Skip Navigation Links.
| mystery motor -- Greg I Gilliam, 09/04/2001
Here's the story, While restoring a 1960 T-bird convertable I came across a '60 hard top to use as a parts car. When I started looking at the engine I noticed that it was very different from the '60 352 special that went in the conv. So I got some numbers off the engine and this is where I need the help.
There was an aluminum tag bolted to the head on the drivers side that reads 428 66 1. 5K 401 S. The numbers from the intake are C6AE-9425G. The numbers from the cyl. heads C6AE-J I cant find a block casting number yet but I plan to pull the engine soon. I really need to know if I can use this engine in another project ('70 Mach I). Thanks for the help. Greg |
| | RE: mystery motor -- Mel, 09/04/2001
It looks like someone installed an engine from a '66 T-Bird in your car. The information I have shows that the '66 aluminum manifold is part number C6AZ-9424-H, I have found that many casting numbers are one number and/or letter off from the part number. Is your intake aluminum? Have you checked it with a magnet? If it is Holley equipped look at the numbers on the air horn and post the "List" number. |
| | '401S' = 428 'Q' engine w/ cast iron intake [n/m] -- Mr F, 09/04/2001
n/m |
| 427 sohc -- Mike McQuesten, 09/04/2001
Thanks to Mel Clark motivating me to take a closer look at these old Ford Shop Tips, featuring Data/VIN plate identification, I've found a couple of very interesting FE related bits. In both editions, one from 10/66, including codes for 1967, and one from 1972, codes from '63 through '72, I have found that there was two 427 Single Over Head Cam engines coded for 1967. First was the L code which was to be a 427 4V (Hi Perf.SOHC) and a D which was to be a 427 8V (Hi Perf. SOHC). So it looks like some folks up there at The Glass House in Dearborn had intentions of building a few '67 Galaxies/Fairlanes with the short lived but legendary Single Over Head Cam cross bolted side oiler 427. Wouldn't Dearborn Steel Tubling have to have been contracted again to shoe horn the mighty SOHC into a unibody Fairlane? If dreams came true, Ahh, wouldn't that be nice.." |
| | Those codes are in the 'OET', See 'Engines', above. [n/m] -- Mr F, 09/04/2001
n/m |
| | The goal was to keep political pressure on the 426 Hemi -- Dave Shoe, 09/04/2001
If NASCAR needed to be motivated before it would put pressure on the 426 Hemi, Ford provided it with the Cammer.
With the project launched early in 1964, Ford built and tested two prototype Cammers (documentation at www.sae.org paper#650497, $10.00+shipping), the first being displayed and tested in a 1964 competition Galaxie at Daytona. Rumor has it they then commissioned 50 aluminum-headed 12.0:1 compression ratio Cammers destined for the NASCAR tracks in late 1964 with magnesium intake manifold (or maybe valve covers, I forget). Also, the valves in the early 50 are set by shims instead of the adjustable rockers found on the later ones. The valve covers are either taller or clearanced for the adjustment screws on later Cammers. I wish I could dig up details to confirm this. Heck, I wish I could confirm there were aluminum headed Cammers, but it's just what I once read.
When NASCAR saw the 50 Cammer "production engines", the number officially required for homologation, they ruled them to be non-production pieces and apparently raised the homologation number to 500 engines.
Ford advised they would build 500 Cammers and so commissioned a first batch of 250 iron headed Cammers for 1965, most of which had 10.5:1 C.R. (Street Cammers), and a number of which had 12.5:1 C.R. The goal was clearly to keep political pressure on the rules regarding the 426 Hemi.
I've recently seen serial-number indications and casting date codes which suggest the second batch of 250 Cammers were commissioned in mid-1966, so the homologation rule was probably allowed to be spread over a two year period or something.
Apparently, Cammers were eventually legallized for NASCAR, but the weight restrictions (or something) were just too severe to make them practical.
