Muscle Cars - Chevy vs Ford
knightjp
08-17-2007, 03:28 PM
Its kinda a known fact that if I were to ask the entire petrol-head community to choose between Chevys vs Fords, I would be able to divide the entire community into 2 equal halves.... Why???
Does Chevy and Ford really equal each other out when it comes to building great Muscle cars??? Or does one have an advantage over the other??.....
SO... Here goes the start of the age old debate (again).....
Who makes THEE BEST Muscle cars between the two??? Is it Chevy (GM) or Ford????
Does Chevy and Ford really equal each other out when it comes to building great Muscle cars??? Or does one have an advantage over the other??.....
SO... Here goes the start of the age old debate (again).....
Who makes THEE BEST Muscle cars between the two??? Is it Chevy (GM) or Ford????
Andydg
08-18-2007, 09:17 AM
Well Mopar made the best muscle cars IMO :wink: But I prefer the Chevy muscle cars myself over the Fords. I think they look better and they're much easier to work on.
knightjp
08-18-2007, 10:12 AM
Well... I do know that Mopar cars are the most powerful of all the muscle cars, but not the most reliable... :wink:
However my question is between Chevy & Ford. Most say that Chevy's are more powerful... is that true???
To be honest, Ford has always put up muscle cars with smaller engines against the Chevys... for instance.. .
Ford Mustang = 4.8 ltr engine
Chevy Camaro / Pontiac GTO = 5.7 ltr engine
I wouldn't be supprised if the chevy's were more powerful... they've got more engine...
Comfort wise... Fords take it... they're just more comfortable.
But out of the two... who makes the best all-round. And I'm talking about.... power, comfort, maintenance and reliability.
However my question is between Chevy & Ford. Most say that Chevy's are more powerful... is that true???
To be honest, Ford has always put up muscle cars with smaller engines against the Chevys... for instance.. .
Ford Mustang = 4.8 ltr engine
Chevy Camaro / Pontiac GTO = 5.7 ltr engine
I wouldn't be supprised if the chevy's were more powerful... they've got more engine...
Comfort wise... Fords take it... they're just more comfortable.
But out of the two... who makes the best all-round. And I'm talking about.... power, comfort, maintenance and reliability.
Chad82
08-18-2007, 09:34 PM
For classic muscle, Mopar's the king of the hill. Between Chevy and Ford, I would go Chevy.
Chevy (assume you actually mean GM?) I would love to own the following:
Buick GS/GSX
Olds 442
Chevelle SS
Nova II SS
Pontiac GTO
1st gen Camaro/Firebird
For Ford it would be:
Torino
Fastback/sports roof Mustang, specifically 69-70s, specifically Boss or Mach 1.
In the last 20 years or so, only ford muscle I would like is 03/04 Cobra for ford. For GM I would like 4th gen LSI ram air Trans Am, turbo regal or any variant (Grand national/GNX), 05-06 GTO and to a lesser extent 94-96 Impala SS.
Chevy (assume you actually mean GM?) I would love to own the following:
Buick GS/GSX
Olds 442
Chevelle SS
Nova II SS
Pontiac GTO
1st gen Camaro/Firebird
For Ford it would be:
Torino
Fastback/sports roof Mustang, specifically 69-70s, specifically Boss or Mach 1.
In the last 20 years or so, only ford muscle I would like is 03/04 Cobra for ford. For GM I would like 4th gen LSI ram air Trans Am, turbo regal or any variant (Grand national/GNX), 05-06 GTO and to a lesser extent 94-96 Impala SS.
knightjp
08-19-2007, 07:48 AM
Well... its plain to see that no-one is there who is able to step out there and answer the question point blank. :lol: :grinyes:
Alright guys, for the third time in a row... .
Who makes the better cars.... Chevy or Ford??
Before you answer you should weigh the following:
Power & Handling
Seating Comfort
Build quality
Reliability & maintenance
Take these into consideration and let me know....
The real reason I'm pressing is because this question has been bugging me since I was a kid. I want to lay the question to rest once and for all....
Plus I'm trying to decide whether I should go in for a Ford GT500 or wait for the new Camaro. :grinyes: :wink:
Alright guys, for the third time in a row... .
Who makes the better cars.... Chevy or Ford??
Before you answer you should weigh the following:
Power & Handling
Seating Comfort
Build quality
Reliability & maintenance
Take these into consideration and let me know....
The real reason I'm pressing is because this question has been bugging me since I was a kid. I want to lay the question to rest once and for all....
Plus I'm trying to decide whether I should go in for a Ford GT500 or wait for the new Camaro. :grinyes: :wink:
Chad82
08-19-2007, 04:10 PM
you are in a muscle car forum. muscle died in the early 70s. if you want to know about contemporary cars go to one of those forums.
hotrod_chevyz
08-19-2007, 06:36 PM
Power & Handling
Seating Comfort
Build quality
Reliability & maintenance
This is more an opinion thing than anything else. GM, FORD, and MOPAR have all made some good and powerful muscle cars. Each brand has its loyal followers, and reliability and the ability to keep one maintained is subject to the owner.
Most of the things you have mentioned shouldnt even be considered as they arent the point of a muscle car, and were not the goals of those who designed them.
"VS" belongs here
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=666
Seating Comfort
Build quality
Reliability & maintenance
This is more an opinion thing than anything else. GM, FORD, and MOPAR have all made some good and powerful muscle cars. Each brand has its loyal followers, and reliability and the ability to keep one maintained is subject to the owner.
Most of the things you have mentioned shouldnt even be considered as they arent the point of a muscle car, and were not the goals of those who designed them.
"VS" belongs here
http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=666
MrPbody
08-20-2007, 08:28 AM
Talk about a loaded question!!!
THE "modern muscle car" (only one made since 1972) is the '04-'06 GTO. Mustang never was nor will ever be a "muscle car". It's a "pony car" (a class named FOR Mustang), and regardless of how much "muscle" it has, it will always BE a pony car.
The LSx engines are NOT Chevy engines. They ARE "GM Powertrain" engines. They bear no resemblance to Chevys. They use but two part numbers, left over, which are also used in other GM offerings, and those are the lifter and the rod bearing. And, IMO, they (LSx) are far superior in design to the Ford modulars. Just because they still have pushrods doesn't mean they can't make SERIOUS power! I saw an '05 GTO at Norwalk, "billed" as "the fastest LS-1 in the world". It went 7.19 @ 198. Haven't seen or heard of any small Ford doing that!
Answer to the posed question? NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!
Jim
THE "modern muscle car" (only one made since 1972) is the '04-'06 GTO. Mustang never was nor will ever be a "muscle car". It's a "pony car" (a class named FOR Mustang), and regardless of how much "muscle" it has, it will always BE a pony car.
The LSx engines are NOT Chevy engines. They ARE "GM Powertrain" engines. They bear no resemblance to Chevys. They use but two part numbers, left over, which are also used in other GM offerings, and those are the lifter and the rod bearing. And, IMO, they (LSx) are far superior in design to the Ford modulars. Just because they still have pushrods doesn't mean they can't make SERIOUS power! I saw an '05 GTO at Norwalk, "billed" as "the fastest LS-1 in the world". It went 7.19 @ 198. Haven't seen or heard of any small Ford doing that!
Answer to the posed question? NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!
Jim
knightjp
08-20-2007, 09:08 AM
Talk about a loaded question!!!
THE "modern muscle car" (only one made since 1972) is the '04-'06 GTO. Mustang never was nor will ever be a "muscle car". It's a "pony car" (a class named FOR Mustang), and regardless of how much "muscle" it has, it will always BE a pony car.
The LSx engines are NOT Chevy engines. They ARE "GM Powertrain" engines. They bear no resemblance to Chevys. They use but two part numbers, left over, which are also used in other GM offerings, and those are the lifter and the rod bearing. And, IMO, they (LSx) are far superior in design to the Ford modulars. Just because they still have pushrods doesn't mean they can't make SERIOUS power! I saw an '05 GTO at Norwalk, "billed" as "the fastest LS-1 in the world". It went 7.19 @ 198. Haven't seen or heard of any small Ford doing that!
Answer to the posed question? NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!
Jim
What does Chevrolet use in the Corvette then??? They always claim that the new GTO uses the same engine as in the Corvette.
If at all the GM uses the same engines in alot of models, what kind of engine does Chevy build????
THE "modern muscle car" (only one made since 1972) is the '04-'06 GTO. Mustang never was nor will ever be a "muscle car". It's a "pony car" (a class named FOR Mustang), and regardless of how much "muscle" it has, it will always BE a pony car.
The LSx engines are NOT Chevy engines. They ARE "GM Powertrain" engines. They bear no resemblance to Chevys. They use but two part numbers, left over, which are also used in other GM offerings, and those are the lifter and the rod bearing. And, IMO, they (LSx) are far superior in design to the Ford modulars. Just because they still have pushrods doesn't mean they can't make SERIOUS power! I saw an '05 GTO at Norwalk, "billed" as "the fastest LS-1 in the world". It went 7.19 @ 198. Haven't seen or heard of any small Ford doing that!
Answer to the posed question? NONE OF THE ABOVE!!!
Jim
What does Chevrolet use in the Corvette then??? They always claim that the new GTO uses the same engine as in the Corvette.
If at all the GM uses the same engines in alot of models, what kind of engine does Chevy build????
MrPbody
08-20-2007, 12:47 PM
Yes, LS2 (400 HP) is used in the base-model Corvette, and GTO. LS7 is the "427" (really 426, but that's not as "cool") version (505 HP).
Chevrolet no longer builds engines, they assemble cars. GM Powertrain is the division of GM responsible for engines for the last 7 or 8 years, for ALL GM models. LS1 first showed up in the '97 Corvette. In '98, F-bodies got it, too.
Corvette is a "sports car" (and a damn fine one, at that!), and cannot be compared to muscle cars.
This debate can go on forever. Let's let it "ly"...
Jim
Chevrolet no longer builds engines, they assemble cars. GM Powertrain is the division of GM responsible for engines for the last 7 or 8 years, for ALL GM models. LS1 first showed up in the '97 Corvette. In '98, F-bodies got it, too.
Corvette is a "sports car" (and a damn fine one, at that!), and cannot be compared to muscle cars.
This debate can go on forever. Let's let it "ly"...
Jim
knightjp
08-20-2007, 10:39 PM
Sure..
I just really wanted to know who made cars better.... Chevy or Ford...
:grinyes:
I just really wanted to know who made cars better.... Chevy or Ford...
:grinyes:
MrPbody
08-21-2007, 11:59 AM
Pontiac.... Not Chevy OR Ford!
