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

[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