The three top-dog racing-oriented V8s in the classic mid-sixties performance era were of course the Chevy big blocks, the Chrysler 426 hemi and the Ford 427. The Ford was something of the underdog, given that it was stuck with somewhat smaller valves and ports than the other too. It was the final crowning culmination of the FE family of V8s, and acquitted itself quite well despite its age, especially in endurance racing (Le Mans) and in the Cobra 427.
It was available as an option on full size Fords from 1963 through 1967, and although I don’t have the numbers to verify it, anecdotally-speaking, it was a rare sight. One of the reasons was that it only came in a hard-core version with mechanical lifters and other goodies (unlike the mild versions of the big block Chevys), and power steering was not available, at least in 1965. That and the very stiff clutch required serious muscle to drive it, making it less than pleasant or suitable for normal driving (one tester had to pull over in stop-and-go traffic as his left knee just gave out). But if you really wanted a plush LTD 4-door sedan with a 427 and the mandatory 4-speed manual, manual steering and truck-like clutch, you were welcome to it.
CL suggests that if Ford wants to keep using equine names for its cars, it should call the 427 Galaxie “Percheron”, after the powerful draft horses. That seems somewhat more suitable to the 428 that came along a year later, with its massive low end torque, as the 427 rather preferred high speeds than pulling heavy wagons.
One thing Ford did right was to require certain mandatory options along with the 427, which only came in the dual-quad 425 hp version in 1965. These included a stiffer convertible frame, HD suspension, shocks and brakes, and a few other mission-appropriate parts. Ford’s excellent “top loader” four-speed manual was also required; given the 427’s 480 ft.lbs. of torque, one could use just 2nd and 4th, or 1st and 4th, or any other feasible combination. This was the reality with these big powerful engines and 4-speed manuals.
The big mechanical-linkage clutch had a plate pressure of 2100 lb. per sq.in., almost double that of the one used behind a 289.
But it never slipped, except on purpose to facilitate maximum take-offs, which required the right balance of revs and clutch feathering to avoid a full-on burnout or bogging the engine down.
The results at the track were good, given that this was a genuine stock car: 0-60 in a quick 4.8 seconds (all in 1st gear), and a best 1/4 mile time of 14.9 sec. @97 mph. That was significantly quicker to 60 than the ’66 Hemi Plymouth we posted here recently, but then it had to shift once due to a lower axle ratio. The 1/4 mile times were about the same, but then the hemi was known to be just getting going at the end of the 1/4 mile.
But there’s more to life than a drag strip, and on the road, the Ford showed some vices, despite its 136 mph top speed. Its handling, even withe the HD suspension, was marred by heavy understeer; plowing, actually, in sharp, slow turns. Jacking up the front tire pressures to 32 psi while leaving the rears at 26 helped some, but the Galaxie was just not a genuine high speed road car that inspired confidence. Maybe it was a Percheron after all.
And we haven’t gotten to the steering yet, which as previously mentioned was only available in a very slow (30.9:1) manual ratio, with almost 6 turns lock-to-lock. “It imposes a penalty on the driver in that the power and speed potential of the car can get him into trouble a lot faster than he can steer out of it.”
At least the brakes were reasonably ok for an all-drum system; CL wishes the disc brakes from the Thunderbird could be swapped in, but different spindles made that unfeasible. The ride, although stiffer than the standard suspension, was decent, and “ a whole lot more comforting to the driver’s peace of mind.”
The lack of a tachometer, even one buried in the front of the console, was a serious omission along with other engine gauges. After all, this is a genuine performance engine with a 6000 rpm redline.
CL points out that the omission of a tach may seem like a minor item, but it was representative of the limitations of this package: why didn’t Ford put a bit more effort to create a genuine all-round performance car to go along with the terrific engine? Quick power steering, disc brakes, hydraulic clutch actuation, and a tach and engine gauges could/would have resulted in a true “Total Performance” car; instead it was clearly something that only hard-core racers were going to be interested in muscling around.
That 0-60 time is pretty shocking for ’65. The package seems like a great value, all things considered.
0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds! Quite impressive for the time. Not even contemporary hemis were under 5 seconds. In fact, this may have been the fastest zero to 60 time available anywhere in 1965.
Although I would occasionally see a 427 Chevy or a Plymouth/Dodge Hemi back in the day, I don’t think I ever saw one of these in the wild. Sounds like driving one wasn’t for the faint of heart. Even the brutish Hemi was available with Torque-flite , which was a surprisingly well suited choice with this engine.
