Hey thanks for commenting! Sounds like fun :)

the 302 was a whip too

@@stevenbean9706 , They were 301s back in the old days, 4.00 inch bore and a 3.00 inch stroke.

@@BobbyTucker no, that's a 302 Z28 engine, a 327 block with a 283 crankshaft. 301 was a Pontiac emissions engine.

@@michaels.ramsey7803 half right half wrong, we did call the 283 bored to 4 in a 301 in the old days, you had to search really hard for a block that would take the bore though. i'm sure im not the only one remembers that.

Wow that’s something else! I’d love to have heard that wound out!

Wow. I used to do cup car engine development - so I know a thing or two about valvetrain kinematics. Getting the valvetrain of an OHV engine to handle 10k is no small feat. How'd you do it on a dirt track budget?

@@GroovesAndLands All kinds of non-dirt track budget, high dollar valvetrain gear!! LOL or he's lying! One of the two. ;)

If it was all within the rules, how do you get kicked? I'd call BS!

Awesome build,

That was a 372 bored .030, they did run like heck.

Great article. It definitely inspired this build of ours. We made a few changes from what they did. It’s a great engine! Thanks for commenting.

That article is still on Google. I can't link to it because idiot YT auto deletes posts containing off YT links.

​@@ceperformanceI remember that they used 305 heads because of their small combustion chamber at 58cc. Great if 2.02/1.60 valves will fit. Cam was from ZZII or ZZIII 350 package

​@@ThePaulv12I'd love to find it. I no longer have the issue its from 😢

Guys, we put a link in the video notes that goes right to the article of “The 350 GM should have made” . Go find it there!

That’s awesome. Thanks for commenting!

Glidden had good heads.

@@doomman700 yes he did the Cleveland 4v heads are awesome. He was a mechanic way ahead of his time.

@@davescbradiorepair8195, Bob Glidden was way ahead of his time but, you have to remember one thing, he was a mechanic with "Clean hands".

The 302 Boss engine was also a great little high rpm engine that made some serious horsepower right from the factory, and they lied like hell about the advertised horsepower of that particular engine

The link for the article is in the video description now.

Hey, thanks for commenting :)

I'd like to build something like that, that 635hp would allow me to keep up with the stroker engines in the hobbystock class that their not supposed to be running, and still be within the cubic inch requirements!!

@@jeremyhood5206 Yeah, guys out on our track even running 414 , 421's lol The little mouse still spanked them. 355 Ci rule, they say only 4 bore blocks, but I never seen a head pulled, the always whistle test a hole or two. Back in the day building mills for hobby stock, 350 bore rule, we would put SBC 4.125 pistons in 7 & 8 😀 They never tested them, they didn't like struggling to get back there. We made sure stuff was in way to make it hard to get at ! muah hahu😈

@BrainDeadEngineering That’s awesome!

Awesome. Thanks for commenting!

That sounds good ! Have a balanced 68 327 all forged factory rotating assembly 11-1 compression, block froze, 12,000 miles on stock bore. Trying to decide 350 or 400 block, have alum. & hump heads built for 327. Also Summit racing have splayed german steel blocks 350 or 400. Don't know what heads their 400 will use, Steam ports or not. What would you do with my ex. cond. assembly ? Thanks Sensible budget or just not even bother. Thanks I trust your thoughts !

@rader1175 Thanks for sharing! Since you have a 1968, I’d assume it was a large journal so with the spacer bearings you could put that crank into a 400 block of your choice. Steam ports are not that important in my opinion. Bringing the coolant from the back of the intake manifold to the thermostat housing is a great way to help keep it cool. We’ve also drilled and tapped small 1/4” fittings and hoses into the top of the block deck on both sides and run hoses into the water pump body. Helps with heat as well.

you are right. i was going to write that but you beat me to it.the W blocks.4.125" bore, 3.25" stroke 348. i can't remember the 409 specs, but i know it had a very large bore.

