Author Topic: Small Block 350 vs 400  (Read 95145 times)

Offline Russ130

  • Frequent Member
  • **
  • Posts: 263
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #30 on: February 24, 2009, 12:04:36 pm »
Capt - Can you post the parts list for that 400 build that spins at 8500 and costs less than $2000? I think the OP would love that baby in his truck and I think a lot of us might as well. I'm going 400 block shopping today are there any casting numbers I should look for and would I be running factory heads? What are the hp and torque numbers for that?

Offline Russ130

  • Frequent Member
  • **
  • Posts: 263
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #31 on: February 24, 2009, 12:08:03 pm »
Oh just to let you all know I voted for the bored 400 before I ever posted anything. I'm not an idiot! lol

Offline Captkaos

  • OWNER and Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18454
    • http://www.73-87chevytrucks.com
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #32 on: February 24, 2009, 12:37:42 pm »
Capt - Can you post the parts list for that 400 build that spins at 8500 and costs less than $2000? I think the OP would love that baby in his truck and I think a lot of us might as well. I'm going 400 block shopping today are there any casting numbers I should look for and would I be running factory heads? What are the hp and torque numbers for that?
I can call him and ask him if he kept the specs.  I do know he won't give out the cam specs though, which was one of the key components, he is funny like that.  BTW, keep in mind the motor was built and raced when I was MUCH younger, in 1991...  Any reputable shop will balance the assembly for what your intended purpose is.  I had my 454 balanced to spin 8000, I used to have a video of me racing a Mustang on the street and the tach climbing to 7800rpms.

Offline eventhorizon66

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1909
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #33 on: February 24, 2009, 12:55:11 pm »
Why is Ford an option in the poll?  I vote 289.  You'll love the torque.  LOL.
'85 C10 SWB 350 700R4 TKO600

Offline HAULIN IT

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #34 on: February 24, 2009, 04:18:52 pm »
700 is too weak, im going th350, and i already have a th400 to take its place.
My tranny didn't get that memo either ;)  The whole 327...I think I've gone there before, not going there again. Lorne

Offline Lt.Del

  • Andy aka:SgtDel
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3864
  • DelbridgePhotography.com
    • www.delbridge.net
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2009, 08:21:55 pm »
Quote
Why is Ford an option in the poll?  I vote 289.  You'll love the torque.  LOL.
Ha!, don't forget the first mustang V8 and leftover from the Falcon, a 260.  Yeah, that's the ticket.  Go with a Boss 429!

Quote
383 is just a 400 crank in a .030 over 350 block

Thanks 406 Qship, I was wondering what a 383 was  ;)   I have to get after my webmaster for my websites for not including that info in my 383 install website, no wait, IT IS THERE!   Where's the humor in life anymore  ???   
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 08:45:59 pm by SgtDel »

Offline VileZambonie

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19170
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2009, 08:56:29 pm »
It depends on the year 700R4 which components are weak. Search my username and 700R4 and you'll find a few posts on 700R4 upgrades. Just like any trans there will be several updates over the years and the 700r4 is no exception. As far as the 700R4's reputation, well parts changer rebuilders are the ones who are responsible for that. People that had to have several rebuilds should have found a more qualified and educated transmission rebuilder. You want to find a good rebuilder? Look on ATRA's site. I am a master ATRA rebuilder, diagnostician and R&R technician, I am also a proctor for them now, I have ASE L1 Master cert, I have GM, Mopar, STG and various independent certifications for Automatic transmissions. People should find a good transmission specialist and not shop for transmission service solely based on price.

Turning 36" tires is no big deal for a properly built 700R4/4L60. I have 3 in stock I just built and one I just installed in my mutt. I have full confidence in them.
,                           ___ 
                         /  _ _ _\_
              ⌠ŻŻŻŻŻ'   [☼===☼]
              `()_);-;()_)--o--)_)

74 GMC, 75 K5, 84 GMC, 85 K20, 86 k20, 79 K10

Offline Captkaos

  • OWNER and Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18454
    • http://www.73-87chevytrucks.com
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #37 on: March 05, 2009, 02:19:00 pm »
I can call him and ask him if he kept the specs.  I do know he won't give out the cam specs though, which was one of the key components, he is funny like that.  BTW, keep in mind the motor was built and raced when I was MUCH younger, in 1991...  Any reputable shop will balance the assembly for what your intended purpose is.  I had my 454 balanced to spin 8000, I used to have a video of me racing a Mustang on the street and the tach climbing to 7800rpms.

