budget 460's what did they run - Page 2 - 460 Ford Forum
460 Ford Forum  
Go Back   460 Ford Forum > Non-Tech Topics > Chilly's Garage

Chilly's Garage A place for non-460 banter.

460Ford.com is the premier 460 Ford Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old 10-20-2010, 09:52 AM
Tom McTernan's Avatar
Tom McTernan Tom McTernan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Shingle Springs, California
Posts: 42
Tom McTernan First On Race Day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Lightning View Post
Tom, does the same theory work for larger bore/stroke/ larger CFM heads? Longer rods would still give you longer dwell time/slower acceleration/deceleration piston speeds @TDC/BDC? How long of a piston skirt does that type of combo like? Say if you wanted a 557" target cube, what would be the ideal bore/stroke/rod length/head CFM/RPM numbers?
Rob
It's kind of interesting in that the the Pro Stock guys today are running shorter deck blocks and shorter rods, therefore the L/R's are lower. When you shorten the rod the volumetic efficiency of the motors go up and this is a good thing, however using the old OEM heads of the past, you end up running out of cylinder head early in the RPM range. So, for the guys trying to use the original OEM heads, they are better off lengthening the rods in order to maximize performace providing they can offord to make that change. It's worth every dime if they can do it.

For the guys running the TFS A-460 heads or the Boss9 heads that have been ported and polished by someone that knows what they are doing the shorter rods would be your best bet providing they stay within reason. For example with the OEM heads you want to keep the L/R up around 1.8 and the TFS and Boss9 you can drop down to the 1.5 range. I was never into the long strokes. The maximum I would go was in the 4.00 to 4.25 range. Anyone ever wonder why the Pro Stock cars today went to the 5th gear? It's because they are operating in a narrower RPM range.

I love the chambers in the new Boss9 heads with the double quench design. I believe those work out much better on gasoline, however I'd like to see Jon perhaps experiment with raising the intake and exhaust ports on those heads to see where that takes him. Perhaps he already has, only time will tell.

I'd probably look at putting together a combination with a 4.500 to a 4.625 bore and either a 4.00 or 4.25 inch stroke with a set of TFS A-460 or Boss9 heads today. This would yield 509" with a 4.500"
bore and a 4.00 stroke to a 571" motor with the 4.625 bore and the 4.250 stroke. Any combination in between would also work as well, for example the 4.625" bor and the 4.125" stroke would provide you with a 554" motor. This is all higher dollar combinations as it would involve an aftermarket block that could safely be taken out to the larger bore size and rather expensive heads which takes us away from the topic of a "Budget 460's what did they run."

Last edited by Tom McTernan; 10-20-2010 at 10:18 AM. Reason: left out additional information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #17  
Old 10-20-2010, 10:24 AM
DaveMcLain DaveMcLain is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cuba MO
Posts: 4,542
DaveMcLain Driving a Ford
Default

Don't waste time fooling with a different rod length, the differences in piston motion between the longest and shortest practical rod are minuscule.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic --Arthur C. Clarke

Dave McLain
McLain's Automotive
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #18  
Old 10-20-2010, 10:49 AM
Paul Kane's Avatar
Paul Kane Paul Kane is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 5,141
Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!
Cool

We've all heard the BBC guys say that "Fords don't rev" or something to that effect. This is in part because the BBC guys had to create big peak hp numbers by revving their engines so high. That being said, it was not that the Ford couldn't necessarily be made to rev high, but rather that it had very broad power range capability and thereby didn't need to rev high in order to make a lot of useful power. One of the factors that played into it's broad power rance is the 385 Sereis' "longer" rod, or high rod ratio (1.72/1.84) which parks the piston at TDC longer than the BBC 1.53 rod ratio.

So much has been learned about these engines over the last 2-3 decades. There are a lot of ways to find increased power in them. I can see how parking the piston at TDC is one way but the 385 Series is already ahead of the game in this department, and don't know that going from 1.72 to 1.80 is a significant factor. Interestringly, the 440 Mopar has a 1.80 rod ratio (6.76"/3.75") but for building a high performance engine it has some quirks, such as it's super tall deck (relative to stroke/engine displacement capability) necesitating heavier pistons with a super tall compresson height. It can be a power monster for sure (add the 7.100 rods with shorter c/h pistons) but has more power improvement shortcomings by design than the 385....which is too bad, because there are some really nice features in the Mopars.

By the way, Tom, where are you getting the Mopar 6.94 rod? The RB engines came with a 6.76" and the 426 Hemi with the 6.86", usually a 1.094" pin, although these days you can get them with a 0.990" pin. They are still kinda heavy compared to even the OEM Ford rods, but there are stronger indeed.

