Moparchat - Home of MOPAR enthusiasts worldwide!



Go Back   Moparchat - Home of MOPAR enthusiasts worldwide! > Technical Forums > Performance Talk

Click here to search for Mopar cars and parts for sale.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-23-1999, 11:27 PM
Old hippie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Has anyone out there built this engine combo? If so, how did it perform? Am currently specing out this engine for my 66 b body w/727 auto street tire car.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-24-1999, 03:54 AM
Christopher
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I personally have not....but I am considering a 496 cid version that uses the 4.15 stroke crank in the 400 block.Muscle Motors in Lansing Michigan has the setup you are looking for and it's priced right too.They have a website also.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-25-1999, 02:03 AM
Old hippie
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Cristopher....thanks for your reply. I have known about Chuck Senetor at Muscle Motors for a long time. I lived in Lansing for 11 years before I bolted for the land of year round drag racin and cruisin some 15 years ago. Dry desert air and vintage Mopars are where its at. I'm looking to hook up with someone who has built, flogged, maybe even broke this combo to try to find out how it ran, what the pit falls are, if any, and how did you break it if you did. Perhaps this will help......I want a 10 on the motor. I don't care how chintzy the 10 is, a 10.99999999999999999999 is still a 10.!!!!.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-25-1999, 03:48 AM
Christopher
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There isn't any "pitfalls" that I know of...I know Sheldon Gecker ran a 451 cid 400 in his Daytona when I talked to him at Gainesville,all he said was the block needed a little grinding for counterweight clearance and that the 440 crank was cut down to 400 size.I have heard other people say the same thing.If I were you I'd build one of these and put a set of Indy Cyl heads on it....It will really fly!!!

[This message has been edited by Christopher (edited June 24, 1999).]
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-25-1999, 02:00 PM
Belvedere
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I just got done building a 451and 727 auto for a 67 B-body. I was given a old steel 440 crank, which after it was modified turned out to be a 426 Max Wedge crank. My machinist ground the counter weights and drilled out the rod journals more. I used Ross pistons and Manely Sportman rods. The guy who did the balance job only had to add a touch of weld in the one of drill hole in a counter weight. He said it really would have been pretty good with out it. I was expecting to spend 250 to 400 on Mallory metal. I have been told to use an early block. Mine is a 76. I took it out .030 over and filled the water jackets with Hardblok to keep the core from shifting. This is an alcohol motor so I don't really need the extra cooling. If I did it again I would find a 72 block for piece of mind. This is the only weak link in my chain. I used head and main studs and a Hemi oil pickup. I'm using 915 heads that have been heavily modified. I was going to use Indy heads but these were way too good of a deal to pass up. I've not fired the motor yet. Vacation and overtime have taken up a lot of free time. I'll let you know how it works at the track.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-26-1999, 03:01 AM
Christopher
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Let us know,I am very interested in your project.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-12-1999, 06:02 AM
451boy 451boy is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 286
Post

Hey, the 451 is probably the best engine combo for a Mopar that there is! The 440 crank needs to be turned to an overall diameter of 7.250 to clear the 383/400 bottom end and the mains need to be turned 0.125 under but that is about it. KB sells pistons for either the 440 rod or the 400 rod with the 440 rods being the recommended way to go. You can even build one of these using a cast 440 crank. The 451 ends up being about 7 or 8 lbs lighter than a 440 due to the shorter pistons. It is a motor that will really fly.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-12-1999, 07:34 AM
PRO PRO is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Grand Junction,CO.USA
Posts: 1,573
Post

This is a good reliable combo to run but I've seen several guys come up short in the head dept.Heads are what really make a motor a motor,If we increase displacement and create a better rod/bore ratio and stick the same old head on it,thats like running a restrictor plate in a sense.These well thought out and engineered 451s need "GREAT" heads.Example:70 cuda 451 w/509 mp cam(too small)and stock 906 heads ran 12.22,When he went to a .590/312 mp and indy heads(non-ported)he went 10.69!!!and it spun right to 7200rpms vs 6100 before.So dont overlook a cyl. head w/increased flow and cam,if you do just build a typical 440 and save the big bucks for modifying it.....PRO...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-12-1999, 08:57 PM
Christopher's Avatar
Christopher Christopher is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: fl
Posts: 2,018
Post

I'll agree with that.If you don't put a decent set of heads on a stroker,you are really wasting time and money.You might as well just build a standard 440,cause with a stroker at 451,it's really the same thing.I'm still considering a 496 stroker as I'd like to get my Demon in the 9.70 bracket in 2001.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-13-1999, 03:28 AM
prostock's Avatar
prostock prostock is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Age: 60
Posts: 1,135
Post

A friend of mine has an all steel '64 fury running this motor right now. It run's 9.70's - 9.80's all day long. His name is Tim Bowman, and he assembled the motor himself, and builds a number of bracket motors every year. He can be reached at 724-325-4352 between 5:00-9:00PM EST if you are interested in talking to him about it. He is also an Indy dealer, if you are interested in them too. Earlier this year he replaced the B1/BS heads with Indy heads, because he didn't think it was right to be running a product he doesn't sell. If anyone is interested in the B1's, give him a call. They are fully ported/assembled, and ready to go on.

