SBC 400 Block + 327 Crankshaft Dyno The 350 Chevy Should Have Built (2016)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 вер 2024
- This crate engine, built in 2016, and similar on Hot Rod Magazine's 1997 article, "the 350 engine that Chevrolet should have built" article, combines a 327 crankshaft with a 400 block. We used 6.250" connecting rods, in place of the article's prescribed Ford 300 L6 6.209" connecting rods. We also used slightly modified Vortec heads. Visit www.ceperformance.ca.
This "destroked" SBC Hot Rod Magazine summary can be found here, mating a SBC 400 block with a 327 or 305 SBC (3.25" stroke) crankshaft: purplesagetradi...
Our 354 cu.in. engine:
- repurposed 400 SBC Dart block
- 3.25" stroke 327 steel crankshaft
- 6.250" Scat H-beam connecting rods
- 4.165" SRP forged pistons w/ 1.125" compression height
- 10.8:1 compression ratio
- 4/7 swap; mild 218/224 @duration .050 solid roller cam
- Edelbrock RPM Air-Gap intake manifold
- stock cast vortec heads with upgraded rocker studs
- running on 87 octane pump gas
- mated (when road tested in a 1964 Oldsmobile F-85) to Tremec TKO 5 spd transmission: • 327 Crankshaft + 400 B...
Producing:
- 435 hp
- 440 lbs ft
- giddy up!
www.ceperformance.ca
A huge thank you Jim Richmond of Richmond Engines! ~ the video capture/creator guy.
Shot on a iPhone 4, after the cold killed our primary camera's battery. Ha!
Road test 1: • SBC 327 Crank + 400 Bl...
Road test 2: • 327 Crankshaft + 400 B...
#283 #302 #327 #350 #377 #383 #400 #sbc
mopar guy here, chevy has made two engines that impressed the hell out of me,1---- 292 6 cylinder,marvelous engine,and then the best high winder--- 2--- the 327 something magic about that stroke of 3.25,that 327 put ME in the 12's in a shoebox 55 chevy every weekend,see mopar guys like all AMERICAN IRON
Hey thanks for commenting! Sounds like fun :)
the 302 was a whip too
@@stevenbean9706 ,
They were 301s back in the old days, 4.00 inch bore and a 3.00 inch stroke.
@@BobbyTucker no, that's a 302 Z28 engine, a 327 block with a 283 crankshaft. 301 was a Pontiac emissions engine.
@@michaels.ramsey7803 half right half wrong, we did call the 283 bored to 4 in a 301 in the old days, you had to search really hard for a block that would take the bore though. i'm sure im not the only one remembers that.
I built a dirt track motor that got us kicked out the class for dominance. It was a dart 400 block custom Bryant 2 1/8th stoke crank 6.50 rods and a 4.125 pistons made a high winding little motor would hit 10 k rpm before we knew it. An little 317 cu motor was a monster. But was with in the rules. So they kicked us off the class the smallest motor in the class
Wow that’s something else! I’d love to have heard that wound out!
Wow. I used to do cup car engine development - so I know a thing or two about valvetrain kinematics. Getting the valvetrain of an OHV engine to handle 10k is no small feat. How'd you do it on a dirt track budget?
@@GroovesAndLands All kinds of non-dirt track budget, high dollar valvetrain gear!! LOL or he's lying! One of the two. ;)
If it was all within the rules, how do you get kicked? I'd call BS!
Awesome build,
Back in the day, the original article so impressed me that I made a copy for my SBC performance files.
The link for the article is in the video description now.
I remember reading the article “The 350 Chevy should have build” in HotRod back in 1996. 400 block, 327 crank, with 300 i6 Ford rods (machines to fit, pistons with raised wrist pins for the length to work), 11:1, good heads, etc. Similar results… over 400hp and torque on 87 oct with a mild cam.
Great article. It definitely inspired this build of ours. We made a few changes from what they did. It’s a great engine! Thanks for commenting.
That article is still on Google. I can't link to it because idiot YT auto deletes posts containing off YT links.
@@ceperformanceI remember that they used 305 heads because of their small combustion chamber at 58cc. Great if 2.02/1.60 valves will fit. Cam was from ZZII or ZZIII 350 package
@@ThePaulv12I'd love to find it. I no longer have the issue its from 😢
Guys, we put a link in the video notes that goes right to the article of “The 350 GM should have made” . Go find it there!
I've always loved short stroke motors like the Chevy 283, 327 and the Ford 289s that turn 9 grand in super stock. Also loved the way Glidden took the Ford 351 Cleveland destroked it to a 330 and cleaned house with for years, you just can't beat a properly built short stroke big bore motor.
That’s awesome. Thanks for commenting!
Glidden had good heads.
@@doomman700 yes he did the Cleveland 4v heads are awesome. He was a mechanic way ahead of his time.
@@davescbradiorepair8195,
Bob Glidden was way ahead of his time but, you have to remember one thing, he was a mechanic with "Clean hands".
The 302 Boss engine was also a great little high rpm engine that made some serious horsepower right from the factory, and they lied like hell about the advertised horsepower of that particular engine
In the 80s into early 90s I built several sb 400s with the 350 crankshaft, badass builds , made alot, alot of money on the streets with this combo
Hey, thanks for commenting :)
Wonder engine! We did a 377sbc for sand drags and it performed WONDERFULLY!
That was a 372 bored .030, they did run like heck.
Own a 350 Camaro '67 model and have for 49 years! Been well satisfied, but wish Chevy engineers would have done it this way!
Lol....love it!!! 350 torque and screams like a 327.....best if both worlds!! We put didge 318 rods (6" ish iirc) in a 350 in high school. The small ends were the same size and we had the engine builders resize the big end to accomodate the stock 350 crank. We turned the tops of the stock low compression smogger dished pistons to clear deck height. That sib was near indestructable.....except if course it would float valves at 7k rpm and bend push rods often.....but it was a very budget build. It woulda been a great motor for off roading cuz you could rev it to the moon.
Awesome. Thanks for commenting!
TO THE GUYS AT C F PERFORMANCE IT IS NICE TO SEE YOU PEOPLE KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AND HAVE SOME GREAT COMBINATIONS KEEP UP THAT GOOD WORK
Thanks you for that! We appreciate your comments :)
I THINK UR CAPS LOCK IS ON HOSS
@@jimmymeister8030 you were right thanks
No matter what combination of parts you put together Chevy always comes thru with power. I've had many different size Chevy engines over the years and the one's I liked the best were the one's using the 400 block.
Hi ps3613t! Great comment, thank you. We love 400 blocks at CE Performance. Best regards.
I regret never building my 400 blocked 377 for my 79 Malibu.. Had a set of older aluminum gm hp heads for it.
