400 Rebuild/Stroker Build Newbie Questions

-

Miner_Jeepy

Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
Davenport, IA
Hi everybody!

I'm here to get some advice on an engine build for my jeep j-truck ('64 J300 Project Farmtruck - International Full Size Jeep Association). If that's completely out of line given that this is for A body mopars feel free to delete the thread and ban me. Only coming here because you all have the knowledge and another forum that I posed this to didn't result in anything. I read through the "Torque Monster !" thread and it helped some but not exactly.

I picked up a 400 big block a week or so ago and am going to put it in my truck. I've read some info on building 400s and it all tends to focus around high horsepower drag cars not trucks so I'm hoping you all can help. What I have is block casting number 4006530-400-2 with a cast date of xx-11-76 or 78 and 452 heads. From what I understand the 452 heads are theoretically the "best" iron heads so it's a decent platform to start with. It came out of a farmer's barn and it all appears to be in good shape. Cylinder walls are good, one has a bit of corrosion but I think it can be cleaned up with a simple hone job or slight overbore. Cam is completely wasted so I'll be buying a new one of those and I think the crank is good. It's not completely out but where the rods attach looks fine.

The plan is to make an all out torque monster. I know Chrysler motors already are but more is better. I'd rather have 600 ft-lbs at 2,500 rpm than 600 hp at 6,500 rpm, because truck. That being said I think it'd be absurd and awesome to stroke it out between 451-512. 489 CI would put it at 8 litres which is just a solid round number. So, I want to do a stock-ish rebuild and then at a later date come back and stoke it out. I've never rebuilt an engine before so I don't want to spend money on a stroker crank and then bork it up. Below are the general plans for the builds:

Stock style rebuild - I'm assuming that the block will need to be bored out slightly which is why I have new pistons listed but if I can get away with a simple hone job I'll reuse the stock ones (assuming they're not junk). I also plan on having the machine shop check the heads over to make sure they're good. It would be fun to port the 452s but I understand that aluminum heads would have higher performance potential. If it comes back that the heads are junk I'll just buy Al heads.
452 Heads - replace worn out components (springs, valves, rockers)
cast pistons
Stock con rods
Stock forged crank
Dual plane manifold
Stock style camshaft
Hydraulic roller lifters (less cam wear, more reliability)

Stroker Build - overbuilt to not worry about needing to rebuild it once a year. Would work with 440Source to make sure all the components jive.
Aluminum Heads
Bigger cam
440source crank
Hypereutectic pistons
Forged con rods
Same intake

What would be nice is to purchase some components that would work for both builds. I'm really not sure how feasible that is though. Theoretically, things like the intake/rockers/lifters should be able to be used for both versions but would it be possible to run the same camshaft? For the stroker my plan was to get one that's farily small 230-ish @ 0.050 based on some reading about building for torque. Based on my very limited knowledge the 230 cam in the stock engine would push the peak power higher up in the rpm range potentially to a point that the stock heads couldn't get to, is that right or was the stock cam in 400s a choke point? Would a 230 for the stroker be too small? Only thing I saw was start at 220 and add 5-7 for every 50 ci over 350 ci. I figure erring on the small side of that would work for my torque based build. Assuming I bore it out slightly (0.030 over) I'd like to buy one set of pistons but I don't think that's possible either. From what I understand the 440Source kit recommends rods that have Chevy crank diameter and piston pin dimensions so if I tried to reuse the same pistons on both versions there would be a cascading effect of pistons to rods to crank that would ultimately result in the stroker build. Or am I wrong? Should I accept that I'll have to repurchase some components and think of these as two completely different engines?

More general build criteria is below. I want to run this on pump gas so like 87(89?) octane, whatever is cheapest at the station.

Low compression
9:1 max
Al heads will help reduce pinging on stroker
Build for reliability

If you've read all the way through and I'm completely off-base at this point please let me know! I've just read internet articles in hopes of not doing something completely wrong.
 
First off I would have never removed the vise grips as a turn signal handle. That was super cool.

