[ksgto]

My machine shop finally after 6 months of waiting finally got the 400 rebuilt for the gto. I purchased everything for this motor through Butler performance they where great to work with. Now it's a 461 cu in on the dyno it hit 509.9 torque lbs with 402.9 Hp have a street fighter trans w/ 355 posi rear end.Should be able to pick up the motor this next week probably will be another 4 weeks before I can get it in the car.Now I'll need to figure out how to measure the drive shaft to have it cut down. Would post some pics but it's not working

[ponjohn]

What cam and heads?

[Motor Daddy]

I think you made a mistake, you should have used the "" instead of the "."

You'd think that a stroker kit would've made more power than a 400 with unported factory heads, wouldn't you?

[BruceWilkie]

Would be interesting to know specs before passing judgement MD.

[Motor Daddy]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

Would be interesting to know specs before passing judgement MD.

What's the point? He installed a stroker kit and made less power than a 400 with factory unported heads with a 60916. There's nothing left to discuss.

Where is Eric M. when you need him?

[Skip Fix]

It all depends on the dyno. A "conservative" dyno like my last shops read close to the Moroso slide number for the weight/mph. A 385 HP RAIV 400 low to mid 12s @ 108 in a 3950 lbs car with full exhaust. A RAIV style cam with fairly stock heads that would be a decent number.

But yes if it was on a blow smoke up your a$$ generous dyno that the motor "can't run the numbers"

[GREATGTO]

are his heads ported? If his heads arent ported id say the numbers are correct, plus not many 400's make 509 ft lbs, thats what the increased stroke of his engine gained him if everythng else is equal with a 400 with stock heads . Now if his heads are ported Id say he has a problem somewhere unless his cam is very small

[ksgto]

The heads are 670. I don't have the paper work on all the items for it intel I pick up the motor. This is for a daily driver car I didn't want a large cam in it.The machine shop was to port the heads and intake HOW much was done I don't know yet. They did say the dyno was on the low side. Accoriding to the numbers on the block with the old factory heads it only produced 325 hp.

[gtofreek]

Originally Posted by motor-daddy

I think you made a mistake, you should have used the "" instead of the "."

You'd think that a stroker kit would've made more power than a 400 with unported factory heads, wouldn't you?

Yeah, but for all you know, he has a 204/214 cam and stock 2 bbl heads. For that, I would say 400 HP and 510 ft. lbs. isn't too bad. Now if he had aftermarket heads and a roller cam, I would agree with you!

[BVR421]

Originally Posted by ksgto

This is for a daily driver car I didn't want a large cam in it.

There is his important info!
KSGTO has 500+ ft lbs just about anywhere above idle! That is street fun!

When I putter around on the streets I could care less about big HP numbers, its big torque I want.

where does a cammed up 400 have to spin to hit 500lbs torque?

One can be as fun as the other especially with a 4sp, I guess it depends on each persons style.

670 heads with a 461? Lets hope you used some dished pistons!
BTW, the original factory hp number for your block means absolutely nothing.

[Motor Daddy]

So let me get this straight. Pay big bucks to have a stroker engine built, and use a 204/214 cam with 2bbl heads with small valves, probably using a 2bbl carb, but try and make more torque so you can fry the street tires even more on the street, but not concerned with more power??


Lost 1, this is Lost 3, are you lost too, over?
BS

[1qikta]

Originally Posted by GREATGTO

are his heads ported? If his heads arent ported id say the numbers are correct, plus not many 400's make 509 ft lbs, thats what the increased stroke of his engine gained him if everythng else is equal with a 400 with stock heads . Now if his heads are ported Id say he has a problem somewhere unless his cam is very small

This hit the nail on the head...

[gtofreek]

M/D, I have no idea of his combo! And neither do you! I only used those numbers as a point of reference. Since NONE of us know his entire combo, it's pointless to say it's a disappointing build. It just may not be a high HP build. Did any stock 455's from Pontiac make 400 HP? I think not. I'm sure his engine will be real fun to drive.

Why does any engine build have to be high HP numbers in order to post it? The guys happy with his build and that's what counts. He's not here trying to brag about having the highest HP engine on the planet. He's merely stating his engine for those interested. Personally, I'm always interested in these things whether they are 1000 HP or 200 HP. Doesn't really matter. Whether the owner is happy with it or not is ALL that matters!

