428 Build--Stroker Kit, Heads, or Run With What I Have?

[410bruce]

Because I can't afford both. 
As it stands, I have a standard bore service replacement 428 block to work with. Have already purchased a set of Eagle "ESP" H-beam rods, main and rod bearings, and have a 1U crank done up and ready for use. Have not purchased pistons as of yet. Have a nice set of C6AE-Rs with dual springs and CJ valves purchased from a forum member who told me his 428 made 500 horsepower with these heads and a custom hydraulic flat tappet cam in the 230ish at .050 intake duration range. Probably only 500 miles on them.
I would like 500 horsepower. More would be cool if feasible but not at the expense of reliability.
If you guys think my goal would be attainable with what I already have, that would be awesome.
If not, would the TFS heads make that and then some on the 428" engine? Or, would a stroker kit get me there with the C6AE-Rs?
This engine will be going in a '67 Cougar, 4-speed Toploader, no power brakes or steering. Must run comfortably on 91 California pump gas.
Would like to keep the RPM to probably around 5500 for longevity sake.

Thanks for any input, guys, Hugely appreciated.

[Tommy-T]

You have some good parts already so I'd run them. Plus, I'm cheap.

I'd buy a set of Speed Pro L2303 pistons and run it.

No p/s or p/b then I'd run a little "spunkier" cam than 230@.050. Maybe 240@.050. I'd run a solid flat tappet but "squishy" lifters should take you to 5500rpm.

This combination will most likely not make 500 horsepower. But it will leave you with enough money to buy some 9" slicks and a Cal Tracks set up which you will desperately need. I'm thinking with a really sharp tune you could get this combo into the 11 second zone.

[blykins]

I don't like big cubes with stock heads.  I also don't think you'll make 500 hp with what you have.   Would a 428 make 500 hp with TFS heads?  Yep.  And then some. 

[WerbyFord]

What exhaust will you run? Headers or iron? Pipe size / mufflers?
That 500hp has to get out somehow...

With no PSPB (yay) shy not a solid cam? Smoother idle for same power. Easy to set the valves, not needed that often anyway.
500hp will be tough on CA pump gas/water, but, why 500hp?
Is your goal an ET or MPH in the 1/4 mile, if so, what?
How much gear are you willing to live with?

I'd have said "stroker kit 1st, can add heads later", but I also like Free Stuff, and since you already have most of the parts, I'd try to use what you have. If it doesn't meet the goals, you could upgrade the heads. Did I miss what intake/carb you will run?

[410bruce]

What exhaust will you run? Headers or iron? Pipe size / mufflers?
That 500hp has to get out somehow...

With no PSPB (yay) shy not a solid cam? Smoother idle for same power. Easy to set the valves, not needed that often anyway.
500hp will be tough on CA pump gas/water, but, why 500hp?
Is your goal an ET or MPH in the 1/4 mile, if so, what?
How much gear are you willing to live with?

I'd have said "stroker kit 1st, can add heads later", but I also like Free Stuff, and since you already have most of the parts, I'd try to use what you have. If it doesn't meet the goals, you could upgrade the heads. Did I miss what intake/carb you will run?

Headers with whatever pipe size is needed for the goal.
Solid flat tappet would be fine. Rowdy idle would be fine--whatever it takes to meet the goal.
Why 500hp? No good reason, really. According to the Gonk you did for me earlier, my old 428 made nearly that number (I think around 460-470hp if I remember correctly). Would just like to make that 500 number. Won't be a drag car, just a fun, obnoxious street car. However, I may run it in the quarter just to see what it could do.
Gear will be whatever it needs to run well.   Probably won't be taking this car on long trips, so freeway flyer gears shouldn't be needed.
Have a new Performer RPM purchased from Brent. Carburetor will be whatever is needed for the goal.

[My427stang]

Any more info on the heads?  I am a Trick Flow lover, but given your RPM range, tend to lean toward the cubes.. 

525 HP from a 462 is 1.14 HP per cid, and the same from a 433 (assuming an overbore)  is 1.21/inch.  Either is pretty easy to do IMHO with the two combos.  The 428 with the C6 heads, a little tougher, but doable too, just won't have the 5500 RPM peak, I think you'd have to be looking at a 6400 RPM shift point or so

If I did go iron stroker, and you think there may be options in the future, I would give up some compression and buy pistons and cam for Trick Flow heads, it may not be your perfect engine, but if you did decide to go with better heads, it would be an easier swap and blow your goals away

[410bruce]

Man, you guys aren't making a definitive decision easy. lol.

Let me throw something else out there. How about porting the C6s? They shouldn't need any other work besides the port work and a finish valve and seat touch-up. They do have hardened seats installed.

[My427stang]

Man, you guys aren't making a definitive decision easy. lol.

Let me throw something else out there. How about porting the C6s? They shouldn't need any other work besides the port work and a finish valve and seat touch-up. They do have had hardened seats installed.

Porting the C6s can get you 280 cfm pretty easily, might get you into the 500s with what you have if parts picked well, but it isn't cheap to port iron heads. If you have a grand into them, and add another grand, you are at the Trick Flow cost, and the TF becomes cheaper if you sell yours.

That being said, it's like the old stone soup story, add a little here and there it gets better.  As a guy who really tries to respect other's budgets (as all the builders on here do), part of me wants to tell you to buy pistons and cam with your 428 parts, that match the Trick Flow heads, then bolt on your C6s as is.  Ignore the numbers, if strong enough for you, leave it.  If not, swap heads later and you'll have your number and then some

[frnkeore]

If I might suggest, since you don't have a dyno available, your not really going to know what your actual HP output will be so, when you get the flow numbers for your heads, let Werby, Gonk it, for 500 HP and build to that spec. That way, you'll have something in the ball part and can say, it's a 500 HP engine, with some backing.

