Rat
(pronounced ratt)
(1) In zoology, any of several long-tailed rodents of the
family Muridae, of the genus Rattus and related genera, distinguished from the
mouse by being larger.
(2) In (scientifically inaccurate) informal use, any of the
numerous members of several rodent families (eg voles & mice) that resemble
true rats in appearance, usually having a pointy snout, a long, bare tail, and
body length greater than 5 inches (120 mm).
(3) In hairdressing, a wad of shed hair used as part of a
hairstyle; a roll of material used to puff out the hair, which is turned over
it.
(4) In the slang of certain groups in London, vulgar slang
for the vagina.
(5) As “to rat on” or “to rat out”, to betray a person or
party, especially by telling their secret to an authority or enemy; to turn
someone in.
(6) One of a brace of rodent-based slang terms to differentiate between the small-block (mouse motor) and big-block (rat motor) Chevrolet V8s built mostly in the mid-late twentieth century but still available (as "crate" engines) from US manufacturers.
(7) As RAT, a small turbine that is connected to a hydraulic
pump, or electrical generator, installed in an aircraft and used as a power
source.
(8) Slang term for a scoundrel, especially men of dubious
morality.
(9) In the criminal class and in law enforcement, slang for
an informer.
(10) In politics, slang for a person who abandons or betrays
his party or associates, especially in a time of trouble.
(11) Slang for a person who frequents a specified place (mall
rat, gym rat etc).
(12) In hairdressing, a pad with tapered ends formerly used
in women's hair styles to give the appearance of greater thickness.
(13) In the slang of blue-water sailors, a place in the sea
with rapid currents and crags where a ship is prone to being broken apart in
stormy weather.
(14) In zoology (in casual use), a clipping of muskrat.
Pre 1000: From the Middle English ratte, rat & rotte,
from the Old English ræt & rætt, and the Latin rodere from the Proto-Germanic rattaz
& rattō (related also to the West
Frisian rôt, the German Ratz & Ratte and the Swedish råtta & the Dutch rat), of uncertain origin but perhaps from
the primitive Indo-European rehed- (to
scrape, scratch, gnaw). Zoological anthropologists
however point out it’s possible there were no populations of rats in the Northern
Europe of antiquity, and the Proto-Germanic word may have referred to a
different animal. The attestation of
this family of words dates from the twelfth century. Some of the Germanic cognates show considerable consonant
variation such as the Middle Low German ratte
& radde and the Middle High
German rate, ratte & ratze, the irregularity perhaps symptomatic
of a late dispersal of the word, although some etymologists link it with the Proto-Germanic
stem raþō (nom); ruttaz (gen), the variations arising from the re-modellings in the
descendants. Rat is a noun & verb, ratting is a noun & verb, rattery is a noun, ratted is a vern & ajective, rattan, rattish & ratlike are adjectives and rattily is an adverb; the noun plural is rats.
Mall rats. In North America and other developed markets, there is now less scope for mall habitués because changing consumer behavior has resulted in a dramatic reduction in the volume of transactions conducted in physical stores and some malls are being either abandoned or re-purposed (health hubs and educational facilities being a popular use).
The human distaste for these large rodents has made rat a productive additive in English. Since
the twelfth century it’s been applied (usually to a surname) to persons either held
to resemble rats or share with them some characteristic or perception of quality
with them. The specific sense of "one who abandons his associates for
personal advantage" is from the 1620s, based on the belief that rats leave
a ship about to sink or a house about to fall, and this led to the meaning
"traitor” or “informant" although, perhaps surprisingly, there no
reference to rat in this sense prior to 1902 where as the modern-sounding sense
of associative frequency (mall-rat, gym-rat etc) was noted as early as 1864,
firstly as “dock-rat”. Dr Johnson dates “to
smell a rat”, based on the behaviour of cats, to the 1540s. Sir Boyle Roche (1736-1807), was an Irish MP famous for mangled phrases and mixed metaphors, of the best remembered of which
was “I smell a rat; I see him forming in the air and darkening the sky; but
I'll nip him in the bud".
One of Ed Roth's Rat Fink Racing Team images.
