Rediculously Giant Small Block (460 c.i.)

My first thought is that you would need rediculously large intake, heads and headers to take advantage of the ci.

Forced induction... drool: - twinturbo 460W)

I'd think the 205s could handle that many cubes.

If not, 225s sure could. I think the challenge would be headers the fit and flow enough.

Considering its undersquare configuration (4.155 x 4.250), this is a torque motor, not a peak hp/high rpm motor. The $11,000 model you mention is rated by World as 575 hp, 550 lb-ft, and looking at the specs I would say it's maxed out for street use (9.5:1 or 10.5:1 CR (the World pdf catalog states both numbers), 2.06/1.60 aluminum heads, solid roller cam, single plane intake, Holley Dominator, steel crank, H-beam rods). On the other hand, World has found with its other crates, at least with the Merlin BBC's anyway, that the more it builds the more hp they produce.

As far as reliability, the $11,000 includes a two year warranty, so who cares? How many miles do we put on these hobby cars anyway? I would be reeeal surprised to hear of anyone putting 100,000 miles on any vintage Mustang from here on out.

It's funny you should post about this 460 ci shortblock. I've been daydreaming about this very thing quite a bit lately, regarding a '65 fastback. MY daydream, however, includes Cylinder Head Innovation "3v" aluminum Cleveland cylinder heads. The 218 cc model flows 330 cfm through 2.15" intakes -- 1/10th bigger than the biggest Windsors. (Also, 1.65" exhausts, .050 bigger than Windsors.) All CHI heads come with 1" deck water passages for use with a Windsor block, and CHI makes this trick Clevor coolant crossover so you can use a regular Cleveland intake:



The thermostat housing goes on the flat part on top of the aluminum casting, with the upper radiator hose exiting vertically like a Cleveland.

Here's a pic of CHI's iron 3v head, an aluminum one, a square bore intake, and a Dominator intake:



What I have in mind is a solid flat tappet cam (because I like 'em), a Holley with vacuum secondaries and an electric choke (or maybe even *gasp* an Edelbrock), and of course electronic ignition with vacuum advance.

To my mind 460 ci in a 3000 lb street car is going to be producing excessive power and torque no matter how you build it. The real challenge is to keep from twisting the '65 unibody into a pretzel, and also to build a drivetrain strong enough to absorb the occasional clutch drop onto some 245-255 tires. I've got frame connectors and a six point cage to control the torsion, but my T-5 and 8" 3.55:1 Auburn lsd aren't going to like those clutch drops.

Anyway, that's my daydream, to drop this huge but relatively understressed Clevor into my kids' '65 fb; call it a "Boss 460" and see if anybody gets it.

fvike said:

Forced induction... drool: - twinturbo 460W)

Click to expand...

600 hp with one turbo would be easier and could be done with a 302. Have just as much torque, use a flat hydraulic cam, get better mpg, not wear out as fast, use a gear that does not require an OD, what's not to like? Oh yeah, it would be a one off system.

brianj5600 said:

600 hp with one turbo would be easier and could be done with a 302. Have just as much torque, use a flat hydraulic cam, get better mpg, not wear out as fast, use a gear that does not require an OD, what's not to like? Oh yeah, it would be a one off system.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to any pages describing such an engine? Is this 302/600 carbureted? Does "wearing out" include when you melt a piston the first time you accidentally go lean under WOT? Or when the block splits down the middle?





I know this sounds like a flame, but I don't mean it that way. I'm genuinely interested in any web resources regarding classic Stangs with 600 hp 5.0 turbos that are "easier" to build than it would be to screw together and install a 460/600 Windsor.

180 Out said:

Do you have a link to any pages describing such an engine? Is this 302/600 carbureted? Does "wearing out" include when you melt a piston the first time you accidentally go lean under WOT? Or when the block splits down the middle?

I know this sounds like a flame, but I don't mean it that way. I'm genuinely interested in any web resources regarding classic Stangs with 600 hp 5.0 turbos that are "easier" to build than it would be to screw together and install a 460/600 Windsor.

Click to expand...

www.turbomustangs.com

Spend some time there. Then ask some questions. There are numerous guys doing that and more. If you want to make big power you buy an aftermarket block it's that simple. What happens when you go lean at wot throttle on any motor? You go lean and start to break stuff.

No it's probably not "easier" than pulling out your visa but that's up to you.

OK, easier was the wrong word, but comparing paying someone to do everything for you to anything is pointless. http://www.toohighpsi.com/index.htm Look at the twin turbo Capri. 132 mph in the 1/4 with a 2.73 gear! Speed calculator says 635hp for a 3000 pound car and driver wieght! It is a 351, but a 302 with a good block would work. Simple rebuild, nothing exotic plus some junkyard parts.

Again I'm not trying to flame here, but I think some people are less than honest about the feasibility of turbocharging a classic Stang, much less about its superiority to the big cube NA option. I looked at the "featured cars" page of the turbomustangs.com site and saw links to about 30 cars and not one of them is other than a Fox or an SN95. Without checking out all the links, I'm willing to bet that none is running a carb, either. A 5.0 with a turbo + EFI at horsepower levels above 500 means custom fuel/air and spark maps tweaked over weeks and months and years of driveway R&D. This is not how I want to spend my free time. The cars are for driving, right? A day in the garage is not a day wasted, but it's not as good as actually getting out and oxidizing some petrochemicals.

Home brewed turbo late models are also unregisterable in California, and actually are violations of federal law in all 50 states. But that's kind of off the subject here, where the subject is the classic Stang. Tampered classics are still illegal, but at least you can register them.