IMO, anyway!
Jim
IMO, anyway!
Jim
429SCJguy
08-21-2007, 03:26 PM
As far as classic big block muscle cars go Chevy vs. Ford involves Chevelle SS 396 325/350/375hp and Chevelle SS 454 365/450hp versus Torino GT, Torino Cobra, Mercury Cyclone, Cyclone GT, Cyclone Spoiler, Cyclone CJ 428 powered by 390GT, 428 CJ/SCJ or 429 TJ/CJ/SCJ. Ford also had the '66-'67 Fairlane GT 390 and '67 Fairlane 427.
If you include sports cars and pony cars, Chevy had the Corvette and Cobras had Ford engines. Mustang, Cougar and Camaro had the big block engine options already stated including the 429 Boss Mustang.
Many great and fast cars on both sides.
There were also several other great cars from that era:
GTO, Firebird, Roadrunner, Charger, Super Bee, GTX, Barracuda, Challenger, SC/Rambler etc.
My personal favorite is '70 Torino Cobra 429SCJ, 4sp, 3.91/4.30 gear.
I agree with Jim and hotrod_chevyz, no right or wrong answer.
If you include sports cars and pony cars, Chevy had the Corvette and Cobras had Ford engines. Mustang, Cougar and Camaro had the big block engine options already stated including the 429 Boss Mustang.
Many great and fast cars on both sides.
There were also several other great cars from that era:
GTO, Firebird, Roadrunner, Charger, Super Bee, GTX, Barracuda, Challenger, SC/Rambler etc.
My personal favorite is '70 Torino Cobra 429SCJ, 4sp, 3.91/4.30 gear.
I agree with Jim and hotrod_chevyz, no right or wrong answer.
MrPbody
08-22-2007, 07:11 AM
429SCJ,
"Back in the day"... I had my '70 Judge w/366 HP 400 (Ram Air III). A close friend had a '70 Cyclone GT with the SCJ (solid lifter version). I had 3.55 gears and a Muncie. He had 3.50 gears and a Top Loader. Both cars were box-stock. I could beat him through a 1/4 mile by about 3'. His engine made more high-end power, and right past the 1/4, he would pop high gear and blow right on by! The Judge was a great performance car, but the Merc was much faster on the top end. From my experience, the Cyclone has the same running gear and performs just like the Torino. Never thought much of the 428s (I've seen 390GT Mustangs beat up on CJs), but that 429 is a great engine! One friend in SoCal has a '70 Mach 1 with the 428 SCJ. It's gorgeous, but it won't get out of the 14s... I understand this is a VERY RARE option in '70.
Jim
"Back in the day"... I had my '70 Judge w/366 HP 400 (Ram Air III). A close friend had a '70 Cyclone GT with the SCJ (solid lifter version). I had 3.55 gears and a Muncie. He had 3.50 gears and a Top Loader. Both cars were box-stock. I could beat him through a 1/4 mile by about 3'. His engine made more high-end power, and right past the 1/4, he would pop high gear and blow right on by! The Judge was a great performance car, but the Merc was much faster on the top end. From my experience, the Cyclone has the same running gear and performs just like the Torino. Never thought much of the 428s (I've seen 390GT Mustangs beat up on CJs), but that 429 is a great engine! One friend in SoCal has a '70 Mach 1 with the 428 SCJ. It's gorgeous, but it won't get out of the 14s... I understand this is a VERY RARE option in '70.
Jim
429SCJguy
08-22-2007, 12:47 PM
Was your friend's car a Super Cobra Jet or Cobra Jet? The Super Cobra Jet came with solid lifters, Holley carb, air pump, oil cooler, forged single eyebrow flat tops and 3.91 or 4.30 gears. The Cobra Jet came with a Quadrajet carb (the only Ford so equipped to my knowledge), hydraulic lifters, cast pistons and 3.25 or 3.50 gears. Both engines had the big port heads (DOOE-R) and 11.3 : 1 compression. I'm not sure, Mercs may have been available with the higher gears.
Actually the 429 Thunder Jet (standard 429) was the standard Torino Cobra engine in '70, the 351C-4V in 71. The big headed 429s were options both years. The '69 Cobras were all 428CJ/SCJ.
In '70, pony car Cobra Jets were still 428s while Torino/Cyclone Cobra Jets were the new 429 from what I understand. In '71, 429s could be had in Mustangs and a small number of Cougars as well.
All four engines 428CJ/SCJ, 429CJ/SCJ were available with and without functional hood scoops.
WOW, '70 GTO Judge, 400 Ram Air III, 4sp, sweet ride!
Never drove one but the 400P, Muncie/Hurst, 3.55s has to be a great all around street combo.
Actually the 429 Thunder Jet (standard 429) was the standard Torino Cobra engine in '70, the 351C-4V in 71. The big headed 429s were options both years. The '69 Cobras were all 428CJ/SCJ.
In '70, pony car Cobra Jets were still 428s while Torino/Cyclone Cobra Jets were the new 429 from what I understand. In '71, 429s could be had in Mustangs and a small number of Cougars as well.
All four engines 428CJ/SCJ, 429CJ/SCJ were available with and without functional hood scoops.
WOW, '70 GTO Judge, 400 Ram Air III, 4sp, sweet ride!
Never drove one but the 400P, Muncie/Hurst, 3.55s has to be a great all around street combo.
MrPbody
08-22-2007, 01:35 PM
Yes, solid lifters. We put pushrods in it too many times... If revved to 5,600 in the lower gears, it was fine. Over 6,000, and it would bend a bunch of the pushrods. In 4th gear, it would go right near 7,000 without a wimper. I suspect it was catching revs too quickly for the stock valve train in the lower gears. Definitely a 3.50 gear, as well. 3310 Holley, if memory serves me.
I have a '69 Torino 428CJ in here right now. The car is white with red "c" stripes, and red interior. It's quite nice! Girl's car, though (auto trans).
I have seen at least three or four '70 Mach 1s with 429s in them. They may have been transplants, I guess. MUCH stronger than the 428 cars. I drove a '71 "flat back" Mach 1 with 429 CJ. It was a GOOD running car, despite the lower compression. My favorite Mustang was always the flat back. My brother (a DIE HARD Mustang guy) hates them. He says they're just to damn big. That's what I LIKE about them... They're the most aero Mustang produced, too.
When I was first getting into my own cars, I was a "Ford guy". Then, I bought The Judge. You're right! SWEET RIDE!!! Never looked back. GTO was by far, the best balanced muscle car. If you could beat it in a straight line, it would stomp you in the twisties. If you could out-handle it, you were toast in a drag race. In SoCal, there's lots of good places to road race and drag race. We had "courses" marked all over the San Bernardino area. Hwy 18 to Big Bear is an AWESOME "GTO road", at least UP HILL. Down hill? Not suicidal...
Jim
I have a '69 Torino 428CJ in here right now. The car is white with red "c" stripes, and red interior. It's quite nice! Girl's car, though (auto trans).
I have seen at least three or four '70 Mach 1s with 429s in them. They may have been transplants, I guess. MUCH stronger than the 428 cars. I drove a '71 "flat back" Mach 1 with 429 CJ. It was a GOOD running car, despite the lower compression. My favorite Mustang was always the flat back. My brother (a DIE HARD Mustang guy) hates them. He says they're just to damn big. That's what I LIKE about them... They're the most aero Mustang produced, too.
When I was first getting into my own cars, I was a "Ford guy". Then, I bought The Judge. You're right! SWEET RIDE!!! Never looked back. GTO was by far, the best balanced muscle car. If you could beat it in a straight line, it would stomp you in the twisties. If you could out-handle it, you were toast in a drag race. In SoCal, there's lots of good places to road race and drag race. We had "courses" marked all over the San Bernardino area. Hwy 18 to Big Bear is an AWESOME "GTO road", at least UP HILL. Down hill? Not suicidal...
Jim
Chad82
08-22-2007, 05:23 PM
Talk about a loaded question!!!
THE "modern muscle car" (only one made since 1972) is the '04-'06 GTO. Mustang never was nor will ever be a "muscle car". It's a "pony car" (a class named FOR Mustang), and regardless of how much "muscle" it has, it will always BE a pony car.
Not arguing, but why do you only consider the 04-06 GTO to be modern muscle? The grand national seems to fit just about as well (mid-sized, great performance in higher trim than base models). Is it just the displacement that would disqualify the GN/GNX? Were they too expensive or something?
THE "modern muscle car" (only one made since 1972) is the '04-'06 GTO. Mustang never was nor will ever be a "muscle car". It's a "pony car" (a class named FOR Mustang), and regardless of how much "muscle" it has, it will always BE a pony car.
Not arguing, but why do you only consider the 04-06 GTO to be modern muscle? The grand national seems to fit just about as well (mid-sized, great performance in higher trim than base models). Is it just the displacement that would disqualify the GN/GNX? Were they too expensive or something?
MrPbody
08-23-2007, 08:16 AM
Chad,
Nope. They weren't too expensive. They were shy a couple cylinders. Muscle cars had BIG V8s (relatively speaking, of course). Only the "Buick crowd" considers them muscle. Fast isn't in question. They have very little low-end torque, a prime ingredient for the actual driving (not racing) of a muscle car. They also have a power adder. The latter is instant disqualification in my book... ANYONE can put a blower on something and make it fast. No brainer...
Lastly, they're so seldom seen (I see more '69 Camaros and '65 GTOs on the road than I do ALL Buick preformance cars combined), they're hard to include in any general "list".
That doesn't mean I don't like them. I do. I've built several turbo engines, too. Lots of little things to make them "live" when they are making big power. Not unlike the big Buick V8s.
Jim
Nope. They weren't too expensive. They were shy a couple cylinders. Muscle cars had BIG V8s (relatively speaking, of course). Only the "Buick crowd" considers them muscle. Fast isn't in question. They have very little low-end torque, a prime ingredient for the actual driving (not racing) of a muscle car. They also have a power adder. The latter is instant disqualification in my book... ANYONE can put a blower on something and make it fast. No brainer...
Lastly, they're so seldom seen (I see more '69 Camaros and '65 GTOs on the road than I do ALL Buick preformance cars combined), they're hard to include in any general "list".
That doesn't mean I don't like them. I do. I've built several turbo engines, too. Lots of little things to make them "live" when they are making big power. Not unlike the big Buick V8s.
