Ford’s Forgotten Big Block: The 1958-68 MEL V8

[Dan Szwarc]

Well, forgotten by everyone but certain Lincoln, Thunderbird, and Edsel owners.

I doubt it has any inforamtion we haven't already seen.

Ford’s Forgotten Big Block: The 1958-68 MEL V8

Quoted and PDFd for archive purposes:

Ford’s Forgotten Big Block: The 1958-68 MEL V8
Posted on April 26, 2021 by MCG
Ford’s MEL V8 might not have a famous racing record, but it’s worthy of a closer look.

The Ford Motor Company had a plenty on its plate for the 1958 model year. First, there was the rollout of an entire new car division, the ambitious but unfortunate Edsel. Next, there were two distinct new passenger-car V8 engine families heading into production, the FE series and the MEL series. (There was a new SD truck V8, too.) The FE (short for Ford-Edsel) went on to glory at Daytona, Le Mans, and elsewhere, while the MEL V8 (Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln) is largely forgotten today. But that doesn’t mean the MEL isn’t an interesting engine and worthy of a closer look.

Between 1958 and 1968, the MEL V8 was produced in four displacements: 383, 410, 430, and 462 cubic inches. All were built on the same basic architecture with 4.90-inch bore spacing, and they all shared the unusual design feature shown above. There were no combustion chambers in the cylinder head. Instead, the block deck was machined at a 10-degree angle, forming a wedge-shaped combustion space in the top of the cylinder bore. This unusual construction, engineered in part to provide manufacturing flexibility, was a Motor City fad of the late ’50s that was also found in the Chevrolet 348/409 V8 (read our feature on the 409 here) and Ford’s SD series large-displacement gasoline truck engines. While the MEL V8 resembles the big SD V8 in some aspects, it shares no major components with the SD, the FE, or any other FoMoCo engines—it’s a lone ranger. Applications for the MEL V8s break down as follows:

+ 383 CID: 4.30-in x 3.30-in bore and stroke, used by Mercury in 1958-60
+ 410 CID: 4.20-in x 3.70 bore and stroke, used in 1958 Edsel Corsair and Citation. Marketed as the E-475 V8 in accordance with its 475 lb-ft torque rating.
+ 430 CID: 4.30-in x 3.70-in bore and stroke, used in 1958-60 Mercury, 1959-60 Ford Thunderbird, and 1958-65 Lincoln.
+ 462 CID: 4.38-in x 3.83-in bore and stroke, used by Lincoln from 1966 to 1968, when it was replaced by the 460 CID V8 from the Ford 385 engine family and the MEL series was discontinued for good. The MEL and 385 engine families share 4.90-inch bore centers, suggesting that the 385 was designed to run on the MEL’s tooling.

As we’ve seen, Ford wasn’t afraid to try new things in this period. For example, check out the elaborate engine shroud with thermostatic air intake shown above left on an Edsel E-400 V8 (361 CID, FE series). While a press photo was released, it doesn’t seem the remarkably modern-looking engine cover ever made it into production. (We haven’t seen one, anyway.) However, we can see that the production Edsel engines (410 CID E-475, above right) did use thermostatic air control, ducting exhaust heat into the air cleaner housing.

Despite its multiple virtues, the MEL V8 never gained a foothold in the high-performance world. Its exploits in racing were few but noteworthy: Johnny Beauchamp’s 430-powered ’59 Thunderbird nearly won the 1959 Daytona 500 in the famous photo finish with Lee Petty, while the team of Rodney Singer and Karol Miller took Top Eliminator honors at the NHRA Nationals in Detroit in 1959 with their Lincoln-powered dragster.

Among production MEL V8s, the ultimate in looks and muscle might well be the 1958 Mercury Super Marauder, a special package with three two-barrel Holley carburetors and a fabulously styled cast-aluminum air cleaner assembly (below). With 400 hp at 5200 rpm and 480 lb-ft of torque at 3200 rpm, the 430 CID beast is easily among the most powerful engines offered by the Motor City in the ’50s.

