400 vs 460 - Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups
Go Back   Off-Road Forums & Discussion Groups > Ford > Ford 97-current F-Series Trucks, Expedition, Excursion

Ford 97-current F-Series Trucks, Expedition, Excursion Discussion of all 1997 to current F-Series Trucks, Excursions and Expeditions.



Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-16-2000, 11:30 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default 400 vs 460

I have a 400 in my 79 f-150 I am getting about 8-8.5 MPG. Does the 460 get this or better? or is it worse. Because if it is better I should be running a 460. even if it is the same I should be running a 460. Does anyone have any experience with these motors. By the way I am running a carter 650 carb maybe that is the prob. Any info appreciated Thanx

Larry T

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 06-16-2000, 01:03 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 400 vs 460

That's pretty low MPG even for a 400. I had a 351M in my 78 Bronco and thought it to be a dog and got crummy mileage, but always over 12.

As far as the carb? Do you have any other mods? Better intake, bigger cam? If not, you may be over carbed for a 400. The engine can't breathe in enough of the go-juice unless you have also put a new cam on or maybe even new heads. If I recall correctly, the only difference between the 351M and the 400M was the stroke was longer on the 400.

I have never been a fan of the 351M and 400 engines. The valves were small. The cam was detuned, the oil system design was flawed.

Not sure how your F150 is setup, but a 351 does pretty well in a fullsize bronco. If you want gobs-o-power go big.

If the engine is old and tired, I'd consider swapping in a 351W. or if your really into HP, go for a 429 or a 460. in the early 70s, Thunderbirds and some LTDs came with 429s designated "429-4V". The 4V was for 4 barrel heads. The 4V heads had larger valves and larger ports. Very strong motors. My dad had a 73 LTD station wagon with a 429 4V and if you could keep your foot out of the secondaries, it would get 15 to 17 MPG. I still kick myself for letting him give this car away. It had a very strong 429 and a C6 and a ford 9 inch rear end.

If you can find a 315W in a mid 80s bronco, these are much better IMO than the 400M. after 87 or 88 they came with Multiport EFI if you want injection.

- Dan

99 4Runner (wifes grocery getter)
88 Bronco ** SOLD **
01 TJ Arriving in August
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-17-2000, 12:27 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 400 vs 460

It has an RV cam and edelbrock intake, hedman headers, stock heads dont know if they have ever been worked over. Do you know if the 460 will get 8-10mpg? because if so I am swapping. Thanks for the info.

LarryT

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-17-2000, 12:35 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 400 vs 460

You know, you can really make that 400 into a power house if you want to. It is from the same family as the 351 Cleveland. The heads on your 400 are of a big port, canted-valve arrangement. The 4V heads had bigger valves but the 2V heads are more than adaquate. The 2V heads have a valve size of 2.05 and 1.65, compare that to the largest chevy valves ever offered in a small block at 2.02 !!! The 4V heads had 2.198 and 1.715 valves. All 400's and 351M came with the 2V heads you can only get 4V heads off of a 351 Cleveland.

As far as having too big of a carb with a 650, I ran one on my 302 and it worked great, and my book suggests running a holley 780 on a stock 351 Cleveland. The only difference between a 351 C and a 400 M is the 400 has a taller deck to handle the longer stroke of the crank, 4.00" versus 3.50" on the Cleveland. Everything else interchanges, Like I said you can really wake these motors up!!

I you want mileage, get a 300 I6 I get around 24-27 MPG with mine. Myself I prefer power though. Gas mileage just doesn`t put a smile on your face like power does.

Hey Ya`ll, watch this!! (famous last words)[img]/wwwthreads_images/icons/cool.gif[/img]
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-13-2001, 04:21 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 400 vs 460

thats real crappy mileage. My dad had a 79' bronco with a 400 in it. He was getting arround 10MPG he put on a 4bbl intake and carb and got between 12 and 14

84' Ford f-150 4X4 351-W
86' Ford Ranger 2.9L 5sp
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-13-2001, 08:03 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 400 vs 460

thanks for the info but I have a 460 now and wouldn trade it for anything! It will smoke a 400 hands down!

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-13-2001, 11:29 PM
muddybronco's Avatar
Mud in my Veins
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: woooooo pig sooooooie!
Posts: 6,842
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
muddybronco is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: 400 vs 460

Haha, my 93 351 has been getting 9 mpg lately...what am I doing wrong? it used to get 13-15, but something is wrong now...what would kill my mileage like that? it has no power either, especially off the line

It's a Jeep thing? My Bronco thing will run over your little Jeep thing.

Muddybronco
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-14-2001, 08:19 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 400 vs 460

Muddy,

Depends on where you live... but WINTER BLEND Gasoline gets worst gas mileage because of the extra additives...


Uzi... Yamaha Sleds, Honda Bikes, and Ford Trucks
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-04-2001, 07:54 AM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 400 vs 460

Stick with the 400, I don't think a 460 will get 10mpg.

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-04-2001, 12:17 PM
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 400 vs 460

Hey- go to the 460 ive put a 460 in every vehicle ive owned and gotten 10-12 mpg in my jeep now and got 12-14 in my 82 mustang. The parts are more readily availible from 1968 to 1987, up to 1979 all the 460's has nodular cranks, and since 1972 the compression ratio is about 8.0 to 8.5 to 1987. But with some after market goodies you can do anything.

MARK (OIIIIO) LANGMOTORSPORTS
1977/CJ7/GLASSTUB/460CIFORD/C6AUTO/4"LIFT/33'S
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright 1994-2009, VerticalScope Inc. // Off Road forums & discussion groups sitemap
side by side | atv | dirtbike | snowmobile | sandsport | competition | land use | Jeep | Toyota | Ford | GM