Skip Navigation Links.
 |  Oil Slinger? -- rich, 02/18/2001
I am finishing up assembly of a stroked 427. I also have two other 428's. None of these had an oil slinger which sits in front of the timing chain gear on the crank. Does anyone know if all FE's utilize this oil slinger? |
|  | It's a nice feature... -- Dave Shoe, 02/19/2001
...but some choose to leave it out during a rebuild.
I use mine.
It's official function is to splatter oil on the fuel pump eccentric, but the timing chain is sloppy with pressure-fed oil from the front cam bearing, so there is plenty of oil which indirectly hits the eccentric.
All FE's seem to have come with the slinger originally. I've never heard of problems from those folk who have claimed to remove it, so it's presence or absence is probably not something to be concerned with. You may wish to inspect the fuel pump arm to look for wear. I suspect you'll find it plenty oily without a slinger. Also, fanbelt alignment will not be affected by the presence or absence of the slinger.
As usual, just guessing,
Shoe. |
 | Someone wanted 406 with cross-bolt casts?: -- Walker, 02/18/2001
std bore 406 magged and checked will clean at .030 also has provisions for cross bolts very nice block 500.00
email: hrskeith@aol.com |
 | Good Gearing -- Travis Miller, 02/18/2001
Over the years I have seen many High Performance Fords. When I look at a Ford I try to absorb as much data about the car as possible. That includes looking at the car's data plate if at all possible. One thing that use to really upset me was the fact that very seldom did I see an early 390, 406, or 427 Galaxie or Fairlane with a good gear and a "posi" rearend listed on the data plate. Almost everyone had a 3.00, 3.25, or 3.50 open rearend. I thought to myself, why in the world would anyone order a special built, high performance car and forget to order a good rearend.
A couple years ago i was talking to a retired line mechanic from a Ford dealer. In the conversation I brought up my pet peeve about the lack of good gears in hi-po Fords. He told me that there were a lot of good rearends put in the hi-po Fords. The reason they didn't show up on the data plate is because they were usually dealer installed. He said that years ago in the 60's he had installed many 4.57's with Detroit lockers in new FE Fords. That way the factory did not have to stock lower gears and "posi" units. I ask him about the early Equa-loc set-ups and he said they were not a real strong unit. This rearend policy changed somewhat when the 428CJ and Traction-loc came out in the late 60's.
So now when I see a restored hi-po 390/406/427 FE, I picture the dealer putting in a good gear set when it was new. And a good gear is what an FE needs to perform well. |
| | RE: Good Gearing -- Mike McQuesten, 02/18/2001
Your source was exactly right about the equa-lock units. They were not available with the 427 I know for sure. That was a point discussed in many articles of those days. The '27 made too much torque for the equa-locks. And the good gears were generally dealer installed as you pointed out. I have seen two factory 4.11 installations. This was by data plate documenation. One was a 375 horse Z code 390 HP in a '61 Starliner. The other was a 271 horse K-code 289 HP in a '64 Fairlane. |
| 352HP block improvement? -- Mike McQuesten, 02/18/2001
I'm planning a rebuild for my original 1960 352 High Performance short block. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to use head studs? I understand that one of the short comings of a '60/prior block is the shallow head bolt holes and the lack of counterboring. This design flaw may allow for the threads at the top of the block to pull up when the head bolts are torqued. So would using correct length studs be a good idea to promote even torque thus less chance of head gasket failure? I've already planned on modifying the block to accept the supieor camshaft retaining thrust plate system introduced in '63. One last question, if using head studs is a good idea, is there a company that makes the right length studs for this application? Thanks. |
| Fantastic 1968 Cougar GT-E 427 and 428 data! -- Styleline, 58, 02/18/2001
A few days ago, on the newsgroup alt.hi-po.big-block-ford-mecury the newsgroup's originator CobraJet asked some specific questions about the sources of the parts used on the W-code 427 and the 428 CJ as used in the 1968 Mercury Cougar GT-E. I forwarded the post to Don Rush, of West Coast Cougar Classics, who had a GT-E on Ebay at the time. He forwarded the post to Jim Pinkerton of the GT-E Registry. Jim sent me two documents, each an exhaustive report of part and casting numbers of the entire drivetrains of 427 and 428 equipped GT-Es. They were in MSWord .doc format, and the formatting was a little odd, so I have touched them up and converted them to Adobe Acrobat PDF format so that anyone can view them regardless of their operating system. The documents are available at the links below:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tcrocker/gte-427.pdf
http://home.earthlink.net/~tcrocker/gte-428.pdf
Download a free copy of the Acrobat reader here:
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readermain.html |
| | Correction... Fantastic 1968 Cougar GT-E etc... -- Styleline, 58, 02/18/2001
The newsgroup name is:
alt.hi-po.big-block-ford-mercury |
| | |  | RE: Correction... Fantastic 1968 Cougar GT-E etc... -- Tim, 02/20/2001
How do you post to their newsgroup? |
| | | | | Old Autoweek article on 1968 Cougar GT-E 427 -- P, 02/20/2001
1983 Autoweek has a big article on this car, and has info about the 2-bolt 390-hp center-oiler hydraulic 427. I can be specific about the date if anyone is interested, let me know.
