It's one thing to make yearly production changes, but why did Ford make so many mid-year changes? The bellhousing in this example was an August change.
Amen! A young Henry Ford would not have pulled that shit at all. 'Course we would all still be driving Model T's and farming with 9N tractors if he had his way...but sometimes I'm not so sure he wasn't right.
and thats exactly why i used to build only chevys, now i gotta go buy a book about all the ford crap because i now own 17 or 18 sbf and bbf engines.i still dont know why i bought all of them but i did.i cant fiqure out why ford has to have a sb trans then a big block trans .ive found a bunch of c6s but i need them for my 429 and they wouldnt bolt up....
Brand X isn't any better about interchangability these days either...why does one brand have 3 different 6-hole bolt circles...cuz they can is the only answer I can think of. Charlie
interchangeability in the sixties : Less profit . Today , interchangeability is more profit . I once bought a 8 inch Ford axle .. 4 Lug bolt pattern ( ? ) .. As far as I remember : it came from a sixcyl 64 1/2 Mustang .. ? Klaz
Not even close! There are so many variations that it's just staggering. Different deck heights for 289/302 versus 351W. Different firing order for 351W and 302 HO versus 289/non-HO 302. The 302 got a 50oz imbalance in 1982, it is 28oz for all earlier engines and all 351Ws regardless of year. The 351W uses 1/2" head bolts while 289/302 uses 7/16". All SBF use 3/8" rod bolts except '69-70 Boss 302 which use 7/16". Cars built with serpentine accessories have reverse rotation pumps, but cars built the same year with V belts use standard pumps. The front cover changed for each chassis. Brackets changed for each chassis. Dipstick location is different on every single car that Ford has ever built. The 5/6 bolt block differences have already been discussed. And then there is the "small" and "normal" SBF bellhousing for automatics, and they use a 157 or 164 tooth flywheel respectively. We haven't even gotten into the differences in the transmissions. "Pan fill" this, "Case fill" that. It's maddening. These are just the things that I know off the top of my head. Familiarity breeds contempt. If you're building a Ford drivetrain for anything, then START with a complete drivetrain and work from there. It can't be done any other way. Or maybe it can, it just won't be fun.
Here's my criticism of Chevy.....they had way too many versions of their engines and transmissions and your chances of getting good parts is just about zero. If you bought a 440 powered Mopar in the 1960's, you got the goods. A steel crank, 'good' heads, the whole works. But if you bought a 350 Chevy or even a big block, you had to order the Z71 or XS34 or LT28 package to get a steel crank. But only the LT34 also had the good heads. And if you really wanted the best parts you had to buy a CV89 which also gave you the Muncie M22 not M21.....
I mean just about any of the 70-80's Jag's that used about 49 bolts to attach the trans to the engine.
Seems to me that part of the succes of early Fords as Hot Rods and Racecars is because so many parts interchanged between the different early years and models. They rewarded hot rodders with succes. Relatively easy and affordable. And that if if the Ford company would have ruled their engineers with the same iron fist that Chevy's must have done to keep the same interchangabillity with their later products they wouldnt have lost it all to Chevy. ( and if they would have produced a easy optainable, affordable cylinderhead for the SBF that would have flowed as good or better than a 2.02 Doublehump head... The 271 HiPo doesnt count, too rare....)
