History Stock-S/S-F/X 1959-1966

When my AFX Falcon was in its original, as raced in 1965 condition, it used the original Double A-Arm front suspension and coil springs. The Bill Stroppe Comets and my AFX Falcon had the engine bay reworked the same way. The top half (from the upper arm up) of the spring towers were cut out. A flat piece of .125" sheet stock was formed to fill the cut-out, which was welded to the remaining lower part of the spring tower, and then bolted to the top half of the fender apron up to and around the top and then down the rear side. The part of the spring tower that was removed was trimmed and a flange welded to it to form a new spring tower, which was then attached on the other side (outside) of the fender apron, inside and underneath the front fender, using the same bolts as those attaching the fabricated "patch" described earlier. The revised and reversed spring tower was shaped and positioned so as to mount the coil spring and the shock absorber assembly back to the upper A-Arm, only reversing the front spring position 180 degrees so as to be installed outside the engine compartment. This provided a wider engine bay, as there was no protrusion in the engine bay for the upper part of the spring towers. I also used a Right-hand drive Australian Falcon steering box, mounting it on the original position on the left side of the car. But when you use the Australian falcon gear box it places the pitman shaft on the outside of the frame rail, providing room for the big block clutch linkage and headers. To clear the LH rocker cover, I also had to reverse the master cylinder, mounting it on top on the "Pork Chop", inside the car and under the dash.

I used the same technique on my 1969 Mustang, so I would have room for using either a 427 SHOC or a Boss 429 Engine later in the season when I decided which one to use. (Ultimately choosing the Boss 429) I attached an action shot of my Mustang, in which you can clearly see the coil spring and shock absorber underneath the fender through the wheel opening. The next owner of the '65 Falcon cut all the front end aprons and A-Arm front Suspension off and installed a straight axle, as match race cars of the day used. It is that configuration today.

This process is similar in concept to what the factory did on the Boss 429 Mustangs, as they moved the top half of the spring tower out, but notched the fender aprons so to leave the shock mounting accessible from under the hood, which could not be done on my Falcon or Mustangs.

 

Mr. Lyall #2235 above;
Thank you kindly for this information. I never got a close look at shock towers moved outboard, and actually only saw a couple thunderbolts with widened stock shock towers. The vast majority of the uni-body Fords, and compact GM's for that matter I ever saw had straight axles with large motors. Not many photo's either.
Best regards, and thank you again Mr. Lyall; Tom S. in Tn.

 

These are some great shots in its early days of the Les Ritchey car with the cloverleaf hood. Most were changed to the teardrop hoods very soon as is my understanding.

 

this thread makes me want to letter my bubbletop

 

Kudos - A lot of good innovation there. Maybe a bit off the subject matter Dave, but I was wondering when you had the Boss 429 chamber milled out and made it into a full hemi chamber - instead of keeping the "dogbone" original chamber? Only other I knew that also did that, was Gapp & Rousch.

 

Can anyone offer any information on these two photos found on another site? The person who posted them hasn't any information, track, the cars, etc.? I'm wondering if the Ex-Gulf one is the Expressway Gulf team that ran one of the ex-Bob Ford T-Bolts in '65.
Joel

 

