SBC vs BBC.

[Durango_Boy]

Okay, lets look at small blocks VS big blocks, but using similar displacements.

Say, the 'W' block 348, vs the SBC 350.

Power to weight ratio goes in favor of the small block, but does the big block make more lower end torque because of the differences in bore and stroke?

Still on to another 'W' big block, the 409, compared to a bored SBC 400.

The 400 is known for it's low end grunt...and how does that compare to the option the 409 gives you...excluding the huge handicap or cost to build.

Feel free to discuss other similar displacement between the BBC and SBC divisions.

[Vettezuki]

Okay, lets look at small blocks VS big blocks, but using similar displacements.

Say, the 'W' block 348, vs the SBC 350.

Power to weight ratio goes in favor of the small block, but does the big block make more lower end torque because of the differences in bore and stroke?

Still on to another 'W' big block, the 409, compared to a bored SBC 400.

The 400 is known for it's low end grunt...and how does that compare to the option the 409 gives you...excluding the huge handicap or cost to build.

Feel free to discuss other similar displacement between the BBC and SBC divisions.

Mmm, fascinating question I don't know the answer to. At first I thought it'd be almost completely a function of bore/stroke, but then I thought, hey, the heads and intake you can put on a BBC are quite different aren't they? I'm really guessing, but maybe back in the Paleozoic era before they had trick computer models for optimizing head flow, the larger heads and intake (w/ typically longer runners?) on a BBC would inherently tend towards better breathing and torque on otherwise similar displacements. :huh: This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm sure BRUTAL64 might have some input on this subject. :rolling:

[Durango_Boy]

Mmm, fascinating question I don't know the answer to. At first I thought it'd be almost completely a function of bore/stroke, but then I thought, hey, the heads and intake you can put on a BBC are quite different aren't they? I'm really guessing, but maybe back in the Paleozoic era before they had trick computer models for optimizing head flow, the larger heads and longer runners (typically ?) on a BBC would tend towards better torque on otherwise similar displacements. :huh: This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm sure BRUTAL64 might have some input on this subject. :rolling:


You have some good insight, but another factor to consider is compression. Big blocks tend to have much higher compression and much larger cams. That plays a lot into it, combined with a bore and stroke, might make it a winner over a small block of similar displacement.

[Vettezuki]

You have some good insight, but another factor to consider is compression. Big blocks tend to have much higher compression and much larger cams. That plays a lot into it, combined with a bore and stroke, might make it a winner over a small block of similar displacement.

What was the largest Gen I SBC from the factory?

[Durango_Boy]

What was the largest Gen I SBC from the factory?


The 400 was the biggest to my knowledge. It can be stroked out to close to 450 I THINK...I don't remember.

My 400 block is bored +.020 and will use stock crank and rods for a final of a 6.6L 405.

[Vettezuki]

The 400 was the biggest to my knowledge. It can be stroked out to close to 450 I THINK...I don't remember.

My 400 block is bored +.020 and will use stock crank and rods for a final of a 6.6L 405.

I know BRUTAL64 has a 400 in his Vette (http://www.motorgen.com/garage/showvehicle.php?vid=116), and it's a SBC. As I recall he chose that displacement primarily because of the exhaust valve size he could use . . . :huh:. Imma gonna PM him to get in this thread.

[Durango_Boy]

Yeah I chose my SBC 400 because I like displacement and I like torque.

I did a roller retrofit so it's a roller engine and I had even more cam choices.

I chose some -12.5cc dish pistons to go with the 64cc heads to give me a final static CR of 10.15:1. The heads are aluminum Vortec heads with 200cc intake runners and larger valves.

I'm putting on an Air Gap Vortec manifold with a 750 cfm carb, and sticking the whole thing in front of a TH2004R for a nice low RPM while cruising.

I'm hoping for about 450 HP at the wheels.

[enkeivette]

If the BB had a larger bore and a shorter stroke wouldn't it be a better platform for higher rpms?

