400 Engine Build
 

Moving along nicely with our 400 (412cid) engine build. I'll be putting some pics up over the next few days.

The engine has Eagle rods, Icon Flat tops, std/std "N" crank, and topped with #46 heads from a 1969 428. Compression ratio is 10.65 to 1, and will be tuned for and run on pump gas only.

The heads are well prepared, screw in studs and 2.11/1.77 valves, around 240 cfm. We're using a "coated" (Ion-Bond) Crower 60919 cam, ICL at 108.5, and Rhoads V-Max lifters and Harland Sharp 1.65 rocker arms.

It's going into my Ventura for run-in and a couple track outings, then headed for a 67 GTO 4 speed car with 4.30 gears. Should be quite a ride!......Cliff

Alrighty!!!
Been waiting on this one, for a while!!!

U guys going to run headers ?

Cliff when I swapped the 400 in my car in place of a 455 it felt like a dog until it got more convertor and more gear. So your butt meter will feel down without the bottom end grunt.

Sounds like a good stick car motor.

I look forward to read about this engine. Can I ask what intake and carb or is that a dum question

It better run faster than 110.68 in the 1/4 at 3860 lbs race weight! It better! ;)

http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/...ps70df9497.jpg

"It better run faster than 110.68 in the 1/4 at 3860 lbs race weight! It better! "

That will be a good task for a 400 that has a fairly mild cam.

My car isn't set up well for this sort of power, but it should run into the 12's without much effort. We'll get some track numbers on it sometime next month.

The engine is being built specifically for the manual transmission/4.30 gear ratio deal, so will fair a lot better in that application than in my car with a tight 10" converter and 3.42 gears. As Skip mentioned, it will probably "feel" like a dog compared to the 455 it's replacing, which will only get me motivated more to get the 455 back in place.

I would add that there really isn't anything wrong with the 455, still holds 60psi hot over 2500rpms, and 25-30psi at idle, not using much oil, and making same power as it did when installed.

I want to do a couple of things to it, which include new rod bearings, timing set, and check things out. Also going to replace the PRW rockers with Crower Enduro's, and a new set of valve springs for sure. It's been on pump gas for quite a few years at 11 to 1 compression, so I'm curious to see how the internals are holding up?.......Cliff

If the heads flow 240 that is 1 more CFM than mine flowed. ;)

Your car is set up to put the power to the pavement very efficiently. Looking forward to the first run's time slip. :)

400 with Unported heads around 10:1 compression factory HFT.

It'll definitely be an attention getter at the local Dairy Queen :)

Cliff's 3.42 gear may not be enough for that 400.
Looking forward to seeing how it does in HIS car w/ 3.42 gear and automatic, drive-abilty wise, and performance wise...

I had the 3.42 too!! Like I said, it better!! :) :)

This engine will run well and drive fine in my car, because we have 10.65 to 1 compression in the engine, and Rhoads lifters. This will make for a nice idle quality, and plenty of low end power, with the "real" power coming in just about where my converter stalls at.

With the 3.42's it will have it's tongue hanging out a bit thru the 60', but pull like gangbusters on the rest of the run. It takes 450hp for my car to run 12.0's, 494hp for 11.60's, 514hp for 11.50's, and 550hp to go low 11's.

This engine should make a little over 1hp/cid, so it's got enough for some 12 second runs if the moon, stars and everything else line up right for us!.....Cliff

Lots of compression too! Way more than my 9.33 weak lunged little 400 had (all cast.) :)

...but that 041 probably likes more, right? Like every other engine likes more compression?

...and those cast pistons looked like they were at the bottom of a well in that cylinder at TDC... Not like yours that sit at the top of the well, eh? :)

Mine was a Crower cam too!! 60... sump'n or nuther..., just like you're's, Cliff!! :D

68azbird weight? Which factory cam?

