460 Ford Horsepower and Torque Ratings [Archive] - 460 Ford Forum

: 460 Ford Horsepower and Torque Ratings


jamesandrewjohnson
01-10-2012, 11:15 AM
Alright, I've been wondering for a long time what the factory 429s/460s put out, because I've heard everything from 100-500 hp, and I would really like to see an actual factory rating. Maybe an old brochure, something out of a reliable book, etc. I just need solid, reliable facts on the factory ratings.

CarsByCarl
01-10-2012, 01:40 PM
I've got some old factory manuals that state 210hp on the mid 70's engines. Used to have brocures for a 68 Lincoln (when I owned one) that showed 365hp.

Those are pretty much the splits for the vast majority of factory engines pre and post smog. CJ, SCJ and Boss were of course different.

MCrowson
01-11-2012, 01:53 AM
i had a 96 F250 w/460 and the rating on it was 235hp and like 380lb tq. The BOSS stangs were 370hp i think but i bet they made a bit more

Brad Johnson
01-11-2012, 10:46 AM
A big chunk of the discrepancy happened when they went from straight flywheel HP ratings to SAE net in the early 70s. That, plus the smoggification of engines from the same era made HP ratings plunge in the span of a single year.

Brad

Redhawk
01-11-2012, 03:28 PM
I often wondered if factory ratings were crankshaft, or rear wheel HP#'s. Does anyone know for sure?

429TORQ
01-11-2012, 04:19 PM
I often wondered if factory ratings were crankshaft, or rear wheel HP#'s. Does anyone know for sure?

SAE Net(72'-up) is supposed to be measured at the back of the transmission with all accessories installed and running. Gross(71'-prior) is more like a typical dyno run. right at the back of the crankshaft.

stonecoldtx
01-12-2012, 06:03 AM
SAE Net(72'-up) is supposed to be measured at the back of the transmission with all accessories installed and running. Gross(71'-prior) is more like a typical dyno run. right at the back of the crankshaft.

Actually, Net HP is measured at the crankshaft, just like gross HP.

Here is a good definition of the differences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_gross_power

The Mad Porter
01-12-2012, 11:18 AM
Actually, Net HP is measured at the crankshaft, just like gross HP.

Here is a good definition of the differences:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_gross_power

It specifically states as a footnote in the 72 and up HP ratings in chilton and motor's manuals that the ford HP specs are "as measured at the end of the trans with all accessories installed".

:D

BOSS 429
01-12-2012, 01:16 PM
It specifically states as a footnote in the 72 and up HP ratings in chilton and motor's manuals that the ford HP specs are "as measured at the end of the trans with all accessories installed".

:D

correct till sep 71 all were at flywheel, then from sep71 it was taken from tailshaft,all acc installed,and RUNNING

TorinoStyle2
01-12-2012, 02:23 PM
68-71 429 4V=360HP
69-70 429 Boss=375HP
70-71 429 CJ=370HP
70-71 429 SCJ=375HP
68-71 460 4V=365HP
1972 460 4V=245HP
73-78 460 4V=212HP

76ford466
01-12-2012, 06:11 PM
I ahve a factory ford manual for 78 trucks i dont remember exactly the ratings but some big blocks im thinking the 400 was like 180hp, pitful compared to todays standards I just wonder what a completly new designed big block 460ish cid engine with todays technology could produce in hp and torque. The new coyote ford engine has some awsome hp per ccubic inch ratio

MauriSSSio
01-12-2012, 07:51 PM
I ahve a factory ford manual for 78 trucks i dont remember exactly the ratings but some big blocks im thinking the 400 was like 180hp, pitful compared to todays standards I just wonder what a completly new designed big block 460ish cid engine with todays technology could produce in hp and torque. The new coyote ford engine has some awsome hp per ccubic inch ratio

the new 5.0 is a beast. with just boltons those things are making in the area of 450+HP at the wheels! (RWHP). cammed 5.0's are near the 500rwhp mark. very impressive, and they make excellent torque as well. If i had a chance to do it all over again id probably opt for a new 5.0 over my 532 stroker!

Brad Johnson
01-13-2012, 12:29 PM
the new 5.0 is a beast. with just boltons those things are making in the area of 450+HP at the wheels! (RWHP). cammed 5.0's are near the 500rwhp mark. very impressive, and they make excellent torque as well. If i had a chance to do it all over again id probably opt for a new 5.0 over my 532 stroker!

They make tons of HP but you have to spin them pretty tight to get it. The idle-to-3500 torque curves aren't much to write home about, though. A stroker, even a wimpy one, will smoke the 5.0 in terms of off-idle grunt.

