I've been working on the Ford 521 as a side project for most of the year. It is getting closer and closer but the project has hit a lot of little potholes along the way. I had to design new tools and fixtures so I could work on the belt drive. This engine has a Danny Bee belt drive and none of my Jesel stuff would work. I've also had to design new tools to work on the valve train. I have a big collection of Mopar stuff but none of it works with the canted valves.

I had to get a custom damper from ATI for the engine so I could put the TDC mark on the driver side. The Danny Bee belt drive doesn't come with a TDC pointer and there is no space for it on the passenger side so I moved it to the driver side. The T&D rocker arms are a bit interesting to work on since everything is on compound angles.

It will be interesting to see how this engine runs vs. my old 514 Mopar. That engine made right around 900 hp with MW ported Indy EZ heads that flowed 365 cfm. The Kaase heads on this 521 flow 425 cfm and the ports are roughly 50% larger than the MW ports. But the 521 has a little less compression and a little less cam.

I also can't get a really good intake for the Ford. Trick Flow has a good design for the big Ford engine but it has been out of production for most of the year. I have an Edelbrock Victor for the engine but it doesn't appear to be a very good intake. I don't think the Victor will support more than 800 hp anyway. But I guess we'll find out soon enough on the dyno. All I need to do now is finish up the top end assembly and get it on the dyno.

Is that an iron or aluminum block?

Factory cast iron late model block. Interesting thing about the 460 blocks is they made them all the way until 1997. And the blocks cast during the 90's have longer cylinder walls which make them better for strokers. Late model 460 blocks are still fairly easy to find since they made so many of them. Lots easier to find than a good B or RB block. The 460 block is also really strong. We're planning to make 850 hp with this engine and the block doesn't need any prep other than ARP main studs and proper machine work.

What is the Bore and stroke of that 521?

With fords especially big ports want high compression and a big cam....and without both you can't have either.... but it'll still run well with lower compression as long as the cam is on the small side too.

4.390 bore x 4.300 stroke. I'm not too worried about the combination. We're using the parts that Kaase recommends and he has built a ton of these engines. Once we get some dyno time on it we'll start trying different things but the first build will follow the Kaase plan. The cam is his "small" one since we have a smaller engine, but the duration at 0.400 is 91 degrees so the intake valves are open more than 0.700 for a quarter rotation of the engine.

That'll be a fun build, and it is impressive how big you can go with the later model blocks, I think it's something like 557" without too much trouble.. Like you said, they put them in everything- 429's and 460's in vans, pickups, the medium duty F600/700, you name it, all through the 90's.

Andy, this 460 motor has interested me for years. My very first thought was a fabricated tunnelram and twin throttle bodies, running e85 would make a dynomite combo, especially if the 557 size is not too tough to do. A local racer / engine builder runs 598 cube 385 series Fords, dialing 7.80 in the 1/4 on gasoline. One of my last outings i was unlucky enough to race him, and he went 7.80 on a 7.80 dial.

Yeah I think a 4.500 stroke crank in a 0.030 over stock block makes 557. Aftermarket blocks can go bigger but I'm not sure how easy it is to find aftermarket blocks these days. Ford used to make the A-460 block but I think they stopped making it. We could've built a 557 but the 521 seemed easier. Stroker kits and pistons were available and the CR was in line with what we were trying to do.

545ci on that .030 combo.

You need to go .080 over to 4.44 for the 557.

On Kasse web site, possible 659 cu in combo, 4.70 bore 4.75 stroke.

Is that current pricing?

Call or google them to find out

Looks like yes. A Ford Performance 460X block at Summit is $3300 as well, there are multiple BBF cast iron options at the $3k-ish price point.

There is no reason a Callies MP cast iron block is $6500 (hey, it's on sale this week for $6000 at Mancini's!).

Looks bad ass! I don't know anything about the intake manifolds but if you think what you have will hold it back, maybe send it to John Marcella? I've not needed his services so can't speak from experience but his work from photos looks truly amazing.

