Author Topic: 428 crank or not?  (Read 4951 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

63.5xl

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
428 crank or not?
« on: March 24, 2016, 12:42:36 PM »
I rec'd a lot of help from Jay, Ross and Brent on a 390 build I had and finally decided on which way to go.
It is a sonic tested .060 over 390 block, 390 crank, 69 cc heads, H304p 12cc dish pistons, .021 deck clearance, 12 cc dish and a  Comp 70s cam with a 280 exhaust with 110 LSA and 108 ICL. and using a .027 head gasket with 4.250 bore, It gave me a SCR of 9.948 and a DCR of 8.031. Quench would be .048.
I would have liked to go with a 428 crank but funds did not allow for a scat crank or a stock 428 crank till yesterday. I found a guy local that wanted the cam research cam I had for sale and a pair of MT 427 valve covers I have had forever and I swapped him for a 66 410. It is a standard block but it has too much taper to not be bored. The crank is also std and had good looking bearings so it will either need polished or maybe .010/.010
So if I put the 428 crank in my block, which is still not put together as I have been working on body, and use 381np pistons with 11.8 cc,
I would be still using the 69 cc heads, the same comp 270/280 cam with 110/108 and the deck clearance would be .020. But using the same .027 gasket with 4.250 bore my SCR would be 10.464 and DCR would be 8.468. Quench would be .047.
So it looks like if I went with the 428 crank it is still gonna take some special hi dollar piston with like 18cc dish which would bring it down to SCR 9.863 and DCR to 7.994.
Any suggestions?



My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3930
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2016, 05:58:29 PM »
I'd probably go with a 4.25 .039 SCE headgasket and do a little grinding on the chambers to make up some room/clean up the hot spots IF you want a 428 crank.  it'd be a nice combo

If not, I'd spend the money on a little porting and run the 390, it'd be just as strong with the head work
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

fryedaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1252
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2016, 10:24:09 PM »
i dont know if its the extra bore or the extra stroke of the 428 crank that makes the 428 run so much better than the 390. or it could be the combination of the two. jmo, but i would use the 428 crank and have it internal balanced so you can use a 390 flywheel.
1966 comet caliente 428 4 speed owned since 1983                                                 1973 f250 ranger xlt 360 4 speed papaw bought new

NIsaacs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2016, 06:53:16 AM »
Another vote for the 428, but I don't like 390's ;D

Nick
2021 Ram 2500 4x4 Cummins of course!
2017 Ford Escape, 2.0 Eco Boost
2001 Ram 2500 4x4 QC short bed, Cummins, 6spd, some mods
1991 Dodge D250, reg cab, Cummins, 5spd, mods
1974 F-350, Cummins, 5spd, 3spd aux, mods
1975 F-250 4x4, 428, C-6, Sled Puller

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3930
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2016, 07:58:33 AM »
So I ran some bench racing numbers, I wouldn't put too much stock in the actual numbers, but it can give you some relative idea of cost over change

Let's say your 401 inch 390 combo made 370 hp at 5200 and somewhere around 420 ft lbs of torque at 4100 for a starting point, that's assuming a 240 cfm head or so

As a WAG, the high compression version of the 422 inch 410, would probably gain around 15 hp and 25 ft lbs while shifting the peaks about 200 rpm lower.

If you adjusted compression as you talked about, which I think is probably wise, I'd say those gains drop 10 hp and 15-20 ft lbs with the peaks being the same as the high compression version

If you had the heads done with the 401 inch motor, with a realistic 260 cfm port.  Your peaks would go up in RPM, but you potentially could make slightly more peak power than any of the other combos.  Whether that meets the use of the car is up to you, but likely raises the peak power a few hundred RPM and really depends on how the heads were done and the rest of the build

So, it sounds like cost is afactor, porting a set of heads isn't cheap, nor is new pistons, balancing and crank work, so honestly I'd just go with what you have, it's a nicely matched combo that will run strong.  As I said earlier, I think the 428 arm would be nice, and I think you'd feel it, but there is a reason people aren't doing it as much as they used to.  The gains are just small for the cost compared to going with a 445. 

For giggles a 445 combo with the same 240 cfm heads would likely only gain 15-20 hp, but would see probably a 50 ft lb increase.  That's a difference you can really notice

I say run what you have, it'll be fun.  Bank the money for the next round when you get used to it.  In the end, if you are going to get used to a 401 and want more, the 422 wouldn't be much different IMHO
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 08:02:09 AM by My427stang »
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

63.5xl

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2016, 08:35:33 AM »
Thank you for that very informative write-up Ross. I will stay with the 401 and clean and grease up the 410 block and crank and save it for another project. Maybe find a short bed pickup and use it for that, or sell it.

