Anybody see this in this months issue. In a nut shell the sbc454 made more torque and HP than the BBC at all rpms! They tried to keep everything as equal as possible.

My thinking is the cams. Both engines used similar cams (252/262 @.050 .554 for the BB)
(252/260 @.050 .560/.554 for the SB)

Thats a fairly radical cam for a SB isn't it, and a mild cam for a BB right?

Of course, long-term reliability and driveability not mentioned.

Unless Car Craft just revealed Chevy's dirty little secret...the SB is better tongue.gif

My thinking is the cubes are the same, so the cam's are similar. That cam would be huge in 283.... but not so huge in a 454sb

They also make the statement that the smaller ports create more velocity,soooooooo then,,, would the big block have ate the smallblocks lunch with oval ports and a dual plane intake? Why even use rectal ports after making such a statement? I guess the smallblock needed all the help it could get. Not to mention that the smallblock cost 1500.00 more than the big block. graemlins/thumbsup.gif Its a magazine trying to sell for an advertiser,kinda makes me wish I didnt renew my subscription at the street machine nationals. I imagine the big block would win the longevity contest,hands down!!!

Wouldn't the rotating mass of the SBC assembly be lighter than the BBC? I would think that would make a big difference. Not to mention differences in the head castings and airflow movement. Another thing is whats the price difference in making the 2 engines. I'm sure that SBC wasnt even remotely affordable for most of us poor folk ;)

Did you guys also notice they used 1 3/4" primary headers for both dyno tests? That can't be good for the big block.

I didn't see the article, but will look for it. It would make sense to do everything identical for a good comparison, but the BBC is going to be limited in potential unless the (A) the heads are similiar for port velocity or (B) the engine is large enough to take advantage of the port size. Also, the BBC rotating assembly will be much heavier. Now, to make it fair, take the BBC out to the max bore and stroke for the 454 big block and then compare.

I always liked SBC's, but the BBC is a much more heavy duty piece to start with, no question about it.

The smallblock was maxed out - .150 cylinder wall thickness between siamesed bores! Forget that on the street with any ideas of long term reliability/durability. Big block was factory stock dimensions. Smallblock ran aluminum heads at 220cc runners, big block was iron rect ports at 320. Both ran identical bore and stroke. Other than the obvious head differences (material and dimensions), it was a pretty fair competition.
That said...I'm a big block guy, so I propose a different kind of competition. Rather than set a cubic inch limit, let's take 'em both to the max. The small block is already there, but we'll give it the benefit of the doubt by adding a big solid roller and the biggest heads we can find and a Dominator. Now for the big block - since World Products made the small block, let 'em do the same with the big block. Merlin III will go to 4.625" bores with .250 cylinder wall thickness (MUCH more durable). 4.500 stroke with little or no added machine work. To keep it fair, we'll stick with conventional heads, no Big Duke or Big Chief stuff. Biggest World heads are aluminum 345 Merlins and they'll actually choke it a bit on the top end, but will be great for street torque. Big lumpy solid roller and a 1250 Dominator. Now they're both maxed out (unless you look to a tall deck or superblock from World - 700+ cubes, but that's another story). Small block is 454 ci. Big block is 605 and has stock splayed valves plus that monster bore where it can really breathe. Pump gas, that monster should hit awfully close to 1000 hp and will run for years - IF you can afford to feed it.
This was still probably the fairest of all the competitions I've seen in these magazines, IMHO.

Hey, speaking of mag egines, I REALLY like Tony N.'s 427 " Budget Big Block " in the latest CHP. OK, so it only did 500 hp, but it's in a really, really conservative and potentially long-running assembly.

Nice 427 Tony!

Re the mouse v rat comparo..... it's the same conclusion we always get to in the rat v mouse arguements, to wit, for a given level of power, you can usually build the rat a bit less expensively and more reliably due to displacement. USUALLY!

And Bob's right, they should have used similarly-sized ports in the rat. I suspect then the rat would have made more tq and the mouse more hp.

I thought it was interesting... same bore and stroke, same cams.... the only big difference (besides reliability/streetability) is the heads. Everyone points out that the reason BB's make more power for given cubes is the heads are bigger. So in this case, shouldn't the bigger BB heads have made the BB come out on top torque and hp wise?

I do agree thopugh, that the BB would have more durability.... and for less cost. I thought it an interesting comparo anyway. smile.gif

Originally posted by bulb122:
...So in this case, shouldn't the bigger BB heads have made the BB come out on top torque and hp wise?...That fact that they didn't lends credence to the "BSE" philosophy.

Don't you guys think they should have used a "smaller" head on the BB? Something like the Merlins w/269cc. That would be closer to the 220 of the SB.