@@dougburg3210 the 409 was 4.313 bore x 3.50 stroke

The biggest problem with 348s & 409s is the same as the Ford MEL engine of the late 50s. The combustion chamber was a goofy shaped piston with a big angle on it for the chamber & requiring the rings to be extremely far away from the top on the long side, instead of being in the head. John Kaase took a MEL & made a very thick aluminum "head gasket" that lengthened the intake runners & allowed for a combustion chamber at the UNOH Engine Masters Challenge & destroyed the competition in the "vintage" class. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mZOEpJuVscqxZWQ.html

The 348 came with a standard bore of 4.125˝ and stroke of 3.25˝. Its big brother, the 409, came with the stock bore size of 4.3125˝ and stroke of 3.50˝.

Venolia Pistons ?? Does that sound familiar ?? 🤔

@waylonmccrae3546 Sorry it doesn’t.

Hi iron! Sounds fantastic! Thanks for sharing that bit of your history!

Dirt track secret😉

My brother would flip the pistons upside down and outrun everyone of the other motors with the same dimensions.

I worked for arias racing pistons when they shut down 🫤 best job I ever had. We would machine any dimension piston that anyone wanted! Miss that place so much!

Destroked

Hi ps3613t! Great comment, thank you. We love 400 blocks at CE Performance. Best regards.

I regret never building my 400 blocked 377 for my 79 Malibu.. Had a set of older aluminum gm hp heads for it.

@@terrypikaart4394 Hi Terry! Thank you for writing. It's never too late to build that cool combo. Our build combination was a customer's idea long ago ... and then the right block came along and here we are, making the idea happen, and we're proud of it. If you're able to, revisit the engine idea you always wanted to build! We strongly encourage it if you're able to. Best regards.

My small bore 305 sure runs smooth, not a powerhouse but runs like a top. My 350 made more power but was a bit rougher (IMO).

Yes I love the Chevy 400 blocks with a 327 crank just like the Ford 351 Cleveland destroked a 330 like Glidden ran.

Hi Performance Engines! We had the benefit of utilizing a Dart SBC 400 block that had seen a few rebuilds; the block had 2.45" mains, and we had a steel 3.25" stroke crankshaft on the shelf-perfect for this application. Thank you for your comments! Best regards!

In 68 or early 69 when they made the 327 to 350 transition they put some large journal 327's in trucks. With those crankshafts you don't need the spacer. I believe they were forged. People were putting them in 350's and getting a 331

That’s true. The only reason it would become a 331 is because the block was bored .030” over. The 327 and 350 both start life with 4” bores.

Thank you very much :)

Fun memories I’ll bet! Thanks for commenting :)

Thanks you for that! We appreciate your comments :)

I THINK UR CAPS LOCK IS ON HOSS

@@jimmymeister8030 you were right thanks

Wasn't it 194 heads? Camel hump angle plug?

Thank you for commenting :) These long rod, short stroke combos work great for that.

I'm curious what it would do on 85 Octane.

Probably quite similar but might need to run a few degrees less timing.

Awesome! I love the ‘67 :) Thanks for commenting.

Cool! Thanks for sharing :)

Great memories I bet! Thanks for commenting :)

@@ceperformance For sure !!!

Wow that must have been hilarious :)

Hey, thanks for commenting! Here’s another one of our odd ball builds… SBC 283 Crankshaft + 400 Block = 500+ HP (Dyno Test 1 of 2) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mqial7x0mtmxmqc.html

Bigger bore & shorter stroke to attain the displacement goal has always been the path to the most torque & horsepower. Ford, Dodge, & Chevy all used a 3 3/4" stroke with a big bore in their 427s & the Dodge 426 Wedge & Hemriod. Short stroke reduces the "piston speed" thus reducing parasitic loss & the bigger bore unshrouds the valves for better cylinder filling & also allows for bigger valves. Manufacturers went to smaller bore & longer stroke in the 70s SMOG motors because the smaller bore reduced emissions, but it also killed performance.

@@bradgriffith4231 Not arguing your points, but many times the shorter stroke is used for higher rpms which gives you that power. More recently in a quest for a balance of power and fuel mileage, longer stroke puts the power lower generally and with better after market products produce more power and still better cruising RPM. Hence a few big blocks have a bad rap for not handling higher RPM's from stroke length (454 comes to mind) while the newer gen and if built right can handle the rpms no issue. But to be fair, the LS 60.l has a short stroke a 3.6" with a 4" bore.... Kinda sounds familiar

@@jekinneys Stroke has nothing to do with RPM. My buddy turned his 555 BBc 7,500 & would have gone higher but his 284* @ 0.050" cam was the limiter. He is now building a 4" stroke, 440" small block Olds & will turn it 8,500. RPM is only limited by the size of one's bank account!

