FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: EricDS on January 14, 2018, 10:35:34 AM
-
I'm still new to FE's so my 390 is all I've driven. I'm curious what is the "seat of the pants" feel of the others usual FE engines.
Obviously every build is different but I'm basically looking to understand which is the most fun to drive on the street, assuming a mild-moderate street build. Also how does a 427 feel compared to a 428? Wondering how the different bore and stroke combos affect the "fun factor"
-
Kinda a tough one to answer.....
I mean, the car, gearing, camshaft, intake, heads, etc are going to play a huge difference.
Mind you they are drastically different engines, but my 390 is a great driver, works great everywhere I'd need it.
The stroker has just mountains of torque off idle to 6000rpms.... just twisting hard the whole way up, get all 8 venturi to open up and Woooooaaaaahhhh.
My view is, build the biggest engine you can afford and cam/gear/head/intake it to what the intended purpose is.
But I'm a street car guy, I'd prefer a super tame 500ci engine than I would a high strung 400ci engine.
Maybe the racer's will have a different point of view.
-
I'm still new to FE's so my 390 is all I've driven. I'm curious what is the "seat of the pants" feel of the others usual FE engines.
Obviously every build is different but I'm basically looking to understand which is the most fun to drive on the street, assuming a mild-moderate street build. Also how does a 427 feel compared to a 428? Wondering how the different bore and stroke combos affect the "fun factor"
Big bore short stroke will tend to wind up faster. Longer stroke, smaller bore engines of the same size will have torque earlier. I had a stock 410 that had a noticable difference in low end power over any 390 I have owned. Daily drivers tend to be better on gas and reliability with lower torque and rpm range. If your going to twist a street 390 to 6500 for fun spend the money on your rotating assembly. It's fun till the oily bang crashes the party.
-
Here's my experience.
Myself and 2 pals all had 390 Mustangs. Mine was running high 12's, and the 2 others were running very low 13's.
I built a 454 inch Hi Riser and running the same 11 inch converter, gears, and slicks, dropped to the mid 11's running a very streetable .590 lift cam and a single 850 Holley.
My other 2 pals ran a stock stroke 427 with Low Riser heads, a bunch bigger cams and more converter, and dual quads dropped into the high 11's.
It's a HUGE leap in a regular street driver car going from a 390 to a 427.
-
I'm still new to FE's so my 390 is all I've driven. I'm curious what is the "seat of the pants" feel of the others usual FE engines.
Obviously every build is different but I'm basically looking to understand which is the most fun to drive on the street, assuming a mild-moderate street build. Also how does a 427 feel compared to a 428? Wondering how the different bore and stroke combos affect the "fun factor"
Big bore short stroke will wind up faster. Longer stroke, smaller bore engines of the same size will have torque earlier. I had a stock 410 that had a noticable difference in low end power over any 390 I have owned. Daily drivers tend to be better on gas and reliability with lower torque and rpm range. If your going to twist a street 390 to 6500 for fun spend the money on your rotating assembly. It's fun till the oily bang crashes the party.
I would be careful about making generalizations about the stroke making an engine quick to rev or slow to rev. I can show you several examples that are to the contrary. Also, torque is not based on the stroke, but on the displacement (among a ton of other things).
To the OP, the larger the engine, the easier it is to make more horsepower without having to go to extremes...big cams, big compression, etc is not as necessary.
-
I agree. Torque is primarily the result of displacement, compression, and volumetric efficiency. Bore and stroke are not directly related to torque. Indirectly there's all sorts of stuff going on. Piston speeds and friction and valve shrouding, etc. But still it's mostly just displacement, compression and volumetric efficiency.
How fast an engine revs depends on how much power it is making and how much mass it is accelerating, and the gearing it has.
A bigger engine makes things easier. It allows you to get the same job done with less rpm and less gearing.
JMO,
paulie
-
Oh yeah, to your original question. For 90% of people, more displacement equals more fun. The power comes on at earlier rpms and it "feels" stronger. Don't get hung up on the exact bore and stroke too much. It's mostly the displacement that gives that "right now, kick in the pants feel".
On the other hand a smaller displacement engine running more rpm, with more gearing, is a screaming good time. But more rpm means more attention to detail on the build, better quality parts, more maintenance, and probably shorter engine life. I know, I know, big displacement engines can be made to rpm, too. But at some point that has it's issues, also.
For most people in most situations, in street cars, bigger equals more fun. I swing both ways. I have a 428 that I zing up to 7000+ rpm with 4.11 gears and a 3600 stall speed and run 11.40's on street tires, but I'm planning to build a 470+ inch engine that can do the same thing with less cam, less gear, less rpm, and less stall speed. I guess I'm getting old. ;)
JMO,
paulie
-
I'm still new to FE's so my 390 is all I've driven. I'm curious what is the "seat of the pants" feel of the others usual FE engines.
Obviously every build is different but I'm basically looking to understand which is the most fun to drive on the street, assuming a mild-moderate street build. Also how does a 427 feel compared to a 428? Wondering how the different bore and stroke combos affect the "fun factor"
Big bore short stroke will tend to wind up faster. Longer stroke, smaller bore engines of the same size will have torque earlier. I had a stock 410 that had a noticable difference in low end power over any 390 I have owned. Daily drivers tend to be better on gas and reliability with lower torque and rpm range. If your going to twist a street 390 to 6500 for fun spend the money on your rotating assembly. It's fun till the oily bang crashes the party.
I didn't intend to make an absolute statement. I see where my wording made it look that way but I changed it.
-
Wasn’t trying to harp on you, Chris, but it’s just a pet peeve of mine to see the whole “stroke vs rpm” argument. The whole "long stroke engines won't rev" topic is a wives tale that's perpetually passed on around the forums.