@@terrypikaart4394 Hi Terry! Thank you for writing. It's never too late to build that cool combo. Our build combination was a customer's idea long ago ... and then the right block came along and here we are, making the idea happen, and we're proud of it. If you're able to, revisit the engine idea you always wanted to build! We strongly encourage it if you're able to. Best regards.
My small bore 305 sure runs smooth, not a powerhouse but runs like a top. My 350 made more power but was a bit rougher (IMO).
Yes I love the Chevy 400 blocks with a 327 crank just like the Ford 351 Cleveland destroked a 330 like Glidden ran.
Chevy did make this bore/stroke combination, just not as a small block. It was the 348 W, the big block predecessor to the 409.
Yes, and it was a badass engine. Heavy, but tough as nails. My granddad bought an old taxi cab with a 348 and modified it in every way he could think of. He put it in his jacked up 55 Chevy 2dr post with a solid front axle and tilt up fiberglass front cap. The car was scary fast and the joy of my childhood. Lots of fun memories
@@edjackson4389 With STUPID pistons & no combustion chambers in the head, very similar to the FMC M.E.L. engine. NASCAR builders proved one doesn't need any more combustion chamber than is necessary for the valves. 348/409s were just an average motor, nothing exceptional. Big Block & Small Block Chevies both destroy W engines when it comes to performance
@@bradgriffith4231 They looked cool and got the job done my friend . In 1976 everything you just mentioned was irrelevant to an old man just tooling around in his garage building something fun and spending time with his grandchildren. Thanks for the negativity though. The 348 came in a 360 hp version bone stock in 1958. That was plenty enough to be fun
In the mid 80's I built one of these strokers for a street stock class I was running using a 400cid 4bolt block, a 327 Large Journal Forged Steel Crankshaft w/ 2.02 1.6 54cc Camel Back Heads, Pink rods.....at the time Arais made a forged flat top piston for the application, turns out on paper using stock dimensions it was a 348ci displacement......Powerful Little Mouse of a motor that would run a 350ci into the ground!
Hi iron! Sounds fantastic! Thanks for sharing that bit of your history!
Dirt track secret😉
My brother would flip the pistons upside down and outrun everyone of the other motors with the same dimensions.
I worked for arias racing pistons when they shut down 🫤 best job I ever had. We would machine any dimension piston that anyone wanted! Miss that place so much!
Destroked
I built 348's for dirt late models . Spools FAST ! 635HP 8400 rpm . 6 track championships . Killer engine !
I'd like to build something like that, that 635hp would allow me to keep up with the stroker engines in the hobbystock class that their not supposed to be running, and still be within the cubic inch requirements!!
@@jeremyhood5206 Yeah, guys out on our track even running 414 , 421's lol The little mouse still spanked them. 355 Ci rule, they say only 4 bore blocks, but I never seen a head pulled, the always whistle test a hole or two. Back in the day building mills for hobby stock, 350 bore rule, we would put SBC 4.125 pistons in 7 & 8 😀 They never tested them, they didn't like struggling to get back there. We made sure stuff was in way to make it hard to get at ! muah hahu😈
@BrainDeadEngineering
That’s awesome!
Nice build. Did a similar build in 1991 using a factory 2 bolt gm block. I was stuck with the Ford rod due to budget constraints. About the most trick thing in the engine was the Pistons from a local MFG in Long beach CA. I do not remember the name of the MFG but it started with a V and set me back over 300$ 1991 dollars. And a set of bowtie Phase 1 iron heads home ported. It was a awesome combo with a solid tappet Isky z35 cam (also locally MFG in Torrance CA) Many friends / racers Questioned the 350-claim due to the 400-block missing freeze plug. Never raced it on 87 fuel but drove it to work many days with 87 in the tank. Nice to see a modern version built without the Weak 300 rod. I never broke one due to rod failure mostly due to the rpm limits of the Z35 cam as it was all done before 6500 rpm. I never had mine on a engine dyno but at sea level (brotherhood raceway in long beach) it was very constant 10.70 in a 3200 lb car (72 vega). I guess it was in the 450- 500 hp range on pump gas.
Venolia Pistons ?? Does that sound familiar ?? 🤔
@waylonmccrae3546
Sorry it doesn’t.
Back in the 80's my uncle in Merritt BC had an old school 348 in his 56 Chevy 1/2 ton. We hauled 100's of loads of bedrock with blocks between the rear end & the frame. It worked great, and I always thought about building a SBC version of it. I DO have a 509 block & a large journal 327 CAST crank that I could use. It would get used in my 61 C10 that would see alot of towing up to 12,000 lbs GVW truck & trailer weight up to 9% grades here in the Kootenays
Fun memories I’ll bet! Thanks for commenting :)
Hey buddy.
Just found your channel...
Subscribed!
Happily!
Will be popping out to visit..
Looking forward to seeing more videos.
@joedulewich3207
Thank you! Come on down for a visit.
I believe the BB W 348 had a Bore/Stroke comb like this ! Pretty torquey , used in 2-5 ton trucks !
409 had huge bore and short stroke…….My favorite Bow tie !
you are right. i was going to write that but you beat me to it.the W blocks.4.125" bore, 3.25" stroke 348. i can't remember the 409 specs, but i know it had a very large bore.
@@dougburg3210 the 409 was 4.313 bore x 3.50 stroke
The biggest problem with 348s & 409s is the same as the Ford MEL engine of the late 50s. The combustion chamber was a goofy shaped piston with a big angle on it for the chamber & requiring the rings to be extremely far away from the top on the long side, instead of being in the head. John Kaase took a MEL & made a very thick aluminum "head gasket" that lengthened the intake runners & allowed for a combustion chamber at the UNOH Engine Masters Challenge & destroyed the competition in the "vintage" class. ua-cam.com/video/c-Tq8dLdM50/v-deo.html
The 348 came with a standard bore of 4.125˝ and stroke of 3.25˝. Its big brother, the 409, came with the stock bore size of 4.3125˝ and stroke of 3.50˝.
Right heads and 1.75 rod ratio makes good torque. The piston hangs at tdc longer so it gives more time to push on the piston than shorter rod ratios.
Ford 429 was very similar, though a well built 390 would eat it alive in torque and fuel economy...
This exact combo was tried decades ago and written about in one of the major Hi Perf magazines, with similar results. Also a 350 with 1/8" stroker (370 ci) also does well built with Smokey Yunick specs; his Smokey Ram manifold, too. Streetable 500 HP single 4 bbl.
Bigger bore & shorter stroke to attain the displacement goal has always been the path to the most torque & horsepower. Ford, Dodge, & Chevy all used a 3 3/4" stroke with a big bore in their 427s & the Dodge 426 Wedge & Hemriod. Short stroke reduces the "piston speed" thus reducing parasitic loss & the bigger bore unshrouds the valves for better cylinder filling & also allows for bigger valves. Manufacturers went to smaller bore & longer stroke in the 70s SMOG motors because the smaller bore reduced emissions, but it also killed performance.
