Yes, at least in '63 and '64.  The XL's all came with buckets and a console, but you could order the rare swing-away steering column option that required a column shift.  (I think about 3 percent of cars were ordered with this.)

The swing-away column required a column shift automatic.  The column shifter unlocked the column when it was placed in Park, allowing you to slide the wheel towards the center.  The car couldn't be started until the column was swung back into place.  Shifting out of Park would lock the column in place.

I have one of these setups that i intend to use in my '64.  The blank top console plate is incredibly hard to find.  Here's a picture of a swing-away '64 XL:

Mike -  7075-T6 aluminum can handle the stress, but it will eventually fail in fatigue.  Unless you're going to be diligent about replacing parts on a regular schedule (like Top Fuel teams), I'd go for a good billet alloy steel.  It will last forever.

Just get a pushrod length checker tool from somebody like Summit.  Make sure the length range and ball ends are correct for your SBF.

Summit has several like this:  (I don't know if this one is correct for your application)

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/hrs-92129

Once you have the length set up correctly for your lifter preload, measure it and order your pushrods in that length.

Quote from: 428Marauder on August 17, 2025, 12:18:57 PM

Can you get that SHO motor in a little Escort or something? Sleeper alert!

Leno has one in a Fiesta.

You’re thinking of the Shogun.  A California company built about 7 of them using a Kia-built Ford Festiva as the base.  They took the entire Taurus SHO front subframe, with engine and transmission, and shoved it into the back of the Festiva.  The result is pretty wild!

 

Can you get that SHO motor in a little Escort or something? Sleeper alert!

Escort would probably be a tough fit.  You know… a Merkur XR4Ti would be really cool!  That’s almost as light and is already rear wheel drive.  You just don’t see those anymore 😀

Re:  Why don't sideoilers have grooves machined in the #2 and #4 cam journals?

I wish I knew!  I wonder if it has to do with the top oiler (and standard FE) needing a 180 degree oil transfer around the cam bearing, and the sideoiler needing only a 135 degree oil transfer.  Maybe there was a tooling issue with cutting a 135 degree groove in the block?  Wild guess!

Another thing came to mind.  It seems the sideoilers were machined on a special line with dedicated tooling to better control cylinder wall thickness.  Perhaps the oil transfer groove tooling was expensive and not justifiable for such a low volume of blocks.  That would make even more sense given what I saw inside Ford.

It's very much more complicated than cross-sectional area.  For instance, tribology (the science of lubrication) treats rotating journal bearings as pumps.  Peak pressures can reach thousands of psi at high speeds and loads.  Look up the Reynolds Equation.  What would the flow through the bearing be under those insane pressures?  Clearances around the bearing vary a great deal with load, as does pressure.  There are lots of SAE papers on journal bearing lubrication if you really want to go nuts.

Loads on the rods and mains can be measured in tons at higher rpm and throttle positions.  To convince yourself, do a napkin calculation of how much oil film pressure you need to support even one ton of force on a rod journal.  You'll find it's at least an order of magnitude higher than anything the pump can put out.