The difference would be marginal. Probably just a matter of where which engine saw peak torque. HotRod did an article on this a while ago, two similar displacements, different bores and strokes. The power was similar but one developed the power sooner. Thought it was actually the engine with the 0longer stroke surprisingly, but I don't remember so I'll keep my mouth shut.

I'm with VZ on this one. If you were able to get similar heads/ comp/ intake flow then the difference would only be a matter of where the engines developed max power. But seeing as how BB heads typically flow much more air and the cam profiles are consequently bigger. If you have the money, and are willing to live with the weight penalty, my money would be on the big block.

[enkeivette]

And sorry DB, but if I were you I'd expect to see 450 at the engine, if that. Engines always make less power than expected, especially after they put that power through a C3 IRS.

Let me find the quote:
"Dynos are typically heartbreakers for those owners whose motors were never before tuned on a dyno... A good deal of the testing was done with large volume long tube type headers with open exhaust. Fantastic numbers are seen under these condtions but how close to real world power was an engine dyno under these conditions?" -Richard (Magnaflow Rep)

[BRUTAL64]

Interesting thread.

First you can NOT compare a "W" engine to a SB or BBC. Why you ask. That is simple there is NO combustion camber in the head.:rolleyes:
The deck is cut at an angle and the pistons are wedge shaped in the crown. So why does it not compare to other chevy engines????
GM used the 348 TRUCK engine because at the time that was the ONLY BIG BLOCK it had. So it was a stop gap measure. Early in it's Hipo development GM discovered -because of it strange chamber combo- that cam timing/specs were unique to this type engine. So the "W" was not easy to build for horsepower. Yes the the 409 was fast but limited to what could be done horsepower wise. That why the Mark IV was built.

400 ci is the biggest production SBC. First GEN !
The reason I used it was because of it's 4 1/8 inch bore. Easy to make horsepower.

BB vs SB -- that is not so easy. BBC has bigger bore spacing thus more cubic inches and larger ports. Also rod ratio is a little better-- but that is not a big point in a street engine.

SBC is lighter and with all the after market stuff -- can be made to make as much horse power as you want.

Which one is better--- do you like your women with BIG BOOBS or smaller compact boobs. :thumbs_up:

[BRUTAL64]

The 400 was the biggest to my knowledge. It can be stroked out to close to 450 I THINK...I don't remember.

My 400 block is bored +.020 and will use stock crank and rods for a final of a 6.6L 405.



Do not use the stock rods for a 400 sb.

[Durango_Boy]

Do not use the stock rods for a 400 sb.


Too late. I had them rebuilt and awaiting new pistons and no more budget room for new rods. The engine won't ever see screaming high RPMs.

[enkeivette]

Which one is better--- do you like you women with BIG BOOBS or smaller compact boobs. :thumbs_up:

Good analogy, for enough money they can be made to do whatever you want. :rolling::banburn::bananallama:

[BRUTAL64]

Too late. I had them rebuilt and awaiting new pistons and no more budget room for new rods. The engine won't ever see screaming high RPMs.


That's unfortunate. The stock 400 rods are limited in strenght-even less that the stock 5.7 rod. The rods were never designed for over 4,500 rpm. They are too short to make any good torque over 4,500 rpm. :crutches:

[Durango_Boy]

That's unfortunate. The stock 400 rods are limited in strenght-even less that the stock 5.7 rod. The rods were never designed for over 4,500 rpm. They are too short to make any good torque over 4,500 rpm. :crutches:


Yeah I found out all about that after I had the work done. The only thing left is I'm waiting for the pistons. Had I not already had ARP studs installed and everything rebuilt I would consider upgrading the rods.

[BRUTAL64]

Yeah I found out all about that after I had the work done. The only thing left is I'm waiting for the pistons. Had I not already had ARP studs installed and everything rebuilt I would consider upgrading the rods.


Scat Rods $285.OO. 7/16 cap screw bolts---good to 700 hp. Pretty damn things, too pretty to put in an engine. Got them in my 400 -- I used the 6".:thumbs_up:

One of the things about this rod is it is for stroker engines-- will clear cam with no work--perfect fit.

