Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Genesis blocks ! now taking orders! -- Eric H. for Ron Miller, 11/28/2001
Yes, it’s true, Genesis has started casting both aluminum and iron 427 Ford Side Oiler Blocks. Iron blocks are $2995 & aluminum are $3995 each. $1,000 deposit required with check, money order or credit card. Deposit is fully refundable up until shipment time. Deposits that are received now will have a mid February 2002 delivery date. I will be checking out the foundry & machine shop this Thursday & Friday and will be hanging around the Genesis booth at the PRI (Performance Racing Industry) trade show in Indianapolis Nov 29, 30 & Dec 1st. If you are coming to this great show, stop by and check out the sample castings at booth # 5106.
Here is a list of most of the features of the genesis 427 block :
-Super thick squared off Siamese
cylinder walls.
-Outside of the block looks 98% like the
original 1965 427 Side Oiler block
including the “C5AE-H”, casting date
code, etc.. The only barely obvious
change is that the cross bolt
size is 7/16” instead of 3/8”.
-Side Oiler oiling system.
-High nickel cast iron material.
-Beefed up main webbing.
-Beefed up main housing area.
-Thicker oil pan rails.
-Water jackets are shallower to increase
bottom end strength.
-Lifter galleys drilled so any type of cam
can be used.
-Flanged ductile iron custom sleeves.
All cylinder blocks will be professional machined and pressure checked. First 100 blocks will be x-rayed to check for core shift. All cylinders will be bored slightly under 4.250” to allow for final honing to stock 427 bore size (4.250”).
I have heard rumors that Genesis will never make anything and they are just smoke and mirrors! Now its time to stop the rumors!
The owner of Genesis has spent well over $150,000 on this project! It is not easy making a block. I’ve heard people whine… “How come we have to pay so much for a 427 block?”…. First of all we can’t sell 100’s of blocks per week or per month. It is not a small block Chevy.
It takes Genesis 8 hours to fully CNC machine each block compared to less than 10 minutes (I think) on the Ford assembly line. Compare prices with Shelby’s aluminum block at over $5,000, or a Donovan, World products, Arias, or a Chrysler block.
Eric H. called a customer yesterday that was waiting for over a year and he said “I wish you would have called one month ago! Last month I paid $4,000 for a barely used 427 Side Oiler block!!”.
Another good thing about this Genesis block is that it will help lower the price on some of the super high priced used and N.O.S. 427 original blocks. OK, so maybe you cant afford $3-4k for a new block, so how is this going to help you out? I know some racers that have stockpiled 6,7 or 8 new and/or used 427 original blocks. When they switch over to the super strong Genesis block, they will sell all of their original blocks, which will put more used blocks on the market which also lowers the price you have to pay for one at your local swap meet or even on eBay. Another advantage to us die-hard FE guys is with Genesis and Shelby making 427 blocks and Edelbrock and Shelby making FE heads, it shows the aftermarket that the FE engine is alive & well and other parts like cranks, billet electric water pumps, rods, etc., are needed if customers are buying blocks and heads.
Ford Power Parts
14504 S. Carmenita Ave. Unit-D
Norwalk, Ca 90650
(562)921-5300, Fax (562)404-0900
|
|  | RE: Genesis blocks ! now taking orders! -- Tom, 11/29/2001
cool i just spooged in my panys |
 | engine running REAL fat ,,WHY?? -- robbie, 11/28/2001
MY 67 gt 500 is running real fat and I can't narrow it down ,,it has 66 jets in both carbs the power valves are not blown and are 6.0hg and the idle vac is 8-9.5 it idles fine and doesn't seem to load up badley but it soots up the back of the car and the plugs ,,I've run this thing with 45 autolite plugs too and all that gets me is detonation,,Any insite??i can't advance the timing more than about 30-32 total (14 initial)as then it detonates,,i'm running 92 octane fuel with booster+ and the compression is 11.7:1 |
| | RE: engine running REAL fat ,,WHY?? -- Davy Gurley, 11/28/2001
Carb problems. Has it been setting for a while? Check float levels and bowl gaskets. Put in new power valves anyway. Surely, your air filter isn't plugged up, is it? They have to be really bad to make one run that rich. |
| |  | RE: engine running REAL fat ,,WHY?? -- robbie, 11/29/2001
the carbs are fresh as I sent them to a reputable multi carb guy,, they are nice and tight and the float levels are correct as is the filter,,Can there be internal carb problems that can cause a rich condition,other than power valves,,I will try replacing them again
Robbie |
| | | | RE: engine running REAL fat ,,WHY?? -- Gerry Proctor, 11/29/2001
Where is it running rich, Robbie? With 9"hg idle vacuum idle I suspect your using a fairly lumpy cam with an idle rpm is near 1k rpm. It commonly happens that in order to achieve a stable idle, you have to crack the throttle idle screw open far enough which exposes the idle transfer slots that causes a rich idle and unresponsive idle mixture adjustment. The solution here is delicate tuning such as more initial and less centrifugal and vacuum advance. This increases the idle rpm and vacuum which allows you to reduce the throttle opening. You may even have to drill bleed holes in the primary throttle blades to allow enough airflow and keep the transfer slot covered.
If you're fat on the main circuit, then you may be dealing with a restriction in the main air bleeds or a leak in the power valve circuit. A 66 jet in the primary is on the small side for most applications and, though you didn't make this clear, it appears you're running dual quads. Are you aware that Ford's dual quad set up was a lot more than a couple of Holley 1850 600 cfm carbs? You didn't write what carbs your using, but most folks commonly use this setup. The idle and main air bleeds are larger in the Ford dual setup to facilitate tuning these carbs. The tiny restrictions in the single quad-spec carbs are too small to run very well on a dual setup. Enlarging the bleeds may be beyond your tuning abilities as this proceedure requires tuning skills far beyond those of folks who rebuild carbs.
