"Oh, Ford did a few ads and showed some prototypes/factory specials to create 'buzz' for the cars but failed to deliver for various reasons." But that's not what you said lol. THIS is what you said- "It should be noted that Ford didn't promote the solid-lifter 427 after '64." Not true, and I grew up with them, and still have the old magazine ads. Seems you are basing most of your "opinions" on an article in Hemmings- yeah, OK. I have had my G-code '62 500XL 406/405hp car since '77, and even before that model, the manual steering n brakes thing was mandatory, and it has the big steering wheel. It also did not come with the deluxe XL hubcaps, as they were 14". I also have a bunch of friends who worked at Ford "in the day", some of whom were deeply involved, and some bought the cars new, street and race. There was even an option for the 427 in the Fairlane wagon that made it NHRA legal, resulting in this car. I was hooked in '67, when I went for a ride in a cherry yellow one like this, a 64 R-code XL. My own 62 is a bit more choppy, a good 427, 4K converter and 5.14 gears- kinda froggy
@MeanGene427, I'll stand by what I wrote. Ford's failing was that they didn't put cars in showrooms; if a prospective buyer was interested they were basically limited to ordering one sight unseen, that's if the dealer didn't actively discourage them from buying. The fact that Ford also built so few so availability was poor didn't help. There's a lot of reasons as to why this all happened, some of them political, some due to corporate decisions, some supply chain issues. Ford built over 230,000 Fairlanes in '67, 427 production (229 cars) amounted to less than .1 of one percent. Contrast that with what GM and Chrysler did; Chevy sold over 62K '67 SS396 Chevelles, Plymouth 36K '67 GTXs. Ford's erstwhile competition GT/GTA Fairlane sold a mere 20K and was down on power compared to them. People forget that all this is what generated the 428CJ, and it wasn't Fords idea. Bob Tasca, a long-time RI Ford dealer who did try to promote Ford's performance offerings became frustrated with lack of product, weird marketing (why didn't Ford put the 427 into the GT?) as well as it's poor street manners. It didn't help that 1968 became a wasteland in terms of Ford performance, with the 427 becoming detuned and only available in a obscure Cougar model that most people never heard of and only with a C6. Even the HiPo 289 was gone, replaced with a one-year-only 302-4V. He dug into the Ford parts book, selectively using 'common' hipo parts on a 428 Thunderbird short block to create the CJ. He then invited Ford and the press to a public demonstration of what he built. Ford was noncommittal, but HRM was very impressed, so much so that they published an article about it and included a tear-out vote (would you buy this car?) that you could send to Ford corporate. Ford was inundated with 'Hell Yes!' votes and the rest is history. But it proved to be the swan song for the FE, at the end of '70 the HiPo FE was gone....
Nice Googling lol. Bob Tasca didn't need to dig into any parts books, he was quite aware of all the parts to build a CJ, a PI shortblock (bigger rod bolts than the Bird/Galaxie engine) with a GT (or better) cam and low riser heads. The production CJ heads are basically late low riser heads with meat added for the shock tower bolt pattern. I have a 69 R-code 4-spd Fairlane Cobra out back, and two CJ engines including an early 68 pulled from a wrecked Cougar, and an SCJ, and a couple extra sets of heads, and a couple sets of C6AE-R heads that can be easily built into CJ clones by adding the bigger LR/CJ valves. Funny, I ordered a very mundane part for my Exploder from epay a while back, and the seller was Tasca lol... BTW, Bob #III is enjoying a very successful Funny Car career. Here's one for you to Google- and I have a set of Arias pistons to build one
since it was based off the 406 which is identifiable by the cross bolts I think you were misinformed...maybe 428 That's based off the experience of a friend who many years ago found an abandoned bus out in the woods with what he thought was a 427 but turned out to be a crossbolted 406 ...he ended up making a 427 lowriser clone using 428 CJ parts and putting it in a '66 Comet GT
There's actually even more to it. Tasca was also responsible for the '64 Thunderbolt, proving the concept with a '62 406-powered Fairlane followed up with a 427 '63. He also built some 'specials' (427-powered bullet 'Bird anyone?) but got zero traction with Ford with those. GM and Chrysler turned a blind eye to dealers like Grand Spaulding Dodge and Motion Chevrolet swapping motors outside the normal option list and selling to all comers, Ford wouldn't let their dealers do that. He basically shamed Ford into building the 428CJ. In terms of accessible street performance for everyman, Bob Tasca opened the door and pushed Ford through it. To Ford's credit, they liked what they saw and jumped in with both feet, but without Tasca it probably wouldn't have happened. Ford guys owe him a big debt....
I was impressed with the 427 way back in about 1965! But the Ford gods have never bestowed one on me! So…. I have had to settle for 390sand 428s. I am currently in the process of building a 428 to go in my avatar car with 3x2s. This car could have come with a 427, if special ordered. So I am including in my build a set of 427 long tube exhaust manifolds. I thought I would include a pic of these great exhaust manifolds! Bones
Make sure you have the right long-tubes for your 65, the 63/64 manifolds are different and will not fit your 65. I have several complete 3x2s if you want to start with more complete
For years I tried to buy a set of those manifolds for a buddy of mine from a fella that was set up at the Turlock swap. Guy wouldn’t budge off his 500 dollar price. This was in the 90’s, do they still hold the same value?