Wise choice!

I've been having a bit of a discussion back and forth with Kaase's shop about the valve springs. The net cam lift is around 0.780 (gross lift of 0.800 with 0.020 lash) but the valve springs they supplied with the heads are rated at 0.730 lift. (Manley 221443)
The guy at Kaase's shop tells me that they run those springs with that cam but I have my doubts. I hate to doubt anything that Kaase says but the math doesn't seem to quite work out right. We're going to mock up the head again and double check everything. The Manley springs are expensive so I hate to have them go to waste. A high quality spring + retainer + locks combo goes for about $1000 these days. Prices have basically doubled in just a few years on some of these parts.

Sounds like the wrong spring for a 0.800" lift cam. 1.950" install height and 1.170" coil bind is only 0.780" lift? Do they want them installed at a higher install height like 2.00"?
I wouldn't think so as 235 seat pressure @1.950", and 535 lb/in rate seem fairly low pressures for such a large cam?

I watch way too much youtube, but Mike Finnegan had John Kaase rebuild the Hemi in his '55 Chevy and he did not have good luck with them at all. Some of that could've been Kaase not being familiar with hemis though.

What installed height are the springs set up at?

What’s the available installed height?

Is the vehicle the engine is going in destined for some street duty?

Personally, I don’t see a set of Manley 221443’s being the hot set up for nearly .800 lift with typical BB valvetrain weight components………. Unless the cam uses very tame ramps, and can function properly with whatever spring force you’d end up with by installing them at 1.250”+ net lift.

There are several more spring choices that facilitate .800-ish lift if you can get the IH closer to 2.00”.

Installed height right now is 1.950 and there is a lot of room between the retainer and the rocker arm. So I can easily go 2.000 or 2.050 installed height with a different spring and retainer combo. I'll end up doing that if I have to but I'd rather not throw another $1000 at the engine before I double check everything. It just seems to be a weird conversation with Kaase. They tell me that is the spring they use with that cam (and they sell a lot of these combinations) but it is not the right spring to use with that cam according to Manley. Maybe Manley has bad info printed in their catalog but that seems odd too.

I did have this issue before with dual conical springs from Comp. They told me to use the dual conicals for a solid roller cam but the catalog says they are only 150 on the seat. We went ahead and got the dual conical springs and they measured 200 on the seat, plenty on the nose and the coil bind was just right. So the guy was right, the catalog was wrong and the springs worked great in that engine.

This is a dyno test engine for now. We'll get it sorted out on the dyno and then put it up for sale next spring. Hoping to make around 900 hp at 7000 before we're finished with it.

A few minutes with a spring tester and you should be able to determine if the springs are suitable.

For that application(and what you’re doing with the engine), if you can get close to 2” IH, I’d probably go with something like a PAC-1225.

I haven’t used “tons” of Manley springs…….but more than a few sets.
Nothing stands out in my memory with any of them being way out of spec…….but anything is possible.

That is odd that the actual vs catalog are that far off. But since you have the springs, test them for pressure and coil bind height and see if Kaase is right or wrong. I would use 0.060" before coil bind for my calc.

Oh, there's a reason!

Just not a reason anyone here likes or can agree with lol........

Personally I've drooled over the 200 dollar core 460s on marketplace, but feel like I picked my poison decades ago.
It was already one level of dumb to do a Hemi, it'd be an entirely different level to change brands.

I got divorced, sold my house and shop, moved, got a new shop and bought a new house all in the last 12 months so changing engine brands is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things!

I agree. I checked two springs and they do coil bind lower than what the Manley catalog says but there isn't 0.060 left with checking springs. I need to order pushrods before I can check with the actual springs. I'm not anticipating a lot of deflection with the T&D shaft setup and 7/16 dual taper pushrods though.

My plan B is to increase the installed height a small amount and just run slightly less seat pressure. We'll make a few soft pulls on the dyno to see if everything is happy. If not, we'll go to plan C which would be new springs. I'm sure I can find another home for the 221443 springs since they are fairly common in the dirt track motors that we build.

