Brought to you in part by:
USA Casino Codes

Bet on Nascar at MyBookie, get your free bet here.

.


NOTICE! The old Mustangsandmore.com is a read-only archive.
Currently the Search function is inoperative, but we are working on the problem.

Please join us at our NEW Mustangsandmore.com forums located at this location.
Please notice this is a brand new message board, and you must re-register to gain access.

  Mustangsandmore Forum Archive
  '69 to '73 -- The Musclecar Mustang
  428 CJ vs. 429 CJ- The Winner is...?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   428 CJ vs. 429 CJ- The Winner is...?
cobravenom71
Gearhead

Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 10-17-2002 08:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cobravenom71        Reply w/Quote
O.K., let's try another round. Which engine was actually the better one, as far as high-performance goes? I know that FORD rated the 428 CJ at only 335 horses, which is ridiculously low. I've heard everything from an easy 400 horses to over 450 from a totally stock motor. I used to have a 70' Mach 1 w/ 428 CJ, 4-speed that was completely stock, and that car was real fast. I never timed it, but it sure felt like a boatload more than 335 horses. Ford supposedly undrated the motor for insurance reasons, and that would make sense, considering the circumstances.
Now the 429 CJ was factory rated @ 370 ( 375 for the SCJ), and I've read several different 'FORD' insiders(?) claiming that it put out an actual 370, or some claim as high as 450.
It is known that the '385 series' motors ( 429's and 460's) were basically FORD's answer to CHEVY's MK-IV big-block, commonly called the 'porcupine' mill.( because of the odd-angled 'splayed' valve arrangement).
The FORD 385-series engines were supposedly a refined version of CHEVYS, but it is never stated what the revisions were.
I know that the 385's were designed to be a 'cleaner' running engine, and they are also referred to as the lightweight big-block.
I can't see them being called 'light-weight', considering that the motor alone weighs almost 950 pounds! How much lighter than a 428 is that? Is it actually ANY lighter?
The 429 was only ever installed in the heavier 71 'Stangs, so that gives the earlier models a big advantage right away.
After owning several 428's, and a few 429's, it seems to me that the 429's have a LOT more low-end torque, but the 429's just don't maintain power at higher RPMs as readily as the 428s.
Another thing to consider is the 429 'Thunder Jet'. This version was just a 2-bolt 429 with passenger car heads, and was rated at 360 horses. None of these motors were ever installed in a Mustang, although it was the standard Motor in the '70 Torino Cobra.( That's odd... a Torino Cobra that does not come standard with a 'Cobra' engine?).
There is a HUGE, GIGANTIC difference in the way a 429 Thunder Jet runs compared to a 429 Cobra Jet. A lot more than a 10 horsepower difference, that's for sure.
Who's got an opinion?


SteveLaRiviere
Administrator

Posts: 48752
From: Saco, Maine
Registered: May 99

posted 10-17-2002 08:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SteveLaRiviere        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by cobravenom71:
I can't see them being called 'light-weight', considering that the motor alone weighs almost 950 pounds! How much lighter than a 428 is that? Is it actually ANY lighter?

Where did you hear that? I've got the FE weighing 650, the 385 series 720. Of course, you find a different weight everywhere you look, but it's nowhere near 950.

Between the two, I'd definitely take the 385 series.

------------------
'70 Mustang Mach 1 - '72 Mustang Sprint - '94 F-150

[This message has been edited by SteveLaRiviere (edited 10-17-2002).]

Moneymaker
Administrator

Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 10-17-2002 09:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Moneymaker        Reply w/Quote
428 CJ will out run a 429 CJ everytime in any body.
Been there, done that!

------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator

NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl

Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"

cobravenom71
Gearhead

Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 10-17-2002 10:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cobravenom71        Reply w/Quote
I have'nt seen in print, by FORD anyway, what the weights were on the two engines, but I have read in several other places that the 429's were 950 lbs. Sounds real high to me also. Maybe they were reffering to a 'fully dressed' motor w/ all the accesories.
Yeah, I hate to admit....but I think a 428 will whip a 429 also. Sigh...

