Skip Navigation Links.
 |  332 roadtest numbers -- mikeb, 10/10/2001
A reprint of a Speed Age test of a 1958 Ford
9:5:1 compression
265hp @4600
3719lbs
Ford-o-matic
o-30 4.1
0-40 6.0
0-50 7.8
0-60 10.6
1/4 MILE 18.1(DRIVE)
17.9 (low &drive.)
84MPH trap speed. (sounds a little quick?)
Motor Life test on a '58 Fairlane 500 352/300
3850 lbs
0-30 3.8
0-45 5.8
0-60 10.0
2.69 axle, Cruise-o-matic
Interesting quote from the test.,
( It was also discovered that on a warm day,with the engine up to operating temperature,the car could be started with the hot wire removed from the distributor and with no spark supplied to the plugs. Cranking the engine with the throttle wide open started it with no spark whatsoever! ) How could this be? |
|  | RE: '58 Ford Custom 300... -- Mike McQuesten, 10/10/2001
If you early Fenatics want to see a very cool '58 Ford go to '58 Ford Custom 300.....I haven't got the exact site address handy. It's book marked on my other computer. Just search 58 Ford and it should be easy to find. This car has got to be one of the best. With a 2 speed Fordomatic no less! Amazing car. |
| | | The 2-speed Fordo wasn't available until 1959. -- Dave Shoe, 10/11/2001
The 1958 Fordomatic was still the 3-speed jobby (it's last year). It SEEMED like a 2-speed because it only used "low" gear when it was downshifted outta "drive" and into the "low" range. when "drive" was selected, the tranny started out in second gear.
Hey, this shift pattern was considered a deluxe option when the 3-speed Fordo was developed by Borg Warner for Ford back in 1951. I mean, who the hell needed a first gear for daily driving? Prior to the Fordo, cars would occasonally get stuck on hills which were just plain too steep (back then) for the engines to climb. The "low" gear was the salvation which got them over the hump without a tow truck.
Shoe. |
| | |  | RE: The 2-speed Fordo wasn't available until 1959. -- Mike McQuesten, 10/11/2001
I just keep a learnin' from ya Dave. I don't think I've ever owned a Ford with a Fordomatic, well, one that I actually drove. I've got a couple still in cars but they'll never see the road again.
I know that Styletone 58's is an Art Carr built Fordo. The fact that it's a 3 speed would seem to make a little more sense that anyone would have built one up. |
| | |  | RE: The 2-speed Fordo wasn't available until 1959. -- mikeb, 10/11/2001
Dunno, I double checked the article and that's whatit says.Speed Age, March 1958. |
| | |  | Yes sir, -- Styletone58, 10/11/2001
That's my baby. I'm making some changes, though. Gonna pitch that Erson cam, it's just too big. I'm going with a stock 428 CJ cam, advanced 4 degrees. I will also put the tri-power back on, as the CJ cam will work well with it and the primary carb will be more efficient than the modified 3310 I have on the BT intake now. I am also re-installing the heater, and cleaning up the wiring. All of this will make it easier, and cheaper, to drive whenever I want. |
| | | | | Half to see that 3x2 setup when you get it done! -- Paul M, 10/11/2001
Let me/us know when you got some good pics to show off, here, or in #AHPBBFM. (or both!)
Dwolf
TS#46 |
| | I'll tell you how it could be. -- Dave Shoe, 10/11/2001
They unplugged the water temperature sensor, not the distributor (I've seen it before).
Actually, if they said "hot wire from the distributor", they clearly didn't know what they were talking about. The only wire leading from the distributor is a ground/no ground wire which allows the coil to charge and discharge.
Only the coil has a hot wire. I'm thinking the road testers didn't much know what the hell a "wire" was.
I checked the 3000 mile, 300 horse 352 Ford review in Feb '58 Motor Life and didn't see any mention of this. Can you point me to the specific month and article?
Shoe. |
| | | RE: Motor Life, February 1958, -- mikeb, 10/11/2001
I don't have the original article, it is in a reprint, The Brooklands Ford Fairlane 1955-1970 pg 33 in the Brooklands book, and the second -to-last paragraph in the story.
The book also contains a Motor Trend test on a 1966 Fairlane GT/A. and a Car Life test on the Fairlane Cobra. as well as some foreign versions of the Fairlane.
Gotta admit I was disappointed in the 14.9 time Car Life ran in the Cobra. |
| | | | RE:14.9/Fairlane Cobra!? -- Mike McQuesten, 10/11/2001
There had to be a very poor driver at the wheel of that '69 Cobra. I worked at a Ford dealer in the summer of '69. We had a little support from the dealership owner. Our black on black, Formal Roof, 3.91/drag pack R-code, C-6, would run 13.7 @ 100 mph stone stock! We did remove the thermactor pump & plug the holes in the heads. Checked the timing and we'd run BF22's at the strip. That was it. Stab and steer! High 13's consistently. |
| | | | | RE:14.9/Fairlane Cobra!? -- mikeb, 10/11/2001
Yes, that number isn't anything to brag about, more like a 390 Fairlane.
Unfortunately, Roger Huntington used that et and 95 trap speed in his book American Supercar, and figured based on those numbers the 428CJ put out about 310 net. He used a quote of 14.6@99 mph for the CJ Mustang, giving it a net rating of 320. Of course roadtests can be taken with a grain of salt, but those are the two SLOWEST I ever seen for either car. And he gave the 427 Cougar a 280 net rating. A GTX 440 that ran 14.6 was rated @330net.
However, its interesting that the cars that hit a ttrap speed of 100or more was up there in the 370-390 range. I would say your times and trap are a bit more representative of the breed
Interestingly, he said the 352/360 put out 270net, just 10 shy of the '68 427! |
| | | | | | RE:352/360 net hp -- Mike McQuesten, 10/11/2001
Very interesting approximations Mike. Yes again, he was way off what was common with 428 CJs for times/mph. As for the 352/360 being just ten shy of the legendary 427....I believe it based on times/mph that were being recorded in those days.
The 352/360 '60 Galaxies, normally Starliners, were appraised by a number of sources as a very strong stock runner. I have a couple of articles from 1960 where a 360 hp Ford would run 14s. This was with a full framed 3,900 lb.Ford and a three speed column shift. If I remember, both cars were equipped with 4.11 gearing. Another article I have from '63, a full test was done on a '63 427/425 Galaxie XL. This car had a 3.50 gear and could muster nothing more than low 15s.
As has been indicated before, all of these "magazine tests" have to be taken with a healthy grain of salt. So many variables, i.e., driver, strip conditions and timing equipment and of course the car itself and what state of prep it was in.
My point is that based on some of these old tests, there likely could be an inflated net for the 352 HP and a deflated net for the 427. Typically the 427 made so much torque that the magazine writers/drivers would blow the start going up in smoke.
|
| | | | | | | Ramblings of a over the hill car nut. -- Lou, 10/11/2001
Hey guys saying that a 58 ford was not a very good drag car is like saying that a Falcon Ranchero can't haul 2 tons.
Ford had no interest in drag racing in the 50s and very early 60s. 58 Fords were built for top end and that they were good at.
Ford was in the business of selling cars and there was a much larger audience with the buying power at oval tracks than at drag strips.
Also their Police business was nothing to sneeze at, a 58 Ford Custom 300 with a 352 and 2.69 gears was a tough car to out run.
The first car I drove was my fathers 58 Ford Fairlane 500 2 door sedan with the 352 cruso and 2.69 gears I cound be beat in the 1/4 mile but not in the 1/2 mile, plus the car was a dream to drive. The only draw back was that after 90 mph the air under the front end would give you the feeling of the front tires comming off the road. ( this wasn't true but it took getting used to)
Even with the 2.69 gears the car was quick , I would later wonder what the car would have been like with the 3.30 gear option. Just a note in passing, my father would put 155,000 miles on that car before he traded in in in 1965.
