Mystery MKII was 409

[brisbane47]

Junior's 427:

I left the NASCAR program after the 63 500 at Daytona when GM pulled the plug on us, but I would bet that whoever had the MKII kept them for the long tracks. Knowing Junior, I am sure he had put together some kind of engine from a combination of parts that included the longer stroke crank. I would have liked to stay around, but going with Ford was not a good option at the time. When I took over the Angel's Aviation sports car team it was a whole new world!! A lot of fun, really strange people, with more money than good sense, but a different type car and tracks to drive on. It was good for a couple of years, but Open Wheel short track cars got the best of me. haha. I wish I had some input on what happened to the MKII after the 500, but I had a family to feed. See ya all, brisbane47

 

[MK IISS]

Fran: Here's the deal. We are both on the same page here about the MK I stuff. I agree with you completely that the the W engine was not referred to as a Mk I engine during it's development....while it was being built. The developmental stages were referred to as Mk this & that. It wouldn't be so confusing if Duntov had used the term Stage I, Stage II, etc like Chrysler did. However after the MK II came and went, and the MK IV arrived.... the W engines, as a group, were labeled MK I engines. It would be clearer if Mr. Keinath would have said "after the fact" instead of "by default". This MK I label on the W engines, as a whole group, was not coined by me or automotive journalists..but by Chevrolet.

 

[Ronnie Russell]

I have seen the terms,---Mark I Mark Is Mark II Mark IIs and Mark IV mentioned in this section of the Forum. So what was a Mark III ? Did they just skip Mark III ? Or was it some highly secret project? What was a Mark III?

 

[MK IISS]

Ronnie: Fran has more information on the MK III project than I do but I do know this. During the summer of 1963 ( it may have been later) Chevrolet engineers were looking at a different engine possibility which had greater cylinder bore centers for a much larger displacement engine. The project was short lived and abandoned. Not quite sure why except they probably decided to go with the MK IV. The reason Chevrolet assigned a number to the project was because they had a plan to purchase the Packard V-8 tooling, after Packard went out of business, and redesign the engine. That's all I know. I don't know if you ever saw one of the packard V-8s but it was quite a large heavy engine. I believe it was only 352 cubic inches but could have been expanded to much more.

 

[Ronnie Russell]

Thanks Richard. I have never heard of MK III. Your explaination souds logical, but I think I will use my imagination and pretend it was a top secret G M conspiracy to unleash 409 Chevy II on the world.

 

[MK IISS]

Ronnie: You are welcome but as I said, Fran Preve probably has other information on the MK III project. The bulk of my info on the MK III is from another source who is a retired Chevrolet engineer who refuses to get involved in any internet discussions. Much of the Chevrolet info I have learnered over the years is from him. This is why I've said many times that I am not an expert on any of this stuff. However I have a friend that is.

 

[Ronnie Russell]

Richard, I have no doubts of your explaination. My comment was made in jest. My humor may not fit this thread. Thanks for your info. on the MK III, for I had never heard anything about it before.

 

[Fran Preve]

Ronnie: Richard told you what I would have, the Mark III exsited on paper only, just as Richard said it involved buying Packard's V-8 tooling. It was a short lived discussion and I'm surprised they threw a Mark III moniker on it. As a side note the Mark V was basically a rehab of the Mark IV, they added a cooling passage on the head that should have been on the original which caused problems with cylinder head interchange between the Mark IV and Mark V. Changes to the crankshaft flange caused more problems and required a special "kit" to retrofit Mark V's into Mark IV trucks (and cars). The Mark VI is also called the L-18 and was even more refined and different (that's what they make now as 496's). Also they caused quite a problem when the eliminated the mechanical fuel pump boss on the Mark V, a REALLY stupid move!.It would have cost an extra million dollars for the machines and they had to fit them into the machine floor. They couldn't make up their mind so finally left it off. This created serious problems with the marine industry because they wanted and needed mechanical fuel pumps, and when retrofitting a Mark V where a Mark IV was you needed to switch to an electric fuel pump. How stupid was it?. On the 90 degree V-6, which was also used as a marine engine, they simply locked out the machines that machined the fuel pump for non-marine applications, they could make them both ways.