[TonyC]

That is a really cool article there, Dan! True, much of the stuff in it I already knew, some of it the hard way last year ; sucks that the slant-deck engines are not something that just any machine shop can handle. That was why I was forced to outsource the milling of the block to a shop in Manhattan, and I still consider myself lucky to have found that one. I always felt that the MELs were unfairly underrated, because they were conceived with performance in mind, unlike, say, the 302s (known by Vin-Diesel wannabes as the "5-point-O") which were essentially steroided out for any hi-perf apps. But, that is what happens when a manufacturer changes things; the 385 series just came along and kicked the last great Y-block subseries to the backstage.

It is, however, nice to know that there are still sources for MEL parts, to include enlarged parts when needed, and cost isn't really all that impractical. One thing I still hold as fact that nobody can convince me otherwise: The MELs were about as tough an OHV V-8 design as anything, durable and enduring like nobody's business despite their very risky interference configuration; more than adequate power and scary-impressive torque, all critical needs to move a car with an average weight of 5,300 pounds (one of several things I just know all those LS-ers never factor in with their engine-swap delusions)...and when you're talking about a car that qualifies as exclusive, as the '58—'69 Lincolns were, that makes a huge difference. You really want an engine that will last well past anybody's expectations of engine life, and the MELs can do it.

---Tony

[frasern]

They never got much attention from the racers, too heavy I guess. But a long time ago, I saw a tractor pull, where a guy had four 462s hooked together in a T. two inline, two at 90 degrees. He wanted the weight. I wish I had pictures, don't know much else about it.

[TonyC]

That's got me curious. I seem to remember references to a 462 that International had offered approximately the same time; wonder if he used Lincoln or International engines...? But, in any case, an engine which is capable of breaking the speedometer of a 5,300 car, and which can outlast just about any other engine, is nothing to turn one's nose up at. For me, the durability is the primary factor; power is secondary, though I know I have a good amount of that. I'd really love to know if somebody ever tried fitting one of these engines into a contemporary Mustang body, to see what it would do in a car less than half the mass.

---Tony

[LithiumCobalt]

I'd really love to know if somebody ever tried fitting one of these engines into a contemporary Mustang body, to see what it would do in a car less than half the mass.

---Tony

Probably a disaster. The 462 weighs in at 700-800 lbs, which is almost double the weight of the 5.0L Coyote. Not only would the Mustang be front heavy, but it would also only have net 220-ish horsepower with the MEL compared to the 412-460hp (depending on year) Coyote. Torque difference also negligible in later model Mustangs....420ft/lbs vs. the MEL's 485. So in a modern Mustang GT with the factory engine, not only do you get double the horsepower, but also about the same torque as the older big block, in a package that weighs about half as much. I'm not surprised I have not seen someone attempt it.

[frasern]

They were Lincoln engines, in a tractor pull you want weight and torque. And at that time, they were available and cheap, if one broke, he just swapped in another.
I'm not familiar with a cornbinder 462, but the 6.9 diesel in my truck is 430.

[TonyC]

Yeah, I figured that nobody ever tried that, I was only thinking hypothetically .

But with net ratings, I dismiss that universally-accepted 35% reduction. That is based solely on the premise that an engine is an engine is an engine. Although I have no solid proof, common sense will dictate that premise is not the case. Different brands of engines are built differently, exhibit different dynamics, and thus bear loads differently; a loss of power in a Chevy engine will not necessarily amount to the same loss of power in a Lincoln engine, for instance...or a Pontiac engine compared to a Chrysler engine. Plus, there is something else about the MELs that sets them apart from all other engines: Each and every one of them, at least from '61 into early-'68, went through a costly hot test under loads, meaning they will likely have less (if any) loss of power by a net scale compared to a gross scale. The loads used may or may not have been exactly accurate to real-world, we'll never know for sure...but one thing is for sure: The steering pump, which would be one of those contributors to power differences, is a required component to even run the engine, as it is the only thing holding the front oil seal in place. So every engine would have to have had at least that in place for its turn on the test apparatus. If there really is a noticeable loss of power between gross and net, it cannot be at that arbitrary figure. To propel a 5,300-lb. car past its speedometer limit with only three transmission gears, it would have to have more than a mere 220-ish hp.

