Standard Small Valve Short Intake Port Heads on 410-428

[410bruce]

Has anyone used the standard grocery getter, small intake port, 2.03 and 1.56 valve cylinder heads on a 410 or 428 mild street/performance build? If so, are you happy with the performance?
Seriously thinking of using the C7AE-A heads that came on my 410--without installing CJ valves.

Any input is yugely appreciated. 

[GerryP]

That would be very common.  There were far more Q-code 428s than Cobra Jets.  Here's the deal;  From that factory's perspective, the better the engine breaths, the less radical you have to build it for performance.  So, if you put a good flowing set of heads on something like a 428, you can get pretty good performance from a fairly mild cam and modest compression.  You have fewer driveability and emission issues when the engine isn't blubbering and spiting as you motor down the road.

So, for your example 428 with the standard passenger car heads, you might have to run an extra five or 10 cam degrees to get the same performance as the same 428 with the CJ heads.  As with everything about an engine, the combination is what matters, and, in that regard, you get the best result when you are clear on what your expectations are and that you select parts that compliment each other.

[WerbyFord]

Has anyone used the standard grocery getter, small intake port, 2.03 and 1.56 valve cylinder heads on a 410 or 428 mild street/performance build? If so, are you happy with the performance?
Seriously thinking of using the C7AE-A heads that came on my 410--without installing CJ valves.

Any input is yugely appreciated. 

It all depends on your goals.
I tested the earlier c4ae-g style heads with small 2.03 x 1.56 valves, and then with 2.09 x 1.66 valves, and could feel the difference from about 3000rpm up, and see it on the GTECH. The GTECH and Gonkulator both agreed I had added 20-25hp.
This was at about the 400hp level, 5200-5600rpm shift. Mild street build.
But, at 3000 or below you wont add anything at all, and that may be why Ford didn't bother for the cars that ran the 410 or the 7-Litter.
For a bone-stock 410 I wouldn't bother, but it depends on what else you're doing.

What's the rest of your engine build, trans, gear, car weight?

[My427stang]

C7AE-A is a little different than a C8 or D2, but I have run the others ported on a 445 and will again on a 461 truck motor.  I would say the only reason to run them was that you needed the casting number or exhaust port location.

Yes they will run fine on a stocker, and yes, you can even get them to flow decent but it's not cheap.  My truck heads flow about 280 with 3/8 valves and you could likely sneak a bit more with an 11/32 valve.  Fast ports and small volume even ported.  However, the exhaust port is pretty weak, even ported.  Unported, I'd say if you were looking for a stock 428 fine, but if you need to rebuild them, not worth it.  Keep in mind, just a CJ valve swap will do little for them, they really need bowl and port work.

If it were mine, and I wanted a cheap way out, I'd go C6AE-R or a C4 head with a nice modern valve job and CJ valves to get into some fresh metal.  As Werby said, you'll get relatively free HP over rebuilding your heads.  Regardless which you use, make sure your headers match the exhaust port you choose.  Manifolds work with either

[410bruce]

Thanks guys.

Here's a copy and paste from another forum I'm on. Describes how I would like this 410 to run--like my buddys old Cyclone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back in the late '80s early '90s, a buddy had a '67 Cyclone GT390/Top Loader 4 speed car that he had built a 428 for. It was a non-CJ engine. He did a bunch of port work (never ported a set of heads ever), polished the chambers, installed CJ valves, ran a Crane 222/234 @ .050 114 lobe sep. and mid .500s lift, Hooker Super Comp headers, STOCK intake and I believe a 750 Holley. I think it had 3.25 gears and traction loc.
That thing had so much low RPM torque it was incredible. It ran hard. Now I don't know if it was because of his porting or in spite of it but the thing ran great. Maybe he just stumbled upon the right combination of parts. Laughing

I'd kinda like to duplicate that engines performance with this 410 build.

Back in the same time frame, I had a '68 Cougar GT390/C6 car that I'd built a passenger car 428 for using Edelbrock heads, Performer RPM intake, SFT Comp Cam 252/260 @.050 108 LS and right around .600 lift. The C6 was built, 3000 stall, 3.89 traction loc in the 9". That thing ran awesome but it was a different kind of power. Wasn't as fun to drive around as my buddys Cycone. But, when you punched it, hang on. lol. With the stock street tires, you could take off from a stop with the trans in "D" and the thing would go through the gear smoking both rears just about as long as you wanted to stay in it. Cool

Sorry for the long winded post. Just wanted to share a couple very fond memories. Very Happy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 410 will be going in a 1989 F-150 short bed 2wd. It will be a daily driver. The engine coming out is a 300 6.

C-6, 8.8 with I believe 3.08s, weight probably 3800-4000 pounds.

Looking for an abundance of low RPM torque, responsive throttle input, but would like it to pull strongly to 5000-5500 or so, or at least not fall flat up there. You know,,,a fun street engine.

