LMan
Founding Member
nothing against FEs, but the space issues are a b*tch even in the 67-68s. I can't imagine it being worth the effort in a 65, but each one must find his own path...... 
390 In a 65?
- Thread starter stephen4785
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
ratio411
Founding Member
Hooker and Hedman both make these headers off the top of my head. There are other smaller companies that do too, but can't think of the names.390Fe said:
Someone was talking about "hacking" the front end and "small primary" headers...
Hedman makes 3 different sizes up to 2 1/8" primarys.
Actually they make 6! 3 primary choices for autos and 3 for manuals.
"Hacking" the front end, though I don't know for a fact, shouldn't be needed. I have seen a 66 with a 454 FE (427 block/428 crank), it didn't appear to be hacked into the car. I have seen several in magazines over the years, it's hard to tell, but they didn't appear to be modded either.
I think Ford most likely went wider with the engine bay for 'comfort'. If you have a car to warranty and folks to work on it, even when building it, more room to work is better.
I haven't studied FEs very hard, but isn't the exhaust just like the Cleveland in that the ports face down towards the ground instead of out to the shock towers?
That is the only thing that lets the Cleveland go into the early cars... The fact that the towers are a non-issue for the headers.
Dave
Note: I edited the primary size for Hedman Hustlers...
I put 2 1/4" originally... brain fart.
Well the more and more I think about the more I dont want to chop out my shock towers and have to fab alot of stuff.I think both sides of the 390 swap have a good argument though. But Im not building the car to run 9's or the quckest lap times but I would like to have a car that could beat the average sports car(ss ,WS6,or Cobras) to 80-90mph.I think what Im gonna do is just get me a 351w and supercharge or turbo charge it.I started figuring the cost of putting that 390 in it and although it would be bad ass to have a trick out 390 I think I would end up with a tricked out 390 on an engine stand because I didnt have the time or money to put it in my car.
Thanks to everyone that posted.
Thanks to everyone that posted.
bud4660
Founding Member
There are two pages of pictures in the link below. One shows how the shock towers are cut back to make it easier to work on the FE in the car. They are tight in a 67. I wouldnt even try to put one in a 65/66 myself.
""I think Ford most likely went wider with the engine bay for 'comfort'. ""
I disagree. If you put headers on any FE motor in a 67-70 engine bay, the header bolts at the front of the motor pretty mush touch the shock towers. You can barely fit a piece of paper between 'em, and it's a much larger bay than a 65-66. I can pretty much guarantee you that an FE will NOT fit in a 65-66 without tower mods.
I disagree. If you put headers on any FE motor in a 67-70 engine bay, the header bolts at the front of the motor pretty mush touch the shock towers. You can barely fit a piece of paper between 'em, and it's a much larger bay than a 65-66. I can pretty much guarantee you that an FE will NOT fit in a 65-66 without tower mods.
LMan
Founding Member
I am bumfuzzled to think ANY company makes "FE-in-a-65 Mustang" headers.....what customers does THAT application address?
A: both of them
A: both of them
Gas Rhonda's 65 fastback drag car 
(427 Hi-Riser)
Seriously though - I have a set of Hooker super comps on my 390 (non mustang heads) and using the over/under bolt pattern it is very tight (less than a 1/4 inch clearance on the #2 and #6 exhaust top bolts. I drilled and safety wired the bottom bolts so they wouldn't back out ( there is NO WAY to get to them with the engine in the car.)
My car is a '69 - this is why I was shocked that someone would make headers for that application.
(427 Hi-Riser) Seriously though - I have a set of Hooker super comps on my 390 (non mustang heads) and using the over/under bolt pattern it is very tight (less than a 1/4 inch clearance on the #2 and #6 exhaust top bolts. I drilled and safety wired the bottom bolts so they wouldn't back out ( there is NO WAY to get to them with the engine in the car.)
My car is a '69 - this is why I was shocked that someone would make headers for that application.
ratio411
Founding Member
I'm hard headed...Max Power said:
The only reason I put a Cleveland in my Maverick was because someone "guaranteed" me it wouldn't fit.
I noticed on those pics that the exhaust does point down as in the case of the Cleveland. I don't know about engine width in general, but that sure opens up the field for large tube headers. My Cleveland had 2 1/8" headers in a Maverick, same or less engine bay than a 65-66.