No, I didn't like the 427 build. For one he didn't use torque plates when he honed the bores and he didn't buy my brand new never used 502 7/16 rods off of me for 250 dollars, lol.

Looks like one big advertisement for Bill Mitchell to me. Anybody pay attention to how they explained away the 35hp drop from the 610hp the sb dyno'd the 1st time around? An erroneous barometer reading lead to an incorrect (but generous) correction factor.=Good for Mitchell.

The big block won't cost $9000 to duplicate unless you buy the 454 HO shortblock,and I wouldn't spend that much money on a shortblock to change pistons.
On another note for the big block,heads are too big,cam has alot of duration and not enough lift,etc.
Interesting article though.
If you compare dollars to dollars,you can build quite the big block for the small block 454's $10,500 price..and put it to shame.
JMHO

Originally posted by mr 4 speed:
If you compare dollars to dollars,you can build quite the big block for the small block 454's $10,500 price..and put it to shame.
JMHO You're right, Chris! graemlins/thumbsup.gif
I don't even have anywhere near that much in the 540.

Haven't read the article but you know better than to believe anything a mag writes about an advertisers product. Next week they will be pushing someones BB and it will make 200 more HP than the one in the article with the same parts.

that was the lamest comparo ever. I think all they wanted to do was advertise the 454 small block, so they put it up against a lame BBC. 320 CC ports! those heads don't flow very well either, My AFR 305CC's flow like 60 more CFM. witha 15CC smaller port, i think they built a unmatched lame Big block. They put a mild hydraulic cam, small headers/carb/intake, and then put a set of crappy huge non flowing heads on it. did anyone also notice that the small block heads had CNC chambers? With a better set of heads that BB could of made 75 horse. Even a set of GM oval ports stock would of made more power.

Three comments:

First, rotating weight… with the same bore and stroke and approximately the same cam duration and lift, I would presume (because I haven't seen the article) that they used approximately the same piston compression height and therefore the same length rods. Therefore if the sbc rotating weight was lighter, then you have to chalk that up as a plus for the sbc design.

Second, header size… cubic inches are not the deciding factor here, power is! The header’s job is to evacuate the spent gases from the combustion chamber. Now, since the power you make is a function of the amount of fuel that you burn and the amount of spent gases to be expelled is a function of the amount of fuel burned times the air/fuel ratio, the header size should be determined by the power made. You can draw conclusions that xxx horsepower requires a yyy primary tube (without even knowing the engine size or peak rpm), but you can’t say that a specific engine size will always require a specific header size.

Third, heads and cam… making maximum power is a matter of matching up the components (particularly the heads, cam and compression ratio) and it certainly looks like the magazine folks did a crappy job of matching the components for the bbc. BTW, what was the compression ratio for these engines?

I saw it too.... made a good point, even though not very "real-world" like; I doubt anybody would spend that much to max out a small block, and mismatch a big block that bad.

Still, even a well built BB with better optimization than that one, will weigh more than the SB; and it will be .... ummm, BIGGER .... which might not make much difference in some cars (old Chevelles for example) but would be critical in some other chassis. So, I think the point, which was that a SB isn't somehow inherently inferior to a BB, is reasonable. You can get a SB up into BB power territory, if you need to.

And don't forget, the SB wasn't near "optimized" or "maxed out" in terms of heads & cam, either.

they did everything they could to give the sb the advantage, rocker ratio was 1.6 why didn't they go to 1.8 on the bb, among all the other things brought up already. the bb could have been built better for half the price of the sb.
I for one was truely disappointed in Carcraft, they have always stood for getting the most for your dollar, but i guess everyone has there price.
Even with a stacked deck the bb only lost by a very small margin, and if your worried about weight put alumminum heads on the bb and cast iron on the sb and check the weights again, and the only cars the size would be a problem in is a early nova or a vega.
I felt like a ford guy had wrote it.

definately not an apples to apples comparison. you might as well equip a 455 Buick with all the same size parts as a custom made stroker small block Ford. they are not the same engine, so you can't use same size parts and call it even. i had less than half of the $10,500 price tag for the sbc, in my std bore 454, and i'm sure it would've smacked that 454sbc around on the dyno, with iron oval ports. if you are going to use rec port heads, why such a mild camshaft and 1 3/4" headers? basically they showed me how NOT to build a bbc.
all in all the sbc made impressive numbers, but it should for the $10,500 price tag. now imagine what kind of bbc could be built for that much money. how about a 10 to 1 540 with pro 1 heads that will lay down about 200-250hp more than the 454sbc? i know it can be done, because that's about what my buddy has in his 540. and i'm a sbc man, but i'm not ignorant. there comes a point where a sbc is just not as cost effective as a bbc.

