Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 15 of 16 1 2 13 14 15 16
Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? [Re: jcc] #62649
12/17/09 08:47 AM
12/17/09 08:47 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



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: 16,122
Grand Haven, MI
patrick Online content
I Live Here
patrick  Online Content
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,122
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
I go fast Offline
member
I go fast  Offline
member
I

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: 16,122
Grand Haven, MI
patrick Online content
I Live Here
patrick  Online Content
I Live Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,122
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
R
Reggie Offline
top fuel
Reggie  Offline
top fuel
R

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
H
HYPER8oSoNic Offline
top fuel
HYPER8oSoNic  Offline
top fuel
H

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
H
HYPER8oSoNic Offline
top fuel
HYPER8oSoNic  Offline
top fuel
H

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
H
HYPER8oSoNic Offline
top fuel
HYPER8oSoNic  Offline
top fuel
H

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: HYPER8oSoNic] #62657
12/17/09 09:28 PM
12/17/09 09:28 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,882
Grand Prairie,Texas
stumpy Offline
I Win
stumpy  Offline
I Win

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,882
Grand Prairie,Texas
HYPER8oSoNic, let it go. 413s are old news and not a popular engine to build. Why spend the time and effort on old egineering when there is much better up dated stuff to play with for a lot less cost. Your one man campaign to resurect the past is a waste of time and effort. You might as well bring back disco while your at it.

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
H
HYPER8oSoNic Offline
top fuel
HYPER8oSoNic  Offline
top fuel
H

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: stumpy] #62659
12/17/09 10:29 PM
12/17/09 10:29 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
H
HYPER8oSoNic Offline
top fuel
HYPER8oSoNic  Offline
top fuel
H

Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
Quote:

HYPER8oSoNic, let it go. 413s are old news and not a popular engine to build. Why spend the time and effort on old egineering when there is much better up dated stuff to play with for a lot less cost. Your one man campaign to resurect the past is a waste of time and effort. You might as well bring back disco while your at it.



Stumpy, I like your 62'. But you are beginning
to again. WHY is that I simply say to run
what you have, it brings the out in
you. Always wanting people to upgrade, or toss
413's away for 440's. I don't tell people that
at all. Let the masses decide what they want to
run please. Or, could it be that you are using
REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY to gain SEVERAL basement
bargain 413's dumped in your driveway from angry
members fed up with them. And hoping that someone
WOULD be STUPID to THROW AWAY A DECENT MAX-WEDGE.
And that WOULD make your DAY!!! CUT THE GAME,
STUMPY. PEOPLE have CHOICES, NEVER TRY TO MAKE IT FOR THEM!!!! OR THE


By the way disco was cool, but I would
NOT bring back the "DEAD". UNLESS Jimi Hendrix
was re-carnated. . Maybe 60's-70's
rock n roll along with some 70's r&b/funk would definitely work.

Last edited by HYPER8oSoNic; 12/17/09 10:30 PM.

"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] #62660
12/17/09 10:35 PM
12/17/09 10:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,882
Grand Prairie,Texas
stumpy Offline
I Win
stumpy  Offline
I Win

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,882
Grand Prairie,Texas
Good then why don't you get off the 413 horse. I don't want no stinking max wedge. I am quite happy with my 4.040x4.00 410 small block. It won me the class championship this year in the Tmccc series.

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? [Re: stumpy] #62661
12/17/09 10:49 PM
12/17/09 10:49 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
H
HYPER8oSoNic Offline
top fuel
HYPER8oSoNic  Offline
top fuel
H

Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
Quote:

HYPER8oSoNic, let it go. 413s are old news and not a popular engine to build. Why spend the time and effort on old egineering when there is much better up dated stuff to play with for a lot less cost. Your one man campaign to resurect the past is a waste of time and effort. You might as well bring back disco while your at it.



As far as the one-man campaign, or should I say
this to you. You must be another "spokesperson"
for the self promoting "440 Supremacy Organization". Thats good. Let's just build
seperate racetracks across the USA specifically
for your 440 powered vehicles. You all can fight
amongst "yourselves" while the other 90% of
different makes and model mills, will compete in
harmony for the sheer sport of racing. To have
fun!!!


"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] #62662
12/17/09 10:50 PM
12/17/09 10:50 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,882
Grand Prairie,Texas
stumpy Offline
I Win
stumpy  Offline
I Win

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,882
Grand Prairie,Texas
You don't read very well do you.

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? [Re: stumpy] #62663
12/17/09 11:00 PM
12/17/09 11:00 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
H
HYPER8oSoNic Offline
top fuel
HYPER8oSoNic  Offline
top fuel
H

Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
Quote:

Good then why don't you get off the 413 horse. I don't want no stinking max wedge. I am quite happy with my 4.040x4.00 410 small block. It won me the class championship this year in the Tmccc series.



If you have a winning class smallblock, why are
so worried about the 413? You have nothing else
better to do than to bust stones' . Or, is
it that you ran out of people to beat on the
track, so now you are trying to beat them down on this post.



"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: 32,882
Grand Prairie,Texas
stumpy Offline
I Win
stumpy  Offline
I Win

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,882
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] #62665
12/17/09 11:06 PM
12/17/09 11:06 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
H
HYPER8oSoNic Offline
top fuel
HYPER8oSoNic  Offline
top fuel
H

Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
Quote:

You don't read very well do you.



I read very well, thank you. I think that I
answered the title question at least three times.
That was until the "superiority issue" came into
play.


"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] #62666
12/17/09 11:09 PM
12/17/09 11:09 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,882
Grand Prairie,Texas
stumpy Offline
I Win
stumpy  Offline
I Win

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 32,882
Grand Prairie,Texas
All you have done is spout your opinion no matter what facts are presented to you. It's obvious we don't want to learn but that's okay. Live in the past if it suits you. Most of us here are quite happy with the modern engineering. My 4cyl PT cruiser will out run your stock 4bbl 413s all day long.

Re: Are 413 Engines really all that special? [Re: stumpy] #62667
12/17/09 11:19 PM
12/17/09 11:19 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
H
HYPER8oSoNic Offline
top fuel
HYPER8oSoNic  Offline
top fuel
H

Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
Quote:

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.



Nice touch. But this is not the "new world" and
I do hate to say it, but some of us are on modest budgets and do run these so called "boat anchors".
And we do it effectively!!! Just as some "old
timers" hold on to their hot rod roadsters and
digger rails, and so it shall be with the 413.
"Old technology never dies it just gets better
with time". If you are worried about a comeback, then simply ignore this post.


"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: stumpy] #62668
12/17/09 11:26 PM
12/17/09 11:26 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Wilmington,NC
I
I go fast Offline
member
I go fast  Offline
member
I

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Wilmington,NC
Quote:

My 4cyl PT cruiser will out run your stock 4bbl 413s all day long.






Page 15 of 16 1 2 13 14 15 16






Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1