Quote:

---

Well 13.4 compression is high but alot of the 12-1 motors gotta run good gas so whats an extra point. And seeing as myself and a few other people on this board new Greg Aliano or knew of him the car saw a lot of street use he was a regular at the local burger joints and a frequent racer after hours he lived a good 45-55 minutes by freeway from the areas that we saw him at and not to mention when he got a challenge he would drive another hour into LA to meet his competition. If your gonna build a stroker you cant convince me about the expence TTI 17/8 headers ,950 carb mallory metal fluiddamper heads that flow 270 or upno matter what kind of aftermarket ones they are and the roller cams some of the guys are using too if you already got the big stuff it wouldnt be much more but stating from scratch it will be a lot although a one time expence and your right we or I have not built one nor seen a stroker so all we can go on is time slips and some of the videos on this web sight like scottys duster going 119 on the video so us ignorant ones who havnt seen these motors and they are fresh to the hobby in the last 2 years are looking at timeslips and saying my car or my buddys car ETd or mile an houred better which was my first post question what is it the streetability ,less gear,converter etc cause it appears the timeslips are not far off in most cases .Lot of guys got their feathers ruffled on this one LOL

---

A little friendly disagreement now and then can be a good thing. So here goes:

Well 13.4:1 dictates RACE GAS in my book. that is a BIG difference, both in availability and PRICE over a 93 octane pump gas 4" crank motor like say LAR414's. Was he driving that Duster around all the time on true MT ET Drags? If so, I certainly as hell would'nt have wanted to be on the same road with him. I was stupid enough years ago to try to drive a true wrinklewall drag slick on the street, and ever since then, I can't say I can condone it. I'm not personally attacking the guy, but I just think anyone driving true drag slicks on the street is a hazard. DOT slicks like a Hoosier QTP or M/T ET Street is a different story, the sidewalls are much stiffer and from my experience they handle just fine in dry weather situations.

Now about those strokers... A 1 7/8" TTI header?? Is LAR running one of those? Is Scotty? Is Barracuda340S? Was B3stroker on his E headed motor? NO. All had smaller primary tubes. So you're not going to convince me a BIG header tube is absolutely necessary. IMO for the stock exhaust flange style heads, the 1 5/8"- 1 3/4" Stepped TTI's can't be beat for price VS performance. The 1 3/4" Hooker Super Comps are also a fine header. Only on a really good exhaust flowing head like Weedlayer's E heads that have been Pro ported or a set of Ported W2 or W5 etc. do the 1 7/8" tubes start to shine.

950 carb.... hmm well. This is just a case where the bigger inch motors generally like a bigger carb. HOWEVER.... Again, I'm thinking I have seen some quick 4" crank motors running your old school 750 Holleys. a 4779 750 DP is a darn good carb on just about ANY application.

Mallory Metal???????????? WHY OH WHY does everyone think a 4" crank motor HAS TO BE internally balanced????????????????????????????????? One of the quickest ones on this board, is EXTERNALLY balanced, using a POS 18.1 SFI BHJ external damper..... B3Stroker416W5 YES it can easily be argued that internal balancing is the way to go, but if you are trying to save $, the 4" crank CAN BE EXTERNALLY BALANCED with no mallory metal. Sorry this is just one of my pet peeves so it struck a chord.

Fluidampr? See above LOL. If you don't plan on running 10's and needing an SFI damper, then just run junkyard Sh&t if that is what your bottom end is worth to you.....

Heads that flow 270+? I can pretty much guarantee that LAR's J heads would'nt flow 270 on my flowbench, and I doubt Scotty's would either. Probably both in the low 260's on my bench. Both have unwelded exhaust ports, meaning not great exhaust flow, but yet Scotty has run high 10's at ~121 now with a small solid Roller, and LAR 11.30's with a flat tappet, and a heavier car. TOD Ran low 11's in a much heavier Challenger with J heads. All 3 sets of those heads were never touched by a "pro porter" all 3 were home ported. So saying that huge heads are absolutely necessary is'nt exactly correct. Besides you think Aliano's W-2's flowed less than 270? LOL TOD and Barracuda340S would be two board members who I can think of that pretty much just swapped in a 4" bottom end on their current combo's and both picked up significantly in ET/MPH without touching the heads etc.

