428fe, or 427fe, which one do you prefer? Please no other engines, thanks.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by AL427SBF

A good read Building Ford Strokers Engines: Make Most of a Windsor Block
.

Uh, the title of the thread states "FE and no other engines." We need to sharpen our "listening" skills.

[Dwight]

you tell them RodKnock

I think it a male thing. Not hearing the whole sentence, not read all of a post

asking a question about a something you just told them "all the details"

yep, It's a male thing and I believe we all do it.

maybe we read to fast or listen to fast?????????? miss a lot of details

Dwight

[blykins]

Sometimes we miss details because we are male/human....and then sometimes we miss details because we are trolls.

[AL427SBF]

Yes, and sometimes we miss little details that need "correcting" ...

"Choosing the stroke has a lot to do with the maximum rpm requirement of the engine. For example, in the Ford family on a Windsor block, I might encourage the use of a 4.000? stroke crankshaft to turn to 7,000 rpm, whereas on the street, I might want to suggest a 4.100? stroke crank to turn to, say, 6,500 or I might even suggest a 4.250? stroke if we’re only going to 6,000 rpm because of the frictional loss concerns."

Talk to patrickt if you are still confused about this, he spent a lot of time looking into this with his 428FE
.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by AL427SBF

Talk to patrickt if you are still confused about this, he spent a lot of time looking into this with his 428FE
.

I went with a "shorter" 4.125" stroke, along with other light weight stuff, for a "revvier" engine, because that's fun to do (not for any hardcore racing). My builder said doing that was smart, Brent says doing that is dumb, Barry R. says doing that can be smart, Keith C. says doing that is just dumb. That's the summary. Pick the engine builder you want to side with.

[blykins]

The stroke doesn't define on how quickly something can rev. Period. I'm so sick and tired of this being spread around.

If this were the case, then as I mentioned before, the 428 Super Stock guys with offset ground 428 cranks couldn't turn 8000 rpm and make 800 hp....or.....the Mountain Motor Pro Stock class guys couldn't use a 5.500" stroke crank, turn 9000 rpm, and make 1500 hp.

Look up Jay Brown's big inch SOHC and tell me how high it revs...4.250, 4.375, 4.500 strokes, turning 8000-9000 rpms.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by blykins

The stroke doesn't define on how quickly something can rev. Period. I'm so sick and tired of this being spread around.

See what I mean?

[Bernica]

So... three reputable engine builders walk into a bar with a potential client.
Who pays?

[blykins]

I can almost promise you that we all agree, it's how you ask the question.

You CAN NOT make generalized statements and offer it as gospel.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by AL427SBF

Yes, and sometimes we miss little details that need "correcting" ...

"Choosing the stroke has a lot to do with the maximum rpm requirement of the engine. For example, in the Ford family on a Windsor block, I might encourage the use of a 4.000? stroke crankshaft to turn to 7,000 rpm, whereas on the street, I might want to suggest a 4.100? stroke crank to turn to, say, 6,500 or I might even suggest a 4.250? stroke if we’re only going to 6,000 rpm because of the frictional loss concerns."

Talk to patrickt if you are still confused about this, he spent a lot of time looking into this with his 428FE
.

I thought you "torched" this facility and left with the last JBL competition roadster ever made?

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by blykins

You CAN NOT make generalized statements and offer it as gospel.

Well, then, this site would be ghost town and shut down because of inactivity if that were the case.

[AL427SBF]

Originally Posted by blykins

I can almost promise you that we all agree, it's how you ask the question.

You CAN NOT make generalized statements and offer it as gospel.

You mean something like this?

Originally Posted by blykins

... The length of stroke has nothing to do with how high it can rev, low end grunt, or how much hp it can make. Those are all common misconceptions and wives' tales ...

.

FYI, had you said "IMO" I wouldn't have said anything.
.

[DanEC]

Originally Posted by blykins

The stroke doesn't define on how quickly something can rev. Period. I'm so sick and tired of this being spread around.

I grew up in the era of small block Chevys and the stock theory leaning over the fender of any car was that short strokes rev - just look at a 302 Z-28. Now I have two long stroke modular motor Fords - a Lightning and a 12 Mustang GT (Coyote) and also a 4.25 inch stroke FE. I have some difficulty reconciling these motors with the old street talk because these things rev like I wouldn't have believed. Especially the Coyote motor, it revs like a banshee. So I guess I'm convinced.

[55312]

Just a correction to Real1's definition of a 427 SO. Late 406's and all 427's have cross bolted main caps for racing durability. The center oiling galley used in all FE engines proved inadequate for racing endurance. So, in 1965 the 427 block was a new casting with the main bearing oil gallery on the side. This gave the mains priority in the oiling system and greatly increased the 427's ruggedness. This side galley casting is the sure identification of a 427 SO. I do believe, however, that some service blocks show this casting but are not drilled and use solid lifters.

Tim

[mtrain2000]

Originally Posted by AL427SBF

A good read Building Ford Strokers Engines: Make Most of a Windsor Block
.

I've built more performance 351w based engines I've lost count. For me the FE engine is THE engine for the Cobra's, but that just me.

Latest 351w based project, 427cid World block, World 10 ° heads. This engine is going in my Fox Mustang.


428fe in the Cobra.

[mtrain2000]

Originally Posted by blykins

Sometimes we miss details because we are male/human....and then sometimes we miss details because we are trolls.

Hey Brent. Good to see you here, I'm Mike U on the FE forum.

[blykins]

Originally Posted by AL427SBF

You mean something like this?


.

FYI, had you said "IMO" I wouldn't have said anything.
.

I don't have to say IMO. It's not an opinion, it's a general concept that all engine builders get.

The long stroke does not matter and doesn't hinder how an engine revs. It's because you build the entire engine as a package deal. I have built FE's with 4.250" stroke crankshafts that would zip up WAY quicker than your SBF...and I have built 4.250" stroke FE's that were pokey because they were hindered by low compression, heavy rotating assemblies, heavy flywheels, and big clutches.

If stroke mattered, then you'd have Pat Musi and Warren Johnson losing races and only being able to turn 6000 because of their 5.500" stroke crankshafts.

If stroke mattered, then you wouldn't have 428's turning over 8000 in a Super Stock engine.

FWIW, Patrick (and whoever else wants to see another opinion), I texted Barry with this message: "I'm so tired of hearing people say that big stroke engines rev slow."

His reply was: "Send them over to Kaase's or Sonny's."

I can screenshot the text if necessary.

[AL427SBF]

There is plenty on the internet about this, anyone can google it and read pages from builders & hobbyists on the subject. I'll go with the overwhelming consensus vs. your contrarian point of view. That alone puts you in the "IMO" category whether you like it or not
.

[blykins]

I'm certainly not worried about where I'm "put".

I, for one, know that the overwhelming consensus is usually a bunch of uneducated guys who see something written on the internet, then want to pass it around on the forums to show how intelligent they are. I'm not using "uneducated" in a derogatory manner. It just means that a lot of guys just don't have the experience or background to be discussing what they discuss. This includes you.

I'll go back to engine building. You go back to trolling.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by blykins

FWIW, Patrick (and whoever else wants to see another opinion), I texted Barry with this message: "I'm so tired of hearing people say that big stroke engines rev slow."

His reply was: "Send them over to Kaase's or Sonny's."

I can screenshot the text if necessary.

In response to "Why did you go with the 4.125" instead of the longer stroke?" He wrote the following: "He wanted to retain the revvy feel." I win.