Messages

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.

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!

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...

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.

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.

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 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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

But wouldn't you have a similar problem with the cross ram intake if one blower had more output than the other?  It seems like it might be even worse since the "common plenum" intake would result in less overall boost in that situation while the cross ram intake would result in basically half the engine running with less boost.

So, obviously the dual Paxtons were never offered as a production option.  But would the Little Red dual Paxton 428 "experiment" be considered a failure mechanically?  I thought I heard someone say somewhere that they blew the engine in Little Red somehow while testing back in 1968.  If so, then maybe that would not have happened if they had used a 427 block, like on the dual Paxton 427 Cobra car?

   The entire "vintage" Paxton manufacturing operation is owned by Craig Conley who also owns Paradise wheels. He assisted in the Little Red project as I did.

Does Craig Conley also sell (or plan to sell) the brackets for the FE (GT500) Little Red-style dual Paxton setup now?  Prior to the Little Red restoration, it seems that only Cobra Automotive had the brackets, and they were a slightly different setup from those used on Little Red, as shown in the photos ^.

The little red configuration and brackets from what I understand is a combination of research and best guess scenario. One off vintage little red SC aside, If you want a blower on a FE a somewhat similar looking single modern paxton blower will push more air then the duel vintage versions. I can only imagine the under hood heat and lack of air circulation the duel paxtons have on FE cooling in a bigblock Mustang body.

Heat?  That might be the least of the concerns with that setup!

   The entire "vintage" Paxton manufacturing operation is owned by Craig Conley who also owns Paradise wheels. He assisted in the Little Red project as I did.

Does Craig Conley also sell (or plan to sell) the brackets for the FE (GT500) Little Red-style dual Paxton setup now?  Prior to the Little Red restoration, it seems that only Cobra Automotive had the brackets, and they were a slightly different setup from those used on Little Red, as shown in the photos ^.

Does anyone know why the Cobra Automotive dual Paxton GT500 setup has the the supercharger units so much farther apart than on Little Red?  I think the photo shows the Cobra Automotive setup on a 427 rather than a 428, but that should not make a difference.

My guess is due to battery interference on Little Red and in an effort to keep them symmetrical.

That makes sense.  It seems that the Cobra Automotive setup requires the battery to be relocated.  I actually think the Cobra Automotive setup looks more symmetrical.