The desire and the means need to exist first: Neither one does

Regardless, glad to hear you were able to move on when you needed to. You've been offloading stuff for quite awhile and have made a few comments here and there
about "losing the shop" that seemed too serious to be a parody of reality TV show script.

Andy,
Curious,
What numbers did the check show?

1.950 - 0.780 - 0.060 = 1.110" needed coil bind (max). Catalog says 1.170"

1.140 for the two I checked. And Kaase likes to tighten up how close they run to bind so they suggest 0.040 is okay. If we have to we can pick up a little room by using a +0.050 lock and then shimming back until we get it dialed in.

If you want to try 220-225 on the seat for the initial dyno work, that 0.050" lock would be an inexpensive way to start.
I don't know if the current spring ID, etc can use the same retainers you have, but the 0.050" lock would get you to 2.000" installed height for 0.800" lift springs. maybe unlikely...

We have it all mocked up now with correct pushrods, rocker arms properly installed, etc. It looks like the springs will work but barely. They don't bind but there isn't a lot of space between the coils. Can slide a 0.010 or 0.015 feeler gauge in between the coils so it should be good to go. We checked both inner and outers. These pictures are inner only.

Figured the top end was ready to go together but discovered that the Cometic gaskets that Kaase recommended overhang into the combustion chambers. They said use 4.500 bore gaskets which seemed safe with a 4.390 bore size, but the chambers in the head are so big that the gasket overhangs near the exhaust valve. Evidently Kaase runs it that way but the engine builder I'm working with said to order new gaskets. So I got a set of 4.600 gaskets ordered from Summit.

If I get a chance to do another engine I think I'll buy the 4.500 bore block from Ford and build a 4.500 x 4.500 engine with the same exact heads. Be interesting to see the comparison between the two. The Ford blocks are available for $3900 which seems like an okay price.

Andy, no beehive springs that would work ?
please remember, i'm no engine builder, so be easy on me.......

Andy, what did the RR work out to be with the full spring load?

A few things here just seem ODD with the advice coming out of Kaase. I don't know how many "Ford" people builds there are to gage the success on what seems to be bad direction. But I'd be doing the things you are despite recommendations otherwise. I've seen some of the pieces here and there and appreciate the packages and prices Kaase offers so, I like you are sharing this build. There are engine build things that translate to any platform. I'd be curious to know actual NET lift as well to see where the springs are from c/b. Can you share the entire cam profile to gage its intensity?

We're just waiting for the correct head gaskets to get here before we put the heads back on. I'll have numbers to share in a few days. I can show the cam card but the lobes are "secret" and Comp won't share that info with me. I can't find the exact lobe in the lobe book so I don't know the Comp specs. I have checked duration at 50, 200 and 400 but I usually like to see the mfg specs so I can compare with other lobes in the same family. The cam card assumes 1.73 rocker arms but we upgraded to T&D arms which are advertised at 1.75.

Andy did you plot out the cam at all?
Wondering if you had a duration @.200 number.

Reviewing this thread after looking at that cam card I wouldn't run so little a spring even if the valves were titanium. I'd guess it'll float the valves before 6000rpm.

Aluminum heads get taller when hot, steel and Ti vales do not, hence less valve spring height when the motor is hot

When I checked the intake lobe I measured 267@050, 197@200 and 90@400. But that was early in the build during a mockup session. Numbers could be slightly off due to a temp setup.
Exhaust was 202@200 and 92@400

We'll keep an eye on it. I've run those springs before with cams like this and haven't had an issue. I used the same spring in my old 514 dyno mule with 1.80 rocker arms and it pulled past 7000 rpm without any issue. That engine had Jesel rocker arms and 7/16 dual taper pushrods. This engine has T&D rockers and the same pushrods. The pushrods are literally the same ones. I sent them back to Smith Bros and had them cut down and replaced the cup with a ball. Saved me $400 over a set of new pushrods.
I have about $3000 worth of pushrods in a drawer, so I reuse pushrods whenever possible! Mopar ones can be cut down to work in most any other engine since RB blocks are so tall.

