428 cj
 

hey cj guys! doesn't that feel good saying you own a cj!!! heres a question for ya. i have a 69 cj mach1 4 speed car 60200 orig miles. but what was wondering is i know ford underated the cj for insurace reasons but what is actual hp i KNOW its not 335 and what is the torque rating. also they had to make a c6 special for the cj for torque so... any cool sites on these cars?

This site has many intresting facts about the Cobra Jet engine. Hope its useful to you. http://www.geocities.com/~jhuntley/428cj.html

I love to say a own a 428cj. I by far think the 69 428cj is the coolest thing ford ever made. I love to drive my car everyone just stares at it as I fly by them. One intersting site is 428cj registry. It dosen't have much but it is a place to registor ur 428cj.

------------------
69 428 cobra jet:bored .030, forged aluminum pistons, C & A rings, Engle cam, Edelbrock intake, 750 cmf carb, Hooker headers, March pullies, all ignition componets MSD, Holley 7psi fuel pump, Art Carr C-6, TCI torque converter, 4:30 gears, H pipe, subframe connectors, lift bars.

I aso have a stock 96 GT.

As much as it pains me to tell you, they were actually OVER-RATED by todays standards. In the September issue of Mustang Monthly, they dyno tested an example of all the big blocks, with an exception of the 427. The Cobra Jet put out 237hp and 337ft/lbs of torque. This was from a refurbished 428, so it wasn't tired, and according to the article the tune was right on. The new 4.6 put out 244hp. Don't feel too bad though, my beloved S-Code only put out 165hp.

thanks for the response, i dont see how 237 hp 337 torque could come out of 428 cubes 10.5 compression 427 medium riser heads and huge valves, and go 0 -60 in 5.8 tires smokin and if it kept up with 425 horse 454 everybodys hp ratings are off. my 428 is no dog, and i also have 4 mustang 5 litres and theres no comparison 60's cars rule.........

I agree, 5.0s are nice, but muscle cars make you feel better, even if they aren't quite as fast or cost a lot to keep up.

------------------
'69 Coupe with 351W
=========================
Edelbrock Performer-RPM highrise dual plane intake manifold, Edelbrock Performer-RPM hydraulic cam (224 int duration, 234 exh; .496 int lift, .520 exh, and it idles just fine), Edelbrock Performer 750 cfm 4-barrel carb, Accel coil, Moroso Blue-Max plug wires, Hedman headers, 2.5" pipe, dual Thrush glasspacks, Edelbrock Performer-Link timing chain, C4 with B&M Street/Strip Shift Kit, Lakewood traction bars, 3.55's, 3200 lbs...
=========================

Actually, I'm thinking the CJ's used Low Riser heads, not mediums. I can look it up, but I'm pretty sure about that. But, yeah, it's a mystery to me. The big blocks do have more torque, and that's a real good thing in a drag race and for torching tires. The numbers don't lie though. I'm about to redo the combo in my 67, and it's disenheatening to me to think of the money I'm going to have to put into it to get on par with my late model. I guess it's the price you pay for nostalgia.

hehhehmule:

If you believe that, then explain this:

My 69 R-code Mach 1 just blows the doors off my Pontiac GTP Grand Prix which is rated at 245 hp at the crank.

Granted, the gearing is a little different but not so much that it would make that much difference.

Not sure how they derived those numbers but I assure you they are bogus. http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...d/rolleyes.gif


[This message has been edited by Bleedin' Blue (edited 05-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Bleedin' Blue (edited 05-26-2000).]

I explain that by the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, this was RWHP and torque was higher. I'd be surprised if your GTP put more than 215 to the wheels, and a considerable difference in torque. Torque is a very effective means of propelling a vehicle in the first 330 feet. Let me clarify that I have tinkered with bb mustangs since I was 16. I don't have any disrespect for the cars, in fact, I have great affection for them. This post was in no way, meant as a slam against them. It is simply a statement of fact. I've owned 289's 390's 428's 351C's and 289hipo's and I can assure you, modern technology is a wonderful thing.

