Thread: 429 or 460?

Tweet

I'm getting closer to buying my long block, and find myself occilating between a 429 or 460. Both are about the same price, the place making the engine thought the 429 would be better, but the more I read, the more I find most people prefer the 460. I have all the edelbrock preformer series stuff(intake, carb, and will use their cam in the rebuild) so it's really a matter of which will best fit the application for my 48 Ford F1 truck, with a c-6 tranny and 9" rear end! I want the truck to be a mild build, and fuction as a daily driver, good on the hwy. Let me know what you Ford guys think. Thanks, Steve.

being that the 429 and 460 are the same block, the build will be the same no matter what. Your running a C-6 and a 9" so go with the 460. There is no replacement for displacement.

All things being equal, I agree the extra 31 cubes make for a better choice.

Don

Kind of the way I'm thinking too! The extra inches don't hurt, and it is the same block, so all the peripherals will work either way as said above. Actually the 460 is a little cheaper to build, and lower compression is a plus with todays gas!

Tell me if this make sense. I'm using a computer program horse power simulator. Running equal components from heads, carb and cam the 429 ends up with about 50-60 hp, every time I run the figures, compared to the 460. I'm using Camquest 6 software from comp cams web site! The only thing I can think of is the smaller cylinder volume increases the compression and therebye the Horsepower. I just assumed the extra few cc of the 460, would equal extra horse power.

I have a 70 429 in my 57 Ford. It's a lot stronger than the 78 460
in my 78 Ranchero for obvios reasons. I prefer the short stroke of the 429.
I think the 429 was 360 HP stock. Mine has a 280H cam, Stealth manifold
and a set of headers and Dove heads (1970). For a street engine hard to
beat. I wouldn't have a late stock 460 in anything!Except a tow car maybe. The stock 400M that came
in my 78 pulled a load as good as the 460.
Ron

There's just something romantic about the 429. Maybe it's the connection to my all time favorite motor, the BOSS 429. I had the option to use whichever I wanted, but chose a 429 for my roadster build.

Using flat-top pistons with D3VE 97cc heads will yield a 9.2:1 static compression ratio, just right for pump gas with a tight squish. Whatever you do, don't use the 1972 D2VE heads. They were so awful that Ford only used them for one year. You could use the earlier 72cc D0VE heads, but you'd have to use deep dish pistons with them. I feel that flame propogation would be better with flat-tops and larger chambers.

[QUOTE=techinspector1]There's just something romantic about the 429. Maybe it's the connection to my all time favorite motor, the BOSS 429. I had the option to use whichever I wanted, but chose a 429 for my roadster build.
QUOTE]

Here ya go Richard, the Boss heads are available again....Time to build another roadster!!!!!!!!

how much are they going for Dave?

Originally Posted by stovens

how much are they going for Dave?

Haven't heard a current price on them, maybe Jerry has a contact to find out how much they are.....

I bet they cost more than my entire engine! But....

[QUOTE=Dave Severson]

Originally Posted by techinspector1

There's just something romantic about the 429. Maybe it's the connection to my all time favorite motor, the BOSS 429. I had the option to use whichever I wanted, but chose a 429 for my roadster build.
QUOTE]

Here ya go Richard, the Boss heads are available again....Time to build another roadster!!!!!!!!

Oh my Gawd, I'm in love!!! Have you ever seen anything as beautiful in your life???????

Originally Posted by stovens

Tell me if this make sense. I'm using a computer program horse power simulator. Running equal components from heads, carb and cam the 429 ends up with about 50-60 hp, every time I run the figures, compared to the 460. I'm using Camquest 6 software from comp cams web site!

As to whether or not this "makes sense," my reply is that it makes sense only because it's a computer program. Of course it's wrong; you are playing with a computer program and not an engine build or even an engine combo of any kind.

Assuming all components being equal (including compression ratio) the 429 and 460 engines will make about the same power, the 429 generating that power at a slightly higher rpm than the 460.

Originally Posted by stovens

The only thing I can think of is the smaller cylinder volume increases the compression and thereby the Horsepower. I just assumed the extra few cc of the 460, would equal extra horse power.

The fact that the 429 has a lower engine displacement will make its compression ratio lower than the 460, not higher.

You will be very, very restricted in performance piston choices if you build the 429. Which engine you ultimately build depends on application.

Paul

Originally Posted by shoprat

I have a 70 429 in my 57 Ford. It's a lot stronger than the 78 460 in my 78 Ranchero...I prefer the short stroke of the 429.
I think the 429 was 360 HP stock.
Ron

• The 1970 429 has a 10.5:1 compressision ratio, while the 1978 460 has a dismal 7.8:1 compression ratio.
• The 1970 429/460 cam has a more aggressive cam profile than the 1977 460 cam.
• The 1970 429/460 has a straight up timing chain, the 1978 460 does not.
• (etc.)

Of course the 1970 engine will be more powerful than the 1978 engine due to reasons as noted above (and there are more differences, too). The 1978 engine can be rebuilt to have more horsepower than most people would care to have on the street. Your comparison is really no comprarison at all, except for maybe serving as a study of how emmissions killed engine power over the 1970's decade. Fortunately, the 1978 460 can still be modified to make really good power.

Paul


Paul

Thanks Paul. It was not making any sense at all to me, but your right, with a longer stroke, you would think the compression would be higher. I'm still going with a 1970 presmog engine and heads, so the extra cc's with a lower resulting rpm for the same hp makes sense to me.