As for Roller cams, I havn't seen anybody using anything I would even call "big" on a 4" crank motor yet. As far as the board goes, MOST guys are using fairly mild flat tappets. I can think of the Best Machine 'Cuda running 10.30's with a somewhat mild solid Roller, and Scotty has a solid roller, again, what I'd consider a mild one, in his 416. So as far as the cars on THIS BOARD go, I can't recall anyone going balls to the wall with a 4" crank motor YET. If B3Stroker follows thrugh with his new X block motor, you will see a pretty good one. He is talking about 13.5:1 and a LARGE solid roller, with custom CPs, and a light GM rod. With his W5's, there should be no problem seeing 660-675 HP on Gasoline.

Carl's 416 was a pretty radical 4" crank motor, EXCEPT the heads, but he showed that with enough trick parts even a set of Commandos could run 9.60's and make 660 Horse on a 4" crank. But then again, we are starting to stray into the realm of Drag only engines, which is not what this discussion is about. If you want to talk Drag only SB's let's start another post, and then the Stroke sizes will be getting lower, the RPM's will be alot higher, and the $ will be MUCH higher

Like was mentioned earlier by Comp Chassis, until you actually build or drive a 4" crank motor on the street, you have NO IDEA what kind of torque they can produce. Mine made 517 ft lbs at the rear wheels..... I want to see a 3.31" stroke 340 do that. PERIOD. Let alone be streetable. I'm talking I had 900 RPM idle, the thing never ran over 180* even in August sitting in downtown State College Traffic....Did'nt load up the plugs.... That was a great little motor. Flat tappet cam, lash was never off, started fine in cold weather/ hot weather etc. Probably had a 10.40/50 in it in good air with more tuning @ 3200 weight. And that motor was built using last years knowledge, I know a hell of alot more today than I did then, and there are a few things I would have done different, so that one was nothing special. Anybody on this board could duplicate it easily (and several members are LOL)

And for my final thought, perhaps go back and re-read what you wrote here: "which was my first post question what is it the streetability ,less gear,converter etc cause it appears the timeslips are not far off in most cases"

Tha answer is basically YES. Same ET as your more radical Smaller stroke SB's but MORE streetable, takes Less gear to do it, less converter, etc. Has an easier time handling a heavier car like an E body or a B body etc. etc. etc. For a true street car I'm STILL looking to find ONE downside of a 4" crank motor. All guys can find to [censored] about is piston speed, but unless you are running W-9's and are tyring to run 7200+ RPM, it is really a non issue.


And one last thing, back to the original question from Crazy Pete, about building a 416:

Pete, you can take this for what it's worth, some people think my word is gospel, some people think I'm full of Sh&t... Personally I think I fall somewhere in the middle LOL. Anyhow, I've been building/racing SB Chryslers for 11 years now, I've built 4 340's, ~6 360's, and 2 416" motors and have seen/rode in a bunch of others..... And for your STREET car, if you have the $ to put in a new bottom end, DO A 4" CRANK MOTOR, you will NOT be disapointed. On the street in a car like your's TORQUE is KING..... Only thing I would do to your setup, put a 4" crank kit in it and a new flat tappet cam to take advantage of the extra cubic inches, the 4" motors eat duration @ .050". Your intake is fine, your heads are fine, your carb is ok, your headers will be fine, converter will be fine, gears are fine etc. Have fun.

