460 Budget Build for Fuel Mileage

Paul Kane wrote:The 370 heads I sold to you were re-fitted with 2.08"/1.72" valves with 11/32" stems.  They were used on my 1985 F250, and I built that engine with towing in mind, less so for fuel economy.  Except for the heads, intake, cam, and KB138 pistons, it was made up of bone stock parts all the way down to the OEM emissions systems and even passed CA smog check.  It managed 14 MPG with original stock single exhaust, etc.

The 1973 Marquis that got 22 MPG used specially prepared D3VE heads (among other things), not the 370 heads.

The 1972 Marquis I bought about a year ago will get a 460 build that I hope will get 24 MPG.

While both the 429 and 460 have benefits unto themselves for fuel economy, I think the 460 is the better way to go--you can utilize a smaller camshaft while still maintaining adequate port velocity on the big 385 Series intake runners, and those things can make for better peak efficiency at the low-2000s cruise rpm of your vehicle.

The 216/228/112 cam is way too big (and all wrong) for your fuel economy aspirations.

I'll try giving you a call later this week and/or you can call me to discuss your build--I'm still playing catch-up in the shop and have little time to be in front of a keyboard

Awesome. Thanks Paul!

Bruce the main considerations of the engine build itself should be centered around getting enough CR to be efficient but not so high as to force compromise on ignition timing this goes hand in hand with the cam choice, choose a piston that gives the desired CR with the chosen heads at or near zero deck (quench distance), this means measuring the cc's of the heads you plan to use and not using published numbers, I'm sure you saw the results of using published values when ordering pistons on the 406 build on the FE forum.Most of the practices for building a performance engine still hold true for a mileage engine the goal is still efficiency just in part throttle cruise instead of WOT. If you plan to run a duraspark type ignition get the advance curve right and by all means run a vacuum advance, it will give more ignition advance at part throttle cruise which can be safe in those conditions but pay attention to gradual throttle advancement from there and limit vacuum advance as necessary to prevent ping.I'm sure you have driven an older rig that on flat ground was fine but when going up a gradual hill with slight throttle advancement to maintain speed it would get some ping, thats a sign that the vacuum can is allowing too much advance and needs to be limited, pulling initial timing out to stop it is not the way to do it and counter productive to fuel mileage. Also anything you can do to reduce parasitic drag in the engine (low tension rings, slightly looser clearances, roller cams and rocker arms) will also help but usually blows the budget side of it.Many years ago I had a 429 perfomance build in a 73 Mach1 that would get 16-18 mpg at highway speeds but that was back when gas was still good and the speed limit was still 55 or 60 and it wasn't intentional I was building for performance not mileage.

427John wrote:Bruce the main considerations of the engine build itself should be centered around getting enough CR to be efficient but not so high as to force compromise on ignition timing this goes hand in hand with the cam choice, choose a piston that gives the desired CR with the chosen heads at or near zero deck (quench distance), this means measuring the cc's of the heads you plan to use and not using published numbers, I'm sure you saw the results of using published values when ordering pistons on the 406 build on the FE forum.Most of the practices for building a performance engine still hold true for a mileage engine the goal is still efficiency just in part throttle cruise instead of WOT. If you plan to run a duraspark type ignition get the advance curve right and by all means run a vacuum advance, it will give more ignition advance at part throttle cruise which can be safe in those conditions but pay attention to gradual throttle advancement from there and limit vacuum advance as necessary to prevent ping.I'm sure you have driven an older rig that on flat ground was fine but when going up a gradual hill with slight throttle advancement to maintain speed it would get some ping, thats a sign that the vacuum can is allowing too much advance and needs to be limited, pulling initial timing out to stop it is not the way to do it and counter productive to fuel mileage. Also anything you can do to reduce parasitic drag in the engine (low tension rings, slightly looser clearances, roller cams and rocker arms) will also help but usually blows the budget side of it.Many years ago I had a 429 perfomance build in a 73 Mach1 that would get 16-18 mpg at highway speeds but that was back when gas was still good and the speed limit was still 55 or 60 and it wasn't intentional I was building for performance not mileage.

