. . https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/25220/lot/176/?category=list&length=12&page=11 . https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/25220/lot/180/?category=list&length=12&page=11
Dunnno about them Andy. Stands to reason that if Dad could get some strange stuff out the back doors of Ford then just maybe , highly likely, other guys could get them too. Remember, it's an auction house giving us those historys , how far does their research really go ? No photos of the engine in the 62 is a red flag on that one.
Yeah, I know good provenance is necessary, and I thought it iffy that neither have any actual paperwork that you can say is definite.
A cammer that is clean and in running order sorta' makes it a "I don't care how it got here as long as I don't go to jail because it's in my garage." The other one hints that it is based on some sort of 385 series. The cubic inch suggests it was from the CanAm series but that's not the right when. Too early for that to be snuck into a new 64 sedan. The cammer could be legit but I don't think even Holman/Moody had the big inch 385 series in 1964. Andy, the cammers came as a do it yourself option, trunk load of parts you had to assemble after removing the base 427 intake and heads. You didn't get a warranty on that car that had the goods in the trunk either. Today if I got the urge to build a cammer and could provide the bottom end with some minor machining done to it, I can get all the required parts to finish one out for around $20K. That cammer is in the right era car but I still don't know if it is real or reproduction parts from Bill Coon. Would prefer repops as the original heads had sodium filled valves that would be time bombs by now if not replaced. Need a lot more info .
OK, Andy. Went back and actually read the description on the 65. Not the original engine but maybe it was a cammer car unless the data plate is fake. Libertys were taken as those still had single pot master cylinders, not the dual bowl in the photos. 65 was also the first year of rear coil springs, not leaf springs as in the description. Look close and you can see the lower trailing arms in the rear on their photo. Nice pile of parts but not exactly virgin territory. They wouldn't like my bid.
From the original Hagerty article which led me to these two cars: " Lot 176 Among the biggest and baddest engines of the early 1960s was an experimental, 483-cubic-inch (7.9-liter) version of Ford’s FE (contraction of “Ford-Edsel”) series V-8, built before NASCAR’s 7.0-liter limit went into effect. Capable of 500-plus horsepower, the 483 didn’t make it into many street cars, but the story here goes that there was a Texas family who towed a horse trailer with their 405-horse 406 Galaxie. They wanted even more power, so their local dealer told them of a Grand National stock car engine, one of the aforementioned 483s, that was available. They went for it and ordered the engine through Holman & Moody. The family apparently still used their now 500-horse two-door sedan for towing rather than the drag strip, then it sat for years before a recent full rebuild on that monster of an engine. Finished in bland Corinthian White with matching steel wheels and hubcaps, it almost looks innocent until you notice the side exhaust and small 483 badges. Or hear it fire up. " The Hagerty article implies it was a bored / stroked FE. An early 427 ? The Bonhams article references the 335 series (Cleveland) as being "the next big block" Very confusing
More likely it was a MEL series " Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln" introduced in the 1958 cars rated at 375 HP. the MEL engines grew to 500 cid. used in trucks. Not a FE. MEL makes more sense as Holman/Moody used those monsters in off shore racing boats during that time period. Wonder if it looked anything like this ?
That one is in a 1958 Mercury police car. Here's the boat version, too big to easily fit in a 64 Ranchero engine bay =
Where's Mo(herbfarm) when you need him? I could swear I saw a pic of the engine on either Hagerty or Bonhams but can't find it now. Gold valve covers and really filled the engine bay
Those engines pressurized the gas/air mixture in the turbo (carb before turbo), causing massive explosions with the smallest leaks. That's one reason it was a dumb idea.