As with everything hot rod, all depends on what's best suited to your application.

Brad

MauriSSSio
01-13-2012, 08:02 PM
They make tons of HP but you have to spin them pretty tight to get it. The idle-to-3500 torque curves aren't much to write home about, though. A stroker, even a wimpy one, will smoke the 5.0 in terms of off-idle grunt.

As with everything hot rod, all depends on what's best suited to your application.

Brad

they have excellent street manners. They might not have the same tq as our big blocks but still manage to put over 350rwtq at 3500rpm which isnt bad at all and you dont even have to spin them that high to get that power. Also, gearing is your friend, let it multiply that tq if you want more!! Its truly a superior engine for a street/strip car. I still like the BBF strictly for racing though, but times have definately changed!

so67vw
01-13-2012, 08:59 PM
All I know is with some attention they pull hard... HP is nice and numbers can look good on paper but yank'n a crew cab dually around like a rag doll is enough for me...

MauriSSSio
01-13-2012, 09:12 PM
All I know is with some attention they pull hard... HP is nice and numbers can look good on paper but yank'n a crew cab dually around like a rag doll is enough for me...

Yeah, I understand a big truck or supersized car would benefit from these big blocks,especially a crew cab dually but the numbers the 5.0guys are running with minimal mods in their 3600lbs (w/out driver) mustangs is impressive.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using AutoGuide.Com Free

76ford466
01-14-2012, 08:13 PM
What if someone put a reluctor wheel on a bbf and used coil packs to light it forgive me but maybe even ls coils, and modern style fuel injection. Such as maybe Big Stuff unit. Roller valve train and good alumium heads like P-51 or close. Yes it would be really expensive but im sure there would be incredible gains in fuel millage in a street machine and throttle response. Seems like I remember a guy maybe turbo2256b that was talking of and engine that was built similar to that. Anyone know how many are out there roaming the streets similar to this?

429TORQ
01-14-2012, 09:10 PM
It is difficult to compare an old 385 series based engine to a newer Coyote family engine. The big block has more torque of course, it's bigger. Newer engines like the 5.0 have much better combustion chambers and are way more efficient and powerful, dollar for dollar. Ford is really making awesome engines these days!

jamesandrewjohnson
01-15-2012, 10:44 PM
It is difficult to compare an old 385 series based engine to a newer Coyote family engine. The big block has more torque of course, it's bigger. Newer engines like the 5.0 have much better combustion chambers and are way more efficient and powerful, dollar for dollar. Ford is really making awesome engines these days!

:confused:Dollar for dollar? The 412 hp 5.0 crate engine (same engine as comes in the Mustang) costs $7,000... my dad's whole 460 powered 3/4 ton van cost us $400. And for $7,000, you better be far north of 412 hp.

429TORQ
01-16-2012, 02:39 AM
Forget I said anything, buddy.

turbo2256b
01-16-2012, 10:01 AM
What if someone put a reluctor wheel on a bbf and used coil packs to light it forgive me but maybe even ls coils, and modern style fuel injection. Such as maybe Big Stuff unit. Roller valve train and good alumium heads like P-51 or close. Yes it would be really expensive but im sure there would be incredible gains in fuel millage in a street machine and throttle response. Seems like I remember a guy maybe turbo2256b that was talking of and engine that was built similar to that. Anyone know how many are out there roaming the streets similar to this?

I was involved in an attempt to save the 460 in lew of the V10 and beat it in all aspects. It was politicly incorrect though.

I am about to go distributorless (DIS). For the same reason all the auto companys have. Increased spark duration. The comonly used HP ignition systems in use today with thier hybred coil windings have plenty of juice dont have squat for duration. The coil just dosent have enough time between firing and building up for the next firing.
The coil pack DIS set up allows firing of a cylinder on the exhaust stroke helping to reduce emissions.
In summery more efficent burning of the fuel because of a longer spark, more complete burning increasing power, economy and emissions. Firing in the exhaust stroke helps to burn off any residual fuel left after combustion an emissions improvement.

Will be installing DIS on my 302 with dual quads for one other reason than above. I have had troubles with water in my cap which has left me stranded swapping caps in cold rain on bridges on highways once under a bridge without a spaire for 3 days. DIS is a lot less prone to weather conditions. The system will also have a 1 barr map sensor to act like a vacuum advance but more controlable than a mechanical one.

Brad Johnson
01-16-2012, 10:53 AM
And for $7,000, you better be far north of 412 hp.