But all this is and will remain debatable, as the only way to settle the debate would be to take several pre-net cars of different makes and run them on a net apparatus, which nobody has ever bothered doing.

---Tony

[LithiumCobalt]

Just because you dismiss something or don't believe it, doesn't make it false, necessarily. Gross HP was like the wild-wild west where automakers could basically make any claim that they wanted, often inaccurately exaggerated because the measurement was for the maximum output of the engine at optimal conditions (which real world conditions rarely are). My quote of 220hp may have been low - I don't really know what the net HP rating on a 462 would be, but thought I had read that number somewhere. All of that said, the modern small block V8 in the Mustang is going to kick the MEL's ass any day of the week without even breaking a sweat. Progress. Longevity between the two would be another discussion.

https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-techno ... orsepower/

Not to be taken as gospel, but here is discussion about on the MEL engine forum: http://www.ford-mel-engine.com/viewtopic.php?t=1445

[TonyC]

Yes, I too have come across that arbitrary reduction figure myself many times in the past.

Just because you dismiss something or don't believe it, doesn't make it false, necessarily. Gross HP was like the wild-wild west where automakers could basically make any claim that they wanted, often inaccurately exaggerated because the measurement was for the maximum output of the engine at optimal conditions (which real world conditions rarely are).

Well, I won't dispute that...but on the flip side, just because somebody in an authority position declares something, does not necessarily make it true. Some things can be taken as gospel, many others not so much without proof. I just believe in treating this arbitrary figure as a theorem, subject to verification by hard proof, and not as an axiom.

The gross/net debate is one good example of why I hold to the second saying in my signature. We don't really know who came up with that arbitrary 35% reduction figure, or how they came up with it. They may have come up with it just by testing only one or two very common engines of the day (like Chevrolet, for instance), discovered that specific reduction factor, and then just assumed that all engines will exhibit the same results without even bothering to test them all (which would have made for a very long, very expensive venture). Or they may have just been on a coke or acid high when they came up with that figure...after all, it was the early-'70s. We may never know. I do know that, essentially, those "optimal conditions" meant running a single (likely production prototype), completely naked engine: No generators, no pumps, no transmissions attached, and then just using the figure from that to apply to all engines they made. I know that was the standard practice back then, with two exceptions: Continental (the division, that is), and Lincoln starting with the '61 engines (ending with the 385 family until the net conditions became mandatory standard). But, it's all just an academic argument at this point, unless/until somebody decides to do an actual net test on a bunch of different pre-net cars. If that were done, I'd then accept the results, whatever they may be.

When I posed the Mustang scenario, I was talking about Mustangs of 1966, not today's...however, I don't dispute that 21st-century engines are built to give off a lot more power from a much-smaller mill; they have done quite a lot in increasing engine efficiency (power produced in relation to size, which is what efficiency actually is). But I too hold to the idea that an engine's durability is inversely proportional to its efficiency: Too much power out of too small a mill will equate to a much-shorter life span. On the other hand, too little power out of too large an engine makes for just a woeful slug; it may live for centuries but has about as much sense of excitement as a dormouse. I think Lincoln straddled an ideal balance between efficiency and durability with the MELs. Maybe they could have eked out a few more horses from the 462; I have noticed its efficiency ratio was less than the 430s of '63—5, however only slightly, but still less efficient. Just another 10 horses couldn't have hurt the car's luxury-ride status.

---Tony