I ran the 427 Tunnel Port engine in the original '69 "Going Thing" through about mid-season, setting an AHRA record 9.98 et a Bristol, Tenn. in the AHRA Springnationals, (1st attached picture) winning a big "Heads-up" (the preceding class for pro Stock) Super Stock at Evansville Indiania, and the UDRA Nationals at Gary Indiana. Wayne Gapp and I were friends, neighbors, co-workers at Ford, and shared the same shop in Dearborn which would later become Gapp & Roush. I was working on the Boss 429 development program at Ford, and watched with great interest as that work progressed. Wayne, who was running a Boss 429 in his Heads-up Nascar Gas Funny Car, and who had several spare used NASCAR Boss engines in his shop, offered to provide me a Boss 429 if I would switch from the 427 Tunnel Port, which I accepted. Despite our good intentions the result was slowing the mustang down by .3 to 10.30's. The Boss 429 was mounted 3'' farther forward than the 427, it was also over 100 lbs heaver than the Aluminum Head Tunnel Port, and all on the front End. I worked the rest of the '69 season getting that .3 back, finally running a 9.90 with the Boss Engine in a match Race with Mike Fons early in 1970 (2nd attached picture). It took a full port and polish by Elkins Porting, machining the heads to full hemi, using a crower roller cam, a fabricated tunnel ram (3rd attached picture) intake by Antieau's Welding (which was used as the development model for the Weiand 429 Tunnel ram) and moving the engine back in the chassis to located the flywheel where the 427 was mounted to get that .3 back. However, I never was able to make up for the lost 1969 season, and I was behind the curve for the rest of my big block Pro Stock career. If I had it to do over again, I would have stayed with the 427. I believe if I had done the same modifications to the 427 as I did to the Boss 429, I would have been running 9.70's by the start of the 1970 season. There were things about the Boss which were better than the 427, but it would take an aluminum block and lighter rotating assembly to outperform the Tunnel Port, at 427 inches in a drag car.

 

#2241;
" If I had it to do over again, I would have stayed with the 427. I believe if I had done the same modifications to the 427 as I did to the Boss 429, I would have been running 9.70's by the start of the 1970 season."

I have caught a lot of grief whenever I've told anyone why we went to a BBC in our Thunderbolt gasser in 71/72'.
With a real world budget and no more obsoleted FE parts with only 1 source for replacements, there was not much choice.
But, pound for pound, the FE was as fast if not faster than anything on gas including the Chrysler. And I never saw a rare 429 boss head as fast as a 426 on the outlaw circuit. Clevelands and other 385's were not even in a class with a high riser either.
I frequently find myself pondering how a high riser or Tunnel port would run with todays cam, recip, and induction technology.
Tom S. in Tn.

 

Dave,
Was your '70 Mustang a Kar Kraft built Boss? What were you using for rear suspension by this time? What did you use in your Falcon? I guess I'd like to hear the evolution of the rear suspension set ups you used on your cars. Didn't DST pattern the T-Bolt traction bars after your design on a Lightweight Galaxie?

Thanks, Kevin

 

Kevin: There were 4 "Going Thing" Mustangs, two '69s and two '70s. One of the two 70's was built up using the modified '69 body shell as a parts donor, as this '69 car, which started life as a 428 CJ, (the one I modified the spring towers on) had been originally built for the very liberal NASCAR drag race division Ultra Stock rules, and was over 200 pounds lighter than the Kar Craft Mustangs. These modifications were also allowed in AHRA, which took over the NASCAR Drag Circuit. When NHRA started Pro Stock, they followed the base AHRA body and powertrain rules, but would not allow lexan windows and many of the other NASCAR/AHRA allowed body and chassis modifications. The 2nd '69 Going thing was a real Kar Kraft Boss mustang, and it is the only one of the group that survives today. The first two pictures in the above article are the reworked CJ car. The 3rd picture was the real Kar Kraft Boss Mustang. The surviving '69 Boss car has just undergone period-correct restoration by Dave Walters, (the 3 pictures below) and is owned by a collector who also has my '68 428 Cobra Jet, also period-correct as I raced it in 1968. I attached pictures below of the restored '69, and they show the Kar Kraft modified engine bay. In fact, I believe this car was the first Boss of the line, as shown in the 1st picture below, used in several period publications regarding the Boss 429 Mustangs. I used the Kar Kraft Mustangs in NHRA Pro Stock and the NASCAR modified CJ car in AHRA and match races.