I can understand why you're suffering detonation with an 11.7:1 compression ratio. This level of compression requires more than booster additives can offer. These products generally don't raise the pump octane number more than a point which is nowhere near the detonation resistance you need with that much squeeze. You may have to visit your local drag strip and get some 100+ to eliminate the detonation variable from your tuning problems. |
| | | | | RE: engine running REAL fat ,,WHY?? -- robbie, 11/30/2001
Gerry they are the correct BJ/BK carbs for the dual quads and the idle adjust ment screws do function to the point you can kill the engine,,I'm now leaning towards increasing the output of the ignition system to get a complete fuel burn,,Do you agree,,it is possible the P valve is leaking or the coil is getting weak as the car is getting hard to start after it has been setting awhile(hours/days) it turns over fine it just misses and carries on till it warms up the cylinders |
| | | | | | RE: engine running REAL fat ,,WHY?? -- Gerry Proctor, 11/30/2001
Funny, I had the same problem. In my case, I put on Edelbrock heads, new Crane cam, etc. Prior to the improvements, the engine ran fine with the old single-point distributor and nothing else. Post improvements, it would foul plugs, load up, misfire...the fumes were so bad out of the pipe that I couldn't stand to be anywhere near the thing when it was running. The excess HCs permeated my cloths so bad that my wife wouldn't let me in the house! I put a Unilite conversion in the distributor and an MSD 6AL box on the fender and we all lived happily ever after. All the problems went away. I'm glad to hear you've got the correct dual quad carbs. So many folks do the 1850s and never get the thing to run right. |
| | | | | | | RE: engine running REAL fat ,,WHY?? -- robbie, 11/30/2001
Well I put on the MSD system and the thing fired right up still real fat and smelly like before and my pinging is still there as is the black smoke under hard accelleration,,I also installed a step colder new plugs at the same time,all doing no good SO I guess it's time to yank off the carbs and send back to the carb guy,geesh I think I've driven 250 miles on these carbs since restored I'm not getting much bang for my BUCK,,, LOL,Also I hate the way this thing runs my Boss 302 will whip it's ass,I'm gonna put in some 114 octane fuel and see if that fixes my ping,,I checked my dist curve and it seems smooth with only 31 total 14 initial,,Are these FE gonna always be a pain |
| | | | | | | | RE: engine running REAL fat ,,WHY?? -- Rick, 11/30/2001
Hi Robbie, mine ran as you discribed. Since I am carburetor illiterate, I had a local street rod carburetor guru rebuild the carbs, and while there was still soot on the rear, it did not foul the plugs and it ran like a scalded dog. However, my compression was more like stock, 10.5:1 and it ran fine on 92 oct. You might also consider having the distributor checked out and tuned even though you checked the curve.
|
|  | Try some 100 Octane Turbo blue n/m...... -- Ed Jenkins, 11/30/2001
.n/m |
| | RE: engine running REAL fat ,,WHY?? -- Mel Clark, 11/30/2001
I think Gerry is right on the hunt for a cure to your problem. Drilling a hole of about .060 in each primary butterfly will help to make the carbs more tunable. I suggest that you double check your power valves as well as the power valve seals or gaskets. If you want I'll email a schematic and parts list to you so you will know exactly what you should have for each component in your carbs. Crap, just check your mail in a few. |
| | | RE: engine running REAL fat ,,WHY?? -- RJP, 12/01/2001
Before you drill any throttle plates check the metering block surfaces of the carbs main body for warpage. If any of the surfaces are warpped more than .007-.008" that can cause internal leakage that mimmicks a bad power valve. Also check the needle/seat O ring for shrinkage or damage, it can leak just enough to cause a rich mixture but not flood the engine. |
| | | RE: engine running REAL fat ,,WHY?? -- robbie, 12/01/2001
MEL thanks for the vintage breakdown,,I think the compression is too high to run on pump gas11.7:1,,We run this kind of compression in the small blocks(on pump gas and high powered ignitions) but this big block is too picky for me ,,It really likes timing but it rattles to beat the band when advanced to 36-38 so I have to leave it at 30-31 totals,I am putting in some 114 octane today to see if that cures the ping if so then out comes the motor and suck top pistons go in unless you have an alt idea,,I installed the MSD thinking it would help clean the burn and help stop the detonation but it didn't ,,I'm not so concerned with the fat condition until I can get the ping out,As leaning out the motor will just increase the ping,Have you ever heard of a situation where the fuel could be so fat it causes a Ping??like to fires colliding in the cylinder,,i don't want to drill a hole in the plates just yet as the fat condition is through the intire RPM range(leaky PV?)As well as the idle adjust ment screws do there job well,, Thanks for the help but as of yet I'm unimpressed with these FE's,,I had a 390 built a few years ago for a PU with really good pieces and all the money spent on component compatibility/machine work and I hated it so much I sold the truck,,but I've had this shelby so long I hate to get rid of it because it is a pig(fuel smells and slow)LOL,,but seriously thanks for the input,,
Robbie |
| 428 into a 406 -- robbie, 11/28/2001
What do you guys think of me taking the 248 crank out and putting in a 427 crank to arrive at the 406,,i'm wanting more T-response and revs |
| | RE: 428 into a 406 -- swede, 11/28/2001
it will get you there no problem |
| | RE: 428 into a 406 -- Jim, 11/29/2001
Thats what Im doing.
I have a unassembled medium riser dual quad 428CJ and a Hank the Crank 427 crank.
Hoping to get more revs.
