posted 11-24-2000 12:57 PM               

Ok first hello and a intresting web sight to say the least. Good to see more 78-79 Bronco stuff on the web!
That being said...I would like to discuss aftermarket support for the 351M-400! What are you all looking for? The aftermarket offers much in the way of support for these engines (Intakes,carbs,camshafts, valve train etc.) what else would you like? Agreed these all were /are built for other engines and happen to fit but....You will never see parts for the "M" like you do many of the other engines, for a reason that is simple to understand if unbiased... simply put they have little value in the performance world, and are a ok truck motor for our Broncos, but even a modifed 400 (like discussed on your web pages here) will not hold a candle to a stock rebuilt 460 in the same vehichal. Neither in arena of HP vs TQ or in the fuel economy reliability area as well! Even Ford basically admitted this fact to any that care to take notice. I ask you WHY did Ford not produce a 4bbl 351-400? WHY did the "M" never see service as a Police Interceptor motor? WHY did Ford not ever do anything remotly performance orientated/industrial to this engine family! The answer is very smple fellas, they were never built for it #1 The stroke everyone is so "attached" to was this engines main flaw, they had poor oiling design and were prone to bearing failures if any amount of RPM under load was imposed...#2 The Clevland that this motor was derived from in itself was never a outstanding motor, and true, was built as a HP engine for years, but look at the #'s,(Stock off the shelf) it was a failure, it could not in the real world even compete with the 350 Chevy effecitvly due to heads that were WAY to large for a street car, and in the fact that they made resonable power, but never even achieved 1Hp per CI....... something the SBC managed most of it's performance career... often times exceeding it in fact! I am not a "Chevy Man" but no one can argue the career this motor had....and the absolute sucess it achieved in all most any application it was thrust into..... same in fact could be said for the 302/351 W motors as well...and the 429-460...but the 351-400M was Fords worst warrenty claim nighmare, due to the main bearing issue and not surviving under abuse when required! So when you apply this with known fact it seems very simple to understand why the aftermarket makes few specific "M" parts, I will in fact put my neck on the line and say there is only one true part thats supported in the aftermarket for the 351-400M (not counting headers)that being the intakes... the rest is stuff that it shares with other more performance orientated designs in the Ford stable...Clevland/385 series etc. So fellas enjoy what you can do......and know that in a tall geared daily driver Bronco the 351-400 with mild modifications does perform admirably..just don't ever abuse it and it will perform as expected for years! But some of the remarks made on the 351vs-429 page in the tech articles in this page should possibly be researched a bit more if you care to give the viewers of this page a true unbiased "pros-cons" table to base an opinion on! The 429-460 is a very easy swap into the Bronco, using all factory pieces is a viable option, no need for a "frankenstein" engine compartment whatsoever! Also no need to spend $1000+ on the actual swap itself if you purchsed the correct engine to swap in the first place. The rebuild costs between the two engines are similar, and no need for a performance cam or aluminum intake etc for the 460. A factory early 70's grind p*** car cam and a factory cast iron intake from any year will allow a easily achievable 325+hp and close to 450ftlbs without anything more involved than a good quality rebuild! This will provise usually better economy than the "m" in all application I have been involved with, and also is a combination that is extreamy durable and abuseable if you happen to actually use a truck like a truck! So when you crunch the hard # accuratly with true facts...... they are seldom any more expensive than a average rebuild and slight warming that most folks attempt with the 351-400! Ok enough from me for now, but I felt a need to make a few facts know about the swap issue and to explain a question you all asked! I am not "flmming the "m"......just mentioning a few facts you all can easily verefy if you would like to look a bit!

-------------------------------------------
Okay,

First you say that, "You will never see parts for the "M" like you do many of the other engines, for a reason that is simple to understand if unbiased... simply put they have little value in the performance world, and are a ok truck motor for our Broncos, but even a modifed 400 (like discussed on your web pages here) will not hold a candle to a stock rebuilt 460 in the same vehichal"

I disagree. I have driven several cars and trucks that have stock 460 engines in them, and I can tell you that the 400 I just put in my Bronco is much, much faster than the stock 460-equiped vehicles I have driven. Maybe a 460 that has been built exactly the same as mine would be a little faster, especially on top end, but my new 400 will more than "hold a candle stick" to most stock 460 engines.

Next, you say that, " Neither in arena of HP vs TQ or in the fuel economy reliability area as well! Even Ford basically admitted this fact to any that care to take notice."

Okay, I'm trying to take notice here, So:

• Who at Ford admitted this?
  
• When did Ford admit this?
  
• What publication, press conference, or piece of literature was this statement made?
  

