Thank god someone got it right...

 

Enjoyed all those comments in the 454 vs 460. I have a 96 ext. cab longbed 4x4 with a 460 automatic and 4:10 gears. I carry a 10ft. cabover that weighs 2750 empty. I live at 6300 ft. elev. in the mountains and can carry a 3200lb. load up an 8% grade at 45mph at 2500rpm for miles on end. Just what is the horse and torque for that year?
Tahoe460

 

Nice to hear all of these non biased reviews coming from a pro Ford website...yeah right.

 

haha you were expecting to hear good things about chebbies? well that not gonna happen, there just isn't any there

 

My experiances with the 454 have all been bad. I got the phone call from one of my brothers to rescue him. He was on a mountain pass with a load of horses with blown motor (broken crank it turned out!). I thought boy that's strange he's never had a problem with his 69 F250 with a 428 before. I get there, and it's a two month old Chevy with a 454! He went through two more motors (one pitched rod, and the other a broken camshaft) before he finally got rid of that thing with in a year. My next experiance was hauling a load bulls to the Denver stock show. My dad, his friend, and I took the friends 454 powered 3500 GMC. The thing had good power but, we actually had a 50 gallon drum of gas in the back, so we could make it between gas stations, from town to town. I don't ever remember the 460's getting that bad of fuel milege. They are both canted valve big blocks, but in my experiance a 460 powered F350 usually got about 10-11mpg pulling horses.

I have long noticed that 454's usually don't last that long before needing to be overhauled. IIRC, the official TBO is less than 100,000 miles. I then learned some engineering fundamentals about engine design, and discovered why. The 454 is a stroked 427, that is in turn a stroked 396. It has one of the worst rod to stroke ratios of any high revving v8 in the industry, at 1.54:1. I can only imagine how much worse the 502 ..ect are. The 460 has a rod ratio of 1.7 to one. Thats basically the same as the 390, 427 side oiler, 302......ect.. The 460 is a stroked 429, and the 429 had a rod ratio the same as the 426 hemi...1.84:1. The Ford big blocks are well engineered motors and the chevy big block is not.

 

I thought the 460 was around before the 429 in Lincolns???

 

It does'nt matter what name is on the valve cover.If you put the same cam,heads,etc they will all perform the same.Car Craft did a buildup of all the big blocks a while back and they were all close to the same horse and torque.

 

I own a old 454 3/4 ton I have had for years and it has caused no failures and pulls good, however, my new 6.0 seems to have at least 50% more pulling power - for what it is worth.

 

I'm with BTW. Bore and stroke a very close between the two.

 

Uh, no dog in this fight, other than I thought my mom's 460 had adequate power in the 77 LTD, but:

427 Chev is big bore 396, and so on:

<TABLE width="100%" bgColor=#ffffff border=1><TBODY><TR><TD width="14%"><CENTER>396</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>1965 / 69</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>4.094</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>3.76</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>2.75</CENTER></TD><TD width="15%"><CENTER>2.20</CENTER></TD><TD width="15%"><CENTER>2 & 4 bolt</CENTER></TD></TR><TR><TD width="14%"><CENTER>402</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>1970 / 72</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>4.125</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>3.76</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>2.75</CENTER></TD><TD width="15%"><CENTER>2.20</CENTER></TD><TD width="15%"><CENTER>2 & 4 bolt</CENTER></TD></TR><TR><TD width="14%"><CENTER>427</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>1966 / 69</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>4.250</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>3.76</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>2.75</CENTER></TD><TD width="15%"><CENTER>2.20</CENTER></TD><TD width="15%"><CENTER>2 & 4 bolt</CENTER></TD></TR><TR><TD width="14%"><CENTER>454</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>1970 / 74</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>4.250</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>4.00</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>2.75</CENTER></TD><TD width="15%"><CENTER>2.20</CENTER></TD><TD width="15%"><CENTER>2 & 4 bolt</CENTER></TD></TR><TR><TD width="14%"><CENTER>502 (crate)</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%">

</TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>4.447</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>4.00</CENTER></TD><TD width="14%"><CENTER>2.75</CENTER></TD><TD width="15%"><CENTER>2.20</CENTER></TD><TD width="15%"><CENTER>4 bolt</CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


So I didn't check your bore/stroke numbers but you may want to recheck....