CC did a real 408 comparo a few years ago and the SB made more hp on the dyno, but the BB was faster at the strip in the same early 2nd gen camaro.

Originally posted by knudsonm:
CC did a real 408 comparo a few years ago and the SB made more hp on the dyno, but the BB was faster at the strip in the same early 2nd gen camaro. better look that article up again, the bbc beat the sbc in every aspect, torque, hp, and at the strip too. but that was one sick running 408sbc. they later dyno'd a 406sbc with a smaller cam about the same compression and with vortec heads instead of sportsmans, and it made about 75hp more. go figure....that 408sbc was seriously hindered by something..... :confused:

I can't ever pass up an opportunity to follow up on billy boy's escapades. He's dumping more money into advertising than anyone else in the crate business and darn it, these people just won't listen. It's a big inch small block for cripes sake. Wake up and smell the melting aluminum, will ya?

Kinda makes me smile cause it proves my theory that his business plan is written in real big print on three pages of a big chief tablet (bill, head cocked to one side in deep thought, "Lemme see, maybe we can do some more advertising...")

And who can resist a small block punched all the way out, valves poking as far into the chamber as possible, timing cranked to provide blast furnace flash point - and of course all of this is carefully and lovingly done with YOUR best interests in mind by those fun loving kids at ye ole engine shop. Hey, I wonder if the liquid sodium nitrite cooling system (same one used to cool nuclear reactors) comes with putting this "hardcore" badboy on the street. I mean, it would look only a little strange to have the green glowing stack on the roof, but, hey, whatever it takes to get the biggest inch small block rolling.

Uh, what was the point again? Oh yeah, it's those cool etched and engraved valve covers. Flying the hardcore moniker sure seals the deal for me - especially the "limited edition". Watch out BBC proponents. "One Run" billy is after your timeslip - well, at least the first one anyway...

Too funny,

Except World isn't the only one that can do it. I'm sure the Dart block and others can swallow 454ci.

I like small blocks, but NO WAY would I build anything over 400-420 cubes with an SBC meant for the street. Why would I want to when GM so conveniently made the 427+ Engines, in a complete, durable, good looking packadge?

Now, a Third Gen SBC built on a C5-R block......eh, too expensice still.

We beat on our 427 425 hp engine for about 200,000 miles and the pistons still slid out of the bores when we did the disassembly. Bring these engines back after a quarter of that and see how well they have survived. On another note, put a big block rectangular port Air Gap Edelbrock on a flow bench and check the air flow from port to port. Not very well balanced. Advertising well sell lots of them any way. The old old C427X from the '60s produced more favorable numbers.

I don't have the exact details, but there was a Mid 60's Vette at Super Chevy Last year running one of these with plenty of L/G sprayed. Street legal car with full exhaust. Ran in the 7's - 8's. He was racing with the Nitro Coupes.

If the shortblock was assembled with enough attention to detail and included quality parts, there is no practical reason for it not to last. Plenty of SBC's running around for years with 6-71's huffing on them.

Good news about the C427X, I have one of these at home that I intend to use at some point. It closely resembles the factory alum high riser. I had thought these were good intakes.

Isn't Dart and World Products the same company now????

pdq67

#1 Cam design . . . The BBC had like 320* seat duration. Talk about lazy ramps!! That combined with the relatively low compression ratio killed the BBC everywhere.

#2 head design . . . the BBC rectal port heads were too big for the combo IMO. A good set of ovals with say 290cc ports would have made a big diff.

#3 the BBC is nowhere near being maxed out or even optimized. Add a full point of compression a cam with real lobes (LOL) and just about whatever you do to the SBC short of N2O and it would be nearly impossible to keep up. There may be a few tweeks that could be made to the SBC but the BBC was only built to mirror the SBC combo not to be optimal for the BBC.

Its impossible to do a real apples to apples comparison on BBC and SBC engines IMO although this one was the closest I've seen yet. Interesting article and actually makes some very good points about port size, cross section, and port flow.

PDQ, Dart is Dick Maskins and World is Bill Mitchell. They were together at one time but are now separate and rivals. I can't say about small block stuff, but I sure like what I hear from the local heavy hitters about Dart.

We have a Dart Little M block (std pan and cam) and a Dart Iron Eagle block (spread rails, raised cam) and both are excellent products.

I can't believe Grumpy Jenkins puts his name with those heads, graemlins/sad.gif .

