Seeking help on 428 build for 7-Litre Galaxie

[1966sevenlitre]

I posted this on the FE Engine forum ... but I've also been a reader at FE Power for sometime too.  So I figured I'd ask the same questions here.   

To start, I've had my 1966 Galaxie 7-Litre since 1995. Motor was built by a reputable Ford shop which is still in business today. I was slowly restoring the car so I didn't put a lot of miles on it. I'd estimate less than 5,000 since the build.

Now I’m planning to pull the 428 for a re-fresh (new gaskets, seals, rings, etc). While I’m at it, now is the time to consider making a few upgrades. But first, here’s my current setup:

Motor - 428FE (1966) standard block, bored .040
Carb - Holley 750DP
Intake - Ford Cobra Jet medium riser dual plane intake
Exhaust - 427 cast iron headers, 2.5” dual with H-pipe, QTP electric cutouts
Pistons - stock type 10.5-1 TRW cast iron
Rods - stock with ARP bolts
Heads - standard C6AE-R
Head work - bronze guides, hardened seats, 3-way valve job, heli-coiled, stainless valves, HD valve springs
Cam - Speed Pro CS1025R Hydraulic; Duration: 292⁰ (214⁰ @ .050) INT / 302⁰ (224⁰ @ .050) EXH, Lift: .510 (.295 lobe) / .536 (.310 lobe), Overlap 112⁰
Block work - oil mods including 5/8” pickup, CJ oil filter adaptor, CJ windage tray, ARP dist rod, block machining & chamfering, Melling HV oil pump, head restrictors
Transmission - Ford toploader close ratio with 2.32-1 first gear
Rear gears - 3.25 Ford 9”
Tire height - 29” / 255-70-15 rears
Vehicle weight - about 4,200lbs
Starting line ratio - 7.54 (2.32 x 3.25)
Intended usage - heavy-footed street; strong low/mid-range torque; decent idle/vacuum; 65-70 mph cruise speed at 2,500-2,800 rpms
Planned modifications - David Kees wide-ratio conversion kit; 3.55 or 3.73 rear gears, 7qt deep sump pan & pickup (C8AX-6675-A / or Milodon)

As you can see, the motor already has the CJ dual plane manifold, 427 cast iron headers, 750cfm carb, 4 speed and good exhaust (plus the FE oil mods). Seems it would be pretty easy to add Survival, Blue Thunder or Edelbrock RPM heads with 2.09/1.66 valves. I’d also have the port-matching done as needed.  As of now I'm planning on doing both. 

I know a car this big needs low-end power/torque. I plan to do the Kees wide-ratio conversion and change the ring/pinion to 3.55 or 3.73 for improved SLR. But I also know the motor has to be built with this kind of size/weight in mind. So beyond the heads, I’m not sure how to plan the best design.

Here are my questions:
- Which heads do you recommend (Ed, BT, Survival, Bear Block, etc)?
- Does a roller cam make sense for this package and intended use?
- If so, is it worth the investment?  I understand it entails a Retrofit kit with cam/lifters plus a steel dist gear & custom length pushrods.
- If I go roller cam, do I need to change the rockers given the intended use and likely RPM range? (not talking rollers, but that I heard Ford rockers can be a weakness)
- What cam/profile is recommended? (Understand more lift and shorter/medium duration is generally better for big vehicles with torque motors)

As you can see, I don’t want to overbuild the motor. I also understand that as I add more horsepower, the power curve moves up the RPM scale while making the band narrower & steeper. Likewise, I get that the importance of a combined package where the sweet spots of the cam, heads, intake, carb, compression ratio, headers and exhaust are in the same RPM range.

Again, this car is intended for street use, though I like to drive heavy-footed. I’m seeking a nice power band, heavy at the lower end but strong pull through mid-4s or low-5s. I don’t mind if the top is 5,500 rpms. I’d also like to cruise at 65-70mph turning around 2,500 rpms.

This car is restored and very original/stock appearing.  I want to retain that appeal as much as possible. 

Any help/insight/advice is GREATLY appreciated.

[KMcCullah]

Welcome to the site. I see a couple different ways to go here. If you keep your existing short block and add a hydraulic roller stick, a set of Blair Patrick's Bear Block heads with a Performer RPM intake would be killer. Let Blair recommend the cam for your intended use.

Plan B (and since I'm spending your money here)  I'd keep your existing top end and build a stroker short block. Add a hydraulic roller stick and a set of end stands for your rocker shafts. And don't be afraid of the FoMoCo rocker arms. They are great for the street.

[Joe-JDC]

Question:  You say standard block, and then bored .040".  If it is standard now, I would not bore it more than .010" to clean up the cylinders and keep the cylinder walls as thick as possible.  If it is already +.040", I definitely would not stroke it any more than you have without a sonic check to verify cylinder wall thickness left.  Money spent now on the parts you actually want will be cheaper than reworking the combination after you re-ring and assemble it.  Do it the way you want now, not later.   I would go with the Scat rods, also.  My 428 broke a rod in three pieces and took out the block just like the picture Warren posted on the FE forum.  Joe-JDC

[1966sevenlitre]

Welcome to the site. I see a couple different ways to go here. If you keep your existing short block and add a hydraulic roller stick, a set of Blair Patrick's Bear Block heads with a Performer RPM intake would be killer. Let Blair recommend the cam for your intended use.

Plan B (and since I'm spending your money here)  I'd keep your existing top end and build a stroker short block. Add a hydraulic roller stick and a set of end stands for your rocker shafts. And don't be afraid of the FoMoCo rocker arms. They are great for the street.

Kevin, thanks for the welcoming ... and input. 

My plan was to keep the short block as is.  I'm expecting the crank, mains and cylinders to be fine.  Of course everything will be spec'd.  Overall, the motor has less than 5K miles since rebuild.  But it was done in 1995.  So I want to do a thorough inspection/cleaning and a freshen. 

For me, the main thing about switching the heads and going to a hydraulic roller cam is whether the net power/torque increase is worth the overall cost.  Heads make sense to me because I already have the CJ medium riser intake, Holley 750DP and cast iron 427 headers.  So none of those would need upgrading. 

I also like the way the intake and headers look stock.  I know the cast iron CJ intake was not available in 1966 (instead it was the PI) but it has been powdercoated in an aluminum finish and together with the factory Ford dress up kit I think it looks very nice and stock original. 

Right now I'm still gathering insight on whether hydraulic roller makes sense.  Aside from the benefits related to friction/wear/additive, I understand they provide more velocity, lift and aggressive lobe profiles than a hydraulic flat tappet cam does.  But I also know this means a retrofit kit with cam & lifters, push rods and steel cam gear. 

I guess the question I have begins with this car and the intended use.  Total weight is around 4,200lb so I'm looking for low/mid-range torque.  Peaking at 5,500 rpms is fine.  I'd like a broad power range similar to what the Speed Pro cam offered in my current setup.  I'll be changing the gearing so I have a better starting line ratio and decent 4th gear cruise speed at 2.500rpms.  Together, it will be good for heavy-footed street use yet also capable to cruise. 

So I wonder, does a hyd roller cam really make sense?  By that I mean is the benefit (power gain) worth the cost (price of all components + labor) given the size & intended use of the car? 

At this point I'm considering new heads and cam.  It's just a matter of roller or flat tappet.  I'll also port match.  Beyond that, I'm considering updating the rods to Eagle H-beam or scat.  While the motor has less than 5K miles since the rebuild, I believe it has over 100K miles total.  I also don't know how other owners ran the car.  Last thing I want is to blow a rod.   

 

[1966sevenlitre]

Question:  You say standard block, and then bored .040".  If it is standard now, I would not bore it more than .010" to clean up the cylinders and keep the cylinder walls as thick as possible.  If it is already +.040", I definitely would not stroke it any more than you have without a sonic check to verify cylinder wall thickness left.  Money spent now on the parts you actually want will be cheaper than reworking the combination after you re-ring and assemble it.  Do it the way you want now, not later.   I would go with the Scat rods, also.  My 428 broke a rod in three pieces and took out the block just like the picture Warren posted on the FE forum.  Joe-JDC

Joe, thanks for your input.  When the motor was built in 1995, I cringed a bit when the shop told me they bored it .040.  They knew Fords (and FEs) and I understood they knew what they were doing ... but I knew it meant there wasn't going to be a lot left. 

This time around the block is coming out for a freshen.  I just finished restoring the car (frame-off) and now I want to be sure the motor is tight for the foreseeable future.  Already it looks like the rear main is leaking just a bit. 

Given the car is done, which took many years, I want to drive and enjoy it.  So I want to have complete confidence in everything top to bottom.  Originally I didn't plan to have the motor built then finish the car 20 years later.  But that's what happened.  So now I want the peace of mind knowing the motor is sound for the foreseeable future.  I've also realized I need to address the gearing for proper SLR and cruise speed.  Hence, why that part of the plan is defined as part of the motor "build". 

You mentioned Scat rods ... why them over Eagle H-beam?  I have no preference, just want to understand your thoughts. 

As mentioned to Kevin, right now it seems sensible to add Edelbrock RPM heads, a cam and to port match.  I'll also update the rods plus I want the Moroso 7qt pan & pickup.  Lastly, I'm planning to address the gearing one way or another - either with the David Kees wide-ratio conversion + 3.55/3.73 rear gears or something else. 

