Little Red

[67411F--0100-ENG.]

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?

The intake manifold in your photo is for a 289/302.  I believe it became available in 1969.

Eric

[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?

The intake manifold in your photo is for a 289/302.  I believe it became available in 1969.

Eric

Thanks.  And I guess they did not make one for the FE?

In any event, it appears that the Edelbrock cross ram intake, and any others for an FE, would not fit under a stock GT500 hood, which is probably why they did not try that on Little Red.  On the dual supercharged 427 Cobras, they built a special scoop that appears to be about two inches high to provide enough clearance.

[shelbydoug]

If you look at the hoods on the two blown 427 Cobras, they have unique "hood scoops" to clear the intake assembly.

I think that the Edelbrock cross rams used were just about the same assembly heights as this ram box is?

If you stay with the C7ZX or MR two four intake, the blower hats for the carbs I believe fit under the stock 67 Shelby hood.

With blowers you can use any kind of a manifold. Blower manifolds are big open plenum things with little or no runners and generally very low. The manifold doesn't do anything. The blowers do.

[1968]

If you look at the hoods on the two blown 427 Cobras, they have unique "hood scoops" to clear the intake assembly.

I think that the Edelbrock cross rams used were just about the same assembly heights as this ram box is?

If you stay with the C7ZX or MR two four intake, the blower hats for the carbs I believe fit under the stock 67 Shelby hood.

With blowers you can use any kind of a manifold. Blower manifolds are big open plenum things with little or no runners and generally very low. The manifold doesn't do anything. The blowers do.

Yes.  The guys building replicas of the blown 427 Cobras indicate on their forums that the Edelbrock cross ram intake sits a couple of inches higher than the MR two four intake, which is why the special hood scoop was needed.  I presume the clearance on the stock Cobra hoods is about the same as with a '67/'68 GT500, which is likely why they did not try the cross ram intake on Little Red.  They needed to use the stock '67 or a stock '68 hood (since they were also using '68 parts).  Neither one would fit with the cross ram intake, so they went with the MR two four intake.  I have no insider info, that is just a logical explanation.

[1968]

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 ?

Here is some interesting info from that article:

"Little Red began its prototype career as a test bed for some “tire shredding” Shelby technology. The 390 V-8 and C-6 automatic were immediately pulled and replaced with a 427 FE big-block powerplant. The challenge was to combine high performance that would meet the new 1968 emissions requirements for the "big car” Ford sedans. By early January 1967, a Paxton-supercharger was added. This was an early experiment to consider the Paxton as an option for the GT-500, although, as Fred had once stated in an interview: “. . . if you punched it, it would just sit there and spin the tires uncontrollably.” 

Not long after that, Carroll called Fred and wanted to see how Little Red’s Paxton-supercharged 428 would work with a “Shelbyized" C-6, then as a test-bed for the 428 4-barrell, and 428 supercharged engines. There was so much power from all that big-block torque that it broke the C-6 tail-housing, resulting to a swap to a cast-iron Lincoln tail-housing. Over time, several short-term engine and transmission combinations were tried on Little Red. As Fred’s personal vehicle, he would test these drivetrain combinations while driving to and from work at Shelby."


I am not sure how accurate that info is, but it seems to imply that the first modification was a 427 and then with a single Paxton supercharger.  Maybe that photo with the single Paxton is the planned hydraulic 427 that Ford was working on in 1967 as an option for the '68 model year?

I find it strange that they thought it was too powerful with the single Paxton, but then they added another Paxton?  Presumably to get more boost?  That does not make sense.

And then there is this:

"More than one driver had the privilege to test drive Little Red, and of course, it was Carroll Shelby that handed the keys to Car & Driver writer Charles Fox. It was on Friday, October 27th, 1967, while they were attending the Los Angeles Times Grand Prix at Riverside Raceway. Fox wrote about his adventure in the story “Shelby’s Folly,” (as Little Red) powered by a supercharged 427. Fox drove 60 miles to Indio along California's Highway 60, approaching speeds of 140 mph “going up the hill.” Fox added that the only limitation on speed was "the front end lift!" Upon his return, a fleet of County Sheriff’s cars with overheating radiators had chased him back to his hotel, where he was immediately arrested. The arresting cops then had to see what was under the hood, since they’d never seen a car go that fast on Highway 60 – EVER!"


