NEXT of all, FATHERFORD....
IN response to the ORIGINAL forum post....

At 10.5:1, you *should* be alright on Mid-grade(89 oct.) With Premium, (92-93) it Will run wonderful. Best of luck to you and your truck.

J/.c

1965 Ford Galaxie 500 (okay, so not quite a truck)
460/C6 transplant @ 389hp/491 lb.ft.
14.29@103.8, 13-14 mpg heheheheheh

 

Thanks Proud Owner.

78 F150 400m, c6, holley carb and intake, cam, and some other goodies

87 F150 460, c6, 2800 stall converter, eagle hbeam's, eldelbrock intake carb, crane cam sat spec., balanced and blue printed, 10.5-1 compression, heads ported and polished, full msd setup, everything but roller, aluminum heads, and laughing gas(as for now).

55 F100 stock 292 3 speed (as of right now..heh)

97 Exped stock

 

Took you a while to "find" all the numbers to plug into a calculator to make it come out right didn't it? Amazing how you have all that so handy after 20 years...

Anyway, first of all C8VE heads are closer to 76 cc not 72.5 and you seriously want us to believe a 12:1 engine has gone over 200K on pump gas. OK man...whatever you say.

 

At what altitude does the 12:1 460 operate? I have a high compression Cleveland that runs fine @ 5000 ft on 91 octane but when I had it at sea level, forget it. Even with the 94 octane I had to back the timing off. The lower the altitude, the higher the octane required because of the denser air.
Heres a little drag racing tip, if you live in an area that requires different RVP (Reed Vapor Pressure) formulations for summer and winter driving, fill a few cans when the RVP is highest (winter) and using a stabilizer just store it until racing season. The higher RVP will create a better flame front than the lower RVP but on the downside will vapor lock easier. Around here 11 RVP is allowed in winter but 9 RVP max for summer time. The 11 RVP evaporates faster and the EPA types manipulate the numbers to try and keep hydrocarbon emmisions down.

alanscott


[link:ford-trucks.com/users/alanscott/|http://www.ford-trucks.net/users/alanscott/clubftesml.jpg]...Click!

 

I just thought I would toss in my 2 cents.
I'm running a 93 fuel injected with 9.8 compression a mild RV cam, Banks headers, K&N air filters, and MSD ignition.
With the initial crank position set at 12.5 degrees, and burning 89 octane, I get 435 horses, and 544 ftlb torque. thats on a dyno with a manual trans.

I will tell you that that pulls my 12,500 lb fifth wheel really nice above the 75 mph speed limit.

And that empty I can easily over power the heavy duty clutch in second gear starts.

That's just my opinion
But I could be wrong...

Desertdawg

 

Anyway, first of all C8VE heads are closer to 76 cc not 72.5 and you seriously want us to believe a 12:1 engine has gone over 200K on pump gas. OK man...whatever you say. [/QUOTE]
Think back guys,the early 429/460's had 11/11.5 compression so 12.1 would be easy to get

 

Think back guys,the early 429/460's had 11/11.5 compression so 12.1 would be easy to get
[/QUOTE]

I never said he couldn't get 12:1, all I was saying was that the heads he's using are not 72.5 cc, they're 76 cc. The point is that 460v10 was obviously playing with the numbers in a compression ratio calculator to get to the magical 12:1 he claims to have been running on 91 octane for the past 200K miles.

 

Does anyone know (remember) what the octane range was for premium gas in 1970? In the days of 11.0:1 facory compression. Didn't Sunoco sell a 105 octane premium? Anybody know if those high CR cars can run on todays premium without 'detuning'?

Thanks,
john

 

Desertdawg:

Sounds like you have a really sweet ride. How about sharing some of the build details on your 460:
1) What pistons are you using?
2) What did you do to the heads?
3) Are you running speed density EFI?
4) Do you by chance know the cam specs?

What would you do differently if you were to rebuild it again?

Thanks in advance,
john

 