Hi John! Good to "see" you over here! Thanks for the input, man, always appreciate it.
Will definitely be running vacuum advance. Yes, I have experienced the no ping on flat, and ping, pulling grades at part throttle.
Will probably run an older Pertronix converted points distributor like on the 428. I like the simplicity of that set-up.

A few years ago I would agree on the pertronix, but lately I've seen so much about guys having trouble with them that I don't know now. Its hard to tell if its because the quality has dropped or if guys are hooking them up wrong or leaving the ignition on too long without the engine running.I tend to stick with the DSII because they're available cheap in the wrecking yards and I've had good luck with them for so many years.

[quote="427John"]A few years ago I would agree on the pertronix, but lately I've seen so much about guys having trouble with them that I don't know now. Its hard to tell if its because the quality has dropped or if guys are hooking them up wrong or leaving the ignition on too long without the engine running.I tend to stick with the DSII because they're available cheap in the wrecking yards and I've had good luck with them for so many years.[/

I'll Second the Dura Spark II. They work good. Blue Boxes Used to be Cheap and you can carry a spare Box and do a quick change on the road if on goes out. I like OEM Ford Stuff though. Generally good Quality and easy and cheap to find replacement parts if/when needed.

dfree383 wrote:The exhaust bias may not be what you want, like I said economy is counter intuitive to what we’ve been conditioned to believe for performance.

Resist the mass programing!

Exactly ... what an engine needs for cam timing at Wide Open Throttle and for mileage at Part Throttle are drastically different.

I have had exceptionally good testing for 460 towing type engines at part throttle which get good gas mileage with an inexpensive camshaft from ELGIN ...
I have experimented with many to arrive at that cam and the part number is E-1160-P which is a single pattern camshaft.

284 @ seat duration - 208@.050" - .484" valve lift - 111 separation; ground 6 degrees advanced, 105 degree intake C/L.

To give-up a bit of mileage for a little more power above cruising I have used Elgin part number E-1088-P.
278@ seat timing - 212@.050" - .490" valve lift - 110 separation; ground 4 degrees advanced, 106 degree intake C/L.
( I have heard this cam was discontinued for a considerably larger 218 @.050" cam, though ).

rmcomprandy wrote:

dfree383 wrote:The exhaust bias may not be what you want, like I said economy is counter intuitive to what we’ve been conditioned to believe for performance.

Resist the mass programing!

Exactly ... what an engine needs for cam timing at Wide Open Throttle and for mileage at Part Throttle are drastically different.

I have had exceptionally good testing for 460 towing type engines at part throttle which get good gas mileage with an inexpensive camshaft from ELGIN ...
I have experimented with many to arrive at that cam and the part number is E-1160-P which is a single pattern camshaft.

284 @ seat duration - 208@.050" - .484" valve lift - 111 separation; ground 6 degrees advanced, 105 degree intake C/L.

To give-up a bit of mileage for a little more power above cruising I have used Elgin part number E-1088-P.
278@ seat timing - 212@.050" - .490" valve lift - 110 separation; ground 4 degrees advanced, 106 degree intake C/L.
( I have heard this cam was discontinued for a little larger 218 @.050" cam, though ).

Man, that's great, Randy! Thank you!

Those Elgin E-1160-P 208/208 are hard to get along with most BBF Cams.

Maybe Star Still Has One?

https://www.performanceparts.com/elgin_engine_camshaft_e_1160_p_1500_4000_rpm_484_484

The Comp 260H10 is real close to the Elgin 212/212

https://www.ebay.com/itm/134717568110?epid=191675709&hash=item1f5dcaf46e:g:0qcAAOSwzWthJA1X&amdata=enc%3AAQAIAAAA8C88zEXWSMBCMioWg4BacOdN7cyKDPtD0c80ioXIpT3CsJVtYJPmaUGBHDdxFSIqhTvvu%2FhtQQ%2B1L%2FWYPouYl4d%2B4VF18IHr95vWyaXXv46%2BTj5LnbqxDRktJZ%2BWSVk3I2bJ%2BxFM4pYWrgME8nR3LQ8i7pRCXMpA8GKTk%2FxvOEZegr5SKSr8bOcu9LQy6Q3QIcwBVbPR8BrIWe5dYuhMKG5mMME1VByYhQ%2FGjNz%2BfORZmyN%2BL3vtpb6iED5ODqjWUqgXAeZgvNnwaxZR2CC2FCJX%2BfnzKRA%2BLWxJpIXxBADpves6TYDdL1m0b8vyBH1kRQ%3D%3D%7Ctkp%3ABFBMxqyDlZ5j

I was running a 211/211 .502"/.502" and If I remember correctly 110 LSA, with Rhoads VVT Bleedoff Lifters in my 351, and it did very well.

