Personal experience. I ordered a Winberg billet replacement crank for a stock stroke 440 cid FE engine that, previously, had been equipped with a very modified FT crank that was found to have multiple cracks during a tear down inspection. Winberg asked for the rod/piston balance weights stating that it would be a simple matter to balance the crank during machining. Inspection, upon receipt, revealed a shaft without a single indication that it had been balanced; no obvious contouring of counter-weights, no drilling and no added heavy metal slugs. Curious about whether it was actually balanced or not I gave the same balance info to my local race shop that I had furnished to Winberg and paid them to check and advise. The shop reported that the crank came out as close to perfectly balanced as if they had rebalanced one of their own jobs. If you are in a situation where every HP/Torq figure is critical I feel that elimination of the common aftermarket balance machining and the subsequent crankcase windage reduction would be valuable.

A properly executed “no drill” balance is the most desirable.  CAD programs used by folks like Winberg and Crower, among others, allow them to strategically design the counterweights so the heavy metal is not needed, and drilled holes are not needed.  There are people around who will “no drill” balance less expensive crankshafts, but that service costs more.  If you are looking for every bit of power, this should be on your list.

Generally speaking, the lower budget rotating assemblies are useable, but not as “spot on” as the old guy in a one man shop who still cares.

There’s a few more inches there Jim, and a little bit more cam.  Where Brady is, there is only 91 octane at the pump.  It probably needs 75/25 mix with some 110 or C12 just for insurance against detonation.  When you approach 100 hp per cylinder, the more detrimental it is if it detonates under full steam.  I’m sure a person could drive it around on 91, but I wouldn’t risk it when 25% of something better mixed with it removes the risk. 

There was 25-30 horsepower gained during the tuning process.  With the baseline tune, it made 766 hp on the second pull.  By the time we got it nice, it made 792 hp.  The extra power is a bonus, but I do it to make sure the distribution is healthy throughout all cylinders.  Long term health of the engine is definitely extended.  I like two carbs so much better than one in that regard.  You have equal length runners, and you can dial in eight jets and sixteen air bleeds to talk to eight cylinders much better.

***This is NOT an advertisement.  I did not ask Joe to post the question.*** There are several options.  I like to talk to folks who are interested about their specific application, and point them towards the best solution that fits the need and/or budget. Here are most of the combos that are on the shelf as of this post. 

* As cast, 2.150/1.660 valves. This is a “U” combo, unported but blended nicely. Lowest cost
* Intake cnc, exhaust as cast 2.100/1.660. This is a “C” combo.  Super head for 390-ish bores
* Intake cnc, exhaust as cast 2.200/1.660. This is an “A” combo. Works on 4.080 and larger bores
* Intake cnc, exhaust cnc 2.220/1.680. This is a “B” combo.  Recommend for 4.250 bore or larger, open exhaust
* Intake cnc, exhaust cnc 2.200/1.680.  This is a “D” combo. 428 or larger bores, open exhaust
* Intake cnc, exhaust cnc 2.100/1.680. This is an “E” combo. 4.100 or larger, open exhaust
* Intake cnc, exhaust cnc 2.250/1.680. This is an “F” combo. 4.310 or larger bores recommended, open exhaust
* “B” with cnc chamber. For 4.310 or larger bores.
* “F” with cnc chamber. For 4.350 or larger bores.

These are not the same castings as BBM heads purchased before March 2024.  I redesigned the ports before this casting run.  The new castings have BBM and C8OE-BP cast on the exhaust side between the runners.  The port location on the intake flange is the same as before, but the ports are quite different.  Intake flow ranges from 320 to 360, exhaust flow 235 to 260, both depending on which combo.  Obviously, the U are the least expensive, and the F with cnc chamber are the most expensive.  A person should call or email me to discuss the best version for their intended use.  I will say that the U head is a good choice for 390/445 engines with mild to moderate camshafts when price is a major consideration.  There are pictures of these heads on Facebook at Blair Patrick Enterprises.

We price the heads “ready for springs”.  We are happy to spring them according to the need, with high quality packages that we use, and are proven to work, and last. This prevents buying assembled heads and paying for hardware, and then having to change and spend more money.  The rocker pads are OE location.  No milling or oddball stands.  There are EZ locks in the rocker pad and exhaust bolt holes.

Exactly right, Ross.  The cast crank wouldn’t make it.  The narrow 2.438 journal size wouldn’t either.  We found ways to make the FE journal live to 8500 when we had to, but even there, not those power levels.  The 2-inch is size of choice for me.  The 1.888 Honda at that power level won’t make many runs before service.  There isn’t enough load bearing surface area at that power.  The Honda is good at 800-900hp.  The 2-inch is more durable past that.  On the stroke, the piston speed would be a problem at 10K rpm.  The stroke eventually becomes a parasite when you swing the mass faster and faster.  Comp Eliminator guys have had success with a 4-inch stroke, so it is doable.  You won’t find long strokes in Pro Stockers……They make the bore as big as possible, and plug in the stroke number to make 500 inches.