If you're willing to travel 300 miles, there is a SF901, in Medford to hook it up to. I don't know if Redding is closer but, there might be one there, too.

[410bruce]

If I might suggest, since you don't have a dyno available, your not really going to know what your actual HP output will be so, when you get the flow numbers for your heads, let Werby, Gonk it, for 500 HP and build to that spec. That way, you'll have something in the ball part and can say, it's a 500 HP engine, with some backing.

If you're willing to travel 300 miles, there is a SF901, in Medford to hook it up to. I don't know if Redding is closer but, there might be one there, too.

I actually do have access to a dyno. It's a mobile chassis dyno. It's about a 10 second walk from my work. 
I'd like Werby to gonk it as well, if he feels like doing it.

[plovett]

I think the question is a 428 with TFS heads vs. a 462 with C6 heads?

Easy.  Get the heads, even for a mild engine.   About 29 cubic inches of difference is not very significant compared to the gains in the heads.  And since you said you don't need freeway flyer gears, it is an even easier decision to go with the "small' combo.   

JMO,

pl

[410bruce]

I think the question is a 428 with TFS heads vs. a 462 with C6 heads?

Easy.  Get the heads, even for a mild engine.   About 29 cubic inches of difference is not very significant compared to the gains in the heads.  And since you said you don't need freeway flyer gears, it is an even easier decision to go with the "small' combo.   

JMO,

pl

I'm really leaning that way, at this point. Plus, being aluminum, will take weight off the front end which is important with a '67 Cougar. Also, with the updated combustion chamber, will help aid in running the 91 octane Commiefornia pump gas I'm relegated to run.

[thatdarncat]

Lance Smith at Craft Performance Engines in Arkadelphia AR. has a CNC program to port the common cast iron FE heads. He started with the C8AE-H heads, but I believe he has expanded to most of the common FE cast iron heads now, so he should have the C6AE-R’s covered. Last I saw him post it was $400 pair plus shipping to CNC port the iron heads, so it’s pretty cost friendly. He’s posted the flow figures & dyno numbers on Facebook in the past. I think Tom Lucas at FE Specialties in Auburn California also has a CNC program to port the common cast iron FE heads too, but I’m not as sure of the details, so you’d need to check with him for cost and if he can cover the C6AE-R’s. Just some more to consider lol.

https://www.craftperformanceengines.com/

https://fespecialties.com/

[410bruce]

Thanks Kevin.   

[Barry_R]

I vote stroker.  The extra cubes will directly impact torque per cubic inch - more power everywhere in the curve.  Reason for my choice is that you can always add a set of better heads over a weekend with the engine installed in the vehicle if/when you decide you need "more".  Cant add cubes as easily once the engine is running.

[blykins]

I guess my line of thinking was that the TFS heads will most likely overshoot the hp goals by a good bit just by themselves. 

I can see it both ways though.  Can certainly boost the power even higher if he does both down the road.  A 460 would be a little air hungry though with some 240 cfm heads and its hard to justify porting them.

[Chrisss31]

What is the gig with Blair's CNC ported iron heads?  I don't remember any of the build details except 600 hp. 390" at EMC.

[KMcCullah]

Several builders here have done some dang frisky 4.250 arm 428's lately. 500HP with a 5500ish RPM limit may be a stretch with untouched C6 heads, but you'll come close. I think with a 4.250 arm and 11:1 compression, 500+ FT/lbs torque will be easypeasy with a rumpety cam. That will roll your Cougar down the road like a boss. Some 3:70 or 3:91 gears would make it a pretty mean hotrod. My .02 on your C6 heads..... When the new wears off all that torque, I'd send the heads to Blair for the EMC special. And Port match your RPM intake to match. Gonna need sticky tires. 

[WerbyFord]

If I might suggest, since you don't have a dyno available, your not really going to know what your actual HP output will be so, when you get the flow numbers for your heads, let Werby, Gonk it, for 500 HP and build to that spec. That way, you'll have something in the ball part and can say, it's a 500 HP engine, with some backing.

If you're willing to travel 300 miles, there is a SF901, in Medford to hook it up to. I don't know if Redding is closer but, there might be one there, too.

I actually do have access to a dyno. It's a mobile chassis dyno. It's about a 10 second walk from my work. 
I'd like Werby to gonk it as well, if he feels like doing it.

Of course!

I played with the Gonkulator already, and with "stock" 428CJ or c6ae-r clone heads, about the best I can get at 10.0 CR is about 460hp, and that's with a BIG solid cam shoved in there. So I figured, nope, those heads wont do it.

But, you're saying your current heads ALREADY made 500hp on that other 428 - so I'm wondering if your c6ae-r heads have more work in them than you think. Do you have flow numbers on them?
Or, do you have the specs on that 500hp 428 they were on?
That way I could sort of back out what the head flows might have been to make that 500hp they made.

[410bruce]

If I might suggest, since you don't have a dyno available, your not really going to know what your actual HP output will be so, when you get the flow numbers for your heads, let Werby, Gonk it, for 500 HP and build to that spec. That way, you'll have something in the ball part and can say, it's a 500 HP engine, with some backing.

If you're willing to travel 300 miles, there is a SF901, in Medford to hook it up to. I don't know if Redding is closer but, there might be one there, too.

