I'm getting a lot of different views on my bbc build and I'm starting to get a little confused on which way to go. My plan was to build a strong running street 496 but many people I talk to say "how you gonna get any traction" , "your gonna break things w/ that big stroker", "454 is a very strong motor as it is , why go bigger?".

Now this is new territory to me , big blocks that is , so I figured bigger = better. My car will weigh well over 4,000 lbs when done so I thought I was right on track , more cubes is cheap power so why not throw a bigger crank in while Im at it.

Should I continue w/ my plan or just build a 454?Is a 496 going to cause that much of a traction problem? I plan on going to a roller motor , aluminum heads , and possibly a tunnel ram (?).

Back in the late 80's when I used to mess w/ engines and cars there wasnt nearly as many performance options as there is today and just recently getting back into the scene Im totally overwhelmed by the endless choices out there. To top it off its my first big block. Just a bit lost.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Any thoughts ?
Mitch.

Go 496, worry about the rest as things break :D

The next big block I build I want to go even BIGGER. People can say whatever they fancy, but be aware of people parroting what they have heard others say (without giving it much thought).

The fact is that you have a heavy car to build as a hot rod - torque will be your friend tongue.gif

In regards to traction...as far as I'm concerned the bigger issue is suspension setup and tires, not engine power per se. There are guys out there with moderate performance smallblocks who can smoke the hides endlessly. Not because they have a bottomless pit of power, but because tires and suspension conspire against them.

Have fun, Thomas

I think the bigger is better up to a certain point. Although you can do whatever you want, to me tunnel ram and roller cam combined = high RPM power. You can do that with a 496 motor, but most of the guys that run 496 motors tend to stay at or below 6000RPM max. First you should decide what it is you want to do. Is this a street car or a race car? For a great high revving, high HP motor idea, take a look at the thread - 427 on steroids. The original post suggested doing a 427 based motor on a punched out Merlin or Dart big bore block. Something like that would be incredible with a solid roller and a TunnelRam. Talking a 500CI motor that will rev to 7000 RPM.

Build what you want. Don't listen to others unless they've done it. I plan a very mild 496, or you can build one with rect ports, t ram, 4.33s and run 10's. Anyway you want it!

Please note there are two schools of thought going on here so consider both..

Some guys like the shorter stroked BB motors like say an 1/8" over 427" at about 452". The sucker will rev to the moon with good light, strong parts, (read, expensive parts)!!

Other guy's and I'm one of them like the torque longer stroked BB motors produce b/c you just don't have to beat on it as much to get it to produce gob's of power!! It just needs to be cammed, tired and geared right so that you can use it..

Don't get me wrong here b/c I dearly love the little motors like my old junk 301 that was made out of junk parts, but yet would rev up until my points bounced above 7,000rpm EASY!!!

Heck, I'm gathering parts to put my nephew's .020" over, 283 back together OR bore her to 4"s and make another 301!!! So go figure b/c my 496 is sitting right next to it AND my 406 SB..

Please remember, the only thing that beats cubic inches is cubic money!! That and the fact there will always be somebody that is more "hardcore" then you out there and he will have a more powerful motor..

If I had a basket of money, I would make an aluminum blocked, 4.625" b x 3.625" s = 487"er and run her like a Z-28 motor AND a 4.625" b x 4.375" s = 588"er in a standard deck height block for the ultimate 396 "Stealth" motor!!

But I don't have a basket of money....

pdq67

Build what you want. Don't listen to others unless they've done it. Well, I have done it!

Earlier this year I broke a rod and took out the lower end. I replaced my external balanced 454 assembly with an intenal 496 assembly.

The car is ZERO faster than before with all of the exact same combination of parts ( carb, intake, headers, cam, etc.)

Zero better 60 foot
Zero better MPH
Zero better ET

IMO, If you already have a 454 it's definetly not worth going to a 496

*******************
1970 Chevelle
10.24 @ 130MPH
web page (http://www.prestage.com/Member+Pages/1274.aspx)

If it was me and I was going to have to buy a crank then I'd go with the 4.25" stroke 496 because it's not much more. If I already had a good 454 crank and money was tight, then I'd just use it. Plenty of guys here running in the 10's with just that. JMHO

Mitch,
Thomas pretty much nailed it in my opinion.

Build the 496 & then figure out how to make the car handle it. If it will handle a 454 well it shouldn't be that far off anyway.