[enkeivette]

SBC 405
Roller Retrofit
64cc Aluminum Vortec Heads (200cc Intake Runners.)
10.15:1 Static CR
Crane 119661 Roller Cam - I292 - E300 - Dur .50 - 230 / 238 @ 112 - LI.539 - LE.558

Don't think that motor will make too much power for the stock rods. If you stay away from boost and nitrous it should be fine. I wouldn't run anything but forged parts in any performance motor because I'm paranoid, but realistically I don't think you'll run into problems.

Glenn, H or I? I have the Forged Scat 6" H rods in my humble lil mouse.

[BRUTAL64]

Don't think that motor will make too much power for the stock rods. If you stay away from boost and nitrous it should be fine. I wouldn't run anything but forged parts in any performance motor because I'm paranoid, but realistically I don't think you'll run into problems.

Glenn, H or I? I have the Forged Scat 6" H rods in my humble lil mouse.

I've got the "I" Rods. This 400 is a test motor for rod lenght and Hyper pistons. Just a cheap 475 hp+ motor ( according to the computer it is 536 hp:D ). The next motor is going to be the "trick" setup. Funny thing is; I've got this 454 short block sitting in my shop--thinking 496.:smack:

BTW all SBC and BBC stock rods are forged. ;)

[94cobra69ss396]

I wouldn't run anything but forged parts in any performance motor because I'm paranoid, but realistically I don't think you'll run into problems.

I have an Eagle cast crank with 2 bolt mains in the 454 in the Chevelle and it has 2 years of racing on the engine without any issues.

[enkeivette]

200cc Vortec heads and a 230/238 cam will need at least a 100shot of juice to reach 536 flywheel hp, sorry. BTW, desktop dyno said that my motor NA should have been in the 600s, it was actually in the low 400s after tuning... NA. Desktop dyno is a tricky bitch to get accurate numbers from, I even input the head flow data across the lift points.

[Durango_Boy]

200cc Vortec heads and a 230/238 cam will need at least a 100shot of juice to reach 536 flywheel hp, sorry. BTW, desktop dyno said that my motor NA should have been in the 600s, it was actually in the low 400s after tuning... NA. Desktop dyno is a tricky bitch to get accurate numbers from, I even input the head flow data across the lift points.


Yeah I don't put a lot of faith in desktop dyno programs. Realistically I want 400 HP at the wheels, and even more TQ.

[BRUTAL64]

200cc Vortec heads and a 230/238 cam will need at least a 100shot of juice to reach 536 flywheel hp, sorry. BTW, desktop dyno said that my motor NA should have been in the 600s, it was actually in the low 400s after tuning... NA. Desktop dyno is a tricky bitch to get accurate numbers from, I even input the head flow data across the lift points.


I don't have Vortec heads. I have Alum China heads that I ported with the 30 30 cam. NHRA put the 327 fuelie at 425 hp in the 60's. Hell, the 302 Trans AM motors of the late 60s were at 440 hp or there abouts. Yea, 536 hp is a "little":sm_up_there: high but and a big "but" here any good 400 is capable of 450 hp to 475 hp with the right cam and heads.
Yes, computer dynos are a "little" off, but some of the engine builders I have talked to- that have ENGINE dynos -find them to be VERY helpfull checking changes that they are thinking of doing.

Just for fun I took known engine combs -hp figures etc.- and ran it on the computer, using CORRECT flow numbers and specs. I would get figures within 5 to 10 hp. Who knows what is really right. Just go as fast as you can and hope for the best.:judge:

HP figures have ALWAYS been a pain. I've seen guys almost come to blows discussing power figures. :rolleyes:

Beer is always the best way to figure out HP.:p

[Vettezuki]

I don't have Vortec heads. I have Alum China heads that I ported with the 30 30 cam. NHRA put the 327 fuelie at 425 hp in the 60's. Hell, the 302 Trans AM motors of the late 60s were at 440 hp or there abouts. Yea, 536 hp is a "little":sm_up_there: high but and a big "but" here any good 400 is capable of 450 hp to 475 hp with the right cam and heads.
Yes, computer dynos are a "little" off, but some of the engine builders I have talked to- that have ENGINE dynos -find them to be VERY helpfull checking changes that they are thinking of doing.

