I think they will. We are only talking about .050" of difference between the 428 4.130 (std. bore) and the 427's 4.23" bore. Notching the top of the 428 is far less risky than doing a 427...
Remember we're only talking say .050 chamfer off the top corner. However I would keep the lift to .500.
I know the 2.09" valves that come standard on the e-brock heads will work on the 390's 4.05" bore, add the extra .050" valve radius (half of .100) and they would easily work on a .030 over 428 (4.16)... I wouldn't take the block .030 over just to fit the heads, but it would work.
The question is do you really want 2.19" intake valves??? Valve shrowding aside, how will the car be used? If the answer is in WOT conditions above 6,000 rpm the answer is sure do it. Holman and Moody used 2.19" intake valves as a starting point, as do most modern big block's.
If the answer is, because I can... Sure do it... But if the answers to 1-2 are no, I suggest not doing it.
There is a penalty to be paid on the low end for running too much intake valve. Bigger isn't always better. Sometimes it's just cool to say you have them. Of course you are wasting your money if you don't run enough cam to use the flow capabilities of your new heads... What about compression... 2.19" intake valves and 280 degrees of duration scream for 11.8:1 compression and a pair of 660 mechanical secondary Holley's... That is a slippery slope.
Believe me. It's like having kids. You love them for what they are... I love my 4.25" intake valves, 282 degree duration (at .050) cam and 11.8:1 compression and a pair of 660 Holley's. That is until you fill it up with 103 octane fuel a few times because it diesels when you shut it off running 91 octane "premium" (all we can get here in California).
I do love that it sounds like I'm about to light the candle on a top fuel car when I fire it up. I especially love setting off car alarms ilding down the street... Would I do it again... You bet
Hybrid Mode