Richard: I respect ALMOST everything you say, and agree, MOST of the time, but where I DON'T agree I have to be true to myself, sometimes you show me where I'm wr-wr-wro-I can't say it, other times I have to hold my ground. In the case of the Mark discussion I'll have to disagree. I have NO records in my internal documentation or from any engineers I'VE talked to for anything but a 409 w/ two peice intake/heads (Mark I), 427 (Mark Is), Mark II, Mark III, and Mark IV. I have nothing anywhere that shows a W block being refered to as a "Mark", from 1956 thru 1964, nor have I ever read in any magazine from that time refering to anything but those. Both you and I know that most books written from the mid 80's on contain many mistakes, provable mistakes. It's my understanding Duntov threw the "Mark I" designation on the 409 with special parts. Trust me Richard, I would REALLY like to have something that speaks of the W as a "Mark" so I could name the book I'm writing "MARK- a History of Chevy's Big Block Engines from 1958 to 1975".

Anyway...................................................................Fran

 

[MK IISS]

Mark this and that

Mr. Duntov sure liked the word "Mark" or "Mk". He labeled a lot of stuff with the term. I can remember back in the 60s there were some over the counter camshafts (dealer/owner installed...not regular production) for the W engines that were Mk this... Mk that....whatever. It's just labels or words anyway...not worth loosing a friendship over.

 

[MK IISS]

Ronnie: You said: "My humor may not fit this thread."

It could have used some humor a long time ago.

 

[Fran Preve]

Then there's the guy at the flea market yesterday who said he heard some 409 stuff "from an engineer at the Tonawanda plant that helped design it". He was supposedly in a building near the enterence. Needless to say I went absolutely BALLISTIC. Needless to say NO design work on ANY engine went on at Tonawanda!. Now I regret not tearing off to confront this sob.

Richard: Things are murky from back then, no one ever cared enough to sit all these guys down together and thrash out who did what and when, now all we can do is piece things together from old records and the memories of the few that are left. And a few educated guess's. But evidently there are a few out there that enjoy our little "battles" (disagreements?) and it's neat when someone who was into it back then throws in their two cents. In the end maybe we all learn something.

BTW, at the flea market tody one of the guys we were with was selling old Hudson club magazines, I glommed up on 4 issues pertaining to their early 1950-54 NASCAR days. What a hoot that was, NASCAR from 1950 to 1963.

 

[SS425HP]

battles

Fran and Richard, the only problem is that people that don't know you, and don't know that you are friends, don't understand the "battles". It's fun to have met you both, had lunch with you both, and shared in the stories with you both.
I had planned on cancelling my trip to Florida, then remembered you were going down, and we could all three get together again. So I went. Glad of it.
BTW, I have met, through this web site, many precious friends. We have shared some good times and some bad times, thanks to this web site. WOW, what a neat thing.
Thanks to Bob for putting this thing on, and keeping it running.

Fred

 

[MK IISS]

Bob has been very quiet lately...... I hope he is feeling ok.

I'm trying to buy a video of the '62 Atlanta race race to determine if Ford was really allowed to race the '61 style top or not. The web is full of conflicting info on this. The four volume set of books that Tommy and I have.... FORTY YEARS OF STOCK CAR RACING by Greg Fielden is probably the best source of historical NASCAR racing info available, but is unclear on this. The 4 volume set is out of print now but still available on the used book market for about $100.00. Mr. Fielden wrote a 5th volume, RUMBLIN' RAGTOPS, also out of print, which is in the $200.00 range on the used market. RUMBLIN RAGTOPS covers the first to the last NASCAR convertible division race.

Searching out NASCAR information I discovered the famous Ford 427, released for the 1963 Daytona 500, was not really a 427 cube engine. Ford just labeled it a "427". It was actually 425 cubic inches...424.964 to be exact. Ford's first 427 was the 1966 428 which was actually 426.543 cubic inches.

 

[bobs409]

I'm still kickin' Richard. I'm just letting you guys "hash" this thing out and keeping way out of the discussion.

