410 not that easy

Engine, ignition, fuel, cooling, exhaust

Moderators: Ranchero50, DuckRyder

Post Reply
User avatar
HOWDY69
Preferred User
Preferred User
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:31 pm
Location: California, Sacramento

410 not that easy

Post by HOWDY69 »

Apparently building a 410 is not that easy. The 390 truck piston is too tall. The folks on the FE (not to be confused with FTE) site had pistons cut down or used forged pistons with 10.5:1 CR. Any ideas? :pray:
69 F250, FE Specialties 410, CJ Valves, RPM Intake, Holley 4150,......10 Smiles per gallon
71 Clydesdale in many pieces; 302 roller motor waiting impatiently
steveheer
New Member
New Member
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:39 pm
Location: Oregon

re: 410 not that easy

Post by steveheer »

They know their stuff!
Mercury made 410's so don't they have any off the shelf stuff? What's the budget? You may want to try Diamond--they might be less expensive than some other options. If you have the $$ Ross, JE and plenty of others will make you anything. My 431 has Wiseco--another option--
Steve
69 F100 300I6
67 Mustang fb FE 431ci
72 Gran Torino Sport 351W
91 Bronco 351
User avatar
68F250
Blue Oval Guru
Blue Oval Guru
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:26 pm
Location: California, Brea

re: 410 not that easy

Post by 68F250 »

Hmm... the deal is, 390 truck pistons ARE 410 pistons. Tear apart a virgin 390 and you'll see a '410' on the pistons. They're a 1.68" pin height so a 428 crank would make, oh, 10.5:1. Now I see your problem. :oops:

So how does network54 build a 410? :hmm:
Barry

"Are you gonna make it all 220?"
"Yeah 220, 221, whatever it takes."
User avatar
surubet
New Member
New Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:39 am
Location: Oregon, Deer Island

Post by surubet »

I looked in Hollanders and they only list pistons for the Mercury 410 of two years with no other interchanges.
Not that it helps much, but went online (google) and found this:

The 410 engine, used only in 1966 and 1967 Mercuries, used the same 4.05 in bore as the 390 engine, but with the 428's 3.98 in stroke, giving a 410.12 cubic inch (6.72 L) real displacement. The standard 428 crankshaft was used, which meant that the 410, like the 428, required external balancing. A compression ratio of 10.5:1 was standard.
1970 Ranger XLT F250 Camper Special, 2X4, 360, Factory A/C, 2 tone in greens.
User avatar
HOWDY69
Preferred User
Preferred User
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:31 pm
Location: California, Sacramento

Post by HOWDY69 »

Badger used to make a low compression 410 piston that made 8.4 to 1. My Builder is going to check availability. Another interesting choice is a 391 piston. It is too tall but has a huge dish and can be cut down to dial in the CR. Or as steveheer said you can get anything with enough money. What kind of compression do you folks run in your 390’s and what is the sweet spot to be able to use the 87 regular we have in California?
69 F250, FE Specialties 410, CJ Valves, RPM Intake, Holley 4150,......10 Smiles per gallon
71 Clydesdale in many pieces; 302 roller motor waiting impatiently
User avatar
DuckRyder
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4925
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:04 pm
Location: Scruffy City
Contact:

re: 410 not that easy

Post by DuckRyder »

See no edit button.

height (the spell checker missed that)

87 octane could be a problem, I'd say call Diamond, or cut the tops off of 390 speed pros...
Robert
1972 F100 Ranger XLT (445/C6/9” 3.50 Truetrac)

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -- Jeff Cooper
User avatar
HOWDY69
Preferred User
Preferred User
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:31 pm
Location: California, Sacramento

Post by HOWDY69 »

Sounds like cutting down a 390 or 391 is still more economical than special order. What CR should I shoot for if I want to use 87 unloaded but mid or premium if I am towing? KB has a nifty compression calculator on their web site but I need to know the gasket thickness and gasket bore diameter. Also, how much will I loose from the block and deck from machining?
69 F250, FE Specialties 410, CJ Valves, RPM Intake, Holley 4150,......10 Smiles per gallon
71 Clydesdale in many pieces; 302 roller motor waiting impatiently
steiner_5000
New Member
New Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:48 pm

re: 410 not that easy

Post by steiner_5000 »

What kind of compresion is best. I thought the more compression the more power. Besides that burden of high-octane fuel 10-1 was good as far as I knew but I'm probably wrong
How can it be spoiled if it still tastes good
User avatar
DuckRyder
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4925
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:04 pm
Location: Scruffy City
Contact:

re: 410 not that easy

Post by DuckRyder »

Compression is tricky. Honestly the static compression is not what counts (even though it is what everyone talks about), dynamic is what counts.

