[updated:LAST EDITED ON 19-Dec-01 AT 02:58 PM (EST)]>Sorry about the confusion. My fault. I meant to say that as
>far as bigger bore equalling more room for detonation, I'm
>not sure I buy it. Most people don't describe
>detonation as having anything to do with the timing in
>relation to the spark provided by the spark plug or in
>relation to crankshaft position. It is simply auto-ignition
>of the air-fuel mix. As far as true pre-ignition it really
>has nothing to do with crankshaft position either. You
>simply have a condition where a "hot-spot" causes the
>air-fuel mix to ignite. That ignition source could possibly
>be your spark plug, either by being the hot-spot itself
>(those babies can get really warm), or if you have the
>timing too far advanced.

One or more of the sites I read describing detonation seperated it from preigntion, but I can see that post spark detonation is just "preignition" away from the spark plug, but as you say....
>these are all just technicalities and semantics. I'm
>just not sure whether I would trust KB pistons or their tech
>advice. I've heard too many horror stories regarding their
>pistons, especially in big-block Fords.

I've heard mixed comments about the KB pistons myself, but the most recent things are that they have worked out the bugs and have their problems solved. I think Jasper is using hypereutectic pistons but not to say they are or aren't KB's. But I'm going with cast anyhow.

>lower temp thermostats down to
>160 degrees have been shown to actually increase hp output.
>Also, I have heard that an engine will show increased wear
>with lower operating temperatures.

I can't understand either the increased wear, but I'll not disagree. I hope to use a good synthetic and a better filter after it's broken in.

Just because your thermostat is 160 degress, don't
>think that the heads, pistons, oil, crank, anything is
>really that much cooler than compared to when running a 190
>or 200 degree thermostat

What about running an auxillary oil cooler. I know the oil should be allowed to get above 212 to vapor off the condensation, but what is the best operating temp for oil? 220 degrees ? I know some of the 460's had oil coolers on them, Is putting one on a good idea? Maybe this is a good topic for another post.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>BUSDRIVER SAID:
The reason that an engine with a bigger bore is more prone to detonation is that it takes longer for the flame front to travel from the spark plug to the opposite side of the cylinder. Because it takes longer for the flame front to travel across the bore there is more time for the temperature and pressure of the fuel/air charge at the side of the bore opposite the spark plug to build and therefore cause autoignition of that part of the charge. For this same reason locating the spark plug in the center of the combustion chamber like the Jim Feuling heads for the 460 significantly reduces the likelihood of abnormal combustion. This in addition to other factors on the Feuling heads allow compressions ratios of 12:1 on 87 octane fuel
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<

Did Fueling ever get those head into production. The last I heard they were opposing BMW claiming that BMW's engineers had used their technology on their new head design and had broken international patent infringement laws. I forget what the price was going to be for them, but I had asked them via email and it wasn't too much different than Edelbrocks Aluminum heads. (from memory) He has a new W-3 motor design for his own motorcycles using his head technology. I'm impressed with the head and especially as you say the center-fire technology. Thanks for the support and explanation.
Tony

 

For this same
>reason locating the spark plug in the center of the
>combustion chamber like the Jim Feuling heads for the 460
>significantly reduces the likelihood of abnormal combustion.
>This in addition to other factors on the Feuling heads allow
>compressions ratios of 12:1 on 87 octane fuel
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <
>
> Did Fueling ever get those head into production. The
>last I heard they were opposing BMW claiming that BMW's
>engineers had used their technology on their new head design
>and had broken international patent infringement laws

CORRECTIN MYSELF HERE, IT IS MERCEDES-BENZ THAT FUELING IS IN A LAWSUIT AGAINST.

 

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 31-Dec-01 AT 05:24&nbsp;AM (EST)]If you plan on doing any heavy towing with your new 460 you better keep the CR under 9.5:1..Even at 9.5:1, if you tow in the summer heat like the southwest or areas like that you will be running premium...
You guys talk about running 10:1+ compression..thats great for a street truck that dosen't work... Take that 10:1+ engine and put 7 or 8 thousand pounds behind it during summer and head up the passes of the rocky mountians...Belive me this is from experiance... I had a 428 in my 1973 F250 that was 10.25:1...Thinking this engine will tow like crazy...WRONG!.. It towed great up to the point where it started burning holes in pistons... Tried water injection, octane booster with premium...No good...It came out and in went a 9:1 460... Much more torque and a engine that won't self destruct with todays pump gas... High compression and towing don't work...


