Randy
Randy

August 5th, 2010, 3:43 am #21

Paul,

Finally got back home to work on the 427s. The carb flanges of my intakes are definitely angled. It is hard to tell on the photo you posted since it is a top view. The rear intake runners look much more pronounced than the front runners like mine. Intake casting number is C7JE 8425A and the starboard engine has the firing order ground off. They are Ford castings from the "FoMoCo" logo on them. I will take some measurements and photos and post. In any event, I am not sure if all CC 427s were built that way or not. I think mine were manufactured in 1968 and put in a 1969 model year Commander. It may be significant, maybe not. High RPM lean out can be a problem.

Randy
Quote
Share

Paul
Paul

August 5th, 2010, 2:55 pm #22

Well I went into the shop early this morning and lo and behold there IS a slight angle to the flange. I seriously don't think it is a marine issue, as much as I think it's an intake port size and configuration issue. My spare intake has the following numbers
C7JE 9425A 7A17

Regards, best,

Paul
Quote
Share

Randy
Randy

August 5th, 2010, 3:41 pm #23

Paul,

Google "Marine Carburetor Tilt Shim". I may be wrong, but it seems to me that CC intentionally had the angle built into the intake manifold rather than using a tilt shim like many other manufacturers such as Crusader used for carbureted inboard engine applications. That would be the Chris Craft way of the 1960s. You would probably not see that done today.

The good news is that there are tilt shims available for Carter AFB style carbs that could be used to keep the carb level with an aftermarket automative intake such as the Edelbrock Performer 390. I would probably use a tilt shim if I were going with that combination.

Randy
Quote
Share

Paul
Paul

August 5th, 2010, 4:13 pm #24

Well I know the Q series intakes are all angled but none of the F series are, they're all standard SBC intakes. I had to use a wedge on my 20' Sea Skiff inboard application only because the #1409 Edelbrock didn't like sitting at that steep of an angle. On the 38 Commander, I don't believe there is any need for a wedge but it probably wouldn't hurt.




Here is a 390 T-bird intake, C4SE-9425-A This is not an industrial casting, and it has the same tilt. Therefore I don't think the C7JE intake 9425A is a specific marine part, but just an example of Fords "parts bin engineering" which was actually very good.







The C7JE designation indicates a INDUSTRIAL (marine) application on the parts that came from Chris Craft.

C7JE heads are a lowriser style, almost identical to the C6AE-R heads except the exhaust valves have rotators, the two-piece retainers. Chambers are the old D shape 71-74cc, 2.03 intakes and 1.56 exhausts. Exhaust ports are the early style high exits, there is an anti-reversion lip on the top that can be ground out. These heads were standard on Cris-Craft 300 horse 427 engines. It's suppose to be a good flowing head.

Regards,

Paul
Quote
Share

Paul
Paul

August 5th, 2010, 4:58 pm #25











This info is from Steve Christ's book, How to Rebuild Big-Block Ford Engines, and I recommend it to anyone who has a 427 Chris Craft, as there are a LOT of great tips contained in this book.

Regards,

Paul

Quote
Share

Randy
Randy

August 5th, 2010, 6:58 pm #26

Well I know the Q series intakes are all angled but none of the F series are, they're all standard SBC intakes. I had to use a wedge on my 20' Sea Skiff inboard application only because the #1409 Edelbrock didn't like sitting at that steep of an angle. On the 38 Commander, I don't believe there is any need for a wedge but it probably wouldn't hurt.




Here is a 390 T-bird intake, C4SE-9425-A This is not an industrial casting, and it has the same tilt. Therefore I don't think the C7JE intake 9425A is a specific marine part, but just an example of Fords "parts bin engineering" which was actually very good.







The C7JE designation indicates a INDUSTRIAL (marine) application on the parts that came from Chris Craft.

C7JE heads are a lowriser style, almost identical to the C6AE-R heads except the exhaust valves have rotators, the two-piece retainers. Chambers are the old D shape 71-74cc, 2.03 intakes and 1.56 exhausts. Exhaust ports are the early style high exits, there is an anti-reversion lip on the top that can be ground out. These heads were standard on Cris-Craft 300 horse 427 engines. It's suppose to be a good flowing head.

Regards,

Paul
Paul,

Many thanks for all of the info on Ford castings, you are the man. You are right, the carb flange angle was a Ford feature and not something CC requested, it just fits for an inboard application. I want to check my block and head casting numbers tonight to compare to the information you provided.

Thanks again,

Randy
Quote
Share

Randy
Randy

August 7th, 2010, 2:27 pm #27

Okay guys I have been researching the mild 427 build up for the 23' inboard project boat. Here are a few details. Realizing the 427 motor is already a fine marine design, I am not going to a crazy automotive stage here, as it would only toast the motor quickly and there is no point in doing that.

Therefore the build will be a mild tweak this first time around, thinking this is the safe thing to do and also thinking there is no need to go any further than 200 more horses than Chris Craft originally put into this hull. The original power for the 23' inboard Lancer was the 350Q which had a compression of 8.8:1, 235-hp at 4200 rpm, and weighed in at 964 pounds for the direct drive setup. The big dog weighs in at 1143 pounds with the same direct drive, but I am trimming off about 200 pounds so the balance and overall weight of the boat will be generally identical with NO weight premium for the big block.

The 23' inboard hull with 350Q weighs in at 3695 pounds, while the comparable 427 V-drive 23' Lancer Premiere/Custom Super Sport was 4200 and the 427 23 Commander V-drive was 4695. Therefore I am in the same league of 3695 pounds but with nearly twice the power of the original hull. Actual power ratings will remain top secret, and only Jerry Namken or perhaps Gordon Liddy (holding a lit candle under my open hand) would be able to make me talk.