Just for fun I took known engine combs -hp figures etc.- and ran it on the computer, using CORRECT flow numbers and specs. I would get figures within 5 to 10 hp. Who knows what is really right. Just go as fast as you can and hope for the best.:judge:

HP figures have ALWAYS been a pain. I've seen guys almost come to blows discussing power figures. :rolleyes:

Beer is always the best way to figure out HP.:p


There are only two classes of HP discussions:
1 - Estimation based on combination theory, hopefully supported by mathematical and historical data (of highly variable accuracy). Always take with a grain of salt.

2 - Measuring on a dyno of some kind. But even this has variance depending on type and chassis losses. For example, my motor with a different tune (more aggressive) and different pair of headers made 432 WHP in a C5. With my more conservative tune and stock manifolds, but better intake and TB, hasn't cracked 391. That's 40 WHP! . . . Measured.

[big_G]

Horsepower is a function of rpm. If the rods limit the useful rev's to 4,500 to 5,000, then the horsepower will be way down. I bet a hamburger on < 325 rwhp on this combo.:judge:

[Vettezuki]

. . . Beer is always the best way to figure out HP.:p

The "big_G" corollary:

HP is a function of how much beer you've been drinking. :rolling:

[big_G]

The "big_G" corollary:

HP is a function of how much beer you've been drinking. :rolling:
:rolling:

[BRUTAL64]

There are only two classes of HP discussions:
1 - Estimation based on combination theory, hopefully supported by mathematical and historical data (of highly variable accuracy). Always take with a grain of salt.

2 - Measuring on a dyno of some kind. But even this has variance depending on type and chassis losses. For example, my motor with a different tune (more aggressive) and different pair of headers made 432 WHP in a C5. With my more conservative tune and stock manifolds, but better intake and TB, hasn't cracked 391. That's 40 WHP! . . . Measured.

Damn, you take all the fun out of this.:leaving:

[BRUTAL64]

Horsepower is a function of rpm. If the rods limit the useful rev's to 4,500 to 5,000, then the horsepower will be way down. I bet a hamburger on < 325 rwhp on this combo.:judge:


So true. But rwhp is tricky. A function of friction.:laugh:

[enkeivette]

I don't have Vortec heads. I have Alum China heads that I ported with the 30 30 cam. NHRA put the 327 fuelie at 425 hp in the 60's. Hell, the 302 Trans AM motors of the late 60s were at 440 hp or there abouts. Yea, 536 hp is a "little":sm_up_there: high but and a big "but" here any good 400 is capable of 450 hp to 475 hp with the right cam and heads.
Yes, computer dynos are a "little" off, but some of the engine builders I have talked to- that have ENGINE dynos -find them to be VERY helpfull checking changes that they are thinking of doing.

Just for fun I took known engine combs -hp figures etc.- and ran it on the computer, using CORRECT flow numbers and specs. I would get figures within 5 to 10 hp. Who knows what is really right. Just go as fast as you can and hope for the best.:judge:

HP figures have ALWAYS been a pain. I've seen guys almost come to blows discussing power figures. :rolleyes:

Beer is always the best way to figure out HP.:p

I was talking about DBs motor, don't really know anything about the H&C in your motor.

And Glenn, that's what I use the program for, checking changes. Lift, boost, header size, etc.

[enkeivette]

Horsepower is a function of rpm. If the rods limit the useful rev's to 4,500 to 5,000, then the horsepower will be way down. I bet a hamburger on < 325 rwhp on this combo.:judge:

What's the stock rod length on a 400sb? Is it a problem from the factory?

