I have confusion, and need to be unconfused

[69428SCJ]

Dear Stangbangerz,

I have a question and since I couldn't find a great place to ask this, I guess I'll just put it here. I'll be the first to admit my naïveté regarding anything Ford newer than 1972 but I noticed something and I don't really understand it. I've seen/heard a bunch of guys doing build ups with the 385 series (429/460) engine. Obviously I understand the whole displacement deal and that the 385 wasn't discontinued until 1997, but I'm just not sure why more FE's aren't used more. Yes, they are a little rarer to find, but they weren't discontinued until '76. So, are the 429/460s used because they're more plentiful, cost effective, easy to swap or something else?

Sincerely,
Confused FE (and windsor) enthusiast.

[Ranger50]

You would be correct on all counts. Plus I believe the overall 385 series engine is an easier packaging decision then the FE.

You know FE stands for Finally Extinct, right? ;)

Brian

[69428SCJ]

har har har....funny funny! :rofl: One more question though....I don't have any relevant experience with the engine and I've heard rumors that it's kinda hard to make good numbers out of it, so does that factor in since the engine is somewhere over a hundred lbs. heavier than an FE?

[85_SS_302_Coupe]

From my perspective...and i'm certainly no expert...with the bigger engine comes lots more weight, less engine compartment room, and more expensive and obscure parts to use. You can build a stroked 351W to run circles around any big block that was ever made and for less money, and end up with less weight and more room to put things like turbos and superchargers when the all motor set up isn't enough anymore.

Of course you can always argue about stroking and power adding a big block, but you still have a car that's extremely nose heavy which makes hooking up more of a challenge, not to mention it hurts streetability.

The old saying about no replacement for displacement is, to me, becoming less and less meaningful. There are plenty of 281ci engines out there making 1000hp at the wheels....not to mention the whole import scene where you can see those same power numbers in half the engine displacement. Of course that also comes with some lack of street manors.

Personally i think it's smarter to use an engine that is readily available, easy to work on and easy to find parts for because you're probably going to break something eventually. With guys like Chris (plated) running deep in the 10s with home made turbo setups on mostly stock 302s, it makes it harder to back up the displacement saying.

I should add that while this sounds like i'm bashing big blocks...one of my dream Mustangs would be a '69 Boss 429 and my all time dream Mustang would be a '67 Shelby GT500 with a race prepped 427. The difference is that 1) i can't afford either one and 2) the reality is that neither one makes more power than a built 351W.

[Rick93coupe]

I'd say it has more to do with the availability of parts, plus the difference in cost is huge between 351 based engines and big blocks.

[Sparky]

I like FE engines personally, but they're just too rare and expensive. Sure, they're making heads and intakes for them again (as well as new stroker blocks) but they're for people with tons of money. In the muscle car era, the only recognized engines of the series were 427's and 428's ,anything smaller were considered "boat anchors" by most people. You can get good power out of a 390, but a small inch, big block is like going backwards. The intake on my 352 weighs damn near 100 pounds (if it isn't it sure as hell feels like it). They were notorious for premature ring wear, they couldn't handle high rpms without having the R code stuff or Le Mans bottom end packages. Some had oiling issues (hence the side oiler/top oiler 427's. Long story short, they had there place in the sixties and they were written off in favor of a *better idea* I love to see an FE in a rare old muscle car, Especially a tri-power 406 or 410 (when's the last time you saw one of those!) The SOHC and DOHC 427's were kick ass dragster engines IMO.I'd like to have a collection with one of each FE in some configuration or another. Maybe when my rich uncle gets out of the poor house....

[69428SCJ]

As for windsor vs. FE $ I can kinda speak on that. I had the 289 in my galaxie rebuilt completely. I obviously used a new valve train, cam, pistons, intake and carb. I had it hot tanked, magnafluxed bored .030 and deck milled of course for a rebuilt and total costs were around $4000 I think (this was a complete engine). Now, excluding the purchse price of the FE (short block plus heads) I've got probably already $5000 in the engine, but I've also had a lot more done to this, i.e. balance/blueprint, line hone, ground crank, rod conditioning, new pistons, brand new elebrock performer 427 medium riser aluminum heads, roller cam in addition to the usual intake, bore, deck, etc...Now, I know the guy who I bought my SCJ from also has a Holman-Moody 427 that was used in a NASCAR race back in the day and he's only asking $3000 for it so I suppose it really depends on quite a few variables. But does it cost about the same to build a similarly built 429/460? :confused:

[69428SCJ]

btw...here's a pic of a cammer in a '70 maverick for everyone's viewing pleasure

http://www.ipixelspot.com/files/16/CammerMav.jpg

[99Slobra]

The old saying about no replacement for displacement is, to me, becoming less and less meaningful. There are plenty of 281ci engines out there making 1000hp at the wheels....not to mention the whole import scene where you can see those same power numbers in half the engine displacement. Of course that also comes with some lack of street manors.




