JUNKYARD BIG BLOCK POWER-460 FORD VS 454 CHEVY FULL DYNO RESULTS 

I did whats called a poor mans 460-500 stroker for a truck once with stuff laying around shop read about it in a mag one time so one day had a customer who wanted cheap torque for old truck pulling equip. So took and offset ground crank used a set pontiac 455 rods narrowed down some .030 Olds 400 slugs and Cadillac 390? rod bearings. Had a cam ground, zero decked it shaved n ported exh up on some small ch heads. Its been yrs since I built it but actually did really good. Prob wasnt worth the hassle but he said would pull anything he could put behind it. Ever heard of one them? Lol

Ford always loves to say what Gm Chevy motors needs or don't need.

@@god1st.530 it's know to everyone that Chevy mouse and rat had good exhaust ports. Comp knows it too. That's why single pattern cams. Comp has finally got with the program and made dual pattern cams. But most Ford engine builders use other cams because Comp has low quality and a failure rate factored in.

@@god1st.530stupid

@@god1st.530 did you even read the comment??

impressive, but don't forget the 460 isn't stock, it is bored .060 over

@@jdhall420 Yeah I’m aware of that...

@@jdhall420 stock type piston

No kidding. My Jetta has a 2.0 TDI making 520 Ft-Lbs at the tires and it does AWD burnouts if I dump the clutch around 3K RPMs

@@christianmeeks4430 Right on. 👍🏻

Maybe, but I've had a few flat tappet cams go flat so I think that would factor in as far as longevity. Not saying the chevy motor is better its just 30 years (roughly) newer. And I own a ford and a chevy so I'd like to think I'm not biased

@@shaytassi sorry the 460 never had a flat tappet from the factory

@@paulpruitt2776 that's incorrect

but the ford has a worse factory oiling system and huge main bearings more bearing speed equals more chance of bearing failure

@@paulpruitt2776 Um they were all flat tappet

I have to laugh everytime someone repeats that.

Thank you I was born into a Ford family but power is power, the only reason it should matter what brand is making it should come down to what body style you like

Well the only one of the three that has achieved anything with their engines in this case their big block is Ford winning lemans with the legendary 7.0l FE hitting 7k rpm for 24 hours beating ferraris V12. But these hicks and inbreeds thinks cheby is better because there is more of em in the junkyard? No point in mentioning dodge their a joke, sometimes honestly idk what I’m missing.

@@CoyoteFTW every engine can make power but ford is king when it comes to race motors

@@CoyoteFTW MIke, 7.000 rpm was the MAX RPM LIMIT they were allowed to turn during the race by Shelby. For 99.9% of the 24 hour race, they turned about 5,000-5,500 rpm. The 427's were detuned in order to finish the race.

My 1992 Ford F-250 4X4 had a 460. It was a beast, sadly the gas mileage was horrible for an everyday driver.

But the bottom end does care about how much bang is in the top end. I.E. 302 over 500hp power shifting.

@@TheDude2111 Stop pushing this block splitting at "x" amount of horsepower. Its not a rule of thumb by any means.

actually it is a rule of thumb, because back when folks built 5.0 pushrods rather than swapped 'em for Coyotes (due to the block splitting), they tended to let loose at 500hp. Part of that is the blower belt pulled tight on that crank--its a different crank than earlier 302's (edit: don't know why i said its a different crank, its the same crank, but the firing order changed on the HO to the 351W, so that the rear cylinders fired at the same time than the front ones), which is why the engine needs a different weight flywheel. Also, the low deck Windsor max bores to .04, while a Chevy goes .06 over, which tells you the difference in wall thickness--the Windsor was initially designed to be a 221 cid economy car engine, the 265 chevy was a passenger car and truck engine that ended up at 400 cid. there are some low deck windsors that CAN go to a .06 overbore, and they are the ones that tend to last beyond 500 hp with screw in core plugs and a girdle on the bottom end and maybe the wider K code Challenger 289 main caps. But for the majority of low deck Windsors, the question isn't "will it crack its main webs past 500hp" its "when"...proven by a ton of racers in the 1980's, on the tracks and on the streets.

