So what would you pick.. its going to be very Interesting lets see..... :)

[67coronetman]

So what would you say about a Stroker motor what would you use and i know not all will agree but that is America we have a choice... so what say you.........

440 block with a 4:15 crank

OR

400 block with a 4:15 crank


:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::icon_super::icon_super::icon_super::icon_super::icon_super::icon_super:

 

[benno440]

440 block with a 4.25 crank (cause I have one lol)
second choice 400 block with 4.15 crank

 

[minnesota guy]

No substitute for cubic inches!

 

[68 HEMI GTS]

400 if your starting from scratch, bigger bore, smaller mains (less bearing speed), shorter deck (stronger cylinder walls) and a more compact package, shorter pushrods. they make a killer package with a set of M/W type heads! nothing wrong with the 440 block either, i'll probably use a 440 block when i do a stroker in the rr just because im already set for the RB. this is coming from a guy who has built both.

 

[Cranky]

What will you be using the engine for?

 

[383man]

Well they say the 400 block is the best but the stock 440 block will hold up good up to about 650 hp as once you go past that you may be pushing your luck some. Some also depends on your application also. I went with the 440 block and the 4.15 crank (493 cubes at .030 over) as I knew I would be right around 600 hp and I still may want to put a crossram on it someday and they dont make the crossram for the 400. Either can work fine as long as you dont exceed the strenth of the block. Ron

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

400 if your starting from scratch, bigger bore, smaller mains (less bearing speed), shorter deck (stronger cylinder walls) and a more compact package, shorter pushrods. they make a killer package with a set of M/W type heads! nothing wrong with the 440 block either, i'll probably use a 440 block when i do a stroker in the rr just because im already set for the RB. this is coming from a guy who has built both.

Yep.

In general, Mopar guys tend to neglect cylinder heads and valvetrain weight. 400 trumps 440 for ease of hp potential and packaging. 440 is ok if you already have the stuff or are wanting the visual effect of a 'big engine'.

 

[67coronetman]

I was curious as to how other feel cause i will be using a 440 with the 4:15 crank and that is because i already have parts for a RB Block plus my TTI Headers are for a 440 motor with indy Heads so i am going to use what i have it makes more sense then buying a new intake and headers and so on..Just my two cents...well maybe in my case 1/2 cent... LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Ain't nothing wrong with your combo ron seems to run killer i would be happy as a PUPPY WITH TWO PETERS... LOL

Well they say the 400 block is the best but the stock 440 block will hold up good up to about 650 hp as once you go past that you may be pushing your luck some. Some also depends on your application also. I went with the 440 block and the 4.15 crank (493 cubes at .030 over) as I knew I would be right around 600 hp and I still may want to put a crossram on it someday and they dont make the crossram for the 400. Either can work fine as long as you dont exceed the strenth of the block. Ron

 

[GITEX]

400 with 4.15 because we just finished one in my 65. Vroom Vroom

 

[daredevil]

How many inches is a 4.15 400? 496

 

[Budnicks]

Yep.

In general, Mopar guys tend to neglect cylinder heads and valvetrain weight. 400 trumps 440 for ease of hp potential and packaging. 440 is ok if you already have the stuff or are wanting the visual effect of a 'big engine'.

WOW I'm actually going to agree with you....

- - - Updated - - -

400 Lowdeck B-Block is a stronger block, bigger bore to start, smaller diameter line bore hole, with stronger main webbing, narrower, shorter & lighter {stock 50#'s lighter @ 620#'s all iron} engine block, only advantage to the 440 {stock 670#'s all iron} is you can run a longer rod if needed...

 

[moparmarks]

400. Lager bore. Smaller, stronger block.

 

[Budnicks]

How many inches is a 4.15 400? 470?

400 example; 4.340" std {bore} X 4.340" {bore} X 4.15" {stroke} X 8 {# of cylinders} X .7854 {conversion to CI's}= 491.14ci
440 std bore ; example 4.320" x 4.320" x 4.15" x 8 x .7854 = 486.62ci
bore in inches x bore x stroke in inches x # of cylinders x .7845 = Cubic Inches

 

[hemi#1]

I'm doing something different. I'm taking a 318 poly up to 412 ci. stroker pushing @460 hp. if I can find a 315 or 325 hemi the same stroker idea with 3 deuces in my 65 satellite

 

[Rocketman]

no replacement for displacement

 

[themechanic]

View attachment 189835View attachment 189836400 with 4.15 because we just finished one in my 65. Vroom Vroom

Pretty!

 

[Meep-Meep]

I say 440 block with 4.15" crank because that will allow a longer rod.