Very True. But a bigger motor will need less boost to run those same numbers and be more reliable and more streetable like you said.

[85_SS_302_Coupe]

Well, there's a lot of variables in that. A 1000hp turbo small block is going to be a whole lot more streetable than a 1000hp all motor big block...that's the point i was trying to make. That saying is always true because like you said, more cubes will get you the same power with less boost or spray but you run into that other issue of weight and cost. Getting a turbo 302 based stroker car to hook up is a whole lot easier than getting a big block car to hook up. Also the end result is a lighter car. Take 2 cars, both make 500 hp but one car does it with a 289 small block that runs 8k RPM and the other makes it with a 460 at 5k RPM. The big block car is gonna have at least a few hundred pounds over the small block car, and it's gonna struggle with weight transfer to hook up. The biggest advantage is the torque that the big block will make, but the small block would also have RPM on its side. There's just a lot of variables.

[mustangboy]

Cheap horsepower. bbfstanger(john) on here sells strokers in the 521-545 range for $2500. Add a highly ported set of stock heads and you can easily make 500-600 horse. Add a set of aftermarket heads for around $2k and you easily get in the 600-700hp range and go $2500-3000 on a set of aftermarket heads can get you more. Stock and aftermarket parts are readily available as well as websites with lots of info. As far as the weight issue w/ a set of aluminim heads and all the typical tubular front end equipment and manual steering you actually aren't that much heavier than a stock 302 w/ all the accessories. Also the fact that you can make 800-1000hp on a stock block is pretty appealing as well. To do that with a windsor requires spending $2k on a block.

[mustangboy]

Take 2 cars, both make 500 hp but one car does it with a 289 small block that runs 8k RPM and the other makes it with a 460 at 5k RPM.

Yeah but you can make 500hp w/ a mostly stock big block for little money but to make a 289 make 500hp and spin to 8k you are going to have some pretty major bucks wrapped up in it.

[Ranger50]

Well, there's a lot of variables in that. A 1000hp turbo small block is going to be a whole lot more streetable than a 1000hp all motor big block...that's the point i was trying to make.
Debatable. Are you imposing a cube limit on the BB or not? Now if you want to impose a MPG rule, the turbo car SMOKES the BB, which isn't a far comparison.


That saying is always true because like you said, more cubes will get you the same power with less boost or spray but you run into that other issue of weight and cost. Getting a turbo 302 based stroker car to hook up is a whole lot easier than getting a big block car to hook up. Also the end result is a lighter car.
Again, very debatable. How much do you think a turbo system weighs??? I bet the end result is not enough to worry about. As far as hooking up, I bet you could find someone or yourself that makes the right decisions that would make EITHER car hook on a sheet of ice on slicks, literally.


Take 2 cars, both make 500 hp but one car does it with a 289 small block that runs 8k RPM and the other makes it with a 460 at 5k RPM. The big block car is gonna have at least a few hundred pounds over the small block car, and it's gonna struggle with weight transfer to hook up. The biggest advantage is the torque that the big block will make, but the small block would also have RPM on its side. There's just a lot of variables.

I'll take the low rpm BB every time. You forgot maintanence costs. Plus if you want to drive it to a cruise in of any sort, you want to listen to a 5k stall converter at a 4k cruise rpm? No low end torque equals 5 plus rear end gears to get the same heap to move out on the track.

Food for thought.
Brian

[85_SS_302_Coupe]

Debatable. Are you imposing a cube limit on the BB or not? Now if you want to impose a MPG rule, the turbo car SMOKES the BB, which isn't a far comparison.

Are you going to make that same hp with a cam that'll idle half way decent on the street? Why is it fair to compare cubes but not mpg?


