|
|
Original Message
|
I sometimes wonder if the deviation was actually just a writer mis-remembering the "cast iron" crankshaft change. |
By Dave Shoe - 06/09/2001 1:37:29 AM; IP 216.243.158.141 |
Writers are writers. They are not necessarily any more factual than an advertisement. George Reid is a perfect example.
I've heard about the 2-bolt main rumor since I heard of the 427 Cougar. I sometimes wonder if it wasn't originated by a confused writer who mistakenly mixed-up the new cast iron crank with a phantom 2-bolt maincap. The confusion would be logical, as maincaps and cranks are pretty much one-and-the-same in a racing FE.
As for the UAW killing the 427, there's nothing to support that because the W-code 427 was offered as a 1969 option until the SCJ brainstorm was hatched in the 25th hour.
Emissions laws and limited performance budgets forced the 4-speed outta the 427 in 1968 (it's cheaper to certify only one engine than two), and production costs (casting and machining) made the 427 a tough block to stick into any car. The SCJ was promoted into the place of the emissions-laden 427 in 1969, requiring only a set of heavy rods and quickly-designed super-cheap cast piston which would hold together at high-RPMS (a piston which would also be inherited by the CJ when they became available).
The reason 427s and 428s became popular industrial blocks in the late 60's and early/mid 70s is because the 413 Chrysler was romping reliably in this territory and Ford wanted a piece of the action. The Chrysler powerplant, however, was specifically designed to handle the power take-off duties, as it had a forged steel crank and it's snout was supported by a ball bearing in the timing cover when needed. Apparently, FE crankshafts just didn't fare as well against the Chrysler offerings.
JMO, Shoe. |
|
This thread, so far...
|
Skip Navigation Links.
| | |  | I sometimes wonder if the deviation was actually just a writer mis-remembering the "cast iron" crankshaft change. -- Dave Shoe, 06/09/2001 |
|
Post A Response
|
|
|
|