Optional Factory 428 CJ Spoiler II?
Did the Mercury division of Ford plan on making an optional 428 CJ engine available in the Spoiler II? I have never heard anything about it nor have I seen any literature that suggested it….until now!
When a bunch of car guys (and gals) get together they talk cars. What do you think went on at the 50th Anniversary of the Aero Cars this year? Lots of car talk and lots of comparison of similar cars. For some reason, it seems that the motel parking lots are a real hot spot for gathering and shooting the breeze. On one such occasion, a long time aero car owner, Mike Adkins, handed me a reproduction of the original Owners Manual Supplement for a Mercury Cyclone Spoiler II. He asked if I had one. I stated I had seen them and had a portion of one but not a complete on. He said keep it. I was thrilled to get it but in the rush of activities I never really looked at it until I go home.
I have included a copy of the supplement for you to review. I am sure you Spoiler II owners will appreciate this.
All seemed to be just as I had expected it. What the copy I have had for a long time didn’t have was the last page. This page is for the Cyclone Spoiler II Service Specifications and goes on to list such things as the proper light bulbs, general dimensions, and capacities.
However, the very last item at the bottom of the page is what stopped me in my tracks. The engine specifications to be exact. It lists TWO engines! The first is the 351 that we all know powers all the Spoiler IIs but right under that is listed a 428 engine!
Did Mercury want to offer a 428 CJ as an option in the Spoiler II? Did Ford not want the Spoiler II to compete power-wise with the Talladega? Was this a simple screw up on this particular Supplement to the Owners’ Manual?
We will likely never know but if anyone has any documentation or historical paperwork that might support this possibility I would sure like to see it and share it on this site.
For just a moment think of the possibility of a 428 CJ Spoiler II from the factory. What about a Ram Air Spoiler II with a Spoiler hood scoop? Why not a 428 SCJ Spoiler II?
See Update
This is interesting, fact is this is not a copy of the “Owners Supplement Manual” that was put into the glove box of Spoiler II’s as they left the factory. When Ford was testing a part for a race or Muscle parts program they would use the X as the Engineering Department code, then when a part was put into production or used in a production plant it would be given a Engineering letter for the correct department. Lets take the first listing C9OX-6310100-A now when this part went into production the X would be changed to Z for “Ford Service Part” this is the way it was printed in the Owners Manual Supplement that were installed in the Spoiler II’s as they left the factory. Look at the Fender assembly for right side This shows part number C9OGX- Now we know this can not be right…it reads C-for 1960 9-making it 1969 O-for Fairlane/Torino than a G for Montego ( which is body style Spoiler II’s were built on then the X for (1969) a Muscle part…Now we know the Spoiler II and Talladega/ Fairlane/ Torino fenders due not interchange.
When I was at the Lorain plant as a worker in talking about some of the Muscle cars to come out of that plant I was given a packet of Spoiler II Supplements and over the years I have given them out to Spoiler II owners ( sorry only one left I am keeping ) thus we need to get this cleared up. What this copy shown here is… is a early copy of what the glove box supplement could have been, you can also see production parts like the Hood pull cable handle used on the Spoiler II’s and Talladega’s shows the production department letter and not the X As it was used in production in 1966.
Now as to the Question at hand there was a man who was going to build a garage and have Spoiler II’s on one side and Talladega’s on the other and he stated he had bought a Spoiler II from a (at the time) high end Talladega/ Spoiler II collector (that was going to get out of the game) that was a true from the factory 428 C J now I have never seen this car nor gotten prof of this….thing is it could be true?
Very interesting, can you scan your original and email me a digital copy? I would love to publish that one and compare the two. Thanks.
Richard,
I am sure over the years I sent you a copy of this? I have scanned you a copy of the 1st. inside page and you should be able to see the difference. The ones used for the Spoiler II’s carry the same back page and as you did not show the front page I can not tell if they are same but sure they are.
Talladega part numbers were the same with an X when they were first mocked up then as they went into production the X changed to the department code from which the part came from. Like a Muscle part (as they were called in 1969) for an engine that was tested could have carried an X than if it would go into a production part that X would become an E for engine department..
and a full understanding of how the parts system worked back than helps to understand this better. By use-ing department codes it would help a parts man or Lady at a dealership know where or what department a production part came from. Think if they were all X’s??????
Richard,
Was just going to scan you the 3th. page and last page. Glad to hear another member sent you a copy. It will be Kool to read what your finding’s are after you review and compare the two.