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

[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.