The Ford Torino Page Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Model Specific Forum > 1972-1976 Ford and Mercury
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Production Problem With The 400 In '72?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedProduction Problem With The 400 In '72?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
GranTorinoMan View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 14-August-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Production Problem With The 400 In '72?
    Posted: 21-March-2009 at 3:53AM
I'm the 2nd owner of my '72 GTS and I had the privilege of meeting the original owner who ordered my car from the factory. We both live in the same town after all these years. He told me that he special ordered my GTS from Cherry Ford in Chilliwack with a 400. The salesperson from Cherry phoned him back when they were informed from Ford that the 400 had production problems and wasn't available. A different size engine had to be selected and so because he was a teenager at the time bigger was always better, he ordered the 429 instead. I was wondering if anybody knows what the problems with the 400 were in '72 that would cause Ford to hault production for a time? Maybe this was the start to the 400 getting a bad rap and not being popular amongst the aftermarket Hi Performance parts builders.       

Edited by GranTorinoMan - 21-March-2009 at 7:36AM
Back to Top
castillo View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20-February-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 352
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-March-2009 at 4:37AM
I think ford had a UAW strike in 71.. That may have lead to the delay.. I think GM had 1 too.. If you look at Mopar production figures 70-71 there sales are tied into the strike.. They avoided the UAW strike.. I heard this from an episode of musclecars on the spike channel
Back to Top
GranTorinoMan View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 14-August-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-March-2009 at 7:45AM
That's possible, I was thinking that new Gov't regulations on engine HP output may have had something to do with it seeing that '72 was the year for HP rating changes. Maybe the size and HP of the 400 didn't meet the new lower output standards and it had to be redesigned.
 
 
 
Back to Top
Kit Sullivan View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 23-October-2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 112
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-March-2009 at 11:32PM
Originally posted by GranTorinoMan GranTorinoMan wrote:

Maybe the size and HP of the 400 didn't meet the new lower output standards and it had to be redesigned.  
 
  There was not back the 70s, and has never been 'output standards' imposed by the government concerning passenger car engines. The manufacturers have always been allowed to sell as powerful an engine as they want to, as long as it meets all the safety and emissions regulations. But that is the catch: back then, the 'emissions regulations' that they were mandated to meet had the unfortunate side-effect of strangling the power out of the engines. As technology, in the form of fuel injection, computer controllers for engines, cad-cam manufacturing abilities and all the other tech advances we made over the last 35 years or so kept improving, so have the ability to produce power from the engines has while meeting the imposed standards.  
"I'm too old to grow up now!"
Back to Top
ramair351 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2006
Location: west michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 1559
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-March-2009 at 2:58AM
two things here..   the hp ratings in 72 were changed to 'HP at wheel' instead of 'HP at flywheel' ratings, so in addition to any compression changes the industry made in 1972, all hp ratings were lower because of the HP measuring system.
  Also  on the 400 question, remember in 71, when the 400 engine came out, it had the small block 351c bellhousing bolt pattern. this changed in 72 to the larger 385 (429) series bolt pattern. this design change may have been why his engine wasnt avail when he ordered.
-Pete
1972 montego GT
1970 Torino cobra SCJ
1970 mustang mach 1
1965 Falcon futura



Back to Top
GranTorinoMan View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 14-August-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-March-2009 at 3:42AM
So the labour strike in '71 along with the new Gov't emission standards might have caused the 400 option to be delayed by Ford early in '72. It would be interesting to get some build dates from the guys who have 400's in their '72's to find out when this engine finally became available. I just read that some 400's were built to fit the FMX transmission and that block is considered to be a rare find. Good news for anybody who has that combo in their car. I wonder what is more rare for '72 Fords, the 429/C6 or the 400/FMX?                

Edited by GranTorinoMan - 22-March-2009 at 4:10AM
Back to Top
Torinogts73c View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 14-February-2004
Location: Tucson Arizona
Status: Offline
Points: 1030
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-March-2009 at 8:58AM
  When I ordered my GTS in Feb. 73  I had to wait because Ford had emission certification problems rumor was they got nailed by the Feds for tampering with the numbers. I had options if I didn't want to wait but I stayed with the 351CJ, because it had more goodies offered than the 429/460 . Also I had alot of 351C parts laying around than could be used on the Torino.
Gary 73 Gran Torino Sport 351CJ,SVT LIGHTNING,07 CHARGER R/T HEMI,97 Mustang GT Vert

"Never complain Never explain"
Back to Top
Kit Sullivan View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 23-October-2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 112
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-March-2009 at 1:59PM
Originally posted by ramair351 ramair351 wrote:

two things here..   the hp ratings in 72 were changed to 'HP at wheel' instead of 'HP at flywheel' ratings, so in addition to any compression changes the industry made in 1972, all hp ratings were lower because of the HP measuring system.
 
