Ford Motor Company and its “family of fine cars (and trucks)” have been powered by so many different engine families that it’s sometimes hard to keep them all straight. In 1962 alone, its heavy truck line offered a 302 that wasn’t a small-block and a 332 that wasn’t an FE, and those were just two of the now “obsolete” engines you’d find under the hoods of F-Series trucks.
Being that there have always been so many Ford light trucks on the road, such as the “unibody” F-100 pictured above, you may forget that Ford has long offered a lineup of F-Series trucks for commercial duties.
They offered “Mediums” such as the red box truck shown in this advertisement, which were available with “America’s most popular truck V8s.”
Even the big monsters in the heavy-duty truck line had their own “Super Duty” V8s (maybe we’ll get into those another time), but those were only available in trucks larger than the F-800. They had a 100,000-mile factory warranty.
My grandpa owned a 1962 Ford F-100, and the owner’s manual found its way to me decades later. The first time I thumbed through it, I made note of a few things.
The first was that Grandpa needed a new engine very early on in the truck’s life, in November of 1964 when the truck had only 62,438 miles on it. The good old days weren’t always good, I guess. I called my dad and asked him what engine the old unibody had, but his response was that he was a high school kid at the time, and he had other things to worry about. He said that my grandpa liked six-cylinders, which meant either the 223 or the 262 six in 1962; however, the old Ford Y-Block 292 was also available in the F-100.
In fact, three engine families were offered in the F-100 through F-800 series trucks, all of them based on designs from the early 1950s and soon to be superseded by somewhat more modern replacements.
A couple observations:
- Notice how the cranking compression numbers were the same across all engine families: 150 psi +/- 20 psi. This suggests that the cam timing (and, obviously, compression ratios) was very similar among the three engine families.
- The firing order of the two V8 families was unique: 1-5-4-8-6-3-7-2 (remember that Ford numbered the passenger side bank 1-2-3-4, and the driver’s side bank 5-6-7-8, from front to back). The first of the small-blocks and the FE family had a 1-5-4-2-6-3-7-8 firing order, which may be the reason why you can often tell when an old Ford has a “Y-Block” under the hood. The 351 Windsor and later 5.0 HO engines used yet another firing order: 1-3-7-2-6-5-4-8.
The 223-cubic-inch six was based on Ford’s first overhead valve six, which was introduced in 1952 with a displacement of 215 cubic inches. The 223 was introduced in 1954 and lasted all the way through 1964, when it was replaced by Ford’s 240 “Big Six.” The 262 was a bored-and-stroked 223, and it offered a little more horsepower and torque (152 horsepower vs. 135, and 238 lb-ft vs. 200).
The 292 and 292 HD engines were part of the well-known Y-Block series of engines, which began production in 1954 and kicked around in trucks through 1964. The “HD” version of the 292 had a forged-steel crankshaft, heavy-duty connecting rods, and sodium-filled exhaust valves, and produced 13 extra horsepower and 4 extra lb.-ft. of torque over its standard 292 sibling.
But the real points of interest here are the 302 HD and 332 HD V8s. We know that Ford made a 302 small-block available beginning in 1968, and Ford offered a 332 FE big-block in cars in 1958, but what are these? The picture shown above is clearly not an FE.
Both the 302HD and 332 HD engines were based on the Lincoln Y-Block, Ford Motor Company’s first overhead-valve V8. It was introduced for the 1952 model year and used in both Lincoln cars and heavy-duty trucks. It lasted through the 1957 model year in cars but all the way until 1963 in trucks, being superseded by the FT-series (the truck version of Ford’s FE) starting in 1964. The 302 and 332 were available in two- and four-barrel tune in 1962 Ford trucks, ranging from 180 to 200 gross horsepower (159-173 net) and 276-307 lb-ft of torque (262-285 net). Like the 292 HD, the Lincoln-based engines had sodium-cooled valves along with a forged-steel crankshaft and connecting rods.
Although the 292 Ford Y-Block and the 302 HD and 332 HD engines share a family appearance, there are a few “tells.”
- The Lincoln Y-Block has “ribs” around its two valve cover nuts.
- The Lincoln Y-Block has “ram’s horn” exhaust manifolds, and therefore can’t have the Ford 292’s…
- Front exhaust crossover, a carryover from the early days of Y-Block installation in cars.
- The Ford Y-Block has “stacked” intake ports in the heads, while the Lincoln Y-Block has traditional side-by-side ports, so the intake manifolds aren’t interchangeable. In fact, in typical Ford fashion, little is interchangeable between the engines.
It’s fascinating that an engine that looked this good powering a 1956-57 Continental Mark II (at its 368-cubic-inch apex) could also power a new dump truck almost a decade later, but it did. It wasn’t uncommon for the Big Three to continue using “obsolete” engines in their truck lines for some time after they were discontinued in cars; the 251-cubic-inch Mopar flathead six comes to mind.
But Ford had a lot of ground to cover in 1962, with engines as small as 223-cubic-inches all the way up to a 534-cubic-inch Super Duty V8 (never mind the diesels). For obsolete engine nuts like myself, it was an exciting year, and it’s good trivia to know that the small-block wasn’t the first 302 in Ford’s many engine families.