It is an exceptionally quick 0-60 time. In comparing it to the ’62 421 Pontiac they tested, the Pontiac took 6.0 seconds to 60, but it had to shift once, which accounts for that. The Pontiac was obviously more powerful, as it did the 1/4 mile in a faster 14.3 @103.
A quick zero-shift 0-60 time is a bit misleading, as it’s not really a reliable indicator of its full performance.
The graph indicates a shift before 60, and the performance chart shows top speed in first to be 59. So did they just run it past the redline in first to get that time?
So it does. It must have been pretty quick to 59. 🙂
I can’t answer the question without it being spelled out in the text, but that’s what I assumed. But I could well be wrong.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/classic-car-driver-comparison-1965-pontiac-22-against-ferrari-22-0-60-in-3-9-for-the-pontiac-sure/
It also shows a top speed of 136 MPH. Pretty good.
0-60 in 4.8 seconds is genuinely quick even by modern standards. In 1965 that would have been pretty much untouchable. Even more impressive considering the tall skinny whitewall(!) tires that are fitted to the test car.
How reliable are the CL performance numbers? Are they “fluffed” like the C/D numbers? Was Ford sending out “specially prepped” press cars like Pontiac did?
As I commented above, it’s because the relatively high axle gearing allowed it to run to 60 without a shift. But it was clearly not as powerful (and fast) as the ’62 Pontiac 421 that CL tested, which took longer to 60 (6.0) sec., but was decidedly quicker to 1/4 mile, and faster in the traps. The Pontiac’s higher trap speed i(103 mph) s the best indication that it makes more power. But then it had a lower axle ratio too.
CL tried hard to be accurate, but they were still limited by the technology of the time. But generally I trust their numbers, within those limitations. And there are differences in traction on different strips, and air temperature, etc. all come into play. As well as driver technique.
Still, I think Car Life tests of different models are generally pretty solid as a measure of relative performance: tests with as consistent a methodology and as consistent conditions as they could manage, which was definitely not the case with Car and Driver in this period.
As I’ve said before, my main annoyance with CL tests is that they were not very good about making clear when their top speeds were actual, observed top speeds or computed/estimated speeds. (In this case, I do not think for a second that they actually ran the Galaxie to redline in fourth gear. Could a well-prepared 427 Galaxie reach 136 mph, given the right gearing and tires that could take it? Probably, since this was a NASCAR homologation special. Did this one demonstrate that kind of speed? Not hardly.)
This was an area where Motor Trend tended to do better; they were upfront about not having enough room to do real top speed testing in most of their road tests, and when something WAS an observed top speed, they would say so, usually also indicating the engine rpm at that speed.
Not sure about the 0 to 60 with stock tires of the day, but question the Quarter mile et and mph. Especially with a medium riser version. Unless this was an early 65 then that would have had the low riser. Interesting .
I drooled over just the idea of this engine on the street back then, but will still probably never know what it’s like to drive one–heavy clutch and all. The brochure doesn’t mention that clutch (interesting to get the details about increased plate pressure!), but mentions a few other standard and optional items:
Interesting that the package includes those glass headlight covers. NASCAR?
The sales breakdown between the 428/427 in 1966/1967 Galaxies was 11035/38 and 1056/12.
I wonder what the production figures were for the top of the line four door LTD with this engine package? I imagine pretty low.
I’d go with 4. !!
Right!
I suspect that the reason Ford didn’t bother with better brakes, tachometer etc is these full size 427’s were probably just homologation units for NASCAR stock car racing. NASCAR was still using full-size cars at the time, the shift to intermediates didn’t come till later. As I recall the Fords were very competitive especially as GM was out of racing for a few years.
I’ll go a step further: I think the way Ford merchandised the 427 was designed to DISCOURAGE most buyers from ordering it. The 427 was expensive to produce, ridiculous from a warranty standpoint, and not very desirable for average use, and I assume Ford was not keen to have a bunch of GTO fanciers queuing up for it unless they were serious racers. For a serious racer, stuff like power steering or factory tachometers or instrument packages were irrelevant (the former would come off anyway, the latter weren’t accurate to trust in competition). Drag racers didn’t like discs because they were heavier and the slight drag of the pads on the caliper might cost that vital 0.0001 second.