DurangoBoy, don't get pissed with the our low hp estimates. I know I prob would have in your situation, just realize that if you want 400+ wheel hp, and that's your goal (not a fun torquey DD) than you might want to consider putting your project on hold till cash permits some more aggressive parts. Because come dyno day, I hate to say it, but you'll likely be disappointed. Either step it up or install some juice along with your new powerplant. But for a DD, I think your setup is pushing the comfort zone as it is.

When HotRod tests these cookbook engines, they test them at the crank, with no accessories, with gigantic open headers. And after hours and days and weeks of tuning, they make some pretty impressive numbers. Numbers that you will never see.

[BRUTAL64]

What's the stock rod length on a 400sb? Is it a problem from the factory?

DurangoBoy, don't get pissed with the our low hp estimates. I know I prob would have in your situation, just realize that if you want 400+ wheel hp, and that's your goal (not a fun torquey DD) than you might want to consider putting your project on hold till cash permits some more aggressive parts. Because come dyno day, I hate to say it, but you'll likely be disappointed. Either step it up or install some juice along with your new powerplant. But for a DD, I think your setup is pushing the comfort zone as it is.

When HotRod tests these cookbook engines, they test them at the crank, with no accessories, with gigantic open headers. And after hours and days and weeks of tuning, they make some pretty impressive numbers. Numbers that you will never see.

Stock 400 rod 5.5 inches. Pluses- quick low end torque.
Negatives -weaker than 5.7, not good after 4,500 and heavy piston side loading.:beer:

[BRUTAL64]

I was talking about DBs motor, don't really know anything about the H&C in your motor.

And Glenn, that's what I use the program for, checking changes. Lift, boost, header size, etc.


Not a problem. Just clearing the air on some things.:)
I know everythng you do is well thought out. If everyone approched engine building the way you do, I'd have nothing to write about. In a lot of ways you remind me of the way I was at your age. :thumbs_up:


Oh, meant that in a GOOD way. :laugh:

[enkeivette]

5.5" ?! No way, that's weak! Step up to the 6" rods DB, I take it back. Or score some junkyard 5.7" rods... if that will work?

[BRUTAL64]

5.5" ?! No way, that's weak! Step up to the 6" rods DB, I take it back. Or score some junkyard 5.7" rods... if that will work?


Yea, the stock5.7 rod will work, but you need to clearence the pan rails and two rod bolts for cam clearerce. I did it by hand in 88. Not real hard.:)


Just easier to get the Scat rods (stroker rod) at 285.00 buxs and be done with it.:thumbs_up:

[enkeivette]

If cash is tight DB drive down to Pick Your Part and spend a few hours under a Chevy truck. A few hours and $30? later... you'll have a better motor.

Don't know if these will work, you need to know the specs, but check it out. 6" rods for $80. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/6-I-BEAM-LG-JOURNAL-RODS-RACECAR-HOTROD-SBC-DIRT-RACE_W0QQitemZ380051017661QQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p 4506.m20.l1116

5.7 Rods, $10 for the set!!!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Set-of-8-Used-Connecting-Rods-SBC-5-7-Large-Journal_W0QQitemZ350085359023QQcmdZViewItem?_trksi d=p4506.m20.l1116

[BRUTAL64]

If cash is tight DB drive down to Pick Your Part and spend a few hours under a Chevy truck. A few hours and $30? later... you'll have a better motor.

Don't know if these will work, you need to know the specs, but check it out. 6" rods for $80. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/6-I-BEAM-LG-JOURNAL-RODS-RACECAR-HOTROD-SBC-DIRT-RACE_W0QQitemZ380051017661QQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p 4506.m20.l1116

5.7 Rods, $10 for the set!!!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Set-of-8-Used-Connecting-Rods-SBC-5-7-Large-Journal_W0QQitemZ350085359023QQcmdZViewItem?_trksi d=p4506.m20.l1116

If you do it that way, this is what you look for. Late sixies thru late 70s "X", "B" or "O" rod. Stay away from the Mexican "X" rod with the large flat on the side bolt boss. Some 305s and 307s used the "B" rod. :popcorn:


FYI; The most common rod used for the PINK rod is the "B" rod.

