Register now to get rid of these ads!

History 1962-63 Ford full size car engine options

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by wfo guy, Dec 29, 2021.

  1. IIRC, Ford didn't install the Cruiseomatic behind any of the solid-lifter FE Hipo motors as it simply couldn't take the power they had (and as it turned out, neither could the T10 when it arrived). Ford did build some 'specials' for drag racing but those used a modified version of the heavier-duty Lincoln trans. The 300HP 390 was the top option for the COM for the most part, although Ford did sneak it behind some of the later hydraulic-lifter 330HP versions. The '60/61 Hipos both got the T85/R11 OD as standard with the T10 becoming available mid-year in '61 as a dealer-installed item. The 4-speed became a required option in '62. You also couldn't get factory-installed AC, power steering or brakes with any of them. The first two because Ford didn't want the AC compressor or PS pump spun as fast as these were capable of. No power brakes because the lumpy cams these had didn't develop enough vacuum to properly operate them at all speeds. Fun fact: Ford started to slowly transition away from vacuum wipers in the early '60s, the Hipo-motored cars got them first starting in '60, again because of the poor vacuum with the big cams.

    The solid-lifter cars also had the mandatory option of heavy-duty suspension/brakes/15" wheels which is why all of them had dog-dish hubcaps as Ford didn't want to tool-up for full wheels covers on the limited numbers sold.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  2. I did read in the buyers digest that the 427 was not available in station wagons. I looked for a publication date on mine and all I found was on the front cover. Copyright 1962, Fomoco. No other dates anywhere in the book.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  3. finn
    Joined: Jan 25, 2006
    Posts: 980

    finn
    Member

    That’s what my grandfather’s 63 Galaxie 500 four door had.

    HS buddy inherited his father’s 63 Galaxie with a 289 in late 1967, when we were Juniors . A family friend had a 289 in a Country Sedan, and a couple of other friends I met later had XLs, one 427, the other a 390.

    In our area, though, the dealers seemed to order small v8s, which meant the 289. I only recall one car with the 260, which was only available early in the model year.

    The police 330 hp 390 with solid lifters was the highesyhp engine available with the cruisomatic, not the 300 hp hydraulic version.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  4. Yutan Flash
    Joined: Aug 6, 2008
    Posts: 755

    Yutan Flash
    Member
    from Gretna, NE

    I could be confusing the 427-COM combo for '64 or '65 full-size cars or even some '64 Fairlane Thunderbolts prepped for the drags (I don't recall which class they'd be in), along with Mustang/Shelby offerings in '67 or '68 with the 427. Tasca Ford did shoehorn a 427 into a '64 T-bird with a beefed-up COM, but that was a one-off deal. "Upon further review" the '65 and '66 dealer facts binders noted that 427s were only available with a 4-speed, which by that time was the Ford 'top-loader'.

    True, '60 HiPo 352s and '61-'62 HiPo 390s didn't get the COM in part because of not being able to handle the additional ponies; lower vacuum produced because of the longer duration cam setup didn't help, either. The '60 T-bird, for instance, wasn't supposed to get the 352 HiPo in part because it put out too much hp/revs and not enough vacuum to work with a COM and other things mentioned (power steering pump, power brake booster, A/C compressor).

    I was also confusing things with '63 (and earlier?) COMs being available behind 330hp solid lifter 390 Police Interceptors. The '62-'63 340hp hydraulic cammed tripower M-series Tbirds, though, only came with a COM that had a modified valve body and heavier check ball springs IIRC for the additional ponies.

    The dog-dish cap thing does have an exception: '63-'64 could get modified 15" wheel covers original used for 1956 Mercurys but modified by cutting out the original center and installing '63 XL/'63-'64 "wire" wheel cover tri-bar spinners. I picked up a set of these recently in hopes of getting a set of 15" wheels and a HiPo XL some day.

    I will go through the library tomorrow for photos to post and give myself a refresher to sort out which got what.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2022
    loudbang likes this.
  5. Yutan Flash
    Joined: Aug 6, 2008
    Posts: 755

    Yutan Flash
    Member
    from Gretna, NE

    This is going to be a 'deep dive' in trying to nail down the engine-transmission availability thing for full-size '62-'63 Fords from Ford dealer 'Facts Books' printed in those years. Let's start with the '62s.

    223 I-6s could be had with the 3-speed, 3-speed OD, and Ford-O-Matic and Cruise-O-Matic in Galaxies, Galaxie 500s and wagons; Y-block 292s could also get the COM - the XLs only got COMs behind the 292.