P |
| | | | | | RE: Old Autoweek article on 1968 Cougar GT-E 427 -- Dave Shoe, 02/20/2001
Let's get specific!
Thanks.
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: Correction... Fantastic 1968 Cougar GT-E etc... -- Styline, 58, 02/20/2001
You need to configure your newsgroup reader if you have not already. Look to your ISPs help FAQ or configuration info on the homepage. It's usually together with the email settings.
If you are already set up for Usenet, and your ISP does not yet carry alt.hi-po.big-block-ford-mercury, send a message to the newsadmin suggesting that it be added. |
| 63 c6.... -- 410cougar, 02/17/2001
ive got a C6 that came out of a marauder with a 390. id like to use this for my cougar build. all ive been finding is parts for 65 and newer C6's. is there a big difference. should i use this trany or should i go and get a new version. if so what is the strongest year. and was there any input shaft differances that i should take into consideration.
sorry for the 60 questions. just need to wipe the dust off the project and take another go at it.
thanx |
| | RE: 63 c6.... -- Mike McQuesten, 02/21/2001
You know what? I don't believe a Ford/Merc C6 automatic was available until 1966. And then it was kind of mixed as to which vehicles were so blessed. The Fairlane GTA and Cyclone counterpart got the C6 with the selectshift valve body that became standard in '67. Police Apps with the 428PI got the C6 in '66. I think some 7 Litres got the C6 too. These last two were with the old shift pattern(green dot, etc.) valve body. So a '63 C6? I don't think so. I've never even seen a '65 Ford product with a C6. All C6s are cast with the bell housing. Cruisomatics had a seperate bell/torque convertor housing. So dust off those part numbers and see if you can figure out what you've got. I know if it's Cruiso, don't install it in your Cougar. |
| | | RE: 63 c6.... -- huttjd, 02/21/2001
it supposebly came out of a 63 maurauder. but i really dont know. it has the detachable bell housing. where do i find the part numbers to see what year it is? is there a site i can bounce the numbers off to check? thanx guys im glad you gave me the heads up. |
| | | | RE: 63 c6.... -- 410cougar, 02/21/2001
sorry that me as well |
| | | | RE: 63 c6.... -- Styleline, 58, 02/21/2001
The trans you have a is a Cruis-o-matic. The C6 was introduced in 1966, as Mike said. The C6 uses an aluminum case with an integral bell housing. The Cruis-o is a very old trans, dating from the early 1950's. The last version of the Cruis-o was the FMX. It is heavy, due to it's cast iron case, and not very efficient. There are not a lot of parts for it, and very little in the way of performance parts. You should not use this trans behind a 410, as you will surely chew it up. Look for an FE C6 to build up. |
| | | | | RE: 63 c6.... -- 410cougar, 02/22/2001
i know that trucks have the FT engine. are the bellhousings the same as well. and would it be heavier duty then a car version. |
| | | | | | RE: 63 c6.... -- Mike McQuesten, 02/22/2001
I'm not totally certain on this but I've never heard of any advantages in using a C6 from a truck application. I don't think you'll find a auto trans for your Coug from a FT application. Two suggested C6's: '66-'67 390 GT applications, i.e., Fairlanes/Comets/Mustangs/Cougars. These have a better servo and are positive shifting. They're pretty tough factory built. Best C6 - no mystery here, the mighty R code servo with cast iron tail shaft, these gems came with 428 CJ's in late '68 'stangs, all big block, FE/Lima Cobra Jet applications from then on. They're getting diffiuclt to find but what a tough/hard shifting transmission! |
