400 sbc Q??? [Archive] - Chevy Nova Forum

: 400 sbc Q???


71Nova383
11th-February-2012, 11:27 PM
ok let me explain a little about the 383 in my name and why i have a 400sb now. Well when i first started my planning for my nova my first option was going with a 400 Sb..... Well after looking for a while i realized that a decent 400 block for a good price was hard to find. Everything i found was .60 or would clean up at .40 or so. Well after the 400 search i decided i was just gonna get me a common 350 and just stroke it out. well as time permitted i was talking to my uncle and he had a 400 complete just laying around.:facepalm:. Needless to say i got the 400 for free so that helped and also changed my plans back to plan A. I'm taking the block to my machine shop some time next week and so now im on the shop for building it. Right now my focus is on the bottom end. Im gonna go with a 4.155 bore and a stock 3.75 stroke cast crank. Now here is my question??? I was looking at 5.7 rods to put into it and i seen something somewhere talking about valve clearance and a few other things in order to use the 5.7 rods? Can anybody with some 400 build experience give me a few pointer and tips on my set up to make this build as smooth as possibly for me? Thanks...also here is link to the pistons i am buying. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Speed-Pro-Flat-Top-Pistons-400-Chevy-sb-sbc-5-7-Rod-/390344366846?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&vxp=mtr&hash=item5ae2565afe#ht_4145wt_1037

1quik69
11th-February-2012, 11:46 PM
I have the 5.7 rods in my 400. The shop that built the engine suggested it right from the start. It runs like a champ and I've had no problems. I'm not sure but I think it has something to do with the piston to rod angularity or something. I'm sure someone with more experience will be able to give you a more exact answer. I am also running Dart Iron Eagle 215cc heads and a Comp Cams XE284 cam.

Philip
12th-February-2012, 12:08 AM
I have the stock rods in mine and it runs great. Unless you are building a race engine the stock bottom end with good bolts will hold together just fine. Build it for low end torque and it will be fun to drive on the street. The big change on mine were the heads and cam. It really made the 400 come alive. Very dependable, with good power and decent fuel mileage.

71Nova383
12th-February-2012, 12:24 AM
thanks for the reply philip. My intentions on my nova is a weekend tire kicker muscle car. Im know the 400 will perform very well stock but the 400 i have already has to clean up .30 atleast and since im changing the pistons i figure why not add a few little goodies while im in it. I've also heard some nice things about the longer 5.7 rods. I know a 400 ain't the toughest engine out there but i just wanna get a nice performance engine while im building it because once i drop it i hope it the last one i drop in it for a long time.

the FLYER
12th-February-2012, 12:27 AM
i have 5.7 rods in my 400 also... but then i added a 3.480 stroke crank to the mix and went the opposite way a lot of you guys choose to go. i destroked it...

i know pretty much all of our engines rev up in rpms, but my 377 just likes to stay up there and scream. it revs differently is all i can say. now i'm not really the torqueyest engine but i think i can live at a higher rpm for longer time than the .750 strokers will... never actually dyno'd but they ran whatever the sophisticated desktop dyno and it's right around 495/475 hp/tq.

torque is different so don't ever discount it. it is what pulls or pushes you to go fast. i just like stayin' there longer. the cost of pistons, rods & cranks these days the sky's the limit almost on different stroke/rod length engines. you can almost get lost in thinking about them all...

my concern when building my engine was i wanted it to live all day at 8000rpms. never intend on doing it but that was my thought.

71Nova383
12th-February-2012, 12:56 AM
lol flyer. what kinda torque you pushing with the destroke? I have heard of that before adding a 350 crank to a 400. I might just need to stay stock on the rods and invest in a nice forged crank? The mods you gotta do to make one thing work or the other can get complicated sometimes, but then again thats why some love to build them to see what they can mix and match lol....

Philip
12th-February-2012, 01:59 AM
The stock crank is a nodular iron, still a cast crank but a bit stronger. Longer rods cause money to be spent on machining the block for clearance, special cams in some cases depending on the rod used and possible machining of the rod to clear the cam. It puts the piston rings into the wrist pin area and the shorter piston has a shorter skirt. I weighed the cost versus the benefit and chose to use the parts the engine was designed with, mine had 120k miles on it when I bought it with no problems other than a worn timing chain. The money saved was spent on the AFR 195 cylinder heads that boosted performance a lot more that a connecting rod that was 0.135" longer. I have not regretted the decision to build it this way.
I did machine the block to a .010" deck, bored the block .030" over size, used dished pistons, a Lunati cam, ARP bolts and studs and quality gaskets. It is by no means a budget build.
You need to decide where you want to go after hearing the pros and cons. I was never one that used any part just to say I had it. If the cost out weighs the gain I pass. There are no polished, billet or chrome goodies on the engine either, they do not make it run better and cause more work keeping it all shiny ;)
To compare numbers the computer dynos put mine at 452 hp @6000 rpm. Torque peaks at 464 lb ft @ 4000 rpm, but is over 370 lb ft @ 2000.
It never sees 6000 rpm, but the torque is awesome feeling when powering through the gears.

71Nova383
12th-February-2012, 08:49 AM
That was well said Philip and some times myself and probably a lot of us have to remind our self about that. A lot of times we just want a part just because the name and to say we have it. You guys are helping me think about my build and knowing what needs to be touched and what's already good enough. Thanks

CNC BLOCKS
12th-February-2012, 09:47 AM
The stock crank is a nodular iron, still a cast crank but a bit stronger. Longer rods cause money to be spent on machining the block for clearance, special cams in some cases depending on the rod used and possible machining of the rod to clear the cam. It puts the piston rings into the wrist pin area and the shorter piston has a shorter skirt. I weighed the cost versus the benefit and chose to use the parts the engine was designed with, mine had 120k miles on it when I bought it with no problems other than a worn timing chain. The money saved was spent on the AFR 195 cylinder heads that boosted performance a lot more that a connecting rod that was 0.135" longer. I have not regretted the decision to build it this way.
I did machine the block to a .010" deck, bored the block .030" over size, used dished pistons, a Lunati cam, ARP bolts and studs and quality gaskets. It is by no means a budget build.
You need to decide where you want to go after hearing the pros and cons. I was never one that used any part just to say I had it. If the cost out weighs the gain I pass. There are no polished, billet or chrome goodies on the engine either, they do not make it run better and cause more work keeping it all shiny ;)
To compare numbers the computer dynos put mine at 452 hp @6000 rpm. Torque peaks at 464 lb ft @ 4000 rpm, but is over 370 lb ft @ 2000.
It never sees 6000 rpm, but the torque is awesome feeling when powering through the gears.

Longer rods cause money to be spent on machining the block for clearance

Your not very knowlegable on engines I can tell. But tell me why a 6 inch rods need block clearancing over a 5.7 rod. It depends on the rods your using as a Eagle 5.7 or 6.0 rod need clearancing because of the bolt used in those rods. Go to a callies rods or Lunati pro mod rods the have alot of cam clearance and pan rail clearance over the Eagle rods.

It puts the piston rings into the wrist pin area and the shorter piston has a shorter skirt.

And what wrong with that as its been done for years with out any issues but I use Mahle pistons which use no spacer rings. Having the wrist pin higher in the piston is not a bad thing as it takes alot of thrust of the skirts. With 5.7 rods you have to much skirt hanging out of the bottom of the cylinder at BDC

5.560 and 5.7 rods with a 3.750 stroke has to low of rod ratio and most 5.7 rod cranks need to be extrenally balanced.

Benefits to the 6 inch rod

Better rod ratio

Lighter pistons

Internally balance

Less friction

Less piston hanging out of the bottom of the bore at BDC

Here is a real engine that was actually put on a dyno with 6.000 rods and AFR 195 heads it made 501 on torque and 459 horse. Just a hyd. flat tappet cam.

http://www.chevelles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106715

bowtie0069
12th-February-2012, 11:14 AM
I used 5.85" rods in mine...because they were free!
It makes 615 H.P. and over 500 Ft.Lbs. from 3500-6300 RPM.

carcass
12th-February-2012, 11:45 AM
Philip,
That sounds like an awesome mill! That stock rod length combo sounds like it really simplifies the build. Also your response to the origingal post was based on personal experience in your Nova, and I like that.

Ironman
12th-February-2012, 12:07 PM
Here is a neat little combo
http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=447197

5.7 or 6.0 rods, either way will work as long as it is matched to the piston. For what you are doing, the stock rod would work.

Personally I would buy a matched set of pistons and rods rather than piece meal from ebay, at least for the main rotating assembly. Get a price from your engine machinist for the rotator - the price may be the same or better than a Summit at the end of the day.

As far as p-v clearance you will need to check regardless of the direction you go, never assume you wont hit. Check bearing clearances, pushrod length, cam to rod clearance, ring fit to piston, etc. Just takes some time and patience, but bottom line don't skip the important stuff. Good luck with your hot rod and bottom line -> enjoy what you are messing with!

The Big Al
12th-February-2012, 12:09 PM
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/4467/rodratio.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/849/rodratio.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

From Smokey:

Click on image to make larger to read.

http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/9592/smoeyunickonrodlenth000.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/839/smoeyunickonrodlenth000.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/9592/smoeyunickonrodlenth000.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/813/smoeyunickonrodlenth000.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Pandora's Box
12th-February-2012, 12:14 PM
I have the stock rods in mine and it runs great. Unless you are building a race engine the stock bottom end with good bolts will hold together just fine. Build it for low end torque and it will be fun to drive on the street. The big change on mine were the heads and cam. It really made the 400 come alive. Very dependable, with good power and decent fuel mileage.

