428 build help
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
428 build help
Hey guys, I'm looking at starting to build a 428 for my 76 f-150 4x4 project. Its going to be lifted with around 36" rubber, its not going to get dirty but will be a weekend cruiser and I want alot of tourque for the fun factor!
I was looking at edelbrock kits but they are pretty pricey and I'm not sure how they work. Has anyone had experiance with the rpm heads, intake, cam kit? Can stock 390 style heads be modified to make good power with an aftermarket intake, cam, headers etc?
Thanks
I was looking at edelbrock kits but they are pretty pricey and I'm not sure how they work. Has anyone had experiance with the rpm heads, intake, cam kit? Can stock 390 style heads be modified to make good power with an aftermarket intake, cam, headers etc?
Thanks
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 3
You can make most things work, but how much money you want to spend will dictate your build. The Edelbrock rpm heads and intake are a good start. I am making about 600 n.a. hp with a bored 428 block and ported Edelbrock heads and intake, larger valves etc. along with a decent comp cams cam. For your application, it would not be hard to make around 500 reliable hp. A good machine shop can machine the inner tops of your "forged" pistons to achieve 9:1 compression for regular gas. Most aftermarket forged pistons can be machined for the lower compression. If your build is a toy project, then fuel costs might not be an issue, so you could keep your compression around 11:1 or higher. Race fuel 110 octane, around here is around $9 per gallon, but will support 13:1 compression
Posting Guru
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,240
Likes: 2
From: Chino Hills
I haved used the performer RPM kit on a SBC, and it was a real nice package.
Also I would seriously consider a roller cam since todays oils have little in the way of zinc which is whats needed to keed flat tappets happy. I would probily do a roller instead of Edelbrock heads myself, and since your doing a 4x4 with big tires. Low-end torque to about 5500rpm would be a tight crawling motor.
Also I would seriously consider a roller cam since todays oils have little in the way of zinc which is whats needed to keed flat tappets happy. I would probily do a roller instead of Edelbrock heads myself, and since your doing a 4x4 with big tires. Low-end torque to about 5500rpm would be a tight crawling motor.
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 8
From: Union, Washington
Hell, no they are for the horsepower freaks and they don't care that the peak torque is in the upper 3000RPM range. Low RPM torque requires a shorter duration cam with a lot of lift to make the big end still work. The last truck torque motor I built was a 390GT with 9.5 to 1 compression basically and I went with a 256° cam with a .515" lift. I was moving a camper on my truck plus towing my race boat. I would out torque even the 460's and 454's going over the mountains and was happy with it. The last tow 428 I built was a CJ and I just went with the stock cam with it and it towed the race car just fine.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
What kind of tourque and hp numbers does a CJ put out? Can the 390 style heads be worked to CJ specs? What intake should I use, I would like to go aluminum, maybe the edelbrock performer?
Thanks for all the advice guys!
Thanks for all the advice guys!
Trending Topics
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 8
From: Union, Washington
The factory said the 428CJ had 335 hp @ 5200 (the same as the 390GT) and 440 ft/lbs @ 3400 but the horsepower is a lie because the factory automatic, in drive shifted at 6000 RPM and the dyno said 430 hp @ 6000. So insurance numbers for the horsepower.
No, the 390 heads just don't have the ports to match the CJ heads but the standard 428 had good numbers; 345 hp @ 4600 and 462 ft/lbs @ 2800 and for towing and low end torque that is what I would build for, more torque at lower RPM. The standard 428 used the same heads as the 390 too. The horsepower is for top speed only anyway, it is the torque that makes you accelerate.
No, the 390 heads just don't have the ports to match the CJ heads but the standard 428 had good numbers; 345 hp @ 4600 and 462 ft/lbs @ 2800 and for towing and low end torque that is what I would build for, more torque at lower RPM. The standard 428 used the same heads as the 390 too. The horsepower is for top speed only anyway, it is the torque that makes you accelerate.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
10 Best Ford Truck Engines We Miss the Most!
Joe Kucinski
2026 Shelby F-150 Off-Road: Better Than a Raptor R?
Brett Foote
2027 Super Duty Carhartt Package First Look: 12 Things You NEED to Know!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Most Surprising 2026 Ford Truck Features!
Joe Kucinski
Top 10 Ford Trucks Coming to Mecum Indy 2026
Brett Foote
5 Best / 5 Worst Ford Truck Wheels of All Time
Joe Kucinski
Ford Super Duty: 5 Things Owners LOVE, 5 Things They LOATHE!
Joe Kucinski
Every 2026 Ford Truck Engine RANKED from WORST to FIRST!
Michael S. Palmer
The Best F-150 Deal of Every Trim Level (XL through Raptor)
Joe Kucinski
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 3
You are getting some misinformation here. Stock Edelbrock rpm heads have the same valve sizes as stock cj/scj heads. 2.09 and 1.66. The Edelbrock heads flow a little better, but are great street heads. Yes, if you want low end torque, you choose a cam accordingly. If someone tells you that the Edelbrock rpm heads and Intake will not make good low end torque, they never used a set and do not know what they are talking about.
As I wrote earlier, if you want 9:1 compression for regular fuel, mill the pistons, or buy custom pistons.
As I wrote earlier, if you want 9:1 compression for regular fuel, mill the pistons, or buy custom pistons.
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 8
From: Union, Washington
You are getting some misinformation here. Stock Edelbrock rpm heads have the same valve sizes as stock cj/scj heads. 2.09 and 1.66. The Edelbrock heads flow a little better, but are great street heads. Yes, if you want low end torque, you choose a cam accordingly. If someone tells you that the Edelbrock rpm heads and Intake will not make good low end torque, they never used a set and do not know what they are talking about.
