460 Ford Forum banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This is not a stir the pot, I want honest opinions.
I read this article in carcraft;
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/ccrp_1010_cheap_big_block_chevy_engine_build/index.html
They basically put in good pistons that bring the compression up and a 224/230 comp cam with cheap four barrel intake and made 446hp and 542ftlbs torque?

Are factory basic "swirl port" heads that superior to stock 460 heads? It just seems hard to believe.
Or am I just reading more magazine BS?

Although, this is the same magazine that years ago that claimed 423hp with stock D0VE heads on a rebuilder shortblock with mild cam......I'm finding that hard to believe as well...
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0008_87_octane_ford_460/index.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,854 Posts
No ... those heads are not better than the Ford versions.
Untill recently, there was not a cost effective way to use the later Ford F.I. heads on a "performance" build except to adapt the stock F.I. intake manifold for carburetor usage. Now there are readily inexpensive adapters to adapt ANY factory or aftermarket carburetor manifold to an engine using the Ford version of the "peanut" port heads.

Magazine hoopla again ... they are so rhetorical simply because they are so uninformed about the Ford offerings.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Interesting....I didn't realize the later FI 460 heads had any advantage over early heads?

I think some of the reason the Chevy motor ran well is the details were paid attention to. I ran though the numbers on a online compression calculator and to get the compression they quoted it must have a tight quench of around .041. This is not just a normal rebuilder bottom end.

I guess I didn't expect stock GM truck heads to flow enough for 446hp @5000rpm.
The way I've understood it to get that kind of power from a 460, the exhaust ports of any common head need to be ported, if not a little work on the intake side as well.

But I'm sure any data can be manipulated to fit the needs of a story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,316 Posts
You also have to factor in at least a 5% inflation in the numbers from Westech.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,297 Posts
Interesting....I didn't realize the later FI 460 heads had any advantage over early heads?

I think some of the reason the Chevy motor ran well is the details were paid attention to. I ran though the numbers on a online compression calculator and to get the compression they quoted it must have a tight quench of around .041. This is not just a normal rebuilder bottom end.

I guess I didn't expect stock GM truck heads to flow enough for 446hp @5000rpm.
The way I've understood it to get that kind of power from a 460, the exhaust ports of any common head need to be ported, if not a little work on the intake side as well.

But I'm sure any data can be manipulated to fit the needs of a story.
Your last statement rings load and clear. Magazine bias of Fords is still with us even with all the new parts and development on our Fords.
We can get that kind of power, from a similar build, with the camshaft. Simply removing the bump in the exhaust port helps a bit. Stock intake port will do it easily. JMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,067 Posts
This reminds me of the 454 vs 460 buildup that was featured on Horsepower TV a few months ago. Started with a typical low comp. 460 using D3 heads and the 10.320" deck block. Other than freshing up the engine they were dynoed and the BBC made about 20hp more than the BBF, torque, if memory serves was about the same or very close. What they didn't tell the viewers was the BBF heads were untouched other than a 3 angle valve job and if that engine was a typical 460 it had well under 8 to 1 C/R vs the BBC's 8.5 to 1 C/R. Now I know that all factory iron BBF heads need a little help in the exhaust and cleaning up the port is not exactly in the spirit of the compairison and I also know the Chevy guys would have cried, pissed and moaned if their beloved hunk of pig iron didn't make more HP and Tq. than the lowly Ford. But personally I think they should have done some basic port cleanup because every guy that follows even the most basic 460 buildup and tuning info thats available would have no trouble finding that 20 hp the 460 was missing. Hell...even a drunken monkey with a rat tail file could make improvements on that ex. port. JMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,854 Posts
This reminds me of the 454 vs 460 buildup that was featured on Horsepower TV a few months ago. Started with a typical low comp. 460 using D3 heads and the 10.320" deck block. Other than freshing up the engine they were dynoed and the BBC made about 20hp more than the BBF, torque, if memory serves was about the same or very close. What they didn't tell the viewers was the BBF heads were untouched other than a 3 angle valve job and if that engine was a typical 460 it had well under 8 to 1 C/R vs the BBC's 8.5 to 1 C/R. Now I know that all factory iron BBF heads need a little help in the exhaust and cleaning up the port is not exactly in the spirit of the compairison and I also know the Chevy guys would have cried, pissed and moaned if their beloved hunk of pig iron didn't make more HP and Tq. than the lowly Ford. But personally I think they should have done some basic port cleanup because every guy that follows even the most basic 460 buildup and tuning info thats available would have no trouble finding that 20 hp the 460 was missing. Hell...even a drunken monkey with a rat tail file could make improvements on that ex. port. JMO