There are plenty of anemic big bore/short stroke engines out there and there are plenty of small bore/long stroke engines that will turn 9000-10000 rpm in the bat of an eye. I'm doing some modular Ford stuff right now and there's an MMR 10.5 Outlaw engine that's 351 cubic inches (3.750" bore x 4.165" stroke) and makes peak horsepower at 10000 rpm.
Take a 400 SBC in a 70's pickup truck: 4.125" bore with a 3.750" stroke. Grab the throttle and give it a wing and it would do good to make it to 4800 rpm in a couple of seconds. Now, build that 4.125" x 3.750" combo with good cylinder heads and a big cam and watch it zip to 8000 rpm in a heartbeat in a dirt track car.
As Paulie stated, it’s more of a function of component weight and the power that’s being made.
-
Wasn’t trying to harp on you, Chris, but it’s just a pet peeve of mine to see the whole “stroke vs rpm” argument. The whole "long stroke engines won't rev" topic is a wives tale that's perpetually passed on around the forums.
There are plenty of anemic big bore/short stroke engines out there and there are plenty of small bore/long stroke engines that will turn 9000-10000 rpm in the bat of an eye. I'm doing some modular Ford stuff right now and there's an MMR 10.5 Outlaw engine that's 351 cubic inches (3.750" bore x 4.165" stroke) and makes peak horsepower at 10000 rpm.
Take a 400 SBC in a 70's pickup truck: 4.125" bore with a 3.750" stroke. Grab the throttle and give it a wing and it would do good to make it to 4800 rpm in a couple of seconds. Now, build that 4.125" x 3.750" combo with good cylinder heads and a big cam and watch it zip to 8000 rpm in a heartbeat in a dirt track car.
As Paulie stated, it’s more of a function of component weight and the power that’s being made.
No problem, I didn't think anyone was. My line of thinking was concerning the same basic set up with only the bore-stroke being the change. Back in the late 90's I knew of a 428 Mustang from Mansfield that could twist 7500 all day. Never could keep my own 390's together very long after 6000. My current 352 has more low end towing power than the stock 69 2v Galaxie 390 I ran in my F-100. Lots of variables between those vehicles, just depends on how they are built. There are a few local's with stroked 460's that run but I have never been interested enough to know the particulars. However a local builder has a 4.4" stroke MEL that has gotten me a little interested in aftermarket cubes.
-
Long stroke engines eat up induction with piston acceleration speed, so typically, a longer stroke engine is going to end up making power in a lower rpm range with most typical induction choices. If you can feed it, the stroke becomes meaningless other than what mechanical limitations it puts on the engine. It took a long time for the big "mountain motor" drag engine builders to figure out how to keep them from coming apart because of those limitations. Brent's example of a grossly over-square engine is definitely the exception...it has a four valve cylinder head that could feed a locomotive. This is the big advantage of these smaller engines...having the valve area to feed that long stroke but again, it's the displacement that makes the power, not the configuration. You couldn't get away with that and use an older two valve cylinder head.
-
This is an interesting discussion. I think everyone will agree that all the engines he asked about can run great.
However, I wonder what the curves would look like if a 390/427/428/445/489 were all built for the same car and same end use with the same quality parts and assembly. Typically, the bigger you go, other than class racing the "better" the builds get. (I know general rule sorry)
The various desktop dynos could certainly give a hatchet-level look at the curves for trending although I place little stock in the numbers it can show curve trends, and we could certainly use math on the peaks, 1.2 per CID = 468 hp for a 390 and 534 for a 445, same idea with torque. Even just that number right there says something, 60+ HP, even for a WAG is a strong indicator
My experience is, cram as much atmosphere into the engine as you can afford, and do it right, and for the intended use, and that is the most fun. In a given RPM range I haven't found where the smaller motor would be more fun, unless you have traction issues you do not want to fix (resto car etc).
-
sorry...meant to edit my last post, not quote it.
-
Thanks for the info. I love the history of Fords performance efforts in the 60's. So it would be great if I could open my hood and see a true 427 under there. But I also really want a good cost / fun ratio. So these conversations just confirm that the stroker is probally going to be there winner there.
Not really a surprise at all. I was just looking to see if there was something about a 427 that really can't be duplicated with other engine builds. Fun conversation
-
So, day off, and sore from shoveling snow, so a little math fun to show why the strokers pull harder on a port.
Before the engineers and detailed math guys shoot holes, this is a SIMPLE evaluation of the change in cylinder volume over full stroke.
1 - The top section gives me bore/stroke of each engine divided by a simple common step, 20 data points across the entire stroke, as well as the volume of a chamber converted to cubic inches.
2 - The second section (STEP) shows quench distance at TDC, then the 20 steps for each engine converted to stroke. The 20 steps were just what easily fits on the screen, and the last bit of stroke because wonky with rounding. The goal was to account for rate of change over a single intake stroke (NOTE: this is comparison only and does not account for rod length for the 445, just total vertical movement divided by 20)
3 - The third section converts the bore and the step size into displacement so I could evaluate the difference between movement of a big bore/short stroke and a small bore/long stroke. This allows us to see how much "room" is being evacuated by the step size
4 - The 4th section (Delta vs 427) compares the change of displacement for each engine and each step against the 427. FYI as Excel rounded the upper steps are less precise, so ignore that final displacement per cylinder doesn't add up for those checking my math
If you look at the 428, at 1 inch of stroke, noted in RED, the 428 starts to overtake the 427 in rate of change in displacement, and will then "pull" harder on the port. It's really atmosphere pushing in, but pulling on a port seems to sound better. Also note that the 427 and 428 never get too far apart. In this case, likely less shrouding, bigger valves, etc all contribute a 427 actually making more power than a 428, but it does show if you feed the beast many say a 428 runs with a comparable 427.
