Thread: Wanting to give my 460 some pep!!

Tweet

well your old ? well NO i build engine and machine them every week so your telling me them bad cams coming out of them BBC and small blocks i have seen over the years are not bad ? i take a roller any day .your hoping your flat lifter cam lifters are going to say turning and there lube under the lifter foot to stop things going south .were a roller just rolls over the cam .i do not have to worry about the face on the lifter ground on the right radius . finsh on lifter face .junk oil . owner not breaking in the cam right . yep i stick with junk roller cams

Pat, I'm not trying to deny your experience. If you're an engine builder by profession, then you clearly have one over on me when it comes to seeing how an engine wears. Are you saying that on those engines with excessive cam wear, that there wasn't already some other reason to tear it down or rebuild it? I'm thinking in most cases it's already time to freshen it up, but I could be wrong. I'm just saying that for me, personally, I don't see the benefit of rollers if I'm not running steep ramps and high spring pressures. What's the cost-benefit analysis of buying roller tappets vs. buying additives anyway?

C'mon, kids, play nice or they'll take your crayons away!
Seriously, though, I have both rollers and flat tappet engines with 300K miles on the same cam. Then, too, I've had both fail in less time, some went south in no time at all. The critical time with flat tappets is the first minute or so after initial startup. If it fires right up with no problem and runs easily, and there's a good cam lube and zinc additive used, I have had no trouble at all with modern oils. Not to say rollers aren't better, just not absolutely necessary for a street engine.
As for heads on a 460, the C3's can be made to work well if you are rebuilding the engine anyway, just buy the pistons needed to put the CR where you want it and port the heads a bit to get rid of the restriction in the exhaust ports. And of course get a timing set that is straight up, not retarded like the factory ones.
It's not just the retarded timing sets that kill a stocker, the cams have a profile reminiscent of a Stovebolt Chevy 6.

My thinking is, as long as he is going in there and changing cams anyway, why not get the peace of mind a roller would provide? We are seeing so many flat cams going away prematurely these days that lots of people are adding $ 10 to every oil change because they are dumping in some additive to put back the stuff the oil companies are now leaving out. How much does it add to the cost to go roller cam? Maybe $ 200-$ 300 total? For me that little difference would be well worth it............no break in procedure, potentially longer life, and probably better performance due to less friction.

Don't take offense to this slightly spirited discussion we are having, if we were having it around a round of cold ones it would not come off as harsh as it does in print. We are just seeing a difference in philosophies here. On some forums this would be considered very tame.

Don

FIRST OF ALL, MY APOLOGIES TO THE OP FOR HAVING TO SUFFER THIS BANTER BETWEEN TWO OLD GUYS.....

Originally Posted by moparfever

No, it's not something I heard at Sonic. I don't work that way. Really, I'm 52 years old and have been doing everyhting on my cars since I was 15. You don't have to insult me.

Sorry, I get a little emotional sometimes.

Originally Posted by moparfever

Okay, power under the curve. Did you read that in a book somewhere?

Now, you're trying to insult me. All knowledge is aquired one of three ways, either it is heard or it is read or it is figured out to a conclusion by the person himself. It is my conclusion from having hot rodded one thing or another and been around others of the same ilk for over 50 years, that if you can apply more power over a longer period of time with one manifold than you can with another type of manifold, you will be quicker and/or make more power. I appreciate your example, but that is only one example. I have seen, in dozens of cases over the years, that a car will be faster after changing from a single plane to a dual plane intake. It all depends on the application. On a circle track car, a dual plane will slow the car down because the rpm operating range is maybe 4000 to 8500. On a street car, you may make a little more power because the operating range is more like idle to 5500. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by moparfever

Nobody races from idle. Not with either automatics or standards. A single plane can give plenty of power starting at a reasonable rpm.

I'm not talking about a racing motor only. I'm talking all applications of internal combustion engines. Your statement "A single plane can give plenty of power starting at a reasonable rpm" is true, of course. But the question is....Could the car be faster or the engine make more power with a different manifold in the particular power range where the motor will be operated in this particular application?

Originally Posted by moparfever

Do you really think with 450 ft-lbs of torque at 2500rpm you'ld be down to unusable at 1500rpms, which is really where most cars begin using power?

Probably not, but this is just one example where you are using a particular set of circumstances to make your point. There are other examples from my past that indicate that in a particular application, a dual plane intake would make more power under curve in the range where it is used and be a better choice. This is my experience talking and I don't immediately have a graph or curve to display, but given a little time, I will come up with visual evidence.

Originally Posted by moparfever

Now on the cylinder cross-section. It's just another way of saying big-block. If you look at how much air gets sucked through the carb during the initial 30 degrees of crank rotation after tdc

Ummmm, yeah.....not much really. The intake valve is barely beginning to open. It will be about another 75 or so degrees of crank rotation before the intake is fully open and it will be open for another 105 degrees or so after that, depending on cam timing of course.