As far as I can tell, the Cammer did it's job, giving political leverage to the wedge-headed 396FE and 427FE when it came time to put restrictions on the 426Hemi, and likewise the Cammer. For at least one year, the wedge head engines could apparently run twin carbs to a Hemi engine's single carb. Later, NASCAR legallized the non-production Tunnelport wedge head for the track because they recognized the need for non-production methods for getting a wedge-headed engine to breath like a Hemi.
Note the 396FE sideoiler was an engine which Holman&Moody listed in their parts book in 1967. It cost more than the 427 sideoiler that year and lots more than the 427 centeroiler, all three of which Holman&Moody sold simultaneously at different price points. Note the H&M 427 centeroiler of 1967 did NOT have the 7000RPM valve train components installed, only the sideoilers got the hottest cam and valves in 1967.
You can bet the Cammer "engine codes" which Ford published were also meant to keep the threat of the Cammer alive, and thus keep track restrictions on the 426Hemi as severe as possible.
My info is partly based on rumor, partly on published documentation.
Shoe. |
| | | RE: 396s and Tunnel Ports -- Mel, 09/04/2001
I'm glad I inspired you to do some searching into your archives. You can bet that there is a lot that we have never seen or will ever see that's in Ford's archives. When I worked at H-M the 396 had already had some of it's finest hours. The short stroke allowed them to run with reliability above 8,000 RPM and with the Tunnel Port heads they really kicked some ass. The Tunnel Port heads really should have been released as production items in '66 as they were holomogated with the FIA in Ford's GT 40 cars the year before, however the blocks and heads were aluminum for that project and they didn't breath quite as well due to the smaller valve size. They worked well enough for Ford to show Ferrarri the fast way around Le Mans though. H-M built the 396 engines at least through 1971 for racers other than NASCAR, they finally quit as Ford downsized the racing programs. Another unknown engine that Ford developed was the Boss Hemi 6 Liter, ( looked just like the Boss 429, only smaller) 366 cid as NASCAR was thinking very hard about downsizing the engines that would be allowed to race, as speed was getting out of control and the restrictor plates were universally hated by the builders and the drivers. I attended some tests in Dec. '70 and saw 8 of them in the garage area for NASCAR to check out. I never found out what happened to them after that. |
| | | RE:documented rumor.... -- Mike McQuesten, 09/05/2001
I find the information you provide to be extremely interesting and plausible. After all these years of driving, drag racing and tinkering around with these hunks of iron, it's fun to find there is so much more to learn about the FE. It seems obvious to me that it was an engine series that received a lot of development over its automobile life span, '58 through '70 (I'm not counting '71-'76 pick-up/tuck use) and with this process, there was a lot of innovation for racing and everyday vehicle power. It won't go away! Ford and their racing parts program, I can't remember what they call it now...SVT...SVO.....whatever, provides no support now. Okay, a nice little cam for your pick up, a high volume oil pump, chrome valve covers. Big whoopdedoo. Thanks again Shoe. Many of your answers/posts I actually print and stack with my burgeoning pile of FE information. The foundation of which was the first published Muscle Parts catalog/booklet, 1969. We just keep learnin'. |
| M code? -- Mike McQuesten, 09/04/2001
Mel Walker got me to checking on what an M code was.He recommended that I find Ford published, Shop Tips, Vol. 11, No. 2. Thanks to John Saxon, I have it in hand. Mel was asking if anyone knew of an M code '64. I'd never heard of one. So here's what a little research has found: M code cars for '66 and '67 were 410 Mercurys. Only the full size Mercs of those two years got the 410. Which most know to be a 390 bore with 428 crankshaft. Unique pistons, etc. But as for an M code anything else in those years, nothing. This Shop Tips goes back to '63. For '63 there is an M code - 6V Special 390. I believe this is the very rare '63 Thunderbird option that featured a warmer hydraulic cam, not as warm as the GT/CJ C6OZ-B cam, with tri power intake. This was the unique "flat" intake manifold. Now this gets interesting, actually weird for '64. There is a M code listed with CID (Cubic