Should be interesting.
|
| | | RE: 428 into a 406 -- kevin, 11/29/2001
More revs? Many 428 motors have seen the far side of 8,000 RPM Do you have a cast or steel 427 crank? The steel one is 15-17 pounds heavier than a cast one, that will cost you revs, (the type that accelerate the vehicle) for sure. Do you have custom race pistons for the 406? If not you will spend $800 for a quality set. Dont forget about gear ratio, the more arm you put in, the less you need for the same acceleration benefits. What is motor going in? |
| | | | Can you use 428 pistons to acheive the 406? -- Joshua Carroll, 11/29/2001
I was doing some reading last night and do these guys really need custom 406 pistons? The 406 had an unusally large amount of deck clearance at TDC. Therefore, the pin position between a 406 piston and the 428 piston is a small difference like around .0065. Compare this to a 390 versus 410 which is around .2! Is the difference between a 406 and 428 piston negligible? I do not know but would like to know as I have a 406 and having a hell of a time finding 406 pistons at a reasonable price! I would rather not go the custom $800 route. Thanks. Just a thought. Maybe someone has tryed this before with or without success. I am sure all of us would like to know the results. |
| | | | RE: 428 into a 406 -- Jim, 11/29/2001
From what I understand (very limited knowledge)...
When you use a 427 crank with 428 rods and pistons, you get 406 CID.
Is this true?
Whatever size it is, thats what Im doing. |
| | | | | RE: sure, you can burn kerosene -- Mike McQuesten, 11/29/2001
We're sittin' estimating that your compression is going to be around 6.5:1. That's if you're planning on running normally available heads. Now if you want to bump that mills compression ratio all the way up to 8.0:1, you'll have to run a set of '60/'61 HP 58cc heads.
Really what you're doing by using a 428 piston is running with that piston .100 down in the cylinder.
You could run a 352/360 rod and that'll move the 428 piston .040 up the cylinder.
My friend John built a pick up engine this way:
428 block/428 pistons/390 crank/360 pick up rods. With steel shim head gaskets he calculates he's 9.0:1 at best. It runs strong but it doesn't have good quench. It gets poor gas mileage. Without the quench your efficiency falls way off. John is telling me that your quench has got to be within .040 to get the necessary efficiency.
You could run a huffer on that low compression 406!
|
| Fan clearance problems -- Dave Alton, 11/28/2001
I am just about finished with my 67 Mustang 390 GTA. I installed the radiator and shroud only to find there isn't enough room between the radiator and water pump to re install the fan clutch and fan. I put a Edelbrock water pump on the engine as well. Anyone have any suggestions. Does someone make a thinner fan clutch or will I have to go to a solid mount fan or electric? Current Fan Clutch is a Hayden 2710 also tried a 151011(Imperial). |
| | RE: Fan clearance problems -- Royce Peterson, 11/28/2001
Dave,
You must install the fan on the water pump, then position the shroud over the fan, then install the radiator last. Once the radiator is in place you can adjust the shroud for clearance all around the cicumference. The shroud holes are slotted, also the radiator can be shifted considerably in its brackets if necessary.
If you are using an aftermarket 4 core radiator the clearance at the front is tight, but it does fit. I am using the Hayden fan clutch on two of my Cougars with FE's and it works fine. Your Mustang engine compartment is identical to my Cougar. Also, the Edelbrock water pump is the same dimensionally as a stock pump.
It is possible someone mixed up the fan clutch with one for a different application, especially if they were out in the store where customers can dump everything out and play with it before buying.
Royce Peterson |
| | | RE: Fan clearance problems -- Dave Alton, 11/28/2001
Thanks for the reply. Do you know what part number fan clutch from Hayden you are using. The one I have matches the numbers on the box and the catalog. The end of the clutch is right up (touching) against the core. |
| | | | RE: Fan clearance problems -- Royce Peterson, 11/28/2001
Dave,
I don't see any numbers on it when installed. I have about 1/2 inch clearance on my car with the 4 core radiator. The other car has about 3/4 inch clearance with the original 3 core radiator. Both were the recommended clutch with the original fan.
Royce |
| | | | | RE: Fan clearance problems -- Matt, 11/29/2001
I had the same problem with my '69 Mach 428CJ. I looked all over and couldn't find a aftermarket clutch that fit. Finally a buddy of mine from Ford helped out. Try using a motorcraft one for a '71 Lincoln with a 460. I used it on mine, it works great and looks alot more original than the aftermarket. I have a 3 core radiator and I have about 1" clearance. Hope this helps.
Matt |
| | | | | | RE: Fan clearance problems -- Dave Alton, 11/30/2001
Thanks for the help. Haydens Motorcraft interchange for the Lincoln was part#2711. It is .35 inches shorter then the listed 2710 for 67 Big Block. It worked great. Thanks again. |
| FE vs 385 -- mike smith, 11/27/2001
is the 427 better or the 429? |
| | RE: apple vs. orange -- Dave Shoe, 11/27/2001
Is an apple better than an orange?
These are two different engines. Each has unique strong points.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: Pressures of competition did them in -- Mel Clark, 11/28/2001
Lots of cubes are available from the 385 series for a lot less money per cube than from a FE.
My preference is the FE series, mainly because I think Ford did a lot more research during it's development due to the level of competition they were involved in at the time. The pressures of insurance rates for Hi-Performance vehicles, possible government regulation on horsepower to weight ratios and fuel economy is what killed the racing research at the factories and that was just as the 385 series was beginning to be put into competition. Ford made a half hearted effort to overshadow the 427s in their various levels of tune with the 429SCJ and Boss and when NASCAR let out the news that the engines would be reduced to about 360 cid all the research money, whatever was left, went into small block engineering. Mainly the 351C engine and it seems a bit humorous that the old standby small block designs are about the only engines to have survived through all of the many changes. Ford, Chevrolet and Chrysler's bread and butter V8s are all originally mid '50s engineering with a lot of upgrades of course. |
| | | RE: apple vs. orange -- mike smith, 11/28/2001
what are the unique strong points? |
| | | | Reality versus dreams -- Royce Peterson, 11/28/2001
Mike,
The FE is lighter and dimensionally smaller especially in height and length. The FE also has most of what is traditionally considered the head port contained in the intake manifold, allowing radical changes without removing the heads. The FE has lighter reciprocating parts allowing for better acceleration, all other things being equal.
