Where to look 440 short block.

Thanks . Why arn't they more popular than a 440? Is it because there are fewer of them?
Historically people thought they were junk cuz they were the low compression emissions engines. But the biggest factory bore means they take best advantage of bigger valve heads as the valves aren't shrouded.
Some of them have massive webbing, some have extra, some normal. 440sources site has all the detail.
 
Don’t forget that before inexpensive stroker kits they were 40 cubes smaller than a 440.

And even now, if you switch from an RB to a B there are lots of other things you will need to change: intakes, accessory drives, etc. If you are making a race engine, the advantages of the B are there. If you have a 383 already in the car, using another B makes sense.

Otherwise, keep the total cost in mind.
 
The B wedge looks smaller than the tall deck RB. plus, the 400s got a rep like the 360 did vs the 340... People think they had no power, no compression, etc. None of which is really accurate, nor relevant when you're building from the ground up.
 
Sorry for the delay, I was just waiting until I was at a real computer so I could avoid quoting a huge block of text

......
My recommendation to start is to purchase a few books that will provide the knowledge you can use to put into place the best plan in building an engine close to what you want to get the performance you are looking for. ......
This is a good point, and it's one I've followed. However, everything out there is geared either for a plain, stock rebuild, or a performance build in a car weighing 3500 lb. When people say they're building a "torque monster" if you look at the results, they have power peaks well past 5500 RPM, where I don't think many of us are going. In my case, that left me posting a bunch of weird queries here and trying to piece together information on how to maximize performance in the 1000-5000 RPM range.

The books are good, but they're mostly good because they talk about the systems, and you have to figure out your own system after them.
.... You want to select an RPM range that your cam will work best in and provide good vacuum to operate the power brakes if you have them. NO cam works in all RPM ranges - its a trade off. You may give up low RPM's for mid-to-upper RPM's. You may want to give up upper RPM's for mid-to-lower RPM's. If most of your driving will be in the mid-to-lower RPM's, why would you give that up just to be able to occasionally make a blast to 6,000 RPM's? And if you build the engine and it only spins 5,000 RPM's, do you really need to spend extra dollars on forged rods, pistons, or even a roller cam?
Yes, cams work in a certain range, but I disagree with the conclusion that a roller cam is therefore wasted. A roller cam allows for faster ramp rates, which will improve cylinder filling at any RPM. If you open the valves far and fast with short duration, you're going to get improved torque at low speeds. That's what that Hot Rod article was showing. Unfortunately, it was a 383 and still peaked at 5600 rpm.

As you go to bigger cubes, the same duration will move the RPM for the power/torque peaks down with the same cam. So would the cam listed in the article have peak power 600-800 rpm lower? I don't know, and I don't know how to calculate that. My rule of thumb from talking to cam companies, reading, and thinking says that I should keep the 0.050" duration at or below 220 degrees. I'd love to have some feedback on this opinion.

When selecting a head or doing port work, keep in mind that an engine responds to port velocity. Add bigger flowing heads to feed the bigger cubes and you may find that it is slow to respond at lower RPM's and only picks up at higher RPM's - this is why you would want a higher stall converter or better gearing.
Disagree here, too. If you go from 440 to 500 inches, you're not going to be bogging off the bottom with 440-source heads, stock Eddy heads, or mildly ported irons. We're not talking Max Wedge ports here.
Again, I am sure I am going to get an ear full from all the professionals on this, but a good build really has to be thought out and through before you pull the trigger on a single part. I am not one who has deep pockets, so I want my best value for my buck and I want a build that puts a smile on my face when I control that gas pedal in the down position. Knowledge is power and reading all you can and learning the engine and your options will save you from having to consume a couple bottles of aspirin and antacid during your build.

No, the experts probably agree with you, and it's only the amateurs like me who disagree. :)

Like you, I don't have deep pockets. I only have the money to rebuild my engine, trans, rear end, driveshaft, and upgrade like $2k in performance extras. I can do it with good parts, and I can do it well, but I can only do it once. As a result, I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to build something right that isn't in the middle of the whole performance industry's focus. I'm not there yet, but I think I've made some progress. I chime in on all of these threads because I hope to get feedback on my ideas, so I can refine them. Don't take my comments negatively, please. I always love reading your posts.
 
