Dang, some of those commenting here either didn't watch the video or have poor comprehension. This engine is going in a rock crawler. It does not need aluminum heads or a big cam. The intent is to make tons of low RPM torque. That is all.
Kiekhaefer made Nascar and Offshore race motors out of them in the late 1960's and early 70's. Had to make so many motors to qualify as Chevy "production" so they even had Winters (factory) make/cast dual plane aluminum intakes for 2 days only in 1969, to fit the tall block. Pretty much everything in the motor was off the shelf "Chevy" but the best they had. Heads from this motor. Pistons from that motor. They stroked the crank to 4.250 and used 6.405 Rods making it a 482ci. Punch it out 60 over and you have almost a 496ci (495. something). The block walls are so think it you can go a 100 over with no issue. Also good for keeping the cylinders true when the motor is run hard for long periods. As for weight, I don't think the blocks are 25lbs heaver then the 454. I had to rebuild my motor and build a clone of it for a 1969 race boat. Cataloged every (factory) part number down to the last gaskets and bearings (and then built a second identical motor). One thing I found wild is Crane (the cam company) did all the porting and polishing of the heads and intake. Something they haven't done in many years. My balancer had to use a 454 flywheel and drilled it instead of trying to add all that weight to a neutral balanced flywheel to make it work.
@@dxrflyboy BUT these were LOW-revving, relatively low compression ratio, high-torque engines! I still don't see the answer. Some GM designer somewhere probably has the answer.
Because the engine ran at WOT and at peak torque continuously, making maximum cylinder pressure. Rings not only seal combustion gases, they also seal oil in the crankcase, and they transfer heat from the piston to the cylinder wall, into the water jacket.
Building a 6.535 long rod tall deck .060 427 with a Bullet 276/282@.050 714/714 lift 106 lobe sep solid roller and a 335cc runner head, 12.6-1 compression. 1050 Dominator on a Bowtie singleplain intake. Good stout blocks to build on. Tractor pullers loved them back in the 70s & 80s. Mine gonna be around 439ci, but its gonna rev 8000rpm.
if its going in a fuel injected application with port fuel injection be sure of the cam firing order. or if its going in a carb application.. be sure that you do the check the air fuel ratio at 1700 and 3800.. 1700 to get the idle feed restrictions sized correctly and 3800 RPMs to get the primary main jets sized.
can you run aluminum heads on a tall deck 427 ? , and also a standard aluminum intake ? , and on the comp cam is that a smooth or ruff idle cam , and can you recommend a thumper rough idle "flat tappet hydraulic" street/strip cam .... thanks
@pamdunn8454 all BBC heads are the same and interchange. As for intake, it is different with the tall deck, but you can put an intake spacer to use a standard intake. As for the chosen cam; havnt ran the engine yet, but comp says it is a slight rough idle, but it won't be choppy. I won't claim to be a cam wizard as that is a trade in it's own. Learning it though.
@@EngineKrahnicles have you used the intake spacers ? and do you use double gaskets ? will you be videoing the start up and break in ? will you high light the idle and sound of the camshaft - thank you for your help
@@pamdunn8454 I've never used them. We used the stock intake on this one. I would assume you silicone the spacer on the intake. Could be wrong. It'll be a long time until we do a startup. My friend isn't doing the swap for a while
489.17 cubic inches is what is to be precise. id rather say 490 also, but it always seems to be refered to as a 489 everywhere. anyway, i built an engine pretty similar to what you guys are doing. i used a 212° cam and peanut port heads, and 440 horse and 560 lb/ft. from what ive seen, the large oval ports are worth about 30 horse over the peanut ports in stock configuration. the 6° more duration you have is worth about 10 or 15 horses, i suppose. that should be a fun engine to cruise around in. why did he decide to go with a tall deck?
289...389...489! Sounds awesome to me! One major advantage with the tall block is being able to use longer rods. A longer rod to stroke ratio means less sideloading of the pistons and a longer lasting engine. Chevy did the opposite with the 400sb which caused piston cracking, loss of compression, and oil burning. It wasn't the siamesed cylinders that were the problem. It also wasn't the first engine with siamesed cylinders and certainly wasn't the last.
