By the mid-1960s, performance-minded buyers’ interest was rapidly shifting away from big cars, but that didn’t stop Ford from giving the full-size sporty car theme one more shot with the 1966 Galaxie 7-Litre, powered by the new Thunderbird 428 engine. Car Life tested the 7-Litre in January 1966 and came away more impressed with its stop than its go.
1966 Ford Galaxie 500 7-Litre / Mecum Auctions
I generally regard Car Life as the best of the 1960s U.S. car magazines: less obsequious than Motor Trend, less pretentious than Road & Track (with which CL shared a publisher), more technically competent than Popular Science or Popular Mechanics, more grounded than the drag-racing-fixated Hot Rod or CARS, and more trustworthy than the stunt-driven ’60s Car and Driver. However, with this review, I think the Car Life editors missed the mark pretty badly: not in the accuracy of their observations, but in their stubborn determination to judge this car as something it was not.
The 7-Litre was really just a 1966 Ford Galaxie 500/XL hardtop or convertible (which remained available for 1966) with different badges and wheel covers, power front disc brakes, and the new Thunderbird 428 engine. Like the 500/XL, it had standard bucket seats, a center console, and a console-shifted C6 Cruise-O-Matic or four-speed manual transmission.
7-Litre was a sub-series of the Galaxie 500 line in 1966 / Mecum Auctions
As they admitted on the first page above, Car Life‘s dislike of this car seems to have been based on a brief press introduction drive of the new 7-Litre that “caused it to display somewhat more bravura than it actually possesses.” They had expected something more ferocious, a slightly more civilized version of the R-code 427 Galaxie they’d tested in 1965, and they were annoyed to find that the 7-Litre was basically just a flashy showcase for some new Ford options. (Except for the special badges, all of the 7-Litre equipment was available on other full-size Fords.)
The caption under the interior photo reads, “IMITATION WOOD steering wheel is complete with phony rivets; stereo tape player perched atop console was poorly placed for reloading with gear lever in Park.”
Although the CL test car had a red vinyl interior, it had most of the same equipment as this car, including the Stereo-Sonic Tape system and power windows / Mecum Auctions
The special 7-Litre wheel covers looked like styled steel wheels; why Ford didn’t just use the actual styled steel wheels available on other contemporary Fords is unclear / Mecum Auctions
The editors weren’t very impressed with the test car’s acceleration, but they felt the new front discs were worth showcasing:
It was only a matter of time until some domestic sedan finally was built with an ability to stop as well as go (even though that length of time did seem interminable). Though available last year on Continental and Thunderbird, it remained for the high-volume Ford line to extend this exemplary braking system into the mass market. Hopefully, the pressures of that market will force other makers to build their cars with brakes of comparable effectiveness, thereby making a significant contribution to traffic safety. The car buyer who does not demand brakes such as these—even to the extent of paying the extra $97 when listed only as an option—is clearly disinterested in safe driving no matter how many mirrors or backup lights he gets with the car.
Although the disc/drum system included a proportioning valve to delay line pressure to the rear drums, Car Life still found the brakes prone to premature rear lockup. However, they recorded excellent deceleration rates of 27 to 29 ft/sec./sec., with only slight fade in repeated stops from 80 mph. The editors felt that “the brakes inspired so much confidence that even panic situations could be met with restraint.”
Kelsey-Hayes vented front discs were standard on the 7-Litre, $96.51 on other full-size Fords in 1966 / Bring a Trailer
Sadly, front disc brakes were very rare on full-size Fords in 1966: The installation rate was only 3.3 percent (which includes the 7-Litre, on which the discs were standard). The $96.51 price tag of the option wasn’t quite as high as it looked, since it included the power brakes for which Ford otherwise charged $41.98, but I think the very low take rate had a lot less to do with price than with Ford’s reluctance to promote the disc brakes. Car Life observed:
Ironically, Ford Corporation lawyers advise the division not to refer to the discs as “safety” items. To do so, they reason, impugns the regular brakes which the company still sells to the public. To such reasoning, we can only say: Impugn away! The discs are safer (unless, of course, passengers are so lacking in judgment that they refuse to buckle on their seat belts).