The stock crank is a nodular iron, still a cast crank but a bit stronger. Longer rods cause money to be spent on machining the block for clearance, special cams in some cases depending on the rod used and possible machining of the rod to clear the cam. It puts the piston rings into the wrist pin area and the shorter piston has a shorter skirt. I weighed the cost versus the benefit and chose to use the parts the engine was designed with, mine had 120k miles on it when I bought it with no problems other than a worn timing chain. The money saved was spent on the AFR 195 cylinder heads that boosted performance a lot more that a connecting rod that was 0.135" longer. I have not regretted the decision to build it this way.
I did machine the block to a .010" deck, bored the block .030" over size, used dished pistons, a Lunati cam, ARP bolts and studs and quality gaskets. It is by no means a budget build.
You need to decide where you want to go after hearing the pros and cons. I was never one that used any part just to say I had it. If the cost out weighs the gain I pass. There are no polished, billet or chrome goodies on the engine either, they do not make it run better and cause more work keeping it all shiny ;)
To compare numbers the computer dynos put mine at 452 hp @6000 rpm. Torque peaks at 464 lb ft @ 4000 rpm, but is over 370 lb ft @ 2000.
It never sees 6000 rpm, but the torque is awesome feeling when powering through the gears.

Well said Philip! :thumbsup:

Many of the "nervous nellie's" out there with blank checks falling out of their pockets will do anything to change something because somebody else said it should be done.

My original Oddy built 406 utilized the stock crank and the stock rods. Now these parts were massaged but they still were GM parts and they worked very well. No, you're not going to spin them to 7000 rpm but Pandora's Box still went 7.90's in the 1/8th on street tires and that wasn't too shabby for a street car.

Many 400/406 combinations are out there running stock cranks & rods, they have for years and they have done well.

Is it the "best", no but anything can be improved on all you have to do is get out that "Blank Check"!

Paul Wright
12th-February-2012, 12:26 PM
Here's some good reasons not to use the stock short 400 rods.

They are much weaker than regular 5.7" rods.
If you are re-using the rods that were in the engine, consider the fatigue life. Most 400 rods have probably well over 50% of fatigue life used up. Resizing and new rods bolts will help but it will cost nearly the same as a new set of new and better metallurgy forged rods.
You can buy "stroker" rods with that minimize or eliminate block grinding
Rod angularity. Argue all you want about long rod vs short rod, but increasing rod angularity does increase thrust wear at mid stroke.
Longer rods allow a lighter piston because the CH is less. Lighter pistons reduce reciprocating mass which helps acceleration and reduces load on the rotating assembly.


Here's the only reason to use the stock 400 rods.

Might save a couple bucks.

The Big Al
12th-February-2012, 12:58 PM
If your going to purchase pistons, a 5.7 rod even stock is a better choice.

Also, you will not find any performance piston with a stk 400 rod.
I wonder why???


The answer of "THIS IS WHAT I HAVE" is not the answer to the question.

stock z/28
12th-February-2012, 01:40 PM
If your going to purchase pistons, a 5.7 rod even stock is a better choice.

Also, you will not find any performance piston with a stk 400 rod.
I wonder why???


The answer of "THIS IS WHAT I HAVE" is not the answer to the question.

Hi Al,

I may be wrong, but I get quite a few performance style pistons that have compression height dimensions that will work with a 5.565" rod. I "think" its the same piston as is used with a 4.125" (nominal) bore and a 5.7" in rod with a 3.48" stroke to get a 377 cid (4.155" bore I think?).

I have seen quite a few 5.565" rod 400s go very fast over years especially in stock and super stock applications.

I would prefer nowadays to use a 6" rod for piston weight and ease of balance.

In my opinion for an average street type car about any rod/piston combo 400 performs pretty well if its built right.

I actually prefer a 5.565" rod in some combinations, but thats just me. Its not very respected and/or popular, but it does what I desire.

As far as the stock crank goes, I would have it checked out (including a simple hardness test) and if its OK, I would not hesitate to use it in a mild external balance application.

Have your machinist buddy pay special attention to the steam holes and head bolt holes in the deck for cracks, if he hasn't already, but I bet he was anyway. Its a common problem with 400s (starter boss issues as well, and it may need a hole drilled and taped?).

Oh well good luck,

Jeff

CNC BLOCKS
12th-February-2012, 01:44 PM
Here's some good reasons not to use the stock short 400 rods.

They are much weaker than regular 5.7" rods.
If you are re-using the rods that were in the engine, consider the fatigue life. Most 400 rods have probably well over 50% of fatigue life used up. Resizing and new rods bolts will help but it will cost nearly the same as a new set of new and better metallurgy forged rods.
You can buy "stroker" rods with that minimize or eliminate block grinding
Rod angularity. Argue all you want about long rod vs short rod, but increasing rod angularity does increase thrust wear at mid stroke.
Longer rods allow a lighter piston because the CH is less. Lighter pistons reduce reciprocating mass which helps acceleration and reduces load on the rotating assembly.


Here's the only reason to use the stock 400 rods.

Might save a couple bucks.



Paul

Thanks for posting

As you can tell some guys here don't have a clue or understand how an engine works or what it takes to make it run properly!!!:no::no: and some base all there info on just one engine LOL:D

stock z/28
12th-February-2012, 02:06 PM
Paul

Thanks for posting

As you can tell some guys here don't have a clue or understand how an engine works or what it takes to make it run properly!!!:no::no: and some base all there info on just one engine LOL:D

You know Carl, about every time I think I have clue about something, I find I may not.

I stopped worrying about who had a clue and who didnt a long time ago, and just basically paid more attention to what the clue was, and how it might be beneficial or not.

One engine, or a 1000 engines, I will still listen to what someone thinks, if its done in resonable, and respectful manner.

Probably a lot more than 1 way to to achieve a specific goal, and then there is always that learning process thing to consider?

I guess I am just a hard learner.

I am sure I had (have) numerous learning disorders in my life, but I try.

I actually enjoy seeing people do things differently than the "norm" or the popular, and I must say I have been surprised a lot over the years by what was accomplished by some apparently abstract approaches to a situation.

Jeff

Philip
12th-February-2012, 02:46 PM
Carl you are correct I am not an engine guru, I do however respect opinions of the engine builders that helped with mine. The machinist that did the work on the block, crank and rods had 400 engines in his daily driver and race car, the person that assembled it builds 800 + hp custom big blocks for those that can afford his services and has a short rod 400 in his Chevelle. The combination I have performs well, it runs on pump premium with no detonation or over heating issues and can be driven anywhere I need to go.
As stated it is not a race engine but a very good performing street engine. All of the expensive parts you and the other engine builders like to use are fine, I chose not to and if I won the lottery and had it to do over again it would be built the same way.
It would be nice if the respect work both ways, but you and Al and Paul seem to think the GM engineers got the design so wrong that every 400 has to be stuffed full of after market parts to be built correctly.

CNC BLOCKS
12th-February-2012, 03:35 PM
Carl you are correct I am not an engine guru, I do however respect opinions of the engine builders that helped with mine. The machinist that did the work on the block, crank and rods had 400 engines in his daily driver and race car, the person that assembled it builds 800 + hp custom big blocks for those that can afford his services and has a short rod 400 in his Chevelle. The combination I have performs well, it runs on pump premium with no detonation or over heating issues and can be driven anywhere I need to go.
As stated it is not a race engine but a very good performing street engine. All of the expensive parts you and the other engine builders like to use are fine, I chose not to and if I won the lottery and had it to do over again it would be built the same way.
It would be nice if the respect work both ways, but you and Al and Paul seem to think the GM engineers got the design so wrong that every 400 has to be stuffed full of after market parts to be built correctly.

but you and Al and Paul seem to think the GM engineers got the design so wrong that every 400 has to be stuffed full of after market parts to be built correctly

The GM engineers built a 180 horse engine that was only made for a few years does that tell you anything. I highly doubt the engine you are talking about is 180 horse. And what did that stock engine turn for RPM????????

The 400 block is the poorest block GM ever designed by the those engineers and rod ratios externally balanced is not the hot set up and look at those mickey mouse rods they used.

If that was a good engine GM would still be making it. HMMMMMM

I know I can make a 400 Cubic engine run better then what GM did back 35 years ago.

Pandora's Box
12th-February-2012, 03:45 PM
Paul

Thanks for posting

As you can tell some guys here don't have a clue or understand how an engine works or what it takes to make it run properly!!!:no::no: and some base all there info on just one engine LOL:D

Watch where you're pointing that "some guys" finger at!

Because "some guys" know exactly where to have their engines built and "some guys" think they know how to build engines.

Dealing with a "seasoned" experienced engine builder is better than dealing with "some guy" who thinks he is.

The ones that think they are, are the ones that are firm believers in "if you can't baffle them with brilliants... befuddle them with B.S."!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Philip
12th-February-2012, 04:06 PM
The GM engineers built a 180 horse engine that was only made for a few years does that tell you anything. I highly doubt the engine you are talking about is 180 horse. And what did that stock engine turn for RPM????????

The 400 block is the poorest block GM ever designed by the those engineers and rod ratios externally balanced is not the hot set up and look at those mickey mouse rods they used.

If that was a good engine GM would still be making it. HMMMMMM

I know I can make a 400 Cubic engine run better then what GM did back 35 years ago.

horsepower was not what they going for it was low/mid range torque. The engine was in production for 10 years and it was probably rising oil prices that killed it and most other larger cubic inch motors in 1980.

There were some issues but from the numbers that are still being built a good many of them apparently survived.

I do not doubt you can make them better than GM did 35 years ago, mine is, but the fact remains there is more than one way to achieve that goal.

As I said we all have our opinions and that is what the OP was asking for. Can you just state yours without having to tear down those of others? I read your posts on many boards and the one thing that shines through is you have no tolerance for others opinions.

You will have to play alone now as I no longer wish to discuss this with you. Keep in mind that many people do not respect opinions of closed minded argumentative individuals regardless of the quality of their work.

stock z/28
12th-February-2012, 04:13 PM
The GM engineers built a 180 horse engine that was only made for a few years does that tell you anything. I highly doubt the engine you are talking about is 180 horse. And what did that stock engine turn for RPM????????

The 400 block is the poorest block GM ever designed by the those engineers and rod ratios externally balanced is not the hot set up and look at those mickey mouse rods they used.

If that was a good engine GM would still be making it. HMMMMMM

I know I can make a 400 Cubic engine run better then what GM did back 35 years ago.

Hello Carl.

I would have to agree that the 400 was basically only designed as a low rpm high torque passenger car engine. But it did evolve into a pick up truck, and a 4 barrel version for some Montys, and Chevelles?

While it was certainly no premier performance piece, it has certainly lived a very useful life, at least in my opinion.