There’s the rat-terrier (1852), the rat-catcher (1590s), the rat-snake
(1818), rat-poison, (1799), the rat trap (late 1400s), the rat-pack (1951) and rat-hole which in 1812, based on the holes gnawed in woodwork by rats meant “nasty,
messy place”, the meaning extended in 1921 to a "bottomless hole"
(especially one where money goes). Ratfink
(1963) was juvenile slang either coined or merely popularized by US custom car
builder Ed "Big Daddy" Roth (1932-2001), who rendered a stylised rat
on some of his creations, supposedly to lampoon Mickey Mouse. One
memorable use came from Dr Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Australian prime-minister
2007-2010 & 2013) who, becoming frustrated at the way negotiations were
going at the 2009 Copenhagen climate change summit, remarked “…those Chinese
fuckers are trying to rat-fuck us”. Said
to be in use as US college slang as early as the late 1950s (when it entered
political use isn’t clear and one could imagine it coming from the lips of Lyndon
Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963 and POTUS 1963-1969) though possibly
not from John Foster Dulles (1888–1959; US Secretary of State 1953-1959)), “ratfucking”
is a generalized term describing covert political sabotage, dirty tricks and
low skulduggery. As Dr Rudd, suggested,
the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) are as skilled at such things as political
operatives anywhere.
In politics, “ratting” is the act of being elected to an assembly as a member of one political party and, once ensconced, changing party affiliation. Ratting has a long (and not always noble) history and in some places (most famously the exciting world of the Papua New Guinea parliament) is such a feature of political life its regarded as normal behavior but in most of the English-speaking world it tends to be viewed with distaste, those practicing the art thought more often opportunistic than principled. The “decorative” word for the act is “tergiversate” but that's rare, the more evocative “ratting” much preferred and while both terms can be applied to changes of opinion or alignment in many fields, they're most often heard or seen in speech or writing about politics & politicians, a rich source of mendacity and inconsistency. So common is political tergiversation that the frequency with which it’s reported has compelled the coining or adaptation of other terms including “flip-flopping”, “turncoating”, “U-turning” and “ratting”, some politicians known even to have embraced them. Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) in 1901 entered the UK’s House of Commons as a Tory (Conservative), having on the hustings lambasted his opponents in the Liberal Party as “prigs, prudes and faddists” and once in parliament he warmed to the topic, accusing the Liberals of “…hiding from the public view like a toad in a hole”, adding “…when it stands forth in all its hideousness we Tories will have to hew the filthy object limb from limb.” That told the country what he must at the time have thought yet in less than three years he’d stand on the same platform and ejaculate: “I hate the Tories. I am an English Liberal.” Obviously, that was a nailing of the colors to the mast yet by 1924, after a turbulent couple of decades, he returned to the Tory benches, all apparently forgiven (though certainly not forgotten). Whether those tergiversations were acts of principle or a sniffing of the electoral breeze can be debated but Churchill himself took the view he’d done it all with some panache, joking in his club: “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat.”
Lord Chancellor Jowitt (left) and Winston Churchill Right), Cenotaph Ceremony, Remembrance Day, London, 11 November, 1945: Jowitt ratted just once, Churchill twice.
Generous in spirit, Churchill was prepared to offer procedural advice even to his nominal opponents. After entering the House of Commons as a Liberal after the 1929 general election, William Jowitt (1885-1957) had been offered the post of attorney-general by the incoming Labour Party administration (unlike the modern era, Labour was at that point “short of good lawyers”) so ratted on the Liberals and changed affiliation. Although, in the circumstances, he thought it right to resign his seat and seek re-endorsement under his new tag (he secured an increased majority at the by-election), his former colleagues in the Liberal Party remained unimpressed by the ratting and that his appointment was bundled with a knighthood (then customary for both an attorney-general and solicitor-general) added to their sense of betrayal. Discussing the matter with cronies in the House of Commons Smoking Room, Churchill wickedly was sympathetic: “Poor fellow. He didn’t know how to do it. Now if he had come to me, I could have instructed him in the technique of tergiversation.” Sir William’s problems got worse before they got better. Expelled from the Labour Party in 1931 after being one of a number of members to join the National Government formed to deal with the crisis of the Great Depression, he lost his seat and didn’t return to parliament until 1939, the Labour party having welcomed him back in 1936. He served in the coalition government (1940-1945) and was then appointed Lord Chancellor after Labour’s landslide victory in the 1945 general election, sitting on the Woolsack until 1951; granted an earldom in 1952, he led the opposition in the Lords until 1955. His textbook, Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law, was published posthumously in 1959 and, now in its sixth (2023) edition, remains a standard work of reference throughout the common-law world.