Related Reading
The Mystery Of Why The 1960-1962 Ford 292 Y-Block V8 Was Such A Slug Is Finally Solved! (by Paul N)
Dealer Classics: 1961 Dodge and 1968 Chevy Mediums – Visualizing The Ideal Commute (by me)
Auto-Biography: Super Duty Truckin’ (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1962 Ford Styleside F-100 Pickup – That Most Feminine Truck (by Paul N)
Great article – I’m also fascinated by these old and now obscure engines. It’s a reminder that the criteria for what makes a good engine in one area (performance, power, light weight) isn’t the same for all other uses.
Great article first time for me hearing of the early 302.
I am another who was unaware of this 302 and 332. But then I have spent little time around trucks of this era, beyond my own dalliance with a 63 F-100 with its 223 inline six.
In fact, pretty much all of the Ford Motor Company of that pre-Iacocca era is a puzzle when it comes to some of the decisions it made in engines. It is kind of amazing that with all of the investment they put into engines like the Lincoln Y block and the MEL family that those engines did not see wider application than they got.
The Lincoln Y block and the MEL were very heavy engines and not suitable for the Fords and Mercurys until they became significantly larger in 1957, when the Merc started getting the larger V8s. The FE suited the Ford much better.
The really big investment for engine building is in the line transfer machinery, which machines and bores the blocks. Ford only ever had three bore spacings for all ohv their V8s: 4.38″ (Ford Y block and small blocks); 4.63″ (Lincoln Y block and FE), and 4.90″ (MEL and 429/460). Thus they were able to use the same transfer lines for many decades. The investment to design a new V8 and tool for the other parts wasn’t really all that big.
As I noted in my comment to Jim above, Ford used the same bore spacing (and thus transfer line equipment) for multiple generations of V8s. But having looked into it a bit more carefully, there’s a slight difference between the Linc Y block bore spacing (4.625″) and the FE (4.630″). That’s a bit odd, as they are so close, yet as far as I know, that would presumably not make it possible to utilize the same line transfer equipment (boring and machining). Turns out the Linc Y block (and Ford Y block) were both built at the Cleveland plant (#1 and #2) whereas the FE was built at the Rouge. So perhaps the same line transfer equipment wasn’t shared for those two.
Interesting, I was under the same assumption that the Lincoln and FE bore spacing was the same. I agree, I don’t think those engines would have been able to use the same transfer line.
I wonder if the bore spacing is actually the same, but some documents simply rounded up. I’ll see some of that funny business in old manuals.
Yes, I have seen that myself, where specs get rounded off.
Great article, thanks! According to some experts over on ‘ford-trucks.com’, the 262 heavy duty ‘Big Six’ was briefly an option in Ford pickups around ’62-’63, perhaps a response to GMC’s V-6 pickups. The 302 and 332 Lincoln V-8’s were respected truck engines, the 332 replaced the large 337 flathead in Ford ‘Big-Job’ trucks in 1952. Ford never used a version of the 368 Lincoln V-8 in any trucks, in 1958 Ford introduced the Super Duty V-8 in 401, 477 and 534 cubic inch displacements. The Super Duty’s were unique engines with a 5.25″ bore spacing not based on any other Ford or Lincoln V-8’s, but they did share some design features with the MEL like the ‘plank’ cylinder head and angled block deck.
You’re welcome! I would imagine that the 262 would also be a response to Chevy’s 261 (and for 1963, the 292), but they had been making that for years. Makes you wonder what took Ford so long!
The 302/332 Cargo King V8’s didn’t come along until the 1956 model year.
For 1952, the F7 used a 279 cubic inch version and the F8/9 used the 317.5 cubic inch version which was the same displacement as the Lincoln passenger car engine.
I guess the obsolete engines were designed to compliment the miss matched truck bed left over from the year before that doesn’t look anything at all like the sleek looking artists renderings of that fleet side truck bed. Our family ranch purchased a 1962 step side four wheel drive with a six cylinder engine we used to feed hay to the cattle. One time it died on us out in the field and I had to adjust the points to get her going again.
There was an explanation. In 1961, the new ‘Styleside’ beds were integral with the cab, welded right on the back to form a one-piece cab/bed. While this looked really great, it wasn’t practical beyond a 1/2 ton pickup lightly used on paved roads. Cab/body flex would cause door alignment problems and there was rust and cracking issues if the trucks were subject to heavy and/or off road used. Ford’s solution was to continue to use the ’57-’60 beds on 4X4 models, a practical if not aesthetically pleasing solution. Later in ’64 Ford finally tooled up a separate Styleside bed that matched the cab styling. Enthusiasts of this era of Ford trucks often refer to the missmatched bed models as ‘Wrongside’ in keeping with Ford’s tradenames of Styleside and Flareside!
I have never been much of a Ford fan and these engines show why. Ordering parts for a Ford was always a crapshoot. There were so many different engines to begin with, and like the 302 featured here, it was often hard to differentiate which one was which. Parts guys would often make mistakes. Equally often you’d order two or three of a given part and return the ones that didn’t fit.
Ford did stuff like making running changes to brake pads and then not updating their parts catalogues. I have no idea why they would do such things, but I assume it was to save money. We only ever had one Ford for this reason.
Fascinating. Never heard of these. I can sort of see the point in using a Lincoln motor – after all, they weren’t selling a whole lot of Lincolns, and the weight would be less of an issue. I guess this freed up more Ys and FEs for car use.
Very timely Aaron, Tom is thinking along the same lines:
Ford takes a lot of heat (mostly undeserved) for their variety of engines, but one look at Chrysler of Canada,and you realize they were just as guilty.And the 351C/M and 400 also used the 137 firing order.
Lots of fascinating info here .
-Nate