1974 cast date - emissions?

[RAO-3]

Hopefully this is the right place to ask this question - I have a 428 and noted that the cast date on the block is in 1974. Since I'm registering the car in NJ, NJ uses the date of the block to determine emissions requirements. Is PCV all I will have to worry about, or is there anything else that may be at issue?

Also, just to be sure, can anyone tell me exactly where the cast date is on a 428FE block? I want to be sure I have the right one!

Thanks in advance for the help!

Ray

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by RAO-3

Is PCV all I will have to worry about, or is there anything else that may be at issue?

Ray, 428s also came with a Thermactor air injection system. I also remember them coming with the "IMCO" (for Improved Combustion system). I can't tell you whether the inspector will look for that or not. If you Google those names I'm sure pics will come up showing you what they are.

[patrickt]

Here's a shot of my date code.

[Ron61]

If it has the original heads the same casting date will be on the top of the heads under the valve covers. As for the thermactor system, I don't know what year they started that, but I have seen some of the early ones in full sized cars that never had it.

Ron

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by Ron61

If it has the original heads the same casting date will be on the top of the heads under the valve covers. As for the thermactor system, I don't know what year they started that, but I have seen some of the early ones in full sized cars that never had it.

Ron

Here's a handy page on the vac hose routing for Thermactor and IMCO. http://www.mustangbarn.com/69vacuum.html Surely he can get around having to hook one of these up for inspection.

[Ron61]

If it is like here it will depend on what inspector he has to go to. There seems to be no uniformity out here in what you have to have. One place demands wipers and another doesn't care. Same for back up lights and such. Maybe he could talk to someone there and find out what he has to have.

Ron

[RAO-3]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Here's a shot of my date code.

Thanks for all the tips!

#1 I was getting the date code from the wrong spot which explains why I wasn't getting the same information as my engine builder was.

#2 I'm thinking I will give the PCV only a shot as I think the big thing they look for is pre- and post- catalytic converters, although I could be wrong. I haven't heard them requiring one to have the Thermactor and IMCO, but of course I seem to be learning something new every day!

-Ray

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by RAO-3

Thanks for all the tips!

#1 I was getting the date code from the wrong spot which explains why I wasn't getting the same information as my engine builder was.

#2 I'm thinking I will give the PCV only a shot as I think the big thing they look for is pre- and post- catalytic converters, although I could be wrong.

-Ray

You know, it doesn't really make sense to impose "year of the block" emissions requirements on service blocks (which, if you have a 1974, is what you have -- I'm pretty sure you couldn't get an FE in a car in 1974). You were generally buying it to replace a bad block and, presumably, when you did that they still held you to the standards of whatever year your car was from the factory. Before you show up in front of the emissions guy, see if you can't get a better answer from someone around here. Surely someone has gone through NJ emissions.

[RAO-3]

Originally Posted by patrickt

You know, it doesn't really make sense to impose "year of the block" emissions requirements on service blocks (which, if you have a 1974, is what you have -- I'm pretty sure you couldn't get an FE in a car in 1974). You were generally buying it to replace a bad block and, presumably, when you did that they still held you to the standards of whatever year your car was from the factory. Before you show up in front of the emissions guy, see if you can't get a better answer from someone around here. Surely someone has gone through NJ emissions.

patrickt - make sense? One must remember who we're talking about here.

My guess is that I'm making more of this than it is, but I like to have all my bases covered to be sure. It's just that from everything I have read, everyone refers to "pre 1974" and "post 1974" in their commentary but doesn't say anything about 1974 itself and I want to be sure I didn't miss something. As far as I know, no one "pre 1974" has had to do anything more than a pcv valve setup.

-Ray

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by RAO-3

patrickt - make sense? One must remember who we're talking about here.

My guess is that I'm making more of this than it is, but I like to have all my bases covered to be sure. It's just that from everything I have read, everyone refers to "pre 1974" and "post 1974" in their commentary but doesn't say anything about 1974 itself and I want to be sure I didn't miss something. As far as I know, no one "pre 1974" has had to do anything more than a pcv valve setup.