Third, you say that, "I ask you WHY did Ford not produce a 4bbl 351-400? WHY did the "M" never see service as a Police Interceptor motor? WHY did Ford not ever do anything remotly performance orientated/industrial to this engine family!"

Hmm....

• Ford did make a limited number of 4brl 351M in the 78-79 Broncos (The 351 HO) and they may have made a few 4brl 400s (but I'm not sure)
  
• There were THOUSANDS of police cars built between 1971 and 1979 that were equipped with 400 engines.
  
• What do you call the 351C??? Hello!
  

Fourth, you say that, " The stroke everyone is so "attached" to was this engines main flaw, they had poor oiling design and were prone to bearing failures if any amount of RPM under load was imposed..."

Okay, first, if this is true, then why are the new 400 CID "storker" kits for the 351W so popular? I'll tell you why, it's because the longer the lever, the more "force" you can apply on an object with the same amount of effort. It's simple physics. T=Fr or Torque= Force x Distance. Second, what oiling problem are you talking about??? I have heard this rumor before and in fact I addressed it one of my articles. I have never seen any proof to back this up. As far as I'm concerned it's nothing but a rumor unless someone can prove otherwise. I have heard that the 351C had some oiling problems at VERY HIGH RPM, but so does almost every stock engine ever made. Prove to me that the "M" engines are any different that other V8 engines.

Fifth, you say that, "The Clevland that this motor was derived from in itself was never a outstanding motor, and true, was built as a HP engine for years, but look at the #'s,(Stock off the shelf) it was a failure, it could not in the real world even compete with the 350 Chevy effecitvly due to heads that were WAY to large for a street car, and in the fact that they made resonable power, but never even achieved 1Hp per CI"

What? The 351C a failure? I ask you who is the one that is "biased" here???

Sixth, you say that, "the 351-400M was Fords worst warrenty claim nighmare, due to the main bearing issue and not surviving under abuse when required!"

Okay, prove it! Show me records from Ford to back this claim up. I think that this is total nonsense! If this is true, then why didn't my engine fail under the extreme abuse I put it through? My proof is sitting in my driveway, where is yours???

Finally, you make the claim that the 460 swap in a 78-79 Bronco will be more economical, get better gas mileage, and will last longer when a truck is used like a truck.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with that. A similarly built "M" engine will get better gas mileage than a 460. Again, the proof is in my driveway. I get a best of 13-14 MPG with my new 400. What does yours get? I would venture to say you get around 7-8 MPG with your 460, which is why Ford replaced the 460 with the "M" engines in the first place. Also, in my "Dispelling the Myths & Untruths surrounding the 351M/400" article I make reference to a 1981 F-350 that went over 400,000 miles on it's original 351M without a rebuild. This F-350 was a rock hauler from the day it was purchased and it hauled thousands of pounds of rock, mortar, and sand every day. Many jobs were in the mountains of North Carolina and this old girl made many, many trips up and down these mountains every day. So I ask you, does this meet your definition of "using a truck like a truck"??? Because if it doesn't, I would sure like to know what you mean by this.

------------------
Paul Eschenbach -- Webmaster

posted 11-25-2000 03:04 AM              

Ok you wrote

" I disagree. I have driven several cars and trucks that have stock 460 engines in them, and I can tell you that the 400 I just put in my Bronco is much, much faster than the stock 460-equiped vehicles I have driven. Maybe a 460 that has been built exactly the same as mine would be a little faster, especially on top end, but my new 400 will more than "hold a candle stick" to most stock 460 engines."

Well Paul..........I think maybe I will state what I mean in as simple and unmistakeable way as possible.....Not that it is exactly a apples to apples comparison... but I was responding to your statements made in your article.... so here I have the choice to compare the 78-79 Bronco 400 to any stock 460 I choose! Because what I meant was if you swapped a 1970 460 as an example fresh outa it's home in a Lincoln..... it would easily compare and outperform that 400... if ya care to dispute this, use Fords HP figures for a 1970 Lincoln motor and then try and tell me YOUR properly done 400 can achieve those.... cuz it cannot. You have nowhere near enough camshaft to approach 325HP in that Motor.....if you doubt me why don't you do some research on what similar cammed 400's produce....because the data is there... I think you will find a 300hp 400 is about best yr gonna find with yr cam profile!

