Little Red

[gt350hr]

   Correct!

[1968]

The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

After reading up a bit about the Edelbrock cross ram intake, it seems that it was for more of a high RPM/high top end speed racing application.  It makes sense that for Little Red, they were going for more of a street application by trying to get the superchargers to work with the stock intake on the 428, rather than the cross ram, as used on the supercharged 427 Cobra cars (Bill Cosby and C. Shelby cars).  I guess it did work, for a while.

[gt350hr]

In "non supercharged" applications the Edelbrock manifold was about equal power wise to a Ford Dual plane. It wasn't designed to be supercharged , but the separation I mentioned allowed it to work. There would have been SERIOUS packaging issues with it on the GT500 and since Little Red was only a "what if" , a new hood was out of the question. There were other issues that popped up during Little Red's supercharged days like transmission shifting when manifold "vacuum" changed to "boost". The "vacuum modulator" didn't like boost and it caused some premature transmission issues , which is how "I" learned about Little Red back in the day.

[1968]

In "non supercharged" applications the Edelbrock manifold was about equal power wise to a Ford Dual plane. It wasn't designed to be supercharged , but the separation I mentioned allowed it to work. There would have been SERIOUS packaging issues with it on the GT500 and since Little Red was only a "what if" , a new hood was out of the question. There were other issues that popped up during Little Red's supercharged days like transmission shifting when manifold "vacuum" changed to "boost". The "vacuum modulator" didn't like boost and it caused some premature transmission issues , which is how "I" learned about Little Red back in the day.

Interesting.  They should have just put a Toploader in it.

[Richstang]

The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

[honker]

Same engine shot here, 7th image down, but not dated, probably no help.

Mike

https://performance.ford.com/enthusiasts/newsroom/2018/09/little-red-mustang-gt-exp-coupe-.html

edit: two paragraphs above the engine image it say by early January '67 a Paxton was added ?

[1968]

The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Do any photos exist showing Little Red with dual Paxtons in 1967-1968?

I thought the story was that they tried a single Paxton, but it only produced 3 psi boost (or something like that), so they tried the dual Paxtons and got 6 psi boost (or something like that).

[Richstang]

Same engine shot here, 7th image down, but not dated, probably no help.

Mike

https://performance.ford.com/enthusiasts/newsroom/2018/09/little-red-mustang-gt-exp-coupe-.html

edit: two paragraphs above the engine image it say by early January '67 a Paxton was added ?

Thanks Mike,
I suspect that is the same photo, which was likely found by Paul Newiit, the linked article author.
His 10+ year old book noted a January LA Auto show at the coliseum, which was likely another named event.
Sorry for repeating this, but we know the LA Auto show was in the Pan Pacific Auditorium in late Oct '66.
You might be correct, the photo might be from January.

[Richstang]

The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Do any photos exist showing Little Red with dual Paxtons in 1967-1968?

I thought the story was that they tried a single Paxton, but it only produced 3 psi boost (or something like that), so they tried the dual Paxtons and got 6 psi boost (or something like that).

Currently there are no known photos of LR with the dual Paxtons.

[67411F--0100-ENG.]

The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Hello Rich,

Yes, MR = Medium Riser.  The component above the alternator is part of the EECS system the car was originally ordered and built with.  I have attached a photo of 0139's engine bay for reference.

Thanks,
Eric 

[1968]

The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Do any photos exist showing Little Red with dual Paxtons in 1967-1968?

I thought the story was that they tried a single Paxton, but it only produced 3 psi boost (or something like that), so they tried the dual Paxtons and got 6 psi boost (or something like that).

Currently there are no known photos of LR with the dual Paxtons.

Well, it was clearly documented that the dual Paxtons were installed at one point, right?  But with no photos, I suppose that exactly how they were set up in the car is speculative.  The way they look on the restored version of Little Red looks pretty ad hoc to me, like something I might do in my garage, just cobbling together whatever brackets or pulleys are lying around.  Maybe that makes sense, given the purpose.  But the Cobra Automotive setup looks a lot more professional, and spreads the Paxtons out wider.  The Cobra Automotive setup also appears to have the battery relocated to the trunk, which is probably the first thing I would do to create space, as was done in other performance Shelbys/Mustangs.