A closely related concern for automakers in promoting the advantages of equipment like disc brakes was the Federal Trade Commission, which in this era went after a number of automakers over some surprisingly innocuous performance claims. Given some of the outrageous fabulation found in contemporary auto marketing, federal regulators sometimes chose to go after curiously small fish.
The photo caption at the top of the page reads, “STYLISTS TAILORED the ’66 lines with a great deal less severity, then capped the 2-door hardtop with a graceful new roofline. Relative absence of ornamental bric-a-brac was noted with pleasure by test crew.”
While Car Life was pleased with the tidied-up exterior styling, they were none too happy with the 428 cu. in. (6,997 cc) Q-code engine that earned the 7-Litre its name, which Ford rated at 345 gross horsepower:
[The engine] would seem to be sufficiently large and potentially potent enough to satisfy most enthusiastic drivers for street use. It appears at a time when Chevrolet has produced a 427 cu. in./390 bhp and Plymouth/Dodge has available a 440/350. And, since Ford has been relatively honest in recent years with its horsepower ratings, it would seem that the 7-Litre is well within the competitive coliseum.
But the 428 Ford doesn’t seem to be playing in this arena. In acceleration figures, better performance than the 16.4 sec. quarter-mile should be expected in curbside trim, in view of the 14.9 sec. quarter achieved with last year’s 427 Galaxie (CL, Feb. ’65).
The earlier test to which they allude, of a 1965 Galaxie 500/XL with the dual-four-barrel 427 cu. in. (6,986 cc) R-code engine, heavy-duty suspension, four-speed manual transmission, and 3.50 axle, had managed 0 to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds and a best quarter mile time of 14.9 seconds at 97 mph. However, they’d found that car quite difficult to drive smoothly, with a heavy clutch and low-end torque so abundant that it not only readily sent its rear tires up in smoke, but also managed to work loose the pivot bolt of the suspension’s upper control arm during acceleration runs, bending and cracking both rear shock absorbers.
Ford 428-4V engine in a different 1966 Ford Galaxie 7-Litre / Bring a Trailer
The 428 was a very different animal. As Car Life owlishly explained:
The Thunderbird engine, as it is called, is actually beginning to be slightly bewhiskered, despite its late appearance. It is a reworking of the 352-cu. in. “big block” which, with 4.63-in. bore centers and 21.6 overall length, has been a familiar fixture in Fords since the late ’50s. This engine has never been noted for exceptional breathing characteristics and this latest configuration shows little departure from that norm. Ford engineers had turned some attention to intake passages in the cylinder heads for this family of engines this year, but what is needed is a great deal more—say, like that lavished on the 7000 rpm 427 ultra-high performance engine (also based on the same block).
Expecting the 428 to act like a 427 was really missing the point: Although the 427 and 428 were related, both part of the late-’50s Ford FE series, the 427 was essentially a racing engine, which Ford only offered on production cars for homologation purposes and for the benefit of a handful of drag racers. By contrast, the 428 was essentially just a bored-and-stroked version of the mild-mannered 390 cu. in. (6,381 cc) engine found in the Thunderbird and many a Ford truck and station wagon, added because Ford’s bigger cars had become heavy enough to make the 390 feel a trifle over-matched. A Q-code 428 was not a high-performance engine, and for the most part, Ford didn’t represent it as such.
1966 Ford Galaxie 500 7-Litre / Mecum Auctions
The performance that Car Life found so disappointing was really quite brisk for the mid-’60s: 0 to 60 in 8.0 seconds, the quarter mile in 16.4 seconds at 89 mph, and 0 to 100 mph in 21.4 seconds. These weren’t muscle car times, but they’d be completely acceptable for a family sedan even today, and such performance was ample for the kind of driving most Galaxie owners would be likely to contemplate.
