Quote:

---

Funky heads? Whatchoo talkin' 'bout?

Speaking of funky heads...
Here's another non-special engine, the cheaper cousin' of the early Hemi;

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I would consider a 413 (cheap to build in the long run, more torque where you need it low
midrange)

---

How is a 413 cheap to build in the long run if the only way to get half decent piston is to go custom? Other than that every other aspect of the rebuild would cost the same as on a 440.

Quote:

---

I agree with some of of your thread, but a 600
anything I'd run a STEEL CRANK. As far as the
small bore/small valves they are on the right path to produce TORQUE. Plus the flame travel
across the piston is less meaning less chance
of DETONATION. More torque in some way offsets
horsepower at the lower and midrange of the rpm
scale.

---

I challenge you to build a 413 that would beat an identically built 440 can on the strip or on the street. All this tech jargon is good stuff, in theory, but the real world has proven all that to not really make enough difference to affect your timeslip at the track. Detonation control isn't a big issue on a 440 if you know how to setup your engine and I don't think that 413 is going to make more torq in the bottom end, at least nothing that would show up on the butt dyno or the drag strip. The fact is the 413 isn't a bad engine, there's just no reason to run it over a 440. There are a couple 413 devotees on here who just don't want to hear the truth.

---

Quote:

---

No they are not special. They are in the "can't give it away" category. Also, 413s equally built with a 440 will always have less torque as torque is primarily determined by cubic inches. But what to do with a good 413 block? This is why I developed my recipe for a 472 built on a 413 nearly free block.
Use the stock rods and a 4.15" stroker crank. Bore the engine to fit standard bore cast 383 pistons, the type with compression height about 1.83 or lower. Put it together, it is going to have to be balanced, should be close though.
Use any set of open chamber cast iron heads, the 452s are nice. Use a camshaft with about 230 degrees of intake duration, we are building a torque motor. Use your favorite 440 intake.

If you do it right with home porting on the heads using the templates, you should end up with an honest 400 hp and 550 lb-ft of torque (guess-top dyno). This engine will outpull a similarly built 440 up to say 4500 rpm. Compression ratio will be around 9.5:1, pump gas friendly.

Or you can sell the 413 for 11 cents a pound.

R.

---

Quote:

---

Hey hyper, 413s are old school has been motors. The reason they didn't keep making them is they weren't good enough to stick with. New engineering with the 426 wedge setup made them obsolete. The 62 dart in my sig picture, taken in 1966,is a cross ram 413 so I have experience. They are a great period piece for nostaliga but not for todays race builds. [/quote
Thanks for the nostalgia bit "Stumpy", but I do like to combine "old school science" with "todays
technology". If the motors back then were strong
enough to run in the 12's and 11's back then,
this day and age of improved cams, ignition and
other engine parts will up the ante by least a
full second or, better with CAREFUL techniques and
simple but KEY BLUEPRINTING practices. That is what I am saying. Never throw away usefull piece.
There was a time when "station wagons" did not
fit it at the "strip". Anything can run!! Note:
I know the rules for class racing very well, but
to run the brackets I WOULD run a 413.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I would consider a 413 (cheap to build in the long run, more torque where you need it low
midrange)

---

How is a 413 cheap to build in the long run if the only way to get half decent piston is to go custom? Other than that every other aspect of the rebuild would cost the same as on a 440.

Quote:

---

I agree with some of of your thread, but a 600
anything I'd run a STEEL CRANK. As far as the
small bore/small valves they are on the right path to produce TORQUE. Plus the flame travel
across the piston is less meaning less chance
of DETONATION. More torque in some way offsets
horsepower at the lower and midrange of the rpm
scale.

---

I challenge you to build a 413 that would beat an identically built 440 can on the strip or on the street. All this tech jargon is good stuff, in theory, but the real world has proven all that to not really make enough difference to affect your timeslip at the track. Detonation control isn't a big issue on a 440 if you know how to setup your engine and I don't think that 413 is going to make more torq in the bottom end, at least nothing that would show up on the butt dyno or the drag strip. The fact is the 413 isn't a bad engine, there's just no reason to run it over a 440. There are a couple 413 devotees on here who just don't want to hear the truth.

---

Quote:

---

Ah yes, I forgot the totally pathetic 383 RB motor.

---

This is just a rehash of the SB 273 vs 318 vs ??? argument. Nothing changes

Quote:

---

This sort of equates to which is better,a 360 or a 20 cu,in less 340.It's a personal choice and cost is a moot point because it's only one persons money,he can spend as he chooses.If you like a 413,build what you want,same goes for a 440.Actually it's nobody's business but your own.If any of you guys ever drove (and I mean ACTUALLY drove) a solid lifter 62 300H,you might have a slightly different outlook on a 413.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Ah yes, I forgot the totally pathetic 383 RB motor.

---

This is just a rehash of the SB 273 vs 318 vs ??? argument. Nothing changes

---

Quote:

---

Ghost, you said it well man.

---

my only regret is that i now single handedly raised the price of a 413 from scrap value to $1000 for a bare block LOL!
i might add though that if this topic was about the 413 MAXI engine. this whole conversasion would have taking a drastically different direction. plus looks at all these stroker smallblock engines. 4.12" or 4.18" bores with 4" & 4.25" strokes. are these nay sayers gonna deny that those engines are not worth building either?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Ghost, you said it well man.

---

my only regret is that i now single handedly raised the price of a 413 from scrap value to $1000 for a bare block LOL!
i might add though that if this topic was about the 413 MAXI engine. this whole conversasion would have taking a drastically different direction. plus looks at all these stroker smallblock engines. 4.12" or 4.18" bores with 4" & 4.25" strokes. are these nay sayers gonna deny that those engines are not worth building either?

---