+1408 strokers with 4v heads (M408) can produce monster power."M" code is good. Plenty of power stock, doesn't take much to bump up the horsepower. If you want a lot of power, easy to stroke it to 408 cubic inches.
If you were not aware, David is referring to a car with a VIN of (for a 71) 1f02M XXXXXX i.e. sportroof. The Boss would be 1f02RXXXXXX The Mach 1 would be 1f05MXXXXXX. which is probably what you have. In this case "f" means it was built in Deardorn. If it's a "t" it was built in Metuchen. 02 =Sportroof, 05= Mach1,M code is fine for sure. Is your car a sportsroof? Maybe with the chrome rocker trim.
Welcome to the forum from N.C..
Not here to argue and maybe I'm biased. Perhaps the early 72's were a bit better for performance, but from the all accounts, it was a downhill slide from there on.71-72 CJ was a better performance package than the M code. Ford made lots of mistakes with the 70-71 M-code drivetrain setups and fixed it in May of 71 with the Q code.
Not arguing, we're having a discussion. Notice my use of "package", which encompasses the engine, transmission and rear axle. Ford treated the M-code like a 351W, with a small carb, tiny camshaft, tight converter and the availability of 3.00 gears, which were all wrong for this engine. However, it did well considering the drivetrain configuration straight from the station wagon parts bin.Not here to argue and maybe I'm biased. Perhaps the early 72's were a bit better for performance, but from the all accounts, it was a downhill slide from there on.71-72 CJ was a better performance package than the M code. Ford made lots of mistakes with the 70-71 M-code drivetrain setups and fixed it in May of 71 with the Q code.
With timing changes, a bit better cam and a decent carb, an M code will run with the best. That's my 2 cents worth.
Hemikiller,Not arguing, we're having a discussion. Notice my use of "package", which encompasses the engine, transmission and rear axle. Ford treated the M-code like a 351W, with a small carb, tiny camshaft, tight converter and the availability of 3.00 gears, which were all wrong for this engine. However, it did well considering the drivetrain configuration straight from the station wagon parts bin.Not here to argue and maybe I'm biased. Perhaps the early 72's were a bit better for performance, but from the all accounts, it was a downhill slide from there on.71-72 CJ was a better performance package than the M code. Ford made lots of mistakes with the 70-71 M-code drivetrain setups and fixed it in May of 71 with the Q code.
With timing changes, a bit better cam and a decent carb, an M code will run with the best. That's my 2 cents worth.
I'd surmise that the Q-code was the result of what Ford learned with the Boss 351 program mixed with the 429 going away and the reality of the EPA regs coming down the pike in '72. They had to do something to keep the performance image. The CJ cam is about as perfect a well-mannered street cam as they come, coupled with a slippy converter on the C-6 cars and appropriate gearing really helped out off the line.
Enter your email address to join: