shot and posted by Tim Finn
NASCAR homologation specials are not exactly the specialty of the CC house. But today we make an exception, for several reasons. The first one is that this is a paper tiger, as it has a very prosaic 351 V8, column shift automatic and bench seats. The interior looks just like Mom’s Montego wagon. Despite having a unique and handmade aerodynamic nose to homologate it for NASCAR, these were not based on the hot Cyclone CJ 428, but just run of the mill Montego Cyclones. If it had come with a six, it would really be our cup of CC tea.
The back story of these is worth sharing and reading, including how Mercury tricked NASCAR into thinking they’d built 500 of them when in reality only 351 had been built at the time NASCAR wanted proof.
As a frame of reference, here’s a Cyclone Spoiler Dan Gurney Special. No “II”, and no special “ant eater” elongated and droopy front nose.
Ford was determined to up the ante against Chrysler and their NASCAR special, the Dodge Charger 500, which had a flush nose and a smooth fastback, unlike the tunnel-back of the regular Chargers. Those aerodynamic changes made it the terror of the high speed tracks.
Ford’s solution was to create that longer, lower front end, and graft it on both Torino (called the Talladega) and the Mercury Cyclone. 500 would have to be built to satisfy NASCAR.
But according to the story, when NASCAR came to see the 500 Spolier II’s, Mercury had only built 351. So they took 152 regular-nosed Cyclone Spoilers and parked them in the back of the block of 500, with their noses right up against the ones in front of them. NASCAR apparently fell for the ruse. But the additional genuine articles were eventually made, as Marti Reports says that 503 Spoiler IIs were made.
The fastback was already well suited for high speed work, and the combination with the new front end made it very effective. It won eight Grand National races in 1969 and 1970, equaling the record of the 1970 Plymouth Superbird, which of course was the ultimate–and final–of the aerodynamic specials. NASCAR put an end to that by requiring them to have a much smaller 305 CI engine compared to the 7 liter engines. Game up.
The Ford and Mercurys started the 1969 season with the venerable 427 side oiler, but then switched to the new Boss 429 after it was homologated early in 1969. Ford completely pulled out of racing later in 1969, so the teams just kept the ’69’s for the 1970 season.
Here’s that interior. Oh my; it’s a genuine poseur. How odd.
The lack of fender call-outs confirm that this has the 351. The 390 and 428 were optional, as well as bucket seats and floor shifters. But given that these were all built in a short window at the beginning of the 1969 model year, it appears they were built this way to be sent to dealers, and not special ordered.
The front bumper was actually a rear bumper from a 1969 Ford Fairlane that had been cut, narrowed, V’ed in the center, and filled on the ends to do its part in enhancing the aerodynamics of the car at high speeds.
These have not appreciated anywhere near like the Super Bird, so if you’re hankering for a mild-mannered NASCAR special, here’s your chance.
Nothing spells racy like a half horn ring!
Car interiors in general got mighty dreary in the late 60s, and Ford was among the worst offenders with really cheap looking materials. This looks better than most in that cheery light blue, but so many of these were black and those looked worst of all.
I have known very little about these, and this is a great tutorial. In general, the FoMoCo mid-size cars from 1966-71 are seldom seen and appear to be appreciated and coveted far, far less than the GM and Mopar competition.
“the FoMoCo mid-size cars from 1966-71 are seldom seen and appear to be appreciated and coveted far, far less than the GM and Mopar competition.”
No surprise.
From ’64-’78, GM built intermediate cars from intermediate platforms. The front suspension coil springs acted on the lower control arms, mostly but not completely out of the way of the engine compartment.
Chrysler built “full size” cars from an intermediate platform, then corrected their mistake by building intermediate cars from that intermediate platform, while building full-size cars from a new, full-size platform. Again, the front suspension springs acted on the lower control arms.
Ford’s “Better Idea” was to build intermediate cars from it’s bottom-feeder compact platform that had the damn front suspension springs acting on the wrong (upper) control arms; then had to compromise their engines’ exhaust ports to make the lump fit between the gigantic space-wasting inner-fender/unibody structure.