| | RE: 63 c6.... -- salid, 02/22/2001
Do you by chance have the air cleaner for the Marauder? If you do, does it have the long snorkel? If so, I'm probably interested in it. |
| | | RE: 63 c6.... -- 410cougar, 02/22/2001
no i didnt just snaged the trany. |
| | all's well that ends well -- 410cougar, 02/23/2001
well i got ahold of the guy that i got the trany from. he apologized and told me he hadnt known. he said that he'd refund me my money and give it t oa guy thats looking for one to complete his marauder. oh ya i messed up its a 65 trany. but i am thinking of getting an tri-power setup from him. that is complete: carbsl, intake, linkage, and fuel log. he's asking 625 for it. what you guys think. oh ya my crank came in so now all im waiting for is the pistons. what rods should i run. im not looking to spend a lot but id like to run a quality set. would just refurbishing the old ones be ok. im thinking that with what im doing including some oiling mods im going to be able to get pretty close to my 500hp mark. thats all i want |
| 428 crank.... -- 410cougar, 02/17/2001
while searching around looking for my crank i stumbled apon a gentleman that was offering a 428CJ IUB crank and has had all the machine work done including magnifluxing for cracks, straightness check and polished. The mains are at .030 with the rods at .020. he's asking 350 for it. is this a fair price. and why would someone turn down the rods and mains. ive only talked via e-mail yesterday so i have yet to ask him. id rather ask you guys that way i can sort fact from fiction. thanx |
| | RE: 428 crank.... -- John Duran, 02/18/2001
Very fair......
Get it .
Laters John |
| | RE: 428 crank.... -- Jim D, 02/19/2001
There's one on ebay now with a bid of $150. See item #562133275. |
| Calling Mr. Dave Shoe... -- John Blair, 02/17/2001
Hi Dave - I would appreciate a chance to speak with you. Can you contact me via E-mail? Thanks - John Blair 429 Mustang/Cougar Forum Moderator. |
| | RE: Calling Mr. Dave Shoe... -- Dave Shoe, 02/17/2001
Done.
Shoe. |
| Just Wondering? -- Tom, 02/17/2001
What does "FE" really stand for? |
| | RE: Just Wondering? -- Steve Mason, 02/17/2001
Ford Edsel |
| | | "Ford Edsel" sounds right to me. -- Dave Shoe, 02/19/2001
The "FE" term seems to have first shown up in published Ford literature in 1970, a year which coincides with the birth of the 351 Cleveland engine family.
I suspect Ford marketing was dealing with a confused public, as up to this point no one seems to have identified clear-cut names for any of the engine families, having settled on things like "Small-6", "Big-6", "Small V-8", "Ford-Mercury Big V8", "Mercury-Lincoln Big V8", and Ford-Mercury-Lincoln Big V8" to differentiate the families.
The addition of the Cleveland family seems to have created interest inside Ford marketing to reorganize engine identification using technically founded and easy-to-describe "family" designations.
In Ford's 1970 performance parts catalog Muscle Parts Story Supplement #1, which was the follow up to the 1969 Muscle Parts catalog (with the psychedellic bumpersticker), they introduced to the public the formal designations for all of their recent engine families. On page 4 they tell a story of the family tree, page 5 lists, possibly released to the public for the first time ever, the MEL, the FE, the 335, the 385, etc., families.
