The biggest problem with a 390 is it's ability to breathe
Several years ago I had a friend who had a 390 2V - we got some 428 CJ parts from a salvage yard, and put the 428 carb, intake, heads (milled some to bring the compression up), dual point distributor, and exhaust manifolds onto the 390.
That motor screamed with these "stock" mods from the 428 - we could not believe the difference - especially for not a whole lot of $$$.
__________________
Beri Fraley Strong, Proud and Ugly
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you haven't been trained properly.
P17
Your right and wrong. The rod length is the same but because the 390 block is not notched like the 410 the 390 type rods that have a nut will hit the block. the 428 used cap screws like the 427 except the 428 had a shorter head. There were two kinds of cranks used for the 428, a cast crank , that was in all 428s except the SCJ, and a forged crank used in the SCJ.
and you said "In December of 1966 Motor Trend road tests ran a GTA 390 Mustang the numbers were; 15.6 1/4 mile @ 94 mph"
The motor trend test was with a 4 speed with skinny tires, the times you post were correct but no traction and no power shifting relate to the high number for the ET. My 390 Auto would run 14.50s easy. After I put some L-60-15s.
Kinda curious were you got your info, Ive built a few FE's and have never noticed a notch in a block. The 410 used the same block as the 390 the casting numbers are C6ME & C6ME-A, I doubt that Ford would take the time to grind notches into 410 blocks. If clearance notches were required they would have changed the casting (and they would have differant casting numbers) and not individually modified them. The only forged crankshaft used on the FE as far as I am aware was used on the 427 in 1969 (C9AE-A) there were two crankshafts used on the SCJ both were cast units. The only 428 to get cap screws was the SCJ's all other 428's had normal hardware. The Motor Trend test was run on a "GTA" that's a GT with an Automatic...not a four speed.
__________________
1966 Fastback
1997 V6 Mustang
1998 GT
"Government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem."
P-17 The place where I got my information is in my garage. I built a 410 and a 390 with a 428 crank and a 427 with a 428 crank. I had a 428 SCJ Mach1 that I rebuilt .and a 406. I even built a tunnel port 427 King of the road. So I'm not just looking up stuff in a book. Ford had a choice when they made the 410 , I had one in 66, a 66 Merc. they could use the 427 lemans rods, which the cap screws were to long, or notch the block. Now which would you think they chose? The 410 has a notched block and uses 390 type rod bolts and nuts.
My 1969 428 SCJ had a forged steel crank in it, I spun it to 6500 and spun a main bearing, I had to replace it. It was a forged steel crank. Believe me. In 1970 it cost me $350. and took me 3 weeks to pay for it.
And the Motor trend thing. I saved the artical from Motor trend.
Hear it is.
1967 Ford Mustang GTA 390
Specifications: Engine 389.6 cu in/6384cc OHV V-8, 1x4-bbl Holley C70F-F carburetor Power and torque (SAE gross) 325 hp @ 4800 rpm, 427 lb-ft @ 3200 rpm Drivetrain 3-speed automatic, RWD Suspension front: control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar; rear: live axle, leaf springs Dimensions L: 183.6 in, W: 70.9 in, H: 51.6 in Weight 3255 lb Performance 0-60 mph: 7.4 sec, quarter mile: 15.6 sec @ 94 mph, 60-0 mph: 134 ft (Motor Trend, December 1966, four-speed manual test car) Price when new $3864
Motor trend was talking about two different mustangs, one that discribed the mustang , A GtA and the drag test mustang which was a 4 speed.
A had a 1967 GTA 390 fastback from 1985 to 1999. Shouldn't have ever sold it.
Anyway, I drag raced it and it turned 10.80's at 126mph. I replaced the 390 with a 428.
The 390 did have a terrible cylinder head by todays standards. I would go with some edelbrock performer rpm aluminum cylinder heads. I ran 10.80's on some 428 castings, probably could have gone way faster with a good cylinder head. Because of the car, if it is an original big block car I would stick with the FE.
If its not, you could probably build an awesome stroked windsor motor and have good results. You will have to modify the shock towers for a 429/460 to fit.
__________________
Paul
Daily driven 2005 GT AUTO - Whipple @ 16psi - 577 rwhp 519 rwtq
Best 1/8th mile: 6.740 @ 101.56 mph with a 1.431 60' time
Best 1/4 mile: 10.672 @ 128.42 mph with a 1.480 60' time Special thanks to:
ST Motorsports, San Bernardino CA - built engine and tune
Larry's Transmission, Corona CA - built 5R55S
M&H - 325/45/17 racemaster drag radials
GI Joe - 8 rib pulley kit
Thump_rrr - billet tensioner
Had a friend with a 62 ford, 390 with medium riser 427 heads, cam, and 406 tri-power intake. Ran 12.90's (this was in 1965) Not very fast by todays standards, but remember the 62 ford weighed a little over 4200 lbs and was about as aerodynamic as a shoe box.
