406 (6.7 liter) Bore: 4.130″ Stroke: 3.784″
On November 17, 1961, Ford went back to Daytona International Speedway to replicate the testing of the 352 for the new 406. It was a 600 mile test at full throttle speeds.
Introduced shortly after January 1, 1962, the 406 had a 4.13″ bore and a 3.78″ stroke. Coming in either four-barrel or triple two-barrel form, it punched out 385 and 405 horsepower, respectively. Such power allowed the engine to propel the very non-aerodynamic 1962 Ford Galaxie to speeds in excess of 150 miles per hour, which was claimed to be faster than the average speed at the 1961 Indianapolis 500 race.
Yet endurance tests don’t always mimic real-world performance.
image source: www.stockcar.racersreunion.com
While a 406 powered Ford won the July 1962 running of the Pikes Peak hill climb, the Chevrolet 409 spanked the Ford 406 in drag racing. On the NASCAR circuit, a 406 powered Ford was the winner in only 6 of 53 races.
With such a lackluster track record, Ford eliminated the 406 shortly after the beginning of the 1963 model year.
The 406 was a $379.70 option on the full-sized 1962 Ford. Using a different casting that provided thicker cylinder walls than the other FE engines, the 406 also had stronger pistons and connecting rods, dual valve springs, and an oil relief valve set at 60 psi instead of 45. A 406 was also the 30 millionth V8 produced by Ford.
Maintenance Note: There was a running change in the manufacture of cylinder heads on the 406, which resulted in the internal valve spring pilot being machined off. So if you are replacing heads, make sure you have sourced identical type heads, as they do not intermix.
410 (6.7 liter) Bore: 4.054 Stroke: 3.980″
Does this sound strange? Introduced in 1966, the 410 only stuck around for two model years.
Standard issue for the Mercury Park Lane, this engine was rated at 330 horsepower . It was optional on all other full-sized Mercury’s. Having the same 4.05″ bore as the 361 and 390, it had a 3.98″ stroke that would later be used in the 428.
Specifics about the need for creation of this engine are quite scarce, so your author needs to exercise some deduction. For 1966, the 265 and 275 horsepower 390 in the Mercury (the lower output engine was mated to the three-speed manual transmission) both possessed a two-barrel carburetor. The 410 had a four-barrel and also produced up to 45 lb-ft more torque than the standard 390. This, combined with a displacement that provided a degree of exclusivity for your Park Lane, was likely the rationale for this engine.
Maintenance note: Does your 1966 model 390 or 410 have a vibration between 800 and 1,800 rpm? It is likely caused by the use of an incorrect flywheel. The flywheel on a 390 should not have a balance weight or part number on the transmission side whereas a 410 should have the balance weight and part number.
427 (7.0 liter) Bore: 4.232″ Stroke: 3.784″ (Actually 425 CID)
When Tom McCahill from Popular Mechanix first drove a 427 powered ’63 Mercury, he wrote the car had “more hair on its chest than a middle aged yak” and is “as gentle as a barracuda in a fish bowl”.
When Cars magazine recorded a 0-60 mph time for a ’63 Mercury Marauder of 7.3 seconds (using only first gear), they were quite enthused, saying “could it go for a 4,200 pound car!” This was from a car they stated idled quietly and smoothly at 800 rpm with a normal operating temperature of 180 degrees Fahrenheit.
The 427, introduced early in the 1963 model year, was more than a 406 that had been bored out to 4.23″ with the same 3.78″ stroke; it had cross bolted main bearing caps, aluminum pistons, and stouter connecting rods. In short, this was a race engine that was able to be street driven. However, as McCahill also noted, “one wrong twitch and you may plow up to eight cars in front of you.”
Ford had derived the 427 from a 483 cubic inch (7.9 liter) experimental engine that broke 46 various records in 1962 and recorded an official fastest speed of 176.98 mph. What they learned from this engine materialized in the 427, an engine that was just right for the various 7.0 liter requirements found in racing.
While this 427 was heavily praised for being a vast improvement over the 406, Ford was now committed to what they were touting as “Total Performance” and they were not satisfied with the initial performance of the 427. Prior to the end of the 1963 racing season, a “Mark II” version of the 427 bowed, having new cylinder heads with larger ports and valves, stronger connecting rods, and a ten quart oil pan. Strangely, advertised horsepower was unchanged with the four-barrel version having 410 horsepower and the dual four-barrel having 425 advertised horsepower.
The stumbles with the 406 powered racers was eradicated with the 427. Starting the 1963 racing season with a win at the Daytona 500, Ford would ultimately capture victories in 23 NASCAR races to Chevrolet’s eight. The 1964 season was even better with Ford winning 30 NASCAR races. The 427 had proven its mettle on the speedway and was doing so on the quarter-mile circuit.
Talk about the Ford 427 is full of different descriptors, such as “top oiler”, “side oiler”, and “cammer”. So what is each?
image source: www.wikipedia.org
The top oiler is the original version of the engine as introduced in 1963. In short, oil was routed to the valve train first followed by the crankshaft. The side oiler was introduced in 1965 and it reversed the order in which oil was sent through the engine.
image source: www.wikipedia.org
There is also the single overhead camshaft version of the 427 that appeared in 1964. It was strictly a racing engine and was never installed in regular production cars. This engine was created in response to the Chrysler 426 hemi; the single overhead cam 427 has the distinction of being the only engine ever banned by NASCAR at the time.
Available in full-size Ford’s and Mercury’s beginning in 1963, mid-sizers beginning in 1966 , and the Cougar in 1968, the 427 was the top dog Ford performance engine until 1968.
Maintenance Note: Ford does not recommend reboring the engine blocks of 406 and 427 engines.
428 (7.0 liter) Bore: 4.132 Stroke: 3.980″
Introduced for 1966, the Ford 428 was a different creature than its one cubic inch smaller sister, the 427. Whereas the 427 had a 4.23″ bore, prompting Ford to recommend against boring the block, the 428 had a 4.13″ bore combined with the 3.98″ stroke used in the Mercury 410. Given the smaller bore sizes, this engine was much less expensive to manufacture than the 427 while still being able to deliver a copious amount of horsepower and torque.
The 428 should not be confused with the Ford 429. The 429 was based upon the Ford 385-series family; the only other car engine springing from the 385-series is the 460 cubic inch (7.5 liter) V8.
Initially available throughout the 1966 full-size Ford and Mercury line, the 428 was the standard engine for the Ford LTD 7-Litre and the Mercury S-55. Initially available in 345 horsepower retail form, it was an engine to help motivate Ford’s increasingly heavier cars in the same manner to which people had been accustomed – if not a little better.
Ad copy for the 1966 Ford police car line certainly best insinuates performance, touting the police spec 428 was “a real scorcher that turns out 360 horsepower with top speeds well in excess of 100 mph”. How far in excess is a question many are curious about, although the answer may be lost to the ravages of time.
image: boldride.com
In April 1968, Ford introduced the 428 Cobra Jet. Based upon the regular 428, the Cobra Jet had larger valves and intake ports, beefed up connecting rods, and heads from a 427; getting Ram-Air on a Cobra Jet was optional. Like the 427, these additions oddly made no change whatsoever to advertised horsepower, due to exorbitant insurance premiums on high-hp engines. There is also the 428 Super Cobra Jet, an engine that had a different crankshaft and an external oil cooler. While also referred to as the “Drag Pack”, the Super Cobra Jet was intended for racing applications with the internal changes to facilitate added reliability and durability.
The 428 Cobra Jet was a $357 option in the 1969 Mustang Mach I; it was $421 in other Mustang’s. In a Mustang so equipped, the sprint to 60 miles per hour could happen in 5.5 seconds. It is estimated that around 13,000 Mustang Mach I’s came equipped with the 428 Cobra Jet. The 428 Cobra Jet was also available in Cougar, Torino, and Cyclone models.
Many cars throughout the Ford lineup would be eligible to receive the 428, such as the Thunderbird in 1966 and 1967; the Mustang and Cougar from 1968 to 1970; the full-sized Ford and Mercury from 1966 to 1969; and the Montego and Torino in 1968 and 1969.
Maintenance note: Does your 1966 Ford or Mercury with a 352, 390, or 428 have a metallic knock that sounds similar to a tappet clip? It may be caused by the rocker cover oil baffle touching the rocker arm shaft pedestal support attaching bolt.
The Ford FE engine was replaced by a combination of the Windsor and 385 series. Appearing as anything from a two-barrel 332 in 1959 to a 428 Cobra Jet by 1969, the FE is one of the most adaptable and versatile engines ever to come from Ford. Despite the last FE engine being placed in a passenger car over forty years ago, the continued popularity of the FE series engines is a testament to the intrinsic qualities of this fine power plant.
Related reading: 1966 Ford Galaxie 7-Litre The author’s 1963 Ford Galaxie 500: Part 1 Part 2
Pages: 1 2
An entertaining and informative read. This statement stood out to me as a bit odd: “…the 361 was simply a 352 with a very mild overbore of 0.05″.” Personally, I wouldn’t consider a fifty-thou overbore to be “very minor”. 🙂
I always thought that the Ford FE had a lot of variations in displacement. I just wrote out a list of Mopar big blocks and there were also 8 different displacements of that as well (counting the 383 and 383RB separately), so I guess it wasn’t so unusual after all.