Chevy eliminated it for obvious machining purposes on their later Big engines. Also the nitrided steel crank for the 3.76 stroke… had a brand new L88 short block in 1987.
I'm a little surprised you would spend the money on fire ringing the block and use oval port heads. Just a mediocre set of aluminum square ports would make a ton more power. Especially with the extra cubic inches. Not finding fault. Just curious.
I got that engine completely stock it's a crate motor I just want to drive it in a car around I wonder how good it would be I'm going to put it in a 66 Chevy Impala
At about 3:39 he said 366? Did he mean 396? Cuz I've never heard of a GM 366 with the BBC canted valve heads so I'm kinda lost. Not a GM guy so don't hate but am I wrong thinking "what"? Plus does that even work with a "tall deck" block? Ok.
366T and 427T are real engines. They are in big trucks. So they aren't as well known. They both used the same heads. Good questions and thanks for asking.
@4:55: These Tall Deck 366/427 low-revving and torquey truck engines were said to have 4-bolt main bearings and forged crank shafts. I'm not sure I saw any 4-bolt mains here in your video. And you didn't mention a forged crankshaft, either. What's the story about that here? EDIT FOLLOWS: Sorry! EDIT: OOOPS! @5:57 I caught sight of the rear main bearing, and it is clearly 4-bolt. And @5:59 the front 4-bolt main bearing comes into view. How many main bearings are there? Are those 3 strange-looking caps with the tower extensions on the inside bolts also main bearings? Gee, there's even an extension on the one of the front main bearing bolts. What is the purpose of these extensions?
@@thereluctantgearhead4544 what do you know about 950 casting number oval port open chamber heads I have a set of my 402 big block they seem to have smaller CC open chambers compared to the later ones , from what the stamping numbers on the deck that are left seems to be a 1970 replacement engine The date codes on the block are late 69
541. But then you loose the beauty of that massively thick cylinder wall and get lots of engine weight. Your reliability goes way down, so to counteract that is really expensive
@@EngineKrahnicles If the block is sonic tested, and the cylinder thickness verified, it will be plenty thick. Even a center counterweight 4.5" stroke crankshaft isn't that heavy. The rods aren't significantly heavier, either, and the shorter piston will be lighter. For low RPM use, the weight won't matter at all. And reliability will not suffer. But torque will increase significantly, which is the stated goal of the project. Torque will also peak at a lower RPM, unless other changes are made.
Seriously roller arms? Oh god if he says this engine is "Built" I'm gonna spit up my beer! I get it....yeah it's built! How can it run otherwise? Oh so assembled parts is just the engine not put together but all the parts are in the same area but with nothing labeling any part as high performance then.......? With or without those "built" parts it's still built in the same sequence to run right? Maybe could be. My shoes are just socks til I tie them I guess.....NOT! They're gravity protection so I don't fly away!
@@MrADVANCEDTEK dude, what are you smoking? Put down the bong. The guy has BUILT a solid stroker torque monster engine for his buddy with a rock crawler. The solution fits the goal. That your nonsense somewhere else.
@@msh6865 My What!! oh ok so this " The solution fits the goal That your nonsense somewhere else" is so supposed to make sense? Yeah? But no it's simple. If something is made then it's made again then what is the difference? Come on use your 3rd grade brain and tell me! Is it always made? Or is it always BUILT! Let's see what you call it because every engine is built but calling a engine BUILT is just stupid ass people that don't know the real meaning between doing and what is done! So go ahead let me see if you can prove me wrong! A engine not put together is WHAT? So a engine with the best parts put together is WHAT!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!! You'll be talked to when you learn who you are allowed to talk to. Answer this...What engine runs without it being put together or built? I got a 1993 Ford feista 1.3l in pieces....so do you think you can "BUILT" it for me? Yeah but you thought you made so much sense....