At no time do they explain what any of the names mean, however they do get clever on page 29 and state: ' "FE" is more than just the chemical symbol for iron...it symbolizes the best in Detroit iron.' Apparently, this snappy slogan has caused some folk to believe Ford intended that "FE" means "iron". Sorry, having fun with words isn't enough to get me to believe this was the intended meaning of the acronym.
A few other folk believe that FE means "Ford Engine", but in this same catalog it frequently states "FE engine", suggesting the writers were repeatedly saying "Ford Engine Engine". Some "Ford Engine" believers claim it is correct because FT means Ford Truck and therefore FE must mean Ford Engine. These people need to buy a clue, because if this was the case it would be known as the FC, or Ford Car engine.
"Ford Edsel" is the only logical meaning. Since the acronym seems to have been publically introduced in 1970, and the catalog's text claims "an engine family is a group of engines which has evolved from one basic design", this suggests the name comes from the root origins of the motor. Since both the MEL and the FE were born in 1958, it's logical that the designation of these two acronyms might have similar roots. MEL clearly stands for Mercury Edsel Lincoln, and FE for Ford Edsel, both acronyms representing the only vehicles they were found in back in their first year of 1958.
If anyone knows the meaning of 335 or 385, I'd like to hear it. I suspect it was the project names used for the two families during engine development, but I just don't know.
Shoe. |
| | | | RE: "Ford Edsel" sounds right to me. -- mike b, 02/19/2001
I am not sure, but I think it may have to do with stroke dimensions of one of the engines in that group?
What is the stroke of the 460? |
| | | | | This might be a "chicken or egg" kinda thing. -- Dave Shoe, 02/20/2001
Instinct math tells me the 460 has a 3.85 stroke. Not positive, but pretty sure.
Hmm...I never thought of it that way before.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | RE: This might be a "chicken or egg" kinda thing. -- Travis Miller, 02/20/2001
Dave, You hit it just right. The stroke on a 460 is 3.85 |
| | | | RE: "Ford Edsel" sounds right to me. -- Mr F, 02/19/2001
[....]
The addition of the Cleveland family seems to have created interest
inside Ford marketing to reorganize the engine structure around "family"
designations.
Grouping engines by their applications
started long before then, Dave.....as early as 1962, that I know
of.
In Ford's 1970 performance parts catalog Muscle Parts Story
Supplement #1,
which was the follow up to the 1969 catalog, they have family designations for
all of their recent engine families. On page 4 they tell a story of the family
tree, page 5 lists, apparently for the first time ever, the MEL, the FE, the
335, the 385, etc., families.
No - 'MEL' and 'FE' were in use, long before
'68.
Of course, we're talking about the vast difference
between terms used in the company's promotional materials and those reserved for
in-house correspondence. If you will, the two acronyms in question are merely the tip of a
jargonistic iceberg. I'm willing to bet most folks have never seen reference to
the EGB- or the EEZ-
engines, either, but that doesn't mean that usage of those terms wasn't
well-established in certain circles.
Oh - and please forgive me, but I've no time to
dig up and post my evidence. I therefore expect some (understandable)
grousing. Mea culpa, folks. ;-)
[....]
If anyone knows the meaning of 335 or 385, I'd like to hear it. I suspect it was the project names used for the two families during engine development, but I just don't know.
Those numbers refer to the displacement of a
precedent engine concept, within each family. In other words, those series
began with designs for a 335CID engine and a 385CID engine...or, so I'm told.
Mr
F
|
|
| | | | | RE: "Ford Edsel" sounds right to me. -- Dave Shoe, 02/19/2001
>The addition of the Cleveland family seems to have created
>interest inside Ford marketing to reorganize the engine
>structure around "family" designations.
>Grouping engines by their applications started long before
>then, Dave.....as early as 1962, that I know of.
Agreed, however Ford marketing probably didn't see a need to start using the term "Family" and adopt unique family names until the growing mish-mash of engine applications started to confound the public in 1970.
>No - 'MEL' and 'FE' were in use, long before '68.