Australia has a long tradition of rattery including W.M. "Billy" Hughes (1862–1952; prime minister of Australia 1915-1923), Jack Lang (1876–1975; premier of the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) 1925-1927 & 1930-1932) and Dr Mal Colston (1938–2003; senator for Queensland 1975-1999) but in politics, what constitutes “ratting” is decided on a “rat by rat” basis. When in 2025 Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; twice
(between local difficulties) deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2022)
announced he was leaving the National Party (of which he’d three times been
leader) to join the One Nation Party, opinion was divided on whether truly he’d
“ratted” on his former colleagues. While
at first glance it would seem a simple case of ratting, his decision came after
the National Party officials informed him his “use by” date had been reached
and he’d not be endorsed to stand at the next general election. The party’s reasons had more to do with probity
than policy, Mr Joyce’s recent history including adultery, deserting his family
and being filmed one midnight sprawled in the street while drunk so, whether or
not one agrees that behaviour was justification for pre-selection being
withdrawn, all probably would concede: “they dumped him before he dumped them”.
Barnaby
Joyce enjoying a steak for
lunch with One Nation Party founder & leader Pauline
Hanson (b 1954).
Apparently, she cooked
their steaks in a sandwich press which seems a clever improvisation.Still, he’d had a long innings of Teflon-like
resistance to mud sticking and managed long to endure despite not enjoying much
public support from “elites” he claims to despise. When the rugby union (and other codes) player
Israel Folau (b 1989) in 2019 posted on social media a list of those “God condemns to
Hell” that included “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators,
thieves, atheists and idolaters”, while there was strident support
for the gay community, despite the mention of “adulterers” and “drunks”
being obviously a blatant attack on Mr Joyce's character, not a whisper was
heard in his defence. Mr Joyce thus
concluded he’d be “on his own” in saving his two-decade long political career so
the sudden spike in support for One Nation proved most serendipitous. His
motivations may not all be explained by a fear of what fellow adulterer Gareth
Evans (b 1944; Australian Labor Party (ALP) senator or MP 1978-1999, sometime
attorney-general & foreign minister) dubbed RDS (relevance deprivation
syndrome). Mr Joyce may greatly value
his parliamentary salary because, as well as being newly married with two small
children to support, it may be he still has some financial arrangements in
place to support the youngest (now 22) of the four daughters from his previous
marriage. As well as the nominal “headline”
figure of what politicians are paid, Mr Joyce will be aware the parliamentary
gravy train offers much scope for (often tax-free) “topping up”, his brief
appointment as a “drought envoy” an example of the system’s flexibility.
Cricket's most infamous rat (mullygrubber), MCG (Melbourne Cricket Ground), 1 February, 1981. In the 1970s, brown & beige really had been fashionable but this was the
combo's death knell.
Rat has a specific meaning in the
cricketing slang of the West Indies, referring to a ball which, after being
delivered by the bowler, rather than bouncing off the pitch at some angle, instead
runs along the ground, possibly hitting the stumps with sufficient force to
dislodge the bails, dismissing the batsman, the idea being of a rat scurrying
across the ground. In Australian slang,
the same delivery is called a mullygrubber which, although it sounds
old-fashioned, is said to date only from the 1970s, the construct thought based
on the dialectal rural term mully (dusty, powdery earth) + grub(ber) in the
sense of the grubs which rush about in the dirt if disturbed in such an
environment. Such deliveries are wholly serendipitous
(for the bowler) and just bad luck (for the batsman) because it's not possible
for such as ball to be delivered on purpose; they happen only because of the
ball striking some crack or imperfection in the pitch which radically alters it
usual course to a flat trajectory. If a
batsman is dismissed as a result, it's often called a "freak ball" or
"freak dismissal". Of course
if a ball is delivered underarm a rat is easy to effect but if a batsman knows
one is coming, while it's hard to score from, it's very easy to defend against. The most infamous mullygrubber was bowled at
the MCG on 1 February 1981 when, with New Zealand
needing to score six (by hitting the ball, on the full, over the boundary) of
the final delivery of the match, the Australian bowler sent down an underarm
delivery, the mullygrubber denying the batsman the opportunity to score, thereby securing an Australian victory. Although
then permissible within the rules, it was hardly in the spirit of the game and consequently, the regulations were changed.
The Ram Air Turbine
RAT (Ram Air Turbine) diagram.
