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!
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!