1966 to 1968 1/2 What Happened to Ford Total Performance?

[RJP]

Personally I think the "crazy 7 car comparo" was for the most part more real world examples of what someone could purchase at that particular time. IOW... No ringers allowed, no chassis tuning, no sticky tires, no dyno tuned engines, no pro drivers, just plain 'ol base model cars anyone could buy and just about anyone could drive. "Hey Royal Pontiac..are you listening?" For those of you who don't know about Royal Pontiac, a huge Pontiac dealership in MI. they made sure a car offered up for a magazine road test the car didn't leave the facility until was fully prepped by the service dept. with full on dyno tuned engine tweaks, chassis "adjustments" and usually a sticky compound tire...Not exactly a typical off the showroom floor model that the average Joe Shmoe with barely enough $$ for the down payment would take delivery on. What about Ford? Most didn't have a clue what a "ringer" was and pulled a car from inventory mostly based on color and presentation as they were more concerned on how the photographs would look in the magazine. Even the Brass at GM knew that under rating their horsepower ratings would favor them in NHRA stock/superstock classes that are based on power to weight ratio. Took Ford several years to figure that out. Just because you rate your HP352 at 360 h.p. doesn't mean it really puts out that amount...Right Werby? 

[WerbyFord]

(I replaced all this text on 1 Jul 2018, hopefully more coherent and more thorough, for history's sake!)

OK well this turned out really long. But it’s an important transition in FoMoCo history – the Dark Years of 66-68.

Yes (@RJP) I like the INTENT of the “Crazy Comparo”. I just don’t trust the RESULTS, which is why I call it “Crazy”. Not only does that 99.5mph Cyclone C-6 look like a “prepped” car, but mainly the 6706RT (1967 June Road Test) tables and text are just inconsistent. Everywhere.


EDIT: This version 2 (28 June 2018)- after concluding from photos & text that the SS is really an L34 396/350. That changes quite a few things.

Bottom line: Weights:
•   Their weight table makes no sense if you look at it.
•   I was able to guess and make sense by assuming they weighed 6 of the real cars with about 230 lb payload in the car
•   For the other 3 cars, I’m guessing they were NOT weighed, and the number given is the published shipping weight (GTX, GTO, Rebel)

Bottom line: ET/MPH:
In their table of et/mph, I will end up changing one digit:
•   The 99.49mph makes no sense, as the text declares that 96.98mph was the fastest MPH, and the 3rd best ET (15.13) goes with the 2nd best MPH (96.80). So my bet is that 99.49 is really 95.49 or 94.49 mph (easy to misread a scribbled timeslip as they were back in those days)

And using the car order in their WEIGHTS table, lined up with their ET-MPH in their ET-MPH table. That is the minimum guess to make things line up with their own text.

I can make the fit even better if I then swap the GTO and 396-L34 cars, but once you start that game, it can go on forever. So I didn’t do that in the below analysis.

Bottom line: YES I AM GUESSING WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT:
•   The weight and et/mph tables as published make no sense, even relative to their own text.
•   I can make things line up with consensus weights and Gonkulator ET/MPH, but that is just guessing, good or bad.
•   I like the concept of their comparo
•   But we cant trust the results


Here are some examples of that “Crazy” confusion from 6706RT as quoted from my post about 2 years ago:

Where to start:
 The weights:
 Fairlane 3880
Cyclone 3920
Those have to be the heaviest Fairlane & Cyclone ever, since 3650 give or take would be a good iron Fairlane/Cyclone weight even with PSPB and A/C.
Maybe that was with 2 people? But the table says “empty ratio” clearly implying these are curb weights, not including payload.
 Then what was the GTO at 3483 ?
Ok, maybe they weighed the Fairlane & Cyclone with 2 people, and the GTO at 3483 empty.
So then did they weigh the
GTX 3545 empty? Vs the similar
R/T 4075 (530 lb heavier) with 2 people or just an extra 440 long block in the trunk?
These weights make me think they just mixed up cars & weights – just like they later mix up cars & et/mph.
After several iterations, and even guessing from the underhood pics what options were on the cars, I could make things line up pretty well with the 6706RT weight table by assuming
•   6 of the cars were actually weighed as equipped, with a 230 lb payload ie not curb
•   3 of the cars (GTX, GTO, Rebel) were not weighed, and the shipping weight was used instead, which of course is way lighter than the real cars

 And then the ET/MPH:
Cyclone 15.12 at 99.49
Fairlane 15.94 at 91.46
 That is just about the fastest Cyclone and slowest Fairlane of all the couple dozen tests I have - 8mph ie 80 hp apart!