Well, technically it wasn’t really an “overbore” like one would do in overboring an existing engine. It’s not like they took bored 352 blocks and then overbored them again. It had a larger bore than the 352, by .05″, which is a rather modest amount.
Very true. That occurred to me after I posted the comment. 9 cubic inches isn’t a big jump in displacement.
The 361 used a 390 block which has a 4.05 bore and a 352 crank which has a 3.50 stroke
There were two more displacement variations, used in trucks (FT): a 330 with 3.875″x3.500″; and the 360 with 4.052×3.500″.
I drove some very big and heavy trucks with the HD version of the 330; not exactly fast, but it sure sounded like it, with two shorty pipes and minimal mufflers under the cab.
I drove a Ford 3 ton stake with a 330 in it as a teenager. It was a farm truck and was only hauled out of the barn for special occasions like haying.
The thing was old when I drove it but there was no killing a Ford FT engine.
I drove a Ford F600 flatbed when I was a teen. It had the 330 engine. It had three engine mounts. I rebuilt the engine when I was 18 or 19.
I worked for Ford in the later 70’s as a medium and heavy truck mechanic and the FT was the most common engine in the F series and the L series.
The 330’s had a habit of pounding out the rod small end bushing (full floating pins), the 359/361 would drop exhaust valves (sodium filled hollow stems) and the 389/390/391 had a piston skirt cracking problem that Ford campaigned in 1978.
In most cases, these problems developed in overloaded and abused trucks. Seems most truck/fleet operators tried to save money by spec-ing trucks to underpowered for the job.
idriving a 1963 F-750. Was a grain truck. I haul wood with it. How do i determine the cu. in. ? only #s i find are firing order and the # B281.
My information indicates (if it is the original engine) that you have the HD332 engine which is a 332 cubic inch engine based on the old Lincoln Y block from the early 1950’s.
1963 was the last year this engine was used in the medium/heavy Fords.
A picture would tell me what series the engine is.
Bought a well used C600 in 1983 to haul grain. Had the 332. Rod through the pan in about 1986. Was trying to get to the end of a muddy road with a full load on. Low gear, high rpm. Mud everywhere. Saw the oil pressure drop off and was in the process of deciding go/no go when the decision was made for me. Oil pump was full of filings. Until now, I’d always blamed the oil pump, but now I wonder. Replaced the 332 with a 361.
Have 1975 359HD Ford, U-Haul engine. Can it be swapped with another block or can it be rebuilt? Can you help. Any information is appreciated. Thanks
My dad hauled logs with a 1963 F850 Tandem that had a 534 Super duty with 5×4 transmission . I remember him saying it didn`t have enough power to pull the scum off rice pudding.
Oh ye he also was impressed with the 2.5 to 3 miles to a gallon of gas!
I had a 300hp 352 4 barrel Thunderbird v8 in my 58 Country sedan. Man was it a runner. I restored it back in 1998. Nine passenger wagon too.
Good-looking Country Sedan! Great color and I like the wheel choice (some will naturally disagree).
That is so great, that is one fine-looking automobile I can really see why you chose that great job excellent excellent excellent.
had one of these with a 340 hp 352 in it. solid lifters and all.
I had a 352 Engine with dual quads and in the rain with brand new tires hit the back end of a Mustang. The Mustang was jacked up really too high but when I hit his rear end he messed up the engine in my car. Sold the car body and put the 352 quads in a Mustang and is the best move I ever did.
The 352 was never rated at 340hp it was 360 hp only year available was 1960 352 code R.
Ho hum… a similarly-sized and equipped Chevy engine will still beat it! Additionally, Chevy orange is more appealing than Ford blue any day.
Sorry, but old feelings persist, even if they’re no longer relevant!
Ditto!
Goodness gracious! Here you have engines in blue, orange, white, and black – that is so much more variety than plain old bow tie orange. 🙂
The upside, I suppose, is that most current engines are cloaked in a black plastic shroud, so your new Chevrolet (Ford, VW, etc.) truly has a mystery engine.
Actually, the rule was you needed the next size up if you wanted your Ford to beat a Chevy. 390 Ford = 350 Chevy, 428 = 396 and so on. It wasn’t until the Clevelands and the 429 came along that Ford could compete inch for inch.
That’s not to say the FE was a bad engine, far from it, but out of the entire line the only decent street performer was the 428CJ. They were excellent engines for everyday use in trucks and big heavy cars though.
I’ll agree with you to a point. The only way a 396 was equal to a 428 is if it was a Police Interceptor in a Galaxie. The 428CJ was a superior street engine to the 396. And I had two older brothers who had 396 Chevelle’s back in the day. Maybe a solid lifter 375 hp 396 could equal a 428CJ, but is that really a street engine? And I’m still not sure if even a 396/375 Camaro could beat a 428CJ Mustang Drag Pack. Let’s just hope the rat motor doesn’t spin it’s bearings trying to do it.
Haha that’s right ! The big Fords and Mopars just held together better than the chevys…….had a friend who’s factory 390 Galaxie 500 4 speed that would show the impala 409’s the tail lights out on the street all the time….still have Moms 68 Galaxie 390 and it runs strong…..108,000 original miles on it ……it’s never been rebuilt ….a good strong car…….
I beg to differ I had a 1960 Ford Starliner with the 352 with 360 HP even in a Car that was 1000 lbs. heavier than the SS. Chevelles and the Roadrunners and Superbees. I had no trouble showing them my tail lights. Ford always had to small of a carb. compared to the other auto makers so just match carb size and see.
Pistol Pete
That is not true at all about needing a bigger ford to beat a Chevy! I raced a 1970 Mustang with a 351 Cleveland I never seen a 350 Camaro that could beat My mustang. The 390 mustang was a dog my Cleveland would put them away all day long. My Cousin had a 271 HP 289 that would eat 350 Chevys!
I had a 70 Torino GT with 351C 4V, factory 3.25 locking axle. That thing was fast. I could challenge most big blocks. Power curve from 20 mph to 100mph was amazingly
unremarkable. As I said before, I should have kept the engine and threw the car away.
.
I wonder if your 70 mustang 351 Cleveland was the one with “quenched” heads? If it was no wonder it showed Chevy a clean set of tail lights
Darn things would run!!!!
Not totally true. The Ford 427 was a more powerful and better race engine than the 396 or Chevy 427’s. History has proven that. Even the best Chevy 427 (L88) was no match for the Ford 427 Hi- Riser ! Being that said, I would have to agree the 352, 390’s 406’s or 428’s were no match for the Chevy 396(375 hp version) or 427’s.
The 396 /375 hp had 427 heads,solid lifter cam, really a 427 with a 396 badge. Equip a 390 with 427 medium riser heads, aluminum intake, and the 427 cam and the table will turn, one more thing the 396 hp was under-rated from GM.
Haha! Here we go …again…. with all this chevy is best talk……bottom line …..Ford’s cost more to build , but will make more power …..they have equally spaced intake runners in the heads , (chevy has siamesed) which make for a cooler intake charge , and a more direct charge , and a all around better cylinder head……and….Ford’s two bolt main block castings are better webbed , and are made of better steel, and are stronger than a chevy four bolt main block……..I’ve run them both…let’s not forget mopar as well…….also strong motors………..don’t get me wrong , chevys are great for the layman who likes to go to the local cruise nights , and “get on it” every now and then, while keeping repair and replacement parts costs low…..chevy also enjoys a large aftermarket parts selection..there is a reason for this as well…..
Zachman, how do you explain my 1969 f100 4×4 w/ 390 beating a 1984 Chevy k10 w/ 454? I got 18 mpg while he got 8 mpg… and why my stock 400m way outruns my friend’s mildly built 389 sbc? Bring some meat to the table with your stories, otherwise you are just blowing smoke to puff up your ego…
Efficiency was not Chevy’s strong suit until Vortec. Ever noticed Chevy used the high-swirl technology found in the Ford fe heads? That’s what it took for them to get somewhere with their motors… Chevy does a pretty nice job with LS too!
My 1971 Maverick with 302 would hang with the 350 chevy and 340 Mopars. 70 and 71 351c and 302s had dual vacuum distributors that choked the engine down. By moving the vacuum line that ran from the intake manifold to the front vacuum advance and pluging the other line that ran to the carburator, reset the points to 17 thousands from 22 thousands. and reset the timing , turned those engines loose.
Great article! I now know many things I didn’t about the FE motors. Well researched and I enjoy the displacement by displacement layout.
One question though–In the section about the 427 you mention:
“Available in full-size Ford’s and Mercury’s beginning in 1963, mid-sizers beginning in 1966 , and even the Mustang and Cougar in 1968, the 427 was the top dog Ford performance engine until 1968.”
I have never once heard of a 427 Mustang. Did those actually exist? I thought the top engine for a ’68 was the 390 until the 428CJ came along.
I cannot imagine many were built given the overall scant production of the 427, but it was possible for the single year. The 428 was much less expensive in production and acquisition.
I have personally eyeballed one in Massachusetts. I was unable to speak with the owner. If it was fake someone made a great effort to pull it off. It was not a GT either. Of course I didn’t have my camera that day. Some books say they don’t exist, some books say they do. I will attach period literature saying they were available, I know that’s not proof. I guess only Marti knows for sure. It was certainly available in the Cougar. It was a hydraulic lifter version available with C6 transmission only.