You question my comment about reliability...I said that "Ford even admitted this fact" I will clarify,A relative of mine used to own one of the largest (at the time) Ford dealers in the state I lived in...Ford was suffering such pains due to the "m's" nasty habit of ruining the main bearings if driven harder than " Reasonable"....but due to the fact they had so many claims they were fixing them to the tune of an average of over 2
"cobble jobs" as this realtive called them a week..The procedure was to replace the rods and mains......... install a new oil pump and send em out the door....they were to only replace cranks or other components if it was deemed they would not last the duration of the warrenty! As for proof.... well I am sure it out there!..No need to take my word for it. And the other part of what I meant by Ford admitting to the "m" habit of less than durable if used hard was that it was in fact not offered in the "fleet" world tell very late in it's production..last years it was around.... and still never to anything I have found in a Police car. Nor was it used in the heavier truck end of the Ford truck buisness........ the 360-390/429-460 both not only were used in heavy GVW trucks in a diff size configuration..but they flourished......no mention of a "M" anywhere! Wonder why?... GM marketed there small blocks in the school buses etc type ch***ies for years.....Ford never offered a small block! Wonder why?

How about industrial motors..... Boats/ well pumps/ gen sets etc......... The 302/351W yes The 360/390 Fe yes The 429/460 Yes...351-400 NO! No marine version....no industrial duty at all....this is what I meant by Ford Admitted this........ they never put that motor where it would not survive! So yes based on more than my personal experiance......their is evidence to suggest Ford damn well knew better than to offer this motor in a industrial application..... a market I may add Ford dominated in the 70's and early 80's!

There was NEVER ever a 4bbl "HO" 351-400..... dunno where you heard that but if ya can prove that....... I will be happy to retract this statement.... but the most knowlegeable man I know on the "m" motor even admits nope never ever was it done...and allthough a lot of M owners say this....not a one has ever produced a fact to this point!

You wrote "What do you call the 351C??? Hello!" I call it a Clevland.... far from a "m" study your main bearing diameters.... etc... far from the same engine! They share sum over all design and parts ... but not the same animal at all.... in the world of Automotive engennering I call your bluff post the specs! And BTW read the article dealing with Clevland oiling... to adress that point... and for futher proof I think you mentioned yr "M" had ZERO oil pressure.. usually a sign of a bearing issue. Now admitedly yrs had many a mile on it. But....this is the most common place for a "m" to fail is the main/rod bearings! In facvt of the many I have rebuilt and maintanenced they were all bearing failures...sum with less than 50K and one that was driven 50 miles in sec gear at 50 mph in a Bronco.. average rpm of I would say close to 3700RPM....Not real impressive when you consider a 160K mile 351W in my wifes Bronco just survived a 6000 mile drive at 3000 plus RPM and at times close to 4K for tankfulls at a time...Oh BTW also running 270 degrees on the temp guage. Thats a tough little motor... but then again it has that rep! But Reputation counts for nothing I know! And incedently the cruise RPM of my Big Block is over 3K always!

You wrote
"Sorry, but I completely disagree with that. A similarly built "M" engine will get better gas mileage than a 460. Again, the proof is in my driveway. I get a best of 13-14 MPG with my new 400. What does yours get? "

Well Paul..I have a 514ci motor that gets around 13 MPG at a cruise RPM of 3100 or so..in fact a fellow friend and Modified "M" owner with a motor very similar to yrs. I believe was right behind me on that trip with a recorded 8MPG these figures were made with a GPS for accuracy! And he has 4.10 gears and was spinning no more than 2300rpm at speed I was traveling! I could mention plenty of other cases..... but my Bronco and I have been bet pals for 14+ years....many a "m" and only three big blocks.......and Paul.....they only were replaced to buils a bigger one yet...they all still run..including it's first 429 with 160K on it when installed.... believe it went about another 40K and it was pulled to make room for a 472ci motor. And I still own it and it still runs well..allthough I did have to put sum bearings in it at 200K or so due to filling the engine with water and driving it a few 100 miles!

I will refrain from giving ya my "m" details but best milage I ever got was about 12 and thats with 354 tail gears and basically a stock Bronco......that same motor with 4.56 gears and 36in tires was a steady 8MPG wonder tell it broke it';s sec crank and I gave up on the "m"

You wrote
"I would venture to say you get around 7-8 MPG with your 460, which is why Ford replaced the 460 with the "M" engines in the first place."

Ford replaced the 460 with the "m"?

Huh? The 429-460 was intoduced in the 68 model year long before the "m" and was not discontinued tell the end of the 97Model year I do believe.... how ya figure replaced... the "m" has been gone along time...... being replaced by the 351W.

So lets look at this how much did Ford like that design...

Windsor been around since what 64 or so tell 97ish

The Fe series.... early 60's tell what 77 in the trucks?

the 460 as stated above..

the Clevland.. lets see late 60's tell what 73?

The "M" 71ish tell 84 or so....

so in closing funny Ford liked it so much why did it not last the 30+ years the others have?....not even close to the same many of years production for both the Clevland or the "M" Intresting huh?