BTW: don't take this the wrong way, but one of the reasons your car has somewhat dissapointed you up until this point is the fact that it IS a 340 in a fairly heavy A body. 3.31" crank and a heavier car, just don't mix well on the street without a lot of gear/converter

Oh and one LAST sidenote, does'nt it feel like old times to see me posting a HUGE LONG, rambling post about SB's??? It's been a while since I have sat down and hashed one out like this, but "back in the day" when I was 69DartGT360 on the old board, I used to get kidded about the ungodly length of my posts.... Feels good again Ryan J.

Quote:

---

For all out engine numbers, I should be able to post some info come the end of the month, maybe the first of next month. The 410 I was building for myself I ended up selling, and is completely assembled and ready to be installed. Should have some shake down runs read pretty soon.

Its a 410, about 14.8-1 compression, W2 heads that flow 312 and a 630 roller with 282/288 duration @ .050. Should make the little demon its going in just fly.

---

Quote:

---

How about a wee little 451 stroker?

---

Don't get me started on big blocks...... It may be an ugly scene

Quote:

---

Pete, there is not enough info there to give you an accurate estimate ... I do think that you would have to shift a little higher than 6000 (maybe 6200-6400), and depending on the tire height, run a 3.92 gear minimum.

---

My error, I meant to say 6400.

I plugged 3.91s and 4.10s into the program - the 4.10s were around 6400 just before 1000ft, and the 3.91s just after. Both were about .15 faster than the 3.55s

The data I input (Desktop Dyno) was the following:

340 bored .030 over w/ 4" stroke for 416.3 cubes
750cfm carb - (I have a 750 Holley with choke plate removed, I am milling off the air horn this fall)
Dual Plane Intake (Edelbrock Performer RPM)
10.50:1 true compression
.038 gasket thickness
Edelbrock closed chamber aluminum heads (milled to 59cc) - also input the advertised flow #s off Ebrock's website - I have highly polished chambers and exhaust ports - pushrod pinch cleaned up slightly - gasket match - did not compensate for additional flow. Head Flow Data for Dyno 2000
2.02 and 1.60 valves
Edelbrock .488/.510 cam, 234/244 @ .050 2* advanced - valve timing specs taken off Ebrock website Cam Data for Dyno 2000
Small tube headers and mufflers - (Hooker 1 5/8" headers, 2 1/2" dual exhaust w/ Flomaster 40s out the factory tips )
727 TF with manual/auto VB
3200 stall converter
3.55 PowerLock "489" case
8.5" tread - Hoosier Quick Times 26.1" tall 275x55
3480lbs vehicle weight

Large screen capture from DesktopDyno2000
http://www.dubaldomusic.com/416_Ebrock.jpg


Small cropped photo from same "pull"



Does that seem about "right" ?

Quote:

---

"Streetable" will mean different things to different people, I am looking at a 230/236 @ .050 CompCams XE274, with 1.6 rockers will be around .520 or so, Comp says this will work with stock spring Eheads.

---

Quote:

---

I am being a little conservative because this is a daily driver street car that will sometimes see the track

---

Quote:

---

My 408 is going BACK to the dyno next week with a MUCH BETTER cam in it,BUT, with a POS,basically STOCK cam(don't ask) that engine made 416 FT LBS and 306 HP. ON A BASICALLY STOCK CAM !!!
I can't think of ANY reason a person would be against building a stroker.More torque/Horsepower and less RPM.For the street,that is no brainer...... Like was stated in an earlier post,cost is a wash.......specially if you can do a little trading of parts for some machine work.............MOST machine shops in this area would KILL for a set of 5.2/5.9 Magnum head castings,crankshafts and/or blocks
a wee bit of SHOPPING for deals on the other parts and you can easily build a stroker for about the same money as standard rebuild. $.02

---

Quote:

---

Here is the big difference between strokers and standard stroke small blocks... Streetability. You can put a larger cam profile in a stroker and still have good idle and vacuum. My 240/246 .507/.510 lift cam is fairly mild in my stroker. Remember the increased stroke eats some of the cam duration.

---

Quote:

---

Pete, I think youre leaning in the right direction.

...

