CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
Entertain Us - 400 sbc question
- Thread starter Bent77
- Start date
So are we looking for someone that has ran one on a dyno or what the factory rated them at?
Or someone that’s not full of **** like Dave
Who by the way is out on a date with his sweetie and probably won’t defend himself until tomorrow
He may forget all about it at his age.
I'm going with 180 hp SAE net. All accessories, through cast iron manifolds, etc, etc as it was installed in the car. These had shit heads, and weren't designed to be a high performance engine, more of a stepping stone between the regular 350, and the 454 big block.
Think they actually made 400 lb/ft? The 350s used the same cam, and I doubt the low compression ones made 1 per inch there either
Depending on how it was configured I’d guess between 150 - 200hp and around 300 lbft.
Found this on this site. For my truck.
Automobile-Catalog the Catalog of Cars, Car Specs Database
Car Specs Database of hundreds of thousands cars with detailed specifications, technical data and performance data. ProfessCars simulation of car accelerations in road conditions. For each car info on top speed, acceleration times 0-60 mph, 0-100 km/h, 1/4-mile times, detailed photo.
www.automobile-catalog.com
Last edited:
Either way it’s a boat anchor. 
It’s not like they had great heads to breath thru
So the book that I remember reading some specs in was an old "Motors" manual. And as I said, it was only the first year, 1970, of the 400 SB that had the torque value close to, or at 400ft/lbs.
Maybe it wasn't 400, can't remember exactly. Still, it was better than the 350 of the same year.
Not that I can remember when the change happened in the rating method back then..
Glad to see the smart-a$$ crew is bored and posting!!!
Maybe it wasn't 400, can't remember exactly. Still, it was better than the 350 of the same year.
Not that I can remember when the change happened in the rating method back then..
Glad to see the smart-a$$ crew is bored and posting!!!
Why are you posting here and not somewhere else?So the book that I remember reading some specs in was an old "Motors" manual. And as I said, it was only the first year, 1970, of the 400 SB that had the torque value close to, or at 400ft/lbs.
Maybe it wasn't 400, can't remember exactly. Still, it was better than the 350 of the same year.
Not that I can remember when the change happened in the rating method back then..
Glad to see the smart-a$$ crew is bored and posting!!!
Still stand by the premise that a 350 with a roller cam and 9.5:1 will outpull a stock 400. Not too sure most stock 350s won’t…
Ands what the bent one is ignoring is I didn't give a crap about the horsepower number, just the torque and the rpm that it peaked at. Midrange torque. Period.
No, they didn't have great heads, but look at the torque numbers and the torque peak rpm of the Olds, Buick and Cadillac engines of the late sixties and 1970.
I have two we could put together and test if we find a money man to sponsor it.
Got home already.. it is Monday night.
And yes, I agree, up until you talk stock 350 vs stock 400 of the same year. 2500 to 2800 RPM, the 400 will pull a little harder on torque. Wind them both up farther and then the difference goes away.
I had one of theses 400 s in a 72 3/4 ton and I’m sure my 305 would out pull it.
How many plug wires were pulled off of the 400?
Nah. 400 will run out of air at 3300rpm…