We used to do some standing mile runs on the Connecticut Turnpike the only thing that ever beat me in the mile drags was a 58 Rambler Rebel,with a water injection system on it , and a 57 Pontiac Bonneville.
Man that Rambler could go.
|
| | | | | | | | Magazine Road Tests -- Travis Miller, 10/11/2001
Since I have a pretty extensive collection of old car magazines, I can tell you that Ford did not know how to play the road test game. GM and Chrysler would send cars that had gearing for acceleration. Ford evidently was more interested in gas mileage. Either that or Ford did not realize that readers of performance magazines cared about how quick a car was in the 1/4 mile.
Another thing that made a difference in acceleration times between magazines was the way the cars were tested. Not all drag tests were done on a dragstrip with a set of clocks. Some magazines used a 5th wheel attached to the test vehicle to record ETs and MPH. Allow me to explain how this works.
On a dragstrip a car is staged in the lights at the starting line with the leading edge of the front tire. The clocks actually begin timing after the car has started moving as the rear edge of the tire clears the starting line light beam. This in essence has given the car a running start on the clocks. But that is the standard that dragstrips have always used for recording ETs. With the 5th wheel set up, the onboard timers start recording the ET as soon as the car moves from a dead stop. The timer stops when the 5th wheel has rotated exactly 1/4 mile. That makes the ET read slower with the 5th wheel system than the clocks at a dragstrip. As far as the MPH goes, both the dragstrip clock and the 5th wheel system should read the same.
This coupled with better test drivers from some magazines may explain the different ETs in road tests. |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Magazines are bias -- R. Shannon, 10/12/2001
I wouldn't believe most magazines because most got paided under the table, wined and dined, and most writers were preppy nerds anyway which couldn't find the points in the dist. Hot Rod to me was the less bias, but they still flavored GM. |
| | | | | | RE:14.9/Fairlane Cobra!? -- Royce Peterson, 10/11/2001
Mike,
Any time your 352 is ready my '68 427 is ready! Let's check 'em out side by side!
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | RE:14.9/Fairlane Cobra!? -- mkeb, 10/12/2001
don't have a 352, just pointing out the treatment Fords got in the press in those days and found it odd Huntington used the slowest times for Fords to get hisnumbers |
| | | | | | | RE:Are you talkin' to me? -- Mike McQuesten, 10/12/2001
I would enjoy that. Like I've said before any FE I have will run on the strip. My FE powered vehicles aren't just sittin' pretty on park lawns or cruised to the burger stand on "car night". They'll be put to the test on the strip.
I'd be proud to run my "352" side by side with your 427 Cougar GTE Royce. Hopefully we'll get that chance someday...... |
| | | | | | | | RE:Are you talkin' to me? -- DJ, 10/13/2001
i had a 1958 ford ex highway patrol car 4dr.sedan.I out run everybody at high school top-end, but couldn' t out run 1 guy with his 1967 BB chevy 4speed light to light .Fun car a lot of good times in that car. |
| '67 Mercury Rear Axle Ratio -- Boyd, 10/10/2001
I am trying to determine the rear axle ratio on a '67 Marquis. It seems to be a posi rear end. I don't know squat about rear ends (or anything else for that matter). I tried to rotate the rear wheels one full turn and see how many turns the drive shaft made and I am coming up with about 2.85. Is this correct or possible? Can the tag on the door tell me (or any other method)? Is this rear end any good or just crap? |
| | Door tag has 'Axle' code, letter or digit. [n/m] -- Mr F, 10/10/2001
n/m |
| | | | You have one of these for Ford trucks, Mel? -- Paul M, 10/11/2001
Specifically `69. If you have some, that is!
|
| | | | | RE: You have one of these for Ford trucks, Mel? -- Mel Clark, 10/11/2001
I tried to send a better one for the cars and it wouldn't go through. Here's one for the trucks. I hope.
Paul;
It would not go through, send me an e and i'll send the scan to you.
Mel |
| | | | Mel, couldn't quite read everything -- BOYD, 10/11/2001
If I e-mail you the digits could you give me the specs? |
| | | | | RE: Scan's not so good -- Mel Clark, 10/11/2001
I'll be glad to Boyd or I can make an attatchment so you will have a copy, In fact, I'm going to email it now.
Paul M, if you will send me your email address I'll send a copy of the truck info. There is 4 pages of it, covering '66 through'73.
Mel
|
| | | | | | Re: administrators -- Mel Clark, 10/11/2001
Gentlemen;
This is to let you know that the scan that I tried to post would not go through and the message I recieved said that the post had to be less than 100,000 bytes and the count was 98,700 bytes so I cannot understand why it would not go through. Please explain.
Also, I would be glad to email things of this nature direct to the administrators/moderators so info of this type can be archived or posted for the others that visit this forum can have access to it. To do this I would need an email address.
Thanks for a great board that supports all us FEphiles, Mel Clark |
| | | | | | | RE: Paul -- Mel Clark, 10/12/2001
Check your mail, Mel |
| | | | | | | 'Byte'ing off more than you can view ;-) -- Joe Oliphant, 10/12/2001
Gentlemen;
This is to let you know that the scan that I tried to post would not go through and the message I recieved said that the post had to be less than 100,000 bytes and the count was 98,700 bytes so I cannot understand why it would not go through. Please explain.
The 100,000 byte size limit is based on the actual amount of space on a disk it takes to hold an image, not the image's byte count. If you look at the file's properties in Windows Explorer, you'll see that the Size property shows two values, a bytes value and a bytes used value. The bytes used on a 98,700 byte file would be over the limit.
Also, I would be glad to email things of this nature direct to the administrators/moderators so info of this type can be archived or posted for the others that visit this forum can have access to it. To do this I would need an email address.
If you want to submit an image, contact us through the feedback page and we'll get back to you with an email address. We may put up a page where you can submit images for general archiving. Good clear images are always appreciated. :-)
-Joe |
| | | | | | | | RE: 'Byte'ing off more than you can view ;-) -- Mel Clark, 10/12/2001
Thanks, I'll try to do better in future. Mel |
| | | | RE: '66 & '67 Door Tags -- Fred, 10/13/2001
Can you tell me what color H is, and is the warranty number on the truck door plate the VIN, I know its not on the passanger cars in 1966, wondered about the trucks? trying to get a 1966 F100 LWB road worthy. Have decifered all the other stuff from the door plate except color. |
| | | | | RE: Fred -- Mel Clark, 10/13/2001
Check your mail. That's all the info I have, so for more information regarding colors you will need to see a paint supplier.
Mel
|
| 428 CJ Block? -- Mike H, 10/10/2001
Did the 428 CJ/SCJ have the 352 mark on the block? |
| | RE: 352 casting -- Mike McQuesten, 10/10/2001
Yes they do, well, all the ones I've seen and owned have but I continue to learn lots of new things on this forum. |
| FE firing order?!? -- Joshua Carroll, 10/10/2001
Nothing special, just a 390 fe. I can not find my shop manual! Thanks. |
| | fe firing order-1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8 n/m -- mikeb, 10/10/2001
n/m |
| | | Is this the correct Piston/Block numbering?!? -- Joshua Carroll, 10/10/2001
back of block
4 8
3 7
2 6
1 5
front of block
Thanks for the firing order! |
| | | | Yup, you got it....n/t -- Flack Jack, 10/10/2001
|
| | | | Look at your intake. Firing order's cast in, -- Paul M, 10/10/2001
As well as having the cylinder #'s cast on the intake port runner for each cylinder! ;-) |
| | | | | After market intake lacks this info -- Joshua Carroll, 10/10/2001
Tried that trick but it was lacking on the after market intake. I have no idea where the origional intake is!