The 385 series engines have a taller deck and wider bore spacing allowing for a longer stroke and bigger bore. It is still in production, meaning parts are cheaper and easier to find. You would have a hard time building a decent 427 for under $10,000.00 or so. An excellent 500+ cubic inch 385 series crate motor is available for much less right at your Ford dealer.
Would I want to get rid of my 427 and 428 engines, install 385 series motors and pocket the extra money? Nope. The FE has a lot more class, history and mystique which cannot be measured. Anyone can go out and buy a 460, or a small block Chevy or Mopar for that matter and have a reliable engine. Pull up next to it at the car show or drag race and see which one has more people telling you how cool it is.
Royce Peterson |
| | | | | Not in the same class..........reality vs dreams ! -- P, 11/28/2001
The FE series absorbed untold millions of dollars worth of Henry Ford’s research and development. It was raced until it broke. Every time something broke, it was fixed, such as the internal web reinforcing and the cross bolted mains. When the engine wouldn’t win, design changes were made to keep it competitive. However, it did win, and it won a LOT. In the three years of 1963, 1964, and 1965, the FE racked up 101 NASCAR wins compared to nine (9) Chevrolet wins and something like 35 Chrysler wins. That, my friend, is one COMPETITIVE motor.
Did the 395 series win any NASCAR races, well, yes in the Boss 429 trim, but the present day 385 is a mere shadow of the Boss design. And did the 385 ever win LeMans, or an American Sports Racing Championship? Well, the FE won Lemans twice, and had 4 cars cross the finish line in those two races before a competitor finished (and the competitor was 35 miles behind at the time).
So what you have in a FE motor is gazillions of dollars worth of thinwall casting technology, metallurgy, tooling, design, and real world racing experience, that proved itself against the Chrysler wedge heads and hemi, and whatever (tee hee) Chevrolet could muster in those days. The FE dominated for the years noted above, then fell into a second place for 1966 and 1967, still winning a respectable number of races against the hemi, and then in 1968 was responsible for putting a lot of wins in the “W” column for Ford when the Boss 429 was getting it’s R & D down well enough to win on it’s own. The Boss 429 was one heck of an engine, but it was the cylinder head design that made the engine noteworthy.
There were many high powered engines of the day, some of which existed primarily in the marketing brochure, but many with high power ratings. Few, however, could step up to the plate and run at WOT in a NASCAR type competition. That's where the big dogs ruled, and they did so in front of millions of people. Many of those so called "high power" engines would have been toast if they had to run with the big dog on the NASCAR circuit. Chrysler knew it, and for a while Chrysler was the only real competitior for Ford, and they did win some races primarily in 1966 and 1967. NASCAR is where the FE earned its respect. It kicked ass. Few engies were ever run so hard as to determin that they actually needed a cross bolted main, LeMans rods, and steel crankshafts in order to survive the race. Certainly, the Pontiac engine of the day never went through this type of development, although they certainly did their share of bragging via ad agencies.
The 427 block is still considered to be the “ROYALTY” of American big block engine design, cast of very thin but special mix cast iron to very high tolerances, cooled slowly in large ovens, and then machined so many times it would make your head spin. Compared to a 385, we’re looking at the same difference as a United States member of the Delta Team, next to a tough high school football player, ahem! (no contest). As far as POWER, the 385 can be had in good power trim these days, but, and this is a LARGE “but”, how long would it survive in a full race endurance environment? The LeMans engine was run at racing RPM for 48 hours at Ford. For knew EXACTLY what it would do with it’s detuned (499-HP trim and aluminum head design) power, down from the “short track” 540-HP NASCAR version. RPM was limited to 6,000 for longevity, and they finished in first place two years in a row, until Enzo Ferrari had to resort to politics to outlaw engines over 5-liters. So Enzo was duly thrashed by Henry, and thought he outfoxed him by outlawing the “unbeatable” 427, but alas, the uncompetitive small block GT-40’s that couldn’t win earlier ended up winning again the following TWO years in the hands of independents (with strong Ford support).
So what you have with the 427, is a well documented racing legacy on both sides of the Atlantic, where the proof was pounded out on the race tracks of the world. What you have with the 385 is more of a marketing brochure. Like Royce noted, “not in the same class”, and I totally agree.
My three cents,
P
|
| | | | | | RE: Not in the same class..........reality vs dreams ! -- swede, 11/28/2001
nuff said |
| | RE: FE vs 385 -- RJP, 11/29/2001
Another area the 427 stood out was in endurance boat racing in the 60s. Races like the Salton Sea 500 and the Parker 9hr Enduro the 427 was practally unbeatable. There is no tougher racing and harder on an engine than boat racing. However don't sell the 385 short, it is a very tough engine and will stand up to just about any type of abuse you can put it thru. Its too bad that the factory didn't put the R&D into it like they did the FE. Its only taken 15-20 years but the 385 has reached a level of development that far surpasses the FE in torque and horsepower without giving up reliablity. |
| | | RE: FE vs 385 -- P, 11/29/2001
RJP, how do you measure "reliability" of the 385, when it has not shown anyone it can run 500 miles or 24-hours at WOT and win against the likes of the Chrysler hemi, Ferrari, Porsche?
As far as having more power and torque, I'd hope a 385 (514 cube) engine would have a bit more umphh, having a 87 cubic inch advantage. My question is, "how long would it stay together on the NASCAR track, or LeMans, running against a well prepared FE". We know what the FE can do, and did, but as far as I'm concerned, the 385 is "untested" in combat.
