Messages

The nice thing about the .pdf version is that it has all of the errata information included in the ongoing updates. I have the signed paper copy and never use it, as the .pdf is searchable and so much easier to pull up on the screen. It is a fantastic resource, which I use very regularly. Incredible information,... Bob is the SBF guru!

Yes, Doug is a flipper!

The ToP horn greggadams?

Wow, camp, this is the holy grail of SAI 325ci engine info!! Thanks for taking time to post. I enjoyed reading it!

Much appreciated.

Thanks, Jim, that's great info! Much appreciated!

Calculating displacement using a 3/8" increase in stroke puts it at 5 thou less than a 3.25" stroker crank, or right at at 3.245". With a bone-stock bore of 4", we are looking at 326.22ci displacement with the 3.245" stroke, unless I failed in my calculations. I would have thought that they would have called it a 327ci under those circumstances, in order to compete head to head with the 327ci displacement bowties...  thoughts?

Interesting tidbit, pb!

I must agree often Ford is late to the party. But the 427 FE R code (dual quad) was in 1963 Galaxies. The Flip Top Cobra was built in 1964 as a big block test bed.

And that is the very car that was supposed to have tested the 325ci engine... 20 over with 3.2" stroke would yield a 324.92ci. That said, it seems that would be a stretch for a 289 crank, which begs the question if Ford was working on some slightly larger stroke cranks for the racing program. It's not much of a stretch to get to a "yes" there!

Interesting that no real bore and stroke numbers come up... my guess at the different crank journal size is a welded stroker effort, which likely reduced the rod journal diameter.

    I'm guessing that this engine subject must have fallen under the "need to know" basis, as the available information seems limited; but with consideration, I'm betting on the 3.25" stroke crankshaft with a standard 4" bore. 
 
    Now, the crankshaft makeup otherwise would be interesting!  Again I'm guessing, but I doubt the 325's crankshaft was of a 289 cast piece with weld build-up to allow for the offset stroke grinding.  It is probable that the otherwise intended to be 289 "raw" casting core could be turned out to the 325's dimensions or that the the casting boxes could be readily modified to permit such; but I'm more inclined to think that instead, they borrowed raw steel forgings from the "Indy 255" project and had those finish machined to the requirements? 

    Again guessing, but I'd bet the connecting rods, at least the raw forgings, also came from the Indy 255 program? 

    But the documentation just doesn't seem to be available, nor does it seem the participants have ever voiced much in the way of factual information on this topic?  All of which is interesting in itself! 

    Scott. 

Seems odd that the info has never really seen the light of day...

I would like to read those articles if anyone can pinpoint the dates! Interesting that no real bore and stroke numbers come up... my guess at the different crank journal size is a welded stroker effort, which likely reduced the rod journal diameter.

Interesting info. Thanks for posting, guys! Anyone else?

At 6:10 in the recently posted YouTube video from Peter Klutt/Legendary on the Flip-top, there is a picture of a letter from Ray Geddes regarding using the car for testing multiple engines, including the alloy 390 and the iron 427 amongst others. One of those other engines was a 325ci small block.

I have looked around and did some searches here, but cannot find much of any info on it. Is there a good reference on that particular engine and its specs, like bore and stroke, etc.? Did it ever see use in racing?  Seems I have a vague recollection that Gurney raced it... 

Any tips are much appreciated!

Very interesting! I think I will give it a try. Thanks for posting, John!

Thanks, Bob! Yes, dual point, C5OF-E 5BA

Is February, 5BA, too early for this application? 

Hi, Dan,

I know this is an old thread. I noticed that there are no dimensions on the photo above, though lines were drawn in over the clutch forks. Is there an obvious identification approach?  Perhaps that is a dumb question...  I have a fork with no numbering, and I am trying to identify its application, early or late. They look to be about the same overall length.  Do you have the measurements or other suggestions? 

Thanks much!