 

The 429 was first introduced in the 1968 Thunderbird. It was the first of the "385" series of engines. It had a bore of 4.125 and a 3.59 stroke, making it a very oversquare and high revving engine. In 1970, the 460 debuted as a stroked 429 and was put into the Lincoln. Lincoln did have a 462 in the mid sixties, maybe that's what you were thinking of. It was a totally different engine though and I believe was modeled after the FE series of engines (390, 427, 428).

 

Yes the 427 was a bigger bore 396, thank you for the correction, E150six..., and the 396 may have been a fairly well engineered motor, but the 454 is the issue here. It doesn't pay to stretch a motor too far beyond it's original design parameters. The 454 has a poor rod ratio, high piston speed, and excessive reciprocating weights for it's engine speed range.

Rod ratio doesn't make much difference in the peak horse power or peak tourqe numbers, but it most certianly does when it comes to the power band, and to durablity. The engine with the poor rod ratio see's more side loading on the cylinders and significantly more stress at the big end of the rod. Although something like the old I-6 300 Ford had a poor rod ratio, and proved durable, it needs to be noted that it wasn't a high revving engine like a V8, particularly the chevy big block, that makes it power mainly up high. Stress seen in the reciprocating array, is the dynamic load, and the reciprocating mass, multplied by the piston velocity-squared. The velocity componant is squared, and so the stress increases at an expotential rate with increased RPM. Piston speed per RPM is a direct function of the stroke. The more stroke, the greater the piston velocity. Engines with increased stroke need improved rod length to stroke ratios, to be durable, not the typically poor rod ratios, as seen in the stretched chevy v8's. Usually, the increase in crank throw is paid for by a decrease in rod length, and it's counter productive. A stroker engine, for more cubes in a hotrod, doesn't need to be as durable as a truck motor does. If the 454 only see's relatively low RPMs to pull it's loads, it's durablity liablity won't be as pronounced.

The 460 Ford has a larger 4.36" bore, by a shorter than the chevy's stroke, at a 3.85" stroke. Interesting that the Ford 460 has a broader power band, with more down low, using a shorter stroke. The stroke is 88% of the bore, not quite the ideal (for power efficiency) of 75%, but better than the 454. ( fairly square bore to stroke ratios are good for emissions though)The con rod is 6.606 inches long, same as the 429, so the Ford motor maintains a good rod ratio while increasing stroke and displacement. Both engines use a similar cylinder head design, but the Ford engine seems to get higher airflow velocities through the ports, with better air/fuel atomization, and more even combustion- less vunerable to knock. That better takes advantage of the longer period the piston stays at or near TDC (due to the better rod ratio) on the power stroke, resulting in superior thermal efficiency. Thus the Ford converts chemical energy into thermal energy, and then into mechanical energy, somewhat more efficiently than the similar dispacement Chevy.

The 429 was introduced in 1968, and the 460 came in 1969.

 

I really don't know how the 454 compares to the 460, since I've never owned either. I DO know, that the 93 Lightning I had would blow the doors off three different 454SS Chevy trucks that I had the pleasure of racing against. The 351W was bone stock, with no mods to the truck except for exhaust. So anybody that says that the Chevy EFI setup is superior is dreaming. The 454SS pickups were dogs in stock form. They couldn't hang with the 1st generation Lightning in the curves either.

 

That's the first time I ever heard anyone complain about the 460 and call it a car engine. I don't know of any major durability issues with the 460, but Ihave heard about quite a few things with the 454, I know of injection problems, head problems, coolant system problems and ignition problems. The 460 was used in heavy duty applications because of it's ability to tow quite a bit at highway speeds, and plus it was a very durable engine.

As far as getting rid of the 7.3, that was something that had to be done, not just to keep up with the Dmax. Emissions requirememnts forced Ford to get a new diesel. Also, I reckon that you're talking about the 500 or so confirmed 6.0s that were buybacks or lemons when you're talking about the ones having strokes? I guess the Duramax passes them, unless it's loaded, because the IFS Duramax truck can't tow as much as the new Ford. I don't even think that the Duramax can pass the PSD unloaded either, though, I'll have to find that test again.

 

The 460 was in "68 Lincoln also