I beg for a reference (I don't grouss in this kinda situation - I plead). I suspect that FE and MEL may have been engineering names first attached during development because the Edsel project was code-named the "E-Car Project". It makes sense that the engine projects may have found code-names such as "FE-Engine Project" and "MEL-Engine Project". Hey, Ford was proud of the Edsel during early development, and it was good karma to be "in" on the development. I'm suspecting the acronym "FE" dates back to shortly after April 15, 1955 (birth of the Edsel project), but it was lost to the public because there was no need for a more in-depth identifier until the engine groupings at Ford started to get confusing in 1970. I suspect an FE engine designer suggested the acronym when marketing was asking around for "family name" ideas in 1970, and it stuck solid when it hit the printing press.
Anyhow, if we can buy a few more years (back to 1968), this'll put us closer to finding a possible origin.
Shoe.
|
| | | | | 428 block -- Mike Crater, 03/09/2004
Hello,
I am building a 428 fe motor Tis motor came out of a ford truck. I would like to put it in a 1967 fastback. But the oil pan is different The oil pump is in the back. It will not fit in the fastback I need to change the pump to the front & get another oil pan for it. Does anyone know twhat the p[art number is for the oil pan for a 428 in a 1967 mustang
Thansk
Mike |
| | RE: Just Wondering? -- Brad Wear, 02/19/2001
It stands for Ford Engine believe it or not. It's in the "High Performance Ford Interchange " manual page 2. |
| | | Who makes that manual? -- Dave Shoe, 02/19/2001
If that's the manual I'm thinking of, it's full of holes.
Shoe. |
| | | | RE: Who makes that manual? -- brad, 02/19/2001
Dave,
It's by George Reid, it could be full of holes. I've found some holes in it as well. Do all 428 blocks have "428" cast into the freeze plug hole? I've got a 428 pulled out of a GT500KR. Either it's rusted off the block or it's not there. ?? Brad |
| | | | | RE: Who makes that manual? -- brad, 02/19/2001
It's avail at Barnes and Noble, or off Amazon. That's where I got it, 15.00. Some good stuff in it, some missing data too. Brad |
| | | | | RE: Who makes that manual? -- Dave Shoe, 02/19/2001
Nope. Not all 428s.
Some have "428" cast in oddball locations inside the water jacket, some seem to have no markings at all.
A more reliable check is to look for a large "A" (std 428) or large "C" (reinforced 428) cast into the rear of the block (hidden by the flywheel). This was the easily identified symbol which machinists used to identify the block in the Dearborn Engine Plant. A former FE machinisd mentioned to me they did not have time to look in the water jackets for the marking.
Shoe.
|
| | | | | Full of holes? That book is sinking! -- Dave Shoe, 02/19/2001
That book is a fun and valuable resource, but you can't take the info at face-value when noticing he combines parts interchange for the FE and 385 series in the same damn chapter and on the same pages. These two families have NOTHING in common, but he sees fit to blend them together into one homogenous mess.
Reid's idea of and "Engine Family" is clearly stated in his table of contents: Ford only offers a "small block" (221 cid ot 400cid) and a "big block" (332 to 460). This doesn't cut it.
On page two, Reid claims that FE stands for "Ford Engine", while on page three he states the 302 had one inch added to the deck to become a 351W. Forgive me if I don't toss out my manuals which state the dimension is 1.274" taller. In the next section, Mr Reid claims the Cleveland family name is "332". What? How ironic - Two "family" names identified incorrectly without turning the page. It's supposed to be "335", if I recall.
On page 23, Reid claims the "M means Modified Cleveland" when it obviously follows Ford's pattern of naming all their 351 blocks at the foundries they were born in: Windsor (WF), Cleveland (CF), and Michigan Casting Center (MCC). He also refers to the 351M as "M-series modified Clevelands", rather than recognizing they are from what Ford refers to as the 335-series engine family.