Thanks everyone for the help! |
| | | | | | Yeah, I guess some would! Sorry!<n/m> -- Paul M, 10/11/2001
~. |
| C8AE-H heads? -- Mike H., 10/09/2001
I saw in a post on another website that these heads where sometimes seen on a 428 cj. I have also heard that these heads are for a 390. Which is correct? |
| | Never on a CJ. -- Dave Shoe, 10/09/2001
This head is about the only head you'll find on any motor vehicle FE from 1968 thru 1971. This includes 360, 390 car, 390 pickup, the 428plain engine of early 1968, and the 428PI engine. Only the 427 and 428CJ/SCJ engines deviated from this casting.
note that some early 1968 FEs got leftover C7AE-A heads, and some early 1972 trucks apparently got the C8AE-H casting (though I suspect these oddities may have induction hardened exhaust valve seats to meet federal no-lead compatibility laws).
JMO,
Shoe.
|
| '58 fe - hp? -- Mike McQuesten, 10/09/2001
Mel Clark mentioned something about '58 Fords being offered in a high performance variation that I wanted to respond to in a different thread than the original question about shell vs. dumbell lifers. There's just a couple of points and I think it's important that we get the right information.
Personally I want to know the facts on the origins of the FE. It was the beginning of the big block that most of us enjoy working on, accelerating and everyday driving with.
I have never heard of a special HP package for the '58 332/352. I'm not saying it isn't true but I have strong doubts and would like to know the facts.
From what I remember, what I've been told and what I've read and actually seen, the first three months of FE production saw all of them factory built with a shell solid lifter camshaft, adjustable rockers @ 1.76 ratio and machined combustion chambers. This was true for both the 332 and the 352. The two engines had the same cam and heads. The cam was a miserable excuse for anything related to high horsepower/performance. The 332 could be had as a two barrel or a "Police Interceptor" that was nothing more than a 4 barrel feature. The early 352s were 4 barrels and labled as "Police Interceptor".
Starting to get the idea that Ford was using "Police Interceptor" as a marketing tag line? 300 horsepower? Don't count on that.
As for a 350 horse 352 T-bird option? This may have been a special package offered but again, I've never seen any documentation on this package.
I'm such an FEnatic that I picked up the April, 1958, Hot Rod magazine at a swap meet years ago just because it featured the brand new 300 hp '58 Ford. Note: hp meant horsepower not High Performance.
They tested three '58s, two with 332s and one with a 352-4V/300hp(horsepower).Here's a direct quote from that feature:
"We weren't particularly taken by surprise when the Fordomatic with 2.91 axle or the Cruise-O-Matic with 2.69 axle didn't accelerate too well, this is the price you pay for so-called economy gears. We were a bit surprised, however, to discover that the stick shift model with the big engine didn't go. The owner of this car had traded in a '57 Ford Fairlane with a 245 horsepower, 312 inch engine, stick shift and 3.70 rear axle (Note from me: the '58, 352-300, car had a 3.56 axle w stick/overdrive trans.) that felt like an intercontinental missle compared to the '58 version. The owner of this car is a mechanic by trade and has spent many hours of tune-up time since buying the car last December (Note: this car would have been the solid lifter version) trying to unleash the advertised horsepower.
I speculate that FoMoCo was doing all they could to stick with their commitment to supporting the Auto Manufacturers' aggreement to ban support of auto racing. The brass up at the Glass House were mandating that Ford offer decent family automobiles. They wanted none of that high performance stuff. All the while, that little power packed 283 kept kicking butt! And the 352/300hp was even making the 348 look fast.
Mel Clark even bought and raced a '58 Pontiac!!
Mel was definitley right about 1960. Some engine engineers did get through to the boys across the vast expanse of lawn there and got permission to put a real camshaft into the 352. The Total Performance era was about to begin. |
| | RE: '58 fe - hp? -- Mel Clark, 10/09/2001
Mike;
I certainly don't want to mislead snyone on the issue of a High performance 352 in 1958. A friend of mine bought one when they first came out with the reputed Hi-Perf option in '58. I was street racing a '54 Ford Customline with a 292 P.I engine with 3 2Bbls. and I would strap about 20 car lengths on him in our marked 1/4 mile. I kept that car through 1960 and had a 365cid Lincoln engine bored to 390 cid almost finished when I woke up in 1959 and realized that the Tri Power Pontiacs were killing everybody. I bought a '59 Catalina 345hp with a 4 speed option and it was an instant winner. I half heartedly tried to finish my '54 Ford but had really lost interest, just too many more things to buy to make it competitive with the Pontiacs and the Chevys. 4 speed to buy and adapt to a Lincoln engine, no Carburetion available,no Headers and the list just kept getting longer. I sold the car when it was about 90% streetable and never looked back. I lost a bunch.
As for the 350 horse 352 engine, it may have only been available in the '58 - '59 T-Birds as I saw a NASCAR clone from Klassix Museum in Daytona that had those figures on it and it was supposed to be a close copy of the race car prepped by Holman Moody, I have some pics that I will post when I find them or I can email them to you. Ford made the 430 Lincoln engine an option in the T-Birds and that was the race car in '59 and '60. I never saw what I would believe to be a 350 HP Ford in '58 and back then all the dealers lied like crazy. |
| | | RE: '58 fe - hp? -- Travis Miller, 10/09/2001
I believe the 350 horsepower T-birds were 430 cubic inch engines. Remember that NASCAR's 7-liter limit (427) was not introduced till 1963.
One thing that made '58-'59 352 engines real slugs was the flat exhaust manifolds. 1960 not only saw a good solid lifter camshaft and aluminum intake, but an excellent set of cast iron headers straight off the assembly line. Adding a well placed pair of cutout caps really brought the '60 352's to life. And then there were the optional gear ratios.
Yes as sorry as the '58-'59 FE performance was, 1960 sure made it all better. |
| | | | | RE: There was a H&M built 350HP FE back in 1958. -- Travis Miller, 10/10/2001
If you look close at the H&M 350HP FE picture, you will see that it is in fact one of the MEL 430 style engines. Notice the location of the fuel pump at the front of the intake manifold. Also notice the spark plug arrangement in relation to the exhaust ports.
The 430 in a T-bird was rated at 350 horsepower. |
| | | | | Hot Diggity! You found one doozy of an FE misprint. -- Dave Shoe, 10/10/2001
Those valve covers are a dead giveaway. Good eye!
I was just paying attention to the text under the photo which read "Nineteen fifty-eight was the year that Ford rolled out it's all new big-block FE engine family. Displacements that year were modest but still good enough to produce 350 horsepower..."
Anyone know who Dr. John Craft is? I guess this proves that second opinions are not always bad ideas. Suddenly, the book sounds rather humerous as it describes the FE in the early years. The book claims, "Ford answered that demand by quickly increasing the size of it's corporate(?) big block from 332 to 352 cubic inches (these engines were born together!). Each pass with the boring bar(???) produced even more horsepower...(a 352 is not a bored 332)", and later Dr. Craft mentioned, "Ford announced that it was breaking out the boring bare once again(?!?) for 1961, the FE would displace a full 390 cubic inches.". Hmmm....The Edsel used the same bore as the 390 in it's 1958 361 FE, so the FE was never bored until the 406 came along. Other obvious mistakes are there, too. I've just borrowed this book from a friend, and haven't had a chance to read much of it. It still looks like a winner (great photos), however. Now I gotta find time to dig through it a bit more.
