>however have 1 429-4v, 2
>429 cj's, a 428 cj,
>a sohc 427 cammer, and
>a 460 thats been punched
>out to 521 cu.
>i have built each and
>every one of these motors,
>and i can tell ya
>that not one of them
>makes less than 400 hp
>and the 427 and 460
>make close to 700 and
>800 hp respectivly.

cammer,

Again, this thread seems to be degenerating into an unrealistic, apples-and-oranges comparison. A punched out and blown big-block is no comparison to anything except another punched out and blown big-block. I don't think you'll find any small-blocks competing successfully in any application that requires the level of power that a punched out and blown big-block is capable of. I'll grant you that.

My beef with your comments is that I think they are based on the popular misconception that the M-block engine is "junk," "crap," "a waste of time," etc. For the +95% of the truckers out here, the M-block is a serviceable engine in their mundane applications, and furthermore, it has a lot more power potential than what was developed by the factory and more than most people give it credit for.

OK, if the question was "How can I get an 800+ hp engine in my truck?" my answer would be "Get a punched out and blown or nitrous-fed big-block."

>now i wasn't trying to start
>any crap, and my point
>is that your m-block have
>weak bottom ends.

My point is that the relative weakness of the bottom end is easily remedied for any "normal" application, up to a normally aspirated 400hp or so. Frankly, I think the M-block has a lot sturdier bottom end than any other small-block Ford engine.

There are a couple of reasons I think the M-block's bottom end is sturdier than it's usually given credit for.

1)The '77-later M-blocks were redesigned for truck applications, strengthening the main bearing webbings in the block, which addressed the concerns that arose when the M-block was in car-only service prior to MY1977.

2)Most of the criticism of the M-block, especially when compared to the Windsor-class small-blocks, is a result of its larger and heavier crankshaft/rod assembly, which puts more strain on the block at high rpm than the relatively lighter Windsor cranks and rods. The disadvantage of the M-block's larger and heavier rotating/reciprocating assembly is the extra inertia that makes it slower to build high rpm speeds, and the additional strain on the block compared to the Windsor engines. In its intended application (medium-to-heavy cars and light trucks driven on the street), the heavier crank assembly actually provides a couple of benefits: better transfer of torque at low rpm and strength/durability.

The M-block was never designed nor intended to be a racing or high performance engine (it was never even equipped with a 4V carb from the factory). However, I believe it can be built into a much more powerful engine than it was by the factory. After all, as you said, it has the same type of components as the 429/460 engine, and many features of its block design are based on the 429/460 engine.

>and if it is such a
>great motor, why did they
>stop making them?

Why did they stop making the 427 SOHC? Why did they stop making 429s? 460s? 351Ws? Why doesn't Ford put the 5.4 DOHC in a Mustang GT?

> in 71 or 72
>when ford quit making the
>cleveland, they had to do
>something with all the parts
>left over, so they made
>the modified's or midland's, whichever

If you want to argue this point, you should brush up on your history. The 351C was produced from 1970-1974. Ford realized that they could fill the both the 350ci-class and 400ci-class demand with more common parts (everything but crankshaft and pistons), and they discontinued the 351C and introduced the 351M in 1975. The 351M is really just a de-stroked 400.

>and as far as dollar for
>dollar against a big block,
>i think that deep down
>you know you'd come up
>short alot more than 10-20%,
>you'd have to spend money
>on a modified just to
>match a stock big block.

Yeah, but not that much. Stock big-blocks were not very impressive after the compression was lowered and they started using "real" numbers in 1972.

Or are you talking about comparing the pre-'72 high-compression big-block with a 4V carb to the later low-compression 400 with a 2V carb? Back when the 427 SOHC was made, the 400 probably wasn't even on the drawing board.

In 1971, when the 400 had 9.2:1 compression and a 2V carb, it put out 260hp. The hottest 429 with 11.4:1 compression and a 4V carb put out 375hp (roughly 30% more hp). The hottest 460 with 11:1 compression and a 4V carb put out 365hp, about the same increase over the 400. This is comparing stock engine specs.

In 1972, compression was dropped on both 429s and 460s. The '72 429 put out 205-212hp, and the 460 put out 200-212hp. In 1973, the 429 put out 197-208hp, and the 460 put out 198-202hp. In 1974, the 429 was dropped (wonder why if it was such a "good" engine?), and the 460 put out 195-220hp. The nearly dead '74 351C 4V was still putting out 255hp. Interesting that after 1971, when compression dropped in the 429 and 460, the most powerful engines Ford made were the 351C 4Vs, until they were dropped in 1975.

By 1977, when M-blocks were introduced in trucks, the 460 was down to a piddly 197hp stock (only 12% more than the '77 400 that put out 173hp with 7.8:1 compression and a 2V carb!).

Now, I'm not ragging on the 429/460 big-block, but their stock performance specs during the same years the 400 was produced were not exactly stellar. Indeed, they suffered from the same wimp-out, anti-performance corporate attitude and emission control restrictions that the 400 did.

BubbaF250

 

Bubba, what a difference a reply makes!! No name calling, no calling people ignorant or morons. I can't see why people can't have a diff. of opinion without resorting to that.

Now back to motor talk!! You do know that the 351's have the 3" mains and are just as beefy as the M blocks?The 302's have the smaller 2.25" mains. I've also read that the M and C blocks for whatever reasons are more prone to cracking than the W blocks. And I know you know the stock oiling system limitations. Overall I agree with what you said. It was when it started being said that the M could be or is the ultimate Ford performance motor that I thought it was getting a little deep. Truth be told my parents had a 400 in a '77 LTD that served them well close to 200,000 miles. I just will state what I've said from the begining, there's easier AND cheaper ways to get performance from a Ford motor.

 

I wonder what's the largest number of posts in one thread.
This one is getting up there. If I was jopey( you know, the
guy with the original question) I don't know if I would be
proud, or embarassed that I started all this. It is all in fun
though (I hope).

 

The level of immaturity here puts the religious war on the General Conversation board to shame. The name calling, filter by-passing, etc...

Before either side invokes my name again, realize that from my viewpoint, all sides are guilty of mudslinging here. To the guys who aren't into the M-blocks, why bother the people who are? I'm an FE nut myself but I don't knock other Ford guys for their choice in engines (as long as it's not a CSB under the hood).

The moderators have the ability to step in or let let me know what's going on. They let this go on until they thought this was too far gone and notified me. This thread has degenerated into a pissing match and is now locked.

Ken Payne
Ford Truck Enthusiasts Admin