@@bradgriffith4231 Not arguing your points, but many times the shorter stroke is used for higher rpms which gives you that power. More recently in a quest for a balance of power and fuel mileage, longer stroke puts the power lower generally and with better after market products produce more power and still better cruising RPM. Hence a few big blocks have a bad rap for not handling higher RPM's from stroke length (454 comes to mind) while the newer gen and if built right can handle the rpms no issue. But to be fair, the LS 60.l has a short stroke a 3.6" with a 4" bore.... Kinda sounds familiar
@@Nowayjose-z2r Stroke has nothing to do with RPM. My buddy turned his 555 BBc 7,500 & would have gone higher but his 284* @ 0.050" cam was the limiter. He is now building a 4" stroke, 440" small block Olds & will turn it 8,500. RPM is only limited by the size of one's bank account!
NASCAR engine builders have been building a similar spec engine for 30 years or more. Current NHRA Pro Stock engines are 4.700" bore & 3.600" stroke! Reher & Morrison says to "use the biggest bore the architecture will allow, whatever stroke is needed to attain the desired displacement & whatever length rod needed to connect the pistons".
I totally agree :)
This is a common street stock engine build in areas with NASCAR tracks. Most have a 360C.I. limit and this combo goes thru tech with an engine pump. Gives an advantage with the big bore for cylinder head flow. Spacers or spacer bearings make this doable.
Hi Performance Engines! We had the benefit of utilizing a Dart SBC 400 block that had seen a few rebuilds; the block had 2.45" mains, and we had a steel 3.25" stroke crankshaft on the shelf-perfect for this application. Thank you for your comments! Best regards!
In 68 or early 69 when they made the 327 to 350 transition they put some large journal 327's in trucks. With those crankshafts you don't need the spacer. I believe they were forged. People were putting them in 350's and getting a 331
That’s true. The only reason it would become a 331 is because the block was bored .030” over. The 327 and 350 both start life with 4” bores.
Working in a machine shop I've built many sbc strokers, including the 348 stroker described in the title, they would run the socks off the majority of the 372s and 383s.
That sounds good ! Have a balanced 68 327 all forged factory rotating assembly 11-1 compression, block froze, 12,000 miles on stock bore. Trying to decide 350 or 400 block, have alum. & hump heads built for 327. Also Summit racing have splayed german steel blocks 350 or 400. Don't know what heads their 400 will use, Steam ports or not. What would you do with my ex. cond. assembly ? Thanks Sensible budget or just not even bother. Thanks I trust your thoughts !
@rader1175
Thanks for sharing! Since you have a 1968, I’d assume it was a large journal so with the spacer bearings you could put that crank into a 400 block of your choice. Steam ports are not that important in my opinion. Bringing the coolant from the back of the intake manifold to the thermostat housing is a great way to help keep it cool. We’ve also drilled and tapped small 1/4” fittings and hoses into the top of the block deck on both sides and run hoses into the water pump body. Helps with heat as well.
Very cool, still have a copy of the magazine. Always wanted to build one for my Z28. Never took the time and eventually sold the car. Awesome to actually see and hear one run. Thanks
Thank you very much :)
I built one in the 70s or my 1967 chevelle using a 400 bock and a 327 crank with stock small journal rods it had 292 heads and 12.0 compression with a big general kenitics cam it was a hoss and would really rpm
Wasn't it 194 heads? Camel hump angle plug?
Excellent build, love that it's on 87, and here I was all happy i'm making big power on 89 octane with 10.7 to 1 with aluminum heads.
Thank you for commenting :)
These long rod, short stroke combos work great for that.
I'm curious what it would do on 85 Octane.
Probably quite similar but might need to run a few degrees less timing.
There's just so many different options that a person with a mind to can put to a small block 400. I love these little units. I'm gonna be building one for my 67 Chevy II
Awesome! I love the ‘67 :)
Thanks for commenting.
In the spring of 1970, my uncle built a 327 motor. It had pop up pistons, the camel back heads, a std. cam., a Quadroject carb. It was out of a '66 'vette. It made 350 horses. What an engine.
We put it in my '55-210. I really was able to haul posterior.
Great memories I bet! Thanks for commenting :)
@@ceperformance For sure !!!
Growing up my buddies dad owned a junkyard and he talked about this combo all the time!👍
Thank you for commenting!!
It's actually not magacial, unless you are restricted in cubic inches to fit into a racing class, even then the engine with the best heads wins (regardless of bore & stroke). The larger bore does allow for a larger intake valve and better breathing with any valve size.
A better JY combo would be using a 400 with an offset ground/stroked crank using the 327 2.0" rod journals. Build them as big as you can to make power !!
That’s was a great video . As an owner of 2 german v8 cars (a 2000 m5 with very complicated engine design- a 5.0L quad cam , quad variable valve timing , 8 throttle bodies and a lateral g activated oiling system ) this old American v8 , simplistic in design but very robust and easy to work on made more power and torque than my m5 (which has 400hp and 370Lb/ft which ain’t bad for only 348Lb including accessories). After a complete rebuild of that , I find myself more interested in the classic American v8 engines - lol.
Cool! Thanks for sharing :)
Awesome 😎 Sir..... I love the SBC.... I have had fun experimenting with them over the years...My machinist passed and I haven't found another.. I think I just need to apply what he taught me...We use to trade labors with each other...And actually just do what he taught...So it want waste... Thanks for sharing the information....and Video content 😎 truly awesome stuff.... Nothing like a Nova and SBC on the Street.... like a fast boat on the water the way they set back on the tire's and hook up to a 7.00 second in the eighth... Before cutting on her.
Good stuff! Thanks for commenting. Now go use what you have learned from your old friend and build something unique :)
I remember building a 331 cu. In for a 1/4 mile s10 second generation that ran 7.20s twin turbo those combinations work very well it's a great feeling when you can put your own number together besides Chevy's Ford dodge etc. your considered a master anyone can put a motor together making where it stays together separates the men from the boys a 377 is a bad boy too!
My brother lucked into a 79 Z-28 with a 1973-sb400 4.125 bore. To a 406 stroker. I FORGET THE SPECIFICS! Stroker kit/Crank custom length rods, Amber lightweight pistons, 11/1 compression.big cam roller-rockers, aluminum heads, Holley 750 double pumper w/manual secondaries, th400 w/new valve body, shift kit, 3 or 3,500 stall, 373 gears. It was a 1/8th mile car & put u in your seat!!!!
Cool stuff :)
A 406 is a 400 bored .30 over no stoke change.
We did one like this too, 4.155x 3.25 for 352ci but we used the 5.5 rods and put a B&M blower on it. The compression ratio was like 8.1;1 or something. It'd idle in summer traffic right on the thermostat at 160 all day, then make 640 hp when you stomped on it. Such a fun little engine.
