I'm being met with some resistance on the 428CJ  registry and in no way want to set this site against that. It was one of the greatest Hi Performance FE engines ever. My father was Bob Tasca's personal mechanic and decided C4-AE-H would work great on a 428 block, with enough alterations that Ford took the engine for study, curious since some believe the 428CJ started the beginning of 67. One serious question here,  The 428CJ won out over the 427CJ because of cost, their performance #'s similarly equipped are almost identical.  Can anyone please present me with a scenario where Ford would build a more expensive engine while having a cheaper alternative also in process? NO!  It makes no sense and didn't happen.  As Dennis has provided all the drawings,  the "CJ"was developed on the 427 and for cost and lack of availability in quantity deferred to the Tasca model with exactly the same manifolds and heads at half the cost.  It was all dollars and cents, as you would expect from a for profit business, not non-profit. 

I could see a scenario where Ford was developing a "reduced cost 427CJ" and based on the results of the Tasca KR8 decided to try the parts developed for that engine program on a 428 shortblock since the power and rpm levels were well within the capability of the standard 428 block.It would be a no brainer to take the expensive 427 crossbolt block out of the equation and would appease the bean counters by using the warranty friendly hydraulic lifter valvetrain. It does make you wonder if the 428 wasn't already around would Ford have developed a non crossbolt hydraulic lifter 427 block?

John, can you break down,  as best you can, the extra machining , ie cost involved in the 427 vs the 428. Bill Barr in our last conversation said there was only 1 machine left to finish 427 blocks and it would've taken a year to tool up to make 427's in the quantity they made the 428 blocks. 

Jeff, we've had our differences at times but you are more of a Ford hands on guy then I am, you have hands on experience which I'll never disrespect.  I stumbled into the evidence with the help of guys like Dennis,  Randy, miss him, and Royce,and  yourself,  let  me not forget Kerry, werby,  Roger Parlett, and many others . The blueprints don't lie, the CJ manifolds and heads all have the 427 engine code in the title block. I have long proposed the 428 GT 4V started at the beginning of 67 was the revised 8V to 4V Shelby 428 not the 428CJ and all the proof backs it up. It makes no sense that Ford would make 2 near identical performing 7 liters with one being twice the cost.

Unless they had a machine that gang drilled and spotfaced the crossbolt bosses and caps for the block,I could see that being a pretty time consuming operation,plus there is also the sideoiler passages that differ from the standard oiling passages for the normal blocks.The crossbolt machining operation was around for the 427LR's though and were produced in pretty large numbers in 63,64, and early 65 so unless there was some kind of accident that damaged some of the machine tools beyond repair I can't see that being the bottleneck.According to some of the Ford advertising from the day there was also a thermal stress relieving operation that 427 blocks went thru after casting.

All great points John,, however when you look at the declining production #'s combined with the emmence problem of the 63-64 warranty issues Ford k then 427  became an anchor around Ford's ankle.  They only made approximately 900... 427 production carsI 65-67 and became a homologation engine only  and 8 think caused the switch to the 429. Bill Barr said at the 50th, the FE was dead and the only reason the 428CJ got built was Bob Tasca. There was only one machine to finish 427 blocks becrac3 onause it was a homologation engine and had been reduced to a race onlyi item, it was deemed non production and that is why not only was the machinery scraped, there was simply no way the 427 could be made in RPO #'s. The 428CJ was the answer and it and provided Ford with the most profitable hp option ever. More to come

dggilbert wrote: ↑

Aug 04, 2022

All great points John,, however when you look at the declining production #'s combined with the emmence problem of the 63-64 warranty issues Ford k then 427  became an anchor around Ford's ankle.  They only made approximately 900... 427 production carsI 65-67 and became a homologation engine only  and 8 think caused the switch to the 429. Bill Barr said at the 50th,  the FE  was dead  and the only reason the 428CJ got built was Bob Tasca.  There was only one machine to finish 427 blocks becrac3 onause it was a homologation engine and had been reduced to a race onlyi item, it was deemed non production and that is why not only was the machinery scraped, there was simply no way the 427 could be made in RPO #'s. The 428CJ was the answer and it and provided Ford with the most profitable hp option ever. More to come

Dave, 

Ford had projected annual requirements to build 11,610 427's for 1966.  Over 9,000 were for Industrial applications, the remainder were for Special Vehicles, Service, and AAD (production cars).  Not that would satisfy build requirements in lieu of the 428 CJ for Mustang/Fairlane platforms.  Ford already had plans to launch the 429-460 385 Series and believe it was a given the FE series was going away, at least in passenger platforms.  Not certain why a center oiler two bolt main 427 cyl block was ever manufactured in volume.  A few have shown up, believed to be from Industrial applications.