Some people might question my choice of engine for this application. "Why don't you swap in a 351W with a stroker kit. Lighter, cheaper to build, multiple aftermarket cylinder heads to choose from and you wouldn't have to change the transmission."

My answer: Because I want an FE. 

Most of my experience has been with 460s. In fact I'm screwing together a 521 for my '74 Cougar here shortly. But, I've always dug FEs. They are what put Ford on the map in the glory days of the Total Performance era.

Anyway, getting off track here a little.

I do have a set of bare C6AE-Rs I could do up....

[My427stang]

So, the big determiner will be the header flanges you use.

Although the D2 and other small port heads are good for torque, your buddy didn't find the holy grail, he had a nice short cam with a wide LSA in a big block, lots of vacuum, lots of snap.  In fact, although he may have gained torque and power with some porting, he likely lost more than he gained with the intake.  That car would have been even faster, and still have gobs of torque, with a set of CJ heads and CJ intake or your top end.

That being said, my advice would be early cam timing, relatively short cam, the C6AE-Rs with CJ valves and as much cleanup/good valve job as you are willing to spend, and an RPM, Streetmaster or Street Dominator intake.  You could go smaller intake, but it will cost you more on top than you will gain down low IMHO.  The key is the cam choice, pull hard on a good port. 

Back to headers.  The early heads and CJ port have a higher roof and floor than a C7, D2, C8AE-H and if you use the wrong header flange, it can be tough to seal.  C6AE-Rs can be different, some of them had a low roof AND high floor with a lip that you could blend to either exhaust port location.  Need to look at yours and see.  Nice thing about them, you get a decent port (about 25 more cfm) without porting and some can use either exhaust header

Now, if you are willing to port the C7s and have header flanges to match, you can make a torque monster that pulls hard too.  Gasket match the port to a 1247 gasket, taper it to a set of CJ valves and work the exhaust port a little and you have a nice small runner head that can flow about 280 intake, that's with a professional porting.  Mine ended up 277 cfm with 135cc ports (tiny and fast)

Last thing is remember to recurve the distributor (huge for a street motor), actually check your compression, get tight on quench, hitting good numbers and not estimating, the details make all the difference in the world to make the package work.  Sounds like a fun project!

[fryedaddy]

i would put a lower gear in the back for more low end,maybe 3.50-3.70

[WerbyFord]

410bruce,
Well ok if you want an FE in that newish 1989 rig (have you actually weighed the big rig?)
A 521 Lime like you're building would get that big iron moving a lot easier.
BUT - an FE in there does have the cool "retro" factor.

To give you an idea, I tried to Gonkulate the couple 428s from the past you mentioned. I guessed 10.0 CR and a few other things but these should be pretty close:

Your buddy's Cyclone engine (assuming C7AE-A heads)
Torq 407 at 2000
Torq 469 at 3200
Powr 358 at 4700

Your Cougar engine
Torq 275 at 2000
Torq 490 at 4300
Powr 479 at 5700
Different engines indeed, but as you noted your buddy's would be stronger below 3000 so more fun around town.
Top end, its no competition.

Here is a Gonkulated bone stock 410/330hp (LOL) with the little C7AE-A heads and iron manifolds:
Torq 419 at 2700
Powr 294 at 4200 kinda shy of that 330hp advertised

With 2.09 x 1.66 valves, bowls enlarged to match, and exhaust roofs done:
Torq 433 at 2800 +14
Powr 305 at 4300 +11

Same but starting with C6AE-R heads
Torq 437 at 2700 +18
Powr 318 at 4300 +24

Still a long way to go to match either of those old 428s - and, that truck will be 500 lb or so heavier and more of a brick in the wind.
So, if you want it to feel like either of those cars, it will take a LOT of upgrades.
I'd start with AT LEAST those C6AE-R heads, but then as noted you have to make sure the headers line up.
Then again I doubt anybody makes headers for the FE past the 1973-79 truck body so you might have to make your own.
Funny, by 1989 they didn't even use the "modern" Ford Corporate Blue any more, so it would look pretty retro in there.

[410bruce]

Again, thanks a lot guys. Your input is most excellent. 

I'm going to leave the stock 3.08 gears as this thing is a daily driver and will occasionally need to run down the highway.

Gonkulated? Lol. Assuming it's a computer program for simulating torque and horsepower.
Thank you for taking the time to do that, werbyford.
So, what was the true output of the 428 Cobra Jet? I ask this since your Gonkulated power for the Cyclone was 358 with a larger cam, ported heads and headers. I had heard back in the '80s that it was refactored at or near 400, but recently read somewhere that it was around 360. How is that possible with a tiny (by comparison) camshaft, and cast iron intake and exhaust?

I was hoping in the neighborhood of 400hp for the big bad 410 but it looks like 350 will be more realistic if I want that low RPM yank.