Interesting reading, the question from the op or was it a statement ... First 427 had 4v carbs? I cant answer that but ALL my 427s have had cross bolted mains and chose to run multiple carbs on every one of them. If you are going to run FORDS strongest engine from that time, you want to run the best intake system you could afford. I am not a fan of the three Dueces on the 406s so I run a low riser dual quad set up, thats the look and performance im looking for on that early engine. Oh... my 406s dont have cross bolted mains, those UNICORNS are out ther thou I have seen one- didnt get me that excited. They run fantastic with or without cross bolted mains. Most of us are Not driving 150mph for hours on end. They are good for most everything else!
What hard-core Ford guy didn't want a 427? LOLOL... I got one through the back door. I bought a 428SCJ from a guy to replace a trashed 390 in a '67 cougar GT (with a 4-speed! (WooHooo!!). Unbeknownst to me, he had blown it up, requiring a new block. He substituted a bored-out 390 block that while it worked for racing, would overheat when street driving. I ran into a .030"-over 427 block (with stroker pistons no less) that had a non-fatal crack in it which I had repaired. Transplanting the 428 innards got me 455" and did that thing run! Scary fast.... My first wife made me sell it, a decision I still regret... It was miserable to work on though. Header leaks and plug changes were not fun, which is one reason I let it go.
The CJ was the vanilla option. The SCJ was the 'race' version but had the same advertised HP IIRC. It only came with 3.89 or 4.11 31 spline posi rear gears, had beefier internals including 'LeMans' rods with capscrews, a bigger front damper, a oil cooler and supposedly a beefier block. The oil cooler interfered with headers and was usually the first thing to go. I also think the CJ could be had with or without the 'shaker' cold air, the SCJ came standard with it. One thing Ford should have put on them but didn't was an aluminum intake; they all got cast-iron.
The 3x2 setup looks great, and can be made to run fairly hard with a lot of work, but is not very strong with a mild engine, let alone a larger or more worked one. 2x4 LR is a step up, not bad, but the 2x4 MR dual plane is MUCH stronger. Tunnel Wedge is stronger yet, but not too strong on the low end for a street car, unless it has lots of inches. My Gal has the MR 2x4, great intake. I have a Dove TW, which is bigger inside than the factory ones, that has a pair of 660s on it and need big inches and/ or RPM. Also have a few 351C adapter plates with the Weiand 2x4 TR's, they work pretty well
The 428CJ was upgraded to a 428SCJ when either 3.91 or 4.30 Traction Lock rear was selected (4.30 Detroit Locker in '70). The heavy 427 LeMans connecting rods required changes to the rotating assembly (balancer, flywheels, crank and and additional separate c'weight). All SCJ's came with an oil cooler assembly. The 428SCJ block is the exact same as a 428CJ block there is not a specific 428SCJ block. The oil cooler did not interfere with headers and I have yet to see any examples of removing/discarding the very valuable oil cooler assembly from a drag pack car. The ram-air shaker hood scoop is a separate option and could be ordered on both 428CJ and 428SCJ cars it was not standard on SCJ's.
Another little tid- bit of the SCJ... The drag pack cars came with a gear reducer for the cars running a steep set of gears, it plugged into the side of the transmission where the speedo cable went. Super rare.
Actually the shop foreman working for Tasca, if I remember the story correctly. The 390GT Mustangs were coming back in for trade when they were getting whipped on the street and Tasca told the shop to find a remedy they could sell to stop the trend. FoMoCo caught wind of the CJ prototypes built @ the dealership and incorporated them into the next round of FEs. Tasca was on the cutting edge, much like Carroll Shelby. Great video and history, Gene. Thanks! Joe
Ordering 3.91 or 4.30 gears triggered the Drag Pack option, including the oil cooler and SCJ engine, which had the heavier LeMans rods (with shorter bolt heads), and the 1UA crank and cookie-cutter dampener spacer to compensate- same cam, heads and intake. Block was the same C-scratch 68-up unit, which was also the same as Granny's Country Squire or Colony Park wagon. The Shaker (Mustang) or through the hood Ram Air option was the R-code, non- Ram Air was Q-code. Only difference in the blocks was a hand stamping on the front to denote "SUPER" for the assembly line
I believe it was to reduce manifold height. I missed a few details, it's been a long time. I'll note that the oil cooler itself didn't interfere, it was where the lines connected to the oil filter mount that was the problem. At least it was with mine; the cooler was already gone and the holes in the mount were plugged. I got the headers (I want to say Hookers, but it's been almost 50years) with the motor, they were multi-piece 4-into-1, one of the tubes ran right next to one of the filter connections blocking it. The headers were a real bitch to install...
Some guys got away without paying for the SCJ option by ordering a 3.91 or 4.30 gear set and the SCJ parts came with the car..... Smart crackers!...
It was a by-product of the design with dividing line between head and intake being low, which allowed intakes of very different height- very handy with the low hoodline of the early Thunderbirds, as it let the runners dive down into the valley, lowering the carb pad. Also why there was a special and rare 3x2 intake for the M-code Birds, with level carb pads instead of the stepped pads of the Galaxie unit- the engine sat level under the low hood of the early Birds. This is the flat Bird unit I sold a few years ago
This one gets with the program, goal is to be the fastest GT 500 on the planet 177 mph street car .FE 427 power!
The Jalopy Journal
