Most bang-for-the-buck. Stroker kit or port cylinder heads?

[bw_kc]

Need to pull my engine to deal with a rear main seal leak.  Considering a stroker kit/roller cam swap or pulling my heads and sending out for porting.  What is the most bang-for-the-buck?  I'm leaning toward stroking the engine and switching out to a solid roller.  Thoughts?

Car is a 69 Mach 1 - 428 - .030 over, Hooker Headers,  Blue Thunder medium riser intake, BG Mighty Demon 850DP,  3" exhaust, Tremec TKO 600
 
HEADS  - EDELBROCK PN: E25           
            - INTAKE PORT VOLUME - 170CC      - EXHAUST PORT VOLUME - 125CC   
            - CHAMBER VOLUME - 72CC             - DECK THICKNESS - 5/8"   
            - INTAKE VALVE SIZE - 2.09"           - EXHAUST VALVE SIZE - 1.66"
 
Cam: Crower (Solid) - Grind 290FDP
Duration: In:   290/Out: 298   Duration @ .050": In: 246 Out: 250
Valve Lift: In: .312/Out: .319  Valve Lift w/1.76 Rocker:  In: .549/Out: .561

[cjshaker]

This is really a loaded question given the huge variables, but I'll throw my .02 cents in.

By far I think a stroker crank will gain you the most, but maybe not dollar to dollar as much as a simple cam swap. BUT, a cam swap requires updating the rest of the valvetrain to match it....and maybe even pistons so you don't have valve to piston contact. As far as the cam itself.....it totally depends on what cam you're choosing. A roller that has the same basic specs won't gain you anything. The cam you have seems to have pretty decent numbers given stock heads. With a bigger roller cam and a stroker crank, I'm not sure how much you would gain without head work because I think you would be pushing the limits of stock intake flow. So, IMO, a stroker crank coupled with a bigger roller cam would almost require a better head....or at least porting to match the flow potential of the longer stroke and bigger cam. But that all depends on the cam chosen. Like I said, a pretty loaded question.

As far as a "stroker/roller cam" vs. "head porting"....just the porting alone probably won't gain you much of anything. Or at least anything that's noticeable. You really need to consider the big picture, or the whole package. That's just my opinion.

[bw_kc]

Thanks for the reply.  I'd ultimately select my cam based upon recommendations of whomever I purchase the stroker kit.  My thought was "if" I stroke the engine, I can always get my heads ported later to maximize my combination.

[My427stang]

I think the stroker is going to be effective regardless of the cam and heads.

A ported 428 vs an unported 462 with the same heads and cam may not make a higher peak HP, but the whole torque curve will be significantly higher with the stroker

Add a cam with some lift, not necessarily duration and you'll add everywhere on top of that including the peaks, you lift is pretty mellow right now.

Something else to consider, port the heads, stroke it, and run the cam you have.  Then if you want more later, stab a cam in it

[cjshaker]

Thanks for the reply.  I'd ultimately select my cam based upon recommendations of whomever I purchase the stroker kit.  My thought was "if" I stroke the engine, I can always get my heads ported later to maximize my combination.

Well there you go then. I'd do the stroker....then go with a cam and port job later. Or do the stroker/cam, then port later, like you said.

I believe it's called "Tim Allen Syndrome"......always wanting more power. It's a pretty common dysfunction around here, and quite contagious with no known cures 

And Ross, you just hit 427 posts!! Congratulations 

[Barry_R]

I have a personal bias toward strokers these days.  Having tested an awful lot of them on the dyno, along with a good number of stock stroke builds - the strokers pretty much always simply make more power throughout the entire RPM curve.  I guess it should be expected, but to see it repeatedly illustrated is pretty convincing.

That said, the added cubes will want "more" from a cylinder head and a cam.  From what I've see (we are doing about an engine per week these days and are still pretty far behind...) the power curve profile and limits on peak power and RPM with a larger engine are somewhat elastic.  You reach a power region where the engine would pick up a lot with a better head - but it still runs quite well as it is - and almost always better than the smaller iteration did.

Bang for the buck lies in the context of such things.  The stroker deal normally costs about a thousand more than a rework/rebuild with new rings, pistons, and bearings and freshening crank & rods.  If you're already doing that work the stroker is a smokin' deal.  If your not going into the engine - the heads are an easier game and will be simpler to install.

Heads are replaceable "in car" - so they are an easier future addition if you're going at it piecemeal as time and money allow.  The gains per dollar are definitely here - but might not feel as dramatic as the stroker.

As for cam - I'd personally go with a hydraulic roller unless you plan to spend a lot of time beyond 6000 RPM.  Solid rollers will make more power at peak, and will RPM far higher - but they carry a lot of baggage in terms of required spring pressures, valvetrain upgrade requirements, and service/inspection needs.  I am something of a solid roller fan myself and run them on the street pretty often - but it does require some commitment with expectations of future service and maintenance.

[bw_kc]

Barry,

Please price me a stroker kit.  Block is a 428 bored .030 and has about 4k miles on it.  Hope is to install new pistons with just a hone of the cylinder walls.  I'm currently running a solid "flat tappet" with the lifter passages blocked so I'd like to stay solid even though I'll limit RPM to 6,000-6,500.  Please recommend/quote a cam as well.  That being said, I can convert the block back to hydraulic if necessary.

