Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum - Reply to Topic
Thread: Low rpm 390 stroker advice Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Muscle Forums : Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
10-05-2018 01:51 AM
ralphmustang69
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

I had a 67 galaxy 500 with a 390 that I built some 40 years ago. bought a balanced rotating assembly stock stroke .030 over with forged pistons rods were shot peened with good bolts. ran a crane hydraulic 525lift smooth idle cam with a stock valve train except for springs and retainers it was a cam kit. Holley street dominator intake and a 780 Holley 4150. stock heads and valves with a good valve job. Mallory dual point mechanical advance, MSD 6, and Accell yellow coil. Did have Hooker headers but never did have an exhaust system better than 2 1/4 dual. had a C6 and a 325 open rear gear. It wasn't a drag car but would chirp the tires at 70 mph for the 1-2 shift and at 110 mph for the 2-3 shift. The only parts I ever broke were a couple of rocker shafts and broke the centers out of a couple of flex plates. I still have the motor and trans the galaxy succumbed to rust and had to be retired. building a 69 mustang with a Fe that engine was bullet proof.
09-08-2018 11:51 AM
Iowan
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

If I can get attachments to post I will be more than happy to share some dyno sheets on my 289 and my Stroker build. Maybe someone can tell me what I need to do to post attachments.

Me personally have had good luck with the fmx transmission, I used one behind a 351 v4 in my 68 Fairlane in the seventies. I've always built the car around the motor not the other way around. I've built cars for other people and that's the way it's done every time.
My Fairlane is getting a new JW converter and custom built C4, new driveshaft and 8.8 rear axle with 3.73 gears.
Four wheel disc breaks and Calvert rear suspension just for going from 300 to 450 hp.
It looks like I rattled your cage and I really didn't mean to. I just think you're choking your 445 off and you shouldn't. But the truth is with a peg leg and skinny tires it will not matter how much power you have.
09-08-2018 02:34 AM
lsugymrat24
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

I have been going along to get along and being nice which made it look like I was going with the wind and wavering from the ideas of my build and I'm not. so here's the deal. I'm just a weekend warrior. I'm not a mechanic or a builder. as a kid, I had a mustang poster and dreamed of owning a yellow 1971 mustang with a 429 cobr jet. I only started really trying to learn about vehicles 4 years ago because that's when i got my 66 galaxie. I've been posting to and reading this site because I have access to it on my lunch break at work while other sites are blocked there. I have stayed up till 2am countless times to read posts on other sites by guys like Barry Rabotnick, Brent Lykins, Jay Brown, Ross, etc. their input in priceless and coveted. they have more experience than with just FE motors. they understand how to calculate DCR and how to design build a bunch of different engines. my427stang is one of those guys and I consider us lucky that he still hangs out on this forum since so many have left.

Iowan, I feel like my427stang stood up for my build when I should have, but I'm not the subject matter expert and don't know enough to back up the ideas with calcs. unfortunately, you refuse to understand what he and others have to say. you're so stuck on just the cam that you are the one losing site of the big picture of everything, but i can get into the cam a little bit too. the cam in the example engine from Barry at Survival Motorsports is most likely a Comp Cams XR270HR or close to it based on the limited amount of info he gives for that video (the reason I say this is because in many of Barry's posts, he uses Comp Cams and the data he gives for this cam is dead nuts with the XR270HR. this is basically the hydro roller version of the XE262H). if we go only by duration at .05 lift, my cam is actually 1 degree larger on the intake side and 2 degrees smaller on the exhaust. I'm ok with the small split between intake and exhaust because my exhaust is 1/4" larger than the exhausts on 429 engines in the late 60s. the lift on the XR270HR is slightly larger than my cam and it stays open longer because its a hydro roller. but that cam is 110lsa and my cam is 108 lsa which means I will have more torque and horsepower over a narrower band... which I am ok with because I don't want to rev the motor for performance. in the end, my cam is very close to that cam. mine wont have as much on the top end but it has potential to make more torque due to overlap. like my427stang said... there's SOOOO much more that goes into this to see how each cam affects the overall engine, but if all you're concerned with is the size of my cam compared to Barry's example engine, its almost dead nuts. so your claim that it's "bigger" and doesn't make the same power I'm guessing mine can make is erroneous and inflammatory.

