500-550 hp from a 66 400
October 29th, 2012, 06:22 AM
#42
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Machesney Park, IL.
Posts: 253
I agree that was my plan all along, install 455 internals in the 400 but rather than stock 455 parts go with a stroker kit. I know there is more to it than just bolting it together but is it that simple or am I missing something?
October 30th, 2012, 05:25 AM
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wakeman, OH
Posts: 1,065
It's pretty much that simple. The only potential issue you may run into with a stroker kit (488/496) in an early 400 block is the bore size. The off the shelf stroker pistons are only available in 4.155 and 4.185 bores to my knowledge. Depending on your sonic check results this may not be an issue. Worst case scenario you could run the 4.500 stroke crank with a custom piston made to your safe max bore size. My early 400 block is 4.155 with plenty of meat to spare but I'm sure that varies from block to block.
October 30th, 2012, 04:56 PM
#44
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Machesney Park, IL.
Posts: 253
It's pretty much that simple. The only potential issue you may run into with a stroker kit (488/496) in an early 400 block is the bore size. The off the shelf stroker pistons are only available in 4.155 and 4.185 bores to my knowledge. Depending on your sonic check results this may not be an issue. Worst case scenario you could run the 4.500 stroke crank with a custom piston made to your safe max bore size. My early 400 block is 4.155 with plenty of meat to spare but I'm sure that varies from block to block.
October 31st, 2012, 05:29 AM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,881
Althought I doubt it will be an issue, but if you want to do the stroker and find out you have questionable wall thickness, you can always just use a SBC 1.250 cd piston (4.00 bore), everyone makes them in all different configurations.
1.25+7.1+2.250=10.600.
And I believe Eagle still makes a steel backed rod bushing that goes from the BBC pin size (on the 7.1 rods) to the SBC pin size. Problem solved.
1.25+7.1+2.250=10.600.
And I believe Eagle still makes a steel backed rod bushing that goes from the BBC pin size (on the 7.1 rods) to the SBC pin size. Problem solved.
November 3rd, 2012, 07:45 PM
#52
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Machesney Park, IL.
Posts: 253
November 4th, 2012, 06:56 PM
#53
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 370
A large cube Olds will help get a heavy car moving quicker.
The money you spend on Ebrock heads and a Victor intake, you could get yourself a set Wensler heads and intake that will flow better than some ported Edelbrock heads, depending who ports them, in stock form.
Don't throw away any 400/425 cranks, some people have been known to turn down the mains to 2.500" so unless it 1/4" deep grooves, it's still good.
You know that the Nodular Iron cranks weigh alot less than the forged ones do right ? And what does every want in a performance engine ? Parts that don't weigh much, ie crank, rods, pistons, flexplate and dampners.
I think a 400/425 crank offset ground on the rod journals to BBC size and the counter weights were ground on to reduce windage and lets say some crazy engine builder had the main turn down to 2.500" inches and he used 3" to 2.5" main spacers in the block and SBO main caps, I still bet the crank would weigh more than a stock 455 N Crank.
I'm just sayin
The money you spend on Ebrock heads and a Victor intake, you could get yourself a set Wensler heads and intake that will flow better than some ported Edelbrock heads, depending who ports them, in stock form.
Don't throw away any 400/425 cranks, some people have been known to turn down the mains to 2.500" so unless it 1/4" deep grooves, it's still good.
You know that the Nodular Iron cranks weigh alot less than the forged ones do right ? And what does every want in a performance engine ? Parts that don't weigh much, ie crank, rods, pistons, flexplate and dampners.
I think a 400/425 crank offset ground on the rod journals to BBC size and the counter weights were ground on to reduce windage and lets say some crazy engine builder had the main turn down to 2.500" inches and he used 3" to 2.5" main spacers in the block and SBO main caps, I still bet the crank would weigh more than a stock 455 N Crank.
I'm just sayin
Last edited by SBORule; November 4th, 2012 at 07:02 PM.
November 7th, 2012, 11:01 AM
#56
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Machesney Park, IL.
Posts: 253
Will do I am here to ask, listen, and learn. I have been looking into the Wensler heads, are they the same as Rocket Racing heads? When I look up Wensler heads they mention Rocket but on Rockets site I don't see any mention to Wensler.
November 7th, 2012, 11:09 AM
#57
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
No expert by any means, but IMO if you are keeping the 3.23s, you won't see enough rpm to justify the additional cost.
November 7th, 2012, 12:22 PM
#59
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Erie,PA
Posts: 3,814
The Rocket Racing heads and Wensler heads are the same thing.They are nice,but you will have to use their intake,as the regular Olds 455 intakes will not work.
You could also have a sexy looking intake like Milan has,but that's a $4k intake.
You could also have a sexy looking intake like Milan has,but that's a $4k intake.
November 7th, 2012, 02:22 PM
#60
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Machesney Park, IL.
Posts: 253
My snowballing plans are already pushing the envelope with the wife. I can only imagine telling her about this great intake I want for $4k.
In looking at the Wensler heads it does seem overkill for my appllication. My biggest interest in the aluminum heads is the ability to run higher compression on pump gas as opposed to the cast heads.
In looking at the Wensler heads it does seem overkill for my appllication. My biggest interest in the aluminum heads is the ability to run higher compression on pump gas as opposed to the cast heads.
November 7th, 2012, 03:04 PM
#61
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 2,250
My snowballing plans are already pushing the envelope with the wife. I can only imagine telling her about this great intake I want for $4k.
