My grandfather bought a new 1977 Mercury Cougar Villager wagon (full size wagon, one year only). He had the 400M . I remember it overheating a lot and leaving us stranded in Canada once when it was fairly new. I know that the engine was replaced under warranty.
So my advice to you would be to make sure that cooling system is up to the task of towing.
Also, I would love to own that car today.
His was like this, but metallic brown with woodgrain. It was a beautiful thing...
The best thing about the '71 400 is its complete lack of emissions controls. No thermactor air, no catalytic converters, higher 9.1:1 compression, less retarded cam and ignition timing. I've seen reports of this engine in the 390-400 ft-lb range.
I have high hopes for it. It should definitely have an easier time than the 280 ft-lb 302 in my 96 F-150.
Well, I just got home with it.
It was rustier than I thought. I've gotta rebuild where the spare goes. It sticks out through the floor a little. The bottom of the rear quarter is gone, too. You look up, and you see interior trim panels. But the frame seems allright. That's what really matters. I'll know more when I get it up on a lift and can wander around under it a little.
In reply to Woody :
Holy berk!!! That is pretty much my "holy grail" car. I've wanted one of those for... about 40 years - since I was given the Matchbox version of one as a present when I was 7 in 1977. I've never known anyone who has actually had first hand experience with one.
In reply to snailmont5oh :
Pics or it didn't happen 
A 401 CJ said:In reply to snailmont5oh :
Pics or it didn't happen
We demand pics!
The interior is what impresses me. It's virgin!
I saw your rear wheel torque calculations too. That's the right way to think about it. The torque converter complicates it though since its slippage actually adds quite a bit to it at low wheel speeds.
A 401 CJ said:The interior is what impresses me. It's virgin!
It is awfully nice. A buddy of mine looked at it, and the first thing he said was, "You could sell this interior and make your money back tomorrow!"
A 401 CJ said:I saw your rear wheel torque calculations too.
There is the question of the relative torque of the engines. The 400 is gross, and the 302 is net.
Look at the specs for a '72. It'll be net. I'm not sure if this engine changed between '71 and '72 or not. Some did some didn't. For example, IIRC the only difference on a Cadillac is the numbers. In any case it'll give you a worst case for comparison.
In reply to A 401 CJ :
At the very least, it went from flat-top to dished pistons, so it dumped some compression.
Update:
Driving the wagon around, I've discovered that it's probably the floatiest thing I've ever seen. When I was a kid, I drove around in a '77 LTD 2-door and a '77 T-bird, which I'm sure were bad, but I don't remember them being this bad. My '96 F-150 4wd feels like a sports car by comparison.
I'm thinking about getting the heaviest-duty(est) springs I can from Eaton, a 1-1/8" Addco front swaybar, a 1" Addco rear bar, and maybe some KYB or Bilstein shocks, some 17X8 or 17x9 wheels, and seeing where I'm at.
Have any of you played with a full size Ford? What sort of improvements have you seen, or has it completely screwed everything up?
I look forward to receiving the knowledge you may impart.
Thanks,
Mike.
My 81 marquis (2 door) firmed up alot with heavier springs, it still had some float too it but 4 door police package springs and shocks were a better upgrade then the lsd honestly.
You'll need to log in to post.
