As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’m going to rebuild the old 3 speed transmission that I took out of my ’70 Mustang coup and I’ll do it in stages (average guy, average time to spend on a project…especially one that isn’t going to benefit my cars). The rebuild kit is on it’s way.
This the first time I’ve attempted this, so who knows how it’s going to go.
First I’m going to give myself a transmission anatomy lesson, which I’ll share here.
The engines for the 1973 Mustangs pretty well with the rest of the matched up the other models engines, but with some minor “tweaks”.
You couldn’t get a Mustang with a 4 cylinder (yet) but you could get with the standard 6. This was the 250 version, (250 cubic inches of displacement) the bore and stroke was 3.68 x 3.91 also used in the Torino. Topping it with a single barrel Motocraft carb and coupled with a compression ratio of 8.0:1 gave it a ground pounding horse power rating of 88 (Oh don’t worry, it gets worse in 1974).
302 remained the same for the Mustang and was the standard for the Mach 1. The 351’s (Cleveland and Windsor were available and they really remained the same as those for the other models.
Now you might be saying, ‘Well Tim, seems like you typed yourself in to a corner here. Those engines are the same.” But here is what made the differences – options!!!
With special intakes, valve springs, dampers, large 4300 D carbs, 2.5 inch diameter dual exhaust outlets and modified cam, you now talking increased breathing and exhaling capacity. Which we all know means…say it with me…..”MORE HORSE POWER!!!!!” But how much? I’m glad you asked.
The 351 with these types of option produced between 246 and 266 horse power. The 302 doesn’t show being configured with anything other than the stock options.
Next up are the Ford 400’s that were available for 1973.
There were 3 options when it can to Ford’s biggest power plants in 1973, the 400 Cleveland the Thunderbird 429 and the Thunderbird 460. If you are thinking…YES!!! More Horse Power!!!! …you are going to be a bit disappointed, compared to today’s standard and the 1960’s standards.
The Cleveland had a cast iron block, over head valves and displaced 400 cubic inches. Its bore and stroke (4.00 x 4.00) and compression ratio (8.0: 1) were choked to death by the two barrel Motocraft carb. It produced only 163 hps
Wimpy - 400 2 barrel intake...needs a 4 barrel intake
Ford ' 73 400 in a wagon
The two Thunderbird engines (both cast iron with overhead valve) got the privilege of being topped with 4 barrel Motocraft carbs. The 429 displaced 429 cubic inches and the 460 knocked out..yup you guessed it 460 cubic inches.
They had a bore and store of 4.36 x 3.59 and 4.36 x 3.85 respectively and both had the same compression ratio of 8.0:1. The top hp for the 429 was just barely over 200 at 201 and the 460 out did that by 18 giving it a 219 hp.
Fords 460
429
Here is the twist with these and the rest of the Ford engines. The horse power stated was changed depending what model the engine was used in. Most of those in this series were the lowest stated. For example the 302 was rated at 135 hp in the Maverick, but 138 in the Torino. (Yes, a whopping 3 more hp!!!)
The average difference was between 1 and 5 hps, so we aren’t talking about a bunch of hidden power as they were configured. But we all know that you pop off the that 2 barrel carb off any of these engines and plop on wide mouth Holley, and you were going to get much better numbers!!
Thanks for reading. ’73 Mustang engines coming up.
Here is the second part of this ’73 line up for the V8.
There were 7 V8 in 1973 (not including the Mustang engines) and the ranged in numbers from 302 to 460 (big number to be sure). Just reading those you think..OH…THE …POWER…NOTHING BUT 100’s RUBBER BURNING, FISH-TAILING HPs!!!…right….uh…NO….these ain’t 60’s engine and they aren’t 2010 engines..nope..they the 70’s engines. Here’s how they ponied up.
The 302 – Overhead valves, cast iron block with a bore and stroke of 4.00 x 3.00. Compression ratio of 8.0:1 with 302 cubic inches displaced. Top that with an awesome 2 barrelMotorcraft carb and you are knocking out 135 hp’s!!!! Those are number only a grandma could love. Compare that with the 302 sold under the hoods of Fords in 1970 which yielded 220 hp with a two barrel carb. (Take that 302 bore it .030, toss on a typhoon intake and a 4 barrel Holly you’ll have exactly what currently have in my ’70 Stang.)