Beyond that, not sure.  Still thinking about hyd roller vs flat tappet cam and other stuff.   In the end, I don't want to overbuild the motor.   I want to match the build to what I already have including short block (with new rods), intake, exhaust, carb, etc.  The end-result needs to fit my intended use which is basically street driving (some heavy foot) and occasional highway cruising.

[FElony]

EDIT: I just read the corresponding thread in the other forum and saw that other people have already suggested an OD box with deeper gearing, so I'm zapping this post.

[1966sevenlitre]

To FElony:

Points understood.

But remember the motor is coming out either way.  Also, part of this exercise is about gaining info/knowledge in order to make educated choices.  In other words, laying out what is desired/wanted doesn't mean that's what I'll get.  It's about stating a wishlist so facts can be gathered and the right tradeoffs can be made. 

As mentioned, I already have the CJ medium riser, Holley 750DP, cast iron 427 headers,  2.5" dual exhaust, etc ... so matching a set of Edelbrock RPM heads to this setup seems like reasonable.  I would also do port matching and from what everyone is saying on both forums change the rods to Scat or Eagle. 

From there, I need a cam to match.  This goes back to the question of roller vs flat tappet hydraulic.  If a roller doesn't make sense for the intended use/overall RPM range being sought, then flat tappet is fine. 

As mentioned, I will take care of gearing either way.  As initially mentioned, right now the starting line ratio is 7.54.  Even doing the Kees wide ratio conversion and upping to 3.55 rears will be a BIG improvement (SLR goes to 9s).  If that's the best option, I'm sure it won't be hard to find a balance between 3.55/3.73 gears to achieve a reasonable cruise speed. 

I'll have to look into OD options and TKO 5sp conversion.  If that's a better way to go and the cost isn't a huge jump then I can justify it.   

[machoneman]

If your iron heads are good as is, I'd spend the bucks on the tranny, gearing, cam and assorted engine parts versus new aluminum heads. A roller fits much better your long term goals for near zero maintenance and peace of mind. JMO!

[FElony]

To FElony:

Points understood.

I guess you read my post before I edited it. So, I only have two things to say. One, the general consensus is that the Edelbrocks are only a marginal upgrade to factory heads if installed stock out of the box. Whether porting those or using another brand of aluminum head, I wonder if the cast iron headers are going to negate most of the attempt.

Also, this is nit-picking, but again I see it a lot lately. The numbers "3.55" and "3.73" are typically used in the GM and Ford 8.8 camps. The 9-inch ratios are "3.50" and "3.70". A jump from your 3.25's to 3.50's would be almost unnoticeable.

OK, here's number three of the two things I was going to say. Back when these cars were young, we drove around without overdrive, with gearing in the 4's and even low 5's. People have gotten used to OD, as it saves gas and extends engine life. Presently, pump gas is relatively cheap, so that may not be a concern. That leaves longevity. Just how many years is it going to take for any of us to actually wear out an engine for lack of overdrive? I think about this, balancing against the sound of an old V8 wound up a bit at cruise. Gotta take a long trip? If your ducks (tools) are in a row, you can change a carrier out in 45-60 minutes.

Anyway, good luck with your project!

[1966sevenlitre]

That's good feedback, thanks.  I didn't realize consensus is that Edelbrock RPMs only offer a marginal upgrade over factory heads when installed out of box.  Moreover, from what you shared, it sounds like even if porting was done, the cast iron headers negate these gains.  Is that for real?  I always had the impression the 1965-66 Ford 427 cast iron headers had very good flow and were as good as most headers out there.  Maybe my info is outdated.  If so I wouldn't be surprised.  Either way not trying to doubt you but instead learn. 

As for the 9-inch ratios, you are right they are "3.50" and "3.70" rather than 3.55/3.73. 

I understand what you mean about how a jump from 3.25's to 3.50's wouldn't be very noticeable, however I would do that in conjunction with a David Kees wide ratio conversion.  Currently the Toploader has a 2.32-1 1st gear.  Together with the 3.25 rear end, the starting line ratio is 7.54.  As you know that's a dog off the line. 

With the Kees conversion, the Toploader will have a 2.78 1st gear.  So if I went with 3.50 rears, SLR goes to 9.73.  That’s about a 23% change.  From what I understand, I'll definitely feel the difference.  I'm not expecting that will turn the car into a dragster outta the hole.  But it should be a nice improvement.

Good point about RPMs at cruise speed vs engine longevity.  This is certainly worth taking into consideration. 

Again, appreciate all your feedback. 

[machoneman]

With the Kees conversion, the Toploader will have a 2.78 1st gear.  So if I went with 3.50 rears, SLR goes to 9.73.  That’s about a 23% change.  From what I understand, I'll definitely feel the difference.  I'm not expecting that will turn the car into a dragster outta the hole.  But it should be a nice improvement.

Yes, you will definitely notice the change! 