NASCAR engine builders have been building a similar spec engine for 30 years or more. Current NHRA Pro Stock engines are 4.700" bore & 3.600" stroke! Reher & Morrison says to "use the biggest bore the architecture will allow, whatever stroke is needed to attain the desired displacement & whatever length rod needed to connect the pistons".

I totally agree :)

Good stuff! Thanks for commenting. Now go use what you have learned from your old friend and build something unique :)

Nope! It has all kind of room. Thanks for checking it out!

Cool stuff :)

A 406 is a 400 bored .30 over no stoke change.

Thank you for commenting!!

It's actually not magacial, unless you are restricted in cubic inches to fit into a racing class, even then the engine with the best heads wins (regardless of bore & stroke). The larger bore does allow for a larger intake valve and better breathing with any valve size. A better JY combo would be using a 400 with an offset ground/stroked crank using the 327 2.0" rod journals. Build them as big as you can to make power !!

Thanks for commenting! We’re going to be building another one soon with aluminum heads and more aggressive camshaft. I’d be fun to rev her to 8 grand :)

Hi Austin! That's an interesting engine combination! We've seen brilliant results using a larger bore, however. If your engine combo worked for you and your team, awesome! The point is to build something (hopefully learning a thing or two in the process), put it in something, and drive the thing! Best regards!

@@ceperformance yeah we weren't running that engine, (different class) or I would probably know more about it. I just seen a few run and it was a potent little small block.

Interesting. Thanks for commenting!

Thank you!!

gm did that in the late sixties with their 327. they used a 283 crank and made the chevy 302.

That’s right. Great little engine!

Hot rodders were doing that 60 something years ago with the 283 before the 327 came along,the 301 or as Chevy later called it,the 302.

@@krazi77 Ford did the same thing as well. They took the 289 which already had a bore of 4" and stroked it to 3". The high performance Boss 302 was rated the same as the Z28 Camaro at 290 horsepower. Those engines were high RPM screamers not low end torque monsters.

Well put! Thanks for commenting.

always wondered why some people wanted 283's 0.125 is a lot of material why not just 4.0" block with 3.0" stroke ?

@@eflanagan1921 Good question, perhaps because they were "Doing" the 283 into a 301 prior to the 4" bore block becoming widely available. The 327 with the 4" bore was released in '62. Even after that, they were very expensive to source for a while. 283 inch motors were everywhere and my 301" kit was from Richard Bowman's Speed-O-Motive shop on the Slauson Cut-off in SoCal.

where are you going to find a 283 block anymore.......

@@yurimodin7333 i can get you one.

Cool! Did you see this one we built?… kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qtp1psiTys7Iopc.htmlsi=OPUxiEF4FwIwtBzY Or this one… kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mqial7x0mtmxmqc.htmlsi=YPmJH0-QPmkXsvrD Or this.. Dyno #2 283 Crankshaft + 400 Block 512 HP 435 LBS FT Valve Float Fixed kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fctmhdZ6tNmVXYk.html

Good times I’ll bet!!

Hey thanks for commenting! I appreciate it :) Ya the Vortec heads work very well.

No problem. That’s a nice build you got there. If you don’t mind me asking. Do you have anything special done to the vortec heads? Mine are stock just cleaned the ports up a little and added Ls6 springs.

@@thabiznizz I don’t mind! These heads have been ported by hand and angle milled .100” in order to Jack up the compression. If I recall correctly this had 10.8 or so compression.

@@ceperformance Thanks

Thank you! We’re having fun :)

That’s awesome! Is it a build you’ve done yourself? What heads do you have on it? Thanks for commenting!

Yes, I built it myself. It's a 400 block .030 with a large journal 327 crank. Oliver 6.25 connecting rods, wiseco pistons and ARP head and main studs. Compression is 10.5 , cam has 5.51 lift and 244 degrees at .050. My heads are pro top line 235 intake 23 degree.

@@leonardbarrett1977 That sounds like a sweet combo! Must make huge power. Have you dyno’d it? I bet it loves that camshaft. What’s the LSA at?