The big numbers are for the 445, despite the small bore, the piston moves so much more in the same time frame it creates a significant change in displacement early, in this case, about a 1/4 of an inch of stroke, in green, the 445 is pulling harder on the port and continues to for a significant amount
Don't take this as gospel because rod length matters, cam timing matters, overlap and exhaust design, cylinder head flow and interference with the cylinder wall all matter, but it shows clearly that a stroker quickly pulls harder on a port as Scott mentioned
(http://s20.postimg.org/y00am8n99/Rate_of_volume_change.jpg)
-
What you're seeing is a result of rod/stroke ratio and piston acceleration speed.
-
What you're seeing is a result of rod/stroke ratio and piston acceleration speed.
Yes on piston acceleration, but no on rod ratio, the part my simple spreadsheet doesn't account for in any way is the rod. It is assuming the piston and rod drop straight down.
However, it shows everybody exactly what you are saying and I agree with you completely. I just don't have the math skills to account for rod angularity in a spread sheet.
-
Ross, I did something similar a while back. I have a bore/stroke spreadsheet that I always use for my bench racing. I just punched in a 390/428/445 so you can see the piston velocity graphs vs each other. It's kind of interesting. Note, the rod length does not affect max piston velocity, it affects when the piston reaches that velocity. I didn't graph those differences, I can if you're interested. I guess I could actually take the same data I have in the sheet and make a similar graph for total air displaced and see what that looks like, I might try that.
The piston velocity on the 390/427 maxes out about 1 degree later than it does in the 428 and 445 combinations.
390
(https://s18.postimg.org/5kme7z9x5/390.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
428
(https://s18.postimg.org/hmhs24qvd/428.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
445 Stroker
(https://s18.postimg.org/gk7ljlfrt/445.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
What you're seeing is a result of rod/stroke ratio and piston acceleration speed.
I just don't have the math skills to account for rod angularity in a spread sheet.
I can send you this sheet if you care for it.
-
Ross, I did something similar a while back. I have a bore/stroke spreadsheet that I always use for my bench racing. I just punched in a 390/428/445 so you can see the piston velocity graphs vs each other. It's kind of interesting. Note, the rod length does not affect max piston velocity, it affects when the piston reaches that velocity. I didn't graph those differences, I can if you're interested. I guess I could actually take the same data I have in the sheet and make a similar graph for total air displaced and see what that looks like, I might try that.
The piston velocity on the 390/427 maxes out about 1 degree later than it does in the 428 and 445 combinations.
390
(https://s18.postimg.org/5kme7z9x5/390.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
428
(https://s18.postimg.org/hmhs24qvd/428.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
445 Stroker
(https://s18.postimg.org/gk7ljlfrt/445.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Rod to stroke ratio definitely effects peak piston velocity.
-
Rod to stroke ratio definitely effects peak piston velocity.
[/quote]
Not near as much as you'd think. Almost negligible, compared to the affects that stroke has on it. Rod length is more diligent at shifting the point of max velocity, changing the acceleration rate. Not saying that it doesn't affect it at all.....
Note that the longer rod slows down the piston SLIGHTLY, but pushes the max velocity point back almost half a degree, which would slow the acceleration rate.
4.25 stroke w/ 6.49" rod
(https://s18.postimg.org/41vlg67zt/445_short_rod.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
4.25 stroke w/ 6.7" rod
(https://s18.postimg.org/6560offop/445_long_rod.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
I think you guys are looking at the wrong variables. Piston speed and acceleration, bore/stroke ratios, rod/stroke ratios certainly affect things. But the effect is inconsequential compared to other things. The biggest effect of bore/stroke ratio is on breathing. And that is really just about the bore size, not the ratio. A bigger bore allows bigger valves which allows a bigger port which allows better breathing at all lifts.
I would say we're comparing grains of sand to a boulder.
JMO,
paulie
-
I think you guys are looking at the wrong variables. Piston speed and acceleration, bore/stroke ratios, rod/stroke ratios certainly affect things. But the effect is inconsequential compared to other things. The biggest effect of bore/stroke ratio is on breathing. And that is really just about the bore size, not the ratio. A bigger bore allows bigger valves which allows a bigger port which allows better breathing at all lifts.
I would say we're comparing grains of sand to a boulder.
JMO,
paulie
Paulie I was only looking at the rate of change in displacement as the piston goes down. As stated it doesn't talk about the valve, just the depression caused by how fast that space grows.
However, I am not sure that I agree with the bigger valve bigger port comment. It's true no doubt, but I want the smallest cleanest port I can for the use of the engine. If I have enough port for the 428 on a 4.13 bore, all I am doing is losing velocity in that port if go bigger on it with the 427 (for the same end use) of course I could spin it higher and make more power, but we'd have to discuss what we are trying to do with each engine too. I am still on the "if I built a 390, 427, 428, or 445 for the same RPM range" what would I expect?
What you're seeing is a result of rod/stroke ratio and piston acceleration speed.
I just don't have the math skills to account for rod angularity in a spread sheet.
I can send you this sheet if you care for it.
That would be great, My427stang at cox dot net
-
Rod to stroke ratio definitely effects peak piston velocity.
Not near as much as you'd think. Almost negligible, compared to the affects that stroke has on it. Rod length is more diligent at shifting the point of max velocity, changing the acceleration rate. Not saying that it doesn't affect it at all.....
Note that the longer rod slows down the piston SLIGHTLY, but pushes the max velocity point back almost half a degree, which would slow the acceleration rate.
Actually I mis-worded that. I should have said it effects piston acceleration, not velocity. The acceleration rate is what effects the induction.
-
I think you guys are looking at the wrong variables. Piston speed and acceleration, bore/stroke ratios, rod/stroke ratios certainly affect things. But the effect is inconsequential compared to other things. The biggest effect of bore/stroke ratio is on breathing. And that is really just about the bore size, not the ratio. A bigger bore allows bigger valves which allows a bigger port which allows better breathing at all lifts.
