Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: jcc]
#62649
12/17/09 08:47 AM
12/17/09 08:47 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Line up at the tree and find out.
If that is all it would take to bury this inane thread, I would gladly chip in gas money to find a local to you sorted out lightweight 440 to line up against a similiar dressed porky 413.
Any takers?
similiar dressed 413? there junk remember? run what you brung and hope you brung enuff.. well how bout my buddies tiny tiny bore 440 smallbock in his dart sport.. he'll gladly add the engine weight difference to it. hope your pockets are WAY deep LOL. yes i know what your gonna say next.. i was making a point on tiny bores/ long strokes of equal displacement. which is easily done with a 413 btw.
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: HYPER8oSoNic]
#62650
12/17/09 09:31 AM
12/17/09 09:31 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123 Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That article is a good example of where everything is well-written and appears to have merit -- if you only take it at face value. However, it does not address opposite compromises/perspectives.
As an example: He mentions that ring friction is the greatest loss in an engine, which we all accept to be true. He mentions that a shorter stroke has less drag of ring friction -- however he does not quantitatively discuss the 'longer' rings required in a larger bore. Based on a simple circumference calculation, a 440's bore/ring is about 3% longer than a 413 - so there is higher friction with a larger bore.
True. However, any power loss due to friction would be more than offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement.
Quote:
Larger bores take advantage of larger valves – but they weigh more. Running larger valves, and at higher RPM, requires stiffer springs to maintain control – with all else equal, there is increased inertia & more friction in the valvetrain.
Also true. However, that point is moot for this discussion which suggested a heads up comparison of 413 and 440 short blocks with all other variables being equal.
Quote:
Larger bores have more area and therefore require more time for the flame front to travel. This theoretically requires more ignition timing, and advanced ignition timing permits more heat to be lost to the cooling system. Ideally, ignition would start at TDC. Larger bores also have more surface area at the cylinder walls that hold cool end gasses that contaminate the next intake charge.
Again, any power loss due to these factors would be more than be offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement. If this were such an issue, Ma Mopar wouldn't have produced anything with a bigger bore than a RB 383 in the first place.
Quote:
“My subject is racing engines, not street motors, so I'm not concerned with torque at 2,000 rpm. In my view, if you are building an engine for maximum output at a specific displacement, such as a Comp engine, then the bores should be as big as possible and the stroke as short as possible.”
I read that. To me it means that a bigger bore 440 would have the advantage in a race against a 413.
Quote:
It is known that an engine is most efficient at its torque peak, so you increase power by creating more torque pulses/unit time, however they become less efficient individually as RPM increases.
Yeah, if you don’t care about fuel usage and you want to run an engine at max RPM (and don’t care about the higher expenses involved with high-RPM durability), then his statements have more merit.
Again, the issue of stroke is moot with a 413/440 comparison. What he does hit on is bore size and power, which is why I posted the link.
Quote:
It’s all a compromise. Whomever suggested a scientific test of identical 413-440 builds hit the bullseye.
I agree, but I doubt that anyone will bother.
90% of all the information placed by you, Reggie, is TRUE. But Ma MOPAR increased th bore size from 413 to 440, basically to increase displacement without altering engine dimensions. To be able to use the largest Chrysler mill in just about ANY Chrysler rear-wheel drive chassis. Why? To save from building different K-Members, and to keep up with the "Joneses" in the horsepower game. GM rushed to get a head start with the GTO and 2 years later Mopar countered with the big block Coronet option 67' 440 GTX, which formed the basis of Famous Road Runner. Big bore motors were the rage back in the late sixties, early seventies. Till longer stroke motors took the spotlight away. More power, less rpm/engine wear, more torque/better economy. The 440 sadly left us in 78', due to more efficient mills of economy and environmental designs. AS for the Quotes on the 440, I've been saying it for a while now, if you are class racing or All out racing then the 440 IS for you. Street, street strip racing, in my book 413's get the nod for me. Ther may be "NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT, but at the "LIGHT or TREE, Torque RULES and a 413 has an AMPLE SUPPLY right where it's needed LOW-MID RANGE WHERE IT COUNTS. 440 RUNS BEST in a light weight chassis, where the 413 can run as well with slightly more weight.
I can't believe some of the arguments going on here.
why didn't ma just keep the 413 bore and stroke the motor? you would need the same number of new parts. 413->440 (with the 426 wedge in between) required new pistons, rings, & block.
ma mopar stroking the 413 would have only needed a new crank and pistons, or crank and rods.
there's other issues with stroking vs. boring to increase displacement. there's worse rod ratio, causing more side loading which could increase bore wear and wastes energy robbing potential horsepower. rod ratio also affects piston velocity and acceleration. but what is optimum? it depends on intake port volume (typically bigger ports like a lower rod ratio....BB mopar wedge heads are typically undersized for their displacement, so they benefit from a longer rod)....
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD 1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!*** 2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T 2017 Grand Cherokee Overland 2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: patrick]
#62651
12/17/09 10:11 AM
12/17/09 10:11 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 190 Wilmington,NC
I go fast
member
|
member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Wilmington,NC
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That article is a good example of where everything is well-written and appears to have merit -- if you only take it at face value. However, it does not address opposite compromises/perspectives.
As an example: He mentions that ring friction is the greatest loss in an engine, which we all accept to be true. He mentions that a shorter stroke has less drag of ring friction -- however he does not quantitatively discuss the 'longer' rings required in a larger bore. Based on a simple circumference calculation, a 440's bore/ring is about 3% longer than a 413 - so there is higher friction with a larger bore.
True. However, any power loss due to friction would be more than offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement.
Quote:
Larger bores take advantage of larger valves – but they weigh more. Running larger valves, and at higher RPM, requires stiffer springs to maintain control – with all else equal, there is increased inertia & more friction in the valvetrain.
Also true. However, that point is moot for this discussion which suggested a heads up comparison of 413 and 440 short blocks with all other variables being equal.
Quote:
Larger bores have more area and therefore require more time for the flame front to travel. This theoretically requires more ignition timing, and advanced ignition timing permits more heat to be lost to the cooling system. Ideally, ignition would start at TDC. Larger bores also have more surface area at the cylinder walls that hold cool end gasses that contaminate the next intake charge.
Again, any power loss due to these factors would be more than be offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement. If this were such an issue, Ma Mopar wouldn't have produced anything with a bigger bore than a RB 383 in the first place.
Quote:
“My subject is racing engines, not street motors, so I'm not concerned with torque at 2,000 rpm. In my view, if you are building an engine for maximum output at a specific displacement, such as a Comp engine, then the bores should be as big as possible and the stroke as short as possible.”
I read that. To me it means that a bigger bore 440 would have the advantage in a race against a 413.
Quote:
It is known that an engine is most efficient at its torque peak, so you increase power by creating more torque pulses/unit time, however they become less efficient individually as RPM increases.
Yeah, if you don’t care about fuel usage and you want to run an engine at max RPM (and don’t care about the higher expenses involved with high-RPM durability), then his statements have more merit.
Again, the issue of stroke is moot with a 413/440 comparison. What he does hit on is bore size and power, which is why I posted the link.
Quote:
It’s all a compromise. Whomever suggested a scientific test of identical 413-440 builds hit the bullseye.
I agree, but I doubt that anyone will bother.
90% of all the information placed by you, Reggie, is TRUE. But Ma MOPAR increased th bore size from 413 to 440, basically to increase displacement without altering engine dimensions. To be able to use the largest Chrysler mill in just about ANY Chrysler rear-wheel drive chassis. Why? To save from building different K-Members, and to keep up with the "Joneses" in the horsepower game. GM rushed to get a head start with the GTO and 2 years later Mopar countered with the big block Coronet option 67' 440 GTX, which formed the basis of Famous Road Runner. Big bore motors were the rage back in the late sixties, early seventies. Till longer stroke motors took the spotlight away. More power, less rpm/engine wear, more torque/better economy. The 440 sadly left us in 78', due to more efficient mills of economy and environmental designs. AS for the Quotes on the 440, I've been saying it for a while now, if you are class racing or All out racing then the 440 IS for you. Street, street strip racing, in my book 413's get the nod for me. Ther may be "NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT, but at the "LIGHT or TREE, Torque RULES and a 413 has an AMPLE SUPPLY right where it's needed LOW-MID RANGE WHERE IT COUNTS. 440 RUNS BEST in a light weight chassis, where the 413 can run as well with slightly more weight.