Metro2

 

There are many tricks that can be employed when trying to use higher compression ratios even when towing. These are a few, in no particular order. Ram-air for cooler intake charge, better radiator, high flow aluminum water pump to keep engine temps down, polished combustion chambers, 93 octane fuel, tetra-ethyl lead additive, carburetor enrichment, slight timing retardation (not so much that it kills your power, but just enough to help out when towing in 100 degree weather. Might just need to back off 2-3 degrees to help significantly), aluminum heads, phenolic spacer, yada, yada, yada. Any or all of these can be used to help out an engine on the brink of too much compression. I'm running right at 10:1 and my particular truck was able to tow another 5500 lb truck on a 16 ft trailer with no problems, and it was pretty dag-gone hot outside at the time. I'm utilizing some of the above tricks but definitely not all of them. Later.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 31-Dec-01 AT 10:38&nbsp;PM (EST)]Those are all good ideas..Except for running the carb on the rich side, all that will do is carbon up the back side of the intakes faster...Further decreasing performance.. If your serious about towing you will allready have a 4 row radiator and high flow water pump...You can avoid all the extra expense of carrying around a case of lead additive and octane booster or having to stop when it starts to get hot out to retard your timing, by running a modest compression engine...When I tow, like on vacation, I don't want to have to hassle with all the tweeking and jacking around with a engine just so it will run right... I just want to get in and go...Add fuel and check oil...Thats it... When you run on the ragged edge or the thin line with a high compression engine with todays pump gas you never just get to go....With a 9:1 to 9.4:1 engine you get to do that...Polishing the chambers is always a excellent idea regardless... This last 468 I built that chambers where polished and cced to 80ccs....With a deck clearence of .015, 19 cc dish in the piston, 11.2 cc head gasket that compresssion ratio came out to be 9.42:1... It works really good...No detonation or preignition...Towing or not...Hot or cold...Up hill or down hill...Would be nice to get 100 octane fuel...Everybody would run 10+....


Metro2

 

The octane issue is a big one. Raising the compression ratio would give more HP and torque, but would having to run 93 octane be worth the tradeoff. If I can do what I need to do with the truck using a 9.0:1 and use 87, I'll be further ahead of the game. I'm going to be getting 10 to 11 mpg pulling (hopefully, as I get 9 now) and I can't see that higher compression would give that much better fuel economy. Thus at 10 mpg and .20/gallon more for premium, I add .02/mile expense by having to run premium. If I only drive 5000 miles/year that's not a big issue, but I put 90,000 on in about 21 months and the truck has been used very little in the last month or so. That's 50,000 miles/year at .02/mile is an extra $1000 that I might not really need to spend. Preventing detonation is the key subject here, and using 93 vs 91 vs 87 is part of the discussion. I agree that from what I read, there are ways to help prevent detonation. I now have insulating wrap around my air tube and run a k&N filter. I also have headers and plan to run a 180 thermostat. I'll probably make sure the egr valve is working, as it sounds that this is independent of the headers, and it could still be working. I might have to bump up to a 750cfm carb, but for now I'll try the 650 stock carb. As far as radiator, I do have a 4 core HD rad and a flex fan. I got rid of the thermo-fan. I'm not that sold on the flex-fan, but it's better than the thermo-job. Electric would be my first choice. It would be cool to run an electric water pump to, to free up the 10 extra horses, but I don't know if I'm sold on the high flow water pumps. I've heard that flowing too fast can not give the water time enough to take the heat from the heads... I'll let ya all know how it goes, it (the short block) should be about finished, and ready to go in anytime.
Tony

 

I just rebuilt the 69 429 in my 77.I used 92cc heads to drop the comp. ratio in hope that it would run on 87 octane.Before with it all original it had to have 93 and the timing really retarded to tow my 6,000lb. pulling truck on a 18' trailer.I got it tuned in yesterday were it will tow with 87 octane with no pinging with the timing set at 10 degrees.I used a Crane Cams kit that came with different spring and an adjustable vacuum advance.It took about 20 minutes to do and worked perfect.Before I did this I still had pinging under load Iwith the timing at 8 degrees with the truck empty.I also own a 79 with a 73 460 that is stock except for the Holley 600 carb.I love this one for towing,you just put whatever gas you want in it and go.It seems to really have more low end torque and useable power than the other truck.You can go to my gallery and get the mods to the 429,it is no sloutch.I really recomend the Crane kit for any one having a problem with pinging.

Dennis
1979 F-250 4x4 460 4-speed 33"s
1977 Highboy 429 4-speed 35"s
1969 Ranger on a 1978 F-250 4x4
frame 466 560HP 4.10's 33"s

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-Jan-02 AT 06:10&nbsp;AM (EST)]Tony you would be better off going back to the thermo-clutch fan for towing....With a clutch fan, say a stock heavy duty one that came on the 460's in trucks with the super cooling, that includes most of the Camper Specials or the Super Camper F350s you have a distinct advantage over a flex fan...When you are towing, say pulling a hill in second the engine is running at high rpm and the truck is moving slower than normal...Well with a flex fan the blades flatten out at higher rpm and there for pull LESS air through the radiator...Add that to the already slower moving truck and you get ALOT less air moving through the cooling system... A heavy duty cluth will always turn the fan at 80 to 90 percent of water pump speed when it is locked up(depending on which clutch company you talk to)...I'm not talking about the passenger units only the truck units..The BIG clutches and 19 or 20 inch fans...Thus when the truck is moving slow and working hard you are still getting max airflow through the radiator...That is why the factory put those on the heavy duty applications...Take a look under the hood of a cummins powered dodge truck...It has a MASSIVE thermo-clutch fan on it...Flex fans are good for freeing up horsepower on cars..Not for cooling that big old 460 you got while towing...