It seems instructive here to make a comparison with the Impala SS 427 Car Life tested a year or so later, with the L36 427/385 engine and Turbo Hydra-Matic. The Impala was almost a half-second slower to 60 mph, 0.7 seconds slower to 100 mph, and had a 2.5-mph-slower trap speed through the quarter mile (which indicated an inferior power-to-weight ratio, even though its ET was quicker than the Ford’s). Yet, Car Life praised that car’s “formidable power train” and remarked how easily its “reasonably impressive” quarter-mile performance could have been easily improved. This is something that often vexes me about road tests of this period: The milder versions of the 396 cu. in. (6,488 cc) and 427 cu. in. (6,996 cc) Chevrolet Turbo-Jet engines were also nothing special performance-wise, and yet testers were willing and eager to give them the nod based on their ostensibly superior potential, while deriding the big Ford engines as hopeless stones. In completely stock form, however, there doesn’t seem to have been much to choose between them other than partisanship.
The 7-Litre was available as a convertible as well as a two-door hardtop / Mecum Auctions
Where the 7-Litre really fell short compared to the Turbo-Jet Chevrolets was in transmission performance. The first 7-Litre CL had driven had suffered transmission problems, and the one tested here wasn’t much better:
Shifts were jerky regardless of the care exercised; exuberance on the throttle produced an uncertainty of shifting which was decidedly unpleasant. If, as it appears, the 7-Litre is proposed as a luxury car with a high degree of performance, or a performing car with a high degree of luxury, it has so far fallen short of the mark.
In this respect, the Turbo Hydra-Matic available on GM cars had the edge, offering crisp performance while still remaining smooth and well-mannered in normal driving.
The caption of the larger photo above reads, “FROM ANY angle behind, Galaxie shows improvement this year. Handling of the car also has improved slightly because of minor suspension change.”
1966 Ford Galaxie 500 7-Litre / Mecum Auctions
Regarding the 7-Litre’s handling, CL reported:
In this respect, it is much like last year’s Galaxie with an almost imperceptible improvement owing to a minor relocation of the rear suspension track bar. Unfortunately, heavy-duty suspension components were not fitted to the test cars, although they are available. The 7-Litre might have carried itself with a bit more authority had it had the stiffer underpinnings. Nevertheless, it was suitable for the ordinary kinds of driving usually done on ordinary roads and it continues the excellent riding qualities which Ford has achieved in its recent models.
The Galaxie 500/XL 427 they had tested a year earlier had had the heavy-duty suspension, which was required with the 427 engine. Car Life had rated its handling only “somewhat better” than the standard car, characterized by pronounced understeer that was exacerbated by the lack of power steering, unavailable with the 427. However, they found the firmer springs and damping worthwhile because they provided “a firm stable ride just a shade harsher than that of the normal model Fords, but a whole lot more comforting to the driver’s peace of mind.”
Car Life thought the 7-Litre’s pin stripes “novel,” but complained that they were betrayed by slapdash application, “the work of a palsied hand” / Mecum Auctions
Car Life continued:
Over and above the pseudo-performance image which the car is supposed to convey, it is still a Galaxie 500-XL beneath it all. And that is to say it is right in keeping with the contemporary luxury level in appointments. The front bucket seats were the fairly recent thin shell design and were, except for our linebacker-sized staffer, comfortable all out of proportion to the usual Ford seating. The inside suffered from an over-slathering of simulated walnut, but the great expanse of red vinyl managed to mute this to the level of tolerance.
I’m biased here because I happen to adore most of the early ’60s “bucket brigade” interior treatments, and I find the shiny “Rat Pack at the Sands” Las Vegas flash of the 500/XL and 7-Litre hard to resist. Compared to the abundance of cheap woodgrain appliqué that afflicted too many American cars of the ’70s and ’80s, the woodgrain highlights also seem reasonably tasteful.