Have a similar build in my wife's 5 speed Chevy Vega 4.155 bore, 3.250, Scat 6.200 rod,JE pistons,aluminum heads,solid roller cam,runs great on 87 octane
Sounds great! Would you share the camshaft specs? Do you know the power numbers?
Thanks for commenting :)
Don't know power #'s,the cam is .580 lift w/244 duration and gets her to Wallyworld Pdq,😊
That’s sweet! I’ve been looking for a Vega for my 15 year old son. Not much out there anymore.
What pistons did you use with a 6.2" rod? Compression height and for what rod size? I looked up the 1.125 Compression height pistons for a 6.25 rod in summit and showed no results. I have some good 6.2 rods, good .040 400 block and a 327 crank to use.
On ours we used 6.25” rods and 1.125” SRP pistons.
With a 6.2” rod you could use the same with decking the block down below 9” which is fine. Better if you find a 1.130” piston which shouldn’t be a problem.
Thanks for commenting :)
Very impressive, i always wondered about this combination as i have built a couple 327s and loved the way they make power! Bigger bore,short stroke,impressive results! Would be a great street engine! Thanks for sharing!
Would like to see more about the build.
Hey, thanks for commenting! Here’s another one of our odd ball builds…
SBC 283 Crankshaft + 400 Block = 500+ HP (Dyno Test 1 of 2)
ua-cam.com/video/dBjdYC5sMjs/v-deo.html
I have a 400 block .030 with a 3.25 stroke crank in my truck. It's a great running engine.
That’s awesome! Is it a build you’ve done yourself?
What heads do you have on it?
Thanks for commenting!
Yes, I built it myself. It's a 400 block .030 with a large journal 327 crank. Oliver 6.25 connecting rods, wiseco pistons and ARP head and main studs. Compression is 10.5 , cam has 5.51 lift and 244 degrees at .050. My heads are pro top line 235 intake 23 degree.
@@leonardbarrett1977
That sounds like a sweet combo! Must make huge power. Have you dyno’d it? I bet it loves that camshaft. What’s the LSA at?
@@ceperformance The lobe center is at 110 degrees. I am running a comp cams 292h flat tappet
with 1.65 rocker arms. The lift is.551, the decimal was in the wrong place on my last comment
After five years it still runs great, it's my daily driver.
@@leonardbarrett1977
Thanks for your reply! Sounds like a fun daily driver!
Nice build! I love to see something a little different. I have vortec’s on my 350. That small port makes for a very responsive engine on the street with nice torque.
Hey thanks for commenting! I appreciate it :)
Ya the Vortec heads work very well.
No problem. That’s a nice build you got there. If you don’t mind me asking. Do you have anything special done to the vortec heads? Mine are stock just cleaned the ports up a little and added Ls6 springs.
@@thabiznizz
I don’t mind! These heads have been ported by hand and angle milled .100” in order to Jack up the compression. If I recall correctly this had 10.8 or so compression.
@@ceperformance Thanks
In the mid 70’s I had a .030 over bore 327 with a Duntov cam, 2.02 heads, headers, and a 650 Ho
llll
Not a SBC But....My Dad and I were into Oldsmobiles when I was in High School, Late 80's. He had a '68 442 (look up the terrible bore/stroke on that thing). I had a '68 Cutlass S, factory 4 speed/350 4 barrel. The 350 Olds has a slightly shorter stroke and slightly bigger bore than a 350 Chevy. I worked at a machine shop in HS so I built a 403 Olds (same stroke as 330/350 Olds, but with a huge bore (standard bore 4.351!). The one I built was .040 over so bore 4.391! Those pistons were huge! Put the 350 heads on it (had to drill out head bolt holes, the 403's have bigger head bolts, and put in the biggest valves we could. Ran low 13's at 106 mph all day on 235/70R14 street tires. Even missed third gear (went into first gear!) a couple times and didn't hurt it. Valves would float at around 6400, so that was the redline. I beat the piss out of that thing, Best engine I ever built. Also built a couple 455 Olds, the worst engines I ever built!
Cool stuff! Great memories I bet :)
Gotta love that air gap intake… very impressive build fellas. I’d still probably run 93 or higher fuel in the car with the added engine bay temperature when it’s in the car. Y’all got a tunnel ram you could try out on it? Probably gain another 35-40 horsepower and look very nice doing it 😎
Hi brandon mash! Thank you for the comments! Agreed! Best regards.
Higher octane makes zero difference in power output if the motor will run on lower octane gas. Enginemasters tested 87, 91, 93, 100, 115 octane gas, & E85. The different octane rated gas all made pretty much the same TQ & HP & required the same carb jetting & ignition timing. Only the E85 made noticeably more power, but also required an increase in carb jetting & timing. My 409" SBC doesn't tolerate any more timing or run a any better on 91 octane than on 87.
Good point. But… with the higher octane then more timing is usable and therefore more potential power.
Yes, most engines are knock (octane) limited and will benefit from more timing and octane until Mean Best Torque is obtained.
@@ceperformancein the test he was referring to, they did do a timing sweep in the dyno pulls and all made the same peak HP with the same timing. What you are saying probably be true in a high compression engine where you dial back the timing to run on lower octane gas. Their test was to show that if and engine runs fine on 87, increasing octane doesn’t make more power as many people mistakenly believe.
I used to help out some small oval track racers up in Maine and I can remember in the 90s guys started building 305 blocks with I believe a 400 crank and 350 rods and 0.30" over 350 pistons. It's been years but no matter it came out to 348 ci and wound for days. They tolerated it at the short tracks for the first season, lol.
Hi Austin! That's an interesting engine combination! We've seen brilliant results using a larger bore, however. If your engine combo worked for you and your team, awesome! The point is to build something (hopefully learning a thing or two in the process), put it in something, and drive the thing! Best regards!
@@ceperformance yeah we weren't running that engine, (different class) or I would probably know more about it. I just seen a few run and it was a potent little small block.
Interesting. Thanks for commenting!
A 301 is similar (125 over 283) just a little smaller but usually cheaper to build. With the right heads, pistons and cam and a tunnel ram, if the compression is close to 12 to 1 you can get very close to 2 hp per cubic inch near 10,000 rpm. WHOLE LOTTA guys ran similar set ups in the late 60's and all through the 70's. Now we have E85 so the compression isn't an issue but a 10,000 rpm engine in front of an expensive 12 inch clutch and a 5 speed that will take over 500 hp and 6500 rpm clutch dumps and a Dana 60 with 5.13's isn't all that practical.
Well put! Thanks for commenting.
always wondered why some people wanted 283's 0.125 is a lot of material why not just 4.0" block with 3.0" stroke ?
@@eflanagan1921 Good question, perhaps because they were "Doing" the 283 into a 301 prior to the 4" bore block becoming widely available. The 327 with the 4" bore was released in '62.
