460 Budget Build for Fuel Mileage

I re-read your post 1EEFF100, looks like you only got the 429 block back. Did the 429 crank, rods, and pistons go scrap metal?

I guess your worked D3's are big valve?

If the 370 heads are smaller chamber then D0OVE's won't you have to use dished pistons, to keep a pump gas friendly compression, kinda lost me on the better quench then the 352, on that one.

supervel45 wrote:I re-read your post 1EEFF100, looks like you only got the 429 block back. Did the 429 crank, rods, and pistons go scrap metal?

I guess your worked D3's are big valve?

If the 370 heads are smaller chamber then D0OVE's won't you have to use dished pistons, to keep a pump gas friendly compression, kinda lost me on the better quench then the 352, on that one.

Yes, I did not receive the crank, rods or pistons, just the block. Unrelated, but I did get the heads back as well. And, I believe I have the stock 4V intake. Kept it all these years.
Don't have worked D3s. I have a set of Scott Johnston built and ported big valve D0VE-C heads that are on the 532 in my Cougar.
I did order a set of early big dish pistons.
The quench on an early 429/460 engine is quite a bit better than the 352. I can't remember the specs, but a stock 352 piston is pretty far down in the hole.
You pretty much have to buy a custom piston for the 352, from what I understand, to get acceptable quench, whereas with a 460, shelf pistons and a little decking will get you pretty much whatever you want.

dfree383 wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

1EFF100 wrote:

And thank you guys for all the input and putting up with my indecisiveness. The guys over on the FE forum get to experience it as well. lol
You know, it wouldn't be so difficult to make a decision if all I had was FEs or 460s, or 302 stuff laying around, but I have all of them. At least I don't get bored.  

If you're starting with a block and no internals then build it as a 429.

That cam I suggested is the one I used in 16 garbage truck, heavy truck 429 engines for a township.
Those things are HEAVY ... 8.8/1 compression engines which ran on REGULAR gas.

Makes little sense to build for "mileage" and then need to use Premium gasoline.

My truck gets enough better fuel economy with premium to typically off set the cost difference of the cheaper fuel, just a thought. Granted if a 2018 5.0 but…… the same tuning principals should apply

Having a computer and knock sensor controlling the ignition timing is NOT the same as any non E.C.M. controlled engine.

I had a nice phone conversation about this build with Paul Kane a week or so ago and we discussed which pistons to use. I can't recall which EFI era pistons he said to use. '88-'93 or '94-'97?

C9VE block, industrial 370 heads, I understand them to be roughly 80cc chambers.

I have a set of the early "bathtub" pistons and if my calculations are correct, puts me at about 8.7:1 compression. Actually, that may be fine for what I'm doing here.

Your thoughts?

1EFF100 wrote:I had a nice phone conversation about this build with Paul Kane a week or so ago and we discussed which pistons to use. I can't recall which EFI era pistons  he said to use. '88-'93 or '94-'97?

C9VE block, industrial 370 heads, I understand them to be roughly 80cc chambers.

I have a set of the early "bathtub" pistons and if my calculations are correct, puts me at about 8.7:1 compression. Actually, that may be fine for what I'm doing here.

Your thoughts?

Altitude will have a lot to do with what compression ratio works best but, that is a good starting place at sea level.
Add about .2 to the ratio for every 500 feet above sea level.

rmcomprandy wrote:

1EFF100 wrote:I had a nice phone conversation about this build with Paul Kane a week or so ago and we discussed which pistons to use. I can't recall which EFI era pistons  he said to use. '88-'93 or '94-'97?

C9VE block, industrial 370 heads, I understand them to be roughly 80cc chambers.

I have a set of the early "bathtub" pistons and if my calculations are correct, puts me at about 8.7:1 compression. Actually, that may be fine for what I'm doing here.

Your thoughts?

Altitude will have a lot to do with what compression ratio works best but, that is a good starting place at sea level.
Add about .2 to the ratio for every 500 feet above sea level.

Awesome! Thanks again, Randy!

^ How far in the hole are you leaving them to calculate?