Jim
Chad82
08-29-2007, 10:14 PM
Fair enough. I would agree that low end torque would be a necessary requirement for a "true" muscle car. Re: cylinders, I always thought the power was more important than the engine configuration and figured to define a modern muscle you had to take technological advances into consideration. Because of that I didn't mind power adders for a modern muscle. If the new GTO comes with a SC LS2, it wouldn't disqualify it in my books.
MrPbody
09-06-2007, 08:55 AM
Chad,
I understand. But, since GTO can stand on its own feet without an adder, it's a "moot point"! Now, what WOULD happen with say, 12 lbs. of boost? WOW!!!
Jim
I understand. But, since GTO can stand on its own feet without an adder, it's a "moot point"! Now, what WOULD happen with say, 12 lbs. of boost? WOW!!!
Jim
M3FordBoy
09-21-2007, 04:45 PM
I voted Ford...my opinion my be bias.
I plan on bore/stroking my Fe when I get out of school
Hopefully around 480cid at least 700hp
Get this 4500-ish lb beast in the 10's.
I plan on bore/stroking my Fe when I get out of school
Hopefully around 480cid at least 700hp
Get this 4500-ish lb beast in the 10's.
MrPbody
09-24-2007, 08:19 AM
M3FordBoy,
You might wanna reconsider the "FE" thing. While a very good engine in its own rite, it's woefully obsolete. It's also very difficult to get to the CID you want. 427 blocks are VERY rare and VERY expensive. Unless there's an aftermarket block out there (I haven't seen one, so if there is, please point it out!), you're gonna be stuck with using a 390 or 428 as a basis. The bore simply can't go far enough to make such cubes.
A "Lima" engine (429/460) would be a far better choice, IMO. Tons of good parts, no lak of power from it, either (more than any FE without overhead cams I've ever seen).
FWIW
Jim
You might wanna reconsider the "FE" thing. While a very good engine in its own rite, it's woefully obsolete. It's also very difficult to get to the CID you want. 427 blocks are VERY rare and VERY expensive. Unless there's an aftermarket block out there (I haven't seen one, so if there is, please point it out!), you're gonna be stuck with using a 390 or 428 as a basis. The bore simply can't go far enough to make such cubes.
A "Lima" engine (429/460) would be a far better choice, IMO. Tons of good parts, no lak of power from it, either (more than any FE without overhead cams I've ever seen).
FWIW
Jim
M3FordBoy
09-24-2007, 09:52 AM
^I have consider this, but I'd like to stick with the Fe purely for nastalgic purposes....It'll cost a little more, and be harder to find performance parts, but it's not imposible. I remember reading a while back that scat was going to or is currently make a stroker kit to get some big cid number out of the Fe's...so that's what I'll be looking for. It might not be 480ci, but at lest 466ci or something like that.
429SCJguy
09-26-2007, 12:23 PM
A 428 crankshaft in a 427 block will get you to near 454 cubic inches, but as Jim said 427 blocks are not cheap. There may be aftermarket kits available.
What do you plan about cylinder heads? There are the garden variety FE heads, 2.03 1.56, valves, 428CJ (C8OE-N) and low riser 427 heads, 2.08 1.66 valves. The medium riser (C5AE-F, filled intake runners) and high riser (C4AE-F, tall intake ports) heads have larger valves. Then there are the aluminum Edelbrocks.
As Jim said, a lot of relatively cheap power and torque is available with the 429/460. Besides the aftermarket aluminum cylinder head offerings, the common iron cylinder head castings are D3VE-A2A, DOVE-C and DOOE-R (429CJ/SCJ). The D2VE-A2A heads are open chamber.
What do you plan about cylinder heads? There are the garden variety FE heads, 2.03 1.56, valves, 428CJ (C8OE-N) and low riser 427 heads, 2.08 1.66 valves. The medium riser (C5AE-F, filled intake runners) and high riser (C4AE-F, tall intake ports) heads have larger valves. Then there are the aluminum Edelbrocks.
As Jim said, a lot of relatively cheap power and torque is available with the 429/460. Besides the aftermarket aluminum cylinder head offerings, the common iron cylinder head castings are D3VE-A2A, DOVE-C and DOOE-R (429CJ/SCJ). The D2VE-A2A heads are open chamber.
M3FordBoy
09-26-2007, 12:45 PM
Look I'm not going to be attempting this anytime soon, probably 4 years down the road, a lot can happen between now and then. As for heads I currently have the Preformer RPM with 2.09/1.66 vavles. I may possibley use a reworked version of those: stronger springs, port/polish, maybe even some different valves.
VR43000GT
10-24-2007, 09:51 PM
Well Mopar made the best muscle cars IMO :wink: But I prefer the Chevy muscle cars myself over the Fords. I think they look better and they're much easier to work on.
Yeah, I know, old thread. Oh well, I am still throwing in my .02. You took the words right out of my mouth. If it comes to American muscle there is nothing I would rather have than an old Mopar. And if it is between Chevy and Ford, probably Chevy. However, I have recently been looking between the LS1 F-body and a 2001 Cobra and I would have to choose the 01 Cobra for the fact that in a straight line they are pretty much identical but the Cobra has IRS. I need a car that can handle decient. An 01 Cobra may be my next car.
Yeah, I know, old thread. Oh well, I am still throwing in my .02. You took the words right out of my mouth. If it comes to American muscle there is nothing I would rather have than an old Mopar. And if it is between Chevy and Ford, probably Chevy. However, I have recently been looking between the LS1 F-body and a 2001 Cobra and I would have to choose the 01 Cobra for the fact that in a straight line they are pretty much identical but the Cobra has IRS. I need a car that can handle decient. An 01 Cobra may be my next car.
Combatspace
11-29-2007, 08:52 PM
Between the two...I believe that Ford made a better muscle car. That may just be three generations of Ford gear-heads talking, but the Mustang, (the accidental muscle car) the Torino, and the Cougars (if we include mercury in the Ford mix) were just...more taken to.
FORD FTW!!!
FORD FTW!!!
MuscleBuick
12-09-2007, 11:56 AM
well i'm pretty rell rounded when it comes to ford vs. chevy but when i 1st got into the hobby i was ford guy so there's always gonna be that part of me that's blue oval but i think they're pretty equal with ford having a tiny edge.
there's some ford's i'd want over chevy's and some chevy's i'd want over fords.
boss 429,351,and 302 over z28
z28 over gt350 and C/S
there's some ford's i'd want over chevy's and some chevy's i'd want over fords.
boss 429,351,and 302 over z28
z28 over gt350 and C/S
NOVA71
12-18-2007, 03:39 AM
Imo - Gm
Malibu67
04-11-2008, 11:12 PM
I think that the Chevy Chevelle with the 396 and 454 porcipine (sp) heads are hard to beat. Lots of power in a small block!! :)
Combatspace
04-14-2008, 07:24 AM
well i'm pretty rell rounded when it comes to ford vs. chevy but when i 1st got into the hobby i was ford guy so there's always gonna be that part of me that's blue oval but i think they're pretty equal with ford having a tiny edge.
there's some ford's i'd want over chevy's and some chevy's i'd want over fords.
boss 429,351,and 302 over z28
z28 over gt350 and C/S
Nice choices. I'd have to agree.
there's some ford's i'd want over chevy's and some chevy's i'd want over fords.
boss 429,351,and 302 over z28
z28 over gt350 and C/S
Nice choices. I'd have to agree.
MrPbody
04-14-2008, 01:18 PM
Malibu67,
Hard to tell from what you posted, but it appears you believe those two engines to be "small blocks"? Nope. They're both factory-configuration "big block Chevy". The nickname "Rat Motor" was applied to the BBC in olden times (396 and 427). 454 briefly was nicknamed "gopher" because it was so "big" compared to the others. A "porcupine" is usually an aftermarket bored/stroked BIG CID big block, like a 496. But today, things have changed, as the factory is producing (not installing in cars) 502s and 572s, throwing all that "size" stuff kinda to the wind.
Combatspace,
ALL those cars you refer to are "pony cars", not muscle cars... NO muscle car EVER came with a small block... "Never send a boy to do a MAN'S job...!"
This is one of those things that have gotten dilluted over time. The only true "mucsle car" built since 1972 was the '04-'06 GTO (intermediate size car with high performance engine). Even that can be debated, as the LS-1 and LS-2 aren't "big". The '73-'77 intermediates with big engines had no real power to speak of until extensively modified. The last "monster" engine installed in a factory car of that era was the 455 SD in a limited number of '73 and '74 Trans Ams, also "pony cars". The last "good" 454 installed in a Chevelle was the '71 LS-6 454 (450 HP). I've heard of '72s with them, but never had one verified as "original". LS-7 454 (460 HP, yah, right... 550 was more like it...) was a BEAST, but only "dealer installed".
FWIW
Jim
Hard to tell from what you posted, but it appears you believe those two engines to be "small blocks"? Nope. They're both factory-configuration "big block Chevy". The nickname "Rat Motor" was applied to the BBC in olden times (396 and 427). 454 briefly was nicknamed "gopher" because it was so "big" compared to the others. A "porcupine" is usually an aftermarket bored/stroked BIG CID big block, like a 496. But today, things have changed, as the factory is producing (not installing in cars) 502s and 572s, throwing all that "size" stuff kinda to the wind.
Combatspace,
ALL those cars you refer to are "pony cars", not muscle cars... NO muscle car EVER came with a small block... "Never send a boy to do a MAN'S job...!"
This is one of those things that have gotten dilluted over time. The only true "mucsle car" built since 1972 was the '04-'06 GTO (intermediate size car with high performance engine). Even that can be debated, as the LS-1 and LS-2 aren't "big". The '73-'77 intermediates with big engines had no real power to speak of until extensively modified. The last "monster" engine installed in a factory car of that era was the 455 SD in a limited number of '73 and '74 Trans Ams, also "pony cars". The last "good" 454 installed in a Chevelle was the '71 LS-6 454 (450 HP). I've heard of '72s with them, but never had one verified as "original". LS-7 454 (460 HP, yah, right... 550 was more like it...) was a BEAST, but only "dealer installed".
FWIW
Jim
72chevelleOhio
04-15-2008, 03:23 AM
. The only true "mucsle car" built since 1972 was the '04-'06 GTO
The last "good" 454 installed in a Chevelle was the '71 LS-6 454 (450 HP). I've heard of '72s with them, but never had one verified as "original".
You rang? :p
You mean '71 with a 425 hp... And I also found the 450 hp did not make it (leftovers) from '70 into the '71.
The '72's were the "dogs"................:uhoh: Aw, son of a.......