Even after that, they were very expensive to source for a while. 283 inch motors were everywhere and my 301" kit was from Richard Bowman's Speed-O-Motive shop on the Slauson Cut-off in SoCal.
where are you going to find a 283 block anymore.......
@@yurimodin7333 i can get you one.
This is awesome to see! I for year have wondered about “destroking” a small block chevy. My idea was a 350 base with a shorter stoke. Get the revs up! Keep at it!
Thank you!!
gm did that in the late sixties with their 327. they used a 283 crank and made the chevy 302.
That’s right. Great little engine!
Hot rodders were doing that 60 something years ago with the 283 before the 327 came along,the 301 or as Chevy later called it,the 302.
@@krazi77 Ford did the same thing as well. They took the 289 which already had a bore of 4" and stroked it to 3". The high performance Boss 302 was rated the same as the Z28 Camaro at 290 horsepower. Those engines were high RPM screamers not low end torque monsters.
I love this kind of off the wall stuff, cool build! No need to worry about crankshaft/rod clearance in this block! lol
Nope! It has all kind of room. Thanks for checking it out!
I’m going to put together a 377 for a 1980 Malibu Classic that was my late mother’s car. 400 was my favorite engine. The volumetric efficiency of the 377 is pretty unreal.
Right on! Keep that in the family :)
Thanks for sharing.
Saw the A/F-ratios it ran on the dyno, and thought "What if a modern fuel system were applied to it, with a knock-sensing ESTC (Electronic Spark Timing Control) ignition system?" Then I thought "What if it ran a Flex-Fuel management system, on E85, with a bypass-valve blower atop it? After-all: Boost & ethanol blend well!" ;)
By "modern fuel system", your talking about FI. Modern port injection FI & spark management will never make the power of a carb. NHRA Pro Stock proves this because until Erika set a new ET record at Gainesville last year with Altitude Air Density of 1,400 feet BELOW sea level, Pro Stocks couldn't get within 1/10 second of the old carb record. She still didn't get close to the carb MPH record which is the most accurate indicator of HP & nobody has gotten close to the ET record since with normal conditions. First, the intake air is warmer & less dense with port injection & second, the timing control would pull timing with the slightest indication of "knock". Both hurt power output. The owner of "The Fuel Injection University" tunes the Elite Motorsports Pro Stock cars & several of the 7 second factory shootout cars. In private conversation with a friend of mine, he stated that FI doesn't do anything better than a carb. NASCAR proves this to be so because they've reduced the RPM by 2,000 & the HP by 250 at short tracks & 450 on 1.5 mile & longer tracks, made the cars more aero, & they still get the same MPG. FI is for people who don't know how to tune a carb & ignition curve. My own experience bares this out. I have an 89 Chevy C1500 NASCAR look pickup running a 409" SBC with a 750 Holley Street HP double pumper that's run 150 MPH on a Garmin GPS. I also have a stock '04 Tahoe, except for a regular gas tune, AirRaid intake tube & magnaflow muffler. My hotrod gets better fuel economy & will smoke the electronic controlled Tahoe in a drag or top end race.
Sounds like you just invented the LS?!
We used to drag race one in the late 90s early 2000s. Probably was the most powerful 327 with stock double hump heads at the time.
Good times I’ll bet!!
Brilliant, this would drag any old car around for fun. Really impressed with the torque if I'm honest, still loads of torque for such a short stroke. 10/10 for end results.
Hi Jim! Thanks for commenting! You're right! Here's us road testing this SBC before the engine went to our customer. It was a lot of fun!: ua-cam.com/video/SapdPR_SgMQ/v-deo.html
Stroke has nothing to do with torque. If you take 2 engines of equal displacement with the same comp, heads & cam, the big bore / short stroke motor will ALWAYS make more TQ & HP throughout the entire RPM range, because the short stroke reduces "piston speed" / paracitic loss to friction & the big bore increase airflow by unshrouding the intake valve & also allows for bigger valves
@@bradgriffith4231 Stroke increases torque by increasing piston / rod speed in the same size bore, it also has the effect of moving the torque lower down the rev range.
More piston speed = more torque low down.
Less piston speed means torque higher up and much more hp potential at higer rpm.
Yes, a good builder can extract the same kind of numbers with short stroke as this video proves.
@@bradgriffith4231 Proof from under-square engines, with low RPM and very high torque capabilities would show otherwise. It's all about application, and where torque in the RPM range is desired. Thanks for your comments!
@@Jim_M_75 Sorry Jim but longer stroke increases "piston speed" which is the MAIN parasitic loss to friction in an engine. To make the math simple, calculate the distance traveled by 8 pistons at 10,000 RPM with a 3.25" stroke & a 3.50" stroke. The difference is astronomical. A big bore short stroke engine makes more TQ & HP throughout the entire RPM range if all other parameters are the same.
I use to run 377, oversized bearings 350 crank with 6 inch rods in my s-10 back when dinosaurs walked the land. Was a bit prone to overheating when I ran the ac but a lot of fun.
Hi Pumpkin King! Thanks for commenting! We've not had overheating issues. In fact, we've had a couple of our engines run a little on the cooler side, and are fine sitting in summer stop-and-go commuting traffic. Best regards!
Grumpy Jenkins did this with his Vega engines. They hauled the ass!
THIS is a great build. its exactly what i was looking for. i have 74' sbc 400 block.... i dont know shit about building an engine
but im figuring it out one video at a time........ CHEERS
Cool stuff! Thanks for commenting.
As long as you match the intake Valve closing you can make the compression work with the fuel you choose. For 87 octane and 10.80-1 SCR I’d look at a closing event around 50* + JD
Hi HeadFlowInc! Thank you for your comment. Best regards!
So is there a formula for figuring that out?
Huh.... I have a SB 400 in a 70 Chevy wagon I wasn't sure what I was going to do with. The wagon is junk, but I was planning on keeping the 400 and the power glide. Might try this build.
That`s a great combination, when ya have a nice flat torque curve they`re a dream to drive. I`ve only built 2 of those when I was a pup, for a guy running the GT/Trans Am series. they were 349`s it was 1982, they ran at Riverside and from that day on I was sold on the big bore SBC. Did you know that GM made a main bearing to do just that so ya didn`t have to stack bearings? Didn`t find out till the second motor
I wonder if GM still makes those bearings? My guess is that they don’t, like so many great products that have been discontinued. Kinda sad that they stop some great pieces and that’s it. Tough luck.
@@ceperformance Well it looks like, according to my, Bible The Clevite 77 Book they still do. MS-1564P But they`re not the same in #5 position as they were back in 1982 as best as i can recollect. they were a drop in at the time
Trans Am has always been a 305" motor limit from the very beginning. That's where the Ford & Chevy 302s came from. Chrysler, Rambler, Pontiac, etc never made their T/A sized motors for a production vehicle. Even the production class sports cars of today's road racing sanctioning bodies have a 305" limit, which is probably the reason Ford's production line, flat plane crank, 4 cam Mustang motor is still a "302". Chevy destrokes their flat plane crank, 4 cam Vette motors to comply with the displacement rule.
@@bradgriffith4231 They ran the GT`s with the TA`s and Yes the TA`s were the 5L`s
A buddy of mine built a 353- 400 block with 327 crank. It had such a big cam in it that it sounded like two motor cycle engines bolted together. It idled at like 1500rpm with a 4/7 swap cam it pulled@ 9" vacuum. 575hp at 7100rpm. But what was impressive was the torque curve was dead flat from 3500 on up. We put it in a cj7 jeep 😂
Wow that must have been hilarious :)
With those headers and air hat on the carb that is worth a good 30hp I'm sure. Put a normal style chassis header and take the air hat off. That would be more realistic. I've seen that style of header (straight tube out of the head) make 60 plus extra in a BBC and 30 plus on a choked up sbc with small diameter short tube headers.
Hi Jeremy Bartolomei, thank you for your comments. It's fantastic what one can do to enhance the volumetric efficiency going in, and coming out of, any engine. Best regards.
I worked for a guy 33 years ago that would buy old fuel oil trucks and busses with 327s in them. Forged steel large journal cranks that fit the 400 block for a 500$ claim dirt track late model engines.
They are so hard to come by these days! Thanks for commenting.
Is it just a 327 crank with the 400 rods and pistons? How was it built I like the short stroke crank with the big bore. I guess I just want to know how you did it yank you.
Hi richard smith, thank you for your questions! We used a steel 327 crankshaft (3.25" stroke) with 6.25" connecting rods, and 4.185" bore pistons with a 1.125" compression height. This Dart block had 2.45" mains-perfect for the 327 crankshaft. Best regards.
I'm a boat mechanic and built many 377 motors. 425 hp with off the shelf parts. Dano at 425 hp at 7700 rpm with 661 327 vette heads. Great ski boats.
Awesome! I have a 400 Chevy in my 16’ v-drive flat bottom boat. Just love it!
Did you do anything to the 400 block to help the cooling (siamesed cylinders)? I think I heard about drilling and tapping the backside of the block to increase coolant flow?
@ronroberts110
We brought coolant from both rear corners of the intake manifold to a thermostat spacer through 1/2” hoses. Cools amazingly.
Be even more drivable and impressive with mpfi, not more max power just better economy and drivability. Would make it awesome.
Hi Bill! Thank you for writing! Agreed. Our customer wanted the simplicity of a carbureted engine. And carbureted, this was a fun engine to road test! A surprise, even. Best regards.
I agree! This was the way to go back in the day. Smokey Yunick said to use the biggest bore and the shortest stroke with the longest rods possible. Destroking was common. A 350 mopar big block was 4.06 x 3.58, a 383 mopar has the same bore as a 454 chevy 4.25. 400 has a 4.342 bore 3.375 stroke, 6.358 rod. The Chevy 302 was a renowned great engine. Stroke does NOT necessarily make more torque, this is because bigger valved can be fitted, piston speed reduced, allowing for smaller cams to attain same hp. Do the math it makes no difference in torque to have undersquare or oversquare. Except longer rods can be used with short strokes. Some big Diesels actually had the cylinders offset to the crank to straighten the push. GMC designed the great gasoline heavy-duty V6, V8, and V12 truck engines with huge bores and short strokes for less cylinder wear, higher volumetric efficiency, and a flatter longer power curve needing less gears in the tranny. I have owned 27 of them. A 401V6 had a 4.875 bore and a 3.58 stroke! They would pull down so low that an electronic tach wouldn't read it. I accidentally wound my built one to 6300! It lived! They pull like an electric motor from idle to peak torque at 1400 rpm, up to 5000, with a 4bbl and magnum heads. The 637 V8 had a 5.125 bore and a 3.86 stroke! Yes, a 637 with LESS stroke than a 454, built to haul semis! It had 2.3" intake valves. Chrysler engineers didn't want to stroke the 340 to a 360 without raising the deck fearing engine life issues. That's why OEMs didn't build anything like modern "stroker" motors for passenger cars and trucks. Couldn't warranty them! This from a guy who's building a 572 hemi! Long stroke small bores go back to flathead engines where big chambers made high compression hard to get and octane and metallurgy limited RPM. Better cylinder heads have made strokers possible now or everything would run like a 500 cadillac!
Hey, thanks so much for sharing these numbers! Much appreciated :)
What did you drop the total timing down too when switching to 87 octane? 30 to 32 degrees? 10.8 to 1 is a lot of compression for 87 0ctane, especially with a cast iron head!
Hi jimmyjimbo61, it may have been 36º total. The 90's Hot Rod article was inspiring. This 354 produced some fantastic and consistent numbers on the dyno when running on 87 octane. Best regards.
@@ceperformance I'd expect detonation with that much timing running 87 with stated compression and iron heads. Maybe ECT < 120F and IAT < 40F?
For the most part it’s nice to see it’s possible to run the 87 if in a pinch. Our preference would be to run on 91 or so especially in a GM A body.
@@tbl8560 I read the same Hot Rod article from June 1997 entitled The 350 Engine Chevrolet Should Have Built. Peak power was at 5700rpm, there was no detonation. They said it had to do with the efficiency of the rod stroke ratio. They used 6.209" forged rods from a Ford 300ci I6 engine, they had to narrow the journals .030" to fit the crank but gave them a 1.91:1 rod to stroke ratio. It keeps the piston at TDC longer thus allowing the fuel to burn longer, similar to high revving NASCAR engines which use 2:1 rod to stroke which allows fuel to burn longer at 8000rpm. Typically street engines run about 1.6:1 rod to stroke ratio for more time at BDC to get more of an intake stroke to produce more torque. This engine is about efficiency over peak power.
@SteveSaga thank you for commenting and sharing your knowledge and information from the Hot Rod article.
It’s quite fascinating the effect of rod/stroke ratios on the dynamics of an engine. We’ve experimented a number of times with longer than usual rod lengths and have created some unique combinations, both in early small Chevy stuff and recently an LS short stroke engine. ( 1.93:1 rod/stroke and it makes 1.89 HP/ cube on pump gas with 349 cubes. That’s with 12:1 compression too. )
My 400 is a 2bolt main & my dad & i built it 20 years ago to the specifications of an old GM motor with 400lbs torque at 1800rpm with the necessary compression & cam ! it was for a rock crawler so my dad wanted all the low end grunt as possible! i still have the motor but the the rig needs work!
Awesome memories I bet!! Thanks for commenting :)
Too bad there wasn't a 400CI LS block readily available like the 400, I'd love to do the same thing with new technology and a 4.8 crank
Hi Chris Hansen, thank you for commenting! We tried a similar LS build with this build: an LS with a 4.125" bore, 3.267" (4.8L crank) stroke, and 6.3" connecting rods: ua-cam.com/video/JrGCAT-eVjE/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/CJWpRVzemFU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/CW36v9QcOnI/v-deo.html
@@DBSSTEELER
Great episode from Richard.