Doing a bit more research, I’m convinced that no 427 Code W ’68 Mustangs were actually built at the factory.
Paul what do you have? I only ask because if what i saw was a “one of none” then I feel foolish buying it. It was that light green color as well. If i was making a phantom i would paint it a better color! 🙂
Yes, the 427 was listed in some of the early brochures and owner’s guides, but according to these forum discussions on the subject, it appears that none were actually built. Until someone actually proves otherwise…
http://www.mustangsandmore.com/ubb/Archives/Archive-000021/HTML/20000822-1-001101.html
http://www.city-data.com/forum/automotive/1686981-1968-427-mustang.html
http://www.ponysite.de/427_68_powerhorse.htm
Paul,
In one of the forums you linked Marti weighed in with a definitive “no”.
I’m glad to know one way or the other. Was probably done back in the day at a dealer.
The 427 was on the option list for 1968 Mustang the same as the Cougar, because of the cost of the Option according to ford there was never a production 427 Mustang ordered or sold! Even the Shelby never had a true 427
there are more than one out there but they are not factory installed!
’68 brochure
The 427 was available on the ’68 Cougar, but I cannot find anything that confirms the 427 was available/offered/installed in the ’68 Mustang.
There’s still Mustang owners with a beef about not getting the 427 while the Cougar got it.
An interesting read thank you
Yes, Mustang never but do have a friend with a 68 GT-E that has the original 427 in it but it is now a 427-8V. This car is still in original Lime Frost paint and all original interior other than the extra 4bbl. and headers.
Jack Roush has one @ his museum on Market street in Livonia MI. A Cougar GTE, that is. Was a 427 ever factory installed on A Mustang? I really couldn’t say.
The 427 Mustang showed up in some Ford marketing material as a W engine code, but it is pretty well documented that there were no factory 427 Mustangs. The only 427 pony cars were a limited number of Cougar GTE’s. This topic has been debated by FE nerds (I am one) over and over again, with many claiming to have seen factory 427 Mustangs, but no one every actually producing any evidence (just google ‘w-code mustang’ if you want to read grown men debate something without end.
What is undisputed is that Ford dealerships would swap out 390’s and 428CJ’s for ‘crate’ 427’s if you asked them to–and had the funds for it.
You know what that’s what it had to be. We know there are many 427 Camaro’s around done like that. One thing I didn’t do at the time I saw it was look to see if it had a TASCA Ford logo attached
The early mercury 410 was an MEL (Mercury, Edsel, Lincoln) not an FE (Ford, Edsel) engine. Similar, but not the same engine family. The tip off is the fuel pump up on top of the intake in the front.
There was a 410 MEL engine too, but it’s very rare, only used on the ’58 Edsel Corsair and Citation. It’s a totally different engine from the FE 410, which was built in the mid 60s.
My wife had a 461 MEL in here 66 Lincoln connie two door. What a beast!!
Correct. I had two 410 F.E.’s in 66 Mercs, and I was an Edsel mechanic
in 1959 and 1960. Still have my Edsel uniform patch.
Ford put 410 fe engine in police cars 1965 and 1966. Ford did put 427 fe in Mustangs matter of fact because of shortage of 427 some of those 427 where 428’s .
You are confusing two different engines there was a 410 CI engine used in 1958 EDSEL only, had the same crank as a 430 with a 4.2 bore. and there was also a 410 CI FE engine built by using a 390 block and a 428 crank! There was also a 406 that used the same block as the 428 and a 390 crank!
You are wrong the 410 used a 390 block and a 3.98 crank the 428 used a 406 block and a 410 crank (3.98 ).the 406 came before the 428 to get the 428 ford used the 406 block and the 410 crank
The 427 has been called the ultimate wedge engine having competed in NASCAR, NHRA and LeMans. The 428 Cobra Jet is quite possibly the best “real world” muscle car engine when you consider the low end torque and hydraulic lifters.
Learn something new every day, never knew the full story about the “390” family, as I call it. Was under wrong idea the 460’s came from this design.
So many FE’s, so little time, great article. Its my understanding that Ford installed FE’s in the light trucks, not FT’s. The FT was reserved for heavy duty trucks and industrial applications. From what I know, Ford installed the 352, 360, and 390 in the trucks.
I’ve just updated the article to include the light-truck versions of the FE, including the 360.
Always though the intake manifold design was odd. The very large intake manifold actually goes partially under the valve covers, and the pushrods go through holes in it. Makes for a large intake and small head castings. Have to remove the valve train to get the intake manifold off, but switching to an aluminum intake results in a significant weight reduction. The FE was also used in light trucks and remained in Ford pickups until 1976. The FT was used in medium and heavy duty trucks, and is quite different from an FE.
I’ve just updated the article to include the light-truck versions of the FE, including the 360.
My 65 F-100 came with a 352 until the P.O. blew up the engine. Replaced with the dog 360 which is being rebuilt right now as a 390 by changing crank and rods.
At various points in the ’60s, Ford sold a 427, 428, 429, and 430. What in the name of Robert McNamara happened to economies of scale? 🙂
what wasn’t mentioned in the article was that the 427 was actually 425, and the 428 is actually 427 cubic inches. not sure about the 429 or 430!
Ford also produced a NASCAR special edition 429 hemi mustang. Dad had one. Each one had a metal plate on the driver’s door jamb identifying it as a special edition and its production #. His was the 1740 one built in 1969.
Well, the 427 and 428 were built on the same (expensive) transfer line. The 430 was the different MEL engine. I rather doubt Ford expected to ever be building a 428 inch FE back in 1958, hence the need for the big-block MEL. And the 429 replaced them all, using the MEL’s transfer lines.
Later, Ford also built the 351C (1970-74) and then the 351M (1975-82) at the same time as the 351W.
And all of those “351s” actually displace 352 cu in, properly rounded. The story I’ve heard is that they didn’t want people to confuse the 351w with the 352 so they rounded down and called it the 351, but then they repeated that with the 2 different versions of the 335 series engines.
With the FT they called them 361 and 391 even though they have the same bore and stroke as the 360 and 390 FE. The U-haul bastardized hybrid FE/FT were called 359 and 389 again supposedly to prevent confusion.
The 351C was originally created to supplement the limited capacity of Ford’s Windsor plant which produced the 351W. When the Cleveland foundry took over the designed was revised to make the engine more high performance oriented and implement some cost savings. By 1974, any hopes of high performance faded away with the last Q-code 351C-4V. The 351M was introduced for 1975 so that the engine shared more parts with the 400 vs the 351C, thus saving Ford money. The 351M was still being built at this time to supplement the 351W production. By 1980, the demand for engines this size had waned, and it only made sense to continue the 302 and 351W and discontinue the 335 series engines.
I owned a 70 Torino GT with the 351c 4V. Ordered it wit the optional rear axle available at the time. If I remember 3.25-1
That power combination had an outdating power curve from 20 to 90 mph.
I still say today, I should have thrown away the car and keep the engine.
Yeah…9 years later, but here I go.
My understanding of the 351C development varies from your comment.
As I understand it, the 351C was developed and was going to be the future small block for Ford. The 351W was a stop gap engine because Ford did not have a “350’s” engine in its line up for passenger cars and the Cleveland wasn’t going to come on line until the 1970 model year. I believe I read that Carroll Shelby suggested adding deck height to the “Challenger” V-8 to increase displacement.
Obviously, between 1966 and 1970, things changed dramatically and the Challenger head design was thought to be better for emissions going forward. The 400C was planned for replacing to “400’s” category (replacing the 390) and the 385 series is obvious.
I believe the articles I read this was from George Pence’s (noted 351C expert) notes and it was on 351C.net.
Nontheless, being a Cleveland owner yourself, I don’t have to detail what a great engine the 335 series is. If they had developed it a couple years earlier; the factory performance of those engines would have been even more legendary than they already are.
Thinking of the SOHC 427, what amazes (and appalls) me is, cost-obsessed Ford had the know-how to build exotic machinery way back in the Flathead era, but only for the Army. The 450hp M4A3 Sherman V8: allloy, gear-driven DOHC. I wonder how many “Treadheads” appreciated that. A later version was used in the 1st operational US heavy tank, the Pershing.
The GAA was developed from an abortive aircraft engine similar to the Allison V-1710.
The old 292 Y-block V8 even founded a 2nd life in Argentina under the hood of the Argentine Fairlane http://fordv8argentina.com.ar/historia.htm http://www.fordmuscleforums.com/torino-pages/478934-torinos-fairlanes-argentina-made-until-81-a.html
as well as Brazil
https://www.flickr.com/groups/932726@N23/discuss/72157625556861937/
That is quite the second life, indeed. Thank you!
The 292 was not, however (as the article states) the largest of that Y- Block family. They were offered in 272, 292 and 312 inch versions.
My first car was a 1956 Customline Ranch Wagon (2 door) with a factory ‘Thunderbird’ 312 Y- Block.
Fords of 1956 with the 312 can be spotted by their front fender side emblem.
Very interesting article. A few comments: 1) A tip of the hat to the Police Interceptor 390 offered in 1963, and probably 62 and 64 as well. 330 horsepower with solid lifters. 2) I was always intrigued how the 352 went from “top dog” in 1960 to supposed “boat anchor” shortly thereafter.