The RAT (Ram Air Turbine) is a small, propeller-driven turbine connected to a hydraulic pump, or electrical generator, installed in an aircraft to generate emergency power. In an emergency, when electrical power is lost, the RAT drops from the fuselage or wing into the air-stream where it works as a mini wind-turbine, providing sufficient power for vital systems (flight controls, linked hydraulics and flight-critical instrumentation). In use, there is a lag between the RAT being activated (ie entering the airstream) and the electrical power being available to systems and while usually less than a minute, pilots confirm this can be "a very long minute" to those at the controls of an aircraft that has lost power while at high altitude.
Vickers VC10 in BOAC (British Overseas Airways Corporation (1939-1974) livery.
Built between 1962-1970, although fast and a favorite with passengers because the rear-engine layout guaranteed a quiet cabin, only 54 VC10s were built and, in a market dominated by Boeing's epoch-making 707 (1956-1978), success proved elusive. Even before the 747 in 1969 ushered in the wide-body era it was clear the elegant VC10 was a cul-de-sac but the airframe enjoyed a long career. The RAF (Royal Air Force) had some configured as VIP transports and the last of those used as in-flight re-fueling platforms (tankers) weren't retired until 2013. Most modern
commercial airliners are equipped with RATs, the first being installed on the Vickers
VC10 in the early 1960s and the big Airbus A380 has the largest RAT propeller
in current use at 64 inches (1.63 metres) but most are about half this size. It’s expected as modern airliners begin
increasingly to rely on electrical power, either propeller sizes will have to increase
or additional RATs may be required, the latter sometimes the desirable choice
because of the design limitations imposed by the height of landing gear. A typical large RAT can produce from 5 to
70 kW but smaller, low air-speed models may generate as little as 400
watts. Early free-fall nuclear weapons
used rats to power radar altimeters and firing circuits; RATS being longer-lasting
and more reliable than batteries.
A RAT deployed.The airline manufacturers have been exploring whether on-board
fuel-cell technology can be adapted to negate the need for RAT, at least in the
smaller, single-aisle aircraft where the weight of such a unit might be equal
to or less than the RAT equipment. The
attraction of housing in an airliner's wing-body fairing is it would be a step
towards the long-term goal of eliminating an airliner's liquid-fuelled auxiliary
turbine power unit. Additionally, if the
size-weight equation could be achieved, there’s the operational advantage that a
fuel-cell is easier to test than a RAT because, unlike the RAT, the fuel-cell can
be tested without having to power-up most of the system. The physics would also be attractive, the
power from a fuel cell higher at lower altitudes where as the output of a RAT
declines as airspeed decreases, a potentially critical matter given it’s during
the relatively slow approach to a landing that power is needed to extend the trailing
edge of the wing flaps and operate other controls.
If the weight and dimensions of the fuel cell is at least "comparable"
to a RAT and the safety and durability testing is successful, at least on
smaller aircrafts, fuel-cells might be an attractive option for new aircraft
although, at this stage, the economics of retro-fitting are unlikely to be compelling. Longer term research is also looking at a continuously
running fuel cell producing oxygen-depleted exhaust gas for fuel-tank inerting (a safety system that reduces the risk of combustion in aircraft fuel tanks by lowering the oxygen concentration in the ullage (the space above the fuel) to below the level needed to support a fire, typically by replacing oxygen with an inert gas like nitrogen),
and water for passenger amenities, thereby meaning an aircraft could be operated
on the on the ground without burning any jet-fuel, the fuel-cell providing
power for air conditioning and electrical systems.
Period
photograph of an operational Messerschmitt Me 163 (left) and a Me 163 on static display, National
Museum of the USAF (US Air Force), Wright-Patterson AFB (Air Force Base),
Dayton, Ohio (right).
The only rocket-powered fighter ever used in combat, the
Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet (1944-1945) had a small RAT in the nose to provide
electrical power. The early prototypes of the more successful (and much more influential) Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter also had a propeller in the nose for the first test flights but it wasn't a a RAT; it was attached to a piston engine installed as an emergency backup because of the chronic unreliability of the early jet engines. It was only military necessity that forced the Luftwaffe (the German air force) to commit to combat the only rocket-powered fighter ever deployed, the Me 163 Komet powered by a rocket that burned a methanol hydrazine mix with hydrogen- peroxide as an oxidizer. During the 1930s, almost all research into rocket propellants was undertaken in Germany, the military being interested in missiles with which to deliver warheads against long-range targets and, even then, some scientists were imagining space flight, usually with a manned visit to the moon in mind. The experimental fuels were classed as:
Monergols: Single ingredient fuels.