To be used for car shows and camping............are you pulling a trailer?

If you want 600 lb-ft install a 5.9 Cummins.

You're going to get a ton of suggestions but I'm going to start here...................

Dyno a 7.5:1 400? Sure, why not?
 
IMO you are WAY overthinking this . A stock stroke 400 makes more th an enough torque for your needs . If you want a torque monster go to Comp Cams for advise . I think you need high port velocity at low rpm to achieve your goal . You can't go wrong with a .484" cam ,standard ports and a lot of valve work , good exhaust and ignition , 750cfm carb . Balance everything !!!!! and clean , clean , clean . Good luck
 
I've had 2 400's stroked to 451 in 2 different early B bodies.
Best engines I ever had. Thought I no longer own the cars they still are running strong 20 years later. Very reliable.
 
First off I would have never removed the vise grips as a turn signal handle. That was super cool.

To be used for car shows and camping............are you pulling a trailer?

If you want 600 lb-ft install a 5.9 Cummins.

You're going to get a ton of suggestions but I'm going to start here...................

Dyno a 7.5:1 400? Sure, why not?

True about the Cummins, the 600 was more of an exaggeration than goal. Pulling a trailer eventually but one thing at a time. Scope has changed since it started.

I guess you know a thing or two about this then.

IMO you are WAY overthinking this . A stock stroke 400 makes more than enough torque for your needs . If you want a torque monster go to Comp Cams for advise . I think you need high port velocity at low rpm to achieve your goal . You can't go wrong with a .484" cam ,standard ports and a lot of valve work , good exhaust and ignition , 750cfm carb . Balance everything !!!!! and clean , clean , clean . Good luck

THANK YOU! I really needed someone to tell me that. It can be very overwhelming given how everything interacts

I've had 2 400's stroked to 451 in 2 different early B bodies.
Best engines I ever had. Thought I no longer own the cars they still are running strong 20 years later. Very reliable.

That's reassuring if I end up stroking it out in the future. In general I've heard that strokers don't have a lot of life to them.


So, taking all this knowledge/advice, the way to go about doing this is design with the cam being the "choke point." Get heads that have the ability to out-flow the cam and choose a cam that will create the torque that I want at the desired RPM and make sure there's a cerb that can feed it. But, realistically, I'll contact a cam manufacturer tell them what I'm trying to do and then they'll give me a part number and I'll slap that in along with a 750 cfm carb. If I wanted to I could go with a higher ratio rocker to try and get more flow out of the stock heads and/or try to do some porting or go with some aluminum ones. Depends on how much money I want to put into it.

On the right track?
 
I guess you know a thing or two about this then.

Kinda.

We've started with the 400 engines and made from 285 HP to 787 HP.......

never having gone over 451 cubic inches.......

and all on 91 octane pump gas.
 
The best gas powered truck engine I ever had was a bone stock 440 out of a '72 Chrysler New Yorker.
 
I've heard that strokers don't have a lot of life to them.
Yes Ive heard that too.Maybe if you hammer the crap out of them.
As I said mine were done 20 or so years ago. I did 2 cross country trips,long hauled on 2 Hot Rod Power Tours.I also drag raced the car for 2 seasons all over the country.Put a little over 30,000 miles on it then transplanted the engine in a friends son's Cuda and did another long haul Power Tour.He racked up another 10,000 miles and it's still in the car.It sits mostly as now he is into diesel trucks.
Oh yeah, both cars were manual transmission cars.
The other 451 was put in a 64 Fury and only racked up about 8,000 miles.Then the car was sold.Here is when we built the Cuda for the 2007 Hot rod Power Tour.
100_1164.JPG
100_1169.JPG
 
One more thing I ran Edelbrock heads, 9.6 to 1 compression.During the Power Tour had to use 87 octane several times, No pinging and ran just fine.
 
I think that may be the understatement of the year lol
One more thing I ran Edelbrock heads, 9.6 to 1 compression.During the Power Tour had to use 87 octane several times, No pinging and ran just fine.
Good to know. And yeah, rural midwest is not known for high quality gas.