As I wrote earlier, if you want 9:1 compression for regular fuel, mill the pistons, or buy custom pistons.
As I wrote earlier, if you want 9:1 compression for regular fuel, mill the pistons, or buy custom pistons.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 3
Look at the torque numbers for the CJ heads and the standard 390/428 heads and the bigger ports suck for true low end torque. 440 ft/lbs 2 3400 compared to 462 ft/lbs @ 2800. You are the one giving bad advice for a guy that flat out stated he wants low end torque for a street machine. You horsepower junkies just don't understand true street performance.
Post Fiend
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,056
Likes: 8
From: Union, Washington
You need to check your eyes, bear... the 462 ft/lbs @ 2800 rpm is for a 1968 428 cj. You made my point... You guys that look up figures in a book, but do not have actual experience with the equipment are giving these guys bad information. I was building FE engines when you were to young to have a drivers license. You do have a lot of good information for these new to FE guys, but none of us know it all. Maybe you are thinking of 1000 to 2000 rpms. This range is off idle. Normal pulling low rpm range is 2500 to 3500 rpms of which the cj/scj or Edelbrock rpm heads and intake work fine. Above 3500 rpm, the cj/scj and Rpm setup works much better than a stock 390 or 428. If you want to give this guy really good information on gobs of torque why didn't you tell him about a 4.25 stroker? Now we are talking torque.
428CJ 335 hp @ 5200 and 440 ft/lbs @ 3400
428 345 hp @ 4600 and 462 ft/lbs @ 2800
428PI 360 hp @ 5400 and 459 ft/lbs @ 3200
These numbers straight from the Ford Muscle Parts Books, two different volumes and in 3 different places. Besides that I owned a couple of these CJ's back in the day and the highest torque number I ever saw was 445 ft/lbs for a CJ.
Strokers are expensive and just not worth the money for a street machine. Once again you horsepower freaks just don't get street machines.
Thread Starter
|
Senior User
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
428CJ 335 hp @ 5200 and 440 ft/lbs @ 3400
428 345 hp @ 4600 and 462 ft/lbs @ 2800
428PI 360 hp @ 5400 and 459 ft/lbs @ 3200
Are these #'s all fudged for insurance purposes? Wasn't the less hp, less tourque CJ supposed to be an upgrade over the standard 428? Or were the CJ #'s fudged more than the others?
428 345 hp @ 4600 and 462 ft/lbs @ 2800
428PI 360 hp @ 5400 and 459 ft/lbs @ 3200
Are these #'s all fudged for insurance purposes? Wasn't the less hp, less tourque CJ supposed to be an upgrade over the standard 428? Or were the CJ #'s fudged more than the others?
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 3
Nope, you are the one needs to learn to read.
428CJ 335 hp @ 5200 and 440 ft/lbs @ 3400
428 345 hp @ 4600 and 462 ft/lbs @ 2800
428PI 360 hp @ 5400 and 459 ft/lbs @ 3200
These numbers straight from the Ford Muscle Parts Books, two different volumes and in 3 different places. Besides that I owned a couple of these CJ's back in the day and the highest torque number I ever saw was 445 ft/lbs for a CJ.
Strokers are expensive and just not worth the money for a street machine. Once again you horsepower freaks just don't get street machines.
428CJ 335 hp @ 5200 and 440 ft/lbs @ 3400
428 345 hp @ 4600 and 462 ft/lbs @ 2800
428PI 360 hp @ 5400 and 459 ft/lbs @ 3200
These numbers straight from the Ford Muscle Parts Books, two different volumes and in 3 different places. Besides that I owned a couple of these CJ's back in the day and the highest torque number I ever saw was 445 ft/lbs for a CJ.
Strokers are expensive and just not worth the money for a street machine. Once again you horsepower freaks just don't get street machines.
Hey Bear;
Anything FE is expensive. Strokers make tons of torque, and at $1,800 is not that bad, when you pay $700 for a ported intake.
Dyno sheets don't lie.... My 434 ci. FE "428 bored to 4.170" made 458.2 ft/lbs torque at 2685 rpm and that was with a "ported" Edelbrock rpm intake and ported rpm heads with 2.19 intake valves and 1.75 exhaust valves. This is on the way to 505.7 ft/lbs at 4800 rpm. Pretty flat torque curve. Even at 6382 rpm it was making 440 ft/lbs.
I will say it again,,, in the real world, the rpm heads and intake will be great with OP's project.
In petersons ford book, it shows in 1967 a 390 was making:
427 ft/lbs at 3200 rpm. Do you believe that?
Do you also believe that a 1970 428 scj made 335 hp?
Books lie,,, dyno's don't.
I have extensive experience with Edelbrocks rpm intake and heads,,, I am telling you from first hand experience that they will work great for his application.
Posting Guru
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,287
Likes: 3
428CJ 335 hp @ 5200 and 440 ft/lbs @ 3400
428 345 hp @ 4600 and 462 ft/lbs @ 2800
428PI 360 hp @ 5400 and 459 ft/lbs @ 3200
Are these #'s all fudged for insurance purposes? Wasn't the less hp, less tourque CJ supposed to be an upgrade over the standard 428? Or were the CJ #'s fudged more than the others?
428 345 hp @ 4600 and 462 ft/lbs @ 2800
428PI 360 hp @ 5400 and 459 ft/lbs @ 3200
Are these #'s all fudged for insurance purposes? Wasn't the less hp, less tourque CJ supposed to be an upgrade over the standard 428? Or were the CJ #'s fudged more than the others?
I also want to say that Bear does have some good knowledge about our beloved FE engines, and you guys can learn a lot from him,,, but as I said before, none of us knows everything about our FE engines.