I actually do have access to a dyno. It's a mobile chassis dyno. It's about a 10 second walk from my work. 
I'd like Werby to gonk it as well, if he feels like doing it.

Of course!

I played with the Gonkulator already, and with "stock" 428CJ or c6ae-r clone heads, about the best I can get at 10.0 CR is about 460hp, and that's with a BIG solid cam shoved in there. So I figured, nope, those heads wont do it.

But, you're saying your current heads ALREADY made 500hp on that other 428 - so I'm wondering if your c6ae-r heads have more work in them than you think. Do you have flow numbers on them?
Or, do you have the specs on that 500hp 428 they were on?
That way I could sort of back out what the head flows might have been to make that 500hp they made.

Thanks, Werby, I really appreciate it!
I just went out and looked the heads over a bit. I don't believe any port or chamber work has been done. Poked my finger down the ports and it feels like rough casting all the way to the valve.

I do believe the previous owner was running some sort of factory dual-four barrel aluminum intake on his 428. He was running a custom hydraulic flat tappet with 230ish intake and 240 something exhaust duration at .050. Long tube headers. Don't remember the compression. I think it was in a '67 Shelby.

[410bruce]

Hey guys, as an aside here, what would be the value of a usable 428CJ intake and set of exhaust manifolds be?
Thinking of selling them to offset the cost a bit, of the heads or stroker kit.

Thanks.

[WerbyFord]

"I do believe the previous owner was running some sort of factory dual-four barrel aluminum intake on his 428. He was running a custom hydraulic flat tappet with 230ish intake and 240 something exhaust duration at .050. Long tube headers. Don't remember the compression. I think it was in a '67 Shelby."

OK well with 2" dyno headers and 11.0 CR (plausible) I can Gonkulate 500hp from that other 428 and a 235-245 hyd roller cam. That's with just c6ae-r headers, 2.09 x 1.66 valves, maybe grinding the exhaust roof back up to where the earlier and CJ heads are, that's it. So that could be about what you have.

Given those heads, 10.0 CR, 1.75 supercomps, Ed RPM intake, 800 double pumper, and a 260-270-110 solid cam (DaleP has run this in his 9.90s Mustang), I'm Gonkulating:
Torq 479 at 4400
Powr 467 at 5800
2" dyno headers might add another 10-15hp on top. So you're close but not there.

Stroking that and going 30-over to 462cid Gonkulates to
Torq 512 at 4300
Powr 474 at 5700 (doesn't add much, the heads are limiting)

With the same cam, same 428cid, I just plopped TFS heads on there at about 10.5 CR due to smaller chambers for:
Torq 546 at 4600
Powr 548 at 6000
No kidding, more torque than the stroker hit. Velocity and a good burn, 50 years of technology later.

I guess you could do stroker AND the heads if you need that much, or like buying tires.

[rockhouse66]

This info from my build with the R heads might be useful.

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=9006.0

BTW - this engine is for sale (shameless plug).

[Gregwill16]

There you go! Just buy Jim's engine and sell all the 428 stuff to fund a large portion.
If you want the 428 and the bottom end is solid, I would buy a set of TFS heads.

[410bruce]

Well, I'm attempting to do both a stroker kit and the heads. Have some parts as well as a 2006 Harley Sportster 1200C up for sale to help fund this madness. lol.

Thank you everyone for your input and words of advise.

I'll more than likely use this thread to document the coming together of this engine.

[My427stang]

Well, I'm attempting to do both a stroker kit and the heads. Have some parts as well as a 2006 Harley Sportster 1200C up for sale to help fund this madness. lol.

Thank you everyone for your input and words of advise.

I'll more than likely use this thread to document the coming together of this engine.

If the vehicle is worth the expense, you will be VERY happy. 

[brettco]

Well, I'm attempting to do both a stroker kit and the heads. Have some parts as well as a 2006 Harley Sportster 1200C up for sale to help fund this madness. lol.

Thank you everyone for your input and words of advise.

I'll more than likely use this thread to document the coming together of this engine.

   461bruce.

[67xr7cat]

Interesting thing can build a 10:1 run of the mill 390 with TFS OFB heads, a hyd roller cam, and an Perforner RPM intake and make 500 hp. All easy to find stuff and not stupidly priced. Makes one wonder why both with 428 blocks and strokers at that level.

[chilly460]

Couple factors at the 500hp level.  You can absolutely do it with a 390, but if you have a heavy car or mild gearing, it requires enough cam that it may not be "streetable" for that application.  A 445 or 462 would be able to lug around a heavy car with better manners and still hit 500hp.  The other reason is the "might as well" factor.  You have a 390, in a 500hp build you're going to be putting pistons in it, and at a minimum rebuilding the stock rods with good bolts, and getting the crank ground/polished.  At that point, it's not a big jump in $$ to go to a stroker deal, so many guys will go that route.  At the 500hp level, you'd be turning enough rpm to make the stock rods questionable, so peace of mind going with new rods as well. 

[My427stang]

Interesting thing can build a 10:1 run of the mill 390 with TFS OFB heads, a hyd roller cam, and an Perforner RPM intake and make 500 hp. All easy to find stuff and not stupidly priced. Makes one wonder why both with 428 blocks and strokers at that level.

I will throw my opinion in, it's free and worth every penny

Assuming the same quality of parts and machining are used for both in other areas, the difference in cost is:

- Crankshaft - add 450 bucks assuming you mag and turn the 390 crank
- Balancing - add 150 bucks for internal balancing
- Connecting rods - subtract 150 bucks for BB connecting rods

The rest is really 1 for 1 assuming a build at the same level, so that's about 450 dollars more.