I don't really understand the still making them comment? Hell they don't make anything from back in that time era. If it was so bad I cant see them making it for 10 years! That may be longer than they built the 327?

I started building these for cheap circle track applications and some drag racing (377) as early as 71-72 and there were very few aftermarket parts. Not even after market rod bolts, and the stock stuff held up better than I would have expected.

In a 377 the OE block was about all that was used, but it usually held up well. Back then there was no aftermarket caps, few if any good long stroke cranks, but I had excellent luck with what was available- TRW pistons ETC..


With out a doubt, you can make a lot more power now than then, but that doesn't negate the fact that that a lot of competitive races were won with less that ideal 400 parts.

I still see a lot of very good running 400s using 5.565" rods and cast pistons, in true street cars Less than ideal, no-doubt, but far (in my opinion) from non-functional.

I guess I can say that if I built a 400 with a stock block a few simple mods, a good stock crank, and a set of properly prepared 5.565" rods, and the appropriate supporting parts it would make a pretty reasonable street performance engine that I would be happy with.


I dont build a lot of engines Carl, but I have several stock block 400s in the shop now, and a few have several seasons of racing on them and are in basically good condition. I guess not bad for a mid 70s lo-po engine.



Jeff

levisnteeshirt
12th-February-2012, 06:28 PM
Here's some good reasons not to use the stock short 400 rods.

They are much weaker than regular 5.7" rods.
If you are re-using the rods that were in the engine, consider the fatigue life. Most 400 rods have probably well over 50% of fatigue life used up. Resizing and new rods bolts will help but it will cost nearly the same as a new set of new and better metallurgy forged rods.
You can buy "stroker" rods with that minimize or eliminate block grinding
Rod angularity. Argue all you want about long rod vs short rod, but increasing rod angularity does increase thrust wear at mid stroke.
Longer rods allow a lighter piston because the CH is less. Lighter pistons reduce reciprocating mass which helps acceleration and reduces load on the rotating assembly.


Here's the only reason to use the stock 400 rods.

Might save a couple bucks.


how ya figger those rods are weaker ?? i've never saw one break ,,, i have a friend with a super stock cavalier that runs 9.60's with those rods ,, does anyone want to call this slow ?? single 4 barrel , stock cast production heads ,, that nobody else in the world would use ,,,

sbc1320
12th-February-2012, 06:43 PM
Paul

Thanks for posting

As you can tell some guys here don't have a clue or understand how an engine works or what it takes to make it run properly!!!:no::no: and some base all there info on just one engine LOL:D

To make it run properly for their application is the problem here. They are using them for there street cars, not necessarily street-strip or strip only. Those 400s worked like they were from the factory and apparently they are working for these guys that do it their way. I have built them with a 6" rod as in my last 406, but that was around 500 hp and a street-strip car. Hey it's there car and if it works good for them, then that is great. I do hear what Al said about if you are purchasing pistons then you might as well use the 5.7" rod. I don't know myself but if the 5.565" and the 5.7" factory rod were made the same as in the beam area thickness and all, then it stands to reason that the shorter rod would be stronger. I am not arguing about length and scuffing, only everybody has a different way to obtain sometimes the same goal. These guys are doing with these parts and having fun and like I said the shorter rods are serving their purpose for their builds. The main thing for a performance street build is to use a good rod bolt as in ARP and resize the rods. Just my two cents.

CNC BLOCKS
12th-February-2012, 06:57 PM
To make it run properly for their application is the problem here. They are using them for there street cars, not necessarily street-strip or strip only. Those 400s worked like they were from the factory and apparently they are working for these guys that do it their way. I have built them with a 6" rod as in my last 406, but that was around 500 hp and a street-strip car. Hey it's there car and if it works good for them, then that is great. I do hear what Al said about if you are purchasing pistons then you might as well use the 5.7" rod. I don't know myself but if the 5.565" and the 5.7" factory rod were made the same as in the beam area thickness and all, then it stands to reason that the shorter rod would be stronger. I am not arguing about length and scuffing, only everybody has a different way to obtain sometimes the same goal. These guys are doing with these parts and having fun and like I said the shorter rods are serving their purpose for their builds. The main thing for a performance street build is to use a good rod bolt as in ARP and resize the rods. Just my two cents.

I don't know myself but if the 5.565" and the 5.7" factory rod were made the same as in the beam area thickness and all

I guess you don't know that 1978 up rods to the PM rods that GM changed the beam of the rods and there is more material around the rod bolts on the later rods as well.

GM did that beacause of problems with the earlier rods were to weak LOL

CNC BLOCKS
12th-February-2012, 07:02 PM
how ya figger those rods are weaker ?? i've never saw one break ,,, i have a friend with a super stock cavalier that runs 9.60's with those rods ,, does anyone want to call this slow ?? single 4 barrel , stock cast production heads ,, that nobody else in the world would use ,,,

In 38 years of building performance engines I have seen quite a few broken 400 rods and stock 5.7

Basing all your info on just one engine is like comparing apples to oranges HMMMMMMMMMMMM

WOW ONE ENGINE

sbc1320
12th-February-2012, 07:40 PM
I guess you don't know that 1978 up rods to the PM rods that GM changed the beam of the rods and there is more material around the rod bolts on the later rods as well.

GM did that beacause of problems with the earlier rods were to weak LOL

The first set of 400 rods I gave back to my buddy as I only wanted the block(I paid $50 for it) and didn't pay much attention to the rods. The second set I handled I threw away and gave away the crank which was in excellent condition. So I really never paid any attention to those rods.

Pandora's Box
12th-February-2012, 08:29 PM
In 38 years of building performance engines I have seen quite a few broken 400 rods and stock 5.7

Basing all your info on just one engine is like comparing apples to oranges HMMMMMMMMMMMM

WOW ONE ENGINE

Lets see now......

Jim Oddy has been building engines for well over 50 years, has been a pioneer in super chargers, has been an NHRA and IHRA record holder and champion and was recognized by the NHRA with a 2011 Lifetime Achievement award.

His shop had no problem building a very well built 406 utilizing the stock 400 crank & rods.

And your attributes are............ HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

The Big Al
12th-February-2012, 08:50 PM
Hi Al,

I may be wrong, but I get quite a few performance style pistons that have compression height dimensions that will work with a 5.565" rod. I "think" its the same piston as is used with a 4.125" (nominal) bore and a 5.7" in rod with a 3.48" stroke to get a 377 cid (4.155" bore I think?).

Jeff

Think about what your saying! 377 is not a 400

A 377 is a 400 piston 1.560 compression height (stk for 400) used with a (350) 3.48 stroke crank and (350) 5.7 rods.
It's the same rod ratio as a 350 cu engine. It's a 350 reciprocating system.


Not that Summit list every piston!
But lets look!
4.155 bore (.030 over) 1.560 compression height, can build stock 400 w/5.565 rod or a 377 w/5.7 rod and 350 crank.

http://www.summitracing.com/search/Part-Type/Pistons/Make/CHEVROLET/Engine-Type/V8/Engine-Size/6-6L-400/Bore-in/4-155-in/Compression-Distance-in/1-560-in/In-Stock/Yes/Rod-Length/5-565-in/?Ns=Rank|Asc

-------------------------------

With 5.7 rods: for 400 crank
http://www.summitracing.com/search/Part-Type/Pistons/Make/CHEVROLET/Engine-Type/V8/Engine-Size/6-6L-400/Bore-in/4-155-in/In-Stock/Yes/Rod-Length/5-700-in/?Ns=Rank|Asc&page=1

-------------------------------
With 6.0 rods for 400 crank
http://www.summitracing.com/search/Part-Type/Pistons/Make/CHEVROLET/Engine-Type/V8/Engine-Size/6-6L-400/Bore-in/4-155-in/In-Stock/Yes/Rod-Length/6-000-in/Stroke/3-750-in/?Ns=Rank|Asc&page=2

================================================== =======

This argument has been going on this and many other forums for years. And for many years it was a speed secret.

If someone wants to build a short rod engine, so be it.
I have seen worse mistakes.

Al

Pandora's Box
12th-February-2012, 09:05 PM
This argument has been going on this and many other forums for years. And for many years it was a speed secret.

If someone wants to build a short rod engine, so be it.
I have seen worse mistakes.

Al

Well said and should be the end to this story! :yes:

But I'm sure it won't. :rolleyes:

stock z/28
12th-February-2012, 10:22 PM
Think about what your saying! 377 is not a 400

A 377 is a 400 piston 1.560 compression height (stk for 400) used with a (350) 3.48 stroke crank and (350) 5.7 rods.
It's the same rod ratio as a 350 cu engine. It's a 350 reciprocating system.


Not that Summit list every piston!
But lets look!
4.155 bore (.030 over) 1.560 compression height, can build stock 400 w/5.565 rod or a 377 w/5.7 rod and 350 crank.

http://www.summitracing.com/search/Part-Type/Pistons/Make/CHEVROLET/Engine-Type/V8/Engine-Size/6-6L-400/Bore-in/4-155-in/Compression-Distance-in/1-560-in/In-Stock/Yes/Rod-Length/5-565-in/?Ns=Rank|Asc

-------------------------------

With 5.7 rods: for 400 crank
http://www.summitracing.com/search/Part-Type/Pistons/Make/CHEVROLET/Engine-Type/V8/Engine-Size/6-6L-400/Bore-in/4-155-in/In-Stock/Yes/Rod-Length/5-700-in/?Ns=Rank|Asc&page=1

-------------------------------
With 6.0 rods for 400 crank
http://www.summitracing.com/search/Part-Type/Pistons/Make/CHEVROLET/Engine-Type/V8/Engine-Size/6-6L-400/Bore-in/4-155-in/In-Stock/Yes/Rod-Length/6-000-in/Stroke/3-750-in/?Ns=Rank|Asc&page=2

================================================== =======

This argument has been going on this and many other forums for years. And for many years it was a speed secret.

If someone wants to build a short rod engine, so be it.
I have seen worse mistakes.

Al

I did think about what I was saying Al.

Your original statement was that there was no high performance piston for a 400 with a stock rod. There are many. It just so happens that you have a choice on cranks and rod combos with that piston.

I really don't care what anyone builds.

Short rod- long rod- no ** rods= I don't care.