197@.200 would be huge for a lobe that’s 267@.050.
It would still be quite big for a lobe that’s 273@.050.

Might be close to a HXL lobe. Lobe 2233 is 303 advertised, 274@050 and 197@200 with 454 lobe lift.

The Kaase lobe seems to be a little more aggressive than most of the lobes I could find in the Comp lobe family book. Maybe Kaase is taking advantage of the larger cam journal size that the big Fords have?

Let me quantify my previous statement………

It seems like a pretty quick lobe for a combo using large steel valves, 1.75 rockers, and springs that are only 600lbs open.

I’m not going to second guess Kaase, so the proof of concept will be told on the dyno.

That being said, I don’t feel like the cam(from what we can tell thus far) and the springs/RR are that well matched.

If after a couple of hundred trouble free 1/4 mile passes, and the springs still test good afterward……..then it can be said the combo is well sorted out.

Made a little more progress on the project. Got the oil pump installed as well as the pan. Had to order some step down studs in order to put the pan on. That was a new one for me. Studs are 5/16 in the block but the pan gasket only takes a 1/4 inch bolt. So the studs need to step down from 5/16 to 1/4.

The oil pan is a custom from Kevko. Big box pan with a tray and some baffles and a swinging door. I'm sure it is too big to fit in a car but it might fit in a boat or a truck. In any case, it should work find on the dyno. The oil pump is made by Kaase. Guess these engines had problems with busting the oil pump casting so he designed a beefy housing and had them cast. Kind of cool that he is out there solving problems by making parts.

The SB Chevy with the Moroso oil pan that is sitting behind my 521 was just run on the dyno. It made 783 hp at 7300 rpm which is the most power that we've ever seen from a SB Chevy engine. It had some windage problems so the owner is rounding up parts to hang a vacuum pump on it. Who knows, with the vacuum pump it might crack 800 hp. That is just a crazy amount of power for a small block.

Looking good. It is hard to believe what SBC's (and Mopar and Ford) are making recently. There are a handful of SBC builds that have crested 800hp even with 23 degree heads and cast single carb intakes. Some of the best 23 degree stuff is done by Chad Speier. Those flow over 350. When you step up to some of the more recent head designs and improved valve angles, the hp goes up rapidly from there. I love seeing what Guys like Brett, Chad, Bob Book, M@M, Uratchko, etc make for power. It's a whole different level.

I agree. A friend runs a gen3 392 hemi, dynos 775 hp with stock class rules heads, stock valvetrain parts,save for cam and springs i believe. Car runs the numbers to back that up.

Rocker arm ratio appears to be good. Getting about 0.790 lift with everything bolted up and ready to go. Lash is 0.018 on the exhaust.

You're probably right, the variation and listed values probably differ because of various lifter wheel diameters. The HXL lobes have a good reputation with a few people I know.

Not that it'd matter to anyone but I am consistent with this opinion/well said.

Thanks for sharing this build here Andy, it's valuable to see the other makes products for any number of reasons. I've always been a closet BBF admirer too.

So that’s .790 net lift after lash?

Or, .790 lift at zero lash?

If it’s after lash, the RR is higher than 1.75

You must be getting close to making some noise.

Lift numbers are net after lash so the ratio is just slightly more than advertised.

Engine is close to being ready. Need to fill with oil, prime it, then install spark plugs and distributor. I have to use the Edelbrock Victor intake for now since the good Trick Flow intake is still on back order. The ports in the Edelbrock intake are small so they will kill some power but it was the only intake I could buy.

Not sure when we'll put it on the dyno. Depends on the schedule. Lots of engines going together now for race season.

Any updates?

Sitting on the stand waiting to run on the dyno. I had to fabricate some parts for the vacuum pump system so that took some time. But now it is ready to go, just waiting for a hole in the schedule.