Again, very debatable. How much do you think a turbo system weighs??? I bet the end result is not enough to worry about. As far as hooking up, I bet you could find someone or yourself that makes the right decisions that would make EITHER car hook on a sheet of ice on slicks, literally.

Well i had to look up some numbers because i don't memorize the exact weight of big blocks, but according to this site http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights.html
A 429-460 weighs 720lbs, whereas a 302 weighs around 450lbs...that's a 270lb difference. Unless you're using cast iron manifolds on both sides of the engine, two gigantic turbos and you're using steel for your intercooler pipes, there's no shot in hell that a single turbo 302 is going to add up to 720lbs. MAYBE if you go with some insane aftermarket block, but even those aren't more than an extra 100lbs. Yes, you can make either car hook...that's true, but you can't deny that having 270 extra pounds right over the front wheels doesn't make it harder to hook, which was my point to begin with. A lighter engine means better weight transfer which means better traction.


I'll take the low rpm BB every time. You forgot maintanence costs. Plus if you want to drive it to a cruise in of any sort, you want to listen to a 5k stall converter at a 4k cruise rpm? No low end torque equals 5 plus rear end gears to get the same heap to move out on the track.

Food for thought.
Brian

Everyone has their thing....i'm just not the type to drive a car that can only go in a straight line, and nobody is ever going to pull 1g lateral in a corner with a big block up front. Also, i wouldn't be running an automatic so i wouldn't have to deal with a stall...again everyone has preferences.

Also as for aluminum heads and tubular suspension bits to lighten up the big block, anything you can do to a big block to lighten it up can also be done to a small block to lighten it up...so in the end there's nothing you can do to gain a weight advantage with a big block. True, to run with a built big block you're going to need an aftermarket block, but the last time i checked big block parts weren't cheap...i bet i could build a built 351 stroker that'll hold together at the same power levels as a built big block for less money.

Seriously think about it, there are 1000s of 460s out there in vans and trucks and you name it. If they were so cheap and easy to make power with, why don't more people do it?

[Greg Seibert]

Great Post! Gosh, where should I start. The FE (Ford-Edsel), or (Splithead)mills, which some called them, simply became outdated. In a Mustang or Torino in their day, the worst thing about them was dealing with the headers. My '67 Fairlane DD, 390/C6, headers, traction bars and a few bolt-ons ran 12.97 on street tires in '73, for a total cost including the car and everything, $800.00. As for Timeslips, see our own gear-jamm'n, N/A 428 CJ 69Cobras numbers. Yes, they are getting rare, but definitely not extinct.
Check out the factory showroom, fifty fastest all-time musclecar list (without slicks) below. Look who was #2.:)