History 1 (http://members.cox.net/metal702/chevelle_history.html)
Look an orange '72 (http://www.drivingtoday.com/juno/greatest_cars/chevelle_454/index.html)(history 2)
The last "good" 454 installed in a Chevelle was the '71 LS-6 454 (450 HP). I've heard of '72s with them, but never had one verified as "original".
You rang? :p
You mean '71 with a 425 hp... And I also found the 450 hp did not make it (leftovers) from '70 into the '71.
The '72's were the "dogs"................:uhoh: Aw, son of a.......
History 1 (http://members.cox.net/metal702/chevelle_history.html)
Look an orange '72 (http://www.drivingtoday.com/juno/greatest_cars/chevelle_454/index.html)(history 2)
97cobraman
04-27-2008, 07:26 PM
MY take has always been that chevy has always seemed to put out a beefier motor off the shelf. Fords (even though I am a Ford fan), you usually have to add some things to make it use the motors potential.
So Off the shelf you will get more bang for your buck with a chevy, but I would rather buy a ford and add to it any day... Just my take.
So Off the shelf you will get more bang for your buck with a chevy, but I would rather buy a ford and add to it any day... Just my take.
kens67mustang
05-15-2008, 08:11 PM
The Mustang IS muscle car............sisce they put a BIG engine into a little car.They are also called PONY cars because they started their own class of small sporty cars..........Muscle car is a term used to describe a car with a big engine............the GTO didn't come with just a big engine.Don't throw the pony car name around as an excuse to not call a Mustang a muscle car.a Boss 429..or a Shelby GT500 is, and will be forever a MUSCLE CAR.
kens67mustang
05-15-2008, 08:14 PM
the NEW GTO is hardly a new muscle car.............bland styling& 400hp? and can barely run 14's? sorry.......it's not a muscle car,just a wanna be.
i'll take the newer Cobras over any Pontiac offering.and the new Challenger? THAT& the Shelby's,are the NEW muscle cars on the block.
i'll take the newer Cobras over any Pontiac offering.and the new Challenger? THAT& the Shelby's,are the NEW muscle cars on the block.
kens67mustang
05-15-2008, 08:22 PM
heavily modified GTO's running 7's? they had better be............after all, they have Cobra mustangs running 6's that are just as modified.
hotrod_chevyz
05-15-2008, 09:24 PM
The muscle car "ERA" is long over, so i dont think the list of true muscle cars will be growing.
I wonder how the new camaro will stack up against ford and dodges offerings.....
:popcorn:
I wonder how the new camaro will stack up against ford and dodges offerings.....
:popcorn:
72chevelleOhio
05-16-2008, 01:33 AM
the NEW GTO is hardly a new muscle car.............bland styling& 400hp? and can barely run 14's?
It runs mid 13's..
Heres a spec sheet....Motor trend (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0312_2004_pontiac_gto/specs_price.html)
Still, I think it looks sorta boring....
I think Dodge done well on ("re")styling the new Challenger. I think I would buy one before I would buy the new Camaro..
However, $40k???? :eek7: Not me....
It runs mid 13's..
Heres a spec sheet....Motor trend (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0312_2004_pontiac_gto/specs_price.html)
Still, I think it looks sorta boring....
I think Dodge done well on ("re")styling the new Challenger. I think I would buy one before I would buy the new Camaro..
However, $40k???? :eek7: Not me....
kens67mustang
05-18-2008, 06:36 PM
429SCJ,
"Back in the day"... I had my '70 Judge w/366 HP 400 (Ram Air III). A close friend had a '70 Cyclone GT with the SCJ (solid lifter version). I had 3.55 gears and a Muncie. He had 3.50 gears and a Top Loader. Both cars were box-stock. I could beat him through a 1/4 mile by about 3'. His engine made more high-end power, and right past the 1/4, he would pop high gear and blow right on by! The Judge was a great performance car, but the Merc was much faster on the top end. From my experience, the Cyclone has the same running gear and performs just like the Torino. Never thought much of the 428s (I've seen 390GT Mustangs beat up on CJs), but that 429 is a great engine! One friend in SoCal has a '70 Mach 1 with the 428 SCJ. It's gorgeous, but it won't get out of the 14s... I understand this is a VERY RARE option in '70.
Jim
a 390 will not run with a 428CJ or a SCJ. the CJ was a rather popular option in both '69 & '70.and they ran strong.
"Back in the day"... I had my '70 Judge w/366 HP 400 (Ram Air III). A close friend had a '70 Cyclone GT with the SCJ (solid lifter version). I had 3.55 gears and a Muncie. He had 3.50 gears and a Top Loader. Both cars were box-stock. I could beat him through a 1/4 mile by about 3'. His engine made more high-end power, and right past the 1/4, he would pop high gear and blow right on by! The Judge was a great performance car, but the Merc was much faster on the top end. From my experience, the Cyclone has the same running gear and performs just like the Torino. Never thought much of the 428s (I've seen 390GT Mustangs beat up on CJs), but that 429 is a great engine! One friend in SoCal has a '70 Mach 1 with the 428 SCJ. It's gorgeous, but it won't get out of the 14s... I understand this is a VERY RARE option in '70.
Jim
a 390 will not run with a 428CJ or a SCJ. the CJ was a rather popular option in both '69 & '70.and they ran strong.
MrPbody
05-20-2008, 08:20 AM
Ken,
Are you trying to "call me out", or are you just good at reading magazines and "history"?
You should know, I've been buillding engines for over 30 years (as a professional, not a hobbyist). I've built them all at one time or another. I raced my GTO at the track and on the street, relentlessy from '72 through '78 when grown-up responsibilities began. I got beat occasionally, but a LOT less than I gave the beating. Not once, did a 428-powered (Ford) ANYTHING beat my 400 GTO, and I raced many. A couple of 390-powered pony cars (Mach 1 and Cougar, one each) gave me among the best runs I ever got from an FE. 427s were MUCH stronger, but simply too rare to consider. Most of them were in more expensive "race" cars and at the track every weekend. Us "poor folks" did street racing. The 429, on the other hand, is a GREAT engine.
It's true, in A and B/SS at the '68 Winternationals, the 428 Mustangs did well. Today, they're in "C/SS" because the developements of the "Hemi" made all others obsolete at the "A" level. We see one here and there, but not a popular racer. Too valuable as a collector car, I suspect, not unlike the Chevelle SSs (REAL ones) and GTOs. The Hemi cars that remain "unmolested" are also too valuable to race anymore. The ones that still do are older cars "kept up". There was one GT-500 running in B/SA at Indy last year. Went out in the first round.
My point here is to be sure the ground you're on. While it got rave reviews, the 428CJ never lived up to the "hype". The stroke was too long for the head design and the rod bearings are too big to really rev it. The relatively short stroke in the 390 and 427 made them MUCH better for performance (rod/stroke ratio and rod "angle"). 428 was originally developed as a "big car" engine. High in low-end torque, it made the better T-bird engine of the late '60s.
We've done one as recently as last Summer. It's in a '69 Torino GT, and is VERY nice. It's still a sled, though. We also did a 454 (427 block, 428 crank) about two years ago. It was a MAJOR torque monster, but the owner couldn't let go of the "rev" thing. He blew it up in short fashion. Large rod bearing, cast crank, 7,000 RPM... NOT a good combination. 428s are best left stock and geared "up" like Pontiacs, to take fullest advantage of all the torque (like the Pontiac...).
This is not to dispute anything, just to clarify with some "real world" experience.
Jim
Are you trying to "call me out", or are you just good at reading magazines and "history"?
You should know, I've been buillding engines for over 30 years (as a professional, not a hobbyist). I've built them all at one time or another. I raced my GTO at the track and on the street, relentlessy from '72 through '78 when grown-up responsibilities began. I got beat occasionally, but a LOT less than I gave the beating. Not once, did a 428-powered (Ford) ANYTHING beat my 400 GTO, and I raced many. A couple of 390-powered pony cars (Mach 1 and Cougar, one each) gave me among the best runs I ever got from an FE. 427s were MUCH stronger, but simply too rare to consider. Most of them were in more expensive "race" cars and at the track every weekend. Us "poor folks" did street racing. The 429, on the other hand, is a GREAT engine.
It's true, in A and B/SS at the '68 Winternationals, the 428 Mustangs did well. Today, they're in "C/SS" because the developements of the "Hemi" made all others obsolete at the "A" level. We see one here and there, but not a popular racer. Too valuable as a collector car, I suspect, not unlike the Chevelle SSs (REAL ones) and GTOs. The Hemi cars that remain "unmolested" are also too valuable to race anymore. The ones that still do are older cars "kept up". There was one GT-500 running in B/SA at Indy last year. Went out in the first round.
My point here is to be sure the ground you're on. While it got rave reviews, the 428CJ never lived up to the "hype". The stroke was too long for the head design and the rod bearings are too big to really rev it. The relatively short stroke in the 390 and 427 made them MUCH better for performance (rod/stroke ratio and rod "angle"). 428 was originally developed as a "big car" engine. High in low-end torque, it made the better T-bird engine of the late '60s.
We've done one as recently as last Summer. It's in a '69 Torino GT, and is VERY nice. It's still a sled, though. We also did a 454 (427 block, 428 crank) about two years ago. It was a MAJOR torque monster, but the owner couldn't let go of the "rev" thing. He blew it up in short fashion. Large rod bearing, cast crank, 7,000 RPM... NOT a good combination. 428s are best left stock and geared "up" like Pontiacs, to take fullest advantage of all the torque (like the Pontiac...).
This is not to dispute anything, just to clarify with some "real world" experience.
Jim
429SCJguy
05-20-2008, 04:00 PM
Jim,
You mentioned before the 428CJ you were building, is it a restoration or modded. How were the 428 and 454 equipped? I am restoring a presidential blue Torino Talladega with a 428CJ.
I also have a '70 Cobra 429SCJ 4 speed, candyapple red, trim rings, dog dishes and a '70 Torino GT 429CJ 4 speed white with red laser stripe, Magnum 500s, both restorations too.
The two '70s are nearly done.
You mentioned before the 428CJ you were building, is it a restoration or modded. How were the 428 and 454 equipped? I am restoring a presidential blue Torino Talladega with a 428CJ.
I also have a '70 Cobra 429SCJ 4 speed, candyapple red, trim rings, dog dishes and a '70 Torino GT 429CJ 4 speed white with red laser stripe, Magnum 500s, both restorations too.
The two '70s are nearly done.
MrPbody
05-21-2008, 08:32 AM
429,
The 428 had relatively stock heads with "good" valves (stock size, lighter, SS). We put a bit larger dish in the piston to lower the compression to 9.3:1 and installed a Comp XE268H cam with the appropriate hardware. Stock intake, 3310, factory exhaust manifolds ("high flow"). It sure is purdy! He (the customer) bought a "Cobra" oil pan and valve covers to dress it up. He wasn't looking to pump it up. By changing the cam and compression, we improved it about 5% over "stock".