Not too many factory non ported head factory cam cars ran or run 12.00s @110 especially weighing in 3800-3900. Making 450 HP for Cliffs car(I'll bet a little lighter than 3850lbs) to run 12s not too many 400cis making 400-450hp on a conservative dyno or mph to go with it,especially with stock heads and a factory stock cam, unless we are talking NHRA "stock" cam or even NHRA Stock "non ported heads"). Heck the RAIV motors were rated at 370 HP, gross HP no accessories and they flowed better than D port heads and had the biggest factory cam.

Racing the NMCAs stock classes from Dallas to Atlanta for 4 years and lots of PSN events I sure did not see them. Steve Coombs car was in a different class than mine and a click faster with his 400 but not sure he was even 12.00s back then maybe he'll chime in.

MD, the rule of thumb for compression vs cam choice is one full point for every 10 degrees. So if I build a 400 at 9.5 to 1 compression that's got a cam in it around 220 intake/230 exhaust (for example), that makes it really happy everyplace, I need to go up about 10 degrees with the same engine if I build it at 10.5 to 1 compression.

This will create about the same dynamic compression, vacuum at idle speed, and off idle power/street manners. Low speed power will be close between those engines, however, the higher compression engine with the bigger cam will start leaving the lower compression engine in the dust out about 3500rpm's or so, and absolutely KILL it in upper mid-range and top end power, extending the power and shift points by at least 500rpms, if not a bit more if I've topped the engine with really good flowing heads. To sort of see how that deal works, take a look at the thread I started on cams for 455 builds and compare the dyno charts between the two roller cams used in that build. The same logic applies here, but in this case we're using higher compression with a pretty "hefty" camshaft.

What folks fail to realize with these things, is that octane requirements are pretty equal between the two engine examples mentioned above, and past peak torque, or max VE, the events simply happen too quickly to see enough rise in dynamic compression to require any additional octane. So our higher compression 400 build here will not be any more octane sensitive than a 9.5 to 1 400 build with a smaller cam in it.

I'm probably being a bit conservative with my power rating on this engine. That last 400 I dyno'd with untouched big valve heads at 10 to 1 compression made 424hp/465tq with a smaller 228/234/112LSA cam, and a 400 with unported KRE heads and this same cam will make 450hp without breaking a sweat......Cliff

Cliff, I am TRULY interested in your results for this combo, as my combo had everything less than the 400 you are building, so if all is well in the velocity and acceleration world, theoretically you should make MORE power than I did, and put down a better MPH in your car at the same weight. You can add weight to get it to 3860 race weight, right? You have the traction and driver skills. I can't wait!!! ;) :)

Last time I had the Ventura on the scales at Norwalk after a pass with 1/2 tank of fuel it was 3740 with driver, so not too much lighter. In the pass in this link we added two cylinder heads to the trunk, retarded the timing 4 degrees, and shifted at 5000rpm's (to stay roll bar legal). So you can get an idea about how well the car is set up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zVdoLR-VzM

With any particular engine combo, sometimes you just hit one that really works well, as you saw with your 400 build. No matter what parts were used, track numbers don't lie, the engine has to make the power to run them.....Cliff

Nice run Cliff.

Make it 3860 lbs for at least the first run, just for kicks, eh?

In the interest of disclosing facts, I just want to add that the Torker II on my engine was box stock, just bolted on out of the box. Oh, I slapped together a homemade contraption of a Holley carb too. Did have an A/F gauge and a means of timing acceleration in the car in real time, though.

Some of the time slips here are impressive. It will be fun to see time slips in Cliff's car.

Nothing to write home about today but 23 years ago when I had the original numbers matching 1970 RAIII 400 in my car we ran it at a NMCA race in Top Stock class. The allowed changes to the engine were headers, 1.65 ratio generic roller tip rockers and a cam change. I don't remember but I think we could upgrade the ignition. We changed to the old Comp Magnum 280H hyd cam, single pattern with 230 degrees duration. Weight break in our class was 3820 pounds and we were about 60 lbs under, so about 3760 lbs race weight. My car came from the factory with no air conditioning and 3.73 gears, and with it we ran a generic 11-inch shelf converter from TCI that had a advertised 2400 stall. We ran 28 x 10.5 slicks.

At the event our best ET was 12.815 and the best mph was 105.5


.

