Author Topic: Why?  (Read 2979 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sanddoc

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Why?
« on: August 11, 2018, 12:55:58 PM »
OK, I have not seen this answered and it bothers me, so I know someone on this site
has the correct answer.
  Why did Ford build the FE with the intake under the valve cover?

The family had a 62 ford wagon with a 352  and I've been thinking about that.
I just saw a 65 cobra replica  with an original 63 427 FE   which I think is pretty rare
Best

67xr7cat

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 315
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2018, 01:32:46 PM »
To allow a smoother transition of the intake port to the head. Was suppose to have benefit mainly on a cold start to help keep the fuel from separating from the air or so the story goes...

stroked67

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2018, 01:39:04 PM »
Ive thought about it on and off for 10 years now, only thing i can think of is it gives the air/fuel that much longer to properly mix before any disturbances in its path to combustion chamber were encountered.

WConley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
  • No longer walking funny!
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2018, 05:14:55 PM »
The design also allows you to package under a lower hood.  I remember reading about that in an original SAE paper on the FE design.

Think about it...  The head intake face is pretty tall and sits at a 45 degree angle.  For every inch you move that intake face inward, it moves up an inch.  When you transition to the intake you turn roughly horizontal - no more height increase.

Sure the carb and air cleaner are taller, but that's in the center where a hood is naturally taller.  In the later fifties car design was moving toward lower, longer designs and the FE package supports this.
A careful study of failure will yield the ingredients for success.

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2018, 05:23:57 PM »
2X to Bill's statement but I'll add: performance.

I do believe they were looking ahead to short (dirt) and long (paved) track racing (nee: NASCAR) where Ford was going neck-to-neck with other brands. Even way back them, aluminum intakes, if offered, were legal and as we all know, cut a ton of unneeded weight off the front end (and overall weight). The older 292-312 series of engines was being surpassed by more modern (read: GM's Pontiac) designs of the later 50's and 60's as well as Chrysler's effort. JMO!   
« Last Edit: August 11, 2018, 05:29:46 PM by machoneman »
Bob Maag

RJP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2018, 12:09:36 PM »
I don't believe performance played much if any role in the overall design of the FE. Since it usually took 38 to 42 months to bring a engine to production. From a clean sheet of paper to the actual approval by management  to the actual casting, machining and assembly of parts consider this: the actual sales of cars with FEs [Edsel] started early Sept. 1957 that means design started in or about June 1954 at the latest. It could have been as early as mid/late 1953. NASCAR was nothing more than a bunch of ex bootleggers who's existence was hardly a blip of any of the big three's radar. Ford saw that with higher octane gasoline being made available that would allow higher compression ratios and saw a need for larger displacement engines for heavier cars and trucks and the opening of the new interstate highway system a new design was needed to stay competitive with GM and Chrysler. About the only factory supported racing efforts was the Pan American [Mexican] road race that was dominated by the factory backed Lincolns in their class with the 317" Lincoln version of a Y block in 1952-53-54. I do agree with Bill that the FE design was more for lower hood profiles, more torque, better fuel mileage along with a more modern design that was to take Ford into the late 60s with the average engine design life span of about 15 to 20 years.  Anyone older than 60 years old should remember the advertising slogans... "Longer, Lower, Wider" was the typical advertising theme of the mid to late 50s.       

Barry_R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1915
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: Why?
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2018, 01:37:59 PM »
The design also allows you to package under a lower hood.  I remember reading about that in an original SAE paper on the FE design.


I suspect this was the entire reason for it.  Similar to the Olds V8, a really wide intake could conceivably allow you to have the carb mounting in a virtual depression into the lifter valley - the air filter assembly might only need to be nearly the same height as the valve covers.

Royce

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 777
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #7 on: August 12, 2018, 07:16:56 PM »
Take a look at the other engine introduced in 58.  The MEL..  It has large ports, but the plenum is actually below the entrance to the head. 4 of the runners have to go uphill. Same problem on 56 and 57 Lincolns with the 368 Y block.  The carb pad on the intake is lower than the tops of the runners.  With the tall Y block design and the tall deck height of the engine, low manifolds were necessary for hood clearance..
1955 Thunderbird Competition Coupe Altered Chassis "War Bird" 383 Lincoln Y block 520 hp
1955 Thunderbird 292 275 hp Y Block
1956 Ford Victoria 292 Y block

1957 Mercury 2dr Wagon "Battle Wagon" drag car 
1957 Thunderbird Glass body Tube Chassis drag car 333 cu in 500 hp Ford Y block
1961 Starliner 390/375 clone
1965 GT40 tribute w/FE
1966 Falcon Pro Touring project
Kaase Boss 547. 840 HP 698 Torque  pump gas
1992 BMW V-12 5.0
2001 Lincoln 5.4 4 cam.
1968 Cougar XR7

mbrunson427

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 921
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2018, 10:59:53 AM »
I read an old Hot Rod article on this. I forget where I put the image of it.....

Cliff notes version of what the article said: With smaller noses of the cars starting in the early 60's hood clearance became an issue. The FE's intake allows for tighter hood clearance without the intake path having a hump in it, potentially causing "fuel pooling".

I'm not totally sure about the fuel issue, but I know that having the intake path come back uphill is never a good deal.
Mike Brunson
BrunsonPerformance.com

BattlestarGalactic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1296
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2018, 12:35:38 PM »
Friend had Ebok dual quad intake for his pontiac many years ago.   The runners were "W" shaped due to low mounting surface of carbs.  It ran for crap on the street, likely due to fuel issues like mentioned? 
Larry

FrozenMerc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2018, 01:05:18 PM »
The design lived beyond the FE.  The 3.0L Vulcan V6's that Ford used from 1986 to 2008 also had a similar design.  The Vulcan was a "clean sheet" design, but had a whole bunch of FE similarities.  Of course the FE had only been out of production for a few years when Ford started on the Vulcan V6, so it was likely still fresh in a few of the designers minds.



« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 01:16:07 PM by FrozenMerc »

gdaddy01

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2018, 02:56:07 PM »
I had a 74 mustang II with 2.8 ,171 c.i. had the intake like that , German design I think .

FERoadster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 492
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2018, 11:48:58 PM »
Ford also got around the lower intake (and coolant passages)  by using the surge tank. That was 15+ years (58 T-Bird) before GM had to put one on the 1963 Vette due the the filler needing to be above the top of the radiator.

I' just like the Surge tank idea and look of the unique Ford  and specifically FE's

Richard >>> FERoadster

babybolt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 516
    • View Profile
Re: Why?
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2018, 11:32:01 AM »
The Ford stylists were notorious for hammering down the wood dowel in the center of the hood of the full size clay bucks.  The dowel represented the air cleaner stud height and location.  Back then they wanted a low long hood for looks.   That's one reason you would see big cubic engines with short air cleaners back then.

Also there was a train of thought in the 60's that low hoods were more aerodynamic, and you can see this in the Boss 429 spider Nascar intakes that had a relatively low carb pad height.

Or maybe they wanted low hoods for little old short ladies who could barely see over the steering wheel.