Its got a 4.2" stroke, uses Dodge 340 pistons, aftermarket rods. Quench/squish is in the .070 range with a .040" head gasket and -.030" of deck height (bummer). They should have offset ground the crank another .015".

They used Edelbrock aluminum heads (of course. Edelbrock is a big advertiser with magazines like Hot Rod.) They implied that trying to secure Oz closed chamber heads was hard to do, but that's a rationalization for buying $2000 of Edelbrock heads. Wimps.

234^ duration/.610" lift roller cam. They didn't cite the LSA. Oddly, the heads have a max lift of .600".

You can whack $1000 off the price by using Oz heads, and probably pick up torque, too. Iron heads absorb less heat, so the combustion should burn more quickly. And it should run cooler with iron heads.

I agree, let's see another budget build with a roller cam. Tune it for peak torque at a lower engine speed.

 

Yes, they didn't give the torque/hp chart. For most of us low rpm torque is a high priority.
On paper (desk top dyno) I'm making 435hp and 510 torque with worked over 2V heads and a performer. A little smaller Crane roller. While this may be optimistic I think using CHI heads you could easily make over 500fp of torque with good idle without the trouble of stroking.

 

I really need to find this issue so I can have a look for myself. It sounds a bit half-assed if they used 340 pistons and didn't bother maximizing quench. It makes no sense to throw away money customizing parts. There are plenty of Ford pistons that would work just fine. Building a stroker doesn't have to be difficult or expensive but mostly everyone I read about wants to do it the hard way.

Personally I've seen enough high torque builds for the 400 engine. I'm still waiting for just one article that makes some serious HP on a budget. The 400 engine built for the '06 EMC was a 425ci, 4.060 x 4.1 stroke with CHI 3V heads and it made 618HP. It was put together by a handful of amateurs. Had it been built by BES, the 1st place team, I have no doubt it would have been in the 700HP range.

 

some call it a 400 cleveland seen it in a few articles

 

I do like to refer to the 400 as a 400 Cleveland around chebby guys. It makes them wet themselves.

I have not seen the article but I can imagine they tried to use as many advertisers parts as they could.

 

actually it is pretty simple and informative and suggests alot of waht is recommended on here

Just remember, those Chevy guys get real nervous when they hear the word "Cleveland", and that's gotta' count for something!.


https://www.ford-trucks.com/lc/lc.ph...400_power.html

 

while i appreciate the attention the 400 got (sort of - kinda want to keep it a secret)...they didn't appear to make any effort NOT to make this complicated. Perhaps this was done some ago or (and more likely) they didn't do a lot of research to begin with. If so, why did they choose to do this test in the first place? Do they some 400 lover in the back room somewhere?

 

They complained about the high cost of custom forged piston then bought a lot of stuff to make the conversion and wound up with hyper pistons. As I recall I got my custom forged J&E's for less than $400.

 

OK, I finally got this article today. I'm really impressed it made as much power as it did considering they were determined to do many things the hard way. Not to mention the costly way. They don't come off as Ford guys.

No such thing as an 400M.
Under "will it fit" they said the motor mounts are the same as the 460,,,not.
Australian 302C heads are easy to find.
Something should have been mentioned about what 400 blocks to avoid.
Nothing about oiling system mods.
The performer intake was basically a rev limiter and required a 2" spacer for best power. The new 351C air-gap with intake spacers would have been a much better choice.

No such thing as forged pistons or rods? Hello? Even if you didn't know about the TMI pistons, 351C pistons will work with minor mods. The factory rods are forged steel. What's the point of mentioning way-too-expensive forged pistons if you end up using hypereutectics?

Why narrow SBC 2.1, 6.3 rods? Just have the journals ground wider when they are offset.
What's wrong with using 240 Ford rods? They're 0.5 longer at almost 6.8"and don't require the tall 1.84CH of a 340 piston. A stroker crank should use longer than stock rods and shorter pistons. This guy's going backwards.

They said the 400 piston was heavy but it was probably lighter than the 340 since it's shorter, 1.647 vs 1.84 and uses a smaller pin, .975 vs .984.
The short rod required grinding .495 off the counterweights and it created a lot of balancing problems. To reduce some of the expensive mallory metal required they used a late 302 50oz H-balancer that didn't fit right. It required spacing the fan, alternator and P/S pump to make the belt pulleys line up. It would have made more sense to trim the balancer instead.

They said a flat tappet cam should be nitrided. Huh?
Anyway, it's additional $125 cost was used to justify a custom hydraulic roller. If they knew anything about the Edelbrock's I/E flow ratio they should know a split duration cam would have been a better choice. The 1.7 Chevy rockers also threw off the valvetrain geometry. We've known about that for years.

They used a $5 oil pump shaft. Are you kidding me? I only use these in stock applications. A chrome-moly shaft is only $15-20.

The 340 pistons are for inline valve heads. They required cutting valve notches for clearance despite the piston being .030 in the hole. Which reminds me, the Edelbrock head has a beautiful Yates inspired quench combustion chamber but was totally wasted because of the excessive .070 piston to head clearance.

Modify this to make that fit, then modify that to make this fit, and again, and over, and again, and o....well you get my point.

I think I'll title this article, 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

Would anyone be willing to contact the guys who built this combo?
His name is Ken Troutman
616/583-9700
http://www.k1technologies.com

 

That engine sounds like an exercise in futility.

You could flesh out your post and send it in to the magazine as an editorial piece or question. Maybe get some help from some of the guys here. Give sources etc etc. Come back and post your letter here and we can take bets on whether it will get published. I would give pretty good odds that it won't tho.
Cheby guys are never wrong...

 

Someone said they wanted to see another build but for maximized torque. As far as I'm concerned this engine made mind-bending torque. Despite the problems I doubt anyone would complain.

RPM___HP___TQ
3800__405__559
4000__428__563
4200__451__565
4400__470__561
4600__428__550
4800__493__540
5000__500__525
5200__502__507
5400__504__490
5600__502__470
5800__492__446

Peak HP 505@5300
Peak TQ 565@4300

 

i think Ken needs to be told about it. those boys obviously need to get out and smell the Ford fumes more often. thanks for reminding me why i don't subscribe any more, i don't even read them at the grocery store anymore. not missin anything either i guess? except maybe frustration and disappointment...

 

I'm not a regular here, but I do like the 351M/400 and I was really interested in the Hot Rod article.

What killed it for me was how low the rod:stroke ratio ended up being - 1.5:1! Personally, I would have much rather sacrificed the extra cubes for a realistic rod ratio instead of running the minimum generally acceptable level. Also, a high performance entity that whines about smog chambers, then in the same article proceeds to roll .070 thou quench with big-money, state-of-the-art cylinder heads is really missing the point.

But, like Brian S. said, it makes impressive power.

 

Yeah, I wonder what the power would be if you duplicated this build but substituted a crank/rod/piston kit from TMI. Keep the Edelbrock heads and intake and the roller cam. Or also swap the intake for a 351C Performer Air Gap with Price spacers. Maybe those Edelbrock heads aren't as bad as some guys say they are???

 

Tim, I dont think you need to go back to school. In fact I think Hot Rod needs a little help. That is a lot of headache with the bottom end and then the edelbrock heads have to help a lot. That e85 idea you and i discussed would certainly hold its own and edelbrock heads would be a big plus. I just do not want to try and live with aluminum heads in a daily driver. It may be a moot point, but I remember to many alum. head horror stories in the eighties. Let me know when you get your heads, I will send you a deposit to hold a set until we can put together my engine package. Maybe somebody should let Hot Rod no you are hear, you can help them next time they want to screw around with an m or 400.