How bout this 3.375 is the same as 3 3/8

John, your right, it's no sweat to dig through years of engine balance cards but it is time consuming and time is something i never have enough of. It just isn't worth it. as i said earlier in this thread, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Oh, and yes, i would never just throw in a factory replacement crank without balancing the rotating assembly. They were'd that good from the factory as it is, why add insult to injury?

OKAY, dudes, enuff's enuff!

May I point out that the scans of the Motors Manual pages show the 400's bore as 4.340 when we know it's 4.342. So why should we trust the 3.380 number for stroke?

The stock 400 bore by stroke is 4.342 x 3.375.

If I was running a high performance engine shop I'd be saying exactly what Dan is saying, balance the assembly.

BUT, if I was doing the work myself in my backyard I'd swap cranks and be done with it. I'd have only myself to blame if it didn't work out.

R.

No takers on my silly hijack...???

Quote:

---

Okay... heres a hokey question...

How much piston/bore clearance is just too much?

Could you put a standard-bore 440 piston in a standard bore 400? (4.32" vs 4.3422") Assume compression height was viable (which it is, in fact). If so, what would make it last as long as possible?

Only reason i'd even consider that was because this infamous old street racer (a Chevy guy but had done a lot ov time with nitroused junkyard 440's), said the craziest thing he'd done with a Dodge was running with .020" clearance in a 440 (.040" over pistons in a .060" over bore). Obviously done outta desperation, but he said it worked, and "probably didn't burn any more oil than a normal 440..." (bit ov a stab here). That was a pretty fast car apparently. His stuff always was.

---