Ford described the 7-Litre upholstery pattern as “Rosette & Crinkle” / Mecum Auctions
Stereo-Sonic Tape system cost $127.56 on top of the price of a radio / Mecum Auctions
The test car’s Stereo-Sonic Tape System, which the brochure called “a completely new kind of ‘living sound,'” proved another major disappointment:
From an audiophile point of view, it was hardly acceptable though it was possible to generate certain stereo qualities. But the speakers—tiny pod-enclosed ones under each side of the instrument panel and a more normal rear shelf type—weren’t up to the reproducer task. Bass response was notable for its complete absence, and the piercing treble was enough to make one switch to the soothing static of an am radio broadcast. We suspect the system may work somewhat better in 4-door hardtops, where large rear speakers can be concealed in both rear quarter pillars, thus enhancing the stereo effect, at least. One other bother we noted with the system was the need to pull the gear shift lever back to change cartridges, a design defect remedied with a column-mounted lever.
This was disheartening given the price of the system: $127.56, not including the price of the radio. Little wonder so many modern collectors resort to sound system upgrades, even in otherwise period-correct cars.
1966 Ford Galaxie 500 7-Litre / Mecum Auctions
With prices starting at $3,596.10 for the two-door hardtop, the 7-Litre actually cost $43.67 more than a Galaxie 500/XL with the same powertrain and brakes. For only $2.96 more, buyers could order the 428, C6 automatic, and front discs in a four-door LTD hardtop, which I suspect most contemporary big Ford shoppers would have considered a nicer car. This probably had a lot to do with why Ford sold only 11,073 7-Litres for 1966, against 97,065 LTDs.
The caption under the first photo above reads, “COAST-TO-COAST capacity is a feature of Galaxie’s huge trunk. Spare tire robs it of some room, but is easier to reach.”
1966 Ford Galaxie 500 7-Litre / Mecum Auctions
Car Life and Road & Track were based in California, which required most new cars to have exhaust emissions controls beginning with the 1966 model year. Ford initially met this requirement by installing its Thermactor system, which CL described like this:
This basically is an air pump which injects fresh air into the exhaust manifold just outboard of the exhaust valves, thereby aiding more complete combustion of all fuel particles. Ford engineers maintain that the Thermactor does not detract from the engine’s performance, and in view of similarly dismal performance with all three 7-Litres (only the last of which was Thermactor-equipped) we are inclined to agree.
The Thermactor system, like GM’s similar Air Injection Reactor, did require a belt-driven air pump, which consumed a few horsepower, although probably not enough to make much difference with an engine of this size.
Not a very racy engine, but a more-than-adequate Sunday cruiser / Mecum Auctions
Car Life concluded by trying to put a weakly positive spin on their generally disdainful reaction:
In the final analysis, the 7-Litre is not at all a bad car. It just isn’t our type of car, despite the intentions (or pretensions) it may hold out. It is still much the luxury limousine on a 119-in. wheelbase, catering to a great and growing public which tends to confuse bigger with better. The disc brakes, which can be ordered on any Galaxie, are what puts it head high above the competitors. However, if performance is desired, the 427 HP engine is still the better choice despite the absence of power steering and automatic transmission. That one, after all, is spelled “7 liters”—Yankee style.
Remember what I said earlier about “stubborn determination to judge this car as something it was not”? The R-code 427 cost an extra $750.78 on a 7-Litre, and Car Life‘s own earlier test had made clear that a 427 Galaxie wasn’t a very pleasant or rewarding car to drive on the street. Unsurprisingly, only 36 7-Litre hardtops and two 7-Litre convertibles were ordered with the R-code engine in 1966.
The 7-Litre was only a separate model for 1966, although for 1967, Ford repackaged it as an option for the XL, including the big engine, front discs, “special suspension,” G70-15 tires, and woodgrain sport wheel, for a hefty $515.86. It seems to have disappeared after 1967, although you could still order most of the same equipment separately for some years after that. The era of the full-size performance car was fading rapidly: Models like the 7-Litre are of much greater interest to modern collectors than they ever were to contemporary buyers, and even if Ford had standardized the 360 hp P-code Police Interceptor engine, as Car Life might have preferred, I doubt it would have made a bit of difference.