@@ceperformance The lobe center is at 110 degrees. I am running a comp cams 292h flat tappet with 1.65 rocker arms. The lift is.551, the decimal was in the wrong place on my last comment After five years it still runs great, it's my daily driver.

@@leonardbarrett1977 Thanks for your reply! Sounds like a fun daily driver!

By "modern fuel system", your talking about FI. Modern port injection FI & spark management will never make the power of a carb. NHRA Pro Stock proves this because until Erika set a new ET record at Gainesville last year with Altitude Air Density of 1,400 feet BELOW sea level, Pro Stocks couldn't get within 1/10 second of the old carb record. She still didn't get close to the carb MPH record which is the most accurate indicator of HP & nobody has gotten close to the ET record since with normal conditions. First, the intake air is warmer & less dense with port injection & second, the timing control would pull timing with the slightest indication of "knock". Both hurt power output. The owner of "The Fuel Injection University" tunes the Elite Motorsports Pro Stock cars & several of the 7 second factory shootout cars. In private conversation with a friend of mine, he stated that FI doesn't do anything better than a carb. NASCAR proves this to be so because they've reduced the RPM by 2,000 & the HP by 250 at short tracks & 450 on 1.5 mile & longer tracks, made the cars more aero, & they still get the same MPG. FI is for people who don't know how to tune a carb & ignition curve. My own experience bares this out. I have an 89 Chevy C1500 NASCAR look pickup running a 409" SBC with a 750 Holley Street HP double pumper that's run 150 MPH on a Garmin GPS. I also have a stock '04 Tahoe, except for a regular gas tune, AirRaid intake tube & magnaflow muffler. My hotrod gets better fuel economy & will smoke the electronic controlled Tahoe in a drag or top end race.

Sounds like you just invented the LS?!

Awesome combination!

Oh wow, such great memories I bet! Thanks for commenting and thanks for subscribing :)

Hi brandon mash! Thank you for the comments! Agreed! Best regards.

Higher octane makes zero difference in power output if the motor will run on lower octane gas. Enginemasters tested 87, 91, 93, 100, 115 octane gas, & E85. The different octane rated gas all made pretty much the same TQ & HP & required the same carb jetting & ignition timing. Only the E85 made noticeably more power, but also required an increase in carb jetting & timing. My 409" SBC doesn't tolerate any more timing or run a any better on 91 octane than on 87.

Good point. But… with the higher octane then more timing is usable and therefore more potential power.

Yes, most engines are knock (octane) limited and will benefit from more timing and octane until Mean Best Torque is obtained.

@@ceperformancein the test he was referring to, they did do a timing sweep in the dyno pulls and all made the same peak HP with the same timing. What you are saying probably be true in a high compression engine where you dial back the timing to run on lower octane gas. Their test was to show that if and engine runs fine on 87, increasing octane doesn’t make more power as many people mistakenly believe.

Sounds great! Would you share the camshaft specs? Do you know the power numbers? Thanks for commenting :)

Don't know power #'s,the cam is .580 lift w/244 duration and gets her to Wallyworld Pdq,😊

That’s sweet! I’ve been looking for a Vega for my 15 year old son. Not much out there anymore.

What pistons did you use with a 6.2" rod? Compression height and for what rod size? I looked up the 1.125 Compression height pistons for a 6.25 rod in summit and showed no results. I have some good 6.2 rods, good .040 400 block and a 327 crank to use.

On ours we used 6.25” rods and 1.125” SRP pistons. With a 6.2” rod you could use the same with decking the block down below 9” which is fine. Better if you find a 1.130” piston which shouldn’t be a problem. Thanks for commenting :)

That’s awesome! Thanks for commenting too :)

Cool stuff! Great memories I bet :)

Hi HeadFlowInc! Thank you for your comment. Best regards!

So is there a formula for figuring that out?