Dangitall, I got off track again. I suppose all this Cleveland crap is causing yawns. How about this: The three pages of FE head "casting numbers" listed in that book are actually listing a rather useless "part numbers". The port dimensions are wrong on most every FE head (he didn't understand the "emissions" changeover or the high-rise concept at all). That's just a start. FE data errors can be found throughout this book.
Anyhow, this is a good book to play with - just don't go placing money (on the parts counter) based on what you "Reid".
Perhaps I went a bit "overboard" when I stated this book was "full of holes". You can be sure there are no holes in the boat that George Reid purchased after publishing this book. I'll bet he hasn't missed a boat payment, thanks to eager buyers like us.
Shoe.
|
| | | RE: Just Wondering? -- Tom, 02/19/2001
If the "FE" means Ford Engine, Why is it just related to the larger engines such as the 427s and not the smaller 302,289.351s |
| | | | RE: Just Wondering? -- brad, 02/19/2001
I don't know why it's for big blocks. The book (take it for what it's worth) states they started referenceing it into the 332 & 352's when they came out. Brad |
| | | | | The Book -- Ed Foral, 02/19/2001
There are many obvious blunders in the book mixed in with some good usable info. I would be very careful in using such a book for a single source for any opinion.
Anything but Ford Edsel for FE will come under heavy fire in this forum.
Ed |
| | | | | | Still, I'd like to hear about it. -- Dave Shoe, 02/20/2001
I've got no problem with learning of a credible source which identifies the FE as a "Ford Engine". As of yet, I haven't heard one.
Frankly, I wouldn't be too impressed if I approached a nice Mustang and asked what kinda motor it had if they responded they had a "Ford Engine" under the hood. With a response like that, my first thought would be six banger. To each his own, I guess.
FE is much more descriptive if the meaning is "Ford Edsel". I'm sticking to my guns until someone else can properly shoot me down.
Shoe. |
| | | | | | | Still, I'd like to hear about it. -- Ed Foral, 02/20/2001
I am open to information from a credible source also, but so far it has been from non credible sources. Or no source is stated, but the opinion is pushed without merit.
Ed |
| | Too complicated . . . -- Orin, 02/20/2001
I suspect this is an argument that will go on and on until some one discoveres a long forgotten memo from the chief engineer stating, " . . . "
Anyway, I've always been confused when people refer to their engines in generic terms, i.e. "small blcok" "big block" "hemi" etc. because the terms mean different things to different people, and REALLY mean different things to different manufacturers. So when people starting using the generic terms my eyes glaze over, my mind goes blank, and my jaw goes slack (That also happens when I have sex, but that's another issue :-) )
I'm not sure of what this fondness is for the generic terms, but I've always found it is a lot easier to simply use the engine displacment, then everyone is singing from the same hymnal. |
| | | So take me one step backwards guys. . . -- John Zeigler, 11/02/2002
Is it the opinion of the group then that I have, or just "may have" a 428? I figure that 428 which is cast inside the engine behind the middle freeze plug would be the only possible motor. But you guys know more than me for sure.
|
| | | | | RE: That cast '428' is a positive ID. Dave has it right, here... -- Dave, 11/03/2002
wow, all that and no one covered my favorite?.....FE= Farm Engine....c'mon its so obvious...so before the hate mail starts I like Farm Engine just to poke some fun at myself....after all I'm on my 5th FE car and three of em had headers.....prozac anyone? I luv havin my skin stretched by the torque......and that book! I use that book all the time....whenever I need to start a fire I tear out one of the pages with in accurate info roll it up and light it. I have found the best info right here from guys like Shoe......of course I cant use it as kindling but the price is right! |
| Cammer Question -- James, 02/16/2001
Did anyone make a Weber intake for the SOHC that mounted 48IDA carbs? |
| | If they did, I've never heard of or seen one.[n/m] -- Mr F, 02/16/2001
n/m |
| | | RE: Need more info -- James, 02/17/2001
OK so they didn't make one for the 48IDA. But they did make a Weber intake for the beast. I now understand it to be 58 mm so I must reason that it used an entirely different Weber carb that was a larger version of the 48IDA. I have not heard or read anything on this, nor can I find anything on the net. Is there someone who can provide a little more information? |
| | | | Ron Miller at Ford Power Parts knows all about 'em -- Dave Shoe, 02/17/2001
Ron Miller, of FPP, has posted info on the 58mm Webers. He definitely knows all about these carbs.