You can make a 408ci with a regular old 6.0 iron block. There a new L8T iron block that is 6.6L stock, it will take up to a 4.185" bore and a 4.25" stroke making 468ci with a factory block it's supposed to be just a meaty as an LSX performance block.
Yrs ago I saw the article,the 350 chevy should have built,which is the 400,327 crank and 300 6 cyl. Ford rods that you could use all the compression you wanted to on 87 octane and this was at the time of the first ls motors so that was still an impossibility.you must have seen the article.I love 400’s and have a couple and I think I still have a steel 327 crank but until rently have been laid up for yrs so I may get the one I’ve want to build yet.looks like a great job guys.oh and I see I just repeated someone else.ooopps
Hey, thanks for commenting! Now I encourage you to build one for yourself :)
Best wishes!
Heads? Cam? intake?
Hi Charles Smalling! Thank you for your question. This build had a:
- repurposed 400 SBC Dart block
- 3.25" stroke 327 steel crankshaft
- 6.25" Scat H-beam connecting rods
- 4.165" SRP forged pistons w/ 1.125" compression height
- 10.8:1 compression ratio
- 4/7 swap; mild 218/224 duration solid roller camshaft
- stock cast vortec heads with upgraded rocker studs
- Edelbrock RPM Air-Gap intake manifold
I was thinking about doing this, this is perfect to see someone test it, thank you.
Thanks for commenting! We’re going to be building another one soon with aluminum heads and more aggressive camshaft. I’d be fun to rev her to 8 grand :)
What cam did you use
Hi caddydaddy 67! We used a conservative 218/224, 4/7 swap, solid roller Comp cam with 112 LSA for this build. Best regards.
I have not tried a 4/7 swap cam sounds like it should be in my future thank you👍👍
dyno tests show that it depends on the intake manifold.... depends how the pulsations affect the plenum.
no big gains but every little bit counts, i guess.
heads are a better bet but more $$$
@@ceperformance Finally someone that isnt afraid of a solid roller in an engine that winds up
Never understood screwing around with new goofy h. lifters in search of rpm its just not the same.
@gordocarbo
That’s so true :) Thanks for commenting. Here’s another build you might like. Two videos…
SBC 283 Crankshaft + 400 Block = 500+ HP (Dyno Test 1 of 2)
ua-cam.com/video/dBjdYC5sMjs/v-deo.html
And the follow up…
ua-cam.com/video/Ge6RsIOs1-U/v-deo.htmlsi=BtMwMzw4TA3U2P-e
Oldsmobile had the best combo ( stock configuration) for GM small block but crappy cylinder heads. 3.385 stroke 4.057 bore
Great bore/stroke combo!
@@ceperformance my little 355 olds will spin to 7k rpm easily. The stock rods and crank have held up amazingly well lol
That’s awesome! They built ‘em tough back then.
This is the combination of most 360 sprint car engines, they make 700+ hp!
Hi cliff beckwith! This is a brilliant engine component combination and certainly surprised us with the torque values, 440 lbs ft, and a wide RPM range where the torque stayed above th 400 lbs ft mark, from such a mild cam. Best regards.
These guys are very good at this because they can get Mopar like power out of GM blocks!
It's just like owning an original Cleveland they are wicked with minimal effort.
How to say “I suck my sister moms pp” without saying “I suck my sister moms pp”.
Get out motard.
One of the most underrated motor ever the small block 400 my favorite motors the 400 monster mouse 🐁 check David Bizarre out OMG what a engine builder 👍
Thank you for your comments Gary Cordle!
Who is David Bizarre, never heard of him? I have heard of David Vizard, is that who you meant?
That is an absolute work of art, run that in ANYTHING with 3:73 gears and a TH400.... PERFECTION...... I'd daily drive that SET-UP all day LONG.🤙😎
Hi 49! Thanks for the accolades! Here at CE, we preferred love using manual transmissions. Automatics have their place, for sure! Build what you want. Drive it. Rock on.
My roommate back in 1978 has a 56 Nomad with a built 327 that little small block looked very lonely in that big engine bay. We would go out on Friday and Saturday nights not to race but bet people that that Nomad would pull the front wheels off the ground. A lot of people lost money on that deal but it would always tear the u joint out very fast but it was fun to see peoples face when the wheels were in the air. Just found your channel and subscribed loved the video. PS we never hurt that little motor.
Oh wow, such great memories I bet!
Thanks for commenting and thanks for subscribing :)
I'm pretty much hooked on big bore short stroke combos.
I have a 13 to 1 , 377 sbc with a 830 Holley and other then my dog it's my best friend .
Cool! Did you see this one we built?…
ua-cam.com/video/ttEsebehdrc/v-deo.htmlsi=OPUxiEF4FwIwtBzY
Or this one…
ua-cam.com/video/dBjdYC5sMjs/v-deo.htmlsi=YPmJH0-QPmkXsvrD
Or this..
Dyno #2 283 Crankshaft + 400 Block 512 HP 435 LBS FT Valve Float Fixed
ua-cam.com/video/Ge6RsIOs1-U/v-deo.html
Dude! I have this magazine in the garage! Magical!
Cool! Thanks for commenting :)
Hot Rod magazine did the long rod chevy back in the late 90's and produced over 400 a piece on 87 octane. Today's engine technology should bring more
Hi Donald! Hot Rod sure did, using aluminum AFR heads. Thanks for commenting!
I built a small block Chevy out of cast off parts. 350 4 bolt main block punched .080 over, 307 crank, 327 11:1 pistons
Yeah…most got it backwards because some folks got their rocks off by saying “stroker”. My son and I bought a used Dart block at 4.145” bore and used his 3.80 SCAT crank and super lite rods in 3/8 mile dirt track engine and made way more power than the tires could use. 375+ inches
Awesome combination!
Hot Rod Magazine, June 1997
The 350 Engine Chevrolet Should Have Built.
0.030 over 400 block
327 crank
Ford 300/six 6.35" rods
AFR aluminum heads with 56cc chambers, 190cc intake runners, 1.99 intake valves and 1.55 exhaust valves
Edelbrock hi rise Performer RPM intake
Edelbrock Performer 4 barrel with no jetting changes
JE pistons with a raised pin height
Comp Cams PN 270HR10 similar to a 1997 Camaro cam
1.6 rockers
Fluidamper
87 octane
36 degrees total timing
413 hp @ 5,800 rpm
440 ft/lbs @ 3,800 rpm
Duttweiler ran the dyno test
You guys should give Hot Rod Mag and Duttweiler credit for doing this 25 years ago.