Newstang your 400-425 shouldn't be that hard to do.If it's a 68 the compression should be high enough. Start with the usual. Decent cam lifters and springs. Also do a No-Lead conversion on the exhaust valves and seats. You'll hit your mark fairly easy. The going thing for that motor is the torque which is actually what moves the car in the first place. Best of Luck. Sounds like a cool car.
__________________
65-2&2, 63 Falcon vert, 32 coupe, 76f-250 4&4,72 Ranchero GT-Some is good,more is better,and too much is just enough.
I love FE's but just for those that don't believe that the 390 Mustangs were slugs in stock trim here's some numbers to chew on...
In December of 1966 Motor Trend road tests ran a GTA 390 Mustang the numbers were; 15.6 1/4 mile @ 94 mph
Motor Trend earlier ran a 66 289 auto (I assume it was an A code);
15.7 @ 89 So thats a 289 with numbers close to a 390.
And for you HiPo fans, in October of 64 Car and Driver squeezed a 14.0 @100mph out of a K code (4:11 gearing)
That stock 390 wasn't all that impressive, but it will respond nicely with some basic speed parts.
Those numbers weren't bad considering the tires of the day and tuning on those cars. Much of what we do to those cars today put those cars / engines in a better classn than they were when new. I have a 360HP 396 chevy (forgive me Ford only fans) out of a 1966 chevelle SS396. So, this engine has been in my family since my father bought it new. Now I have this same engine with only one rebuild in my 1971 GMC Sprint (El Camino) and it is faster than my Mustang out the hole and throughout the RPM range. The stang comes close but never beat it. The big block has headers, electronic ignition, no stall, 12 bolt non-posi 3:08s, factory iron holley intake with a 750 holley vacuum.
The problem with 390's is that Ford sadeled them with regular non-performance heads so they don't really breath very well on the top end. I've never understood why Ford did this since they had to know that the 396 Chevys were coming. They had some good heads on the shelf, police interceptor or 427 low and medium riser heads would have made a huge differance but Ford dropped the ball. When I say "slug" it's a relative term, compared to the competition in 67/68 the 390 as offered by Ford just wasn't up to it...
__________________
1966 Fastback
1997 V6 Mustang
1998 GT
"Government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem."
Preacher NONE (Alright very few) of Fords heads worked in a stock form. They were either too small or too big! Once they got on the ball they over-killed everything. Just recently ( okay last twenty years...alright I'm getting old) us Ford guys got something to work with. Chevy had aftermarket aluminum heads for decades before Ford. Kudos!
__________________
65-2&2, 63 Falcon vert, 32 coupe, 76f-250 4&4,72 Ranchero GT-Some is good,more is better,and too much is just enough.
The problem with 390's is that Ford sadeled them with regular non-performance heads so they don't really breath very well on the top end. I've never understood why Ford did this since they had to know that the 396 Chevys were coming. They had some good heads on the shelf, police interceptor or 427 low and medium riser heads would have made a huge differance but Ford dropped the ball. When I say "slug" it's a relative term, compared to the competition in 67/68 the 390 as offered by Ford just wasn't up to it...
I remembered some police cars had 390's with a big holley and they were street terrors (my father bought ex-police cars and made taxi cabs out of them). On one occassion, a cousin had one of the wreck cars and put some headers on and a good tune-up and would beat most guys including a 428CJ mustang. He couldn't beat the chevy 427 Stingray or 427 powered ex-police cars but it was a postive for me because up until that point, I didn't really see anything too impressive about the big ford engines.
330hp& boat loads of torque is JUNK? yeah, lets drop a Lima series 429.460 into a Mustang& make it even MORE nose heavy! Everything they have for the 385 series, they make for the FEs...........so stop wiith the junk nonsense.built right........a 390 is a monster.
The 390 mustang will run 14.50s in the quarter, stock, That’s what mine did any way. A 428 SCJ cam, 750 Holley, and 3.91 gears and it ran 13.50s. Putting a 428 crank in a 390 is a little more complicated than just putting the crank in, The stroke is longer so the rods and pistons will also need to be replaced. And 428 cap screws for the rods, or the 390 type nuts will hit the block, and when replacing a crank the rotating assembly has to be balanced with the harmonic balancer and the flywheel. The 390 looks great and sounds great, It's also heavy and gets baaaaad gas mileage, and wont make any more hp than a 302/351, The parts are hard to find and expensive for a 390 compared to a 302/351. In the end it's up to you.
There are plenty of aftermarket parts for the FE series motor& more coming out every day,Alum heads,intakes, stroker kits,ect......making the 390 lighter& making more torque STOCK than ANY 302/351......except for the s/b 351C
The biggest problem with a 390 is it's ability to breathe 