In closing I know of many modified "m" motors....... and owners that are pleased with them.. I was responding to a biased opinion in your article........ no reason a mildly modified "m" will not make many people happy... but.. in no way does it have the durability or capability the 460 does and I think that doesn't make it a bad engine. But it far from a GREAT engine as well!

DaMuNK

posted 11-25-2000 10:47 AM               

Ahh... Thank you for this great dialog. Now we are getting somewhere. This is the type of conversation we should be having – one that is well thought out, intelligent, and based on some real facts and real numbers. Look, I don’t hate the 429/460. I wouldn’t have bought the 429 to put in my Bronco if I did. I simply feel that for what I use my Bronco for, it was (and still is) not cost effective to replace my original engine with it.

Now about this forum, I’m not happy with the name of it either. Do you have any suggestions on what I should call it? Maybe the “Bronco 429/460 forum” or “Big Block Broncos”? Help me out here.

Also – If I say I get a best of 14 MPG with mine then I’m asking you to “have faith” that this is in fact true. So, I will do the same for you. When you say you get 13 MPG out of your 460, then I believe you.

You must have just the right combination of carburetion and ignition going for you, because those numbers are almost unbelievable for a 460. I would like to get mine up to 15 or 16 MPG eventually; I just have to play around with the right ignition and carburetion combo to get it. I have no idea why your friend’s truck gets 8 MPG. That’s terrible. Even my old 190,000 mile 351M got 13 MPG with a Holley 4brl. Although I must admit that with the stock 2V carb it got 8-9 MPG. By the same token, the 460 Lincoln my parents used to own got 5-6 MPG. I still don’t understand why you say the 460 is more economical than the 400. It’s not! In fact, both the 400 and the 460 use identical ignition systems and almost identical carburetion. Also, the head design, while a little different, are fairly similar as well. There are no inherent flaws with the “M” engines that would cause it to get worse gas mileage per cubic inch than the 429/460 engines. Now do you see what I mean about wild rumors flying around about the “M” engines? They are not as bad as you think.

Now, about the oiling problem. If you say that your friend’s dealership was doing the “patch” jobs on the new “M” cars then I believe you. I was far too young in 1971 to remember anything about cars, so you have one up on me there. However, we still do not have hard numbers to go by, just an observation you made way back when. So, before I can research the total warranty claim numbers for the “M” engines, I’m going to go out a limb here and ***ume that because of what you saw there may in fact have been some problems with the first run 400 engines when they came out in the early ‘70s. Now, would you agree with me that if there was a problem like this (let’s just say there was) and Ford was spending all this time and money to fix it that it would be prudent for Ford to fix the problem ASAP so that they will not continue to dissatisfy customers, especially when you have a new engine that you plan on using for the next 10 to 11 years? I mean buying a car or truck and then having to bring it back it because the crankshaft is failing in it is totally unacceptable. If I bought a car and this happened, I would most certainly take it back and buy something else. You see? Perhaps now we are getting to the root of the “M” oiling problem. Look, I know the previous owners of my Bronco. This is how I know that they drove it all over the country with an 31 foot Airstream travel trailer. I also know that they never, ever had any kind of oiling or crankshaft problems with that Bronco. So, would you not agree with me that at least by 1979 Ford had all of the crankshaft and oiling problems worked out with the “M” engines? This is what I mean about rumors. It is obvious that this problem did not exist in the later versions of the “M” engines. Therefore, it is not fair to condom all “M” engines just because Ford may have had some problems with the very early models of this engine.

I also said the “M” engine replaced the 460 because Ford needed an engine that was smaller and got better gas mileage. Your production dates are correct, and I’m not saying that the 460 “went away”. However, Ford did replace the 460 in 1971 with the 400 in all full-size cars, and the 460 was reduced to nothing more than a very rare “option”. Only the Lincolns continued to use the 460 in large numbers. Also, you couldn’t get the 460 in a full-size 4x4 truck until sometimes in the mid 1980’s. Why is this? Because they were too heavy and they do not make better 4x4 engines that the “M” small blocks. In a 4x4, you need torque, not something that will go 140 MPH. I’m quite sure that if Ford did not scrap the “M” engines in favor of the lighter and cheaper 302/351W that Ford would have made the “M” well into the 1990s.

Now, about Ford “admitting” that the “M” engines were inferior to other Ford engines. Well, you listed some production dates that you speculate means that Ford did not like the engine and therefore they have basically admitted that is was inferior by the production dates of the engine. Come on DaMunk, that’s not fair. I would say the demise of the “M” engines was due to the Government and the EPA sticking it’s nose in the Automotive industry, not because Ford didn’t like the “M” engines. Let me ask you this, remember the beautiful old Oldsmobile Rocket 350 and 455 engines? Do you think GM scrapped these wonderful engines because the Chevy 350 was a better engine and that GM didn’t like the Olds engines??? Of course not!!! Automotive companies do a lot of stupid things, but this does not mean that “they” don’t “like” a line of engines because of it.