That also references a supercharged 427, by the end of October 1967, well into the 1968 model year.  A lot of unanswered questions...

[honker]

Charles Fox article referenced by 1968, Google search is your friend 

Fox was an excellent scribe ! Car & Driver was a great magazine back in the day, they were all a little off the wall, which I liked !

Mike

[1968]

Charles Fox article referenced by 1968, Google search is your friend 

Fox was an excellent scribe ! Car & Driver was a great magazine back in the day, they were all a little off the wall, which I liked !

Mike

Thanks for that.  The article indicates that the car had a 427 and a supercharger.  And it also indicates that there was another car like that.  So, was the other one Little Red, with a 428 and a supercharger?  Or maybe they got the 427 info wrong, but you would think these guys would know if it was really a 427, and not a 428.

But the article appears to be from 1978, so it was apparently based on memory.

Of course, the twin Paxton info was apparently based only on memory, and it was 50 years later instead of just 10 years after the fact!

[shelbydoug]

After reading that, I felt like singing the "Billy Jack" theme, "one tall soldier"? Fox acts like a folk hero?

Not for nothin' but why do you think these guys could tell the difference between a 428 and a 427 dressed the same? I don't. If anything, that's something Shel would kinda' leak out?

If you follow the story on the MkII b's, for Lemans, the rears in those cars were so low, that at times the crew needed to push it to get it rolling in first. The rpm thing with the 7.0's was what was being looked at.

One thing that Fox said, about the rpm's at 135 is in the realm of maybe accurate? He tells a great tale though. Good reading. 

[1968]

After reading that, I felt like singing the "Billy Jack" theme, "one tall soldier"? Fox acts like a folk hero?

Not for nothin' but why do you think these guys could tell the difference between a 428 and a 427 dressed the same? I don't. If anything, that's something Shel would kinda' leak out?

If you follow the story on the MkII b's, for Lemans, the rears in those cars were so low, that at times the crew needed to push it to get it rolling in first. The rpm thing with the 7.0's was what was being looked at.

One thing that Fox said, about the rpm's at 135 is in the realm of maybe accurate? He tells a great tale though. Good reading. 

Well, regarding the 427, I figured Fox was just repeating what he was told by Shelby, not that he actually looked down into the engine bay for the cross-bolted mains to confirm the 427.  Now, maybe Shelby fibbed about the 427?  But, I am not sure why he would do that at that time.

Since Little Red was an experimental vehicle, perhaps it did have a 427 at one point, and a 427 with a Paxton at one point (or maybe even twin Paxtons?).  The 427 seems plausible since Ford was testing the hydraulic-lifter 427 in 1967 for the planned release as the top end performance engine for the 1968 model year.  And we all know that the 427 was planned to be a Shelby option for the 1968 model year.  As I recall, it has been confirmed from Ford documents that the 427 was put in a few Mustangs and other cars in 1967 for testing for the 1968 model year, although it ended up going into only the 1968 Mercury Cougar GTE, in production form.  There was a discussion of 427's in Mustangs for testing purposes on the Cobra Jet forum a couple of years ago.  In fact, that discussion was regarding the Cobra Jet development program in late 1967 and how the project was initially referred to as the "427 Cobra Jet," until the Tasca "KR-8" 428 car was brought to Ford with the 428 for testing in late 1967, and the project proceeded with the 428 instead of the 427.  There was apparently also at least one "448" Mustang being tested by Ford in late 1967 (448 ci. is a 427 block with a 428 crank).  There was some discussion from a member of the Tasca family, as I recall reading on the Cobra Jet forum, that the 448 car was the only thing Ford had that beat Tasca's 428 Mustang.

I just wish we had more documentation as to what engine configurations Little Red had at various points.  As it stands, we do not seem to have much documentation, so I guess pretty much anything is possible.

