Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Finmach

  1. Seriously, based on what knowledge? You must have scaled and owned many 429/460 engines? By saying that a 351w weights 225 lbs to 245 lbs? – that surely is hard to beat since I've seen ready to run 460 big block to peak 530 lbs with 0,080" overbore. On www.460ford.com forum a 545 cid was scaled to 576 lbs (4.500" crank adds up weight). Aftermarket blocks like A460 can loose app. 50 lbs only by going to 4.600" bore - long cylinders (to accomodate 4.500-4.750 stroke) and plenty of meat to bore from. So how much weights your 302 with supercharger, I would like to educate myself and I am hoping to hear the true weight and instead of assumption but a scaled firsthand information about the SC 302 weight. BTW, I calculated the MPG wrong from the 429 Galaxie I mentioned earlier, it’s actually the same as Mesozoic’s 22 mpg (needed to search a convertor...) but instead of a carb it was ol school Holley Commander – ’61 Gal is heavy girl though. My Mach 1 made 19 mpg with a 580 hp n/a 460 cid and the tour included two 125 mph blasts on fourth gear and few smoky lift-offs… It’s about the tune and the overdrive gears to bring the rpm down to get good mpg. What comes for the engine choice, it’s something that man got to do what man got to do. You’ll be happy with any of the engines once it’s done correctly. One thing that you should really think about… make a plan, stick to the plan, stick to the plan, stick to the plan. I don’t know anybody who would have managed to stick to the plan though… --------- edit: corrected the 545 cid weight to 576 lbs.
  2. First Clevelands came in 1970 and the big teams started to use Clevelands in Nascar as late as 1972? Now why would Ford manufacture tons of nascar engines just to start using them not until 1972? I'll believe that Ford made nice affordable hiperf passenger engine for between the big engines and the smaller ones. Bringing a competitor for chebby 350 cid - which Ford did and did with style. 351c is beautifull engine to look at, chebby looks next to Cleveland as scrappy as it is.
  3. I've got to correct my previous statements, when you want a big power 800-1000 hp, then your springpressures starts to grow, like 300 lbs of seat pressure and 800 lbs of open pressure - then you're imo on high side. But for 520 cid with 500-600 hp, you are still running soft springs imo - so no worry about the spring pressures at that level. Big engine, good heads, and relatively mild hydraulic roller you can make pretty good hp numbers. But for 500 hp you don't need exotic cam or even ported heads. Heck, I was running std. bore std. stroke 460 cid and the engine produced (before the head porting) +580 hp and +560 lbs of torque with hydraulic flat tappet. You can use the ready to run EFI kits from FAST, Holley or what ever you want, they'll support from 500-600 hp level easily. Friend of mine has cammed out and ported head 429 (4.360" bore and 3.590" stroke), it made around 450 hp, pulled the 4600 lbs Galaxie like grazy and it made 16.8 MPG with four speed Toploader on highway. That was 1970 thunderjet passenger engine with 11:0 compression ratio with Holley EFI Commander system with the 900 cfm throttle body. IF there's a power and if the power is used, then it needs gasoline. Power doesn't come for free, 500 hp 302 needs basically the same fuel as does the 500 hp 429 when the power is used. I know you've been thinking of supercharging the engine, thats a good point, but brings weight in front and high - not a good thing, thats exactly againts the idea of getting rid of the weight with with al.headed 351w. When the weight moves from the middle of the front axle towards the front, it makes the driveability even worst. I would more likely to increase the weight rather than pushing the weight forward. Aluminium headed sbf is naturally lighter than al. headed bbf. But the aluminium headed bb is lighter than stock iron head/intake 351c 4V for example. Now this is the case, so how light engine do you want? Are going to make it a racecar or street car? I've had both versions of '72 Mach 1. 1) 351c 4V with auto and 2) 460cid with manual. I am not looking back to 351c 4V eventhough it was a nice engine. Driveability changed for sure - I just didn't noticed it, maybe my memory makes some tricks... There was so little extra weight of 133 lbs that occured, new 460 cid was pretty close to the 351c weight there was, but the extra weight went for the frame connectors & cross bars, new 3 1/2" exhaust with (1/12" wall), heavy rear leafs, Caltracs etc. If this would have been a track car I would have noticed the diffrence probably in the corner carving but otherwise not plus the frame got stiffer. Afterall it's the combination that counts. You can get a nice package with stroked w/c/385, anyway you chooce, you can ruin a perfectly good engine with a wrong convertor and with wrong rear gears.