Might want to rethink that throwdown. Torq could have easily blown you out of the water on your challenge, yet he opted to be the gentleman and walk away. You really should examine what your dollar can get you from an SCJ-headed stroker. They can be wrenched together for about, oh, $7000 and will make your 412 HP challenge... on five cylinders.

Brad

krainium
01-16-2012, 02:06 PM
Might want to rethink that throwdown. Torq could have easily blown you out of the water on your challenge, yet he opted to be the gentleman and walk away. You really should examine what your dollar can get you from an SCJ-headed stroker. They can be wrenched together for about, oh, $7000 and will make your 412 HP challenge... on five cylinders.

Brad
I think you may have misunderstood what jamesandrewjohnson was saying. To me he I read it as $7000 for 412hp was alot money for the horsepower and you better be far north of 412hp with the 5.0 motor if you want to be further ahead dollar for dollar.

turbo2256b
01-16-2012, 02:26 PM
Seems I ran one of those new 5.0s with my 302 powered 87 Grand Marquis that weighs in at 4000 lbs. Left it in drive (shifts about 4800 if lucky) he didnt catch me untill untill he hit third. Wonder what would have happend if I held the shift point to 7200 were the shift lite is set plus had my 3.90 gears in instead of the 3.27s. :eek: his face as he passed gave me a thumbs up too.

429TORQ
01-16-2012, 05:52 PM
Seems I ran one of those new 5.0s with my 302 powered 87 Grand Marquis that weighs in at 4000 lbs. Left it in drive (shifts about 4800 if lucky) he didnt catch me untill untill he hit third. Wonder what would have happend if I held the shift point to 7200 were the shift lite is set plus had my 3.90 gears in instead of the 3.27s. :eek: his face as he passed gave me a thumbs up too.

Seems like but most likely NOT unless the guy could not drive. lol I usually saw people off at the tree too.:D

MauriSSSio
01-16-2012, 08:11 PM
Seems like but most likely NOT unless the guy could not drive. lol I usually saw people off at the tree too.:D

i agree.

my combo made a lil over 500rwhp (512rwhp but 14.4fr at the time) and thats with a 260/269 solid roller cam/TFS Street heads/1150 Dominator carb/533 stroker kit/Victor Intake manifold among other mods and in the end lets just say that parts and labor added up close to $8000 maybe more.

a new 5.0 puts down 450rwhp (and 120ish mph traps @ 3600lbs + driver) with just bolt ons and gives you the reliability and peace of mind (not to mention mileagae) to drive the car accross the country without breaking a sweat.

For all out n/a racing the BBF is still a great choice but for a driver that sees a ton of miles the new 5.0 looks to be a great choice.

The Mad Porter
01-16-2012, 08:25 PM
i agree.

my combo made a lil over 500rwhp (512rwhp but 14.4fr at the time) and thats with a 260/269 solid roller cam/TFS Street heads/1150 Dominator carb/533 stroker kit/Victor Intake manifold among other mods and in the end lets just say that parts and labor added up close to $8000 maybe more.

a new 5.0 puts down 450rwhp (and 120ish mph traps @ 3600lbs + driver) with just bolt ons and gives you the reliability and peace of mind (not to mention mileagae) to drive the car accross the country without breaking a sweat.

For all out n/a racing the BBF is still a great choice but for a driver that sees a ton of miles the new 5.0 looks to be a great choice.

A new 5.0 GT puts down in the neighborhood of 385 RWHP with a conservative flywheel rating of what 412 HP.

I am certain your lean AF hurt power...


:D

turbo2256b
01-16-2012, 11:23 PM
Think about this the new 5.0 I was told flowed 300 CFM by one of the engineers. Sounds good untill one knows Ford flows at 68" convert that to 28" and it translates to 192 CFM and thats at the port the intake is going to step on that. Pushrod 302s from the factory never had that.
Lets take a peek at my engine heads ported DOOE flow 235 @ 28" intake bolted to head flow 212 CFM. 18+ MPG in current rough tune geared wrong. Lets look at the torq the push rod 302s seem to have always put out more torq particulary at low RPM. Part of that is the port design (no valve pocket). Told one of thier engineers to fix an issue with a valve geomety I was investagating (fix was to sink the valve .5 mm) that there would be possibly a 30 to 40 HP loss. He did it and ran it on a dyno. He came back to my desk and told me I was right. That dosent happen with a proper poppet valve pocket. The new 5.0 do put out a bit more low end than before but that has a lot to do with the Cam-A-GoGo set up so the cams could be advanced "and" retarded.