Hi Jim! Thanks for commenting! You're right! Here's us road testing this SBC before the engine went to our customer. It was a lot of fun!: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/icegl7ODxLnLfYU.html

Stroke has nothing to do with torque. If you take 2 engines of equal displacement with the same comp, heads & cam, the big bore / short stroke motor will ALWAYS make more TQ & HP throughout the entire RPM range, because the short stroke reduces "piston speed" / paracitic loss to friction & the big bore increase airflow by unshrouding the intake valve & also allows for bigger valves

@@bradgriffith4231 Stroke increases torque by increasing piston / rod speed in the same size bore, it also has the effect of moving the torque lower down the rev range. More piston speed = more torque low down. Less piston speed means torque higher up and much more hp potential at higer rpm. Yes, a good builder can extract the same kind of numbers with short stroke as this video proves.

@@bradgriffith4231 Proof from under-square engines, with low RPM and very high torque capabilities would show otherwise. It's all about application, and where torque in the RPM range is desired. Thanks for your comments!

@@Jim_M_75 Sorry Jim but longer stroke increases "piston speed" which is the MAIN parasitic loss to friction in an engine. To make the math simple, calculate the distance traveled by 8 pistons at 10,000 RPM with a 3.25" stroke & a 3.50" stroke. The difference is astronomical. A big bore short stroke engine makes more TQ & HP throughout the entire RPM range if all other parameters are the same.

Right on! Keep that in the family :) Thanks for sharing.

Thank you! We liked it so much we’ve done more like it. Here’s a 3” stroke version… SBC 283 Crankshaft + 400 Block = 500+ HP (Dyno Test 1 of 2) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mqial7x0mtmxmqc.html

Hi richard smith, thank you for your questions! We used a steel 327 crankshaft (3.25" stroke) with 6.25" connecting rods, and 4.185" bore pistons with a 1.125" compression height. This Dart block had 2.45" mains-perfect for the 327 crankshaft. Best regards.

Hi jimmyjimbo61, it may have been 36º total. The 90's Hot Rod article was inspiring. This 354 produced some fantastic and consistent numbers on the dyno when running on 87 octane. Best regards.

@@ceperformance I'd expect detonation with that much timing running 87 with stated compression and iron heads. Maybe ECT < 120F and IAT < 40F?

For the most part it’s nice to see it’s possible to run the 87 if in a pinch. Our preference would be to run on 91 or so especially in a GM A body.

@@tbl8560 I read the same Hot Rod article from June 1997 entitled The 350 Engine Chevrolet Should Have Built. Peak power was at 5700rpm, there was no detonation. They said it had to do with the efficiency of the rod stroke ratio. They used 6.209" forged rods from a Ford 300ci I6 engine, they had to narrow the journals .030" to fit the crank but gave them a 1.91:1 rod to stroke ratio. It keeps the piston at TDC longer thus allowing the fuel to burn longer, similar to high revving NASCAR engines which use 2:1 rod to stroke which allows fuel to burn longer at 8000rpm. Typically street engines run about 1.6:1 rod to stroke ratio for more time at BDC to get more of an intake stroke to produce more torque. This engine is about efficiency over peak power.

@SteveSaga thank you for commenting and sharing your knowledge and information from the Hot Rod article. It’s quite fascinating the effect of rod/stroke ratios on the dynamics of an engine. We’ve experimented a number of times with longer than usual rod lengths and have created some unique combinations, both in early small Chevy stuff and recently an LS short stroke engine. ( 1.93:1 rod/stroke and it makes 1.89 HP/ cube on pump gas with 349 cubes. That’s with 12:1 compression too. )

Hi Pumpkin King! Thanks for commenting! We've not had overheating issues. In fact, we've had a couple of our engines run a little on the cooler side, and are fine sitting in summer stop-and-go commuting traffic. Best regards!

Hey, thanks for commenting! Now I encourage you to build one for yourself :) Best wishes!

I wonder if GM still makes those bearings? My guess is that they don’t, like so many great products that have been discontinued. Kinda sad that they stop some great pieces and that’s it. Tough luck.

@@ceperformance Well it looks like, according to my, Bible The Clevite 77 Book they still do. MS-1564P But they`re not the same in #5 position as they were back in 1982 as best as i can recollect. they were a drop in at the time

Trans Am has always been a 305" motor limit from the very beginning. That's where the Ford & Chevy 302s came from. Chrysler, Rambler, Pontiac, etc never made their T/A sized motors for a production vehicle. Even the production class sports cars of today's road racing sanctioning bodies have a 305" limit, which is probably the reason Ford's production line, flat plane crank, 4 cam Mustang motor is still a "302". Chevy destrokes their flat plane crank, 4 cam Vette motors to comply with the displacement rule.