Mitchell has a silent partner for the World merger - no way he had the dough to make that one roll. Maskin was happy to get rid of the mass marketing mindset so he could focus on technology. I love talking with that guy - he is always talking tech advantage - not marketing bs. So you're right - Dart will take the high ground in that little market race. Anyone pressed to wall about what they would count on to win - Dart's usually gonna be the answer.

PDQ - your FrontRunner is still here - just gotta get the boxes, wrap it up real nice and ship it all out. I haven't forgotten aboutcha - been traveling a lot. As I'm sitting here typing this, I'm staring at your GenII Super Cooler currently functioning as a paper weight on the front of my desk...

Best,

holy moly, talk about a lot of bitter BB die-hards tongue.gif I'm totally not suprised, though I havent read the arcticle yet (damn CC takes forever to get here), when all things being "equal" the SBC would beat it in torque. Im a bit suprised the SBC out did the BBC in horsepower though. I assume the heads are both World pieces. So thats good. The cam, same specs for the most part, but does work out in the SB's favor a bit. I'd have been happy with a Comp XR280 or something, which has the same durations, but the BBC obviosly gets more lift. But i guess this way is more even. And with the 1.7 rockers, the BBC does get more lift. I look forward to reading the article

Thank's Mike for the update. Travis from over on Little Brother's site has dropped by two times recently on Friday evenings and we get ta yah-yahhin' and don't do squat to my car but have been having a great time b/s'ing. I about have the rad. in place so it is finally coming together...

It was not fun trying to fill my tranny with 85wt140 grease using a little cardboard funnel and a small cup!! Got grease all over me before I finally went to the Parts Store and got a piece of hose so I could do it from up top with a funnel!!! Funny thing is that sometime through the years I lost my hose I had to do this with????

And also to MyBoTy for the come back on Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Maskins.

I thought they had separated but I am not up on the history of the two companies. It would be interesting if it was written down for historical purposes for the kids coming along later.

Kinda like I wished Harold would write a cam company history book b/c he knows so much about all of them being in the business....

I sure do wish somebody would make true stock valve train using, cast-iron AND aluminum, 90 cc chambered 290 cc intake port BB heads b/c I figure they would corner the market IF they aren't over-priced!!! (For stock, low compression, 454 P/U motor use!!)....

Kinda like a set of modern 90 cc closed chambered cast-iron Merlin 290 cc oval port heads.....

pdq67

Well boys i gotta say, Its a magazine article. And that magazine is run by Jeff Smith now, so its going to be EFI loving, power adder praising, and bogus comparos in an effort to advertise for somone. Im glad he got out of chevy Hi-Performance but he went to my favorite of them all...Car Craft. I can only pray he dosent slaughter it too.

NOW...the only real way to see whose going to make more power for the dollar is to have the same guy build 2 different motors out of all new parts, a SB and a BB, using what ever size and what ever parts they desire to maximize power. Using the same head porter/builder and the same team to build and tune. And most importantly to test it in the same car, AT THE SAME RACETRACK on the same day. Dyno numbers are just numbers, get this thing on the track in a heavy Nova or a lighter chevelle {3500 lbs} and compare. Gearing should be optimal to the combo going the fastest, not the same for both motors. Then run all day and compare E.T. to money spent on engine parts, that will give a good ratio. My guess would be the SB would win.

The cams are not even close to being the same. If you look at the numbers at .050 you will see that the small block has a big advantage. I would even go to say that it has rapid lift lobes compaired to the big block.

JIM

What month issue is this article in? I just looked in the October issue and did not see the article. Is this the November issue? :confused:

November,,,kinda makes you wonder how much BM paid for that test,article, advertisement smile.gif

You guys are getting too worked up over this. I think the intent of the comparison is just to show that a 454CI motor is 454CI motor, whether SBC or BBC - just be glad they didn't do a lame comparison of a mild 454BBC to a pumped up bored/stroked Windsor motor. This just details exactly what we are told, 'If you have to buy a crank and pistons - go big, the parts are available and it almost costs the same money'.

just be glad they didn't do a lame comparison of a mild 454BBC to a pumped up bored/stroked Windsor motor. They did...the mild 454 won graemlins/thumbsup.gif :D

Just about every motor suffers from some design flaws. Chevy Big Blocks have poor valve springs, small block Fords only have four head bolts around each cylinder (a feature shared by the chevy LS-1), Buicks have terrible oiling systems and main bearings that are too large and most of the other G.M. and most of the other engines on the market have too little cylinder wall thickness and weak bottom ends. World and Dart both provide good, stable foundations at reasonable costs which might spur the factories into putting out some cheaper high perf. stuff. Hooray for the good new days.

