Thread: Fords are expensive!!!!

Tweet

I am trying to think of all angles of my bbf build and want to be sure about what I want to do before I start buying parts. I started doing some price checking on some things so I called a couple machine shops to get some figures and was rocked by what I heard. To get my dove-c heads rebuilt to stock form, (no porting, cheap valves, small valve springs) is going to be around 700 bucks. 700 bucks for some 40 year old stock heads. I already have a couple hundred in just buying these heads. I am not saying these guys were bsing me, just that I didnt know it would cost that much.
So now I am thinking about taking a little more time on the car and getting some performer rpms or some john kaase p51s. I am leaning toward the edelbrocks because I am worried that my 429 would need a crazy big cam to move the air that the john kaase heads can.
Any input would be great.

Big block anything is more expensive than small block anything, and Fords are generally a lot more money to build than Chevy. I guess it has to do with the large amount of Chevy stuff that is cranked out vs Ford stuff. When I had the machine work alone done on my 460 the bill curled what little hair I have left. Yep, we Ford guys pay dearly for our fun.

Don

Well, I guess ill just spend the money because my first plan was to put the motor that i put in my camaro in my torino. I figured it wouldnt be a big deal to have a chevy power plant in my old ford... I thought! I almost got scalped when I mentioned it to an older ford crowd that I hang out with.

well there is a thing called over head .the machines to do engine machine work are pricy.it is hard to say what your heads need .just added up the labor .race SS valves and new manganese bronze guides HP springs moly retaners valve locks valve seals .cut rocker stands down for ajustable valve train. mill head .hot tank heads . 3d valve seat job 4 angles . new guids honed .setup heads over 885.00 machine work price is the same for any make ford or chevy bbc chevy heads would be abit less if older heads they have ajustable valve train. valve price and valve springs and guids are no more then chevy .if i did some looking around i think your heads could be re built with good parts and a bigger intake valve for abit less then 880. i did some dove C and i could only get a ss intake valve abit bigger then stock

Originally Posted by josh bichard

Any input would be great.

OK, I'll add some input. I had this DynoSim on file, so will share it with you. There are plenty of BBF guys who are sharper and know more about these combinations than I do, I'm just sharing what I have.
460 +0.030", stock crank.
Edelbrock 61649 heads. 75cc chambers, 310cc intake runners, 2.19"/1.76" valves. Published flow factored by 0.90 by me because every engine builder who has done independent flow tests says the the published figures are too generous. Here are the figures I used on this DynoSim pull....
0.100" 68 60
0.200" 126 106
0.300" 186 138
0.400" 234 162
0.500" 270 180
0.600" 287 186
0.700" 293 186
22cc D-cup hypereutectic pistons such as these, 9.93:1 static compression ratio with 75cc heads...
http://kb-silvolite.com/performance....tails&P_id=188
Tailor block deck height and gasket thickness to achieve a 0.045" to 0.055" squish.
Large tube, equal-length, long-tube headers with an "X" pipe between the collectors and the mufflers.
Edelbrock RPM or Weiand Stealth mounting an 850 CFM carb.
I used a mechanical roller cam in this pull. Rumor has it that the hydraulic roller tappets are too tall for use in this motor and contribute to excessive pushrod angle which pushes the rocker off the valve, or tries to. At best with guide plates, there would be excessive force against the side of the pushrod. The solid roller tappets are shorter and work better apparently. Comp doesn't even list hydraulic rollers for this motor, so there must be some validity to the rumor. Use stock ratio 1.73:1 rockers and the #954 valve springs recommended by the cam manufacturer. Counsel with Edelbrock about this.
http://www.compcams.com/Cam_Specs/Ca...csid=1027&sb=0
Installed advanced 2 degrees.

I don't know the usage of your vehicle, but this combination would make a limited daily driver, weekend warrior type motor using a 3000 stall converter with an automatic or use a manual transmission. Needs gears....

RPM HP TQ
2000 187 492
2500 237 498
3000 300 526
3500 375 562
4000 443 581
4500 496 579
5000 538 565
5500 545 520
6000 511 448
Peak volumetric efficiency 98.9% @5000
Peak BMEP 187.9 @4000

Bottom line on the solid roller cam: I know it's easy for me to spend your money long distance, but in my opinion, the higher initial cost and lashing the valves once a year is a small price to pay for the peace of mind that a flat tappet cam lifter won't go south and take the cam out with it.

Thanks for taking the time to get those figures for me tech. And trust me, this is one subject I dont mind spending money on. I got a couple questions for ya though.
1. Are those the performer rpm heads?
2.Are those out of the box figures?(no port matching or bowl work)
3. What kind of loss of power could i expect by using my 429 crank?
4. With a tko 5 speed, what rear gear would you run?
I am not set in concrete about that tranny, but am considering it.
Thanks for you time sir.

O, and those are stamped rockers right?

I know that my 351 Cleveland sure was not cheap to build.
And it ain't even a big block, Kind of wishing I would have built
the 400M instead. But thats my next build and it will be with the
V4 Cleveland heads too.
I hear that the V4 Cleveland head does better on the 400M
because of the longer stroke. Guess I'll find out.
Kurt

Yea, I had a chance to trade my 429 for a cleveland. Passed on it because I didnt know the guy and didnt know anything about the motor.