In looking at the Wensler heads it does seem overkill for my appllication. My biggest interest in the aluminum heads is the ability to run higher compression on pump gas as opposed to the cast heads.
In looking at the Wensler heads it does seem overkill for my appllication. My biggest interest in the aluminum heads is the ability to run higher compression on pump gas as opposed to the cast heads.
November 7th, 2012, 09:45 PM
#63
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 370
My only concern with the Rocket Racing heads is something I read on http://www.highperformaceolds.com about the heads turning into sand when you mill them.
I recall someone else saying the exhaust ports may be located higher than stock and those on the Eldebrock heads and require header modifications so they will fit.
I recall someone else saying the exhaust ports may be located higher than stock and those on the Eldebrock heads and require header modifications so they will fit.
November 8th, 2012, 05:03 AM
#64
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Erie,PA
Posts: 3,814
If I remember correctly,the Rocket Racing heads have the exhaust ports about 1/2" higher than a stock head,or Edelbrock head.I haven't heard of anyone having fitment issues with their existing headers,when swapping to those heads.It's not like Battens,where your only choice is custom headers.
November 8th, 2012, 06:23 AM
#65
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Machesney Park, IL.
Posts: 253
For my street car application I am going with Edelbrock heads. I like that they are a direct replacement for the steel heads. No need for special intake or changes to my exhaust system. I can always upgrade later.
One thing I will need to change is my fuel pump, I am currently using the RobbMc fuel pump. I have run an electric pump in the past so I have most of the parts I need already.
One thing I will need to change is my fuel pump, I am currently using the RobbMc fuel pump. I have run an electric pump in the past so I have most of the parts I need already.
January 7th, 2013, 03:12 PM
#66
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Machesney Park, IL.
Posts: 253
I'm still here and still moving forward. What options do I have for roller lifters? I know the 307's had 921 rollers but what about the bleed down rate? Is there a better solution?
Thanks
Thanks
January 7th, 2013, 03:23 PM
#67
" Hoo yah "
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: North Park,IL
Posts: 406
Someone else with more knowledge may chime in on this, but I think Comp Cam, Erson, and Howards Cam version of Hyd roller lifters are all made by Morel. I think the only difference is the name brand and price. I hgave a friend who has been running those E-Bay roller lifters for 2 years without any issues. I think they were like $220.00 bucks.He did take them to a machinist before he put them in.
January 7th, 2013, 03:43 PM
#68
Tony
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: wisconsin
Posts: 450
January 7th, 2013, 04:32 PM
#69
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,881
But to use the .921's you'll need the diesel spider setup and you'll need to shim it. The diesel block has taller lifter bosses so they'll be loose otherwise.
January 7th, 2013, 04:43 PM
#70
this is stressing me out
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 68
Does a super victor fit under an olds hood? I have one im my chevelle now under the stock SS hood, but can't run as tall of an air filter as I had with the 454-R victor.
January 7th, 2013, 05:39 PM
#71
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Machesney Park, IL.
Posts: 253
If they're .842's then Morel, Comp or Crane. If they're .921's then I'll have some sets avaialble in a few weeks with better valving. They'll take 160-170 on the seat and 450+ open.
But to use the .921's you'll need the diesel spider setup and you'll need to shim it. The diesel block has taller lifter bosses so they'll be loose otherwise.
But to use the .921's you'll need the diesel spider setup and you'll need to shim it. The diesel block has taller lifter bosses so they'll be loose otherwise.
Sorry about that I guess I didn't do a good job with my last post, my lifters are .921 dia. What would it cost for a set of your lifters?
January 7th, 2013, 06:47 PM
#72
" Hoo yah "
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: North Park,IL
Posts: 406
Not to hijack Rob's thread, but could someone explain to me the difference between the .842 and .921 lifters? I have some Howard's and Comp cam Hyd roller lifters. Is there a benefit between the .842 and .921's?
January 8th, 2013, 05:10 AM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wakeman, OH
Posts: 1,065
The difference is in the actual diameter of the lifter body. Technically there would be a performance advantage to the larger diameter lifter though more so with the use of a flat tappet instead of a roller. This advantage is only realized if the cam lobes are specifically ground to take advantage of it. On your typical street car you won't see a difference.
January 8th, 2013, 07:19 AM
#74
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,854
If you look at the Comp Cams lobe catalog, you can see that they offer more aggressive lobes for larger lifters. Thus, you can get closer to a roller cam profile with flat tappets if they are .875" Ford, .904 Mopar, etc. The Olds .921" of course could use these, for more "extreme" applications.
January 8th, 2013, 07:28 AM
#75
" Hoo yah "
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: North Park,IL
Posts: 406
If you look at the Comp Cams lobe catalog, you can see that they offer more aggressive lobes for larger lifters. Thus, you can get closer to a roller cam profile with flat tappets if they are .875" Ford, .904 Mopar, etc. The Olds .921" of course could use these, for more "extreme" applications.
January 8th, 2013, 12:02 PM
#76
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Central Fl
Posts: 7,881
If you look at the Comp Cams lobe catalog, you can see that they offer more aggressive lobes for larger lifters. Thus, you can get closer to a roller cam profile with flat tappets if they are .875" Ford, .904 Mopar, etc. The Olds .921" of course could use these, for more "extreme" applications.
And when using the .921 roller lifter, it still has the same size wheel as an .842 so there's still a limitation on the lobe profile. You basically have to use .842 profiles.