Have Fun on Your CamQuest

I’d look into a modem electronic ignition and programmable box

You can do things with them, that your not going to do with those old factory parts and lower end newer stuff.

I like things old school simple too, but their is a lot to be gained from using a laptop when you need data fast and can make changes fast on the fly.

I'm sticking with Pertronix for now. I like Dura Spark as well and may switch to that in the future, but the Pertronix is what I set my truck up with already with the hot rod 428 FE engine that's in it now.
If it wasn't so hideous and looking like a tumor on the front of the engine, I'd probably run one of the aftermarket GM style HEI distributors. One-wire simple and an excellent system, in my opinion.

Just because, here's a pic of the 428 in the truck.

I didn't have the vacuum advance hooked up in this pic, but it is currently attached and working well.

Your not taking the 428 out of there are you?

And I know Christmas is over but, you need this.



https://www.ebay.com/itm/315018044817

supervel45 wrote:Your not taking the 428 out of there are you?

Unfortunately, yes. It runs awesome but fuel mileage is lacking, to put it mildly. This truck is my daily driver and I need better mileage than I'm getting, but don't want to completely sacrifice throttle response and torque. That's why I started this thread.

supervel45 wrote:And I know Christmas is over but, you need this.




https://www.ebay.com/itm/315018044817

Lol. That's WAY out of budget.

I was just kidding on the Dual Quad. I doubt you would want to cut the Firewall, like I did on mine to fit the air cleaner either.

If I was in your boat and it was for a daily driver, and I had a 302, I would likely do the small block if I wanted the best gas mileage. I can't seem to keep gas in my Big Block trucks, the small blocks seem to always have some, though.

Finally got the 5.0 F150 running good and it actually semi-peppy and goes past the gas station much more now.

You could apply the same stuff to the 428…..

Recam it, new intake and carb……plus a bunch of tuning

I’d be a lot cheaper and easier than a swap.

This thread has me thinking…. The ultimate milage and performance deal would be to put a late model 5.0 coyote out of a truck with a 10 speed…. Mine gets 21-22 rolling down the highway are non ludicrous speeds

^ What Dave Said, About the 428.

Or Find a Cheap Throw Down 352 to Play with.

dfree383 wrote:You could apply the same stuff to the 428…..

Recam it, new intake and carb……plus a bunch of tuning

I’d be a lot cheaper and easier than a swap.

Maybe, but it is tentatively sold to a friend for her '69 Mustang coupe. It's a project car she picked up. No engine or transmission, but someone had started to cobble a small block in it. She messaged me the VIN and it turns out it's an S code GT390 car.
She wants a hot rod, and this engine will fit the bill. Plus, it's the correct engine family for the car.

supervel45 wrote:^ What Dave Said, About the 428.

Or Find a Cheap Throw Down 352 to Play with.

I do have a 352 I could build, but in my research, it seems FEs don't get great mileage regardless of their cubic inch. Of course, like what I'm attempting to do here with a 460, I suppose could be applied to the 352.
Or I could go all-out mileage and build a 302 using the same philosophy, and maybe get 25 or more miles per gallon.
But the torque just won't be there with the smaller engines. Although years ago, I had a '72 Ranchero GT that the previous owner had shoehorned a stock 2V 352 into and it actually felt pretty torquie.

1EFF100 wrote:

supervel45 wrote:^ What Dave Said, About the 428.

Or Find a Cheap Throw Down 352 to Play with.

I do have a 352 I could build, but in my research, it seems FEs don't get great mileage regardless of their cubic inch. Of course, like what I'm attempting to do here with a 460, I suppose could be applied to the 352.
Or I could go all-out mileage and build a 302 using the same philosophy, and maybe get 25 or more miles per gallon.
But the torque just won't be there with the smaller engines. Although years ago, I had a '72 Ranchero GT that the previous owner had shoehorned a stock 2V 352 into and it actually felt pretty torquie.