The "454" is another matter. That one was a BEAST. Edelbrock heads, Ford "racing" (older stuff) 2 x 4-bbl. with 2 660s, 12:1, .750" roller (276/280 @ .050), MSD, Hooker 2" SuperComps, BME rods, JE pistons, etc. It went 9.40s in a 2,800 lb. Fairmont UNTIL... It spun a rod bearing and broke the block in the process. Those cast cranks just can't take 7,000 RPM. Since 427 blocks are so rare and expensive, he opted for the Lima after that. Now, it's in the high 8s.
I REALLY like the Lima (385) design. We've done a few 514s that make a ton of power. BBC guys HATE them. (:- We hit on a combination using D0VE heads with major exhaust work done, that "shine". By "filling" the floor of the exhaust port and raising the roof, the overall cross-section is a bit smaller than original, but flows about 80% (not a typo) more than original. Went from 110 CFM @ .600" lift to 200. Not cheap. I would think the Blue Thunder or alloy CJ heads might be a better way to go. There was talk of "P-51" (Kaase's head) but I haven't heard any results. Is it out there yet? Does it "work"?
One of my fondest car memories stems from an old friend's '70 Cyclone GT, 429SCJ (solid lifter version). I believe I mentioned that car in earlier posts here. My GTO could beat it through a 1/4 mile plus about 10 feet. He would hit 4th and "See ya!"... My car had 3.55s and his had 3.50s. The Pontiac just made more low-end power and the Ford made more high-end.
Jim
The 428 had relatively stock heads with "good" valves (stock size, lighter, SS). We put a bit larger dish in the piston to lower the compression to 9.3:1 and installed a Comp XE268H cam with the appropriate hardware. Stock intake, 3310, factory exhaust manifolds ("high flow"). It sure is purdy! He (the customer) bought a "Cobra" oil pan and valve covers to dress it up. He wasn't looking to pump it up. By changing the cam and compression, we improved it about 5% over "stock".
The "454" is another matter. That one was a BEAST. Edelbrock heads, Ford "racing" (older stuff) 2 x 4-bbl. with 2 660s, 12:1, .750" roller (276/280 @ .050), MSD, Hooker 2" SuperComps, BME rods, JE pistons, etc. It went 9.40s in a 2,800 lb. Fairmont UNTIL... It spun a rod bearing and broke the block in the process. Those cast cranks just can't take 7,000 RPM. Since 427 blocks are so rare and expensive, he opted for the Lima after that. Now, it's in the high 8s.
I REALLY like the Lima (385) design. We've done a few 514s that make a ton of power. BBC guys HATE them. (:- We hit on a combination using D0VE heads with major exhaust work done, that "shine". By "filling" the floor of the exhaust port and raising the roof, the overall cross-section is a bit smaller than original, but flows about 80% (not a typo) more than original. Went from 110 CFM @ .600" lift to 200. Not cheap. I would think the Blue Thunder or alloy CJ heads might be a better way to go. There was talk of "P-51" (Kaase's head) but I haven't heard any results. Is it out there yet? Does it "work"?
One of my fondest car memories stems from an old friend's '70 Cyclone GT, 429SCJ (solid lifter version). I believe I mentioned that car in earlier posts here. My GTO could beat it through a 1/4 mile plus about 10 feet. He would hit 4th and "See ya!"... My car had 3.55s and his had 3.50s. The Pontiac just made more low-end power and the Ford made more high-end.
Jim
NRider
05-21-2008, 10:25 PM
I like the concept of the 2008 Chevrolet Camaro which is based boasted a 400 hp, 6.0 liter LS2 V8 engine with a six speed manual transmission. Active Fuel Management shuts down 4 cylinders to save on fuel when the engine load is light and achieves up to 30 mpg on the highway.
Really like it!
Really like it!
MrPbody
05-22-2008, 08:30 AM
Same engine as the '05/'06 GTO with a little more electronics. Good stuff! Watch for it in G-8 "GXP" as well.
Jim
Jim
kens67mustang
05-23-2008, 10:01 PM
Ken,
Are you trying to "call me out", or are you just good at reading magazines and "history"?
You should know, I've been buillding engines for over 30 years (as a professional, not a hobbyist). I've built them all at one time or another. I raced my GTO at the track and on the street, relentlessy from '72 through '78 when grown-up responsibilities began. I got beat occasionally, but a LOT less than I gave the beating. Not once, did a 428-powered (Ford) ANYTHING beat my 400 GTO, and I raced many. A couple of 390-powered pony cars (Mach 1 and Cougar, one each) gave me among the best runs I ever got from an FE. 427s were MUCH stronger, but simply too rare to consider. Most of them were in more expensive "race" cars and at the track every weekend. Us "poor folks" did street racing. The 429, on the other hand, is a GREAT engine.
It's true, in A and B/SS at the '68 Winternationals, the 428 Mustangs did well. Today, they're in "C/SS" because the developements of the "Hemi" made all others obsolete at the "A" level. We see one here and there, but not a popular racer. Too valuable as a collector car, I suspect, not unlike the Chevelle SSs (REAL ones) and GTOs. The Hemi cars that remain "unmolested" are also too valuable to race anymore. The ones that still do are older cars "kept up". There was one GT-500 running in B/SA at Indy last year. Went out in the first round.
My point here is to be sure the ground you're on. While it got rave reviews, the 428CJ never lived up to the "hype". The stroke was too long for the head design and the rod bearings are too big to really rev it. The relatively short stroke in the 390 and 427 made them MUCH better for performance (rod/stroke ratio and rod "angle"). 428 was originally developed as a "big car" engine. High in low-end torque, it made the better T-bird engine of the late '60s.
We've done one as recently as last Summer. It's in a '69 Torino GT, and is VERY nice. It's still a sled, though. We also did a 454 (427 block, 428 crank) about two years ago. It was a MAJOR torque monster, but the owner couldn't let go of the "rev" thing. He blew it up in short fashion. Large rod bearing, cast crank, 7,000 RPM... NOT a good combination. 428s are best left stock and geared "up" like Pontiacs, to take fullest advantage of all the torque (like the Pontiac...).
This is not to dispute anything, just to clarify with some "real world" experience.
JimThe 428 CJ did INDEED live up to it's reputation at the track& on the street.the 390 was NOT a performance engine............The GTO a handling car? yeah, but NOT stock,sorry................seen plenty of them & the body rool is just like every other 70's car out there
ponticans 400 was a strong runner, but not quite as you put it.
Pontiac's 428 was a step up from the 400.
The 428CJ stuff i refer to is NOT from reading.or from websites
magazines? Like hot rod,road& track, sportscar review, gave the CJ glowing reviews................and the cars spke for themselves
.the lemans/GTO was a nice car, but please, take it off that pedistal, it doesn't belong up there.
and where are you getting 454 CI from a427 w/ 428 crank?
when ,if you drop a 428 crank into a 390, you get a 410?
i know my CJ's......................thew '68 1'2 CJ Cleaned house in the Winternationals,running SS/E,SS/EP &SS/EA............
the 390 was origionally developed for TRUCKS!! thats NOT a performance engine by any stretch..........the 427 was an exotic engine, costly to build.......the 428 PI was built from the start as a performance motor.Look up Tasca.in stock form, the 429Thunderjet was a large passenger car motor..........nothing there either.
Are you trying to "call me out", or are you just good at reading magazines and "history"?
You should know, I've been buillding engines for over 30 years (as a professional, not a hobbyist). I've built them all at one time or another. I raced my GTO at the track and on the street, relentlessy from '72 through '78 when grown-up responsibilities began. I got beat occasionally, but a LOT less than I gave the beating. Not once, did a 428-powered (Ford) ANYTHING beat my 400 GTO, and I raced many. A couple of 390-powered pony cars (Mach 1 and Cougar, one each) gave me among the best runs I ever got from an FE. 427s were MUCH stronger, but simply too rare to consider. Most of them were in more expensive "race" cars and at the track every weekend. Us "poor folks" did street racing. The 429, on the other hand, is a GREAT engine.
It's true, in A and B/SS at the '68 Winternationals, the 428 Mustangs did well. Today, they're in "C/SS" because the developements of the "Hemi" made all others obsolete at the "A" level. We see one here and there, but not a popular racer. Too valuable as a collector car, I suspect, not unlike the Chevelle SSs (REAL ones) and GTOs. The Hemi cars that remain "unmolested" are also too valuable to race anymore. The ones that still do are older cars "kept up". There was one GT-500 running in B/SA at Indy last year. Went out in the first round.
My point here is to be sure the ground you're on. While it got rave reviews, the 428CJ never lived up to the "hype". The stroke was too long for the head design and the rod bearings are too big to really rev it. The relatively short stroke in the 390 and 427 made them MUCH better for performance (rod/stroke ratio and rod "angle"). 428 was originally developed as a "big car" engine. High in low-end torque, it made the better T-bird engine of the late '60s.
We've done one as recently as last Summer. It's in a '69 Torino GT, and is VERY nice. It's still a sled, though. We also did a 454 (427 block, 428 crank) about two years ago. It was a MAJOR torque monster, but the owner couldn't let go of the "rev" thing. He blew it up in short fashion. Large rod bearing, cast crank, 7,000 RPM... NOT a good combination. 428s are best left stock and geared "up" like Pontiacs, to take fullest advantage of all the torque (like the Pontiac...).
This is not to dispute anything, just to clarify with some "real world" experience.
JimThe 428 CJ did INDEED live up to it's reputation at the track& on the street.the 390 was NOT a performance engine............The GTO a handling car? yeah, but NOT stock,sorry................seen plenty of them & the body rool is just like every other 70's car out there
ponticans 400 was a strong runner, but not quite as you put it.
Pontiac's 428 was a step up from the 400.
The 428CJ stuff i refer to is NOT from reading.or from websites
magazines? Like hot rod,road& track, sportscar review, gave the CJ glowing reviews................and the cars spke for themselves
.the lemans/GTO was a nice car, but please, take it off that pedistal, it doesn't belong up there.
and where are you getting 454 CI from a427 w/ 428 crank?
when ,if you drop a 428 crank into a 390, you get a 410?
i know my CJ's......................thew '68 1'2 CJ Cleaned house in the Winternationals,running SS/E,SS/EP &SS/EA............
the 390 was origionally developed for TRUCKS!! thats NOT a performance engine by any stretch..........the 427 was an exotic engine, costly to build.......the 428 PI was built from the start as a performance motor.Look up Tasca.in stock form, the 429Thunderjet was a large passenger car motor..........nothing there either.