[Motor Daddy]

I couldn't care less how much power he made. My point was that he installed a stroker kit and made less power than a 400 with unported heads and a relatively small (221/229/112) 60916 cam.

I'm not mocking his engine or HP, nor should he take it personally. To each his own. I am merely pointing out from (many) previous debates about this subject that this is another example of a larger CID engine (stroker kit installed) that doesn't make as much power as a smaller engine with stock heads and intake.

Adding ported heads only makes my point even more, as that should make even more power.

[Tim Corcoran]

The car is a DAILY DRIVER so I think he did a great job of not turing the car into a thrashing machine. The car should be fun to drive get decent mileage when compared to big cam low gear hot rods. Sounds like plenty of power to smoke the tires and move on out when needed. I say great job!!!

Tim C

[Motor Daddy]

Originally Posted by Tim Corcoran

The car is a DAILY DRIVER so I think he did a great job of not turing the car into a thrashing machine. The car should be fun to drive get decent mileage when compared to big cam low gear hot rods. Sounds like plenty of power to smoke the tires and move on out when needed. I say great job!!!

Tim C

So put a 2 bbl manifold and carb on it, use exhaust manifolds with a crossover and single exhaust, and cruise with good gas mileage if it's so important to be a daily driver. Afterall, HP is not important, it's how good it'll smoke the tires with a open rear and 2 series rear gear.

I love it how now, the important thing is street manners.

Street manners shmanners, the stroker made less power than a 400 with stock heads and intake, bottom line.

[gtofreek]

Originally Posted by motor-daddy

I couldn't care less how much power he made. My point was that he installed a stroker kit and made less power than a 400 with unported heads and a relatively small (221/229/112) 60916 cam.

I'm not mocking his engine or HP, nor should he take it personally. To each his own. I am merely pointing out from (many) previous debates about this subject that this is another example of a larger CID engine (stroker kit installed) that doesn't make as much power as a smaller engine with stock heads and intake.

Adding ported heads only makes my point even more, as that should make even more power.

Well it's a known fact that in relatively stock configuration, a short stroke engine is always going to HP better than a long stroke engine, all else equal. But, the long stroke engine is going to out torque the short stroke engine. I bet the 400 you speak of didn't make 500 ft. lbs. of torque either. Torque is power too. It all depends on how you look at it. The rest of the combo can dictate which way the go. On the street, a heavy car will accelerate faster with a long stroke engine than it will with a short stroke engine, all else being equal. Horse power is not everything. It's all relevant. After all HP IS [torque x rpm devided by 5252]. All I'm saying is they both have their place. You and I have been down this road many times before so I am not interested in rehashing that on this guys thread, so lets just let it be.

You kind of have the mind set of an old employer of mine. While dynoing his engine, the dyno console had a torque gauge and an rpm scale and my ex-employer said " where's da HP scale?" I said, "there isn't one because the dyno measures engine torque, then you multiply that by the rpm it was attained at and devide by 5252 and that is your HP." He replied " well, I know dat, but where's da HP scale?"

[Motor Daddy]

Originally Posted by gtofreek

On the street, a heavy car will accelerate faster with a long stroke engine than it will with a short stroke engine, all else being equal.

WARNING!!! FALSE STATEMENT.

Stop it. You're digging yourself deeper.

Originally Posted by gtofreek

You kind of have the mind set of an old employer of mine. While dynoing his engine, the dyno console had a torque gauge and an rpm scale and my ex-employer said " where's da HP scale?" I said, "there isn't one because the dyno measures engine torque, then you multiply that by the rpm it was attained at and devide by 5252 and that is your HP." He replied " well, I know dat, but where's da HP scale?"

Don't even get me started on torque.

I'll stop now, as I've made the point I wanted to make. Just another example of bigger is not better.

[Tim Corcoran]

Hey Motordaddy, this is the STREET forum.

Tim C

[Motor Daddy]

Originally Posted by Tim Corcoran

Hey Motordaddy, this is the STREET forum.

Tim C

So what's your point, that a stroker is more streetable, but makes less power?

Good, we agree!