The change was made August 3, 1964, so 1965 model car can have the 5 bolt. not true, you could get a 260, a 289 2 barrell, and the 'D' code 289 4 barrel all in the so called 64 1/2 cars. No, it's 1962 til Aug 3 1964 Correct, see my comment above 300 six is the same as the SIX bolt small block Very common - Engineers justifying their jobs I used to work in a foreign parts store back in the early 80's and many of them were even worse - 3 start motors with in a year, 4 water pumps, etc. Not uncommon to have to ask for a VIN number to get a water pump
I am admittedley a GM fan. although I only own one currentley. My 91 Toyota Pick up was built in the U.S. and has GM Harrison casting's all over the block, heads, and several ancillary parts like the Radiator and altornator. I have built a few fords, chevy's, toyota's, dodge, etc etc Im my experiance with chevy you can for the most part start with one combo, Replace parts as you go to turn it into something completley diffrent. lots of inter-changeablity. that is untill you decide to build a 400 SBC then it all goes out the window yes the bell housing is the same but if you try to use the standard SBC chevy starter you find that it wont fit. it has its own starter and that is due to the balancing becouse they cramed soo much into the same basic SBC disign that they had to balance it externally. Ford is very inovative not afraid to try new,diffrent, and exciting things. Some times they are so amaizing that they stand the industry on its head and forever change the car industry people tend to forget that. other times they flop and flounder. One of the best Ford engines in my humble opinion was the FE, to big to be a small block to small to be a big block. I have heard it coind as a "mid-block" Biggest issue I run into with ford's is it appears the guy who built the engine was trying to re write the boock and be so inovative....but he didnt talk to the guy who designed the car it was going in, who was also trying to be so inovative who didnt talk to the tranny guy then they jamed it all together and had growing pain's. SAE, metric hell atleast we are not running into wentworth. Buy what you are willing to put up with and deal with the issues it has and if you cant deal with the problems? sell it to some one who is willing to deal with them.
I love the way my Comet runs, it's got a ton of miles on it but for a relatively stock engine it's pretty strong and the car is quick. I also think SBC's should have been a factory option.
Must have been another Chevy guy that "coined" that. There is NOTHING mid about an FE (or MEL). I think you are getting confused with the 351 Cleveland and 400 ( aka 335 series) Ford have engine "families". the 351/400 and 429/460 engines were developed as the next small block/big block. One needs to remember that events don't happen in a vacuum, these motors were developed in the mid-late 60's for a new generation of cars in the 70's when gas was 39/gallon. That generation got a pretty heavy kybosh in '73 during the oil embargo. Thus these motors really never saw what was supposed to be there full life. Ford like any other manufacture is interested in selling new cars, not worrying about what us hot rodders are doing generally. They want to sell 250,000 "units" to mom,pop, their kids and secretaries and a smattering of us who like something sporty too. The 70's begat us small cars and when Ford made the Mustang II it sold a crap load of them. Good car? hmmm maybe maybe not, It was the right car for the time and they cobbled up the 2.3 from their world operation parts bin. I've met a couple of Ford engineers and did ask them why they have changed things for what appears to be no reason. One was quick to tell me they don't just do it for fun there is ALWAYS a reason as it cost money...
Of course they dont. None of them do. But at least Chevy had a guy lilke Zora Arkus Duntov reminding the brass that throwing us a bone, every once in a while, might pay off in the long run. ( with his memo "Thoughts Pertaining to Youth, Hot Rodders, and Chevrolet.")
True and Ford had theirs too. Just look at Iaccoca reading the demographics correctly in the 60's. Chevrolet, fixated on the VW made the Corvair, while Ford sold Falcons by the gross. Then turned it into the Mustang...Shelby yada yada and left all the others scrambling to get on board by '67. Cobras GT40's Lemans...Total Performance. Ford did have a more global vision though and granted, Chevy may have been a bit more grass roots in N America by comparison and is thus more engrained Sure I'm a Ford guy. But I give the SBC the credit it is due. It is a great engine that has stood the test of time. No argument here ( I owned a Camaro with a 327 in it and I loved that motor and wished Ford had built one in that CID) and Duntov was a brilliant man again no argument.
Yeah, you are right. But Total Performance wasnt really a grassroots kind of thing. With companies like Lotus, Holman & Moody, Alan Mann, etc. And the Mustang was a dealer bought car, so in its own way the opposite of a Hot Rod ( or what a Hot Rod had been up to that point ) I still like most Fords better than most Chevy's But I prefer the SBC over the SBF. ( fortunately I'm a Hot Rodder, I can swap one in...)