  4. Xoliex, good decision! I would have done the same. I know, you know it, you won't settle on 800 hp with the juice, you can now tell your wife how much you just saved money!!! ;) Just think why I wanted a TKO600... just for the same reasons as you did - though I would stay under 600hp, it's sweet ride, 2000 rpm at 60 mph. Plus the testosterone shot when shifting the beast. It's not the easyest thing when hammering on the quarter - you'll need to drive it's stolen - no mercy at all. For dragstip action an automatic would be much more constant and it's bunch cheaper to built to handle big power and it's easy to cruise down the street. Heck, even I might change from manual to automatic, maybe when I retire some day... :D
  5. My 1972 Mach 1. All original 351c4V, FMX, 9" 28 splines with 15x7 magnums, all steel, only exeption was aluminium intakemanifold and headers compared to the original. Scale showed (1620 kg) 3571 lbs with unknown amount of fuel at the tank. Same car with 460cid with alum. heads/intake waterpump, TKO600, scattershield etc. With added weight from caltracs systems, grab-a-trac 4 1/2 rearleafs, frame connectors & cross bars and 3 1/2" exhaust from the collectors to the rear valance (with 1/12" wall thickness) and a tool case (15 lbs) = shake down run... With all that added weight the same scale showed (1680 kg) 3704 lbs. Friend of mine had a bonestock 1971 Mach 1 with folding rear seat, it was only changed an iron headed 460 cid with alum.intake, C6, otherwise stock, scale showed (1650 kg) 3638 lbs. Now it's missing interior, front bumber, shorter exhaust and scale showed (1512 kg) 3333 lbs with iron headed 460 + C6. All steel.
  6. Either way you'll be happy but only difference that really marks something is that the bbf is cheaper to built and it's gotta whole bunch of room for growth. Like going 800 hp with stock '80ies 2-bolt block which seems to be dirt cheap at your neck of the woods. Geez, but you guys there in the US start to sound like European 4 banger guys telling how good Volkswagen 2.0 liter is. ::huh:::
  7. If I would be you Xoliex, I would consider by going with the hardened input shaft. If your engine is now in 650 ft-lbs range with some help of a juice your torque will definitely break the 800 lb-ft, probably closer to 900 lb-ft. The torque increase with the nitrous is usually bigger than the hp that you're making with the juice. Every engine reacts of course in it's own way, but with your size / hp engine it usually goes like 150 hp nitrous makes 200 lb-ft of torque. My friends 532 cid Ford was dynoed a month ago, it boosted the torque from n/a 638 ft-lbs to 939 ft-lbs with 250 shot of nitrous oxide so the increase was 301 ft-lbs with 250 NOS. When you got the small shot of nitrous, you usually want a bigger shot of nitrous for the next time ;) You'll be happy with the Victor Jr intake, it'll boost the higher rpm and it looks better than the Torker II :) For the tranny, I would built as good C6 that I can afford because you know the thrill... soon you're planning to hit the 1000 hp, so go big now and you'll be saving money in the future. My 2 cents.
  8. I've got the MPG head 71 version with montecarlo bar - looks bitching, quick to take off - chooce the quick release pins version. Very quick and handy to use even at the racetrack, makes the popping the valvecovers off an easy task. I woudn't ever change back to the OEM braces.
  9. You're correct, the newer Dominator secondary linkage has been removed from the center of the barrels. Your Dominator has the linkage in the center so it's wise to run with the plate. It can get costly when a nut drops to cylinder. If you run in to problems with the cleanrence, there are nice dropbase aircleaner for Dominator. Not elcheapos but easyer to get than start to modify your existing hood. http://www.racingjunk.com/Drag-Racing/2152321/Dominator-drop-bases-2.html Good looking car you've got!!