MauriSSSio
01-17-2012, 12:01 AM
...I am certain your lean AF hurt power...


:D

you might be right on that, i made 496rwhp @14.8 on my first pull and upped the jets 2 sizes and made 512rwhp @ 14.4afr. now that i got it in the low 13's im sure its better. its fun to drive every now and then, but if i had a choice for a real driver, the 5.0 would definately get serious consideration from me. the numbers they put down and the numbers they run at the track are impressive.

TorinoStyle2
01-17-2012, 12:25 AM
Ha!!..if Ford is claiming 412 HP, and they are getting 385-400HP at the wheels, then it sounds like they are playing the 'lower horsepower on purpose' bit that they did in the 60's!!

jamesandrewjohnson
01-18-2012, 12:19 PM
Might want to rethink that throwdown. Torq could have easily blown you out of the water on your challenge, yet he opted to be the gentleman and walk away. You really should examine what your dollar can get you from an SCJ-headed stroker. They can be wrenched together for about, oh, $7000 and will make your 412 HP challenge... on five cylinders.

Brad
That's exactly my point. I'm saying that $7,000 is too much money to be spending for only 412 HP. That'll be just enough to get you a 5.0L Modular, what I was saying is that building a 460, $7,000 should get you more. Sorry, I must not have been clear enough.

Seems I ran one of those new 5.0s with my 302 powered 87 Grand Marquis that weighs in at 4000 lbs. Left it in drive (shifts about 4800 if lucky) he didnt catch me untill untill he hit third. Wonder what would have happend if I held the shift point to 7200 were the shift lite is set plus had my 3.90 gears in instead of the 3.27s. :eek: his face as he passed gave me a thumbs up too.
I don't find that story too hard to believe. Sometimes I drive my dad's '86 5.0 Grand Marquis, it really moves for such a big car. I'm always trying to convince him to drop a 460 in it, though.:D

Brad Johnson
01-18-2012, 01:05 PM
That's exactly my point. I'm saying that $7,000 is too much money to be spending for only 412 HP. That'll be just enough to get you a 5.0L Modular, what I was saying is that building a 460, $7,000 should get you more. Sorry, I must not have been clear enough.

Oh, okay. Then we are in full agreement.

Brad

Dman64
07-02-2012, 11:42 PM
68-71 429 4V=360HP
69-70 429 Boss=375HP
70-71 429 CJ=370HP
70-71 429 SCJ=375HP
68-71 460 4V=365HP
1972 460 4V=245HP
73-78 460 4V=212HP

I dyno'd my truck last year and the engine was fairly stock had a performer intake with Eddie 750 and hedman hedders and it is from a 73 Lincoln but has fuelie pistons .030 over and she did 212HP to the rear wheels, and it was in a mustang dyno.


Sent from my Autoguide iPad app

iadr
07-03-2012, 11:27 PM
Think about this the new 5.0 I was told flowed 300 CFM by one of the engineers. Sounds good untill one knows Ford flows at 68" convert that to 28" and it translates to 192 CFM and thats at the port the intake is going to step on that. Pushrod 302s from the factory never had that.
Lets take a peek at my engine heads ported DOOE flow 235 @ 28" intake bolted to head flow 212 CFM. 18+ MPG in current rough tune geared wrong. Lets look at the torq the push rod 302s seem to have always put out more torq particulary at low RPM. Part of that is the port design (no valve pocket). Told one of thier engineers to fix an issue with a valve geomety I was investagating (fix was to sink the valve .5 mm) that there would be possibly a 30 to 40 HP loss. He did it and ran it on a dyno. He came back to my desk and told me I was right. That dosent happen with a proper poppet valve pocket. The new 5.0 do put out a bit more low end than before but that has a lot to do with the Cam-A-GoGo set up so the cams could be advanced "and" retarded.

Wow, what a mixed up post.
The 300 cfm is at 28, yes. Whatever conversion you are doing is wrong.

Scrapzilla
07-04-2012, 08:17 AM
Sorry to take this thread back to it's origins but, how much of the hp diff can be attributed to meeting EPA standards and how much to where the ratings were taken? In other words if you measured a '70 and a '72 side by side at the crank what would be the diff.

Just curious.

torinodave
07-06-2012, 12:33 PM
my 69 torino has a 429 out of a 73 gran torino with a stock c-6. all i did to it is a crane saturday night special cam weiand stealth 750 dp crties headers and 4:11 gears. i have fun at the local1/8mile track it beats it share of all wheel dirve turbo ricers.