Hi Royce, I was trying to find out a few things about differences 430/462.
First: Were all MEL engines externally balanced, and so can any of them use a manual flywheel from most FE's (352,390)? Are any of MEL cranks NOT machined to accept a pilot bearing? (This would make putting a manual tranny behind some of them an uphill battle and I don't care much for automatics..) Second: Info on this site indicates that some MEL motors had both FE & 385 series bellhousing patterns. Which years and displacements used which bellhousing patterns, and which used both bellhousing patterns? Third: Some posts seem to indicate that the motor mounts on some of these were on the front for Lincoln chassis. I had asked if any of 430 or 462 did NOT have side mounts cast & tapped. However, I just brought a 1967 Lincoln 462 home and it has side mounts in same place that my old '60 Merc 430 had them (so they will bolt right in 57-58 Fairlane chassis). But, presumably that means that all of MEL's had at least the side mounts. I have not separated motor from transmission yet, so I cannot see what end of crank looks like re: pilot bushing acceptance. The '60 Merc 430 that I put in a 57 ford before bolted right in using an FE bellhousing and flywheel and (presumably - can't remember that detail- the FE pilot bushing). Bellhousing pattern on this 67
motor looks like one of upper bolt holes (right hand from rear) would be missing if a 385 series bellhousing were bolted to it, though... Front of this '67 tranny bell pattern looks odd in that one bolt (upper left hand from rear) is way higher than the rest (like a 460 bell - except it does not have same rise on right side, as 460 would..). Thanks, Mike H
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
1) "Were all MEL engines externally balanced, and so can any of them use a manual flywheel from most FE's (352,390)?"
All are externally balanced.
2) "Are any of MEL cranks NOT machined to accept a pilot bearing?
This one I am not sure about. But there has been at least one poster saying there was no pilot bearing provision. It makes sense as FORD would have saved machining costs after dropping the MEL from MERC assembly. No need for the provision in a 430/462 LINC.
HAWKROD is planning to tear down different time period MEL engines for comparison.
3) "Info on this site indicates that some MEL motors had both FE & 385 series bellhousing patterns. Which years and displacements used which bellhousing patterns, and which used both bellhousing patterns?
The early MEL (58/ ) used the same mounting pattern. I have heard rumor that the pattern was changed slightly in 1963 (no confirmation). The 66/68 462 had both the earlier FE pattern and a 385 C6 pattern (there are photos in this forum showing this detail).
4) "Some posts seem to indicate that the motor mounts on some of these were on the front for Lincoln chassis. I had asked if any of 430 or 462 did NOT have side mounts cast & tapped. However, I just brought a 1967 Lincoln 462 home and it has side mounts in same place that my old '60 Merc 430 had them (so they will bolt right in 57-58 Fairlane chassis). But, presumably that means that all of MEL's had at least the side mounts."
The early MEL blocks had only the front mount pads. In 1959, the blocks had both front and center mounting pads cast into the skirts, but one set may not have been machined depending on the chassis it was scheduled to go into. Again,there are photos showing this on the forum.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
First I think these engines are INTERNALLY balanced which is what a 390 is. If it was external you could not use a 390 flywheel which many people have done. I do not know about the 462 though and will check the flywheel when I do the teardowns (probably next month, I started a little on the 383 already) Second, none of the engines have a 385 bolt pattern. The weird bolt pattern found on late 462's was carried over to the first 460's but was not used except in 68 lincolns. The 460 uses a pattern that has two bolt high on the top of the block where the 462 only has the one high bolt. The 462's with this pattern also appear to have the early bolt pattern on them as well and I will be verifying that too. And finally a bit of trivia: Did you know that all Fords used a flywheel? Ford did not use a flexplate. If you check it out in a Ford parts catalog you will find it listed as "flywheel-automatic transmission"! Lesson for the day, Ford worked really hard to make it tough on us! LOL Hawkrod
Hawkrod
39 Ford Deluxe Coupe
59 Tbird 430
60 Lincoln Premier
(2)62 Tbirds
(3)68 Cougar XR7-G's
69 Cougar 428CJ 4 speed
77 1/2 Ford F250 4X4 w/460 swap
86 SVO mustang
76 F250 Crew Cab
1969 Mach I look at my cars past and present at superford!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
So none had 460 bell housing bolt pattern on them?
No score for this post
January 25 2006, 4:36 PM
Yes, that is a weird pattern on my '67 462. I had never seen it before. I have a 1968 460 short block just finished at machine shop (two years, a new record...). When I pick it up I will have to see if that has that odd 462 pattern as well as the 385 series pattern. So, none of MEL engines had 460 bell pattern? Pretty sure I saw some post's here that said it did. Maybe I confused it with the early 460's having both the patterns; rather than the late 462's having both the patterns. I agree with Ford's use of the terminology. I never called flywheels "flexplates" either until recently. I called them stick flywheels or automatic flywheels, even though I suppose the flexplate term is more accurate in describing its function.
Mike H
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Nope, none of the MEL's had the 385 bolt pattern...
