Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've been trying to put together plans for my project car which is my 62 fairlane. This is the first car I've had the privilege of working on and building and i was hoping to get some pointers on which engine, transmission, and other parts i should get for the car if my end goal for horsepower is a reliable 350-400 rwhp. Currently its all stock and has a 221ci v8 which has issues so i plan to swap. Thanks in advance for any help i may receive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
I've been trying to put together plans for my project car which is my 62 fairlane. This is the first car I've had the privilege of working on and building and i was hoping to get some pointers on which engine, transmission, and other parts i should get for the car if my end goal for horsepower is a reliable 350-400 rwhp. Currently its all stock and has a 221ci v8 which has issues so i plan to swap. Thanks in advance for any help i may receive.
If you want to stay carbureted, the 1985 Mustang GT was one of the first 5.0 factory roller camshaft. Don't know for sure if other models had the roller or not. I built one that was very streetable in a 1976 Cobra II with a 4 bbl. Ran low 12's high 11's and drove on the street all the time. Not sure if that car / engine came only with the 5 speed or not. I had a 4 speed toploader in mine.

Here is a link from "150 Trucks" on 5.0 / 302 engines that may be of interest to you. It is an old thread.

5.0/302 Ford Engines
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
If you want low end grunt and still a drivable car, I am totally sold on the 4r70w transmission. Ultra low first gear and 0.70 overdrive with lockup converter on the top end.

My car is about the same as the 62 Fairlane and a GT40P with EFI fits under the hood too so you are not limited to carburetors.

One thing about these cars is the limited availability of headers. I think you would have better luck with aluminum heads to make that kind of power and there are several headers available without cutting the shock towers. Not sure on what is sacred to you or if you are ok with "frame" mods but I did mine without cutting any early metal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colt Mac

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
I should add - I am not making 400rwhp. Just stock everything from a 1997 Mountaineer which was 215. Just saying the stuff physically fits. You may need to cut the shock towers to get all the goodies you need to make 400.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,086 Posts
Headers are a big problem trying to make 400 rwhp, making 500 at the crank with 1 5/8" will be a problem.

You could go with a 460 and some trimming of the shock towers but headers are a problem there also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Black Cherry does not really give us enough information to give informed or definitive answers. There are a couple of things we can assume from experience or from easily googled data. The difference between flywheel HP and rear wheel HP is wide and varied because of huge differences in drive trains including torque convertors and or the type of transmission be it an automatic or a standard. The percentage difference can be anywhere from 13% to 28% FWHP vs. RWHP and that is still fluid. If we use 15%, and he wants 400 at the rear, we should be able to assume he would need 460 at the flywheel. The reason I referred to my 5.0/302 was because it was mentioned in comment #3 in this thread.

From my own experience, a Ford small block can be installed with 1 5/8 headers without cutting metal. I did it in the Mustang II I referenced in a comment above. To make another assumption, that with todays technology, a 1.5 HP per cubic inch should be relatively easy to obtain. If you divide 460 by 1.5, a 030 over 302 is the infamous 306. That incidentally was the size of my Cobra II motor.

Since all of this is just words anyway, a 302 stroked to 331 with AFR heads and the right cam / valvetrain / induction components to all match the combination, It is my opinion the OP could obtain his RWHP goal in his stock '62 Fairlane engine compartment without cutting sheet metal. He never talked budget, but $8 to $12,000 is probably realistic if 400 HP at the rear is what he truly wants. I have heard it said "Horsepower is cheap, strength costs money". That is a consideration for the OP depending on what he wants to use his '62 Fairlane for.

I love the 460 BBF, but it is not as simple an install as it is to say, "Just put a 460 in it!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
Black Cherry does not really give us enough information to give informed or definitive answers. There are a couple of things we can assume from experience or from easily googled data. The difference between flywheel HP and rear wheel HP is wide and varied because of huge differences in drive trains including torque convertors and or the type of transmission be it an automatic or a standard. The percentage difference can be anywhere from 13% to 28% FWHP vs. RWHP and that is still fluid. If we use 15%, and he wants 400 at the rear, we should be able to assume he would need 460 at the flywheel. The reason I referred to my 5.0/302 was because it was mentioned in comment #3 in this thread.