I rambled to comp in their cam wizard tool or whatever so I'll see what they come back with in a few days. Probably hit up a couple other cam manufacturers too just to see if they more or less agree.
 
If you want torque & stay normally aspirated, there are two ways to get big tq #s. More cubes or more rpm. I like the big cubes route.....because you get a flatter tq curve & more tq over a wider rpm range.
 
Hey all,

I've done some research and asked some companies and want to bounce some stuff off you all.

First off, I've decided to go with a set of moparts sidewinder heads after reading about rebuilding the stock iron heads and pricing some things out. I've heard good things about them and they're much more than the build requires so they won't be a limiting factor.Only downside is that they're out of castings and won't have more till April. I don't think that's going to be a problem given all the work I need to do.

As far as a cam goes, I reached out to Comp, Hughes, Howards, and Lunati. I've heard back from Comp and Hughes so far. I'll probably resubmit the Howards & Lunati ones this week.

The person from Hughes politely said I was an idiot for wanting hydraulic roller and suggested I use their whiplash hyd flat tappet (229/242 duration @ .050" and 0.518/0.518 lift with a LS of 107) and when I pressed for a hyd roller he suggested SER1418BL3-10. After realizing that I can get a hyd flat tappet, lifters and springs for the same cost as a set of roller lifters I'll be going with a hyd flat tappet.

Comp suggested 23-710-9 as a hyd roller and 23-223-4 for a hyd flat tappet (224/230 duration @ .050" and 0.477/0.480 lift with a LS of 110). I asked the comp dude why he didn't recommend their thumpr (227/241 duration @ .050" and 0.486/0.473 lift with a LS of 107) since it is very similar in design to the whiplash that Hughes suggested, he said that "it needs about 10:1 compression ratio...you told me that you are about 8ish...You are probably closer to 9:1, so, the Thumper cam will be very sluggish down low..."

Is that statement by comp correct? I'd like to go with a Hughes cam since they offer their "no flat cams guarantee" or whatever it's called because breaking in a cam terrifies me. Hughes does have SEH2428BL-11 (224/228 duration @ .050" and 0.518/0.530 lift with a LS of 111) or SEH2832BL-10 (228/230 duration @ .050" and 0.530/0.536 lift with a LS of 110) that are more "normal" like the comp cam.

I'm assuming I'm VASTLY overthinking this and should just by the cam recommended by comp or the Hughes equivalent...
 
I'm in the 451 build camp. Especially if you have access to a solid forged 440 crank. It's only about $200-$250 (Retail. Less if you have a machinist contact) crank work. The whole build is the best stroker per cost (I believe) there is? (Chevy 350/383 guys might argue. But both are simular all manufacturer stroker part builds) Using 440 rods with flats pistons. (I like Ross. But certainly not exclusive.) A whole lot of head/cam profile configuration (Depending on desired intake and fuel delivery) options. Including plenty of sound options with 452 iron heads. JMO.
 
Yes, Comp bloke is correct. The killer is twofold, the tight 107 LSA & the huge amount of [ unneeded ] extra exh duration. Both combine to give a LOT of overlap, which gives it a nasty idle to impress the girls at Maccas. The large overlap needs high compression to regain some of the tq lost at lower rpms from the overlap. Not a good choice for a broad power range cam for street use.
You might want to read Isky Tech tips: Is extra exh duration really necessary.
 
Yes, Comp bloke is correct. The killer is twofold, the tight 107 LSA & the huge amount of [ unneeded ] extra exh duration. Both combine to give a LOT of overlap, which gives it a nasty idle to impress the girls at Maccas. The large overlap needs high compression to regain some of the tq lost at lower rpms from the overlap. Not a good choice for a broad power range cam for street use.
You might want to read Isky Tech tips: Is extra exh duration really necessary.

Thanks! It's really fascinating how all these factors interact. I'll check out that article and see what I can get out of it. I think I have the major things figured out now so now it's all the small things.
 
-
Back
Top