Swapping out the 4.6 for a 428 cobra jet?
4/14/08, 01:39 AM
#42
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2008
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Just don't do it.
I have put a 1971 351 Cleveland into a 1979 Fox Body. Along with the Toploader 4-speed and a 9 inch 3.89/1 limited slip disc brake rear end. This car kicks butt, and spanks the average 5.0 hands down. BUT, The project was painful, every single time I turned around it was hundreds and hundreds of dollars more and one big pain in the rear after another , nothing came easy or cheap.
In the early 80's there were not a lot of choices, 302's/5.0's or an old pre-1972 high performance engine.
Today, I would NEVER do such a thing.
In the early 80's there were not a lot of choices, 302's/5.0's or an old pre-1972 high performance engine.
Today, I would NEVER do such a thing.
4/14/08, 02:16 AM
#43
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
I can understand why you wouldn't, but I think if I had the funds and the chance, I'd go for it.
Won't be the fastest. Or cheapest. Or easiest. But **** cool
And thats good enough for me
Won't be the fastest. Or cheapest. Or easiest. But **** cool
And thats good enough for me
4/14/08, 11:17 PM
#44
Legacy TMS Member
I have put a 1971 351 Cleveland into a 1979 Fox Body. Along with the Toploader 4-speed and a 9 inch 3.89/1 limited slip disc brake rear end. This car kicks butt, and spanks the average 5.0 hands down. BUT, The project was painful, every single time I turned around it was hundreds and hundreds of dollars more and one big pain in the rear after another , nothing came easy or cheap.
In the early 80's there were not a lot of choices, 302's/5.0's or an old pre-1972 high performance engine.
Today, I would NEVER do such a thing.
In the early 80's there were not a lot of choices, 302's/5.0's or an old pre-1972 high performance engine.
Today, I would NEVER do such a thing.
Man I so want to do a Clevor engine now with the Edelbrock and CHI heads out, the basic architecture is outstanding, but the original Ford effort left alot to be desired for something so promising. Edelbrock has a dual plane intake, but it would be neat as hell if they developed a lower that worked with the cleveland style heads and thier Ford EFI intakes.
4/14/08, 11:40 PM
#45
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2008
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Don't get me wrong, I really like the 351 Cleveland. It was the pinnacle of Ford small block V-8 performance for many years. If I could put a fuel injection top end on it that would be cool. The problem is I would probably really have to consider going with these 32V heads then too though. 
http://www.araoengineering.com/Ford/clevelnd.htm
http://www.araoengineering.com/Ford/clevelnd.htm
Man I so want to do a Clevor engine now with the Edelbrock and CHI heads out, the basic architecture is outstanding, but the original Ford effort left alot to be desired for something so promising. Edelbrock has a dual plane intake, but it would be neat as hell if they developed a lower that worked with the cleveland style heads and thier Ford EFI intakes.
4/15/08, 06:23 AM
#47
Join Date: January 20, 2006
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holy dear baby jesus those are wonderful heads
This thread is pretty funny. I owned a 351C Mach1 and a 428CJ Mach 1 back in the day and they were good cars but I personally wouldnt spend 50,000 dollars to convert my overhead-cam technology S197 car back to an FE block.
4/15/08, 09:44 AM
#48
Cobra R Member
Join Date: April 22, 2005
Location: Lost Angels
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yah,
personally I think it's kinda silly to replace newer, better performing technology just cause you want a certain "sound" or cool factor. Yah, my modular will never sound like a push-rod big block, but I can take solace with my Whipple whine...
Look at all these "resto mod" guys that are doing just the opposite! Putting modern tech. into classic bodies.
personally I think it's kinda silly to replace newer, better performing technology just cause you want a certain "sound" or cool factor. Yah, my modular will never sound like a push-rod big block, but I can take solace with my Whipple whine...
Look at all these "resto mod" guys that are doing just the opposite! Putting modern tech. into classic bodies.
Last edited by Rebel73; 4/15/08 at 09:47 AM.
4/15/08, 12:23 PM
#49
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: May 30, 2004
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaks for its self.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsKvrfyULhU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsKvrfyULhU
4/15/08, 12:33 PM
#50
Bullitt Member
Join Date: November 30, 2004
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've read that they spent something around 50K when everything was done. I mean come on, can you imagine how much HP you would be making for a fraction of that with a built up 4.6?!
4/15/08, 01:53 PM
#51
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Its not always completely about speed, power and practicality
There are plenty of things that make no logical sense to do but we do them because they are fun and because they make us feel good. We all have our limits as to how far out of the realm of practicality we are willing to travel. Some of us are just a bit more adventurous than others
There are plenty of things that make no logical sense to do but we do them because they are fun and because they make us feel good. We all have our limits as to how far out of the realm of practicality we are willing to travel. Some of us are just a bit more adventurous than others
4/15/08, 04:17 PM
#52
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 1,456
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not always completely about speed, power and practicality
There are plenty of things that make no logical sense to do but we do them because they are fun and because they make us feel good. We all have our limits as to how far out of the realm of practicality we are willing to travel. Some of us are just a bit more adventurous than others
There are plenty of things that make no logical sense to do but we do them because they are fun and because they make us feel good. We all have our limits as to how far out of the realm of practicality we are willing to travel. Some of us are just a bit more adventurous than others
4/15/08, 05:33 PM
#54
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
I may be stupid, but I can assure you it ain't money that makes it so
Sometimes doing something the hard way is just more fun. Building something cool and unique is pretty exhilarating.
I hope I didn't come off as derogatory towards guys who do do it the easy way by slapping a blower onto the engine (I call this the easy way only because its being compared to a motor swap) I can certainly see the value in such a car. People like you will be blowing the doors off my car for years to come, but I'll be happier with something different, something that doesn't quite seem logical.
