Register now to get rid of these ads!

acceptable mopar engine choice???

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by tow-jam62, May 18, 2010.

  1. tow-jam62
    Joined: May 18, 2010
    Posts: 10

    tow-jam62
    Member

    what is an acceptable engine for my truck? Besides a Hemi. 383 400 440 ok or not?
     
  2. screwball
    Joined: Mar 5, 2001
    Posts: 1,761

    screwball
    Member

    anything before 1964
     
  3. Whatever's in your budget.
     
  4. tow-jam62
    Joined: May 18, 2010
    Posts: 10

    tow-jam62
    Member

    so the 383 is not a bad choice!
     
  5. roddinron
    Joined: May 24, 2006
    Posts: 2,676

    roddinron
    Member

    Wow, just wow.:(
     
  6. moparjack44
    Joined: Nov 8, 2005
    Posts: 659

    moparjack44
    Member

    383, good engine, IMO. Had 65 Plymouth Belvedere with 383. Good power, very reliable. Ran it hard and long.
     
  7. SinisterCustom
    Joined: Feb 18, 2004
    Posts: 8,277

    SinisterCustom
    Member

    90% of car guys can't tell the diff between the different BB Mopars...so do a 440 (looks same as 413). All BB mopes cost @ the same to rebuild anyway....

    Tony Nancy ran BB Mopars in most of his dragsters throughout the 60's too....and he ruled....
     
  8. Pir8Darryl
    Joined: Jan 9, 2008
    Posts: 2,487

    Pir8Darryl
    Member

    383-440 are basically all the same engine. Below 400 cid is a low deck, over 400 is a tall deck, but same heads, oil pan, distributor, etc, etc.

    The 400 is an interesting animal. 383 stroke with a 440 bore, but because it was a smog era motor that only saw duty in luxo barges, it never gained any type of following within the hot rod community.

    You really cant go wrong with any BB mopar. They're tough as nails, and can be made to produce anything from silky smooth big car torque to outrageous Hemi type power, or anywhere in between.
     
  9. Guess I'm biased, but I think a B block is the way to go.

    -Bill

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  10. I think the 400 was as much a cost cutting move as anything. If both the 400 and 440 have the same bore, that's one less part to manage and inventory.
     
  11. I'd agree with the others. A Mopar B-motor would be the way to fly.
     
  12. Tim Keith
    Joined: Jan 1, 2010
    Posts: 65

    Tim Keith
    Member

    A stock 400 has a .020 larger bore than the 440, 4.34" vs 4.32".
     
  13. codeblu
    Joined: May 11, 2006
    Posts: 606

    codeblu
    Member

    I'm putting a 383 in my 55 F100.
     
  14. Hellvedere Steve
    Joined: Oct 2, 2009
    Posts: 60

    Hellvedere Steve
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Coalfield

    383s kick ass, same with 440s. The only time I would run a 400 is with a stoker kit and a good set of heads. If you are looking for more traditional look then 383 would be the choice. B motors came out before RBs.
     
  15. Actually, the 400 had a bore that was .020 bigger than the 440. Weird, huh?

    A number of guys like the 400 block better because they have a shorter deck, which means a shorter cylinder wall - which flexes slightly less (better ring seal).

    The 383/400 engines commonly have the cranks replaced w/ 4.25" stroke ones that will give 496 or 512 CID with a .060 overbore.

    The 440 block will clear a 4.5" stroke with steel rods and Chev journals (which most stroker setups run). Of course, if you want that rascal to breathe, it's going to take one hell of a set of heads.

    BBM heads came in 2 port configurations: max wedge and standard. The MW port window heads require different manifolds, and are really helpful in 500+ CI combos.

    BTW, there was a 383 tall deck, as well as the more common short deck. It was made in the early 1960's. It had a smaller bore with the 3.75" stroke that all the tall decks had.

    I'd stay away from 361 and RB 383 (tall deck) engines for performance use; they'll take more money for good pistons. And, you want good pistons in a hot big block mopar; their slugs weigh a TON.

    If you find a 413, they're like a 426 with a 1/16" smaller bore. So, if the block is thick, you can cut it for std. 426 pistons. But there won't be a lot of meat left...

    The 426 and 383 engines had a 4.25" bore, so rings are easy in any width and oversize you can think of. The availability for the 4.32" 440 and 4.34" 400 bores are really good as well.

    One common thing that's done is to take the crank out of an RB (413/426/440) engine, and cut the mains down to fit in the B (361-400) block. Another nice touch is to have the crank grinder cut the rod journals 1/8" under to run Chev rod bearings, and use aftermarket 6.535" (.400" long) BBC rods, which cost less than rebuilding stock MoPar rods. And, when the crank is being ground, most guys have the new centerline of the rod journal offset more, to raise the stroke to 3.9".

    This will bring you to 450" with a 383 block, and 470 with a 400 block.

    A lot of guys will say "why bother with a stock crank, when you can get a 4.25" stroker so cheap?"

    Well, are those extra cubes going to make more power? If you're staying with a "906" (standard passenger car) type port window, you can pretty well find the limits of most head castings with a 450-470 inch engine. All the extra inches will do is raise the torque figure, and lower the RPM range. But it won't really make a lot more power And, when you swap to milder gears, because the engine runs out of breath faster, you're not all that far ahead of where you started.

    And, when you cut the rods and mains on your RB core, you can have the crank journals sized toward the bottom side of tolerance, so you can get good clearance with std side bearings. And, you KNOW you're not getting a crank with tapered journals or an off-center snout if you're having a good crank guy cut down a OE piece. And, he can put a reasonable fillet radius in the ends of the journals, so you're not carving goofy chamfers on the edges of bearings.

    Otherwise, you may find that you're spending more $$$ to fix your brand new Chinese crank, buying an expensive set of full-groove B-block mains in .010 under with +.010 width on the thrust, and having to eat the first set of mains you bought, because they've already been chamfered. DAMHIK!

    But for just a street driver, buy a good running 383, and don't look back.

    -Bill
     
  16. teddyp
    Joined: May 28, 2006
    Posts: 3,197

    teddyp
    Member

    not a mopar guy but i always like the 383,s they seem to be a good all around motor
     
  17. Blacktop Graffiti
    Joined: May 2, 2002
    Posts: 964

    Blacktop Graffiti
    Member

    Who cares what's acceptable. Run what you want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  18. 390kid
    Joined: Dec 29, 2004
    Posts: 641

    390kid
    Member

    go with the 383 lots of speed parts and with the dizzy up front its a better fit for the firewall
     
  19. 49ratfink
    Joined: Feb 8, 2004
    Posts: 19,175

    49ratfink
    Member
    from California

    sorry. I don't accept any of those choices. you'll have to find something else.
     
  20. 23reotim
    Joined: Feb 5, 2008
    Posts: 139

    23reotim
    Member
    from arizona

    what about the 360 - 318s. cheap to build, easy to find, fairly light weight, easy to get good power from. Lets not forget the slant 6. 215 ft lbs of torque from the factory. cant kill them.
     
  21. rockable
    Joined: Dec 21, 2009
    Posts: 4,637

    rockable
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Nothing wrong with a SB Mopar, either. Run what you want/need. Not sure need ever fits in the equation, however. :D
     
  22. SinisterCustom
    Joined: Feb 18, 2004
    Posts: 8,277

    SinisterCustom
    Member

    Uhhh.....and the other BB's aren't?:p
     
  23. lippy
    Joined: Sep 27, 2006
    Posts: 6,848

    lippy
    Member
    from Ks

    I vote for a 354 hemi on 90%. Very nice powerband and easy to install. You will need extra upper rod bearings though. :D
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.