I was just wondering If anyone had a 400 and a 460 and how they compared?, as far as power, gas milage, overall performance?.

Thanks alot,

1979 F-250 400M 2wd,

Joe

 

In my 78 1/2 F-150 the 400M turned to toast after 392,326 KM
I replaced it with a 70-429CJ

The 400M, while in it's first 200,000 Km, got great mileage, about 19 city, 24 Hwy.

The trouble with it though was it only had 160 HP with lots of torque but,it had trouble pulling my holiday trailer.

I put the 429CJ in it in 1991,is was not rebuilt.
I did the heads before install to compliment un-Leaded fuel.

I love the 380+ HP with tons o'torque. The truck doesn't even know the trailers behind now.

Dennis

 

in terms of power, there is absolutely no comparison. The 460 has sooo much more going for it, it aint even funny. Im running almost 400 horsepower out of mine, and nearly 500 lb ft to boot.. it's the torque that makes it so great. The 460 has such an incredibly long stroke, that it makes gobs and gobs of torque,and depending on how the engine is built that power is there for you the whole RPM range. I have over 430 lb ft from 1000 to 4500 rpm.
The 400 is a junk engine. One of the worst ideas ford ever had for a large-displacement smallblock. Just because of the horrible rod-length to bore ratio, you can never get any power out of it. The shorter the rod (necessary for a long-sroke crank), the less time the piston spends at Top Dead Center (where the combustion happens) therefore gets less of a push when the gas combusts. My opinion of the 400, they arent worth the money you could put into rebuilding a 460 instead!

Hope this helps.

J/.c

1965 Ford Galaxie 500 (okay, so not quite a truck)
460/C6 transplant @ 389hp/491 lb.ft.
14.29@103.8, 13-14 mpg heheheheheh

 

>in terms of power, there is
>absolutely no comparison. The
>460 has sooo much more
>going for it, it aint
>even funny. Im running
>almost 400 horsepower out of
>mine, and nearly 500 lb
>ft to boot.. it's the
>torque that makes it so
>great.

Ya think 60 more cubes may have something to do with it?

>The 460 has
>such an incredibly long stroke,
>that it makes gobs and
>gobs of torque,and depending on
>how the engine is built
>that power is there for
>you the whole RPM range.

Yeah it's almost as long as the 400.

> I have over 430
>lb ft from 1000 to
>4500 rpm.
>The 400 is a junk engine.
>One of the worst ideas
>ford ever had for a
>large-displacement smallblock. Just because
>of the horrible rod-length to
>bore ratio, you can never
>get any power out of
>it. The shorter the rod
>(necessary for a long-sroke crank),
>the less time the piston
>spends at Top Dead Center
>(where the combustion happens) therefore
>gets less of a push
>when the gas combusts..

Let's see the 400 has a 6.580" rod and 4.0" bore with a 4.0" stroke while the 460 has a 6.605" and 4.36" bore with a 3.85" stroke. Please expound some more on just how the 0.025" (that's 25 hundreths of an inch, about the thickness of 5 sheets of paper) difference makes the 400 a "junk" engine.

>My opinion of the 400,
>they arent worth the money
>you could put into rebuilding
>a 460 instead!

Spoken like another "genius" who's never built a 400.

 

Hold your own opinions. I have mine, and expect to be left alone about them.. What do you say to the people that are Chevrolet devotees? do you try and correct them too?

The subject asked for opinions and comparisons. In my experience, and NO, I havent ever built the 400.. never had the desire to put that much work into that engine, I have never seen a 400 that can match a 460.. and gee, wow.. 60 cubes over. That Aint that much for the power gains you get. In terms of easy engine that will pull, the 460 is the way to go.

Once again, the actual rod length, stroke, and bore do not matter. It is the ratio of the rod to the bore. The 400 has a 1.645:1 ratio, where the 460 has a 1.51:1 ratio. YES, that small difference makes a large one. You look at the 302. Long rod, short stroke=high horsepower per cubic inch. The 351 needs more work to get a good HP/c.i. because of the higher rod/bore ratio. Now, the 400.. Yeah. Hold your own conclusions.

Once again, I hold my opinions. You hold yours. Please do not criticize those whose experiences are different than yours.

J/.c

1965 Ford Galaxie 500 (okay, so not quite a truck)
460/C6 transplant @ 389hp/491 lb.ft.
14.29@103.8, 13-14 mpg heheheheheh

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 28-May-01 AT 06:01 PM (EST)[/font][p]Opinions based on junk facts are garbage. Just because you have a right to spout one doesn't make it worth the powder to blow it to hell.

Rod to bore ratio has nothing to do with anything when it comes to the difference between the 400 and the 460. The 400 was a low compression smog motor with retarded valve timing and never even came with a 4V carb. The 460 OTOH came in a variety of hi-performance models with high compression and 4V carbs. Given the same treatment the 400 comes very close to performing right up there with a 460. Hot Rod magazine built a 382 hp, 456# torque 400 with a 2V, cast iron exh. manifolds and all emissions gear intact for the same cost as a standard rebuild. Here's a link to the article:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tcrocker/400.html

Finally for anyone who'd like to form an opinion based on some real facts and information go read the article on the 335 series by Dave Resch aka bubbaf250:

https://www.ford-trucks.com/articles/mblock.html

 

It really comes down to the type of performance you want and how much money you have to spend. I opted for the swap. Why, I wanted more power than you can resonably get out of the 400 and my 460 is no where near stock. But the cost of doing a swap is not cheap unless you know people who have done it before, no the short cuts and have easy access to parts.

Terry

771/2 F250 4x4 460
2001 Ranger Edge

 

Just curious as to what your definition of "reasonably expect out of a 400" is...

 

>Once again, the actual rod length, stroke, and bore do not
>matter. It is the ratio of the rod to the bore. The 400 has
>a 1.645:1 ratio, where the 460 has a 1.51:1 ratio. YES, that
>small difference makes a large one. You look at the 302. Long
>rod, short stroke=high horsepower per cubic inch. The 351
>needs more work to get a good HP/c.i. because of the higher
>rod/bore ratio. Now, the 400.. Yeah. Hold your own
>conclusions.
>

Then with its long rod and small bore the 400 (and 351M) has a better rod/bore ratio than all the rest, right?

But rod/bore ratio means nothing. I think you're thinking of the rod/stroke ratio, which does mean something. It's generally thought that the longer the rod the better. Ford didn't squeeze a 4" stroke into a short block by using short rods - they used a block with a tall deck. The 400 has what I would consider to be a normal rod angle for a production V8. The following is borrowed from Dave Williams' website:

stroke rod ratio
Ford 351M 3.50 6.65 1.80
Ford 460 3.85 6.60 1.71
Ford 351W 3.50 5.95 1.70
Ford 302 3.00 5.09 1.69
Ford 400 4.00 6.65 1.66
Chevy 350 3.48 5.7 1.64
Ford 351C 3.50 5.7 1.63
Chevy 454 4.00 6.13 1.53

You can see there's really very little difference between the 400 and 460 as far as rod/stroke ratio is concerned. And if you're really worried about it you'll go with a 351M. Then there's the Chevys, which, like it or not, have to be considered successful designs yet they have relatively poor rod/stroke ratios.

My conclusion is that there's no practical difference between the rod/stroke ratios of the 400 and 460.

 

That table looks kinda bad. I'll try again:

[pre]
stroke rod ratio
Ford 351M 3.50 6.65 1.80
Ford 460 3.85 6.60 1.71
Ford 351W 3.50 5.95 1.70
Ford 302 3.00 5.09 1.69
Ford 400 4.00 6.65 1.66
Chevy 350 3.48 5.7 1.64
Ford 351C 3.50 5.7 1.63
Chevy 454 4.00 6.13 1.53
[/pre]

 

Cant we all get along! ,

I was just wanting people personal experienses with both engines, and info about the swap.

I would like to thank you all for your info

And if you have any more ideas or info for me I would love to hear it!

Thanks

Joe

 

>My conclusion is that there's no
>practical difference between the rod/stroke
>ratios of the 400 and
>460.

The only problem is the rod length for the 400 is wrong. The 400 rod is 6.580" not 6.65".

 

Hi Bill,

450hp and 600lbs of torque, not hard to achieve with the 460. Again don't get me wrong, the 400 is a good motor, I got 179k out of mine with no problems and very little maintance but to take it to those kinds of numbers would push the reliablity envelope. I could of supercharged and did think about it, but in the end decided to do the swap. Like I said it comes down to money. Supercharging a 400 would of cost more than doing a swap for the same performance numbers.

Terry

771/2 F250 4x4 460
2001 Ranger Edge

 

No question those 60 extra cubes make a big difference as well as the availability of more hi-po parts for the 460. I'd be surprised to see those kinds of numbers out of a 72 or later 460 unless it had aftermarket aluminum heads and I'd really be surprised to see them on the horse urine they pass off as "pump gas" these days.