From my own experience, a Ford small block can be installed with 1 5/8 headers without cutting metal. I did it in the Mustang II I referenced in a comment above. To make another assumption, that with todays technology, a 1.5 HP per cubic inch should be relatively easy to obtain. If you divide 460 by 1.5, a 030 over 302 is the infamous 306. That incidentally was the size of my Cobra II motor.

Since all of this is just words anyway, a 302 stroked to 331 with AFR heads and the right cam / valvetrain / induction components to all match the combination, It is my opinion the OP could obtain his RWHP goal in his stock '62 Fairlane engine compartment without cutting sheet metal. He never talked budget, but $8 to $12,000 is probably realistic if 400 HP at the rear is what he truly wants. I have heard it said "Horsepower is cheap, strength costs money". That is a consideration for the OP depending on what he wants to use his '62 Fairlane for.

I love the 460 BBF, but it is not as simple an install as it is to say, "Just put a 460 in it!"
62 and 63 Fairlane/Meteor have some additional reinforcing in the shock towers that the later Fords do not have. Few header options for these bodies without the surgery.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
62 and 63 Fairlane/Meteor have some additional reinforcing in the shock towers that the later Fords do not have. Few header options for these bodies without the surgery.
I have never installed a set of headers on a 1962 Fairlane, so you have me there. I have installed headers on a myriad of other cars and almost all aftermarket long tubes I have messed with needed some modification. A true "bolt-on" is rarely a bolt on in the automotive performance world. I'm sure you already knew that. I'm not looking to troll or argue, I was just trying to add some insight to the original posters comment/question. I have been around long enough and modified enough cars that I often wonder when a poster asks a generic question like "I have a"...."What do you recommend?" Do they have any idea of the effort and amount of money it takes to put 400 HP at the rear wheels of anything.

Aside from that, I have a 1962 and a 1964 Fairlane 2 door sedan.

I did a quick internet search and there are at least 6 manufactures, name brands, (Hooker, Headman, Doug's, etc.) that make headers both shorty's and long tubes for a small block '62 Fairlane. Some have asterisks "no C-6". Will they bolt right on? probably not. Are they expensive? If coated, yes.

Again, If the OP wants 400 RWHP, 1 5/8 headers are the least of his problems.

I am not a robot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
I think we are in agreement in trying to get the OP to consider the level of commitment to the HP target.

Agree, 400 at the wheels is expensive and time consuming. I was just adding that another commitment to consider was whether to cut up early metal. I am obviously not a purist, but my commitment was not to cut and I wanted to use the GT40P/4R70W combination. I fabricated many pieces to accomplish this and power-to-the-ground was low on the list of priorities with the time and money I was willing to commit.

As you stated, there is a lot to consider besides headers. "At the rear wheels", means factoring in the losses you brought up and also selecting/designing a drive train and chassis that will stand up to the stresses. Also modifying components and the chassis to accept each other. 100% with you on that.

True, many come in with "what do you recommend" and also "this is my first project". I try to get them to define their "must haves" and their constraints. Cutting up the chassis is a decision to make early and will drive other decisions like cutting the floor pan for transmission /shifter options, welding in a cage and/or subframe connectors, a 4 link, etc.

True, there are header options for this combination but not like there are for a Mustang, Galaxie, Falcon, or a Fox body. Cutting the shock towers increase your options for headers.

BTW - I know 62/63 have the shock tower reinforcements and I believe the 65 does not. Does your 64 have the same shock towers as your 62?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colt Mac

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
I think we are in agreement in trying to get the OP to consider the level of commitment to the HP target.

Agree, 400 at the wheels is expensive and time consuming. I was just adding that another commitment to consider was whether to cut up early metal. I am obviously not a purist, but my commitment was not to cut and I wanted to use the GT40P/4R70W combination. I fabricated many pieces to accomplish this and power-to-the-ground was low on the list of priorities with the time and money I was willing to commit.

As you stated, there is a lot to consider besides headers. "At the rear wheels", means factoring in the losses you brought up and also selecting/designing a drive train and chassis that will stand up to the stresses. Also modifying components and the chassis to accept each other. 100% with you on that.

