How much do I really want?

[TJ]

I have the engine in the 2nd link...620 lb ft towing...in my ‘65 F250.  Five years and around 15,000 miles I just drive it....mostly freeway.  With hydraulic lifters I don’t believe you have any adjusting.  I run 91 gas...probably be fine with 89 but I haul and do some towing so I stick with 91.

I wouldn’t call it radical though it does have a very mild rumble at idle.  Would definitely feel comfortable cruising the entire country.  It’s easily controllable and pleasant both in town and freeway.  With 4.10 rear and gear vender it turns 2300ish rpms at 70 mph.

Power-wise it is lively with very good street manners for in-town driving.  For comparison and since you mention diesels, we have a stock tuned LB7 duramax that we really like and feel adequate pulling our 5 ton plus camper all over the country.  My ‘65 will outrun the LB7 when both trucks are empty as well as when both are hitched to our camper.  The LB7 has enough power and I have no desire to tune it or buy a newer diesel, so hopefully the comparison gives you a little idea what my 482 runs and drives like.  In fact, if something happened to our LB7, I would seriously consider dropping my 482 and NP435 with gear vender overdrive into a newer Ford for cross country camper trips...because it runs that well, has not required fiddling, and pulls plenty strong for how I use it.

I could see how that engine would be comparable to a LB7, they're pretty close for power numbers.  Do you have any videos of the truck idling and running?  I'd sure love to watch them.  Because the BBM block will take a 4.5" stroke, why no go with the longer arm and then build a 510"" motor?

Sorry, I only mentioned the LB7 as a frame of reference. I'm not sure I would call the two engines comparable.  On some hills with our camper, the allison tranny behind the LB7 has to shift from 5 (overdrive) to 4.  It will maintain 62ish mph and feels like it will do it with even more weight, but that's it speed-wise without over revving it and I'm okay with that...no need to race with a camper.  In the same situation, the 482 is just getting started and will accelerate up that same hill.  To be sure, I really, really like the LB7 and the truck that surrounds it.  But if speed towing is the criteria, the 482 will win with more torque, more hp, and a broader power band.  The factory tune LB7 is a steady work horse, the 482 is more like a freak of nature that happens to be docile enough for well behaved cruising.

Why not 4.5 stroke?  I thought I was off my rocker already with a 482:-)  Plus the 4.25 stroke goes in with no special concerns or cautions build-wise so I went with that. 

Edit:  I'll try to get audio file this weekend of it running. Just don't expect too much because I'm technology challenged. 

[blykins]

You won’t fit a 4.5” stroke in a BBM block with a cam in the middle...

[jayb]

Brent, unless there is something odd with the BBM block, a 4.5" stroke crank will fit.  But with the BBC connecting rod size, you will be limited in the cam you can run.  I mocked up a 4.5" stroke crank with 2.200" journals in a Shelby block with Crower billet rods, and a 0.700" lift cam cleared after some clearancing on the rod shoulders.  But I wanted to run a 0.780" lift cam, and that wasn't going to work.

However, if you go to a 2.100" crankpin and use SBC rods, a 4.5" stroke crank will fit with a big cam.  That stroke is a stretch, but it can be made to work.

[blykins]

Brent, unless there is something odd with the BBM block, a 4.5" stroke crank will fit.  But with the BBC connecting rod size, you will be limited in the cam you can run.  I mocked up a 4.5" stroke crank with 2.200" journals in a Shelby block with Crower billet rods, and a 0.700" lift cam cleared after some clearancing on the rod shoulders.  But I wanted to run a 0.780" lift cam, and that wasn't going to work.

However, if you go to a 2.100" crankpin and use SBC rods, a 4.5" stroke crank will fit with a big cam.  That stroke is a stretch, but it can be made to work.

Excellent, thanks Jay.

[WerbyFord]

TJ:
I Gonkulated your big rig at 94-95mph in the 1/4 mile, with that big NP435 shifting with all the zippiness of a Model A Ford trans (they seemed about the same when we had both!) so your hand-measured 90 or so on the speedo is in the ballpark. Net HP is about 420, down over 100hp from gross on the dyno.

Cord:
I then took TJ's mild-mannered engine and Gonkulated it in a 66 wagon. I have a 64 wagon so figured the weight is pretty similar. The big Ford went on a diet for 1965, then went back to gaining weight each year as before.

The last thing I did was change the aero from TJ's truck to your wagon. That was worth .20 sec and 3.6mph in the 1/4, just the AERO, and that wagon isn't exactly a Talladega.

With 3" pipes, drag radials, 2.32 top loader & 3.89 gears, for TJ's engine in your wagon I Gonkulated:
1.77
7.86 at 87.7
12.30 at 111.8mph
3.93 0-60mph
That's on 463 net HP.
Easy to add more if that's not enough for those pesky Hellcats, but folks will like your car better anyway.
The last time I was at the strip, an old red 409/340hp Chevy was the hit of the night, in spite of only running 15s or 14s. All the heavy new pony & fast&furious kids cars were invisible compared to that old 409.

