Thread: Cylinder head question.

Tweet

I am working on a '63 Galaxie that is going to be a street/strip car. My intention for the car is that it be more of a "street driven strip car" than it is a "street car occasionally run on the strip". If that makes sense.
I do intend to drive the car to local cruise-ins and such, but performance is more important to me than comfortable drivability.
As I have begun pondering which engine components to look for to begin my build, I have gotten confused over which type of heads will achieve my goal the best. It's my understanding that big port heads are good for high RPM power, but I have read that they kill low end torque. Likewise, I have heard that the smaller port heads provide for more low end torque, and are more "streetable" but don't yield the overall power and performance.
Do I need to be concerned with this idea? When I think of having a fun drag car, one of the first things that comes to mind is stump-pulling torque. But on the other hand, I know that most engines like the one I envision in my car are not necessarily categorized as "streetable".
I'm thinking I'm somewhere on the fence. I want good low end torque to help get my heavy Galaxie out of the hole respectably, but I don't want to sacrifice power for the sake of having a daily-drivable motor. Daily driving is not in this car's future, so I think I could go with a more aggressive type head.
I'm not sure I even know enough on the subject that I've posed a coherent question, but if somebody understands what I'm getting at, I'd sure appreciate some input.
I don't want to buy high dollar,big port heads that will be more than what I need if the more affordable, smaller port heads will accomplish my goal and give me plenty of performance. I'm rambling again ...!
Thanks, Ryan

Survival Motorsports.... Barry has the answers to all your questions. A true FE guru!!!!

Ryan; We need to know what engine your building and other things about your car like trany and rear end your planning on running. Hopefully it's a big block to get that thing rolling out of the hole. If your planning on running a big stall converter you don't need low end torque. You'll need mid and top end, but it's all about the money.
If it's a small block then you will probably need more low end because in a heavy car like that it will probably die out of the hole with all that cold steel, even with a big stall.
There is nothing like cubic inches to get heavy metal rolling. Let us know what motor.
Kurt

Hey guys,
Thanks for the quick responses. My plan is to build an FE, most likely a 390 as they seem to be more plentiful and affordable (as opposed to a 406/427 obviously). Behind that will be an automatic tranny. I've been told to locate a C4 if I can as they are lighter than a C6, and will hold up to the amount of engine I plan on having in the car anyhow.
I am not opposed to running a converter with a higher than stock stall speed, but at the same time, I have no experience ever driving a vehicle that was equipped this way. Have no idea what to expect. In the past, any project I've ever had with any kind of horsepower/torque at all had a manual transmission in it, so I'm yet to cross this bridge.
I am also not opposed to running a deep gear in the car to help it get up and going quicker. I understand the limitations of distance driving and fuel economy and such, but I'd be fine with running 4.11s or such if it netted the desired performance from the car when I wanted it. Needless to say, I'll put up with the car being a bit of a pain to drive on the street, if it performs well at the track when I want it to.

i dont think ford ever made a head with too big of ports .. cept maybe the cleaveland ..get the good GT or cobra jet stuff .. a 390 block can go to 428 cubes easy

I would thick that the 460's would be cheaper to build then the 390 because there are so many of them laying around. Like Hoss said you can stroke a 390 out to a 428.
If I didn't have a engine block yet I would go with a 460, bigger is always better.
I will not put a C - 4 trany behind my 351 Cleveland because I have broken to many of them when I get my engine torqued up. In a big heavy car I sure would not put one in there unless you just like changing trany's in and out. The best way to go is a turbo 400 with a adapter plate, I won't say you can't brake it, but it's very unlikely.
Beside's the C - 4 is a small block trany, and both the 390 and 460 engines are big blocks. There is a 460 engine builder on here that is really good from what I've heard about him. I can't recall his name but, Dave Severson or Techinspector knows who I am talking about. With a 460 he can make all your wild dreams come true about one fast ride.
Kurt

There is a big difference between torque output between a SBF and a big block FE you really should go with the C6 because of that.The weight savings by swapping the heads and intake to aluminum is worth a little "free Horsepower" Tech Inspector did some Dyno-Sims on an FE last year,maybe He could post the links to the archives I think you will be impressed.