you keep stating that increasing cam size will increase torque and horsepower. that's only true if I'm going to spin the motor at high RPM. you yourself posted specs to a cam that was similar to mine and called it a torquer cam! well that's what I'm shooting for... low end torque and horsepower at low RPM. a cam is supposed to be picked after you know other variables but it has a lot to do with the RPM and other goals of the motor. Barry Rabotnick posted a bunch of dyno results moons ago stating that this type of cam is perfect for my goals. He put a Comp Cam XE262H (the cam mine is modeled after but mine has slightly less aggressive lobes but with more overlap) in a 445 and ran that dyno result against a bunch of larger cams. it spanked the larger cams from idle to 3800 RPM. you can see where he posted these results at the following link...
https://www.fordfe.com/how-is-the-co...ec-t76178.html

here's another set of dynos from barry on basic 390s. if you read some of this, he and brent and ross and other smart guys get into discussion about 390s and 289s and 302s and chevy motors. in there, it is mentioned that increasing to a 445 helps to overcome the internal weight of the engine. that's part of how this whole thing got started in my mind. everything else staying the same on the build, but put a new crank with better journals and more stroke and better dish pistons. this is what I wish Ford had done with FEs in the 60s to shut up all the folks that called it a boat anchor.
https://www.fordfe.com/dyno-testing-...et-t90959.html

you say i'm not using a 445 like it is meant to be used. that is absolutely ludicrous. how exactly is is supposed to be used? what RPM? what exact transmission? which heads, headers, pistons, rings? what thickness head gasket to get a good quench? a great example is that my 390 came as an economy motor. low rise intake, log manifolds, small exhaust pipe, small cam. it was purposely stifled by ford. it only gets 260hp. yeah, go ahead and call it "Pathetic" and "anemic". the thing is, it has nice torque, great throttle response, and gets 24mpg in a 4400lb car with a little 2bbl autolite carb. it barely fits in the engine bay as is but that big motor is spinning low RPMs to move the huge car so it should have a long lightly worked long life. that was great for grandpas 1966 family car galaxie. but I guess you would say that ford didn't build the engine right? the same motor was used in mustangs and trucks because it gave great torque and reliability. but maybe because every one of those motors didn't come with a huge cam... they were all built wrong? Nope. they where built for a purpose... only you don't seem to understand that 0 to 4000 rpm can be a good purpose. my only wish is that ford had stroked the 390 motor back then and put 440s in mustang GTs so everyone else would shut up about how great the 350s and 289s and 302s were.

you say i need a new transmission. do you know anything about a cruiseomatic? i believe that my transmission is a 1966 FMX. other than the C6, this is the other heavy duty transmission used by ford in large vehicles with large engines. it has a heavier casing than the C6 and no performance parts, so folks don't use it for high performance. but I'm looking for low end street use. like my427stang mentioned, provided I don't powerbrake the car or run it at the track, it may last for 20 years behind a street mannered 445.

you say I need a new stall converter if I build a 445 the "right" way. why put a large converter and a large cam in a low RPM car? if I put a 2500 to 3000rpm converter in this thing, I will be in stall 99% of the time while driving it around town which means my transmission will always slip and eventually burn up. that's why the factory didn't put that in a street car back then or today. it doesn't make sense for my use. a large cam will also start to reduce vacuum and I want to keep my power brakes and power steering. at some point, these parts don't meet my goals.

you say I need to upgrade the suspension because of a mild 445? the only thing that may affect would be the front springs. however, I didn't like the boatlike ride of the car and was scared that someone might put it into a tree while going around a curve. so I upgraded to Hotchkis parts -- front and rear sway bars, front A-Arms, rear upper and lower arms, and panhard bar. I didn't like the 700lb spring rate offered by hotchkis or their super expensive multiadjustable shocks so I went with moog and bilstein. rear springs are 190lb moogs and fronts are around 450lb after 3/4 of a coil was chopped off. bilstein lincoln comfort shocks all around. the only thing I don't have on this car is a laddered frame but I may get there one day. it's not a drag suspension, but this car could motorcross if I really wanted.