  10. Xoliex, tall valvecovers are good covers. I am in the progress of getting a Jomar Studgirdle. I'll install it during the winter and I'll want to use the Blue Thunder competition covers. I'll take pictures from the installation and from the possible modifications for the girdle or for the covers and I'll report here the results. Either way the covers will clear the MC. You can use the Boss 429 MC spacer to give you even more space if needed - it'll change the angle of the MC = points it away from the valvecover. Mustangsunlimited part number ER12 01, costs 185 bucks though... Whoa IMF05! Thats a Dominator!!! Nice. Is that a tapered spacer or just a "heat shield"? Check out, what I've been playing around :D I'll modify my current intake for the 4500 flange. I will made the vacuum ports similar as now, I'll be running 1" Jomar powercone tapered spacer and underneath that a alumium 1" open spacer. I'll make the vacuumports to the alumium spacer to keep my intake untouched.
  11. Centrifugal blower can be done for Ford 460 cid. Wanna go "cheap" - get a used BBC brackectry - it's close, you’ll need to do some modifications but nothing compared to brain surgery. Or you can pick up the easy way: Call Kyle at: http://www.neweraracecraft.com/ Or contact Steve: http://www.stevemorrisengines.com/ They both can make you a bracketry for your specific needs, they can do them for Procharger like F1R, F2 which both should full fill your needs big time. Steve Morris has done BBF earlier, so I could bet my money on him or for the Kyle, I believe they have some kind of co-operation going on. Either way you decide to go, there's plenty of ways doing it. Allways remember that the bigger the engine the more it needs from the cam. I like the idea of supercharging the engine since it's gonna be much easyer for the valvetrain - no need for huge valvespring pressures due to you can go milder cam just as you said. If you are looking for the cool factor, then go with Roots style blower. With blower you don't need to add "procharger" "vortech" or "supercharged" decals or stickers because everybody can see the blower coming out of the roof!!! They can be done also with efi. A friend of mine living in CA is building his Roots blower engine with 16 fuel injectors. 8 for cruising speeds plus 8 when hammering the pedal, nice ECU and good mpg if that matters. ------- edit: Turbo's are cheap way to go. Plumming & pipeing is doable but try to make them fit for '71 Mustang - not an easy task. Steve Ayesh built his '71 Mach with twin turbos with BBF. Car had Mustang II style front to make room, plus the radiator is located rear underneath of the vehicle. Tricky piece and scary fast. One thing that I hate in Turbo's are the plumming for exhaust gases and the turbo itself since they generate heat - big time. You can live with that but the compartment gets hot. At the moment I would go personally with the Whipplecharger big huffer with EFI. You could use std. 6/71 - 8/71 intakemanifold, get the Charger with EFI = low profile and very efficient. They are also equipped with by-pass valve for the low rpm = idle, so the supercharger doesn't boost like a grazy when idleing = better mpg and easier for the parts.
  12. I would go for a higher lift cam for the big block. Cobra Jet heads will support higher lifts. Big inches will tame the cam for sure, I would go even something like this: Howards, Hydraulic Roller Camshaft, Ford BB 429-460 243655-10 Ford BB 429-460 1968-1995 Advertised Duration: 300/300 Duration @ .050": 247/247 Valve Lift w/1.73 Rockers: .623/.623 Lobe Separation Angle: 110 Intake Centerline: 106 Valve Lash: Hyd./Hyd. 3000-6800. Lopey idle, street/strip, good mid range horsepower. Best with 3500+ stall. or with the bigger one: Howards, Hydraulic Roller Camshaft, Ford BB 429-460 243545-10 Ford BB 429-460 1968-1995 Advertised Duration: 302/308 Duration @ .050": 249/255 Valve Lift w/1.73 Rockers: .652/.652 Lobe Separation Angle: 110 Intake Centerline: 106 Valve Lash: Hyd./Hyd. 3200-7000. Rough idle, hot street/bracket, good torque & upper mid range. 11.5:1+, 3800+ stall. Take minimum of 500 rpm off the max rpm are you're close to the true rpm area. Big inches will tame these beast's out. One very good possibility is to use some good reputable engine builder to spec you custom camshaft for your exact needs. What comes for the same degree & lift cams sbf vs. bbf, I would say as the Tommy does, but o dyno won't nessecary notice the diffrence. You can though notice it too, since the head layout = wedge and bigger borespacing can give advantage.