But there are many basic off the shelf components available to build many combinations.

testcase
12th-February-2012, 10:28 PM
I respect guys like Jeff, Stock z/28, he has no doubt built a crap load motors than I have, who advocates the useability of the factory rods, as I do many others here all listing valid reasons to go to the longer rod.

The one question I haven't seen asked here is, what is the difference cost wise to prep a set of 100K mile stock rods, add good bolts, resize ect... Versus a new set of 5.7 or 6.0 I beam rods from scat or Eagle.

I know you can get a set of aftermarket 5.7 rods for way under 200.00.

Figure $60.00 for new rod bolts for the stockers, plus machining? For a weaker rod with tons of miles on them? Maybe you save $30-40.00?

Doesn't add up for me.

Am I too high on the recon $$ of the stock rods?

the FLYER
12th-February-2012, 10:38 PM
i've always felt good that i could sit amongst friends and talk and learn and have it be a friendly exchange... i can't claim nor have i ever claimed to know everything, let alone anything about the principles of bore/stroke. it's always been nice to relate experiences as a layman to other laymen and to also have the benefit of other's experiences and knowledge... hey, we're all kickin' it in my/your/their shop shootin' the breeze. :yes:

one thing i did learn long ago, there is more than one way to do things...

it depends on what ya want...

the FLYER
12th-February-2012, 10:43 PM
we used to mag then polish, install bolts, resize, balance & shot peen the rods...
good rods cost considerably more then compared to now, cranks too...

quality of rod bolts have gone up too...

sbc1320
12th-February-2012, 10:47 PM
i've always felt good that i could sit amongst friends and talk and learn and have it be a friendly exchange... i can't claim nor have i ever claimed to know everything, let alone anything about the principles of bore/stroke. it's always been nice to relate experiences as a layman to other laymen and to also have the benefit of other's experiences and knowledge... hey, we're all kickin' it in my/your/their shop shootin' the breeze. :yes:

one thing i did learn long ago, there is more than one way to do things...

it depends on what ya want...

I agree, many different ways to get there. I could care less who built what, names don't mean anything to me. I have built all my own for around 37 years now and so far haven't ever had to redo my stuff. If I want to go fast I will make it go fast. It all depends on what and how far you want to go. One big happy family.:yes::yes::yes:

JRouche
13th-February-2012, 12:07 AM
i've always felt good that i could sit amongst friends and talk and learn and have it be a friendly exchange...

YES!! I think we are from the same piece of cloth. I LOVE to here ideas and shoot the breeze with like minded folks.

Hell, sitting in the garage, who evers garage and having a drink and tossing the ideas around.

As long as Im with friends I am having a good time.

Oh, and its NEVER a pissing contest. My friends and I are usually just trouble shooting someones car or admiring the new car on the street. I have to say. I love the folks that are in my local set of peeps. JR

stock z/28
13th-February-2012, 08:34 AM
I respect guys like Jeff, Stock z/28, he has no doubt built a crap load motors than I have, who advocates the useability of the factory rods, as I do many others here all listing valid reasons to go to the longer rod.

The one question I haven't seen asked here is, what is the difference cost wise to prep a set of 100K mile stock rods, add good bolts, resize ect... Versus a new set of 5.7 or 6.0 I beam rods from scat or Eagle.

I know you can get a set of aftermarket 5.7 rods for way under 200.00.

Figure $60.00 for new rod bolts for the stockers, plus machining? For a weaker rod with tons of miles on them? Maybe you save $30-40.00?

Doesn't add up for me.


I totally agree that with you that you can buy an aftermarket rod with with some type of enhanced quality rod bolt for probably "less" money than you would have in properly prepared stock set. That is why I am not recommending using any rod stock or other wise. All that I am trying say is that a lot of engines have been very successful with a 5.565" rod, stock or other wise.


I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but when it comes to aftermarket rods, there are a lot of the "budget" import rods that I am not impressed with, in fact I would prefer a "stock" rod in a lot of applications. Not a lot of quality control in my opinion.

Just to clarify my thoughts- I would not be afraid to use a stock 5.565" rod in a moderate hp 400 for a typical street car. I have used these rod quite a bit and (knock on wood) never had one break, and to the best of my memory no bearing issues either, but I am very particular in their prep..

CNC BLOCKS
13th-February-2012, 09:15 AM
If someone wants to build a short rod engine, so be it.
I have seen worse mistakes.

Al

We said Al

bowtie0069
13th-February-2012, 10:17 AM
Never used the 400 rods in anything, but my old 14.5-1 iron headed 406" had a stock cast crank and stock 5.7" rods that saw the wrong side of 8000 RPM many, many times. It wasn't making a ton of power back then, but it ran 10.80's, went on a couple Power Tours, and went 9's with a shot of nitrous. The rotating assembly is still in my shop, and the crank still checked good the last time I used it. Of course, it could all go to hell on the next pass, but if I had a decent .030" over 400 block...

levisnteeshirt
13th-February-2012, 10:49 AM
In 38 years of building performance engines I have seen quite a few broken 400 rods and stock 5.7

Basing all your info on just one engine is like comparing apples to oranges HMMMMMMMMMMMM

WOW ONE ENGINE

i've saw several 383's built using them ,,, never had a problem with years of use ,,, 6500 rpm motors ,,, i helped my brother build one ,, budget ,,, he took it to 6700 over and over and over ,,, no problems ,,, the engine is still running + 10 years

if i was building a 383 motor for a truck ,, i wouldn't hesitate to use them ,, no clearence issues ,, no problem with the cam ,,, over on Speedtalk there was a guy using a set on an EMC engine ,, 185cc bowtie vortecs , hyd roller ,,, he was making 550 hp with them ,, thats a stout engine on pump fuel ,, ,, if i had them i'd use them ,, if i had to buy a set , i'd go with a 5.7 or 6.0 ,,, but if i had them ,, had modest goals in mind ,, i wouldn't have a problem using a set

novanutcase
13th-February-2012, 12:11 PM
Gents?

There is a well spring of knowledge on this site that we can all benefit from.

Hell, just reading the posts that have been posted on this thread has supplied me with some very useful info.

Let's try and keep it civil. I know that it can get maddening when you have a setup that has worked great but, as mentioned, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

John

levisnteeshirt
13th-February-2012, 06:43 PM
the 347 fuud people are prolly laughing pretty hard at somebody complaining about a 5.565 rod

Pandora's Box
13th-February-2012, 06:57 PM
the 347 fuud people are prolly laughing pretty hard at somebody complaining about a 5.565 rod

:doh: :no: :no: :no:

That is pretty funny though! :yes:







:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

testcase
13th-February-2012, 10:52 PM
I totally agree that with you that you can buy an aftermarket rod with with some type of enhanced quality rod bolt for probably "less" money than you would have in properly prepared stock set. That is why I am not recommending using any rod stock or other wise. All that I am trying say is that a lot of engines have been very successful with a 5.565" rod, stock or other wise.


I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but when it comes to aftermarket rods, there are a lot of the "budget" import rods that I am not impressed with, in fact I would prefer a "stock" rod in a lot of applications. Not a lot of quality control in my opinion.

Just to clarify my thoughts- I would not be afraid to use a stock 5.565" rod in a moderate hp 400 for a typical street car. I have used these rod quite a bit and (knock on wood) never had one break, and to the best of my memory no bearing issues either, but I am very particular in their prep..

I see what you're saying, I have abused many a set of GM rods and with the right prep they certainly can be used. And we still have a heavily massaged st of 5.7s going in a crate motor stocker, but that's a rules thing.

71Nova383
13th-February-2012, 11:29 PM
Wow has this post grew? What's with the arguing? Everybody knows there is more than one way to build an engine. This **** starting to sound like a political debate here lol. Anyways my main question was what all had to be changed in order use the 5.7 rod? Yes I would like everything to be the best of the best but unfortunate I am on a budget and I am going to have to stay stock on a lot of things. If I could afford to put the best parts and the best of everything in this engine then I would just say the hell with it and buy a turn key...lol thanks for the help and info on the 400.

sbc1320
14th-February-2012, 10:33 AM
Wow has this post grew? What's with the arguing? Everybody knows there is more than one way to build an engine. This **** starting to sound like a political debate here lol. Anyways my main question was what all had to be changed in order use the 5.7 rod? Yes I would like everything to be the best of the best but unfortunate I am on a budget and I am going to have to stay stock on a lot of things. If I could afford to put the best parts and the best of everything in this engine then I would just say the hell with it and buy a turn key...lol thanks for the help and info on the 400.

Only the piston needs to match the rod length and the stroke of the crank or it will come up to short from the top of the deck or it will come out past the top of the deck. I have the 5.7 rods in my fresh 383 with Probe pistons and the Scat 9000 3.75" stroke crank. Good luck with yours.

levisnteeshirt
14th-February-2012, 11:01 AM
what makes the 400 rod 383 so much fun ,, is that you do not have to spend an arm and a leg on this motor and it still performs very well ,,, take a set of 350 flat top pistons for a stock 350 rod ,, 1.560 comp height , 400 rod , 400 crank turned to fit ,, you can have a rotator for under 350 bucks if you use a cast piston ,, i think thats half the fun in this ,, to see what you can do without spending a ton of cash ,, if a person likes to spend money ,, well go spend it ,,, but you don't have to ,, if you want a 450-500 hp motor

Paul Wright
14th-February-2012, 01:14 PM
the 347 fuud people are prolly laughing pretty hard at somebody complaining about a 5.565 rod

So is a short rod Ford 347 better than a 5.7" rod Chevy 350?
How long is the 347 stroke? 3.4" How is that the same as a 3.75" stroke?
The problem with the Ford Windsor small block is the deck height is significantly shorter (8.2") than the SBC (9.025"). If they could package a longer rod, they would.

