Lets play, "Guess that Engine Block!!"

[Woodz428]

After looking at the casting #'s,there were a few FT blocks that had C6ME (also-A) ,C7ME andC8ME. I wouldn't think that would have made them less ridgid, they were for long term heavy truck use after all. I think the ground off suffix is of no concern, it wouldn't have been to diguise anything as the 428,390,360 (and also the FT versions) all came with and without. It is frustrating feeling you were sold something that isn't what is was claimed to be, but I think you could run it as a 428 safely.

[bomelia]

I am not sure if I spoke about this, but the guy who sold it to me has agreed to rebate $150.

Thanks for the FT info! I thought I read somewhere that FTs have the extra webbing in the crank supports. This one does not. But I will bet like everything else, that depends...


Mike

[Sizzler]

Based on your sonic map, you should be fine.
Generally speaking you want a reading of .11 or more on a thrust wall, and your block seems to meet that in all cylinders.

As for FT vs FE, check your distributor. The FT uses a larger shaft though a FE distributor can be used with a bushing.

My opinion is, what is all the hullabaloo about?

The block is standard 428 bore? There's a problem with that?
The block's sonic map seems to check out ok? And that's bad how?
Did it come with a crank? If so, what's the stroke on the crank? Is it a 428 crank even? If so, you've got a 428 engine that sonic's good (could probably take a cleanup, though I wouldn't if not needed). What's the problem here?

You got the Pollock for $5 and you're asking for a rebate?

So many things I don't get or understand on this forum...

[bomelia]

Sizzler,

I do not get the $5 thing (or the Pollock thing)

But to answer your questions, no crank. The casting numbers do not uniqely indentify it, worse yet the stamp in the water jacket says 352. No scratch marks and no extra webing.

It was advertised as a "428 NOT a 390" so the guy seemed pretty sure what it was. However, he bought it off another guy 90 days earlier who said the same thing...claiming low milage.

Finally, when all this started, none of us had any idea about the wall thickness...we just could not figure how a 37 year old 428 motor could be bored and honed to a couple thousandths under 4.13. When I put this info back to him, he did not try to explain it...he could not explain it. How could he? He got his info from the first guy, who, BTW, will not correspond with me on it. The hullabaloo started way before the sonic tests.

I stand by the notion that this is a 428 block, used as a 390, then bored and cleaned to a 428. And I appreciate your advice. If I were going to sell it, that is exactly what I would say.

I guess I am a bit miffed that some folks do not do a better job of describing what they sell. It only took about a week of research for me to do it and he had it for 90 days. I like the hullabaloo...I really appreciate all the help that is available here.

At the time the settlement was reached, we still BELIEVED it was a 390. Just between you and me, if the engine holds up as a 428, I just might give the rebate back.

Thanks for the input, Mike

[Higo]

G'Day,

Can anyone identify what these casting marks mean on my fuel injected 302 Windsor?

The marks are near the bell housing passenger side. There are two raised discs above a circular mark (0?). The top disc contains the numbers 1, 2, 3 radially placed and the disc below this contains the numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 radially placed.

I am looking for verification of the year of production.

Thanks Higo