[This message has been edited by prostock (edited December 12, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by prostock (edited December 12, 1999).]
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-13-1999, 09:55 AM
DartGT66 DartGT66 is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: vantaa,finland
Posts: 4,622
Post

I fully agree with 451 boy about the '451's greatness. The 400 block has about the same block height as a 454 chevy. The extra 0.75" in the 440 is a waste, there is no need for that. I have built both 440's and 451's, and the difference in rpm taking ability because of the smaller reciprocating masses is enormous. The 400 block is also stiffer than a 440 block, and therefore you can take more power out of it without block problems. It's also lower and narrower, this is very rewarding especially in A-bodies. I think the 400 block is excellent for building engines with up to 3.9" stroke, for nigger strokes I would propably use the RB block to get better rod to stroke ratios. Depending on the parts you already have and intend to use, the '451' is about 50-1000$ more expensive to build than a 440. We all know that a 440 can be made to perform well, but a 6.76 rod 451 will run better with it's lighter pistons. The head problem is just the same with the 440 than with a '451', both can really benefit from a better than the factory head. Unlike the other brands, mopar did not have HP heads in it's cars except Max Wedge and 426 Hemi. The Mopar wedge heads intake ports flow less than a 454 chevys or 460 fords regular intake ports, and they still have the hp versions for bigger power. Therefore every high performance big cube big block will really jump on power when using good heads.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-13-1999, 04:21 PM
azazello azazello is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Southwestern PA
Posts: 102
Post

Take a look at this month's Mopar Action (the one with the yellow six-pack 'bee on the cover). Its got an article on Andy Mayes' '70 Challenger R/T with: 451 with stock steel crank, Ross pistons, Manola rods, Ultradyne .640/.640 cam, Indy cast iron heads ported at Muscle Motors, Indy manifold, 950cfm Holley plus O'Malley Competition plate for the laughing gas. With a trans brake'd 727 and 4.10 Dana this 3820lbs car ran a best of 9.46 @ 144.84 mph.

I'm with Christopher on this one-- I've got a '76 400 that I've been considering "upgrading" to 496 via the Muscle Motors kit or to the 510 cube (4.25" stroke) pavement shredder from Hughes Engines. It's not just that I'm a displacement freak-- I need all the help I can get to move my 4800lb DeSoto!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-13-1999, 11:39 PM
sanborn sanborn is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: shelbyville,tn,USA
Posts: 2,880
Post

I agree with everyone else, the 451 combo is excellent especially with the 6.76" rod and lightweight pistons. I have some additional suggestions. The cranks get "soft" when ground that far undersize, tuftride or some other hardening process might be useful especially for street use. If you plan a serious engine ( over 600 HP ), I would recommend a partial filling of the block, maybe 2" up from the bottom. Also with the stock crank, I would suggest 1/2 groove main bearings. The stock crank can flex under high HP, the bearings give more support.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-14-1999, 01:24 AM
Christopher's Avatar
Christopher Christopher is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: fl
Posts: 2,018
Post

I agree with Sanborn 100%. If you are going to build a 451,474 or a 496,you need a good crank.The 496 uses the Mopar 4.15 stroke crank,so youre OK on that.The block does need some help with filler,and in a engine of this caliber,the half groove bearings are a must.You have to remember that these types of engines 30 years ago were unheard of and the Pro Stocks of the early 70's were just getting in the 9.80 zone with a Hemi and 2 4bbl carbs.Now we can do it with a 400 and a single 4bbl!!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-14-1999, 02:44 AM
4secmopar 4secmopar is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: walkertown, nc , usa
Posts: 5
Post

i have used this combo many times. normally i use stock 440 crank, cut mains .125 and gind counterweights to clear block. use std. length 440 rods and aftermarket pistons. motor ran 6.30 in 3200lb cuda in the 1/8 using stock steel indy heads with comp. .650 flat tappet cam. Good luck with your low deck adventure.
M. Dudley
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-14-1999, 07:04 AM
DartGT66 DartGT66 is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: vantaa,finland
Posts: 4,622
Post

I have seen these engines done both with and aithout the rehardening. There doesn't seem to be any difference. I have a non rehardened crank in the 451, and after four years of use the crank is still like new. That is, if you don't count the marks done by one pushrod that found its way to the downstairs.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-15-1999, 01:40 AM
340king 340king is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fort Pierre, SD
Age: 61
Posts: 2,233
Post

I have been around two 451 stroker engines at the circle track. Both were very fast. These things spin up very quickly and produce excellent power.