    Moving up to the 352, all transmissions were available in Galaxies, Galaxie 500s and wagons - the standard 3-on-the-tree, OD, FOM and COM plus the 4-speed, but in the XLs only the COM and 4-speed were offered.
    Upping the ante to the 390s, for Galaxies, Galaxie 500s, Sunliner and wagons the FOM dropped out, and again only the COM and 4-speed were available.

    At the top of the food chain, the 406-4v and 406-6v engines had two manual transmission choices for Galaxies, Galaxie 500s and wagons - the 4-speed and overdrive. 3-speeds were excluded, and no listing was made for the COM (see comments below for '63-1/2s and use of 3-speeds/OD behind 427s). Below is a chart from the 1962 Ford Car Facts binder which dealers used to familiarize themselves with what was available. It was printed in the late summer of 1961 and doesn't include the XL exclusions.
    62 facts trans IMG_20220102_141847897.jpg

    In the late winter-early spring of 1962, the Galaxie 500/XL series debuted. Engine/transmission choices choked down to just V-8s: the 292 only available with a COM, 352s-390s with the COM or 4-speed, and the 406 only with the 4-speed:
    62 facts galaxie 500XL options IMG_20220102_141514019.jpg

    The 352 and the 390 were popular workhorses in the Ford full-size lineup and were pretty much unchanged in major aspects in '62-'63 except for things like camshafts (thrust button vs thrust plate), heads (higher compression mid-year 1963), and emissions control (PCV standard in '63 vs draft tube standard/PCV optional in '63). Below is from the '62 Ford Car Facts binder:
    62 facts eng 352-390 IMG_20220102_141718405.jpg

    Note in all the above that the Police Interceptor 330hp 390-4v is not listed, nor is it listed in '63 selections. It was regarded as a special-order engine option only available for police and emergency vehicles and not for 'public consumption.' Since it wasn't commonly known about except for law enforcement and real gearheads, you really had to know someone at the dealership to pull the right strings to get it. Below is from the '62 Dealer Facts binder:
    63 facts eng 390hp-406 IMG_20220102_141730614.jpg

    Moving forward to 1963, at the beginning of the model year the model lineup changed with the base model being the 'Ford 300' in 2- or 4-door sedans, then the Galaxies in the middle of the pack (again with 2- and 4-door sedans), Galaxie 500's second from the top with addition of 2- and 4-door hardtops and convertible, then at the top of the heap the Galaxie 500/XLs; wagons were either a lower-model Country Sedan or higher-model Country Squire.

    1963 Ford 300 engine/trans/axle choices (from the 1963 Ford Car Facts binder (late summer-early fall 1962)):
    63 facts ford-300 eng-trans-axle IMG_20220102_140525298.jpg

    1963 Galaxie sedan engine/trans/axle choices (from the 1963 Ford Car Facts binder, rev. Nov. 15, 1962):
    63 facts galaxie eng-trans-axle IMG_20220102_140551547.jpg

    1963 Galaxie 500 sedan engine/trans/axle availability - hardtops and convertibles also had charts like this but were the same as sedans (from the '63 Ford Car Facts binder, rev. Nov. 15, 1962):
    63 facts galaxie 500 eng-trans-axle IMG_20220102_140622586.jpg

    1963 Country Sedan station wagon engine/trans/axle availability (from '63 Ford Car Facts binder, rev. Nov. 15, 1962):
    63 facts country sedan eng-trans-axle IMG_20220102_140817574.jpg

    1963 Country Squire station wagon engine/trans/axle availability (from '63 Ford Car Facts binder, rev. Nov. 15, 1962):
    63 facts country squire eng-trans-axle IMG_20220102_140833550.jpg

    1963 Galaxie 500/XL engine/trans/axle availability (from 1963 Ford Car Facts binder, rev. Nov. 15, 1962):
    63 facts galaxie 500XL conv eng-trans-axle IMG_20220102_140746562.jpg

    In late winter (Feb-Mar) 1963, the Ford Car Facts binders were updated to add the new 'Sports Hardtop' Falcons and Galaxies, the 289 V-8 and the 427s. In the updates was this chart for with engine/trans/axle choices for the Galaxie 500 and Galaxie 500/XL Sports Hardtops. Heavy-duty 3-speed and OD is listed as being available with the 406 and 427 in Galaxie 500s but not for the Galaxie 500/XLs::
    63-5 facts eng-trans-axle IMG_20220102_140333554.jpg
    63-5 facts eng-trans-axle notes IMG_20220102_140343545.jpg

    Here's a chart from the midyear printing of the 1963 Ford Car Facts binder listing all car lines' engines/transmissions/rear axles, still listing 406s and adding the 427s. Heavy-duty 3-speed and OD is listed as being available with the 406 and 427 except for the Galaxie 500/XLs:
    63 facts eng-trans-axle IMG_20220102_140148726.jpg

    So, from the charts above, 3-speeds and overdrives could be ordered with the hipo 406/427s in limited applications, i.e. not in Galaxie 500/XLs. Those have to be rare. While I would think they probably required a floor shifter vs. the column one, more digging is needed to find something in print as to how they were set up.