Here's my email:  werner@oasispools.com

[plovett]

So you guys are saying that for the best bang for the buck for increasing the power, that you'd pull out the good rotating assembly and replace it with another one ($2000+) that gains you 29 cubic inches?  That's the most bang for the buck?

paulie

[chilly460]

Figuring a good street motor at 1.3hp/cube, you're looking at 40hp with a stroker setup, all things being the same (assuming heads/cam aren't too small with cubes).  A roller cam is going to run $1000 (cam, lifters, springs, pushrods bought cheap) to setup, and assuming it's roughly the same size, maybe 15hp over a solid flat with mild lift?  Porting stock heads, figure what, $1000?  Then you'd likely need more cam lift as most times porting effects high lift to larger extent. 

Tough to quantify, but then figure in that a stroker is going to be strongest all throughout the curve, not just at peak.  Too many variables and testing to really know, but I'd say the stroker does hang in there fine if just looking at $$/hp. 

[bw_kc]

Paulie,

There is always more to the story than can be easily articulated in a post.  I've got a 428 industrial block with original cast crank, old rods, new TRW pistons.  I installed nitrous but have been reluctant to "hit it" due to the age of my reciprocating assembly.  I figured I'd stroke the engine to improve the foundation with more robust parts then build on that package.  This will also include my torque/HP through the normal operating range of a street engine.  I don't have $$$s to build a bad ass engine so I'll build it in "increments".  Ultimately I'd like to buy some of Barry's heads or the Blue Thunder heads, have them ported and stuffed with big valves.   Add a good roller cam and I've maximized my 428 based combo.

I figure that I can sell the crank, rods, and pistons to someone that wants to build a low-budget 428.  BTW - I've been priced this stroker kit for well less than $2k.

[plovett]

I agree that if the engine is out, there is good logic to adding the stroker kit now.  It's relatively easy to add ported heads and a solid roller cam later.  It's good logic, but it's not the best bang for the buck logic.

If you compare, as you said, 1) adding 29 cubic inches with a stroker kit to:  2) Fully porting the heads and putting a solid roller cam.   There is no comparison in terms of power increase. 

I would add that adding a roller cam could cost much more than that if the rest of the valve train needs to be upgraded. That's for sure a possibility.

On the other hand remember that we're talking about out of the box Edelbrock heads.  They don't flow a lot.  Slightly better than factory 428CJ heads.  There's huge gains to be made there, in my opinion.  And they'll become even more of a restriction as the displacement goes up.  That can be offset to some degree by using a bigger cam, but not completely.   

In my opinion, If I had say $2000 total to spend, and I wanted to increase power, I'd get the heads fully ported and milled for more compression,  add an aggressively lobed, higher lift, and bigger duration solid flat tappet cam, and then work on the intake/carb combo.  Maybe port the intake and add a tapered or open spacer.  Add a used bigger carb if the current one is too small.  That'd get you way more power for the dollar than simply adding 29 cubes.   It's no contest, in my opinion.  I don't see how it's even defensible.

Keep in mind that we're talking about a medium weight car with a 5 speed tranny, and I'm guessing on street tires.  Do you want more low rpm power?  I wouldn't if I wanted to go fast. 

JMO,

paulie

edit: typo

[plovett]

Man, I get that there's logic to what you're doing.  It is GOOD logic.  But if one takes the original question and looks at it in a strict sense, it is definitely NOT the best bang for the buck.  Still I get what you're saying, and in the overall picture, it DOES make sense. 

Your 'stang is going to be a killer.   

paulie 

Paulie,

There is always more to the story than can be easily articulated in a post.  I've got a 428 industrial block with original cast crank, old rods, new TRW pistons.  I installed nitrous but have been reluctant to "hit it" due to the age of my reciprocating assembly.  I figured I'd stroke the engine to improve the foundation with more robust parts then build on that package.  This will also include my torque/HP through the normal operating range of a street engine.  I don't have $$$s to build a bad ass engine so I'll build it in "increments".  Ultimately I'd like to buy some of Barry's heads or the Blue Thunder heads, have them ported and stuffed with big valves.   Add a good roller cam and I've maximized my 428 based combo.

I figure that I can sell the crank, rods, and pistons to someone that wants to build a low-budget 428.  BTW - I've been priced this stroker kit for well less than $2k.

[mike7570]

Best bang for the buck is whatever you get the most enjoyment out of doing. It doesn't matter if you pull the entire motor and start all over for 30hp if you enjoy it do it.

[Ratbird]

I'm far from the guy to chime in on this so please don't laugh at me, but I don't think of it so much as cubic inches, I think of the stroke it adds. If you did heads and cam to the current 428 it'll be awesome, but then later when you have the $ and want to add the 445 kit you'll probably want to change up the cam and heads some so you'll be duplicating work? Yes, no?

Dave J
 

[Joe-jdc]

You are already at 433ci, and a stroker will only give you 462+ci or 30 ci @ 1.2 hp/ci=35hp difference all else being the same.  The torque will come up about the same.  Porting heads will run you $600-1000 depending on work done.  You would need the average airflow to come up 35cfm at mid lift of your camshaft to equal the same horsepower with the 433ci engine.  At .550' lift, you will be handicapped with just a porting of the heads, but it will run excellent as is.  Personally, if the engine is solid right now, I would concentrate on bolt-ons before tearing it completely apart and starting from scratch.  You will have twice the cost in the long run for gaskets, rings, bearings, etc.  A solid 433CJ with good heads will be a strong street performer.  Joe-JDC.