Because the 1960 hi-po 352 was full of special parts that were never used in it again. The same went for the 1961 hi-po 390. Ford kept developing special performance parts for the FE, but only used them on the then-current top version. This culminated in the 427. The 352 and 390 were relegated to lo-po status after their one brief year at the top of Ford’s pecking order.
What did Ford offer for a transmission for the 1958 Interceptor’s? My Grandfather ordered a 1959 Ford Fairlane with a 3 speed trans. It was an optional standard. He knew what he was ordering. He wanted a 312 or 352 in his car. But they didn’t offer the standard trans behind that in a passenger car. So he ordered the 292 with the 3 spd. It was geared different than the standard 3 spd. He did the math. The car flew like a bat out of hell. Trying to find another one. Because my Dad detonated when I was a kid. Back in the late 70’s. I remember getting a 3 spd trans out of a 6 cyclinder car. The car whines in 3rd gear…she wants to go, but can’t. The trans # is: 30 AF 7006-D
the manufacturing code is: sideways B 91 E Meaning it was manufacture in may of 1959. Any help would be appreciated, Thanks….Steve
My father Inlaw bought A new 1958 Ford with A 332 Intercept motor it had solid lifters and steel crank. the cam was held in place by A spring on timing chain cover. I do not remember what HP was rated at at that time but it was A great motor.
All 332 fe engines had solid lifters. The 2 barrel was rated 240 hp and 4 barrel was rated 265 hp.
Great article on a great engine. My only experiences with this were with the 390 – a 2 bbl 67 Galaxie and a 4 bbl 61 TBird. I know that the performance crowd could find better, but IMHO, there was never a better engine for lugging around a big sedan or station wagon in the 60s. Durable, teeming with torque and had a wonderful exhaust note, besides.
Ford seems to have been more ambitious (and opaque) than most other companies in the number of engine variations that they offered. Add in oddities like the 3 versions of the 351 and Ford engine history of the 50s-70s is not easy to follow. Thanks for this invaluable guide.
Interesting sidelight – as went the street, so went the pop charts:
Ever since the Beach Boys dropped surf music for car songs, I’ve been a complete addict for the genere. Back in 1962-65, I was listening to every song that was played over WCRO 1230am in Johnstown, which was the only way you got rock and roll in my town back then. Bought singles, even picked up a few albums, primarily Beach Boys, of course.
In the past couple of years, this passion has included a constant narrowing of Pandora channels to try and get nothing but 60’s car rock. I finally succeeded about as well as I will with “Rip Chords radio”. You get all the big hits, and quite a few that I assume were only local airplay on the west coast, or more exactly Southern California.
One of these is a song called “406”. No, not a misprint, as it did as well against “409” in the charts as the real engines did on the street and strip. In fact, I can’t even tell you who wrote or recorded it, and will have to look it up the next time it comes around on the channel. But it’s out there.
Just as forgotten as the engine. Chevy rules!
Were there any Brit or European contributions to the “Car Song” genre, or was it strictly a Yank thing? Offhand I only recalll some “GTI” ditty used by VW ads awhile back. Kraftwerk’s “Autobahn” was more about driving in general, not a car in particular. But surely, Jags or Alfas were worth singing about, or was the exhaust note enough for their fans?
And there are Trucking Songs, my favorite being Jerry Reed’s “Eastbound & Down.”
I think it was strictly a Yank thing, and, to be more specific, a 1961-1966 southern California Yank thing. If anything, songs like “GTO” and “Little Cobra” came along at the end of the musical arc – and The Beatles did “Rubber Soul”, the Beach Boys responded with “Pet Sounds” . . . . . . . . and rock music all of a sudden became awful bloody serious and incredibly artsy.
The phase died just around the time when you could go into a dealership and buy a genuine mid-sized muscle car, rather than having to build your own. And that VW “GTI” advertising ditty? That’s “GTO” (I believe, as I don’t speak or read German) exactly, translated into German. It was quite striking as an ad.
If you’ve ever seen the movie “American Graffiti” you’re talking that time period. That’s George Lucas’ homage to his high school years, building up hot cars and cruising the local district on a Friday night. I’ve never been in southern California, but I saw lesser copies of that on weekends all thru my adolescence in western Pennsylvania. Of course, California had it the best. They were the coolest, and we all hated them for that.
cars were not really a part of youth culture in europe in the early 60s. post war petrol rationing didn’t end in the UK until 1957 and things were far worse in Germany and Italy. The european counterparts to those kids in the US that those “car songs” were written for and by didn’t have cars at all in most cases and the very few that did had Morris Minors or Fiat 500s not Jags or Alfas. The european sports cars that americans loved were made primarily for export and were quite rare in their home markets
“The radio blasting, the girls are glancing,
The dash is dancing with gleaming dials” – The Who
http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/who/jaguar.html
One of the best car/driving songs IMO is “Radar Love” by Dutch band Golden Earring.
“I’ve been driving all night, my hands wet on the wheel
And a voice in my head that drives my heel”
Oh absolutely! Radar love is the best Hot rod/muscle car driving music.
British band Catherine Wheel has a song called “Car” that mentions Ferraris and Jaguars.
The beach boys wrote 409 who else?
A big thank you for this article, Jason. I am proud of what I do know, but when it comes to American V8s, I’ll admit to very limited understanding of what makes them all different. Pieces like this really bridge the gap.
I like the 1966 Ford police car ad photo.
“Mam….we found you son at this rock quarry….you really should be careful where he wanders off to…..here you go, feel free to beat him until he understands….now lets go get some cigarettes”
How about the 58 photo with the cops just admiring the car?
“Hey Bill, looks like some ass-hat left the keys in the boss’s new cruiser. Wana go for a ride?”
“Sure Jim, that will teach him to pass me up for getting a new unit.”
A high school friend of mine had a 62 Ford convertable with 406 emblems on the fenders. But it only had a two barrel. I never checked the numbers but he claimed it was the original engine although he got it used in around 67. I wondered about it then if it was a 352. J.C Whiteny ever sell 406 stick ons?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Olds took a long look at the FE engine when they were designing their second generation V8s.
What does the 2nd generation Olds V8 have in common with an FE? If anything it’s block design shares some similarities to the Ford 335 series, specifically the block extension for the timing chain, sheet steel timing cover and vertical fuel pump mount. Obviously the head design was completely different.
The FE was a deep skirt design, while the Olds was a short skirt block. They didn’t share much in common in the head either, having different rocker arm setups and different port arrangements.
Interesting read,years back a friend had a police special 352 engine in a 58 Goldflash sedan not actually a police spec car just the cop motor it went really well far better than the brakes and suspension could cope with Ford must have tricked out those police models because the stock brakes etc werent really up to heavy duty use.
Superbly written and researched article – I’m a Ford guy but have to agree that most of the FE motors were a step behind their GM and Chrysler counterparts in terms of power – but do think several stand out as clearly superior – the 427 and 428 Cobra jets obviously but the S code 390s were strong motors also, despite their street rep as being weak..
Only suggestion I might add is that the FE series was replaced by the Windsor, 385 and 335 engines; 335 version primarily being the 400.
I was actually going to make the same comment about the 335 series engines. In fact, by the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, all that was left of the FE was the 390 and 428. The 390 was replaced by the 400 Ford, and the 428 was replaced by the 429 Ford. The 351W and 351C replaced the gap left by the 352. For trucks, the 360 was replaced by the 351M and the 390, by the 400, both 335 series engines.
I also agree the only FE’s worth there salt were the three you mentioned.
Lincolnman The reason the 390 received a bad reputation was they were stacked up against the GM 396 and 389. The 390 S code was not really a high performance engine like the 396 and 389 were. Also the Ford dealers ordered most of the 390 mustangs and Fairlane with 3.00 gears that made them feel like they wouldn’t get out of there own Way! My best buddy had a 1968 Mustang 390 GT 4 speed with 3.00 gears My cousin had a 1967 Mustang with a 271 HP 289 with 3.89 Gears the 289 would walk all over the 390.
I have swapped cans, intakes, and headers on 390s and a solid cam aluminum intake and headers will make a 390 a beast. I bought them in the 70s cheap, any FE 2nd day modified can hold it’s own, a 428 CJ with a sold cam , Edelbrock RPM and headers, that’s 500 hp from a stock long block. 390s can wail too, I have a 450 hp one now I built 20 yrs ago. They are light and strong and can be stroked for big cubes. Great engines!
The 389 was rated at 360 hp ,390,s were rated at 300 to 325 hp depending on year. To compete with 389 and 396, you had to do a little work on the 390 and change the gear ratio. I owned a 1960 352 360 hp ,put 3.70 gear made a world of difference,
I love my FEs. On the 390 or 428 a mere cam swap, an Ed RPM and headers give you what Ford should have done In the first place, real eyeball flattened, performance. Easy and cheap. The best made, but you have to wrench a little, but they are very rewarding.