I can't believe some of the arguments going on here.
why didn't ma just keep the 413 bore and stroke the motor? you would need the same number of new parts. 413->440 (with the 426 wedge in between) required new pistons, rings, & block.
ma mopar stroking the 413 would have only needed a new crank and pistons, or crank and rods.
there's other issues with stroking vs. boring to increase displacement. there's worse rod ratio, causing more side loading which could increase bore wear and wastes energy robbing potential horsepower. rod ratio also affects piston velocity and acceleration. but what is optimum? it depends on intake port volume (typically bigger ports like a lower rod ratio....BB mopar wedge heads are typically undersized for their displacement, so they benefit from a longer rod)....
All was necessary was to cast a heavier wall block,bore it to 4.320 and you're done.Which is what they did.Pistons only,everything else fits.
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: I go fast]
#62652
12/17/09 01:46 PM
12/17/09 01:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123 Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
to turn the 413 to the 440 via stroke, you needed new blocks, pistons, and rings. from a manufacturing standpoint, you needed a new core box for the block, as well as revising machining. you needed a new die cast mold and revised machining for the pistons. and new rings for the larger bore
to turn the 413 into the 440 via stroke (4.185" bore, 4" stroke) you needed a new crank and either pistons or rods.
if the base crank forging was done smartly, it could've just been a change in the machining setup with the same rough forging, no additional tooling required.
you'd have the same issue of a new mold and machining setup for pistons, or new tooling for a 1/8" shorter base forging for the rod....
from a procurement/material handling standpoint, you still had to create new part numbers and inventories for pistons, rings, and blocks, vs. pistons & crank.
thinking about it, I'm kinda suprised that chrysler didn't commonize piston and/or rods between the B&RB, and make up the deck height difference in stroke. or at the very least, when the 426 turned into the 440, the 383 didn't turn into a 396 (same bore), or for that matter, that they went to 400 cubes, which was a .020 overbore 440 bore....from a procurement/material handling standpoint, the part number/inventory reduction would have been significant.
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD 1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!*** 2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T 2017 Grand Cherokee Overland 2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: HYPER8oSoNic]
#62653
12/17/09 02:24 PM
12/17/09 02:24 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,111 Bowie, MD
Reggie
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,111
Bowie, MD
|
Quote:
Well then Reggie, I guess you didn't read you own press then. He basically was refering more to a "racing type" mill as opposed to a dual purpose mill, which 70% of the members do run/own. Get YOUR facts straight buddy.
And he also said that BORE has the advantage. Dual purpose mills notwithstanding - the larger bore would have the advantage based on his experience. I'll put my money on the Chrysler engineers, who were designing cars for the HP street market - for a living BTW. There sure weren't any 413 Road Runners coming off the production line, and they were "heavy cars" that are supposedly so great for 413s according to the fractured logic in this thread.
In an Feb. '87 HOT ROD magazine article, they took a 1970 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, loaded it with pasengers and other junk to get it to 6,700+ lb and ran a base ET of 17.22 at 80.01 MPH. Then they started removing parts from it in stages to see how it performed - eventually reducing the car to just a 2900 lb frame with a roll bar (for safety) that ran 13.55 at 100.83 MPH. Since there is no argument that the 440 makes more power (you said that yourself), your "413 is better in a heavy car" theory opposes simple physics - buddy...
I'm going to respectfully bow out here since further discussion serves no useful purpose. There is an old saying - "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." The length of this thread serves as evidence of that truth. The only thing that everyone here can agree on is that they disagree. Everyone has their own viewpoint, just like every cow has it's own moo-point - all of which have absolutly no bearing on the facts. The fact is that Chrysler went to larger displacements for performance applications and the 413 was relegated to workhorse duty in trucks, MHs and industrial applications. 413s were great motors for their time, but they were eclipsed in the displacement race. My : If you have a 413 - build it if you want to, and be happy. I would go with Dogdays's recipe if it were me, which would make a nice street motor on the cheap. If you don't already have a 413 - look for a 440. They are much easier to find, and enjoy a whole lot more aftermarket support.