A 396 at 500 HP would be 1.26 HP per cid, a 445 would be 561 HP at that level, and a 462 could be 582 HP, however if the goal was similar, you could build it it much more well mannered.  A few 445s and 461s in the dyno section that do almost exactly that too

Hard to beat a stroker with good heads.  One thing to bring it down is stock rods, stock crank, cheaper TRW/Speedpro pistons.  However both strength and potential valve clearance, not to mention power loss of a less than optimum piston/ring combo might not get you to your 500 with a 390.

One thing I do agree with completely is the value of a 445 vs a 462.  If you have a 428 block, a 461/462 is a real nice piece, but for those without a block, the 445 can be a very wise choice just for the difference in the cost of the core itself

[410bruce]

Well, I'm attempting to do both a stroker kit and the heads. Have some parts as well as a 2006 Harley Sportster 1200C up for sale to help fund this madness. lol.

Thank you everyone for your input and words of advise.

I'll more than likely use this thread to document the coming together of this engine.

   461bruce.

[410bruce]

Well, I'm attempting to do both a stroker kit and the heads. Have some parts as well as a 2006 Harley Sportster 1200C up for sale to help fund this madness. lol.

Thank you everyone for your input and words of advise.

I'll more than likely use this thread to document the coming together of this engine.

If the vehicle is worth the expense, you will be VERY happy.

Well, it's debatable whether or not it's worth it in its current state, but I'm hoping it will be. 

[410bruce]

Okay, I've had some time to think (uh-oh).  I do believe I'm going to go ahead and run the 428 reciprocating/rotating assembly I already have. That will free up some money to use towards other aspects of this build, such as a hydraulic roller cam, nice rocker assemblies etc. Will only need to buy pistons and rings to complete the bottom end.
So, with that said, going to go ahead and remove my parts for sale and move forward with the build.

[My427stang]

Okay, I've had some time to think (uh-oh).  I do believe I'm going to go ahead and run the 428 reciprocating/rotating assembly I already have. That will free up some money to use towards other aspects of this build, such as a hydraulic roller cam, nice rocker assemblies etc. Will only need to buy pistons and rings to complete the bottom end.
So, with that said, going to go ahead and remove my parts for sale and move forward with the build.

Chicken LOL

Not a bad thing to adhere to a budget, these engines are generally not an investment, just a fun expense. 

[410bruce]

Okay, I've had some time to think (uh-oh).  I do believe I'm going to go ahead and run the 428 reciprocating/rotating assembly I already have. That will free up some money to use towards other aspects of this build, such as a hydraulic roller cam, nice rocker assemblies etc. Will only need to buy pistons and rings to complete the bottom end.
So, with that said, going to go ahead and remove my parts for sale and move forward with the build.

Chicken LOL

Not a bad thing to adhere to a budget, these engines are generally not an investment, just a fun expense.

Lol. Thanks Ross. 

[wayne]

Dont buy trw/speed pro pistons i just did a 428 and they are junk full of dings and small nicks had to spend some time with a file. I always run them years ago with good luck but someone dont care that works there now. I know new pistons are lighter better ring packs and make more power but this is a street engine and i am not looking for every last hp.And dont want to spend 1000 bucks for them dds is what i will run next time i have some in a small block and like them.

[410bruce]

Wayne, I ran those TRW pistons in my last 428 and they worked fine. However, that was 25 years ago. I think TRW pistons are made in China now, if I'm not mistaken.

[410bruce]

Okay guys, in the spirit of using what I have, could I come close to my goal if the C6AE-R heads were sent out for a professional port job to one of you? I know I'd probably have to drop my maximum RPM of 5500 but still need to run on 91 pump gas.
The TFS heads are not off the table. I just think it would be cool to come close to or meet the 500 HP goal with factory iron. And since I already have the heads with CJ size valves, hardened seats and dual springs ready to bolt on, there is no purchase price to factor in.

Thanks again.

[My427stang]

Short answer, probably

'67 Cougar, 4-speed Toploader, no power brakes or steering. Must run comfortably on 91 California pump gas.
Would like to keep the RPM to probably around 5500 for longevity sake.

The 5500 red line is what will kill the deal without a small fast head.  I think if you cammed it for a 6000 RPM  peak, you'd be close even unported, assuming a good block prep and ring seal. If you want to keep it at 5500 peak, 5900 shift, tougher...if you want to shift at 5500, I think no. 

Keep in mind my ported iron head 462 peaked at 5000 about at the number you want.  You are MUCH more cam tolerant, so narrower LSA likely will bring peaks up but it's a big number for something that low of an RPM

That being said, stud the mains (only for peace of mind) good block prep, a set of Autotec pistons, and  spin it to a 6000 RPM peak, it will do just fine. Porting will be icing on the cake.  However, I would be careful, it's easy to spend much more money on iron heads than the TFS would cost you.

[410bruce]

Short answer, probably

'67 Cougar, 4-speed Toploader, no power brakes or steering. Must run comfortably on 91 California pump gas.
Would like to keep the RPM to probably around 5500 for longevity sake.

The 5500 red line is what will kill the deal without a small fast head.  I think if you cammed it for a 6000 RPM  peak, you'd be close even unported, assuming a good block prep and ring seal. If you want to keep it at 5500 peak, 5900 shift, tougher...if you want to shift at 5500, I think no. 