The camshaft they use never compliments the Ford heads because the "catalogue" cams they use are based upon what a Chevy engine can use effectively. That's just the way it is with most of the aftermarket.
You don't need to clean-up the exhaust ports if you use a camshaft which FITS the application.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
You also have to factor in at least a 5% inflation in the numbers from Westech.

Bingo, the numbers that place pulls out of engine combos on a regular basis just are not feasible. Happy dyno.

That said, 450hp only requires in the neighborhood of 230-240cfm as a basic rule of thumb, no reason peanut ports couldnt' do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,316 Posts
440 WESTECH horsepower sure. But remember, Westech horsepower and real world horsepower numbers are not the same.

A year or so ago I did a very mild 460 build for a boat and on my dyno it made 375 horsepower at 5000rpm. That was with totally stock D3VE heads and a Torker ][ intake so with as much cam as they were using and on the Westech dyno I think it would do it very easily.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,232 Posts
Those hp numbers aren't that hard to believe. But attention to detail makes a huge difference. I have a 440 in my truck, flat top pistons that are out about .006", somewhat ported 452 casting heads (junk) that flow in the neighborhood of 265 cfm @ .500". A TQ 50 cam (228/235 duration, .503" lift with 1.6's and 110 ls installed at 106) and a torker II intake. 750 dp carb and dyno headers and it put a corrected 485 and 507 tq down. Now it had a bad rear main leak and I didn't have time to fix it and run it again, but with the experiences I had on that dyno, I could have seen 500 with more carb. This engine was pieced together from things I've had laying around and was given and it runs well for what it is. But the attention to detail is why I think this one runs so well.
Now as for the dyno, I've personally hung the weights on this dyno enough that I understood why it was necessary and what the numbers were supposed to be, so unless there's a discrepancy in the correction software, those numbers are real world. Compression ended up a tad high for the cast iron heads and 4x4 application, but at 5500 feet, I'm running 87 octane and 38 degrees total timing without a rattle (unless I do something stupid like floor it in 4th at 1800 rpm)
Sooo, getting back to the subject (kinda) those hp numbers aren't out of range at all, and no, the chevy heads aren't better than the fords. Keep in mind one other thing, the chevies have two good runners and two bad runners per head. Kinda makes me think an average flow between the two is a better idea than just throwing out the long runner numbers...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,854 Posts
So unported 460 heads should support 440hp unported, like the 454 peanut heads do?
That is news to me.

But I guess anything is possible if the motor is just set up for hero dyno pulls?
It's good to learn at least one thing new everyday ... this was today's lesson.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
here they go again

Andy, you might look at an old Motors Shop Manual too. In 1971 a Ford LTD Station Wagon with a stock 460 showed 360 HP and 500 ft lbs of Torque.

I don't know what size carb they used in their test but I can tell you that if you just add a good set of headers with 2 1/2 inch exh pipe with 2 chamber flow masters, a Weiand Stealth Intake and an 850 CFM Holley, and add a mild cam with about 230 duration @.050 you can expect 400 to 450 HP easily with 9.5 to 1 to 10. to 1 compression and the Torque will be out of this world.

Plus they don't tell you that the Chevy will last about half as long as the Ford. Mike.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top