Now, you said that you were responding to the biased opinions in my article. DaMunk, what is biased in that article? I say that the 429/460 will always develop more power than the “M” engines when the two are built “similarly”. Do you disagree with that? I say that the 429/460 swap is a well-documented procedure and there are many parts available specifically for this vehicle/engine combination. Do you disagree with that? I mean, tell me what in that article is not true or is blatantly biased???? Let’s go through it line-by-line because I can backup every single thing in that article. If I made a mistake and put something in that article that is not true, then I will fix it. Fair enough?

Also, the burden of proof that the “M” engines are not as reliable as the 429/460s is on you. I’m not saying that the 429/460 is not reliable; it is a very reliable engine. You are the one making claims here. There are many, many people who have very reliable “M” engines and any claim that the “M” engine is not reliable is your opinion, not fact. You don’t like the “M” engines, which is fine. Be-that-as-it-may, that is not a viable reason to say that my engine and the many thousands of “M” owners out there have unreliable engines.
Finally, about my 400. You are right, it is a “mild” rebuild. There is nothing wild about that engine. I built it for reliability, towing, and gas mileage, not for drag racing or for maximum power. I think 300 HP is a low estimated figure, but I don’t have any hard numbers to give you to contradict this number (not yet anyway). When I get a chance to run it on a dyno, I will write an article about it and publish it on the website, so stay tuned! I will also agree with you that a 1970 11:1 compression 460 is probably faster than my new 400. However, at least I won’t have to pull a tanker truck full of 110 octane racing fuel behind my truck just to drive it too and from work. Also, my 400 is lighter, and I’m sure gets better gas mileage. I also bet I can out pull a 1970 460 as well. Heck, know I can because a 1970 460 would self-destruct if you tried to pull anything with it using 92 or 93 octane fuel! If you want to compare apple to apples, then lower a 1970’s 460 engine to a streetable 9.5:1 compression ratio and then we’ll see just how much faster it is than my 400.

I hope we can keep this dialog going because I have enjoyed it thoroughly!
Talk to you soon --

posted 11-25-2000 05:45 PM              

Ok Paul..I will address you web page statements word for word, this will be easier to explain my point! ***uming we are talking rebuilding them both with well thought out proven “what works” packages! Note: I only argue with the ones I disagree with, if I did not mention it than not discussing it cuz you may ***ume I agree for the most part!

You wrote: [More power than a 351M! The 429/460 will always develop more HP than even a 400, given that the two are comparably built (i.e. same compression ratio, same cam shaft, etc...)

I reply: Accurate statement would be closer to, the 429/460 will easily in stock form meet or surp*** the HP figures a mildly modified 351/400 will produce, and if given the same benefit of a better camshaft, these #’s just increase in the 429/460’s favor!

You wrote: [Performance Parts are plentiful]

I reply: agreed, but maybe also mention that fewer would be needed to produce the same equivalent HP or more, than a 351/400M if using a 460. (example) The 4bbl intake used on most pre emission era 460’s is more than capable of 350+Hp, where the 351/400 2bbl intake is almost a piece replaced in an effort to achieve sum performance during a rebuild! A diff of close to $200 if buying new!

Also the factory 460 carbs are more than adequate for a healthy 460, where as again the 351-400 will likely require a $200-400 dollar upgrade.

Now switching to you “m” listings.

You wrote: [Higher resale value if engine is original**]

I reply: This is arguable, these trucks are so old that resale is a thing based only on what the consumer wants, and I know many that would prefer the 460.

Maybe a better way to say this is. “ The original motor if left totally OEM as Ford built it may offer higher resale in some areas of the country due to smog regulations and mandatory testing. But also mention a 400 modified with headers, 4bbl, etc seldom would p*** a smog test as well.

You wrote: [The 351M could easily be enlarged to 400 CID simply by buying the crankshaft and pistons for a 400 instead of a 351M, which are all parts I would have to replace anyway.]

I reply: This is sorta a neutral statement Paul, you failed to mention that the 429 was easily upgradeable to a 460 with the exact same type of parts. So either state this or drop it as a valid reason…. Really doesn’t apply, even when you did yours it didn’t! (just an opinion yr page) but seems a bit slanted towards the “m” somehow having an advantage.