In 1962, 8,364 390/406 hi perf engines were sold.  In 1963 9,517 406/427 cars, plus  176 Mercury's were sold,  In 1965, 320 ford and 7 Mercury.  One belief was the draft and the Vietnam War drove hi perf sales down.  Perhaps hi perf sales of GM and Chrysler products may also support this (don't know).    

Regards,
Dennis      

Dennis,  will never argue with you,  you were there.  I always thought warranty issues, my father has talked about guys trying to convince Ford guys they were just driving along down the road and, boom the engine blew,  when all the time they knew he missed a shift racing. My dad blames the problem to the long clutch,  which he cut the counterweight off, the need for a dual clutch he says.

dggilbert wrote: ↑

Aug 04, 2022

Dennis,  will never argue with you,  you were there.  I always thought warranty issues, my father has talked about guys trying to convince Ford guys they were just driving along down the road and, boom the engine blew,  when all the time they knew he missed a shift racing. My dad blames the problem to the long clutch,  which he cut the counterweight off, the need for a dual clutch he says.

Warranty issues on the 427?  Thought warranty on all mechanical tappet engines sold to the general public was only 90 days/4.000 mi.  The cost on the 427 and mandatory 4 spd was at least a $1,000 from what I recall.  A lot of money back then.  Thought all the large input 4 speeds used a non-counter weighted pressure plate, well at least in drag racing applications.  A large input doesn't shift properly with a counter weighted pressure plate, my experience at least.  

My understanding, marketing didn't want the high performance packages due to warranty complaints that may result in sales losses.  How did Chevrolet warrant their three versions (325 hp hyd Q Jet small port; 350 hp hyd Holley small port; and 375 hp mech Holley large port) of the 396 engine?  Ford could of easily offered similar packages with the 390 engine, but didn't.  Perhaps someone within Ford already knew it would not be competitive with the 396.       

Also, recall the salient points of the Nov 1965 Les Ritchey report sent to Ford Management, that was posted on the CJ site.  Ritchey indicated the 390 had a "built in" 4,600 rpm rev limiter and that by selecting various components from the existing inventory the 390 could be made into a winner.  Imagine it was not any one person or group that came up with the idea of building a high performance winner.

Regards,
Dennis 

I speculated warranty issues,  but could it simply be the cost factor and they weren't making, and maybe losing money on 427 production engines. Also I believe approximately 8000 427 engines in production vehicles 63 and 64 models. I guess I shouldn't speculate on the reason. Maybe 63.5 and a full 64 was all they needed to come to the conclusion, from a profit standpoint,  the 427 was a loser, so 3 yrs later they have the brilliant idea to make their 1st hipo big block, available in all but station wagons, but couldn't be made in quantity and supposedly couldn't have turned a profit in anything but a Cougar. And there are those that believe, lacking any proof,  that the 427CJ and 428CJ were being built at the same time, rather than 1 replacing,  with the parts designed on the 427CJ going on the 428CJ and making it a profitable engine rather than a break even motor at best. Forgot to add only 8-900 427's went into production cars declining each year, Ford was building it mostly for homologation based on the #'s.  I have the breakdown somewhere in my notes but it seems from the 5000+? built inn64 there was a significant course correction, thinking cost and can only speculate that the success at Lemans may have lit Henry II's and Leo Beebe and Fran Hernandez and some other execs that the 427CJ was a good idea for 68. Don Frey in the Hot Rod response intracompany memo, when Iaccocca said what's being done about street performance after Bob Tasca ripped them a new one in the Nov 67 HR article, said in a Nov dated memo that the 427CJ was going to put Ford back in the ballgame. Don't see where the 427 had become any better a choice, other then being hydraulic, since Ford moved away from it in 65.