Thanks for the correction, Travis. It puts solid logic to the horsepower of the early FE.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | I just realized... -- Dave Shoe, 10/16/2001
...I've got a few of his books on my shelves. His FE fact-checker may need new batteries, but his photos are excellent, and the info provided is uniquely informative.
Shoe. |
| | In 1958 it wasn't called the FE... -- Dave Shoe, 10/09/2001
...it was called the "Interceptor V-8".
The "Interceptor" name was sales pitch jargon which was used to introduce Ford's new engine to the general buying public. It had nothing to do with "Police Interceptor" engines. In fact, there was no "Police-specific" FE until about 1960, if I recall correctly.
When you see "Interceptor V-8", think "low performance early FE".
Shoe.
 |
| | | And also... -- Dave Shoe, 10/09/2001
Here's a little more on the "Non-Police" Interceptor V-8 engine family.
Shoe.
 |
| | | | RE: Interceptor Special it is... -- Mike McQuesten, 10/09/2001
I sincerely apologize about my mis labeling the early 332/352s as "Police" Interceptor. I even got up from this computer and walked with flashlight to the back portion of my property where I'm allowed to keep my little bone yard. That's where the '58 Country Sedan is with the 352 4V Interceptor Special. Which is exactly what it says on the glove box emblem and on the air cleaner.
I do appreciate the response from all of you about some of these FE things I've been wondering about. I found both pieces that Dave scanned very interesting. Especially the second piece that makes reference to the machined combustion chambers and to the efficiency of the new design where the heads are solidly joined by a rugged(you got a be a rugged dude to lift that hummer off that's for sure and then to put it back on .....)one piece manifold. This new manifold Zooms fuel-air mixture....." I loved that part. I may have to memorize those lines to spout off to guys who just don't get it. Through eight expressways.....
And thanks Mel, I do appreciate your thoughts, comments and your short lived conversion to Pontiacs. Which I fully understand why you made the change at that time.
Travis, your points are why restoring the '60 HP car I have is for me a labor of Total Performance enthusiasm.
Shoe, you've got some great literature. Thanks again for taking the time to share with us. I 've really enjoyed the industrial/irrigation/marine threads too.
|
| | | | | | RE:Holley 4V/Carter AFB/Autolite 4100? -- Mike McQuesten, 10/10/2001
You keep scanning more stuff I have to print! Wish I had those book/brochures. BTW, I do have the 1960 and 1961 "Police Interceptor" package brochures. Very interesting that they mention a special high lift hydraulic cam just for the PI 352 of 1960.
You mentioned that the Holley 4V carb was new design that year. What's interesting is the number of '58 352s I've seen over the years that came with either a Carter AFB or Autolite 4100. Purely from memory and from the one that I have, most that I've seen were equipped with the AFB. The carb used may have had something to do with the transmission? My rust bucket wagon has the Fordomatic.
Again, all of this is very interesting to me. I do remember seeing quite a few '58/'59 T-birds with the MEL 430. One of my uncles had one he bought new and drove through '62. Nothing too special, just a cruiso and the big MEL. My uncle would allow me, a 12 year old greaser, to drive it around the block once in awhile. If I'd mow his lawn, he'd let me drive my favorite, his '50 Ford with stick/O.D. and warmed up flattie.Then if I'd wash his 'bird and the '50, I got a ride on the back of his Triumph Bonneville. |
| | | | | | | RE:Holley & 430 MEL -- Mel Clark, 10/10/2001
TheHolley 1849 or 1850 carbs were first introduced in 1957, I believe, On the 312 T-Bird engines. The T-Birds for '58 were only available with the 352 and the 430 was offered in '58. This is according to memory ,which can be faulty on occasion. If H & M raced the 430 engine in '58 it was a very secret endevor as the hoods were marked "352". |
| | | | | | | | RE:Holley & 430 MEL -- kevin, 10/12/2001
Mel; the 1850 - 600 cfm was introduced on the 430. Maywood huh? Do you remember GranCor speed shop? H-M built 9 59 T-Bird 430 GN cars. What dept did you work in at H-M? What years? kevin |
| | | | | | RE: The full names Ford used in 1958... -- Paul M, 10/10/2001
I just perused through my "`69 Ford Pickups" sales brochure, and the only thing I could see regarding the V8 engines was "Ford's total performance engines", speaking of the 360-390 V8's.
And note, "total performance" wasn't capitolized <sp?>, which tends to agree with you, Dave, about not having specific names for the "FE" before `70.
Something stikes me as odd, however, after reading this brochure for perhaps the hundredth time. `69 F100-F250 4x4's weren't offered with 390's, according to this brochure. Only the 300-six, and 360.
|
| | | RE: I really enjoy those vintage FE ads, Shoe! n/m -- mikeb, 10/10/2001
n/m |
| | RE: '58 fe - hp? -- Barry B, 10/10/2001
Hi Mike, I like digging into these old specs, here is what is in the ’58 Ford Car Service Specifications booklet:
Name: Interceptor V-8
Prefix: EDC
Cu. In: 332
Carb: 2-bbl
HP: 240 @ 4600
TQ: 340 @ 2400
CR: 9.5
Fuel: Regular
Exhaust: Y
Application: Fairlane & Station Wagons
Name: Interceptor V-8
Prefix: EDC
Cu. In: 332
Carb: 4-bbl
HP: 265 @ 4600
TQ: 360 @ 2800
CR: 9.5
Fuel: Regular
Exhaust: Y
Application: Fairlane 500 except Convertible and Retractable Hardtop.
Name: Interceptor V-8 Special
Prefix: EDC
Cu. In: 332
Carb: 4-bbl
HP: 265 @ 4600
TQ: 360 @ 2800
CR: 9.5
Fuel: Regular
Exhaust: Dual
Application: Convertible and Retractable Hardtop. Power Option, Custom & Custom 300 - 2 & 4 Door Sedans.
Name: Interceptor V-8 Thunderbird Special
Prefix: EDT
Cu. In: 352
Carb: 4-bbl
HP: 300 @ 4600
TQ: 395 @ 2800
CR: 10.2
Fuel: Premium
Exhaust: Dual
Application: Police Interceptor, Power Option all other models.
Name: None
Prefix: EDD
Cu. In: 361
Carb: 4-bbl
HP: 303 @ 4600
TQ: 400 @ 2800
CR: 10.5
Fuel: Premium
Exhaust: Dual
Application: Power Option, Police Interceptor
|
| | | RE: '58 fe - hp? -- Mike McQuesten, 10/10/2001
Very interesting stuff Barry and Mikeb. Thanks for helping me to get over my FE faux pas where I was claiming the '58 FE 4vs to be "Police" Interceptors rather than Interceptor Specials.
It's interesting that from your source Barry, Ford did say that the 352 & 361s were Police Interceptor options. So I'm going to get over it now.
I have this idea(pipe dream?) to pull that 352 Interceptor Special out of that old wagon out back and go through it. I've kinda started by removing the intake and a few top end items. I'm storing all the stuff in the back...old wagons make perfect parts storage facilities. But in going through it I'd make one little change....the camshaft. I've got the original '60 352HP solid cam w/original lifters. I'd like to see how this one change might work to wake up that Interceptor. And I'd change the orgiginal intake and the ignition and I'd never run those exhaust manifolds and on and on and on.....
Interesting comparison Mikeb on the times/mph of the 332 with the 352 - 4V. 332 wasn't that much slower. Thanks again. Good stuff. |
| | | | Great thread guys -- P, 10/11/2001
This kind of info sharing is what makes the internet so great. I read everything and also printed it for my own reference files, being basically "starved for information".