Keep in mind my ported iron head 462 peaked at 5000 about at the number you want.  You are MUCH more cam tolerant, so narrower LSA likely will bring peaks up but it's a big number for something that low of an RPM

That being said, stud the mains (only for peace of mind) good block prep, a set of Autotec pistons, and  spin it to a 6000 RPM peak, it will do just fine. Porting will be icing on the cake.  However, I would be careful, it's easy to spend much more money on iron heads than the TFS would cost you.

Ross, I would like to thank you for your continuing to answer my questions. Very much appreciated.

Yes, I dropped the 5500 max RPM in the last post.

The only other question I would have is, would this theoretical engine have a soggy low RPM feel/response, say, in the 2-3k RPM, at part throttle cruise and tip-in?

[My427stang]

Hard to define soggy, it's a 428 inch engine for a 6000 RPM peak, that's not radical, but it won't be a Lincoln

What are you running for a tranny (wide or close ratio), rear axle, and tire sizes? 

[My427stang]

I was thinking of a way to compare.  My last Tunnel Wedge, pump gas, ported heads.  At 3500 was 500 ft lbs and climbing

Knowing figures don't lie, but liars can figure, we can play with some math

- Say I was at 475 ft lbs at 3000 = .97 per cid, sounds low but way off peak and it was a TW, not known for low end
- A 433 there would be 420 ft lbs, but built with a dual plane and the right cam for the smaller displacement, likely would drive it up 15-20 ft lbs (low WAG), for 435-440 ft lbs and climbing quickly as it accelerated toward the peak

If the car was geared for it, it will be a blast, if it's a close ratio 3.50 gear, ehhhhh.  I drove my Mustang for a few years with Portosonic, 08 LSA 300/250@.050 solid, 433 inches, 3.70 gear and a close ratio, even had a 3.00 gear in it for a run from Vegas to Huntington Beach, and it did fine, the 3.00 gear was a little miserable in town, but had no issues out of traffic.

That being said, a stroker with a 4.11 and a 2.87 gear is way better, but the tranny and gears would have been way better with the 433 too

I will say this though, and have said it before, fast guys make power with heads.  You can likely hit your goals, but have to trade somewhere if you do it with cam

[410bruce]

Hard to define soggy, it's a 428 inch engine for a 6000 RPM peak, that's not radical, but it won't be a Lincoln

What are you running for a tranny (wide or close ratio), rear axle, and tire sizes?

I believe it's a wide ratio--was behind a 427 in a Cobra.
Rear gear undetermined at this point. The car currently has an 8" so will need to upgrade to a 9".
Tire size--pretty much whatever will fit comfortably within the stock wheel well.

Guessing here  but as far as rear gear, probably something in the 3.25-3.70 range.

[410bruce]

I was thinking of a way to compare.  My last Tunnel Wedge, pump gas, ported heads.  At 3500 was 500 ft lbs and climbing

Knowing figures don't lie, but liars can figure, we can play with some math

- Say I was at 475 ft lbs at 3000 = .97 per cid, sounds low but way off peak and it was a TW, not known for low end
- A 433 there would be 420 ft lbs, but built with a dual plane and the right cam for the smaller displacement, likely would drive it up 15-20 ft lbs (low WAG), for 435-440 ft lbs and climbing quickly as it accelerated toward the peak

If the car was geared for it, it will be a blast, if it's a close ratio 3.50 gear, ehhhhh.  I drove my Mustang for a few years with Portosonic, 08 LSA 300/250@.050 solid, 433 inches, 3.70 gear and a close ratio, even had a 3.00 gear in it for a run from Vegas to Huntington Beach, and it did fine, the 3.00 gear was a little miserable in town, but had no issues out of traffic.

That being said, a stroker with a 4.11 and a 2.87 gear is way better, but the tranny and gears would have been way better with the 433 too

I will say this though, and have said it before, fast guys make power with heads.  You can likely hit your goals, but have to trade somewhere if you do it with cam

Sweet. Doesn't appear I have anything to be concerned about, then.

[My427stang]

Hard to define soggy, it's a 428 inch engine for a 6000 RPM peak, that's not radical, but it won't be a Lincoln

What are you running for a tranny (wide or close ratio), rear axle, and tire sizes?

I believe it's a wide ratio--was behind a 427 in a Cobra.
Rear gear undetermined at this point. The car currently has an 8" so will need to upgrade to a 9".
Tire size--pretty much whatever will fit comfortably within the stock wheel well.

Guessing here  but as far as rear gear, probably something in the 3.25-3.70 range.

You really need to know, it is a dramatic difference.  A 2.32 gear versus a 2.78 is almost 20% more torque advantage. if you compare 1st gears

A 3.50 rear with a 2.78 gear = 9.73:1
With a 2.32 gear that car needs a 4.19 gear to have the same compound ratio, that;s a huge difference in "soggy"

Also, 3.25-3.70, likely is a bit mild for a stout cam, but 3.70 gets close if the tire is short and you have a wide ratio

[blykins]

Most Toploaders for Cobras behind the big blocks were close ratio.   Of course it could have been a different trans or changed along the way sometime. 

I did a 428 about 15 years ago with "Stage 1" Edelbrock heads, a solid roller, 11:1, and a Tunnel Wedge.  It made 533 hp @ 6500.  Those heads were probably around the 270 cfm range. 

Unless you really had a nice port job (read $$$) I don't think you're gonna make it to 500 hp, if that's your goal, without quite a bit of cam. 

Good heads make things much easier.   If it were me, if those C6 heads are really nice cores, I'd put them up for sale and put that towards a set of TFS heads. 

[wcbrowning]

What's a good "target" starting line ratio?  Is the target ratio fixed or variable, based upon, for example, vehicle weight and/or engine characteristics?