I would say we're comparing grains of sand to a boulder.
JMO,
paulie
Bore size is arbitrary. If you're dealing with a two valve head; one valve, one port, then yes. Bore size will be the limitation. There are some very small bore engines with some very deep breathing multi valve heads on them that make very good power at some very high rpm's. It's all about piston speed. Piston speed dictates the demand. Demand dictates the induction. It's all math.
-
I will point out a single set of pretty clear observations.
These are directional - not absolutes - but are pretty dang well proven.
First is that displacement always wins.
Its "air in - air out" no matter what.
More air in means more fuel can be consumed and more fuel equals more potential power.
Only way for more air in a defined architecture, in a defined time period is a bigger engine or more RPM
In a two valve engine you are always valve limited.
We are only talking two valves because that is what we are building.
If - IF - we "fix" the displacement, a bigger bore allows a bigger valve, and will be the winner.
I do not think its all about piston speed. I think its about the displacement delta. The head does not see the piston - it sees the change in volume.
In every single racing category where displacement is limited, they eventually end up at the maximum possible bore, the largest valve that will be functional (not the largest that will mechanically fit - but the largest that will work properly), and then go for the highest possible RPM.
Same path has been followed in NASCAR as in Pro Stock - or F1 for that matter. Only way that changes is when durability, rules, or checkbooks interfere. You cannot really use current OE development as a gauge because they are wrestling with packaging, weight, fuel economy and emissions as "rules". A large bore provides greater opportunity for emissions issues due to crevice volume and the amount of working surface that gets wetted in the cylinder among other things.
Take all this stuff and translate it into street FE engines and you bump up against limitations that have nothing to do with the theoretical. Here we simply end up with an arbitrary RPM range (say 6000ish), existing head castings, pump gas, rationally priced parts, and available blocks in an aged architecture. When you go to that place - displacement wins. If you put a working mans budget into the equation displacement wins easily.
-
Considering all the above information I am interested how this would scenario play out. Slight over bore 427 vs 428. Pick any vehicle, cam, gearing, intake, head, compression ratio, valve, ect., OR dyno OR calculator. Identical build with only the bore and stroke changing.
Compare the power and rpm ranges of:
"428" 4.13 × 3.98 = 426.5442180 CI
"427" 4.2378510454 × 3.78 = 426.5442180 CI
-
Considering all the above information I am interested how this would scenario play out. Slight over bore 427 vs 428. Pick any vehicle, cam, gearing, intake, head, compression ratio, valve, ect., OR dyno OR calculator. Identical build with only the bore and stroke changing.
Compare the power and rpm ranges of:
"428" 4.13 × 3.98 = 426.5442180 CI
"427" 4.2378510454 × 3.78 = 426.5442180 CI
Probably best to use a flat top piston with no valve reliefs.
-
I can assure you that, 'way back when', I swapped the 390 engine in my '67 Cougar XR7 GT for a 427, (it would have been in the latter half of '68), the difference in the 'feel' of the car, and the fun factor, were all out of proportion to the additional 37 cubic inches.
KS
-
Just some thought.My friend who recently passed had/has a 69 Mach I SCJ auto that I looked after for over 25 years.I long ago pulled the 3.91's and put in 3.50's.Engine has a duraspark ign,blue thunder intake and a 268H cam.Both have well tuned Holley carbs
My car (1968) with the 427.Same gears,same ign,same exhaust with a 270S comp cam.C7-F intake.Very similar set up but my car is a 4spd.Most important..same engine tuner (Me)
Very similar power but the 427 would easily out rev it.The 428 would at no point out torque me.Nor was it capable of beating my car as I simply would out rev it..That being said I certainly was not able to simply out run him.
Now my car is a 4spd and his is a 3spd auto.As it is a SCJ its internal rotating mass is much more than mine as the SCJ has Lemans rods.A standard CJ would probably spin up faster.If both cars had the same trans I doubt anyone would notice the difference other lifter noise..
In a year or two when its finished I would be interested in driving my friends 68 fastback CJ 4spd car and see how it feels compared to mine..
JMO.....Cory
-
My experience doesn't come with any charts or graphs but when I turned my 427 into a 454 the car "felt" slower. Everything remained the same as far as parts and car other than the extra stroke. I never dyno'd or raced it then however the butt-o-meter said the new deal wouldn't out run the old. RPM was the same but it just felt like things happened faster with the 427.
I do know the 454 needed more fuel which proved the previous setup on the car was marginal with the power the 427 was making.
-
Sorry Dale, I'd like to take your real world experience seriously, but ya know........ no graphs. ;)
-
That's unfortunate as especially at low rpm one should have felt more in the old butt-o-meter with more push. But you answered your own question with the fact that all the rest of your 427 parts remained exactly the same. More carb, fuel pressure or capacity, cam selection, gearing and more would have supplied the gains you expected.
My experience doesn't come with any charts or graphs but when I turned my 427 into a 454 the car "felt" slower. Everything remained the same as far as parts and car other than the extra stroke. I never dyno'd or raced it then however the butt-o-meter said the new deal wouldn't out run the old. RPM was the same but it just felt like things happened faster with the 427.
I do know the 454 needed more fuel which proved the previous setup on the car was marginal with the power the 427 was making.
-
I have had numerous FE's in numerous Fords, cars and trucks since the late 60's. Stock for stock, the 352,360,390's were just vehicles. Add a 427 or 428 and they become hot rods and will put a smile on your face.
If you have a heavy truck and really want to smile, install a Cummins turbo diesel!
Nick
-
To the OP's original thought;
Larry Widmer once said, "An engine that accelerates a given load from A to B fastest, wins, regardless of horsepower..." and I'll add here, displacement or configuration.
