A friend of mine (he's a HAMBer but doesnt post much) is working on a '64 Sprint with a 428CJ, Edelbrock Crossram, four speed, Econoline front end and radiused wheel wells. Its an old race car from Northern California thats been stashed away for years. I'll try and get some pics this weekend.
I had a 64 Falcon sprint back in about 67-68 that I put a 427-425HP in. Used an econoline axle also. Raced it until I got creamed by a new 68 Road Runner w/ a hemi. Dave
I am building an FE powered 65 Falcon 2dr sedan currently. 390/c6 to start and then switch to a 406 i have available. Changed to a stock mustang II front end - all stock arms etc and an 8" rear from a 70's maverick... springs inboard 3" each side. Currently has greg weld 9.5" rims in back and 5" in front but I am probably going to run dog dish/steelies for wheels. hopefully will be all done this winter ready for spring.
here's one from doing falcons right thread. 1959Ford says it makes 1,778 rwhp!! should be enough power for the street!!!
Since you didn't specify a year, I figured that you might be interested that there was an article in an early 70s issue of Hot Rod (pre-'74) that covered the swap of a 428 into a '66-'69 vintage coupe. IIRC, it used mostly Ford parts. If you're really interested, it might be located in their archives.
That car is out of the Syracuse area. It has a 501 BBF if I remember correctly. May have changed. The guy knows his shit. He brought it to the dragstrip in Leicester (my hometown). Pulled it off the trailer (and said he would have drove it to the track but was afraid he might break it making passes) and then ran an 8 something. This was three or four years ago before it's current configuration. It has much larger turbos now than it did then. The workmanship is top notch. See more here. http://www.forcedpsi.com/imagegallery/index.php/Dans 63 Falcon
Some pics of mine - still a work in progress. The first pic is how it was when I got it. It is now about 3-4" lower in back and 4-5" lower in front. 275 tire in back and 135 in front. It has a new floor and subframe connectors as well now. I am doing it super budget....Calling it a "recession rod". I am into it now for about $2800 complete.
Saw one I shoulda jumped on a few years back. It was a 62 or 63 convertible, with jaguar suspension and a 429. It was a clean little car.
I think the year has to be at least 69' for the car, maybe 68 too but 66-67 too narrow..there is one that has appeared locally over the last few years...Really bolt in..Same as it would be in an 69 Torino..
I seem to remember a 64 or 65 Falcon in NZ many years ago, with a BBC and a late 60's Holden (Aussie GM) front suspension grafted in to get rid of the shock towers.
'66/'67 falcon front stubs are the same as '66/'67 Fairlane. FE bolts in with Fairlane parts including headers, I have one. Oddly enough, a '66/'67 fairlane 2 dr sedan greenhouse is also the same as '66/'67 Falcon, and all the glass will interchange.
I forgot about FE in stangs in 67' but never knew 66' was same width..Gonna have to measure my friend's 67' Mstang and my 72 Comet for curiousity sake...
In '66 Ford switched the Falcon to the Fairlane 2 door sedan body shell, simply shortening it behind the doors to reduce it's overall length. From the doors forward it was almost identical to the Fairlane, with the only major difference being the radiator support panel, and even that wasn't that much different. Front end sheetmetal could be swapped (the '66 Ranchero was a Falcon, the '67 was a Fairlane with the only material difference being the front clip), which is what Ford did for the wagon models. Ford retained this shell through the end of production in early '70. Anything that would fit in the Fairlane would also fit the Falcon. There is one difference between the FE cars and the smaller-engined versions though; while all the front suspension mounting points are the same for all models, Ford used heavier-gauge metal and some additional bracing in the shock towers on the FE Fairlane shells. If installing a big-block in a non-FE shell, keep an eye on the upper control arm holes in the shock towers; these have been known to crack/tear out over time, sometimes with catastrophic results. This is also an issue with the '60-65 Falcon/'60-63 Comets; there were two body shells (6 and V8), with the 6 version using much lighter gauge steel and lacked the torque boxes. Mercury switched to the V8 shell for all Comet models in '64 as it reduced NVH. The later '71-77 Comets were restyled Mavericks and had smaller engine tubs.
Since it's off topic can you PM a copy of that article? Been looking for it for a time, read it in the stacks of the high school library about 100 times! Thanks.
'70 up Comet/Maverick is different again, similar to pre '65 Falcon/Comet, which IS the narrow engine compartment you are thinking of. Even the early ones can take an FE with the stock control arms if you notch the shock towers.
The Jalopy Journal