 There was that "prepped" Cyclone from the March 66 Car&Driver comparo - the one so loose it blew up during the testing, maybe this 67 was one of those prepped cars.

A Cyclone C-6 running 99.5mph is about like a Cyclone 4spd running 101.5mph. That would be a decent mph for a 428cj car or a 427 Fairlane but not a 390gt. Unless there was a hurricane tailwind – but that would affect all the other cars too. I think that Cyclone was a ringer. Unless the table is mixed up, which I think is the case.

 But, the confusion gets worse.
 Look near the end, at the Summary.

 Text (pg 82) says the GTX was the lowest ET and highest MPH at 96.98
 But in the table, the Cyclone beats it at 99.49.

 Text then says (pg 81) the L78 was 2nd highest MPH (ie behind the GTX).
 But in the table, the L78 is 5th place at 92.00 MPH.

 Something is mixed up.
 Maybe cut&paste errors (in both tables?)
 I stopped guessing after a while.

 That's why I like a range of results from a given car, and dyno data to back up the engines - then try to fit the story together, including "prepped" cars and typos.
 This is probably the most confusing Comparo I have seen, just cant trust the mixed up statements.

Even the ratings – The Olds 442 says 360hp, which would be a W30, but per the info I have there were no W30 ragtops. I then found the pics in part 2 under “safety”. Their 442 was NOT an OAI car so was not a W30). Of course, the GTO 400/360 implies it was an HO, but we don’t really know that for sure either. It’s not a RamAir car from the underhood photo. Maybe it was a Base GTO.

The Chevelle is rated in the table at 375hp which means L78. But in the text it says 350hp, and also says 350hp on the underhood photo as read closely by both me and Werby’s Wife. And the car ran a lot more like an L34 at 353 ghp (gonkulator ghp) vs an L78 at 415 ghp. So the study makes a little more sense – perhaps Road Test asked for a “middle option” engine, so Chevy sent the L34. It seems they also wanted loaded luxury liners, as most cars had auto trans, PSPB, and A/C. Chevy maybe was trying to send them a real muscle car with none of that. Maybe.

These are likely California Smog cars which would explain the air pump even in 1967 and on the L34. Per chevelles.net, CA 66-up and USA-68-up had “Thermactor” for all open air cleaner rats (L34 L78 L72 LS6) and all stick shift rats.) So given that and the air cleaner decal and text saying 350hp, plus the way it ran (not that good), I conclude the Chevelle was an L34, one step up from the base L35 but still a pretty cheap car.)

The pics also show both 390gt cars with Thermactor, and A/C on all but 3 of the cars (Chevelle, Cyclone, and Rebel) That would explain some of the fat weights.

I’m all for apples-vs-apples road tests, but why would you put all the other 8 cars up against a 2-barrel Rebel? Maybe that’s all AMC could provide- from what I gather not that many 343cid cars were made that year. The 6706RT car choices SEEM to be comparing base-level or mid-level (440Mag, L78 and 400HO) engines, which would be a good thing for Ford. The 440 Mopar was still such a budget-friendly combo I guess you could consider it a “Base” engine, and there was always the Hemi. All automatics too – ok fine, then again why put the L34 in there as a 4-speed, when the T400 trans was ready and willing.

That’s why I call it “Crazy Comparo” – I like the concept, but the article is bad and error-filled.

Results from June 1967 Road Test Mag – theirs and the Gonkulator’s:

Confusion aside, here is the 6706 ET/MPH results table as THEY presented it.
I definitely believe there are some mix-ups and even a ringer or two but can’t tell exactly where:
(I’m including the stripper-plus-powertrain $MSRP, not the fully-loaded $MSRP of the test cars, to make the point that all these cars were about $25,000 in today’s dollars)

TABLE 1. ET/MPH as shown in June 1967 Road Test
14.96 at 96.98   $3430 GTX 440/375 auto (Middle option but cheap)
15.12 at 99.49 $3260 Cyclone GT 390/320 auto
15.13 at 96.80 $3320 GTO 400/360ho auto (not the base but not the RA1 either)
15.28 at 92.00 $3280 SS396/350 4speed (Middle Option but cheap)
15.33 at 92.68 $3450 R/T 440/375 auto (Middle option but cheap)
15.48 at 91.37 $3680 Olds 442 400/360 auto (Base: rated W30 but there were no W30 ragtops)
15.58 at 90.36 $3300 Buick GS 400/340 auto
15.94 at 91.46 $3100 Fairlane GTA 390/320 auto
17.94 at 77.38 $2920 Rebel 290/200 auto (Not fair! Fake News!)