 

[Fran Preve]

Fred: seeing you and Richard was the high point of my trip and was VERY glad we could all get together. I'm only sorry Richard lives so far north, we'll be back down in the fall for a longer time and we can do it all again, maybe take in the Daytona flea together?. Anyway, thanks for arranging to be there when I was.

 

[chevymusclecars]

I was looking around on the internet to see if there was anything that really showed the 62 Ford with the 61 roof could be confirmed and found this, looks pretty convincing to me. This is taken from the Nascar site under history section III.


"As the "superspeedway boom" era continued, manufacturers began to pay more attention to aerodynamics. The 1963 Ford Fastback Galaxy was used in the manufacturer's literature and was advertised as a race car. The 1960-61 Starliner had what was actually an effectively aerodynamic roofline. In fact, with the 1962 car a pretty boxy proposition, Fred Lorenzen ran a 1962 Galaxy with a 1961 Ford roof in a one-shot deal for the Atlanta 500 -- and won the race in the car's only appearance."

http://www.nascar.com/2002/kyn/history/evolution/02/06/stockcar3/index.html

 

[MK IISS]

Thank you chevymusclecars. I think this pretty much clinches it along with the www.62ford.com/registry/better_ideas.asp description of the Starlift top.

 

[Fran Preve]

I guess that settles it!. But after reading the NASCAR article I'll dispute (as usual) the statement about using the T-Bird. The T-Bird was offered with a 430 Lincoln engine and 3 speed transmission, and not just for NASCAR racing, more than a few were sold. Also I believe the T-Bird had a coil spring rear suspension which may have been better than leaf springs. Also the T-Bird or Galaxie (if it had been used) would have been a one year only car, the 1960 Starliner was a done deal by 1959. Frankly smooozing the T-Bird and 430 by NASCAR for one year only should have been an easy task for Ford.

PS: Atlanta may have had a Ford assembly plant, but didn't Chevy have one there too?.

 

[MK IISS]

Fran: I'm not quite sure what you disagree with about the '59 T-Bird info on NASCAR's website. I always thought Ford elected to run the T-Bird in '59 because the top engine in the Galaxie was the 300 horse 352 which was not a high perf. engine. The 352 couldn't compete with the competition such as the 320 horse 348. I realize the 350 horse 430 Lincoln engine wasn't a high performance engine either but it did have more horsepower.

I don't know if GM had a plant near Atlanta but I do know during the time I attended the Atlanta races ( at least ten) there were many Ford employees there. This included factory workers and "big shots" from Michigan. During pre-race functions Ford executives were often introduced. I can remember one year Edsel Ford II was there. There was always Ford stuff on display everywhere. So, even though it was conjecture on my part, I thought maybe Ford may have put pressure on NASCAR to allow the '61 style top for this one race. Just a guess.

I also came across this information on the so called "'61 top" This is from the book CHARLOTTE MOTOR SPEEDWAY, ISBN # 0-7603-0751-2.... "Stacy (Nelson Stacy was one of the Holman-Moody team drivers) had been ticketed to drive a Ford Galaxie with a new 'fastback' roof. The sleek roofline was a new aerodynamic feature fresh from Dearborn designed specifically for the high-banked superspeedways." In my opinion this is additional proof that the top was not a roof cut off a '61 Ford and welded upon a '62 Galaxie.

 

[Fran Preve]

They seemed to imply that the T-Bird was used because it was lower and sleeker (and it was in relative terms) but it was more because of the 430 Lincoln engine that was available in the T-Bird. As you say, the biggest engine available in the Galaxie was the 300hp/352, but in the article they bypassed the 430 Lincoln powerplant as the BIGGEST reason.

I didn't mean to imply that there WASN'T a big Ford presence at Atlanta, I only wondered if Chevrolet had a presence too. Not as big maybe but a presence nonetheless. Of course I don't KNOW if GM had assembly plants in the Atlanta area.

And I don't disagree Ford would apply pressure on NASCAR to use the fastback 1962 at this one race, but the other teams would have screamed bloody murder once they saw it!. Look what Ford did when they saw the "mystery motor" at the 1963 Daytona 500.