Reference for Ford

http://www.dearbornclassics.com/reference.html

Found a web site with good reference for Fords

Mike

--
Advice when most needed is least heeded.

Mike G. wrote:
> http://www.dearbornclassics.com/reference.html
>
> Found a web site with good reference for Fords
>
> Mike

I noticed at that site they state the Ford 406 cu engine was replaced in
1964 with the 427 V8... I don't think so, because my brother bought a
1964 brand new with a 406 in it. It is still as close to brand new as
it can get, sitting in his garage, so they got at least that much wrong
it seems. I don't recall, but I don't think the Ford 427 came out in 1964?

--
Jack
http://jbstein.com

"Jack Stein" > wrote in message . ..
>
> I noticed at that site they state the Ford 406 cu engine was replaced in
> 1964 with the 427 V8... I don't think so, because my brother bought a
> 1964 brand new with a 406 in it. It is still as close to brand new as
> it can get, sitting in his garage, so they got at least that much wrong
> it seems. I don't recall, but I don't think the Ford 427 came out in 1964?
>
> --
> Jack
> http://jbstein.com

Well Jack,
The information I've found says the 406 was offered two years, being replaced with the 427
which actually came out in 63.
So I'm sure there were 406s in some 64s
The 406 was offered to the public only to meet the requirement to get it into racing.
Anyway, I've attached the info I found, some have the web site on it.

Mike
--
Advice when most needed is least heeded.

Jack,
If you want these and can not download them here, send an email and I'll send to you directly.

Mike

--
Advice when most needed is least heeded.

Thanks Mike, I needed that. Looking through the literature, I suddenly
realized my brothers car is a 1962 Ford, not a 1964 as I said it was...
I've known this for lets see, 45 years, what on earth made me think it
was a 64 is scaring me a little...

Any way, thanks for the info, and my apologies to the group for the
brain freeze...

I'll have to take some photos of his '62 for the group, it's still
almost brand new...

>>Jack
>>http://jbstein.com


Mike G. wrote:

> "Jack Stein"
>
>>I noticed at that site they state the Ford 406 cu engine was replaced in
>>1964 with the 427 V8... I don't think so, because my brother bought a
>>1964 brand new with a 406 in it. It is still as close to brand new as
>>it can get, sitting in his garage, so they got at least that much wrong
>>it seems. I don't recall, but I don't think the Ford 427 came out in 1964?
>>
>>--
>>Jack
>>http://jbstein.com
>
>
> Well Jack,
> The information I've found says the 406 was offered two years, being replaced with the 427
> which actually came out in 63.
> So I'm sure there were 406s in some 64s
> The 406 was offered to the public only to meet the requirement to get it into racing.
> Anyway, I've attached the info I found, some have the web site on it.
>
> Mike
> --
> Advice when most needed is least heeded.
>
>

The 427 came out in '63, ostensibly to replace the 406 . Many people assume
it coincided with the '63 1/2 fastback roof and the replacement of the
"Boxtop" '63 design but I've heard from good authority that the 427 was
available with the old roof style for a short time. A bit of trivia for
you. The Ford 427 is actually 425 CID. StuK



"Jack Stein" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mike G. wrote:
>> http://www.dearbornclassics.com/reference.html
>>
>> Found a web site with good reference for Fords
>>
>> Mike
>
> I noticed at that site they state the Ford 406 cu engine was replaced in
> 1964 with the 427 V8... I don't think so, because my brother bought a
> 1964 brand new with a 406 in it. It is still as close to brand new as it
> can get, sitting in his garage, so they got at least that much wrong it
> seems. I don't recall, but I don't think the Ford 427 came out in 1964?
>
> --
> Jack
> http://jbstein.com

"Jack Stein" > wrote in message
. ..
> Thanks Mike, I needed that. Looking through the literature, I suddenly
> realized my brothers car is a 1962 Ford, not a 1964 as I said it was...
> I've known this for lets see, 45 years, what on earth made me think it was
> a 64 is scaring me a little...
>
> Any way, thanks for the info, and my apologies to the group for the brain
> freeze...
>
> I'll have to take some photos of his '62 for the group, it's still almost
> brand new...


Looking forward to seeing it. StuK
>
> >>Jack
> >>http://jbstein.com
>
>

"Jack Stein" > wrote in message . ..
> Thanks Mike, I needed that. Looking through the literature, I suddenly
> realized my brothers car is a 1962 Ford, not a 1964 as I said it was...
> I've known this for lets see, 45 years, what on earth made me think it
> was a 64 is scaring me a little...
>
> Any way, thanks for the info, and my apologies to the group for the
> brain freeze...
>
> I'll have to take some photos of his '62 for the group, it's still
> almost brand new...
>
> >>Jack
> >>http://jbstein.com

No problem Jack, happens to us all! Especially as we get older...I'm 52.
Yes, take some pics, we would love to see it.

Mike