For your question to be answered accurately; to realize the characteristics of all those combinations I think you would have to build each one to make the exact same peak power. They will be entirely different engines with entirely different personalities. Lets say 550hp target...a 390 making 550hp is going to have to run some rpm. A 500" engine will make that power in a much more reasonable rpm. A 427 or 428...you probably not notice the difference seat of the pants but it would show on the dyno. The difference wouldn't be so much in peak performance, but how they got there. I think that would show you the personalities of each combination.
-
Sorry Dale, I'd like to take your real world experience seriously, but ya know........ no graphs. ;)
LMAO!
That's unfortunate as especially at low rpm one should have felt more in the old butt-o-meter with more push. But you answered your own question with the fact that all the rest of your 427 parts remained exactly the same. More carb, fuel pressure or capacity, cam selection, gearing and more would have supplied the gains you expected.
My experience doesn't come with any charts or graphs but when I turned my 427 into a 454 the car "felt" slower. Everything remained the same as far as parts and car other than the extra stroke. I never dyno'd or raced it then however the butt-o-meter said the new deal wouldn't out run the old. RPM was the same but it just felt like things happened faster with the 427.
I do know the 454 needed more fuel which proved the previous setup on the car was marginal with the power the 427 was making.
I think it's interesting to hear what happened to Dale when he took the same combo and just added stroke. Not many people want to change every parameter on a car and spend thousands of dollars just to add some cubic inches. I've never ran a stroker anything, so I can't comment on that.
-
Sorry Dale, I'd like to take your real world experience seriously, but ya know........ no graphs. ;)
LMAO!
That's unfortunate as especially at low rpm one should have felt more in the old butt-o-meter with more push. But you answered your own question with the fact that all the rest of your 427 parts remained exactly the same. More carb, fuel pressure or capacity, cam selection, gearing and more would have supplied the gains you expected.
My experience doesn't come with any charts or graphs but when I turned my 427 into a 454 the car "felt" slower. Everything remained the same as far as parts and car other than the extra stroke. I never dyno'd or raced it then however the butt-o-meter said the new deal wouldn't out run the old. RPM was the same but it just felt like things happened faster with the 427.
I do know the 454 needed more fuel which proved the previous setup on the car was marginal with the power the 427 was making.
I think it's interesting to hear what happened to Dale when he took the same combo and just added stroke. Not many people want to change every parameter on a car and spend thousands of dollars just to add some cubic inches. I've never ran a stroker anything, so I can't comment on that.
One word; COMBINATION. We preach it to all our cutomers. Combination combination combination! An engine is a sum of parts that ALL have to work together and compliment eachother in order to achieve the best results.
-
Yep, paying attention to the overall combination would have resulted in a much better experience and result. We (my Bro' and me) learned this lesson the hard way long ago after working on many muscle cars and somewhat hot streeters. As an example, cam changes alone didn't often perform well unless other not-so-cheap changes were made. A hot cam and an aluminum intake alone didn't do much for a ride with a 3.00 gear!. Changing to a 4 series gear often made a world of difference. But then, traction woes raised its ugly head.
So yes, some careful and 'free' analysis of not only the engine but the tranny, rear gear, traction devices and tires BEFORE any parts were purchased made all the difference between a so-so result and a real screamer!
-
I would guess that Dale knew a little bit about the 'combination' being that he goes faster on his spare 390, than most folks believe possible. I don't think he had meager pickup truck heads on the stroked 427.
He's also had the car for a long time so his butt-o-meter might be calibrated pretty close.
-
One word; COMBINATION. We preach it to all our cutomers. Combination combination combination! An engine is a sum of parts that ALL have to work together and compliment eachother in order to achieve the best results.
I understand the importance of "COMBINATION" but when one puts his own engines together, before internet days and has limited resources, no Dyno time then parts get changed and you hope for the best. I think even today that's the average Joe's situation other than unlimited info on the 'net. We're not all professional engine builders here and yes.. I lucked into a decent Combination on my 390. Certainly was any rocket science in that build.
As for bore/stroke combination, as far as i recall don't the 500 CI Pro Stock guys use something like a 3.50 stroke? That would make for some rather large pistons. My buddy has a 341" SBF he built that makes 935 HP. Big piston, short stroke so there must be something to that arguement.
-
One word; COMBINATION. We preach it to all our cutomers. Combination combination combination! An engine is a sum of parts that ALL have to work together and compliment eachother in order to achieve the best results.
I understand the importance of "COMBINATION" but when one puts his own engines together, before internet days and has limited resources, no Dyno time then parts get changed and you hope for the best. I think even today that's the average Joe's situation other than unlimited info on the 'net. We're not all professional engine builders here and yes.. I lucked into a decent Combination on my 390. Certainly was any rocket science in that build.
As for bore/stroke combination, as far as i recall don't the 500 CI Pro Stock guys use something like a 3.50 stroke? That would make for some rather large pistons. My buddy has a 341" SBF he built that makes 935 HP. Big piston, short stroke so there must be something to that arguement.
I think your first paragraph is a cop out, no offense. I started building my own engines in the late 70's. I read everything I could get my hands on and it soon became obvious that there was no one single "be all and end all" book or publication on how to build a good engine. I also started hanging around known successful racers and engine builders and asking lots of questions. It wasn't long before I was reading articles and easily picking out the fodder for filling pages and actual useful tech information. I'm not any smarter than anyone else. The information was available, you just had to work a little harder for it. Of course, these days, everyone is an internet expert so weeding through the BS these days sometimes can be very time consuming and Lord help the new guy. I'm not sure the internet is all it's made out to be for the novice.
Both your bore/stroke examples are for two valve cylinder heads. Already stated that bore dia. allows bigger valves for better breathing, especially when you're trying to feed 500ci @ 12000rpm. But look what advantage the Mod Fords had during some of the EM competitions with their 4 valve heads. They could stroke the snot out of those engines and even with their way under-square configuration, make huge, unfair power because of a multi valve head. It's all about meeting the demand. Believe me, if a 500" PS engine could get away with a 4.50 bore, they would be delighted with that much lighter of a piston. That huge bore presents challenges of it's own.