The one thing I like about the 427, is the fact that there is NO room for theory or conjecture, the record is there for all to see. What we have with the 427 v 385 is basically "the record" versus "the potential", but the potential has never really earned it's stripes in battle (Boss 429 being the exception). I get enamored with my own opinion, on occasion, so feel free to set me straight if I've managed to get too far out on my leash, okay?
Your comments about boat racing are extremely interesting to me. I'm not familiar with the events you mentioned. I do know about the Miami to NY race in which Holman Moody won with a FE (their web page has a nice raceboat pic too). Do you have any links or tips on where I (we) can find out more about FE boat racing history?
regards, P |
| | | | RE: FE vs 385 -- RJP, 11/29/2001
P, IMO, reliability can be measured many different ways, not just 500 miles at WOT. It can be the repeated full throttle blasts to 7500 rpm for months or years in someone's race car or boat without any breakage but just routine maintence. It can be the service the engine provides in the enviroment you want/need, such as getting 250K miles of service with no problems whatsoever in a Lincoln Towncar. Just because an engine record hasn't been documented in print is not reason enough to question its durability. As you know from past postings I run both FEs and 385s and do all my own engine work. Each engine has its place, its strong points and weak points. Would I dump all my FEs because I like the 385 better? No, some cars/boats are just "better" with the engine the owner chooses. Just for the record I own more FEs than I do 385s [5 FE powered cars/trucks/boats, 4 385 powered cars/boats] Not including all the extra "iron" collected and stored for some future [?] project. As to the boat racing info. I know of no site that has it all in one place but you might want to check out Hotboat.net/forum There was some good threads regarding some of the races I cited. I wish someone would put together a book on the racing and history of the "California" style hotboat as I have been involved with this type of boat for more than 30 years. One more thing in closing, the FE [427] has been associated with factory, high dollar parts made from unobtainium whereas the 385 can be built from common parts easily found and affordable. The 385 has brought "Chevy" type power and relialablity to the average Ford lover. Kind of what the 5.0 Mustang has done for Ford in general. |
| | | | | Good info -- P, 11/29/2001
Hey, have you ever run into Curt Brayer, 2-time APBA record holder in F-Service Runabouts (a class that has been discontinued, so he'll hold the records forever)? He runs the DANCING BEAR (hemi powered) V-drive design designed and built by himself from wood and fiberglass, and was high-point-man 6 years in a row.
I was talking to him one day about motors, and he said the MEL 430 was a "skeleton in Ford's closet", but he did have a lot of good things to say about the 427. He apparently beat a few of em, but had enough respect for them to get some nice comments. You know, if you're the high point man, you're the crazy sonofagun out front of all the other crazy sonofaguns! (The water's a bit cleaner out front)
Interesting comments about the 385's. I keep thinking back into the 60's when Ford was proving their point on the track, and Pontiac (for instance) was resorting to marketing. Their engine(s) were good, like your comments about the 385, but we never got a chance to see if they would take the abuse of a 500-mile side by side dual on the big oval. My guess is the Pontiac would have been "toast" pretty quick, because it didn't get the gazillion dollars of R&D that Ford put into their brawler.
Guess my point is: the Poncho brought "cheap Chevrolet-type power" to the people, and won the war in the showrooms (and on quite a few dragstrips), when Ford was winning the war on the endurance racing circuits. I don't think a high power motor, capable of surviving the drag strip is in the same category as a 500-mile endurance racer, that's my point. I think the Poncho, for instance, just stayed on the porch because it didn't have a chance running with the big dogs from Ford and Chrysler (not without a LOT of R&D bucks like Ford and Chrysler had to put into their engines.................both of whom worked overtime to better each other, and spent gazillions of dollars).
I have s similar opinion of the 385. Sure, high horsepower potential, generally great setup, affordable, never really running at the peak stress for more than a few seconds at a time (except, of course, for those HIGHLY prepared offshore boating motors with the unobtanium parts, and I have to agree with you in that particular arena). Can you tell I'm a bit biased?
Regards, P
|
| | | | | | RE: Good info -- mike smith, 11/29/2001
i've been hearing a lot about the hemi. what won more, the hemi or the 427? which could be considered better? by the way, i'm not too familiar with the 60's racing... was chevy pretty terrible back then? |
| | | | | | | unrestricted, the Hemi was better, but -- mikeb, 11/29/2001
the SOHC 427 was the best |
| | | | | | | | Let's put the hemi in it's proper perspective here -- P, 11/29/2001
http://aerowarriors.com/cgi-bin/af.cgi?rf=http://www.superbird.com/88daytona.html
Okay FE fans, here's a link for you to delve deeply into for the real facts on the hemi. This is a MoPar link too, so it's about as biased as it gets toward the hemi.
The part I like is this: When RICHARD PETTY quit driving for SloPar, and came to Ford, guess what? He beat the best hemi SloPar could put on the track. Bottom line here: Richard Petty deserves more credit than the motor SloPar was running, and that's a fact. Hey, put the man in that blue Ford fastback, paint a number 43 on the door, and post a win. Simple.
Now if you want to brag, the FE won more NASCAR races than the hemi did, by a wide margin.
In 1963-64-and-65 the FE dominated everything really bad. In 1964 MoPar ran a non-production racing prototype called the hemi, which won some races, but hell, it wasn't sold in a production car so it was outlawed. Chrysler cried, but Ford could have also built a non-production racing prototype (called the CAMMER) and run it too, which they did and were also not allowed to run it.
You'll see from the link I posted, that the 427 was giving Chrysler "all they could stand", even when Chrysler products were being driven by one verrrrry talented Richard Petty.