I started my racing career in circle track racing, and recognized the principals of suspension bias and weight jacking. When I started drag racing, I used these principals to get even real wheel traction, even before "lockers" were available, and to dampen out wheel hop. By '61 in the jack Gray/Bob Ford Galaxy, I had an air lift to bias the RR tire, and a 2nd set of shocks attached mid point in the front of the rear spring to dampen wheel hop. I had a racing buddy, Bill Sidwell who raced a '61 Pontiac independently, and he had the only Detroit-Area Pontiac who did not smoke the rear tires, and who I could not get at least a car-length out of the hole. He crawled under our '61 Ford to see how we had modified the suspension, and as he was both a friend of Jack gray and not on the factory Pontiac team, he showed me how he had modified his. He had made the upper bar of the 4-link inoperable by removing the bushings, and had made the lower bar solid to the axle, so it captured the rotating force of the rear axle housing (Newton's 3rd law of motion, for every action in one direction, there is an equal action in the other, so the axle housing rotates opposite of the axle shaft, with the same torque applied to the tire) This rotational force is transferred to the traction bar, which attempts to lift the rear of the car, which fights the "squat" of the weight transfer to the rear of the car. the result all these opposing forces is increased weight on the rear tires. I then fabricated lift bars on every Bob Ford S/S car I drove through 1963. As we were working closely with Ford engineering, who had our car at the test track and experimental garage from time to time, saw what modifications were done to our '63, and the same type of bars were used on the Thunderbolts, including the '63 pilot model which became the Tasca Car.

So Bill Sidwell, a very clever and resourceful Pontiac Racer, is the one who is actually responsible for the Thunderbolt design. I was only the one who showed the concept to Ford. These T-Bolt bars morphed into the "ladder bar" which I used from 1964 untill my '74 Pinto, which had the Tom Smith Wolverine Chassis 4-link.<O

 

great info dave, thks for sharing that!

 

Thanks, Dave. Interesting stuff.

When I look at pictures of the T-Bolt rear suspension it looks like the axle is clamped solidly to the rear springs. How did it not bind as it cycled thru it's travel? Am I missing something? What did you do on your cars?

Kevin

 

Kevin: From my first leaf spring lift-type traction bar installation in 1961 until I switched to coil-overs, I used the factory rubber spring insulators, (the thickest and softest ones available) which had some amount of compliance to them, and I also ran the U-Bolts loose enough to allow some axle freedom, using lock nuts on the u-bolts. I also removed all but enough of the leafs just to hold the weight of the car, making the spring soft and very compliant. I used spring center bolts with an extra long head pilot to maintain lateral anti-sway control. This problem is what led to the development of the "Floater Kits" for leaf spring ladder bar chassis. I do not think too many others were concerned about this "suspension bind" during the T-Bolt era. My cars were always very quick off the line, and very good at marginal tracks. Attached is an action shot of my '63 lightweight taken at Indy which gives some indication of how well these modifications worked at the time.

 

Thanks for the info, Dave. My son and I are planning a period street/drag car build and I'm collecting ideas. The tough part for me is the line between period correct and what makes sense.

Kevin

 

Kevin: I guess that just depends on who it has to make sense to.

If you want to go fast, be safe and save money, use the new stuff. If you want it for nostalgia and performance is not primary, go period correct.

<OBy the way, period correct sometimes means just as dangerous as it was back in the day. I lost a few friends along the way.

<OI felt safer and more confident driving my 190 MPH Top Sportsman Mustang a few years ago than I did driving the Bob Ford ’63 lightweight at 120 MPH

<ODave Lyall
<O></O>

 

Dave I understand your preferance for the 427 Tunnel Port over the Boss but why not the S.O.H.C. 427? Dyno. had some success with it. Cost?

 

I ran a 427 SHOC in my '65 AFX Falcon, and as we were racing 3 - 4 nights a week with long overnight tows in between, the SHOC was a maintenance nightmare. Although the SHOC had a definite performance advantage over the Hi-Riser, the Tunnel Port was about par with the SHOC at that point in time, 1967 onward to 1969. In fact the only SHOC FX'r that was as quick as my Tunnel Port mustang, was Nicholson's ex-Bob Ford '66 Mustang. Don's SHOC Cammer Maverick got where it was as good when Don did more development work, including better cams and a fabricated tunnel Ram, neither of which I had for the tunnel port. The SHOC cylinder heads were not that great on air flow, but the RPM operating range of the engine made up for it. In addition, my Tunnel Port with the Aluminum Heads only weighted 550 lbs complete, (small-block Ford engine weight) much lighter than a cammer.