So, while it’s true that Ford didn’t do a great job with credible street performance cars in this period, I don’t think it was a matter of their not knowing what they were doing with this car. Rather, it shows a pretty strong understanding of who they did (and didn’t!) want buying it.
I will echo Dman – I don’t think Ford was even trying to sell these at retail, but were essentially selling NASCAR kits. A loaded up Galaxie 500 XL with the 427 package had to have been a rare bird. Or horse.
I have always been fascinated by those 60’s big cars with buckets and a 4 speed. Those looked really natural up through maybe 1964, but looked really out of place starting with the 65 models (of pretty much all of the manufacturers). This car wanted to be an LTD, not a pretend sports car.
I agree with you and Dman. This was never intended to be something for Joe Public. Too bad, because it really did perform well, better than almost any mid 60s full-size car. Ford was great at producing cars that could perform on the track, but really failed to translate its homolgation specials into a good street machines. The setup on this Galaxie would make for an awful driving machine, especially the slow steering. Ford power steering was slow enough at roughly 20:1 (steering box ratio), I can’t imagine how bad this would have been.
It took Ford until the late 60s to build a homolgation special that actually helped them build street cred. Cars like the Boss Mustangs put homologation special engines into street cars that were actually desirable performance packages. However, by then Knudsen and Shinoda had come over from GM and had a lot of influence on making those cars.
My father owned 1 of 2 built 1966 7 Litre convertibles with a 427 8V. He took it to Charlotte and had the engine blue printed by Holman-Moody. We lived in Greensboro, NC at the time and I’ve heard that pop was the baddest around. I was too young to remember many details about the car, although I do remember it. It was burgundy with black top & interior.
My step mother couldn’t push the clutch in more than once or twice. My dad was a truck driver, so no P/S and a stiff clutch was the norm for him.
In the late fall of ’68, he traded it on a 69 GTX convertible with a 440 auto. I do recall him saying he should have had his butt kicked for letting that car go because my step mother whined about driving it & that’s what her 67 Olds 442 was for.
“Classic Car & Driver Comparison: 1965 Pontiac 2+2 Against Ferrari 2+2 – 0-60 in 3.9 For The Pontiac? Sure!
BY PAUL NIEDERMEYER – POSTED ON JANUARY 21, 2023”
maybe it was a setup, but I’d take that Pontiac over this Ford any day – the Pontiac is absolutely gorgeous while at best the Ford looks like a cheap imitation, both inside and out
An impressive car, I like the sharp edged styling. That sure is some slow steering! My ’66 Riviera took only 3 1/2 turns lock to lock, which was similar to the Corvette. Buick did that for early Rivs and it gave them a much sportier feel. I can imagine trying to catch the rear end before it came all the way around, must have been a real workout. With better steering, clutch and brakes this could have been like a Plymouth GTX. luxury and performance. Besides NASCAR, they offered these cars for drag racing.
Wasn’t there a later model called the 7 Litre?
The 7 Litre was the 428. I remember the ads for the 428 Galaxies … as a 10 year old I couldn’t understand the big deal about one more cubic inc, not to mention the faux-European nomenclature. It did have different bore and stroke though, like 302/305/307 Chevies.
For comparison, CL tested the much tamer 428 in the 1966 7 liter and got these numbers:
0-60: 8.0 secs
1/4 mile: 16.4 @89 mph
That was with 3.25:1 gears.
Barn Find Hunter of Hagerty found a supposedly 1 of 1 ’67 Country Squire with a 428 and a 4 speed. I’m pretty sure they sold it but I don’t know its whereabouts now.
I saw that car at Carlisle All Ford Nationals several years ago. They have kept it “as found” condition. It was pretty cool.
Jay Leno recalls ticking the “427” engine option on his dads order form down at the dealership. His mum said “Oh my good it sounds like a race car” . Lesson. Do not bring your teenage son when you go shopping for a car!. Back in 1975 I choose my dads company car for him. Choose a Hillman Avenger GLS ,Plymouth Cricket to our American friends, in Grasshopper Green. Would be interesting to hear from an Yb one else who choose a car for a parent….
My kind of car. Given the 65s boxy styling and details down to the fake wire hubcaps effectively endured through the box Panther run, this spec couldn’t be a greater anthesis to them in driving experience.