I'd say put some 400 rods in a 350 and see how well it runs. Shouldn't make any difference, right?

what makes the 400 rod 383 so much fun ,, is that you do not have to spend an arm and a leg on this motor and it still performs very well ,,, take a set of 350 flat top pistons for a stock 350 rod ,, 1.560 comp height , 400 rod , 400 crank turned to fit ,, you can have a rotator for under 350 bucks if you use a cast piston ,, i think thats half the fun in this ,, to see what you can do without spending a ton of cash ,, if a person likes to spend money ,, well go spend it ,,, but you don't have to ,, if you want a 450-500 hp motor

The two pistons CH is 1.560 and 1.425 for 5.7"
You can buy claimer 2 eyebrow 5.7" rod 400 pistons for $209 from Summit (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/UEM-9911HC-STD/). Better compression, squish and hypereutectic.
How much are stock, low compression cast 400 pistons? about $26.99 each (http://www.summitracing.com/parts/SLP-W400AP/) ($216).
That equals more money and less performance!

How much are 350 5.7" rods. Cores are basically free they are so common.

Resizing costs the same.

Where is the cost savings with short rods?

The Big Al
14th-February-2012, 01:36 PM
S
I'd say put some 400 rods in a 350 and see how well it runs. Shouldn't make any difference, right?





If it cranks up and runs, spins the tires. Bounces needle on the Sun Super tach. and even if it blows up, they only had 350.00 dollars in it.



The definition is in my signature.

=================================

Nobody has even looked into why those high revving Mopars and Ford BB FE's were so RPM happy!

Al

stock z/28
14th-February-2012, 01:38 PM
So is a short rod Ford 347 better than a 5.7" rod Chevy 350?
How long is the 347 stroke? 3.4" How is that the same as a 3.75" stroke?
The problem with the Ford Windsor small block is the deck height is significantly shorter (8.2") than the SBC (9.025"). If they could package a longer rod, they would.

I'd say put some 400 rods in a 350 and see how well it runs. Shouldn't make any difference, right?

Hi Paul,

What do you think the chances a 5.565" rod 350 would possibly perform better than the 5.7" rod in certain RPM ranges?

Maybe idle to, just say 2000 RPM?

With maybe a low octane faster burning (possibly cheaper?) fuel?
Think there may be any advantage to a faster accelerating piston speed in low RPM, high torque applications?

I know once again I'm all by myself, but if I could cheaply build this combination I would.

Counterweight interference issues are the budget problems, or I would have had one by now, just to play with.

stock z/28
14th-February-2012, 01:53 PM
Just to add a little additional info, I have built a lot of 5.565" rod 383s and actually prefer the shorter rod, but its hard to do with most import cranks as the counterweight is somewhat different in shape than the OE 400 crankshaft, and there is a very good chance there will be interference with the piston at or near BDC.


I still modify the original 400 cranks to build this combination even though its a lot more practical to just buy the $129.00 import 3.75" crank.


Its just my preference for this particular combination, and I am not trying to sell anyone on it, but it does seem to work well in a lot instances up to about the 5000 RPM range. If a realistic operating point was above that I would probably go the easier Chinese route.

Jeff

levisnteeshirt
14th-February-2012, 07:24 PM
you can buy TRW forged 350 stock replacement pistons ,, and build a solid 383 with the 400 rods ,,, i'm sure all the nascar engine builder strikers won't like them ,, but that combo does very good ,, so ahead ,, spend more if u want ,, depends on what you have when you start and what you want to do ,,, 500 hp , i'd use the 400 rods IF i had them ,, i've seen too many of them built ,, and last when they're getting ran hard for years ,,, drag racing , circle tracking ,, they do a decent job

you can get 350 replacement pistons for around 100 bucks if u shop around ,, so , it is cheaper to go the 400 rod route ,, saw 'em do good ,, ,, 6500 rpm ,, they do fine

the one we did for my brother ,, he had a 400 that the start boss broke off , so , we had the crank and rods ,, its still running with over 10 years of use ,,

my neighbor had one in a pick up he ran for 5-6 years ,, 400 rods ,,, i can't dislike them cuz i've saw too many to a fine job ,,

Paul Wright
14th-February-2012, 10:03 PM
Hi Paul,

What do you think the chances a 5.565" rod 350 would possibly perform better than the 5.7" rod in certain RPM ranges?

Maybe idle to, just say 2000 RPM?

With maybe a low octane faster burning (possibly cheaper?) fuel?
Think there may be any advantage to a faster accelerating piston speed in low RPM, high torque applications?

I know once again I'm all by myself, but if I could cheaply build this combination I would.

Counterweight interference issues are the budget problems, or I would have had one by now, just to play with.

Actually, my guess is might be better as a low RPM truck engine. It "should" have a sharper vacuum signal and power band would shift left with torque below 2,800 rpm.


Piston CH would be 1.695". 327 pistons are 1.675" & 302 pistons are 1.8" CH so it would require a custom piston.

I don't think a short rod 350 would be very good as a performance engine.
My gut feeling is if a 400 rod in a 350 had an advantage, it would have become a common trick years ago. You don't think Jenkins or Yunick or anyone else wouldn't have done that if it worked?

The trend has been to longer, not shorter rods. The redesigned LS engine went to even longer rods than the 5.7" rods of the previous SBC. Why wouldn't they shorten everything to make it more compact if it didn't hurt anything? All Nascar engines (even Fords) use long rods not short.

I remember we experimented with using 5.7" and 6.0" Bowtie rods in Ford race engines a very long time ago.

Doing a 5.7" 400 isn't really that expensive considering the 5.7" rotating assemblies are so popular the price is very reasonable.
The 4.155" piston costs the same. The only real difference is where they bore the pin hole. 350 rods are easier to find and rebuilt units are actually cheaper because of volume production.

That brings me to another point. When people brag about $350 assemblies, they are really spoiled by the cheapness of Chevy parts.
Other engines that are not so popular can cost many times to just rebuild because parts aren't as commonly produced.

Paul Wright
14th-February-2012, 10:06 PM
Another general thought:

When I hear the anecdotes about really fast "low budget" engines, my first impulse is to wonder if the owner would sell for the price claimed. In every case, the owner declines because he has a lot of time in skilled modifications, scored some one-of-a-kind "nearly free" parts, or after everything is accounted for, really has more money into it than "advertised".

There should be an Internet "claimer" rule. If someone brags about an engine having extraordinary performance for a ridiculously low price, someone else should be able to buy it from you at that price. If you won't part with it at the price you stated it cost you, it's obviously worth more than the price you claimed.

Also, "bench racing" should always be civil, but it also should be accurate. These kind of controversial threads seem to always go out of control when someone gets mad and starts jabbing.

Baiting someone with smack talk just to get a rise out of them is not productive to the conversation. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. It's a discussion, not a fight to the death battle.

asteeler4life
14th-February-2012, 10:37 PM
MY 400 I WENT OUTSIDE THE BOX WITH THE EAGLE 4340 CRANK, FORGED 5.7 RODS, 10.5:1 PISTONS, RETRO LUNATI VOODOO CAM, (560-565, 243*-251*) CRANE GOLD RACE ROCKERS ALL ARP FASTENERS, STUD GIRDLE, HOLLEY 750 CARB, & A B&M MINI BLOWER.
JUST RAW KICKASS POWER. FOR FUN:rolleyes:

sbc1320
14th-February-2012, 10:44 PM
MY 400 I WENT OUTSIDE THE BOX WITH THE EAGLE 4340 CRANK, FORGED 5.7 RODS, 10.5:1 PISTONS, RETRO LUNATI VOODOO CAM, (560-565, 243*-251*) CRANE GOLD RACE ROCKERS ALL ARP FASTENERS, STUD GIRDLE, HOLLEY 750 CARB, & A B&M MINI BLOWER.
JUST RAW KICKASS POWER. FOR FUN:rolleyes:

Hey Big D, I have that same cam in my 383 right now with the Crane Gold Race rockers and a Jomar stud girdle. On my last 406 I went all Eagle forged with a 6" rod and SRP pistons but I ran a nitrous/blower cam and never installed either so the best I got out of it was 11.60's.

Do you have that setup in your car now?

stock z/28
14th-February-2012, 10:52 PM
Another general thought:

When I hear the anecdotes about really fast "low budget" engines, my first impulse is to wonder if the owner would sell for the price claimed. In every case, the owner declines because he has a lot of time in skilled modifications, scored some one-of-a-kind "nearly free" parts, or after everything is accounted for, really has more money into it than "advertised".

There should be an Internet "claimer" rule. If someone brags about an engine having extraordinary performance for a ridiculously low price, someone else should be able to buy it from you at that price. If you won't part with it at the price you stated it cost you, it's obviously worth more than the price you claimed.

Also, "bench racing" should always be civil, but it also should be accurate. These kind of controversial threads seem to always go out of control when someone gets mad and starts jabbing.

Baiting someone with smack talk just to get a rise out of them is not productive to the conversation. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. It's a discussion, not a fight to the death battle.

Paul,

I would have to say that when I talk "cheap" I mean cheap.

If it were "easy" to use a say a 327 piston with 5.565" rod x 3.48" stroke I would have done it. It would have to be easy to duplicate.


As far as resale value goes, in my opinion, Internet or not in the USA you are entitled to compensation for your efforts?

novanutcase
14th-February-2012, 11:09 PM
There should be an Internet "claimer" rule. If someone brags about an engine having extraordinary performance for a ridiculously low price, someone else should be able to buy it from you at that price. If you won't part with it at the price you stated it cost you, it's obviously worth more than the price you claimed.

THIS needs to be in the site rules whenever a member signs up!!!

John

Baddbob
14th-February-2012, 11:10 PM
Joe Sherman has probably built more performance 400 based motors than most everyone on this site and he did the 5.7 vs 5.565 dyno test years ago with almost no measurable power differences. Go over to speedtalk.com and do a search or PM Big Joe, the test also been featured in a magazine article. Benefits of using the longer rod include: less side loading of the piston, less piston weight for rpm and easier balancing. Reher Morrison also has some good technical data on the no power benefits of longer rod length.

Paul Wright
15th-February-2012, 12:14 AM
Paul,

I would have to say that when I talk "cheap" I mean cheap.

If it were "easy" to use a say a 327 piston with 5.565" rod x 3.48" stroke I would have done it. It would have to be easy to duplicate.


As far as resale value goes, in my opinion, Internet or not in the USA you are entitled to compensation for your efforts?

That's my point. If your efforts add significant value to the engine, then it's not as cheap as claimed. If it's not easy to duplicate, then it's not going to be cheap to duplicate by someone without the necessary skills.
That means the end result should have a a higher valuation.

