"To FE or not to FE...

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

I doubt that anything in the chassis is different for an SB car over an FE. The factory doesn't know ahead of time what engine will be put in to it. That is all determined at the dealer level, so the car is the same except for color choices and what other options may be available.

Actually, yes we and the factory do.

There IS a chassis difference for the FE. While I do not recall all the items right now, it IS more than headers and mounts. The rear hoop/cradle has differences and well as several other items. I am waiting for the factory to compare bill of materials for borth configurations.

 

[Ron Earp]

While that is a great observation, I'm not sure that would fit. It is longer,wider,taller and I don't know that they make a set of headers for it if it does.

ERA says they can fit them, but as everyone knows they require different headers and so on. And ally block 385 is a reasonable light engine when you take into account you can make it 600 inches and larger. But unless you were going to take advantage of that I'm not sure it'd make a lot of sense. But, it'd be different.

One of my favorite diagrams. There is one that has the 385 on there too but I didn't turn it up with a quick search. The modular engine is the largest of all of them and the little 289/302 is the winner for compactness.

The current Ford Motorsports catalog has some dimensions of the SB series, the 385, and the mod motor. Look on page 58-59 for lots of interesting stuff on the Ford engines.

http://www.fordracingparts.com/2010-catalog/default.asp

The mod motor is 30 inches wide - four inches wider than the 385 series engine which is 26" wide. The 351 motor is 21 inches wide, so the 385 is "only" 3" wider. The 385 is 4.5" longer than the 351 though. Mod motor wins the pig award for sure.

 

[Howard Jones]

Ron, I though this was your favorite picture?

 

[Ron Earp]

Ron, I though this was your favorite picture?

You are right! Pretty much says it all.

I couldn't dredge that one up but I did look for it. I have to re-index the search engine and parse it, it doesn't work anything like it used to.

 

[Grady]

ERA says they can fit them, but as everyone knows they require different headers and so on. And ally block 385 is a reasonable light engine when you take into account you can make it 600 inches and larger. But unless you were going to take advantage of that I'm not sure it'd make a lot of sense. But, it'd be different.

One of my favorite diagrams. There is one that has the 385 on there too but I didn't turn it up with a quick search. The modular engine is the largest of all of them and the little 289/302 is the winner for compactness.

The current Ford Motorsports catalog has some dimensions of the SB series, the 385, and the mod motor. Look on page 58-59 for lots of interesting stuff on the Ford engines.

Ford Racing Performance Parts [2010 Catalog]

The mod motor is 30 inches wide - four inches wider than the 385 series engine which is 26" wide. The 351 motor is 21 inches wide, so the 385 is "only" 3" wider. The 385 is 4.5" longer than the 351 though. Mod motor wins the pig award for sure.

Oh but what horsepower that can be made with the Supercharged MOD (5.4 L) engine...so easily. However with the lightweight cars we are talking about here, I'll keep the 450-600 Hp and trade the 700-1000 Hp for awesome breaking, suspension, and big low end torque. I know placing a 5.4L in a SPF car is next to impossible, but someone would come up with a way to do just that. The dream is to go fast (200), but the reality for the most of us is slower. Great Diagram!
Grady

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Looking at the diagram makes me wonder what determined ground clearance in the Mk II. What size and type of clutch did they use? And what was the flywheel diameter?

 

[Steve C]

Alan,

Bellhousing tied to cast dry sump oil pan , bellhousing had clutch slave attached to it...Internals different, T44 tranny to bellhousing different. Dry sump had pump built into the front cover to minimize oil lines and external pump (why I told you last night to do w/o original dry sump will cause problems with sump pump and lines ect and why I chose route I did.

Take a look at the ERA website for some pics that better show.

Steve

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Looking at the diagram makes me wonder what determined ground clearance in the Mk II. What size and type of clutch did they use? And what was the flywheel diameter?

Answered my own question: double plate, ~ normal size.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

MkII clutch/flywheel

 

[Steve C]

Alan,

The sump in that pic doesn't look right to me.

Look as I suggested in the ERA site and see te FE there.

If your concern is bellhousing clearance to ground using the small bellhousing from Olthoff (see my pics) won't cause a problem. It even has slots to allow tranny removal w/o removing bellhousing from engine.