I come up with 9.47 on a 22cc and 10.04 on a 15cc at .ooo" in the hole, 80cc head, ect..

.040" in the hole with the 22cc dish comes to 8.79, at least on Wallace with the other numbers I used. 8, 4.39, 3.85, 80, 22, .041, 4.5, .040, and 0. Same numbers on the above with a .ooo deck height.

supervel45 wrote:^ How far in the hole are you leaving them to calculate?

I come up with 9.47 on a 22cc and 10.04 on a 15cc at .ooo" in the hole, 80cc head, ect..

.040" in the hole with the 22cc dish comes to 8.79, at least on Wallace with the other numbers I used. 8, 4.39, 3.85, 80, 22, .041, 4.5, .040, and 0. Same numbers on the above with a .ooo deck height.

I used the Crane Cams calculation in my old catalogue.

Zero deck with a .041 head gasket.

rmcomprandy wrote:

1EFF100 wrote:I had a nice phone conversation about this build with Paul Kane a week or so ago and we discussed which pistons to use. I can't recall which EFI era pistons  he said to use. '88-'93 or '94-'97?

C9VE block, industrial 370 heads, I understand them to be roughly 80cc chambers.

I have a set of the early "bathtub" pistons and if my calculations are correct, puts me at about 8.7:1 compression. Actually, that may be fine for what I'm doing here.

Your thoughts?

Altitude will have a lot to do with what compression ratio works best but, that is a good starting place at sea level.
Add about .2 to the ratio for every 500 feet above sea level.

Oh, and please check you email.

supervel45 wrote:^ How far in the hole are you leaving them to calculate?

I come up with 9.47 on a 22cc and 10.04 on a 15cc at .ooo" in the hole, 80cc head, ect..

.040" in the hole with the 22cc dish comes to 8.79, at least on Wallace with the other numbers I used. 8, 4.39, 3.85, 80, 22, .041, 4.5, .040, and 0. Same numbers on the above with a .ooo deck height.

Hmmm.. I just tried the Wallace deal and came up with 9.59:1. Oh well, it's roughly 3/4 of a point difference. If I have 9.5, great.
Just doesn't seem right though, with an 80cc head and 22cc piston dish.

Looks like 9.06/1 Dynamic Compression and 192.25 PSI Cranking Compression with the 208/208/111 with a 31 intake event with the 4 degree's advance.

http://www.wallaceracing.com/dynamic-cr.php

https://www.summitracing.com/newsandevents/calcsandtools/summit-cam-timing-calculator

Looks like a little decent Octane will be in order.

I Think I would Leave the 22's in the hole .010"-.020" and lower the compression down closer to 9/1 to run regular gas and more timing if possible.

supervel45 wrote:Looks like 9.06/1 Dynamic Compression and 192.25 PSI Cranking Compression with the 208/208/111 with a 31 intake event with the 4 degree's advance.

http://www.wallaceracing.com/dynamic-cr.php

https://www.summitracing.com/newsandevents/calcsandtools/summit-cam-timing-calculator

Looks like a little decent Octane will be in order.

I Think I would Leave the 22's in the hole .010"-.020" and lower the compression down closer to 9/1 to run regular gas and more timing if possible.

I would stay at least within .010 of the deck and try it, if necessary you can always go with a thicker head gasket.Have the 370 heads been CC'd to verify they are 80cc?

427John wrote:

supervel45 wrote:Looks like 9.06/1 Dynamic Compression and 192.25 PSI Cranking Compression with the 208/208/111 with a 31 intake event with the 4 degree's advance.

http://www.wallaceracing.com/dynamic-cr.php

https://www.summitracing.com/newsandevents/calcsandtools/summit-cam-timing-calculator

Looks like a little decent Octane will be in order.

I Think I would Leave the 22's in the hole .010"-.020" and lower the compression down closer to 9/1 to run regular gas and more timing if possible.

I would stay at least within .010 of the deck and try it, if necessary you can always go with a thicker head gasket.Have the 370 heads been CC'd to verify they are 80cc?