-Ray

I'm pretty sure 1975 was the first year for cat. converters -- remember they had to change the gas pumps and for a while you had the little skinny gas pump nozzle and the fatter nozzle for older cars. (because of unleaded fuel)

[RAO-3]

Hi Ron - From what I have found out from talking to people, I think I'm pretty well covered on all everything else as I went through the requirements with Peter at ERA. Thanks for your help and thoughts.

Hi Patrick - I was under the impression I was getting an earlier date block so had been set on PCV only, but just this last weekend when I saw the engine for the first time did I come to find out the cast date. My plan has always been to drive with this block for a while, but would consider swapping it out if something better comes along.

-Ray

[convincor]

vacuum advance distributor would also be part of emissions. At least here in CT.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by RAO-3

. My plan has always been to drive with this block for a while, but would consider swapping it out if something better comes along.

Ray, let me tell you why a 428 service block is the perfect block for a quality Cobra Replica.

* All service blocks of that date have the additional Cobra Jet crank saddle webbing for extra strength (along with those nice ribs as well).

* For originality nuts, they're just as appropriate as sideoilers.

* When properly rebuilt they will make as much power and torque as you can get from any FE.

* There is usually enough room on the block so that after the rebuild there is still enough room for a "freshen up" (I bored mine .025 over).

* They seem to be a little less prone to the overheating problems that some sideoilers suffer.

* 1974 blocks seem to get through the emissions just as easily as earlier blocks.

[RAO-3]

Originally Posted by patrickt

Ray, let me tell you why a 428 service block is the perfect block for a quality Cobra Replica.

* All service blocks of that date have the additional Cobra Jet crank saddle webbing for extra strength (along with those nice ribs as well).

* For originality nuts, they're just as appropriate as sideoilers.

* When properly rebuilt they will make as much power and torque as you can get from any FE.

* There is usually enough room on the block so that after the rebuild there is still enough room for a "freshen up" (I bored mine .025 over).

* They seem to be a little less prone to the overheating problems that some sideoilers suffer.

* 1974 blocks seem to get through the emissions just as easily as earlier blocks.

Thanks Patrick for your thoughts, really just what I needed to hear. When I first started to go in the direction of the 428 I know it was you and Rick Lake (as well as some others) that helped me to understand this was the right direction to go for a street car and not to 'overbuild' the engine. Of course Peter at ERA was also a big help in talking with Joe so that I received the right engine for what I wanted.

-Ray

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by RAO-3

Thanks Patrick ... it was you and Rick Lake ... that helped me to understand this was the right direction to go for a street car and not to 'overbuild' the engine.

Rick is actually my evil twin. Sooner or later somebody will ask you about the ribs on the side of your block. There are two competing views on the origins of the ribs. Here are two quotes that I ripped from the FE Forum that summarize them succinctly. Both are from the same author (a well respected FE expert).

Dave Shoe --- One suspicion I have is...

...that when the MCC (Michigan Casting Center) was opened in 1971-1972, it was equipped for thinwall casting technology. I don't believe DIF was so equipped. I do have some info from TRW which suggests 1972-later FE blocks may use thinwall technology. Incidentally, I believe DIF closed down shortly after MCC came on line. I am also curious as to whether CF cast any FE blocks, as that place seems to have used thinwall technology (preheating of cores, a more ductile alloy, and thinner wall sections), but the FE molds at the time were likely still thickwall in design. Anyhow, the MCC blocks would likely be 1/32" thinner due to the use of preheated sand cores and a more ductile type of iron (I don't yet know if it was a full-nodular). I'm sorta wondering whether the stripes helped prevent "chilling" (a too-rapid cooling) in the extra-thin iron (chilling causes molten carbon to form unmachinable and brittle fast-forming carbides rather than slow-forming ductile graphite flakes or spheroids). Chilling is desirable in certain iron products when a brittle, wear resistant surface is needed to make the part work. Many cast iron products actually design thin sections of the casting so they can become chilled, and other sections of the casting thicker so they solidify more slowly and thus become either machinable and/or ductile sections, depending on what characteristic is desired. This makes some sense to the early 427 ribs, as the 427 would need ductile skirts because the crossbolts stressed the skirt, whereas the regular FEs in 1968 could deal with slightly-"chilled" skirts, because the stiffening loads were distributed more gradually across them. One thin I'm gonna have to do is weigh my DIF, CF, and MCC castings to see whether castings from some foundries are characteristically lighter in weight.