Shoe. |
| | RE: Speaking of cammers -- Bobby A, 02/17/2001
I was at the Barrett-Jackson in Phoenix last month,there was a black 63 ford galaxy 500 custom in perfectly restored condition.The history of the car, it was a former Alabama state police car.It had a 427 cammer in it,with the emblem on the fenders,sohc with the crossed flags over it like the 427.The car was not as loud as the 427 Ford fairlane Thunderbolt .Still talk about a nightmare in you`re rearview mirror back then or ,,,now,jezz.Owner claimed 657 factory hp if that sounds right It ,sold for 25k |
| | | | RE: Not to be outdone by some blurry, old webpage... -- Dave Shoe, 02/17/2001
Note that I am still trying to verify some info in the following post:
Mr.F That photo of yours is of a one-of-a-kind prototype 427 Cammer which had low-positioned spark plugs. It made less horsepower than Ford had targeted for the project, so the head was quickly redesigned with the spark plugs in the familiar top-spot. The redesign worked great.
My information has the Cammer making 657 HP at 8300 RPM. This chart is overlayed on top of a 427 HR curve which makes peak power of 540 HP @ 6300 RPM. The Cammer and 427HR had about identical power curves up to 5000 RPM, at which point tthe Cammer curve kept moving in a straight line and the HR started to taper off.
The only Cammer chart I saw does show the HP curve passing through 616 HP @ 7000 RPM on it's way up to the 8300 peak, so I've always suspected that Ford marketing folk decided to release the "7000 RPM" value (the official redline of the race 427 back then) so that Bill France might not notice how formidable a weapon it was that they had before he legalized it for NASCAR.
Note also that the 12.0:1 compression ratio was for the first 50 Cammers contracted back in late 1964 on a shoestring budget for the specific purpose of out-revving the 426 Chrysler Hemi on NASCAR superspeedways. Ford pretty much figured they couldn't out horsepower the Hemi at a given RPM (they're both hemis), but the SOHC design would allow the motor to rev farther than the pushrod Hemi could, thus making more horsepower in the upper registers.
These first Cammers had aluminum heads, Magnesium valve covers, and shim-type rocker adjusters. These first Cammers were made to race. It's interesting to note that the 1964-1/2 Cammer got a cross-drilled steel crank, LeMans rods (before they were called LeMans rods), and a side-oiler block. I'm not sure whether these items were developed with the Cammer in mind, or whether they were part of a parallel performance upgrade program for the 427 development, but they did all come together in the first race Cammers. I've heard Ford did not budget much for the forged steel crankshaft project, but designers were able to economize by borrowing heavily from what was learned in developing the FT truck crank a half year earlier.
Bill France got one look at the race Cammer and had his doubts. Chrysler then responded with a non-functioning prototype of a DOHC Hemi and threatened NASCAR that it would be developed if the Cammer was legalized. Seeing this, NASCAR apparently changed the homologation rules from 50 working motors to 500 motors, effectively illegalizing the Cammer in 1964.
Having lost the first battle, Ford kept the pressure on the 426 Hemi by ordering up 500 "street cammers" in 1965. These street cammers would have 10.5:1 CR, though a few would get an even higher compression of 12.5:1. These Cammers would have to be cheaper than the first batch, so they got iron heads, adjustable rockers, and supposedly a slightly taller aluminum valve cover to clear the adjustable rockers. Ford ordered this new Cammer in two batches of 250 engines. There is some question as to whether Ford ever built the second half of the order.
I suspect the horsepower curve I saw was for the 1964-1/2 race Cammer, as it coincides with the release of the 427 HR. This adds logic to releasing a dyno chart where both engines are graphed together for comparison.