Last edited by Reggie; 12/17/09 04:27 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: patrick]
#62654
12/17/09 08:21 PM
12/17/09 08:21 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275 Desert Tracker
HYPER8oSoNic
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That article is a good example of where everything is well-written and appears to have merit -- if you only take it at face value. However, it does not address opposite compromises/perspectives.
As an example: He mentions that ring friction is the greatest loss in an engine, which we all accept to be true. He mentions that a shorter stroke has less drag of ring friction -- however he does not quantitatively discuss the 'longer' rings required in a larger bore. Based on a simple circumference calculation, a 440's bore/ring is about 3% longer than a 413 - so there is higher friction with a larger bore.
True. However, any power loss due to friction would be more than offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement.
Quote:
Larger bores take advantage of larger valves – but they weigh more. Running larger valves, and at higher RPM, requires stiffer springs to maintain control – with all else equal, there is increased inertia & more friction in the valvetrain.
Also true. However, that point is moot for this discussion which suggested a heads up comparison of 413 and 440 short blocks with all other variables being equal.
Quote:
Larger bores have more area and therefore require more time for the flame front to travel. This theoretically requires more ignition timing, and advanced ignition timing permits more heat to be lost to the cooling system. Ideally, ignition would start at TDC. Larger bores also have more surface area at the cylinder walls that hold cool end gasses that contaminate the next intake charge.
Again, any power loss due to these factors would be more than be offset by the power gain due to the increased displacement. If this were such an issue, Ma Mopar wouldn't have produced anything with a bigger bore than a RB 383 in the first place.
Quote:
“My subject is racing engines, not street motors, so I'm not concerned with torque at 2,000 rpm. In my view, if you are building an engine for maximum output at a specific displacement, such as a Comp engine, then the bores should be as big as possible and the stroke as short as possible.”
I read that. To me it means that a bigger bore 440 would have the advantage in a race against a 413.
Quote:
It is known that an engine is most efficient at its torque peak, so you increase power by creating more torque pulses/unit time, however they become less efficient individually as RPM increases.
Yeah, if you don’t care about fuel usage and you want to run an engine at max RPM (and don’t care about the higher expenses involved with high-RPM durability), then his statements have more merit.
Again, the issue of stroke is moot with a 413/440 comparison. What he does hit on is bore size and power, which is why I posted the link.
Quote:
It’s all a compromise. Whomever suggested a scientific test of identical 413-440 builds hit the bullseye.
I agree, but I doubt that anyone will bother.
90% of all the information placed by you, Reggie, is TRUE. But Ma MOPAR increased th bore size from 413 to 440, basically to increase displacement without altering engine dimensions. To be able to use the largest Chrysler mill in just about ANY Chrysler rear-wheel drive chassis. Why? To save from building different K-Members, and to keep up with the "Joneses" in the horsepower game. GM rushed to get a head start with the GTO and 2 years later Mopar countered with the big block Coronet option 67' 440 GTX, which formed the basis of Famous Road Runner. Big bore motors were the rage back in the late sixties, early seventies. Till longer stroke motors took the spotlight away. More power, less rpm/engine wear, more torque/better economy. The 440 sadly left us in 78', due to more efficient mills of economy and environmental designs. AS for the Quotes on the 440, I've been saying it for a while now, if you are class racing or All out racing then the 440 IS for you. Street, street strip racing, in my book 413's get the nod for me. Ther may be "NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT, but at the "LIGHT or TREE, Torque RULES and a 413 has an AMPLE SUPPLY right where it's needed LOW-MID RANGE WHERE IT COUNTS. 440 RUNS BEST in a light weight chassis, where the 413 can run as well with slightly more weight.
I can't believe some of the arguments going on here.
why didn't ma just keep the 413 bore and stroke the motor? you would need the same number of new parts. 413->440 (with the 426 wedge in between) required new pistons, rings, & block.
ma mopar stroking the 413 would have only needed a new crank and pistons, or crank and rods.
there's other issues with stroking vs. boring to increase displacement. there's worse rod ratio, causing more side loading which could increase bore wear and wastes energy robbing potential horsepower. rod ratio also affects piston velocity and acceleration. but what is optimum? it depends on intake port volume (typically bigger ports like a lower rod ratio....BB mopar wedge heads are typically undersized for their displacement, so they benefit from a longer rod)....
Well Patrick, I think that you answered part of your post yourself. We all might be learning a little more about things that affect power production from boring and stroking the 413 to 440. Thanks for the tech.
