427 v. 428

Simple answer cost.

Honestly I doubt cost had anything to do with it. The FE continued to be used in millions of Ford trucks through 1978, and in U - Haul special order chassis through 1982. The fact is that luxury barges needed more cubic inches, and there was not a way to get the size needed in the FE. If cost was truly a factor, Ford would have used something else in all those millions of trucks. The fact is, the FE was still perfectly suited to the job, and the tooling was paid for many times over the long lifespan of that engine family.

Tooling up for the 429 / 460 engine family was very costly, and it was not used on anywhere near as many cars or trucks before it was obsolete.

The FE was produced for about 20 years. The 460 for about 30 years. Don’t have the numbers but assume a lot more FE engine were produced in the shorter production run than the 460 as it was available in more vehicles.

OK - Let’s get this settled. GT-E Drags at the next national meet! Who’s in?

Cost wasn’t the only factor, but it certainly contributed. The 427 had a higher percentage of blocks that wouldn’t pass quality control. And they weren’t selling. As much as we all would have hated it, if Ford offered 427’s in the Mustang they would have sold a ton of them. Instead they were offered in the big cars and had trouble competing.

I did many hours of research into the evolution of Ford engines, specifically the big V8s and included it in a Ride of the month article. It explains in depth some of the market forces that caused Ford to develop the not only the 427 but also the 385 series 429 and 460.

https://cccforum.discoursehosting.net/t/the-august-2018-ride-of-the-month-is-ted-taylors-68gurney-429-powered-70-standard/9410/1

That’s a great history and write up.

Where and when?


So awesome, Royce - I know you raced your cars quite a bit. Would you be willing to recount some of your stories?

So again, Ford worked to take to 390 to a 406, why not a 427 to 452, or 482?

Be careful, don’t let a Suburu WRX sneak by you.

Did you read the article? The problem was insufficient cylinder wall thickness that limited the bore size. The 427 maxed that out. Over square engines have some pretty high piston speeds and eventually you run into a situation where the piston almost has to push the rod sideways to push the crank. To go larger and maintain 100K mile plus reliability they needed a larger crank opening wider bore spacing and a taller deck. Those really big displacement FEs are usually build up from a Genesis block or other non stock not really mass produced casting.

I like the way you think!

All stock with a 600 cfm carb and GTE 390 exhaust manifolds? If yes, then lets go!! And if you want a stompin I got my 67 Stang with the Boss 351 stroked to 460. 4.11 and 35 spline carrier and axels. Subframe connectors and 90/10 and 70/30 with Calvert Racing leafs and traction bars. Lets get dirty!!

Rob

I am ready to race some more. Let’s do it!

No I didn’t read the article, since when did ANY manufacturer give more than 12,000 miles on a HP engine, let alone 100,000, Not sure about a Chevy 454 on 70, but I’m almost positive no Hemi got more than a year or 12,000, and we know what the HP 427 Ford got. I know of many Ford 427’s built up, including one that I have in a car, topping out at 482.

The majority of the 427s built were sold for industrial purposes. You can still find them running agricultural pumps all over the ogallala aquifer. They have all been rebuilt countless times and in many areas they run on natural gas. As to longevity, it wasn’t about the warranty it was about how long they would last. Marine use also outstripped car installations, of course the fact that many of those turned backwards just adds to the confusion. I am sure that when Ford won Le Mans by being able to run a 427 at 7000 RPM for 24 hours it even helped them sell industrial accounts that valued durability above all.

If you want to know why they built the 385 series your first clue is the number 385. Where the 428 was using what was considered to be maximum stroke of 3.985" the new 385 series only required a 3.85" stroke to achieve 460 cubic inch displacement. It may not seem like it but the FE was very compact and light in weight compared to the other big block engines of the time. It was intended to be the little brother to the MEL series engines. The 385 was intended to be versatile enough to replace the FE and go way beyond it in displacement. You have to look at the big picture to see that performance was just a tiny part of what was going on at Ford.

The article will give you a historical perspective of how all the transitions came about. https://cccforum.discoursehosting.net/t/the-august-2018-ride-of-the-month-is-ted-taylors-68gurney-429-powered-70-standard/9410/1

From the July 1968 issue of Car Life -

Thanks for that picture. Now I have to try and find a copy of that magazine.

Here is the cover - unfortunately the GT-E they tested had an open rear end and couldn’t get traction.