428 C.I. question
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
428 C.I. question
I have a 428 bored 60 over, what cubic inch am I at now? If anyone answers could you include the formula used to find it. It has been a long time since I have figured any of this and it is one of those things that has just gone away from my mind over time
Post Fiend
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 8
From: Missouri
Bore X Bore X Stroke X .7854 X 8 will get you the cubic inches...
4.13 X 4.13 X 3.984 X .7854 X 8 = 426.972 (Not really 428 inches huh!)
4.19 X 4.19 X 3.984 X .7854 X 8 = 439.46 (A 12.488 inch gain)
The longer the storke of an engine is the more boring out has a positive effect on displacement.
4.13 X 4.13 X 3.984 X .7854 X 8 = 426.972 (Not really 428 inches huh!)
4.19 X 4.19 X 3.984 X .7854 X 8 = 439.46 (A 12.488 inch gain)
The longer the storke of an engine is the more boring out has a positive effect on displacement.
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Thanks guys,
Now that I have that it got me to thinking on this sunny Sunday with nothing else to do.......
I am sure that someone somewhere, someplace has already thought of, discussed or done this on this forum.
M***R's thought behind the 340 was large bore, short stroke. Worked out very well for them. What about a 332 crank (3.30" stroke) in a 428 block (4.13" bore)?
This works out to be about 354 CI. Any thoughts on this or is it even workable.
Now that I have that it got me to thinking on this sunny Sunday with nothing else to do.......
I am sure that someone somewhere, someplace has already thought of, discussed or done this on this forum.
M***R's thought behind the 340 was large bore, short stroke. Worked out very well for them. What about a 332 crank (3.30" stroke) in a 428 block (4.13" bore)?
This works out to be about 354 CI. Any thoughts on this or is it even workable.
Elder User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
From: South Dakota
Trending Topics
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
From: Longvalley, SD
If you're too lazy to do that formula schoenfeldheaders.com has a calculater right on their website to find out ci. Just gotta know the stroke, bore, and number of cylinders.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
AEV FXL Super Duty - the Super Duty Raptor Ford Doesn't Make
Brett Foote
Lobo Vs Lobo: Proof the F-150 Lobo Should Be Even Lower!
Michael S. Palmer
Ford's 2001 Explorer Sportsman Concept Looks For a New Home
Verdad Gallardo
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
Posting Guru
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,888
Likes: 1
From: Iowa
Originally Posted by 76fulltime250
Thanks guys,
Now that I have that it got me to thinking on this sunny Sunday with nothing else to do.......
I am sure that someone somewhere, someplace has already thought of, discussed or done this on this forum.
M***R's thought behind the 340 was large bore, short stroke. Worked out very well for them. What about a 332 crank (3.30" stroke) in a 428 block (4.13" bore)?
This works out to be about 354 CI. Any thoughts on this or is it even workable.
Now that I have that it got me to thinking on this sunny Sunday with nothing else to do.......
I am sure that someone somewhere, someplace has already thought of, discussed or done this on this forum.
M***R's thought behind the 340 was large bore, short stroke. Worked out very well for them. What about a 332 crank (3.30" stroke) in a 428 block (4.13" bore)?
This works out to be about 354 CI. Any thoughts on this or is it even workable.
Super Moderator
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 34,475
Likes: 2,800
Do you have the crank? Do you have 332 rods?
You need the measurements of those rods and the compression height of various pistons that will fit your bore.
You may not be able to use stock parts and get an acceptable compression height.
You can search it out as easily as anyone. "google"
A short stroke does not a screamer make. You have a 2 bolt FE block, and you have non-427 heads. You need to upgrade the heads and you are probably limited to about 7000 rpm. Better get it all balanced and get a cam that will support that. If you cob this together with low compression, limited rev capacity, limp cam, you might as well just rebuild a 360 to stock specs.
Things being the way they is, you can probably build a 440+ or 454 +/- motor for the same or less money, have more hp at 1000 rpm less, and more torque at all revs.
Serving suggestion, ymmv.
Calculator:
http://www.aacncclub.com/crucemotor/...sionratio.html
You need the measurements of those rods and the compression height of various pistons that will fit your bore.
You may not be able to use stock parts and get an acceptable compression height.
You can search it out as easily as anyone. "google"
A short stroke does not a screamer make. You have a 2 bolt FE block, and you have non-427 heads. You need to upgrade the heads and you are probably limited to about 7000 rpm. Better get it all balanced and get a cam that will support that. If you cob this together with low compression, limited rev capacity, limp cam, you might as well just rebuild a 360 to stock specs.
Things being the way they is, you can probably build a 440+ or 454 +/- motor for the same or less money, have more hp at 1000 rpm less, and more torque at all revs.
Serving suggestion, ymmv.
Calculator:
http://www.aacncclub.com/crucemotor/...sionratio.html
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DavidCOH
FE & FT Big Block V8 (332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428)
4
Jan 22, 2005 10:49 PM
Roach1161
FE & FT Big Block V8 (332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428)
5
May 12, 2003 06:05 AM
Crazy_John69
FE & FT Big Block V8 (332, 352, 360, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428)
9
Mar 23, 2002 02:23 PM