We already noted that their table of et-mph is not consistent with their own text, let alone the obvious problem that twin sets of cars (GTX and R/T, Cyclone and Fairlane) performed wildly differently according to the table. Therefore I tried to work out an alternate interpretation (that means Educated GUESS) at what the real table of results might have been.

Here is one plausible one that jives with the text and makes some sense: Leave the table of et-mph number as-is, but change the CARS ordering to the ordering in the Weights table.

We only need to make one more change. Since the 3rd place now belongs to the L34, its MPH should be the 2nd fastest at 96.8mph. So I propose to change the 2nd place MPH from 99.49 to 94.49, an easy mis-read on a scribbled timeslip. I don’t like doing that but can’t make things line up with their own TEXT any other way.

Suddenly, things will line up quite closely with what we’d expect and with what the Gonkulator calculates below.

TABLE 2. Same ET/MPH (but 99.49=94.49) and car ordering per the WEIGHTS table
14.96 at 96.98   $3430 GTX 440/375 auto (Middle option but cheap)
15.12 at 94.49 $3320 GTO 400/360ho auto (not the base but not the RA1 either)
15.13 at 96.80 $3280 SS396/350 4speed (Middle Option but cheap)
15.28 at 92.00 $3450 R/T 440/375 auto (Middle option but cheap)
15.33 at 92.68 $3680 Olds 442 400/360 auto (Base: rated W30 but there were no W30 ragtops)
15.48 at 91.37 $3100 Fairlane GTA 390/320 auto
15.58 at 90.36 $3260 Cyclone GT 390/320 auto
15.94 at 91.46 $3300 Buick GS 400/340 auto
17.94 at 77.38 $2920 Rebel 290/200 auto (Not fair! Fake News!)

I ran all these cars in the Gonkulator, estimating the weights as best I could. The weights I used agree fairly close with the 6706RT weight table, if you assume they did as I guessed above. Otherwise the 6706RT weight table makes no sense, even if we DID re-order the cars. I also optioned the cars out as close as I could surmise to the 6706RT cars, plus a 300 lb payload. I did use my standard Muscle Car Shootout traction algorithm so the Gonkulator ET’s will be a little better on average (about .50 sec better) than 6706RT, but the MPH turn out about the same on average. mode (3.70 stick or 3.50 auto gears, traction based on %Rear weight, 300 lb payload, good granny shifting, biggest duals that would hook to the iron exhaust, stripper cars). Here is what the Gonk thinks. I left the cars in the “Table of Weights” order, which once again is my best guess at the real ET order, and included the delta ET and delta MPH, Gonkulator vs Test. The match is pretty good all around except for the R/T MPH (3.7mph delta).  Of course I could arbitrarily swap cars & et/mph and get a much better match, but wanted to retain some logic.


TABLE 3. Gonkulator ET/MPH for cars as optioned by 6706RT
14.49 at 95.82   (0.47   1.16) $3430 GTX 440/375 auto
14.84 at 93.39 (0.28   1.10) $3320 GTO 400/360ho auto
14.25 at 97.19 (0.88   -0.39) $3280 SS396/350 4speed
14.50 at 95.71 (0.78   -3.71) $3450 R/T 440/375 auto
15.03 at 91.24 (0.30   1.44) $3680 Olds 442 400/360 auto
15.18 at 91.26 (0.30   0.11) $3100 Fairlane GTA 390/320 auto
15.08 at 91.77 (0.50   -1.41) $3260 Cyclone GT 390/320 auto
14.92 at 92.34 (1.02   -0.88) $3300 Buick GS 400/340 auto
17.42 at 77.94 (0.52   -0.88) $2920 Rebel 290/200 auto

There are no real surprises in here – the test R/T mph looks a little slow (-3.7mph vs the Gonkulator) but that is the only outlier. Everything else is within 1.4mph which is pretty doggone close.