[Bob Gaines]

After reading that, I felt like singing the "Billy Jack" theme, "one tall soldier"? Fox acts like a folk hero?

Not for nothin' but why do you think these guys could tell the difference between a 428 and a 427 dressed the same? I don't. If anything, that's something Shel would kinda' leak out?

If you follow the story on the MkII b's, for Lemans, the rears in those cars were so low, that at times the crew needed to push it to get it rolling in first. The rpm thing with the 7.0's was what was being looked at.

One thing that Fox said, about the rpm's at 135 is in the realm of maybe accurate? He tells a great tale though. Good reading. 

You mean  "one tin soldier"

[shelbydoug]

After reading that, I felt like singing the "Billy Jack" theme, "one tall soldier"? Fox acts like a folk hero?

Not for nothin' but why do you think these guys could tell the difference between a 428 and a 427 dressed the same? I don't. If anything, that's something Shel would kinda' leak out?

If you follow the story on the MkII b's, for Lemans, the rears in those cars were so low, that at times the crew needed to push it to get it rolling in first. The rpm thing with the 7.0's was what was being looked at.

One thing that Fox said, about the rpm's at 135 is in the realm of maybe accurate? He tells a great tale though. Good reading. 

You mean  "one tin soldier"

Ah! Got me again! It's been a long long long time. 

I've become the Roseanne Roseannadanna of SAAC.

[gt350hr]

   1968,
     The 448 was in a '66 Fairlane IIRC. Ford had already built a 482 version of the FE in the "X" garage. About the only way to validate what happened is from a SAI retiree who was on the project , now that Fred has passed.

[1968]

   1968,
     The 448 was in a '66 Fairlane IIRC. Ford had already built a 482 version of the FE in the "X" garage. About the only way to validate what happened is from a SAI retiree who was on the project , now that Fred has passed.

So, the 448 that beat the Tasca "KR-8" 428 Mustang was in a '66 Fairlane?  But there were plans in 1967/1968 to study building 448 Mustangs for the following model year.

In fact, I think it might have been you who posted this in the Cobra Jet forum a couple of years ago:

"The Ford Stock Vehicles Dept procured two '67 Fastback Mustangs for "427 Hydraulic Development" purposes. Both are "S" code assembly line cars that were given a Ford ( brass) asset tag. The green 4 speed was received 12-15-66 and the red automatic was a month earlier at 11-15-66. This information is from a Ford Stock Vehicles internal document. Because o f the very sensitive nature of the information on the page I will not show it , but it is genuine. I have another obtained from a retired Ford worker and it is of the same format but for '69 vehicles. This is the first genuine document noting the "test" cars with that engine. Of interest on the '69 document is a '69 Mustang with the note 448 engine development. That would be the 427 block / 428 crank combination.
    Randy"

Like the 1967 Mustangs used for the 427 engine development for the 1968 model year, it seems that the 448 engine development for the 1969 model year Mustang must have used a 1968 Mustang body (assuming they followed through and actually installed a few 448 engines in the Mustang), right?

[1968]

   1968,
     The 448 was in a '66 Fairlane IIRC. Ford had already built a 482 version of the FE in the "X" garage. About the only way to validate what happened is from a SAI retiree who was on the project , now that Fred has passed.

According to the Little Red documentary, the person who confirmed the dual Paxtons was Ralph Mora.

Mustang Monthly's Shelby history article from a few years ago listed him as:

Ralph Mora   1965-68   body man

[gt350hr]

    Yes I am familiar with my post from that site. It was the late Bill Holbrook (rip) who was head of the X garage who told me that "Jumpy" Snider's ( actually Ford owned) "test car" had "worked" suspension for better traction than the Mustangs he had available to him at the time. Yes the "X" garage tested all kinds of stuff , performance , economy , and everything in between. I have notes on muffler testing , carburetor calibration testing , gear ratios, convertors and other stuff. It was a very busy place.
Ford worked with TRW to make a "conversion" piston for the 428 crank in the 427 block (448) that eventually was released to the public in '69. Those parts were also tested by the X garage.
    Randy