My Mustang's Enhanced 302
Next up is the family of 351s, the Windsor, the Cleveland and the CJ Windsor.
All three had overhead valves, cast iron blocks and all displaced 351 cubic inches. They shared the same bore and stroke which was 4.00 x 3.5 and the compression ratios ranged from 8.0:1 to 8.6:1 and the horse power varied by rpm 3800 to 4000 between 156 up to 177, the Cleveland and baby Windsor were choked with a 2 barrel carb while the CJ managed to steal a 4 barrel of the assembly line shelf and had a compression ratio of 9.0:1. The 351 CJ was able to come in a little more respectable with 266 hp at 5400 rpm.
I will tell you this there were very few 351 CJ Windsor made in 1973 and 1974. I owned a 1974 351 CJ and my researched showed that less than 100 of these engined were produced that year.
All of these were used in the Torino, Montego, Mustang, Cougar and other Ford and Mercury models. The 351 CJ was used in the Mustang and Cougar.
1973 Cleveland 351 2 barrel under the hood of a Mustang.
1973 was a good year, I was a still in high school and big engines weren’t extinct yet. Ford had a big assortment. We are talking 10 to choose from if you didn’t count the Mustang engines.
Ford Pinto (this will be a parking log spot light coming up)
On small size 6 cylinder were still king but 4 cylinder was available for the Pinto. For the larger engines displacement was large and the horse power small.
There was only one 4 cylinder available, reserved for the ill fated Pinto. It sported an overhead cam and iron block. It displaced a whopping 122 cubic inches and as one would expect had the smallest bore and stroke – 3.58 x 3.03. The compression ratio was 8.2:1 and it tore up the street with 86 hps. (No I didn’t for get the “1” in front of that.) It was topped with a Ford/Weber 2 barrel carb.
2.0 Pinto Engine
The six cylinders came in 2 varieties and were used in the Maverick and Torino. The first was dubbed the Maverick 6 cylinder. It was configured with overhead valves and a cast iron block. With the bore and stoke 3.68 x 3.13 it was able to displace 200 cubic inches. The compression ratio was slightly higher than the 4 cylinder at 8.3:1 but it was fitted with a 1 barrel Motocraft carb resulting in only 84 hp.
The second ‘big brother” six cylinder was called the Maverick/Torino. Again it had the overhead valves and cast iron blocks, same as its little brother, but it had a greater stroke 3.91 (3.68 X 3.91) compared to the its sibling 3.13. The compression ratio was lower (8.0:1) and topped with the same single barrel carb it managed 88 hps.
The Torino was not a small car so it really need those 4 extra hps!!!
Ford 6 cylinder - nicely restored!!!
V8s for 1973 coming up and then the Mustang engines.
OK…I not least bit interested in this kind of gimmickry, that’s right up there with a cigarette lighter with a ring of light round so you can find it in the dark, innovation? A waste in my opinion. What’s your take?
Posted by Amie Williams on December 8, 2011 – 2 Comments
It’s not like the Ford Mustang badges were not distinctive before, but Ford is now taking it a step further and actually projecting the running ponylogo from under the side mirror when unlocking the doors to your 2013 Pony. Apparently making this projecting Mustang logo needed six or seven takes just to get it more in the lines of nice and not cheesy. Supposedly the projecting logo was so captivating that the flip was switched on the lights of the assembly floor so everyone could get a glimpse of the projecting pony.
REALLY?
The future is just full of all kinds of surprises, huh? I can’t wait to see what other options they will throw at us. Possibly more of a projecting Running Pony similar to the bat signal? Although, that’s probably all kinds of illegal.
One of my regular readers, Bill, posted the following question in response to the piece I wrote on Chevy engines. Bill asked…
“No 454 V8 in 1971? I guess that motor came later. ..”
That get me to thinking so I did a little more research. The references I’m use are “Ultimate AmericanV-8 Engine Data Book” by Peter Sessler; “Standard catalog of American Cars” by John Gunnel and “110 years of the American Auto” by James Flammang and Auto Editors of Consumer Guide. I try not to get too much from the Internet at large.