dggilbert wrote: ↑

Aug 05, 2022

I speculated warranty issues,  but could it simply be the cost factor and they weren't making, and maybe losing money on 427 production engines. Also I believe approximately 8000 427 engines in production vehicles 63 and 64 models. I guess I shouldn't speculate on the reason. Maybe 63.5 and a full 64 was all they needed to come to the conclusion, from a profit standpoint,  the 427 was a loser, so 3 yrs later they have the brilliant idea to make their 1st hipo big block, available in all but station wagons, but couldn't be made in quantity and supposedly couldn't have turned a profit in anything but a Cougar. And there are those that believe, lacking any proof,  that the 427CJ and 428CJ were being built at the same time, rather than 1 replacing,  with the parts designed on the 427CJ going on the 428CJ and making it a profitable engine rather than a break even motor at best. Forgot to add only 8-900 427's went into production cars declining each year, Ford was building it mostly for homologation based on the #'s.  I have the breakdown somewhere in my notes but it seems from the 5000+? built inn64 there was a significant course correction, thinking cost and can only speculate that the success at Lemans may have lit Henry II's and Leo Beebe and Fran Hernandez and some other execs that the 427CJ was a good idea for 68. Don Frey in the Hot Rod response intracompany memo, when Iaccocca said what's being done about street performance after Bob Tasca ripped them a new one in the Nov 67 HR article, said in a Nov dated memo that the 427CJ was going to put Ford back in the ballgame. Don't see where the 427 had become any better a choice, other then being hydraulic, since Ford moved away from it in 65.

Dave,
I recall years ago at work we would be given assignments to do low volume cost studies.  In a business and culture where production volumes were in increments of 300,000 - 550,000 and higher units per year, it was never profitable to build 100,000 or less.  
The design tolerances on the 427 were similar to the 390-428, so basically the same machine tools could be shared.  There still would be tool change over to accommodate the larger cylinder bore diameter and other unique features.  From what I recall, engine programs were in increments of 300,000 volumes.  Still had to be aggravating to change over to build 427's for approximately 150 jobs per week.  Roughly, Ford built 1 million vehicles per year, 427's represented at best, 0.5%.  Likely, in the pure sense, not a good business decision.  
Monday morning quarterbacking the subject, this investigation should of been done thirty + years ago, with all the players in the same room.  Imagine it would of been an interesting gathering!

Kindly let us know what else Bill Barr has to say.

Regards,
Dennis 

More than likely you'll know where the 427 specific finishing machine would've been housed. My last conversation with Bill Barr he stated that at the time of the beginning of the slated 427CJ/hydraulic tappet there was only 1 machine present to do some of the 427 specific modifi and would've taken, his own estimate, a year to tool up to produce 427's in the quantity they made 428CJ's. Reverse engineering is half the fun, you do a lot to help the speculation make a little more sense than guessing off magazine article's and the like.

The best info I have, prices from Phil Hall Fearsome Fords. In all years the 4-speed was $188, but really the MX or C6 trans cost $200+  so no real added cost for trans, well, unless a 3-on-the-tree was your thing.
The price jump wasn’t until 1966, so maybe the warranty vanished in 1965 along with production volume.
Year   427-8v   Warr   427 Production,x-roadster
63   $570       3       4766
64   $570       3       3568
65   $570       0         340
66  $1074      0         288
67  $????      0         378

I thought the 427 had a real warranty eg 36mo or 60mo in 63-64 but learned on here from those who had them that it was only 3 months. And IIRC that starting 1965 it was ZERO months, ya know, being a “race” engine (can anybody confirm that?). It was no more racy than Chevy’s L72 or the Street Hemi, but still, no warranty. I suspect it WAS cost, or maybe just a fear of street performance in the Glass House somewhere. In contrast, the 428CJ:
Year…428CJ…Warr…Production
68   $???   60     3248
69   $525   60   35432
70   $522   60     4333
Even the 428CJ wasn’t exactly cheap, same price as the 427 of 63-64, but lots of production.

The L78, roughly the equal of the 428CJ from the factory, held its volume for all 6 years.
(Price is vs a base 6cyl engine: option was cheaper if SS396 car came with the L35)
Yr   L78    Warr   Produc
66   $537   60     3100
67   $537   60     1790
68   $569   60   10270
69   $574   60   20037
70   $456   60     5927
About the same production as its street peer the 428CJ, but also could be had in the 1966=67 years Ford missed.
Maybe Ford just got lazy in 1965, figuring, there was no Rat, no Street Hemi, so no full-size competitor to the awesome 65 Gal Medium Riser, so why bother to lose money pushing high volume?
 
One could correctly argue that the 65 Gal WAS serious competition for the cast-rod 389 GTO and would put so many carlengths on it that the GTO couldn’t even tell if the Ford’s taillights were round or square. With a power edge of well over 100hp, and a weight penalty of only 400 lb, that was certainly true, BUT, it just didn’t have the “cool factor” with the kids like the GTO I guess. So I can understand where, if the 427 was a money loser, Ford just didn’t push it, since they didn’t care about street performance anyway, and it seems in 1965, except for the GTO nobody else much did either.

dggilbert wrote: ↑

Aug 05, 2022

More than likely you'll know where the 427 specific finishing machine would've been housed. My last conversation with Bill Barr he stated that at the time of the beginning of the slated 427CJ/hydraulic tappet there was only 1 machine present to do some of the 427 specific modifi and would've taken, his own estimate, a year to tool up to produce 427's in the quantity they made 428CJ's. Reverse engineering is half the fun, you do a lot to help the speculation make a little more sense than guessing off magazine article's and the like.