The hemi did win more races in 1966 and 1967, actually about three to one, but these victories were not enough to overcome the total dominance Ford had in the previous three years (Ford racked up 101 NASCAR victories during those three years, to Chevy 9, and Chrysler 35 or so, can't remember exact number for Chrysler right now, but the 9 for Chevy is accurate).
What people have to remember is this, and I think RJP will agree. The Chevy 409 was king for a while. Ford started shooting at it with the FE, in various forms, and in 1963-1/2 Ford introduced the motor that was "designed" to kill the 409. And it did. 409 sales slipped from 17,000 units, to 8000 units, to 2500 units in three years, and then it was over for em, and they decided they were not going to have "a racing program" which translated means "we aint got enough motor to compete" (with that plank head boat anchor of theirs).
So it can be said that Ford drew a bead on the best of the day, which was probably the Chevy 409.
Then Ford dominated badly for three years. In the interim, Chrysler was drawing a bead on the FE, and specifically designed a motor (the improved hemi) to kill the FE 427. Enter the new and improved hemi, which was a totally NEW engine design, intended to do one thing, and that was to beat Fords. It did, but it did not dominate without a fight. The hemi only had TWO YEARS of a higher winning percentage, and this was 1966 and 1967, when BloPar won about three to one.
Ford then won a higher percentage of races (by a hair) during the next two years, and then the big block NASCAR endurance racing era was just about gone. Both sides introduced their Aero Cars, and it was just about a draw. Nobody could say they dominated.
During the latter years, the Boss 429 "semi hemi" was introduced, but it had some problems getting into the W column fresh out of the box, so Ford continued to use the 427, and did rack up some nice wins. The Boss finally came into it's own, and managed to kick ass all by itself. It was an awesome motor in it's own right.
Now you wonder aboutthe point I'm trying to make.
WELL here IT IS!
The point is, NOBODY STAYED ON TOP FOR VERY LONG. Chevy was there, Pontiac was there for a while before Chevy, actually, then along came Ford, then came Chrysler, then came Ford again, and then they changed to small block racing and Chevy came along for an extended time frame, blah blahhhhhh blahhhhhhhh.
The point is, back in the musclecar era when the 427 was at it's peak, engineers were working overtime to outfox, outpolitic, and out engineer the other side. To stay on top meant you had to have a hell of a racing budget. Ford outspent Chrysler, and totally blew GM away. Much of the Ford money went into keeping the FE competitive. Hey, didn't they have something like SIXTEEN different pistons that were sold for the 427, not to mention the scores of em they used only for racing??
So if you say which motor is (or was) better, you have to take into consideration the chronology, and evaluate what kind of power the motor was offering to the general public for street use (hemi didn't appear on the street until 1966, and Ford won LeMans that year with a very refined product), and what the motor was doing in the endurance racing circuit.
I personally don't give the drag racing records as much creedence as the endurance racing, due to the fact that the Factory did the endurance racing to a much higher level, albeit through Holman Moody, etc., but drag racing always seemed to be way down on the priority list. Therefore, endurance racing is where Ford spent the bucks on the FE. Drag racing had the same great motor, but always was in a heavier production car (Cyclone being a notable lightweight exception). The Pontiac GTO, for instance, offered good power in a lighter car. Ford offered better power in a heavier car (Galaxie), so what does that prove?
As development evolved, from Chevy 409 to FE 427, to Chrysler hemi, to CAMMER, to Boss 429, then to Chevrolet porcupine (which came out too late to run NASCAR) one thing was certain. When Ford pulled the plug on a motor, it was pulled big time, and parts dried up, and racers were left to fend for themselves. The CAMMER SOHC 427 program was an example. Poof, it was gone. The Boss 429 program was also similar, poof, it was gone too. Chrysler maintained support for racers, and as a result of this support and a fine motor (but a heavy one) they managed to make a lot of stink on the drag strips in subsequent years. Had Ford done the same with their Boss 429, and the 427 FE for that matter, all of these Ford motors would have kicked a lot more |
| | | | | | | | | RE: Let's put the hemi in it's proper perspective here -- P, 11/29/2001
If you dig deeply into the MoPar link I posted, you'll see they use "the new math" to try their darndest to prove how great the hemi was. Ha ha, but even on a biased Mopar page like that, using the new math, the BEST the hemi could do was lose to Ford by a few races.
During the Aero Wars, it was essentially a draw, with Ford actually winning the grand total by a few races. The FE 427 had something to do with this, but the BOSS 429 also had a lot to do with it during the latter years.
Here's a BOSS link for you, because it's a relevant link upon which to measure the performance of the FE.
Remember, the FE is "old technology" compared to the BOSS, and Henry Ford did spend a few million on the Boss too, but when comparing the present day 385 motor, you got to say, hey, where's the BEEF (where's the cylinder head!!)
