This is true, but the SBF was not traditionally used as far as I can tell in pre-war Fords. That's what makes the difference that the OP was asking about, if I understood his question correctly. He wanted to know why it's OK to use a 350 Chevy and not a 351W SBF. Niether one of them was available pre '65, and neither one of them is really traditional. But 350's can be disguised to look much like a traditional SBC. Since SBF's were not traditionally used, than you can't really disguise one to look like an engine that was.
Oh I agree with you. I just meant that thinking outside of the box has always been tradition. I know that I wandered away from the question. Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.
I love flatheads but there is one problem with them. . . . The heads are flat hahaha jk. I would like to see Kaase do a OHV conversion for the flathead but try and make it more economical than the Ardun repops being offered for 13kish. I know of a company called flat attack that has their own ohv design but its still cost prohibitive.
Well I am not necessarily a purest when it comes to things like date codes and the like. I am more of is it the same as the earlier block, like for instance, I use a 4" bore Chevy block, it was available in 4" in 1962. Granted my main journals are bigger and my stroke is longer but the block is basically the same. On the Windsor the hardest thing I see with one is not the year that it became available but dressing it. Most guys want the engine to look like it is older and there is damned little that you can buy at 1-800-HOTROD that works on a small block Ford. My problem in all this is that I will never be one of the cool kids because I don't really care if they approve of my engine choice or not. I actually see nothing untraditional about a Windsor if you are building a '60s style rod. I probably would not stuff one in a 50s style hot rod and call it good. Just because it was not yet available. Your option for a '50s style rod in a Ford motor would be a flathead or a Y block.
I wouldn't put a Ford in anything so that'll be up to someone else to research. I'm guessing that engine really didn't start showing up in hot rods until it was a few years old, probably the mid to late 60s.
One of my Fords has a Ford in it, but it is the same one that it left the factory with. The other one is getting a blown Chrysler Hemi.
I’ve been trying very hard to not put myself deep in this redundant debate/difference of opinion for a fear of escalating a fight which some seem to be quite easy to tip over into. So I will limit myself to just a few points that I would hope others would reflect on and maybe take away as another way of seeing things or up for consideration. First it is true that it is “traditional” to put a bigger, better, faster, newer, or just different power plant into anything. Here though on the HAMB “Traditional” without studying the in depth said topic’s constitution if you will or slicing Ryan’s brain open, will say putting a new Coyote crate motor in your old model A is “Traditional” in conceptual theory. But... That’s not really the point is it? We are talking about a narrower slice of the word “traditional”s application here. I sometimes like the famous quote “it’s more of a guideline than a rule” this is good for covering that last 10% or so detail that sneaks through that doesn’t adversely effect the overall theme. Things like T5s, Petronix, non-cloth shielded wires, disc brakes under faux covers, radial tires, shoulder retractable seat belts, aluminum radiators, hell unleaded gas, etc, etc, etc. where do you draw a line? Sometimes it’s just about the bulk substance. I think it’s pretty easy to tell if the car is “traditional” or not but this is an opinion had has no validity just like saying it’s not Traditional to put a Windsor or shovel head Harley Davidson in you 60s themed build because even armed with a vast stack of little books and Hot Rod from era that would not be traditional. I will have a aneurism the next time I hear this tired angle. “I was there, guys didn’t put _______ in or on their cars back in the day, look at this old mag from then”. Did it ever cross anyone’s mind that then like now Magazine are more of a glorification of things than a true reflection of reality? Then as now most guys cars I know would not get a spread in a decent mag. Possibly those same things they have done to their rides that exclude them now are the same things that we will claim later we’re not done cause we didn’t see it on record. “The didn’t have cup holders in old cars like you guys are doing” wait not one of your Fathers or grandfathers had the inventiveness to cut a round hole or two in a piece of plywood and sheet metal screw it to the floor? I think what most of us our after in this nerd quest is trying to adhere to the mostly cast-off and period available parts criteria to get a strong a vintage feel that we can attain with whatever limitations come our way albeit safety, budget, parts availability, fabrication skills, real word driving practicality, trying to step away from homogenization, personal taste, and opinionated interpretations of the “constitution”. Which again isn’t law but most like myself get extra revved up the closer one can get to following those tight constrictions sometimes if executed well, again a matter of opinion. I personally come here to the Traditional section that is to get completely geeked out in this adherence. I am passionate about all kinds of things including turbos, fuel injection, even stuff that can go really fast and not kill the planet too. But not as much as this narrow minded slice of looking at history and attempting to reapply or re-live, scratch that, re-feel it in application to a automobile. Now I personally with my builds lean towards the pipe dream fantasy rule for excuses with my late 40s build theme. This is that I know my Grandpa or his pals could not afford the Edmunds heads on my Tudor let alone a hundred other homogenized do-dads I have collected. It is a study in what-ifs possibilities and a complete exaggeration. I think of it as “gold chain’r” build of its time. My 50s pickup build is only 50s “traditional” in chassis and body themed. But the Windsor drive line will be late 60s updated. Would it not have been Traditional to replace a hot rods engine a few times through the decades or at least once? Does any one buy someone’s 90s small block s10 conversion and put a 5.3 LS motor in it these days and leave the body and weld dragstars(yuck!) alone? But I digress... Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.