On Bill Stroppe’s dyno just prior to the '70 Winternationals, my Boss 429 made 700 peak HP, whereas Nicholson's SHOC made only 600 HP. The advantage Don had was what we call area under the curve. My Boss made 700 peak HP at 7200 RPM, and went flat afterward. However, Nicholson's SHOC made 600 HP from 6000 to 8000 RPM. Although my Boss had more peak power, Don had more average HP through the entire operating range.

With the Holman & Moody valve train, I could run my Tunnel Port almost as high RPM as the SHOC. The Tunnel Port Engine itself was light, the rotating assembly with aluminum rods was light, the valve train was light, and the cylinder heads flowed very good for that period of time, and the Tunnel Port engine was durable and required very little maintenance. By the way, small rod journal size aluminum rods were the key to keeping a High RPM FE Engine alive. After seeing broken FE engines all over my shop, Connie Kalitta (while he was running a SHOC) gave me a set of pinned 392 Chrysler rod bearing sized aluminum rods and a Moldex-reworked 427 Crank with the Chrysler rod journals, and it was off to the races after that. I never broke another rod in my FE engines for the next three years, even though I was running them to 8000 RPM. After breaking several NASCAR Boss engines, I did the same modification to them too.

 

Dave,
It has to make sense to us and only us. I believe you hit the nail right on the head and your points are well taken. Thanks for all the info and for the input.

Kevin

 

I'm no automotive engineer, but I believe there was a far greater total of accumulated engineering hours that went into the FE wedge head than all other designs combined, during that time it reigned. I also believe the OHC design, like the Boss Head was a compromised after thought, made to fit project, designed to compete against other mfg's hemi designs, also based on existing engine blocks series.
But on gasoline, the wedge head design is superior for highest obtainable power, both peak and broad curved, depending on design features and criteria.

The more readily available High Riser FE series, or the Tunnel Port if you could get them, was simply the manna from heaven that leveled the drag racing playing field for sportsman in gasoline classes everywhere, and not just against other mfg's, but even against FMC's own exotic and rare limited run types.
I've run these in years past myself, and up until when the NHRA Econo classes first started. We were set to turn the A/EA class upside down with a 430" TP, but the owner determined the engine was too valuable when some collector/hoarder type offered big $$ for it. So much for econo.

Pound for pound, the FE Ford could not be beaten on gasoline. Once obsoleted, the game changed dramatically.
I never raced in circles, but I dare say this FMC engine series had an even greater impact there.
The FE was released years ahead of any other mfg's competitive big block, and had it survived into the later years like the other mfg's, the course of history and record books would read quite differently today.
Tom S. in Tn.

 

I am glad there are others beside me who have an appreciation for the attributes of the FE engine, compromises and all. Given that is was designed in 1952 to be the next-generation V-8 for the top line Ford and low-line Edsel products, and to keep costs down to allow money for tooling for the also all-new 1958 MEL engine (Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln 383, 430 & ultimately 462 cubic inches) it had to be built on the existing Lincoln Y-Block engine tooling, it was a solid design which achieved all its original design intentions. And when it was developed to the 427 it performed admirably enough to be instrumental in causing GM to drop and replace the 409-427 and ultimately drop out of racing for several years. The FE as originally produced in 1958, out of the showroom was not much of a performer. In fact, I used to regularly outrun them with my 230 HP Y-Block &#8217;56 Ford. However, Holman & Moody had instant success racing them in 1958 with the tweaks NASCAR allowed, and by 1960 when Ford brought out the first factory Hot Rod 360 HP 352, things really started looking up. From 1960 to 1964, the high-performance FE Ford was among the quickest production cars right from the showroom.

