# Ford's Heritage Fleet **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [June 21, 2025, 1:52pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744 "2025-06-21T13:52:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2025, 1:52pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/1 "2025-06-21T13:52:12Z")
… will soon be open for public viewing. It contains some historic vehicles, as well as one-off Concept Cars, such as this 2003 Ford 427. It is powered by a 7-liter V10, which sent 590 hp to the rear wheels. ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/original/3X/0/1/017937e6fdf98d04a679dcc3c517aeb280072fc4.jpeg) This article provides a peek at some more of the vehicles in that collection: [https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a64166299/ford-heritage-fleet-historic-vehicles/](https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a64166299/ford-heritage-fleet-historic-vehicles/) ---
**Author:** ![jtsanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c2a13f/32.png) [@jtsanders](https://community.cartalk.com/u/jtsanders)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2025, 3:15pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/2 "2025-06-21T15:15:24Z")
I want a 427. ---
**Author:** ![old\_mopar\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/6bbea6/32.png) [@old\_mopar\_guy](https://community.cartalk.com/u/old_mopar_guy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2025, 4:44pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/3 "2025-06-21T16:44:34Z")
Ill take anything with a 413 or a 392. ---
**Author:** ![jtsanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c2a13f/32.png) [@jtsanders](https://community.cartalk.com/u/jtsanders)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2025, 6:03pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/4 "2025-06-21T18:03:45Z")
The name of the concept car is 427. It’s powered by a 7L V10 as shown in the original post. ---
**Author:** ![old\_mopar\_guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/6bbea6/32.png) [@old\_mopar\_guy](https://community.cartalk.com/u/old_mopar_guy)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2025, 8:45pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/5 "2025-06-21T20:45:34Z")
Since it’s a Ford, i have absolutely no interest in it. ---
**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\ **Post date:** [June 21, 2025, 9:16pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/6 "2025-06-21T21:16:52Z")
> [@jtsanders](#): > > The name of the concept car is 427. It’s powered by a 7L V10 as shown in the original post. At least in this case the name is correct, 7.0 L = 427 in3 ---
**Author:** ![jtsanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c2a13f/32.png) [@jtsanders](https://community.cartalk.com/u/jtsanders)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2025, 1:58pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/7 "2025-06-22T13:58:01Z")
I divided 7L by 5L and multiplied by 302 CI instead of using an online conversion. I got 422 CI. ---
**Author:** ![Mustangman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/mustangman/32/44130_2.png) [@Mustangman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Mustangman)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2025, 2:07pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/8 "2025-06-22T14:07:53Z")
One liter is 61 cubic inches. 7 x 61 = 427 cid 5 liters is 305 cid. 302 cid is actually 4.9L but that does not sound as cool. ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2025, 2:45pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/9 "2025-06-22T14:45:18Z")
This ad, from 1971, shows that Mustangs with a 428/429 c.i. engine were readily available at the local dealership. ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/original/3X/6/e/6e18acfba56b8efee964112c4dab584b57594c90.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![davesmopar](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/davesmopar/32/41750_2.png) [@davesmopar](https://community.cartalk.com/u/davesmopar)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2025, 2:47pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/10 "2025-06-22T14:47:41Z")
> [@Mustangman](#): > > 5 liters is 305 cid. 302 cid is actually 4.9L but that does not sound as cool. Besides, Ford also has the 300 I6 that goes by the 4.9L… lol I have always used the ci / 60.9 to come up with what L it is, or L x 60.9 for the ci and go from there, Yes I know it is technically 61.02374 and not 60.9, but 302, 305, 307 are technically not all 5.0L either, only 305ci is, but that didn’t/doesn’t stop the manufactures from rounding up and down either… remember the 350ci/5.7L Chevy??? lol ---
**Author:** ![Mustangman](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/mustangman/32/44130_2.png) [@Mustangman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Mustangman)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2025, 3:03pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/11 "2025-06-22T15:03:35Z")
> [@VDCdriver](#): > > 428/429 c.i. engine Ford built four different 7 liter V8s called 427, 428 and 429. And, of course, the 427 SOHC. All were based on different engine families! PROliferation! ---
**Author:** ![texases](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/texases/32/862_2.png) [@texases](https://community.cartalk.com/u/texases)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2025, 3:14pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/12 "2025-06-22T15:14:14Z")
To be exact, 7.00 L = 427.166 in3 ---
**Author:** ![oldtimer-11](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e79b87/32.png) [@oldtimer-11](https://community.cartalk.com/u/oldtimer-11)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2025, 6:37pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/13 "2025-06-22T18:37:42Z")
Manufacturers played name games with displacements all the time. Remember the Chevy 396 that was actually 402 ci? The first Pontiac GTOs delivered actually had 366 GMC truck blocks because the 389 had production delays/ ---
**Author:** ![Purebred](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/purebred/32/46796_2.png) [@Purebred](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Purebred)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2025, 5:36pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/14 "2025-06-23T17:36:20Z")
Another Ford I would love to have is the 1966 Galaxie with the 7 Litre trim package. A friend had the convertible, the 428 with the skinny tires and open diff would smoke the tire for a block. ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2025, 6:03pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/15 "2025-06-23T18:03:59Z")
> [@Purebred](#): > > Another Ford I would love to have is the 1966 Galaxie with the 7 Litre trim package. That’s what my father bought. Of course, the 7 Litre trim package was just for show, and it actually had a 289 under the hood, but it was a very good, reliable car… until someone T-■■■■■ it at an intersection. Luckily, my brother, who was driving it, wasn’t badly injured. Just as Ford advertised, it had an incredibly smooth ride, and was very quiet. Handling was probably no worse than most other clumsy American cars of that era, and the brakes were also typical of that era, i.e. very prone to fade. The paint color was Sauterne Gold, and it looked just like this one: ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/original/3X/0/b/0b937b282b036ed0684b0f412b90e734d456f99a.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![Purebred](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/purebred/32/46796_2.png) [@Purebred](https://community.cartalk.com/u/Purebred)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2025, 12:48pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/16 "2025-06-24T12:48:11Z")
This is what I found: However, the 1966 Galaxie 500 7-Litre was a specific, high-performance model that came standard with the 345 horsepower, 428 cubic inch V-8 engine. This “7-Litre” model was essentially a high-performance version of the Galaxie 500XL. While other engines, like the 427, were available as options on the 7-Litre, the 289 was not. The 7-Litre package focused on higher performance engines and features. Other trim lines did have the 289. ---
**Author:** ![VDCdriver](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/vdcdriver/32/30_2.png) [@VDCdriver](https://community.cartalk.com/u/VDCdriver)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2025, 12:54pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/fords-heritage-fleet/200744/17 "2025-06-24T12:54:09Z")
Yes, but part-way through the model year they offered the unique trim of the 7 Litre model as an option. Unless you saw the 7 Litre badge on the front fenders, there were several other engine possibilities. ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/original/3X/4/0/4076559ba9e4cbb653cbe6d1f445b253c386267b.jpeg)