Only 11,073 7-Litres were built in 1966, just 2,368 of them convertibles / Mecum Auctions
Was the 7-Litre a commercial failure? Strictly speaking, I guess: It sold in limited numbers for only two years, and it didn’t make much of a splash. On the other hand, I’m sure Ford had seen the writing on the wall with 500/XL sales, which had dropped off sharply in 1965 after two good years, so I suspect their sales expectations were very modest. Any additional costs to build the 7-Litre were undoubtedly negligible, and offering it as a distinct model got Ford’s new options more press attention than they otherwise would have received. (Would Car Life have bothered road testing this car at all if it had just been marketed as a 500/XL with a new engine?) When it comes to promotion and marketing, automakers have spent a lot more for a lot less return.
I am unreasonably fond of this color, which is not original / Mecum Auctions
7-Litre survivors don’t seem to be abundant — not surprising, given the low volume — but if I were in the market for a collector car, I might be tempted: The styling has aged well, I assume most parts are easy to come by, and the brakes would be less scary in modern traffic than some contemporaries. For all of Car Life‘s misplaced grousing, the 7-Litre’s performance was perfectly decent in 1966, and it’s still okay by the standards of 2025, within the usual allowances for antique automobiles. In all, the 7-Litre is probably significantly more appealing now than it was 60 years ago, and how many of us can say that?
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1966 Ford Galaxie 500 7 Litre – Maybe It Should Have Had 7 Gallons (by Paul N)
Car Show Classic: 1966 Ford Galaxie 500 – Look Ma, 428 Four-Speed! (by Tom Klockau)
Cohort Pic(k) of the Day: 1966 Ford Galaxie 500 – Jim Cavanaugh’s Alter-COAL (by J P Cavanaugh)
Cohort Pic(k) of the Day: 1966 Ford Galaxie 500XL Convertible – Chile’s Presidential State Car Has Quite The History (by Paul N)
Convertible Of A Lifetime: The Nightbird, Or How To Love And Lose A 1966 Ford Galaxie (by Mya Byrne)
Dawn Of The Brougham Epoch: 1965 – 1966 Ford LTD, Chevrolet Caprice, Plymouth VIP, Ambassador DPL – The New Low-Cost Luxury Options Of The Mid Sixties (by Rich Baron)
Vintage Review: Car And Driver’s 1965 Ford LTD – Possibly The Best Ford Ever Built (by Rich Baron)
This reminds me of something I was mulling over the other day. How strange that Ford, which had perhaps the most far-reaching and successful performance program going in all kinds of racing in the mid 1960’s had so little to offer the performance buyer in a showroom. For the company that was winning at LeMans and at NASCAR, in 1966-67 you had nada other than the essentially full-race 427.
That color you like is bothering me – I love it too, but do not recall ever seeing a 66 Ford painted as such. Tahoe Turquoise is a lot lighter and less vibrant, like the attached. It looks a lot like a much hotter turquoise, maybe a 1968-69 color Ford called Midnight Aqua.
This turquoise almost looks the same as that ‘61 Impala you wrote up a few years ago.
I’m not sure about the color. The listing doesn’t mention or show the trim tag, nor do the additional photos in Motor Trend‘s coverage in 2023. I looked at some other Tahoe Turquoise (U code) Galaxies:
https://www.vanguardmotorsales.com/vehicles/2092/1966-ford-galaxie
https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1966-ford-galaxie-500-14/
I agree this car looks a little more aqua than turquoise, but I think none of these three have the original paint, and I know replicating older paint colors is more art than science, so I dunno.
Sorry, my image from this morning didn’t load. This is the Tahoe Turquoise that looks right to me.
Agree, what you have shown with this Mustang is also the correct color for the Galaxie. The replacement paint is nice, but the ever-so-slight mismatch to the interior color is the big clue and a bit of an irritation for the purist. For me, it does diminish the presentation of such a nice restoration and beautiful car a little bit, but I am just happy to see another childhood favorite in such great condition as they become increasingly rare and more collectible.
I changed the reference in the text to the color, since I am persuaded that it’s somewhat removed from any stock color available on the 1966 Galaxie. I must confess that while I figured it was a modern repaint formulated to be shinier and more metallic than most ’60s metallic paints, I was swayed by the fact that I happen to like this color, and these photos are much more striking than a lot of the examples I was finding that were more authentic (which tended to either be far more weathered or had been too obviously photographed by a nonprofessional with a mediocre phone camera).