Inch Dimension) to be 396. Right, the Chevy guys slipped money to the typist. What give with this? So, John also had an older Shop Tips, Volume 5, No. 2, October 1966 printing. It goes back to '61 on VIN data reading. First M code is for '62 which is the early production tri power 390 HP with 401 horse. This is a carry over engine from '61. But don't be thinkin' there were any '61 Fords built with an M code. That's another story. There ain't any! Okay, then for '63, there's an M code, which again is the 6V special, T-bird special option again. Let's now look at the list for 1964....what?! There's no M code 396! Weird and whacky stuff huh? I do know this little tid bit. NASCAR initially banned the 427 Ford in 1966 Fairlanes/Comets. That would give Ford too much advantage over GM remember? Ford started off the year with the Galaxies and 427s. But then the Fairlanes came into the picture and whoa....can't be doin' that! So someone got the bright idea to build a 427 block with a 361 crank and voila, you got a Ford/Merc 396! So there were some running in mid to late '66 on NASCAR tracks. But then NASCAR relented and allowed the 427 in the Fairlane for '67. I know of no 396 FE's ever released for consumer use. So what was the '64 396? My opinion is....and it's a guess too, is that it's a misprint. Or, was it the fabled tri power 390 option of '64? Any ideas? |
| | RE:Clark not Walker! -- Mike McQuesten, 09/04/2001
Oops, I was thinking of our parts man at the Ford dealership I worked at back in '69....Bud Walker! He was my High Performance cohort in that little farm town dealership. I meant Mel Clark. Sorry Mel. See what happens when you get 396 on the brain? |
| | So far I see no 'M' engine for 1964, Ford or L-M. [n/m] -- Mr F, 09/04/2001
n/m |
| | | RE:Yes indeed.. -- Mike McQuesten, 09/04/2001
I believe that there isn't an M code anything for 1964. I think it's a typo/mis-print/clerical error, etc. As I said, the 1967 edition, which is a true legit piece of Ford literature, shows nothing about anything M code for 1964. But it's the 1972 edition that lists such, a 396!! And it's also a true legit FoMoCo publication. Two things Mr. F about the codes listed on this site: First, I don't believe the 1963 M code that's listed is truly a High Performance, as per 401 horse 390 of '61 & '62. The M code of 1963 denoted the rare M-bird which was the mild 390 with tri power. It had a unique C3S camshaft that was just a little hotter than the stock 300 horse stick. I guess I think it needs a note or something indicating that that the '63 M code is unique to '63 Thunderbird. 390 6V Thunderbird. Second, I'm still wondering why there isn't anything for the 1960 Y code cars. Just like the confusion created by 1961, Z code denoting 390/300 horse lo-po or 390/375 & 401 horse Hi Po cars. The Y code 1960 352 - 360 horse was the first true high performance FE offered by Ford and I believe it should be recognized. Thanks. |
| | | | RE:High performance Fords -- Mel, 09/04/2001
Don't forget the 265 HP '56 mercurys and Fords as well as the 270 and 300 HP cars of 1957. They are the FE's daddy. They are the first true high performance Fords. uh oh, I forgot the Turnpike cruisers of '57 and '58 430 cid with Tri-Power set ups. |
| | | | | RE:High performance Fords -- Mike McQuesten, 09/05/2001
I do agree with you Mel about those engines being part of the heritage of the FE. What I was trying to say is that the 352 Y code of '60 should probably be on the list of engines/codes that this site manages. It's not a big deal. I know exactly what a 352HP/360 engine is and so it shouldn't matter to me. And what I mean by first true HP FE is that the 1960 Ford HP option really was the start of FoMoCo's return to high(total)performance. They'd played by the rules and it hurt 'em. They came back in '60 with a package that was done very well. It was a total package not just a large or hotter engine plopped into a standard assembly line passenger car. When you bought a 352HP for a whopping $160 you got a fully integrated package from rear end, suspension, wheels/tire/brakes and drivetrain. They didn't build many of them. They were all built with a DSO of PAO which was the way police cars were built too..when production line time was available. |
| Is this a 390 or 428 -- John, 09/04/2001
I am trying to positively Id a 1966 428. I have an engine tag of 428 410 but I am not convinced. How can I tell the difference? Is the casting number the only way to tell? Is the casting number under the starter on this block?