Hypergols: Fuel which ignites upon constituents being combined.
Non-hypergols: Multi-constituent fuel requiring external ignition.
Lithergols: Solid / liquid hybrids.
Revolutionary, the design offered a uniquely fast rate of climb and a speed in combat more than 100 mph (160 km/h) faster than allied fighters but was hard to handle and the fuel was both highly volatile and prone to spontaneous combustion in flight or on the ground. In air engagements, the speed that was so advantageous in reaching a target made it difficult for a pilot to maintain contact, the long bursts of fire needed usually to bring down the big bombers rarely sustained. Most authorities estimate some 370 Me 163s were built but only 60-80 achieved operational status and they shot down only nine allied aircraft. The Komet effectiveness was limited by its high fuel consumption that limited flight duration (the time available in the combat zone typically less than eight minutes) but the Luftwaffe's records confirm that on some days, such was the accident rate, not even half the little craft even reached operational height. Not only was it a difficult machine to handle but, late in the war, resources were so strained that training was limited and few of the Komet's pilots had more than a few hours experience in the novel craft before deployment. To make matters worse, although in powered flight its speed make it close to invulnerable to attack, once the fuel was burned, to return to base it had to glide back to the runway and of those lost to allied fighters, most were shot-down during landing or on the ground. Even landing was a challenge, the undercarriage jettisoned after take-off with landings undertaken on a skid, the inevitable jolts and vibrations sometimes trigging the highly combustible fuel-mix to ignite, the subsequent inferno liable to consume both airframe and pilot.
Early drawing of Me 163 prototype. Historically, the Komet remains a one-off, no rocket-powered fighters since manufactured.
It was another example of the impressive wartime technology developed by German scientists and engineers that failed to realise the possibilities offered. Had the resources expended on the Komet instead been devoted to improving the Wasserfall (waterfall) rocket, Allied air losses might have been significantly greater. The Wasserfall was a surface-to-air missile explicitly designed to counter high altitude bombers and used a two-stage system: (1) a solid-fuel booster rocket for launch after which (2) a liquid-fuel rocket would propel the missile to its target. A glimpse of the future, it was guided by a radar system that tracked the target & transmitted guidance commands and was designed to be integrated with other ground-based anti-aircraft defenses such as flak batteries. Ultimately unsuccessful because the time and resources needed for development were never available, like the V1 (an early cruise missile) and V2 (the first operational ballistic missile), the hardware, personnel and data that fell into Allied hands at the end of the war saved (on both sides of the Iron Curtain) decades of peace-time work in projects including surface to air & air to air missiles, the space programme (notably the moon landing) and the development of the big ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles). In action only between 1944-1945, tactically, it was a failure, losses far exceeding kills, but it influenced the next generation of military airframes being developed for supersonic flight and that role in the history of flight means the Me 163 is better remembered than many more successful craft ; like the V2, it was a pioneer and shares with the big rocket the unusual distinction of more personnel involved in its
development, construction and operation being killed than were its victims in
combat.
Peregrine
Falcon (top), Northrop B-2 Spirit (centre) and Messerschmitt Me 163 (bottom).
By
1937 when sketches for what would become the Me 163 first appeared on drawing
boards, biomimicry had long been a technique used by those designing airframes,
birds the obvious inspiration. For those
seeking speed, the Peregrine Falcon may be a good choice; while many have been
sceptical about the “calculated maximum theoretical speed” of the “ideal Peregrine
Falcon” being between 250-388 mph (400-625 km/h) depending on altitude
(and thus air density), Guinness World Records has accepted the bird’s speed being
recorded at 242 mph (389 km/h) in a dive.
Despite that, there are ornithologists who doubt such a velocity was
ever attained and claim a top speed around 150 mph (240 km/h) is likely more
realistic. Whatever the truth, it’s
clear the shape of the Peregrine Falcon is well-suited high speed dives and its
profile strikingly is similar to that of the Northrop B-2 Spirit, a nuclear-capable
subsonic strategic “stealth” bomber operated by the USAF (US Air Force). Designed during the High Cold War, the USAF
planned to equip squadrons with more than a hundred of the things but as production
began in 1989, the Berlin Wall fell and within two years the Soviet Union had
collapsed, transforming the geopolitics and thus military needs. By the time the leisurely production
concluded in 2000, only 21 had left the line.