Paul
__________________
We're On The Web; Click Below:
High Flow Dynamics
Performance Components for the 429/460 Engine Family
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #19  
Old 10-20-2010, 10:50 AM
Paul Kane's Avatar
Paul Kane Paul Kane is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 5,141
Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!Paul Kane A Ford God!
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by 95lightiningguy View Post
Wouldn't it be cheaper to "0" deck the block, isnt that basically what you are trying to do with a longer rod.
Deck height and rod ratio are two differnt things.
__________________
We're On The Web; Click Below:
High Flow Dynamics
Performance Components for the 429/460 Engine Family
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #20  
Old 10-20-2010, 12:29 PM
95lightiningguy 95lightiningguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: N.Little Rock AR
Posts: 938
95lightiningguy First On Race Day
Send a message via Yahoo to 95lightiningguy
Default

Thanks Tom and Paul, I learn something new everyday on this board. Like I've said before not an engine builder but do love learning about it and have built a few for myself and love being able to pick the brains of professionals such as yourselves.
__________________
89 F150 351w powered
95 F150 300 I6 5 speed soon to be 460 powered lightining clone
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #21  
Old 10-20-2010, 02:08 PM
Tom McTernan's Avatar
Tom McTernan Tom McTernan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Shingle Springs, California
Posts: 42
Tom McTernan First On Race Day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Kane View Post
We've all heard the BBC guys say that "Fords don't rev" or something to that effect. This is in part because the BBC guys had to create big peak hp numbers by revving their engines so high. That being said, it was not that the Ford couldn't necessarily be made to rev high, but rather that it had very broad power range capability and thereby didn't need to rev high in order to make a lot of useful power. One of the factors that played into it's broad power rance is the 385 Sereis' "longer" rod, or high rod ratio (1.72/1.84) which parks the piston at TDC longer than the BBC 1.53 rod ratio.

So much has been learned about these engines over the last 2-3 decades. There are a lot of ways to find increased power in them. I can see how parking the piston at TDC is one way but the 385 Series is already ahead of the game in this department, and don't know that going from 1.72 to 1.80 is a significant factor. Interestringly, the 440 Mopar has a 1.80 rod ratio (6.76"/3.75") but for building a high performance engine it has some quirks, such as it's super tall deck (relative to stroke/engine displacement capability) necesitating heavier pistons with a super tall compresson height. It can be a power monster for sure (add the 7.100 rods with shorter c/h pistons) but has more power improvement shortcomings by design than the 385....which is too bad, because there are some really nice features in the Mopars.

By the way, Tom, where are you getting the Mopar 6.94 rod? The RB engines came with a 6.76" and the 426 Hemi with the 6.86", usually a 1.094" pin, although these days you can get them with a 0.990" pin. They are still kinda heavy compared to even the OEM Ford rods, but there are stronger indeed.

Paul
Paul, my apologies on the rod length, it may have been the 6.860 long rod, and I do believe it was the one used in the Chrysler Hemi. As this thread started out with a budget combo using original factory OEM heads, I have found that lengthening the connecting rod does improve performance substantially with the SCJ heads in the 460-466" displacement range. This is not a theory but a practicle known fact, based upon my own experimence. While I didn't use the actual Chrysler rod, but a set of aluminum rods with a center to center length of 6.940 (that's probably where I came up with that number) with the Chrysler big end and .990 pins I was able to reduce the rod journals to Chrysler thus reducing the bearing speed. That combination liked to be launched at 7200 RPM's and shifted at 7000. It was a practicle and very reliable combination that lasted over 200 passes without any tear downs. The MPH went up by about 4-5 MPH and the ET was consistantly lowered by about two and a half tenths. I believe the reason for the increased MPH was the result of a broader operating band and a stronger mid-range. I'm guessing, but most of your members can't offord the high dollar parts to go fast, so they're stuck using the old OEM parts they find in the junk yard or on the internet. Using the old parts and putting forth some extra effort, together with spending a few extra bucks, they have an opertunity to knock a few more brand X's in the dirt with an old iron block, heads and crankshaft. I discovered all this before the new heads and induction systems were available for Ford big blocks. I worked on and developed the 385 series engine long before they became recognized and popular. This information was provided as a gift from me to all your members. Whether anyone wants to believe it or not really doesn't matter. And whether anyone wants to try it really doesn't matter as well. This is not mis-information, but fact based on my own experiences. Use it or not, it really doesn't matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #22  
Old 10-20-2010, 03:00 PM
res0rli9 res0rli9 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SARASOTA FL.
Posts: 1,354
res0rli9 Driving a Ford
Default

Well I thank you for the info. and im gonna use it in a pump gas build.