MrPbody
05-24-2008, 02:43 PM
Ken,
Thanks. As I suspected... We don't race magazines. We don't race dynos. We race CARS. I was simply expressing my real-world experiences regarding street racing in the early '70s. No matter what a magazine writer says or said, no 428-powered (Ford, that is) ever beat my 400 GTO. Fact, not fiction. If 428 was the killer combo, it would be readily available in today's aftermarket. The Lima engines put the FEs (with the exception of 427) to shame.
390 "GT" was rated at 335 HP, but made closer to 370 in good "tune". I had a '66 Fairlane GT that went low 14s in '71, completely stock. Not too bad for such a "truck". My '70 Judge went 13.63 @ 101, STOCK AS A ROCK, including G70-14 tires, 3.55 gear "one-legged" and the original Q-jet and cast iron exhaust manifolds, full exhaust, driven from San Bernardino to Orange County, raced and driven home with no changes. Every magazine test I read, and even some of the more recent "comparisons" never put a Ram Air III car better than 13.80s. Those same recent "comparisons" rate the '69 GTO a "close second" to the '70 Buick GS in handling. The '70 GTO is avoided purposefully, as it would out-handle ALL of them. The "goodies" available on the '70 were not offered on the '69. Not a Ford or Dodge in sight when it comes to the twisties...
It was not I that put GTO "on a pedestal". No American "family" car has the mystique around it GTO has. GTO did NOT earn a reputation for losing. If you could beat one in a straight line, you weren't going to beat it around the corners. If you could beat it around the corners, you weren't going to beat it in a straight line. It was the best balanced of all the muscle cars. I'm simply one of the lucky ones to have recognized it when I was a young man and had one to drive before they became such high-valued collector cars. Please, don't include LeMans and Tempest, as they were separate models for most years of production, including the year in "question", '70.
A 454 Chevy is a 4.250" bore and a 4" stroke. If you "do the math", you'll see the 427 Ford, bored .030" (4.262") with the stock 3.980" stroke of the 428 makes exactly 453.82 CID. The "454" FE is actually a popular combination among those either affluent enough to buy all the 427s they want, or those lucky enough to have stashed a few in the past. "Custom" steel cranks make a big difference in durability. Using BBC-sized rod journals make them even MORE reliable.
A 390 standard bore is 4.050". Stroking it with the 3.980" stroke makes 410.15 CID.
Math, used in my shop on a daily basis... Pai x R(squared) x H x no. of cylinders, where "pai" = 3 1/7 or 3.14159, R = 1/2 the bore and H = height or stroke. Actually, it's basic geometry, the volume of a cylinder.
428 Pontiac is a whole different animal (and I DO MEAN "animal"). We (CVMS) have many examples of 428-based engines (4" stroke) in cars weighing over 3,500 lbs., running low 11s/high 10s in street "trim" on 93 octane gas without power adders. Too bad Pontiac never used the engine in muscle cars (only available in full-size cars). Glad it "bolts right in"... It was basically a 421 bored .030", but had MUCH better cylinder heads.
Let it be from here, okay? You're dealing with an old fart with a good memory, and 30 years experience. I'm glad you like the 428. Somebody has to.
Jim
Thanks. As I suspected... We don't race magazines. We don't race dynos. We race CARS. I was simply expressing my real-world experiences regarding street racing in the early '70s. No matter what a magazine writer says or said, no 428-powered (Ford, that is) ever beat my 400 GTO. Fact, not fiction. If 428 was the killer combo, it would be readily available in today's aftermarket. The Lima engines put the FEs (with the exception of 427) to shame.
390 "GT" was rated at 335 HP, but made closer to 370 in good "tune". I had a '66 Fairlane GT that went low 14s in '71, completely stock. Not too bad for such a "truck". My '70 Judge went 13.63 @ 101, STOCK AS A ROCK, including G70-14 tires, 3.55 gear "one-legged" and the original Q-jet and cast iron exhaust manifolds, full exhaust, driven from San Bernardino to Orange County, raced and driven home with no changes. Every magazine test I read, and even some of the more recent "comparisons" never put a Ram Air III car better than 13.80s. Those same recent "comparisons" rate the '69 GTO a "close second" to the '70 Buick GS in handling. The '70 GTO is avoided purposefully, as it would out-handle ALL of them. The "goodies" available on the '70 were not offered on the '69. Not a Ford or Dodge in sight when it comes to the twisties...
It was not I that put GTO "on a pedestal". No American "family" car has the mystique around it GTO has. GTO did NOT earn a reputation for losing. If you could beat one in a straight line, you weren't going to beat it around the corners. If you could beat it around the corners, you weren't going to beat it in a straight line. It was the best balanced of all the muscle cars. I'm simply one of the lucky ones to have recognized it when I was a young man and had one to drive before they became such high-valued collector cars. Please, don't include LeMans and Tempest, as they were separate models for most years of production, including the year in "question", '70.
A 454 Chevy is a 4.250" bore and a 4" stroke. If you "do the math", you'll see the 427 Ford, bored .030" (4.262") with the stock 3.980" stroke of the 428 makes exactly 453.82 CID. The "454" FE is actually a popular combination among those either affluent enough to buy all the 427s they want, or those lucky enough to have stashed a few in the past. "Custom" steel cranks make a big difference in durability. Using BBC-sized rod journals make them even MORE reliable.
A 390 standard bore is 4.050". Stroking it with the 3.980" stroke makes 410.15 CID.
Math, used in my shop on a daily basis... Pai x R(squared) x H x no. of cylinders, where "pai" = 3 1/7 or 3.14159, R = 1/2 the bore and H = height or stroke. Actually, it's basic geometry, the volume of a cylinder.
428 Pontiac is a whole different animal (and I DO MEAN "animal"). We (CVMS) have many examples of 428-based engines (4" stroke) in cars weighing over 3,500 lbs., running low 11s/high 10s in street "trim" on 93 octane gas without power adders. Too bad Pontiac never used the engine in muscle cars (only available in full-size cars). Glad it "bolts right in"... It was basically a 421 bored .030", but had MUCH better cylinder heads.
Let it be from here, okay? You're dealing with an old fart with a good memory, and 30 years experience. I'm glad you like the 428. Somebody has to.
Jim
kens67mustang
05-26-2008, 12:55 PM
Ken,
Thanks. As I suspected... We don't race magazines. We don't race dynos. We race CARS. I was simply expressing my real-world experiences regarding street racing in the early '70s. No matter what a magazine writer says or said, no 428-powered (Ford, that is) ever beat my 400 GTO. Fact, not fiction. If 428 was the killer combo, it would be readily available in today's aftermarket. The Lima engines put the FEs (with the exception of 427) to shame.
390 "GT" was rated at 335 HP, but made closer to 370 in good "tune". I had a '66 Fairlane GT that went low 14s in '71, completely stock. Not too bad for such a "truck". My '70 Judge went 13.63 @ 101, STOCK AS A ROCK, including G70-14 tires, 3.55 gear "one-legged" and the original Q-jet and cast iron exhaust manifolds, full exhaust, driven from San Bernardino to Orange County, raced and driven home with no changes. Every magazine test I read, and even some of the more recent "comparisons" never put a Ram Air III car better than 13.80s. Those same recent "comparisons" rate the '69 GTO a "close second" to the '70 Buick GS in handling. The '70 GTO is avoided purposefully, as it would out-handle ALL of them. The "goodies" available on the '70 were not offered on the '69. Not a Ford or Dodge in sight when it comes to the twisties...
It was not I that put GTO "on a pedestal". No American "family" car has the mystique around it GTO has. GTO did NOT earn a reputation for losing. If you could beat one in a straight line, you weren't going to beat it around the corners. If you could beat it around the corners, you weren't going to beat it in a straight line. It was the best balanced of all the muscle cars. I'm simply one of the lucky ones to have recognized it when I was a young man and had one to drive before they became such high-valued collector cars. Please, don't include LeMans and Tempest, as they were separate models for most years of production, including the year in "question", '70.
A 454 Chevy is a 4.250" bore and a 4" stroke. If you "do the math", you'll see the 427 Ford, bored .030" (4.262") with the stock 3.980" stroke of the 428 makes exactly 453.82 CID. The "454" FE is actually a popular combination among those either affluent enough to buy all the 427s they want, or those lucky enough to have stashed a few in the past. "Custom" steel cranks make a big difference in durability. Using BBC-sized rod journals make them even MORE reliable.
A 390 standard bore is 4.050". Stroking it with the 3.980" stroke makes 410.15 CID.
Math, used in my shop on a daily basis... Pai x R(squared) x H x no. of cylinders, where "pai" = 3 1/7 or 3.14159, R = 1/2 the bore and H = height or stroke. Actually, it's basic geometry, the volume of a cylinder.
428 Pontiac is a whole different animal (and I DO MEAN "animal"). We (CVMS) have many examples of 428-based engines (4" stroke) in cars weighing over 3,500 lbs., running low 11s/high 10s in street "trim" on 93 octane gas without power adders. Too bad Pontiac never used the engine in muscle cars (only available in full-size cars). Glad it "bolts right in"... It was basically a 421 bored .030", but had MUCH better cylinder heads.
Let it be from here, okay? You're dealing with an old fart with a good memory, and 30 years experience. I'm glad you like the 428. Somebody has to.
JimJim, thats cool, but the 390GT was rated at only 300hp, while the 428CJ was the one rated at 335hp................way under rated,By Ford.And don't forget,the passenger 428 was no where close to the Cobra Jet 428,a car that would easily run hi 13's.The 428CJ basically is priceless right now.meaning you can't buy them,unless you have some severe cash.And the fe's have a HUGE following.
Thanks. As I suspected... We don't race magazines. We don't race dynos. We race CARS. I was simply expressing my real-world experiences regarding street racing in the early '70s. No matter what a magazine writer says or said, no 428-powered (Ford, that is) ever beat my 400 GTO. Fact, not fiction. If 428 was the killer combo, it would be readily available in today's aftermarket. The Lima engines put the FEs (with the exception of 427) to shame.