Why can’t we have nice blues like this anymore?
How strange that Ford, which had perhaps the most far-reaching and successful performance program going in all kinds of racing in the mid 1960’s had so little to offer the performance buyer in a showroom.
Especially when the solution was so obvious, simple and expedient: put the better breathing 427 heads on the 390/428 block, which they finally tumbled to in 1968 with the 428CJ.
In looking at the engine spec.s chart, the carburetor bores on this Ford 428 are all way smaller than even the ‘tiny’ primaries bores of the Q-Jet carb. on the Pontiac 428 engine. This is usually referred to as 450 CFM vs 750-800 CFM…
Cam duration is also about same as found in a base 225 HP Chevy 327″ engine.
It seems the featured car is a light restomod considering the engine has a non original aluminum intake and dress up, so there may have been similar liberty taken on the color.
Ford seemed to want real high performance come at a substantial premium for potential customers seeking it, ironic given the whole racing program hinges on the Everyman brand beating the exotics at their own game.
What really gets me is the race 427 isn’t even that exotic, it’s not like it had aluminum heads or block like the L-88 Chevys or truly special heads like the Boss 429 or Chrysler Hemi, it was just better flowing but otherwise conventional heads, an oiling system the FE should have had from the start, solid lifter/cam and various performance intake/carb setups. Ford could have easily tamed its manners with a milder cam and hydraulic lifters and fitted it with all the accessories. Why bother having two wildly different versions of what is fundamentally the same engine with almost identical displacements… I know people will say the 428s longer stroke makes it torquier but it’s not that different, in fact the Ford 427 is almost identical in bore/stroke to the Chevy 427 that was available in mild to wild flavors with the same block. I’m a Ford guy but this is exactly where Chevy was smarter.
Kinda guessing the scrappage rate of the 427 Ford blocks was higher than the 428 or any other FE engines.
Ford FE architecture had a smaller bore-center distance (4.63″ between cylinder centers) than the competing Chevy Mark IV “big block”; (4.88″ between centers) the FE 427 bore diameter of 4.23″ was approximately the limit for what could be put into the Ford block. The 427 bore had very little room for aftermarket overbore while still leaving adequate cylinder-wall thickness. 4.63 – 4.23 = 0.400, which would be 0.200 for combined cylinder wall thickness and some space for cooling water between the cylinders–and I bet those water-jacket sand cores were very thin at that point and easily broken. Ford could have siamesed those cylinders–no cooling water between them–leaving solid iron between the bores, meaning more cylinder wall thickness. The Chevy 400 small-block among other engines have siamesed cylinders. Overheating due to no water between bores is possible, but intelligent design of the rest of the cooling system mitigates this.
End result, Ford would prefer to sell 428s with a smaller inherent bore leaving more cylinder-wall thickness and perhaps a wider gap for coolant between the cylinders.
The real solution was to use the bore center spacing of the MEL block (4.90″) when designing the new-for-’68 “385-series” engines–the ones we know as the 429 and 460.
Actually, in the transition year of 1966, if you ordered the 7 Litre engine car you didn’t know what would show up, the single 4 barrel 427 (425″) or the single 4 barrel 428 (426″). Just depended on which engine factory had supplied the engine. That may also have been part of the reason for the Metric size being used, they could supply either engine without being sued. Ford also had at least 5 different intake manifolds. 2 bbl. carb., low rise, medium rise, and high rise single 4 bbl. carb. plus various dual 4 bbl. carb.s. (“dual quads”). Dual quad 427s came in street version and rare ‘R’ code race version.
As mentioned in article, emissions controls systems such as Thermactor air injection were showing up and longer stroke engines burn slightly cleaner hence the 428 engine appearing in the old 352 FE block. 352 was cast into all the blocks once they went above 332″ no matter what size the engine actually was.
The Ford 427 was made in many variations including 2 bbl. carb. low compression industrial versions and 4 bbl. carb. medium compression marine versions. Easiest way to acquire a Ford 427 cheap nowadays is buy a big old decrepit wooden cabin cruiser boat with twin engines, cut a hole in the side of it, and drag an engine out. Put aftermarket performance goodies as desired into and on it.
