Does anybody have the Hotrod magazine's 351m/400 build up article? If so, can you send me a copy of it? thanks

Tony
masterbeavis(No Email Addresses In Posts!)

 

How about someone getting permission, and posting it in the tech section?

 

they would rather that you go to thier web site and pay $3.00 for each person to download it...(seemingly it is a nice service, but who wants to pay for that??)

 

There are quite a few errors in the HotRod mag article, and just a few bits of useful information.

OTOH, it was one of very few mag articles ever published that didn't just **** the 400 as a "smog motor" not worth the effort. It would have been nice if they had done a little more research and gotten the facts straight.

 

What errors? I've never heard of any errors in this article, of the many, many times this has been discussed. Can you provide some details Bubba?

 

Not having my copy in front of me, I know I won't remember them all, but I recall several errors about production dates and original specs. In one place, the HR article said the 400 never had more than 8.0:1 compression ratio, when in fact the 400 had 9.0:1 CR when it was introduced in the 1971 model year. From 1972-1982 model years, the 400 had 8.4:1 CR. The 351M always had 8.0:1 CR.

The HR article also said the CompCams High Energy 268 (#32-221-3) is a dual-pattern cam, but according to my catalog, the HE 268 is a single pattern cam (same duration both intake and exhaust).

The biggest problem in the HR article was the compression ratio they claimed for the engine they built. The article claimed 9.45:1 compression, but based on the block/head decking numbers they gave (block 0.015", heads 0.025"), you could not get that CR from stock-type dished pistons. It said they used Silv-O-Lite cast pistons, and there used to be two 400 pistons (the hypereutectic H3107 have been discontinued), but neither of those pistons would give the CR they claimed.

If the amount they say they shaved is correct, I calculate the CR to be about 9.0:1. If the CR they claim (9.45:1) is correct, then they would have to have shaved the block/heads by about 0.066" total, or used different pistons.

I never had time to write them and ask, but I always wondered about that discrepancy.

 

looking for bubba or anyone who has an early 80's f250 with a 351m. i just rebuilt my engine and am in the process of reinstalling it. i lost the photos of the pulley system and was hoping someone out there can help.

 

Once again the article by David Resch In the tech articles"High Performance Options for the 351M/400 Engine" is available on the home page and in packed with more info than I have found anywhere. Thanks David.He ex plains that with the right parts a 400 can blow away a 460 & 429.I'll let you know when I finish mine. Now only if my drive train can withstand the abuse.But is it half the fun finding out? If you going to complain about cracking U-jouint or axles. The take up skate boarding they are cheaper to fix.Hank<bellsouth.net>