@@albertgaspar627 For starters, the idea that people are swapping to coyotes over their pushrods because the blocks are splitting is purely subjective and nonsensical. They do it because it offers greater than twice the power production stock for stock. Be that as it may, there are a plethora of small block Ford's still competitive today ranging from dead stock thin wall roller blocks all the way to the pricy Dart combos, whom many of which boasting these stock block combos produce *way* more power than what is debated to be block splitting territory. Now, to the actual block splitting fallacy and why it is just that. If there is some "x" power number that the mechanical strength of the block is bested by, the same result would be seen across "most" of the engines regardless of the power adder or scenario but we already know that's not the case and you even helped make the point for me. If a power adder sbf is equipped with say, a positive displacement blower, the rotating assembly has a far different level of stress applied to it than say, a turbocharged engine, or even a combo on spray. To make the claim that it is the "x" amount of hosepower will be the detrimental failure completely disregards the fact the block has no way of knowing the difference in horsepower whether its 499 or 700+. Its less to due with the horsepower being produced, and everything to do with cylinder pressures, rpms, and where the engine is producing its torque. Lastly, saying that this is proven by racers is factually inaccurate. The only 5.0 block ive personally seen split was a roots blown stock block that lived several seasons at well over 750hp to the tires for years before even boasting any serious issues. While my personal experiences dont account for a rule, by definition, to be a rule of thumb, we would expect anyone who exceeds this power level to experience issues or total failure but decades of racing these combos has proved the opposite. Im not saying it doesnt happen, im just stating its not the "500" ,"600", or any "X" horsepower that will produce these failures, rather its huge loads at peak cylinder pressures, which can occur at any power level. By definition, its not a rule of thumb and rather remains an exception. Even Richard has good discussions regarding this and why its less of a rule , and more of an exception. He as produced in excess of the "safe" power level handling on multiple occasions, even racing his own supercharged sbf non intercooled with as long as 30 minutes at 100% wide open throttle and it lived on. This is just one of thousands examples. How many times have you personally seen a failure?

@@madmod 500hp on a roller block is just common not guaranteed that's why I added a note about powershifting implying load shock to engine which is less likely to occur with an unlocked tc auto. It also has moore to do with tune "project stock bottom end" is a good read 800hp with a tko and it a daily driver (I'm not sure who daily's that though).

Would like to see a comparison between the 8.1 V8 and the ram 8.0 V10

@Skip R In stock form pretty much, there aftermarket heads available for them now, and with a forged rotating assembly and the beefy blocks those use there is a whole lot of potential, especially nice having the mult port injection and electronic controlled ignition.

I'd like to see a late model truck 460 because the heads were very different and the exhausts were way better, but it takes completely different exhaust and intake manifolding. Pretty much no one makes an intake for a F3TE. You can use adapters from Price but otherwise you're stuck with the mamby EFI intake and\or a 4bbl adapter for that intake.

how do we make a hyd roller and hyd flat tappet the same cam?

@@richardholdener1727 use a gen 4 bbc with flat tappet for the comparison 🤷‍♂️

I think engine masters did that comparison

@@richardholdener1727 Give them both similar Hydraulic Rollers

@@nicolasstanley1392 what season/episode?

every modern performance motor makes significantly more than the Muscle car motors in the 60s and 70s

Love "Chevies" lol that's hilarious.

I Love both Ford's, My first Love and Chevy's, My second Love!! I started with Ford's, My Father and 2 Uncles worked at Ford Dealerships. I bought a Brand new Mustang GT 5.0 in 1983, but I ordered it so by the time it arrived I ended up with an '84. I graduated High School in 1980 at age 16. I was 22 years old and thought I was it with My Black on Black Mustang GT 302 V8 5 speed. Later when I was doing all My Mechanic Work I discovered how much Cheaper and easier Chevy's are to work on plus they're much easier to get parts for. Ford gives no thought on whether something's easy to work on. Chevy designs everything to be simple and easy to work on. Dodge goes out of their way to make things as hard as humanly possible to work on. Everything on a Dodge is Bass Ackwards, even the key goes in upside down. Damn Dog Pisses on the tire Sonofabitch won't crank. I've owned 4 Dodge V8's. 3 of them blew up at 80 something thousand miles, 1 made it to 92 thousand miles. Had a Ford last 380,000+ miles and was still running when I Junked it. Paid $200 for a G20 Chevy work van with a 350 V8 and it lasted 380 something thousand miles. Paid $700 for a 1 ton G30 8 lug Chevy work Van with a 350 4bolt main and drove it over 420,000 miles. I wish I'd kept it. Both Chevy Vans were still running when I Junked them!! God Bless Y'all. Jimmy in NC....