Thanks for the lesson on torque, I really needed it. Torque is great for the leave, but it won't do squat for MPH. I assure you, I have been racing BBF's since I was sixteen and have several BBF's in the stable now. (including an 8 sec. tube car)

Those numbers are BS.

For that matter, the Boss 429 was only rated at 375 bhp. I don't believe that either. EPA and insurance is what propmted the conservative ratings.

Without putting anyting on the Dyno. Compare the weight of old cars vs new. Simple reasoning shows those old heavy Mustangs faster,running lower ET's. And with less Horspower? A "full house" 289 in 1966 pushed 400 Hp. and could be had as an option. Ford did choke the Boss 429 with a lousy cam. It would still run with the 428 though. Im not slaming anyone but to much data to support more Hp.

[This message has been edited by mustangII460 (edited 05-27-2000).]

The 65-68's were actually lighter than the fox body mustangs. I'm not aware of any factory options higher than 271 in the 289's, though I have seen information on dealer installed options (ie Weber carbs and tri-y headers) claiming 350. The test numbers I have on these combos had the 271 with 3.50's turning 15.1 at 93 and the 350 with 3.77's turning 14.4 at 96. The low trap speeds might indicate the low speeds weren't due to a lack of traction. By comparison, the test numbers I have from a Boss 302 with 3.50's did 14.7 at 99.5. The trap speeds indicate the Boss had the power to run 13's. I see no reason for this information to be falsified, as the tests were done when these cars became available, and the aftermarket for 5.0's could not influence the writers to downplay the power. The Mustang Monthly article might be explained by a desire to convert classic muscle owners over to purchasers of advertisers wares. However, the magazine also represents advertisers of classic hardware and I can't see alienating that section of the market on purpose.

The cj tested in mustang monthly was treated to a tune up (carb adjusted timing and spark plugs. It then was tested with 275hp at the rear wheels. I have owned my CJ for 28 years and as with all carbed non computer cars the tune up is very important. The NHRA thinks the CJ sholud be rated at 375 hp for B stock,C stock and Dstock depending on weight. A 93COBRA is classed as a K or L stock car. Oh yes my 69 weighs in at 3100lbs. with a stock interior and street equipment installed. However it does not have A/c, radio,(much less sound system),P/S or power anything.

TEA,
If you still have that issue, I'd like to know which one it was. The 275 makes me feel alot better about the FE. I'd like to check out what they did. Was that a manual or an auto? The 237 came from an auto Shelby 500 and I'm sure that would contribute to the low numbers.

one last thing to say thanks for the response and technology fuel injection etc.. does not actually make horsepower take off the plenum on a late model 302 put a carb well tuned and it will still make 189 hp or so at the tires with 300 lbs of torque. a 66 4 bbl 289 had 312. so big cubes, decent cam, monster breathing, and high compression are definately goimg to make alot more than 45 hp more than a little 302 with low compression, decent cam, small breathing and smog stuff, also the time slips you see advertised are with 14 inch skinny bias plys go put some on a late model and take off the quad shocks and youll see 16's those figures of 237 can't be real then no muscle car had more than 245 hp yeah right.. a lt1 350 has 305 hp and 335 lbs torque so lets think a little here..........

Actually, the 305 you refer to comes from the LS1, not the LT1. I think the highest they rated the LT1 was 285. As for a 66 with 312, I've got a 289HP in my truck and I assure you, it's not a 300 horse engine. I'm not sure I've made myself clear here, so I'll take another shot. I OWN an FE powered 67, with CJ heads on it and it CAN NOT hang with my 5.0. The 5.0 has more than just the FI going for it. It also has the roller cam, and the TE7 heads aren't as weak as some would believe. If anything, I beleive the FI upper and lower are MORE restrictive than a good 4V set up. I'm not bashing the FE power, the torque is supercool, I'm just trying to share some info here.

i own a 69 with a 302. it has ps, pb, and a stereo in it and it wieghs 3250 with me in it(155 lbs) and with a half a tank of gas. my brother has a 91 gt and it weighs the same, so weight has nothing to do with it. my car had a 2 barrell on it and it only ran high 16s. i get smoked by any stock mustang driving around. But the cj puts out a little bit more than 2 something hp.

Which ever position you hold in the debate, Kudos to all who participated in the hottest topic I've seen in the Classic in a looong time. Bravo to all who keep the old muscle running.

Well I don't frequent this forum often, but I feel the need to chime in here.

My uncle is the original owner of a 1969 Mach 1 428CJ with the top loader 4 speed. Stock it ran 13's. The quickest quote I've seen for a production Mustang was from Car Craft testing the 1968 1/2 Mach 1 428CJ with the top loader. 0-60 5.5 sec. 1/4 mile 13.56 @ 108mph. Those numbers might be off a little in the accuracy dept. being back in the day and all, but they are reasonable for a perfect run.

My uncle also just purchased a beautiful example of the 1969 Boss 302. One of his aquaintences over the net also had a Boss 302 motor which was just dyno tuned. The motor was stock, except for the low compression pistons and the smaller 1970 valves. That motor running at a pathetic 9.0:1 compression, made 364hp and 340lb/ft of torque. A prime example would no doubt peak near 400hp. Stock. That means the 290hp gross brake rating the motor came with was accurate if you look at the net at the rear wheels.

The 428 made more power than the Boss 302. I wouldn't say much more, but it would be reasonable to expect a 428CJ in prime condition to put near 300hp to the ground.

My dad raced a 1963 Ford Convertable. I'm talking the big one with the 427. It was the 427 medium riser dual quad setup and in that 2 ton body he managed mid/low 13's. The 427 and 428 were definately similar, although to be fair the 427 was significantly more powerful in stock form, but if you stick the 5.0 SEFI motor into a 1963 Ford full size convertable and expect anything lower than 16's your crazy.

There is no question that a prime example of the FE block makes more hp than a stock roller 5.0. The only question is for how long. Everyone who knows their FE motors knows that the 390,427,428 were all short lived motors. After 70k they certainly don't have the punch they used to where a roller 5.0 is still as strong as it was off the showroom floor.

As for the comment about the 2bbl 289 not having equalling the performance of the 271hp Hi-po 289 offered in some of the Mustangs, really... do ya think? The 289 in the truck isn't cammed near the hi-po, doesn't have the heads, or the 4bbl and intake. It's not going to have anywhere near that kind of power. It's like comparing the 1979 5.0HO motor to the 1987's. Night and day. Also there was a 335hp version of the 289. It was used in the Shelby Cobra Daytona. It supposedly made 375hp with webers(just try and tune it right though).

237hp at the wheels was a sickly tuned 428 indeed.

I fear you misunderstood my post Unit. The engine in the truck IS NOT a 2bbl 289. I thought I made it clear with the HP. It's a genuine solid lifter 289 HI PERFORMANCE. Rated at 271 horsepower from ford. It's not in an old ford truck it's in a 83 Ford Ranger (surprisingly,not factory by the way, heheh). Perhaps you could explain why the Boss had the slowest 1/4 times of three mustangs tested in MMFF. It was SLOWER than the Fox bodied GT AND the 4.6 99 GT tested a few months back. This was not a tired old junkyard Boss either. The traps were fairly repectable, denoting possible traction problems, but it also had a better set of gears.

A properly driven stock Boss 302 can hang well into the 14's. The reason it's not a quarter mile monster is that with valves larger than that of the 428, or even the mighty 427, it needs serious RPM's to hit it's powerband. Below 4000 rpm, you're not going anywhere.

That makes the Boss particularly difficult to get a good launch. Much below 4000rpms, you get bog, above, wheelspin. The gearing was not set for optimal 1/4 mile performance either. The suspention is also set up for road racing as well. I wouldn't doubt the Boss loses 1/2 a second in the 60ft alone. Making that up at the end of the quarter is difficult.