I seem to remember starting line ratio charts, but, IIRC, they were based soley on crank stroke, with no actual tie in with torque, power curve, vehicle weight, etc.  It seems like these would be important to consider.  Is it just too complicated for a chart or a rule of thumb?  If so, then how to calculate ideal starting line ratio, if one does have the necessary data on hand to take such factors into account (i.e. engine max torque, power curve, vehicle weight, etc.)?

Hard to define soggy, it's a 428 inch engine for a 6000 RPM peak, that's not radical, but it won't be a Lincoln

What are you running for a tranny (wide or close ratio), rear axle, and tire sizes?

I believe it's a wide ratio--was behind a 427 in a Cobra.
Rear gear undetermined at this point. The car currently has an 8" so will need to upgrade to a 9".
Tire size--pretty much whatever will fit comfortably within the stock wheel well.

Guessing here  but as far as rear gear, probably something in the 3.25-3.70 range.

You really need to know, it is a dramatic difference.  A 2.32 gear versus a 2.78 is almost 20% more torque advantage. if you compare 1st gears

A 3.50 rear with a 2.78 gear = 9.73:1
With a 2.32 gear that car needs a 4.19 gear to have the same compound ratio, that;s a huge difference in "soggy"

Also, 3.25-3.70, likely is a bit mild for a stout cam, but 3.70 gets close if the tire is short and you have a wide ratio

[410bruce]

Most Toploaders for Cobras behind the big blocks were close ratio.   Of course it could have been a different trans or changed along the way sometime. 

I did a 428 about 15 years ago with "Stage 1" Edelbrock heads, a solid roller, 11:1, and a Tunnel Wedge.  It made 533 hp @ 6500.  Those heads were probably around the 270 cfm range. 

Unless you really had a nice port job (read $$$) I don't think you're gonna make it to 500 hp, if that's your goal, without quite a bit of cam. 

Good heads make things much easier.   If it were me, if those C6 heads are really nice cores, I'd put them up for sale and put that towards a set of TFS heads.

Would you please stop giving me factual evidence and good, common sense answers!? lol.

[My427stang]

What's a good "target" starting line ratio?  Is the target ratio fixed or variable, based upon, for example, vehicle weight and/or engine characteristics?

I seem to remember starting line ratio charts, but, IIRC, they were based soley on crank stroke, with no actual tie in with torque, power curve, vehicle weight, etc.  It seems like these would be important to consider.  Is it just too complicated for a chart or a rule of thumb?  If so, then how to calculate ideal starting line ratio, if one does have the necessary data on hand to take such factors into account (i.e. engine max torque, power curve, vehicle weight, etc.)?

Hard to define soggy, it's a 428 inch engine for a 6000 RPM peak, that's not radical, but it won't be a Lincoln

What are you running for a tranny (wide or close ratio), rear axle, and tire sizes?

I believe it's a wide ratio--was behind a 427 in a Cobra.
Rear gear undetermined at this point. The car currently has an 8" so will need to upgrade to a 9".
Tire size--pretty much whatever will fit comfortably within the stock wheel well.

Guessing here  but as far as rear gear, probably something in the 3.25-3.70 range.

You really need to know, it is a dramatic difference.  A 2.32 gear versus a 2.78 is almost 20% more torque advantage. if you compare 1st gears

A 3.50 rear with a 2.78 gear = 9.73:1
With a 2.32 gear that car needs a 4.19 gear to have the same compound ratio, that;s a huge difference in "soggy"

Also, 3.25-3.70, likely is a bit mild for a stout cam, but 3.70 gets close if the tire is short and you have a wide ratio

It really depends, however I wouldn’t go under 9.5 to 1 with a four-speed and a 26 or so Tall tire, I would rather see 10 1/2 to 11.  I would only go above that if you had a tall tire. With an automatic you can go less because the converter provide some multiplication at least until stall

[plovett]

Well, I have had a 428 in my '67 Cougar for the last 20 years or so.  I've had gear ratios of 3.00, 3.25, 3.75, and 4.11:1.  I've had two engines (three if you count the original 390), had 3 (four if counting the 390) cams and 3 (four) different stall converters from 2600 rpm to 4000 rpm.  I've had tires from 26" to 29".  I've had a wide ratio C6 and and a two standard ratio C6's.  I really know this car like no one else. I've run dozens of timed 1/4 miles (on the G-Tech, sorry Tommy!  )  I had two 3-speed stick Cougars before that with 351W's and 2.75 and 3.00 gears.  All I am getting at is that there is wide range of good combinations you can have.  The amount of variables is such that you would need to use multivariate analysis to really sort it out.  Short of that, I think you need to look at just the variables that you know for sure.  Each decision that you make will affect the next one. 

For instance, you pretty much know your displacement and weight.  An over-bored 428 and an approximately 3500 lb car.  You mentioned an rpm limit of 5500. I think you could raise that to 6000 and still not worry about longevity or reliability.  You mentioned not being worried about using highway gearing.  To me that means you don't need a 2.75, 3.00, or 3.25:1 rear gear. Since you want to keep the rpms reasonable, I think that means you also don't want a super low gear like a 4.33 or 4.56.  So I think your gearing will be in the 3.50 to 4.11 range  Your call, but that is what it sounds like to me.  You also mentioned 91 octane.  All these things seem to be fairly set.

To me it sounds like the next two questions you have to answer are:

(1) what heads you are going to use, and
(2) what specific tranny you have, and what rear gear you want. 

I vote for the TFS heads.  I haven't run them, but man have they had some impressive results posted here.  Money well spent, in my opinion.  How much gearing you can live with is very subjective and dependent on what transmission you have, too.  More gear equals more possible cam and more possible rpm and more possible power.