You wrote [The engine would be lighter than a 429/460 and will probably get even better gas mileage than a similarly built 429/460]

I reply: Lighter yes in a stock-stock comparison, but why don’t you mention that you can shed 80+ lbs of the weight of the 460 if you are worried about weight?..cause in yr article your not supposed to be debating the two motors worth……… but the choices available. And with an aluminum intake and headers the 460 does not weigh significantly more than the 351-400…..and certainly not detrimentally so. And you should to provide a fair basis to make a decision on mention this.

You wrote: [The 400's stroke is longer than that of both the 429 and the 460 (4.0" for the 400 VS. 3.59" for the 429 and 3.85" for the 460) which means more torque at lower RPM, which is exactly where you need it in a heavy Bronco.]

I reply: you misspoke yourself a bunch here, the facts are correct, but your statement of “more Torque at a lower RPM” does not take one small fact into focus.. your comparing a 400/460 did ya forget about the 60 cubes effect on torque?

That statement is misleading and not factual, check your notes!

You wrote: [A full engine swap kit to install a 429/460 cost over $1,200.00. This kind of money will go a LONG way toward rebuilding my 351M]

I reply: Again fact should cum before personal preference. Because you chose a “kit” to perform your swap I think you should mention that this $1,200 dollar expenditure is far from required, and in actual reality the new 460 motor mounts you will want to acquire cost just a few dollars more than a fresh set of 351-400 mounts. (you did replace yours for that torque monster didn’t you?) and if you purchase the correct 460 you will not need anything but these mounts.

You wrote:[ It is possible to install a 429/460 with factory Ford parts (except for the motor mounts), however, this would take weeks of parts searching in salvage yards, dozens of trips to the hardware store, and in the end you would end up with a "Frankenstein" engine compartment]

I reply: See above, this is untrue Paul, the 78-79 E-350 van motors require almost no parts other than the motor mounts. You slant the argument again on opinion and lack of research/experience.

You wrote: [No custom linkages to fabricate or hoses to fabricate]

I reply: Ok again, no research and you stated as “fact” in you page, when in reality it is fiction. The throttle linkage hooks up directly with just a smidge of adjustment, the radiator hoses are a oem part # And the only real issue is the tranny kick down on Auto equipped Broncos, and this again can be replaced with a 460/C-6 kick down from any f-series pickup of the same vintage!

Paul.. if you truly used the above list to make yr decision, you based your own personal opinion on incorrect info….. why spread that to the folks who want to make there own opinion? If you based your opinion on your keen attachment to your 351/400 that’s fine as well, but was still a personal opinion. Folks that read your article are led to believe this is how they should base there decision (your facts) and they are partially as I have described above, wrong, and misleading, not just simple fact. To be added, you forgot some “pros” for the 351/400 against the 460 as well.

Since I am typing let me add that you ***ume everyone uses there Bronco as you do, and base your opinions on this, as well as your entire web site. But the truth is many folks are looking for advice on Broncos in general as “applied” to them, you seldom sway much from your opinion, even if it results in incorrect information. Your 400 would not meet the requirements of my Bronco or even come close, it has not the power or abuse ability I require. My 514 would go to waste in you stock geared not lifted Bronco tooling around on the highway, each his own…but I am not forcing my opinions about the “m” on the folks that are looking for advice, point in fact if I had a stock Bronco to drive daily, I would probably weigh heavily the choice to modify it for a 460, but then again if the 351/400 died I would see no harm in a increase in performance by doing the swap. Would depend on usage. I would have to weigh the facts as I know them and make a decision, but for others, facts as you have stated them, I feel, may result in a decision made because they as you, believe what you read, instead of actual facts.

posted 11-29-2000 09:40 PM               

• 1972 400 8.4:1 CR 2brl – 172HP@4400 & 298ft-bls@2200
  
• 1972 460 8.5:1 CR 4rbl – 212HP@4400 & 342ft-lbs@2800
  

• 0.43 HP/CID and 0.745 ft-lbs/CID for the 400
  
• 0.46 HP/CID and 0.743 ft-lbs /CID for the 460
  

Now take the fact the 460 weighs 200 lbs more than the 400 and the 460’s extremely narrow margin on HP vanishes. But wait! You said the 460 will even out perform a 400 when it is mildly rebuilt, didn’t you??? Hmm….. seems to me that if you add a 4brl, a mild towing cam, and bump up the 400’s compression a little (all considered a mild rebuild) then the 400 would absolutely slaughter the stock 460 in every way imaginable!!!!

Oh, but I’m not done yet. Look at where the 400 develops it’s peak torque – 2200 RPM. Now look at where the 460 does it – 2800 RPM. A 600 RPM difference. Gee, that sounds like more torque at lower RPM to me!!!!!!

GOTCHYA !!!!! Slam-dunk baby!!!