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3930
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2016, 09:45:12 AM »
Remember, all my numbers were just guessing, but I'd say that is the most cost effective plan.  Your 3.78 stroke motor should be a lot of fun

---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

KMcCullah

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #7 on: March 25, 2016, 10:55:05 AM »
That big rig needs some stroke. I'd go with the 428 crank and slightly more cam to get your DCR back down to your happy place. Unless you live at sea level, I wouldn't get too excited about your SCR being over 10:1. Something I've come to understand about the SCR/DCR calculators is most of them don't take altitude into consideration. From chatting with Werby and others, I think it's safe to figure that every 1000' foot above sea level takes away about a 1/4 point from the SCR/DCR. I've built several FE's using this rule without any detonation issues. Edit- I Calculate an extra full point of SCR since I live at 4500' elevation and my junk will never see any PCH cruising. Works for me I guess.   

If your dead set on running your current cam, and since the whole reciprocating assembly will have to be balanced anyhow, another option would be to calculate how many more CC's you need to get to your SCR/DCR happy place and turn a little off the tops of your pistons before balancing. 
« Last Edit: March 25, 2016, 11:25:07 AM by KMcCullah »
Kevin McCullah


63.5xl

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2016, 10:21:14 PM »
Unless you live at sea level, I wouldn't get too excited about your SCR being over 10:1.
Kevin, I am at 2000 feet elevation here in Wichita KS. I started getting excited about the 410 I got because I remember having a 64 back in 71 that had a 352 4 speed that wouldn't get out of it own way, bought a stock 428 from a friend and was going about 15 mph in 1st gear and laid 1/2 block of single trac rubber when I punched it. With the 352 , I was lucky to get a chirp out of the tires. Had a big old wide grin after that.

fryedaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1252
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2016, 10:33:19 PM »
ive had 390s that would scream down the road smoking the tires in every gear,but the 428 will smoke the tires in every gear with ease,without having to scream to do it
1966 comet caliente 428 4 speed owned since 1983                                                 1973 f250 ranger xlt 360 4 speed papaw bought new

fryedaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1252
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2016, 10:49:06 PM »
dont get me wrong i like 390s as good as the next guy,ive had 3 good 390s in my 66 comet over the last 34 years.they seem to last forever,and a good one will scream down the road,but i put a 428 in my comet last summer and for the first time in 34 years im a little afraid of it.very happy with it.but i had to beef up the suspension,the 428 is alot harder on it
1966 comet caliente 428 4 speed owned since 1983                                                 1973 f250 ranger xlt 360 4 speed papaw bought new

63.5xl

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #11 on: March 28, 2016, 08:38:36 PM »
The 381np cast Pistons have 11.7 cc dish with 4 valve reliefs. Could an additional 6.3 cc be taken out out of the dish to end up with a 18cc piston? Has anyone had tat done to a 381np cast piston?

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3930
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2016, 06:30:30 AM »
So, seems like you want the stroker, it could be very cool, d but I'd be checking prices first

- Compare cutting a bigger dish vice buying different pistons
- Check the price of cutting the crank and internally balancing vs prepping the crank and buying a flywheel
- Check the price of prepping a set of heads with a chamber closer to stock size
- Consider a little more camshaft or rocking it back to 110 ICL, that cam is small enough that you can do it.

One technique I use is listing things on Excel, then I can add cost to each column and compare, as well as add notes for things like SCR/DCR etc.

My own opinion is that if you want the 3.98 arm, you should buy the correct pistons, and likely, those pistons may sting at first, you may find they are cheaper in the long run.  Combined with either an internal balance, or the correct flywheel, the parts will come together easy
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

63.5xl

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Re: 428 crank or not?
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2016, 06:51:25 PM »
I think I will stay with the 390, I coated the 410 block today with some LPS 3 today. I was looking at Keith Black site for some 410 pistons earlier today, and also check prices like $350 for a flywheel, for starters. I do have a question for you, on the KB site it states where the quench is on their flat, step, and dome pistons and for the circular dish like I have with the H304p's, it says no quench.
Where I am at now at .021 deck clearance, If I used the KB KB150 Step Dish with 20cc I would be at "0" deck clearance and at 9.28 SCR and 7.51 DCR. using a .041 head gasket. With my current piston, I am at SCR 9.94 and DCR is 8.03.

Piston                                               sealed power H304P                             KB150
Piston dish CC                                                  12                                           20
Compression HT                                           1.659                                        1.780
Bore                                                            4.110                                        4.110
Deck Clr                                                        .021                                          0
Stroke                                                           3.78                                          3.78
Rod                                                               6.488                                        6.488
Head CC                                                           69                                            69
Head gasket Thickness                                     .027                                          .041
Head gasket Bore                                           4.250                                         4.4
Intake Duration                                               270                                            270
Exhaust Duration                                             280                                            280
LSA                                                                110                                            110
ICL                                                                 108                                            108
ICA                                                                   63                                              63
SCR                                                                  9..94                                        9.28
DCR                                                                  8.03                                         7.51
So can someone explain the quench with a circular dish. I was all set now I am confused about whether I need to go with a step dish for the quench effect.