The only Gonkulator run way out of line with even the original 6706RT Table 1 ET-MPH was the 99.49 mph Cyclone (Gonks 7.7 mph slower than their test). If we accept that the 99.49mph was a typo, and it had to be if we believe the text of the article, and was really 94.49mph, then there are really no BIG surprises in the table at all. That is, all the cars ran pretty close to the same, 93mph +/- 3mph,  (well, except the 2bbl Rebel), and they all were kinda doggy compared to what their true “stripper” variants (like their L34 test car) would have run. On average, the “stripper” versions would have run almost 0.3 seconds and 2mph better than the loaded expensive luxury models these guys tested.

By the way, the rear overhang of the Cyclone (and the glass hood) do tend to help it, somewhere around 0.10 to 0.20 sec faster due to better rear weight. But the Cyclone is about 40 lb heavier than the Fairlane on top of all that, so that slows it down again to where the gain is not much, maybe a fender depending on other stuff.

I wasn’t going to post this looooooooooooong comparison, partly because the 390gt ranks kinda low. The “Tiny Port” heads don’t help either, but the C6AE-R heads were long gone.

But then I decided to make the comparison more complete, and the complete table makes points that answer the OP’s question (remember, what happened to FoMoCo performance in 66-68?)

So here are a few more cars that might have been included since the stripper L34 4speed was tossed into the mix by 6706RT already. I added all the Top Option cars I could think of not tested here (L78, 427MR, Hemi, 400ra1, 400w30, 343-4bbl- only Buick had no other Top Option (yet) and the 427MR and 400w30 do not meet my “minimum 1000” criteria as Car You Could Actually Get). For reference I put the original 6706RT ET rankings in front. A rank of “0” means I added the car to this (Gonkulator) mix.


TABLE 4. Gonkulator ET-MPH table with Top Gun cars added
0. 13.53 at 104.3 $3800 Fairlane 427/425 4spd (it really does hand the others their @$$.)
0. 13.69 at 103.6 $3380 SS396/375 4speed
0. 13.78 at 102.6 $3740 GTX Hemi 426/425 4spd (yes, even the overweight Hemi)
0. 13.93 at 100.2 $3310 442 Coupe 400/360w30 4speed
0. 13.99 at 101.1 $3540 GTO 400/360 ra1 4speed
4. 14.25 at   97.2 $3280 SS396/350 4speed
1. 14.49 at   95.8 $3430 GTX 440/375 auto
5. 14.50 at   95.7 $3450 R/T 440/375 auto
0. 14.74 at   94.6 $3280 SS396/350 auto (the “Base” car they should have tested)
3. 14.82 at   93.4 $3320 GTO 400/360ho auto
7. 14.92 at   92.3 $3300 Buick GS 400/340 auto
6. 15.03 at   91.2 $3680 442 Conv 400/350 auto
2. 15.08 at   91.8 $3260 Cyclone 390/320 auto
8. 15.18 at   91.3 $3100 GTA 390/320 auto
0. 15.71 at   87.6 $3210 Rebel 343/280 auto (AMC’s real muscle car)
9. 17.42 at   77.9 $2920 Rebel 290/200 auto

This Gonkulator table makes at least 3 points
1.   If you want an apples-apples study, at least decide which apples. Are you comparing BASE engines, or TOP GUN engines, or same-cost cars?
2.   Whatever the case, try to make sure the table numbers match the text and aren’t mixed up. SADLY THE ARTICLE AS PRINTED JUST CANT BE TRUSTED, TOO MANY MIXED UP NUMBERS. All we can do is “guess” as I tried to do here.
3.   Ford really did have the Top Gun car in 1966-67, they just decided not to make any, and not to offer a warranty on the few dozen cars they did make. And they didn’t offer any midrange option either like eg a 390HO or 390CobraJet. It doesn’t really affect us TODAY (or even the Day-2 people back then like Ken et al) but it sure affected Ford’s reputation back then. 

[Falcon67]

>Ford inadvertently gave up the "youth market" back in the mid 50s.
More like deliberately.  One word "McNamara"

"McNamara was never the archetypal Detroit auto executive. While most of the Motown elite chose to live in leafy, mansion-filled suburbs like Grosse Pointe, McNamara preferred the more relaxed campus-town atmosphere of Ann Arbor, home of the University of Michigan. And he had difficulty in regarding the automobile as anything more than mere transport. He was most certainly not a car guy."