[chris401]

To start, I've had my 1966 Galaxie 7-Litre since 1995. Motor was built by a reputable Ford shop which is still in business today. I was slowly restoring the car so I didn't put a lot of miles on it. I'd estimate less than 5,000 since the build.

Any chance your car was red and were at The Ballpark In Arlington in 96 or 97? I went for 100 mph ride on I-30 in one during the swap meet. Something about the Galaxies that the Mustangs don't have.

[TorinoBP88]

Im not clear if your block is std or 40 over now.

Not sure if you want to spend $$ just to spend it, or if you want big gains.  Honestly, call me a humph-humbug, but if you ONLY do gaskets on your engine, not rings, check the valve grind to be sure they are seating well, and clean it up and make sure your ignition curve is spot on and aggressive.  Dont bother with rings and such unless you check a crank and rod bearing and see that you need to change them too.

I would spend the money on the david kee toploader stuff (or parts from any small block toploader on craigs list if you find one cheep. )  Is your trans a big in or a small input.  I changed a small input 67 galaxie toploader to wide ratio from narrow with a parts from a cherry downer SBF trans i found.
 
Then do the rear end with a good true-track or DT locker (what ever you like.) I have a 3.50 in my car and i have thought about a 3.70 or 3.91, but i love the 70 MPH cruise i have right now, so i dont bother to change it.

If i were updating the engine, if you have a stock CJ intake not an S code, i would keep that, get Survival Motorsports heads and a stroker kit from him, then a new solid lifter or roller cam makes a lot of sense. But that will cost you over $6000 BEFORE your labor.

You could change you bump stick for another 10 degrees in the cam, like a comp 282S with mechanical lifters, but honestly, your car will run really great with the gear changes and trans change.

[C6AE]

 My understanding is you have stock 352 cylinder heads...
There are many new choices available today that even out of the box will offer significant improvement over those.

[1966sevenlitre]

machoneman - thanks for your feedback.  I'm thinking of starting with the Kees conversion first, then moving up the rear gears after once I see how the car drives. 

chris401 - sounds pretty. damn.  nice.  I'm San Jose and this car hasn't been in any state to drive for the past three years until recently.  I tried to post a pic of the car but keep getting an error even though the pic size us under 128kb. 

C6AE - yes, these are the basic 352 heads.  Hence why I'm thinking of an upgrade, especially when I already have the CJ medium riser manifold, Holley 750DP and 427 cast iron headers on the motor. 

TorinoBP88 - sorry if I wasn't clear.  What I was trying to say is I have a standard 428 block in that it's not a CJ etc.  Probably should have omitted "standard".  Anyways yes it was bored .040 over back when it was built in 1995. 

No matter which way I go with the motor it will get cleaned, inspected and spec'd.  The motor has less than 5K miles since the build in `95 and it ran great over the years.  However, over the past three it's been sitting while the car was being restored plus it mostly sat in the 4-5 years leading up to the resto due to other life priorities.  So a LOT of sitting in the past 7-8 years.  That plus a slight leak in the rear main I want to pull and freshen.  That plus the fact that now that the car is almost done with the restoration, I want to drive it over the next 5-10 years with full confidence. 

Now that the motor is coming out, combined with the fact it already has the CJ medium riser plus the 427 cast iron headers (and carb, dual exh, etc) I figured why not go with better flowing heads with larger valves?  That leads to the question of which (hydraulic) cam, and whether a roller cam. 

I know the motor/cam have to match the car and the intended use.  I already knew the toploader had a tall 1st gear and with the 3.25 rear gears the SLR was too low which has always affected driveability.  After looking into options, plan was to go with the Kee wide-ratio conversion kit.  From there, given the weight, tranny and intended use, I could have a better base to plan the motor build.   

Good question on the Kee toploader kit.  All Galaxie 7-Litres came with the big input.  The kit is a one-of-a-kind for these big input toploaders.  One thing I have to look into is whether I need the whole kit as 4th gear is the same ratio on both trannies. 
 
Thanks for your input on the motor build.  Everything will start with what we find on inspection when we open it up.  I am thinking that with less than 5K miles the short block should be in perfect shape.  But it was built 20 years ago and has increasingly been sitting so I won't bet the house on that.  Anyhow if the cylinders and block looks good, then I'd like to leave alone except for bearings.  However, many have recommended new rods no matter what. 

Beyond that, I wanted to go with better flowing heads with larger valves to match the CJ medium riser and cast iron headers.  Then a cam to bring everything together.  That begged the questions of which heads ... and whether to go roller or flat tappet cam.  I want to stick with hydraulic for ease of maintenance.  Of course updated heads and roller cam are better, but I'm also trying to understand what's necessary and cost-effective given my intended use and the fact the build will likely top around 5,500 or lower.   

Thanks for the insight on the 3.50 gears.  That's exactly what I was thinking.