Dang, some of those commenting here either didn't watch the video or have poor comprehension.
This engine is going in a rock crawler. It does not need aluminum heads or a big cam. The intent is to make tons of low RPM torque.
That is all.
@@msh6865 sir, where did you study? Harvard or Yale.
@@EngineKrahnicles 😂
These engines were built to run all day at low RPM ! They use to be a $50-$75 dollars at junkyards
Kiekhaefer made Nascar and Offshore race motors out of them in the late 1960's and early 70's. Had to make so many motors to qualify as Chevy "production" so they even had Winters (factory) make/cast dual plane aluminum intakes for 2 days only in 1969, to fit the tall block. Pretty much everything in the motor was off the shelf "Chevy" but the best they had. Heads from this motor. Pistons from that motor. They stroked the crank to 4.250 and used 6.405 Rods making it a 482ci. Punch it out 60 over and you have almost a 496ci (495. something). The block walls are so think it you can go a 100 over with no issue. Also good for keeping the cylinders true when the motor is run hard for long periods. As for weight, I don't think the blocks are 25lbs heaver then the 454.
I had to rebuild my motor and build a clone of it for a 1969 race boat. Cataloged every (factory) part number down to the last gaskets and bearings (and then built a second identical motor). One thing I found wild is Crane (the cam company) did all the porting and polishing of the heads and intake. Something they haven't done in many years. My balancer had to use a 454 flywheel and drilled it instead of trying to add all that weight to a neutral balanced flywheel to make it work.
One of the reasons for the Tall Deck or Truck! On the original hi-perf block had notches for valve clearance cut into the piston deck
in the back of my mind, i knew that. thanks for reminding me!
The reason for the tall deck blocks is GM used a 4 ring piston on the trucks.
But, WHY did Chevrolet use 4-ring pistons for these low-revving, high torque truck engines?
@@jazzandbluesculturalherita2547 less blowby under sustained high cylinder pressures and high RPM I would imagine...
@@dxrflyboy BUT these were LOW-revving, relatively low compression ratio, high-torque engines! I still don't see the answer. Some GM designer somewhere probably has the answer.
They were made for medium and heavy duty trucks hauling heavy loads that's why there were 4 rings @@jazzandbluesculturalherita2547
Because the engine ran at WOT and at peak torque continuously, making maximum cylinder pressure. Rings not only seal combustion gases, they also seal oil in the crankcase, and they transfer heat from the piston to the cylinder wall, into the water jacket.
interesting, i always assumed the tall decks were undersquared since they were truck motors...
Wow, there's a lot of Mallory added to that crank!
@patrickm.8425 yeah, I think it may have had aluminum rods before
Building a 6.535 long rod tall deck .060 427 with a Bullet 276/282@.050 714/714 lift 106 lobe sep solid roller and a 335cc runner head, 12.6-1 compression. 1050 Dominator on a Bowtie singleplain intake. Good stout blocks to build on. Tractor pullers loved them back in the 70s & 80s. Mine gonna be around 439ci, but its gonna rev 8000rpm.
Sounds like a hoot and a half!
@@EngineKrahnicles I'm looking to run mid 9s in the 1/4 with it NA in a G-body. It'll also take a 300-400hp shot of nitrous too just in case.
You can safely overbore to 4.350"?
I agree with drifter, I use a .025" hole.
What iron ovals are those ?
That cam is rather small but thats what he wants
if its going in a fuel injected application with port fuel injection be sure of the cam firing order. or if its going in a carb application.. be sure that you do the check the air fuel ratio at 1700 and 3800.. 1700 to get the idle feed restrictions sized correctly and 3800 RPMs to get the primary main jets sized.
can you run aluminum heads on a tall deck 427 ? , and also a standard aluminum intake ? , and on the comp cam is that a smooth or ruff idle cam , and can you recommend a thumper rough idle "flat tappet hydraulic" street/strip cam .... thanks
@pamdunn8454 all BBC heads are the same and interchange. As for intake, it is different with the tall deck, but you can put an intake spacer to use a standard intake. As for the chosen cam; havnt ran the engine yet, but comp says it is a slight rough idle, but it won't be choppy. I won't claim to be a cam wizard as that is a trade in it's own. Learning it though.