BTW, Those Hooker and Hedman swap headers for FE fit Mavericks as well.
Wanna swap in an FE and tell us how it goes?
Don't get me wrong, I do not support the idea of an FE over the Windsor, I am just playing "devil's advocate".
Now, if you wanna do a 454 FE, maybe with an all aluminum block, then I say "go for it!".
Dave
I think those headers are actually left over from the gasser days when people straight axled front ends and ran the biggest motors they could. With volume and economics, no way would any header company make that design in the last 20 years.
ratio411
Founding Member
The cherry picker fell over and dropped the 351c into my engine bay by accident...
Dropped it hard too, had to clean out my shorts!
I wonder if that is why it fit...
Dropped it hard too, had to clean out my shorts!
I wonder if that is why it fit...
1320stang
Founding Member
May have been, I have a picture of the Cammer car with him alongside in "Ford Total Performance" It doesn't mention another car in the text though.390Fe said:Weren't there 2 cars?- I remember the cammer with the altered wheel base... I KNOW that car didn't have any shock towers!
... maybe I'm thinking of another car...
(sorry about resurrecting the dead thread... I was on Vacation
I did it years ago.
Back in the mid 70`s, I had 64 Falcon 2 dr. sedan that I swapped a 390 & C6 into. Although I did cut the shock towers back closer to the coil springs, & modified the firewall for the large round FE bellhousing, the suspension components were all in the original locations. I had to modify a set of 390 66 Fairlane headers to work,& made my own mounts, but it wasn`t too terrible. I drove this car daily for a year, & it ran 11.6`s at the strip (remember, this was in the 70`s, which was pretty quick for a street car back then, naturally aspirated). I sold the Falcon in 1981, after sitting around for several years, I put it in my 78 Fairmont, where it ran 11.4`s, nitrous was becoming pretty common by then (mid 80`s), a 175 HP "Cheater" kit put it into the 10.2 @132 mph range, until it ripped the block & crank apart. Since the early 90`s, I`ve been running 428 CJ engines in the Fairmont, which runs about as quick as the NOS`d 390, but without any "helpers". The 428 is quite mild (Stock block, crank, rods,&CJ heads, Speed Pro pistons, OE Ford 427 1x4 intake with a 780 vac. carb. I shift it at 6200 RPM, and this engine is 11 years old now, 6 years since it was freshened.So do I like FE`s? YOU BETCHA!! However, I would not cram one into a mild street 65-6 Mustang. I have a couple of fairly mild 302 cars than run in the 12`s, so I wouldn`t even bother stuffing a heavier 351W in there, which is also a snug fit. For a lightweight, mild street car,a decent 302 should suffice.
Back in the mid 70`s, I had 64 Falcon 2 dr. sedan that I swapped a 390 & C6 into. Although I did cut the shock towers back closer to the coil springs, & modified the firewall for the large round FE bellhousing, the suspension components were all in the original locations. I had to modify a set of 390 66 Fairlane headers to work,& made my own mounts, but it wasn`t too terrible. I drove this car daily for a year, & it ran 11.6`s at the strip (remember, this was in the 70`s, which was pretty quick for a street car back then, naturally aspirated). I sold the Falcon in 1981, after sitting around for several years, I put it in my 78 Fairmont, where it ran 11.4`s, nitrous was becoming pretty common by then (mid 80`s), a 175 HP "Cheater" kit put it into the 10.2 @132 mph range, until it ripped the block & crank apart. Since the early 90`s, I`ve been running 428 CJ engines in the Fairmont, which runs about as quick as the NOS`d 390, but without any "helpers". The 428 is quite mild (Stock block, crank, rods,&CJ heads, Speed Pro pistons, OE Ford 427 1x4 intake with a 780 vac. carb. I shift it at 6200 RPM, and this engine is 11 years old now, 6 years since it was freshened.So do I like FE`s? YOU BETCHA!! However, I would not cram one into a mild street 65-6 Mustang. I have a couple of fairly mild 302 cars than run in the 12`s, so I wouldn`t even bother stuffing a heavier 351W in there, which is also a snug fit. For a lightweight, mild street car,a decent 302 should suffice.
Similar threads
