When is a 428 not a 428?

[Michael Trotter]

Always I would say, in the sense that the FE428 engine displacement is less than 427 cu.ins. by my calculation. I was reminded of this when I recently looked at 'AC Frua' on Wikipedia. When I look closely I think I detect Emmanuel's prints on it; does he plead guilty or not guilty?
   The displacement must start with the bore and stroke in inches as Ford didn't mess about with this metric stuff. The standard figures quoted are: '427': 4.23 x 3.78 inches (=107.4 x 96.0 mm rounded)
               '428': 4.13 x 3.98 inches (=104.9 x 101.1 mm rounded).  Displacements are:
                                                                                        '427': 424.97 cu.ins. = 6,963.9 cc
                         Say 425 cid / 6,964 cc
   
                  '428': 426.54 cu.ins. = 6,989.8 cc
                         Say 427 cid / 6,990 cc
   (I use pi=3.1416/1 inch=25.4 mm/1 cubic inch=16.3871 cc)
   
   A few other points on Wikipedia. Surely 96 inch wheelbase not 95. John Mclellan quoted Mike Taylor(who he?)and his Autocar quote ended at 'which cares'. The 'joined that select company' bit was JM not Autocar. I thought the only special body was 81 with pop-up headlights; what are the other two? I fancy this fully adjustable front suspension stuff; where can I get some? I think the axle ratios are 49/17=2.88 and 43/14=3.07. The combination of 91 octane 'pump gas' and 10.5 (standard?) compression ratio seems risky to me and therefore best left to bankers. High speed detonation could make an awful mess of those lovely new pistons Emmanuel showed us. I use 99 or 100 octane and sleep well at night.
   I think the performance figures are a bit muddled. The John Bolster road test in Autosport (4.10.68) and also the Motor (28.9.68) and Autocar (4.7.68) road tests were all CF7 with auto box. Were other reliable road tests done?
   I am told Wikipedia entries can be changed but I couldn't manage that. Perhaps, in the interests of accuracy, one of you chaps might do it?
   
   Michael Trotter
   P.S. Hope none of you are bankers!

[Classicus]

Hi Michael
   
   Will shortly  be posting the last major Register Update for quite a while. Re. your question whether any other reliable road tests were done, as far as other old magazine road tests are concerned only, I think that's probably more or less the lot now because to the best of my limited knowledge all the early tests involved either CF1 or CF7 alone. However there are a couple of later road tests I've found with CF24 and CF63.
   
   http://acfrua428.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=115841&subForumID=445716&p=2
   
   Checking in Autocar 31st October 1981 itself, it would seem Mike Taylor just wrote the article as he's not listed anywhere on the front editorial page.
   
   http://acfrua428.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=115841&p=3&topicID=19796859
   
   Any chance of some good colour pics of CF 6 to go in the Register sometime ?
   
   Thanks
   
   Paul []

[Emmanueld]

I plead guilty! The engine size is 428 nominally or 7,014cc, this is the way Ford described it. As far as octane ratings, the original compression ratio was I think 11.1 or 11.5 which is too high for modern unleaded gas. The rule among engine builders for using pump gas is around 9 for an engine with iron heads and 10 if you have aluminum heads. Aluminum dissipates heat much better than cast iron. I built a couple of motors using this rule and so far I haven't had a problem! pump gas is fine.
   
   Emmanuel []