@@jamesreaves5534 I grew up working on other peoples' cars before I was old enough to drive. I learned quickly that Chevys were easy to work on, parts interchange was fantastic, cheap to get parts for, and easy to modify and make seriously quick street cars. What more could a gear head ask for? Plus there's very few engines that look better than a big block Chevy with aluminum heads and intake. Chevy knew how to style their engines to look as good as they ran. Stock Ford engines always looked like dog poo to me.

@@corvettejohn4507 My 1968 351 Cobra Jet holman-moody special I had in my 1984 Mustang GT which I purchased brand new looked great. It had a one-of-a-kind holman-moody intake it was a prototype probably the only one ever made. I ordered headers from Advanced Engineering West in California and they had removable collectors with four pipes across from one another instead of your standard two on top of two. The collectors had a y-shaped front portion that slid onto the pipes and then became round like a standard header would wear it hooks up to your exhaust. When you slid the collectors onto the Header pipes there were 2 tabs either side that you ran a bolt through locking the Headers and collectors together. These were really long headers and exited past the firewall of the car. I ordered a five core radiator from Webster racing radiators in New York. You really couldn't tell that it was a bigger motor because the Cobra Jet being a windsor as well as a 302 being a windsor they looked roughly the same although the 351 Cobra Jet was if memory serves me correctly an inch wider making it a 1/2") inch wider per side. This is negligible and you really couldn't tell that it was larger. The headers did make it look a little bigger in there because they were massive Racing headers, but they would have made the 302 look bigger as well they fit both 289-302 and 351. The 351 is the engine that Ford should have put in that car. It would have been able to outrun all others in that time. GM only had a 305 in their Camaros and Trans Am's. The 350 was in the Corvette, but the 351 would have outrun all of them. My 68 351 Cobra Jet holman-moody special had a reed racing cams flat tappet solid lifter 289 cam because they didn't have a lot of good 351 Windsor cams at the time. With this camshaft I had to wire it up using the 289 302 firing order. The 351 use a slightly different firing order. There's nothing like the sound of a flat tappet solid lifter cam under the hood, it's noisy and it just sounds fast. I am in agreeance with you there isn't much that looks better than a Chevy under the hood. They're much easier to work on and much cheaper too, as well as what you said. The parts have great interchangeability and are much easier to find if you're trying to find used parts. All the way around for a poor man the Chevy is the way to go oh, but you never forget your first love. To this day I'm still equally torn between Ford and Chevy but Chevy gets the nod especially if I have to work on it. If somebody else is doing the work I don't know. It's pretty much a toss-up at that point. My favorite car is still the Mustang and the 69 is my favorite of all. I think the 69 Mustang with the hood scoop and break scoops on both sides along with the spoiler and the Fastback make it the most beautiful muscle car ever built to me. They really are Sharp, both the Mach 1 and the Boss. I would love to own a 1969 Mustang with the 428 Cobra Jet or the 429 boss I couldn't decide between the two either would be fine with me.

I love my SBC and BBF lol

Yeah, it's stupid-easy to shift 460 low end torque way north in a hurry. The 400 Ford is actually a better truck engine.

The choked down heads and intake pull the torque earlier.

Yep, because both have basically the same cylinder head design. The Ford Cleveland and 385 series big block heads are canted valve semi-hemi's just like the Big Block Chevy's heads. The Mark IV big block Chevy introduced in 1965 was a fully production developed version of the 1963 Chevy MkII 427 Mystery Motor that ran in the 1963 Daytona 500. Ford protested to NASCAR that the Chevy motor was a ringer because it wasn't a production motor. Long story short, NASCAR told Chevy to sell one of the Mystery Motors to Ford since the rule book said the motors had to be available for sale to the public. So Chevy sold a Mystery Motor to one of the Ford NASCAR teams and they sent it up to Dearborn, MI where it was run on the dyno, taken apart, and examined. Five years later, Ford releases the 385 series big block (and Cleveland heads for the small block) who's head layout is extremely similar to the Chevy Mystery Motor and hence the Big Block Chevy. Not only do they share the canted valve semi-hemi combustion chamber, they also use the same rocker arm ratio and the rocker arms from a 429 or 460 BBF, or Cleveland SBF, will fit on a BBC. For years, if you wanted cheap roller fulcrum rocker arms for your Mark IV BBC, you just went to the Ford dealer and bought BOSS 302 rocker arms and slapped them on. Ford also used the same valve size on it's high performance 429's as Chevy's iron rectangle port heads, 2.19" intake and 1.72" exhaust. Now Chevy wasn't the first to offer canted valve heads for a V8, that distinction actually goes to the 1955 Plymouth Poly-spherical head motor sometimes called the Poly A. So Chrysler tried it first, then Chevy, then Ford. However, while Chevy and Ford used canted intake and exhaust valves, the Plymouth only had one canted valve, the intake valve IIRC. This was because the Plymouth used a rocker arm shaft.