-
One word; COMBINATION. We preach it to all our cutomers. Combination combination combination! An engine is a sum of parts that ALL have to work together and compliment eachother in order to achieve the best results.
I understand the importance of "COMBINATION" but when one puts his own engines together, before internet days and has limited resources, no Dyno time then parts get changed and you hope for the best. I think even today that's the average Joe's situation other than unlimited info on the 'net. We're not all professional engine builders here and yes.. I lucked into a decent Combination on my 390. Certainly was any rocket science in that build.
As for bore/stroke combination, as far as i recall don't the 500 CI Pro Stock guys use something like a 3.50 stroke? That would make for some rather large pistons. My buddy has a 341" SBF he built that makes 935 HP. Big piston, short stroke so there must be something to that arguement.
I think your first paragraph is a cop out, no offense. I started building my own engines in the late 70's. I read everything I could get my hands on and it soon became obvious that there was no one single "be all and end all" book or publication on how to build a good engine. I also started hanging around known successful racers and engine builders and asking lots of questions. It wasn't long before I was reading articles and easily picking out the fodder for filling pages and actual useful tech information. I'm not any smarter than anyone else. The information was available, you just had to work a little harder for it. Of course, these days, everyone is an internet expert so weeding through the BS these days sometimes can be very time consuming and Lord help the new guy. I'm not sure the internet is all it's made out to be for the novice.
Both your bore/stroke examples are for two valve cylinder heads. Already stated that bore dia. allows bigger valves for better breathing, especially when you're trying to feed 500ci @ 12000rpm. But look what advantage the Mod Fords had during some of the EM competitions with their 4 valve heads. They could stroke the snot out of those engines and even with their way over-square configuration, make huge, unfair power because of a multi valve head. It's all about meeting teh demand. Believe me, if a 500" PS engine could get away with a 4.50 bore, they would be delighted with that much lighter of a piston. That huge bore presents challenges of it's own.
Under-square......not over. :)
-
Under-square......not over. :)
:o I know that. :o
I stand corrected.
-
From a prior comment I hope I understood that the RPM increase is affected by rotating mass. My 427/454 is going into a light car (under 3000 lb) so I'm using an aluminum flywheel (NOS Weber, got it really cheap). The car is getting a 4.57 differential. Would the aluminum flywheel quicken the rate of RPM change over a normal flywheel, 4 spd. (It does have a Lakewood bellhousing)
Street driven car only in a small radius from our town.
Richard >>> FERoadster
-
From a prior comment I hope I understood that the RPM increase is affected by rotating mass. My 427/454 is going into a light car (under 3000 lb) so I'm using an aluminum flywheel (NOS Weber, got it really cheap). The car is getting a 4.57 differential. Would the aluminum flywheel quicken the rate of RPM change over a normal flywheel, 4 spd. (It does have a Lakewood bellhousing)
Street driven car only in a small radius from our town.
Richard >>> FERoadster
I've had this discussion with some of the better engine builders I know and there seems to be a consensus. I don't know that there is any truth to saying the lighter rotating assembly will accelerate faster than the heavy one. Heavy flywheel helps with inertia on launch. If you don't need that weight, a lightweight flywheel helps reduce overall vehicle weight.
-
Something doesn't jive here, 935 hp and 341 cubic inches? That is 2.74/hp ci. You failed to mention just how much boost or N2O.
As for bore/stroke combination, as far as i recall don't the 500 CI Pro Stock guys use something like a 3.50 stroke? That would make for some rather large pistons. My buddy has a 341" SBF he built that makes 935 HP. Big piston, short stroke so there must be something to that arguement.
-
Something doesn't jive here, 935 hp and 341 cubic inches? That is 2.74/hp ci. You failed to mention just how much boost or N2O.
As for bore/stroke combination, as far as i recall don't the 500 CI Pro Stock guys use something like a 3.50 stroke? That would make for some rather large pistons. My buddy has a 341" SBF he built that makes 935 HP. Big piston, short stroke so there must be something to that arguement.
Plenty of guys making that kind of hp/ci these days, naturally aspirated. I've done near 2.4 with 611 ci BB Ford. Pro Stock has been over 3hhp/ci for a while now.
-
In my mind, hp and torque are the biggest proponents for how quick something will wrap up.
-
...and I have had some combinations that sounded like a tugboat when revved in neutral - - that revved up darn near as quickly when the thing was in a car and going down the track - - ran just fine.
-
Easy on knocking tugboat engines.
-
Tugboat engines knock?
-
My experience doesn't come with any charts or graphs but when I turned my 427 into a 454 the car "felt" slower. Everything remained the same as far as parts and car other than the extra stroke. I never dyno'd or raced it then however the butt-o-meter said the new deal wouldn't out run the old. RPM was the same but it just felt like things happened faster with the 427.
I do know the 454 needed more fuel which proved the previous setup on the car was marginal with the power the 427 was making.
Looking at 'feel', I had a '65 Mustang and Brother Lon had a '66 Fairlane GTA. He equipped the GTA with a 4.44 Detroit Locker, and sticky tires. My Mustang started as a 271/289 and had the full run of Shelby engine mods. I had a 3.50 gear.
There was a measured 1/4 mile starting in front of his house---he would, of course, get me badly at the start and I couldn't catch him in the 1/4, although I was gaining rapidly.
In a marathon session at Jon Corrunker's house, I installed a Paxton VS 59 blower and stopped by Lon's house on my way home. I must admit I was badly disappointed, because the car didn't feel ANY faster. Lon wasn't home, but his wife Karen was, and she was an excellent driver, with very quick reflexes. She was often the driver of his car at Milan.