Crazy can be a lot of fun, give it a try sometime
After all, the poster above me just said in their sig:
Sometimes doing something the hard way is just more fun. Building something cool and unique is pretty exhilarating.
I hope I didn't come off as derogatory towards guys who do do it the easy way by slapping a blower onto the engine (I call this the easy way only because its being compared to a motor swap) I can certainly see the value in such a car. People like you will be blowing the doors off my car for years to come, but I'll be happier with something different, something that doesn't quite seem logical.
Crazy can be a lot of fun, give it a try sometime
After all, the poster above me just said in their sig:
DON'T LET COMMON SENSE GET THE BETTER OF YOU!
Last edited by future9er24; 4/15/08 at 05:35 PM.
4/15/08, 06:15 PM
#55
Legacy TMS Member
4/15/08, 06:58 PM
#57
Legacy TMS Member
Don't get me wrong, I really like the 351 Cleveland. It was the pinnacle of Ford small block V-8 performance for many years. If I could put a fuel injection top end on it that would be cool. The problem is I would probably really have to consider going with these 32V heads then too though.
http://www.araoengineering.com/Ford/clevelnd.htm
http://www.araoengineering.com/Ford/clevelnd.htm
They are missing the boat though by not offering a cylinderhead compatible with a windsor intake, Imagine those heads paired with an Edelbrock Victor 5.0/5.8 or Trickflow Trackheat manifolds.
Last edited by bob; 4/15/08 at 07:01 PM.
4/30/08, 05:07 PM
#58
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: January 30, 2008
Location: Pacific NW USA
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Yeah, Just imagine those heads on any Ford push rod V-8! ****!
Thats a name I haven't thought of in awhile, yeah, didn't even think about that. That'd be pretty good sitting on top of a 427 or 454 CID Windsor.
They are missing the boat though by not offering a cylinderhead compatible with a windsor intake, Imagine those heads paired with an Edelbrock Victor 5.0/5.8 or Trickflow Trackheat manifolds.
They are missing the boat though by not offering a cylinderhead compatible with a windsor intake, Imagine those heads paired with an Edelbrock Victor 5.0/5.8 or Trickflow Trackheat manifolds.
5/1/08, 12:15 AM
#59
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 24, 2005
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That ancient 428 is Flintstones technology compared to a modular 3v engine. I've had quite a few FE blocks apart and they have a many many design flaws. They have oiling problems due to the fact that the oil goes to the cam then the mains. The oil pump is very low capacity as are the oil passages. In many cases the oil holes in the main bearings don't line up quite right with the oil holes in the block.
The heads need a lot of work to get decent flow out of them unless you can get tunnel port castings (good luck finding those). The intake manifold end seals tend to leak, as does the rear main seal.
Weak connecting rods. Take it over 5000 rpm and you're asking for trouble.
The 427 side oiler had some of these problems fixed but those engines are very very rare.
Also consider having that cast iron lump in your car will totally screw up your handling at it probably weighs 200 + lbs more than your all aluminum 4.6 does.
And the lovely 1" long bypass hose between the intake manifold and the water pump. You gotta pull the intake or the water pump to change it. The list of design flaws goes on and on.
People have been able to get decent performance from these old boat anchors but you're going to spend a lot of money just compensating for the design flaws.
There's a reason Ford Racing doesn't have much for performance parts for the FE engines.
If you're gonna put a big cubic inch motor in at least consider something based on the 429 / 460 block. It's a much better design than the FE.
I'm still a fan of the modular engines. Much better technology. Sure they don't have the low end grunt of an old big block but top end power is typically a lot better.
Just for comparison...
A friend of mine has a '70 Monte Carlo with a roller cammed 460" BB Chevy (yeah I know it's a Chevy) and it really isn't much faster then my S197 with a few bolt ons. It burns nearly twice the gas and doesn't run on regular at all, driveability is nowhere near as good as my S197.
Do what you want but it seems to me that swapping in an old FE block is really going backwards unless you're just hell bent on having something really different.
The heads need a lot of work to get decent flow out of them unless you can get tunnel port castings (good luck finding those). The intake manifold end seals tend to leak, as does the rear main seal.
Weak connecting rods. Take it over 5000 rpm and you're asking for trouble.
The 427 side oiler had some of these problems fixed but those engines are very very rare.
Also consider having that cast iron lump in your car will totally screw up your handling at it probably weighs 200 + lbs more than your all aluminum 4.6 does.
And the lovely 1" long bypass hose between the intake manifold and the water pump. You gotta pull the intake or the water pump to change it. The list of design flaws goes on and on.
People have been able to get decent performance from these old boat anchors but you're going to spend a lot of money just compensating for the design flaws.
There's a reason Ford Racing doesn't have much for performance parts for the FE engines.
If you're gonna put a big cubic inch motor in at least consider something based on the 429 / 460 block. It's a much better design than the FE.
I'm still a fan of the modular engines. Much better technology. Sure they don't have the low end grunt of an old big block but top end power is typically a lot better.
Just for comparison...
A friend of mine has a '70 Monte Carlo with a roller cammed 460" BB Chevy (yeah I know it's a Chevy) and it really isn't much faster then my S197 with a few bolt ons. It burns nearly twice the gas and doesn't run on regular at all, driveability is nowhere near as good as my S197.
Do what you want but it seems to me that swapping in an old FE block is really going backwards unless you're just hell bent on having something really different.
Last edited by 281GT; 5/1/08 at 12:20 AM.
5/1/08, 12:33 AM
#60
Where's the 7.0L 4v modular V8 then?