What it cost and what it's worth can be two vastly different amounts.

testcase
15th-February-2012, 12:25 AM
Joe Sherman has probably built more performance 400 based motors than most everyone on this site and he did the 5.7 vs 5.565 dyno test years ago with almost no measurable power differences. Go over to speedtalk.com and do a search or PM Big Joe, the test also been featured in a magazine article. Benefits of using the longer rod include: less side loading of the piston, less piston weight for rpm and easier balancing. Reher Morrison also has some good technical data on the no power benefits of longer rod length.

Even if there is no power gain the rod angle and the fact that if you have to pay to have a set of rods done anyway, why use the short rod?

Maybe if you had the 5.565 rods and didn't do any work to them, just threw them in the motor as is...

asteeler4life
15th-February-2012, 12:28 AM
Hey Big D, I have that same cam in my 383 right now with the Crane Gold Race rockers and a Jomar stud girdle. On my last 406 I went all Eagle forged with a 6" rod and SRP pistons but I ran a nitrous/blower cam and never installed either so the best I got out of it was 11.60's.

Do you have that setup in your car now?

THAT'S IT JOHNNY, :yes:

Paul Wright
15th-February-2012, 12:39 AM
Joe Sherman has probably built more performance 400 based motors than most everyone on this site and he did the 5.7 vs 5.565 dyno test years ago with almost no measurable power differences. Go over to speedtalk.com and do a search or PM Big Joe, the test also been featured in a magazine article. Benefits of using the longer rod include: less side loading of the piston, less piston weight for rpm and easier balancing. Reher Morrison also has some good technical data on the no power benefits of longer rod length.

Let's say it's a wash on HP and Torque.

If the 5.7" rod helps side loading, reduces piston weight and allows easier balancing (which saves money) why use the shorter rod?

The total cost of the 5.565" rod assembly is not significantly cheap enough to warrant the drawbacks.

If you are using low compression, dished 400 stock cast pistons as opposed to flat top, 2 eyebrow performance type pistons to save money, there is a difference in performance. It's not the rod length, but the piston features that increase compression (over dished or 4 eyebrow FT) and the reduced squish dimension.

Optimum rod length is perpetual source of argument.

I would say that if you think that there is NO importance to length, imagine if you tried all physically possible lengths in .100" increments.
Wouldn't there be an effect as the length approached the shortest possible and the the longest possible?

Meaning the HP and torque wouldn't be as flat as theorized ("no difference" between 5.565" and 5.7") but more than likely a bell curve that gets increasingly worse the farther in either direction the length goes from optimum.

The conclusion that "rod length doesn't matter" is a faulty conclusion because the data sample is taken from a part of the total curve with the least amount of change.

Expand the data sample to take into account all possible combinations and the result (and conclusion) will be different.

stock z/28
15th-February-2012, 08:47 AM
Hi Paul,

Seems like this is getting kinda complicated?

As I said earlier I actually prefer the 5.565" rod in some very specific applications

Also I see no reason, in moderate street car to get away from the 400 rod if conditions are favorable for their use.

Typically if someone is buying new pistons I would say a 5.7 or longer is possibly a better choice, for various reasons.

As far as rod lengths in LS style engines go, I would no really know how to compare cause/effect on such different platforms


As always, I just see different ways for someone to accomplish goals.

stock z/28
15th-February-2012, 08:59 AM
Let's say it's a wash on HP and Torque.

If the 5.7" rod helps side loading, reduces piston weight and allows easier balancing (which saves money) why use the shorter rod?

The total cost of the 5.565" rod assembly is not significantly cheap enough to warrant the drawbacks.

If you are using low compression, dished 400 stock cast pistons as opposed to flat top, 2 eyebrow performance type pistons to save money, there is a difference in performance. It's not the rod length, but the piston features that increase compression (over dished or 4 eyebrow FT) and the reduced squish dimension.

Optimum rod length is perpetual source of argument.

I would say that if you think that there is NO importance to length, imagine if you tried all physically possible lengths in .100" increments.
Wouldn't there be an effect as the length approached the shortest possible and the the longest possible?

Meaning the HP and torque wouldn't be as flat as theorized ("no difference" between 5.565" and 5.7") but more than likely a bell curve that gets increasingly worse the farther in either direction the length goes from optimum.

The conclusion that "rod length doesn't matter" is a faulty conclusion because the data sample is taken from a part of the total curve with the least amount of change.

Expand the data sample to take into account all possible combinations and the result (and conclusion) will be different.

If I understand you correctly, I do agree that the performance of of the rods are probably no equal over a broad range.


If the short rod does have any advantage, I would think it would be in the lower rpm range?

Now in my opinion a "real" street car with a moderate gear ratio does not need a lot of rpm, especially if it as over drive.

I think typical "driveabilty" on a lot of vehicles might be improved with a gain in torque in the lower rpm ranges.

Pandora's Box
15th-February-2012, 09:33 AM
Joe Sherman has probably built more performance 400 based motors than most everyone on this site and he did the 5.7 vs 5.565 dyno test years ago with almost no measurable power differences. Go over to speedtalk.com and do a search or PM Big Joe, the test also been featured in a magazine article. Benefits of using the longer rod include: less side loading of the piston, less piston weight for rpm and easier balancing. Reher Morrison also has some good technical data on the no power benefits of longer rod length.

Well some folks here take exception that I utilize as well as quote what my engine builder (Oddy's Automotive) has accomplished. I respect what a "seasoned veteren" engine builder has to say and do because they have done it. Much like the ones "Baddbob" has mentioned as well as Sony Leonard and Pat Mussi that he didn't mention.

All these builders have no problem using the 5.565" 400 rods.

levisnteeshirt
15th-February-2012, 11:23 AM
i remember that Joe Sherman test very well ,, the 5.565 rod motor made 10 less hp , but it made the torque peak earlier ,, this was a heavy built motor ,, 288@ .050 , with around 13-1 ,, ported set of Dart II's if my memory is correct ,,, they tried a 1050 dominator on a single tunnel ram on the 5.565 motor and it caught the 5.7 rod motors HP ,,, maybe the short rod pulled the port so hard it handled the big carb better ,, ????


they swapped the pistons and rods but everything else in the motor was the same ,,,, it made around 600hp ,,, pretty good numbers 15-20 years ago with a cast iron head

they dynoed the crap out of both combo's ,,, a dyno run is a torture test ,, so i think it says alot for the 400 rods being able to stand 500 hp with predicatable results that they'll last ,,, a person might swap them out every couple years in a high hp drag motor , just like you do aluminum rods

Baddbob
16th-February-2012, 01:11 AM
Eagle is still making and selling 5.565 H Beam rods so some people must like them.
http://www.jegs.com/i/Eagle/356/CRS5565B3D/10002/-1

http://www.cnc-motorsports.com/connecting-rods/eagle-crs5565b3d-h-beam-connecting-rods.html

I wonder how much cam clearance they offer?

CNC BLOCKS
16th-February-2012, 02:05 AM
Eagle is still making and selling 5.565 H Beam rods so some people must like them.
http://www.jegs.com/i/Eagle/356/CRS5565B3D/10002/-1

http://www.cnc-motorsports.com/connecting-rods/eagle-crs5565b3d-h-beam-connecting-rods.html

I wonder how much cam clearance they offer?


Eagle H beam rods do not offer the same cam clearance the stock rods do or pan rail clearance either.

Engines with 5.565 rods are exteranlly balanced but if you want to internally balance it can be done but it will cost a fortune.

Here is a pic of a crank we balanced for a 400 blower build and the customer insisted on using 5.7 rods because his friend said it was a good idea and he was warned and was told it was not a good idea, After having to add 4 pieces of heavy metal to the counter weights and the balance job was 650.00 he wish he would have listened,

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y276/CNCBLOCKS/MikeM003.jpg

Here is the link on this build
http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=149584

I guess I am lucky I don't have to deal with stock rods and externally balanced engines!!!

Any new builds with a 3.750 or 3.875 stroke cranks get 6 inch rods and are internally balance with no heavy metal.

Which is better internally balanced or externally balanced?? I choose Internally balanced cranks myself as I think most good engine builders do when it comes to building a performance engine not a stock 400 engine!!!!

bowtie0069
16th-February-2012, 10:23 AM
After having to add 4 pieces of heavy metal to the counter weights and the balance job was 650.00 he wish he would have listened,


I just looked at my old cast 400 crank...8 slugs in that one!

Paul Wright
16th-February-2012, 11:43 AM
I think Carl's balancing argument is the most compelling one presented so far.
If I interpret the post correctly, it sounds like external balance with 5.565" rods, expensive internal balance with 5.7" rods and reasonable balance charge for 6" rods?

levisnteeshirt
16th-February-2012, 12:19 PM
must have been some heavy parts , pistons / rods to need that much weight

all i'm saying ,, is a pretty cool little 383 can be made out of a 400 crank and 400 rods ,,, yeah it will be externally balanced , that doesn't seem to bother every 604 dirt track crate engine that gets the guts ran out of it for 2-3 years, 6800 rpm, lap after lap , night after night , 1/2 miles tracks when its really getting wrung out hard , 3/'8 mile tracks when it pulls a 6.00 gear ,,, , and when ya take them apart everything looks fine , or a GM 454 that runs fine ,, but yes , the most desireable set up is internally balanced ,,, but external balance still works ,, ask a fuud owner ,,,

i think the internal balance bias might be over stressed

Pandora's Box
16th-February-2012, 12:24 PM
Come on guys stop :horse:

Face it, the 400 and its parts work, they have worked and they have worked for years.

Either admitt that it is a viable option or admitt that you just don't know how to build a good one.

End of story!


I'm sick of all this 2nd grade B.S.

The Big Al
16th-February-2012, 12:39 PM
Balancing:
The hole story is not being told.

The high cost of balancing is based on the crankshaft you start with. If you start with a external balanced crank it will cost you a lot to convert it to internal. Or convert it from it's intended use.

Example: You purchase a external balanced crank for 6inch rods and want to use a 5.565 or 5.7 rod it will cost. Your changing the base balance structure of the crank.

================================================== =======
Stroker engine using 5.565 rods are very common in late model // Sportsman racing when they have engine cost rules in effect.