[Durango_Boy]

5.7 Rods, $10 for the set!!!
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Set-of-8-Used-Connecting-Rods-SBC-5-7-Large-Journal_W0QQitemZ350085359023QQcmdZViewItem?_trksi d=p4506.m20.l1116


So what's the reason why those rods...good price by the way...would be better than my 400 rods?

I happen to have a set of forged L82 rods from a 1974 L82 engine...would those be better for my 405?

I'll assume they might not be large journal, but I don't know without measuring.

[enkeivette]

Because I guess apparently the stock 400 rods were only 5.5" rods that short with a 3.75" stroke will side load the pistons too much. You'll have increased wear on the cylinder walls, piston rings, and maybe even poor oil control. Also, a longer rod increases dwell at TDC, increasing high rpm hp.

If those L82 rods measure up, use em.

[big_G]

Don't forget that pistons must match rod length for correct pin placement. 5.5-5.7 and 6.0 inch rods use different pistons. If you already have pistons for the 5.5 rod, they will only work with a 5.5 rod.

[BRUTAL64]

So what's the reason why those rods...good price by the way...would be better than my 400 rods?

I happen to have a set of forged L82 rods from a 1974 L82 engine...would those be better for my 405?

I'll assume they might not be large journal, but I don't know without measuring.
Large journal.
I have a 75 L82 engine on the floor in my shop. It has pink rods. Look at your rods carefully--pink in good.:judge:

[Vettezuki]

Large journal.
I have a 75 L82 engine on the floor in my shop. It has pink rods. Look at your rods carefully--pink in good.:judge:

You mean the rods are actually pink?

[BRUTAL64]

You mean the rods are actually pink?

Yep, painted pink-Bright PINK. Can't miss them though.:sm_laughing:

[Durango_Boy]

Don't forget that pistons must match rod length for correct pin placement. 5.5-5.7 and 6.0 inch rods use different pistons. If you already have pistons for the 5.5 rod, they will only work with a 5.5 rod.


I haven't got my pistons yet...they are on back order, and considering how hard it is to find -12.5cc dish pistons for a +.020 400, I can't imagine how hard it would be to find that same piston for a 5.7".

[BRUTAL64]

I haven't got my pistons yet...they are on back order, and considering how hard it is to find -12.5cc dish pistons for a +.020 400, I can't imagine how hard it would be to find that same piston for a 5.7".

The problem is the .020 over. If it was .030 it would be no problem.:(

Back in 88 I just cut .135 of the top of a stock 400 piston for the 5.7 rod. Done.;)

[enkeivette]

Someone has them, for a 6 if not a 5.7. No excuses, get er done... right!

[Durango_Boy]

Someone has them, for a 6 if not a 5.7. No excuses, get er done... right!


The set I am waiting on from Summit is not much more than $200 for the set of 8. The only other set I found for my engine was twice the price from a different company. As I said, if it's that hard to find the piston I designed the engine for, then using a different length rod will make it REALLY hard and I am not about to take the engine block back and have it bored +.030 when I already have pistons on the way. :huh:

[BRUTAL64]

The set I am waiting on from Summit is not much more than $200 for the set of 8. The only other set I found for my engine was twice the price from a different company. As I said, if it's that hard to find the piston I designed the engine for, then using a different length rod will make it REALLY hard and I am not about to take the engine block back and have it bored +.030 when I already have pistons on the way. :huh:

What we have trying to tell you is, do it right the first time. I've had 400s with 5.5, 5.7 and 6 inch rods. ANYTHING Hiperformance should have at least a 5.7 rod.
Yes, your engine will run. It will have lots of LOW end torque. If you can be happy with that. Then, by all means, don't change a thing.:bigthumbsup:

[Durango_Boy]

What we have trying to tell you is, do it right the first time. I've had 400s with 5.5, 5.7 and 6 inch rods. ANYTHING Hiperformance should have at least a 5.7 rod.
Yes, your engine will run. It will have lots of LOW end torque. If you can be happy with that. Then, by all means, don't change a thing.:bigthumbsup:


Ironically I prefer low end torque, and I like cruising more than anything. I will sometimes play with it and get crazy but I hardly ever go much past 3500 - 4000 RPM, and with that I'm expecting from the 400 I likely won't go much higher than that with it either. I don't ever race, just drive and cruise and have fun.