[TJ]

TJ:
I Gonkulated your big rig at 94-95mph in the 1/4 mile, with that big NP435 shifting with all the zippiness of a Model A Ford trans (they seemed about the same when we had both!) so your hand-measured 90 or so on the speedo is in the ballpark. Net HP is about 420, down over 100hp from gross on the dyno.

Cord:
I then took TJ's mild-mannered engine and Gonkulated it in a 66 wagon. I have a 64 wagon so figured the weight is pretty similar. The big Ford went on a diet for 1965, then went back to gaining weight each year as before.

The last thing I did was change the aero from TJ's truck to your wagon. That was worth .20 sec and 3.6mph in the 1/4, just the AERO, and that wagon isn't exactly a Talladega.

With 3" pipes, drag radials, 2.32 top loader & 3.89 gears, for TJ's engine in your wagon I Gonkulated:
1.77
7.86 at 87.7
12.30 at 111.8mph
3.93 0-60mph
That's on 463 net HP.
Easy to add more if that's not enough for those pesky Hellcats, but folks will like your car better anyway.
The last time I was at the strip, an old red 409/340hp Chevy was the hit of the night, in spite of only running 15s or 14s. All the heavy new pony & fast&furious kids cars were invisible compared to that old 409.

WerbyFord,

Thank you.  That's pretty cool that you can calculate that close.  I'm sure I can do better 

Cord,

I tried to get a few sound bites but my phone recorder wasn't working right. At idle, imagine a polite rumble...like low, rolling thunder.  When cruising it's more of a comforting hum.

[Cord]

You won’t fit a 4.5” stroke in a BBM block with a cam in the middle...

Lol, they kinda neglected to mention that on the features list!

[blykins]

You won’t fit a 4.5” stroke in a BBM block with a cam in the middle...

Lol, they kinda neglected to mention that on the features list!

I haven't tried one, but if Jay says it will work with some grinding/carving on the rods, then it should work.  Normally a 4.375" stroke is where it starts getting close on things.

[Cord]

You won’t fit a 4.5” stroke in a BBM block with a cam in the middle...

Lol, they kinda neglected to mention that on the features list!

I haven't tried one, but if Jay says it will work with some grinding/carving on the rods, then it should work.  Normally a 4.375" stroke is where it starts getting close on things.

I read that after posting... this combo has me thinking about the engines potential. If I took your 620lbft tow build and stroked it out to 510””, I’d guess the motor would make around 570hp and 660lbft.  It’ll pull harder than a Buick and rpm better too.  I’ve always liked to short shift and torque the motor (maybe that’s why I like driving my Harley over the GTi) and this combo would be perfect for that. Thoughts?  Too much for the street in a wagon?  I think it might be comparable to the strokes Mopar that Lucky runs.

[blykins]

You'll just have to decide how much power you want and go from there.  If 400 hp will do the trick, that's a 390.  If you have to have X lb-ft of torque at X rpm, then you have to start looking elsewhere. 

A stroked 445 will make almost 590 lb-ft of torque with TFS heads and the right camshaft.  Not sure if you'd want to spend the extra money for an aftermarket block, steel crank, etc. 

Again, it just comes down to what your goals are.

[Cord]

Yea, I keep finding myself getting sucked back into the purpose of the thread.  It tough to build a motor on paper when you really don’t know what you want.

[cjshaker]

A station wagon on an auto cross course is about the worst decision anyone could make. It would not be fun going around corners, and would be hell to get slowed down. Just to make it fun would require springs and sway bars so heavy that it would be rough on the street. NOT what you want on Power Tour, or just to enjoy on a street cruise.

It's just my opinion, but I'd build it for torque and mileage (not an easy task for an FE in a wagon), and enjoy it for what it is; a cruiser that's great for family get-aways, camping, vacations, cruising etc. A nice old wagon will get attention anywhere it goes. Deeper gears and 500hp will get you Premium Fuel and 10mpg, at best. That will take the fun out of Power Tour in a hurry!

[e philpott]

that thing would be sweet with just a good 445 build for torque with fuel injection and one of those new/used 6 speed automatics that are plentiful laying around in junkyards

[TJ]

Cjshaker mentioned mpg...I get over 13mpg freeway.  Any in town or any lead footing it and I’m under 11.  Some type of fuel injection and better gears might get over 14.

[machoneman]

A station wagon on an auto cross course is about the worst decision anyone could make. It would not be fun going around corners, and would be hell to get slowed down. Just to make it fun would require springs and sway bars so heavy that it would be rough on the street. NOT what you want on Power Tour, or just to enjoy on a street cruise.

It's just my opinion, but I'd build it for torque and mileage (not an easy task for an FE in a wagon), and enjoy it for what it is; a cruiser that's great for family get-aways, camping, vacations, cruising etc. A nice old wagon will get attention anywhere it goes. Deeper gears and 500hp will get you Premium Fuel and 10mpg, at best. That will take the fun out of Power Tour in a hurry!

Yes, you're quite right.

But just think of the spectators in awe of a big, old heavy Ford wagon in the esses! With all those state/camping venues and where-we've-been decals on the rear windows before the bumper hitch! The 8-track tape deck blaring out early Stones hits!

Burning up front tires (and likely the rears too) as if it was Mr. Goodyear driving and owned the damned thing.

Hey, I'd pay to see it!