Also,if anyone has ever spotted an aluminum-headed Cammer, I'd like to hear about it. I've heard some about the shim-type rocker adjusters, but have not yet seen an aluminum-headed Cammer.
My investigation continues...
Shoe. |
| | | | | RE: Not to be outdone by some blurry, old webpage... -- Mr F, 02/20/2001
|
Note that I am still trying to verify some info in the following post:
Mr.F That photo of yours is of a one-of-a-kind prototype 427 Cammer which had low-positioned spark plugs. It made less horsepower than Ford had targeted for the project, so the head was quickly redesigned with the spark plugs in the familiar top-spot. The redesign worked great.
Yep - I thought it was a more interesting photo
than the usual "dyno" shot.
And as with most of my photos, its captioned as
a "display prototype" or something similar. This is done in Tool Tip
format, to save space on the page. Hold your cursor over the image to
see its caption.
[....]
The only Cammer chart I saw
does show the HP curve passing through 616 HP @ 7000 RPM on it's way up to the
8300 peak, so I've always suspected that Ford marketing folk decided to release
the "7000 RPM" value (the official redline of the race 427 back then) so that
Bill France might not notice how formidable a weapon it was that they had before
he legalized it for NASCAR.
That's very likely, although the internal
documents I've seen never mention anything of the kind....and its unlikely
that any would.
Note also that the 12.0:1 compression ratio was for
the first 50 Cammers contracted back in late 1964 on a shoestring budget
for the specific purpose of out-revving the 426 Chrysler Hemi on NASCAR
superspeedways. Ford pretty much figured they couldn't out horsepower the
Hemi at a given RPM (they're both hemis), but the SOHC design would allow
the motor to rev farther than the pushrod Hemi could, thus making more
horsepower in the upper registers.
As with many abortive projects, Ford promised
lots of things. The question, for me, is when do the "facts" become so blurred
as to be unusable?
For the OET's "spec sheets", I
had a tough choice - and decided to use the best, published (by Ford) specs
available. These are then annotated as necessary to explain...well, whatever the
heck I think needs to be explained. I'm still adding footnotes, as time allows.
See, some of us don't have the luxury of posting "I'm still trying to verify
some of this" on every page. ;-)
[....]
Having lost the first battle, Ford kept the pressure on the 426 Hemi by
ordering up 500 "street cammers" in 1965. These street cammers would have 10.5:1
CR, though a few would get an even higher compression of 12.5:1. These Cammers
would have to be cheaper than the first batch, so they got iron heads,
adjustable rockers, and supposedly a slightly taller aluminum valve cover to
clear the adjustable rockers. Ford ordered this new Cammer in two batches of 250
engines. There is some question as to whether Ford ever built the second half of
the order.
In fact, Ford documents show that many of
the planned engines were never built. I don't have the figures handy, but I seem
to recall the unbuilt total as being over 250.
Turns out the parts had been ordered and delivered
made, but not assembled - "scrapped a priori", if you will. Apparently, that's
why they were only offered through Holman-Moody, after a certain point. The
papers I have show both cancellation of the program and
(later) transference of all SOHC components to H-M. I presume
they sold those parts as-is and also put 'em together, as
needed.
Mr
F |
|
| | | Yep - that's the only type I've seen, T1M. [n/m] -- Mr F, 02/19/2001
n/m |
| | | | Thanks to all -- James, 02/20/2001
My thanks to all who took the time to respond and send what information they possessed. Also those that sent private email to me. The pictures were great and I have added them to my meager collection. I actually have a book with the picture of the cammer w/Webers on the front. It's entitled "Hot Rod Engines" and it was published in January 1967 by the editors of Hot Rod magazine. It looks much nicer in the .jpg format though. Makes great wallpaper!
I hope David will share with us any other information he uncovers concerning this unique engine. I purchased mine in the early 80's complete w/approximately 300 miles on it out of the crate. In talking with the father of the seller I learned that he was a NASCAR mechanic in the 60's and, according to him, was present at the inspection when the engine was disqualified from competition.
The cammer certainly has a rich, if rather short, history. Again my thanks for all the help. |
|