I found parts and dont know exactly what they are Shelby GT500 1967 + 427 parts

[Rickmustang]

Anyone know the value of a "good" standard 427 steel crank like that. Unusual to see in a 428 PI block. Will it even go in a 428 block?

[pbf777]

Will it even go in a 428 block?

     Yes, you will basically create a 406 FE engine.   

     Scott.

[1967 eight barrel]

I would be concerned with the crank and rods. There is a LOT of material removed from them. Is the crank standard, .010, .020, .030?

                                                                                           -Keith

[gt350hr]

   They look fine to me.

[corbins]

   They look fine to me.

Looks like a lot of pitting in those journals ..... guess he should measure it and the rods and post some results.

[1967 eight barrel]

The valve covers are not original covers. They have the "bowtie" hole Vs. the round hole. They are cut for clearance of the master cylinder with power brakes. You have a set of reproductions. The intake is hard to identify without seeing the Ford engineering number or a view of the carburetor base mounting area.  Obviously the 427 steel crank and the C6 LeMans  aren't original to a Shelby.  Who ever did the balance work on those rods did a very sloppy job.  The entire pad is gone, which may make it difficult to balance with another assembly. The damper is not a 427 damper, it's a standard 68- up style. It looks to be an 8qt pan. Not enough to see if if it's a C8AX pan. There is also the factory ford 428 SCJ windage tray.
On the front intake runner that would face the passenger side of the vehicle there should be a Ford engineering number. If it's a Shelby is would be a C7ZX-9425-A.  It looks like a hodge-podge of components. Nothing is original to a 1967 Shelby with the possible exception of the intake, pending identification and the number and the rag joint, which would be common to all two piece steering columns for the year.


                                                                                                                       -Keith

[pbf777]

  Who ever did the balance work on those rods did a very sloppy job.  The entire pad is gone, which may make it difficult to balance with another assembly.
                                                                                                                       -Keith

    Well, assuming you have eight rods, balanced as a set, then other than some betterment of the execution, one should be O.K.   

     Scott.

[1967 eight barrel]

Well, as you know, Scott any change or piston necessitates a balance change for the rest of the assembly. There isn't much "meat on the bone" if you will on the rods. The Lemans rods usually have a ton of material on the balance pads. 

[pbf777]

Well, as you know, Scott any change or piston necessitates a balance change for the rest of the assembly.

     My comment was solely concerned with the salvation prospects for the connecting rods, and since I am not inspecting all eight, in hand, my statements are in general terms, and yes, any some deviation in the "betterment" process would need to be rectified to a common resultant weight value among the eight rods as a set (as far as the rod big-ends, as relevant to my observation and comments).

     And further, as my derogatory statement indicated, I am perhaps less then impressed with the corrective effort as presented (pictured rod big-end correction), and therefore would suspect accepting the entire reciprocating and/or revolving execution as being terribly accurate either, so even if the pistons were present, and all components applicable, I was indicating in my original statement that I would incur a proper "clean-up" and balancing endeavor, even with the associated costs, if I were intending to press these items into service.     

     Scott.

[1967 eight barrel]

Scott:
There was no disagreement with your initial assessment. They were poorly done and there isn't much more that can be "skinned" off for further weight correction.
                                                                -Keith

[gt350hr]

   Once a set of rods is weight matched , they don't need to change if the piston or crank is changed. While the big end grinding may not be eye appealing, the cap strength hasn't been compromised. I would be more concerned if they still had stock rod bolts. Reciprocating weight to rotating weight is commonly 50% but even that is often changed higher or lower in some applications. Reciprocating weight is tough to get exact as one never knows how much oil could be inside the wrist pin or hanging on the piston at any given time. Many builders are comfortable with + or - 10 grams ( for a set  NOT individual variance) on a replacement set of pistons and not having to rebalance. I see this every day.
    Randy

[pbf777]

   Kieth, I was not at odds with your statement either, just felt that perhaps I needed to expound further (aka. even more B.S.  ) to be clear as to my intent, as it is not just you or I who may hopefully benefit.     