Thank you! |
| | RE: Is this a 390 or 428 -- Will, 09/04/2001
I am by no means an expert on this, but I think the ONLY way to POSITIVELY identify an FE is to open it up and measure the bore and stroke.
They used the same casting molds for all sizes of engines. That's why 352 is at the front of most FE blocks.
There are some things to look for, like HP, cross bolts, screw in core plugs, etc., but I don't think any numbers are definitive.
Oh yeah, there are casting numbers in heads that tell you what it was cast for, like C80E-6090N means CJ, etc., but still that doesn't tell you the size of the engine. It's true that if you see TP heads, it's probably a 427, and CJ heads on an original engine means it is a 428, but if the engine isn't original, who knows what you've got.
Even if the engine is original, I don't think casting numbers wil help. The engine tag may help, but I don't know how to decipher them. |
| | | RE: Is this a 390 or 428 -- Mel, 09/04/2001
If it has the CJ heads it is most likely a 428 CJ or SCJ, it's pretty rare that someone would put those heads on a 390 just to pass it off as a 428. If the car is a '66 you will have to get the casting numbers from the heads and intake to get any definitive answers. A '66 engine will not be a CJ or SCJ. What is the car Ford, T-Bird, Mercury? What is the first 5 numbers of the VIN? This info would help in identification. |
| | | | RE: Is this a 390 or 428 -- John, 09/04/2001
Its a 1966 Thunderbird. So, its not a Cobra Jet 428 as I understand that motor would not be found on a Thinderbird. I don't think the CJ heads would be on the car originally. Thanks though!! |
| | | | | RE: Is this a 390 or 428 -- Will, 09/04/2001
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply you had a CJ - only that the casting numbers don't tell you whether you have a 390 or 428.
If it is the original engine, I would think the VIN would tell you the most. Does anyone have engine codes for t-birds? |
| | | | | | RE: Is this a 390 or 428 -- Mel, 09/04/2001
Post the 1st. 5 of the VIN like I asked and I'll tell you what it says it is. |
| | | | | | | RE:Q - bird -- Mike McQuesten, 09/04/2001
If your 5th unit in on your VIN is a Q you have a '66 'bird that was built with a 428. If the unit is a Z, you have a 390 built 'bird. |
| | | | | | | | RE:Q - bird -- Art, 09/06/2001
Also check the flexplate, 428 looks like a wagon wheel.Part number;C6SP-6375-C or C6VP-6375-B. . |
| 1969 cobra question -- mike b, 09/04/2001
is there any parts, chassis tuning springs, shocks,or anything that would make a 1969 Cobra any different than a Cobra-Jet Torino GT, or was the Cobra package just snake badges? thanks |
| | RE: 1969 cobra question -- Mike McQuesten, 09/04/2001
Actually the '69 Fairlane Cobra was more an elimination of ornamentation than snake badge additions. If the Torino GT was equipped with the 428 then it was the same powertrain, suspension package as the Cobra. The GT was standard with extra deluxe features, most of which could be ordered for a Cobra, i.e, deluxe seats, console, etc. The Cobra was Ford's response to Mopar's Roadrunner/Super Bee package. Powertrain wise, a 'runner/'bee was the same as any 383 magnum midsize Mopar. The Cobra Package could be had for less money than a loaded GT Torino. BTW, someone asked a few days ago about staggered shocks with an automatic CJ powered Mustang. The staggered shock modification was for 4 speed CJ powered uni-body cars only, i.e., Mustang, Fairlane/Torino, Merc counterparts. |
| Carb for 427 SO - 750 DP or 650 DP? -- Chuck Brandt, 09/03/2001
I'm building a 427 Side Oiler for a cobra kit car. I'm planning on using a Holley HP series double pumper mechanical carb but can't decide between the 750 or 650 cfm. The motor will have 10.5:1 compression, the AA ford cam, and a shelby sidewinder intake. The car will be mostly street driven with some road course track time.