Steve

PS: Where did you gt the pic?

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Alan,

The sump in that pic doesn't look right to me.

The 1965 "MK II" had a wet sump. The 66 units had the dry sump system.

 

[Jac Mac]

Photo is correct, first 'FE' cars were 'wet' sump, not converted to dry sump by E&F until after 1966 Daytona debacle....have the same pic here in several publications..

 

[Steve C]

See that learn something new every day.

Tx guys.

Steve P2125 with wet sump

 

[Seymour Snerd]

PS: Where did you gt the pic?

It's from Ford's 1967 SAE papers on the development of the MKII.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

By the way, aside from Steve C and myself, are there any other SPFs with FE motors out there? Anyone know how many rollers intended for FEs that SPF has made?

 

[Mike Christian]

For the life of me I can't imagine why so many people have chosen to buy or build their replicas with stroker Windsors instead. Forgetting for the moment whether one type of engine or the other is better, or cheaper, as far as I'm concerned, once you've moved away from the side-oiler 427, you no longer have a Mark 2 replica. You might as well just stick a Chevy in it.

The notion of saving one or two thousand dollars by building a Windsor instead of a proper 427, on a $100K+ car is laughable to me too.

As for me, I've always been a fan of the Mk 1 body style, and when I get mine (someday, yes, I'm an acknowledged wanna-be!) it will have a 289/302-based engine.

Mike, Mike, Mike - we are all not cheap and trying to save money. We are not all motivated by your line of thinking either. You have laughed at me twice now. I am over it. Now I laugh at you. Get your damn car already and spec it like you want. Cheers!

Personally, I went with Dennis Olthoff's recommendations and he seems to be doing pretty well with the car he specs.

Peace,
Mike

 

[Grady]

By the way, aside from Steve C and myself, are there any other SPFs with FE motors out there? Anyone know how many rollers intended for FEs that SPF has made?

comment #29 is from P2124 with a 427FE. Mine car is red. Steve's is light blue. I maybe wrong, but I think the number is 5 cars with FEs.
Grady

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Grady --

I'm curious about your engine. You're saying it is a real 427 as in 4.23 x 3.78 bore/stroke, and side oiler? What block and crank did you use, and how does it drive compared to the more common stroked FEs (451,511, etc.)? And what was the rationale for using the original specs since (I assume) somebody paid a premium for the parts? Any idea what it's torque curve looks like?

Thanks,
Alan.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Photo is correct, first 'FE' cars were 'wet' sump, not converted to dry sump by E&F until after 1966 Daytona debacle....have the same pic here in several publications..

Historical point: according to the '66 R&T article there was also a gilmer belt, external single-stage pump version prior to the dual internal chain-drive pump setup. It isn't clear to me from the article whether the gilmer belt version was used for NASCAR, GT40, or both. Anyone know? Any pictures of that around?

 

[Grady]

Grady --

I'm curious about your engine. You're saying it is a real 427 as in 4.23 x 3.78 bore/stroke, and side oiler? What block and crank did you use, and how does it drive compared to the more common stroked FEs (451,511, etc.)? And what was the rationale for using the original specs since (I assume) somebody paid a premium for the parts? Any idea what it's torque curve looks like?

Thanks,
Alan.

Alan,
It is a NOS 427FE block built by Keith Craft. I remember the Hp was around 558 and the torque near that number. The MkIIs were 427 and not 451, or 511. Based on my driving habits it is all about torque and not so much horsepower. I assume some 427s are POND blocks and not FE's. Things change and improve. I feel if FAV, holman moody, or shelby were building the car today they would use a 5.4L Supercharged unit and figure how to get it in the car. Oh, they (FORD) have already done that. $16,000 for a supercharged 5.4L engine from Ford Racing is not all that bad. The purpose built 4.6L is a good engine also.

You should decided on what kind of driving you'll be doing and get an engine to satisfy that requirement. I've seen Cobras with 427s and 2-4 barrel carbs that are not street able. It is all a compromise and you'll only do 200 mph in your head. Most of the time in the car will be 70 or under. That is my advice
Grady