And to echo JPC a high performance full sizer in the immediate post-GTO world is fascinating. GMs A bodies by 65 all had their muscle car packages and Plymouth and Dodge had their downsized B body chassis for the max wedges and Hemis to thrive but for Ford other than the ultra rare Thunderbolt they really didn’t field anything like this in the Fairlane, and even later with the introduction of the FE powered Mustang they were extremely stingy with their use of the ‘good’ 427 in it. The Big Ford was still Ford’s favorite son in 65, it was becoming a rapidly outdated package but this spec was unquestionably Ford’s only competitive Muscle car in 65.
The 396 wasn’t a regular option for the 65 Chevelle. There were a couple hundred special builds. The SS396 was a regular model in 66.
There were about a hundred special Hemi post sedans for drag racing in 65. The Street Hemi wasn’t a regular option til 66.
Who ordered the wire wheel covers on a 427 Galaxie test car? Hot Rod tested the same 427 Galaxie (same plate number anyway), and they were able to coax it down to a 14.43 at 108(!). They did do a lot more work to get it there, including a tune up at Ak Miller’s race shop that included new plugs, a valve lash adjustment, a timing adjustment, and unbolting the exhaust. All that makes Car Life’s 14.9 at 97 look pretty good, but I think a deeper rear gear would have made the most difference.
Oh, Hot Rod also ran some cheater slicks.
I have that article, and FWIW, it shows that the Galaxie ran 14.93 @ 101.69 untouched. That’s pretty darn close to CL’s time.
In ET, yes, but a 4.7 mph difference in trap speed suggests a pretty substantial difference in horsepower at the flywheel.
Not necessarily. There are many reasons for the difference in trap speed. The the elevation, temperature, winds, engine tune, etc, can all come into play and effect the trap speed. Then there are the differences due to testing practices, driver techniques/skills and equipment tolerance. Hot Rod tended to have more aggressive and skilled 1/4 milers. I think it’s within the realm of normal deviation and reasonably close. Finally, it was the actually the same car that both magazines tested, so I highly doubt that there is a significant deviation in horsepower beyond what environmental conditions and a tune-up might cause.
Well, engine tune, temperature, and altitude all also affect horsepower at the flywheel, as do simple hot-rodding tricks like loosening or removing the fanbelt. (I’m talking about actual real-world output, not corrected dyno ratings.)
Stanleyville must have been a hopping town:
I’m biased, but the lead photo in the article shows the ’65 to be an exceptionally good looking car in my opinion. Chevrolet may have out-wowed it at the time, but I’d argue that the Galaxie’s design has held up pretty well. I’m clearly a sucker for clean, folded lines. 🙂
When I was a wee lad and knew nothing about engines except displacement numbers, I couldn’t figure out why Ford made a 427, a 428, AND a 429. It was only later on that I learned they were all vastly different engines, and not even offered concurrently.
All three were available in 1968 models. The last of the 427s were some with hydraulic lifters used in the Cougar.
Eventually, Motor Trend and Car Life magazines combined. Not sure when, but early 70’s MT had “combined with Car Life” tags.
The styling of this model Galaxie has always done something for me. Probably why I love watching The Invaders and the FBI so much.
That acceleration was absolutely sensational then and still is now. The Australian Falcon GTHO Phase 3 circa 1971, billed as the fastest 4 door in the world (I realise the test car here is a 2 door – but it also available as a sedan) was slower.
As the article said, I could not agree more it was a shame that Ford didn’t put more effort into the brakes/handling etc. They could have expelled that horrible strip speedo set up too and fitted proper gauges with a tacho.
I can somewhat confirm the performance of the 427 Galaxie. In the late 60’s I built a 427 Tunnelport fitted to a 1954 Mercury. The Merc weighed 3700 pounds yet we stopwatch timed 0-60 5.2 seconds and1/4 mile 13.6 seconds. At the time there were nummerous Hemi Dodges and Plymouths as well as big block Chevelles and Pontiac GTO’s. The only cars that were faster were the Hemi Cudas. But everything full size was fair game for the Merc. My 427 was one of the rare Tunnelport head engines which were genuine Hemi killers and faster than the earlier 427FE engines.
These older 60ish model cars are pretty cool. I take the performance numbers with a grain of salt. Poor tires and suspensions did not help display the true performance levels these motors were capable of. Factor in differential ratios, drivers, track/weather conditions, plus other variables, and the waters get even murkier. Not to mention the factory horsepower numbers were fudged from time to time. I wonder if there are any modern dyno tests on some of these old 60-65 model GM/Ford/Mopar motors? That would be a good read.