Got the gears grinding on that one. Seriously, this is a real, everyday driver. I was not kidding when I said there is nothing special about this particular engine. If any of you are old enough to remember the 68-69 429 & 460 engines, you would know they ran from 10.5-11.0 compression stock from the factory. And by the way, Proud Owner, thanks for calming this thing down. But, just because an engine of this size is running 12-1 compression does not mean its making or should make 600 horses. Don't forget the cam is still the heart. And since maximum HP was never the intended purpose of this combo, its really just a 1- 1/2 point over stock, torque motor, which WAS its intent. And Bill, I apologize for insinuating you were in the wrong camp. I just don't take kindly to suggestions that I could be a punk kid with a computer punching out numbers. Those days are long gone. OK, heres the scoop. I have built a lot of these big motors over the past 20 odd years, and I keep a notebook on each engine. I have seen those programs that you can use to calculate HP and torque. Wasn't impressed, mainly because there is no reliable basis other than a specific curve they use to come up with those numbers. It might be close, might be way off. If they were for 1 specific engine only, maybe. But anyway Bill, the reason those numbers were right on, and that I had them quick, was because I looked in my little notebook. You tend to forget the important things if you don't make notes. Now lets be friendly. The C8VE heads are stock about 74-77 cc's. My heads are now at 72.5 cc, I used later style stock size valves, to eliminate problems with the cast rockers on the early heads. Milled the rocker pedestals the thickness of the guide plates and installed the adjustable valvetrain of a 74 police intercepter. I did not polish the chambers, but did try to unshroud the valves to the edge of the head gasket. The intake ports are stock, I opened the exhaust port out to the gasket on the upper half only. The floor of the port is mostly a dead area, leave it alone. I did pocket port under the valves. The block is a 68 also, .030 over, TRW L2443F forged race piston, with the dome machined off, .008 clearance. TRW double moly rings used, file fit. The block has been zero decked. Head gasket .042 thick, -2.5cc for valve relief in piston. Camshaft is an early Ford Marine performance part from mid 70's, hydraulic, not entirely sure of spec's, believed to be .515 lift, 230 degrees @ .050. The current aftermarket Marine cams are NOT the same. Looked for over 2 years to find one that had the same ramp pattern. NLA. Used Crane springs and retainers, 120# seat pressure, 335# open. Crankshaft .010-.010, .003 rod clearance, .0035 main clearance. Clevite 77 bearings. Rotating assembly has been balanced. Boss 429 oil pump, 100# spring, baffle modified 6 qt. truck pan. Timing chain installed straight up. Intake is Edelbrock TorkerII, ports are perfectly aligned with heads, no extra work. Holley 780 3310, not current style 750, 2 steps richer all around. Stock Motorcraft Duraspark distributor, must be tight, no sloppy shaft. Initial timing 10 degrees, 34 degrees total. Best fuel mileage with this intake and carb combo, no idea why. Heads were removed after first 50k, worried about valve seats. Since hardened seats had not been installed, I was curious as to what they looked like. No noticeable wear, did replace valve springs, as the tension was leaving. After another 75k, removed heads again, again replaced springs with better quality, still no wear on seats. Touched up and reinstalled. Currently has another 75k on engine, think I'll just run it till it drops this time. Always used 20W50 oil, never used a drop. I will admit that when pulling a trailer through the mountains, I used 104 Octane booster. Other than that don't need it. I live at about 1300 ft elevation. I have always used a 195 degree thermostat, never got hot at any time. Even with the AC on. It will idle at 600 rpm all day long. This will be my last 460 for myself, but I would never hesitate to do it all over again. It definately has its own sound. These mods might not work for you, depending on the application, but thats the scoop. I really believe if it had a bigger cam, deeper valve relief in the pistons, and a bigger carburetor, it would come to life. I still stand by my "seat of the pants dyno". Am I wrong?

 

460, With that cam, intake, and carb set up, running 12:1, you SHOULD be getting damn near 600 hp... Be it "SOP" dyno or otherwise..
Im glad you guys calmed down a touch.. I mean, seriously.. this forum is for fellow users to share their experiences, right?
I think Im starting to believe you, 460.. Everything you said in your post works out.. so I guess you did it.
Best of luck to all y'all, in exploring the limits of the mighty 460!!!!

J/.c

1965 Ford Galaxie 500 (okay, so not quite a truck)
460/C6 transplant @ 389hp/491 lb.ft.
14.29@103.8, 13-14 mpg heheheheheh

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-Aug-01 AT 05:02 PM (EST)[/font][p]Well I still have a few questions:

First of all how much did you have to mill off of the heads to get to 72.5 cc heads? Did you actually cc the heads or is this another "guestimate"? You have every single number including spring pressures in your magic notebook but you didn't bother to write down the cam specs?! Even aftermarket cams come with spec cards...don't the ones from Ford?

FYI...Edelbrock used those same pistons milled to flat tops, 9.5:1 C.R., 95 cc heads with oversized valves, a 204/214 degree, 448/472" lift cam, a 750 cfm carb and produced 469 hp and 516# of torque on a real dyno.

http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/7166pp.html

Finally a last comment, I fail to see why anyone would want to try to build a motor which requires octane booster to go up hills. You can talk about building a torque motor all you want but if that's the case then build a stroker. Longer stroke = bigger torque at lower RPMs. Hell if you check out the link above you can see a motor that probably runs on 89 octane and makes more HP and torque than your motor.

 

f350brocno

Thanks I'm using Fords pistons, They are in the SVO cataloge
I did not do anything to the heads,
the cam is a crower at .50 duration 204 int. 214. exh. with 107 and 117 centers. 490 and 516 lift
I think that the whole combo works really nice and I can even use 87 octane in the winter with no knock ( we have MTBE add to our gas in the summer and it saps the power and knocks with the lower octane)

The only thing I would have done different was to add a roller cam and lifters, and maybe a gear drive for the cam just for the noise...
also I use valvoline 20W 50 full synthitic

 

What did I have listed that was a "guestimate"? Just because I happened to have an NOS Ford Marine cam, without a cam card, doesn't mean it can't be checked for lift, although we we never able to get an exact duration spec. There was a time that Marine dealers did not take kindly to looking up parts for anything but a boat. The internet wasn't as big an issue then as it is now. So the cam's a mystery, big deal. I'm not worried about it. Just know it works fine. The heads had to be milled .025, again no big deal. I do happen to know how to cc heads, and 72.5cc was the end result. The heads were cast in 6-67, always wondered if the real early heads could be different. Don't know. Good for Edelbrock, those figures are nice. What was the intended use of that engine? I didn't say I used octane boost on hills, just the Rocky Mountains. So what? I don't worry about the next guy and his engine. FYI I would never build an engine like this for anybody else. I feel it was a real learning experience that only helped in other engines, mild or wild. Just happens to be the next most reliable vehicle I own, next the 2000 Super Duty V10. I'm looking for a V10 project motor to modify, probably won't be built to anyone elses standards, but hey, different strokes. If I can't figure out the V10, there are plenty of 460's to transplant. Wouldn't that be neat?

 

Golly gee, maybe you can bump it to 16:1 and run it on corn squeezins'...