Shoe.

P.S.: Please copy down any other symbols or numbers you see (except for the boring clock symbol). It's nice to gather this info, just for the heck of it. In particular, I'm starting to notice the "E" and "W" stamps more, wondering if it has something to do with "East" and "West" or something.

================================================== =========================

Dave Shoe --- Rumor of warn tooling is false.

The worn-out tooling rumor simply has no merit. There is no economy in it, and tooling wears out by thickening the walls and flashing over, not thinning the walls. The FE was retasked from being a grocery getter to being a faithful workhorse in 1971. The external ribs started showing up around the time the FE became a truck only engine. Even the few 1971 Galaxies that got a 390 got the low-compression pickup-truck version of the FE. Note that FEs often got internal "water jacket" ribs that looked just the same as the outside ones, so ribbing was nothing new to the FE block. Just the placement was varied. I suspect the ribs were eventually moved to the outside of the block to strengthen water jacket sand cores, since internal ribs created thin segments in water jacket sand cores that might cause them to warp or crack when the metal was poured into the mold. As the 1970s progressed, more and more blocks got the ribs. I have not seen much correlation between performance and plain engines, particularly since performance FEs were not a new-engine product when the ribs arrived. Another FE performance enhancement of the 1970s was increasing use of nodular iron maincaps. Also, all blocks cast at the new MCC foundry (a.k.a.: 105 blocks) got reinforced bulkhead webbing, even if they usually got plain 360/390 water jackets.

Shoe.

[Excaliber]

Will the smalller bore of a 428 prevent using some heads with the largest valves?

[PJ4myboo]

Originally Posted by patrickt

I'm pretty sure 1975 was the first year for cat. converters -- remember they had to change the gas pumps and for a while you had the little skinny gas pump nozzle and the fatter nozzle for older cars. (because of unleaded fuel)

I don't want to hijack the thread, but I agree that 1975 was the first year for Cat converters. The reason I remember is that my dad had a new '75 Pinto that was rear ended and he cut the back off and welded on a back of a '74 Pinto to it. I was pretty young, but I remember a discussion about what to do with the new fangled Cat converter thing......I think he just threw it out. So we had the only '75 car in town that still took leaded gas!

[olddog]

I would have to pull out a book to be sure, and then I wouldn't get to bed, as keep reading. But I digress. I do not think the 428 was made into the 1970's. Around 68 or 69 both the 429 and the 428 were offered for that year (maybe two). From that point on the only FE made was the 390 in the trucks. At least that is what I am remembering from a book. With that said I remember some trucks that had 360 in them in the 70's and I believe it was a FE also.

So I have conflicting memorys and I don't trust either. You may want to check on when the 428 was dropped. I do know that many 390 blocks were bored out to make a 428. Some end up with very thin walls and may not take any more bore. Be careful. It could be junk.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by olddog

I would have to pull out a book to be sure, and then I wouldn't get to bed, as keep reading. But I digress. I do not think the 428 was made into the 1970's.

428 service blocks (available at the parts counter) and FEs for industrial use were still cast in to the early 70's. My point, esoteric as it was, being that it doesn't really make sense to impose "date of the cast" emissions requirements on service blocks (which are, by their definition, "replacement parts"). But expecting the DMV to deal with that is expecting too much.

[RAO-3]

I find that it's actually quite interesting that most all of the written documentation for these engines documents them through about 1970 but really never makes much if any mention of the service blocks. The only information I have been able to find on service blocks has been online. I have been trying to find good pictures of them to compare to mine, but there seem to be few out there.

-Ray