Josh; I would not have made that trade either.
My 351 Cleveland is going in a little 65 Ford Ranchero that weighs 2,000pds.
and I am hard pressed for room under the hood.
Your gonna need them big cubic inches to get all that steel rolling.
If that was my Torino I would get the 460 and put that in there.
I seen a artical some time ago where the took a 460 and turned the crank down
to accept 455 Olds rods bought some differant pistons and it came out to like a 503.
I believe they might have had to shave the sides of the rods.
But it was supposed to be a great running motor.
Nothing like the Big inches. Kurt

I heard that all I have to do is get the 460 crank and pistons. I am definately a little intimidated about the build though. I would consider myself able, just inexperienced. I know what all the parts of an engine are and what they do, but I know that there is more to building an engine than just bolting it together. But I always say, "A talented man can do anything"!) hahaha

Originally Posted by josh bichard

Thanks for taking the time to get those figures for me tech. And trust me, this is one subject I dont mind spending money on. I got a couple questions for ya though.
1. Are those the performer rpm heads?
2.Are those out of the box figures?(no port matching or bowl work)
3. What kind of loss of power could i expect by using my 429 crank?
4. With a tko 5 speed, what rear gear would you run?
I am not set in concrete about that tranny, but am considering it.
Thanks for you time sir.

1. Performer RPM 460 CJ #61649 is what I had in the DynoSim. They are 75cc chambers, 310cc intake runners. The other heads Edelbrock shows are the Performer RPM 460 heads with 292cc intake runners and are available with either 75cc (#60679) or 95cc (#60669) chambers. Strangely, the published flow numbers are the exact same for all 3 of these heads, so I feel better about using 0.90 to factor the heads I used for the DynoSim pull. It's hard for me to understand how a 310cc runner and a 292cc runner can flow the exact same numbers. I guess it's possible, but it doesn't seem plausible.

In retrospect, I might be more inclined to use the 60669 heads with a flat-top piston such as this...
http://kb-silvolite.com/performance.php?action=comp
With a 95cc chamber, 9.89:1 static compression ratio would be achieved.
After reading more detail, I think the RPM or Stealth intake would match up better with the head ports of the 60669 or 60689 heads. I might even order the 60689 bare heads and install my own valves and the Comp springs that work with the roller cam. I'm not sure the springs that are installed on the 60669 heads would work with the lift of the roller cam. All this would take some digging on your part to make sure everything is compatible before laying down the green, but I'm passing on the information that's available to me in good faith.

2. Those figures I posted are the published figures factored by 0.90 with no work done to them. Straight out of the box, factored.

3. Plugging in the 3.59" stroke and changing to a shorter cam to work better with the tall 5th gear of the 5-speed, I get the following results.....
This is with 9.89:1 SCR using flat-top pistons with one valve relief along with the 95cc chambers.
I used this cam advanced 2 degrees. It has a more reasonable power range of 2200 to 6200 to, like I said, work better with the tall 5th gear of the manual transmission.
http://www.compcams.com/Cam_Specs/Ca...csid=1025&sb=0
RPM HP TQ
2000 187 491
2500 237 497
3000 301 526
3500 372 558
4000 434 570
4500 485 566
5000 522 548
5500 530 505
6000 489 428
Peak volumetric efficiency 96.8% @4500
Peak BMEP 197.5 @4000
The problem will be finding affordable pistons. They're readily available for the 3.85" stroke, but not so much so with the 3.59" stroke. Of course, if money is abundant, anyone can make a set designed any way you want them.

4. I would counsel closely with the cam manufacturer on this, but with the shorter cam, you might use something like a 3.55:1. You don't want to go too deep because of the short 1st gear, but you also don't want to use a gear that is so tall that you will lug the motor in 5th. This is a real juggling act and should be discussed with the transmission supplier and the cam supplier. There is a 0.83:1 5th gear available in the TCET4615 trans if you haven't bought the trans yet. That might be more desireable than the 0.68:1 5th gear ratio. 2200 rpm's (low limit of the cam) with a 28" tire and 3.55 gear would give you a 11.6:1 1st gear ratio and a 2.94:1 5th gear ratio for cruising at 62 mph. 2300 would cruise at 65, 2400 would cruise at 68 and so forth.

5. The DynoSim makes no distinction between the style or construction of the rockers, only the ratio. I used 1.73:1 for both pulls.

Josh; Get this book right here this is a great book.
Shows you how to tear down and rebuild the 460 engine.
http://www.amazon.com/Ford-Performan.../dp/1884089275
Kurt

Thank you all very much for your advise. I learn a little more each day and can't wait to pull that thing out of the garage. I plan on ordering that book vara4. Looks like a good start for me. You know, I never would have dreamed that my Torino had this in store when I was 15. Of course, I thought that it hauled balls with the stock 351w that was in it!

Josh welcome to the painful club of ford bb ownership! I actually went out of state for the longblock with the rebuilt parts I wanted, it was almost 30 percent less than local, and it was backed with a phenominal guarentee. But you are so right, wait till you get to the dress up stuff! Oochh!