Scott.

[pbf777]

   While the big end grinding may not be eye appealing, the cap strength hasn't been compromised. I would be more concerned if they still had stock rod bolts. Reciprocating weight to rotating weight is commonly 50% but even that is often changed higher or lower in some applications.
    Randy

     "May not be eye appealing", now that's being very courteous of you Randy   , but with my experience with the aircraft engine industry, they would absolutely blow a gasket if I handed that sort of workmanship to them (oh, and don't tell, because I'm not a certified FAA repair facility, but I have done some balancing work on a few aircraft examples, mostly for racing applications which are often categorized as "Experimental" which means all is O.K.); and as I do realize that that connecting rod may never be installed in anything that leaves the ground (for any duration anyway ), you would have to agree that it is less than ideal to be creating all of those stress risers via the grinding striations, particularly across the cap beam.   

     What, you don't like that scrawny shank, screwed-up, interference tread bolt?  But another concern is the fact that many of the "Lemans"rods do not exhibit proper beam/cap location via the dowels, as excessive clearance is often present in the counter borings to dowel fitment.   

     And yes, adjusting the "bob-weight" values is often changed to greater or lesser sums, as in reality, nothing is balanced absolute (even the Earth wobbles). My favorite example are particularly the "Brit-Twins" bike guys, who provide specifications for reciprocating sums for their Nortons ,Triumphs, BSA's etc. varying from if I recall 48% to as much as 82%, as one must just accept it's going to vibrate, just at what R.P.M. do want the mirrors to be a blur and hands (and maybe not the only thing) go numb.   

     Scott.
     

[pbf777]

     Really, it's not fair to attempt to expect automotive application engines to exhibit the endurance capability of those within the aeronautical field, as if so, as you stated, they would prove in their terra firma environment uncompetitive for a number of reasons.

    But I will say, that with my exposure to the light civilian aircraft rebuilding industry (e.g.: Continental, Lycoming, etc. all recips), I'm not impressed, and find that many, not all of coarse, automotive "performance"/"race" engine builders, not "rebuilders" in general, produce products consisting of much more accurate machine work and dimensional fitment. And I have found that due to the FAA limitations/controls involved in the refurbishment process, it seems to have embedded the mentality of: "that's the way we always do it, and always have", and unfortunately many of the individuals involved really don't seem to know why, or how the device actually works, but that well,..........it'll fly, it (most) always does.   

     This impression, opposite of my expectation, is some what unsettling to the point of my being perhaps somewhat trepidatious of the idea of flying in a single engine plane; my initial thoughts being: what kind of glide slope does this plane possess, and does the pilot have any experience at "dead-sticking" this model!     

     Boy, are we ever off topic!   

     Scott.

[gt350hr]

   Scott ,
        There are all kinds of horror stories when it comes to balancing practices. WELDING plates and chunks of steel to counterweights? SURE. Body grinder to reduce weight on the throws SURE Two piece welded together "custom" rods SURE There will always be hacks who do "creative" engine building.
   You are right about LeMans rods not 'staying round" on the big end , it was not one of their strong points. The tri lobe bolts were terrible and popped heads often after simply being torqued down. We used the C7OE rod bolt back then and i switch them to an SPS CARR bolt now. This only slightly helps the "pinching bearings" problem. Why these rods are so highly praised is beyond me now that the aftermarket has superior quality H beams available. I understand being a purist and that's cool , but aftermarket rods certainly reduce "oil pan failures".
    "Balancing"  as you have mentioned is subject to interpretation . Balancing to 1/4 gram is no smoother than one balanced to 2 or 3 grams. To be "in perfect balance" EVERY cylinder would have to make the exact same power , have the exact same compression , etc.  IMHO that is impossible.
   Randy