Indeed.

Lmao the truth slipped out Holdener.

A fordian slip..

I'm a Ford guy but I do love those BBC heads especially when Ford decided to create their own and put them on a small block. AKA 351 Cleveland.

Freudian slip at its finest.

AT LEAST 10!

FORD WINS THAT ONE

@@richardholdener1727 I assume that is because there is.... No replacement, for displacement!?!

@@richardholdener1727 Unless you get a siamesed tall deck Bowtie block, put in a 4.5" stroker crank at which point you have over 600 cubes. But you won't be doing that with a junkyard block.

I can appreciate the fact that he’s not using exotic parts. I wish we had this when we were 18 and broke.

@@scottgregory9672 when I was 18 and broke parts were so cheap it would make you cry today. But jobs were plentiful so being broke was an option

Not an apples to apples comparison and they were only close because the Ford had much more done to it. The Ford needed to be bored .060 over with higher compression pistons, ported heads and a cam swap just to keep up with a stock 454 with a cam swap. Not apples to apples at all. If the Ford was stock bore, compression and heads it wouldn't have even been close to the 454.

@@vandersgarage4682 Within 10 to 15hp in stock and slightly modified versions, virtually the same power chevy had the roller, ford had ancient heads. My opinion is unchanged

@@edpetrocelli2633 You're missing the point.....at no time in this testing was the 460 ever stock.....they bought it already bored and with higher compression pistons.

@Skip R Richard said the ford was already redone to .060 over, making it a 472

That's insignificant. 460 had stock replacement pistons

I’d bet you can build a slightly more powerful Ford bc of that displacement difference than Chevy on the same budget now days. Not 10-20 years ago but today for sure. A 557 with blue thunder heads will likely out-compete any Chevy 514 stroker with solid heads on a similar budget

Here's one for you: 500 Caddy (4.3 bore, 4.304 stroke)....bore out .140 to 4.44 without fill.......300 to 4.6 with fill. Center bore spacing is 5 inches. Up the stroke to 4.6 inches, and you could have a 612 CID Caddy. Best part with the big Caddy.......only 60 pounds more than a Chevy 350. The one big downside of hopping up a big Caddy? Cost.

@@Greenskies321 SCJ headed 514's weren't all that expensive 20 plus years ago.

@@markdubois4882 'Cadillac'... The main issue is that you can't get heads that will compete with what is available for the more popular brands. Furthermore, what you *can* get, are extremely expensive. However, you can build a 540 with the stock components.

@@michaelangelo8001 The big Caddys take really well to boost. 5.5 pounds with a bone stock 500 with the large chamber heads pushed 447 HP and 625+ lb-ft torque. Up the boost to 9.9 pounds, and torque is 800+ at 3500. I bet it was over 1000 lb ft closer to 2500 rpm. HP was 542. Richard did this test a few months back.

He said it was a high compression motor which would mean it was either in a truck or out of a Lincoln made between 1968 to 1971. On the other hand, the motor was rebuilt, so who knows what kind of internals were installed. It could have been produced whenever.