http://www.grabbergreens.com/429.html
enjoy
P |
| | | | | | | | | | RE: Let's put the hemi in it's proper perspective here -- mike smith, 11/29/2001
very cool sites. thanks for the history. |
| | | | | | RE: Good info -- RJP, 11/29/2001
P, you mention the Pontiacs, When they ruled the roost in NASCAR it needs to be pointed out that they cheated. Plain and simple. When the 421s were torn down they were found to have violated over 20 seperate rules set by NASCAR, just in the engines not to speak of the rest of the car. From blocks to camshafts to pistons to compresson ratios its pretty hard to violate over 20 things in an engine unless you are really trying, not just an oversite or a mistake. Pontiac had a hard time understanding what exactly "Stock" meant. 1962 was the pinnacle for Pontiac, even with their cheating the engine was only good to about 440 hp before the reliability factor started getting in the way. Above that the engines couldn't be relied on to finish and usually didn't. The basic design of the Pontiac engine just isn't that good. As to your comment about running at "peak stress for more than a few seconds at a time except of course those highly prepared offshore boats" Tell me, what engine isn't highly prepared in order to do that type of duty. I thought they ALL were. |
| | | | | chevy type power? -- mikeb, 11/29/2001
does that mean the chevy's were stronger than the FE's? |
| | | | | | RE: Hemi? Better than what? -- RJP, 11/29/2001
Good points, All but with regards to the Hemi. It can not be overlooked that the Hemi was raced in a MIDSIZE body [Coronet-Belvedre] with a W/B of 116" only one inch longer than NASCAR minimum. The Ford? full size Galaxies at 119" and a few hundred lbs heavier and more frontal area. IMO the Hemi wasn't as great as the critics would have us believe. Not when you look at the way the rules was stacked against Ford. How is it that a full size car with an "inferior " engine keep up with the almighty [strike fear in the hearts of....] Hemi. Fact is the horsepower wasn't as far off from the hemi as everyone thought. Car preperation is a factor but it still takes horsepower and the ability to finish to win and Ford won enough to drive that point home. Sometime around 1965-66 Bill France told Chrysler that they would have to run the full size bodys,[Fury Polara] Chrysler execs screamed foul and threatend boycott, France then said "if you can't be competitive with your full size car, its not our fault but these are going to be the rules. It was then decided [after many meetings with Ford and Chrysler] that Ford could run the Fairlane with a smaller engine [396"FE] and could run 2x4bbls with restrictions. Those rules were alot more confusing and convoluted but for the sake of simplicity this is what it amounted to. As to basic design a wedge head engine is better suited for gasoline than a hemi as it will allow more compresson ratio to be run with out detonation. One last thing P you overlooked Chevys "Porcupine" 427 that was run in the 63 Daytona 500. It was a cross between the 409 and the new MKlV engine [396] It ran away from everything on the track with lap speeds of 166-167 as compaired to the Ford's 162-163. The only saving grace is that it spilled its guts all over the track before the race was finished. |
| | | | | | | RE: Hemi? Better? Only in the minds of MoPar fans -- P, 11/30/2001
RJP, great exchange of info here!!
I didn't really overlook the p-pine, just didn't take the time to write a larger epistle.
As is became more and more evident that the 348 block (409 final size) was not going to do the job for Chevrolet, they were desperate to find SOMETHING to use on the track. Smoky Yunick was a cheater par excellance, and may have done a "nice" job for Pontiac, but probably no better cheater than Junior Johnson and many others.
GM built a small series of "427" engines on the 409 block, mainly by stroking the crank, as the bores were already maxed out. As you know, they called it the "Mystery Motor", and you're right, it did have power, but blew it's guts every time it tried to run with the FE, ha ha. This was the early prototype "porcupine" as I understand it, but even if it did have promise, it had no more business being in a "stock car" race than the racing prototype hemi of 1964, or even the CAMMER.
GM didn't get the motor into production until what, 1966, in 427 form, after introducing it as the 396. Chrysler as well, didn't get their hemi into production, with enough cars to comply with being "stock" until 1966. By then, Ford had already wiped the tracks clean. Those 1964 hemi wins were as big a "cheat" as the Pontiac info you shared with us.
Ahhhh, THOSE WERE THE DAYS!! And because of those days, I revere the FE design as being not only historic, but one heck of a weapon for street, strip, or track.
When I'm running my pair at 4000 RPM I may as well be Walter Mitty, ha ha.
All the best, P |
| | | | | | RE: chevy type power? -- P, 11/30/2001
"Chevy type power = cheap power at reasonable cost due to their being ("so common")"
|
| | | | | | | Hemi -- Rob, 12/04/2001
Yeah well i recall the Hemi's as being grenades at the dragstrip.. SOHC 427 in my mind was the best engine in those days for FULL OUT dragracing. |
| Heads on 406? -- Joshua Carroll, 11/27/2001
I have another 406 question. I only got the short block out of the deal. I have a set of 428 cobra jet heads. If I rebuild with a flat top piston and use these heads will I have really low compression? I know the stock heads are 58cc and the cobra jet heads are 72cc? I would like to get roughly 10 to 1 compression. I am building a street engine but I want it to kick ass! Does anyone know if the larger 427 valves will clear the cylinder walls on a 406/428 without notching the block? Thanks for the information and have a great day. |
| | RE: Heads on 406? -- Mel Clark, 11/27/2001
The 2.190 intakes for the M.R. and H.R. engines will require notching the block. The 2.25 T.P. valves are out of the question for use on a 4.130 bored block. You will have some pretty low compression with the 428 heads, I suggest using the 406 heads as they worked very well with the original combination. |
| need some light shed here! -- mikeb, 11/27/2001
a man on the 429 pony car forum wants to know which is better, the FE or the 385. As I know there are many very knowledgeable people here, I was wondering if someone would mind visiting the 429 forum and shed some light
thanks
mikeb |
| | I think we should just be happy... -- Dave Shoe, 11/27/2001
...the guy is on the 429 forum wondering about it.
As presented, the question seems pointless, sorta like asking which is the best color for a car. There are some contexts where a good answer can actually be developed of the question. I don't see one this time.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: I think we should just be happy... -- Mike McQuesten, 11/28/2001
I guess I just have to throw in .02 to a nickels worth on this. It's fun to have a friendly debate if it's short and the parties agree it doesn't really matter anyway. A Ford engine is a fun challenge to build no matter which design. Flatheads to Cammers (and I'm talking about the 4.6/5.4 as well as our vaunted 427 SOHC).