Without adding weight, shifting at 5800rpm's, and timing at 28-30 degrees my car runs 7.20's at 94-96mph in the heat. On 8" wide DOT's I am not able to run in really good air on cold tracks, it just results in high 11 second runs (1/4 mile) over 121-122mph, as it "slips" the tires all the way thru 1st gear.

So I wait for the heat of summer to come in so I know I'll find good traction, and race at our local 1/8th mile track, running quite a bit faster than 99 percent of the other cars that are driven to the track, so I know the car "gets it done" pretty good, regardless what the time slips are.

The last time I raced the car ran 7.20's and very few other cars that were street cars and driven to the track were even close. There were two other cars nearly as quick, one was a 67 Nova SS, tubbed, big block, and two big Holleys sticking up thru the hood on a tunnel ram. He went 7.40's at 97mph. The other car, and it was much like mine, small tires, quiet exhaust, no "bling" anyplace, and super-impressive on the track was a later 60's Ford Fairlane. It had a stroked 460 in it, and ran 7.30's at 97-98mph all afternoon. All of the other cars were mostly in the 8's and 9's and a few even slower. That particular day was 99 percent street cars driven to the track, as it was a car show for cancer research, pay $10 and show your car and make all the runs you want.....Cliff

Cliff, your car moves pretty good for what it is. I'm wondering how well it will do in the 400 world, with an 041 cam. Oh, wait...was it before the 60916 or after the 744 that I installed the 60310 in the 400? It was the 744, 041/Rhoads, 60916, THEN the 60310, when the power arrived!! ;)

Not on any of the dynos I've been around! 424 HP should put a car in the low 12s high 11s on the dynos I've been around, that with a 400 and a 228 @ 0.050 cam. Wallace calculator 12.15 @111mph with 215-220 cfm unported iron heads and a 228 @ 0.050 cam and 3850lbs?? 450 HP 3850 lbs 11.90s @ 113 on Wallace. I got my RAIV 400 in the 12 teens @ 111 but it had a 242/236 @ 0.050 cam, pocket ported heads flowing 255cfm on the intake 217 exhaust and whole bunch more convertor than you guys are talking. Even the Superflow formula for the PERFECT compression,cam,intake,exhaust etc combination using 220 cfm is 456 hp-generally needing high compression, roller cam to get there just based on airflow. The NHRA stocker guys are doing it but with cams in the 250-275 @ 0.050 range and open headers, special rings etc etc.

My 455 pump gas motor dynoed 525 hp -weighing 3750 ran a 10.99@124. Wallace calculator 575 hp. The RAIV 400 in NMCA at 10:1 with initial cam UD 288/296 231/239, no porting(they changed that in the next year or two) dynoed 384hp through mufflers and "ran the numbers" according to Wallace Calculator and with iron heads it weighed close to 3900lbs. It also picked up 8 HP on race gas at the CR of only 10:1.

400's are a different animal than 455's, they lack CID and low end power. You have to squeeze them pretty hard to salvage decent torque, then cam them to rpm some, but they are great engines.

Look at the 68 RAII Firebird in Pure Stock that has went 11.18 over 120mph on 7" wide bias ply tires. It flat gets it done without an lot of CID, and all the stock components in place......Cliff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMtZNOtxEec

The 400 doesn't lack power compared to a 455. The CID simply determines at what RPM the peak power is made, smaller CID making power at higher RPM, due to the displacement of the engines being the same at different RPM. The 400 will displace the SAME at a higher RPM. Torque is multiplied by gears at the expense of RPM output. Power is the work done in the duration of time, the more work being done per time being more power.

A 400 can do more work than a 455 per time at a higher RPM.

500 lb-ft of torque from a 455 at 4,000 RPM is 380 HP. 400 HP from a 400 is achieved by 350 lb-ft of torque at 6,000 RPM. The 400 is doing more work at 6,000 RPM than the 455 at 4,000 RPM. See?

It will be interesting to see what the et compares to the iron headed 60919 cammed 455 from a few years past..I'm thinking mid 12's 110mph...I like the build....Maybe quicker.....