"Stupidity is Ignorance on Steroids" "Yeah, it's hopped to over 160" (quote by Kowalski in the movie Vanishing Point 1970 - Cupid Productions)
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: Reggie]
#62655
12/17/09 09:01 PM
12/17/09 09:01 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275 Desert Tracker
HYPER8oSoNic
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well then Reggie, I guess you didn't read you own press then. He basically was refering more to a "racing type" mill as opposed to a dual purpose mill, which 70% of the members do run/own. Get YOUR facts straight buddy.
And he also said that BORE has the advantage. Dual purpose mills notwithstanding - the larger bore would have the advantage based on his experience. I'll put my money on the Chrysler engineers, who were designing cars for the HP street market - for a living BTW. There sure weren't any 413 Road Runners coming off the production line, and they were "heavy cars" that are supposedly so great for 413s according to the fractured logic in this thread.
In an Feb. '87 HOT ROD magazine article, they took a 1970 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, loaded it with pasengers and other junk to get it to 6,700+ lb and ran a base ET of 17.22 at 80.01 MPH. Then they started removing parts from it in stages to see how it performed - eventually reducing the car to just a 2900 lb frame with a roll bar (for safety) that ran 13.55 at 100.83 MPH. Since there is no argument that the 440 makes more power (you said that yourself), your "413 is better in a heavy car" theory opposes simple physics - buddy...
I'm going to respectfully bow out here since further discussion serves no useful purpose. There is an old saying - "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." The length of this thread serves as evidence of that truth. The only thing that everyone here can agree on is that they disagree. Everyone has their own viewpoint, just like every cow has it's own moo-point - all of which have absolutly no bearing on the facts. The fact is that Chrysler went to larger displacements for performance applications and the 413 was relegated to workhorse duty in trucks, MHs and industrial applications. 413s were great motors for their time, but they were eclipsed in the displacement race. My : If you have a 413 - build it if you want to, and be happy. I would go with Dogdays's recipe if it were me, which would make a nice street motor on the cheap. If you don't already have a 413 - look for a 440. They are much easier to find, and enjoy a whole lot more aftermarket support.
First of all, my apologies for Reggies ignorance for taking a 68' production model and installing a mill whose production ended two years earlier. To the HARDCORE street racers, class racers and drag enthusiasts, I apologize for HIS OVERSIGHT ON HIS HISTORY. Second He simply repeated what I have been saying for a while now. Third, he did make the most sense in pointing out that one should run what they have and be happy. Thank you Reggie for your input. However, the Cadillac blog I am NOT buying that because, of the chassis with massive amounts of weight and probably the motor was not "profesionally" built to street/strip specs (NHRA brackets). Now what I would believe is an 79 Caddy coupe or even an 82' coupe, with a 500 cube mill (with Cadillac motorsports pieces) or, even with a 455 Buick mill. That is much more feasible, since both coupes weigh less than 4700 lbs. They can be pared down to 3900 lbs (approx) and still run HARD. Also a 70' Coupe de Ville does not weight 6700+ lbs., and you would not get a baseline figure with it "loaded down" either. It DEFEATS THE MEASUREMENT FOR PERFORMANCE INCREASE due to it is not a TRUE starting point. YOU ONLY USE THE DRIVERS WEIGHT!! 6700 lbs is a SEDAN de VILLE or a 75 SERIES CADDY 4 DOOR. Believe your own press Reggie, cause I don't. Not on the Caddy blog, it's a spoof to me.
"Stupidity is Ignorance on Steroids" "Yeah, it's hopped to over 160" (quote by Kowalski in the movie Vanishing Point 1970 - Cupid Productions)
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: Reggie]
#62656
12/17/09 09:25 PM
12/17/09 09:25 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275 Desert Tracker
HYPER8oSoNic
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well then Reggie, I guess you didn't read you own press then. He basically was refering more to a "racing type" mill as opposed to a dual purpose mill, which 70% of the members do run/own. Get YOUR facts straight buddy.
And he also said that BORE has the advantage. Dual purpose mills notwithstanding - the larger bore would have the advantage based on his experience. I'll put my money on the Chrysler engineers, who were designing cars for the HP street market - for a living BTW. There sure weren't any 413 Road Runners coming off the production line, and they were "heavy cars" that are supposedly so great for 413s according to the fractured logic in this thread.
