bifs66

Those Cal Custom valve covers are the ones I put on my new Fastback GT back in 1965. I still have the original gold factory valve covers in the attic. Unfortunately, the car itself was traded in 1969 on a new Mach-I.

The rods built in the 50s/60s typically used the SBC for all the reasons previously stated. However, with the advent of the 5.0 era (80s -up), there is little reason to ruin an old Ford with the typical SBC . Firstly, the modern SBF can be built to produce all the power one could use in a street rod, and do it for a reasonable amount of money. Secondly, the SBF is significantly narrower and lighter than any classic SBC. In fact, Ford produced a "short" nosed water pump to reduce the overall length of the SBF, just for street rods. The distributor location is a plus too. In recent years, many newly-constructed Ford rods are being bulit with SBF powerplants; and I've see quite a few turn up during the last couple of cruising seasons. Like some others have stated, it is a real turn off to any "real" Ford enthusiast to see an old Ford butchered with a SBC (or any other GM engine). Unfortunately, the GM oriented mags/rags (Hot Rod, Popular Hotrodding, etc) are pushing all they can to promote the LS engine series; fortunately, I haven't seen any show up at local cruises yet (have seen a Mod powered T-bucket). If anybody claims that the SBC can't be beat for power, just review the most recent Popular Hotrodding Engine Masters Challenge (Nov 06). All the top winning engines were SBFs, with one big block Pontiac (built by one of the best engine builders in the country) coming in second. The competitors included BBCs; but I saw no mention of any SBCs being competitive. Personally, I really prefer Ford Flatheads in the old Ford rods. They make an impressive visual display with all those chromed nuts holding down the finned aluminum heads!

My daughter bought a new Explorer because the "cushy" ride of the GM brands actually made her sea sick.

We had an 84 Escort that I believe is still being used by someone and must have untold miles on the clock by now. IMO, a much better car was our 91 Escort GT which was a completely different design. It had the 1.8L 16V engine (that was a joy), and a very good suspension. It was roomy for four people, could haul a ton of stuff (hatchback), and was trouble free. Some years ago, we passed it on to our son well after 100K miles; and he continues to use it for commuting to work.

The FOX bodied 5.0s, 1982 through 1993, did more for establishig Ford's performance image among young people than all the millions spent on official factory support of professional motorsports over the last 40 years. Believe me, I was there during the great 60s "Total Performance" and "Powered By Ford" years (bought a new 65 Mustang Fastback). The great masses still preferred driving their GMs and Mopars on the street (and taking them to the local drag strips). Even today, this past preference is reflected in the Barrett Jackson auctions of 1960s era cars. In spite of all Ford's racing programs ($$$), the anti-performance Ford notion prevailed until the Foxes/5.0s arrived in 1982 (The Boss is Back). I'm not sure Ford knew what they had produced (given Ford's history, maybe it was an accident); but the Fox cars captured the street performance scene like nothing else since the Flathead V8. The demand for FOX aftermarket parts have given us the great variety of performance enhancements that can be used on Mustangs from 1965 on up. Wanna bet on future collectibles?.........IMO put your money down now on Fox Mustangs.

Can anyone verify that the class winning Panoz Esperante at Sebring last weekend was powered by the 4.6 MOD engine?

Well...first of all, the trucks in NASCAR have absolutely no relationship to their production counterparts. Neither the frames, bodies, suspensions, electronics, nor engines are remotely related to production trucks. However, the NASCAR Ford engine does have some roots in the 70s 351Ws and 351Cs. I've been a motorsports fan for over 40 yrs, and have attended multiple NASCAR events per year for more than 20 yrs; however, I maintain an interest in F1. F1 is the ONLY major sanctioned auto racing series that doesn't REGULATE and MANIPULATE the specifications of the cars to maintain an equal/even playing field. The same rules apply evenly to all the participants at any given time. No "adjustments" are made to one make or the other to "even things up". If F1 ever does this, it will lose my interest. Even if F1 racing isn't as competitive as NASCAR, we need at least one series that depends on pure technology and driver skill. All other sanctioning bodies have constantly changing rules that attemp to maintain parity or require uniform engines among the participants. This may make for better racing; but it also allows the sanctioning body to influence/determine the winners. I believe that the ASA series folded because they required all entrants (Ford, Chevy, Dodge) to use the Chevy LS series engine! How could a Ford or Dodge enthusiast root for a Chevy powered Ford or Dodge? This was done to "reduce the costs of racing"; but IMO, it killed the whole series. Other bodies, like the Gran-American sports car series, specify all kind of different engine specifications to make all the different engine makes "even" in horsepower output. So, we never know what make is really the best piece. In F1, there is no doubt who provides the best engine, car, and driver under a set of specs that apply to all entrants......something to be said for that.

Could you provide some more information about the cars? In particular, are they similar to NASCAR racers in that they are basically all alike (tube frame chassis) with no relation to "real" stock cars; and powered by V8s that are also unrelated to production engines (except the Ford V-8 which has roots in the Windsor and Cleveland engine series). Does GM use the LS series and do the Fords use the MOD engine? If so, what are the displacements and induction types? Hopefully there are none of the "equivalency" formulas where weight is used to supposedly offset one engine's technical advantage over another (configuration/displacement/etc). Typically that stuff only allows the sanctioning body to regulate who wins.

IMO, the instrument cluster is uglier than the original Camaros. It was a bad example to follow. I always faulted Ford for directly copying the early Camaro instrumentation for the 71-73 Mustangs.