------------------

Fastback68
Gearhead

Posts: 4511
From: Sucat, Paranaque, Philippines
Registered: Jul 99

posted 10-17-2002 11:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastback68        Reply w/Quote
My personal opinion on this is worthless, but I'm following with interest 'cos I have a Mustang book that says the 429CJ was a far better engine than the 428CJ.

jsracingbbf
unregistered
posted 10-18-2002 12:09 AM              Reply w/Quote
In stock form the way they were sent out from the factory the 428's were faster. By the time the 385 series HOT CJ & SCJ set-ups came out of Dearborn, Ford was starting to cut back it's High PO line up. The 385 series engine is the newer model with the more potential for high output. The FE motor was a GREAT motor and still is, the 385 series is just a different motor, no deep skirts, etc..etc. Without either of them some History in FoMoCo racing would be lost. I would score the 428 the Higher profile motor and the 429 the sleeper with a potential to do even more. jus my .02

------------------
Jerry Smith
69 Mustang Pro ET Drag
70 Mustang retired former footbrake car
"Crawfish are Lucky! they get their Heads Sucked and their tails eaten!"

jsracingbbf
unregistered
posted 10-18-2002 12:24 AM              Reply w/Quote
Also, the 385 series motor weighs LESS than a chevy 454, 640lbs depending on factory accessories. The RAt motor = approx 675lbs. AND the 385 was NOT made in an effort to be an ANSWER the the RAT. Ford was piddlin with splayed valve small blocks and big blocks a good while, some in production some not. Spalyed (multi angle) valves were one of the ways engineers came up with on the 302 Boss to get more fuel/air mixture into a limited area and increase volumetric efficiency. It wasn't a matter of an ANSWER to the rat motor, Ford as well as GM already knew about this method. Although marketing MAY have played the 385 series motor as the ANSWER to the BBC, Ford engineers knew better. I know several BBC guys who admit the BBF motor distributes fuel better, which= higher volumetric effecincy. Again jus my .02 BUT it just happens to be right.
CYA!

------------------
Jerry Smith
69 Mustang Pro ET Drag
70 Mustang retired former footbrake car
"Crawfish are Lucky! they get their Heads Sucked and their tails eaten!"

mustangboy
Gearhead

Posts: 1343
From: Ont, Canada
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 10-18-2002 11:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for mustangboy        Reply w/Quote
My brother and his best friend had a pair of these cars back in the early 70s.My brother had a 69 Mach 1 428 CJ and his buddy had a 429 CJ Cobra Torino.The 428 would run circles around the 429 to the point of where his buddy hopped up the 429 to keep up and still couldn't.I know the Torino was heavier but it was a drag pack car and my brothers car was originally just a plain jane automatic with highway gears and not even a posi.

Rory McNeil
Gearhead

Posts: 1889
From: Surrey, B.C. Canada
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 10-18-2002 12:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rory McNeil        Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Fastback68:
My personal opinion on this is worthless, but I'm following with interest 'cos I have a Mustang book that says the 429CJ was a far better engine than the 428CJ.


I may be a bit biased, having owned 5 69-70 "R" code 428 CJ cars, but in addition to being quicker in stock & midly modified trim, the 428 cars also still command a much higher resale price. Plus they were made in considerably higher production numbers than the 429 CJ/SCJ.

------------------
78 Fairmont 428 4 speed [email protected]
80 Fairmont 302 5 speed [email protected]
85 Mustang NHRA Stocker under construction, 302 5 speed
59 Meteor (Canadian Ford) 2 dr sedan 332, auto
74 F350 ramp truck 390 4spd

Moneymaker
Administrator

Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99

posted 10-18-2002 02:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Moneymaker        Reply w/Quote
All one needs to do is check the record books throughout history. 428 CJ has always been quicker and faster. 385 was never given the attention as a performance engine from FoMoCo. Had it been raced and developed for 13 years like the FE's then it may have been a serious contender.

------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator

NHRA/IHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
MCA member# 53321
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28
Professional Manwhore
The Barry of BarrysGrrl

Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Mustangsandmore Front Page

Copyright 2006, Steve LaRiviere. All Rights Reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d

[]

[]

[]

[] [] [Tech Articles]

[>] []