This is what he said:  "It was high compression, balanced rotatating assembly, with a solid lift cam setup really loose."   He won't give out anymore info than that.

Offline Russ130

  • Frequent Member
  • **
  • Posts: 263
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #38 on: March 06, 2009, 02:00:59 pm »
This is what he said:  "It was high compression, balanced rotatating assembly, with a solid lift cam setup really loose."   He won't give out anymore info than that.
[/quote]
I'm still thinking it will cost more than $2k to build any 400 to make power at 8k. First with a solid cam the lift is going to be higher than with hydraulic and even some hydraulic cams require stronger springs. Second with the amount of air required stock heads and intakes are not going to be an option. Third the bottom end is going to have to be pretty much all forged and the stock balancer I wouldn't trust at 8k. I think even a machine shop owner would have a hard time building a 400 to make power at 8k for under $2000. I also think we'd see in every hot rod magazine articles on how to build a 400 that makes power at 8000 rpms for under $2000 if it were indeed possible. Maybe your friend is overstating the facts a bit.

Offline kiowamec

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 27
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2009, 07:44:46 pm »
Somone already said it. No replacement for displacement.
Bigger is ALWAYS better, except when the bigger is beyond the engineering.
Such is the case the 400. The bores were just to big for the block.
Leaving the 383 mod the next best thing.
Still, these are small engines. Big Blocks are always the way to go for power.

Offline Captkaos

  • OWNER and Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18454
    • http://www.73-87chevytrucks.com
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #40 on: March 09, 2009, 06:37:44 pm »
I think the problem is you just refuse to believe it, since it wasn't published in a magazine...
You only need a number of components, Heads, pistons, cam kit, and a balanced assembly...

Offline 406 Q-ship

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 53
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #41 on: March 10, 2009, 05:00:57 pm »
Somone already said it. No replacement for displacement.
Bigger is ALWAYS better, except when the bigger is beyond the engineering.
Such is the case the 400. The bores were just to big for the block.
Leaving the 383 mod the next best thing.
Still, these are small engines. Big Blocks are always the way to go for power.

With that logic all the 4.00 bore SBC are junk to due to the reduced water circulation between the bores, and all the after market blocks that have been pushed out to 454 are junk in your opinion.  There is only only thing that was poor about the 400 SBC, it is the short rods the factory used.  Use the 5.7 lenght rods is an easy fix to get the friction under control.  The 383 gives up power to the 400 because of valve shrouding due the smaller 4.03" bore.  If the 400 is so bad why did GM use them in trucks where they would get worked like a stray dog and treated about as well.  Why is it when the rules allow it the circle tracks racers will use the 400 over the 383 everytime.  383 isn't all that some would believe it to be, it can be a good engine but put all the same parts in a good 400 block and it will leave the 383 standing.
The difference between genius and stupidity.......Genius has limits.

Offline choptop

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2476
  • Extended cab fanatic
    • conversiontrucks
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #42 on: March 10, 2009, 08:25:23 pm »
Somebody explain something to me. If the main idea is to get maximum wheel speed, why not got with a torque monster bigblock, and gear the truck higher for the wheel speed. It takes the torque to get to the wheel speed, and horsepower to maintain right? Seems a bigblock could easily spinup some 38's and have enough horsepower at 5500 rpm to maintain it. Is this thinking correct???
If you can spin the tires on a 75 hp Pinto with 4:56 gears, then a 500 hp bigblock should be able to spin 38s with 3:73s
76 C10 Choptop,76 C10 Swb
85 C10, 85 K10, 85 K20,86 C10,86 K10 (all extended cabs)
86 C30 extended crewcab

Offline Captkaos

  • OWNER and Administrator
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18454
    • http://www.73-87chevytrucks.com
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #43 on: March 11, 2009, 12:40:56 am »
Somebody explain something to me. If the main idea is to get maximum wheel speed, why not got with a torque monster bigblock, and gear the truck higher for the wheel speed. It takes the torque to get to the wheel speed, and horsepower to maintain right? Seems a bigblock could easily spinup some 38's and have enough horsepower at 5500 rpm to maintain it. Is this thinking correct???

Yep, that is correct.  I said that earlier:
Quote
the problem is The motor could max at 5000 rpms.  It is the Diff gears that make the rpms at the tires....

Offline kiowamec

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 27
Re: Small Block 350 vs 400
« Reply #44 on: March 11, 2009, 03:22:07 am »