@@bradgriffith4231 They ran the GT`s with the TA`s and Yes the TA`s were the 5L`s

Hi Bill! Thank you for writing! Agreed. Our customer wanted the simplicity of a carbureted engine. And carbureted, this was a fun engine to road test! A surprise, even. Best regards.

Cool stuff! Thanks for commenting.

Hi Jeremy Bartolomei, thank you for your comments. It's fantastic what one can do to enhance the volumetric efficiency going in, and coming out of, any engine. Best regards.

Hi Charles Smalling! Thank you for your question. This build had a: - repurposed 400 SBC Dart block - 3.25" stroke 327 steel crankshaft - 6.25" Scat H-beam connecting rods - 4.165" SRP forged pistons w/ 1.125" compression height - 10.8:1 compression ratio - 4/7 swap; mild 218/224 duration solid roller camshaft - stock cast vortec heads with upgraded rocker studs - Edelbrock RPM Air-Gap intake manifold

They are so hard to come by these days! Thanks for commenting.

Great bore/stroke combo!

@@ceperformance my little 355 olds will spin to 7k rpm easily. The stock rods and crank have held up amazingly well lol

That’s awesome! They built ‘em tough back then.

Hi caddydaddy 67! We used a conservative 218/224, 4/7 swap, solid roller Comp cam with 112 LSA for this build. Best regards.

I have not tried a 4/7 swap cam sounds like it should be in my future thank you👍👍

dyno tests show that it depends on the intake manifold.... depends how the pulsations affect the plenum. no big gains but every little bit counts, i guess. heads are a better bet but more $$$

@@ceperformance Finally someone that isnt afraid of a solid roller in an engine that winds up Never understood screwing around with new goofy h. lifters in search of rpm its just not the same.

@gordocarbo That’s so true :) Thanks for commenting. Here’s another build you might like. Two videos… SBC 283 Crankshaft + 400 Block = 500+ HP (Dyno Test 1 of 2) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mqial7x0mtmxmqc.html And the follow up… kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fctmhdZ6tNmVXYk.htmlsi=BtMwMzw4TA3U2P-e

Hi Chris Hansen, thank you for commenting! We tried a similar LS build with this build: an LS with a 4.125" bore, 3.267" (4.8L crank) stroke, and 6.3" connecting rods: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gNh3dqSFksu6mnk.html

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ebCHo7WH38vRdok.html

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eb1jadlqtsmznn0.html

@@DBSSTEELER Great episode from Richard.

You can make a 408ci with a regular old 6.0 iron block. There a new L8T iron block that is 6.6L stock, it will take up to a 4.185" bore and a 4.25" stroke making 468ci with a factory block it's supposed to be just a meaty as an LSX performance block.

Thanks for commenting!

You’re welcome :) Thanks for watching.

Hi cliff beckwith! This is a brilliant engine component combination and certainly surprised us with the torque values, 440 lbs ft, and a wide RPM range where the torque stayed above th 400 lbs ft mark, from such a mild cam. Best regards.

Thank you for your comments Gary Cordle!

Who is David Bizarre, never heard of him? I have heard of David Vizard, is that who you meant?

Did you make it a long rod? Just curious. Thanks for commenting :)

Great article! We do reference it in the descriptions. Our build is a bit different but we are happy with the results and are planning another one. Next one with larger heads and camshaft :) Thanks for commenting!

Maybe that’s next for us. Thanks for commenting :)

Hi Donald! Hot Rod sure did, using aluminum AFR heads. Thanks for commenting!

Lol! Thanks for commenting.

Hi Kamala's speech writer! What a handle! Running TPI would certainly deliver a more consistent air/fuel mix. In this case, our customer wanted a carburetor. But, there it is, the beauty of what we do and all the choices we have. And at the end of the day, it's all awesome! Thanks for commenting! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/l9eBlM6lvtrGqX0.html

Awesome! I have a 400 Chevy in my 16’ v-drive flat bottom boat. Just love it!

Did you do anything to the 400 block to help the cooling (siamesed cylinders)? I think I heard about drilling and tapping the backside of the block to increase coolant flow?