While there were many factors contributing to the lines of the Me 163
and B2 and their similarities in profiles with that of the speedy bird may be more
coincidental than aeronautical, nature does often produce shapes ideal for the
niche they inhabit.
The Ram Air System
1974 Suzuki's air-cooled GT380 Sebring with Ram Air System (left) and 1975 Suzuki GT750 with water-cooling (right).
Seen also on many US muscle cars during the 1960s & 1970s, another use of the "ram-air" was to "scoop & feed" cool air, either to induction systems where the lower temperature was advantageous or simply as a cooling agent. Suzuki formalized the use as their RAS (Ram Air System), fitted to the GT380 Sebring (1972-1980)
and GT550 Indy (1972-1977) as well as (off and on) several versions of the
smaller, two-cylinder models. It wasn’t
used on the water-cooled GT750 Le Mans (1972-1977) because the radiator acted
to impede the airflow to the engine. The GT380, GT550 and GT750 were
two-stroke triples noted for an unusual 3-into-4 exhaust system in which the
central header-pipe was bifurcated, thus permitting four tail-pipes. There was no justification in engineering for
this (indeed it added cost and weight) and it existed purely for visual effect,
allowing an emulation of the look on the four-cylinder Hondas and Kawasakis. Ironically, despite the additional metal,
the asymmetric 3-into-3 system on the Kawasaki triples (1969-1976) is better
remembered although the charismatic (if sometimes lethal) qualities of the
machines may be a factor in that; exhaust
systems do exert a powerful fascination for motor-cyclists. The RAS was nothing more than a cast aluminum
shroud fixed atop the cylinder head to direct air-flow, enhancing upper
cylinder cooling and while tests in the 1960s confirmed the effectiveness of “force feeding” cooler air directly into induction systems but whether Suzuki's RAS delivered more efficient cooling isn’t clear. When the twin-cylinder GT250 Hustler (1971-1981 and thus pre-dating the pornography magazine Hustler, first published in 1974) was
revised in 1976, the RAS was deleted and replaced by conventional fins without apparent ill-effect but the RAS was light, cheap to produce,
maintenance-free and looked sexy so even if the thermal effects were margins, some advantages were certainly there. Interestingly, the companion GT185
(1973-1978) retained the RAS for the model’s entire production.
Big and small-block Chevrolet V8s: the Rat and the Mouse
Small and big-block Chevrolet V8s compared, the small-block (mouse) to the left in each image, the big-block (rat) to the right.
Mouse and rat are informal terms used respectively to refer to the classic small (1955-2003) and big-block Chevrolet V8s (1958-2021). The small-block was first named after a rodent although the origin is contested; either it was (1) an allusion to “mighty mouse” a popular cartoon character of the 1950s, the idea being the relatively small engine being able to out-perform many bigger units from other manufacturers or (2) an allusion to the big, heavy Chrysler Hemi V8s (the first generation (Firepower) 331 cubic inch (5.4 litre), 354 (5.8) & 392 (6.4) versions) being known as “the elephant”, the idea based on the widely held belief elephants are scared of mice (which may actually be true although the reason appears not to be the long repeated myth it’s because they fear the little rodents might climb up their trunk). Zoologically, "bee" might have been a better choice; elephants definitely are scared of bees. The mouse (small-block) and rat (big-block) distinction is simple to understand: the big block is externally larger although, counterintuitively, the internal displacement of some mouse motors was greater than some rats.
1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS 396 (with 402 cid V8).
Whether that seeming anomaly (actually common throughout the industry during the big-block era) amused or disturbed the decision-makers at Chevrolet isn't known but in 1970 when the small block 400 (6.6) was introduced, simultaneously the big-block 396 (6.5) was enlarged to 402 (6.6) but the corporation then muddied the waters by continuing to call the 402 a "Turbo-Jet 396" when fitted to the intermediate class Chevelle, the rationale presumably that "SS 396" had such strong "brand recognition". Available since 1965, by 1969 the SS 396 Chevelle was finally out-selling the Pontiac GTO (which in 1964 had seeded the muscle car movement) so the attachment was understandable. Further to confuse people, the 400 was advertised as the "Turbo-Fire 400" while if fitted to the full-size line, the 402 was called the "Turbo-Jet 400". Presumably, the assumption was anyone understanding the 400 & 402 ecosystems would buy the one they wanted while those not in the know would neither notice nor care. Nor was the deviation in displacement between what was on the badge and what lay beneath the hood (bonnet) exclusive to Chevrolet, there being a long list of things not quite what was on the label although the true specifications usually were listed in the documentation and even the advertising. The variations occurred for a number of reasons but rarely was there an attempt to deceive, even if sometimes things were left unstated or relegated to the small print.