@@EngineKrahnicles have you used the intake spacers ? and do you use double gaskets ? will you be videoing the start up and break in ? will you high light the idle and sound of the camshaft - thank you for your help
@@pamdunn8454 I've never used them. We used the stock intake on this one. I would assume you silicone the spacer on the intake. Could be wrong. It'll be a long time until we do a startup. My friend isn't doing the swap for a while
@@EngineKrahnicles good luck
489.17 cubic inches is what is to be precise. id rather say 490 also, but it always seems to be refered to as a 489 everywhere.
anyway, i built an engine pretty similar to what you guys are doing. i used a 212° cam and peanut port heads, and 440 horse and 560 lb/ft. from what ive seen, the large oval ports are worth about 30 horse over the peanut ports in stock configuration. the 6° more duration you have is worth about 10 or 15 horses, i suppose. that should be a fun engine to cruise around in.
why did he decide to go with a tall deck?
Because the price was right and they are easy to find in big trucks. This block already had racecar stuff done to it, so it was a good candidate.
289...389...489! Sounds awesome to me! One major advantage with the tall block is being able to use longer rods. A longer rod to stroke ratio means less sideloading of the pistons and a longer lasting engine. Chevy did the opposite with the 400sb which caused piston cracking, loss of compression, and oil burning. It wasn't the siamesed cylinders that were the problem. It also wasn't the first engine with siamesed cylinders and certainly wasn't the last.
Slap a set of Brodix Dragonslayer 320 heads on that bad boy!
It's not a drag race engine. Owner wants/needs low RPM torque.
Chevy eliminated it for obvious machining purposes on their later Big engines. Also the nitrided steel crank for the 3.76 stroke… had a brand new L88 short block in 1987.
Do you drill both gallery plugs or just the one for the timing chain oiling?
What did you do with the stock really good crank that came in this type of motor ??
@@charlescox6608 motor was brought to me in pieces. No stock crank.
I would take those plugs out in the front and either Terrill a new set with a smaller hole like .020 .030 you said you did a 1/16 hole that’s to large
I've never had a problem with oil pressure. Done that on dozens on 350's and always have 40lbs
I'm a little surprised you would spend the money on fire ringing the block and use oval port heads. Just a mediocre set of aluminum square ports would make a ton more power. Especially with the extra cubic inches. Not finding fault. Just curious.
The block already had them on there
OP, did you even watch the video? Engine owners wants gobs of torque for his rock crawler. This engine will meet that need.
I got that engine completely stock it's a crate motor I just want to drive it in a car around I wonder how good it would be I'm going to put it in a 66 Chevy Impala
Terrible milage, all the torque, heavy, no HP, bulletproof. Sounds like a good matchup
At about 3:39 he said 366? Did he mean 396? Cuz I've never heard of a GM 366 with the BBC canted valve heads so I'm kinda lost. Not a GM guy so don't hate but am I wrong thinking "what"? Plus does that even work with a "tall deck" block? Ok.
366T and 427T are real engines. They are in big trucks. So they aren't as well known. They both used the same heads. Good questions and thanks for asking.
366 was the small bore version of the TD 427. Pretty tough old engines.
They look identical on the outside.
You can find these in gmc an chevy dump trucks early 70s to the 80s alot of them were the 366 ci tall decks low horsepower and high tork
Chevy produced 366-427 tall blocks heavy truck buses
What the hell is in top of your valve spring???
@4:55: These Tall Deck 366/427 low-revving and torquey truck engines were said to have 4-bolt main bearings and forged crank shafts. I'm not sure I saw any 4-bolt mains here in your video. And you didn't mention a forged crankshaft, either. What's the story about that here? EDIT FOLLOWS:
Sorry! EDIT: OOOPS! @5:57 I caught sight of the rear main bearing, and it is clearly 4-bolt. And @5:59 the front 4-bolt main bearing comes into view.