I have no idea where you’re getting this. The 427 was a very expensive option on the 7-Litre that couldn’t be combined with power steering or power brakes. The chances of ordering a 7-Litre with the standard engine and it just happening to come through with a surprise 427 instead were exactly zero. Ford advertising and brochures were very clear that the 7-Litre’s standard engine was the “345-hp Thunderbird 428 V-8,” with the 425-hp “Cobra 427 V-8” optional at (substantial) extra cost. Ford most certainly did not treat these engines as interchangeable, and the “7-Litre” name was not a truth-in-advertising dodge, although it did accurately describe either of the big engines. (The actual metric displacement of the 427 was 6,986 cc; the 428 was either 6,990 cc or 6,997 cc, depending on which version of the specifications you read.)
Here’s some info on the common single 4 barrel high performance block side oiler Ford marine FE 427 engines:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRDV8TuVciU
The Ford 428 is 6999.51cc
You don’t have to guess about any of these numbers, just put the bore and stroke into Summit Racing’s handy calculator and it instantly spits out the answers.
https://www.summitracing.com/popup/calcsandtools/compression-calculator
The 7 Litre production numbers included base 427s and 428s… another number for the R code 427s…
I’ve seen no evidence of that at all, and I’m very skeptical. I’ll take your word for it about the marine engines, which aren’t my area, but that’s a very different market than workaday passenger cars.
I don’t care what Car Life thought of it, the ’66 Ford 7-Litre was one gorgeous car, inside and out. The roofline of the ’66 full-size Ford 2-door hardtops (and their Mercury counterparts) was, in my opinion, one of the best in American automotive history.
I completely agree – my aunt’s new 66 LTD two-door hardtop remains one of my favorite cars our family ever owned. I loved the roofline and just about every other detail on that car. And it was the best car she ever owned – kept it for ten years.
I still have my 66 7-Litre from Ford and the original box it came in! Love the wheelcovers.
I agree.
Of the almost twins ’65 and ’66, the ’66 wins in my book due to the added light groups up front. Nice car!
Ah the days of the 8 track. The tape eating 8 track. I can almost hear the cursing as the music began to warble and waver and when the cassette’s pulled out, the tape is left in the machine.
Mercury had their version of the 66 Galaxie 500 7 Litre called the S-55. For comparison purposes Motor Trend tested one in the August 1966 issue. Their car had the heavy duty suspension and the 4 wheel drum power brakes. They reported that the car was difficult to control during braking and highly recommended the disc brakes. Handling was described as exceptional given the Mercury’s size and weight.
Styling aside there are differences in interior trim making one model more attractive than the other. However, taking styling into consideration, I find the die cast grill on the 66 Fords to be very attractive and having a more upscale look than the front end styling of the Mercury and how can you not like the “squircle” tail lights. This was a high water mark in sixties full size Ford styling.
A few thoughts. First, thanks Aaron for posting a lot of these CL reviews. As a ten year old at the time, I voraciously read Road & Track at the grocery store magazine stand while my mom shopped, occasionally Hot Rod, and went through PS and PM every month at the library (it took to long to pore through the tiny classifieds at the store). I was aware of CL but not very interested in domestic cars so I only learned later about its objective approach to testing, shared with R&T.
Second, even as a kid I was very aware of this “7 Litre” nomenclature, down to the spelling. And it seemed odd to me that they chose the Galaxie to try this on; hardly a European-style car. And the whole 428 vs 427 thing confused me. Shouldn’t bigger be better? Remember, I was just a kid.
Finally, I had really loved the ‘65 Fords (and Chevies for that matter) as a really dramatic and modern change from the ‘64’s. To me, almost 60 years ago, the ‘66 Ford was a step backwards while the Chevy got even sleeker. But now, I gotta say that over the last few years CC has really changed my mind and the ‘66 Ford maybe the peak for Ford in that decade. Actually, for the rest of time until the ‘86 Taurus. And the ‘66 has a lot more presence.
