400/426 Stroker. Ever heard of one?

-
slimjim

slimjim

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
506
Reaction score
287
Location
Vallejo, CA
Can’t seem to find anything on the web about one of these. Any of you build one? Taking this opportunity to test out a long rod ratio. From my assessment, it seems like a reliable combo that would love to rev. What do you think? Doing this as a budget build for a YouTube challenge.

-offset ground 383 crank
-6.7” rods
-440 stroker piston

The STROKER Combo Never Built - Plan Revealed #piggybankhorsepower
 
Um.... that would not really BE much of a stroker at all. It would simply be an overbored 400 with a slightly longer stroke. I can only assume the gains would be minimal, especially when you think about the cost of those pistons. Chevy size big end rods?? All expensive stuff.


BTW, 383 to 426 was actually pretty common. Never heard of anyone going 400 to 426, probably mainly because piston size was already pretty large, along with the reason I listed above.
 
Last edited:
400/500 is a popular modification. 400's have a big bore so a extra long throw get's you big cubes.
 
Sounds like a good way to spend more money, and end up with less power(than what’s readily available) to me.

But.......it’s your money.
 
So the rotating assembly has cost me $1600. It’s half the cost of a 440 source stroker kit. In addition to gaining 26 cubes, it also maintains a large over-square configuration. I’m hoping this adds to the high revving nature I’m planning/aiming for.
 
slimjim said:
So the rotating assembly has cost me $1600. It’s half the cost of a 440 source stroker kit. In addition to gaining 26 cubes, it also maintains a large over-square configuration. I’m hoping this adds to the high revving nature I’m planning/aiming for.
Click to expand...
Is the 400 stroke the same as a 383? (Shorter than a small block Chevy) what is the stroker crank stroke.
 
Lefty71 said:
Um.... that would not really BE much of a stroker at all. It would simply be an overbored 400 with a slightly longer stroke. I can only assume the gains would be minimal, especially when you think about the cost of those pistons. Chevy size big end rods?? All expensive stuff.


BTW, 383 to 426 was actually pretty common. Never heard of anyone going 400 to 426, probably mainly because piston size was already pretty large, along with the reason I listed above.
Click to expand...
Chevy size, yup. I’ve gone big stroke in the past and it didn’t really meet expectations. Wanting to try something different.
 
Sure nothing wrong with playing around with it, especially if you have the parts (pistons?).
Rpm will depend on the heads and cam you use. It should spin if built right.
 
toolmanmike said:
Is the 400 stroke the same as a 383? (Shorter than a small block Chevy) what is the stroker crank stroke.
Click to expand...
Same stroke. Reason for the 383 crank is to get a forged unit. When the rod journals are offset ground it increases the stroke from 3.38 to 3.545. Rod journals are now 2.2”
 
I like it. It's different. But I'd just build a hot 400 and be done with it.
 
slimjim said:
So the rotating assembly has cost me $1600. It’s half the cost of a 440 source stroker kit. In addition to gaining 26 cubes, it also maintains a large over-square configuration. I’m hoping this adds to the high revving nature I’m planning/aiming for.
Click to expand...
Did that $1600 include rod and main bearings, or a "precision balance" (whatever that means) like the 440 source kits?

Either way, it's different and it's a Mopar big block, so what's not to like?? I'm looking forward to seeing the build. Have you thought about the top end at all?
 
I thought you might do this instead when I thought about it.

IMG_0772.png
 
I did a 450, years back using a 440 offset crank 3.9 stroke and Chevy rods
 
mopowers said:
Did that $1600 include rod and main bearings, or a "precision balance" (whatever that means) like the 440 source kits?

Either way, it's different and it's a Mopar big block, so what's not to like?? I'm looking forward to seeing the build. Have you thought about the top end at all?
Click to expand...
The $1600 includes the rings and bearings. I do still need to balance the crank which is gona cost me another $125. I’m aim for a 5k overall budget for the long block. Still not sure what I’m going to do for heads but, I’m leaning towards some 915s or worked 452s. I doubt I could squeeze in aluminum heads but, it sure would be nice.
 
.040 years s the limit huh? All well, it is what it is and you work with what ya got.
 
slimjim said:
The $1600 includes the rings and bearings. I do still need to balance the crank which is gona cost me another $125. I’m aim for a 5k overall budget for the long block. Still not sure what I’m going to do for heads but, I’m leaning towards some 915s or worked 452s. I doubt I could squeeze in aluminum heads but, it sure would be nice.
Click to expand...
So where did u get this kit? Do u have a link? Thanks. Kim
 
Offsetting the rod brgs that much might leave precious little metal around the oil holes, an area under a lot of load...& flexing.

If you are going to build a high rpm engine utilising a large rod/stroke ratio, then the engine will need a high flowing induction & exh system to make use of that r/s ratio.

Personally, I would use shorter rods, which is what I did [ 383 rods & 440 crank ].
 
Engine masters did a rod ratio test that I thought was pretty good. In the end, I guess it’s up to the individual building the engine in their direction and choices. The power difference wasn’t enough to sway me in ether direction but I myself would choose the longer rod and shorter piston. It’s a combo I like a little better.

For me? There is a tipping point for how short the piston gets if longevity is a concern. Drag or purpose built engines I won’t worry about.

Looking forward to the video series on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top