I'm with this guy.... You said nothing about what your building.... "Traditional" Duce probably should have a flatty in it.... If your building a shoebox a traditional build could have either of the two... Like most have said here the oil pump in Fords seem to be in the way of most cross steering builds .... Wiegh out all of your options and have fun...! Sent from my E6810 using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
Truth. Even when I post voluminous photographic and text proof of something being done "back-in-the-day" I get called-out, because it is not what has been established as acceptable on this board, and/or was not seen in a magazine, or directly, by the person calling me out (as if they were everywhere, and saw everything). I have a few faithful followers, who point out everything they don't like. A few of them, that is about all they contribute.
had an interesting 32 3w come through the shop where I worked once the story was it was built in the mid 60s had a HiPo 289 hooked to the original drivetrain technically speaking, as far as traditional, this one is more trad than one with a disguised 350 trad is blurred here many times and I am fine with it as long as LS and later modular engines are out dont hate those but this aint the place
I don’t know what traditional is, but I know it when I see it....How that? Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.
Ive got a 5 bolt 260 & a 289 in my hoard. also a 6 bolt 289. lots od 302.s and 351.s I even have a small bell 351 Cleveland. and would prefer any of them to a Y block. The problem with the winsor engines is parts interchange. the flywheels will bolt on but are balanced differently. back in 69 I witnessed a 351 winsor 2 bbl. automatic Mach 1 mustang beat a 69 Camaro 350 Lt 4 bbl & 4 speed 6 times in a row. They even swapped drivers in the Camaro made no difference. Build what you like.
This debate comes up on a regular basis... As far as I'm concerned, this is much ado about nothing. The motor clearly makes the '65 cutoff, and there was a post by a HAMBer who purchased and installed one of Shelby's 260 dyno mules early on when they made the swap to the 289. Were they 'common'? No, but neither was Packard or Studebaker V8s , or the various straight eights that get a 'trad' pass. And the 289 wasn't as rare as some think; while the initial offerings in '62 were the 221 and mid-year 260, by mid/late '63 it was available in both the Fairlane as the Hi-po AND as a vanilla version in the full-size Ford when Ford discovered the 260 wouldn't haul the big cars around as well as the 292. By '64 the 289 was available across almost their full product line in both 2 and 4 barrel versions. The big issue with the SBF is the valve cover shape; with it's distinctive oval shape, it doesn't look like any other '50s or even '60s motor. Guys are swapping FE and Y-block covers on, but addressing the oil fill is an issue unless you can track down a '62-63 timing cover assembly (which do a poor job of preventing sludge build-up, which is why Ford changed it). I personally think the market is ripe for a 'phantom' FE-style cover shortened about two inches, with oil fill and PVC ports, and with a Windsor flange on it. I'm eyeing modifying a set of steel ones to do just that. I'll still need an adaptor because of the difference in the lower flange, but the ends and top are pretty close. And there's a whiff of hypocrisy here too. The BBC came out in '65, just barely making the cutoff, how common was this swap prior to '66? Yet I have yet to see anybody 'call out' one of these for not being 'traditional'... is that because (do I dare say it?) it's a 'Chevy'? You tell me....
I think you guys have made a convincing enough argument for the SBF as traditional. I still cringe when seeing one in a pre-war Ford, and I do think that they were exceptionally rare, but to each their own. I do think it's a great engine, and I've loved a high spinning 289 since the days of my misspent youth being a hooligan in friends early Mustangs.
I would have no qualms with putting a Ford flat 6 in a pre-war anything. Father-in-law has offered me a runner multiple times. Free makes a big difference in decision making. Sent from my iPhone using H.A.M.B.
Ford, Chevy, Pontiac who cares ? Our building cars consisted of finding the biggest motors that came mostly in full size luxury boats and stuffing them into the smallest lightest cars we could make them fit into. We did not worry about what was traditional, we worried about what we could beat the factory muscle cars of the day with. Because we had no money to go down to the dealer and buy the latest thing Detroit put out. You could buy a complete motor and transmission for 50-100 bucks and make it fit and go have fun. That is what hot rodding used to be about where I grew up. My daily and only car in high school was a 49 Ford business coupe with a 55 Olds 324 and a hydro with a motor mount kit and starter change over from J.C.Whitney. It spanked all of the Mustangs and tri-5 Chevies around. Tradition meant nothing when you were poor and wanted a hot rod. Cars rusted out so fast in northern Michigan that the only early Fords around were restored parade cars that got brought for special events.
The Jalopy Journal