1 1997 Viper GTS 12.05@116 V10 450 six-speed 3.07 MM 8/97
2 1966 427 Cobra 12.20@118 427 8V 425 four-speed 3.54 CC 11/65
3 1990 ZR1 Corvette 12.8@113.8 LT5 350 375 six-speed 3.45 MT 4/90
4 1966 Corvette 427 12.8@112 L72 427 425 four-speed 3.36 CD 11/65
5 1969 Road Runner 12.91@111.8 440 Six BBL 390 four-speed 4.10 SS 6/69
6 1997 Hurst/Firebird 12.99@103.11 350 350 automatic 3.42 MCR 4/5 97
7 1970 Hemi Cuda 13.10@107.12 426 Hemi 425 four-speed 3.54 CC 11/69
8 1992 Viper RT/10 13.1@108 488 V10 400 six-speed 3.07 CD 7/92
9 1970 Chevelle SS454 13.12@107.01 454 LS6 450 four-speed 3.55 CC 11/69
10 1969 Camaro 13.16@110.21 427 ZL1 430 four-speed 4.10 HC 6/69
11 1997 Corvette 13.20@109.3 350 LS-1 345 six-speed 3.42 MT 5/97
12 1997 SLP Camaro SS 13.20@108.8 350 LT4 330 six-speed 3.42 MT 2/97
13 1990 Pontiac Firehawk 13.20@107 350 350 six-speed 3.54 CD 6/91
14 1968 Corvette 13.30@108 427 6V 435 four-speed 3.70 HC 5/68
15 1970 Road Runner 13.34@107.5 426 Hemi 425 automatic 4.10 SS 12/69
16 1970 Buick GS Stage I 13.38@105.5 455 Stage I 360 automatic 3.64 MT 1/70
17 1996 Camaro Z28 SS 13.46@106.48 350 LT-1 310 six-speed 3.42 MCR F/M 96
18 1969 Charger 500 13.48@109 426 Hemi 425 four-speed 4.10 HR 2/69
19 1973 Trans Am 13.54@104.29 455 SD 310 automatic 3.42 HR 6/73
20 1969 Corvette 13.56@111.1 427 L88 430 automatic 3.36 HR 4/69
21 1969 Super Bee 13.56@105.6 440 Six Pack 390 automatic 4.10 HR 8/69
22 1969 Boss 429 Mustang 13.60@106 Boss 429 375 four-speed 3.91 HC 9/69
23 1970 Challenger R/T 13.62@104.3 440 Six Pack 390 automatic 3.23 CC 11/69
24 1970 Torino Cobra 13.63@105.9 429 SCJ 370 automatic 3.91 SS 3/70
25 1968 Biscayne 13.65@105 427 L72 425 four-speed 4.56 SS 4/68
26 1995 Mustang Cobra R 13.67@102.82 351 300 five-speed 3.27 MCR A/S 95
27 1964 Polara 500 13.70@107.37 426 4V 365 four-speed 3.23 HC 2/64
28 1996 Corvette GS 13.7@105.1 350 LT-4 330 six-speed 3.45 RT 2/96
29 1969 GTX 13.70@102.8 440 4V 375 automatic 4.10 MT 1/69
30 1987 Buick GNX 13.70@102 231 Turbo V6 300 automatic 3.42 HR 4/87
31 1969 Dart 440 13.71@105 440 4V 375 automatic 3.55 CC 5/69
32 1971 Road Runner 13.71@101.2 440 Six BBL 390 automatic 4.10 CC 1/71
33 1971 Cuda 13.72@106 440 Six BBL 390 automatic 4.10 SS 4/71
34 1971 Corvette 13.72@102.04 454 LS6 450 four-speed 3.36 CL 8/71
35 1971 Super Bee 13.73@104 426 Hemi 425 automatic 4.10 MT 12/70
36 1968 Hurst/Olds 13.77@103.91 455 W-30 390 automatic 3.91 SS 8/68
37 1968 Firebird 13.79@106 400 HO 335 four-speed N/A HR 3/68
38 1967 Corvette 13.80@108 427 6V 435 four-speed 3.55 HR 5/67
39 1971 Boss 351 Mustang 13.80@104 Boss 351 330 four-speed 3.91 MT 1/71
40 1966 Satellite 13.81@104 426 Hemi 425 four-speed 3.54 CD 4/66
41 1969 Coronet R/T 13.83@102.27 440 4V 375 four-speed 4.10 SS 4/69
42 1968 Cyclone GT 13.86@101.69 428 CJ 335 automatic 4.11 MT 8/68
43 1969 Nova SS 396 13.87@105.1 396 4V 375 automatic 3.55 HR 7/69
44 1969 Shelby GT-500 13.87@104.52 428 CJ 335 four-speed 3.91 SS 9/69
45 1970 Olds 4-4-2 W-30 13.88@95.84 455 W-30 370 automatic 3.42 CC 11/69
46 1962 Corvette 13.89@105.14 327 FI 360 four-speed 4.10 HR 1/62
47 1969 Barracuda 13.89@103.21 440 4V 375 automatic 4.10 SS 8/69
48 1969 Mustang Mach I 13.90@103.32 428 CJ 335 automatic 3.50 CL 3/69
49 1967 GTO 13.90@102.8 400 RA 360 automatic 4.33 CL 10/67
50 1970 Trans Am 13.90@102 400 RA 345 four-speed 3.91 HR 2/70
:bigthumb

[85_SS_302_Coupe]

Yeah i'm simply siding with the small blocks for the sake of a good debate. Like i said, if they were as readily available and as affordable, i'd sure as hell own one, but that weight issue would always be a huge factor for me. A 302 Mustang is nose heavy enough. I guess i'm just one of the handful of guys on here who enjoy driving through the turns as much as i do in the straights.