Production 427's, along with other FE engines were built at DEP (Dearborn Engine Plant).  Some FE's were built at CEP #1 (Cleveland), FT's were built at CEP #2, then DEP.  
Not certain what "427 finishing machine" Bill was referring to and what feature was being finished.  Assuming this was an operation on the cylinder block.  
As I mentioned previously, the tolerance of a particular machined feature on a component was common, whether it was a 390 or a 427.  
There were a few additional features drilled, reamed and tapped for the oil relief valve and threaded plugs.  Also six holes for the cross bolt feature.  My understanding, the three cross bolt main caps were finished as a component.  
The six bolt holes in the cyl block were drilled, the spot faced surfaces were held parallel to each other and square to the respective bolt hole center line and respective main cap register surface to within .003".  The six spacers were select fit, with three size widths in .00165" increments.    
Piston to wall clearance was more closely controlled by having additional select fit piston sizes, from 9 up to 12.  

Regards,
Dennis 

There would definitely be some power loss between the Corvette exhaust manifolds and the Chevelle manifolds but I can't imagine it being 50 hp so then you have to ask was the Corvette L78 overrated or was the Chevelle version underrated?Another questionable rating is the earlier 360 horse 396 with a 600 cfm Holley vs the essentially the same engine rated at 350 hp with a 750 cfm Q-jet?Class manipulation?Would the fact that Corvettes lived in a more sparsely populated sports car class than the A-body have any bearing on the ratings?  

No idea on the 1965 split of LR vs MR 427s.
IIRC "we" concluded on here that most 65s were probably 427LR cars but nothing definitive.
The Gonkulator feels strongly that the Hot Rod test, 65 Gal 427, 102mph (and 108mph with the pipes open) was very likely an MR car (pictures imply that too) but that article is April 1965.

As far as the Rats:
Given everything I can Gonkulate, and looking at all the road tests & NHRA records I have:
The 396/375-L78 Gonkulates about 415hp in the Chevelle/Camaro/Nova, about 435hp in the Impala/Vette, but with almost no low end.
Giant ports rivaled only by the 429SCJ, which is ok to a point, but small cubes and a big 242-242-114 cam, kills the low end.
So in factory trim, the L78 and 428CJ cut similar speeds of 100-104mph when running right.

The lesser 396/350 L34 was rated pretty close to reality, and so was no match for the ~380hp 428CJ. 
That plus having less low end, and its trap speeds are about 5mph under the 428CJ.

The smallest 396/325 L35 actually did about as good as the L34 in road tests, because it didnt give up any low end. Smaller cam was the only difference.
More than a match for its competitor the 390GT, but nowhere near a 428CJ. 

In NHRA, it was different. Headers & cams really woke up those Rats, especially the L78.
The 396/375 cleaned up everything in sight until it was factored up to 425hp, and even then still won its share i SuperStock.
The aluminum head L78, still rated as 396/375hp but factored to 435hp, also won its share in SuperStock even up that high.

The L35 and L34 oval port Rats differed only by a cam so everybody in SuperStock ran the 396/325, NHRA rated at factory 325hp.
Again it cleaned up, but that only lasted about a year, and both were then factored to 360hp.
They still won now & then, but since the 428CJ was only factored to 340-360hp, all those classes in NHRA became "Cobra Jet Corner".

So yes, in NHRA, we'd consider the 396/325-360 L35-L34 as peers with the 428CJ
But in factory trim, the 396/375 L78 and the 428CJ were closer peers, along with the 440 Magnum.

Ford's only real weakness in the later years 68-71 was they had nothing for the Hemi or the 427-L72 cars. 
That was 427-MR territory, which was long gone of course.

The SS 396's, regardless of which level, were fast cars.  A friend had a new 1967 Chevelle SS 396 325 with PG and an optional rear axle.  It was fast!  From what I recall back then, the 390 Fairlane/Mustangs were no match for them.  Interesting, the 375 hp mechanical tappet had a full warranty.  Believe at 375 hp, they were underrated.  Curious how Ford would of fared had a 390 been offered with an aluminum intake, higher compression LR style cyl heads, mechanical tappet cam (306 or perhaps 324), and PI rods.  Of course, the exhaust manifolds would of been the "restrictor plate".

Regards,
Dennis