# 390 to 428 conversion (Ford) **URL:** \ **Category:** General Discussion\ **Created:** [July 14, 2014, 3:51am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/390-to-428-conversion-ford/85997 "2014-07-14T03:51:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![db4690](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/db4690/32/2583_2.png) [@db4690](https://community.cartalk.com/u/db4690)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/390-to-428-conversion-ford/85997/21 "2014-07-26T20:15:22Z")
I like the idea of the Triton motor . . . if you can get it to work in your application However, the Triton is all aluminum. As such there would be far less weight in the front I’m not sure if this would affect handling in any way ---
**Author:** ![kmccune](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/kmccune/32/1237_2.png) [@kmccune](https://community.cartalk.com/u/kmccune)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 4:52am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/390-to-428-conversion-ford/85997/22 "2014-07-27T04:52:50Z")
Probaly handle better-Kevin ---
**Author:** ![oldbodyman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbce88/32.png) [@oldbodyman](https://community.cartalk.com/u/oldbodyman)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 5:02am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/390-to-428-conversion-ford/85997/23 "2014-07-27T05:02:16Z")
My Dad had a 72 F150. We put a 351 Winsor from a LTD. We used the trans from the LTD. I had to have drive shaft made for it. Duel exhaust was put on too. It ran great, was fast and the gas mileage was good to. You can make some good HP with the 351. Lots of parts for them at good prices. ---
**Author:** ![db4690](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/db4690/32/2583_2.png) [@db4690](https://community.cartalk.com/u/db4690)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 5:32am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/390-to-428-conversion-ford/85997/24 "2014-07-27T05:32:08Z")
As for the handling . . . I was thinking perhaps with less weight in the front, the tires would have slightly less grip In any case, I think we can agree the weight distribution would be altered versus stock ---
**Author:** ![sgtrock21](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/sgtrock21/32/246_2.png) [@sgtrock21](https://community.cartalk.com/u/sgtrock21)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 7:46am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/390-to-428-conversion-ford/85997/25 "2014-07-27T07:46:27Z")
Since pickups are inherently nose heavy I would guess less engine weight would definitely improve empty bed handling. ---
**Author:** ![db4690](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/db4690/32/2583_2.png) [@db4690](https://community.cartalk.com/u/db4690)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 8:15am UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/390-to-428-conversion-ford/85997/26 "2014-07-27T08:15:25Z")
@sgtrock21‌ I like your theory It would be curious to find out if any of our regulars have put a lighter and more modern engine in their old trucks and experienced improved empty bed handling Considering that many guys drive their pickups with an empty bed, it could be a win-win situation Many of our fleet trucks have aluminum engines under the hood. Perhaps improved handling was a concern when these vehicles were designed . . . ---
**Author:** ![kmccune](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/kmccune/32/1237_2.png) [@kmccune](https://community.cartalk.com/u/kmccune)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 4:46pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/390-to-428-conversion-ford/85997/27 "2014-07-27T16:46:24Z")
seemed that the old 60 modek ford we had handled and went better with the 223 3 spd,vs the 292 Y block Auto trans-so I think the lighter engine is a plus-Kevin ---
**Author:** ![jtsanders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c2a13f/32.png) [@jtsanders](https://community.cartalk.com/u/jtsanders)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 5:26pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/390-to-428-conversion-ford/85997/28 "2014-07-27T17:26:06Z")
I’m sure handling was considered, but the primary reason for the aluminum engines is to get better fuel mileage by saving weight. The spec they used probably said to provide handling that was at a least as good as with the old engine. Any improvements would be welcome, of course, as long as it didn’t cost too much. ---
**Author:** ![db4690](https://sea1.discourse-cdn.com/cartalk/user_avatar/community.cartalk.com/db4690/32/2583_2.png) [@db4690](https://community.cartalk.com/u/db4690)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://community.cartalk.com/t/390-to-428-conversion-ford/85997/29 "2014-07-27T20:59:14Z")
I’m sure you’ve all seen a vehicle with the engine removed Well, the front end sits higher, because there’s less weight on the front suspension, and the front springs are compressed less That was where I got my idea that a lighter aluminum engine in a truck that was designed with a big cast iron beast might result in worse handling And yes, I’m aware that fuel economy is always the primary reason for lightweight components. Surely the cots of producing all aluminum engines is quite low nowadays, since that has become the norm. At least in cars and light duty trucks [Previous page](https://community.cartalk.com/t/390-to-428-conversion-ford/85997.md?page=1)