Information: This forum has been set to read only for archive purposes. The link to active FE forum is https://www.fordfe.com/index.php

More info about the 1968 hydraulic 2-bolt 427

More info about the 1968 hydraulic 2-bolt 427

Joined: January 9th, 2001, 10:20 pm

June 4th, 2001, 2:04 pm #1

Hi fellow FE’ers. I’ve been dormant for a while here on the forum, but having just gotten over a major hurdle that has been sucking away all my free time and keeping me up at night, I’ve got some time now to spend back with this great forum. (And from what I've been dealing with, this is great therapy, at last!!)

One thing I wanted to respond to in the past, but ran out of time, was the hydraulic 2-bolt 427 of 1968. I found some interesting info from a 1983 article in the old (large newspaper format) Autoweek “Escape Road” section, July 4 edition, and also a January 1999 edition of Musclecar Review (which I bought due to the 427 article).

The articles indicate Ford had intentions of offering the “fabulous 427 side-oiler” as an option for the Mustang, in order to give the Stang the top cubic inch performance image in the ponycar field of 1968. Autoweek says: “Remembering 1967, Chevrolet had toped Ford’s 390 Thunderbird Special with its famous 396 big block in its Camaro. Ford then trumped Chevy’s Porcupine headed 396 with its 427 powerhouse, an engine which had earned a world-famous record of durability at the 24-hour LeMans Grand Prix (in 1966 and 1967 in the Cobras)- as well as on the stock car racing tracks in the fastback Galaxies”.

Of course, we all know the LeMans was won by the GT-40’s and not the Cobra’s, and so should have Autoweek writer Jerry Heasley. Heasley continues: “Since the Cougar had been using the same performance engines as the Mustang, then quite naturally, the little Mercury would also have the 427 in its lineup. However, the strange marketing strategy which followed was that Ford Division did not promote the 427 in the Mustang, but Lincoln-Mercury Divisiion did in its Cougar. Apparently, Ford was worried about warranty problems with 427 Mustangs, as already, the four-speed was unavailable with the 427, and the engine had been de-tuned with lower-revving hydraulic lifters (as opposed to the solid lifters seen in the earlier production 427s), and a two-bolt main bearing block as opposed to the famous cross-bolt block with four-bolt mains.”

Power numbers for the 2-bolt hydraulic were 390 HP at 5600 RPM, and 460 foot-pounds of torque at 3200 RPM, still a very potent engine. Midway through 1968 the 27 was changed out to the 428 in the Cougar, and only 358 of the 602 GT-E’s were the “W-code” 427 powered.

The Musclecar Review article mirrors the numbers, but adds the note that compression was 10.9:1 and quarter mile time was 15.1 with a C-6 automatic transmission.

I recall another article about the 1968 427 Cougar GT-E somewhere, and it had a photograph of the car cornering with the front tire smoking from the load. Wish I could find it.

Ford was concerned about putting a high powered 427 in the Mustang with a 4-speed due to the obvious results; a lot of blown up engines and recalls. With the 4-speeds, people would obviously be out there “proving the point” with the equipment, and this would require high RPM action. Automatic transmissions have a way of knowing when to shift, despite adrenaline and a planted right foot. Standard 4-speeds rely on the big nut located behind the steering wheel, and this is far less reliable a factor than the automatic tranny, when considering the so-called “general public”. It is a puzzle to me as to why Ford chose to eliminate the 4-bolt main bearing configuration for the “detuned 390 HP” Cougar GT-E in favor of a 2-bolt design when power was still up there in the 390 HP range. Perhaps this has more to do with the forces encountered with the higher RPM reached with the solid lifter motors, rather than horsepower ratings, and also probably due to the fact that high RPM wouldn’t be encountered with the automatic tranny. Who knows. Guess they saved a couple bucks per engine, and I guess the 4-bolt configuration really wasn’t needed in this application.

Thought you guys would be interested in hearing about this. Time to crawl back under my rock.