I will say, one thing I am worried about with increasing the power of the engine is the engine mounts. that is a definite weak spot for these engines. I've yet to find a solution to that as they are rumored to shear if put under too much distress. for that I am concerned and will scour the forums for an answer.

Iowan, you keep mentioning other motors. yes the concepts of engines are the same. they are a huge air pump. I get it. but all of those engines have different characteristics based on design. you keep bringing up your 289 but never said what RPM you're running to get horses out of that little thing. those motors are known to need high RPMs to get big horsepower numbers. but again, that's an apples to oranges comparison to my engine. those engines have very different heads and oiling and such. my427stang is smart enough to do the calcs and has built enough of them to know how those engines all compare, but I'm not that experienced... and I'm starting to think you aren't either since you just admitted to knowing zero about FE engines. it all makes a difference and it pays to know the engine you're working on. if you knew anything about the FE motor, you would know that at over 5500 rpm, these engines need oiling mods. they are great reliable motors for everything on the street but were never designed to be drag motors. extra oil goes to the top end to cool everything up there. that's why ford came up with the sideoiler concept for the 427 FE. I have zero desire to do oiling mods or rev my engine that high.

in the end, my car doesn't look like it came from the showroom, so I may build a 390. If so I will deck the block to 10.160, bore to 4.08, put a set of Autotecs to exactly zero deck and a 17 cc dish with metric ring pack, balance the existing crank, rebuild the rods, stab my cam in at 102icl, and verify spring pressure. That will put me at just over 9.5:1 compression, likely well into the 340hp and 450 ft lb range and it'll be super reliable and super nice to drive. It won't be 450 hp and 500+lbs torque, but it will be thousands of dollars less. and I've been told an aluminum headed 396 with modern parts is cool as hell. at the end of the day, that may make all the sense in the world, but that advice came from an FE expert that comes across as a genuinely good dude and I'm thankful for all his help.

Iowan, I don't know you from Adam. you may be a great guy to drink beer with and maybe you had great intentions. who knows? but I would suggest you use a different tact in the future. unfortunately, you strolled into this thread and called my goals anemic and pathetic. then fired shots at the FE motor platform as a whole... in an FE stroker thread! then you tried to sell me a used 460 motor that you have sitting in your garage. then you took the patience and good will of a guy that has proved himself to be a very smart engine guy on this and quite a few other sites, threw that back in his face over and over, and then called his info a bunch of "bunk" with zero calcs or intuition into these motors as proof. you have been dead wrong on multiple accounts and insulting.

maybe this will make me look like a huge jerk to everyone on this site and not get any help on future posts but this is why lots of good engine guys have fled the FM website and don't hang out here anymore. one of them sent me a PM last week saying this is why he doesn't get on here anymore... because in the middle of giving great logic and calculations and reasoning behind ideas for a build to help some poor guy like me... some guy will get on and start an argument over cam specs with complete disregard to the rest of the build, the engine in question, the goals of the build, etc and then inevitably call the ford FE a boat anchor, and then try to get everyone on the 460 bandwagon. I'm starting to get a headache. lets just call it a day on this one.
09-07-2018 06:32 PM
Iowan
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