I'll take them in to the machine shop and have a chamber from both heads cc'd.

Well, I went ahead and bought this cam. Basically the same specs as the larger Elgin cam that Randy recommended.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/134717568110

Man, I can't believe the prices on regular shelf flat tappet cams these days. With tax, almost 300 bucks for this thing. Disgusting.

1EFF100 wrote:Well, I went ahead and bought this cam. Basically the same specs as the larger Elgin cam that Randy recommended.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/134717568110

Man, I can't believe the prices on regular shelf flat tappet cams these days. With tax, almost 300 bucks for this thing. Disgusting.

Comp cams has lost me as a customer…… their price increases are insane.

And that are the leaders and probably cause of the latex cam salute epidemic, thanks to Chinese production.

1EFF100 wrote:Well, I went ahead and bought this cam. Basically the same specs as the larger Elgin cam that Randy recommended.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/134717568110

Man, I can't believe the prices on regular shelf flat tappet cams these days. With tax, almost 300 bucks for this thing. Disgusting.

I kind of figured you would end up with the 260 or this one (CompCams 34-231-4) for 200 with lifers (Sold), since there is not really much of anything else available in that range for a 460.

https://www.compcams.com/xtreme-4x4-210-218-hydraulic-flat-cam-for-ford-429-460.html

I looked for a Isky 264 MeagaCam as it is close, 214/214/108/.525"/.525". It would have been a nice Compromise Performance/Economy grind in my opinion. Those prices are insane and OUT OF STOCK or Will Be Special Ordered For You. $619.99 Cam and Lifters 2024 LoL

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/isk-cl-311264/make/ford



If that Comp 260 does not Roll A Lobe, I think you will like it though.

1EFF100 wrote:Well, I went ahead and bought this cam. Basically the same specs as the larger Elgin cam that Randy recommended.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/134717568110

Man, I can't believe the prices on regular shelf flat tappet cams these days. With tax, almost 300 bucks for this thing. Disgusting.

That is probably a slight bit to big for the application you wanted but, you've got it now and it is what it is.
I would degree that to be on  a 102 degree intake center-line.

rmcomprandy wrote:

1EFF100 wrote:Well, I went ahead and bought this cam. Basically the same specs as the larger Elgin cam that Randy recommended.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/134717568110

Man, I can't believe the prices on regular shelf flat tappet cams these days. With tax, almost 300 bucks for this thing. Disgusting.

That is probably a slight bit to big for the application you wanted but, you've got it now and it is what it is.
I would degree that to be on  a 102 degree intake center-line.

Dog gone it. I bought this one because I felt it was close to what I needed, and I could actually get it now as this company had it in stock. Comp even says it has good mileage in its description of the cam.
Well, I guess it's not "close" enough. Dang it.

Randy, would the venerable 204/214 cam work better for this build? They're everywhere it seems, and Dave has one he'd sell me.

1EFF100 wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

1EFF100 wrote:Well, I went ahead and bought this cam. Basically the same specs as the larger Elgin cam that Randy recommended.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/134717568110

Man, I can't believe the prices on regular shelf flat tappet cams these days. With tax, almost 300 bucks for this thing. Disgusting.

That is probably a slight bit to big for the application you wanted but, you've got it now and it is what it is.
I would degree that to be on  a 102 degree intake center-line.

Dog gone it. I bought this one because I felt it was close to what I needed, and I could actually get it now as this company had it in stock. Comp even says it has good mileage in its description of the cam.
Well, I guess it's not "close" enough. Dang it.

Randy, would the venerable 204/214 cam work better for this build? They're everywhere it seems, and Dave has one he'd sell me.

NO, that 204/214 cam is not a good mileage cam; especially at part throttle.
That Comp you have will probably be fine if degree'd correctly.
I have tried the ELGIN 212/212, ( E-1088-P ), and it has more torque above 2,000 at the expense of a small bit of mileage.

I have run the 252 Hi-Energy Comp at 106 intake center-line with big block Chevy's and it works well for mileage in those.