430 heads on a 462

[buddy67lincoln]

Thanks for the photos. I assume my '67 462 has the same heads shown in your '66 462 cylinder head photo. That looked pretty darn flat to me so it sounds like any head should work. I will look at my service manual and try to post that photo later on tonight if I find a good one. Thanks.

[buddy67lincoln]

Well...its done! I have carb pad measurements. Now the 3x2s is pretty dead on but the single 4V was rough since the pad is so low it actually bumped the straight edge up a tiny bit for the 'A' measurement. The intake ports literally are in the way almost the entire way across the front but there was one narrow section that was about level with the pad. NOTE: When taking the measurements I measured from the bottom center lip of the valley pan which is budded up to the top of the block. I had to do it this way since there is a valley pan. If this is not the correct way to measure the carb. pad height then please let me know. I also measured the Intake Ports for both intakes. I believe I followed KULTULZ directions! Hope this helps WerbyFord!!!

1967 Lincoln Continental 4V Carb Pad:
* A: 7.70 cm
* B: 15.00 cm
*Carburetor Pad Heightt= 11.35 cm

1958 Super Marauder 6V Carb Pad:
* A: 11.00 cm
* B: 16.70 cm
*Carburetor Pad Height= 13.85 cm

1967 Lincoln Continental Intake Port:
* Width: 2.9 cm
* Height: 5.4 cm

1958 Super Marauder Intake Port:
* Width: 2.9 cm
* Height: 6.6 cm

Quite a bit of difference in height between the two. I am going to ask another question even though I am not doing this but am curious...What would I expect the 3x2 intake to do on the stock 462 heads? There would be a lot of wall pounding on the cylinder head. Not sure what would be the benefit for that. Also, why did Lincoln make them smaller? I just wanted to get some of these answers in one place if I can. Thanks

Here is a new photo of the intake on the spare engine I took the measurements off of. I might yank the cylinder head off tomorrow to get a closer look.

[buddy67lincoln]

I just got this information from a MEL guy on thelincolnforum:


Quote " The combustion ratio of a '58-'59 430 is 10.5:1 and the heads are basically flat as a pancake, no dimples/recesses around the valve seats. The heads from a 64-65 do have the dimples/recesses which reduces the compression to 10.1:1, not really a significant reduction in compression.

The reason for the recesses around the valve seats was one of many not too smart attempts at stopping the valves from kissing the pistons when the real problem was with the valve stem length, valve springs, and push rod length, along with cam lift and duration. Another way of saying they never got the valve train in MEL block engines exactly right. It would appear that geometry was not a strong suit among the engine designers.

I wouldn't worry too much about using the slightly higher compression heads with your engine if you use a Pertronix II electronic ignition conversion. 87 octane pump gas should work just fine with the electronic ignition and maybe a one or two degree retard on the timing from the factory specs if you get any pre-detonation issues. Of course you could also move up to 89 octane or a mix of it with 87 octane to stop the problem should it occur.

Your engine if having stock design pistons in it correct for a 462 will have less compression than any of the variations of the 430 so I wouldn't really anticipate pre-detonation issues using 87 octane fuel. Keep in mind octane ratings today are calculated differently than in the pre 1974 days and today's 87 octane is a lot less prone to pre-detonation than "regular" leaded gas was 35 years ago.

The combustion chamber of all MEL blocks is actually a portion of the cylinder bore resultant from an odd deck angle verses all other engines made by anyone, other than the Chevy 348/409 engines which are very similar in nature to the MEL block engine. There is only minor difference in the actual combustion chamber size in different years of MEL block engine production. The 32 cubic inch difference of the 462 verses 430 was obtained via a very slightly larger bore and a slightly longer stroke.

Just be mindful of the fact 430 heads require a 430 intake manifold. 430 and 462 intake manifolds are not interchangeable.

Hope this helps clear the air a bit." end Quote

Sounds like good info to me. I do have the Pertronix FlameThrower II ignition already and that car started up, ran smooth and it was so easy to install. I recommend it!

[KULTULZ]

I just got this information from a MEL guy on thelincolnforum:

Quote " The combustion ratio of a '58-'59 430 is 10.5:1 and the heads are basically flat as a pancake, no dimples/recesses around the valve seats. The heads from a 64-65 do have the dimples/recesses which reduces the compression to 10.1:1, not really a significant reduction in compression.

The reason for the recesses around the valve seats was one of many not too smart attempts at stopping the valves from kissing the pistons when the real problem was with the valve stem length, valve springs, and push rod length, along with cam lift and duration. Another way of saying they never got the valve train in MEL block engines exactly right. It would appear that geometry was not a strong suit among the engine designers.

Well, that's not correct. The reason for the 63/65 430 4V recessed chambers was as I have mentioned previously was a complete combustion chamber redesign (including piston dome shape) to create a swirl effect in the combustion chamber.

The only problem MEL had with valve interference was in very early 1958 production as the heads had very large valves. MEL substituted 383 heads in production and service replacement.

[buddy67lincoln]

I just got this information from a MEL guy on thelincolnforum:

Quote " The combustion ratio of a '58-'59 430 is 10.5:1 and the heads are basically flat as a pancake, no dimples/recesses around the valve seats. The heads from a 64-65 do have the dimples/recesses which reduces the compression to 10.1:1, not really a significant reduction in compression.

The reason for the recesses around the valve seats was one of many not too smart attempts at stopping the valves from kissing the pistons when the real problem was with the valve stem length, valve springs, and push rod length, along with cam lift and duration. Another way of saying they never got the valve train in MEL block engines exactly right. It would appear that geometry was not a strong suit among the engine designers.

Well, that's not correct. The reason for the 63/65 430 4V recessed chambers was as I have mentioned previously was a complete combustion chamber redesign (including piston dome shape) to create a swirl effect in the combustion chmaber.

The only problem MEL had with valve interference was in very early 1958 production as the heads had very large valves. MEL substituted 383 heads in production and service replacement.

Thanks KULTULZ, its good to get all the info out in the open to clear anything up. Like the site modo...most misunderstood engines! That makes it hard too. You can never know who knows the real story so I have been asking a lot of questions and the help has been great. So KULTULZ, you are saying there is no valve train problem with the 462? and I should not have one with the 430 heads? We can all agree there is an oiling problem, right? (Thats a later post though) Thanks again!

[KULTULZ]

Thanks KULTULZ, its good to get all the info out in the open to clear anything up. Like the site modo...most misunderstood engines! That makes it hard too. You can never know who knows the real story so I have been asking a lot of questions and the help has been great.

So KULTULZ, you are saying there is no valve train problem with the 462? and I should not have one with the 430 heads? We can all agree there is an oiling problem, right? (Thats a later post though) Thanks again!

Just to let you know, I am no expert either but began studying MEL some years ago as I could not find the correct answers and came across a whole bunch of wives tales also. I have gained/traded info with many others and collected and read a lot of technical info on the engine.

There will be a valvetrain problem(s) with any engine series when you go to modifying the engine. That is why there are assembly techniques to follow to keep you out of those situations. The MEL has the same basic oiling design as the FE, so modifying techniques are basically the same. And there are modifications to make whether the new valvetrain is going to be hydraulic or solid.

[buddy67lincoln]

I updated the carb pad post above with the intake port dimensions.

[KULTULZ]

1967 Lincoln Continental Intake Port:
* Width: 2.9 cm
* Height: 5.4 cm

1958 Super Marauder Intake Port:
* Width: 2.9 cm
* Height: 6.6 cm

Quite a bit of difference in height between the two. I am going to ask another question even though I am not doing this but am curious...What would I expect the 3x2 intake to do on the stock 462 heads? There would be a lot of wall pounding on the cylinder head. Not sure what would be the benefit for that. Also, why did Lincoln make them smaller? I just wanted to get some of these answers in one place if I can.

Significant difference. The intake would not work properly on the 462 heads.

The runners were reduced in size as the early MEL was considered a performance engine whereas the later LINC (61/68) was more of a production engine and the smaller runners are for more low end torque and fuel savings.

Thanx for those measurements. They are going to help a lot of people.

[buddy67lincoln]

Quite a bit of difference in height between the two. I am going to ask another question even though I am not doing this but am curious...What would I expect the 3x2 intake to do on the stock 462 heads? There would be a lot of wall pounding on the cylinder head. Not sure what would be the benefit for that. Also, why did Lincoln make them smaller? I just wanted to get some of these answers in one place if I can.

Significant difference. The intake would not work properly on the 462 heads.

The runners were reduced in size as the early MEL was considered a performance engine whereas the later LINC (61/68) was more of a production engine and the smaller runners are for more low end torque and fuel savings.

Thanx for those measurements. They are going to help a lot of people.

No problem. I will do my best to get the exhaust manifold off at least one side to get those measurements if anyone needs them. I think Werby wanted them. The parts car I have outside has one off already but its been snowing and sleeting so I cannot uncover it without getting it all wet. I will on the next nice day unless I get mine off the parts engine. I am buying some bare 1959 Lincoln 430 heads. Thanks a lot.

[WerbyFord]

John,
Thanks for the intake measurements.
Wondering if you ever got to measure the exhaust ports if it stopped sleeting outside?
(Last week it was 109 F here, no sleet.....)