in, jobs done.  🤣
 
 
Seriously, stick with the 302. 👍

Loving the paint job on that mate, very clean. 

Gotta love that mate! Standard front-sump? 

i already have that on my watchlist but would prefer put another 200 on top and buy a new one,the weiand one.

Here you go mate, cheap intake for you:
 
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Ford-351-M-400-Falcon-F100-Edelbrock-Intake-Manifold/193218096868?hash=item2cfcb22ee4:g:56UAAOSwbI9d1RdC

Did you put thread sealer on the head studs? half the head bolts go into the water jacket on a roller engine and they will pretty much immediately blow headgaskets if you don't have thread sealer on the bolts

A bloke not too far from me has two XE wagons for sale. One is neat but has a bit of rust, the other is average exterior but quite solid. Asking 1500 the pair, getting them to you would be the killer.

A bloke not too far from me has two XE wagons for sale. One is neat but has a bit of rust, the other is average exterior but quite solid. Asking 1500 the pair, getting them to you would be the killer.

Looking good mate!
 
I wouldn't worry too much about the right gaskets for the heads, if your luck is anything like mine they'll be a less-than-stellar fit anyway.
 
Give some Permatex 'Ultra Grey' a go, its bloody great at oil and water seals and hasn't failed me yet - hell the whole sump of my crossflow is sealed with it as I had a tube starting to turn. Doesn't leak a damn drop!
 
Keep up the good stuff - boingk

Looking good mate!
 
I wouldn't worry too much about the right gaskets for the heads, if your luck is anything like mine they'll be a less-than-stellar fit anyway.
 
Give some Permatex 'Ultra Grey' a go, its bloody great at oil and water seals and hasn't failed me yet - hell the whole sump of my crossflow is sealed with it as I had a tube starting to turn. Doesn't leak a damn drop!
 
Keep up the good stuff - boingk

Yeah don't get me started on the conversion at the moment. I'm going to run a Procomp 'Eliminator' which is their stab at a Performer RPM AirGap. Still $280 delivered, but apparently get within 10hp of the Eddy casting.
 
https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Ford-SB-260-289-302-Windsor-Eliminator-Intake-Manifold-Satin/372403843878?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649