You are right ford should have done more for the guys and girls on the street. The race track was where they put there focus. With heads and cams from the 427 or the 390 375 hp from 1961
This is a well written article on Ford’s long history of the FE engines. However, since when was the FE considered a “mid-block”? As we all know the “small bock” and “Big Block” are Chevy engine terms, but they are often applied to other companies engines as well. Ford never used this terminology on their engines. In fact even the so-called Small-block Ford (or Windsor or 90-degree V8), was originally called the “Fairlane V8” by Ford. I also have seen that Wikipedia lists the FE series as a “medium block”. That said, if one wants to categorize engines, the Ford FE engine has bore spacing that is comparable to other “Big Block” engines, actually slightly larger than the Pontiac and Oldsmobile.
Pontiac – 4.620″ bore spacing
Oldsmobile – 4.625″ bore spacjing
FE Ford – 4.63″ bore spacing
Buick – 4.75″ bore spacing
AMC V8 – 4.75″ bore spacing
Chrysler B/RB – 4.80″
Chev Big Block – 4.84″
Ford 385 Series – 4.90″
Ford MEL – 4.90″
Cadillac – 5.00″
Along with the bore spacing the FE engine was quite heavy, comparable to other so called “Big Blocks”. Now compare to so called “small block engines”.
Buick – 4.24″ bore spacing
Ford 90-degree V8 and 335 series – 4.38″ bore spacing
Chevrolet small block – 4.4″ bore spacing
Chrysler LA series – 4.46″ bore spacing
Given that the FE’s bore spacing is between the smaller and bigger Ford engines, calling it a “mid block” seems to make a certain amount of sense to me.
It’s not like these designations are exactly etched in cast iron; they’re relative, to the other engines in the same company. If you want to establish some objective hard-and-fast rules about what defines a “small block” or “big block”, it could get pretty complicated, don’t you think?
I see your point. It’s true that the FE falls between the small displacement Ford V8’s and the MEL/385 Series engines. However, they were not all available on the same line at the same time. The MEL engines were never available in Ford (save for the 2nd Gen T-birds) and were Lincoln exclusive from 1961. Ford had either the Y-block (which also had 4.38″ bore spacing), or the small-block Ford through the 1960’s with the FE as the large displacement option. To most this made the FE a “Big Block” since no other bigger engine was available. Once the 385 series engine became available, this generally removed the FE engines from that car’s line-up (with exception of the full-size Ford that had the 390 and 429 available for a few years).
Here are the external engine dimensions (Length x Width x Height):
221-260-289-302: 29″ x 24″ x 27.5″
351W: 29″ x 25″ x 29″
335 Series 351C: 29″ x 25.5″ x 27.5″
FE Series: 32″ x 27″ x 29″
385 Series: 34″ x 27″ x 30″
427 SOHC 34″ x 32″ x 30″
My point of posting the bore spacing numbers was to show how arbitrary the big and small block categorization really is. Were calling a FE a mid block while nobody calls the 455 Pontiac or Olds a mid block? It seems regardless of the fact that Ford didn’t categorize these engines, people have gone about and done it anyway. That said, although nothing is official, the general consensus in the car world seems to be that the FE was a “Big Block”.
But then again maybe I am just splitting hairs too….
The point here is that these designations are a bit arbitrary. FWIW, the main reason I started calling the FE a mid-block is because I used to call it a big-block, but so many folks repeatedly pointed out that it wasn’t.
I’m not hung up on it one way or another; call it whatever you want. There seems to be plenty of opinions on these issues. 🙂
We can further muddy the waters lol.
The Olds small and big blocks are only different in deck height. Pontiac used the same external dimension block from the 287 to the 455. Only the late 70’s 265/301 Pontiac blocks were different externally (lower deck height).
Of course then there is the B/RB Chryslers. All those are considered “big blocks” even though the B blocks are probably more medium size.
And if I recall, AMC tinkered with their deck heights around 1970 on the order of about 1/8 inch.
And while on the subject of Fords, I wonder where the Lincoln Y blocks of the mid 50’s would fit in?
I always thought of “small blocks” as those engines that used the “thin wall casting” technology. But Ford’s 335 engine family used the “thin wall casting” method yet it had a capacity of 429/460 cubic inches which would make it a “big block” based on capacity. It gets confusing after a while. In the end I think using capacity is a better way of determining if an engine is a small or a big block.
Big or small block the FE had a great amount of Factory Performance support, The 390 and 428 were very versatile and if you knew the Parts Counter they were very easily made to be competitive. Even in 2019 at EMC Blair Patrick built a 400 ci 390 with mildly worked strick C4AEG heads got 600 hp out that old mule in vintage engines. In fact the FE won 1st a 289 based engine was second and a Y block won third over a 427 BBC. They were as light as a 351w with an over the counter aluminum intake, and you have to try to make less than 400 hp with one. For a pre computer age 1958 deisign they had legs to go that long. And in NHRA SS, the FE is still dominant in many classes. The 60s were fun!!!!
The 60’s were great times and the fe my favorite engine were and still are great engines. Would like to use a 427 aluminum block and a 352 crank to build a 393 cubic inch fe, bet it would really be a high winder.
The 60’s were great times and the fe my favorite engine were and still are great engines
I usually see the 427’s bore quoted as 4.2346, which I imagine was the maximum tolerance. Even at 4.232, I would round its displacement to 426 inches rather than 425: 4.25816, or 6,978cc. A 4.2346 bore brings that to 426.34, or 6,986cc. I imagine if you pulled the heads and started measuring production 427s, you’d get a range of variations. My (wholly unverified) assumption was that they quoted the higher tolerance for homologation purposes so that there wouldn’t be tech inspection hassles over it.
Splitting fine hairs, once again? 🙂
Guilty…
The reason I even think about this is that a while back, I created a spreadsheet to calculate the metric displacements of the various American-made engines. The equivalency in liters is no big deal, but cubic centimeters get very tricky. I had gotten frustrated because the displacements listed in published sources were generally all over the map, so I figured I would do it myself based on actual bore and stroke. (This can probably just be shorthanded as “something wrong with me.”)
I didn’t know you could still get the 390 in early ’71…interesting.
I knew a guy who bought a brand new ’71 Ford full size wagon and it had the 390 with a 2 bbl carb.
My wife had a ’71 LTD with a 390-2V when we were dating. Her grandparents bought it new in November 1970.
All the sizes just make my head spin and I have the utmost respect for those of you who can digest all this in a meaningful way. I have owned the 352 and 390 FE engines. I think my favorite ford was the 289 I had in a F100. Don’t have a reason more important than the sound. It was surely adequate in performance. I think I always thought of them as chasing chevy. My american cars were Fords during the sixties till I bought a 69 Dodge..
My first OHV ford was a 272 Y block that was made to compete with the chev 265. It ran for two years 55and 56 as did the 265. In 57 IIRC the 292 became standard and the 312 was the top dog to compete with the 283. Regardless of what they might truly be, I always thought the FEs were big blocks.
The old saying is that people buy horsepower but like torque, and most of the FEs strongly emphasized the latter…
I forgot to mention one other thing about FEs, I never rode in one that didn’t overheat if it was above 90 degrees outside…..352s and 390s in particular………
The B&W cutaway drawing under the title–I’ve always admired such artwork–would that be one with elongated air cleaner for its multiple carbs (390-406-427)?
On a separate note, Bob Mannel’s book about the “Fairlane” small block continues to astound me for its research and detail. Has anyone done likewise for this engine series?
Currently own ’70 Camper Special with a 2bbl 390, and a flat bed with a 2bbl 330. Neighbors Chevy PU with a 4bbl 350 will just run away from the Camper Special, 390 won’t rev.
Prior comment about the intake manifold; in cast iron, that must be the heaviest manifold ever installed on an American V-8. Three guys or a cherry picker if you want to only do the intake gaskets ONE time; two guys, you’ll knock at least one of them out of place and have to do it all over when you have the massive vacuum leak. FE was the last Ford engine made before they went to the thin wall castings of the 260, 289, etc. So everything was massive.
Blue oval fan tells me he had a ’58 Edsel with a 430? I think I read about it in my FE engine book….which would be an M-E-L..
Of the 125 (???, I’ve lost count) cars I have owned, only ONE was a V-8.
It was a ’64 Galaxie station wagon with the 352.
I saw it parked in a suburban driveway with a paper plate taped to the rear window. “For Sale, $200”.
I had no use for a big car like that but the price drew me in. The owners said they couldn’t get it to run right and I could ‘tow it away’ for $200. It also had rusted rear quarter panels, quite alarming to those who lived outside of salt country where this car was, but actually a very solid car to anyone with salt country experience. I opened up the hood and noticed the plug wires were routed wrong. Without further inquiry I fished for my wallet and coughed up the asking price.
Returning later, I routed the wires correctly and drove the beast (330 miles) home. Ran like a dream. There really wasn’t anything mechanical wrong with the car. Being the first, and only, V-8 I ever drove, I began to understand why V-8s were so popular. You could just put your foot into it and, like magic, it would cope with anything the highway threw at it. No need to skillfully buzz your engine within the power band, shifting and braking, in order to extract the needed power. Just sit there and put your foot into it. It was a revelation.
If memory serves, that was around 1982. There have been no V-8s since. So that 352 has to serve as my one and only exposure to Ford’s or anybody else’s idea of Murrican power.
The 1958 Ford Interceptor for police units could have been any FE engine. The four big block Ford engines available were the “Optional 240-hp Interceptor 332 V-8,” the “Optional 265-hp Interceptor 332 Special V-8” with four barrel carburetor, the “Optional 300-hp Police Interceptor 352 Special V-8” with four-barrel carburetor and 10.2:1 compression ratio, and the “Optional 303-hp Police Interceptor 361 Special V-8” with four-barrel carburetor and 10.5:1 compression ratio.