  13. What happens if you turn it clock wise. If done that several time? No pump pressure. No damage is done. Just change the rotation to counter clockwise and you can hear the lifters filling with the oil and they'll move the rockers and thats what you can hear - allways a nice sound. If you have the valvecovers open you can see the oil pour from the rockers.
  14. How about having some Ford oriented camguy to have make custom camshaft for the engine. Somebody who knows the Cleveland 4V pros and cons. If it would be my engine, I might spend the few extra bucks and get the custom cam. Longer stroke will help the engine to breath for sure, but I could imagine having some extra overlap to get the best out of the big intake runners. Just a thought.
  15. I've got Hooker Supercomps 2 1/8" primaries with 3 1/2" collectors and 3 1/2" exhaust from the collectors via X-pipe and through the gravelshield. They do their job, but I am not big fan of the headers when they go under the lower control arms as this ones does. I would try Ford Power Train Applications tri-y shorties for 429/460. My friends 514 cid Mustang has them, no complains and huge ground clearence. http://www.fordpowertrain.com/FPAindex/Mustang1.htm Remember that the 1 7/8" primaries headers can support plenty of hp. Take a look at this chart if you haven't visited www.460ford.com pages earlyer: http://www.460ford.com/forum/showthread.php?t=119213 Anyway, good luck with your 460 project. One of the big reasons why I am not owning and driving a '69 Mustang SR/Mach1 is due to it was planned for FE and '71-'73 was made wide enough to accommodate the 429 (even the boss 429). I wanted a Mustang that I don't have to chop the shock towers in the first place to make room for the 429/460 cid engine. Now years later I would gladly get rid of the shock towers but I am still glad that I ended up with the big pony. :)
  16. Best possible place to find out how much is that current cross ram FE worth is here: The FE-forum. http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/ There are 99 % of the big FE guns of the world registered and reading the forum.
  17. Mustangs & Fords July 1997, Readers' Roundup. Alan and Judy Shaw of Lake Havasu City AZ, 427 SOHC under bonnet of '71 Mach 1. This was the first time I ever did laid my eyes on '71-'73 Mach 1, it only needed an correct engine to got my attention. 427 SOHC goes there bolt-on as Boss 429.
  18. 1) headers, get the Ford Power Train tri-y headers, as mentioned in the above posts it gives you incredible ground clearence. 2) depends from the number 5 also, but with 2.75-3.00 gears you don’t want 3500 stall speed, because the engine doesn’t achieve 3500 rpm very often if unless you’re speeding 100 mph. Under that it'll boil the transmission oils. Probably I would keep in your situtiation a stock convertor or maybe tad higher rpm stall. 3) your current C4 is with sbf bellhousing. If you want to stick with the C4 then look for C4 from 351M, 400 C since they share the 429/460 pattern & bellhousing. 4) the frame mounts and the engine mounts are different, Auron took a picture few weeks ago from a three different frame mounts. I did used stock 351c frame mounts and with 429/460 engine mounts successfully. 5) 3.00 gears should work in your application. Are you sure you have 8.8 rear? Can you have 2.75 gears for 8.8 rear? My engine revs 2000 rpm on 60 mph and it just rolls over the hills, it’s the torque that moves the body. If you’re car would be a 351c 4V with OEM A/C you would already have a 429 front coils, but I agree with the guys, you’ll need different coils. I had a 620 lbs -1” lowering coils, they felt little bit of hard, now I have ’68 390 GT Mustang front coils made for 3400 lbs weight vehicle with 386 lbs of rating. It was little bit of nose high but now the coils are sagging just enough to make it look like factory original PLUS they work good.