“He wore granny glasses, and he put out a granny car.” That’s how one auto writer, quoted in Robert Lacey’s excellent 1986 book, Ford, summed up Robert S. McNamara’s tenure at Ford Motor Company.

[RJP]

McNamara...Worst thing to happen to Ford Motor Co and the worst thing to happen to the country. 58K people would attest to that IF they could speak. Werby, We have the luxury of computer to digest all the info over a 50+ year span as you have done for so many years with your Gonkulator. The main gist of the Crazy Comparo was that these cars were typical showroom floor models that the average shulb could buy without a COPO. You use the 375 h.p./396 as a typical model but that IIRC was the same engine option that was in the 425h.p. 396 Corvette right down to the aluminum hirise intake manifold, 3310 780 Holley, solid lifter camshaft among the other pieces that separate it from the std. 350 h.p./396 [Accually I thought the std. SS 396 Chevelle engine option was the 325h.p./396] But as stated that was 51 years ago and my memory is not what it was and add the fact that I didn't follow GM/Mopar as much as I followed Ford. 50 years ago I wondered why Ford did not offer a 390 option to compete with GM and Mopar with all the parts they had on the shelves at that time and without having to resort to the 428. In fact a few key pieces with a couple of modern upgrades from the 375h.p. 390 offered in 1961 would have been plenty enough to compete with the Chevelle 375 h.p./396 Upgrades: 735 Holley, a slightly bigger camshaft than the .479"/276 that was in the 375/401 h.p. 390 and a decent exhaust system, all without getting into the long block. But as the old saying goes....Woulda, shoulda coulda, that and buck will get you a cup of coffee.   

[fryedaddy]

maybe the results of the 320 hp cyclone vs fairlane was a traction difference the rear of the cyclone is much longer than the fairlane,with skinny tires that could be the diff.

[WerbyFord]

See above, I cleaned up that loooooooooong post about the “Crazy Comparo”.
(Seems we spend a lot of time defending the 390gt. We SHOULD!)

Since my bottom line is, “you cant trust the numbers in the Crazy Comparo”, I wanted to find a better way. There are just under 3000 road-test results in my database so I figured, ok, what do those tell us? We all know the caveats about “period road tests”.
•   I decided to rank-order the AVERAGE road test MPH of all the “BASE” Muscle Car big block engines that existed in 1966-67.
•   I then added a table of MPH of all the “OPTION” engines.
•   I tried to screen out anybody running headers, a Bobcat, or an H&M car etc.
•   I included “N”, the number of road tests. N=4-6 usually starts to give a good idea of how an engine is doing. Of course, the more the better. BTW, there is no “magic” statistical number like “N=22” or something. More “N” is better, period.
•   I split out some of the engines by mt (3-4spd manual) or at (2-3spd auto) but did not separate them by bling options, eating habits of passengers, weather, etc.

Bottom Line:
As you can see in the table, the good old 390GT does pretty doggone good. It is near the top of the BASE Muscle Car engines. Only the L35 and the 400olds442 beat it, and not by much. The real dogs on this list are the base 389-gto (because it usually came with a powerglide) and the Mopar 383 (pre-road-runner that is).

You can take a single road test of any engine (even in a comparo) and conclude that it’s “the best” or “a dog”. But once you have several of each type (always wish I had more), the trends start coming out.

Similarly, we can all take our 390gt home and make it turn 100+ mph “stock”. Sure. So can all the Brand X people. But the averages don’t show that. Or somebody does a test with a plug wire off. Again, if the number of tests “N” is high enough that averages out.

I have stated that the Gonkulator says the 390gt didn’t make its ratings – it’s down about 20 Ponies from those ratings. But so is a lot of the Brand X stuff, and that shows up when you compare MPH.

So the 390GT did good.

Until we look higher, at the list of OPTION Muscle Car engines. Doggone it. Everybody serious (ie except Buick and Ford) had one or more OPTIONS. And they ran good.

You can see why I tried to filter out stuff like Bobcats and H&M’s. The single N=1 test of a 389ra744 (66-1/2 “XS” GTO, 389/360-6v, ram air, “744” cam, 190 factory cars near the end of 1966) sure did run good. Yup, it’s a Royal Bobcat. Great example of cars to leave out. Maybe all 190 of em were Bobcats, I don’t know GTO history that well.