I nave seen great mileage results from a 360FE truck engine with D2TE heads with more compression, using that same grind 208 ELGIN camshaft; Number E-1159-P for an FE. And, an O.E.M. cast iron 4-BRL.intake from a 390.

1EFF100 wrote:

supervel45 wrote:^ What Dave Said, About the 428.

Or Find a Cheap Throw Down 352 to Play with.

I do have a 352 I could build, but in my research, it seems FEs don't get great mileage regardless of their cubic inch. Of course, like what I'm attempting to do here with a 460, I suppose could be applied to the 352.
Or I could go all-out mileage and build a 302 using the same philosophy, and maybe get 25 or more miles per gallon.
But the torque just won't be there with the smaller engines. Although years ago, I had a '72 Ranchero GT that the previous owner had shoehorned a stock 2V 352 into and it actually felt pretty torquie.

In my opinion, if you want a compromise between fuel mileage and performance, the 352 would be my pick, if I had the 3 Engines laying around that you do.

I would also consider the ease of the swap in making that choice.

rmcomprandy wrote:

1EFF100 wrote:

supervel45 wrote:^ What Dave Said, About the 428.

Or Find a Cheap Throw Down 352 to Play with.

I do have a 352 I could build, but in my research, it seems FEs don't get great mileage regardless of their cubic inch. Of course, like what I'm attempting to do here with a 460, I suppose could be applied to the 352.
Or I could go all-out mileage and build a 302 using the same philosophy, and maybe get 25 or more miles per gallon.
But the torque just won't be there with the smaller engines. Although years ago, I had a '72 Ranchero GT that the previous owner had shoehorned a stock 2V 352 into and it actually felt pretty torquie.

I nave seen great mileage results from a 360FE truck engine with D2TE heads with more compression, using that same grind 208 ELGIN camshaft; Number E-1159-P for an FE. And, an O.E.M. cast iron 4-BRL.intake from a 390.

supervel45 wrote:

1EFF100 wrote:

supervel45 wrote:^ What Dave Said, About the 428.

Or Find a Cheap Throw Down 352 to Play with.

I do have a 352 I could build, but in my research, it seems FEs don't get great mileage regardless of their cubic inch. Of course, like what I'm attempting to do here with a 460, I suppose could be applied to the 352.
Or I could go all-out mileage and build a 302 using the same philosophy, and maybe get 25 or more miles per gallon.
But the torque just won't be there with the smaller engines. Although years ago, I had a '72 Ranchero GT that the previous owner had shoehorned a stock 2V 352 into and it actually felt pretty torquie.

In my opinion, if you want a compromise between fuel mileage and performance, the 352 would be my pick, if I had the 3 Engines laying around that you do.

I would also consider the ease of the swap in making that choice.

Dang it, you guys! Every time I think my mind's made up, you have to go and derail me. lol.

This should make it worse.

Look at the torque numbers the 4 Barrel versions put out. Not too shabby. They had good compression also, even the 2 Barrels.

https://www.enginefacts.com/ford352/

One catch is you will need hardened exhaust seats for a daily driver.

supervel45 wrote:This should make it worse.

Look at the torque numbers the 4 Barrel versions put out. Not too shabby. They had good compression also, even the 2 Barrels.

https://www.enginefacts.com/ford352/

One catch is you will need hardened exhaust seats for a daily driver.

Yeah, I'm not so sure those numbers are legit. lol. Although I have read that the early '60s performance versions of it ran pretty strong.

Figured I'd list the specs on the 428.
CX scratch 391 heavy truck block, from a dump truck, actually. Bored to stock 4.13 428 bore.
1U crankshaft.
Eagle H-beam rods.
Brent Lykins specced Race Tec forged pistons, approximately 9.5:1 compression.
Brent Lykins specced hydraulic flat tappet cam, 226/238 @.050, .560/.575 (or so, going from memory) 112 LSA.
Crower Cam Saver lifters.
C6AE-R heads, stainless CJ sized valves, ported and set up by FE Specialties.
Factory 428 Police Interceptor intake manifold.

Block was squared and decked to about .005 piston top to deck surface for good quench.
And of course, the crank and all were balanced.

This thing's going to rip in Amy's Mustang.