 
  Almost, but not quite:
 
  Previous to 1972, horsepower was generally quoted as 'gross', which was measured at the flywheel...but the engine was not operating any of its normal accesories.
  It was fed electricity and water externally, so there was no power-robbing water pump or alternator to operate, and it also had no other accesories to run so there would be no parasitic horsepower loss of any kind.
  The government fel this was a misleadinmg practice as no typical consumer could run his engine in that fashion, so they mandated that all adverstised engine power  from 1972 and newer must be quoted in 'SAE net' ( SAE test #J-149).
  This test was still measured at the flywheel, but the engine had to be operating a water pump, an alternator and any other standard accessory that came on the car model it was slated to be installed in.
  This usually resulted in about a 15-20% drop over the previously-quoted 'gross' HP rating for the same engine.
  Coincidentally, all passenger car engines sold in the US starting in 1972 were required to operate on 'regular' gasoline (90 octane back than...but still containing TEL [tetra-ethyl lead] as a cheap octane booster and valve lubricant). This meant all the previous high-compression engines that required higher-octane fuel could no longer be sold. 
  Beginning in 1972, the TEL (lead) content of gasoline had to start its steady decline until it reached 'unleaded' status in 1975, a 75% decrease from what was allowed in 1971 'regular'.
  GM starting building its cars to 'officially' run on unleaded in 1972, Chrysler in 74, and Ford in 75.
  Today, unleaded gasoline has over 95% less lead in it that 1971 'regular' did.
 
  Horespower measured at the rear wheels is not a government test, so there is no test sequence code number, but several state's DMVs loosely use it as 'brake horsepower' as a means to assess registration taxes, and it is also called RWHP...rear wheel horsepower. (thats a no brainer!)
 
  But all in all, there is no doubt that horsepower from today's engines cannot be easily compared on paper to horsepower from an engine made previous to 1972.
  For example, every 426 HEMI engine from Chrysler came with a nominal rating of 425 HP, and today's 6.1 liter 'Hemi' also puts out 425 horses. Many assume that today's Hemi is about the same as yesterday's Hemi in terms of power output.
  Now, notwithsatnding the fact that all the 426 Hemis were well known to actually put out about 500 horsepower at a little higher RPM, they are still not as powerful as today's Hemi, for the newer version is quoted in SAE-net numbers, which equates to about 500-525 horses if measured with yesterday's methods.
 
Its all very confusing. My 1971 Mach 1 with the factory installed 429 CJ was rated at 375 horses. Using today's ratings, that engine would barely crack 300 horses.
300 horses from a 7.2 liter engine is dismal by what is available today.  
 
But......................what everyone misses is the torque ratings, which is what really moves the car.
My 429 was rated at 450 lbs at a low RPM. That is some real motivational ability, much more than some newer 'hot rods'.
Today's engines (especially Ford's modular engines) typically make thier most torque at a relatively high RPM, which means they don't produce nearly as much 'grunt' off the line as some older engines do.
 
So......even though a new Mustang GT is rated at 315 horses, and my 429 Mach 1 would be about the same if measured using the same standards, my car kicks the crap out of a new GT simply because of all that monster torque which comes on way down low in the basement. This allows the engine to produce near-maximum torque the entire time while the RPM climb to the max horsepower RPM.This leats the engine pull quite strongly for quite a while between gear changes.
  Contrasting that, by the time the new GT reaches its max torque, you are too close to the peak horsepower rating to maintain that for any reasonable length of time before a gear change is needed, which of course drops you back down way below your torque peak.
 
  It has always been one of my pet peeves, but it seems worse today that ever before: People quote horsepower figures like that is the ONLY rating that matters. Far from it!
 
  It is quite possible to have a very high horsepower engine that is a slug, because it produces no useable torque. The Honda S-2000 is the universally perfect example: It was (and maybe still is?) the highest horsepower-per-liter car ever sold at one time, but the car was a real slug because it made it peak torque up high in the RPM band, near the HP peak.
A basically useless design for a 'performance' engine.
 
But, try to explain that to some rica-a-roni Honda driver who claims 10 zillion horses, but has no clue where the RPM peak is or what his torque is.
 
Funny thing is: My Mustang turned a best 1/4 mile time of 13.2 (it's mostly stock), but it somehow puts all the (supposed) 10-second jap-junk on the trailer without breaking a sweat. 
 
Stupid kids: I eat steak, and I drive a big-block. I will never eat, OR drive rice.
"I'm too old to grow up now!"
Back to Top
72FordGTS View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 06-September-2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2751
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-March-2009 at 1:42AM
Originally posted by Kit Sullivan Kit Sullivan wrote:


  Almost, but not quite:

 

  Previous to 1972, horsepower was generally quoted as 'gross', which was measured at the flywheel...but the engine was not operating any of its normal accesories.

  It was fed electricity and water externally, so there was no power-robbing water pump or alternator to operate, and it also had no other accesories to run so there would be no parasitic horsepower loss of any kind.

  The government fel this was a misleadinmg practice as no typical consumer could run his engine in that fashion, so they mandated that all adverstised engine power  from 1972 and newer must be quoted in 'SAE net' ( SAE test #J-149).

  This test was still measured at the flywheel, but the engine had to be operating a water pump, an alternator and any other standard accessory that came on the car model it was slated to be installed in.