I do know where a set of CJ heads are if I could get the gentleman to ship them to me. Supposedly they have been gone through with new seats and have been sitting on the shelf for 15 years. I really would like to use what I have though--just because.

I used to have a '79 F-100 short bed 2wd that I built a warmed up 460 for. C-6, 3000 stall, 3.89 gears. Ran 12.80s in the 1/4 at just under 4000lbs. I originally wanted to put a 428 in it but a friend talked me into the 460.
Since I couldn't find a 428 this time around, I'm going with the next best thing that I COULD find, the fabled 410. 

With y'alls knowledge and input, I'm sure I can screw together a strong running one.

[WerbyFord]

410bruce,
Yes, the Gonkulator is a computer (actually several, and a big library).
I started developing it back in the late 1970s ironically in Ann Arbor, MI, where a couple of the more user-friendly programs were developed back in the day. They have good pizza in Ann Arbor so that might explain why so many dyno simulators come from there. (WTF?)

The reason your buddy's car was down on power was mainly the iron 390gt intake, which was all done by about 4000rpm. So bad that somehow, FoMoCo got NHRA to approve the use of the aluminum 428pi intake for STOCK class even back in the day, even though they didn't come factory that way. That iron boat anchor has great low end tug, so it was perfect for the 7-Litter in the big cars lumbering along but not good for top end. That alone was costing your buddy about 25hp vs an iron 428CJ intake.

The heads weren't helping either- I just assumed typical at-home results of valves & bowls & roof AND that he had factory C7AE-A heads, which are the smallest FE car heads ever made. So that was costing some as well, probably another 20hp vs stone stock 428CJ C8OE-N heads.
Then again, the later heads, especially C8AE-H (a bit bigger than C7AE-A) can be ported to flow pretty darn good and top 500hp, so I don't know what kind of natural talent your buddy had there - just guessing.

The factory 428CJ was indeed factored to 360hp (with cold air) or 340hp (flat hood) for NHRA, and it was still underrated which is one reason it did so well. The factory all-iron 428CJ Gonkulates to 380hp, or near 400hp with headers which is a number that gets tossed around a lot in urban legends and books. A strong combo.

As far as your 410, no reason to give up - here is an easy 400hp street recipe with low end grunt:
417cid 30-over
Build it straight & loose, so when you spin the crank (no pistons/rods) and let go, it will keep spinning 1 full turn.
9.5 CR forged pistons
428CJ heads stone stock to keep their value up
428CJ iron intake, same (aluminum BT intake or 428pi intake or ED RPM intake similar)
780 downleg Holley
Comp 270S cam, 224-224-110, about .525 net lift
1-3/4 truck headers, again might have to modify for 1989 F-series
Result
Torq 412 at 2000
Torq 467 at 3500
Powr 405 at 4900
A mild-mannered thumper. Still, 400hp isn't that much in a 4000 lb rig but there you go, lots of fun.

[410bruce]

Awesome Werbyford, thank you. I would like to stick with a hydraulic cam, though.

Incidentally, I have been contacted by another member here offering up a set of well prepped C6AE-Rs for a very good price. So my cylinder head conundrum has been remedied!
Thank you 67428GT500!

[Stangman]

Does the FE bolt up in that truck. I thought 1976 was the last year a FE was in a pickup. What mounts and pan setup are you using. Or do they have a kit setup for FE installation.

[410bruce]

Does the FE bolt up in that truck. I thought 1976 was the last year a FE was in a pickup. What mounts and pan setup are you using. Or do they have a kit setup for FE installation.

No sir, I'm doing this from scratch.
 It has a small block C-6 in it now so going to an FE C-6 should be a simple swap.
I'm planning to try '73-'76 frame perches and motor mounts. I realize they won't be a bolt-in but hopefully won't be too far off to make work.
I think the standard front sump pan should work.
I'll definitely share my results one way or the other. 

[410bruce]

Little update. Will be moving forward with the build but I may be installing this engine in a 2003 V6 Mustang. Any input on this? lol.
Thinking of going a little more rowdy with it.
Having an FE in the engine bay will definitely set this car apart from all the Coyote swaps.
Haven't found any information regarding an FE swap in these cars so I guess I'm on my own on this one.

This WILL happen--unless I change my mind...... AGAIN.

[chris401]

Little update. Will be moving forward with the build but I may be installing this engine in a 2003 V6 Mustang. Any input on this? lol.
Thinking of going a little more rowdy with it.
Having an FE in the engine bay will definitely set this car apart from all the Coyote swaps.
Haven't found any information regarding an FE swap in these cars so I guess I'm on my own on this one.

This WILL happen--unless I change my mind...... AGAIN.

The FE skirt will be close below but it should be wide enough up top. Anything from the exhaust manifolds down has been an aggravation to me in the modular engine era cars. I would be open minded to build a new sub frame and hood to house the FE.