[TimAT]

Not a thing wrong with low end torque. I can't say that I have enough, there's always room for improvement.

I think what everyone is trying to say here is that with the 400 rods (5.5) that the loads on the cylinder walls can get too high and cause a failure, of either the wall or the piston. Either one will be bad!

I've been looking/reading about this quite a bit- I have a perfectly good set of BB 6.135 rods, but I'm looking at building a 496 too. The recommended rod for that one is 6.385- and from what I've read, it's pretty much all about cylinder loading.

[Durango_Boy]

Just to update everyone, I actually did go with 5.7" rods. Either I missed it in the description or it wasn't listed, but the new pistons I ordered need a 5.7" rod. I had the new pistons put on the new rods and have them installed. I had no block clearance problems and I won't know if I have cam clearance problems until the cam is ordered and test fitted.

[BRUTAL64]

Not a thing wrong with low end torque. I can't say that I have enough, there's always room for improvement.

I think what everyone is trying to say here is that with the 400 rods (5.5) that the loads on the cylinder walls can get too high and cause a failure, of either the wall or the piston. Either one will be bad!

I've been looking/reading about this quite a bit- I have a perfectly good set of BB 6.135 rods, but I'm looking at building a 496 too. The recommended rod for that one is 6.385- and from what I've read, it's pretty much all about cylinder loading.

I didn't know you could read.

So when is the 496 going to happen? Not that I'm in a hurry, but...... ok I am.:sm_laughing:

[BRUTAL64]

Just to update everyone, I actually did go with 5.7" rods. Either I missed it in the description or it wasn't listed, but the new pistons I ordered need a 5.7" rod. I had the new pistons put on the new rods and have them installed. I had no block clearance problems and I won't know if I have cam clearance problems until the cam is ordered and test fitted.


Just about any cam with over 480 lift is going to hit a couple of rod bolts on the 5.7 rod. That's why I went with the Scat stroker rods. No problem with these. :bigthumbsup:

[Durango_Boy]

Just about any cam with over 480 lift is going to hit a couple of rod bolts on the 5.7 rod. That's why I went with the Scat stroker rods. No problem with these. :bigthumbsup:


I certainly don't mind grinding the rods. I have access to some reference materials to help me get them to clear before I take them to the machine shop where they will re-balance everything.

[BRUTAL64]

I certainly don't mind grinding the rods. I have access to some reference materials to help me get them to clear before I take them to the machine shop where they will re-balance everything.

Well, actually, you don't grind the rods--you grind the top edge of the rod bolt. I did it in 88 and didn't like it then. That's why the Scat rods.:drink:

[Durango_Boy]

Well, actually, you don't grind the rods--you grind the top edge of the rod bolt. I did it in 88 and didn't like it then. That's why the Scat rods.:drink:


Yeah I know, I guess that was just how I worded it. I have a set of old rods I'm going to practice on and I have a good amount of pictures and PDF instructions to read through.

[TimAT]

I didn't know you could read.

I can't, but I do look at the pictures.

So when is the 496 going to happen? Not that I'm in a hurry, but...... ok I am.:sm_laughing:

As soon as I get my cash flow back. It got a little more than tight when my kid booted her sperm donor to the curb.

[BRUTAL64]

As soon as I get my cash flow back. It got a little more than tight when my kid booted her sperm donor to the curb.

Sperm donor is what I do best.:rolling::rolling:


Yea, my money is tight also. Now that I set my starter on fire, another $100 dollars out.

You are my test subject on the roller camed 496. If what we came up with works as good as I expect, then I just might do one. Better your money than mine.:drink::sm_laughing: