So once again I have to ask why most marine motors are GM? Does this mean they make better motors? They haven't made the 400 for almost 20 years, maybe that's why they don't use 'em in boats.

 

want some! drive down to tenn. i've got more than i know what to do with.

 

I know of a couple of cams that would be good. Comp makes an extreme 4x4 cam with a power band of 1000-5000 rpm. I cant remember the exact specs but you can got to www.compcams.com they have an onlone catolog. They also have an RV cam with an 800-4200RMP power band. Both of these cams will give you monster low end torque.

Andrew

78 ford bronco 4x4 351m (soon to be 460)

 

You know bill, you should go through and read all your posts in this thread... Not one of them are particullarly helpful, generally you just rag on what someone else said. Lighten up!

 

>Glad you find this so humorous,
>that's what we're here for...to
>entertain you.

you m-block fellows ARE entertaining!!!


>You can't compare a high comp
>motor to a low comp
>motor. It's apples to oranges
>so quit trying...
>

i thought this thread said 460 vs 400m!! not low comp 460 vs a low comp 400m. it seems you add or twist things around to make yourself feel better about your small block.

its a small block vs a big block, thats your apples and oranges

bill beyer, in your first post in this thread, you make reference to motor in a magazine, what you fail to mention is how much it would cost to drag 380+hp and 450ish #tq out of a small block. i'm betting it would be quit expensive.

EVERY STOCK 429/460 (pre 72) made that kind of power, and for the post 72 460's, it would be alot cheaper to build to obtain those numbers. and thats the name of the game, to get the most bang for the buck.



>blah...blah...blah...heard it all before. Spoken like
>someone who's never built a
>400...

bill beyer and 400hp794x4 without being smart guys,
please explain to me the difference in building a 400 or a 460. is the crank mounted in the carb or something??? or do the pistons go in upside down?? does the tranny mount to the water pump?? or maybe the heads mount on the bottom of the block. no, i think it's built in the same fashion as a 460, so why do you keep refering to people who have never built a 400??



>What year motor? It makes a
>big difference in case you
>weren't aware. The 460 is
>always going to make "more
>power" if you're talking strictly
>hp, it's got 60 more
>cubes. It doesn't take a
>rocket scientist to figure that
>out. However assuming a comparable
>C.R. for both motors it's
>very possible that the 400
>will make more torque lower
>down than the 460 because
>of the significantly longer stroke.


i am aware of and
i would'nt exactly call a 4.00 stroke on the 400 significantly longer than the 3.85 stroke on the 460, but anyway, in 75 a factory fresh 400 made 155-160 hp @ 4000 rpm and 275-280 #tq at 2000 rpm. a factory fresh 460 made 220-225 hp @ 4400 rpm and 355-360 # tq at 2800 rpm, oh yea, comp ratio's, 8.0:1 on the 400 and 8.5:1 on the 460.

now in your own words, comparable cr's, where does the 400 possibly out-torque the 460, or are we still talking apples and oranges, because 8.0:1 - 8.5:1 are as close as we can get.

 

>bill beyer, in your first post
>in this thread, you make
>reference to motor in a
>magazine, what you fail to
>mention is how much it
>would cost to drag 380+hp
>and 450ish #tq out of
>a small block. i'm
>betting it would be quit
>expensive.

Well if you'd taken the time to read the article you'd know it cost right at $2000, so you'd lose that bet...

>bill beyer and 400hp794x4 without being
> smart guys,

not much of a stretch...sorry couldn't resist.

>no, i
>think it's built in the
>same fashion as a 460,
>so why do you keep
>refering to people who have
>never built a 400??

Seems to me someone in this thread said something about not having a clue if you didn't own a "ground pounding, pre-72 460".
Do those engines have something really special like hand cranks or what?

>i would'nt exactly call a 4.00
>stroke on the 400 significantly
>longer than the 3.85 stroke
>on the 460, but anyway,
>in 75 a factory fresh
>400 made 155-160 hp @
>4000 rpm and 275-280 #tq
>at 2000 rpm. a
>factory fresh 460 made 220-225
>hp @ 4400 rpm and
>355-360 # tq at 2800
>rpm, oh yea, comp ratio's,
> 8.0:1 on the 400
>and 8.5:1 on the 460.
>now in your own words, comparable
>cr's, where does the 400
>possibly out-torque the 460, or
>are we still talking apples
>and oranges, because 8.0:1 -
>8.5:1 are as close as
>we can get.

A. .15 is a significantly longer stroke in the world of engine building. If you don't know that then you haven't built many engines.

B. If you're gonna compare #s then quit pullin' them out of your nether regions. In 1972 the 400 was rated at 172 net hp @ 4000 while the 460 was rated at 212 @ 4400. That means that the 400 had .43 hp/CID while the 460 had .46 hp/CID. But the 460 had the 4V while the 400 still had the 2V. You wanna talk torque? Fine, 400: 298# @ 2200, 460: 342# @ 2800. Once again 2V vs. 4V and the C.R. was 8.4:1 for the 400 and 8.5:1 for the 460.

I'm not trying to say the 400 is a better motor, all I'm saying is that with a little massaging it will stay right up with a big block without paying the weight penalty or having to spend the $$$ for a swap.

 

>You know bill, you should go
>through and read all your
>posts in this thread... Not
>one of them are particullarly
>helpful, generally you just rag
>on what someone else said.
>Lighten up!

As opposed to this little gem which was your first post in this thread:

"Reliabilty? Ha! The 400 is a peice of trash. I have one in my bronco and I curse it everymorning. (I am going to a 460) I hear about thier main bearings going out all the time. Mine has 140k on it and it is damn near junk. I dont even know if the motor is oribinal or not. When you have to build a 400 like crazy just to out do a stock 460 or 429 there is a problem. The 400 is SOOOOOOO dead in the low end its embarrasing. Actually its dead in general except that I put a cam in it a year ago and that gave me a bit of high end so now it is just dead down low and lamost dead up high."

Spare me the whining.

 

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 05-Apr-01 AT 11:05 PM (EST)[/font][p]I am not 100% sure but doesnt a 4v head just allow more power in the high end while taking away the low end? It seems that trucks would want more low end as it is not often that a 4x4 is revved up to the high rpms in normal driving or towing. I would think if you put a 2v on a 460 instead of a 4v (you can do that cant you?) that that would bring the powerband down.
This is just off the top of my head so please dont jump on me if im wrong (but please let me know if im wrong or right).

 

>Well if you'd taken the time
>to read the article you'd
>know it cost right at
>$2000, so you'd lose that
>bet...

quit acting like your rich, 2000 is alot of money, especially to waste on a small block, when you can find an older 429/460 for 300-500 bucks, it will bolt right up to the original tranny, it already produces the power you spent 2000 to get. and best of all, you could do it probably for less than 1000.


>Seems to me someone in this
>thread said something about not
>having a clue if you
>didn't own a "ground pounding,
>pre-72 460".
>Do those engines have something really
>special like hand cranks or
>what?

see, you still haven't answered my question. you, along with other people, keep refering to those of us who have never rebuilt a 400, again, i ask, whats so special about a 400????


>A. .15 is a significantly longer
>stroke in the world of
>engine building. If you don't
>know that then you haven't
>built many engines.

i guess .15 is to me like 2000 is to you.

without sounding like i'm bragging, i have 5 big blocks in my garage and 3 more in the trucks i drive. 3 fe's and 5 385 series. 4 which i have completely rebuilt, including a 521 cid ground pounder!!!!


>B. If you're gonna compare #s
>then quit pullin' them out
>of your nether regions. In
>1972 the 400 was rated
>at 172 net hp @
>4000 while the 460 was
>rated at 212 @ 4400.
>That means that the 400
>had .43 hp/CID while the
>460 had .46 hp/CID. But
>the 460 had the 4V
>while the 400 still had
>the 2V. You wanna talk
>torque? Fine, 400: 298# @
>2200, 460: 342# @ 2800.
>Once again 2V vs. 4V
>and the C.R. was 8.4:1
>for the 400 and 8.5:1
>for the 460.


it doesn't matter what year you use, the 400 still comes up short.


>I'm not trying to say the
>400 is a better motor,
>all I'm saying is that
>with a little massaging it
>will stay right up with
>a big block without paying
>the weight penalty or having
>to spend the $$$ for
>a swap.


i don't know what your refering to with a little massaging, does that mean adding a new 4v, along with a new intake and cam? or does it mean advancing or retarding the timing???

if it means adding a new 4v, intake and cam, i can swap in a big block for what it would cost for those items.

 

>quit acting like your rich, 2000
>is alot of money, especially
>to waste on a small
>block, when you can find
>an older 429/460 for 300-500
>bucks, it will bolt right
>up to the original tranny,
>it already produces the power
>you spent 2000 to get.
> and best of all,
>you could do it probably
>for less than 1000.

Yeah I'm sure we can all run right out and find a 30+ year old motor in a junkyard that'll put out 385 hp and 470# of torque. Those babies are layin' all over the place in perfect shape just waiting to be picked up...please!

>see, you still haven't answered my
>question. you, along with
>other people, keep refering to
>those of us who have
>never rebuilt a 400, again,
>i ask, whats so special
>about a 400????

If you don't know then you obviosuly haven't built one...

>i guess .15 is to me
>like 2000 is to you.

and your point is what...you're poor?

>without sounding like i'm bragging, i
>have 5 big blocks in
>my garage and 3 more
>in the trucks i drive.
> 3 fe's and 5
>385 series. 4 which
>i have completely rebuilt, including
>a 521 cid ground pounder!!!!

If you've rebuilt these motors then you know it costs money or did you just pull different parts out of junkyard motors? In fact most decent rebuilds cost somewhere in the neighborhood of, oh say...$2000.

>it doesn't matter what year you
>use, the 400 still comes
>up short.

It should, it's 60 cubes smaller than a 460 now isn't it?

>i don't know what your refering
>to with a little massaging,
>does that mean adding a
>new 4v, along with a
>new intake and cam?
>or does it mean advancing
>or retarding the timing???

It means a complete rebuild with flat top pistons, a hotter cam, 4V carb & intake, timing changes & headers.

>if it means adding a new
>4v, intake and cam, i
>can swap in a big
>block for what it would
>cost for those items.

If that's the extent of your capabilities then that's what you should stick to. A man's got to know his limitations.

Look I didn't come here to trash the 385 series, the thread was about the potential of the 400 vs the 460. Obviously if you start with a bigger motor you're going to get bigger numbers and you can't easily make a 400 into a 460. There's a guy over on the M block forum who's pulling 667 hp and 564# of torque out of a stroked 400 with a stock block & Boss 302 heads so there definitely is potential there. Put whatever you want in your truck, as long as it has a blue oval on it you aren't going to go too far wrong.

 

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-Apr-01 AT 02:46 PM (EST)[/font][p]>I am not 100% sure but
>doesnt a 4v head just
>allow more power in the
>high end while taking away
>the low end? It seems
>that trucks would want more
>low end as it is
>not often that a 4x4
>is revved up to the
>high rpms in normal driving
>or towing. I would think
>if you put a 2v
>on a 460 instead of
>a 4v (you can do
>that cant you?) that that
>would bring the powerband down.

For the purposes of this discussion there's no functional difference between any heads on an M or 385 series engine based on carburetor size. Only 351Cs had heads designated for different carb sizes.

A 2V carb is going to run out of breath at a lower RPM than a 4V so the answer to your question is basically no. Unless you've changed to a cam which likes high RPMs then simply adding a 4V carb to an otherwise stock engine will not move your powerband up or down, only enhance it IOW you shouldn't lose anything on the lower end while you will definitely gain on the upper end with a 4V. OTOH putting a 2V carb on will simply shorten the powerband by cutting the top end off.

Theoretically it's possible to screw up your driveability by "over-carbing" but that's not so easy with engines of 400 CID and higher.

 

that makes sense, thanks

 

i hope that this is taken for what it is, fun and nothing more.


>Yeah I'm sure we can all
>run right out and find
>a 30+ year old motor
>in a junkyard that'll put
>out 385 hp and 470#
>of torque. Those babies are
>layin' all over the place
>in perfect shape just waiting
>to be picked up...please!

i don't know, i don't go to junk yards. last weekend i was out driving in the country, and saw 2 big lincoln continentals sitting out behind a farmers barn. i stopped and talked to the old fellow and bought both cars for 100 bucks. here's the good part, they were both 71's with the good 460's and c-6's.

so yes, they are out there, you just have to go out and find them.



>If you don't know then you
>obviosuly haven't built one...


like a broken record.


>If you've rebuilt these motors then
>you know it costs money
>or did you just pull
>different parts out of junkyard
>motors? In fact most decent
>rebuilds cost somewhere in the
>neighborhood of, oh say...$2000.

yes, but when i put 2000 into a big block, i get alot more out of it.

>It means a complete rebuild with
>flat top pistons, a hotter
>cam, 4V carb & intake,
>timing changes & headers.

to me, that's more than a little massaging!!!!!


>If that's the extent of your
>capabilities then that's what you
>should stick to. A man's
>got to know his limitations.

i guess i look at it differently, as an engines capabilities and limitations. not mine, despite what you say, it's easier to swap than rebuild, the old addage (if it ain't broke, don't muck with it) applys. of course, i guess your right, you have to tear down a 400 and rebuild it to get any kind of numbers out of it, compared to a big block, which already produces those numbers.


>Look I didn't come here to
>trash the 385 series, the
>thread was about the potential
>of the 400 vs the
>460. Obviously if you start
>with a bigger motor you're
>going to get bigger numbers
>and you can't easily make
>a 400 into a 460.
>There's a guy over on
>the M block forum who's
>pulling 667 hp and 564#
>of torque out of a
>stroked 400 with a stock
>block & Boss 302 heads
>so there definitely is potential
>there. Put whatever you want
>in your truck, as long
>as it has a blue
>oval on it you aren't
>going to go too far
>wrong.


come on bill, be honest, how much do you think that guy spent on that motor? 5-10 grand? just think if you put that kind of money in a big block. that's 1000hp kind of money.

 

>i don't know, i don't go
>to junk yards. last
>weekend i was out driving
>in the country, and saw
>2 big lincoln continentals sitting
>out behind a farmers barn.
> i stopped and talked
>to the old fellow and
>bought both cars for 100
>bucks. here's the good
>part, they were both 71's
>with the good 460's and
>c-6's.

It's stil a 30 year old engine with an unknown history and I'd bet a month's pay it won't make the kind of numbers you keep claiming it will. Sure it's a great candidate for a rebuild but it's still just a starting point.

>>If you don't know then you
>>obviosuly haven't built one...

>like a broken record.

The point is all you've got is a bunch of heresay from people who claim the 400 is garbage. You've never taken the time to investigate why they say it or what could be done to fix it.

>yes, but when i put 2000
>into a big block, i
>get alot more out of
>it.

Well now how would you know that since all the engines you've rebuilt seem to be sitting in your garage instead of in your truck(s)? Besides if you didn't get more HP out of the extra CID on a 460 then you'd be pretty pathetic. I can still rebuild a 400 for the same amount of money and get very close to the HP and probably more torque.

>to me, that's more than a
>little massaging!!!!!

Well there you go...

>i guess i look at it
>differently, as an engines capabilities
>and limitations. not mine,
>despite what you say, it's
>easier to swap than rebuild,
>the old addage (if it
>ain't broke, don't muck with
>it) applys.

Like I said, you've never built a 400 so don't talk about an engine's capabilities and limitations if you don't have a clue.

>of course,
>i guess your right, you
>have to tear down a
>400 and rebuild it to
>get any kind of numbers
>out of it, compared to
>a big block, which already
>produces those numbers.

Of course I'm right, but the point is that you love to talk about one or 2 specific years of 460s. What about the "smog years" 72-79 where Ford introduced the 460 to all of the same disadvantages that the 400 had to deal with from the beginning? You never like to talk about those do you? Those engines need just as much "massaging" as any 400...

>>There's a guy over on
>>the M block forum who's
>>pulling 667 hp and 564#
>>of torque out of a
>>stroked 400 with a stock
>>block & Boss 302 heads
>>so there definitely is potential
>>there
>
>come on bill, be honest, how
>much do you think that
>guy spent on that motor?
> 5-10 grand? just
>think if you put that
>kind of money in a
>big block. that's 1000hp
>kind of money.

Sure he spent a chunk of money, he's a semi professional truck puller with class restrictions which prevented him from building a big block. What's your point? That was also his first shot at a 400 and he's in the process of building a bigger & better one right now. He'll probably get pretty close to 1000 hp out of it..