[Bill Eveland]

I started to pull this apart and it has a few issues i dont care for. The wristpin got loose and wore a groove in the bore. I knew that already but i didnt realize how much core shift this block had. Luckily the groove is at the back so should be the thickest part of the sleeve going off the lifter bore offset.

I was wondering if someone has sonic tested one of these lately and id have to figure in the offset. I was hoping to bore it out whatever it took before sleeving it but may not be an option now. I was figuring on going to 4.185" to clean it up

[steve25]

It would not be a bad thing to offset Bore the whole motor some if need be especially if you need to offset the Bore towards the Intake valve since these 67 blocks all have the Intake valve chamfer in the wrong place for the 14 degree 2.11" valve heads.

These Bore chamfers in the old location for the 389/421 17 degree heads do no good, in fact all they serve to do is lower the compression ratio

It's hard to tell without being there but it looks like that Bore will need to .060" over or be sleeved to get things right!

[hurryinhoosier62]

‘67 400 blocks are like ‘59-‘60 389 blocks: incredibly thick cylinder walls. My ‘59 389 block cylinder walls average .215 on the thrust side, which is more than adequate for a .060 overview if needed. Bruce Wilke had a ‘59 389 block he took to a 4.250 bore (nearly .190 over the stock bore). Just make sure the shop you use is proficient in using ultrasonic testing equipment.

[Dragncar]

Picked up a .060 over 67 2 bolt block with 48 heads, hardened ex seats and bronze guides, P4B and finned Cal Custom valve covers. 50$, score.

[steve25]

All 400 blocks in 67 where 2 bolt, the only block to have a 4 main version that year was the 428 .

[Bill Eveland]

My uncles machinist has taken an early 70's 400 .150 over , I just didn't like the core shift that's pretty obvious.

What is safe to leave on the thrust side if im filling the block to the wp holes .