part of why he made that much power was it had a small turbo keeping positive pressure on the carb so the fuel would not boil in the float bowls. Its super easy to make a hot vapor engine with existing tech today, but with gasoline you will still need to get the fuel air mix over 450F to get it to vaporize. The components of gasoline have boiling points from 80F to 450F, and you need it all to vaporize. That will still require ceramic pistons and other high end parts. Smokey's later engine had three chambers where it heated the fuel air mix to get it all to vaporize. So how is it easy? Run it on ethanol. Heat the fuel over 200F in the EFI rails, under 60PSI it will not boil and vapor lock as boiling point rises with pressure, and drops with vacuum. You want the injectors farther up the intake runner, so the fuel has more time to vaporize, and it will also cool the intake charge making it more dense. A TBI system would work rather well, or simply place the injectors near the other end of the runner like on a 5.0 Ford or LS engine. They put the injector close to the valve to limit the time between when the injector fires and the plug fires, because gasoline likes to knock/pre ignite. Its also why they have gone to direct injection. Not only can you heat ethanol in the rails, you can run much higher static compression, which will also pick up power and mileage. Without gasoline added to it, you can run over 22:1 compression on ethanol. You do not want the heated fuel returning to the tank, so it has to be after the regulator. The 2004 and up LS EFI system has the regulator and return at the pump, so that would probably work better if you wanted to try this on a modern engine. Build a heater that fits in a radiator hose with a coil in it so you can pass fuel through to get it hot enough, then send it to the fuel rail. Heating the air before it goes through the throttle body helps as well, so does EGR, any extra heat to completely vaporize the fuel, and remember, ethanol cools tine intake charge as it vaporizes, so you still get a denser charge in the cylinder. I run all my ethanol fueled engines with a 190 to 210 thermostat, the hotter it is the more power and better mileage I get from them. I have a 2005 EFI system going on a 6.0 (with 706 heads and a mild drop in cam) in my 76 C10, with a 4L80 behind it. I plan to run it on ethanol and heat the fuel like this. Its all about surface area. A vapor has vastly more surface area than droplets in atomization. Think fog vs rain. When the fuel is fully vaporized it burns faster and more completely. A droplet only burns along the outside of it as the fuel within the droplet vaporizes at the edges, and gasoline doesn't do that very well. It takes a lot longer to burn so most of its energy goes to waste heat. Like more than 80% of its energy is just waste heat. You won't be able to run an engine like I am describing on gasoline, you will break stuff as it detonates itself to death. Its one or the other, when you run high compression and run everything hot gasoline will knock/ping, while ethanol allows you to drive around with 13:1+ and iron heads in a daily driver. I know, I do it. Other than the power output, which Richard and the Engine Masters guys have proven ethanol makes more power, especially under boost, this isn't something you can accurately test on the dyno. You can definitely see it in normal driving with a very high compression engine and heated/vapor fuel on ethanol.

Bore the 454 out to 472 cubes and mill the head down for 10.5:1 c.r. and see what it does.

All comes down to aftermarket support these chevys weren’t and aren’t anything special

@@corvettejohn4507 the Ford 10.5:1 was a guess as that’s the rated factory spec for a stock 460. If it had .060 overbore, there’s no telling what piston was used and how far below deck it was. I might have missed Richard going through and measuring actual volumes to get true compression however. 18 ci? Would you lose the roller cam and better intake for those couple cubes?

@@jaywilliams2710 He also didn't say what cc the heads were on either one which would also effect CR.

I got notifications of one or two other replies to this but none are showing up here... Deleted by author(s)?

IT HELPS

I have not ported them

My father in law has a 99 3500 and built the motor. It tows a big boat. He left the hump, gave it a five angle valve job, blended the bowls, and did something to the chamber and bore to deshroud the valves. He used stock pistons, shaved the head, stock exhaust manifolds and stock intake. The cam is bigger than stock but I don't know what it is. It put out out 486 rwt and 440 rwhp. It'll put you back in the seat and roast the tires but doesn't rev more than 5500. Great tow motor.

Some people in here are saying the intake used on the Ford is junk,they don't respond well to that intake.If you took the other advantages way from the ford and then gave it a edelbrock intake,it would still be a monster.

ypu might want to do a search for pro stock or coyote

@@CoyoteFTW do u like du.des

@@hondaservicecenter here comes the pinche cuh con su Silverado culera

For Junkyard hunting look for a 93-97 460 (15cc 1.77 compression height pistons), use 75cc heads, 023x4.4 head gaskets which gives you a nice 045 quench and 10.32 to 1 compression, add the cam and carbureted intake of your choice and you have pure Junkyard Gold

stock motors don't need more than a 750

stock

Chevy is lighter

no need for heads, comp has mild cams

You might have to port the heads. Youll definatly be happy with the torque!

