Author Topic: 428 versus 460  (Read 14304 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

frnkeore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2020, 01:13:33 PM »
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to engines.  I have always thought the SBF with Webbers, or Shelby 2x4 with Cobra oil pan was the "cat's meow".  Then there is the Thunderbird 312 with 2x4s, Boss 429s, SOHC 427s...OK, Ford has a lot of good looking engines. Joe-JDC
Well, Joe, We may not agree on a lot of things but, this is the exception. 312 not so much but, I would add the 317-368 Linc Y-block. The 368 with those beautiful aluminum valve covers.
Frank

gt350hr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 941
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2020, 02:23:44 PM »
  Today it is easy to build a 1.2hp/ci "anything" that can be run on the street with pump gas.  So 408W =480 , 462FE=554 475FE= 570, 521(460)=625. I have a 480 hp 408W and am replacing it with a 600+hp 521. With VERY careful buying, I have right at $4,000 in the 521 , including aluminum early CJ heads and dual four barrels. I couldn't do that with an FE for the same cost and run on pump gas. I had a very nice 427MR with Shelby heads I was going to use but sold it because the "value" was over double the "cost" of this 521. FE's ARE one of my favorite engines but they need modern cylinder head technology (getting away form original design like Jays) to really wake them up. Just this old guys opinion.
     Randy

frnkeore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2020, 04:38:31 PM »
Another rule of thumb for engines, is twice the hp, of the max cfm flow. Putting the FE, in the at least the 780 hp range (ported TF heads), depending on rpm.

I'm a logical person and the topic of this discussion is " 428 versus 460", now if the OP was not aware that you can get more hp, with more ci, I would be very surprised. Was this just a redundant heading? I don't know, because the answer, to the title, is in the title. 32 more ci, will produce more hp and 547 ci, will produce more hp than 462 ci. Does he not know that?

Unless the question was redundant, you could logically assume, he was talking about the same ci maximum, 428 (462) vs standard 460 ci. If the question wasn't redundant, then both engines would have to be limited to ~460 ci.

PS
The OP hasn't said anything in this conversation. It would be nice if he could tell us if his title, was indeed redundant.

Another other requirement was  "moderate street cam", I think the EMC competitions, fall into that territory.

With the above said, again unless it was a redundant title, a 400+ cfm head, would not help a "moderate street cam" 460. That was my whole idea behind my answers.

I could go on about the weight to hp aspect of a 460 ci car but, I'll end it there.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2020, 04:40:27 PM by frnkeore »
Frank

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2020, 04:58:10 PM »
Just a general question here:

Let's say someone has a $10k budget and picks up a core for cheap, if one were to utilzie that $10k well in terms of maximizing cubes, moderate street cam, intake, aluminum heads, headers, etc., which engine comes out on top torque and HP wise and by how much?

In other words why would you or would you not build a 460 for a non-origianl application where either engine is an easy install?

Thanks.



I'm a logical person and the topic of this discussion is " 428 versus 460", now if the OP was not aware that you can get more hp, with more ci, I would be very surprised. Was this just a redundant heading? I don't know, because the answer, to the title, is in the title. 32 more ci, will produce more hp and 547 ci, will produce more hp than 462 ci. Does he not know that?

Unless the question was redundant, you could logically assume, he was talking about the same ci maximum, 428 (462) vs standard 460 ci. If the question wasn't redundant, then both engines would have to be limited to ~460 ci.

PS
The OP hasn't said anything in this conversation. It would be nice if he could tell us if his title, was indeed redundant.

Another other requirement was  "moderate street cam", I think the EMC competitions, fall into that territory.

With the above said, again unless it was a redundant title, a 400+ cfm head, would not help a "moderate street cam" 460. That was my whole idea behind my answers.

I could go on about the weight to hp aspect of a 460 ci car but, I'll end it there.

Frank, he said "10 grand spent"   Assuming you could get a 428 core for the same price as a 460 core, which is no way...unless you are lucky Turbohunter.....and then you spent the remainder of the 10 grand on each, the 460 would either be bigger, better or if you indeed want to hobble it with cubes, similar while leaving thousands in the owner's pocket.  Almost every single part is DRAMATICALLY cheaper and has more options.  It is what it is

Honestly, one of my toys is a 70 Mustang with a 489 EFI FE, looks like a Boss 9, I am considering a new engine, and if you didn't count the parts I have, I could likely build a seriously stout BIG Boss 9 for the price of another FE stroker, and if I went standard style heads, holy cow.  However, I just don't want the weight on the nose of my Mustang, but it's hard to ignore

---------------------------------
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

frnkeore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #49 on: July 27, 2020, 05:25:14 PM »
This is also in his post, and a question that he asks:

Quote
In other words why would you or would you not build a 460 for a non-origianl application where either engine is an easy install?

It is a open question.