Thanks for the info. guys.
I will definitely opt for an aluminum intake, but aluminum heads may not be in the budget for a while. Just don't think I'm quite charming enough to get that one past the wife!
That's a really interesting suggestion to go with a TH400 behind a ford engine. Admittedly, I never knew that was even an option. I had a TH400 in the '70 chevy pickup I used to own, and seldom had a problem with it. This adapter plate that was mentioned, I'll begin looking for one. Is that a TCI or Lakewood type of item?
My plan is to go with a roller valve train with my engine. I know that 390 blocks were designated between solid lifter and hydraulic lifter blocks. Do I need to pay special attention to find a hydraulic lifter core to build? Or is there machining that can be done now to make either block work with a hydraulic roller camshaft?
Oh, and one more question along the lines of my original cylinder head quandry. It's my understanding that single plain intakes are more for high RPM, less low end torque applications. Versus dual plane intakes being more low to mid torque, "street friendly" versions. If I go with the high RPM/top end power route with the right stall converter, do I need to be concerned with hampering my car's ability to launch and accerlerate hard?
I've seen a lot of talk about Edelbrock performer RPM intakes. Are these somewhat in the middle, and a best of both world type of product? Bearing in mind that this is in no way going to be a purpose built race car, but closer to that end of the spectrum than it is a daily driver.
Good Lord I ramble a lot ... lol. Thanks again everyone ... Ryan

I never considered using a TH400 behind a big block Ford, maybe that's the hot ticket. Personally though, I would be satisfied using a C6. In my opinion, it's as strong as a TH400 and it bolts right up without an adapter.

Ryan,
buy Barry R's book. It's a good start to this project.
Read it about 20 times, and decide where you want to go.

for budget? I'd have c1ae-a heads mildly ported, port match to intake of choice, 445 rotating assembly, and keep a c6, they are cheap and easy.
I see no reason you could not build this engine for $4k-$6k turnkey.
It's a good start, you can always grow from there.

best of luck,
Drew

Originally Posted by vara4

There is a 460 engine builder on here that is really good from what I've heard about him. I can't recall his name but, Dave Severson or Techinspector knows who I am talking about. With a 460 he can make all your wild dreams come true about one fast ride.
Kurt

That would be Paul Kane. He often posts in the "Ford-429-460" forum on here.

Ya Tech; I hear ya I am running the small block C - 6 behind my 351 Cleveland.
The C - 6 is a great trny in my opion and like you said plenty strong.
I've got a budy thats running the turbo 400 behind his 408W and he said there are alot better options with it then the C - 6. and so for no brakage after about a year of running it. I belive he said he is turning about 9,000 rpm's as well.
Kurt

smaller CC chambers creat higher compression for power.....as for bigger ports...I personally dont think they would be bad for lower torque.....it all depends on the Camsaft and Intake manifold you use. Some cams are designed for 0-5400rpm power, some from 1000-6500 rpm power and some are desiged for higher rpm power range, same with the intakes. some are designed for low end(dual planes) and some for mid to higher range(Single planes), then your carb is something else.....if your max rpm runs 5500 to 6000, you may go with 600cfm to 750cfm, I recommend Dual plane High rise, if you expect max rpm to run 8000 during racing, you may want go with 750 or bigger up to 950cfm with a single plane highrise intake. Basically get a combination that will work good together where one part wont diminish the others. My suggestion is to start with the style of intake, cam, and carb you are going to go with for your application and that will tell you what heads you will need.

hope this helps

How fast do u want to go? I had a 390 in a 4000lb 57 Ford that ran 105 at 12:70 35 yrs ago with basic stuff.
early block..060 over, 6090c stock heads, fomoco 500/324 dur cam. 2 500 cfm carters on Ford low riser manifild, good set
of headers, 10 in conv and 4:56's. Totally streetable. It's not rocket science. This did
the job until a 427 was dropped in (11:60 @ 116mph)

Deleted - did not realize this was an old post.