 

[68 HEMI GTS]

I say 440 block with 4.15" crank because that will allow a longer rod.

a 6.760 rod with a 4.15 crank comes out at 1.62 RR. thats still plenty good. alot better than other brand strokers. guess if your looking to go 60,000 miles the 440 block would be better because of the longer piston skirt and the rings will last longer. be about the only advantage i see. i run a 6.760 rod in my hemi with 4.150 stroke. i run that thing 7200. i was always a big proponent of long rods, but after doing a lot of dyno work and such there really doesn't seem to be the big power advantage that people think there is. that is to a point obviously. one thing about the shorter rods is on a pump gas motor you actually spend less time dwelling at TDC which can help squeak a higher compression engine away on pump gas. like i say this is one of those arguments that will always have people on both sides of the fence. any rod ratio in the 1.6's is right down the middle of the fence anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

do all the people making the "no replacement for displacement" realize that the 400 is actually bigger than a 440 with the same stoke crank? not by much but i guess even a hand full of cubes fits that above statement.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

i was always a big proponent of long rods, but after doing a lot of dyno work and such there really doesn't seem to be the big power advantage that people think there is. that is to a point obviously. one thing about the shorter rods is on a pump gas motor you actually spend less time dwelling at TDC which can help squeak a higher compression engine away on pump gas.

From my experience, a short rod also helps w/ increasing the rate of differential pressure above/below the valve...which when paired w/ a cam that takes advantage, can result in more power. As you said...to a point.

do all the people making the "no replacement for displacement" realize that the 400 is actually bigger than a 440 with the same stoke crank? not by much but i guess even a hand full of cubes fits that above statement.

Also, beyond displacement and I think has been alluded to but not stated...all things being equal, a cylinder head will flow more on a bigger bore than a smaller one.

 

[Meep-Meep]

a 6.760 rod with a 4.15 crank comes out at 1.62 RR. thats still plenty good. alot better than other brand strokers. guess if your looking to go 60,000 miles the 440 block would be better because of the longer piston skirt and the rings will last longer. be about the only advantage i see. i run a 6.760 rod in my hemi with 4.150 stroke. i run that thing 7200. i was always a big proponent of long rods, but after doing a lot of dyno work and such there really doesn't seem to be the big power advantage that people think there is. that is to a point obviously. one thing about the shorter rods is on a pump gas motor you actually spend less time dwelling at TDC which can help squeak a higher compression engine away on pump gas. like i say this is one of those arguments that will always have people on both sides of the fence. any rod ratio in the 1.6's is right down the middle of the fence anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

do all the people making the "no replacement for displacement" realize that the 400 is actually bigger than a 440 with the same stoke crank? not by much but i guess even a hand full of cubes fits that above statement.

You ever want to get a riot going mention rod to stroke ratio! Not that I wanted to get a riot going, but I believe there is - as you say - a general happy place for an engine and that is in the 1.6 - 1.8 range. We all know the arguments for or against a high and low ratio so no need to reiterate here, but I'll say when most of our era engines were designed from a clean sheet of paper in the late 50's I bet this was thought about carefully and the result is 1.6 - 2.0. Enter the era of bigger sells better and the cheapest way to get cubes is put in a longer arm. Olds 425 to 455. Chevy 427 to 454. Cad 472 to 500. Ford 289 to 302. Chevy 350 to 400. So rather than casting another block they shortened the rod and/or made different pistons to cram it all in the same package. Manufacturing economics 101. This is how I see it anyway.

I'm slowly working on a 472 hemi (4.15" crank) but will run a 7.1" rod to maintain and ratio of about 1.7:1. Much of these numbers are just splitting hairs and I bet no one on the planet will see the difference in performance between a 1.6:1 vs. a 1.7:1, but since I had to get everything new anyway I just tried to get close to what the factory intended, which errs on the longer rod.

- - - Updated - - -

From my experience, a short rod also helps w/ increasing the rate of differential pressure above/below the valve...which when paired w/ a cam that takes advantage, can result in more power. As you said...to a point.



Also, beyond displacement and I think has been alluded to but not stated...all things being equal, a cylinder head will flow more on a bigger bore than a smaller one.[/QUOTE]

But will a .020" difference in factory bore size even be noticed? I think we need to be looking at numbers in the .100" range - like a 413 vs. a 440 to possibly make that case. Even that might be a stretch. Also a good head shop can blend the chamber to make up some lost flow. Valve angles of the 426 hemi on the "small" 4.25" bore seem to fix whatever flow problems there might have been on that block so I'd put more stock in valve placement (or maybe porting) rather than a small change in bore size.