Also the fact that the Boss 302 is a semi-hemi like the 351C it's going to be all the more nose heavy.

In reality though, I don't own or drive one, and my uncle hasn't raced his yet, so I can't tell you what he has been able to get out of his. All I know is what the de-tuned version had for hp.

I'm sorry I misread your post about the hi-po 289. I just re-read it and I don't know where I got that info.

You indicate that the Boss 302 tested had the speed to run 13's, and that is probably coming away from the 60ft several mph behing the new GT. Making up that kind of ground takes serious hp.

Agreed, a car would need serious horsepower to overcome an early deficit. But 364hp would be ample to overcome any advantage a 260, or even 225hp, engine might have in the initial 60ft. I do wonder why your uncle would have a 9:1 CR on a NA Boss, as one with the cavernous valves you refer to had a 11:1.

I'll have to wait and see if my uncle gets the boss to the strip. He doesn't have the 9:1 CR, that's his buddy who had his motor dyno'd at the shop my Uncle had his engine built as well. The 9:1 motor had low compression piston's and the 1970 heads. In 1970 model's the Boss came with puny 2.19" intake valve's http://www.mustangworks.com/interact...oard/smile.gif. The reason the other guy's motor was detuned was so that he could run it on 87oct pump gas.

My uncle's Boss has ported 1969 heads, and a mild comp cam, since the engine was disassembled and had no cam in it. He did say it's really short on go under 4000rpm's. That, with the stock rev limiter would imply a narrow powerband.

400hp (gross) would probably mean 340hp (net) and roughly 290hp at the rear wheels on a Boss. Given the fact the more hp you make at the crank, the more you lose in the driveline from friction and drag, the net difference is always going to be smaller than the gross difference in hp. I'm not sure what the 1969 Boss weighed, but I believe the semi-hemi 302 was pretty heavy. The net difference in HP between the cars would be less than 50hp. According to your numbers on the 4.6L SOHC, which would seem a bit high?

Anyway, I hope you don't plan to argue 50hp on a heavier car, with a poorer start, and with a smaller powerband, should mean more than an equal trap speed.

If the Boss was launched well, and had the correct gears, 13's should be in reach.

Fortunately, the 428 big blocks aren't so fussy about powerband, they don't weigh much more, and they ARE geared for the 1/4. They routinely ran mid 13's bone stock in the Mustang.

The net numbers and rear wheel numbers are guestimates, based on less power loss from gross to net on a Boss due to lack of power steering, A/C, or large alternator. The rear wheel power is reflected in the fact the Boss never came with an auto.

Actually, Unit the Boss 302 weighed less than the new GT. The numbers I have on the 69 with the 302 put it at just under 3400lbs, with the big block going out at just over 3600. The 302 Boss's hemispherical characteristics, were limited to the head design. The boss shortblock is slightly heavier than a standard 302 because of it's metalurgy and the 4bolt main, but not enough to make a major impact. I hope you don't think I'm trying to be confrontational, it's just that I'm very tickled a legitmately hot topic has popped up in CLASSIC. I thought there for a couple of days this one was dead. WHEW!!

Ah hell, now I'm gonna have to go look for weight numbers. The 1969 and 1970 'stangs were pretty large.

Cast iron hemi heads were heavy as hell. That much I know.

Still even if they are about the same weight, 50hp isn't an ungodly amount.

Sorry to make you dig into the archives Unit. But one more point of debate arises here. Now you are comparing rwhp and making it only 50hp. That, even by your deductions, would be more like 70, since the new 4.6 rear wheels at around 220 vs the 290 you're attibuting to the boss. Is your uncle running a msd or something to give it a rev limiter?