In the matter of the “427
Cobra” that was really a “428”
That’s not
to say there were no disputes about the difference between what was “in the
tin” compared with what was “on the tin”.
In June 1969, a certain Mr Karl Francis “Fritz” Schiffmayer (1935-2010) of
Lake Zurich, Illinois, wrote to Ford’s customer relations department
complaining about the “427 Ford Cobra” he had purchased (as a new car)
from a Chicago “Ford
Dealer”. What disappointed Mr
Shiffmayer was the performance which didn’t match the widely publicized numbers
achieved by many testers and, perhaps more to the point, he found his “$8500 Super Ford
could barely keep up with” various $5000 Chevrolets. For a Ford driver, few things could be more depressing. Upon investigation, he discovered that despite
“‘427’ signs
all over the engine and the front fenders”, his car was not “a ‘427’ as
advertised and labelled but a ‘428’”. Both V8s were around seven litres but were in
many ways not comparable.
Mr Shiffmayer's letter to Ford, 23 June 1969.
Notionally,
Mr Shiffmayer got more than he paid for (ie 428 v 427 is nominally an extra
cubic inch) and had he bought a dozen (12) bread rolls from the bakery and been
supplied a “baker’s dozen” (13) there’d have been no grounds for complaint
because bread rolls are a “fungible” (ie functionally identical) so getting 13
is always better than getting 12 at the same price. However, the 427 and 428 engines, although
from the same FE (Ford-Edsel) family and externally similar (until closely
inspected), were very different internally with the former notably more
oversquare (ie big-bore) and fitted with cross-bolted main bearings;
additionally, the 427s used in the Cobras featured “side-oiling”, a more
extensive system of lubrication which afforded priority deliver of oil to the
bottom-end, making the engine more robust and better suited to the extreme
demands of competition. By contrast, the
a Cobra’s 428 was a modified version of the “Police Interceptor 428”, a
high-output edition of a powerplant usually found in Ford’s full-sized line
including luxury cars and station wagons where it’s smoothness and effortless
low-speed torque was appreciated. The
“Police Interceptor” specification was literally that: the engine used by law
enforcement in highway patrol vehicles and for street use, it offered a useful
lift in performance but it was not suitable for racetracks. Later, Ford would “mix & match” the 427
& 428 to create the 428 Cobra Jet, the 427’s heads, intake manifold and
some other “bolt-on” bits & pieces creating a combination of power and
torque close to ideal for ¼ mile (402 m) runs down drag strips although even
then Ford cheated, under-rating the output so the cars would be placed in a
different category. That year, in drag
racing, the 428 Cobra Jet Mustangs dominated their class which prompted the
sanctioning body to change the rules, imposing their own nominal output ratings
rather than accepting those of the manufacturer. Still, even the Cobra Jet 428 remained
suitable only for street and strip because ¼ mile runs were done in a straight
line and, without the cross-bolting and enhanced lubrication, it wouldn’t have matched
the 427’s ability to endure the extreme lateral forces encountered on high-speed
circuits.
AC Shelby Cobra CSX3209 after 427 transplant.
That “427
Cobras” with 428 engines even existed was a product of circumstances rather
than planning. Although now million
dollar collectables, it’s sometimes forgotten the 427 Cobra was a commercial
failure and that meant production numbers never reached the levels required for
homologation to be granted for competition in the category for which it was
intended so as well as not selling as well as the small block predecessors on
which the model’s reputation was built, nor did the seven litre version ever
match its success on the track. When it
came time to build the second batch of 100 427 Cobras, the engine was in short
supply because the intricacies in construction, coupled with the wider bore
being at the limit the block would accommodate (at the foundry, with a slight
shifting of the casting cores, a 427 block would have to be scrapped), it was
expensive to produce and inconvenient for Ford to schedule in the small batches
the sales supported. The cheap,
mass-produced 428 Police Interceptor was both readily available and half the
cost so it was an attractive alternative for Shelby and that it bolted straight
without needing any changes made it more desirable still; thus 428-powered “427s”. For the final run of 48, Shelby procured from
Ford genuine 427 side-oilers so the 100 428s were a minority of the big-blocks
used and many have since been converted (“rectified” some prefer to say) with
the substitution of a 427.
Interestingly, four of the 428s were fitted with automatic transmissions
which actually made them more suitable for street use but nobody seems subsequently
have done this as a modification.
Shelby American's reply to Mr Shiffmayer, 21 July 1969.
As it was, As
it was, Mr Shiffmayer decided to persevere and kept Shelby Cobra CSX3209 until
he died, in the 1970s replacing the 428 with a specially built “tunnel port” (a
trick with the pushrods to optimize the fluid dynamics of the fuel-air flow)
427. Whether he was impressed with the
reply (Ford referred his letter to Shelby American) he received in response to
his complaint isn’t known but it’s an interesting document for a number of
reasons:
(1) “…during the five
year existence of the Cobra, three engines were used, the 289, the 427 and the
428.” Actually, the first 75
used the 260.
(2) “Only a very few
of the 959 Cobras built contained the 427 engine.” Actually of the 998 built (in fairness this wasn’t
in 1969 the agreed “final count” but it’s hard to understand how 959 was
calculated) more than 150 had the 427 and whether this constitutes “very few”
is debatable but it’s also not relevant to the complaint.
(3) “The 427 is a
nomenclature such as the GT-500 is for the Shelby car. It does not relate to the cubic displacement
of the engine. We are sorry that this
misunderstanding occurred.”
Actually, when the Cobra 427 was released, “427” was a direct reference
to displacement. The “GT500” label was never
likely to cause a “misunderstanding” because (1) there was no Ford 500 cid
engine and (2) the GT500 was always advertised as being equipped with the 428.
Indisputably what it says on the tin (aluminum): 1966 Shelby 427 S/C Cobra (CSX 3040). In 2018, it sold at auction for US$2,947,500.
So, the
letter from Shelby really wasn’t a great deal of help (it was dated the day after man set foot on the moon so perhaps the writer's attention was divided). Were such a case now to go to court several
matters would need to be considered:
Was it
notorious (ie widely known; common knowledge) in the circles of potential
purchasers of such a car that some were powered by 427s and some by 428s and
the differences between the two were well documented? According to some sources, it was only after
the “428 Cobra matter” began to
attract comment that sales literature was updated to reflect the changed
specification while others maintain publication was concurrent with production.
Was the
fact the car had only “427” badges an indication of which engine was fitted or
just a “model name” al la the Shelby GT500 (which used a 428) & GT350
(which used either a 289 or 302 (and later a 351))? That originally (in 1965) “427” was a
reference to the 427 engine seem incontestable but the question would be
whether this changed to a mere “model name” when the 428 was adopted. It would seem the evidential onus of proof of
that would rest with Shelby American.
When making
the decision to purchase, did the buyer rely on representations from an
authority (in this case a “Ford dealer”) which might reasonably have been
expected to (1) possess and (2) communicate all relevant facts? In that matter, the court would need to
consider whether, in the circumstances, there is any substantive difference
between a “Ford dealer” and a “Shelby franchised dealer”. This would be decided by (1) any competing
claims from the parties and (2) what documents were supplied prior to or at the
point of purchase.
Is it
relevant that in 1966-1967 when Ford offered both the 427 & 428 in the
Galaxie, that car was sold as the “7 Litre” (they really did use the French
spelling) irrespective of which seven litre (427 or 428) V8 was fitted? Given that, should the Cobra have been thus
labelled and was the continued use of the 427 badge a misrepresentation in
428-powered cars?
Was the
dealer aware of the buyer’s background? Mr
Shiffmayer was (1) an engineer with a degree in mechanical engineering from the
University of Wisconsin and (2) he was not only an owner of a 289 Shelby Cobra
but also raced it with notable success. If
the dealer was aware of those facts that doesn’t absolve them of a responsibility
fully to disclose all relevant information but a court could consider it a
mitigating factor. If the dealer was
aware those facts, what would then have to be considered is whether it would
have been reasonable for it to be assumed the buyer either knew of the
mechanical details or could reasonably have been expected to know.
Evidence: Shelby American "Shelby Cobra 427" spec sheet listing the 428 as the engine, thereby suggesting "427" was a model name rather than a reference to a specific engine. The significance of this document rests on whether it appeared before or after Shelby American began selling 428 powered Cobras.