Thanks for any advise and opinions,
Chuck Brandt |
| | RE: Carb for 427 SO - 750 DP or 650 DP? -- RC Moser, 09/04/2001
I think a sideoiler deserves at aleast a 750. |
| | | RE: At least a 750 -- Mel, 09/04/2001
A very good carb for what you are describing would be an 850 cfm 3 bbl or my second choice, if I didn't have the correct carb would be a Holley 780 cfm list number 3310. The 3310 came on lots of different cars and was used extensively as an aftermarket up grade. If you don't mind the work involved buy a rebuilable that is old, very old. The parts are still out there. If you don't mind paying the price you may be able to find an original Ford carb, look for number C5AF 9510 BU. The number is stamped on the air horn. |
| | | | RE: At least a 750 -- Chuck Brandt, 09/04/2001
Thank's Mel. I'm afraid I may not be smart enough to fiddle with a vintage carb. One feature I like about the new HP series from Holley is they have removed the choke horn, on a short aircleaner as would be used on the cobra the choke horn poses some restriction.
I have had a 3310 in the past, on a '70 Mk III / 460 and really liked it.
Chuck |
| | | RE: Carb for 427 SO - 750 DP or 650 DP? -- Chuck Brandt, 09/04/2001
Yes I thought so too, I just started second guessing because I don't expect to rev above 6500 and the "formula" works out to requiring a 642 - 722 cfm carb, depending on what your bet for volumetric efficiency would be. If they had a 700 in that series I'd be golden. Maybe I'm over analyzing this?
Chuck |
| | | | RE: 3 Bbl Carb. -- Mel, 09/04/2001
Just remember, Too much is almost enough. :) The 427 Fords love to breathe and as they really run best with a 8 V induction, I would go with the biggest 3 bbl. carb I could find. Holley made them in an 850 cfm variation which would be very good. The vacuum seconday works really well. They are pretty simple to work on if you find a good used one. Just make sure the throttle shafts are not bent, even a little. A couple of years ago I saw some new ones at a shop so you may want to check with Jegs or Summit. Also there are quite a few companies that restore Holleys to original appearance and specs, something to consider if you locate a used carb that you want. The original Cobras had the air horn on the carbs with little or no problem and if you wanted to you could get a 'Vette air cleaner that sits very low on the carb and uses a tall element. They are pretty pricey now though. |
| staggered rear shocks -- Dan, 09/03/2001
Two Part Question: #1 Does any body know if 69 Mach1"s 428cj odered with 3.91:1 rear end gear ratio and automatic transmission were factory delivered with staggered rear shocks? Rumor has it that only the 4 speeds received this option. I'm looking for someone to respond who has first hand knowledge of this. ie. original owner of such a vehicle, or someone in the know! Not just someone reading articles out of a magazine.
Mahalo (thanks) Dan S. |
| | RE: staggered rear shocks -- Dan, 09/03/2001
Second part to the question is related to the mounting of staggered shocks, I hear the right side lower mount is used on the left, thus placing the shock behind the axle, but what about the upper mounts, are there brackets? This should be the same as a boss 302, boss 429, and shelby vehicles as far as I have heard, however, I live in Oahu and have no cars locally to look at on the Island I live on, though I hear there is a 70 Boss 302 on Kauai. |
| | RE: staggered rear shocks -- TIKMA, 09/03/2001
I`m not a mustang guru but I do own a 69 428cj automatic. No staggered shocks. |
| | This shouldn't exactly be 'staggering' news, but... -- Mr F, 09/04/2001
Two Part Question:
Ok, but get ready for a three-part
response. :-)
#1 Does any body know if 69 Mach1"s 428cj
odered with 3.91:1 rear end gear ratio and automatic transmission were
factory delivered with staggered rear shocks?