Oh, there’s the Ford option. Two tests of the 427 Fairlane. One with a C-6 (WTF), and a doggy 4-speed that ONLY turned 100mph in Hot Rod Mag. Not that it matters, you couldn’t get a 427 Fairlane anyway except in the magazine ads. But it shows Ford street apathy. Pontiac made sure that RA744 car was a Bobcat, set up right. Did Ford do the same for their lone road test of the 427 Fairlane? Nope. Too busy working on the Tunnel Port I guess. And of course, we couldn’t get that either. Ford didn’t seem to care that their (unavailable, no-warranty) 427 Fairlane only ran 100mph. I know, it has that kinda crappy exhaust iron, but still, 433ghp (Gonkulator with the AA-cam) ought to push a 3500 lb Fairlane faster than that!

The 390GT did a great job as a BASE option, and is the best looking car of the bunch by far. It’s not an opinion, the numbers show it. 

[WerbyFord]

PART 2 of "Average Of All Road Tests" - Comparing to the Gonkulator

Here is Table 2. Same as the one I just posted with some more numbers on it.
Chevy Chase as President Ford, 1976, on SNL Presidential Debate:
“It was my understanding, there would be no math”

I added Gonkulator “Muscle Car Shootout” rules cars to the Road Test results.
Same numbers, MPH for all, mt, at cars.
Last 3 columns have the difference in MPH, Gonkulator vs Road Test average.
Pretty close, I was actually surprised, given what we all know about period Road Tests.
(The Gonkulator “Muscle Code Shootout” cars are all equipped the same – no options, 300 lb payload, “typical day at Milan” weather, 3.70mt or 3.50at gears, dual “loose for the day” muffs of the largest pipe that will hook to the iron manifolds, traction is a straight “percent of rear weight” formula, etc)
I yellow-shaded 3 big discrepancies:
•   The 389 “744XS” GTO, easy, it was a Bobcat (or more). It was NOT 4mph faster than the Hemi, I think we’d all agree on that.
•   The L78 tests – N=12 but in general they all run sick. That is not what happened in NHRA for sure. NHRA had to factor the L78 back up to 425hp so the poor Mopars could keep up. Why was it so sick in road tests? I think they all either ran the Black Holley Spring, or had the secondary locked out for Safety (same effect).
•   The 389-4v standard GTO. Again, these were usually bolted to a powerglide and often loaded with accessories, so the results are skewed accordingly. I don’t think I ever heard of a Royal 4bbl GTO, whereas quite a few of the Tripowers tested were Royals.

With a few exceptions, the Gonkulator results compare well with the period Road Tests.

So we can see the problem. Yes the 390GT did quite well as a BASE engine. But Ford didn’t offer any OPTION engines. And when Hot Rod did get hold of a 427 by some miracle, it only ran 100mph and Ford didn’t seem to care. They didn’t ‘get it’ until 1968-1/2, but that’s another thread!

EDIT: I updated the Attachment Table 2 July. Lots of numbers but worth a look I think.

[BruceS]

The Fairlane Club magazine, The Fairlaner published some years back the production numbers for '67 Fairlane and Comet 427 cars. The numbers were obtained from Kevin Marti.  I don't remember all the #s, but the total was 289 for all Fairlane and Comet body styles, 4V and 8V.  Fairlane to Comet ratio was about 10:1 IIRC. So Werby you're correct, Ford didn't make many and my guess is because they lost $$$ on each one. 

[TomP]

60 Comets , right? So 229 Fairlanes? I thought there were more. That is a pretty small percentage of dealerships that would have even got one.

[BruceS]

As I recall it was about 30 Comets +/- so 250 or so Fairlanes, still a small number.  For '66 the generally accepted number is 57 as documented in a letter from Ford to the NHRA.  A friend of mine owns one of the 66s and has seen a copy of the letter.  He also has a Raven Black '67 so I'm doubly jealous 

[WerbyFord]

The Fairlane Club magazine, The Fairlaner published some years back the production numbers for '67 Fairlane and Comet 427 cars. The numbers were obtained from Kevin Marti.  I don't remember all the #s, but the total was 289 for all Fairlane and Comet body styles, 4V and 8V.  Fairlane to Comet ratio was about 10:1 IIRC. So Werby you're correct, Ford didn't make many and my guess is because they lost $$$ on each one.