The 800 inch mountain motors don’t rpm like the 500 inch ones do.🙂

For most purposes the FE journal, or the normal 2.200 that is common to the stroker cranks is just fine.  I’m doing a twin turbo 400 inch FE for myself.  Not a super high revving engine.  I prefer the 2.200 in this case, for the wide bearing and generally available “boost” tolerable shelf rods.  We want to make 1000 hp below 6500 rpm with .550 max lift, so it can drive anywhere.  Still debating draw through carbs with water-meth versus port injection with an intercooler.  The latter will probably prevail, but the carbs would be much less complicated for a Holley carb guy.  Okay….. am getting off the subject….

This one has a 2 inch journal.  It has about .040 clearance to the lobes on the back four cylinders.  The front four don’t get as close.  A 2.100 rod would not clear in this engine.  A 4.400 is as big as I have been able use with a 2.100 crank pin.

Joe, you are in the ballpark on lift.  The heads flow to 1-inch, and the ports are really big.  A little too big in my opinion.  I think the cross section is just about right for 600 inches, but it sure does come to life about 5500 rpm.  It is extremely long winded for the duration it has now.  A big boy cam would put peak power at over 8000 rpm.  Kinda makes me draw up a little to think of turning a 4.5 crank 8500 through the traps, lol.  It’s a neat combo like it is, and the valvetrain is all stuff that has worked for us before in Drag Week.  One thing about this cam being smallish for port and cubes is that it makes the torque and power curves really broad.  It gets near peak power at 7200 and just stays there past 8200.  Should be a neat piece for Jack and Scott to work with.

Put an O2 in each primary and you will see that “balancing” the flow by sucking on individual runners with the others blocked off isn’t the whole picture.  Scott has a point that I have to agree on.  Looking at Mr. Joe’s flow data on a stock and a modified RPM manifold, notice the #6 and #7 runners in both cases flow more than the #1 and #4.  If you tune up #1 and #4 to mid 12 AFRs at wide open throttle, you will find out that #6 and #7 are usually lean enough to scare you.  Mid 11s on #1 and #4 will generally get #6 and #7 to a tolerable range.  The lower side of an RPM has very  good distribution, but the high side isn’t as good.  Usually they will make more power at WOT if 1 and 4 are a little too fat, which still leaves 6 and 7 a little too lean.  Part throttle cruise, lightly loaded, will show nice distribution to all eight cylinders.  Fooling around with various spacers can help the high side distribution, or screw it up worse than polio, depending on the path taken.

In terms of distribution, the early 60s iron manifolds, Sidewinder, 428 CJ, and Ed RPM, in that order, have the most consistent AFRs measured in the individual primaries.  The Ford PI and Blue Thunder are the WORST for distribution.  Both of those will cook #6 and 7. You can’t fix it with jets, because 1,4,6, and 7 use the same piece of the carburetor.  I discovered the problem working on Stock Eliminator FEs that are bound by rules to use specific manifolds.  After that, I started looking at all of the dual planes.  You can fix the 2x4 intakes with staggered jetting.  The other neat thing when you start smoothing AFRs is that BSFCs can smooth out, and there is also a by-product of more power and torque.  The closer it gets to “right”,  it also starts trending towards helping the “terminal” runner design problems.  I think pooling of excess fuel in the manifold improves as the overall tune gets better.  You can wear one engine with one manifold out trying to correct distribution issues.  Making some windows in the other plane into 6 and 7, and using different cam lobes on 1/4 versus 6/7 have shown trends in the right direction.

There is more going on in there than porting and dry flow testing will show.  I can say for sure that most manifolds have design characteristics that can’t be fixed without cutting them in two and changing their mind in places you can’t reach too good otherwise.

I will say that it is a plus to have runners that “flow” more and more equally, but the distribution is a different situation altogether.  If you look at AFR in collectors, it looks pretty good down there, where two high runners and two low runners mix together to create the number.  An old C4 iron low profile manifold isn’t the best for power, but it is the best for distribution. 

My two cents

I think I have a set or two of 4.035 bore stroker pistons on the shelf, and also some forged 4.062 bore CP pistons for the 3.50 stroke.

Pretty easy to see……..Van Cleve’s has the most power, and Paquet’s has the most power per inch.  Both of those engines have conventional FE cast cylinder heads.  At 440-ish inches, and Super Stock legal, with 715 carbs, Ray’s car is awesome, and unmatched in terms of power per inch.

We didn’t go overboard on camshaft in Jim’s engine.  It is 501 inches, but intended to be low maintenance.  A Super Stock camshaft would make his car even faster, but would require very frequent valvetrain maintenance. 

The non traditional heads should make more power than the inline, stock configuration, 13 degree valve angle heads.  I’ve done one engine with four digit power.  Numerous with 900+ power.  About 15 years ago, I did a Super Stock 427 that went 8.60s, which was fast at that time.  That “legal” engine made 892 hp at the time.  Ray goes 8.40s now, so it’s safe to say his probably makes 940-ish power these days. 

We are getting ready to run a 540 inch FE with billet heads.  I am sure it will make really big power, but not apples to apples with conventional design heads. 

The Cammer is king on OE design FE heads, in terms of flow, but the rocker ratio hurts the potential of the engine.  There are really three categories of FEs now.  Conventional wedge, SOHC, and modern redesigned stuff.  The modern redesigns should dominate, but so far, the quickest FEs on earth in 2025 have conventional wedge heads.