Like John said might as well do heads too, it’ll be worth it in the end, 460 cubes is a lot of air to move 500hp shouldn’t be a problem

@@johnsheetz6639 aluminum heads would be way better.

@@Zach-ju5vi veryy true. Honestly the only way. no matter who has the grinder.

Performer RPM intake minimum. Flat top pistons zero decked if running a D3 head. Stock pistons will need a much smaller chambered head.

There is over 20 cc difference in the heads on a '68 and a '77... huge difference :)

@@ewetoobz3840 correct, 75 to 95cc

The better marine versions ran forged flat tops with the larger chamber heads super cobra jet old school cam , did pretty good on 89 octane

@@gainerman there's a boat junkyard near me with a 460 engine. Going to check out your story. If so, buy the engine.

@@cammontreuil7509 most of the 460s were truck motors with a non emissions cam and gear and huge non egr scj cast intake . The flat tops and larger carburetor really made a difference on the jet boats and light stern drive apps. That's a score if you find a good one

yes-on a chassis dyno

We already know the answer to that, the Powerglide has the least Hp loss. The more rotating mass you have in an automatic trans, the more power it robs.

What year of wagon ? It may have been a Police interceptor. I've seen a few in them.

@@cammontreuil7509 1974 ford LTD Country Squire with the trailer towing package.

@@jamesmiddleton5304 I used to have my own business. I specialized rebuilding Ford engines. I pulled a 460 out of a 74 wagon with the towing package. It had the PI engine. I remember having to order special parts for it. I remember it having the huge spread bore carb. I would bet you had same engine. They are rare.

The 460 has a stronger block with bigger head bolts than the 454 head bolts strip out

So much testing on the stroke vs. bore has been done, and yet there's still so little proof of an actual difference. I read an interesting article by David Reher a few years ago about that, and rod angle. As far as he was concerned, it was all B.S, and they at Reher-Morrison had never been able to prove any advantages. David Reher knows his stuff, and I've heard other bright minds like Todd Goodwin and Ron Potter say similar things.

@@AB-80X interesting to know. The only advantage I can see the shorter stroke having is higher rpm capability. Less piston speed at certain rpm. I'd personally limit a 454 to 6000 or so, where-as the 460 could probably live at 6500 or 6750 a tad easier. On paper or with piston velocity numbers anyway..

I have not tested

Depends...what "the job" is!

@@Mr1Tankerbeating the 454

Ford cranks don’t break like those chebys

@@MrBlackbutang very true. 454 crank gets fragile right around 600hp

Im not 100% on this so dont hold me to it but the fords crank is prob so heavy because i believe they use nodular iron i hope i spelled that right😂 but either way its suppossed to be really strong ik they use that in the small blocks not a 100% in the big blocls

@@adamdesjarlais8183 Um that’s laughable the stock crank on a 454 can handle up to 700 horsepower. If your building a motor and using the stock crank most likely your taking the motor to the machine shop to have the deck surfaced or zero’d, block cleaned, and fully balanced a big block crank can handle 700 horsepower if your motor is balanced and that’s “handling” 700 horsepower you could have more power but then it will get more “fragile”

@@TheWorldWarrior your sentence seems contradicting

Thanks man!!

There's more going on than processing air.

I think he might be thinking along the lines of the 427 being developed more for racing purposes originally.

they can go big

@@richardholdener1727 As you know, BBC's can go big too. A Bow-tie tall deck block and a 4.5" stroker crank equal over 600 cubes.

@@corvettejohn4507 good luck finding a Bow Tie tall deck block in a junkyard. A regular production 460 block from a junkyard can go big without a special intake, longer pushrods or the extra $2-3,000 for a tall deck block. I'm not sure anything beats a 460 if you want to build more than 530 in³ until you're buying 100% aftermarket parts. At that point you can spend as much as you want but you're not going to beat the bang for the buck of a stock block stroker with good heads, intake and cam.

@@joequixotic3039 I know. All I was saying is that one can build over 600 cid BBC if you want. It just requires a Bow Tie block or aftermarket block.

The 460 was never put in anything for performance. The performance 385 series engines were only 429 cubes (boss 429, 429cj and scj) Back in the day, guys like roush put 460 cranks in 429cj for more power. There was a 70 or 71 mercury with a 429cj in cars illustrated that started at 13.90’s and they got it into the mid 12’s then added a 460 crank and ran either a 12.00 or high 11’s i forget now. Not like 454 vettes and chevelles or 440 everything!