For awhile, fixing the Ford “Cleveland” exhaust port involved band-sawing the outer section of the exhaust port from the cylinder head, then attaching a “port plate” to the outside with a new, less-restrictive port shape carved into the plate. Of course, that worked because NASCAR wasn’t verifying the original, hateful inner-fender structure was still there.
A huge amount of why I despised working on Fords traces directly back to the Falcon–although I didn’t realize it at the time. The same mistake was made by other car companies–using stamped-sheetmetal as structure, instead of a frame or sub-frame, which then forced the spring onto the upper control arm (or onto a Micky Pee strut) so the load could be taken by the unibody structure–and thus destroyed engine compartment space and working access.
In fact, I think there’s already a CC article that covers that feature nicely.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-fords-falcon-platform-from-falcon-to-versailles-in-18-different-wheelbase-lengthtrack-width-variations/
Far as I’m concerned, the Falcon front suspension is a Ford “Deadly Sin”.
While I’ll fall in line and agree that the Falcon front suspension is a lousy piece of engineering, I don’t think that’s the reason 66-71 intermediates are less collectible, as Mustangs are quite collectible and have an even tighter bay than those 66+ wide platform cars, and 62-67 Chevy IIs are quite popular and use a carbon copy of the Falcon suspension. With these intermediates I credit the reputation of the perpetual loser engines until the (rare)428cj and the styling. These big fastbacks are a hard pill to swallow, even 66-67 fastback Chargers aren’t nearly as collectible as 68-70s, and the Torino/Montego versions look really dated compared to GM and Chrysler’s, those boxy crisp lines were on their way out when they debuted in 1966, by 68-69 even AMC Rebels looked more contemporary, and by the time Ford caught up with the thorough 1970 restyle the body looked too heavy. The 72s aren’t that collectible despite being essentially a “Ford Chevelle” with its new BOF layout, similar suspensions and up to date(albeit decompressed like everyone else’s) performance engines
Nailed it! An extra bushing to wear out (the saddle bush below the spring), Camber pins that one decent curb strike would knock out of alignment, the next-to-impossible to lube upper control arm bushes. And the intrusion of the towers made a simple/crude car harder to work on than it needed to be.
I think the dreary dashboards were in part due to government regulations and cost cutting. Regs concerning crash testing, safety and a reduction in chrome and reflective surfaces gave way to uninspired vinyls and plastics.
I don’t think Ford interiors of the time were too bad. My ire is reserved for Mopar. Their dashboards of that time looked positively home made, simple and crude, worthy of a kit car. A huge decline from their spectacular dashboard creations ten years earlier.
I love hearing of any tricks pulled over on nascar. Brilliant!
I always thought it was kind of odd that NASCAR didn’t require the manufacturer homologate the engine in the car that would be raced. Boss 429 Talladega’s and Boss 429 Cyclone II’s. I loved these cars when they came out but was disappointed also when I saw the interiors and power trains. No bucket seats???? An automatic transmission?????????? A 351W?????
I enjoyed following NASCAR then when the cars were much more stock-bodied than today–for better/worse. In all the tales of trying to sneak something past NASCAR inspectors (“if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying”) leaves me wondering who to root for, but I do find them all entertaining.
Supposing Ford’s 427/SOHC had been NASCAR-OK’d in the mid 1960s, I wonder how much it would have made–after a few years of development–compared to the late-1960s 429s. (Obviously, more finicky parts to keep whole and in adjustment.)
Interesting that Ford was putting both Mercury and FoMoCo out on the NASCAR tracks when they did—was one shell any more aerodynamic than the other?
p.s. I keep forgetting this guy ever raced for Ford:
There was some talk that Mercury was a little better. One other trick that Ford slid by NASCAR was rocker panels that were rolled differently that lowered the car about another inch. Mercury has 96 of Ford’s 800 wins, last win was in 1980.