  This usually resulted in about a 15-20% drop over the previously-quoted 'gross' HP rating for the same engine.

  Coincidentally, all passenger car engines sold in the US starting in 1972 were required to operate on 'regular' gasoline (90 octane back than...but still containing TEL [tetra-ethyl lead] as a cheap octane booster and valve lubricant). This meant all the previous high-compression engines that required higher-octane fuel could no longer be sold. 

  Beginning in 1972, the TEL (lead) content of gasoline had to start its steady decline until it reached 'unleaded' status in 1975, a 75% decrease from what was allowed in 1971 'regular'.

  GM starting building its cars to 'officially' run on unleaded in 1972, Chrysler in 74, and Ford in 75.

  Today, unleaded gasoline has over 95% less lead in it that 1971 'regular' did.



For some reason, the switch in horspower ratings in 1972 is misunderstood by most people. Your explaination was good except for one thing, it also includes the exhaust system. This is why cars with dual exhaust systems now have higher horspower ratings. Also, don't forget that many manufactures used reasearch octane ratings in those days. My 1972 Torino brochure states 92 research octane is the minimum to be used for all engines. This actually is 87 octane when the research octane number and motor octane number are averaged (this is how we measure octane in the North America today).

There is no way to directly convert gross to net horsepower, since each car has different accessories and exhaust systems that use different amounts of power. This is also why the old "super car" engines like the Hemi, is not as powerful as we'd like to thing when comparing to modern high performance engines. They really can't be compared directly. But yes the old engines generally have way more torque which gives them decent performance.

I collect old car brochures and for some reason GM was the only manufacture to list gross and net horsepower figures in their 1971 brochures (because they knew the switch would occur in 1972). One example to demonstrate the difference is the 1971 454 was rated at 365 gross hp, but was only rated at 285 net hp with dual exhaust.

Back to the original thread topic, my 1972 has its original 400 engine in it. My father ordered the car in early 1972 and took ownership in March of 1972. He had no problems getting the 400 and with over 140 K miles in the clock it still runs virtually like new (almost zero oil consumption). It's a great engine, decent power, gobs of torque and bullet proof reliable.   Additionally, this car is equipped with a C6 tranny, not an FMX.
Vince

1972 Ford GTS Sportsroof - Survivor, One Family car
Back to Top
Kit Sullivan View Drop Down
Member
Member


Joined: 23-October-2008
Location: Florida
Status: Offline
Points: 112
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-March-2009 at 3:00AM
Originally posted by 72FordGTS 72FordGTS wrote:


For some reason, the switch in horspower ratings in 1972 is misunderstood by most people. Your explaination was good except for one thing, it also includes the exhaust system... 
 
  Yeah, I assumed that everyone knew that the intake and exhaust configuration as used on the test engine in question had to be representative of what was going to be installed on the car as manufactured.
  Clearly, a freer-flowing intake and/or exhaust will change the ratings of the engine. A good example of this on Fords is how the venerable 302 HO in the Mustang GT (225 horse) was only rated at 200 horses when installed in the T-bird...due to the T-bird's more restrictive intake and exhaust.   
"I'm too old to grow up now!"
Back to Top
GranTorinoMan View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 14-August-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-March-2009 at 3:45AM
If your GTS was delivered in March with a 400/C6 then the 400/FMX must have been a really short production. 
         
Back to Top
72FordGTS View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 06-September-2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2751
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-March-2009 at 8:31AM
Just check the old paper work for the car. My father ordered it 24 Feb 1972, the car has a build date 27 C (March 27?) and he took ownership on 6 April 1972. This car was Canadian built at the Oakville factory.

Personally, from what I have seen on the internet (ebay, etc), the 400 seems to be one of the rarest engines in the 1972 GTS. Seems the 351-2V is by far the most common.
Vince

1972 Ford GTS Sportsroof - Survivor, One Family car
Back to Top
picon3 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 20-February-2007
Location: North Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 2063
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-March-2009 at 9:13AM
Here's a list of engine options with the 1972 Torinos along with a link to total production numbers.  http://grantorinosport.org/72torino.htm
Engine Codes
Codes No. of Cyls. Displacement
A 8 460-4V
C 8 460-4V (Police)
F 8 302-2V
H 8 351-2V
L 6 250-1V
N 8 429-4V
Q 8 351-4V
S 8 400-2V
1972 GTS 351CJ-4V black/black
Back to Top
72FordGTS View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 06-September-2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2751
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-March-2009 at 3:49AM
I am aware of all the available engines for the '72 Torino. Those production numbers are broken down by model. What we need to see are production numbers by engine. My guess is the most common engines for all 1972 Torino's would be the 302-2V and the 351-2V. From what I have seen, it seems the 351-2V "H Code" is the most common in 72 GTS's I have seen listed for sale.
Vince

1972 Ford GTS Sportsroof - Survivor, One Family car
Back to Top
GranTorinoMan View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 14-August-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 919
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-March-2009 at 4:15AM
Small blocks were better for gas mileage which would have been higher demand during the early '70's oil shortage.           
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.