@@heathermiller2917 right, they were put into land yachts probably up until the 80 80s I think? Remember when everyone wanted a 426 or 427 something? Ah those were the days!👍🇺🇸

Every boosted motor should have extra ring gap and since it costs nothing, it is definitely something the backyard guy can and should do

Chevy 427 parts look like a toy compared to oem ford 427 components.

@@madmod Which Ford 427? They made so many different 427/428/429s that I can't even remember how many different motors they had. I guess Ford operates on the principal of "Why have 1 good motor when you can have five different boat anchors parts won't interchange on."

@@corvettejohn4507 the ford 427, 428, and 429 are all completely different engines lol. The 385 series was for working, the 428 was for top trim full size sedans, the 427 existed soley for performance and swamped the 427 Chevies in most forms of on and off road racing.

@@corvettejohn4507 On paper the canted valve chevy heads boast better flow and should perform better but its pretty hard to argue with the high Riser or tunnel port 427 ford engines which can sneeze out 600fwhp on mostly stock parts.

@@madmod I'm not sure how streetable a tunnel port 427 is. Those ports are huge and port velocity is low. I imagine driving it on the street would suck. Which is why Ford and Pontiac only put those on race motors.

playing the "IF" game? well ok, IF the Ford were 28 years newer 1968 vs 1996 perhaps those issues wouldn't be much different. Both are big, both will thump big power if built to do so.

@@ryanroberts1104 Got your notification for your comment. It took 20 seconds to click on your channel to see the video of the truck in the quarry. No time or effort... Not sure why you deleted your original comment.

Ya this video was interesting because I always heard ford 460 heads werent any good. "They don't flow" or whatever... I love these youtube guys putting all of those old ass drag strip projections in their place and killing the rumors.

@John Buck Let's put cubes and compression ratio at level playing fields and do it again with everything else the same. That basically shows who makes a higher flowing head. The rocker arms had oiling issues, but it's a simple fix any machine shop fixes out of the box unless you specifically ask them not to. After the 454, you had the 8.1(496) and the 502 crate. What did ford make to keep up with those? The triton v10? I know the 8.1 is an absolute legend in the oil fields... The 502 was a base for many successful bracket cars not wanting to deal with boost/timing timers.

@John Buck The only BBC I've ever raced was full dry sump so IDK.

@John Buck How about ford wins against the corvette in any sanctioned races?

​@John Buck The pro stock NHRA engine is a chevy design. Top fuel is mopar heads, but the rest chevy design. Your last laguna seca win is 1970 in trans am, followed by datsun, chevy, chevy, chevy, chevy, jaguar. NASCAR is a chevy design all the way from SB1-present SB3... Lemans has been dominated by vettes. I googled "2021 24 Hours of Le Mans" wikipedia, search ford, nothing came up... If you meant LM GTE, check out the c6.r, c7.r, and c8.r history there in GT2 which is faster than GT1 cars (Pratt and miller)... Ford bailed in 2019 because they suck. Either you're unaware or an idiot. Maybe you have something in WEC or FIA with cosworth or some other obscure BS? Maybe try boat races or Baja (class 2?) or Crandon shortcourse? I'm sure it's a roush yates engine which is most assuredly, not a Ford design, but go on kiddo.

@@ryanroberts1104 per the video, hp, torque virtually equal, so weight can be a deciding factor. Which is heavier?

I think the Ford is actually heavier. Crank is heavier and block is physically bigger. But, they’re both heavy enough even if the difference is 50lbs it doesn’t matter much.

@@allenl9031 The BBC weighs in at around 680 lbs stock. I can't remember what the BBF is, but you can google it. But virtually no one runs a BBC stock. The aftermarket makes aluminum everything for the engine for cheap money. So most street/strip rats are going to have aluminum intakes, heads, water pumps, and lightweight steel tubing headers. That brings the weight way down below 600 pounds. If you run an aluminum block, you're now down to around 530 lbs, or the same as a small block Chevy.

@@corvettejohn4507 Not everyone can afford all the upgrades, Richard's comparison wasn't all out builds, but more of a budget build comparison. Still lots of junkyard 385 series engines out there...

@@NBSV1 Yes, the BBF is 720 lbs to the BBC's 680 lbs.