    I don't have a copy of the '64 Facts binder, but do have copies of the '65 and '66 versions. In both of those for full-size cars, the 427s only have the 4-speed listed as being available. Note there are asterisks for use on 500/XL and LTD models.
    1965 chart:
    65 facts full-size eng-trans-axle chart IMG_20220102_142235409.jpg

    1966 chart - note addition of the 428/7-Litre:
    66 facts full-size eng-trans-axle chart IMG_20220102_142633040.jpg

    As many Fordophiles know, when it comes to things like engine/trans/axle combinations, it's best to say "never say never" as there were exceptions to the rule like hipo engines and 4-speeds in station wagons and sedans, District Special Order (DSO) units for people ordering the Police Interceptor engine outside of law enforcement, the Tasca-modified cars, Holman-Moody's builds, Dearborn Steel Tubing's 'Thunderbolt' builds, etc. At least the above is a starting point to start sorting our what may be encountered.
     

    Attached Files:

    loudbang and Joe Travers like this.
  6. Starlinerdude
    Joined: Mar 6, 2008
    Posts: 164

    Starlinerdude
    Member
    from Washington

    The 2 documents the OP pictured are a 62 Galaxie owners manual which not surprisingly doesn't show the 427 as available in the powertrain section.The sales brochure is apparently a mid-year edition since it shows both the fastback and 427 available.As said earlier both the fastback and 427 were mid year introduction but not necessarily at the same time.There is uncertainty on whether the fastback predated the 427 or even if the introduction of the 427 meant the end of 406 production.What is clear is there are examples of both 406 fastbacks and 427 boxtops the 406 fastbacks could be explained by using leftover 406's as mentioned earlier or the fastback being introduced shortly before the 427,no explanation is needed for the 427 boxtops since boxtop production continued after introduction of the fastback.The fact that the 406 doesn't show up in the 63 1/2 sales brochure does indicate that the 427 was intended to replace the 406 in production just as the 406 replaced the 390HP in mid 62.The owners manual doesn't show the 390HP as being available in 62 even though they were.I guess they did mention them as a note below.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2022
    loudbang and Joe Travers like this.
  7. Joe Travers
    Joined: Mar 21, 2021
    Posts: 634

    Joe Travers
    Member
    from Louisiana

    Thanks for the deep dive, haven't seen this in a very long time. :)

    Joe
     
    Yutan Flash and loudbang like this.
  8. finn
    Joined: Jan 25, 2006
    Posts: 980

    finn
    Member

    The problem with sales aids like this, especially in the pre digital age is that they can only give a snapshot in a dynamic manufacturing environment, and are somewhat misleading at times.

    Examples woul be the discontinuation of the 260 and introduction of the 289 in 1963. Ford ew replacement for the venera292 Y block in the Galaxie was the 260 but the new 260 was severely underpowered in the heavy full size Ford. I doubt if many, if any 260s were used in full sized Fords after the 289 became, although the 260 run continued for Fairlane, Falcon, and early Mustangs.

    Similarly, the solid lifter 390 four and six barrel engines are listed such that it appears they were available concurrently with the 406. It wouldn’t make sense from a production scheduling and assembly standpoint to do that. Common protocol would be to schedule a buildout and make a clean break. It just gets too complicated otherwise when you think about how many people are involved in procuring components, staging, pulling, and then assembling. All before computerization.

    Those dealer books aren’t really technical douuments controlling production. They’re more like picture books for sales staff, and cover things already built and try to simplify explanation of what’s up the pike, including what’s already scheduled, but will be shortly deleted.

    Other examples would be the 427 hydraulic lifter engine that was widely listed as being available in Mustangs and Torino’s. None were made, except for a handful of Cougars. The 302 two barrel was supposed to be the base v8 in 68, but, in actuality, the 289 soldiered on until the next model year.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2022
    Joe Travers and loudbang like this.

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.