No score for this post
January 25 2006, 9:18 PM
I believe both 68 and 69 385's (429 and 460) had the dual bolt pattern but I think it was dropped when the block was revised in 70 or 71. A flexplate does not have the ring gear on it that is why Ford never called it a flexplate. Hawkrod
Chryslers used flexplates:
Hawkrod
39 Ford Deluxe Coupe
59 Tbird 430
60 Lincoln Premier
(2)62 Tbirds
(3)68 Cougar XR7-G's
69 Cougar 428CJ 4 speed
77 1/2 Ford F250 4X4 w/460 swap
86 SVO mustang
76 F250 Crew Cab
1969 Mach I look at my cars past and present at superford!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Well, I hope that is not the case with the pilot bearing provision being absent. Maybe I will have to pull tranny off motor this weekend to end the suspense. I thought I had seen pic's or postings regarding the 462 having both bell patterns, as you say. But, mine looks like it is missing one of top holes that you would need to bolt a 385 bell or tranny to (as per Hawkrod's post..). Mike H
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Got my 460 back, it has both FE & MEL bolt patterns +mts
No score for this post
January 30 2006, 5:08 PM
I picked up my 1968 Lincoln 460 short block from the machinist this weekend. It has both the FE bellhousing bolt pattern and the 385 series bellhousing bolt pattern. This may mean it would probably accept the oddball 1967 Lincoln C6 bolt pattern as well (with an upper hole left over on the block). This 460 also has the early Ford and later BB sidemotor mount provisions. None of my later 460's have either the FE pattern on back or early Ford mount provisions on the side. Mike H
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
FWIW...460 blocks at least as late as 1977 still have the 462 bellhousing pattern lower boss cast & tapped. I believe later ones do as well, but don't have any sitting around right now to look. Dunno what, if anything, this means, but thought I'd throw it in to the mix.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It now seems there was an early 460 block casting (68/69) and it was changed somewhat in 1970 (parts info shows D0SZ) (it retained both bell patterns). I need to find early parts information before origional PN's were deleted from present text.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"This may mean it would probably accept the oddball 1967 Lincoln C6 bolt pattern as well (with an upper hole left over on the block). This 460 also has the early Ford and later BB sidemotor mount provisions."
...that shows the modified mounting provisions on the MEL 462. LINC dropped the TWIN-TURBO (LX) in 1966 along with the introduction of the C6. The oddball C6 mounting provision on the MEL 462 also went to the first 385 and although the C6 mounting pattern was modified to more of a bell shape later, the 385 block casting remained the same until retirement.
I was not aware of the dual engine support castings. Thank you for that information. It has to do with a chassis design change.
My computer is down (remodeling) but will be back up soon and will post the photos.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The 462 bellhousing pattern is a hybrid of the FE and 385 bolt patterns. The block has one extra hole and a cast bracket that lets it mate to the newer 385 bolt pattern. However, an FE belhousing fits as well, there is just one extra hole, and the cast bracket is not used.
Decades after the demise of the MEL, the 429/460 kept both bolt patterns until the 460 was finally discontinued.
1962 LINCOLN TWIN-TURBO INSTALLATION (For Comparison)
This message has been edited by KULTULZ from IP address 69.140.42.35 on Feb 5, 2006 12:10 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I just pulled the C6 trans off my 462 and apparently neither a 385 series or an FE bellhousing will fit these motors. The bellhousing pattern has an exact FE pattern on driver side of engine and a totally weird pattern on starter side of motor. A hybrid pattern as Kutultz(sp?) mentioned, I guess. I tried engine plates off of a 390 and off a 460 and neither one will fit and I don't think even one bolt hole matched up on the 460 plate. This surprised me that the FE did not fit since I have used a 61 FE bellhousing on a 60 430 Merc motor before. Change of heads & intake in 61 must have been accompanied by block changes also. Not that it much matters since there is no bellhousing in existence that will fit anyway, but it appears that my late 462 would probably accept an FE pilot bushing. So, apparently only way to use this 462 in anything is to use C6 that it came with. But there is another problem there too, because the oddball output shaft on the C6 is not a great fit for most cars either. Anyone know how hard it would be to switch Lincoln C6 over to use normal slip yoke? I have a couple of later C6's sitting here from Cleveland-powered cars that did not use that 3 spline oddity on the Lincoln and have shorter tailhousings also.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The 462 also had an additional bracket to take the C6 case. This pattern was carried to the later 429/460 and the additional high bolt hole on the pattern was just not used.
Can you supply photos of either attempted installation of the block plates? There was also design changes on the 1963 430 block. It may be here where it will not accept an FE case any longer.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
here's what I have, 1960 430 from a tbird,1965 lincoln 430, and 1966 lincoln 462, all three of these bellhousings are different, the early tbird is the same as the FE family but somwhere the 62 or 63 they changed to a different pattern using more bolt holes towards the bottom(on the 65 block) and the 462 has the teardrop shaped c6 trans.also note that I wanted to put a 430 into a 59 tbird, the 60 bird used special stands to use the front 4 hole mounts(pads). I used the standard side 2 bolt mounts and turned my 352 mounts 180 degrees and the 430(65 block)dropped right in,(using the standard 352 crossmember) these look like later year tbird mounts. so the mounts on the FE and the MEL are very close. My 462 is complete and was running good when pulled, I plan on installing it with the C6.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
That is consistent with what I have found (58-60 has FE pattern, other years are unique and hard to use in swap situation w/o using original tranny). I bought a '65 430 last week have not picked it up yet, so am interested in seeing what that looks like. My '67 462 does have teardrop style bellhousing and nothing else fits that motor. Tranny guy tells me that he can put shorter tailhousing and 31 spline output shaft from another C6 on the Lincoln C6
to rectify driveshaft adaptation difficulties, but not sure it is worth the monkey business since would probably end up going thru motor and tranny both, and perhaps encounter more complexities. But, could instead use much cheaper parts in 460 with much greater options for tranny selection. But if the tranny options were not so limited and motor tests out sound, I would like to drop the 462 in a 56 Merc I have.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The 462 does have a dual mounting pattern, the unique MEL C6 and the modifed FE (starter postion changed in 1961) (I have come to discover). It should also take the MEL specific LX.
I see no reason the MEL specific C6 cannot take the regular tailshaft housing.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