Most people don't bother with a roller cam aside from a max effort type build because of the cost. Roller cam can provide efficiency and output, just look at the tiny ones in early 5.0's or non-magnum 318's. They problem is it costs $6-800? to retrofit into a big block?
0.050" duration at or below 220 degrees in a 500" mill is going to be a real baby. I like to stay under 220-230 for a street 383.
My opinion is the 516/915/906/452/346 heads were too small for 440HP's. HP's should have had the max wedge head, would have breathed more like a hemi or Cleveland then. Would have made more power than the hemi too though ootb...I would not be afraid of 'bigger' heads on a 500" engine, even for a heavy street car.
 
On the issue of cam specs, look at how much longer the duration was on the Olds 455s and such of the later '60s/earlier '70s performance engines in comparison to the cams for smaller engines of the same engine family.

You have to plan carefully to determine just where in the engine items that the "bottleneck" to power will be. Will it be the intake manifold, the exhaust system, the ports, or the cam specs? From what I've seen, it could well be the intake manifold, but if you plan around that somewhat, then it can all work well together, to a point. Port flow AND velocity are as important in the manifold as they are in the head. If you look at stock engine cam specs, you can see who had the better ports, on both sides of the combustion chamber. Poorer exhaust ports need a cam with more exhaust duration, for example, in comparison to the intake side. But the Buick guys found out that a GS cam in a Riviera didn't work as well as one with a shorter exhaust lobe, due to the heavier car and "highway" gears. Not much, but just enough.

David Vizzard claims that a quench dimension of .020" (piston to cyl head quench area) will allow higher CR with lower octane fuels. That could well be true as many 8.5CR engines could be made to clatter easily by advancing the base timing.

The original ?400 stroker" was 452cid, as I recall. An easy bolt-in of sorts, using a 440 stroke crank.

Where ever you decide the best shift points for your application might be, it's best to let the trans shift itself as different friction components are involved in "D" than in "L", for example. Seems like the shifts are quicker, too? So governor modification might be in order. Seems like there used to be a "high-upshift" governor kit in DirectConnection or Mopar Perf?

In the later '70s, CompCams usually had the newest-orientation stuff. Much of their street-oriented cams worked well, by observation. But the landscape has changed a lot. There are some Lunati cam specs I like the look of, personally. I also like the idea of custom-choosing a cam lobe pair. There are several decent or better engine build power simulators out there, now. Comp has one on their website, which you can see that they really might have too many cams out now that make very similar power, fwiw.

Roller cams put more "area under the lift curve", which might better utilize the flow capabilities of cyl head ports. Assymetric flat tappet lobes can help, too.

My machine shop operative had nothing but an old boring bar and he knew how to use it. It was easy to see which blocks had the harder allow metal in them from the sound of the bar as it worked. He'd carefully center the bar, dress the end of the bit, and let it do its work.

He later upgraded to one of the Rottler machines. The block was line honed first, then the boring apparatus was centered off of the crank centerline. After the boring operation, then the power hone function was done. Knowing HOW to read the load meter was important! An un-careful operator could barrel-shape cylinder bores pretty easily, it seems. Of course, with all of the cutting and honing operations. copious amounts of "fluid" were flowing for cleaning and cooling of the work.

As he is an old-line engine builder, I'm not sure that the Rottler-built engines lasted any better than the ones he did with the boring bar and dingle-berry hone. But the whole operation was more precise and quicker with the Rottler, I believe. More flexibility in what/how things were done were possible, too. Of course, deck plates were used as desired.

The more recent "rotating assembly kits" are much better than mix/matching things of prior times. That they all should be balanced is a plus, too!

In general, it appears that many of the presented "build specs" are well-considered and work pretty well. To me, the main issue is getting all of that torque to the pavement efficiently.

Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
 
Well I just looked at and purchased a 1973 440 engine today. It looks great as it was all disassembled and could check the bores etc. I bought it from a fellow member here polarus. Very nice guy and has had and has some very impressive projects!! Found out about the engine for sale here and he lives 25 miles from me. Thanks Tom and FCBO!!
 
I think Fury GT is going to have to take out restraining orders on both of us.
 
Nope. I look forward to giving both of you some great rides as well as things to think about for your builds.
 
I am looking forward to it very much FuryGT.
 
Back
Top