390 "GT" was rated at 335 HP, but made closer to 370 in good "tune". I had a '66 Fairlane GT that went low 14s in '71, completely stock. Not too bad for such a "truck". My '70 Judge went 13.63 @ 101, STOCK AS A ROCK, including G70-14 tires, 3.55 gear "one-legged" and the original Q-jet and cast iron exhaust manifolds, full exhaust, driven from San Bernardino to Orange County, raced and driven home with no changes. Every magazine test I read, and even some of the more recent "comparisons" never put a Ram Air III car better than 13.80s. Those same recent "comparisons" rate the '69 GTO a "close second" to the '70 Buick GS in handling. The '70 GTO is avoided purposefully, as it would out-handle ALL of them. The "goodies" available on the '70 were not offered on the '69. Not a Ford or Dodge in sight when it comes to the twisties...
It was not I that put GTO "on a pedestal". No American "family" car has the mystique around it GTO has. GTO did NOT earn a reputation for losing. If you could beat one in a straight line, you weren't going to beat it around the corners. If you could beat it around the corners, you weren't going to beat it in a straight line. It was the best balanced of all the muscle cars. I'm simply one of the lucky ones to have recognized it when I was a young man and had one to drive before they became such high-valued collector cars. Please, don't include LeMans and Tempest, as they were separate models for most years of production, including the year in "question", '70.
A 454 Chevy is a 4.250" bore and a 4" stroke. If you "do the math", you'll see the 427 Ford, bored .030" (4.262") with the stock 3.980" stroke of the 428 makes exactly 453.82 CID. The "454" FE is actually a popular combination among those either affluent enough to buy all the 427s they want, or those lucky enough to have stashed a few in the past. "Custom" steel cranks make a big difference in durability. Using BBC-sized rod journals make them even MORE reliable.
A 390 standard bore is 4.050". Stroking it with the 3.980" stroke makes 410.15 CID.
Math, used in my shop on a daily basis... Pai x R(squared) x H x no. of cylinders, where "pai" = 3 1/7 or 3.14159, R = 1/2 the bore and H = height or stroke. Actually, it's basic geometry, the volume of a cylinder.
428 Pontiac is a whole different animal (and I DO MEAN "animal"). We (CVMS) have many examples of 428-based engines (4" stroke) in cars weighing over 3,500 lbs., running low 11s/high 10s in street "trim" on 93 octane gas without power adders. Too bad Pontiac never used the engine in muscle cars (only available in full-size cars). Glad it "bolts right in"... It was basically a 421 bored .030", but had MUCH better cylinder heads.
Let it be from here, okay? You're dealing with an old fart with a good memory, and 30 years experience. I'm glad you like the 428. Somebody has to.
JimJim, thats cool, but the 390GT was rated at only 300hp, while the 428CJ was the one rated at 335hp................way under rated,By Ford.And don't forget,the passenger 428 was no where close to the Cobra Jet 428,a car that would easily run hi 13's.The 428CJ basically is priceless right now.meaning you can't buy them,unless you have some severe cash.And the fe's have a HUGE following.
Jessetorino
05-26-2008, 07:06 PM
As for the twisties,there is no GTO or Buick GS that will stay with the boss 302 mustangs. And the 428 fords ruled the track,not the GTO,s. You also forgot another badass ford from 1970, 70 torino cobra. It was also a 13 second car that was said to run 14,s. 71 boss 351 13,s off of the showroom,and will run with a GTO anyday,straight and though the twisties,and thats a smallblock.
MrPbody
05-27-2008, 08:34 AM
Comparing Mustangs to intermediate cars regarding handling is not apples-to-apples. Throw TransAm and Z/28 in there and see what happens to the Fords. How does that Torino "stack up" to the Buick and Pontiac? THAT'S a fair comparison.
Torino GT/Cobra and Cyclone GT are virtually identical cars. 429-powered ones are a force to reckon with.
According to "Motors" (repair manual of choice in the late '60s), in '66 & 7, 390 GT" was rated at 335 HP. The "big" engine was 427, rated at 390 HP in the intermediate and "compacts" (including Mustang). 428 wasn't available in those cars until '69, where it WAS rated at 335 HP. the "big car" version was rated at 345 in '68. The '68 and '69 390 "GT" was rated at 325. The "big car" version of 427 was rated at 425. I recall seeing at least one late-production '68 Mustang with 428 CJ "markings". Whether or not it was "real", I can't say. The absolute quickest streetable '69 Mustang I ever saw had a '66 427 from a Galaxie in it. That was in "olden times". I haven't done ANY street racing in over 25 years. I HAVE, however, built LOTS of engines for those that do! A 514 CID Lima block went out of here last month, for a Fox-body. Should go in the 8s. Not on the track yet, though.
FE engines DO have a huge following. There were but two engines more "prolific" during the muscle car "era", one of which wasn't IN muscle cars. 350 Chevy and 400 Pontiac. Unfortunately for the FE "crowd", developement slowed WAY down after the Lima family was introduced. You can't FIND a 428 to build, mainly because they're like the Ram Air Pontiacs, in restorations where they're worth the most money. Someone should "man up" and start reproducing 427 blocks, like they have among the Pontiac and Buick racers. Eagle offers a stock-relpacement 428 crank (cast) as well as two "stroker" versions (same crank, using BBC rod journals and offset-grinding). I know of no forged cranks available aftermarket for FE. I DO have a couple 391 cranks stashed... (based on the same forging as 427)
If there ARE more aftermarket offerings, I would be VERY interested in knowing where to find them. Please PM me on that!
Jim
Torino GT/Cobra and Cyclone GT are virtually identical cars. 429-powered ones are a force to reckon with.
According to "Motors" (repair manual of choice in the late '60s), in '66 & 7, 390 GT" was rated at 335 HP. The "big" engine was 427, rated at 390 HP in the intermediate and "compacts" (including Mustang). 428 wasn't available in those cars until '69, where it WAS rated at 335 HP. the "big car" version was rated at 345 in '68. The '68 and '69 390 "GT" was rated at 325. The "big car" version of 427 was rated at 425. I recall seeing at least one late-production '68 Mustang with 428 CJ "markings". Whether or not it was "real", I can't say. The absolute quickest streetable '69 Mustang I ever saw had a '66 427 from a Galaxie in it. That was in "olden times". I haven't done ANY street racing in over 25 years. I HAVE, however, built LOTS of engines for those that do! A 514 CID Lima block went out of here last month, for a Fox-body. Should go in the 8s. Not on the track yet, though.
FE engines DO have a huge following. There were but two engines more "prolific" during the muscle car "era", one of which wasn't IN muscle cars. 350 Chevy and 400 Pontiac. Unfortunately for the FE "crowd", developement slowed WAY down after the Lima family was introduced. You can't FIND a 428 to build, mainly because they're like the Ram Air Pontiacs, in restorations where they're worth the most money. Someone should "man up" and start reproducing 427 blocks, like they have among the Pontiac and Buick racers. Eagle offers a stock-relpacement 428 crank (cast) as well as two "stroker" versions (same crank, using BBC rod journals and offset-grinding). I know of no forged cranks available aftermarket for FE. I DO have a couple 391 cranks stashed... (based on the same forging as 427)
If there ARE more aftermarket offerings, I would be VERY interested in knowing where to find them. Please PM me on that!
Jim
kens67mustang
05-27-2008, 05:20 PM
Comparing Mustangs to intermediate cars regarding handling is not apples-to-apples. Throw TransAm and Z/28 in there and see what happens to the Fords. How does that Torino "stack up" to the Buick and Pontiac? THAT'S a fair comparison.
Torino GT/Cobra and Cyclone GT are virtually identical cars. 429-powered ones are a force to reckon with.
According to "Motors" (repair manual of choice in the late '60s), in '66 & 7, 390 GT" was rated at 335 HP. The "big" engine was 427, rated at 390 HP in the intermediate and "compacts" (including Mustang). 428 wasn't available in those cars until '69, where it WAS rated at 335 HP. the "big car" version was rated at 345 in '68. The '68 and '69 390 "GT" was rated at 325. The "big car" version of 427 was rated at 425. I recall seeing at least one late-production '68 Mustang with 428 CJ "markings". Whether or not it was "real", I can't say. The absolute quickest streetable '69 Mustang I ever saw had a '66 427 from a Galaxie in it. That was in "olden times". I haven't done ANY street racing in over 25 years. I HAVE, however, built LOTS of engines for those that do! A 514 CID Lima block went out of here last month, for a Fox-body. Should go in the 8s. Not on the track yet, though.
FE engines DO have a huge following. There were but two engines more "prolific" during the muscle car "era", one of which wasn't IN muscle cars. 350 Chevy and 400 Pontiac. Unfortunately for the FE "crowd", developement slowed WAY down after the Lima family was introduced. You can't FIND a 428 to build, mainly because they're like the Ram Air Pontiacs, in restorations where they're worth the most money. Someone should "man up" and start reproducing 427 blocks, like they have among the Pontiac and Buick racers. Eagle offers a stock-relpacement 428 crank (cast) as well as two "stroker" versions (same crank, using BBC rod journals and offset-grinding). I know of no forged cranks available aftermarket for FE. I DO have a couple 391 cranks stashed... (based on the same forging as 427)
If there ARE more aftermarket offerings, I would be VERY interested in knowing where to find them. Please PM me on that!
Jimtry this................Ford Stroker Kits 390 to 416 from RPM Machines. (http://www.rpmmachine.com/ford-390-416-stroker.shtml)
Torino GT/Cobra and Cyclone GT are virtually identical cars. 429-powered ones are a force to reckon with.
According to "Motors" (repair manual of choice in the late '60s), in '66 & 7, 390 GT" was rated at 335 HP. The "big" engine was 427, rated at 390 HP in the intermediate and "compacts" (including Mustang). 428 wasn't available in those cars until '69, where it WAS rated at 335 HP. the "big car" version was rated at 345 in '68. The '68 and '69 390 "GT" was rated at 325. The "big car" version of 427 was rated at 425. I recall seeing at least one late-production '68 Mustang with 428 CJ "markings". Whether or not it was "real", I can't say. The absolute quickest streetable '69 Mustang I ever saw had a '66 427 from a Galaxie in it. That was in "olden times". I haven't done ANY street racing in over 25 years. I HAVE, however, built LOTS of engines for those that do! A 514 CID Lima block went out of here last month, for a Fox-body. Should go in the 8s. Not on the track yet, though.
FE engines DO have a huge following. There were but two engines more "prolific" during the muscle car "era", one of which wasn't IN muscle cars. 350 Chevy and 400 Pontiac. Unfortunately for the FE "crowd", developement slowed WAY down after the Lima family was introduced. You can't FIND a 428 to build, mainly because they're like the Ram Air Pontiacs, in restorations where they're worth the most money. Someone should "man up" and start reproducing 427 blocks, like they have among the Pontiac and Buick racers. Eagle offers a stock-relpacement 428 crank (cast) as well as two "stroker" versions (same crank, using BBC rod journals and offset-grinding). I know of no forged cranks available aftermarket for FE. I DO have a couple 391 cranks stashed... (based on the same forging as 427)
If there ARE more aftermarket offerings, I would be VERY interested in knowing where to find them. Please PM me on that!