In theory, no - but I keep hearing from
folks who swear their A/T-equipped Mustang has them.
Fact is, Ford never said that automatic
cars wouldn't have staggered shocks (see next paragraph). Remember,
they're in the business of making cars - not museum pieces. If the
assembly plant had leftover crossmembers, you can bet they were going
to get used one way or another. If the end result is that some A/T
cars ended up with an extra feature I say, 'No harm, no foul.'
;-)
Rumor has it that only the 4 speeds
received this option.
Ford's dealer materials promised
staggered shocks on all Mustangs ordered with 4-speed and 428, plus
all the 'Boss' cars. This basic rule applies to similarly-equipped
'69 Cougars, as well.
I'm looking for someone to respond
who has first hand knowledge of this. ie. original owner of
such a vehicle, or someone in the know! Not just someone reading articles
out of a magazine.
Me - read articles out of some
'enthusiast magazine'? Hell, no....not unless I wrote 'em.
;-D
Mr
F |
|
| one man band -- mikeb, 09/01/2001
anybody here know what size hose I need to bleed the brakes on my torino? A man told meit can be done by yourself, i was wondering what diameter is required thanks |
| S Code? -- B.A., 09/01/2001
I have a 1967 Fairlane GTA, It is supposed to have a 390 S code engine in it. I was changing the plugs and I looked at the number between the middle cylinders on the head and the didn't match the ones i got out of the 62-72 Fairlane & Torino Parts Identifier book. The number I have is C7AE-E the number I thought I was supposed to have is C6OE-AF or C7OE-E. Am I looking at the correct number? Please help. I would like to know what I really have.
Thanks B.A. |
| | RE: S Code? -- B.A., 09/01/2001
I made a mistake, the number on my head is C7AE-A nit C7AE-E. Sorry. |
| | | Look for the date code on the heads -- Paul M, 09/02/2001
That will help you figure out if they are correct for your car or not.
I'm not sure if the "O" heads were the only things the Fiarlanes, GTA or not, had put on them.
As a side note, all "0" heads had AIR tubes in the exhaust ports. If you have NO OTHER parts to the AIR system, and if it looks to you as though your car never did, they wouldn't have put AIR heads on the block, I imagine.
How many bolt holes do you have on the exhaust flange? I've seen all three patterns; 8, 14, and 16 hole. |
| | | | RE: Nit Picking -- Mel, 09/02/2001
Sorry Paul. Not all Heads that have an "O" in the casting number had air tubes in them. I have a pair of C7OE heads that do not have air tubes or the bosses for them. |
| | | | | Your C7OE heads are 427 racing heads. -- Dave Shoe, 09/03/2001
I don't have my cross-references handy, but I strongly suspect you are referring to casting numbers on 427 MR or TP heads, in part because racing heads did not get any emissions features cast into them, and in part because the only FE heads with C70E cast into them were 427 racing heads, not available on the production line.
There is much confusion about generic FE head casting numbers because most texts erroneously mix together part numbers (-6049-) and casting numbers (-6090-) without distinguishing between them. Part numbers CANNOT be found anywhere on the heads, and are useless beyond the Engine Assembly Plant or factory service counter.
Casting number options for 1967 FE car and light truck engines (except 427s) are C6AE-R, C6AE-U, and C7AE-A, the latter two heads being basically identical castings. Among these three casting numbers, Ford offered numerous part numbers, some with Thermactor holes drilled, some with different valve springs, some with different exhaust manifold drill patterns. Note that all of these heads got Thermactor bosses cast in (often times not drilled), and all got the eight extra exhaust manifold bosses which allowed drilling for 8-bolt or 14 bolt patterns.