How many main bearings are there? Are those 3 strange-looking caps with the tower extensions on the inside bolts also main bearings? Gee, there's even an extension on the one of the front main bearing bolts. What is the purpose of these extensions?
The extended cap bolts are for mounting an oil windage tray.
@@patrickm.8425 OK, but 4-bolt mains or not? How many, and which ones are 4-bolt?
I thought those truck engines had peanut port heads not ovals what are the casting numbers on them
Earlier ones had big oval ports.
@@thereluctantgearhead4544 what do you know about 950 casting number oval port open chamber heads I have a set of my 402 big block they seem to have smaller CC open chambers compared to the later ones , from what the stamping numbers on the deck that are left seems to be a 1970 replacement engine The date codes on the block are late 69
Can you say "stump puller" ❤
A Big block tall deck 490 cubic inch with a lil tiny baby ass camshaft .
It's for a rock crawler, so the torque is going to be more beneficial than peak HP
@@EngineKrahnicles Right on.
@@EngineKrahnicles
If torque is important, why not install a 4.5" stroke crankshaft?
Ever heard of vacuum
A tall deck BBC is 10.200 inch deck height !!!!!!!!
If you bore it to 4.375 and stroke it to 4.5 you wil get 441.18 CI big block Chevy
@@scotthultin7769 It'll be a lot bigger than that. Without doing the math, I think they end up around 525ci.
@@scotthultin7769 My 427 is 4.310 bore, and 3.760 stroke. Comes out to around 439ci.
@@scotthultin7769 .065 more bore and almost .750 more stroke will get ya a lot more than 2 cubes.
541. But then you loose the beauty of that massively thick cylinder wall and get lots of engine weight. Your reliability goes way down, so to counteract that is really expensive
@@EngineKrahnicles
If the block is sonic tested, and the cylinder thickness verified, it will be plenty thick.
Even a center counterweight 4.5" stroke crankshaft isn't that heavy. The rods aren't significantly heavier, either, and the shorter piston will be lighter.
For low RPM use, the weight won't matter at all. And reliability will not suffer.
But torque will increase significantly, which is the stated goal of the project. Torque will also peak at a lower RPM, unless other changes are made.
Seriously roller arms? Oh god if he says this engine is "Built" I'm gonna spit up my beer! I get it....yeah it's built! How can it run otherwise? Oh so assembled parts is just the engine not put together but all the parts are in the same area but with nothing labeling any part as high performance then.......? With or without those "built" parts it's still built in the same sequence to run right? Maybe could be. My shoes are just socks til I tie them I guess.....NOT! They're gravity protection so I don't fly away!
Dude, no one needs your sas. They were parts laying around, so you may as well use them. Go get a bud light on me, because you seem like the type
@@EngineKrahnicles Sas...? You're getting offended over that? Lighten up and keep the beer it's definitely your type...
@@MrADVANCEDTEK dude, what are you smoking? Put down the bong. The guy has BUILT a solid stroker torque monster engine for his buddy with a rock crawler. The solution fits the goal. That your nonsense somewhere else.
@@msh6865 My What!! oh ok so this " The solution fits the goal That your nonsense somewhere else" is so supposed to make sense? Yeah? But no it's simple. If something is made then it's made again then what is the difference? Come on use your 3rd grade brain and tell me! Is it always made? Or is it always BUILT! Let's see what you call it because every engine is built but calling a engine BUILT is just stupid ass people that don't know the real meaning between doing and what is done! So go ahead let me see if you can prove me wrong! A engine not put together is WHAT? So a engine with the best parts put together is WHAT!!! SHUT THE FUCK UP!! You'll be talked to when you learn who you are allowed to talk to. Answer this...What engine runs without it being put together or built? I got a 1993 Ford feista 1.3l in pieces....so do you think you can "BUILT" it for me? Yeah but you thought you made so much sense....