*My uncle is the original owner of a 1969 Mach 1 428CJ with the top loader 4 speed. Stock it ran 13's. The quickest quote I've seen for a production Mustang was from Car Craft testing the 1968 1/2 Mach 1 428CJ with the top loader. 0-60 5.5 sec. 1/4 mile 13.56 @ 108mph. Those numbers might be off a little in the accuracy dept. being back in the day and all, but they are reasonable for a perfect run.*

I find the 13.56 ET a bit dubius, at 108 mph.
This, to me, indicates poor suspension or other problems launching. A car that can run 108 mph in 1320' should be able to do it in real low 12's.
poor launch & gobs of power!
just my $0.021
Bracket racer, and owner of "M" & "S" code '69 Mach 1's

I currently run those trap speeds, but definately could not muster low 12's. Low 12's with 108 traps would require ALOT of gear and MAJOR traction.

Interesting....
My research indicates (and proves to be really close in my case, and others I have witnessed)
A car capable of 108 mph in the quarter, can do it in 12.2 sec with a 100% effective chassis. If you make the power for 108, this chart indicates the next money spent would be wisely spent on the chassis. Weight distribution, sub-frame connectors etc...
Alot of room for improvement without tweaking the engine!

That was the point I was making muscl, the gear and the hook would have to be pretty damn good. Let's suppose you had an effective suspension, and good meaty tires that hook, but you're running 3.08's or 3.27's or 3.55's or, well you get the picture, and you trap at 108. What are the odds you've turned 12.2?

Indeed.
Wouldnt it have been great to have those magazine tests run flat out, without having to feather the pedals???
Or what if the tires of today would have been available back then!
Later, Tom

either way this supposedly 230hp couldnt ever think about 108 mph in 1/4 i still cant get over those BS horsepower numbers they arent even realistic. so a 2 barrel 302 must really only have 70 horsepower.I do know one thing our old cars RULE!!

Ah, the thread that refuses to die. I seem to remember a mid 70's 302 2v dynoing at around 115 at the wheels. That may not be exactly on target, but it was somewhere in the neighborhood. I think ford rated it at 140.

Well I'm back again.

I have to post on this reigning opinion of well, the car goes this fast at the end of the quarter so therefore it could turn times like these. Such a scientific base involved.

Older Mustangs have poor weight distribution to say the least. Meaning intitial hook up is very poor, and better hook is availible with weight transfer. Unfortunately that thought is inconsistant with the reality that the Mach's and Boss' didn't come with racing slicks, they didn't come with perfect gears, and they didn't come with drag suspensions. Therefore, your idea that under perfect conditions it could run 12's is false. Furthermore, I find that the generalization regarding this theory is inaccurate due to the circumstances surrounding different car and engine charachteristics. Are you saying that under perfect conditions a car that has a powerband between 6000-8000 should be able to pull the exact same time as a car with a powerband between 3000-6000 when they both finish the quarter at 100mph?

Here is how it fails. Car 1 hooks well, and has excellent weight transfer, it's high power band requires the engine to wind into it. That causes loss of performance off the line. Since it is already losing time, but has traveled a short distance because of the slow initial take off. Therefore, after a few seconds it has a greater distance to use it's power and close ratio tranny to accelerate to that speed.

Car 2 Takes off, gets excellent traction and weight transfer. Due to it's lower powerband initial acceleration is excellent. However, the car doesn't have the hp of Car 1. Due to it's excellent acceleration out of the hole, it has traveled further in the first few seconds. Through the remaining quarter the car manages to finish with a terminal velocity the same as Car 1. So what happens at the end of 1/2 mile. Same result. No frickin way. Distance/speed is not accurate to jugde ET.

Now on to the rev limiter issue. From what I understand, the Boss came stock with an ignition rev limiter.

The 302 in the Mustang II had 139hp net stock. They also made 248lb/ft of torque at a mere 1800rpm. It had a two barrel 369cfm carb if I remember correctly. Sorry about the misquote on net hp for the new GT. I thought I saw someone post that the car on the dyno tested at 240.