There's a difference between saying a motor makes 550 ft lbs and one that does. What are the numbers in the build you found on the dyno that was similar to yours but had a larger cam? I would like to be proven wrong with the dyno on your build but I doubt I would be.
Theory and principles of engine power don't change because of the engine.
09-07-2018 05:02 PM
n2omike
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowan View Post
Wow I didn't mean to hurt feelings by questioning the reasoning behind the small cam and carb on this build.
But with statements of 550 foot pounds of torque from this combination I knew it was bunk. Your dyno results you found with a larger cam didn't produce those numbers.
The thing is if you don't build a stroker or any performance motor to operate at it potential in the rpm window needed your wasting your money. That is if you not going to build a 445 to run like a 445 you dont need a 445, a 390 will do and make it run at it's potential.
To build a high horse power high torque motor means you change everything behind it, converter, transmission and rear axle gears and differential. Then you're going to need four wheel disc breaks and suspension upgrades $$$.
You have to look at the big picture.
Yea, you're a little outside you're area of expertise... and are not necessarily giving out valid information. We do not agree on the engine stuff at all.

As for changing EVERYTHING... from the converter back, suspension, brakes, etc... just from going from a 390 to a mild 445, it's ridiculous to think a person needs all that. These types of beliefs come from watching too many 'Made for TV' builds. They flash the parts, etc on the screen, and they get them for free. Sometimes, the suppliers actually PAY them to use their parts. Therefore, the cars end up almost 100% aftermarket. Very few people doing a car on their own dime, would bother to change out EVERY SINGLE PART like they do on television.

As for my car... I'm sure you'd call it a DEATH TRAP.
09-07-2018 03:58 PM
lsugymrat24
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

I’ve been trying to be nice because some of your statements seem to have good intentions. But you keep making outlandish and rude statements.
Every time you make a statement, part of it is just plain wrong and You just said the advice of an FE expert is “bunk”. What is your FE experience?
09-07-2018 09:01 AM
Iowan
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

Wow I didn't mean to hurt feelings by questioning the reasoning behind the small cam and carb on this build.
But with statements of 550 foot pounds of torque from this combination I knew it was bunk. Your dyno results you found with a larger cam didn't produce those numbers.
The thing is if you don't build a stroker or any performance motor to operate at it potential in the rpm window needed your wasting your money. That is if you not going to build a 445 to run like a 445 you dont need a 445, a 390 will do and make it run at it's potential.
To build a high horse power high torque motor means you change everything behind it, converter, transmission and rear axle gears and differential. Then you're going to need four wheel disc breaks and suspension upgrades $$$.
You have to look at the big picture.
09-07-2018 04:03 AM
My427stang
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

Quote:
Originally Posted by lsugymrat24 View Post
On this note, I need to apologize to Ross and Brent. They helped me pick a cam for a top end conversion. My427stang helped me pick heads, etc as well. I feel like I bugged them too much via email and pm on everything else so I posted about the stroker kit on fmf. In effect, I ended up working out my buddy/builder/advisor more than just bugging him directly.

I think the aggravation should be directed at me. Sorry gents
Don't sweat it man, most of engine building is technique. There is a range for "good enough" The internet brings everyone's opinion to the table and can be confusing. In the end though, as an old friend once told me, you have to eventually "chuck a rock" which means pick a plan and go, that's how you get experience
09-03-2018 03:38 PM
lsugymrat24
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

Quote:
Originally Posted by My427stang View Post

The big thing is pick a builder or an advisor, and go.
On this note, I need to apologize to Ross and Brent. They helped me pick a cam for a top end conversion. My427stang helped me pick heads, etc as well. I feel like I bugged them too much via email and pm on everything else so I posted about the stroker kit on fmf. In effect, I ended up working out my buddy/builder/advisor more than just bugging him directly.