The industry standard of Street Rod front suspensions. The MII ( Pinto) IFS with 8" or 9" rear is about as dominant as the SBC in Hot Rods ( OK...Streetrods...) That makes it more of a succes than a failure, IMO. If it was also the subject of some sensationalist reporting about exploding gastanks, that would make it about even with '70s and '80s Chevy trucks...
A few little divirsifications like Ford Aerospace and such. The chassis for the 427 Cobra was redesigned from scratch on Ford's computers, and the J-Car, which became the Ford GT MKIV after the bodywork was refined, was also a fairly clean sheet compared to the Lola-based GT40 MKI and MKII. Someday I'll have to scan that centerfold pic from Hot Rod of Connie Kallita running his SOHC front- engined T/F car in Ford's wind tunnel with a rich mixture so they could track and tune how the zoomie exhaust flowed and blew smoke away from the slicks- great pic with the horn-rimmed glasses Ford guys behind the windows at the controls and observing, Kalitta suited up with the fueler tied down in the rollers- IIRC, 1967. After spending quite a bit of time working on and riding in gennie 427 Cobras in the '70's, and having ridden in an original race GT40MKI, just getting into 4th (5spd) with the LeMans gearing at 150+ (#P1009), I'm gonna be impressed with a Corvette??? Seriously, I wish more of you could have actually experienced stuff like that, not as Ford guys or Chebbie guys, but as car guys. There ain't a more pure nasty scared the crap outa you car than a strong original 427 Cobra- FE exhaust bellowing right below your ear, wind everywhere, feet and legs toasty wedged in between the exhaust and trans, short wheelbase and quite prone to direction changes. One of our more crazy but very skillful guys took Neil Britt from CarCraft for a ride in a fat-tire late 289 Comp Cobra with Webers around '78 and scared the shit out of him, I guarantee that boy's bowels didn't function normally for a couple days after that- he had a death grip on the cowling and door and was white as a sheet when they came back
Regardless, I think we have all benefitted from the performance wars back in the day. And hell I think we could say a Cobra was a hot rod at heart.
I bet more Pintos are still around than Vegas...and did Ralph Nader write a book about them... Oh sorry that was a Chev As MetalShapes says, sensationalist press. 60 minutes did it to Audis when really the doofus drivers were stepping on the gas not brakes.
You took what i said and bent it. The 351 Windsor is an outgrowth of the original 221,260,289,and 302 Fairlane or more accurately "Challenger" engine. That is the engine type that the original poster was concerned with. You changed the narrative to make your false point. You see For chose not to build a one size fits all for every application of production vehicle. The 351W does have a taller deck, longer rods, beefier crank, bigger headbolts because it was designed for heavier applications such as land yachts and trucks. Even still it shares many parts with it's smaller cubed bretheren. You also didn't notice where I said "matched" components. The front face and rear flange of every SBF (221,260,289,302,Boss 302,351W) are identical and will accept the appropriate accessories. To my knowledge you must match bottom end components on a Chevrolet just like any other engine. Split rear seal, full circle, external balance on 400's sound familiar? Chevrolet's also have some variation on how the intake manifold bolts on Vortec heads if I'm not mistake. Don't tell me I'm not even close, cuz that's hogwash.
OK... When this engine was used in Formula 5000 racecars and Trans Am Boss Mustangs it had to get a cylinder head off a completely different engine to be able to compete. It had been in production for about 7 years at that point ( '69 ) and in the mid '60s Gurney had already got together with Weslake to build a superior head for it. And this was after the bellhouse pattern changes, several versions of timing chain covers, and waterpumps. ( with their interchaingabillity problems ) The SBC had been in production since '55 and could compete with little more than a de-stroke from the then current 350 to meet the 5 litre class limit. If they were so eager to keep modifying this engine, too bad they didnt fix its biggest problem. Its asthmatic cylinder heads, that were probably designed the way they were to fit on a tiny 221 between the shock towers of a Falcon...
The Jalopy Journal