A very good friend of mine loves the big Lima 385 series. This a guy, who in the sixties, ran a '61 HP Starliner, 375 horse car. Then a '65 'stang fastback K-code, in excellent tune, with 4.56s on a regular basis. Then back to an FE in a '67 GT500. This is the friend who tweeked the Shelby until it would run mid 13s on the best bias ply rubber that was available in '69. But then in late '70, he sold the Shelby and bought a nearly new Cyclone Spoiler, 429SCJ/C6/drag pack w/3.91s. This grabber blue Merc was a gorgeous beast. And it was quick but he wasn't satisfied and started tweeking like he'd done to the '67 GT500. Mondello heads, an after market cam and a few little things. It ran very respectable times in the mid 13s. All of these cars were his daily drivers, sun, rain or snow. All ran the stock HP exhaust manifolds. He honestly would go deer hunting with the Spoiler. He always got the buck. He still does. Gut it, cut off the legs/head and into the Spoiler's trunk that good eatin' buck would go. He lined the trunk with a tarp so the car always was kept show clean. In those days we could only afford one damn car.
Steve and I still enjoy a good debate over the merits of the FE compared to the '29/'60 series. My ace in the hole with this debate is the time my '66 Fairlane GTA hung with him fender to fender for over a half mile. I'll admit he'd did removed the tweeked SCJ and installed a mildly built 429 T-bird ThunerJet 360 horse. This was around '73 or '74 with our first gas shortage crisis. He'd also replaced the 3.91s with 3.50s. But we've always had fun debating this. I have a very healthy respect for the 385 series. What the can do and what they have been built to do is impressive. The potential for reasonably priced horsepower is obvious. Steve has a similar resect for the FE. To us, the FE offers a lot of fun. It's pure Ford heritage. It's a great feeling when you beat a chevy boy at the strip and he looks under the hood of your old Ford. Walks away scratching his head wondering where that design ever came from. And how could it beat his 4 bolt whatever....
Now days, Steve runs a '00 Lightening that he constantly is tweeking. In stock trim it ran 13.7/102 at our local drag strip last summer. A few changes are being made this winter to see if high 12's in total street form are possible. And what does he go hunting in? A '76 F150 4X4, w, 428/C6, 3.50s, E-brock Performer intake, Autolite 4100, 1.12-600 CFM, with HP shorty exhaust manifolds.
Just to keep him off my back I keep a '73 Lincoln out back with the entire 460 power train. I keep promising to make it a near future build project........right after the next three FEs! |
| | Tell him the 385 is better, and then just GRIN -- P, 11/28/2001
..........the more people that believe the 385 (and 351) motors are better, the lower the cost of the FE and FE parts will be for those who really know the score!
P |
| | | RE: Good point -- Mike McQuesten, 11/28/2001
Good point P. I have to tell you guys this quickie. A guy phoned me tonight asking if I knew where there might be a '63 cast 427 block or anything for a '63 427. I told him mine wasn't for sale. I haven't even started it yet! But here's what he tells me and it's a shocker. He found right here in snow blown Spokane, sitting by a guys house, an R code '63 XL. VIN actually is: 3D68R146488. All black exterior in good shape. Black interior in good shape. Engine & trans has been gone for years. Price he paid....ready? A whopping $700!! I know this guy a little and his brother well. He's not yanking me. He wants help. Needs anything powertrain related, block, complete engine, R code intake (dual 4V) carbs, etc. Borg Warner T-10 (don't get me started on these.....I'd have to hide a top loader behind that '27 if it were mine).
So to hell with Limas! |
| | | | Pretty awesome find!! -- P, 11/29/2001
Only 800 original miles, never had the oil changed, driven only on Sunday, 1/4 mile at a time? Oh yeah, "Woman owned", heh heh.
That's a Roger on the tranny,
P |
| 427 sohc -- Michael, 11/26/2001
I need a front cover to complete my Cammer. Does anyone have any leads for me? |
| | RE: 427 sohc -- John, 11/26/2001
Try Dove Engineering. They claim their parts are all interchangeable with original equipment. An ad can be found in any kitcar mag....get back to me if you can't locate a phone number and I'm sure I can scare one up. |
| | | RE: 427 sohc -- Tom, 11/27/2001
where the hell did you get a cammer? |
| | | RE: 427 sohc -- John Lewton, 01/07/2005
Kevin Jackson Has some he is selling for Gilbert in CA> |
| 428 rebuild -- Art, 11/26/2001
I'm getting my 428 rebuilt. But it's going to sit a while till I can finish assembling the front end and remount the body. People say get it rebuilt later then put it in , but , it's a lot easier to install the motor and trans with the body off. So what can I do to protect the motor from rusting. (water jackets, cylinders). |
| | RE: 428 rebuild -- John, 11/26/2001
How much longer? I doubt you'll get any significant rust build-up there for a long time...like up to a year.
More important is the internals. Apparently there is Bearing Guard Pre-lube of different types. Some of it is designed for long term storage vs short term.
Most important are the cylinder walls...scrub well with motor oil or auto transmission fluid prior to assembly. then put more in the sparkplug holes after assembly.
pre-lubing everything by spinning the oil-pump with a drill is also a ggosd idea.
What about starting the engine in the car to get everything lubed up prior to final car re-assembly? just need the rad where you might have to remove it again to work on the body of the car. |
| | | RE: 428 rebuild -- Art, 11/27/2001
Thanks John. |
| | RE: 428 rebuild -- Jim, 11/30/2001
I would....
Put it in now, seat the cam properly at first with guages, radiator and w/p working.
Run it monthly if you can. It only takes a battery and cables, a hot wire, a screw driver, and a relay to run it.
I have started a few sitting on garage floors over the years.
I let one sit for ten years without running it. It started right up with a new carb and scored two walls a little.
|
| Hey Royce; I am going to look at a GTE... -- kevin, 11/26/2001
tonight. It appears that this car has not been touched, so I will let you know what I find. |
|