Last edited by res0rli9; 10-20-2010 at 03:14 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #23  
Old 10-20-2010, 04:15 PM
DaveMcLain DaveMcLain is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cuba MO
Posts: 4,542
DaveMcLain Driving a Ford
Default

I'd say that the only reason that you found a difference in the performance was because it allowed the piston to be lighter, a LOT lighter than with a shorter rod. Dwell time differences, rod angles and other theories are 99% nonsense when it comes to their influence on performance.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic --Arthur C. Clarke

Dave McLain
McLain's Automotive
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #24  
Old 10-20-2010, 04:35 PM
Duane's Avatar
Duane Duane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 471
Duane Driving a Ford
Default

A friend of mine was putting Chrysler 6 Pack rods(I think that's what they were) in the 385's in the mid 70's
In the late 80's he was building an A/D dragster, 476" that had TFS heads on it, some of the first castings, produced a little over 1,000hp (at the time that was good) Never really got it class ready, but bracket raced it a little til he couldn't see good anymore, now all for sale... He taught me plenty through the years, awesome machinist too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #25  
Old 10-20-2010, 05:24 PM
Tom McTernan's Avatar
Tom McTernan Tom McTernan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Shingle Springs, California
Posts: 42
Tom McTernan First On Race Day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMcLain View Post
I'd say that the only reason that you found a difference in the performance was because it allowed the piston to be lighter, a LOT lighter than with a shorter rod. Dwell time differences, rod angles and other theories are 99% nonsense when it comes to their influence on performance.
My my Dave, we heard you the first time. Try stepping out of your box. Have you actually tried it or is this just a theory of yours? This is something that I have tried and proven. If you don't agree then fine, keep doing what your doing and.......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #26  
Old 10-20-2010, 05:41 PM
Tom McTernan's Avatar
Tom McTernan Tom McTernan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Shingle Springs, California
Posts: 42
Tom McTernan First On Race Day
Default

Tell ya what. Is anyone familiar with a guy by the name of Warren Johnson? I know he's one of those brand-X guys, but none the less did any of you read an article years ago about him looking for the best rod ratio for his combination? The guy picked up ten sets of pistons and ten sets of connecting rods in .050 increments in order to find what worked the best for what he was trying to do. Now, they refer to the guy as the "Professor." Do you think he might have been smart enough to consider there was enough to be gained to go to such an expense? Look, I don't feel I need to defend myself or what I have found to work in some forum. So if you don't agree, then fine, don't even consider it. There's all kinds out at the races. Have you ever gone out and noticed that guy that's still out there after ten years and he's still running brackets with the same car running the same times? Never progressing? Well, I hope he's having fun cause he's never going to do any better than that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #27  
Old 10-20-2010, 06:22 PM
Tom McTernan's Avatar
Tom McTernan Tom McTernan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Shingle Springs, California
Posts: 42
Tom McTernan First On Race Day
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveMcLain View Post
I'd say that the only reason that you found a difference in the performance was because it allowed the piston to be lighter, a LOT lighter than with a shorter rod. Dwell time differences, rod angles and other theories are 99% nonsense when it comes to their influence on performance.
Oh, and Dave, aren't you a circle track motor builder? Tell ya what I'm a drag racer and I've never given any advice to the circle track guys, so why are you knocking something you know nothing about. However, this past season I was approached by a local group running a 360 Spint Car. After I got done they ended up running a 10.20 lap time on a quarter mile dirt track. But what the heck was I thinking........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #28  
Old 10-20-2010, 06:59 PM
DaveMcLain DaveMcLain is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cuba MO
Posts: 4,542
DaveMcLain Driving a Ford
Default

I have a clear understanding of the piston's motion in the bore and how it changes when the rod/stroke ratio is altered. My point is that you can significantly change the rod ratio without making any significant difference in the pistons position in the cylinder per degree of rotation.

This is why other things that change when you change the rod length are really much larger factors when it comes to engine performance.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic --Arthur C. Clarke

Dave McLain
McLain's Automotive
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #29  
Old 10-20-2010, 08:42 PM
BigBlockRanger's Avatar
BigBlockRanger BigBlockRanger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Amarillo, Texas
Posts: 1,448
BigBlockRanger Driving a Ford
Default

Damn my head is spinning.

Tom, again, I have no clue who you, and for you to come on here and lecture down to board members, whom we have known and whom we consider our friends, is a little presumptuous. I hope you hang around, but remember, everybody has their own perspective and opinions, so cut us some slack.

My opinion: Enjoy the fact that really good heads for the BBF are cheap nowadays.

No personal experience here, but I like how Darin Morgan put it:

"Where people get into trouble is when they get a magical rod ratio in their head and screw up the entire engine design trying to achieve it. The rod ratio is pretty simple. Take whatever stroke you have, then put the wrist pin as high as you can on the piston without getting into the oil ring. What-ever connects the two is your rod length."

But what do I know? I'm just a land surveyor not an engine builder.
__________________
'83 Mustang GT - 545/C6 - 10.46 @ 130
http://www.foureff.com
Four Eyed Fords Forum

Drag Week 2012 - Street Race BB N/A runner-up
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #30  
Old 10-20-2010, 10:04 PM
bigblockfairlane bigblockfairlane is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: ftworth,tx
Posts: 382
bigblockfairlane First On Race Day
Default comment

Damn!!! and i thought i was confused before at this rate i`ll never get my build done.!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the 460 Ford Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:28 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.