So, then my answer to it is:

If you limited the build to 460 ci.
Frank

chilly460

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2020, 05:28:53 PM »
Anyone ever compared weight of aluminum topend builds, like most decent street builds would be?  I know an FE block is 195-200, and believe a 460 is 230ish.   Iron 460 heads are tanks but go to aluminum and the difference in weight of the topends wouldn’t seem to be that different.   Stroker cranks with bbc rods would likely be similar, no?  Rods are same length, pistons a bit more.  So what, 50-60lbs more in the 460 combo?
« Last Edit: July 27, 2020, 05:31:50 PM by chilly460 »

chilly460

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2020, 05:39:27 PM »
With a $10k budget, I can’t think of any logical reason why anyone would build a stock displacement combo, FE or 385.  You’re going to put pistons in any rebuild anyway, rods are so cheap now you’re looking at $200 difference to upgrade to a Scat vs rebuilding stockers with ARP bolts, and by the time you get a crank polished same deal, call it $300-400 max to upgrade the crank.  So, you’d be talking 462 vs 557ci. Good shopping, you’d be taking $800 vs $100 block.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2020, 06:20:44 PM by chilly460 »

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #52 on: July 27, 2020, 06:15:22 PM »
It is a open question.

So, then my answer to it is:

If you limited the build to 460 ci.

If you limited it to 460, the superior Chevy heads would spank the FE :)

In fact, I bet a 429 would....and with less cam
---------------------------------
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

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2020, 06:45:49 PM »
Two things I've learned (sarcasm) from this thread:

1:  2 * 340 = 780

2:  When your "opinion" is blatantly wrong, keep digging.
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

Thumperbird

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2020, 06:50:28 PM »
OP here, not sure I understand this..."The OP hasn't said anything in this conversation. It would be nice if he could tell us if his title, was indeed redundant."

I did mean one would likely maximize cubes for each at the rationale cost tipping point.  My pea brain says more cubes allows more mild cam and build overall to yield same or better HP/torque.

Regardless, holy pistons batman did not know this was going to be a twitchy thread, no intention of that.

To put a little context to this, looking to redo an older f100 and since I already have a 445 stroker in my 65 Thunderbird I was thinking about going after another engine combo for fun and figured the 460 would be a logical choice.  If budget allows some day would likely go efi as well just to play with that.  The idea is still to stay retro if you will in terms of basic engine, not excited about putting a newer 4 valve mill in but nothing wrong with that either.
I do have my standards at the bar after all.

Thanks.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2020, 06:52:10 PM by Thumperbird »

blykins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4801
    • View Profile
    • Lykins Motorsports
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2020, 07:08:00 PM »
My pea brain says more cubes allows more mild cam and build overall to yield same or better HP/torque.

Yep, and so does a higher flowing head.  As long as the port volume and port velocity stays in check, the more flow the better.....allows for smaller camshafts.
Brent Lykins
Lykins Motorsports
Custom FE Street, Drag Race, Road Race, and Pulling Truck Engines
Custom Roller & Flat Tappet Camshafts
www.lykinsmotorsports.com
brent@lykinsmotorsports.com
www.customfordcams.com
502-759-1431
Instagram:  brentlykinsmotorsports
YouTube:  Lykins Motorsports

Drew Pojedinec

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2020, 07:14:22 PM »
Thunderbird, for my own usage I’d stay FE to keep my fleet standardized.
If you are starting fresh and wanted to go 460 based engine on a budget, there is a stock Crank package for 500 cubes and D0VE heads.

Would be really really hard to beat for cost vs power.

Rory428

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 998
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2020, 08:27:27 PM »
If it was all about power per dollar, we would likely all be driver turbocharged junkyard Chevy LS engines. Thankfully we don`t all think that way. I`m a cheap SOB, but I will never have a Chevy powered Ford (years ago I bought a 1940 Ford PU project with a SB Chev, I left the engine and trans on his garage floor.), and if I want a V8 engine over 350 cubes, it will be a FE. Logical ?, no. The "easy" or "cost effective" way to go? Hardly. I`m a FE guy, who also like the 289-302 SBF, I can`t imagine any situation where anything I want to do with my car hobby, can not be accomplished with either of those engines. I guess that could be why I am on a FE forum, I just happen to like FEs.
1978 Fairmont,FE 427 with 428 crank, 4 speed Jerico best of 9.972@132.54MPH 1.29 60 foot
1985 Mustang HB 331 SB Ford, 4 speed Jerico, best of 10.29@128 MPH 1.40 60 foot.
1974 F350 race car hauler 390 NP435 4 speed
1959 Ford Meteor 2 dr sedan. 428 Cobra Jet, 4 speed Toploader. 12.54@ 108 MPH

frnkeore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #58 on: July 31, 2020, 02:27:01 PM »
"I'm baacck" As Jack Nicholson might say ;)

I feel like I'm writing a book over here so, w/o further ado, here we go.