[Richstang]

The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Hello Rich,

Yes, MR = Medium Riser.  The component above the alternator is part of the EECS system the car was originally ordered and built with.  I have attached a photo of 0139's engine bay for reference.

Thanks,
Eric

No...thank you Eric...for both answers

[Richstang]

The Edelbrock manifold was the correct way to go and the blowers were better matched cubic inch wise. While the power "could have been" off a bit from bank to bank , the blowers were "fighting'' each other.
    The Little Red engine blew up because of a lack of oil in the pan and too small of an oil pick up tube which caused oil starvation. I heard that direct from Vince when he was helping me with my 289 engine. It also had too much compression for anything but Chevron "white pump'' that was THE highest octane ( 101+) back then. The cross bolt 427 block would not have saved it from failing in this case.

Is it known which intake manifold Little Red used for the dual Paxton setup?

I believe the car retained the stock C7ZX MR intake manifold.

Eric

In the part #C7ZX MR does the 'MR'  = Medium Riser

The only known photo of the LR engine I've seen, shows it with a single Paxton/single 4v manifold, not the standard '67 2x4 C7ZX
It looks like it might still have some of the emissions hoses in place too. I guess they pulled the manifold from another Ford product.

What is the component part to the far right, just above the alternator?

Would anyone happen to know the source of this photo? (I assume we still don't know when it was taken?)

Do any photos exist showing Little Red with dual Paxtons in 1967-1968?

I thought the story was that they tried a single Paxton, but it only produced 3 psi boost (or something like that), so they tried the dual Paxtons and got 6 psi boost (or something like that).

Currently there are no known photos of LR with the dual Paxtons.

Well, it was clearly documented that the dual Paxtons were installed at one point, right?  But with no photos, I suppose that exactly how they were set up in the car is speculative.  The way they look on the restored version of Little Red looks pretty ad hoc to me, like something I might do in my garage, just cobbling together whatever brackets or pulleys are lying around.  Maybe that makes sense, given the purpose.  But the Cobra Automotive setup looks a lot more professional, and spreads the Paxtons out wider.  The Cobra Automotive setup also appears to have the battery relocated to the trunk, which is probably the first thing I would do to create space, as was done in other performance Shelbys/Mustangs.

There are no documents outlining the single or the dual Paxton installations...that I'm aware of.
I believe the dual Paxton install on LR was just one of the SAI employee memories, per the documentary.

You are likely correct in the speculative assembly on LR in the recent restoration. Cobra Automotive has been working with these Paxtons for many years. SAI only installed them on a couple dozen cars over about two years. LR and the two Cobra are the only dual Paxtons I'm aware of. It would certainly be wise to follow Cobra Automotive's lead for both performance and perhaps durability if someone were thinking about that direction for there own car.

[gt350hr]

  I would like  to offer "My personal opinion" on the above engine photo. We know that LR's original engine expired. It makes sense "to me" that the "original" would have had dual blowers and it. SAI would not change a manifold for the "first attempt".
The replacement ( probably a 428 "Cobra" engine) would have a single in an effort to reduce the power that led to engine #1s demise. "I" also feel single adaptation was done at the Santa Monica Paton shop because of the red hoses not used at SAI. Some of my "opinion" is based on a conversation with a former SAI employee that sadly has passed. Bernie should have some recollection on the subject.
   Randy

[1968]

When using a set up like this with a "common plenum" intake ( unlike the Edeldrock "cross ram" used on the two Cobras) is blower output MUST be as identical as possible or the "stronger one" will hurt output from the "weaker one". The cross ram separated the engine into essentially two four cylinder manifolds each fed with one blower. Using the Ford manifold allows the "balance passage" in between the two carburetors "could" present an problem "if" one blower had more boost than the other. The reason two blowers are needed on a 427-428 is simply air flow capacity and potential for "boost". A single Paxton doesn't move enough air to supply the larger capacity engine so two are required to get a 5-7 reading on a boost gauge. As Bob mentioned there are more modern designs that can produce 30+ PSI boost as a single.
     Randy

I found this photo on the Internet.  It is supposedly a vintage over-the-counter Shelby cross ram intake manifold.  I guess they did not use this or another cross ram intake on Little Red because none of them would fit under a stock '67 (or '68) hood.  Or maybe this Shelby intake is for a small block?