After discussion, we went out front and lined up. I simply drove away from her and when I got back, her car was back in the garage. I asked her why she didn't try me, and she said, "You drove away from me so hard, instantly, I just quit after the 1-2 shift."
The Mustang had a lot more power, but it was so linear it wasn't nearly as impressive feeling as it would have been if I'd put more cam in it, and one could feel the surge of power as the engine 'came up on the cam'.
For all practical purposes, the engine was ingesting more than twice as much air (and fuel) so the effect was that of having twice as much motor.
So-called 375 horsepower ChevyIIs were easy pickin's out on Telegraph.
I believe the same sort of thing might well happen if one installed a stroker with everything else as before.
KS
-
Tugboat engines knock?
More of a clicking I think between the injector clack and 2lb exhaust valves.
-
I'm still new to FE's so my 390 is all I've driven. I'm curious what is the "seat of the pants" feel of the others usual FE engines.
Obviously every build is different but I'm basically looking to understand which is the most fun to drive on the street, assuming a mild-moderate street build. Also how does a 427 feel compared to a 428? Wondering how the different bore and stroke combos affect the "fun factor"
Hi New FE guy. I can't answer your question about the 427, but I certainly can about the 390 vs 428. I yanked the 390 GT out of my 67 Cougar, and dropped in a '69 428 cobra Jet. THe difference driving the car was astounding! It went from a car that could squeel the tires, to car that would set you back in the set and roast them. It was scary/fun to drive!
-
My experiance was opposite of Dales, but with similar results. I ran my Fairmont for many years with several identical 428s, and ran a best of 10.03 @132 MPH. When I got my 454 FE, it used the same flat tappet cam, Sidewinder and Holley 780 vac, stock iron CJ heads,same ignition, headers, oiling system etc, the only differance was the .100" larger bore. Same clutch and flywheel, rearend ratio, tire size etc. Results? Pretty much identical. A bunch of 10.0s @132 MPH, and a couple of high 9.9s in great weather conditions.Maybe the heads, and induction system were the "cork" that prevented better performance with either combination, I don`t know.
As for Dales SB Ford example, I really doubt that "Plenty of guys making that kind of HP/CI these days naturally aspirated" is as easy as Scott may like to think. The SBF engine in question is a serious NHRA Competition Eliminator (C/Altered) engine, sort of like what Pro Stock would be if they NHRA was stilling using the older Pro Stock formula of Pounds per Cubic Inch, like they had before the switch to 500 ci engines in 1982. Not many stones left unturned in the quest for naturally aspirated HP. This engine is in a Don Ness built 2012 Mustang, and runs mid 7s in the 1/4 mile.
-
Well, I'm sorry that I have a "cop out" excuse for not being an engine building genius however I'm also not full of myself. Fact is, I've owned one car most of my life and fooling around with it is a hobby so extracting the most HP and having the perfect combination was never a goal. My comment was the 454 didn't "FEEL" as fast as the 427 and I qualified that with the info that I never raced the latter. That was in response to the original posters question.
As for the SBF... That is factual, the guy also isn't a pro engine builder but has the means to buy what he needs. Do a search and see how many Fords are running in Comp Eliminator.
-
Well, I'm sorry that I have a "cop out" excuse for not being an engine building genius however I'm also not full of myself. Fact is, I've owned one car most of my life and fooling around with it is a hobby so extracting the most HP and having the perfect combination was never a goal. My comment was the 454 didn't "FEEL" as fast as the 427 and I qualified that with the info that I never raced the latter. That was in response to the original posters question.
As for the SBF... That is factual, the guy also isn't a pro engine builder but has the means to buy what he needs. Do a search and see how many Fords are running in Comp Eliminator.
Sorry...my response wasn't meant personal, I just hear that all the time about the internet. I apologize.
-
Hello Eric, this is a great thread because it illustrates there are lots ways to increase the "fun factor" from the 390 you currently run. In my personal experience I went from a warmed over 390 to a 445. This is a highly cost effective way to go if you're looking to make around 500 horsepower and not break the bank, especially since you already have the raw material (a running 390). All depends on what you're looking to do with the car. I can tell you the fun factor is there :D
-
I'm building a 390, +.03, Scat H beams, Icon pistons, 10.0:1, Straub hyd roller and some very mild head work. Nice parts but not break the bank parts. Looking for at least 500 @~ 6500 with a Performer rpm and big 4150. I also have a med. riser 2x4 with a pair if 1850's that I don't think will make as much power but we'll see.
-
Well, I'm sorry that I have a "cop out" excuse for not being an engine building genius however I'm also not full of myself. Fact is, I've owned one car most of my life and fooling around with it is a hobby so extracting the most HP and having the perfect combination was never a goal. My comment was the 454 didn't "FEEL" as fast as the 427 and I qualified that with the info that I never raced the latter. That was in response to the original posters question.
As for the SBF... That is factual, the guy also isn't a pro engine builder but has the means to buy what he needs. Do a search and see how many Fords are running in Comp Eliminator.
However, you still didn't tell us how much boost, or N2O he is running to make 935 hp with 341 cubic inches. Comp. Eliminator can run anything but nitromethane. I have been at this since 1962, and I am always a bit doubtful until the facts are shown. It is not easy to build an engine to make 2 hp/ci NA, unless it has Fuel injection or sheetmetal intake with 2 x 4v. NASCAR engines are still in the 2.3-2.4hp/ci and they usually only last for one race before complete rebuild. It is the small cubic inch that makes it questionable. Joe-JDC
-
No power adders Joe and the 341 Ci is due to class limitations. It's basically a Mini Pro Stock deal, sheet intake and 2 rather large Carbs, very BIG Cam and plenty of RPM. no disrespect to your knowledge or ability but as I recall, you also didn't believe a 302 based block could be 390+ CI. Same guy built that deal and it's fast and reliable.