This information is derived from page 12 of the “1958 Ford Police Cars and Emergency Vehicles” sales brochure.
Jere,
What did Ford offer for a transmission for the 1958 Interceptor’s? My Grandfather ordered a 1959 Ford Fairlane with a 3 speed trans. It was an optional standard. He knew what he was ordering. He wanted a 312 or 352 in his car. But they didn’t offer the standard trans behind that in a passenger car. So he ordered the 292 with the 3 spd. It was geared different than the standard 3 spd. He did the math. The car flew like a bat out of hell. Trying to find another one. Because my Dad detonated when I was a kid. Back in the late 70’s. I remember getting a 3 spd trans out of a 6 cyclinder car. The car whines in 3rd gear…she wants to go, but can’t.
What Ford officially offered in their consumer-oriented brochures and what you could order with enough knowledge and connections are different. I’ve seen plenty of 1959 FoMoCo passenger cars with the 4-barrel FE engine and stick shift. You could get it if you insisted, and the dealer knew he couldn’t make a sale any other way. I’m not aware of any gearing differences in the various flavors of standard transmissions as used in passenger cars, but we certainly do know the “standard” rear end gear ratio varied with the engine and transmission. The rear end ratio could be ordered differently to get whatever performance characteristic you desired . . . taller gears with a lower numerical ratio would carry the car at highway speeds with lower engine rpm. That’s because all standard shifts work at a 1.00:1 ratio in third gear. Truck transmissions had shorter gearing in first and second, but third gear always worked the same (unless an overdrive unit was in the drive train).
The most powerful police interceptor 361cid FE’s were delivered in 1958 with Borg-Warner T-85 standard, the Borg-Warner T-85/R-11 stick overdrive, the medium case three-speed Ford-o, or the Cruise-o-matic. In 1959, for 352cid and 361cid, the two-speed Ford-o (with the one-piece aluminum case) was added as the three-speed Ford-o-matic was being phased out, and the Borg T-85 was replaced by the T-86, IIRC.
Clutch driven disk diameters also varied with the rest of the running gear, and could be 9″, 10″, 11″ with standard springs, or 11″ with beefy springs. I suspect the Police Interceptor had the beefy spring 11″ type.
I’m not an expert on this, so I certainly welcome any stone-throwing. There may be errors and omissions in what I wrote above.
Yes back in the day you could do actual special orders, ie something that wasn’t listed in the brochures, or was not an acceptable combination on the order sheet, if the dealer was willing to do the necessary paper work and get the district sales office to approve it.
Indeed. The terminology was “PAO” or “pre-approved option” for things that didn’t need any special hoop-jumping exercises, and “DSO” for those orders that needed a District Sales Office approval. For obvious reasons, fleet orders got top-priority from the District Office, and there were many strange options available for the asking by customers with multiple-vehicle orders.
Getting the District Office to pay an individual with just a single vehicle order any attention was, I guess, the trick that the dealer had to pull to get odd-ball combinations built and delivered.
There is a ’67 Country Squire wagon around that Lee Iacocca approved for a special order…..428/4 speed/buckets/console. I last saw it at Ford Carlisle about 7 or 8 years ago. Since then, I’ve seen a magazine article on the car.
The guy that had it there was the third owner and it was in original condition. He’s decided to leave it unrestored.
Turbobill, I know the fourth owner (?) of the 428 four-on-the floor, bucket seats 1967 Country Sedan. He’s Canadian as well, but lives in the states. He had it in the Detroit area for a while, but he moved to NY state. I know he sold some of his cars, and that one may have moved on to a new owner.
BTW, DSO when describing a sales order, it turns out, really stands for “Domestic Special Order,” not “District Sales Office.” But it *is* the District Sales Office” that determines if the order can be filled and, if so, which assembly plant will do it.
A Special 1959 Ford Galaxie:
A friend, William Jarrell, special-ordered a beautiful 1959 Ford Fairlane 500, Galaxie Club Victoria in Diamond-Luster Colonial White. With this combination, he ordered the 300-hp Thunderbird 352 Special V-8 coupled to Ford’s “Conventional” 3-speed, column-shift manual transmission with overdrive and a 3.70 with Equa-Lock differential. Not many Ford Galaxies were ordered this way; perhaps they could be counted on the fingers of one’s hands, and a FoMoCo authority once said this combination was “one-of-one.” This Ford was intended by its owner to be a “daily driver” with the ancillary duty of street-road-racing in the local area.
Once this beautiful car was delivered, William installed four extra-heavy-duty Gabriel “Silver E” shocks and several other suspension updates, and he mounted Goodyear Blue-Streak tires — among the best of the era. He used the resources of Holmon-Moody in Charlotte to complete much of the “special” work on this car. For example, he mounted a roll-bar brace and a special steel-tubing grab handle on the transmission tunnel for support in the event of a roll-over, and he installed special foot blocks to enhance “heal-and-toe” procedures during fast driving and downshifts. This combination was his personal car, but he was serious about using it to “road race” (street) the local Chevrolets and Dodges in this area after having been humiliated previously by a friend in a 348 cu. in. Chevrolet convertible.
Once William’s new 1959 Ford was delivered, he simply never lost a race until he turned it over — traveling at approximately 120 mph — around 4:00 am one morning avoiding a farmer’s tractor en route to a corn field. Bias-ply tires of the highest rating were still very insufficient for the power and handling capabilities of this car and driver. William had just passed the car he was racing (a 348 Tri-Power Impala) and had traveled completely out of sight when he came upon this tractor with barely visible night lights. He was forced to go off on the shoulder, hit a small boulder, flipped end-over-end many times, rolled some more and landed on its top. William survived the crash, but the car was damaged almost beyond recognition, looking much like a crashed airplane. When the Chevrolet Tri-Power arrived on the scene, William was upside-down, still holding to the steering wheel with one hand the the grab handle with the other. Skid marks were visible for nearly an eighth of a mile, but local police were so puzzled at the sight, that no formal charges — other than “exceeding safe conditions” — were ever filed. Local residents could only recall hearing a “low-flying airplane.”
Getting ready to take motor out of my 1966 Galaxy 2 door. Pulled the tag out from under coil and surprise it says it’s a 360 1969. Car badged as a 390. Want to go for max power how much can I get out of this?
Great informative article. I’m a Ford man, and yes I have one with the fe engine. It’s a 1964 Galaxie. It was special ordered with the 390 police interceptor sporting 2 four barrel carbs. Originally came with a standard 3 speed on the column but now has a 4 in the floor borg warner t10. I’ve had it since I was 20 yo, I’m 56 now. About 10 yrs ago I built the engine, bored 60 over, roller rockers, headers, nice cam etc. It’s pushing a little over 650 hp now and eats Chevy’s for breakfast… lol. All kidding aside, cost probably twice as much to build compared to the Chevy’s I’ve done, but the end result is the fastest street car I’ve ever owned, that’s why I still have it.
Great Article! My dad had a ’59 352/300 when I was born. The only problem ever was the radiator. On January 18, 1966 he bought a new 7 Litre 428/345. He gave it to me in March of 1983. I sold it in August of ’09 to a friend of mine. It is now immaculate. He was offered $50k for it down at Myrtle Beach. He turned it down. Later, the man came back by. He said “I bet you wouldn’t take a hundred grand for it would you?” Tiny said “No. I have a hundred grand, so I don’t need to sell it.” Anyway, I hope to own it again someday but it would have to be a miracle or an act of kindness, (Tiny’s will) haha. Tiny has nearly 30g in it. On another note, my first car was a ’65 390 Galaxie. In ’78 I went to work for a local school bus garage. I know my way around the 330 and 361 engines quite well. I consider the skirted blocks a great idea for the main cap support and rigidity. The only trouble those engines ever gave was the wrist pin bushing would sometimes get out of index with the oil hole which would cause wear and pecking. The ’67 and ’68 361 engines, for some reason, would out perform the ’73-78 engines by a vast amount. (The ’69-72s we had were Chev, and IH).The ’79s went with the 370 which was the 385 block family. These were dropping valves until Ford recalled the remaining ones and replaced the valves. (The valve heads/stems were breaking off. I believe it had something to do with sodium filled stems)?? Thanks, Larry Bralley for mechanic for Pulaski County VA School Board and lifetime Ford fanatic.
Small question
On my 1968 Ford Galaxie 500 convertible car is written engine number: 7B23-8
On top (air intake) is an sticker of 390 Cui
Is that right?
Chassis number is: 8W57F186254
Your engine was assembled December 23, 1967, if I’m not mistaken. All the raised date codes on the various cast components should pre-date that by anywhere from a day or two up to as much as a few months to be a :”numbers-matching” engine.
Thanks! But can you are in that nummer what Cui that engine is?
Jerome
No, you’ll need to measure the stroke and bore to determine that.
Just curious,
Aside from how the performance versions of the FE compared with GM, Chrysler, etc. performance versions, how did the average station wagon FE compare to a GM or Chrysler V8 wagon?