Hi Greg! We acknowledge Hot Rod Magazine in the video description. We've noticed many don't read that part. They weren't the first to build this combo and certainly haven't been the last. Hot Rod's article states they used Ford 300 L6 rods that are 6.209"; not sure where you got the 6.35". Please send a link if you've got it. Thanks and best regards.
I have a 4 bolt main 71 400 & 400 turbo trans that came out of a Impala & have a set of humpback 202 heads I picked up along the way all for sale, I'm near Fort Wayne In, Pickup only. G.M. the last to machine this engine when it was made ! Was running when car was junked.
Worth some money!!
@@ceperformance Always meant to rebuild & buy a car to put it in like a weak 70s Vet or ?
Well let me encourage you to do it!!
Build your engine THEN find the car :)
They DID build something similar... it's called the Z28. 327 cu in with a 283 "steel" crankshaft. Seriously bad ass small block !!!!!!!!!!
Seriously cool. This one has the even bigger bore which is a big advantage. Thanks for commenting!
I'm planning a LS build that goes in the opposite direction - Small bore 3.903", 6.275" con-rods and long stroke 4.125" w/ high compression ratio 12:1 and 66cc combustion chamber, all kept in check w/ water injection. Hunting for max thermal efficiency. Maybe a Whipple S/C at some point - Dreamin'.
Sounds interesting!
That guitar tone at the end sounds really nice
Lol! Thanks for commenting.
The 400 block has heating issues with siamese cylinders. That's why most street rod builders stick with the 350 block and 400 crank. Also in 69 chevy built a 302 cid for the Z28. I raced one once when he passed me on the top end he was turning around 11k rpms.
😂
I remember i think it was hotrod magazine back in mid 90s wrote about this and built one. Made great numbers on 87 oct.
Great article! We do reference it in the descriptions. Our build is a bit different but we are happy with the results and are planning another one. Next one with larger heads and camshaft :)
Thanks for commenting!
😁 I was thinking the same baseline build. But put 6 to 1 ratio pistons in it and a nice blower on top. 😈
Wooohoooo!! Sounds fun :)
I'd like to see a 416 (destroked 427) big block chevy like Smokey Yunick ran in Nascar in 1966...He routinely went 8500 rpm + and outran larger displacement engines.
Maybe that’s next for us. Thanks for commenting :)
Already have built this combination many times
Did you make it a long rod? Just curious. Thanks for commenting :)
Not a bad combination. A 0.040" 400 block with a 302 crank makes a really nice 327, too.
It's a shame that 400 blocks are rare. The 400 block and shorter stroke makes a MUCH better high performance combination than a 400 crank in a 350 block. And I can only laugh hysterically at people putting a 400 crank in a 305 block.
This is what the Chevy 3.6 and the ford 3.7 and 3.5 is based on. I’m glad I’m not the only one seeing this 😂
These have been being going on 6 decades. Th he difference is parts, like rods and pistons can be bought at 7-eleven. This small crank with the right piston to rod ratio can run 10k rpm
you are aware that the large journal 327 ruck cranks fit into 350 blocks with out spacers on the mains.the 400 block uses a larger bearing.
this is the 327 4 bolt project that gm never built. with the correct rods these engines turned 11k rpm consistently on pump gas. a lose converter and a power glide shoe horned into a chevy 2 or monza and you had the drift car before it was called drifting. it was a power slide in the 80s now some kids with daddy wallet have these cars that wont hook up so they power slide them around tracks instead. and thats a lot of fun as we all know.
Hi Ivan! Our build didn't require bearing spacers. The repurposed Dart block we used had 350 mains. We appreciate your concern! Best regards!
I've built some amazing Chevy SBs by using various size cams and cranks from 327,350,283 and 400 engines.
Not all were great, but I had some nice surprises, too...
If you could pick any of those motors you listed for a weekend warrior. Which one would you pick?
Well that depends on the vehicle I’d say. I like a quick revving small block with a 5 or 6 speed behind it!
The small block chevy suffered enormous problems because of the inherent fault built into the engine. The middle of the cylinder heads have 2 exhaust valves right next to one another causing an overheating situation which causes a vacuum leak around the exhaust valve seat. Chevrolet knew this which is why the next gen engine laid out the valves properly. The only way to alleviate the problem on an existing engine is to mount a proper coolant pump which means a lot of machine work to the existing pump body and the installation of a proper pump impeller. Using the 400 block also brings a whole raft of problems as the bores are siameses so we found the best way is to create an extra outlet on the pump body allowing the use of sprayers installed into the block at the point where the bores are joined on both sides of the block. Otherwise there is an out of balance temperature condition take place inside the cylinder causing premature wear of the piston and the cylinder bores.
Good points. Thanks for commenting :)
Wow cool engine build love the hp and torque profile what a screamer
Thank you! We liked it so much we’ve done more like it. Here’s a 3” stroke version…
SBC 283 Crankshaft + 400 Block = 500+ HP (Dyno Test 1 of 2)
ua-cam.com/video/dBjdYC5sMjs/v-deo.html
We built one 25 years ago ran circle track flat top piston cast iron heads flat tappet made 560 hp on bo laws dyno @8800
Hi Randy, thanks for commenting! Then you know how fun this engine combo is to drive! Best regards!
Small crank plus big-ass bore equals insane revving.. been that way with motorcycles for decades..
when you get the porting and back pressure right you got a missile
Agreed, in the world of old engines we always hear about stroke but short stroke engines deliver more hp right through the rev range if done right and you can turn them into a screaming banshee.
Hi Mustang! Thanks for your comment! We had the opportunity to build just that: a 3" stroke x 4.185" bore by combing a 283 crank and a 400 SBC Bowtie block with 350 mains, which produced 512 HP and 435 LBS FT at the crank: ua-cam.com/video/Ge6RsIOs1-U/v-deo.html .
Very cool build wish I had thought of it about 25 yrs ago...
Thanks for commenting!
the ideal small block 4.155 bore 3.250 stroke 6.000 rod there you have big bore short stroke and long rod i use this combination all the time makes power and revs high very fast
Great points! Thanks for commenting :)
I'm setting here watching this and a light bulb goes off in my head reminding me that I have a 400 block and a 327 crank 🤔
Do it:) ua-cam.com/video/K4eScf6TMaM/v-deo.html
Pretty cool results but when saying "the 350 that Chevy should have built" keep in mind they didn't release the 4.125" block until 1970 and the 4.000" inch block had been around for a while when the released the 350. It was probably easier (ie cheaper) to just stroke the 327 to get a 350 at the time. Also, a "stroker" was probably better for what they needed at the time as it went in everything including trucks and full size cars. And, they didn't have access to Vortec head, an RPM intake or solid roller lifters. ;) That said, this is a cool video and thanks for sharing.
Hi FPO! Thanks for commenting! "The 350 that Chevy should have built" references a 1997 Hot Rod Mag article; the archived link is in the description box. Best regards!