390 +.035 Truck Build

[CaptCobrajet]

396 cubes....no exotic parts.

390 block .035 overbore
390 crank internal balanced
390 rods with proper prep
CP flat tops with two generous reliefs.  Static c/r was just under 10:1
1.2/1.5/3 mil rings Steel top, napier 2nd, streetable oil ring tension
Iron CJ heads, 2.14 intake, 1.65 exhaust
Stock Eliminator valve job with a little port massage on the intake side
no porting on the exhaust
RPM manifold
.525 lift, 224/224 Hydraulic roller, 112 sep custom grind
Beehive springs
Bushed OEM non-adj rockers on good shafts
Smith Bros pushrods
735 Holley OEM CJ carb
Curved Duraspark with 6 AL

HP:  427 peak at 54-5500

TQ:  470 peak at 4000

This is a neat combo.  Really reliable stuff that all worked well as a package.  Surprised me a little

[The Magic Ratchet]

Thanks Blair, I appreciate you sharing the information.

That design would work really nice in my pickup!

[BruceS]

Capt,
Agree that seems to be a nice setup for a budget build and 1 HP / cube +.  How well do you think it would work in a big '63 Galaxie with auto trans and PS/PB/AC?   Assuming a decent exhaust (factory cast shortie headers) and 2 1/2" pipes?  What more would you expect with say, a set of Ed or BBM heads all else the same?

My reason for asking is this is close to what I have in mind for my Galaxie build in 2016. 

Thanks and Merry Christmas,
Bruce

[CaptCobrajet]

I think it would do well.  I have that cam in the shop 1-ton.  It has power steering and power brakes.....vacuum is great.....it is a straight shift, however.  It would be just peachy for the A/C with two things:  (1) a '70's era adjustable solenoid hooked to the hot wire for the compressor clutch........I think Holley sells one that mounts nicely on the baseplate, and (2) about 500 rpm more slip than a bone stock converter.  I have put this cam in 445's for pick-up trucks with C6 and used a stock converter, but both times they had 3.70-ish gears.  I think the car could benefit from a touch looser converter and then you could run highway gears if desired.  Might also put it on a 114 sep and smooth it up a little more.  Would hurt the power just a bit, but would be smoother in a cruiser.  I don't think an Ed head without mods would be as good as the N heads the way we did  them.  The BBM would like the wide lobe sep better than the stock head, and require less timing, but might not perform any better in this combo.  The small cam and short duration might not get the good out of the BBMs.  Some BP Pro Ports would be better than all other options, but really overkill and an expensive addition for not much gain in this situation.  Below are some numbers from the dyno.

RPM          TQ          HP

3900       467        347
4000       470        358
4100       470        367
4200       470        376
4300       461        377
4400       463        388
4500       462        395
4600       454        398
4700       452        405
4800       450        411
4900       445        415
5000       443        422
5100       439        426
5200       430.7     426.4
5300       421.4     425.2
5400       415        427
5500       401        420
5600       399        425
5700       381        413
5800       377        416


40 degrees total timing, high 12's A/F, 185 degree water

Stuska dyno with D-Pac data aquisition.  This dyno showed me 626 hp on one of my EMC junkers and the contest dyno showed me 640 hp on the same engine.  This dyno also showed me the same power as Jay's dyno on a Tunnel Port I worked on, so the numbers are legit, if not a little conservative.

[abyars]

Thanks for sharing.

Looks really good for a truck engine.  This has me dreaming about a for rebuild on my truck's 390.

[bryaneidins]

Hi,

Excuse my ignorance but why is this a truck engine build and not a car engine. Is it where the power is being made? would it still be good for a street car?

[chilly460]

Very cool to see this build, very similar to the 390 in my 63 Marauder.  I have a 270H which is .519/224* on a 110, and mildly cleaned up Edelbrocks with a 750DP but virtually everything else is similar.  Peaks look about what I feel from seat of the pants.  I can lug mine down to 1600 with a 4spd comfortably with no bucking and a 3.70 gear, the engine used to be in a '76 F250 and it pulled fine in that too. 

Good all around street motor for something that primarily sees 2000-4000, but can spin up a bit more. 

I have to work through my tune this year, just doesn't pull over 3500rpm or so the way it should. 

[TJ]

"Excuse my ignorance but why is this a truck engine build and not a car engine. Is it where the power is being made? would it still be good for a street car?"

I think you have to consider the audience in this forum.  Anything here with a torque peak under 4500 is a "truck engine" LOL.  I have an FE powered truck that I use to tow/haul and looking at the torque peak's location and at the c/r of this engine I'd put it in the "lively family car" category.  Though if you extrapolated (dangerous) I would guess this engine has more torque at 2600 rpm than a pickup minded 390 from the factory.

[CaptCobrajet]

I mainly labeled it a "truck build" because it is going into a restored pickup truck.  Not a tow vehicle...........will get some show and go duty, and peel the tires on occasion, I'd guess.  The gentleman descibed what he wanted and we were trying to meet a "400 hp" goal, and look pretty much stock with all of the garb hung on it.  A serious tow rig needs less cam, or more inches.  This is a good recipe for a car or a truck with a little extra pep in mind, using basically everything OEM except the cam, lifters, pistons, and manifold.  Owner is a member here, so I'll bet we get to see some pics of the truck in the member projects section when he gets far enough along with it.

[Dot Heton]

That cam really likes that combination of parts.

What do you think it would make with a Comp 270s and everything else the same. (Except adjustable rockers and solid lifters)

[CaptCobrajet]

I'd be reluctant to put an absolute on it.  Two things come to mind.  First, it will have less effective duration with the recommended .022 lash, and second, there will be less area under the curve versus a roller profile.  My gut tells me that it will feel a tad better right off idle, but that will expire quickly.  It should peak sooner, and lose some power against the hydraulic roller from 2000 to peak.  In a heavy heavy capsule, it may be better, or at least comparable.  As the capsule progresses toward a "hot rod", with more rear gear and lighter weight, the more aggressive hydraulic roller will steadily outperform the solid flat lifter cam with the same .050 numbers and similar lift.

[Vintageironlover]

I, too, am new to this forum. I've been an FE fan since I was a kid (over 50 years ago) but am still learning about the actual details of building them. I have seen a few mentions of BBM heads, but none reference the BBM blocks. I'm aware of only about three other sources for new FE blocks. Does anyone here have any experience with BBM blocks?

[Joe-JDC]

First batch sold out quickly, and most folks that have already built them say they are first rate quality.  Joe-JDC

[TJ]

Hello Vintageironlover,

I have a BBM based engine that I like.  Since you're a smidge off topic from the OP's 390 build in this thread, if you start a new thread I'd be happy to answer your questions from the perspective of someone who has installed and put some miles on a BBM block.  For questions about the inside of these blocks I'll defer to the guys who build these everyday.

[JamesonRacing]

I've installed BP's custom cam in my 418 that is going into my 66 Fairlane GTA convertible.  BP worked his magic on my ported Edelbrock heads.  Will have a TCI C6 with a TCI breakaway converter.  Running a QFI-500 injection unit on it instead of a carburetor on a JDC-ported/flowed BT intake.  Hope to have some feedback on the combination in a month or so.  Fingers crossed!