You know, it's funny Harold mentioned the stuff he did above b/c I was just reading my new mag. about the LS motors and it talks about the 4-bolt heads and 6-bolt windowed main bulkheads and such...

I still stand up and say GM obsoleted the best motor in the world, all for a buck when they changed the original Gen. I motor!!! 60 million of the little castings later can't be all wrong!!!

GM tends to take the best of their motors like the old 500 Cad. heart-shaped, fastburn combustion chamber then add it to the worst like aluminum 4-bolt head clamping and weak Olds 403 style main bulkheads!!!

It would be real interesting to me if they were to take a stock, 350 cast-iron, Gen. I blocked motor AND a 347", (or whatever size it is), cast-iron LS motor and totally run them at MAX. power until self destruct!! JUST like they did the Z-28 motor!! I bet the lightweight, cast-iron, LS motor even with it's fancy 6 bolt mains will let go first!!! Plus, blow a headgasket first too..

Any bet takers??

pdq67

That sb/bb comparo was bogus, but I doubt my letter to CarCraft will be published. Main issue is that for a 454 in that rpm range those heads were destined to make sub-par results. First off a 2.3" intake valve will be flow shrouded on a standard bore 454, then as mentioned already, those 320 cc intake ports were out of place on that displacement and rpm's.

PDQ, actually, the newer LS engines have all passed the marine durability test of 300 hours straight of wide open throttle operation. The Ford and Dodge engines have not passed this test. On the old Gen1 engines vs the LS series; the Gen1 was rated for 125,000 "laboratory" miles, vs the LS which is rated for 200,000. Time will tell of course, but all indications are that the LS series may be the most durable design.

Off subject, but there are already a number of 4 cylinder engines that meet the 200,000 mile durabilty mark (one of the reasons a lot of the import cars have a reliabilty reputation), and there is development work underway that will change 4 cylnder engine design and manufacturing technology to reach for a 350,000 rating.

Thomas

Cool Bomber, I will wait and see..

I guess I keep thinking about things like the Corvair motor and the always leaking oil sending unit, the aluminum blocked/iron headed Vega motor that finally got sleeved just before it was pulled, The 3 quart, V-6 equipped Fiero's, the Quad-4 with headgaskets that went south at 75,000 to 100,000 miles and they would only fix them if you bitched real loud, the aforementioned 'Vette oil pan slosh problem, add nauseam.........

AND I don't think a 300 hour wide open pull will show up expansion/contraction metal fatigue long term endurance problems like starting and stopping it daily in the HOT summer and winter where it is COLD!!!!

Much less corrosion problems like the old Pontiac motors used to have with their all aluminum front water pump/timing covers!!!!

Yes, I hope they are good ones, but me, I will wait and see...

pdq67

PDQ, do you have any memory of the first Toyotas to make it over here in 1956? Toyota is glad that few people remember. They shimmied at freeway speeds and had colossal overheating problems. They were so bad that they had to make a hasty retreat and wait a few years before trying again. How about those first Honda cars? Honda is glad to have forgotten them and their durability and reliability issues.

Point is that all manufacturers have laid an egg at least once, and will probably do so again. Toyota has had issues with some of their V6 engines for instance. Big shake up going on at Mercedes these days - questions about build quality.

All automobile companies face the difficult task of manufacturing the highest quality product in the most business like fashion - it is not easy. General Motors is the worlds largest manufacturing operation. Which means that GM has had more at bats than the other players. That also means more strikes are possible.

So if you like you can hold their newer designs suspect until the passage of more time.

The marine 300 hour WOT durability test may not satisfy all possible ways of engine torture, but many manufacturers still find it difficult.

Thomas

Cody mentioned it, the heads they used on the rat pretty much suck w/o porting. Edelbrock oval port heads are as good. So why bother with a square port?
Look at the numbers between the two engines, through .500 lift, the SB heads are better on the exhaust flow....where the valve spends most of it's time! It's only at max lift for a short period of time....and neither cam has .600" of lift anyway.
Just calculate the intake to exh flow.........
As others have said, either put a good oval port head on the thing, or rework those heads. I'm glad I bought the AFR 305's.
And....the headers are too small.....2" would have been better.
And what difference does 1.6 vs 1.7 rockers make? I noticed the cam specs charts didn't mention what rocker ratio was used........so we have to assume the cam specs would be with stock ratios. Which means the SB actually had more lift with it's 1.6 ratio rockers.
Anyway......I believe the whole deal was to advertise World Products....and to appease Jeff Smith and get the rat readers riled up...all of which it did. Maybe like Frieburger did on the header article comments, Smith will post here as well.
Oh, and remember...rat motors are heavier.....DUH!

Ron