410 vs 428 Power Difference

[410bruce]

Maybe I missed it or don't remember if this has been addressed but, all things being equal in the build (heads, intake, camshaft, compression etc.) would there be any measurable power/torque advantage with the extra 18 cubic inches of the 428 over the 410? Would it even be noticeable in a street vehicle?

Must be winter time, what with the rhetorical questions and all. 

Thanks guys.

[JimNolan]

I took a 1963 352 block and bored it out to 4.05", added an Eagle 428 crank and rods w/Edelbrock heads, Edelbrock RPM intake and Holly 750 carburetor along with a Cam Research 282/288 cam and 9.9 CR, Stan Johnson headers and 3.50 True Trac. Put it in a 4300 lb car and went 14.25 sec through the quarter mile on street tires. Granted a lot was lost on traction but I don't think a 428 in stock configuration and street tires could do better.

[jayb]

Bruce, I doubt that you would notice much of a difference in the car, but the HP and torque numbers of the 428 would be up by at least 15-20 over the 410.  Cubic inches will always get you some more, especially on a street vehicle.

[blykins]

Most streetable FE's hit somewhere anywhere from 1 hp/ci to 1.3 hp/ci depending on the build.  So, 18 cubes difference could be 18 hp or it could be 23 hp.  May be noticeable, may not be.   A Super Sucker could get you the 20 hp though....

[FERoadster]

Jay: too bad your book didn't compare some more base engines like a stock 390 GT and a 428CJ. Then the manifolds might make a great difference, or maybe not?
Richard >>> FERoadster

[410bruce]

Excellent, thanks guys.
Jay and Brent, really appreciate the technical data. 

I've been throwing around the idea of using my '62 352 block and boring it to 4.05 (it's 4.03 now) and building a 410 or waiting on a 428 block I'm purchasing from a forum member.
He said he'd deliver it to me when he came down this way but it could be a while before that happens.

Anyhow, that was kind of my reason for asking the question.

[blykins]

Excellent, thanks guys.
Jay and Brent, really appreciate the technical data. 

I've been throwing around the idea of using my '62 352 block and boring it to 4.05 (it's 4.03 now) and building a 410 or waiting on a 428 block I'm purchasing from a forum member.
He said he'd deliver it to me when he came down this way but it could be a while before that happens.

Anyhow, that was kind of my reason for asking the question.

Using a 352/390 block is a lot more cost efficient.  I'm going to put my flame suit on and then say this, but for the price of a 428 block these days, I really don't see enough difference in power between the 428 based engines and the 390 based engines to justify it.  Even an A scratch or industrial 428 block is stupid expensive these days. 

[410bruce]

Awesome Brent. Thank you for your honesty. 

I may just build the 352 block then. I have verbally stated to the gentleman I want the 428 block and I will not go back on my word, so I'll be getting the 428. The car still needs a lot of work before it's ready for an engine and the 428 block may arrive in time to be used anyway. 


Either way, I'm very happy with the responses here. Really appreciate it, guys. 

[482supersnake]

Some of the old 352 blocks have thick cores. It could be taken out to 4.13 bore if it is checked first.

[410bruce]

Some of the old 352 blocks have thick cores. It could be taken out to 4.13 bore if it is checked first.

I did a quick random check on a few cylinders on the 352 block with my handy dandy $130.00 ebay tester and it appeared to be pretty meaty. Can't recall if it was 428 bore meaty or not. Will do an in-depth check when I disassemble it the rest of the way.

Thanks.

[blykins]

Keeping the cylinder walls thick will serve you better.

[JimNolan]

Years ago I think Jim Dove (if I'm not mistaken) wrote an article on building the FE engines. In it he stated that the pre-64 FE blocks were a bit beefier than the later blocks. I mentioned it once and the guru's on FE Fanatics shot me down. So, I don't know if they were or weren't. The only thing I know was I read it from a reputable source I thought at the time.

[Gaugster]

I'm going the 390 route also. No time table for me so I'd have used a 428 block if I had one. The cost of a used 428 block is about halfway to a new aftermarket one. For me, costs just spiral up too much for street car applications. My 390 mirror 105 block was almost free by comparison. I got lucky though.

I'd tend to think the lack of bolt on high horsepower heads/intake made getting every cubic inch very important. Porting can do wonders but at an additional cost. Jay's heads may prove to be the missing link as they should not be the limiting factor. Hopefully we don't turn too many 390 blocks into boat anchors in the process...

[bsprowl]

The '66 factory specs were: 410 - 444 ft pounds of torque, 330 HP;  428 - 462 ft pounds of torque, 345 HP.  Same cam, heads, carb size, etc.

[fryedaddy]

Years ago I think Jim Dove (if I'm not mistaken) wrote an article on building the FE engines. In it he stated that the pre-64 FE blocks were a bit beefier than the later blocks. I mentioned it once and the guru's on FE Fanatics shot me down. So, I don't know if they were or weren't. The only thing I know was I read it from a reputable source I thought at the time.

SAME HERE JUST DIFFERENT it was not Dove,someone different.when i was a teen and early 20s, i was living,eating,breathing,sleeping,dreaming,FE engines back in the early 80s.i read an article that said 66-c6me blocks were the best bar none,the c6me-a weren't bad is how i remember it quoted.and the same article had a pic of dozens of FE blocks lined up in rows on the floor. and also i got shot down like an outlaw in the old west.

[frnkeore]

Regarding heavier FE blocks; when I first came on this forum, in Sept of '19, one of my very first questions was "When did the FE change to a thin wall casting", apparently, like others, in the past, I was told that it had ALWAYS been a thin wall casting!!!