Jimtry this................Ford Stroker Kits 390 to 416 from RPM Machines. (http://www.rpmmachine.com/ford-390-416-stroker.shtml)
Jessetorino
05-27-2008, 06:12 PM
the only 427 rated at 390 hp was the one in the 68 cougar gte,s. the fairlane and comet/cyclone had a single 4 410 hp and 425 hp with 2 4,s. and as for putting the z28 up against the boss302,s the boss wins. the 428 started in 1968 in the mustang and the torino then in 69 the fairlane cobra. and there are a few company,s that make 427 blocks and heads. there is more fe stuff being made then most people know about. I do agree I like the 385 engines better then fe,s.
Jesse
Jesse
hotrod_chevyz
05-27-2008, 10:21 PM
as for putting the z28 up against the boss302,s the boss wins.
Nope.
Nope.
MrPbody
05-28-2008, 08:54 AM
Jesse,
"Fairlane Cobra"? Come on guy. You're now just talking about things you "heard" and not based on anything real. No such animal. It was TORINO COBRA. And they should never have used the name "Cobra". The cars were pigs. I raced too many to convince me otherwise. Not one ever came close. Fairlane GT was extended through '68, but I don't know about '69.
I believe I pointed out the 390-horse 427 was in intermediates. The 425-horse was NOT in intermdeiates OR pony cars, with the exception of the Thunderbolts, which, like the Dodge Dart SS "Special", are far too rare to consider in a conversaton about "everyday" muscle cars or pony cars. I can find no factory literature or aftermarket service information on a 428 in '68 model Mustangs, but as I said in earlier, I recall seeing ONE (count 'em). There were zero '68s at the Nashville 40th birthday "party" (out of over 5,000 cars) with 428. There were several '69 Mach 1s there with them. There was one '68 with an SOHC 427 in it, claiming to be "factory installed". I would guess that to be true, as the Ford afficianados were out "in force" and no one disputed the claim.
And no, Boss 302 won't beat Z/28. Neither will TOUCH TransAm. In all fairness, though, TransAm had more than a tiny engine in it. The 303 Pontiac was never released in production cars. T/A didn't do well in Trans Am until factory backing ended in '74, and after that, the early T/A pretty much dominated for the last years it was eligible. Jerry Titus DID bring home a championship before his untimely demise.
Jim
"Fairlane Cobra"? Come on guy. You're now just talking about things you "heard" and not based on anything real. No such animal. It was TORINO COBRA. And they should never have used the name "Cobra". The cars were pigs. I raced too many to convince me otherwise. Not one ever came close. Fairlane GT was extended through '68, but I don't know about '69.
I believe I pointed out the 390-horse 427 was in intermediates. The 425-horse was NOT in intermdeiates OR pony cars, with the exception of the Thunderbolts, which, like the Dodge Dart SS "Special", are far too rare to consider in a conversaton about "everyday" muscle cars or pony cars. I can find no factory literature or aftermarket service information on a 428 in '68 model Mustangs, but as I said in earlier, I recall seeing ONE (count 'em). There were zero '68s at the Nashville 40th birthday "party" (out of over 5,000 cars) with 428. There were several '69 Mach 1s there with them. There was one '68 with an SOHC 427 in it, claiming to be "factory installed". I would guess that to be true, as the Ford afficianados were out "in force" and no one disputed the claim.
And no, Boss 302 won't beat Z/28. Neither will TOUCH TransAm. In all fairness, though, TransAm had more than a tiny engine in it. The 303 Pontiac was never released in production cars. T/A didn't do well in Trans Am until factory backing ended in '74, and after that, the early T/A pretty much dominated for the last years it was eligible. Jerry Titus DID bring home a championship before his untimely demise.
Jim
Jessetorino
05-28-2008, 04:22 PM
there was a fairlane cobra in 69 not a torino cobra. the torino cobra started in 1970. the 428cj started in 1968 in the mustangs and the torino gt. the 68 mustang won everything on the quarter mile for years after that. and in 1966 and 67 the fairlane had a w code 410 hp 427 with 1 4. the r code 427 fairlane was a 425 hp with 2 4,s. these are all facts not something someone told me. so you come on guy! and ford almost won the trans am in 1969 then in 1970 ford took it all. the trans am was a sled, the mustang and the camaros were the cars to beat after the cougars were done in 1968. and the only 427 ever to have 390 hp was the 1968 cougar GTE with hyd. cam. and that was only half the year,mercury replaced the 427 with a 428 cj midyear. both engines in the fairlane were solid lifter cams. and there was no fairlane gt after 1967, me and my father have had 26 66-67 fairlanes,I know my fairlanes and torino,s. so if there is any other ford history you would like to know,just ask.
Jesse
Jesse
Jessetorino
05-28-2008, 04:29 PM
also forgot to add,the 427 sohc was never installed by ford at all. they were put in dragcars for ford by companys ford used to build stuff like that. companys like dearborn tubing and karkraft. they were also sold as a crate engine way back in the early 60,s. people try to say gm started the cratemotor,wrong ford did in 1963 when the cammer was made. also the reason it,s hard to find lit on the 68 428 mustang is because they came out late april 1 1968,first 50 fastbacks went into nhra racing. then anyone could buy one in any of the mustang body,s of 1968. the talledega and the 68 torino both got the 428cj also.
Jesse
Jesse
Jessetorino
05-28-2008, 07:36 PM
hotrod chevyz............................YEP!
kens67mustang
05-28-2008, 08:36 PM
Jesse,
"Fairlane Cobra"? Come on guy. You're now just talking about things you "heard" and not based on anything real. No such animal. It was TORINO COBRA. And they should never have used the name "Cobra". The cars were pigs. I raced too many to convince me otherwise. Not one ever came close. Fairlane GT was extended through '68, but I don't know about '69.
I believe I pointed out the 390-horse 427 was in intermediates. The 425-horse was NOT in intermdeiates OR pony cars, with the exception of the Thunderbolts, which, like the Dodge Dart SS "Special", are far too rare to consider in a conversaton about "everyday" muscle cars or pony cars. I can find no factory literature or aftermarket service information on a 428 in '68 model Mustangs, but as I said in earlier, I recall seeing ONE (count 'em). There were zero '68s at the Nashville 40th birthday "party" (out of over 5,000 cars) with 428. There were several '69 Mach 1s there with them. There was one '68 with an SOHC 427 in it, claiming to be "factory installed". I would guess that to be true, as the Ford afficianados were out "in force" and no one disputed the claim.
And no, Boss 302 won't beat Z/28. Neither will TOUCH TransAm. In all fairness, though, TransAm had more than a tiny engine in it. The 303 Pontiac was never released in production cars. T/A didn't do well in Trans Am until factory backing ended in '74, and after that, the early T/A pretty much dominated for the last years it was eligible. Jerry Titus DID bring home a championship before his untimely demise.
JimMustang 428 Cobra Jet Registry (http://www.428cobrajet.org/)
and a Trans Am had no chance against the Boss 302.....faster& handled way better.thought you knew your history on cars?
There's your proof,there WERE Mustangs with FACTORY 428CJ in 1968, NOT the passenger 428s.the ONLY time pontiac ever did DECENT was AFTER Trans Am series started to die off.Even being named after the race its-self, Trans Am was a has been.Like i said,look up Bob Tasca,he's a REAL engine builder.
"Fairlane Cobra"? Come on guy. You're now just talking about things you "heard" and not based on anything real. No such animal. It was TORINO COBRA. And they should never have used the name "Cobra". The cars were pigs. I raced too many to convince me otherwise. Not one ever came close. Fairlane GT was extended through '68, but I don't know about '69.
I believe I pointed out the 390-horse 427 was in intermediates. The 425-horse was NOT in intermdeiates OR pony cars, with the exception of the Thunderbolts, which, like the Dodge Dart SS "Special", are far too rare to consider in a conversaton about "everyday" muscle cars or pony cars. I can find no factory literature or aftermarket service information on a 428 in '68 model Mustangs, but as I said in earlier, I recall seeing ONE (count 'em). There were zero '68s at the Nashville 40th birthday "party" (out of over 5,000 cars) with 428. There were several '69 Mach 1s there with them. There was one '68 with an SOHC 427 in it, claiming to be "factory installed". I would guess that to be true, as the Ford afficianados were out "in force" and no one disputed the claim.
And no, Boss 302 won't beat Z/28. Neither will TOUCH TransAm. In all fairness, though, TransAm had more than a tiny engine in it. The 303 Pontiac was never released in production cars. T/A didn't do well in Trans Am until factory backing ended in '74, and after that, the early T/A pretty much dominated for the last years it was eligible. Jerry Titus DID bring home a championship before his untimely demise.
JimMustang 428 Cobra Jet Registry (http://www.428cobrajet.org/)
and a Trans Am had no chance against the Boss 302.....faster& handled way better.thought you knew your history on cars?
There's your proof,there WERE Mustangs with FACTORY 428CJ in 1968, NOT the passenger 428s.the ONLY time pontiac ever did DECENT was AFTER Trans Am series started to die off.Even being named after the race its-self, Trans Am was a has been.Like i said,look up Bob Tasca,he's a REAL engine builder.
kens67mustang
05-28-2008, 08:41 PM
1969 Ford Fairlane Cobra Hardtop - Mustang & Fords Magazine (http://www.mustangandfords.com/featuredvehicles/mufp_0603_1969_ford_fairlane_cobra/index.html)
'nuff said
'nuff said
429SCJguy
05-28-2008, 10:22 PM
That is what I always thought too, that the 428CJ was introduced in mid year '68 in Mustangs, Torinos and Cyclones and that 410 and 425 hp 427s were available in '66, and '67 Fairlanes. The 428SCJ was introduced in '69. The '66 and '67 427s were equipped with medium riser heads, steel cranks and side oiler blocks. The '68 427/390 was equipped with low riser heads and a hydraulic cam.
The 428 CJ/SCJ was replaced with the 429TJ/CJ/SCJ in Ford/Mercury intermediates in '70 and in Mustangs/Cougars in '71.
The 428 CJ/SCJ was replaced with the 429TJ/CJ/SCJ in Ford/Mercury intermediates in '70 and in Mustangs/Cougars in '71.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2024