Metro2

 

Thanks for the input and concern. The decision to go with the flex fan wasn't made without consideration. The truck had overheated when a clutch/thermo fan went bad. 2 of the garages and a couple autoparts stores I visited said the they replaced alot of clutch/thermo fans. I didn't think their dependable enough to risk putting back in. It was the same time that I put the big radiator in and that was part of my consideration as I don't think I would have put the flex fan in without the big radiator. I decided that I'd watch the temp gauge when using 3rd gear on hills. It hasn't been a problem, although the gauge does move when towing 3rd gear. Possibly, if I had the 4.10 rear rather than the 3.55's, it'd be more of a concern, cause even towing in 3rd gear going up hills, I'm able to keep it around 45-50 mph and flow pretty good air. Now if someone told me that X brand thermo-fan had a lifetime guarantee and would pay for any engine damages from overheating....and never had a claim against them.....then then it would probably be in there. First choice is maybe still electric. Thanks again for the input. The thermo fan is quieter than the flex fan and if I felt it was failproof, I'd probably use it. Does anyone run an aftermarket electric fan?
Tony

 

Enrichening the air-fuel mix beyond what is setup on an out-of-box carb will NOT hurt performance, (up to a point, of course). Racing engines designed to make maximum hp run much richer air-fuel ratios than anyone on the street. Not good for mpg, but good for hp and good for avoiding detonation.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 01-Jan-02 AT 10:11&nbsp;PM (EST)]Yes it does make more power on a race car that is tore down once or twice during a racing season...Most people don't consider there daily driver a race car either..Most people don't have a engine built for racing in there daily driver...Run a rich mixture on a street engine and put 20,000 miles on it then take that one apart....Every intake valve will be loaded with a big nasty pile of carbon...To the point that you have reduce intake airflow a BIG amount....Add the rich mixture with the oil vapors that come from the PCV and the richened exhaust going back into the intake via the EGR(If equiped) and you will have a even quicker carbon build up...Engines have a optimum lean setting for a reason...Most peolpe building engines for there Ford trucks won't be taking them to local drap strips for a season of racing...Most people expect there new engine to last 100K+ miles and give good long lasting performance...Keep the compression at a tolerable level and you will not have to run anything by a optimum lean mixture...Now you will have a engine that will have a nice happy life with normal or minimal carbon build up...


Metro2

 

Everything is to a degree. Obviously, I can make my air-fuel mix so rich that my engine won't even run, but that's not the point. If (in addition to other tricks listed above) it only takes a 1% richer mixture to totally eliminate your pinging, you won't have to worry about carbon build-up.

I guess you didn't listen to my story. I have a 460 with just over 10:1 and I have no problems when running 93 octane, and I haven't done half of the things listed above to help decrease detonation. That's even in summer when towing!!!

As for mileage, say premium costs 15% more than 87 octane, if you can get 15% better mileage out of your engine then it's a push. Remember, if your getting 10 now, you'd only have to get 11.5 to break even. I'll take my extra hp and have to pay for premium. Who builds a hot 460 for the gas mileage anyway?

 

TonyG,

Sorry for the late reply, I've been on vacation. I don't know if Feuling has ever gotten his heads in production or not. I keep checking his website and it hasn't been updated in over a year. You are correct that Feuling was suing Mercedes for infringement of his patents, which would not have stopped him from making his heads regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit. That is of course, unless he spent all of his money in the lawsuit and didn't have anything left to put the heads into production (that is what I am guessing). I believe that a complete set of heads was going to be $3000. I guess we will keep waiting and watching to see if he ever gets them into mass production.

Neil

 

I think you may be right about using up funds to pursue the lawsuit. I saw where he had an auction of alot of his inventory of past developments. I don't know how it went for him, but it sounded like more than cleaning out the backroom. He may also be putting alot of money into the W-3 motorcycle and putting the head development on the back burner. From what I remember Chevy 454 heads where available and being run in some drag and street cars. He was working on the 460 heads which would have made Eldebrock heads fall flat.
On an interesting side-note, I noticed that Mercedes Benz finished very high in EPA ratings for 2002. I was visiting the EPA site and Mercedez stood out like a sore thumb at the top of most classes.
I think your correct also about the $3000. I had emailed their R&D and they estimated that figure as a retail target.
Later,
Tony