Steve was mid 12s, my motor mid 12s both bigger cams than 228 and unported heads per NMCA rules at the time. Lee Atkinson back about then with a 231 UD and a 455 in a first gen was low to mid 12s(I ran him on one PSN quaterfinals) Heck here is a note from an artical about Jim Hand's 455 wagon with ported iron heads larger 041 type cam and low to mid 12s 109 or so 400 HP with stock unported heads, stock intake and a 228 cam is a far stretch to get to low 12s and a real 400 HP."

The test vehicle used in this series is a 1971 LeMans wagon powered by a relatively mild, moderate-rpm 455 running a Turbo 400 automatic with governor-controlled shifts (5,500 rpm); Edelbrock Performer RPM intake manifold; 800-cfm Rochester Quadrajet; 041 Pontiac-grind camshaft with Rhoads variable lifters and 1.65:1 rocker arms; owner-ported 1972 7K3 D-port heads with 9.7:1 compression ratio; HEI; custom-built Continental converter that flashes to approximately 2,700 rpm; stock rods and crankshaft; and a 3.55:1 axle ratio.

The vehicle has made an average of 200 runs (both quarter- and eighth mile) each year for the past seven years. It runs in the 12.35 to 12.60-second range at 107 to 110 mph (7.90/88 mph in the eighth-mile), with 60 foot times in the 1.80-second range. "

I'll guarantee that Pure Stock(not stock appearing?) FAST car has way more $ in motor and chassis than most of us have in 2 cars!

Pure Stock is just that, basically a "show car" will all the correct parts in place, correct number on them, etc. No porting of any kind allowed, stock lift cam specs, stamped rockers, etc, etc.

FAST is "stock appearing", everything has to be there, correct part numbers for blocks/heads, etc, but no limitations to the modifications done to the parts otherwise. They can stroke for more CID, port everything, roller cams, etc, etc.

Interesting to me is that the Pure Stock Firebird still managed 11.18 over 120mph, shows how good the RAII's really were and how fast the 68 Firebirds equipped with them can be made to be.

The same basic car in FAST is close to busting into the 9's up over 135mph, but still quite a feat on 7" wide bias ply tires....IMHO......Cliff

"It will be interesting to see what the et compares to the iron headed 60919 cammed 455 from a few years past..I'm thinking mid 12's 110mph...I like the build....Maybe quicker"

The converter is a little "tight" for the 412, and 3.42 gears are not ideal, but it will still run pretty quick as my car is well set up to use whatever power it's going to make. I've done several other 400's for early GTO's and Firebirds that are street driven and don't have ideal converter/gearing, and most of them have busted into the 12's and one in particular went 12.0's at 112 mph recently (68 Firebird)......Cliff

Looked like an 11.52@121 to a 10.36 @132 to me but granted that is honking regardless of what is done. Maybe gone faster since then.

Specs for it I found(in Rocky's book and soem articles about the car) are listed at 12:1 CR, indexed offset ground cranks, Cam Motion Cam close to but not a factory 041 drop in-sure not a 228 @ 0.050, lightweight pistons 043 rings SBC .927 pins. Heads milled to 65cc chambers. 3450 race weight.

I stand by the fact you just are not going to put a RAIII motor together with street style pistons and standard rings,with stock D port heads a factory 744 or 041 cam and run in the low 12s or 11s on pump gas in your average 3800 lb GTO or Firebird-for sure not with 65cc head chambers. The RAII heads have the larger 041 but 1.5s and the better flowing round ports too and since they started these stock classes even years ago with Jim Mino they were the one of the best combinations and because they weigh only 3450 with driver. Truman Fields car was pretty killer in NHRA Stock with the combination also.

Look at the Pontiac entries at this event- GTOS all the way down to 14 seconds,most in the 12s&13s, Probably more common for a stock head/cam intake motor.

http://www.dragzine.com/race-coverag...mer-nationals/

Skip, the Pure Stock FB has went 11.18, pretty sure the FAST Class car has busted really low 10's. They are shooting for some high 9's this year after making a few changes recently......Cliff

Definitely hauling a$$ on a small tire no doubt.