Regards, P







Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 7th, 2000, 3:26 am

June 4th, 2001, 7:38 pm #2

nm

Theo (Germany)

Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 5th, 2001, 12:40 pm

June 5th, 2001, 12:50 pm #3

Hi fellow FE’ers. I’ve been dormant for a while here on the forum, but having just gotten over a major hurdle that has been sucking away all my free time and keeping me up at night, I’ve got some time now to spend back with this great forum. (And from what I've been dealing with, this is great therapy, at last!!)

One thing I wanted to respond to in the past, but ran out of time, was the hydraulic 2-bolt 427 of 1968. I found some interesting info from a 1983 article in the old (large newspaper format) Autoweek “Escape Road” section, July 4 edition, and also a January 1999 edition of Musclecar Review (which I bought due to the 427 article).

The articles indicate Ford had intentions of offering the “fabulous 427 side-oiler” as an option for the Mustang, in order to give the Stang the top cubic inch performance image in the ponycar field of 1968. Autoweek says: “Remembering 1967, Chevrolet had toped Ford’s 390 Thunderbird Special with its famous 396 big block in its Camaro. Ford then trumped Chevy’s Porcupine headed 396 with its 427 powerhouse, an engine which had earned a world-famous record of durability at the 24-hour LeMans Grand Prix (in 1966 and 1967 in the Cobras)- as well as on the stock car racing tracks in the fastback Galaxies”.

Of course, we all know the LeMans was won by the GT-40’s and not the Cobra’s, and so should have Autoweek writer Jerry Heasley. Heasley continues: “Since the Cougar had been using the same performance engines as the Mustang, then quite naturally, the little Mercury would also have the 427 in its lineup. However, the strange marketing strategy which followed was that Ford Division did not promote the 427 in the Mustang, but Lincoln-Mercury Divisiion did in its Cougar. Apparently, Ford was worried about warranty problems with 427 Mustangs, as already, the four-speed was unavailable with the 427, and the engine had been de-tuned with lower-revving hydraulic lifters (as opposed to the solid lifters seen in the earlier production 427s), and a two-bolt main bearing block as opposed to the famous cross-bolt block with four-bolt mains.”

Power numbers for the 2-bolt hydraulic were 390 HP at 5600 RPM, and 460 foot-pounds of torque at 3200 RPM, still a very potent engine. Midway through 1968 the 27 was changed out to the 428 in the Cougar, and only 358 of the 602 GT-E’s were the “W-code” 427 powered.

The Musclecar Review article mirrors the numbers, but adds the note that compression was 10.9:1 and quarter mile time was 15.1 with a C-6 automatic transmission.

I recall another article about the 1968 427 Cougar GT-E somewhere, and it had a photograph of the car cornering with the front tire smoking from the load. Wish I could find it.

Ford was concerned about putting a high powered 427 in the Mustang with a 4-speed due to the obvious results; a lot of blown up engines and recalls. With the 4-speeds, people would obviously be out there “proving the point” with the equipment, and this would require high RPM action. Automatic transmissions have a way of knowing when to shift, despite adrenaline and a planted right foot. Standard 4-speeds rely on the big nut located behind the steering wheel, and this is far less reliable a factor than the automatic tranny, when considering the so-called “general public”. It is a puzzle to me as to why Ford chose to eliminate the 4-bolt main bearing configuration for the “detuned 390 HP” Cougar GT-E in favor of a 2-bolt design when power was still up there in the 390 HP range. Perhaps this has more to do with the forces encountered with the higher RPM reached with the solid lifter motors, rather than horsepower ratings, and also probably due to the fact that high RPM wouldn’t be encountered with the automatic tranny. Who knows. Guess they saved a couple bucks per engine, and I guess the 4-bolt configuration really wasn’t needed in this application.

Thought you guys would be interested in hearing about this. Time to crawl back under my rock.

Regards, P






You and Theo need to crawl back under a rock. The 68 390/427 was a crossbolt block. Theo your just as stupid on this forum as the other one. Go back over there and spread you stupid remarks.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2001, 10:20 pm

June 5th, 2001, 2:01 pm #4

What do you have, a motor from another car, stuffed in a 68 Cougar?