Woohoo! I thought my favorite post was dead. It's alive, IT'S ALIVE!

Since this is the raging post for FE big blocks I thought I might put my question here. Anyone know anything about 428's used as pumping motors. I ran accrost two of them yesterday. The id tag says 428, and the intake manifold casting number starts with d1. Does anyone know anything about these motors. Are they originally 428 blocks, or 391's bored to 428 specs? I understand truck cranks and passanger car cranks were different in the front snout area? How would I tell these apart? Thanks

I'm reaching here a little Tbolt, but I can give you what I THINK, no KNOW. I'm pretty sure the 428 went out of production in 70. I'm not sure about the casting numbers on an intake, but I know a D1 block is a FT block and represents blocks cast in D-70 1-last year digit. I have no idea what ford might have done outside the automotive industry with the FE so take this all with a grain of salt. One thing I can tell you is the FT cranks have a larger diameter snout. If I remember correctly they're around 1 3/4 inches while the FE's are closer to 1 1/2. Sorry I don't remember the exact specs, but I think its pretty close to 302 intake size 1.78 and 1.45 but I'm not sure.

no cjs in 71 and they might be regular 428's and the cjs had 4 bolts mains 2 on the caps and 2 from the side..run the block codes on the block and heads...oh and yes a 428 ran12.3 at the 68 winter nationals ha..

Les, you're thinking of 427's they were crossbolted. 406's were the orignal crossbolted engine. 428's were 2bolts.

Well, I thought I'd hunt this topic down for you hehhehmule, since it is your favorite on classic mustangs.

Unfortunately, my uncles Boss is having some motor problems, he found metal shavings in the oil filter, so it may be a while before he can get a run in at the track. He did say that it doesn't seem to have the power that his Mach 1 has dispite several small upgrades that have improved it's performance.

I'll still try and keep you guys posted on this scenerio.

Later,
Unit 5302

Holy cripes! What a blast from the past.

hey he hemule my 428 has cross bolts and cap bolts do you have a cj?

les1, you must have one incredibly rare block! I've been an FE fan for many years and have never seen nor heard of a cross bolted 428.
Also, in one of the first posts, someone talks about low or medium riser heads on a 428CJ - I believe they were neither as the CJ had its OWN head with its own specs and two exhaust bolt patterns.

I agree with kdog. 428cj didn't have crossbolts. Only FE's I know of was the 406 and 427.

Also, only one head, not low, medium, high riser either.

On 68 1/2 it had a casting number between plugs with an "N" in it. Don't remember all the rest of the casting numbers, sorry.

Agreed, a crossbolted 428 should be worth its weight in gold. As for the heads, I believe they have the same valve and port sizes as the low riser, that's what I referred to earlier. If this is incorrect feel free to correct me, I screw up all the time.

Well, my Uncle just rolled the Boss into the shed until winter when he can dig into the motor.

He found metal shavings in his oil filter but none in the pan, and along with a slight drop in oil pressure, he's hoping that leads to a faulty oil pump.

I guess it'll be a while before he'll be able to get it to the track.

Maybe I can coax him into getting the Mach 1 out there to get some times from it?

Later,
Unit 5302.

Just to add to this conversation:
Cars before '72 were rated Gross horsepower which is without full exhaust on an engine dyno with no accessories, in '72 it was changed to SAE (society of Automotive engineers) NET, which is with the engine installed in the vehicle, full exhaust and accessories and at the tail end of the transmission. This makes a big difference in accuracy of ratings. To mix this all up some of you guys were comparing horsepower at the wheels as well, not to mention the fact that a C6 on the 428 eats up a lot of power. The new Firebird WS6 ram air was found to have 320 horsepower at the rear wheels (NET rated at like 325 by GM), which is amazing and the new mustang Cobra had around 320 advertised horsepower and the rear wheel horsepower came around closer to 250. I stopped looking at power ratings along time ago, now i just pay attention to 1/4 mile times, you can't bullshit a good timeslip.