Once you have answered those two (and a half) questions you can move on to the next ones.  That might be cam, compression, intake manifold, and exhaust.

So what heads?  What trans do you have, and what rear gear do you want to use?

paulie

[KsHighboy]

I'm not too smart compared to the guys on this forum but I think Brent answered your question quite easily in the 3rd post and would be the easiest way for you to go. I think the TFS heads with a hydraulic roller cam specd  by Brent on the 428 would get you to 500+ hp quite easily.  I'm guessing the peak hp could be achieved around the 5600-6000 range and be quite reliable.

[410bruce]

This is the transmission.

[410bruce]

Double post.

[410bruce]

I'm not too smart compared to the guys on this forum but I think Brent answered your question quite easily in the 3rd post and would be the easiest way for you to go. I think the TFS heads with a hydraulic roller cam specd  by Brent on the 428 would get you to 500+ hp quite easily.  I'm guessing the peak hp could be achieved around the 5600-6000 range and be quite reliable.

I have been in contact with Brent behind the scenes...

[My427stang]

This is the transmission.

Small block wide ratio, good street tranny but need to verify input shaft isn’t too long

[410bruce]

This is the transmission.

Small block wide ratio, good street tranny but need to verify input shaft isn’t too long

Cool, thanks Ross.
Where do I measure to find out?

[My427stang]

Bruce,

Here is the odd thing.  Many guys have stabbed small block 4 speeds into 390/428 bells without knowing and they work, others push the thrust bearing so hard they take out a crank.

That being said, a small block 4 speed generally will work in an FE, but sometimes the part of the input shaft that sticks into the pilot bushing, will hit the crankshaft and drive it forward as you tighten the tranny mounting bolts (bad)

All you really need to do is lop off the end slightly.  Many have done with a cutoff wheel, a lathe would be the proper tool though.  Take a look at the picture of the extended "nub" on the end of the small block tranny I recently rebuilt, that is for a small block, a "real" 390 would have a shorter nub, but the same spline  and collar length



The best way to measure is to mock up your bellhousing and crank and measure depth from the tranny mounting surface, a tape measure works fine.  As long as the distance from the end of the input shaft the transmission mounting surface is slightly less than the bell surface to the most inner part of the crank pilot hole, you are OK

[475fetoploader]

Or the case with my car, where an actual big block tranny, was bolted to a Windsor, and barely anything indexed in the pilot bearing, which I’m thinking may have caused some bearing trouble further down stream.

[My427stang]

Or the case with my car, where an actual big block tranny, was bolted to a Windsor, and barely anything indexed in the pilot bearing, which I’m thinking may have caused some bearing trouble further down stream.

That is the truth, a short input is not generally usable on a small block,  although some people have been successful with extended pilot bushings. They look a little shady to me though

[67xr7cat]

If you have the truck bell the sb input works as is. The car bell is not as deep and requires the shorter pilot length.

As I mentioned before even a 390 with TFS heads would meet the goal. As was stated the power is in the heads. A smaller engine with a better head can out power a larger engine across the board than one with a poor head. There is a R code 427 on you tube that they dropped a 4.375" stroker into. the heads are stock low riser which have valve size as a CJ and very little to no different than what you have.  they used a solid roller with a 244@.050 intake duration. Even with 498ci they did not make 500 hp, although did make a lot of torque.  I'd say though compare that dyno result to some of the result on here with less cubes and a better head.  Here is the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY_6OjRQIj8

As for money saved, mainly the block.  The stroker argument comes down to cost to refurb or improve the rotating assembly and if yours needs a lot of work then yes not much more for a stroker.  a 445/390 with TFS heads has a lot going for it.  A 390 that already has a good bottom end with TFS heads easy 500 hp deal than a 428 with low riser heads.

Way I see it, do the TFS heads, and put a 5 speed in it with some rear gear.  One of the best things you can do is the over drive.  Sell the 4 speed, sell the C6AE-R heads and if you need more sell the 428 block and build a 410/416.  Seems 428 blocks are going for some stupid money, or at least people are asking stupid money. Other reason sell the 428 block is if it breaks you will pay a lot for another. 390 blocks are still easy to find and cheap.  Just my 2 cents.

[Rory428]

Concerning the small block Toploader/FE/bellhousing story, I have to wonder how many people have actually tried a SB trans in a FE, and how many are just passing on "old wives tales". I have a small block 1 1/16" wide ratio Toploader (originally from a 66 Fairlane 289, according to the ID info on the Dave Kee site), behind a early 60s car bellhousing, which is bolted to a 428 CJ. After hearing all the warnings about the input tip bottoming out in the crank, I bolted the bellhousing to the assembled 428, with no clutch or flywheel, and found that the splined section of the input cleared the pilot bushing by a comfortable amount, and after measuring the distance between the back of the pilot bushing, to the transmission surface , and comparing to the end of the input to the front of the trans case, discovered  about 1/2" of room between the input tip to the bottom of the cranks rear bore. Also, I just measured 3 different small block inputs (Toploader, Jerico, and a T5), all the tips averaged about 1.16" from the end of the splines. I also measured the rear crank bore of one of my 1UB 428 cranks, , there was just over 3/4" of depth below the pilot bushing step. And when I stuck a SB input into the crank bore, with no pilot bushing, it was obvious that the larger, splined section would contact the back of the pilot bushing , before the tip was even close to bottoming in the crank. That said, maybe Ford had some different depth car bellhousings, or maybe some FE cranks have a shallower rear bore than others, but in my case, the un touched small block input fit with plenty of clearance. And for the record, I have over 500 "shakedown" miles on my 59 now, and engine, trans, and clutch are all doing fine. As for the engine, I`m cheap, so I tend to use what I have laying around, and I can`t imagine selling a good 428 block,that I already have ,in order to use a 390 block instead. Also I don`t necessarily build an engine to a HP number, rather I decide what I want to engine to do, and select the parts accordingly. Too many guys read too many car books, and end up with too many expensive parts in an engine, in order to "hit" a HP number, and end up with a combination that lacks the driveability they were hoping for, and if they ever do take the car to the track, often performs well below their expectations. If your main goal is to wave a dyno sheet around, rather than have a comfortable driver, or a strong runner at the track, because of mismatched parts, thats different than how I look at it.