Most tracks that allow you to build your engine have by back rules. Also have protest where your engine will be taken if found illegal.

If someone wants your engine, most tracks will mandate you sell it to them for a set price of 500.00 - 1000.00 (it's set in the rules)

They run 2 barl carbs and most are under 5500 rpm because of stock valve train.

SO COST! Dictates the build!

So what is the easiest way to build a Cheater engine?

The most affordable piston for a small block Chevy is a 350 piston!
So you get a cheep 3.75 stroke crank, a 400 small block rod and 350 pistons and your set.

Also some tech officials will pull your head, see a part number for a 350 piston and walk away.

It's been done for years. And still going on.

================================================== =

""Reher Morrison also has some good technical data on the no power benefits of longer rod length.""


This statement has been long repeated and misinterpreted for a long time.
I have personally taken all the class from Reher Morrison, (thanks to GM)

I quote!

From the class!

"The rod length only needs to connect the crank to the piston" That's it.

Because the piston design, a short skirt length piston reduces friction and weight by moving the piston pin as high into the piston as possible. Reducing reciprocating weight and friction is the only performance and endurance advantage to a short block.
The longer rod is need to connect them. The rod is a factor of connecting the crank and piston. Rod length first is not in the rule of a true performance build.


FYI
Al

stock z/28
16th-February-2012, 01:26 PM
I think Carl's balancing argument is the most compelling one presented so far.
If I interpret the post correctly, it sounds like external balance with 5.565" rods, expensive internal balance with 5.7" rods and reasonable balance charge for 6" rods?

Hi Paul,

Just my opinion but I would have to basically agree that internal balancing is generally preferred in a serious racing application, but for a lot of performance applications external balancing seems to hold up very well. 454s were factory external and I think all of the one piece rear main seal 350s-305- etc.. were external, on the rear.

Its hardly (again just my opinion) worth sticking a lot of money in ballistic tungsten or similar heavy material in a normal performance application, but as was stated an amazing number of cast crank external balanced engines have won a lot of races with no issues.

Would guess internal balancing is fundamentally superior and probably worth a bit of power.

As an example of my thinking on it- if I was just Saturday night racing an automatic mild bracket 400 or similar combination (any length rod?) with a cast crank I would probably be happy with an external balance.

If I was racing that same combination in a limited or class application where every small bit of performance gain is critical I would strive to internal balance it as well as make sure there were no balance drilling holes exposed in the counterweights, and the crank was as aerodynamic as the rules allowed.

As to the ability to internal balance, I think it amounts to the bob-weight calculation vs the counterweight mass.

If you have very "light" components it may be theoretically possible to internally balance a 5.565" rod combination, depending on counterweight configuration and profile, depending generally if the crank will clear the piston at BDC.
Back in the 70s- 80s- and even 90s when there were no "cheap" after market rods and/or cranks there were no budget options on internal vs external. You were either using a stock cast crank with what ever rod or a forged $1200 crank and a set of $1000 rods with a set of $600 pistons. Pretty pricey in those days for a Saturday night toy?

Back then and even occasionally today (for somewhat nefarious reasons) I would tig weld a plate on the inner side of the front and rear counterweight, on stock cranks to achieve internal balancing with a any rod (any length steel aftermarket rods can weigh considerably more than a stock rod) and that was a lot cheaper than heavy metal installation but basically the crank was never going to be able to have the rod throws ground after this process, but they were only stock cast cranks anyway. It more than got the job done a few are still racing today.

Then the import parts became available at budget prices and about any thing was possible balance wise even with a moderate bob-weight.

Wow, sorry to drag this out and for boring you guys, but to summarize a bit, as was said , about any of these combinations will work for most moderate street and/or performance applications, no need to rehash that stuff.



Jeff

The Big Al
16th-February-2012, 01:36 PM
I think all of the one piece rear main seal 350s-305- etc.. were external, on the rear.



Jeff

"HALF" is that makes and sense.:rolleyes:

The removal of the crank tab weight at the rear of the crank shaft on the one piece rear main cause them to move that weight to the flex-plate/flywheel.

All one piece rear main engines are external at the flywheel/flex-plate.

Not like the 400/454 with balancer and flywheel/flex-plate.

AL

stock z/28
16th-February-2012, 02:23 PM
"HALF" is that makes and sense.:rolleyes:

The removal of the crank tab weight at the rear of the crank shaft on the one piece rear main cause them to move that weight to the flex-plate/flywheel.

All one piece rear main engines are external at the flywheel/flex-plate.

Not like the 400/454 with balancer and flywheel/flex-plate.

AL

Al, I am afraid you will have explain this post a bit in more simplistic terms. Remember I am a bit challenged in comprehension issues.

I think its apparent that removing the crank flange on the later one piece seal small blocks forced counterweight mass to have to be added to the flywheel as there was not enough mass in the crank rear counterweight to allow a neutral balance in the rear. So in very basic terms the the rear is external and the front internal.

I didn't mention anything about 1 piece big blocks but I believe there is 2 separate external balance masses regarding 1 vs 2 piece seal but the bolt pattern of the flywheel is the same.

Its kinda like the tall deck truck 427 was external and the pass car 427 was internal. I think it was just cheaper for GM to compensate for the greater 4 ring piston by adding some external weight F And R.

Its all in the bob weight AL.


I guess against my better judgement I would add that on a lot of the serious later 350s (and some 305s) I convert the rear to an actual neutral balance and it requires a special neutral flywheel but its a common operation, especially on LT1 based based 350s and various stroker combinations, or some class type cars.

CNC BLOCKS
16th-February-2012, 05:27 PM
must have been some heavy parts , pistons / rods to need that much weight

all i'm saying ,, is a pretty cool little 383 can be made out of a 400 crank and 400 rods ,,, yeah it will be externally balanced , that doesn't seem to bother every 604 dirt track crate engine that gets the guts ran out of it for 2-3 years, 6800 rpm, lap after lap , night after night , 1/2 miles tracks when its really getting wrung out hard , 3/'8 mile tracks when it pulls a 6.00 gear ,,, , and when ya take them apart everything looks fine , or a GM 454 that runs fine ,, but yes , the most desireable set up is internally balanced ,,, but external balance still works ,, ask a fuud owner ,,,

i think the internal balance bias might be over stressed

I guess you don't know the differance between the 604 crate and a 454!! The 604 is externally balanced on the rear only, The 454 is externally balanced on the front and rear!!!

canadian acadian
16th-February-2012, 07:09 PM
exactly what performamce advantage does internal balance give over external?

levisnteeshirt
16th-February-2012, 07:10 PM
yes i'm afraid i do know the difference ,,, we're not building nascar engines here ,, spending money takes some of the fun out of this ,, or it does to me ,,, i look for the most economical ways to do things myself ,,, alot of engine builders get their ego trimmed when you don't want to give them a blank check ,

my 355 smoked many 383's and 406's that had twice as much spend on 'em ,,, so ,, if you want a pile of pretty parts to build a 500 hp motor ,, go buy 'em ,, i bet i could do it cheaper

stock z/28
16th-February-2012, 10:32 PM
exactly what performamce advantage does internal balance give over external?

It would be kinda hard for me to explain my understanding (or should I say misunderstanding?), but if no one provides an explanation, I can give it shot.

Right now, I have to work on some generators. Real large generators.


Jeff

CNC BLOCKS
16th-February-2012, 11:49 PM
yes i'm afraid i do know the difference ,,, we're not building nascar engines here ,, spending money takes some of the fun out of this ,, or it does to me ,,, i look for the most economical ways to do things myself ,,, alot of engine builders get their ego trimmed when you don't want to give them a blank check ,

my 355 smoked many 383's and 406's that had twice as much spend on 'em ,,, so ,, if you want a pile of pretty parts to build a 500 hp motor ,, go buy 'em ,, i bet i could do it cheaper

In my line of work I have seen alot of budget builds go bad and guys then have to build another so how much do they save.

I build a lot of circle track engines and the budget ones run towards the back of the pack and finish towards the rear in points at the end of the year. My street and strip engines seem to run much better then the budget ones and I have seen this many times on the dyno and at the track.

Do a search on broken crank snouts you should find you answer on why I don't believe in or a good engine builder on having a out of balance part on the front of the crank.

Just comparing apples to apples here what is your line of work you do every day???

By the way I had 3 championship circle track engines this year!!!

My TWO blower engines have finished 1st and 2and 8 years in a row.

AND I DON'T NEED AN EGO

levisnteeshirt
17th-February-2012, 12:29 AM
<mod edit>

but ,, every motor is not going to go through the stress of a street strip motor like most of the ones people run that visit this site and look and read these post . Most of these guys are here to learn. Somebody thats long on cash with big HP expectations run right to a guy like you.

I saw a 350 built one time with a cast 305 crank and the paper thin 305 rods ,, i waited and waited for this thing to blow , he did not balance it ,, it never did pop. He put a dome forged piston on top of a 305 rod ,, world sportsman II heads , nice 235/245 112LSA hyd cam ,, and preceeded to thrash this motor for years ,, its still running with a stock cam and heads. He bought a compucar 175-300 nitrous system on this motor ,, and ran about 10 tanks of nitrous through it ,, this was in a heavy full size truck , 411 gear , 3500 stall ,, he punished this thing ,,, so when somebody says , " oh it just has to have this , or that " ,,, i don't always believe it ,,,

i saw a 350 with a cast crank and stock rods ,, get took to 7500 on a daily basis ,, 513 gear and a 4 speed in a street car ,, ran it 2 years on the street with a 513 gear ,, it never did blow ,, it started smoking and got weak , took out , rebuilt for a truck ,, ran for years

saw one short rod 383 run for 3 years drag racing then 2 years circle tracking ,, they took it apart for curiositys sake ,,, it looked fine inside ,, bearings looked great ,,, this motor was not balanced ,,,,

yes everything you do makes a motor more dependable ,, I've spent so much on this stuff i could get sick thinking about it ,,, so i look for every way to cut the cost ,,,

you have to set reasonable goals and expectations ,, not every engine will see the punishment of circle track racing ,,, my buddy that i post about thinks alot like you , so he and I don't see eye to eye on things ,,, i'm like uh ,, don't you remember when you had the ol 307 and took it to 7500 with cast pistons and a non balanced bottom end and a cast crank , stock rods ,.stock rods bolts ? ?? ,,

some people may not be able to build a indestructable engine for a mild street car ,,, that gets wound up to its max rpm just ever so often ,,, its useless ,, and a waste of money

Nwayne
17th-February-2012, 02:26 AM
yes i'm afraid i do know the difference ,,, we're not building nascar engines here ,, spending money takes some of the fun out of this ,, or it does to me ,,, i look for the most economical ways to do things myself ,,, alot of engine builders get their ego trimmed when you don't want to give them a blank check ,

my 355 smoked many 383's and 406's that had twice as much spend on 'em ,,, so ,, if you want a pile of pretty parts to build a 500 hp motor ,, go buy 'em ,, i bet i could do it cheaper

Soooo, if you can do it so much cheaper then why are you building this? http://www.stevesnovasite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165488

It seems weird that you would go to the expense to build something like this when you can build a short rod 400 or 355 for for cheap and smoke them all.:confused:

Paul Wright
17th-February-2012, 09:46 AM
I saw...