The cam makes quite a bit of difference, I get away (barely) with 10.6:1 on pump premium with iron heads. I wanted less. I promise with a milder cam it would have to have octane boost or Race/Airplane gas. As it is, I would be better off if with a few degrees more duration.

I would probably shoot for no more than 9.25:1 static on a cast piston motor with a mild cam and regular fuel. But better to run the numbers with the actual specs.

More compression will make more power all other things being equal, up until you have to pull timing out to keep it from eating pistons.

Most composite gaskets for the 390 have a .041-.042 thickness and a bore diameter of 4.400.

Most machine shops will try to zero deck the pistons, and you never know how much the heads will have to have shaved to get them flat. Run the numbers based on "blueprint" dimensions, but mock it all up and check the actual before you run it.

To give you and idea, my 68-72cc heads actually cc'ed at 66cc, my 10cc valve notches actually cc'ed at 7cc, and my pistons ended up at zero deck, so my compression went from a design of 10.0:1-10.25:1 or so, to 10.6:1. :eek:

When my computer gets out of the shop, I'll be glad to run your numbers for you. (I dropped my good laptop and have my back up which doesn't have all the information and programming on it) :x

IMHO and YMMV
Robert
1972 F100 Ranger XLT (445/C6/9” 3.50 Truetrac)

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -- Jeff Cooper
User avatar
HOWDY69
Preferred User
Preferred User
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:31 pm
Location: California, Sacramento

Post by HOWDY69 »

First of all thank you for your time and patience. :)

My builder found a Sealed Power cast 410 that will yield 9.5 to 1 compression. The cam is a Melling torque grind.

For the same price as the 410 I can get a 390 at about 10:1 (builder says it will need premium) with porting and bowl work. I think it includes a 4V intake but not headers.

So the 410 would have more potential but it would be a while before I could afford to tap it.

Sorry about your computer. New technology is not as durable as a Ford.

Hey BTW what is YMMV? I figured it meant :$$: Your Money May Vanish! :$$:
69 F250, FE Specialties 410, CJ Valves, RPM Intake, Holley 4150,......10 Smiles per gallon
71 Clydesdale in many pieces; 302 roller motor waiting impatiently
User avatar
spartman
Blue Oval Guru
Blue Oval Guru
Posts: 1278
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:36 pm
Location: South Dakota, Wallace

Post by spartman »

Your Mileage May Vary
User avatar
71Ford
New Member
New Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Texas

re: 410 not that easy

Post by 71Ford »

If I have my 360 rebuilt into a 390......is it realistic to think I can still run the 87 octaine (I do now, and it does excellent) or will I hear that valve clatter sound that my old hot rod 454 used to make when I ran anything less than 92 octaine.

My wish is to have 400 horse power, find a shop that will do the work for less than $3000 because I have only basic mechanical skills, still get 10 mpg city 15 hwy.
:D
http://www.fordification.com/galleries/ ... p?pos=-851

71 XLT RANGER ->203,000+MILES/NOT REBUILT

99 GMC 4x4 Suburban, 94 Saturn 200k, 03 Chev Venture
User avatar
HOWDY69
Preferred User
Preferred User
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:31 pm
Location: California, Sacramento

Post by HOWDY69 »

If you are willing to have your pistons machined you can get a lower CR and burn 87. My builder told me the 390 he builds is 10:1 and would need premium. I could have insisted the pistons be machined but I think I will go for a 410. I am pretty new at this but I am sure some other folks will chime in.
69 F250, FE Specialties 410, CJ Valves, RPM Intake, Holley 4150,......10 Smiles per gallon
71 Clydesdale in many pieces; 302 roller motor waiting impatiently
User avatar
DuckRyder
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4925
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:04 pm
Location: Scruffy City
Contact:

re: 410 not that easy (Dial Up Warning)

Post by DuckRyder »

Howdy, here are some Dyno Sim runs for you.

Image

Image

HTH
Robert
1972 F100 Ranger XLT (445/C6/9” 3.50 Truetrac)

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." -- Jeff Cooper
User avatar
HOWDY69
Preferred User
Preferred User
Posts: 484
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 6:31 pm
Location: California, Sacramento

Post by HOWDY69 »

Thanks for all the help. It looks like you used the larger valves from the 427. Will they clear in the 4.080 bore?

:fr: And again thanks for all the help :fr:
69 F250, FE Specialties 410, CJ Valves, RPM Intake, Holley 4150,......10 Smiles per gallon
71 Clydesdale in many pieces; 302 roller motor waiting impatiently
Post Reply