There is a lot of reference about the two-bolt 427, and I certainly don't want to spread around incorrect info, but hey, I can read. There was a lot of info posted a while back regarding this subject too, and you might want to look that up before you attempt to re-write history.

Give me some facts, BS is easy to find, it's everywhere.

P
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 6th, 2000, 11:33 pm

June 5th, 2001, 5:22 pm #5

You and Theo need to crawl back under a rock. The 68 390/427 was a crossbolt block. Theo your just as stupid on this forum as the other one. Go back over there and spread you stupid remarks.
I have a two bolt hydraulic 427 block in my garage. It is an industrial block however. It has the bosses for the crossbolt caps and it is drilled for hydraulic lifters. It is at least a 66 block as it has 66-427 cast on the back of the block as well as HP427 in the lifter valley. It also has the squared off cylinders inside the water jackets. I believe it came off an irrigation pump in western Kansas.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 9th, 2001, 10:20 pm

June 5th, 2001, 6:58 pm #6

It never ceases to amaze me how Ford built the 427 "to order", for industrial use, for specific marine use, etc., and in two bolt configuration "to save a buck er two". Why in the blazes would an irrigation pump need the 427 cubic inches, when a 390 had more meat around the bores and would probabaly have worked just as well.....why the 427? Probably has as much logic associated with it as a "business contact" or an "accounting decision".

Great info though, thanx for sharing it with us, now I know of two places that used the 2-bolt, the 1968 Cougar and the Kansas irrigation pumps! (They must have been one hell of a good lookin pump, eh?)



P
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 6th, 2001, 1:27 pm

June 6th, 2001, 10:16 pm #7

Please don't quote clueless magazine articles as if they had some basis in fact. The 427 1968 Mustang and Shelby didn't exist so speculating on why is pointless and a waste of time. The 427 Cougar GTE's were produced and many original cars are documented and several are still in the original owner's garages. All are crossbolted and hydraulic lifter equipped side oilers. There were 357 427 Cougars built in 1968. About 155 are known to exist.

Royce Peterson
68 427 GTE Cougars (two of them)
68 1/2 Cougar 428 CJ Ram Air
Quote
Like
Share

RJP
Joined: December 7th, 2000, 12:42 am

June 6th, 2001, 11:11 pm #8

It never ceases to amaze me how Ford built the 427 "to order", for industrial use, for specific marine use, etc., and in two bolt configuration "to save a buck er two". Why in the blazes would an irrigation pump need the 427 cubic inches, when a 390 had more meat around the bores and would probabaly have worked just as well.....why the 427? Probably has as much logic associated with it as a "business contact" or an "accounting decision".

Great info though, thanx for sharing it with us, now I know of two places that used the 2-bolt, the 1968 Cougar and the Kansas irrigation pumps! (They must have been one hell of a good lookin pump, eh?)



P
Ford used blocks that were rejected for car or racing use due to casting porosity, core shift, casting fissures or other defects that wouldn't make much difference in a irrigation pump, vineyard fan or some other stationary unit that usually runs at a consistent speed and load. This is why you can find many oddball parts such as undersize cranks and oversize pistons in many of these engines. Bores that were flawed @ std. or cranks that wouldn't machine to std. specs. This was Ford's way of saving money and parts. So your industrial 427 may not be such a good buy afterall. Sorry.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 6th, 2000, 11:33 pm

June 7th, 2001, 1:24 am #9

I am aware of the pitfalls of industrial blocks. Needless to say I payed very little for it. I live within a half days drive of Gess Machine in Nebraska and when I get ready to use I am going to let them check it over first. I was just wanting to see if I could get anyone fired up!LOL
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 20th, 2000, 2:16 pm

June 7th, 2001, 4:03 am #10

I found a 360 block(thats what the owner told me) with the 427 66 upside down on the back of the block. No cross bolts and no bosses, so what could that be? Hyd. lifters,didn't see any oil lines along the side of the block.
Quote
Like
Share