First, I have to say, that you can not compare a 428 to a 460 if you don't limit it to the same CI. We all know that you can get 100 more CI out of the 460. A after market FE block would be a better one to do that with @ 526 CI for the FE.

First, I'll address Brent comment with the same zeal he uses:

Quote
Two things I've learned (sarcasm) from this thread:

1:  2 * 340 = 780

2:  When your "opinion" is blatantly wrong, keep digging.

Brent can either multiply, nor divide, I guess. 780 ÷ 2 = 390 or to correct Brent, 2 x 390 =

780. Based on, maybe a over optimistic porting of TF heads, with 2.3 valves. If the 2.3 will fit in 4.16 bore.
Maybe not apples to apples but the Kaase P51 heads responded to porting and a .050 valve increase (2.25 to 2.3) with 40 cfm but, I think we an safely say that ported TF heads with at least 2.25 valves, should produce, at least 370 cfm. That's up for debate..... For #2, I might point out that shovels are universal and made to fit anyone's hands.

Since we don't have a FE & 385 to build, I thought I'd see what I could do with my Sim. You

can input the block & head you will use FE vs 385 and you can input the detailed flow rates,

for the heads. I also have Pipe Max but, you can only input max flow rates with it and not low

lift figures. More info on the Sim I used:
 
What Are DynoSim6 and Dynomation6?

At the core of Dynomation6 and DynoSim6 is are mathematical models that
simulations four-stroke, internal combustion (IC) engines. These simulations incor-
Introduction To Version6 Simulations
The simulation incorporates a completely unique, intuitive user interface (shown using
one of several program color schemes). If you wish to change an engine component,
simply click on any component field on the left side of the screen and select
a new specification from the drop-down list or enter custom values. Engine components
are shared between both the Filling-And-Emptying (FE) and Wave-Action (WA) simulation

models. Results can be displayed in a wide variety of tables and graphs.
Main Program Screen porate two distinct simulation methods: 1) A Filling-And-Emptying

(FE) method, available in both DynoSim6 and Dynomation6 simulation packages, that provides

fast mathematical solutions to engine physics, including flow analysis through intake- and

exhaust systems, making this technique a powerful and efficient way to optimize engine

designs, and 2) A full Wave-Action (WA) method exclusively in Dynomation6 that calculates

and predicts the complex pressure-wave dynamics and particle flows in intake and exhaust
passages. The Wave-Action model picks up where the Filling-And-Emptying method leaves

off and “homes in” on the best port sizes and shapes, runner lengths, header configuration and

tubing dimensions, cam timing and valve motion, and other engine parameters, providing

unprecedented accuracy for the serious engine designer and builder.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't find porting info for the TF heads so, I only used the out of the box flow numbers,
supplied by Brent, to Stan Weiss's site. The 385 heads that I chose are the Kaase P51's, both out of the box and ported by Evens. Those CFM numbers, went into the program.

I limited the cam lobes to CC, XFI, hyd roller lobes, for both engines, using Brent, suggested 8

deg split and a 112 LSA, installed at 108, In CL, again for both. The OP wanted a mid level

engine so, I restricted the cams to peak at 56-5800. It takes a little more cam to get the lessor

cfm head to match the higher flow flow head, as we know, so I had to increase the cam

duration on the TF, FE head. I did not change the build, in anyway between the engines. CR, CI,

850 carb and exaust, are all the same. Only the cams and heads are different.

I think what some are missing in this type build, is the benefit of low lift flow. The TF heads,

with their 1.625 Ex valve, clearly out flow the P51's, until .600+ lift and the Intake flow is better on the TF head, below .300. Most likely velocity and the flow pattern is much better, also. I can't tell you if valve shrouding is addressed but, you can choose a 352, 390, 428 or 427 block, to start with so, it may be.

Lastly, I want to point out that the program is sinitive enough to pick up +/- HP differences,

based on the rod to stroke ratio. I won't say that this Sim is totally accurate on the HP output. I

don't use it for that, I use this one and Pipe Max, to try to understand, where things might be

able to be improved.

First up was Brent's recent 4.09 x 4.25, TF engine. I could not find the cam lobe he used. The CC, HUC was closest but, the lobes are short on the lift that he quotes. There are only two other lobes that have odd numbered durations, the QXX & QXI, both have higher lifts. So, I used the XFI lobes, that are within .005 lift of his spec. But, I had to use more duration 231 vs 234 to get my numbers, in matching his HP, close enough to win one of his GTH things. I couldn't get the torque though. I was short 29 lb ft. BTW, the XFI are the same cam lobes that I used on the other engines.

I'm also adding a Blair, 469 CI, 315 CFM, small cam build. Actual dyno results.

NOTE THE AVERAGE HP FIGURES!
« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 02:37:05 PM by frnkeore »
Frank

RJP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 395
    • View Profile
Re: 428 versus 460
« Reply #59 on: July 31, 2020, 02:34:42 PM »
So whats the point of all this? ::)