The "289" is consistent with what I have gleaned:
66 = 57 Fairlanes
67 = 209 Fairlane 8v, 20 Fairlane 4v, 60 Comet 8v = 289 total

TOP OPTION:
During 1966-67, Chevy made just under 5000 L78 Cars (Chevelle, Camaro).
Mopar made over 3700 Hemi cars.
Pontiac made right around 1000 RamAir cars in 1966-67, so they didn't grow on trees but they meet my "1000" threshold for "you could get one".

MIDDLE OPTION:
Ford had none (the 390gt was the base engine, no available option).
Chevy made over 90,000 middle-option1966-67 L34 cars.
Mopar did not have a middle option for 1966, but sent over 20,000 440 Mag cars out in 1967.
Pontiac made over 32,000 middle option 1966-67 cars (389-Tripower-HO and 400HO)

This is why I think we tend to lean on the 390GT in an unfair way sometimes - it did very well at its INTENDED role, but given the overwhelming numbers of Brand X Middle Option and Top Option cars, the "Base Engine" role wasn't that relevant.

Right now I think Ford is making the OPPOSITE mistake. They've put way too much into making the Mustang compete with Camaro, Challenger, Corvette. All the effort and enthusiasm is in the Mustang, and of course the Patton Tank (er, F-series). As a result, they are losing the rest of their car lines. Werby's Wife would be perfectly happy with a Mustang that "only" ran high-15s (like our 64 Mustang) but was $5000 cheaper than the hot rod v6 base engine. She just wants the Mustang "look", as do so many million customers.

At least in the dark days (to us) of 1966-68, Ford knew its bread & butter market was six-cylinder and 2-barrel Mustangs and Z-code Galaxies (and 2-barrel trucks that made 200hp on a good day, but weighed UNDER 4000 lb). In that sense I don't blame them TOO much for not making too many loss-leader 427 cars. They did fall down a little with no "Middle Option", but then again, they had no good exhaust iron, no bigger hydraulic cam, and their only performance intakes were high-dollar aluminum. Can we blame them for not using parts that didn't exist yet? Well, a little bit I guess.

BTW speaking of options, I updated the Table Attachment (Reply #21 above) today. Always looking for more period road tests.

[fryedaddy]

it might be the dark years for performance,but i think some of ford and mercurys best looking muscle cars came from 66-681/2.i havent heard anyone mention that. the fairlane,mustang and comets of those years are dear to my heart.

[WerbyFord]

it might be the dark years for performance,but i think some of ford and mercurys best looking muscle cars came from 66-681/2.i havent heard anyone mention that. the fairlane,mustang and comets of those years are dear to my heart.

Agreed - I did mention above - "390GT the best looking cars of the bunch by far" - I did grow up Ford but even trying to be unbiased, Ford had some beautiful styling all thru the Muscle-60s, from the early Galaxies to the fastback Cyclones and in between.

The best unbiased proof I like to point out is this: The Camaro and Mustang are both still popular, new and old. But look at the cars the Models use in eg Vogue, InStyle, the other mags Werby's Wife gets. You NEVER see a Camaro - they always want to pose with a vintage Mustang. Music videos, same way. You'll see GUY music videos starring an old Camaro, but what do WE know? If its a GAL music video, the famous Carly Rae "Call Me Maybe" etc, the star is a Mustang, not a Camaro. That's as unbiased as it gets.

I've also noted elsewhere - I think styling and reliability were priorities at Ford (eg the C4, C6, 9" rear, good wiring plugs, small cams that were decent on gas & didn't fould the plugs, etc) at the expense of engines. Good choice! We can get better cylinder heads and bigger cams today, but you cant change the style of a car. 

[preaction]

I hate to remember FORD, Found on road dead.

[TomP]

[quote author=WerbyFord link=topic=6121.msg67455#msg67455 date=153101105

The best unbiased proof I like to point out is this: The Camaro and Mustang are both still popular, new and old. But look at the cars the Models use in eg Vogue, InStyle, the other mags Werby's Wife gets. You NEVER see a Camaro - they always want to pose with a vintage Mustang. Music videos, same way. You'll see GUY music videos starring an old Camaro, but what do WE know? If its a GAL music video, the famous Carly Rae "Call Me Maybe" etc, the star is a Mustang, not a Camaro. That's as unbiased as it gets.
[/quote]

Carly Rae is local, never seen the video but may be a local car.