MD,
What fuel did you turn those #'s on?
What were your 60' times ?
On those tires, that's down right impressive!

93 pump gas. I think it was Rutter's gas in PA. Just your average everyday quick-rip gas station gas.

60' was 2.057 seconds.

The power is in the heads! The Torker II helped too. ;) 239 CFM and 3860 lbs tells the story.

Just to add some more clarity so you can see the difference in work between the 455 at 4,000, and the 400 at 6,000 RPM.


1 HP=550 ft-lb of WORK PER SECOND.

That means 380 HP is 550*380=209,000 ft-lb of WORK per second.
That means 400 HP is 550*400=220,000 ft-lb of WORK per second.

So a little more info is always good, eh? Now we see how much work each motor is doing per second at their respective RPM.

...but 9 times out of 10, people WANT the BIG 455 and BIG TORQUE!! LOL

He'd have to figure in DA. The conditions on that time slip are at or slightly below sea level. In our neck of the woods at this time of the year add 3 to 5 tenth and subtract 3 to 5 MPH. Just about what my car ran pure stock 25 years ago.

I guess once we see the first run time slip at 3860 lbs we can squabble over the finer technicalities. I have nothing to lose. :D

Pontiac 400's are awesome engines.
Chevy world figured that out years ago. What many have not figured out is, instead of building a stroker 383, w/ a 3.75" stroke rank, they NEED to go ahead and use the ahem "stroker" block also (4.125 or larger) and unshroud those valves.

Back to subject:
It takes a lot to make a 400 produce 600 ft/lb of torque, like a 455 can, easily. Two different animals..both good engines...

Cliff,
What's the break in procedure for the coated cam?? I assume the coating is the break in lube/barrier???

Not going to do anything "special" for the coated cam. It's around 140 Rockwell, and surface finish is equivalent to 10W-30 motor oil, so shouldn't need much in the way of "break-in".....Cliff

So, if a diamond is the hardest substance known to man, and they are 100 on the Rockwell "C" scale, then how do they make something 140? 100 is the hardest anything could ever possibly get. DLC coating is pretty much a bulletproof coating, and will work good. NASCAR been doing that for years, and with the lifters also.

Must be pretty hard stuff then!

I'm just hoping it stays put, and works like they tell me its going to.

This company was also hired to do the top end parts for the new VW diesel engines, as they were having issues with them, and having to run more oil to the top end. With the coated parts no more issues or special oiling procedures needed.

We're going to test the theory for sure......Cliff

Coating eliminates need for moly lube on cam and lifters?

Posted on SpeedTalk...

"A local veteran suddenly couldn't get out of the shop without the new cams failing. This was also about the time that the zinc started disappearing though we didn't realize it at the time. Took a shot and applied the coating. Worked like a charm. Been doing some for him ever since. This new stuff might be even better. Will have to study."

Here is one of many examples:

http://www.gearsolutions.com/article...ear-resistance


.

LOTS of opinions on why flat cams started failing all of a sudden. Reduce trace metal in lube oil, "soft" cam cores, Johnson going out of business and "offshore" lifters being substituted, "aggressive" lobe profiles, etc.

I really think to this day Johnson going under was the cause, as the imported lifters weren't crowned correctly, and weren't spinning when in service. They may have been "soft" as well.

It doesn't help that some cam companies got really aggressive with opening/closing velocities.

In any case, we went exclusively to roller cams when this first started. I'm still a big fan of flat camshafts, and about saving money, so we're going to try coating flat cams for some of our engines. If nothing else I'll sleep better at night, as I really hate putting a flat cammed engine together then wondering if it's going to "scrub" a lobe before we get 50 miles on it!......Cliff

The DLC coated NASCAR cup lifters I saw showed no signs of wear at all. They looked brand new still after racing them.

Paul,they changed lifters after every race!They all now run rollers and I know they dont run them very long either.I have been trying to find out why they dont run a bushed lifter like the RedZones as they are supposed to be the best?Tom