The FE had two design faults, both caused by comprises in design for cost savings. One was using the old Lincoln Y-Block tooling dictated a bore center and deck height that limited the engine bore to 4.25 and the stroke to 4.5, or about 513 cubic inches. On the plus side, these dimensions allowed a comparatively lightweight engine, a &#8220;small&#8221; big block, if you will. The other compromise had a cost vs. durability issue, in that Ford wanted to save production costs by using a cast iron crankshaft. Because of the fairly low tensile strength of cast iron, the crank had to have a lot of metal in the counterweight cheek to provide what crank designers call &#8220;overlap&#8221;, the resulting narrow bearing journals had to be rather large diameter. Large diameter bearings equal high bearing speed, but as the engine was originally designed to operate with peak power at 4400 RPM, the large bearing diameters were thought not to be a problem. I never did understand when they went to forged steel cranks for the high performance engines; they did not include smaller crank journal diameters. That must have been another cost compromise too. I had to cut my steel cranks down to 392 Chrysler journals to keep my high RPM Tunnel Ports alive, and today&#8217;s FE stroker kits use the 2.250&#8221; Chevrolet bearing journal diameter. However, all-in&#8211;all the FE engines have earned their rightful place in the stepping-stone of Ford engine development. Being replaced by the venerable 385 series, (430 &#8211; 460) that corrected the FE cylinder bore center and deck height issues marvelously, and which allowed and ultimately lead to the &#8220;Mountain Motor&#8221; craze. <O

 

Here is a shot of an all original (paint included) drag car that is still being raced today. The funny thing is that the Gasser Racing Series in NY told the current owner that he couldn't run the car in the nostalgia gas class at the Gold Cup event unless he removed his front bumper. The current owner told the GRS to stick it. I can't blame him... his car was more period correct than most of the field not to mention it being a history car.

 

Just read this mornings paper and saw that Al "Albie" Olster passed away this past Saturday, December 17th. here in NJ. Most of you here,I'm sure, will remember Albie and his "One Step Beyond" Plymouth and Camaro. Rest in peace Albie.

 

#2254;
" And when it was developed to the 427 it performed admirably enough to be instrumental in causing GM to drop and replace the 409-427 and ultimately drop out of racing for several years. "

" From 1960 to 1964, the high-performance FE Ford was among the quickest production cars right from the showroom. "

Having also been privileged to have raced them, I concur.
One of the saddest days for us occurred when we snapped another of those Na+ filled valves in our last high riser.
That incident took us from competitive to being just another competitor. The minimal reward for all the work we experienced following that, we should have quit then.
Strange fact was how sparse the aftermarkets involvement was with FE's. All the best go fast parts had actual Ford casting #'s, with part #'s found in dealer catalogs and there was no need for speed shop stuff. From hard parts to chrome, it all came from FMC. How many other brand racers are able to relate to this?
If FMC had allowed this engine series to stay alive, racing would have taken a far different course.
But I have to wonder Mr. Lyall if the bean counters at Dearborn weren't afraid of the legal exposure to liability of such potentially dangerous stuff to people like me and the public at large?.
I could preach on this for days. Tom S. in tn.

 

I always thought the FE series engine was great. The first engine I built was a 352 for my 59 ford. I got all the performance parts I needed from Bob Ford. The engine was a torque monster and performed very well.

 

" And when it was developed to the 427 it performed admirably enough to be instrumental in causing GM to drop and replace the 409-427 and ultimately drop out of racing for several years. "

" From 1960 to 1964, the high-performance FE Ford was among the quickest production cars right from the showroom. "

Pretty audacious quotes there.

Ford was the reason GM dropped out of racing?

And the video's I've seen show the 62 Chevy factory showroom models stomping the daylights out of Fords factory showroom models.

So anyway, Fords are good motors. Apples and oranges.

I recall an article in one of Peterson's large magazines from the mid 60's that detailed some Ford blocks with some super high tech high strength cast iron. Even required several sets of cutting/tooling bits to do a single block. And I recall the testing showed that the blocks survived thrown rods when put to the ultimate rigors of testing.

Any of ya'll ever heard of this project?

 

right behind Chevy,Mopar and some Pontiacs...........

 

Horses and cows eat grass and goats eat it down to the roots. How much money do you think Chevy spent building the 427 "Mystery Motor" or the aluminum front ends for the Z-11s or as in the case of Pontiac, aluminum headers for the 421 Tempests?

 

For most they would be audacious, I suppose. Coming from Dave, with all the success he had in those very Fords, it's just a statement of fact.

Merry Christmas boys,
Kevin

 

yea, do that. i would love to see them.

 

Let me just say the same thing I said when I heard that stuff at the drive-ins along Woodward Avenue in the 50's and 60's:
"Talk is cheap, show me whatcha' got"