If a 496 doesn't make more power than a 454 you have done something wrong,, it's that simple.
If you are using the same parts, heads, cam etc then the whole torque curve will move down in RPM assuming the stuff you had for the 454 was about right.
If you were on the small side of heads & cam you might not make any more peak horse power but you will still make more torque.

Assuming a stupidly conservative 1HP per cu in you will have a free 30HP & even more in torque which to repeat what Thomas said is what you want for the street, especially at 4000 lbs
I would reconsider the tunnel ram unless it is just for sex appeal :D

Two local guys have 496 engines that didn't perform as expected, one is 13.5 to 1 compression and assembled by the owner, solid roller, good rectangle port heads, balanced, etc. The other is a 10-1 motor by Larry's engines in California. They aren't impressive when they get beat by a 9.5-1 compression hydraulic cammed 454. It just doesn't make sense, but it happened. I'm sure it is probably a mismatched combination of parts or something but I haven't heard or witnessed anything amazing about a 496 motor, a .060 over 454 is actually 468 cubic inches, only 28 cubic inches larger. Not like 350 vs. 400 which is a 50 cubic inch difference.

The only thing that will be used on the complete 454 I aquired will be the block. Heck I only got it for $300 and for that price I figured I should strengthen up the bottom end w/ new parts and go w/ a bigger stroke while Im at it. Im all for lowering my peak rpm power , thats why Im considering a 496. I think the positives out weigh the negatives (if there are any) of a 496 so I think Ill keep w/ the 496 plan , besides is puttin' the tires up in smoke when you hammer it going 30 mph a bad thing? I dont think so :rolleyes: .

As far as the tunnel ram goes Mike , its not a sure thing mostly just wishful thinking as Im on a budget and no its not for sex appeal :rolleyes: and Im not compensating for anything :rolleyes: just wanted to have something different for people and myself to look at :eek: , I love engines that stick out of the hood!!
Mitch

At the other end of the spectrum even a 454/468 is not needed. Pat Kelley turns mid 11's with what, a 355? Just a little juice and that would be a 10 second ride.

The only way to answer the riddle of how many cubes to build is to just do it and see for yourself. Then next time try another plan and compare notes on the results.

Anybody can build a mismatched combo, like say a moderate 496 with a 5,000 stall converter - which would be very wasteful of that engine's lower rpm torque. My 496 showed 495 tq @ 2,500 rpm, I am running ~ 3,400 stall converter and I would probably run as quick with an even lower stall converter.

Sometimes mismatch is obvious, other times it is more subtle. Let's say your heads max out flow @ .600 lift. Now let's say you install a .750 lift cam. That would be an obvious mismatch, most of the time mismatch is more subtle. If you add cubes and change the complete power curve of the engine AND retain the complete same torque converter, tire, and suspension as from your smaller engine - then you would surely be disappointed.

That is what makes this hobby so interesting - no one knows all the answers. So we all get to experiment.

Thomas

I'm going to refer back to what I said earlier. Choose a "type" of motor/trans/chassis combo you want run, then do the motor accordingly. You can't/shouldn't expect a 496 motor to run correctly if set up like you would a 454 and certainly not like you would if set up for a 427. The original post on this thread, specifically indicated a desire to go solid roller and tunnel ram. To me that says "I want a 7000 RPM motor - no problem - build it as a 427 based motor. Punch the 454 block to +.060 or larger and wind up at 440 - 450 CI. Build it with a minimum of 11.0/1 CR and have fun. Or drop the tunnel ram idea and go with a big stroke motor (496) and build the whole combination to work around a 5800 - 6000 RPM (max) motor. That means higher gears and an intent to run the car on torque. It's a whole different driving style.

just had my buddies new 496 with afr 325's .770 roller,10.1 comp and 1050 dom. push 668hp@6700 with 580tq@4800 on the dyno with 92 octane. low buck setup with a 4 speed behind(main goal was to kill low end for more top to save 4 speed!!!LOL) it in 72 monte. will let you guys know what she runs in few days.

those are some nice numbers graemlins/beers.gif

Nosit, that has to be a rather high dollar 496 motor to expect it to live at 6700 on a regular basis.

DragonSlayer Crank, Manley Sportsmaster 6.35" rods and SRP slugs on the ends? 6700 easy rpms.

I plan on putting a 496 in my 69 SS for many of the same reasons others have mentioned, but primarily low RPM torque. It feels good to have so much torque available without revving it so high, aka normal driving.

It is less expensive to build if you keep the RPMS down around 6000 and will most likely live longer. It all comes back to what someone mentioned - how do you plan to use it?