Crazy idea....Chevy 353

The 307 is gonna go in a different vehicle when it comes out of my camaro

Knurled wrote: We can put LS valve covers on the Ford, nobody'd suspect a thing Hmm. I seem to recall an 8.2 deck SBC block from somewhere. The deck was actually lower than the bellhousing face, so you had to be careful when machining it so you didn't run the cutter into the flange. Just thinking out loud at 2:30am.

That block was a GM racing deal for the defunct pro stock truck class. I want to say that it took a custom bellhousing in the olds aurora pattern too....

iadr wrote: Poor understanding of what *works* on an internal combustion engine. All correct development works toward reducing the RPM point the engine makes power at. Anything else is pure folly. Build a 434

I would think you need to be around more "high strung" engines.. there is a reason that Hondas, Toyotas, BMWs, and Ferrari's make the power they do.. and it has nothing to do with making them low RPM "grunters"

Torque times speed equals horsepower. (or something like that) Build a long stroke engine, make boatloads of torque, spin it 2000 rpm less and produce the same horsepower while keeping your valves in their appropriate locations.

I know, I know, you want a high revving piece. I understand, but its still a bad idea unless you are restricted by rules.

Its still a couple years out so I'm still considering options. I'm either gonna go with a 353, a 377, or a 406. Something that uses a 400 block. But I won't go bigger than 427 cubes

Rob_Mopar wrote: How readily available are good used 400 cores? That's the only drawback I can see out of the gate.

There's one in SE Wisconsin. 2-bolt 400 block

Kind of pricey, though. I got a complete 4-bolt 400 for $200. Just had it cleaned and Magnafluxed. It's already been bored once, so I'm going to build a 413.

Streetwiseguy wrote: Torque times speed equals horsepower. (or something like that) Build a long stroke engine, make boatloads of torque, spin it 2000 rpm less and produce the same horsepower while keeping your valves in their appropriate locations. I know, I know, you want a high revving piece. I understand, but its still a bad idea unless you are restricted by rules.

Or traction. A low torque engine is easier to pedal, and if you want power with a low torque engine, you have to spin it right on up there.

Which is why I don't think I'll ever get on the LS train until there's a cheap 2" stroke crank available for them The 4.8 is still too big for my goals.

The 4.8 is kinda small for mine. Something 400 based will work nicely though.

I think you can put a 262 crank in a 400 block (I think you'd need bearing spacers) and make a 331. That little crank has only a 3.1 in stroke. Can you imagine the revs?

In reply to Appleseed: it'd be like a rotary with torque

Streetwiseguy wrote: Torque times speed equals horsepower. (or something like that) Build a long stroke engine, make boatloads of torque, spin it 2000 rpm less and produce the same horsepower while keeping your valves in their appropriate locations. I know, I know, you want a high revving piece. I understand, but its still a bad idea unless you are restricted by rules.

Build a big engine with lots of RPMs. Okay not Lots but 7000 rpm is what I like on SBCs in a mid size chassis. I could see less in a big ass heavy car, but in a normal chassis you build a normal size sbc or bigger and 7000 rpms doesnt really require anything exotic to keep it together and even if most of the power is up top the cubes still give you good enough mid range and bottom end, plus throw some short gears in the rear and boom problem solved.

I run a rather large cam in a 350, in fact much bigger than the internet would lead you to believe is usable for a dd without killing low end power and making it undriveable. It drives great and has stayed together for 80K miles and I actually prefer the power band now to when torque peaked aroudn 2500 rpm.

requires a valve train that can withstand the abuse, AND, be efficient as the rpms climb

So a little bit off topic, but any idea what a Butler 535 Pontiac short block goes for?

DCharger68, They show $4,895 for a 474 short block, you have to call for larger ones. Here is the site: http://www.butlerperformance.com/products/engines_assemblies/short_blocks.html

Back on topic, I would build the biggest engine I can afford, one that can turn the rpms you want. A 400 will turn plenty as long as you have a big port cylinder head and good rotating assembly. I have a 377 in my car and I kinda wish I had done it as a 400 or 408, just for a bit more torque.

Yeah, I want a 4.8 crank stuffed into a 6.0L block with long rods and a cam/sprngs that will allow an 8000rpm redline.

I forget the exact combination but using a 400 block and other stock chev parts we made a 302 for a drag car. Revved to the moon. The chevell it was in ran 10's all day long (this was back in the mid 80's)

I made a spreadsheet that I have some where that listed all the combination of cranks and blocks and bearing sizes that would interchange in the SBC line up. I also came up with a calculation that determined side loading and a couple other things to mathematically determine durability of the motor. In stock form the SBC 302 rated the best in the SBC line up. I have not applied it to the LSX series. It would be interesting. Before some one sais it Yes I understand there are other things that contribute to this. Like oiling. But it was a good starting point back in the day when building SBC motors

I asked that for a friend. But it got me thinking. My 77 Camaro is identical structurally as a 77 Firebird or Trans Am. It got me thinking about a Pontiac 455, which can be built for roughly the same price as a factory block 400 and hold about the same amount of power.

It's all been done before there are off the self parts for it all. No real point

You will pay more for the BOP stuff, at least that was the case in 07 when I had my 69 firebird.

Short stroke does not magically make and engine rev.

It allows it by reducing piston speed after changes to reduce valve float and other stuff are done.

dean1484 wrote: I forget the exact combination but using a 400 block and other stock chev parts we made a 302 for a drag car. Revved to the moon. The chevell it was in ran 10's all day long (this was back in the mid 80's)

I'm not sure how you did that with stock parts, the shortest stroke stock crank is 3.00", with a 4" bore you get a 302, with a 4.125"(400) bore you get a 321. Unless you had a 3" crank with a very heavy ecentric grind (like .250" stroke reduction) and used some non SBC application bearings and rods.

44Dwarf wrote: It's all been done before there are off the self parts for it all. No real point

I want something that's not common, but not so uncommon I can't get parts easily if something wears out or breaks. And I've never seen a camaro with a Pontiac engine.

Actually there is a point to weird, small displacement engines; Bonneville.

A lot of good things have happened because of Bonneville

Chevy swaps into F-bodies are the only BOP removal options I approve of. The Pontiac engine is a very poor fit in that chassis. Access to anything sucks. Especially with a 4-speed, because the starter is on the left side where the Z-bar lives and the exhaust can't really be routed around it because the frame is in the way and the exhaust ports point DOWN.