I remember riding in a new 1958 and a new 1959 Ford. The '59 had an engine with valve covers that said "THUNDERBIRD", and it caused quite a commotion. On the road it appeared to be able to eat everything (I was generally in the back seat at the time, hanging on).
I was a boyscout in the 1958, with a lot of other kids, and one of the fathers of one scout was driving us all home. Seems that he had been drinking, and I remember that 58 352 winding out at high speed as we were all hanging on for dear life, at night, and the guy was throwing his head back and laughing. Like I said, I remember!
I later searched around trying to find out what was in the 59 Ford Galaxie. I thought it might have been a 390 (no), and thought it might have been a 430 (don't think so), since the 430 and the 352 were both available in the T-bird chassis of the day.
I do recall a lot of men standing around when my dad had the hood open, looking at the motor, so it was something special. My grandfather had a Ford dealership, and I do know the motor was special ordered.
So I'm now 52 years old, still wondering what kind of motor was slinging me into the rear seat. Dad liked to use the power on the road. Anyone have a clue what it was?
P |
| | | Now I'm thinking... -- Dave Shoe, 10/11/2001
...that the "Specials" were dual-exhausted versions of the motor.
I'll have to look into this a bit more (when I get time).
Shoe. |
| | | | RE:duals standard on 4V? -- Mike McQuesten, 10/11/2001
Great stories P on the '58/'59. Obviously, I'm getting a kick out of this thread too. I'm speculating here but I don't think there was much difference between the later '58 352 4V and the '59 352 4V except maybe the addition of Thunderbird to the valve covers. Notice, I speculate now, I don't state anything as fact.
About dual exhaust, weren't they standard on the 352-4V equipped cars? It seems like Barry's specs indicated that and I can say that the rusty but intact exhaust system on my '58 Country Sedan looks like a stock system and it's full dual.
|
| | | | | Here's what I remembered... -- Dave Shoe, 10/11/2001
...from the 1958 Ford Shop Manual.
Shoe.
 |
| | | | | | Note the use of "Police Interceptor". -- Dave Shoe, 10/11/2001
The term "Police Interceptor" is sort of odd in this case, as it represents the "car model", not the engine.
The "Police Interceptor" cars didn't apparently get a police-package engine. It got the plain old 352 Ford and T-bird 352 engine.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | RE: Note the use of "Police Interceptor". -- Barry B, 10/11/2001
I was intrigued when I first read about the 361 being a power option for the Police Interceptor only. It’s interesting that the ’58 Ford Shop Manual omits this. The ’58 Ford Service Specifications Booklet was copyrighted in ’57 and I think there was only one printing. Maybe it never really happened, anybody ever seen or heard of a ’58 Police Interceptor with an Edsel engine? |
| | | | | | | | Yup. -- Dave Shoe, 10/12/2001
I've heard of 361FEs in '58 Ford police cars.
I can understand where they would not be mentioned in the shop manual, in part because the shop manual was probably printed prior to the development of any police car packages for the year, and in part because this info might only be available to the police markets (to prevent consumer confusion and requests).
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | Cool! -- Barry B, 10/12/2001
So correct me if I’m wrong but it looks like the 361 for the Ford had the same specs. as the E400 for the Edsel. Then technically speaking it was not an “Edsel only” engine like the E475. Also appears to have been the top performing FE engine during its introduction year. For ’59 it lost the compression and was no longer a power option for the police cruisers making the 352 king of the FE heap. The point is for one year only the 361 was both a Ford AND Edsel engine, pretty cool trivia if not too anal. |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: Cool! -- Bob, 10/15/2001
My god father had one of those 1958 Edsel 361's with an automatic. We lived in northern California and he was originally form the LA area and took it down there a year or so later and had an Isky cam and "other things" done to it as he told my Dad afterwards. I drove it in 1961 when I was 16 and it would lay rubber in first and second and when the secondaries opened on the four barrrel it would jump and I am concern that with a bit of tuning it would had laid rubber then also.
I damn near cried when he traded it for a 1961 Mercury when the '62s came out. Never did find out wher it went. |
| | | | dual exhaust -- P, 10/11/2001
Ford was offering dual exhaust, even on a station wagon, in 1955 and 1956, which I know as an absolute fact, having it on video tape (family archives).
Not FE related, but somewhat relevant.
P |
| | | | | RE: dual exhaust -- Lou, 10/11/2001
From 55 up Ford offered dual on there top of the line cars. 55/56 Fairlanes, 57/58 Fairlanes 500 etc.
|
| | | | | RE: '59 Ford Special -- Mel Clark, 10/11/2001
Here it is a new day and it's time to stir the pot again:-).
WaAay back in 1959 I used to hang out at a friends shop called SpeedCraft, in Maywood, Ill.and there was always something going on there. They used to repair and maintain several of the various westen suburb's police car fleets as well as some Federal stuff. In 1959 Ford offered the 430 in the T-Bird and the regular cars only got the 352, I knew the 361 was an Edsel engine and never knew it was offered for Fords. Anyway, my story here relates to the 430 Lincoln engine and it seems that Ford offered the 430 as a dealer installed option to special entities because Speedcraft was contracted by the Feds for the immigration service to install the 430 with an overdrive trans for them. The engine and all parts including front springs and sway bar came from Ford and was installed there.
Has anyone else ever seen one of these? |
| | | | | | RE: 58 NASCAR T-Bird 350 H.P. -- Mel Clark, 10/12/2001
Heres the pic of the T-Bird as raced in 1958 by Curtis Turner. This is supposed to be a close replica.
 |
| | | | | | | RE: 58 NASCAR T-Bird 350 H.P. -- Mike McQuesten, 10/12/2001
Thanks to all of you for participating in this long thread. It has been extremely interesting and very educational for me.
One last thing I'd like to ask, maybe I shouldn't..., but what bell housing was used on those mighty MEL 430s? I've heard that the stick bell for the 383/430 MEL is very rare. Was it specific to this series?
Anyone ever seen the tri power system that was available for the MEL430? Me either. |
| | | | | | | | RE: 58 NASCAR T-Bird 350 H.P. -- Barry B, 10/12/2001
Here's the cast aluminum air cleaner for the tripower equipped 383 Super Marauder:
 |
| | | | | | | | | RE:383 Super -- Mike McQuesten, 10/12/2001
Very cool shot Barry. I know this isn't the forum for the MEL series but I'd sure like to know a little more about the 383/430 Marauder engines...
A friend said he had seen a tri power system for the MEL. He described it with the air cleaner that you have shared. |
| | | | | | | | RE: 58 NASCAR T-Bird 350 H.P. bellhousing?? -- BOB HOPKINS, 10/12/2001
Mike the same bellhiusing fits FE and MEL series and I remember the flywheel is same too.I remember a GI on base in Texas had a 58 Merc with MEL 383"?? and stick shift> |
| | | | | | | | | RE: 58 NASCAR T-Bird 350 H.P. bellhousing?? -- Mel Clark, 10/12/2001
I'm pretty sure the 383 was offered with the Borg-Warner T-85 overdrive trans., I didn't pay much attention to those at the time. I was involved in the installation of a 430 TurnPike Cruiser Crate engine into a friends '56 Victoria, Tri-Power and all, we used a '37 Cad./LaSalle 3 speed and the car was a real handful. Talk about nose heavy and no traction, that thing was unbelievable! Once it got going you couldn't keep up with it. In a standing race start he almost always lost but from a roll of about 40 and up, watch out.. |
| | | | | | | | Mel tri-power -- KULTULZ, 10/15/2001
> Anyone ever seen the tri power system that was available for the MEL430?