Thanks,
Steve
Just curious, aside from how the performance versions of the FE compared with GM, Chrysler, etc. performance versions, how did the average station wagon FE compare to a GM or Chrysler V8 wagon? Thanks, Steve
______________
From my experience, the “Big 3” automakers had pretty competitive sedans and station wagons during this period; however, for example, if a Dodge wagon were ordered with the 440 cu. in. big block, it probably had more “grunt” than either of the other two. Standard-issue engines, however, were pretty close in performance and fuel economy, in my experience.
Thanks Tom, kinda what I thought it would be, I just didn’t have any personal experience other than a 1967 F-250 with the 352 and my 1964 F-250 with a 390.
The 352 ran good, but always felt like it only had half throttle, so it never seemed to break a sweat (good) but, couldn’t get it to rev much either, making it feel underpowered. Of course that version had the lowest compression / power listed for any 352 – 208 hp, so it was on the lowest end of the scale for FE’s.
My 390 on the other hand, is not underpowered at all. Abundant torque from idle up, and revs freely to 5500rpm. Wish I could say it is stock, but, it is a modest RV build – Edelbrock Performer carb, manifold, cam and headers.
FE series has always been my favorite Ford engine(s). Thanks for the great article.
The valve covers, their gaskets and bolt hole size and placement from my 1969 Mercury Marqui 428 cu.in. are exactly the same as my 1986 F-350 460 cu.in. The 428 valve covers are not as tall as the 460 and I cannot tell if the will barely clear the rockers or if the 1st time I start it up after rebuilding the bottom end I’m going to regret it.
Does anyone have the answer to this d/t I had the original 428 valve covers chromed. Yes, they say “Powered By Ford”. Not summit racing, edlebrock etc. I really appreciate your help so thank you all in advance. I’m looking forward to your answers. Sincerely, Daniel Phillips
Correction: My 1969 Mercury Marque had a (#’s matching) 429 cu in. not a 428 cu.in. that I had incorrectly wrote in the previous post. That explains why the valve covers and bolt holes match up with the 1986 F-350 460 cu.in. but if anyone knows the answer to my previously posted question.. Will the lower profile valve covers from the 429 cu. in. clear the rockers (even barely if that’s acceptable) of the 1986 460 cu. in. 1-ton truck that have a taller profile? I sure would like to put the chromed “Powered By Ford” valve covers on without the regrets of possible damages that could occur. Thanks again in advance for reading this and if you have some .
answers. Sincerely, Daniel Phillips
Dad’s FE was a 62 292 Galaxie with the 2 speed fordomatic. What a dog! It was
A 283 Impala with a powerglide had to be better than this, My FE’s were a 72
ranger XLT pu that didn’t get driven much due to the 8 mpg from the 390
10 years ago I had a 65 galaxie 500 for a while that had a 390 4 barrel
I never really tested it’s capabilities
The 292cid engine is *not* an FE engine. It’s a “Ford Y-block” (as opposed to the LIncoln and Mercury Y-blocks). Its origins go back as far as 1954 with Ford’s first overhead valve V-8’s. It was used in trucks up to 1964, although 1962 was the last year for automotive installations.
Have 1966 F600. VIN says 330, but water pump that fits is from 352. Has engine been replaced? Drivers side front casting says 352. How do I date and find out what engine this is. Ford books say little about F600-F700 truck engines. History unknown so someone may have replaced with car engine???????
Most FE blocks have “352” cast into them in front of the number-5 cylinder, although the engine can range from 330 to 428CID. But some FE engine have the “352” cast into the back of the block behind the number-8 cylinder. That’s from the original design spec for the engine, even though the first ones sold were 361cid. The external casting numbers don’t reflect machining changes to the block or variation on the parts used internally. Some heavy-duty truck blocks and some race blocks have an “X” cast into them. Source: “How To Rebuild Big-Block Ford Engines” by Steve Christ, HP Books, Price Stern Sloan, LA CA, ISBN 0-89586-070-8, 1983.
The block casting engineering number and date on one side or the other of the engine somewhere near the expansion plugs would help identify and date the engine. The actual assembly date of the engine will be a few days or even weeks after the block was cast.
Here’s a 352cid Hi-Po engine block engineering number and casting date.
Thanks Jere. Do the numbers in my next comment mean anything? I will try to find the set of numbers U describe later today. Your comment about 352 meaning anything from a 330 to a 428 are also consistent with George Reid’s High Performance FORD Engine Parts Interchange book. So that number means little or nothing??? VERY CONFUSING for a rookie!
If this is a 352, it probably matters if from car or truck (???) a car engines had 4V and 250HP while truck engines had 2V and 208HP. I think that correct but had to read Reids book and a 1966 Ford F100-F250 brochure to find those figures.
REALLY APPRECIATE any and all help U can give.
More on 1966 F600.
LEFT FRONT BLOCK – 352
RIGHT SIDE BLOCK TOWARD FRONT – 3W90
INTAKE FRONT – C5TE over 9425-F
INTAKE BACK – Firing Order 15426378
If it says “352”, it almost certainly is a 352. The 330 FT was available in medium duty and HD versions, and was commonly installed in F600s like yours. But it’s quite likely someone swapped it out. And yes, that 352 may be a car or light pickup engine. I don’t think there ever was a FT 352HD or medium duty engine.
More info on the 330HD here:
https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/704151-what-is-the-330-hd.html
Most FE block castings have “352” cast into them, but they can range from 330 to 428cid when machining and assembly is complete.
The FE and FT share the same basic block but have a lot of differences. The FT uses a cast iron timing cover the FE an aluminum one, one of the reasons for that is the longer larger diameter crank snout. The heads and manifolds are also different and you have to use them as a set. The quick way to tell what you have is to count the exhaust manifold bolts. The FE has 8 while the FT has an extra 2 for the high flow exhaust crossover port that is supplied from the exhaust manifold.
C5TE-9425-F tells me this is an intake manifold cast for a 1965 (or perhaps 1966,1967 or possibly even later) truck engine. Christ’s book doesn’t list intake casting numbers, and I don’t have a 1965 Ford truck parts book, although parts books don’t usually have casting numbers listed. The FE firing order is always 15426378 except on some marine applications with reversed crank rotation.
I don’t recognize the engine block date code “3W90.” The last digit is usually a shift number, and it’s often a “3”. Could that date code be upside down? “06M” might translate out to June 12, 1960, using a mix of earlier date coding schemes. But that doesn’t work for a 1965 engine block casting, and I don’t see any listing for FE truck blocks earlier than 1964. Perhaps the 1963 and earlier truck FE engines were built up on standard car engine blocks, and this block has been replaced. I don’t really know . . . I’m out of my league now.
You might look other places on the block for an engineering number . . . something like C6TE-6015-C or -F or C6ME-6015 with or without the suffix -A, perhaps.
If you get to a point you can easily access them, use the other casting numbers to help you as well. especially cylinder heads . . . even bell housing, exhaust manifolds, the old water pump, just about anything cast.
Bad water pump was my first clue that engine was NOT a 330. Casting number on old water pump is 17 over 30768 over A.
I have looked, but as near as I can tell, there are no casting numbers anywhere near soft plugs or anywhere else on side of block that I can see (except for the 3W90 which I do not think is upside down).
Both exhaust manifolds have casting number C4TE 9430.
Right head (passenger side) has C4TE 8090E by first cylinder spark plug.
Left head (drivers side) has exact same number by last cylinder spark plug.
Does any of that help?
Comment from another is that since this truck was assembled in NOV 66 and the 330 was not to be continued in new model F600 trucks for 1967, they ran out of 330 engines and got a 352 from pickup truck assembly line. Is that logical?
If you think this is a 1966 Truck 352 that would make some sense.
In next few days I will take center floor cover (4 speed) out and see if I can find any casting numbers on back of block.
Really appreciate the time U have been willing to spend. THANKS AGAIN!
Sounds like all truck parts to me. C4TE means 1964 truck engine. At this point, I’d say the only way to tell what you have is to pull a head and measure stroke and bore.
http://www.erareplicas.com/427man/engine/partnums.htm But again the quick and easy way to tell a FT from a FE is to count the exhaust manifold bolts.
Scoutdude, Thanks for input.
This engine has 10 exhaust manifold bolts so it must be an FT???
But is it still a 330 CI? The water pump I just replaced (NAPA) says it is to fit a 352 and not a 330. Did some 330s use the 352 water pump?
In looking at reference U sent me to, I did not realize casting number was upside down. Therefore what I might have read as “3W90” may be C6ME??? I will have to somehow get a better light and confirm.
However, if that is correct – that references many blocks.
That being said, the VIN number says my F600 came with the “330 CID (2V-MD) Gas Engine” which does match the block casting chart U reference me to, and as well it must be an FT engine and not an FE???
The water pump being for a “typical 352” and not what NAPA book calls for with the 330 has me stumped. Unless the MD 330 engine block used the 352 water pump and the HD 330 engine used a different water pump?
I would share my telephone number here if U thought a conversation could help me more. It would be nice to know as this is a 51 YR-OLD TK with 76000 miles and I will assuredly need parts in the future. Am restoring the truck, but will use it as well. Will be finished soon and will try to post a pic when complete. It’s really a cool old truck!