True, many come in with "what do you recommend" and also "this is my first project". I try to get them to define their "must haves" and their constraints. Cutting up the chassis is a decision to make early and will drive other decisions like cutting the floor pan for transmission /shifter options, welding in a cage and/or subframe connectors, a 4 link, etc.

True, there are header options for this combination but not like there are for a Mustang, Galaxie, Falcon, or a Fox body. Cutting the shock towers increase your options for headers.

BTW - I know 62/63 have the shock tower reinforcements and I believe the 65 does not. Does your 64 have the same shock towers as your 62?
The top picture is the '64 and the bottom picture is the '62.
168745


168746
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,086 Posts
I get a kick from the response about the mustang 2, it is a fact that 1 5/8" mustang 2 headers and early Fairlane 1 5/8" are probably not an equal comparison, mustang 2 has a wide engine bay the Fairlane does not. If infact you new what you're talking about you would know that dyno sheet's can only be compared to other dyno runs on the same dyno by the same operator to have any validity. I also chuckle that he thinks he is the only one that knows anything. The difference depending on the engine between 1 5/8" headers and 1 3/4" can be 20 to 35 hp. on top of the difference between crank and rwhp. My comment about the 460 was totally based on cutting shock towers, me personally if I were to cut my Fairlane I would not stop at a 351 and build for CID., a 460+.
What most skip or don't even understand is wrhp is a package deal , headers, converter, transmission, drive shaft and rear axle and gear ratio all have an impact on rwhp. So talking about a mustang 2 is erelevant, you need to talk about the vehicle that is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
I get a kick from the response about the mustang 2, it is a fact that 1 5/8" mustang 2 headers and early Fairlane 1 5/8" are probably not an equal comparison, mustang 2 has a wide engine bay the Fairlane does not. If infact you new what you're talking about you would know that dyno sheet's can only be compared to other dyno runs on the same dyno by the same operator to have any validity. I also chuckle that he thinks he is the only one that knows anything. The difference depending on the engine between 1 5/8" headers and 1 3/4" can be 20 to 35 hp. on top of the difference between crank and rwhp. My comment about the 460 was totally based on cutting shock towers, me personally if I were to cut my Fairlane I would not stop at a 351 and build for CID., a 460+.
What most skip or don't even understand is wrhp is a package deal , headers, converter, transmission, drive shaft and rear axle and gear ratio all have an impact on rwhp. So talking about a mustang 2 is erelevant, you need to talk about the vehicle that is.
#1 engine bay width also includes the space between the frame rails. If you knew what you were talking about you would know it's a 'mother' to try and get 1 5/8 long tubes down between the frame rails of a Mustang II. #2. I believe you can read 'cause it looks like you can write. It is reading comprehension that is your problem. Most of my comments did not compare the Fairlane and the Mustang II. #3. I never said anything about dynos. I also said that the 13-28% spread between FWHP and RWHP is fluid. That means it can be different. #4. You want to argue...I think the real reason you are pissed at me is because I dissed the idea of the 460 you mentioned. You indicate in your comments you would consider or like to have a 460+ in your Fairlane. Yet you don't. Probably because you know what it would take to cut the towers and don't have the knowledge or the balls to do so. Yet, and yet, you would recommend that to a newbie. You got into talking about my lack of knowledge and that I was ignorant. I rarely get into name calling, but you are an idiot. I registered on here 7 years ago and have now made 40 some comments. People like you are the reason I stay away from responding on forums. I only did so because "Ford Muscle" sent me a notification that included a post about a 1962 Fairlane and I happen to own one. If I knew I would run into a jerk like you I would have not responded and will probably wait another 6 years before doing so.
168748
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,086 Posts
Reading comprehension is just fine, your the one making the great comparison of the mustang and power numbers.
I will do a comparison of the engine dyno and the chassis dyno, like I said before results between two dynos is erelevant let alone two types of dynos. You can't give exact power loss or percentage between the two and say it's exact, you would need a number of comparisons and the more the better to even have a range.
Like I've said you think you know but your knowledge is corrupt with ignorance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Reading comprehension is just fine, your the one making the great comparison of the mustang and power numbers.
I will do a comparison of the engine dyno and the chassis dyno, like I said before results between two dynos is erelevant let alone two types of dynos. You can't give exact power loss or percentage between the two and say it's exact, you would need a number of comparisons and the more the better to even have a range.
Like I've said you think you know but your knowledge is corrupt with ignorance.
Like I said before. I said everything you just stated in my previous comments. You no comprende'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
OK @BlackCherry1962, how deep are your pockets and your commitment to 400 at the rear - better yet, 400 to the ground? My car is roasting a single tire with a 3.0 open diff and less than half that power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colt Mac