Originally Posted by moparfever

a big block sucks considerably more volume than a small block due to the larger cross-section of the cylinder, hence a faster signal to the carb. Of course it's more complicated than that, and takes into account runner volume as well

Yeah, you bet it takes runner volume into account. The relationship of cylinder volume to intake runner volume is very closely defined, no matter whether it is a tiny little small block or a behemoth 800 cubic inch motor. The smaller the runner is for a given cubic inch motor, the better the throttle response at low rpm's and the sooner the manifold will stall. The larger the runner, the worse the throttle response and the more soggy low end operation will be. That's just my point. For the manifold displacement that the piston sees, dual plane manifolds have roughly half the displacement of a single plane manifold, so they generally will operate better on a street motor where rpm's are limited. I am not so hard-headed as to deny you that there are some applications where a single plane will work better, so long as you will concede that there are some applications where a dual plane will work better.

Originally Posted by moparfever

but in my real-life experience, a single plane works great on big blocks on the street. You do what you want, everybody has an opinion and everyone goes their own way.

Yeah, well in my real-life experience, a dual plane works great on big blocks on the street.

Stalemate, end of game.

Well, I have to concede to you guys. I wasn't aware of the huge controversy over the zinc reduction in oil. Although the evidence of premature cam wear isn't well documented, it is there and is from engine builders vs. the oil companies. Good enough that it gives me pause. Certainly if you have a pre-cat car you still have good options like diesel-rated or race oil. It looks like this happened around 2005-2006, which is like a year ago in oldster years. I guess I've been lucky. Maybe the fact that my engines were well broken in by that time, except the one on my stand. I'll be more selective on the oil for that one. I did poke an insult back, but really I do respect the experience of the posters here.

okay, now for the OP. Do you guys agree the best way to start is exhaust, intake, and cam? Okay. Now on the dual plane thing. You can run a dual plane, but remember if you want any top end you have to size the carb larger for a dual plane than you would for a single plane. I'l probably catch heck for that one too. Anyway, the reason I like the single plane is that, if you happen to get into a race with someone and decide to open it up, the horsepower will keep climbing, unlike the dual plane where you'll feel it flatten out. Always nice to have an edge. You just have to be watchful of the rpm's cause they'll come fast. If you decide to run a rev limiter, just remember that you can blow a muffler if you run into the limit (ask me how I know).

I forgot a question for Techinspecter. The ratio of runner+plenum to displacement is what I was alluding to. I believe that ratio is a little bit more favorable in big-block applications, but I could be wrong. Do you have any info or an opinion on that? I havn't measured it, but just I've based that mainly on the plenum area being restricted to the size of the carb base. That said, you can always raise the floor on the intake, and I know there's one out there that used to have interchangeable floorplates.

You know we never addressed cam profiles. There are a dizzying number of cams out there. My advice is don't order out of a catalog until you consult with a cam manufacturer. Don't feel comfortable unless they ask all the right questions, like rearend ratio, tire size, converter stall, etc. Try and lay out exactly how you want it to perform before you make the call so they have the right info to work with. That'll get you a cam you can live with.

Originally Posted by moparfever

I forgot a question for Techinspecter. The ratio of runner+plenum to displacement is what I was alluding to. I believe that ratio is a little bit more favorable in big-block applications, but I could be wrong. Do you have any info or an opinion on that? I havn't measured it, but just I've based that mainly on the plenum area being restricted to the size of the carb base. That said, you can always raise the floor on the intake, and I know there's one out there that used to have interchangeable floorplates.

I have thought for years that the manufacturers should pour their manifolds and tell us the volume that any one cylinder would "see" when the intake valve opens, (100% of a 360 intake, 50% of a 180 intake). In my opinion, it would take a lot of the guessing out of the game for those of us who can't dyno every combination. We put a lot of stock into cylinder head runner volumes, why not manifold volumes?

Go for eldelbrock rpm heads,rpm cam,and holley 870 street avenger carb,cheapest way for low buck performance,needs 10;1 comp though? runs fine with eldelbrock mech fuel pump?

Originally Posted by 1977 ford 460BB

Hey hot rodders;
I'd like to do a tear down on my 460bb,clean her up,do a thorough
inspection of everything,and build her back up with some performance
parts.
My question is,what few perf.parts could i add to get some pep?

What i have is a '77 Ford F250,2 wheel drive,and all stock with the exception
of an Edlebrock 1406 carb(electric choke)4bbl and K&N air filter,MSD blaster2
coil and dist.cap

I have had the oil pan off a couple of times and seen that she's a 2 bolt main.
Any suggestions?

I have one on the street with early 429 heads. Comp hydralic around 280 deg
cam. early timing gears of course, Wiend stealth and decent headers
that feels real strong. 4000lbs with 3:55's and a 10 in. convertor.
I have a 850 holley for it, but run a 600 double pump for street purposes.
Still feels good red light to red light etc...flat tappet with Lucas additive. I prefer the screw in studs
and adjustable rockers. IMO the CJ heads are too big.