> Me either.
I have two photos of a tri-power installation on a floppy, but can't figure out how to transfer it to here.
|
| | | | | | | | | And As A Matter of Fact... -- KULTULZ, 10/15/2001
Would like to know of a source for an aluminum four barrel intake manifold for a 430. |
| | | | | | | | | | Another Attempt -- KULTULZ, 10/15/2001
Hope the photo comes through...
 |
| | | | | | | | | I heard it didn't make it past the prototype stage -- Dave Shoe, 10/15/2001
The intake/air cleaner system may have been available over the counter at some point, but I heard the 400 horse MEL 430 tripower engine never actually made it onto the production line.
It was heavily advertised as a late 1958-1/2 "police option", but I think I read somewhere that the months kept slipping by and it was never actually released for sale on the production line. It was apparently not advertised for 1959. I suspect it may have been available for sale "over the counter", possibly in the early 1959 model year, but that's just guessing based on the logic of what I read. I don't know it was ever available over the parts counter.
I suspect my info source was a Motor Life magazine blurb of the time period.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | | | | Motor Trend 9/58 -- Barry B, 10/15/2001
They did a road test of the 430 Super Marauder. Apparently the option wasn’t immediately available so they installed a Super Marauder engine in a four-door Monterey that was used in a previous test. Hey, what magazine tester would go to that much trouble! They said that the 400 HP Super Marauder engines were exactly the same as the 350 HP 430-inch Merc engines except for the carburetion. Originally it was supposed to have a different cam but it was dropped. According to them all the parts needed to convert to Super were available in kit form from the L/M dealers but the L.A. dealers were a little hazy on the list price. Super Marauder engines were supposed to be available in the Mercury Monterey, Montclair, Commuter, Voyager, Colony Park and Park Lane models. The factory equipped Supers had chrome-plated valve covers and a beefed-up Merc-O-Matic. All in all, the testers really liked it. It put out 195 rear-wheel horsepower at 4400 rpm compared to 173 for the regular 430. Quarter mile times were 16.4 sec. @ 88.7 mph. Note that this air cleaner does not say 400 HP.
 |
| | | | | | | | | | | Here's another pic -- Barry B, 10/15/2001
with the air cleaner off. BTW those 1/4 times were with a 3.10 rearend, curb weight around 4300 lb. The fuel pump had a special aluminum housing for a large capacity filter and triple outlets for the carbs. End carbs. were vacuum only.
 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Here's another pic -- Mel Clark, 10/15/2001
It's been a long time since I have even seen a picture of that set up but, I can assure you that the Super Marauder Tri-Power package was built and delivered in quite a few cars back then.
The ones I liked the best were the TurnPike Cruiser models with that package. There was not much that could keep up. The Ill. Highway patrol was reputed to have a few of these emgines in the cheap tudor Mercurys. I never saw one. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Here's another pic -- kevin, 10/16/2001
notice that the text says "manual control" on the linkage. Quite an oversite considering the vac sec are in plain sight. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | On subject: -- kevin, 10/16/2001
Around 1976, a local eccentric antique dealer brought in a limo to have rebuilt. To my suprise it was one of the Kennedy Lincolns! I remember being impressed at the remarkable workmanship on this vehicle. It had a luxurious bar and extra airconditioner and heater in rear along with many other amenities. The one thing that impressed me the most was the cylinders did not need boring, as they only had .002 max wear at the top of the cylinders. The crank was perfect and the brgs looked like they came out of the box. This was a 430 by the way and struck me funny why it was not a 462. Car was immaculate and I had seen it around for 10 years. I think he said there were 6 of these built. This one was white. I will say they are heavy, 65 more pounds than a 429. I found that out 10 years ago as I built a blown 430 w/Scott injection for a 40 Ford coupe a guy had. I was trying to talk him into letting me put a handmade girdle on it or cross-bolts, neither of which he was interested for it was only a "cruiser". Funny thing though, he wanted Crower rods, and when you look ay MEL rods, they are some of the beefiest out there. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Detuned MEL, and Chevrolet 409 -- P, 10/16/2001
You'll note that the first year of the MEL (1958) provided a 375-HP engine, but it was detuned subsequently for several years thereafter, never again to reach the initial power rating.
Reason given by a friend, who is a MEL collector, is that Ford Motor Co. got tired of call-backs when the engine torqued the Lincoln body out of shape and racked the doors, etc. This guy's take on this was, the engine was just too powerful for the intended use, and it was therefore detuned to reduce call backs.
This may be true, but my take on the MEL is, the "plank head" design, similar within a few degrees of tilt to the Chevrolet 409 head, was a good one, but the FE wedge head could breathe a whole lot better than either of them. I've heard the MEL was good if you used a supercharger, but the FE was certainly superior when the motor was allowed to breath normally aspirated.
Since the 409 and the MEL were in the same boat, as a result, the sales of the Chevrolet performance 409 dropped like a boat anchor as soon as the 427 FE was introduced. Seems like the FE was proving a point on the tracks and at the strip, and the 409 was having "breathing difficulty" even though they "claimed" to have similar power to the big FE brawler. As a result, and these are round numbers from memory not having my database here at the moment, the sales of the 409 dropped from 17,000 units, to 8,000 units, and then to 2,500, during the three years after (during) the introduction of the FE 427 (1963 to 1965, I believe).
It can be accurately said that the 427 FE killed the 409. The 409 is the reason Chevrolet had such a DISMAL racing program. Chevrolet claimed they didn't have a formal racing program, but everyone knew they didn't have a motor, heh heh. The old 348 Chevy big block just couldn't be tweaked any more to compete with the superior FE, and this is why they developed the "porcupine head", intended specifically for the FE, but were not allowed to run for a year or two until it became a production engine. Even then, the results were, yawn, I guess it's time for a beer. Ford was winning international races by that time with their aluminum headed FE, and the Chevy was, well, yawn, just another big block without a racing heritage. Just take a peek at the Ford 427 years, in NASCAR, versus what Chevrolet was able to do with their obsolete plank head. Something like 101 wins to 9, in three years.
Being of similar design to the 409, the MEL would have not fared very well in competition, either. Although built tough, it just didn't have the superior breathing heads of the FE. Many MEL's ended up in Chris Craft boats, where low RPM and lots of torque made them well suited to hanging out at the yacht club. For the race tracks, the FE was far superior to any plank head.
that's my three cents worth,
P |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Detuned MEL, and Chevrolet 409 -- Mike McQuesten, 10/16/2001
Excellent information, P, Kevin and Barry. I've enjoyed reading all of this mighty MEL stuff.
Your facts and speculation seem to be right on from what I remember too P. Ford apparently saw the potential of the FE induction system being what they wanted for the future vs. the head design of the 430. There were a lot of guys who ran 430s in dragsters with the blower you mentioned as necessary. In the late '50s to early '60s.
As I've mentioned one other time, I got to drive my uncle's '58, and it might have been a '59. I was just twelve in 1962. But I could stab and steer that thing with him laughing over in the passenger bucket. It was the 430. Nothing special, just a cruisomatic luxury laden 'bird. But it had a ton of torque. He towed his boat a lot with it. Again I preferred his '50 cause it was a stick. That meant a lot in '62. Automatics = slushbox.
I have a local friend here who has a business, Drew Marine. Drew Backlund specializes in engine building for marine app but does some circle race engine building too. He has been at this for years. In the late fifties or 1960, he had a '57 Ford with a 430 installed with stick shift. It was screamer.