@ronroberts110 We brought coolant from both rear corners of the intake manifold to a thermostat spacer through 1/2” hoses. Cools amazingly.

Awesome memories I bet!! Thanks for commenting :)

The camshaft in this 354 with the 6.250” rods is a solid roller. Very mild though with 218/224 duration @ .050” with .560 lift and 112 LSA. Also a 4/7 swap firing order.

Cool. Thanks for commenting!

Thanks for asking. We used 6.250” rods.

Hi Greg! We acknowledge Hot Rod Magazine in the video description. We've noticed many don't read that part. They weren't the first to build this combo and certainly haven't been the last. Hot Rod's article states they used Ford 300 L6 rods that are 6.209"; not sure where you got the 6.35". Please send a link if you've got it. Thanks and best regards.

Thank you!

Do it:) kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gZqVhsaXm7qxkYE.html

We did pulls up at 170 and no issues. In a 1964 Cutlass with a stick it ran fine on 87 with a moderately good cooling system. When really booting it though, 89 octane was a better choice. Thanks for commenting :)

Sounds like a great reliable truck!

Just build a 406, why de-stoke anything? You can run high static compression with 87 no matter the bore and stroke it's all in how the cam is degreed and timed. A 406 is gonna me a ton more power everywhere than a 362ci.

@@hendo337 deff food for thought. But idk if my block has enough meat to support all that and I do like the roller motor aspect of the newer block. I know splayed main caps do help the newer blocks a ton so maybe it won't just break on me. I wanna keep the windows in the doors afterall. I do appreciate the hint at 406 I was thinking in the 390's somewhere but a couple wee cubes never hurt a stump puller. I run a lunati torque cam and plan to switch to the next step up as it's a big power improvement everywhere. Keeps good idle vacuum and manners. But it needs head work and the cam I have was the biggest I can use before headwork. Both still work with fuel injection and are only good till 5500 and 6k on the step up. Farthest I'd ever spin it is 5500. 5200 as it is now seems pointless. The hp pulls good but the torque pulls gooder and I like it that way.

@@chehystpewpur4754 , there are practical limits on how much you can get out of a 350 block. Your best bet is to use no more than a +.030 overbore = 4.03 bore which is likely the limit of the blocks capacity already. That bore with a common stroker crank of 3.75" stroke gives you 383 ci, or with a 3.875" stoke crank it is a 396 ci, ( no cast cranks in this size, just steel cranks). With alot more work and money you MAY be able to stuff a 4.0" crank in giving 408 ci, but that is a very costly adventure ! The common 406 ci, (really 407 ci is correct), is just a stock 400 block and crank (4.125" bore & 3.75" stroke) with a +.030" overbored cylinders, but if you install a 3.875" crank in that +.030 400 block you now have a 421 ci engine !! Cubic inches for Torque & HP, but you always need to buy good heads - even if that leaves you with a 350 ci only budget . Vortec heads are great budget heads if you can find a set not cracked or buy new, with porting they'll even work great on the bigger engines. Use this formula to figure V8 cubic inches ; bore x bore x stroke x 6.2832

Thanks for commenting. You clearly know your stuff!

We used 6.250” rods and a “retired” Dart 400 block that was badly damaged in a 1/4 mile car that chucked a few rods :) It had the regular 350 mains in it.

It's just like owning an original Cleveland they are wicked with minimal effort.

How to say “I suck my sister moms pp” without saying “I suck my sister moms pp”. Get out motard.

Thank you!

Thank you for commenting! Both builds are really awesome. The 327 crank build (354) was more on a budget and used factory Vortec heads, although with a bit of work done, basic roller tip rockers and a very mild camshaft. (218/224 @.050”) The 283 build (329) was more expensive because we couldn’t resist using the AFR’s. (Absolutely worth it!) We’re extremely impressed with both the torque and HP of the 283 build as well as the mild mannered street driver it’s going to be.

Thank you :)

Thanks for asking. This was a bit of a budget build. There were a few expensive pieces like the custom 4/7 Swap solid roller Comp Camshaft. Comp Cams chromoly pushrods but basic roller tip Comp Rockers. The heads are common Vortec 350 heads.

Seriously cool. This one has the even bigger bore which is a big advantage. Thanks for commenting!

Sounds interesting!