There is a remote chance you can find C6AE-J or C6AE-L casting numbers, but these were common heads in early in the 1966 model year, and are not likely to be found in 1967.
Ford did not put special heads on 390GT engines, however 390GT engines did get the stiffer valve springs installed on the heads, as well as the 14-hole drill pattern. Only California 390GTs got Thermactor in 1966-67, the 49 state 390GTs did not. By 1968 (the last year of the 390GT engine), all 50-state 390GT engines got Thermactor, due to more stringent emissions legislation.
Also, the 1968-71 model years standardized on the C8AE-H casting number for all engines except 427s and CJs. Only a few early 1968 cars got C7AE-A heads. In 1972-76 the D2TE-AA casting was the only one you could find, though some C8s likely made it into the early 1972 model year (I suspect these would have required induction-hardened exhaust seats to meet federal regulations). I presently suspect that all D2TE-AA heads were cast at the brand new MCC casting facility, which came on-line in September of 1971 with the first of it's five mold lines running.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | RE:You're Right -- Mel, 09/03/2001
Dave, You are correct in your statement regarding my C7OE heads. They are Tunnel Ports. The information you posted afterward is very good and needed. As I have had mostly 427s to play with my ability to I.D. other F.E. heads is limited to that which is in my reference material. There are so many similarities within the F.E. family it is difficult to know all of the variations, that is one of the reasons this board is so valuable to so many F.E. owners and builders. Good job. Thanks for the clarification. |
| Carter carb on Ford? -- Earl Wood, 08/31/2001
I ran across a Carter carb with what looks to be a Ford part # C6VF-J. What's the deal? What did it come on? What engine size? |
| | RE: Carter carb on Ford? -- Mel Clark, 08/31/2001
I have seen some on Ford products before, They are pretty rare. Lincolns or Mercury, I think...Ford loved Holleys and Firestones. |
| | | RE: Carter carb on Ford? -- Richard Bouman, 08/31/2001
'57 312's used Ford, Holley, and Carter AFB's. And they all fit the same manifold. |
| | | Carter AFB came on the 427 -- P, 09/04/2001
The Carter AFB came standard on the 300 HP marine 427, as offered by Chris Craft from 1966 through 1970 (yes, 1970, using their stock to complete boats during the 1970 model year).
It's a good carb, simple and pretty reliable. Not the best for all out racing, but it did come on a lot of musclecars, stock, from the factory.
P |
| | RE: Carter carb on Ford? -- Styletone58, 08/31/2001
I have seen Ford-tagged Carters on Lincolns. Even up into the 1970s. I have also seen Holleys and Autolites and Motorcraft carbs on Lincolns. Motorcraft square-bore and spread-bore. I used a Lincoln square-bore 4V EGR spacer between my Holley and the painted Ebok intake on my '73 Tomato to fool the smog guys, when I still had to fool the smog guys. Anyway, it seems Ford pulled from many sources for their luxo-barge carburation needs in the late '50s-late '70s. |
| | | RE:AFB in '58 -- Mike McQuesten, 08/31/2001
As I've said before, I have a '58 Ford Country Sedan Wagon that is factory original with a Carter AFB 4V on a 352 Police Interceptor. Production in October, '57. I've seen Mercs/Lincolns also with a similar looking AFB. |
| | | | Carters used on 56 Fords also. (n/m) -- Lou, 08/31/2001
n/m |
| | That's one for a 462 MEL in a Lincoln n/m -- Barry B, 08/31/2001
n/m |
| | RE: Carter carb and firestones, what a combo? -- RC Moser, 09/01/2001
I can see way the are rare, they are junk, Especially those two barrels that the dodge boys used. Firestones works good with carter carb., they can't blow out if you can't get the car started. Not a big fan of either, can you tell. |
| | | RE: Carter carb and firestones, what a combo? -- Ray, 09/01/2001
Carter, best dam carb ever built, all that holleys ever did was leak very well and ruin engines! Ray PS Ford should have use them on all ther cars. |
|