Second You said about the parts being plentiful and that 460 will require less parts to perform as well as the 400. Well, let’s see……… you get and additional 40 HP and 44 ft-lbs of torque with the 460 , which means that you’re replacing a 400 with an engine that is only 6.9% more efficient at making HP and is 0.2% LESS EFFICIENT at making torque. Doesn’t sound like much of an advantage to me.

Goal!

Third You said the factory 460 4brl carbs are more than enough for a healthy engine. – I agree, no need to change the carb. So the 400 is at a $250.00 disadvantage so far…… let’s continue

Fourth You questioned the statement that the original “M” engine in a Bronco would have higher resale value than a 460. Actually, you make a good point on this. It is true that some people would value a 460 more than the original 400 or even the 351M. I agree. By the same token, some people would value the original engine more so than a swapped-in 460. Like you said, buyer preference. I will add this statement to the article. However, just to be fair to myself, the only “hard” numbers we have to go on is the only standard there is available for judging value, and that is the point system used at cars shows. Nothing takes more points away than not having the original engine in a vehicle. Like it or not, the 78-79 Broncos are now cl***ics, so this matters – a lot. Having matching numbers on your vehicle will make it or break it in a real car show. I know – I’ve shown several cars in my time. But again, anything is only worth what someone will pay for it.

I’ll call this point a draw

Fifth You bring up the point that the 429 is just as easy to upgrade to a 460 as the 351M is to a 400. – Agreed. Sorry, I overlooked that point. I will fix that.

You win that round

Sixth You say the 460 can be lightened by 80 lbs and the weight difference is not significant between the two engines. Sure, you can shed 80lbs from the 460, but your are still 120 lbs heavier than a 400 with the same weight reductions and now you have spent an additional $500.00 (at least) on the 460 to try and bring it’s weight down. Now you have lost any cost advantage you may have had over the “M” engines.

Advantage, Paul

Seventh You remark about the 400’s stroke being longer than the 460’s and you ask if I forgot about the extra 60 CID of the 460. Well, look at the numbers above! Because the 400 has a longer stroke, it makes more torque at lower RPM and the 400 develops more torque per CID than the 460 does. The 400 is simply a better torque motor than the 460 is – period. However, just to fair, I will also say that the 460 is better at high RPM, which is something I have maintained all along. This is great if your are building a little Mustang, but were talking about Broncos here, not race cars.

Do I need to say it?

Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Elevnth You talk about the $1,200.00 kit not being necessary to install the 460 in a Bronco and you give the example of the E-350 Van 460 being a direct bolt in except for the motor mounts. You go on to say no need for a Frankenstein engine compartment and there should be no custom hoses or linkages to fabricate. Well, that’s exactly what I said except I didn’t mention the Van by name, I simply said it was possible to do it with factory parts. However, you are making it sound like there are 460 E-350 Vans all over the place!!!!!! I have never seen a 460 E-350 in a salvage yard in my life. Did you think I didn’t already know this??? How could I not? The E-350 Van swap is posted all over the Internet! I have been looking for a 460 E-350 ever since I bought my 429 in 1992!!! Finally I gave up. First, you can only use the carbureted version made from 1975 to 1987 and second not all E-350 Vans had 460s. I’m sorry, but I have to stick by my statement that finding factory parts from a 460 Van will take weeks (perhaps months, years, or maybe even never) of searching in salvage yards to find it. Why do you think the $1,200.00 engine kit is so popular in the first place??? It’s because no one can find these Vans anywhere (I’m sure there are some around, but still they are very, very hard to find). Even if you did find an E-350 with a 460 in it, chances are the engine will be completely ruined from pulling duty as a U-Hall truck or the like until it threw all of it’s rods and it couldn’t be rebuilt anymore. Hence, you may at least be able to buy the manifolds, oil pan (if it will fit) and maybe some of the accessories, but then you will have to find another 429/460 to use. Not only that, but you even said that you will have to find a linkage cable from a particular pickup truck to make it work. Well, that’s 4 vehicles we are using parts from to complete this swap so far. Sounds like a Frankenstein to me!!!!!

Touch Down! – Game Over!

Well, I’m in the winner’s circle so I guess it’s time for a speech! (A little bit of humor here, come on, laugh a little here) DaMunk, you have called me; “biased, opinionated, not interested in truly helping out my readers, oblivious to facts, always believing whatever I read, seldom swaying from my opinion, not wanting to hear the truth, ignorant, foolish, childish, and immature” – all within just 4 post, that’s right – 4 post to this bulletin board. Now who in the world would put-up with this kind of abuse for as long as I have????? Not many, I’ll tell you that.

You are the lucky one here DaMunk. Why? Because there are people out there like myself who have bulletin boards where people like you can bash, complain, and criticize the very person who pays for the board in the fist palace and yet still has the objectiveness and decency to leave the posts on the Internet for every one to see. EVERYONE!!!!