At 77, I lived threw the original FE period and I knew that was BS but,  how do you tell the modern FE guys, they are wrong? It's hard but, as time goes on, the truth comes out. One thing I know, for a fact, is that there were NO thin wall, Ford castings, of any sort, until the 1960 Falcon six. FE's before that had a Ford spec, of .170 min cyl wall thickness and recommend max a over bore of .060. The 292 had that same spec. My 4.050 bore 361 Edsel engine must have the same .170 cyl wall thickness spec (.140 @ .060), even with the larger bore. My Edsel, after boring .060, the thinnest major thrust side is .188 and minor is .153. Remember that .170, is min wall.

I can't say what the spec is for the '61 - '62, 352, 390 & 406. I haven't found that yet but, it would make since that it may have changed with the modernization in '63 but, Ford never made a public announcement, to that effect.

Several, older guys on this forum (including me), have posted that they had or new of 1/8" over bore 352's and Ted Wells, a high end FE guy, of the 60/70's, that was foreman at Valley Head Service, has said the earlier FE casting are thicker.

I'm always on the look out for Ford factory drawings and maybe I'll find one with that revision, someday. Until then, I will keep using my sonic test gauge, I would never discourage that, even on a early block.

[JimNolan]

The 410ci I built out of boring the 352ci runs cool. You can't get it to go over 190 degrees on the hottest day using a 180 degree thermostat. My engine building program says it should have 391hp but lets say it just has 360hp. That's 360hp that I drag raced in my 57 as well as drove cross country many times while burning 87 octane fuel and never having a problem out of it. Now the engine is in my 63 Galaxie and is backed up with a Jay Broader C6 and "2.70" Trac Loc differential. (I've quit drag racing) Engine has about 20K miles on it and runs just as good now as it ever did.
My point is, building an engine to get the most out of it depends on what you want to use it for. In my case, I wanted both performance as well as dependability. I'd much rather have 20 less HP than worry about overheating and dependability by boring a motor too far. And, I can't believe Ford forged a different block for the 352 than they did a 390. 

[gdaddy01]

I think this day and age , any fe block that is in good shape , with todays crank options , would work good for street use . 

[410bruce]

Regarding heavier FE blocks; when I first came on this forum, in Sept of '19, one of my very first questions was "When did the FE change to a thin wall casting", apparently, like others, in the past, I was told that it had ALWAYS been a thin wall casting!!!

At 77, I lived threw the original FE period and I knew that was BS but,  how do you tell the modern FE guys, they are wrong? It's hard but, as time goes on, the truth comes out. One thing I know, for a fact, is that there were NO thin wall, Ford castings, of any sort, until the 1960 Falcon six. FE's before that had a Ford spec, of .170 min cyl wall thickness and recommend max a over bore of .060. The 292 had that same spec. My 4.050 bore 361 Edsel engine must have the same .170 cyl wall thickness spec (.140 @ .060), even with the larger bore. My Edsel, after boring .060, the thinnest major thrust side is .188 and minor is .153. Remember that .170, is min wall.

I can't say what the spec is for the '61 - '62, 352, 390 & 406. I haven't found that yet but, it would make since that it may have changed with the modernization in '63 but, Ford never made a public announcement, to that effect.

Several, older guys on this forum (including me), have posted that they had or new of 1/8" over bore 352's and Ted Wells, a high end FE guy, of the 60/70's, that was foreman at Valley Head Service, has said the earlier FE casting are thicker.

I'm always on the look out for Ford factory drawings and maybe I'll find one with that revision, someday. Until then, I will keep using my sonic test gauge, I would never discourage that, even on a early block.

Frank, you have that ebay sonic checker, don't you? What setting (code) are you using to measure the cylinder wall thickness?

[frnkeore]

Richard, the setting is cd10, for gray iron.

Here is the chart, if you need it.

[410bruce]

Richard, the setting is cd10, for gray iron.

Here is the chart, if you need it.

Richard? 
Thank you. That's the one I've been using as well. Just wanted to make sure I was using the correct setting. 

[frnkeore]

Sorry Bruce

I'm getting you coast guys mixed up, I guess

Hows the wind today? I hope it hasn't blown any blocks or heads down the street

[410bruce]

Sorry Bruce

I'm getting you coast guys mixed up, I guess

Hows the wind today? I hope it hasn't blown any blocks or heads down the street

Hey, no problem, Frank. It's easy to get confused at who you're actually speaking to when you reply to so many posts and in different forums. 
It was really windy last night and early today but it tapered off and is calm now.
Fortunately, no blocks or heads blew away. 

[Barry_R]

THe 428 would make more power based on cubic inches plus more power from the larger bore, which unshrouds the valves somewhat.

[JimNolan]

Is it worth it. I punched out the 352 to 4.05" on my 410 engine and my Engine Calculator tells me I've got 391 HP at 9.89 CR. I increased the bore to 4.13" without changing anything else and got 394 HP at 10.2 CR. That's 3HP for a thinner cylinder wall. I realize that my Engine Calculator isn't the same as Dyno results but it errors the same with both bores. I would much rather keep my cylinder wall as thick as I could than have the additional 3HP.

[Gregwill16]

Is it worth it.

There is a reason 352 390 blocks are $200 and 428 blocks are 5x higher. You spend more up front but will get it back, and then some, on the back side.

If it isn't a 428 car originally and you plan to beat on it, then I would also build a stroker 390, if I didn't have a 428