A few years ago he was thinking about doing something a little nostalgic after he'd built a 430 for a guy's old Lincoln. So he installed a semi built 462(specially ground Schneider cam) into his early '70s F250 4X4. It's his all around work horse. Still is. Was a 360/4 speed. He kept the heavy duty truck 4 speed and had to do some adapting to make the FE bellhousing work. Something about the starter location? This truck is big and semi gloss black. It's downright ugly and it's mean. It sounds wild. It's a classic case of a real off road torquer. He pulls huge 40' boats over to Coeur d'Alene (ID) lake with this thing with no problems. Climbs the hills/mountains around Spokane hunting for deer, elk, bear, and pheasant. Everything he drives is spotless and clean and built. This thing is his beater which most of us would be pleased to have as a spare. It's great to see some guys keeping these MELS running.
Hey P, I loved your take & description on the "legendary" 409.....the stats went nothing but downhill on that engine for sure.
I've taken way too much space again, but I will say that one of the best moments I've had drag racing was about ten years ago. At that time my then '61 Starliner was running a 428CJ (I ran this same engine in three vehicles) with R servo /C6, 3.50 trac-lock rear. My second son and I ran consistent high 13s. Total driver to the drags. Open the dump outs and let the R-C6 shift itself. So I get into the bracket finals against a young man's beautiful '64 Impala SS 409. His license plate read and still does: TOPMY09. It's red, 4 speed and the original 409 has been mildly built. He also runs 4.11s. I pulled him all the way through the quarter from start to finish. It was close. He ran a 13.9 to my 13.7. I've got a picture of us at mid quarter thanks to his mother snapping that shot. She was kind enough to make me a print and it's stuck proudly on the my shop wall.
"She's real fine......." ya right. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Chevrolet 409 -- Mel Clark, 10/16/2001
Chevrolet had the porcupine heads on what was called the "Mystery" engine in 1963, which was nearly identical to the 396/427 engines that they later introduced. Those engines ran really great but, they blew rods out like Ford was blowing valves. Fortunately Ford had more cars racing than Chevrolet, therefore more victories. The early heads cannot be interchanged from side to side and the mystery engines only had 2 bolt mains. The engine builders were all fitting 4 bolt main caps, ala Pontiac to try and secure the block and crank. Pontiac used a dowel pin to align the caps which seemed to help. The Mystery engines I've seen did not use a dowel pin so the main caps must have moved around a bit. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | RE: Here's another pic -- Barry B, 10/16/2001
Hi Kevin, the only thing the testers did not like about the Super setup was the vacuum only end carbs. There was no positive control over them, when they opened they opened all the way and when they closed they closed all the way. Kind of like having a digital throttle pedal. In the text they suggested changing over to a full mechanical progressive throttle linkage and that’s what the caption was referring to. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | 409 rip -- Lou, 10/16/2001
The 409 lost sales to the Fords and Plymouths because it just would not stay together. It was well known that the 409s snapped crankchafts, and most racers kept a box of pushrods in the glove compartment.
I've driven both a 348 (1960) and a 409 (1963) when they were new and they really could go especially in mid range. But in the later 60s these cars had no value as used cars, not so much the 348 but the 409 was almost imposable to sell.
In 1958 Chevy went to rear colls springs and proudced a car that handeled like a bowl of jello. The late 50s Fords could handle and had a big block that was almost bullet proof. |
| 390 or 352? -- Mike, 10/08/2001
Hopefully one of you FE experts can help me...
I have a 67 Mustang GTA with an "S" code engine ( a 390). As I'm tearing the engine down for a rebuild, I notice that on the drivers side, front of the block that 352 is embossed.
Is this a 390 or a 352?
Thanks,
Mike |
| | RE: 390 or 352? -- Paul M, 10/08/2001
Check your bore and stroke. It's the only real way to tell one FE from another. 352 is stamped on most of the FE's into the `70-ish time frame, and was then replace mostly by the mirror image (reversed) 105. Some FE's have no # in that location, making them even more "mysterious". |
| | | RE: 390 or 352? -- Darren, 10/09/2001
Paul is right. My 390 has the 352 on the back of the Block. The 352 mark is a good thing it means the Block is made of stronger metal. If you have it rebuilt remeber that. It will take longer to break in, but it will also take longer to wear out.
Any easy why to check your stroke is with a pin. Take out one of the spark plungs and bring it to TDC then mark the pin. Then rotate the engine it BDC. You can check BDC by puting the Pin in the spark plung hole, and rotate the crank. If the once the pin stops moving your at BDC. If the pin goes up your past BDC and you need to rotate the engine the other direction. Then mark the pen again, and measure the TDC mark with the BDC mark. 3.50" from mark to mark you have a 352. 3.78" you have a 390. If your like me you get 3.98 and find out you have a 428. But my 428 was a wrongly made 428 out of a 390 which gave me really thin walls and I had to get a new block and rebuild. |
| | | | 428 cj -- Mike H., 10/09/2001
Did the 428 cj have the 352 mark on the block also? |
| | | | | RE: 428 cj -- Paul M, 10/10/2001
I've never seen a true 428 CJ close enough to tell, unfortunately. Might post a new question, in the forumn instead of this thread, specifically asking that, if no one else responds to you.
I don't, however, see why it wouldn't be marked that way. |
| | | | | RE: 428 cj -- Darren, 10/10/2001
I don't beleave so since they came out in 428 CJ came out in 1968 and if I remeber right Ford stoped teh 352 stamping in 66. 428's came out in 66 tho. Just measure the stroke and you'll find out it's not that hard. Just take out a spark plug and put a pin in it or a wood dowl if you have one. And if you really want to get technical take the heads of and use a ruler to measure the bore and stroke. |
| 428 crank wanna-be Question -- John, 10/08/2001
I hear a lot about offset grinding cranks for stroker engines. Has anyone ever heard of a 390 crank being rewelded and offset ground to become a 428 crank? The rebalancing sounds tricky. With the price going up and availability going down, 428 cranks being made from good 390 cranks sounds intrigueing. Anybody got a story or an opinion? |
| | RE: 428 crank wanna-be Question -- Royce Peterson, 10/08/2001
With 410 / 428 cranks selling for 300 to 500 bucks, there is no reason to do anything that expensive and potentially risky. It would cost $1500 or more to weld and offset grind a 390 crank and then not be as good as a 428 crank.
Royce Peterson |
| | | RE: 428 crank wanna-be Question -- John, 10/08/2001
Can't argue with that answer....chuckle. Thanks. |
| | | | why not just offset grind? -- FE427TP, 10/08/2001
Set the 390 crank up to run Big Block Chevy rods on the 390 crank, by only grinding the inside of the throw you'll lower bearing speed and BBC rods are abundant in the aftermarket for low prices. |
| | | | | RE: why not just offset grind? -- John, 10/08/2001
hmmmm...sounds OK, but as 0.040" is the normal max undercut, and a lot of people don't recommend more than 0.030" fo high performance usage, can't this weaken things a bit much? |
| | | | | RE: why not just offset grind? -- Royce Peterson, 10/08/2001
But then you have a problem with the pin diameter on the other end and need custom pistons or custom pin bushings. And the balance is going to be a bunch of Mallory metal inserted into the crank. All stuff that is cheap and easy to do if you are a machinist but expensive to pay a machinist to perform.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | RE: why not just offset grind? -- Mel Clark, 10/08/2001
A few weeks ago I spoke with the owner of Scat Crankshafts and he advised me that he would be making a run of High Nodular cranks for the FE engines. I think he has them up to 4.250 stroke and BBC rod size would be no problem. The piston pin hole can be bushed and bored to the correct size. |
| | | | | | | RE: why not just offset grind? -- Royce Peterson, 10/08/2001
How much will they cost?