It's been several years since he had the 341 on a Dyno so I messaged him to refresh my memory. Changes happen every year to this deal so no idea the current configuration.
https://youtu.be/hGYBM2vx890
-
Well, I'm sorry that I have a "cop out" excuse for not being an engine building genius however I'm also not full of myself. Fact is, I've owned one car most of my life and fooling around with it is a hobby so extracting the most HP and having the perfect combination was never a goal. My comment was the 454 didn't "FEEL" as fast as the 427 and I qualified that with the info that I never raced the latter. That was in response to the original posters question.
As for the SBF... That is factual, the guy also isn't a pro engine builder but has the means to buy what he needs. Do a search and see how many Fords are running in Comp Eliminator.
However, you still didn't tell us how much boost, or N2O he is running to make 935 hp with 341 cubic inches. Comp. Eliminator can run anything but nitromethane. I have been at this since 1962, and I am always a bit doubtful until the facts are shown. It is not easy to build an engine to make 2 hp/ci NA, unless it has Fuel injection or sheetmetal intake with 2 x 4v. NASCAR engines are still in the 2.3-2.4hp/ci and they usually only last for one race before complete rebuild. It is the small cubic inch that makes it questionable. Joe-JDC
Joe, no disrespect, but you need to catch up. 2+ hp/ci is regular business with one carb and a cast intake these days...kinda like Cup motors were before they went to efi. Their "one race" after qualifying could be over 600mi @ 8500-9000rpm all day and still running strong. 341 making 935hp is pretty regular stuff these days.
-
No power adders Joe and the 341 Ci is due to class limitations. It's basically a Mini Pro Stock deal, sheet intake and 2 rather large Carbs, very BIG Cam and plenty of RPM. no disrespect to your knowledge or ability but as I recall, you also didn't believe a 302 based block could be 390+ CI. Same guy built that deal and it's fast and reliable.
It's been several years since he had the 341 on a Dyno so I messaged him to refresh my memory. Changes happen every year to this deal so no idea the current configuration.
https://youtu.be/hGYBM2vx890
Sounds awesome!
-
I lied about the HP. Talked to the owner today and he said it made 945 at 10,200 RPM on a Inertia Dyno that is known to be conservative/realistic. Prior to that he ran it on his friends Super Flow water brake Dyno and it was right around 1000. He said that was a similar number to many other engines in the same category and is accepted as legit because most everyone uses a Super Flow Dyno. He's sticking with his 945 number and actually recently bought that same Dyno.
Now.... back to the FE stuff eh.
-
And what were the cubic inches and type of fuel? Just asking. Joe-JDC
-
As previously stated the CI is 341. Fuel is Comp Eliminator spec fuel which is C-16. Compression is 15.5 to 1 and the valve lift is in the 1.20 intake and 1.0 on the exh. range. Piston to valve clearance is a bit of an issue as you can imagine but he has new pistons on the way and hopes to open the exh up a bit more. Valve spring life isn't that great. The car set the C/A record a couple years back so was checked and legit.
-
As previously stated the CI is 341. Fuel is Comp Eliminator spec fuel which is C-16. Compression is 15.5 to 1 and the valve lift is in the 1.20 intake and 1.0 on the exh. range. Piston to valve clearance is a bit of an issue as you can imagine but he has new pistons on the way and hopes to open the exh up a bit more. Valve spring life isn't that great. The car set the C/A record a couple years back so was checked and legit.
Heads probably by Losito or Foltz...?
-
Likely a 9 degree Losito head:
http://www.ultraproplus.com/Products/billet_ford_heads.html
As previously stated the CI is 341. Fuel is Comp Eliminator spec fuel which is C-16. Compression is 15.5 to 1 and the valve lift is in the 1.20 intake and 1.0 on the exh. range. Piston to valve clearance is a bit of an issue as you can imagine but he has new pistons on the way and hopes to open the exh up a bit more. Valve spring life isn't that great. The car set the C/A record a couple years back so was checked and legit.
Heads probably by Losito or Foltz...?
-
Likely a 9 degree Losito head:
http://www.ultraproplus.com/Products/billet_ford_heads.html
As previously stated the CI is 341. Fuel is Comp Eliminator spec fuel which is C-16. Compression is 15.5 to 1 and the valve lift is in the 1.20 intake and 1.0 on the exh. range. Piston to valve clearance is a bit of an issue as you can imagine but he has new pistons on the way and hopes to open the exh up a bit more. Valve spring life isn't that great. The car set the C/A record a couple years back so was checked and legit.
Heads probably by Losito or Foltz...?
Nice.
-
No disrespect either. Just a one of a kind engine, that is not even typical, but impressive. I am still curious if it is an 8.2" deck, though. I do not have a problem with that kind of horsepower with the 8.900/9.000/9.200" deck blocks. We have several here locally with the 9.000" deck(milled down 9.2) that run in the 8s NA on drag radials using the D-3 heads, and one that is knocking on 7.99 with slicks(has run 8.003)NA. Joe-JDC
-
By the way, just pulled a 445 out of my 71 4x4 F100 for a suspected bad piston. Slapped a little bench build 390 in it. Clean little motor, but should be a HECK of a drop in power
Before: 10:1 445, zero deck, ported iron heads 2.09/1.67 undercut stem, good valve job, ported RPM, 1000 HP Holley, SFT Bullet cam, close to Comp 282S but little more lift and 112 LSA on 106
Now: 9.3:1 390, .004 below, stock replacement 2.02/1.57, not ported, decent valve job, stock Streetmaster, 750 Holley, Crane 272 (Very close to a 268H intake lobe) 112 LSA on 109
Thinking 175-200 hp less? LOL I'd say that would be a driving difference, but a quiet engine will allow me time to get the Zyglo out and figure out if I have a cracked Probe piston... :o
-
Should be interesting to see if and What you find