But, I must say that maybe you are right. Perhaps I am foolish for even engaging in this conversation. We’re just two guys. One likes the 460 and would never swap it for a 400. The other likes the 400 and would never swap it for a 460 --- And that’s the way it will always be.

Nufsaid. I’m moving on.

------------------
Paul Eschenbach -- Webmaster

posted 12-04-2000 08:27 PM              

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul E:
DaMunk wrote:

Ok first hello and a intresting web sight to say the least. Good to see more 78-79 Bronco stuff on the web!
That being said...I would like to discuss aftermarket support for the 351M-400! What are you all looking for? The aftermarket offers much in the way of support for these engines (Intakes,carbs,camshafts, valve train etc.) what else would you like? Agreed these all were /are built for other engines and happen to fit but....You will never see parts for the "M" like you do many of the other engines, for a reason that is simple to understand if unbiased... simply put they have little value in the performance world, and are a ok truck motor for our Broncos, but even a modifed 400 (like discussed on your web pages here) will not hold a candle to a stock rebuilt 460 in the same vehichal. Neither in arena of HP vs TQ or in the fuel economy reliability area as well! Even Ford basically admitted this fact to any that care to take notice. I ask you WHY did Ford not produce a 4bbl 351-400? WHY did the "M" never see service as a Police Interceptor motor? WHY did Ford not ever do anything remotly performance orientated/industrial to this engine family! The answer is very smple fellas, they were never built for it #1 The stroke everyone is so "attached" to was this engines main flaw, they had poor oiling design and were prone to bearing failures if any amount of RPM under load was imposed...#2 The Clevland that this motor was derived from in itself was never a outstanding motor, and true, was built as a HP engine for years, but look at the #'s,(Stock off the shelf) it was a failure, it could not in the real world even compete with the 350 Chevy effecitvly due to heads that were WAY to large for a street car, and in the fact that they made resonable power, but never even achieved 1Hp per CI....... something the SBC managed most of it's performance career... often times exceeding it in fact! I am not a "Chevy Man" but no one can argue the career this motor had....and the absolute sucess it achieved in all most any application it was thrust into..... same in fact could be said for the 302/351 W motors as well...and the 429-460...but the 351-400M was Fords worst warrenty claim nighmare, due to the main bearing issue and not surviving under abuse when required! So when you apply this with known fact it seems very simple to understand why the aftermarket makes few specific "M" parts, I will in fact put my neck on the line and say there is only one true part thats supported in the aftermarket for the 351-400M (not counting headers)that being the intakes... the rest is stuff that it shares with other more performance orientated designs in the Ford stable...Clevland/385 series etc. So fellas enjoy what you can do......and know that in a tall geared daily driver Bronco the 351-400 with mild modifications does perform admirably..just don't ever abuse it and it will perform as expected for years! But some of the remarks made on the 351vs-429 page in the tech articles in this page should possibly be researched a bit more if you care to give the viewers of this page a true unbiased "pros-cons" table to base an opinion on! The 429-460 is a very easy swap into the Bronco, using all factory pieces is a viable option, no need for a "frankenstein" engine compartment whatsoever! Also no need to spend $1000+ on the actual swap itself if you purchsed the correct engine to swap in the first place. The rebuild costs between the two engines are similar, and no need for a performance cam or aluminum intake etc for the 460. A factory early 70's grind p*** car cam and a factory cast iron intake from any year will allow a easily achievable 325+hp and close to 450ftlbs without anything more involved than a good quality rebuild! This will provise usually better economy than the "m" in all application I have been involved with, and also is a combination that is extreamy durable and abuseable if you happen to actually use a truck like a truck! So when you crunch the hard # accuratly with true facts...... they are seldom any more expensive than a average rebuild and slight warming that most folks attempt with the 351-400! Ok enough from me for now, but I felt a need to make a few facts know about the swap issue and to explain a question you all asked! I am not "flmming the "m"......just mentioning a few facts you all can easily verefy if you would like to look a bit!

---

posted 12-04-2000 09:01 PM               

Hey everybody, I'm sorry for the way I've been acting and for bashing the 460. It really is a great engine. Either way you can't go wrong with a 400 or a 460.

Honestly, If I were going to use my Bronco for SERIOUS off-road duty, I mean REALLY serious off-road duty and I was going to run VERY large tires and build the engine to the hilt I would probably use a 460 for the simple fact that serious performance parts (like super charges, trick-flow heads, and ultra strong cranks and rods) are available for the 460 but are not readily available for the "M" engines. Also, the 460 will make more HP at high RPMs.