Speaking of time, I don't think the fact that I'm questioning the relative merits of putting a NA 460 Windsor vs. a turbo 5.0 in a classic Stang has anything to do with "paying someone to do it" or "pulling out your Visa." I work 50-60 hours per week, week in week out, Saturdays sometimes, and the 80 or so days off I have per year that my wife and kids aren't draggin me somewhere, I don't need to spend them all in the garage. If my long hours at work earn me the buying power to buy stuff that others have 100 hours of free time to spend fabricating and tweaking, that doesn't make one means to the end better than another.

I have this sneaking suspicion, too, that it's another myth of the turbo option, that it's cheaper than big cube NA. Where is one turbo dude with a working turbo in a classi muscle car and an honest tabulation of ALL his out of pocket, to prove it? The turbo option for classic muscle cars has been touted for ten years now, or more, and I'm still not seeing them. During this same time frame, sales of mega cube crate engines, not to mention stroker kits, have exploded. If a turbo small block was cheaper and easier to swap into in a classic Stang than the big cube NA option, where are they? All the stories I've ever seen in the mags about turbo cars and all the threads I've read in the forums describe either buggy, unreliable combinations, or guys who went through years of trial and error and throwing out unworkable combos to get to an acceptable result, or something close to it.

Again, for the third time, no flame intended, just some truth. How much would it really cost to install a 500+ hp turbo motor in a '65-'70 Stang? How long would it really take? How every day liveable and reliable would the final product really be? Where will you be if the thing takes a crap on you in the middle of South Dakota? I have pretty good ballpark answers to those questions regarding NA setups, but no idea with a turbo. Answers, anyone?

180 Out said:

I looked at the "featured cars" page of the turbomustangs.com site and saw links to about 30 cars and not one of them is other than a Fox or an SN95. Without checking out all the links, I'm willing to bet that none is running a carb, either.

Click to expand...

They certainly are! Check out the forums and the turbo/carb forum in particular. I do some research there from time to time and it apparently is not that hard to go fast with a single turbo and a Holley 650 DP. I recall reading about a really fast Fox3 running a blow through carb setup, a nitrous plate only spraying fuel for enrichment, and it was a sub-9 second car.

A strong turbo engine will not be cheaper than a stroker at this level, though. As soon as you throw a Dart/World block into the budget, the cost evens out. You could probably build a nitrous fed stroker for roughly the same cost as a smaller turbo engine. Whatever floats your boat, I guess.

I personally wouldnt put such a heavy stoker in such a light car like a '65. I'd probably go with a production block 393, 408W, or turbo 351W.

Turbo is going to be much more difficult to do. I don't think it's even debatable.

However, I've found I prefer turning wrenches and solving puzzles to driving around. Call me crazy if you'd like, but a big part of why I still own a classic Mustang is the bounty of projects and upgrades to do.

Anyhoo, I bet the big small block would be a blast. I'm all for the variety of different things people can do.

http://www.turbomustangs.com/feature_cars/mustangbilly.php This one has a carb as well as a stock long block 5.0 and two diesel turbo's. He finally cracked the block trying to put it in the 5's in the eigth mile. That is well into the 9's in a quarter. Stock cam, heads, pistons, you get the idea. You may not have the patience for it, but the satisfaction is worth it IMO. If I worked 50-80 hrs a week I would re-evaluate my plan. There are at least 3 running on this board, 10secgoal, Paul302 and r100gt, I believe. All the parts are the same no matter what chassis it is. Packaging is just tougher for classics.

180 Out said:

Speaking of time, I don't think the fact that I'm questioning the relative merits of putting a NA 460 Windsor vs. a turbo 5.0 in a classic Stang has anything to do with "paying someone to do it" or "pulling out your Visa."

Click to expand...

You asked for "easier". It's easier to pull out a visa than it is to build a turbo setup for a classic. If you want big cube power and are willing to spend $7000-$11000 on a crate motor that's great.

If you want big cube power but don't have the funds for said crate motor then you need to be a bit more resourceful which is where the DIY aspect of turbocharging comes into play. The reason I said DIY is because there are no kits. It's not a "bolt on". It's going to take time and it's going to require some tuning. Therefore it's not easier.

The fact is turbo's will put out lots of power on what would normally be deemed as average engines. Turbo's are also much easier on the valvetrain when compared to equally powerful NA engines.

I see your point about the featured cars on www.turbomustangs.com and you are definately correct lots of them are efi which does help with the tuning aspect. However many of those efi guys have done nothing more than install a larger maf that is calibrated for their 42,48 or even 55 lb injectors. No tuning at all.

There are also lots of carb guys over there you just need to get into the forums to find the bulk of them. Once you start talking carb then it doesn't really matter what car it's in as the information is still the same.

Here are a couple of the featured carbed cars
http://www.turbomustangs.com/feature_cars/bradblowthru.php
http://www.turbomustangs.com/feature_cars/mustangbilly.php
http://www.turbomustangs.com/feature_cars/lonnie.php

This thread can't get in depth enough about the merits of turbocharging. The only way to acomplish that would be to spend the time and do the research.

The fact is there are many different ways to make power. The capital outlay will be substantially different between the 2 approachs. I guess it just depends how much your time is worth because after all time is money.

I am interested in the part about it being illegal in all 50 states. Where can I find out more about this as it does apply to me? The other issue is at some point I might be moving to CA so then this will become even more applicable.

rhyno9 said:

I am interested in the part about it being illegal in all 50 states. Where can I find out more about this as it does apply to me? The other issue is at some point I might be moving to CA so then this will become even more applicable.

Click to expand...

In California at least, vehicles sold as model year '76 or earlier are smog exempt. No smog checks, no worrying about what you do to the engine. If its not pre smog, you have get parts that have a C.A.R.B. Exemption Order number.

the more i read about california, the happier i am that i don't live there.

X2

I thought Kalifornia smog parts were mandated beginning in the 67 model year.

?