I’m mildly impressed by this one’s acceleration stats; others for this car tended to be lower. CL did test a 427 Caprice in 1969, and that was a bit quicker than this 7 Litre.
But obviously there were always going to be minor differences between versions of the same car and testing methods.
Props for making the discs standard on this; a raspberry for not doing that across the line.
MotorWeek hilariously tested a ’69 Impala BBC 396/402 2 bbl. carb. and they laughed at it during the 0 – 60 run… wondering if it would go that fast…
Interestingly the 2 bbl. carb. equipped BBC 396/402, Ford 400, Pontiac 400, and SBC 400 (appearing late ’69) were all identically rated at 265 grossHP…
That video put up by a private person has apparently been taken down for now as MotorWeek has begun putting its old videos up itself.
I’m considering buying a local unrestored ’69 Caprice 350 V8 automatic. Love the metallic turquoise color, white vinyl top, turquoise cloth interior, minor rust. Back seat still looks like new. Front seat needs recovered.
Perhaps I’m a smidge biased because my parents had a ’66 Ranch Wagon, but of the ’65-’67 Ford run, I find the ’66s the most beautiful. Some relief to the front grille from the ’65, rear haunches added (I’m sure in reaction to the ’65 Chevy), cut down on the taillight size. A winning design in my mind.
My father ordered the burgundy R code 7 Litre convertible. The other 7 Litre convertible was/is blue. It’s known and restored. My dad’s old car was traded in ’69 for a yellow GTX convertible. That was in Winston Salem, NC. To my knowledge, no one knows what happened to it.
Seeing as dad took possession of that 7 Litre shortly after I was born, I have vague memories…but I do remember the car as well as the legend behind it. Family members were talking about that car well into the early 80’s.
Legend has it that Holman Moody in Charlotte “tuned” it. From the descriptions I’ve heard, it was more “tuned” than any Bobcat GTO. Supposedly, that 7 Litre was the fastest thing in middle NC. 95% of the time, Pop behaved himself when I was with him. That other 5% is what hooked me as a motorhead for life with a preference for Ford.
At some point in the immediate future, I intend to find out how well that drive train performed. I have had my 1965 Galaxy 500 convertible refurbished with Wilwood drilled and slotted front disc brakes, Hotchkiss suspension upgrades, undersquare bore and stroke to 434 cid, and a true, heavy duty 3.03 toploader three speed HEG tag manual transmission. It is due to be streetworthy sometime late April/early May. I preferred the 65s because of the taller rear end and slab sides.
I would have loved to have one of the prior field testers give this one a go for comparison.
The article car may have performed better if the transmission wasn’t shifting way down at 3600 RPMs! Carry 1st gear to 50 MPH instead of 35… the shift into 2nd would then bump it to 60…
With that specific car, no. The shift points they used were generally the product of experimentation, sometimes with the help of a Tapley meter to graph acceleration curves and shift at the point where the car would be accelerating faster in a higher gear than a lower one.
Actually, by then, MPG was a consideration, get the car up into the higher gears quickly… where the better MPG started… 2nd/’passing gear’ may hold a bit longer for better passing performance… for higher performance the gears can be held to higher RPMs manually…
The tiny 450 CFM carburetor was also aimed at higher MPG… you can’t burn gas you can’t access… LOL!
Our middle school track coach had a 67 7 Liter convertible – a pretty impressive car for a 14 year old. When he stepped on it, It certainly moved a group of track kids along fairly briskly.
Never liked wheel covers compared with styled or alloy wheels, but kind of like these, given they don’t stick out beyond the actual wheel/tire like most others of this type.
Also really appreciate what must be the careful selection of beautiful current day examples of cars in these vintage reviews.
I like these wheel covers too, same with the faux magnum 500s on the 66-69 Thunderbird and the wheel covers on the 70 Mustang and Torinos that look like faux torque thrusts.
Thanks!
Had my own 66..burgundy with black convertible top..bought it in 1971 for 1250..My father thought I had lost my mind. What great memories…what a beast !!
Jay Leno tricked his father into buying one of these new.