The first engine that I was around had Ross pistons. I know as I had to knurl them after they were hurt by improper clearance. It was the end of the season and they needed the mill real bad.

The other racer that ran 451 strokers predominantly was Leo Burkhardsmeir from Bismarck, ND. Leo was four time (consectutive) defending Wissota Modified National Champion, when they outlawed his big block combo. This story sounds familiar. Somehow the rules currently allow up to 410 cubic inches. Who does that favor?

I agree with the head swap too. The Indy 440-1's are really cool also.

I would maybe consider using the Pro-Gram caps if you plan to spin this thing up or push much more than 650 hp. They are cross-bolted and are a thing of beauty.

My buddy "Super Goob" is building what else but a Super Gas Challenger, Chris Alston tube chassis. It features a stroked 400 (I think 496" Crankshaft Specialties), Indy 440-1 heads (ported), Ultradyne roller cam .700+", Jessel belt drive, Indy 4500 intake, etc. We plan to make around 800 hp. We are using the Pro-Gram caps in this application.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-15-1999, 01:59 AM
Elwenil Elwenil is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Covington, VA USA
Posts: 345
Post

Ok, here is a question that I have always wondered about, but never had the guts to ask. Call me stupid, but I don't see why it wouldn't be better to line bore a "B" engine out to the "RB" main journal sizes. Is this possible? I know the "B's" and "RB's" are basically the same block, and if the main caps are to skimpy at that size, why not use "RB" size steel caps? If this is possible, wouldn't the crank be stronger with the larger journal size? I'm sure there is some reason why this isn't done. I'm just curious as to what the reason is. Thanks in advance...
~Elwenil~ ~.\|/.~
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-15-1999, 02:24 AM
340king 340king is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Fort Pierre, SD
Age: 61
Posts: 2,233
Post

You have a good question. There is not a true consensus on this one. There are pros and cons to both approaches.

Cutting the crankshaft reduces cross sectional area, weakening the crankshaft. However, the smaller main journals allow radiusing the main journals improving fatigue resistance of the crank.

Cutting the block weakens the block and caps. Different caps can solve this, but cost money. The thrust bearing mating surface and rear seal must be remachined I believe. Also, the bearing speed is higher on the larger 440 mains. This limits RPM capability or adds to cost of revving.

My opinion is that turning the crank down is just fine and costs less.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-15-1999, 06:52 AM
DartGT66 DartGT66 is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: vantaa,finland
Posts: 4,622
Post

They have been done both ways, but the great majority of builders cut the mains down. I think Ray Barton is the only one of the 'name' builders to use the line bore method. So far I haven't seen a broken '451' crank. I do not like the Pro Gram, main caps. Or actually I do, but the caps and their installing is pretty expensive. Still it leaves you with the stock used block with its thin cylinder walls etc. I think, what we need is a siamesed bore low deck race block. Anyone at MP listening?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-17-1999, 12:00 AM
Old hippie Old hippie is offline
Inactive User
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: chandler,az, usa
Posts: 142
Lightbulb

The Pro-Gram cross bolted main caps are a major waste on a stock block. According to my research the stock block does not have enough material in the lower portion of the block to machine it for the X-bolt caps. It will actually weaken the block. Check the illistration in the MP catalog on the siamese X-bolr block. You will see there is extra material around the X-bolt holes and the block is thicker in this area.
Does anyone out there in mopar land have the flow numbers for the Mopar Performance PORTED stage 6 aluminum heads? Both gross and incrimental if possible.
Thanks
The Old Hippie Hisself

[This message has been edited by Old hippie (edited December 16, 1999).]
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Engine Combo VetteKilla Performance Talk 4 03-19-2004 01:09 AM
My engine combo! 71dart666 Performance Talk 40 02-27-2003 01:28 AM
440 Engine combo Hittman55 Performance Talk 2 03-18-2002 06:11 PM
Engine Combo ~~~ Look Good? Grits Vintage MOPAR chat 2 09-01-2001 08:49 PM
So what do you think of this engine combo? FuryusVIP Performance Talk 3 05-08-2001 06:27 AM




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
. . . . .