Exceptional results are not a reliable indication of expected results.

It's like saying you saw an un-belted drunk driver go through the windshield that got up and walked away. Does that anecdote imply it's safe to drink and drive and not wear your seatbelt? No.

Out of the ordinary results that are inconsistent with the majority of results, can't be used to make a prediction of future results.

If weak parts were strong and reliable consistently, there would be no need for better parts. I guess everyone buying good parts is just a fool for doing so.

Most of the exceptional anecdotes trace back to fooling a tech inspector, suckering someone into a race, playing a joke on people to make them scratch their heads, or they were just plain lucky.

If someone tries to duplicate the amazing engine with the same recipe of junk parts, the results aren't the same. The explanation? "Oh, you just didn't know what you were doing" smirk, smirk.

CNC BLOCKS
17th-February-2012, 10:18 AM
I saw a 350 built one time with a cast 305 crank and the paper thin 305 rods ,,

i saw a 350 with a cast crank and stock rods ,, get took to 7500 on a daily basis ,,

saw one short rod 383 run for 3 years drag racing then 2 years circle tracking


I saw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

Paul Wright
17th-February-2012, 10:47 AM
Keep it civil guys!

stock z/28
17th-February-2012, 01:47 PM
Exceptional results are not a reliable indication of expected results.

It's like saying you saw an un-belted drunk driver go through the windshield that got up and walked away. Does that anecdote imply it's safe to drink and drive and not wear your seatbelt? No.

Out of the ordinary results that are inconsistent with the majority of results, can't be used to make a prediction of future results.

If weak parts were strong and reliable consistently, there would be no need for better parts. I guess everyone buying good parts is just a fool for doing so.

Most of the exceptional anecdotes trace back to fooling a tech inspector, suckering someone into a race, playing a joke on people to make them scratch their heads, or they were just plain lucky.

If someone tries to duplicate the amazing engine with the same recipe of junk parts, the results aren't the same. The explanation? "Oh, you just didn't know what you were doing" smirk, smirk.

Hi Paul,

It seems like you and I end up in this same discussion on a regular schedule, but I must say I do enjoy the talk.


As I am sure you know I have a rather different perspective of what is achievable with less than typically accepted "performance" parts.


I think your drunk and the windshield analogy is good one, and I guess when I see something like that I think "how in F did that happen", and try understand the reason he walked away, as it wasn't magic, it may appear so, but I don't think it was.

I am certainly not going to try and drag this out and explain myself, we have been down that road a lot.

I will say that you need to go to an NHRA sportsman race where they run Stock and possibly Super Stock and look at the class cars and their various combinations, and if possible observe some of the tear downs.

I think you would be at least surprised by what is achievable with less than "performance" parts. I know (I think?) your gut reaction is that these are either bogus disguised components or some type of cheating, or possibly very expensive, highly scienced out"trick" pieces? I guess I would go along with the latter, but I think the theory of what allows an 882 casting head to make "x" amount of HP is a very important concept to try and understand, I think these areas of "gain" can be applied to a lot of more basic types of performance applications, and possibly obtain some large benefits others might over look.

What it comes down to it I guess it is what you like, and I enjoy the details of making "stock" or basic combinations make power and survive in a competitive situation, whether I build it or some one else does.

Paul Wright
17th-February-2012, 03:30 PM
Yes, we have had that discussion! To reiterate my key point is:

"Can anyone duplicate the [insert anecdotal example] engine and get the same results with little or average skill?"

Probably not. There's a disconnect in logic between pointing to an extraordinary example and expecting the same result under ordinary circumstances. Typically without the specialized skills required, the outcome is very different .

That's why I bring up the "what is such an extraordinary engine truly worth?" argument.

It's faulty logic to equate expert "A" amazing results using stock parts to Novice "B" also getting great results and for very little money.

A stock part record holding engine that the pro won't part with for less than $10k(or more!) is not equal to a stock part engine that cost $350.

Same parts but a different outcome.

levisnteeshirt
17th-February-2012, 04:16 PM
I saw!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

i saw it get drove to work for 5 years ,, i worked with him ,, i can get you his ph # if you want it ,,, he tortured that thing ,, he pulled it out and went to a 468 ,,,

yanno ,, if it was stated , you can use the 400 rods up to a point in RPM and HP expectations , alot of them have been built that way ,,, but i would only trust them up to a certain point ,,,, thats true ,,, ALL of this stuff can break ,,, i've SAW every bit of it break ,, 4340 cranks , aftermarket rods ,,, soo ,, I've SAW some GM stuff get beat on extremely hard ,,, and live ,, so i give it more credit than most ,, thats whats formed my opinion from messing with this stuff for over 30 years

good machine work can go a long way to helping this stuff last i think anyway

levisnteeshirt
17th-February-2012, 04:19 PM
Soooo, if you can do it so much cheaper then why are you building this? http://www.stevesnovasite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165488

It seems weird that you would go to the expense to build something like this when you can build a short rod 400 or 355 for for cheap and smoke them all.:confused:

well bud ,, i do feel i sold out somewhat with what i've done with that ,,, i don't think it makes alot of difference ,, dern stuff is still sitting at the shop ,, waiting to get done

i had a 400 crank that i was gonna get offset ground to a 3.820 stroke ,, kept waiting and waiting for that to get done ,, all the shops around here are turning work away ,,

i kept waiting for a 3.800 350 main crank from Ohio crank ,,, they kept telling me , next month , next month , then next 6 monthes ,,, i was gonna build a 4.030 engine sorta like bowtie0069's ,, then they told me they didn't know when they were gonna get one ,,, so , i changed direction with it

stock z/28
17th-February-2012, 04:25 PM
Yes, we have had that discussion! To reiterate my key point is:

"Can anyone duplicate the [insert anecdotal example] engine and get the same results with little or average skill?"

Probably not. There's a disconnect in logic between pointing to an extraordinary example and expecting the same result under ordinary circumstances. Typically without the specialized skills required, the outcome is very different .

That's why I bring up the "what is such an extraordinary engine truly worth?" argument.

It's faulty logic to equate expert "A" amazing results using stock parts to Novice "B" also getting great results and for very little money.

A stock part record holding engine that the pro won't part with for less than $10k(or more!) is not equal to a stock part engine that cost $350.



Same parts but a different outcome.


In my opinion part of this discussion is "if" X part is even potentially usable in a given application. If there are numerous examples that "X" part has not only worked in that application but had survived and performed well above the intended use, I would say that is valuable information, possibly validation.

I will use the 400 con rod that we started discussing as an example. I have built many engines using these rods. From daily drivers to class racing applications, and about every thing in between, and I have never had one break, and I cant remember any serious bearing issues. Is it the best con rod you can get? Obviously not. Would I use one in a very high output 400 where rules allow a superior replacement. I would go with a quality aftermarket every time.

Now, if I were building a 400 for a competitive class where rules dictated a 5.565" rod, but aftermarket rods were allowed, but the power produced was limited, (say 450-500) and a lighter rod (stock) would be a performance advantage would I use it? In a heartbeat. And I have many times, with no regrets.


Same parts but a different outcome.[/QUOTE]----- I think this one thing we can agree on, but maybe for different reasons?


I guess my point is that blanket statements that "x" part is junk or wont make any power, or so on' just seems out of place.


I regard to the usually negative views of "I have seen it", inferring that its a wives tale of such, I can assure you that I have not only seen it I have done it and still do it.

There is a place for about everything, sometimes may be you have to have a 1200 dollar set of rods to finish a competitive race?

Sometimes it may be that the $1200 set of rods are needed because something else in the combination is not quite right?

Maybe sometimes?

Maybe I look at it backwards but if "X" part works well in this competetive situation, why does it consistently fail in another similar or even less stressful application?


Jeff

stock z/28
17th-February-2012, 05:27 PM
I think I should possibly add a little info on the rods.

Even in a stock rebuild, and they are still on the piston, I check all of the rods for big end size. If they are out by more than .0002" or tight at the parting line by any amount (on the 400 the spec is- I think-2.2247") I will re-size the rod.

If its any performance application it will be cleaned and Magnafluxed , checked for length and twist, small end size, balance pad size, rod weight in general,and a set of ARP bolts installed and re-sized.

All but the bolts and re-zing are very simple and quickly done. Not a big time loss, and time spent here may keep a catastrophic problem from occurring.

I dont just use any old rod and install it in an engine,

I guess for the controversial part of this and this is just me, I would generally prefer these rods to some $150.00 aftermarket rods.

Just me but if it was my own engine I would trust these in a moderate application a lot more than a cheap aftermarket version.

In fact if they gave me some of the import rods I check I would not use them in any thing. Not even a grocery getter. I like my general transportation to somewhat dependable.


Just my opinion, but the QC on a lot of the parts that are sold based on bulk import production runs leaves a lot to be desired.

If I could post some pics here I would show you some samples that were ran a few evenings, and developed a lot issues. Cracks-bushings coming out etc.,

I mention that because a lot of the issues will not be easy to find pre-assembly. It takes some load cycles to show some flaws, and if its nor caught in time it can be very serious.


Jeff