[wayne]

Rory 428 some good points everyone is good at spending other peoples cash dynos are fun and a good tool but thats all they are is a tool. Spend what you have get the car set up to handle your power cal tracks gears ect  big power is no good if you cant get it to the ground.  On input shafts all cars back then came with a 3 speed std did they make a short input 3 speed for a big block i have seen bw t10 trans on lakewood bells

[410bruce]

Okay, after much deliberation, have decided to go with the TFS heads.

Mr. Lykins to the white courtesy phone, please.   

[My427stang]

Concerning the small block Toploader/FE/bellhousing story, I have to wonder how many people have actually tried a SB trans in a FE, and how many are just passing on "old wives tales". I have a small block 1 1/16" wide ratio Toploader (originally from a 66 Fairlane 289, according to the ID info on the Dave Kee site), behind a early 60s car bellhousing, which is bolted to a 428 CJ. After hearing all the warnings about the input tip bottoming out in the crank, I bolted the bellhousing to the assembled 428, with no clutch or flywheel, and found that the splined section of the input cleared the pilot bushing by a comfortable amount, and after measuring the distance between the back of the pilot bushing, to the transmission surface , and comparing to the end of the input to the front of the trans case, discovered  about 1/2" of room between the input tip to the bottom of the cranks rear bore. Also, I just measured 3 different small block inputs (Toploader, Jerico, and a T5), all the tips averaged about 1.16" from the end of the splines. I also measured the rear crank bore of one of my 1UB 428 cranks, , there was just over 3/4" of depth below the pilot bushing step. And when I stuck a SB input into the crank bore, with no pilot bushing, it was obvious that the larger, splined section would contact the back of the pilot bushing , before the tip was even close to bottoming in the crank. That said, maybe Ford had some different depth car bellhousings, or maybe some FE cranks have a shallower rear bore than others, but in my case, the un touched small block input fit with plenty of clearance. And for the record, I have over 500 "shakedown" miles on my 59 now, and engine, trans, and clutch are all doing fine. As for the engine, I`m cheap, so I tend to use what I have laying around, and I can`t imagine selling a good 428 block,that I already have ,in order to use a 390 block instead. Also I don`t necessarily build an engine to a HP number, rather I decide what I want to engine to do, and select the parts accordingly. Too many guys read too many car books, and end up with too many expensive parts in an engine, in order to "hit" a HP number, and end up with a combination that lacks the driveability they were hoping for, and if they ever do take the car to the track, often performs well below their expectations. If your main goal is to wave a dyno sheet around, rather than have a comfortable driver, or a strong runner at the track, because of mismatched parts, thats different than how I look at it.

There are a page full of SBF Toploader variants, and aftermarket input shafts that have been around since who knows when and swapped back when these were a dime a dozen.  If you are wondering about my experience, I have likely stabbed as many trannies as anyone.  However, the only SBF Toploader into an FE I did, measured exactly the same length as depth and I decided to knock a bit off the tip.  I did do a SBF TKO (pre-500/600, completely different animal) but it took both spline and overall length cut, and it was a truck bell to boot.   

The difference between you and the others (and me too) is you check, and you measured more than you needed to by a WIDE extent.  Measuring needs to be done here regardless.  If that is going be a debate, then we are all just being grumpy

I too would go with the 428 block, unless somehow you could end up with a better TFS 445 by selling the 428.  I could see that if the 428 had some core shift issues or if it was a CJ block that could bring some good money

I will say, this is where a HP request gets everyone shooting all around each other on how to do it better, it always comes down to what does the owner want the car to do less than the HP.  Like the 400 hp 390 in another post, there are 50 ways to Sunday to get there, but they will all behave differently.  Luckily, Bruce is open to ideas, and I do think the next step after this should be monoleafs and Caltracs, another easy way to get power to the ground.

[410bruce]

Thank you, Ross. I am very open to ideas.

i would like to apologize if this thread has caused any strife or an argumentative spirit among the FE brethren. It most certainly was not my intention.

I appreciate everyones input here.

[My427stang]

Thank you, Ross. I am very open to ideas.

i would like to apologize if this thread has caused any strife or an argumentative spirit among the FE brethren. It most certainly was not my intention.

I appreciate everyones input here.

It's not, Rory is a sharp guy, you got it right as brethren...brothers wrestle. 

[67xr7cat]

Don't think I am against 428 blocks. Just not everyone has a few laying around and seems everyone is asking $2k and up anymore for one and not talking good date codes either.

[410bruce]

Placed an order with Brent. Pistons, rings--and heads. 

Had purchased a fairly mild custom hydraulic flat tappet cam and lifters from him earlier for the 410 and according to him, my goal should be met with this cam/head combo. 

[My427stang]

Good decision, should be strong