I think the aggravation should be directed at me. Sorry gents
09-03-2018 03:01 PM
Iowan
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

I like were the discussion has gone in that you at least conctering matched bars for you build. You getting great advice add I hope you get it worked out.
For a can I stand by my [email protected] for a flat tappet cam and for a roller 5 to10 degrees less.
If your 390 stalled at 1800 this motor will stall your stock converter 500 rpm higher.
Good luck
09-03-2018 11:56 AM
My427stang
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

Let me circle back to make sure I didn't sound like a jerk to a buddy. N20Mike is a long time Ford buddy and very sharp cat. However, this cam is so unique it catches people off guard and typical internet discussion makes it even harder

Mike is giving good advice, Barry, Brent, even Mike or I, can build nice engines easily, but everyone has their secret sauce. I don't think that dyno example is all that fancy, but it'd be a good match and hydraulic rollers are very convenient, but a little more money (1000 bucks or so). I also think there are a couple other proven combos, the one in my truck included, that would be very good.

The big thing is pick a builder or an advisor, and go.
09-03-2018 11:53 AM
n2omike
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

Okay... I get the full picture now. It looks like it has a 108 LSA, but has 6 degrees of advance GROUND into it. In that case, by all means, advance it 6 degrees, and effective install it 'straight up'. It's rare for a cam to be ground with that much advance, and for some reason, I was thinking it was advised that he retard it 8 degrees instead of 6. Must have read it wrong, or something.

BUT... taking a cam ground +6, and retarding it with a chain -6 to effective install it straight up is not a problem.

If a hydraulic roller conversion is not in the budget, this cam, with it's slow ramps, will likely be just fine. Regardless of which cam you end up using, it's going to feel extremely strong when you hit the loud pedal.

Good Luck!
09-03-2018 11:43 AM
My427stang
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

Quote:
Originally Posted by n2omike View Post
I went and looked... Your cam is ground on a 108 degree LSA. You didn't mention whether it was ground advanced or not.

But, regardless... Even if it was ground 4 degrees advanced, retarding it EIGHT degrees puts you well behind what it was ground at. Cam companies almost NEVER grind a cam retarded. If anything, they grind them advanced. I've heard of lots of people, including myself, installing cams advanced... but, have never heard of anyone purposely installing cams retarded.

The OEM's actually installed cams retarded in an effort to reduce NOX emissions back in the 70's. Totally killed the cylinder pressure, as that's what produces NOX emissions. Kills power in the process. Advancing those cams brought a lot of the power back.

Get one of Barry's Hydraulic Roller cams. With the short duration, you need the valve action to be as quick as possible, in order to move enough air to make decent power. A nice hydraulic roller is the way to go. Barry looks like he has a winner.

Good Luck!
Edited because I sounded a little grumpy. LOL Mike got it spot on in his next post.....
09-03-2018 11:39 AM
lsugymrat24
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

Lol. Ross beat me to posting the cam info again.
09-03-2018 11:35 AM
n2omike
Re: Low rpm 390 stroker advice

Quote:
Originally Posted by n2omike View Post

Is you cam designed to be installed at 102? That is extremely advanced for any kind of street cam! What are your cam specs, including Lobe Separation Angle? If it has a 110-112 degree LSA, installing it at 102 is advanced 8-10 degrees... which is pretty extreme. Please share the specs, including LSA. Thanks
I went and looked... Your cam is ground on a 108 degree LSA. You didn't mention whether it was ground advanced or not.

But, regardless... Even if it was ground 4 degrees advanced, retarding it EIGHT degrees puts you well behind what it was ground at. Cam companies almost NEVER grind a cam retarded. If anything, they grind them advanced. I've heard of lots of people, including myself, installing cams advanced... but, have never heard of anyone purposely installing cams retarded.

The OEM's actually installed cams retarded in an effort to reduce NOX emissions back in the 70's. Totally killed the cylinder pressure, as that's what produces NOX emissions. Kills power in the process. Advancing those cams brought a lot of the power back.

Get one of Barry's Hydraulic Roller cams. With the short duration, you need the valve action to be as quick as possible, in order to move enough air to make decent power. A nice hydraulic roller is the way to go. Barry looks like he has a winner.

Good Luck!
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome