Almost the same stroke difference as a 340 to 360. 360 will make more torque and hp than a 340 at same rpm might expect the same from your build.
400/426 Stroker. Ever heard of one?
- Thread starter slimjim
- Start date
-
It's more about the cid difference eg. 360 vs 340. Longer stroke higher multiplier, Bigger bore more force to be multiplied.
Most engine builds we see make between 1.1 to 1.35+ torque per cid, so peak torque is generally more than displacement. (in gross tq #'s in dyno trim)
@Newbomb Turk you got something to add other than your stupid red Xs?
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
So Chrysler was wrong when they designed the 3.58 stroke 360 small block for the increase in torque. Got it.
Anyone who has worked on a car and has grabbed a longer wrench or breaker bar to remove that stubborn bolt knows that a longer stroke gives more torque with the same amount of pressure. The cave men knew that as they used leverage sticks to move objects as did the Romans.
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
Look right here. This is what you said. You are wrong. Read it close.
This is why you got the red X. I have no desire to enter a conversation with someone who says something so wrong.
Get over it. You are wrong.
So you took time to X and to explain that you don't take time to explain, but don't have time to explain? Got it.
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Why bother? Evidently you can’t read either. Look at what he posted. He is just wrong.
And look at what’s happening? This is what I wanted to avoid. If you need it explained to you then you have the issue. The X said plenty if you can read and you know the facts.
So you took time to X X and to explain that you don't have time to explain AGAIN, but don't have time to explain? Got it.
Evidently Newbutt Hurt is just here to troll. Done with feeding trolls. Just added to the ignore list.
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
Exactly. If I have to explain an X to you it would seem you have the issue.
You can’t say that Chrysler went to more stroke so the 360 would make more torque and hp at the same RPM as the 340 because it doesn’t work that way.
The 360 made its power and torque at a much lower RPM than the 340. That’s how it is. So his post was wrong.
If you are going to post information at least make a half hearted effort to be accurate.
And I’m done explaining an X to the hard of reading. You all act like a bunch of cry babies. He got it wrong. At least he could own it.
Even though I don't agree 100% with moggoblue9798, I just think the focus on stroke alone is wrong, extra cid = equal extra fuel and air(tq), more piston surface = more psi across the piston to be multiplied, + the multiplication effect of stroke = tq, it's all interrelated. Most overlook piston surface. There's no free lunch 
eg.. 360 vs 361 or 400 vs 408 or with OP 426 vs 426.
But to say he's plain wrong is wrong.
eg.. 360 vs 361 or 400 vs 408 or with OP 426 vs 426.But to say he's plain wrong is wrong.
Last edited:
slimjim
Well-Known Member
Made a mistake with my early measurements but, I was able to put together the top end in a way to mitigate some of it. I could’ve torn it back down to correct it however, I think the combo, as is, will work great in the project I’m leaning towards installing it in.
BUDGET 426 Stroker Gets a Top End!
BUDGET 426 Stroker Gets a Top End!
This crank pictures in post #65 @ the 6 second mark, is that the one that was used. Cut down from 2.375 to 2.200 sure, but that's no offset grind going on there. 6.700 rod, 1.485 compression distance and a stock stroke of 3.380 /2= 1.690 for a total of 9.870. 9.9980 stock deck height would yield a piston .110 below the surface, more likely than the factory being out of wack 100 thou. on their deck height. Just my observation, could be wrong. opinions may vary.
.
.
Cranks I've offset ground are verry obvious the journal has shifted.
Id be concerned about cutting that much off the crank, any factory hardening or nitriding is gone
It can always be redone.
IMO, it’s not something to worry about.
IMO, it’s not something to worry about.
slimjim
Well-Known Member
After seeing it in the hole that much, my first thought was that the offset grind either wasn’t offset enough or not at all. I then measured the stroke with the short block still together. Came in right at 3.54. Idk maybe I was reading it wrong. It’s been a few months.
So then they offset ground it .080 thou. Kim
Last edited:
PRH
Well-Known Member
If the stroke is now 3.54”, then they added .160” stroke.
If the pistons are 1.485” C/H, and the rod is 6.70”, the pistons should be down the hole .025”(in an uncut block)
1.770”(half stroke)
1.485”
6.70”
————
9.955”
.025” deck
————
9.980”
If the pistons are 1.485” C/H, and the rod is 6.70”, the pistons should be down the hole .025”(in an uncut block)
1.770”(half stroke)
1.485”
6.70”
————
9.955”
.025” deck
————
9.980”
RAMM
Well-Known Member
There is no factory hardening, unlike most diesel cranks. Have offset ground many cranks , never an issue. The 3.915" stroke 471 combo was being done in the 80's that I know of and maybe 70's. J.Rob
slimjim
Well-Known Member
-