In an Feb. '87 HOT ROD magazine article, they took a 1970 Cadillac Coupe De Ville, loaded it with pasengers and other junk to get it to 6,700+ lb and ran a base ET of 17.22 at 80.01 MPH. Then they started removing parts from it in stages to see how it performed - eventually reducing the car to just a 2900 lb frame with a roll bar (for safety) that ran 13.55 at 100.83 MPH. Since there is no argument that the 440 makes more power (you said that yourself), your "413 is better in a heavy car" theory opposes simple physics - buddy...
I'm going to respectfully bow out here since further discussion serves no useful purpose. There is an old saying - "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." The length of this thread serves as evidence of that truth. The only thing that everyone here can agree on is that they disagree. Everyone has their own viewpoint, just like every cow has it's own moo-point - all of which have absolutly no bearing on the facts. The fact is that Chrysler went to larger displacements for performance applications and the 413 was relegated to workhorse duty in trucks, MHs and industrial applications. 413s were great motors for their time, but they were eclipsed in the displacement race. My : If you have a 413 - build it if you want to, and be happy. I would go with Dogdays's recipe if it were me, which would make a nice street motor on the cheap. If you don't already have a 413 - look for a 440. They are much easier to find, and enjoy a whole lot more aftermarket support.
As for the bore tech, a larger bore with the larger valves does make power, particularly midrange to top-end. When WEIGHT is applied to the vehicle it's power at low end is diminishing and require more rpm to launch it effectively. Long strokes with moderately sized valves do enhance low and midrange TORQUE to where a vehicle with weight is moved relatively EASIER. If the two characteristics are combined (sorry guys but I gotta give them their props) like in the Buick 455, you would have the best of both worlds!! They make ungodly TORQUE and ASTOUNDING HORSEPOWER. SIMPLY PUT be happy with the mill you have or built, if you are not happy get the one you want. If you feel that your mill is SUPERIOR prove it, line it up at the tree and run it.
"Stupidity is Ignorance on Steroids" "Yeah, it's hopped to over 160" (quote by Kowalski in the movie Vanishing Point 1970 - Cupid Productions)
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: DaytonaTurbo]
#62658
12/17/09 09:45 PM
12/17/09 09:45 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275 Desert Tracker
HYPER8oSoNic
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
|
Quote:
Quote:
Actually,you missed the point.The 360 hp 413 may have had a hotter cam,but the 375 hp 440 also had a hotter cam than the 350 hp.Still only 25 hp with better heads and more cu.in.So all things being equal,one is as good as the other if it is a personal choice.
And since when were factory published power numbers regarded as gospel? Seeing their published compression ratio numbers were miles off reality and just a marketing gimmick, I would assume the same for the published hp/torq numbers. And besides, those numbers are 40+ years out of date. Who builds a bone stock engine these days anyway other than the resto guys?
Good point Turbo. Back in the days of the 10.5-1 up to 13.5-1 mills, the ratings were both "brake" horsepower and several "fudged ratings". Brake horsepower was actual engine output - no accessories, belts or a/c if equipped. The "fudged" rating came in two versions, lower ratings to "fool" the insurance carriers for coverage, and to raise competition racing on the street and strip. It also boosted car sales from the "Big Three" automakers during the performance years.
"Stupidity is Ignorance on Steroids" "Yeah, it's hopped to over 160" (quote by Kowalski in the movie Vanishing Point 1970 - Cupid Productions)
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: HYPER8oSoNic]
#62664
12/17/09 11:05 PM
12/17/09 11:05 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,937 Grand Prairie,Texas
stumpy
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,937
Grand Prairie,Texas
|
I just don't like to see someone spread BS about an engine that has seen it's time and won't be ever making a comeback. Long live the new world. Down with the boat anchors.
Last edited by stumpy; 12/17/09 11:06 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special?
[Re: stumpy]
#62668
12/17/09 11:26 PM
12/17/09 11:26 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 190 Wilmington,NC
I go fast
member
|
member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Wilmington,NC
|
Quote:
My 4cyl PT cruiser will out run your stock 4bbl 413s all day long.
|
|
|
|
|