Interestingly enough the 454 is briefly mentioned in the Ultimate American V-8 Engine Data Book, but there aren’t many details. That reference shows that the 454 was available in 1971 as a 4V producing 365 horse power. It doesn’t show under any model just as a general option for Chevy’s. I’m assuming it was just a 400 block with a different bore and stroke.
The 454 was developed by 1970. It’s bore was 4.251 in and had a 4 inch stroke (where as the 400 had 4.251 in bore and a 3.75 stroke). There were other version in 1970 and 1971, designated as the LS5. This version of the 454 was used in the 1970 and beyond in Corvette for one instance and was used in Chevelle.
Interesting that it isn’t referred to in the mentioned references for 1971 year.
Hold the presses!!!!!
It appears that in the reference “Standard catalog of American Cars” by John Gunnel that the 454 was left out off the comprehensive listing of engines for 1971. However, the 454 was use in the SS version of the Monte Carlo – 1,919 were produced. For the Chevelle 80,000 were sold with the SS badge of those only 19,992 were with the 454.
1917 Chevelle SS 454
1971 Monte Carlo SS 454
And in this reference I found the answer to a question I’ve had for some time. About 5 years agoing I was at a car show and ended up talking to a guy with a 1971 Nova SS. It had a 454 as the power plant between the shock towers. However there were 7,015 Nova SS packages sold, none had the 454 as the option.
I’ve been preoccupied the last few days I haven’t kept up with my articles. Since this is the Average Guy’s..etc., then you’ll get this next part.
Thing’s happen in life (a.k.a. – Lemons) and you just have to deal with them. The goal is always make the best of the circumstances (a.k.a. – Lemonade).
Earlier this week I lost my job with the company I worked in for the past six years. This is not uncommon in these economic times and there are many average car guys and car gals in the same boat. Many of those people have project cars and these end up being put on the back burner or sadly end up being sold. As car people we all know this happens and hopefully the car goes to good home. Hold on before anyone drags out their savings and offers to purchase my Mustang – I’m not there yet. But it will put my major plans for it on hold for a bit, which is a darn shame, because now I seem to have extra time on my hands to accomplish all those mod, not true a week ago.
So for the better part of the past week I’ve been setting up my job hunting network and getting it in motion. Now it time to wait it out and see what pops up. In the meantime I’ll have more time for writing and doing the little left over projects on the Mustang. I still have the passenger’s seat to re-upholster and the front air dam to put on (I’ve had that in the box for years). I can install the polished aluminum alternator bracket I worked so hard on and have yet to install.
And……. I am project managing the restoration of a 1975 Standard VW beetle – pro bono. Here she is:
1975 VW Standard Bug - New Project.
More to come on that.
So unless you are Jay Leno (I hate that guy!!! – not really, I’m just jealous – I want him to hire me to keep his cars driven and shiny and search out more cars for him..hey..there’s an idea!!!! “Dear Mr. Leno, I’m a car guy and I currently find myself with some free time so I’m applying for…..”) you dealt with circumstances like job loss or lack of funds to finish or keep that project collector car. But remember you can take it slow on projects – it’s OK to slow down and if you have to give up that beautiful machine, keep the memories and there is always tomorrow and another car in your future – you have to believe that and work toward it.
3. Reader choice – you choose the next engine to highlight
I have a couple commercial ventures on the near horizon:
1. Certified Auto Appraiser – I’m about to finish my certification and will be specializing in Classic, Muscle, Antique and speciality cars.
2. Auto restoration project management. Focus is on those individuals that love their cars, but don’t have the time nor the experience to know what needs to be done. I’m actually waiting for my first car. It is a 1975 VW Bug coming all the way from Iowa City, Iowa, should be here this will for inspection and the beginning of its restoration.
So what engine would you want to see highlighted? Drop me a note here or on Facebook.
Folks seem to like this segment so let’s continue with 1950.
19 major car makers existed back then and Chevy topped the production totals with 1,498,590 units followed closely by Ford with 1, 208,912. The rest of the field were all less than have that.