As much as you street drive the car, and for what your planning on doing I would definately go the stroker route. You wont be spinning it hard so follow Ryans advice and save the money on the internal balance job. Keep the 3.55's until you can find someone to swap you some 3.91's or a good deal on a chunk comes around. I'd look into something like the Comp XE284 cam or maybe the Hughes 3844 hydraulic which is 238/244 @.050 and 536/540 lift or something like that.

---

Gary, thanks for the advice.

I was pointed towards either of the following of the fast lifter velocity grinds... They are a little larger, but are also solids.... Dunno if I should stay hydraulic or go the solid route?
HTL 4652 AS .555"/.572" 246°/252° @.050 106° CL
HTL 4852 AS .563"/.572" 248°/252° @.050 106° CL

Looking at the Hughes website for the cam you recommended, the only one close I could find was
HER 3644 AL .533"/.540" 236°/244° @.050 114° CL
Which is a hydraulic roller cam.

If I were to swap to a roller cam, that would entail lots of other valvetrain goodies, right?

I want the swap as hassle-free as possible.


And if I am not spinning the engine as high, why would internal balance be better?


The less $$ I have to cough up, the better

Quote:

---

Pete, going to a roller is going to cost you $1,000. Even going to a solid flat tappet will be an extra $80 for pushrods... If you plan to keep the power brakes, I wouldnt recommend anything bigger than say 240 @ .050 with a hydraulic and 245ish with a solid. Thats the ragid edge. And nothing tighter than 108 or so on the LSA either.

IMO, with a street type application (6000 rpm or so), a good newer design hydraulic cam is going to make within 10-15 horsepower of a solid cam of similar rpm range. An apples to apples comparison years ago with my car showed a 12.19 @ 114 with the 3844 Hughes hydro and a 12.08 with the 4550 solid..

---

Ok, the $1k is close to what I remembered when I decided to buy the Ebrocks. It was either the Ebrocks or the roller cam, and I opted for the heads with more potential. It was the right choice for my purposes.

I don't have power brakes, so that's not an issue. Front disc/rear drum. Does that influence a reccomendation at all?

The lower I can shift, the better

Quote:

---

I'm just thinking about your current converter, gearing, and the fact that you drive your car so much.

---

Right, I don't want to redo the whole car, just use what I have and make the most of it. The engine will be redone simply because I dont know it is properly balanced, the pistons are cast (ugh!), it takes a bit of oil (no smoke) and I want to make sure it is done right. Who knows, maybe this 340 has the 4 middle rods installed with the chamfer/squirters on the wrong sides like my old one did


BTW, the 3.55s on the highway are fun now - cant imagine what they would be like with more torque and hp

Quote:

---

once you get in to the 240 @ .050 / .510" mark with some good flowing heads / exhaust / proper air-fuel, you will be near 500 HP and over 500 ft. lbs. of torque. 3.55's are a great gear ratio for this combo. And even better if you stuff a Keisler 5 speed in there down the road.

---

I will probably need to beef up my 727 then? (Rated for 450hp) or drive it till it pops?

Quote:

---

Drive it 'til it pops and then put a stick in it

---

Quote:

---

This is a TON of great info. from all you guy's! THANKS!
I am in beginning stages of building a 4" stroker out of my 340 for my '70 Cuda.
I just called Mancini Racing and they tell me for street duty I will NOT need H-beam rods and Forged crank.
...........
So do I need the H-beam rods? Or do I need at least a forged crank?

---

Quote:

---

just brining a great thread back from the dead.

---

Wow, I'll say! 08/06/03 11:07 PM

As of this point in time, I have neither the funds nor the time to go out and purchase parts for a stroker "moder" let alone put it together! I would also need to get subframe connectors, beef up the tranny, scrap the converter, etc. etc. Since I am moving (again) in the next 2 weeks, and only have a spot for one car, the Dart will have to remain elsewhere, and only be taken out once in a while.


It would be soooooooo nice, tho