Compression will remain at 8.9:1, heads and rockers will remain stock, but the cam, intake, exhaust and carbs will be upgraded as the first step in speed for the 23 hull.

Limitations will be a 5000 rpm max engine speed. If the heads come off they will be re-used, perhaps in mildly ported form, as these are quite good Ford heads. Going to an aluminum Edelbrock would save weight, but would not appreciably gain all that much power. I like the iron heads. The intake alone will save half the weight of a small person (25 pounds versus 80 pounds for the iron manifold). Exhaust manifolds and risers will be all water jacketed cast aluminum racing NICSON type, which I already have. Therefore the overall weight of the motor with manifolds will be about 175 200 pounds lighter, perhaps a bit more due to the fact that those marine 427 iron exhaust manifolds and risers are VERY heavy.

Comp Cam grind 270S will be used, featuring an operating band of 1800 to 5500 RPM, part number 33-244-4, advertized duration 270 (actual 224 at .050) and lift .540, with 110 lobe separation angle.

This is getting somewhat close to the original PI (Police Interceptor) cam Ford used. It is noted that Holman Moody original c3az-aa at 228-228-114 was the original 427/410hp cam, so this Comp is a reasonable choice. Compression is not going to be altered so this will keep power (and related heat generated within the motor) within reason.

For the record, the Ford 270/290 duration, .481 lift cam, was the stock police interceptor grind, and this was tweaked a bit to Cobrajet specs ie.279/290 duration and .481 lift.

It has been recommended to go with a (205-215) with at least.500 lift and 110-112 degree lobe centers as an improvement to the so-called old tech CJ/GT/PI cams, so this is yet another reason I settled on the Comp 270S. Comp has a good reputation, and everyone I checked with said to avoid the next step up, which would be the 282S, as it was more cam than the motor would be able to use (236 at .050 and .571 lift).

Spring load with the Comp solid 270s is just under 300 pounds, and the unsupported end rockers on the Ford rocker shaft are supposed to be able to handle this. After all, Ford was selling this same rocker assembly on engines rated for 6,000 rpm. To be safe however, I am adding a set of aluminum rocker shaft end supports from Precision Oil Pumps, as a 100% assurance to any thought of failure here. These are quite affordable and would be easy to install.


I have the full closed cooling system, but am thinking that this one will be raw water cooled, primarily for weight control, and the fact that the closed systems seem to run a bit on the hot side. This decision has not been made yet, but will be soon.

I have a couple pretty qualified speed advisors that will be coaching me to eeek out as much potential from this hull as possible, while still staying safe. They are Curt Brayer, and his son Keith, both of whom run the big block 392/426 hemi in their boats. Mr. Brayer, "Curt", holds numerous APBA records, and was high point man in his class for 7 years in a row. I've been aboard his DANCING BEAR for a personal ride one day, and it left a rather indellible impression on me. Oh did I mention he built the boat too. His son Keith is the one who has the worlds fastest 19' Chris Craft Racing Runabout. It looks stock, but it's not, ha.

As this project unfolds over the next 12 months (or so) I'll be posting engine info and test run data, etc. Stay tuned.

Oh one more thing, a windshield will remain optional !

regards,

Paul
Paul,

The reports I received with my CC 427 cams when they came back from Erson list the following specifications:

Lobe Center: 114
Overlap: 60
Valve Lift (Intake and Exhaust): 0.504"
Duration (Intake and Exhaust): 288
Intake opens, exhaust closes: 30
Intake closes, exhaust opens: 78

Figures at 0.050" Tappet Rise

Lobe Lift (Intake and Exhaust): 0.288
Duration: (Intake and Exhaust): 214
Rocker Arm Ratio: 1.75

These are the specs after regrind. I will inquire if my file contains the as received condition profile also, I didn't get those on my report.

Randy
Quote
Share

Joined: July 11th, 2006, 8:59 pm

August 8th, 2010, 12:40 pm #28

Randy, I saw your comments on stroking a 427. Did you use a 428 crank? Also, could you list the rods and pistons you used? Thanks.
BTW, I live in the St Charles area, but keep my 42' CC at Lake of the Ozarks. Good to see other CC owners in the area.
Quote
Like
Share

Tom Slayton
Tom Slayton

August 8th, 2010, 2:13 pm #29

The 427 was designed for one purpose and then it was adapted to other uses such as boating. The initial automotive racing (spelled NASCAR) required a lightweight, very strong block that would run at WOT for 500 miles or more. The design Ford came up with, big bore and reasonably short stroke, got the job done, and with the cross bolted mains and all of the other reinforcing this block received allowed it to run at very high rpm. Adding a larger stroke moves away from the intended use of the 427 in an industrial direction, which makes some sense for boating as the rpm will be lower and the longer stroke can produce more torque. I understand drag racers like the longer stroke too but their use of this motor is generally in the 12 second or less category at WOT and not for 500 miles or as the case of LeMans, 24 hours at WOT. Since boat motors do not run at WOT for long and never approach the rpm of an automotive racing application, the stroking could produce an even better marine engine, if you can believe that. It would be quite fascinating to see the torque curve on the dyno, please share this with the group if and when these numbers are known.

Tom




Quote
Share

Glenn
Glenn

August 9th, 2010, 1:15 am #30

All,

I will be traveling up to Dayton, Ohio this week to visit Jerry and my motors. I had the new carburetor's and manifolds dropped shipped to his shop. I will be educating myself a little more and be happy to share the information. Ault and James Speed Shop has been rebuilding engines for 46 years and they had a 428 powered dragster in the 70's. I have given him my trust to built them for a marine application (Chris Craft) with torque. Jerry is also an avied boater himself, but just not a Chris Craft, althought I am working on him.
He bought my stock cams from Marine Sales and Repair Inc., Harrison Twp. MI.
Quote
Share