[PonymanfiveO]

btw...here's a pic of a cammer in a '70 maverick for everyone's viewing pleasure

http://www.ipixelspot.com/files/16/CammerMav.jpg


I think I just creamed my jeans. :lol:

I want one of those in my Mav!


FEAR starts with FE, right??? :bigthumb

[69428SCJ]

All right, so lemme get this straight. The basic reason why everybody's using the 385 series over the FE is because it's much more plentyful than FE. It has less to do with cost effectivenesss, displacement advantages (because we all know that the 427 [which is 425 ci in reality] is K-I-N-G when it comes to the big blocks) or anything else. Those are all pretty valid reasons, I suppose. So uh...if/when I ever get Unicorn done, I'd like to see how a similarly weighed and built car would fare against mine. Takers anyone?

[85_SS_302_Coupe]

Hey like i said, i'm no expert. My car runs 14s so this is purely my opinion and understanding of how a car works. It just seems to me that it's smarter to go out and buy an aftermarket 351W block that can be stroked to 426ci and end up with less weight and more available parts. You end up with a basic 351 swap so everything is easily available, like headers and oil pans and accessory brackets and intakes and cams and all that, and you don't end up with 720lbs worth of engine up front.

We can run in circles about how you can still stroke the big block and make more power, but again like i said before why don't people do it if it's that easy?

[mustangboy]

I'd like to see how a similarly weighed and built car would fare against mine. Takers anyone?

I'll take you up on that. I'm not quite sure what my car will weigh but I would guess around 3300lbs. My 429 is a very mild build so it should be a fair comparison. It is a stock shortblock w/ 11.5-1 forged pistons and a decent size cam, stock heads w/ roller rockers, and a weiand intake.

As far as the weight you also have to remember that the stock intake itself weighs I think somewhere in the neighborhood of 75lbs and the stock water pumps and cast iron exhaust manifolds are very heavy as well. You replace all that stuff and you lose a significant amount of weight. I hope to eventually get aluminum heads to take even more weight off and if I ever do I'd like to get the car weighted to see the difference in a stock 5.0. I have a feeling it wont be that much different considering I have no power steering or a/c.

[BigBadStang]

btw...here's a pic of a cammer in a '70 maverick for everyone's viewing pleasure

http://www.ipixelspot.com/files/16/CammerMav.jpg


off topic, but...
when i was about 12 or 13 years old (1982), my dad and i were at Trails at an all ford race, when we saw a 67 Mustang coupe with a 427 SOHC N/A'ed engine in it. it was brown i think, and the guys name was "Potts". that car ran like a low 9 second pass, and was sideways twice during the run and had to pedal it numerous times to get it down the track! that thing was killer and sounded even better!!

I'm with you Matt...I want one too, but I aint gotta Maverick...used to have a Comet though! ;)

[69Cobra]

Hummmmmm............. Well I think most already know where I stand with this topic. I'm not sure what the real debate is here. Is it availability, cost, weight, drivability, know how...? I personally would put my FE in a fox body tomorrow if I had a good donor car and be at about 2800# in stead of 3800# but then I would get lost in the crowd unless it was a Fairmont and that's just no me. Once you start talking about stroker kits and all of that you minds well throw everything out the window because it don't matter that world is unlimited. All thou I would put a 430 cu in FE up against a 430 Windsor any day. But that's a whole new thread. I think I could get more power out of a FE than a Windsor but I think I could get more power out of a 385 series than a FE if that makes sense. The FE's weigh about 625.lbs that's with a 90.lbs cast iron intake and 90.lbs of cast iron headers. So by loosing 180.lbs but maybe adding back 50 with an aluminum intake and headers I'm at 495.lbs. I've personally never figured it up but that's pretty good. I could also take another 19.lbs off for my heads so that's 476.lbs. Now if you look at cost the FE stands for Freaking Expensive in my opinion. I could very easily get more power out of a 385 series with less money but they are the heaviest.

As far as hooking one up. After working with a 116" wheel base, 3800# car on 9" slicks with stock leaf spring suspension and getting it to work. I don't think there is a Mustang out there I couldn't get to hook, big block or not.

[69428SCJ]

well, since we're on the topic of stroking that 351....I've heard that doing that will decrease engine life in the long run. So then why wouldn't you just spend the $2k I've seen for some complete rotating assemblies in addition to building it any other way and use it as money toward an FE or 385?