C6ME certainly confirms the block is for a truck engine. The 330 and 352 have the same basic exterior dimensions, as do most FE engine blocks, so of course the water pumps would be similar on many of them. The water pump casting is made to fit the face of the FE engine block and what’s good for 352 should work fine for a 330 truck engine just as well. One major variation I’ve seen is the shaft length, where very early FE engines didn’t use a fan clutch or a spacer so the water pump shaft is longer. Those are 1960 and before, though, I believe.
Of course, if you were to look up water pumps in the Ford parts book, you would find myriad part numbers with all kinds of variations. But I wouldn’t fret that your 330cid uses a typical Ford 352/390 replacement water pump. After-market parts suppliers are known for making their replacements fit across many different applications
Your discussion of water pumps is my conundrum. The water pump that fits this engine block DOES NOT fit the face of the block. The block has two holes which the water pump flanges connect to. The pump itself is totally exterior to the block and NAPA says this is the system for the 352 car engines.
Your thoughts please.
Yes if you have 10 bolts holding the exhaust manifold to the head it is a FT, though technically one could hang the FT intake, heads and exhaust manifolds on a FE block.
The fact that the block casting number is consistent with what your truck is supposed to have makes it pretty likely that it is the original engine.
The common water pump was probably substituted at one point because it was common. The connection to the block is the same for FT and FE but there may be differences in things like holes to mount the various accessory drives and overall length.
So if you found one that works that is all that really matters. However when it comes time for front end accessory drive pieces it may be that some of those were changed as part of the water pump conversion.
What material is the timing cover made out of? Aluminum for the FE and cast iron for the FT.
As far as whether it is a 330, 359/361 or 389/391 FT or a 352, 360, or 390 FE dressed up to look like an FT the only time that will matter is when it comes time for things that involve the displacement like pistons and rings. Things like ignition parts, filters gaskets other than head, ect, all interchange across the FT family.
Enjoy your truck.
Also, unless the books I have looked at are wrong, pickups only used the 208 HP 352 in 1965, 1966 and 1967. Prior to that the V8 was the old 292 and after that they went to the 360-390 engines???
I see references to 330cid, 361cid and 391cid, but I don’t know what years those engines were available. I’m about at my limit regarding Ford truck engines.
I’m about to work on a 67 Mustang that owner says has a 390, although factory code is 351. How do I identify if it is a 390, in the car? I cannot remove the engine so where can I find anything to help id the engine? After reading this article and the many responses, I have my work cut out for me. Thanks for your assistance.
Are you sure? The 351 didn’t get installed in Mustangs until 1969(the 351 didn’t even exist in 67), the 390 code is S in 1967.
The as for telling them apart, the size is the most obvious, the 351w is only a tad larger physically than a 289/302′ and are otherwise identical, 390s are much wider, and if you still need more to set it apart besides a few subtle details like the valve covers or thermostat housing angle, look underneath and look to see whether or not the block is skirted, on a FE the oil pan would be below the harmonic balancer, on a 351 the pan would be half covered by it
On an FE, the top row of the valve cover bolts actually bolt to the intake manifold IIRC.
It’s been many years but I used to have a real stout 64 Galaxie with a PI 390. A heck of a lot easier to work on in the Galaxie than in your Mustang. That & the Fairlane was a tight fit for an FE.
Guys the 427 ford engines were for nascar only if you have one you are very lucky because they were never meant to be out on the street I was a ford lover back in the day but ford chevy Chrysler don’t make cars like they used to but if you can find a ford 427 engine you better keep it it’s worth a lot of money what I have said is true Toyota man now
Owned a 360 FE in a 1976 F-150 4×4. Mine was a rare medium duty truck (i.e. FT) block that was machined as a pass-car/light truck block. An old timer from Ford told me that they experienced block shortages back then from time to time, so they would use medium duty blocks, but grab them before they were machined for a governor vs. a distributor as the bore diameter was different.
A key way to spot a medium duty block, at least one from the ’70’s is where normally the front of the block casting says “352” below the cylinder head, instead it will have “105” in mirror-image reverse.
The medium-duty blocks were quite special as they used more silicon and manganese in the casting to reduce wear, especially in the bores where FE’s were known to develop taper wear at higher mileages. Medium duty blocks also had full-thickness main bearing saddles and caps vs. the “chinned” down saddles and caps on the light duty blocks. This helped stabilize the crankshaft under high loads. Bare medium-duty blocks also reputedly weighed somewhere around 20 lbs. more than a light duty block due to the metallurgy and extra material in the block to stiffen up the crank bore.
When I popped the heads off of my engine at around 170K miles to repair to burned exhaust valves, I was shocked to discover flat-top pistons with valve reliefs (360’s should have had severely dished pistons and a correspondingly low compression ratio), and also ZERO wear in the bores – no ridge at the top, cross-hatch honing clearly still visible.
I’m not sure how to explain the high-compression pistons as I was only the 2nd owner of the truck and knew the first owner well, as he was my best friend’s dad. He bought the truck brand new from a local dealer to the Denver area and he had never messed around with the engine, including ever changing the original spark plugs until the engine had in excess of 120K on it – I should know as I maintained the truck for him starting around those miles before I acquired it. That same Ford old-timer I spoke to about the blocks seemed to think that since the 360 and 390 were in their final year in ’76, they were using up various parts, but that seems odd given that they hadn’t made flat-top pistons for an FE since the late ’60’s or early ’70’s at the latest.
Once I buttoned up the engine with freshly rebuilt heads, I was pleased to discover that the compression in all of the cylinders went from a low of 158 psi to a max of 161 psi…pretty darn consistent for an engine with over 170K on it with no work having ever been performed to the bottom end…not even the oil pan had ever been off of it.
With some carefully chosen ignition upgrades and judicious tuning of the large-bore Motorcraft 2-barrel, it was perhaps the best-running stock 360 I’ve ever experienced, as most reviews from the time were not kind to the old slow-revving engine. If memory serves, stock 360s should have full-skirt pistons, so it was a lot of inertia and reciprocating mass to move around…they were typically completely spent by 3,500 RPM.
Sorry for the long winded reply, and I really wish I could have kept that truck – it was a real gem. Last year for the FE, first year for disc brakes on the 4×4 models, and first year for the integral power steering gear, a nice combination of old-tech (the FE) and some welcome upgrades the trucks needed.
Does indeed should like the perfect ‘dentside’ pickup. The 360 and 390 may not have been quite as powerful as some of the competition’s engines, but they were more reliable than the 351M and 400 that replaced them. I remember Ford had quite a time in ’77-’78 with cracking blocks and heads on the ‘truck’ 351M and 400. They didn’t seem to have any more power than the engines they replaced either.
Still one of the best of CC, Jason!! And one of my personal faves, because, y’know, FE!
any one know if a 352 cam will fit a 332.. can’t finda stge 2 cam for a 332
If it is a solid lifter 352 cam , the 352 had both hydraulic and solid lifters during there production, the 332 had only solid lifters no oil provision for hydraulic lifters
My friend bought a 69 or 1970 I believe 429 cobra jet Torino. He threw me the keys and said let’s go for a ride. I was turning the corner and he said. punch it,. I did and the rear end swung out and we took the car up an entire city block with the steering at full crank, smoking the tires with the rear end even with the front. When he grabbed the dash, I let up, and said I’m sorry I thought you said punch it. He said i did, but wasn’t expecting that! My point is, everyone looks at me with a raised eyebrow when I say 429 cobra jet Torino. . Thanks for the article.
The W code 427 was Cougar only. That isn’t to say that a ringer or two 427 Mustang couldn’t have escaped the crushed, or were subbed for deep deep pocket customers. Research has shown time and again S code cars with transplant 427s with a crude W stamped on the tag. The hidden number unicorn s are all S codes or the KR8. Until the 428 CJ cars were built the Q and R codes brought the cars to life. You could build your own, but even HF II had to have Holman Moody build his427 Fair lane with a MR, The 428 PI Shelves with 2x4s were cool but still needed cam and headers to match the sweet CJ/SCJ cars. I wish it was possible, but it doesn’t make it so.
Go to Fastfairlane.com for a lot of information about fe engines real good site
Article shows both 360 and 361 as having 3.5″ stroke. Shows 360 as having 4.052″ bore and shows 361 as having smaller 4.047″ bore. It would appear that you flipped the bore data.
I drove a 1961 Ford Country Sedan when I was in College from 1965 though to 1970 when I bought a 302 Fairlane.
The 352 was very reliable and with the overdrive transmission I could get 20 mpg on the NYS Truway going 72 mph.
It was a great car. I sold it in 1970 and the couple that bought it drove it to California and back at least once.
It only had the 2 barrel carb but it got out of its own way. I used to tow a 1,500 pound boat this it.
Overall it was a great car.
428 Cobra Jet was really the result of Tasca Ford modifying a big-car 428 short-block with better 427-based “Medium-Riser” heads and a hi-po cam since the 390 was such a stiff in the mid-60’s.
Tasca was the highest volume Ford dealer on the East coast and had Ford’s ear. Hot Rod Magazine orchestrated a write-in campaign by including a post card addressed to Ford in the issue showing the 1967 Tasca 428’s.
The ’68 427 was a neutered shadow of its former self but still expensive and rarely bought. Ford realized that they had all the parts on the shelf and could cheaply build it. They killed the 427 and introduced the Cobra Jet late in the 1968 model year for 3-year run.