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
I've been trying to put together plans for my project car which is my 62 fairlane. This is the first car I've had the privilege of working on and building and i was hoping to get some pointers on which engine, transmission, and other parts i should get for the car if my end goal for horsepower is a reliable 350-400 rwhp. Currently its all stock and has a 221ci v8 which has issues so i plan to swap. Thanks in advance for any help i may receive.
By the way... the 5.0/302 has the same external dimensions as your 221. I believe the 221 was the seed that eventually became the 5.0. Some would say a "Power House" in a small block configuration. The 221 eventually became a 260, 289, 302/5.0. The 351 was still considered a small block, but in fact was a little wider than the 302. The 351 had a taller block than the 302. The taller block was considered a requirement by Ford to accommodate the longer stroke of the 351. The taller block spread the distance between the heads, making the configuration wider than the sister 302. One of the problems with modifying the shock towers even if you don't remove them entirely, is it will weaken the tower itself. You will notice, almost all Fords built with the shock tower suspension, have supporting bars that bolt from the tower to the firewall. When horsepower enthusiasts got involved with their Mustangs and Fairlanes, they realized quickly that the towers required more support and usually added a crossbar (over the engine) to give more support to the towers.

I love the 460 or BBF motor, as I said before. I was going to put a 460 (521) in my 64 Fairlane. The reason I dissed that idea in my earlier comments for your situation is because you almost always have to remove the shock towers. When you remove the shock towers you would have to plan on a completely different suspension system. Most consider the Mustang II type suspension that doesn't require towers. You would need to beef your frame rails and add the MII type crossmember to accommodate the upper and lower control arms and add the rack and pinion steering. This is not a bad set up, but since you implied you are kinda new to all this, I didn't think you wanted to get this deep in fabrication.

The 302/5.0 will support the amount of horsepower you indicated in your opening post. When you start adding horsepower to a unitized body, (No frame) you will need to consider beefing the body. In particular starting with subframe connectors. You will need an upgraded (beefed) transmission, u-joints, driveshaft and rear differential.

It doesn't end there. If in fact you have a small block Ford engine that develops 450-460 flywheel horsepower, you will need traction. It might include Caltracs, (look up Calvert Racing) wider sticker tires, mini tubs and on and on.

Having said all of that, you might be better off to start with a mild 5.0, something in the 300-350 horsepower range and learn from there. It is the one and only thing that commenter 'Iowan' said "5..0 and a C4 fit easily" that makes any sense.

The first thing you need is a budget, a real one, and then add 20-25% to that. Being honest with yourself and reasonable with your dreams can make building a car a lot of fun. You could also start out too big and have a car apart in your garage for 3,4,5 years and it be a nightmare. Ask me how I know? Good luck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts

Nice 1964. 425hp
This guy, "Turbo Fairlane" is quite the innovator. This is the epitome of the DIY fabricator / Hot Rod / creator of days past. Making something fabulous out of what you have. This is the way hot rods were created in the 50's. You just didn't call up Jegs or Summit and order bolt on goodies. You made what you had available, work and if you didn't have it, you found it. Fantastic job.

Given enough money and equipment almost anyone can build something like a 'Chip Foose Overhaulin project' on Motor Trend. In my opinion this guy with the turbo Fairlane shows more skill and genius then you will see on Motor Trend. Ian from 'Full Custom' may be the exception and or 'Bad Chad Customs'

EDIT: Mercury4me, thanks for posting.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top