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | | | RE:Stroker why not ! just offset grind? -- Ray, 10/08/2001
It's been done, no big-gee as long as you have a crank grinder that will work you. 390's can go 4" and my 428 were offset ground to 4.250" with a 2.200 crank pin using a chevy eagle 6.800 long for 1.6 rod ratio. It should nitrated to recover some of strenght , about 30 percent depending how long it's in tank. Ray
PS The oil holes are off a little, we chamfer over to center, but it wasn't cheap John $625 |
| no respect -- mikeb, 10/08/2001
FE Musclecars get no respect relative to their period competitors in the DEC 2001 Old Cars Price Guide.I mean, a '69 Cyclone CJ @ 14.2K mint, is worth $10,800 less than a '69 Dart GT 340? And $18,800 less than a '69 Coronet R/T?
CJ cars were competitive at the very least, yet seem to be orphans in the market unless they are in a Mustang or Shelby body.
Only thing I have against BB Fords of the era is routine maintenance was a little more difficult, but that can't account for this! |
| | That applies to any Ford except Mustang [nm] -- Dan Davis, 10/08/2001
nm |
| | RE: no respect -- John, 10/08/2001
People have a right to their opinion. Unfortunately, they mostly copy other people's opinions. For example,...the Chev small block is almost universal in its acceptance as a peformance motor. Does this make a Ford 289 junk? Ask a 289 AC Cobra owner! I think not! But it is without doubt that the demand for Chev parts has reduced the price of these parts to the point where anyone can purchase them. Ford parts are more expensive, so only the die-hards are willing to go the distance. This puts the Chevs in the spotlight more often than Fords, so people forget about the Fords and what they can do. Sound familiar to the comments most people have on Japanese cars?...."Parts are so expensive" Well..they're not anymore...but the thought will continue on into the forseable future. Personally I like the fact that most of the people I know like the Chev 350...does my heart good to know that all those Camaro's won't even try to pass me on the highway...no matter how slow I go. I guess that big-block sound comin' outa those sidepipes scares them off...but they'll still insist their Chevy's are unbeatable. So...the point is...never mind what other people think. In this hobby..it's your car...it's your choice...what ever makes you happy...that's the way to go. |
| | | RE: no respect -- Mike McQuesten, 10/09/2001
Right on John! The whole thing with magazines listing estimated values is ridiculous. I admit to taking a look at them while waiting for my wife to do some grocery shopping but I don't take them too seriously. I really relate to your point about not minding what other people think and I would add say or publish. It's a hobby and you doe whatever makes you happy. As an example, I don't care what the value of a '69 Dodge Dart 340 anything is...I wouldn't want one. I would be much happier owning a '69 Mercury Cyclone CJ 428.
Mike, I'd like to know what you mean by routine maintenance being a little more difficult? You can't mean the 428 Cobra Jet can you? They were pretty mild and easy to care for. I've never heard that they were a problem maintenance wise.
|
| | | | RE: no respect -- mikeb, 10/09/2001
As far as maintenance goes, I 'm talking about changing plugs, etc. A little more challenging in a FE Ford, as compared to any of the GM brands of the era, though some mopars might be a little aggravating.
Maybe those of us with FE'S ought to either hang on to them or insist on a totally outrageous price like the others do! |
| | | | | RE: changine plugs.. -- Mike McQuesten, 10/10/2001
Yes, I agree with you Mike about holding onto them or demanding outrageous prices.
About changing spark plugs: we've heard about a number of methods for doing this little task. But it just takes the right tools and determination.
True story, we drove a '69 Fairlane Cobra SCJ formal-roof 225 miles to the closest drag strip nearly every Saturday afternoon in the summer of '69. The Cobra Coupe was stone stock with 3.91 drag pack option, C-6 and Ram Air. A fellow Ford dealer employee and I would take a side and whip those BF32s out and replace 'em with our BF22s. Run in C Pure Stock against normally twenty competitors most of which were mopar 440s (Not the Six Packs, they were B-stock). We trophied everytime but one and that was my fault for red lighting, only happened once.
After picking up our trophy, normally ran 13.7/100..101 mph on the F70 x 14" Polyglas hides, Danny and I would pull the 22s for the 32s for the trip home and for running the streets for that week. Beatin' Mopars on the street too. |
| | RE:and one more thing... -- Mike McQuesten, 10/09/2001
I can tell you from personal experience that a 428CJ anything, 'stang, Cougar, Fairlane, Cyclone, etc. will blow a Dodge 440 RT, Plymouth GTX 440 totally away. That's stone stock showroom condition. The 428CJ was even a NHRA class below the 440 "Six Packs" in '69 and I can tell you again from personal experience that a stock 428CJ can hang right beside on so-equipped 'runner or S-Bee.
So let the magazine price guides be damned! I'd much rather own the faster Ford FE anytime. |
| | | RE:and one more thing... -- peter, 10/11/2001
Mike'
Once again lifes experiences come to the for.
Most of these magazine writers have never really experienced the cars they pretend to write about.
I'm always impressed with first hand accounts on these FE's i have only recently bought my '69 428cj mustang and have not driven it yet as it is being restored. Being from Australia we Never had B.B in our production cars and we missed out on a whole lot of fun.
thanks so much for the story .... |
| | RE: no respect -- Tim B, 10/09/2001
I just looked at NADA online. They seem a little more realistic. All 1969: Dodge Superbee 440 6pk=$25.5K,
Dodge Dart GT 340-$11.7K, Ford Fairlane Cobra $15K. Take any price guide with a grain of salt, they all make mistakes. Compare with other guides for a more accurate range. |
| | | RE: no respect -- Travis Miller, 10/10/2001
One thing to keep in mind about price guides, the prices are taken from actual sale of cars at auction. If some guy with big bucks sees a certain car he wants and gets in a bidding battle with someone else and the car goes for way more than it should, then the price guides will reflect that price. All of a sudden every car that is similar in condition takes a big jump in value. After a period of time when others like it sell lower, the price drops and it is said that the bottom has fallen out of that the value of that type of car.
|
| | RE: no respect -- marty vogler, 10/11/2001
Travis is correct. I just went to NADA.com and selected my '69 428CJ R-code (63B) Sportsroof. It came back with a high retail of $18,775. I then changed to a Mach1(63C) and high retail was $37,665! This was for the Winston Salem, N.C. area. |
| BOSS 351 in a 70 Mach one FACTORY? -- Mickey Holmes, 10/07/2001
I'm restoring a 70 mach that has # matching car. I was told the engine is a Boss 351, How can I very that without tearing down to confirm, Build sheet say 351 4v 4 spd, I know 351 Boss was for 71 72, Here's the Kicker my car was sent to Trim and chassis dept the same time the ARI's and the twister was made and was bought by a mid level engineer that worked there CONFIRMED, Could it be a test motor or special job for him? That person was Richard A Stone and Jack Roush. The car is very loaded no air and great shape, Was pulled off line and tested 3 weeks and sold! Is there any other 70 Mach's with 351 Boss's? Thanks for any help! |
| | RE: BOSS 351 in a 70 Mach one FACTORY? -- Mel Clark, 10/07/2001
This is definately not a production package. I seems that it was a test vehicle that slipped past the crusher after they finished testing it. Or it might have planned that way.
Ford's top management have a way of getting some pretty strange cars and options, an example is the 1970 Boss 302 that was built with factory air for a Brass Hat at Ford, it's the only one produced, it's a featured car on ESPN, "My Classic Car" I think. Another is a Mark VII that was built with a 460 engine by SVO for a top engineer. I saw that car in Fort Lauderdale, Fl.. I hear he likes to do a little street racing every now and then. |
|