  19. There are few things to think about. I used the std. small block engine mounts and OEM 429 CJ brackets to mount my 460 cid. With std. powerbrake MC I was able to use unmodified Tall Ford Racing valvecovers. With stock MC the brake lines are on the drivers side, no they won't interfere the valvecovers. I have now discs in all four corners and I bought Wilwood MC with plastic reservoir. I received the MC and wham, its nearly 1” wider than the stock MC – wouldn’t fit. That’s why I bought the Blue Thunder Auto Competition style valvecovers to make extra clearance. I had a spare 12 PSI residual pressure valve which I decided to try with the stock MC, I placed the residual valve to rear brake line and it worked like a charm. Wilwood has also a aluminum reservoir MC and as far as I am considered it’s narrower than the plastic reservoir version but not sure how it compares to stock MC. If you’re going to get a full set of brakes from Wilwood then ask which one of their MC’s is the correct version for your calipers, they know and they’re happy to sell you one! Probably the biggest difference is in the brakebooster vacuum line and that is that I don’t use the carb vacuum port but instead I made a vacuum port to the intake spacer. Carb’s vacuum port has a tiny hole which goes under the carb, it makes lousy vacuum with bigger cam like I do. Now with the residual valve and the direct intake vacuum from the spacer I’ve got the first time a true brakes on my car. Now it boosts. If you’re going to get the Wilwood MC and it does not fit, then sell the Ford Racing covers and get the Blue Thunder Auto’s covers, it takes $330.00US but it’s the second best thing for your Mach 1 (after the big block ;) ). The space is amazing, spark plug change is a breeze now, I won’t ever change back if unless I’ll get stud girdle some day and they won’t go under the BT covers.
  20. Painted the front fiberglass bumper - PITA, you just love the fiberglass dust don't you. On week end the temp gauge started to show rock steady 260 F. I just tested the electric water temp gauge manufactured by Splitfire, bad gauge, sender works, gauge is dead. First thing to do in the morning is to get a Autometer Sport Comps three in a row, water temp, oil pressure, voltmeter... mut#¤%#¤, still few days & nights before Saturdays Ford Natinals - going to break the 11s barrier on 1/4 mile and looking for +120 mph trapspeeds.
  21. Lake, finally you made it for the '71-'73 Forum. I've been waiting more Finnish dudes to join in, but anyway welcome!!! This guy was going to give his Mustang a 472 cid with one BIG as it gets turbo - too bad he got scared... :D I am pretty convinced that the smallish modular will receive some pressurised air to feed the cylinders?? Good to have you here! Regards, Jari
  22. Lots of good suggestiong where to start with. I would also chance the coil location since you're boiling the coil. Simply bolt it off and bolt it vertical postition to the end of the head away from the engine's top. You can use the same bolt to attach the coil bracket to one of the four boltholes in the end of the head and 99 % of cases you can use your existing coil wires. My 900 miles driven MSD made coild buked the oils out, so there's no quarantie for any chinese crap to work even when new. Good to hear your project going forward and closer for the shakedown runs!!
  23. Good picture!!!! This is new information for me that the BB mounts sets the BB higher than the SBF. Can you take measurements from the bottom to the center of the hole where from the bolt secures the engine mount to the bracket, would be interesting to know.
  24. I’ll go 100 % with you but I disagree from the weight issue between the 429 to FE. We’re talking from 20-40 lbs of difference depending from the application & used parts – been there weighted them. Ofcourse the two enginefamilys FE and 385-series interchange nothing, if you forgot the oilfilter, carb and aircleaner…  Othwerwise I am saying that go for it, you’ll be surprised by the torque the 390 creates. They’re often stroked to 432 cid with success. Here’s few links for a 432 cid stroked 390 FE burnout… check it out, close to 500hp on crank. Edsel was flying to low 13s on ¼ mile and it is nearly concours restored besides the engine, tranny, rear end with caltracs and the 17" cragars. part 1. part 2. I’ll try dig out an ol Popular Hot Rodding or Mustangs & Fords, there was an ’71 Mach 1 with 427 Cammer years ago. If I am able to find it I'll scan it out for you. FE engines are more expensive to build than the 429/460 series for hiperformance usage, but if you can get barely broked in 390 FE with bargain price even I would buy it and use in someday if I would have a proper body for it. There's an awfully good FE-forum. There are the top dogs of the FE-world writing articles and stuff. A must forum for all FE-guys. Yep, its on old platform, old dogs cannot learn new tricks... :) http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182/ ---------- edit: here's a better vid from the Edsel burnout (better quality):
  • Create New...