Small block stroker: 408 vs 426 kits?
#965800
04/04/11 03:14 PM
04/04/11 03:14 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,665 Milwaukee, WI
Prince_Valiant
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,665
Milwaukee, WI
|
Having a devil of a time deciding which to go with (and yes, I'm aware most the 426 kits are actually around 418ci w/ .030 pistons as I'll likely be using).
It seems that they are almost a wash price wise...after you factor in the balancing, clearencing for the block, and upgrading to H beam rods that is required to make everything "equal" for comparisons sake with the 426 kits.
Which would you go with?
BTW, this is a magnum block and using ported eddy al magnum heads w/ 2.05 valves and a moderate roller cam 218/228 @ .050, .567/.567 lift, 106 lsa. This will be going in a truck with mild 3.55 gears and 2500rpm stall torque converter.
1979 Dodge Lil' Red Express - 360 rwhp, 13.2 @ 103mph 1968 Coronet: 318, 2.76, 15.2 @ 92mph! (SOLD) 1976 Valiant: 360, 3.90, 12.90 @ 106 (SOLD) 1989 Shelby CSX #500/500
|
|
|
Re: Small block stroker: 408 vs 426 kits?
[Re: chargincharles]
#965802
04/04/11 03:54 PM
04/04/11 03:54 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
|
Why not get one of the BPE 4.25 cranks and have an honest 434 ? No replacement for displacement and with that small of a cam you are not gonna turn enough RPM to have any accelerated wear issues. It should do a very good impression of a cummins
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: Small block stroker: 408 vs 426 kits?
[Re: HotRodDave]
#965803
04/04/11 04:51 PM
04/04/11 04:51 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,074 detroit, mi
POS Dakota
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,074
detroit, mi
|
Quote:
Why not get one of the BPE 4.25 cranks and have an honest 434 ?
No replacement for displacement and with that small of a cam you are not gonna turn enough RPM to have any accelerated wear issues. It should do a very good impression of a cummins
hehe Yeah, I would definitely look into some more cam. The extra stroke will be wasted without more duration.
|
|
|
Re: Small block stroker: 408 vs 426 kits?
[Re: POS Dakota]
#965804
04/04/11 08:45 PM
04/04/11 08:45 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,179 Atco NJ
DJVCuda
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 11,179
Atco NJ
|
You should definitely call Rod @ BPE - I got one of his 4.125 kits ( 430 Cubes @ 4.080) and I could not beat the price even for a 4" kit with the quality of parts I got with the kit. Here is a link to my build if your interested. https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/show...part=1&vc=1
Last edited by DJVCuda; 04/04/11 09:39 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Small block stroker: 408 vs 426 kits?
[Re: POS Dakota]
#965805
04/05/11 01:36 AM
04/05/11 01:36 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,665 Milwaukee, WI
Prince_Valiant
OP
top fuel
|
OP
top fuel
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,665
Milwaukee, WI
|
Thanks for the recommendation for BPE...will definitely consider their kits. Quote:
Quote:
and with that small of a cam you are not gonna turn enough RPM to have any accelerated wear issues. It should do a very good impression of a cummins
hehe Yeah, I would definitely look into some more cam. The extra stroke will be wasted without more duration.
The plan is in the future to go ahead with a bigger cam, but not too worried about the one going in there...first reason is the head flow and port volume are huge, so even with a small cam, it should make pretty decent power.
Secondly, hyd roller cams don't quite compare directly to flat tappet cams...for a given duration @ .050 might be the same, the head flows little to nothing at .050. However, compare the duration at points that the heads are flowing real cfm, such as .200, .300, and .400....as well as the .500 duration numbers, you'll see a decided edge for the roller cam. And again, that was assuming the same duration at .050 numbers. That's not to say I've got a big cam...it's still smaller than I'd otherwise really want.
But case in point...the LS7 out of a Z06 'vette? 427ci with a slight flow advantage (330cfm vs 310cfm) over my engine and revs up to 7,000 rpm w/ peak HP at 505hp. What are it's cam specs? A measely 211/230 @ .050 w/ 116 LSA. Again, not saying I'm building an engine comparable to an LS7...
I'd like to swap to a hyd roller from huges...236/242 with similarly narrow LSA. We'll see...not too worried either way
thanks for the input though....
1979 Dodge Lil' Red Express - 360 rwhp, 13.2 @ 103mph 1968 Coronet: 318, 2.76, 15.2 @ 92mph! (SOLD) 1976 Valiant: 360, 3.90, 12.90 @ 106 (SOLD) 1989 Shelby CSX #500/500
|
|
|
Re: Small block stroker: 408 vs 426 kits?
[Re: Prince_Valiant]
#965806
04/05/11 09:41 AM
04/05/11 09:41 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
|
personally, I'd go with the 4" crank and 6.2-6.3" rods to minimize side loading if you want this to be something that's going to last 100k miles. the only heads out there with enough port volume and cross section for a 420+ inch small block are the big CNC indy's and the W7-8-9 IMHO. for a street driver with the truck's weight and stall your cam choice doesn't sound too far off the mark, you're right, your .200" lift duration is probably more comparable to a flat tappet in the 230@.050 duration cam...I'd widen the LSA from 106. you'll sacrafice a bit of midrange torque, but flatten the torque curve out and extend it higher in the RPM range....something like a 112-114, installed on a 108ICL is what I'd do. should give you great power from near idle to 5500 RPM or so. I'd guess the narrow LSA cam you chose is going to nose over a little under 5k.
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: Small block stroker: 408 vs 426 kits?
[Re: Prince_Valiant]
#965807
04/05/11 11:32 AM
04/05/11 11:32 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,419
Kalispell Mt.
|
Quote:
Thanks for the recommendation for BPE...will definitely consider their kits.
Quote:
Quote:
and with that small of a cam you are not gonna turn enough RPM to have any accelerated wear issues. It should do a very good impression of a cummins
hehe Yeah, I would definitely look into some more cam. The extra stroke will be wasted without more duration.
The plan is in the future to go ahead with a bigger cam, but not too worried about the one going in there...first reason is the head flow and port volume are huge, so even with a small cam, it should make pretty decent power.
Secondly, hyd roller cams don't quite compare directly to flat tappet cams...for a given duration @ .050 might be the same, the head flows little to nothing at .050. However, compare the duration at points that the heads are flowing real cfm, such as .200, .300, and .400....as well as the .500 duration numbers, you'll see a decided edge for the roller cam. And again, that was assuming the same duration at .050 numbers. That's not to say I've got a big cam...it's still smaller than I'd otherwise really want.
But case in point...the LS7 out of a Z06 'vette? 427ci with a slight flow advantage (330cfm vs 310cfm) over my engine and revs up to 7,000 rpm w/ peak HP at 505hp. What are it's cam specs? A measely 211/230 @ .050 w/ 116 LSA. Again, not saying I'm building an engine comparable to an LS7...
I'd like to swap to a hyd roller from huges...236/242 with similarly narrow LSA. We'll see...not too worried either way
thanks for the input though....
310 CFM? Who the heck did your port work?
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
|
|