496 vs 540 BB? - Chevelle Tech
Chevelle Tech join team chevelle as a supporting member  
Chevelle Parts at SS396.com      
GROUND UP & SS396.com         
Official Sponsor of Team Chevelle
     

Auto Insurance

Chevelles.com is the premier Chevrolet Chevelle Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Performance Our High Performance area

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 12:35 PM
kacp-o kacp-o is offline
Tech Team
Rob
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 219
Default 496 vs 540 BB?

Hello - I am in the planning stages of building a BBC for a 71 SS. Using a low deck block, my builder has suggested using a 4.25 stroke crank and building a 496 with mini-dome pistons, shooting for a 10.1:1 compression ratio. He has the crank, rods and block, but has not sourced pistons yet. My goal is a street friendly motor with an occasional blast down the 1/4. Hydraulic roller cam, TH400 trans, 12 bolt rear (gears undecided).

Since the block has not been finished yet, I am wondering if we should shoot for 540 cubes using the same crank with a 4.5 bore. Is there any distinct advantage to the 540 over the 496 aside from 44 additional cubes?

Thanks,
Rob
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 12:52 PM
BillsCamino BillsCamino is offline
Gold Founding Member
"Wild Bill"
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Marietta, GA 30066
Posts: 24,500
Send a message via AIM to BillsCamino
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

As you may/may not know, you won't be able to get a 4.5" bore out of a factory short deck block...that would require purchasing an aftermarket block. This additional expense would be your only consideration when deciding between building a 540 and a 496...all other components would cost the same.
I'm assuming that your using a 454 block because you've mentioned building a 496.
__________________
'70 Chevy Greenbrier Wagon
Turbo Jet 400 LS3, TH400, 3.31 posi 12 bolt

Last Car

Team Chevelle #613
ACES #3920
CAMI (Ireland) #14
CanAm Chevelles #136
Carolina Chevelles #185
Heart Of Dixie #231
Long Island Chevelles #113
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 1:01 PM
hrspwrjunkie hrspwrjunkie is offline
Tech Team
Ryan
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Washington
Posts: 108
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

Since you probably can't get that kind of bore out of that block, and you want to use that block, it's kind of a moot point, but the advantages of a 540 versus a 496 are numerous. For one, displacement. More displacement: more power. Another would be further unshrouding of the valves which helps with improved dynamic head flow during operation.

Other advantages (versus, say increasing stroke to make that displacement rather than bore) is improved higher RPM performance.

Ultimately a 496 should make a '71 a plenty fun ride. If you end up utilizing a hydraulic roller cam, there are a number of issues with those and RPM. Check out both AFR's website and Comp Cams (www.airflowresearch.com and www.compcams.com respectively) because RPM above 6000-6500 can get spotty. Comp has a new kind of Conical spring made of Ovate wire that has helped improve higher RPM performance on the big block hydraulic rollers as well as a company named Sherman Racing that modifies hydraulic roller lifters to handle increased spring loads for higher RPM spinning (they can be reached through www.wolfperformance.com).

Hope that helps,
Ryan


Quote:
Originally Posted by kacp-o
Hello - I am in the planning stages of building a BBC for a 71 SS. Using a low deck block, my builder has suggested using a 4.25 stroke crank and building a 496 with mini-dome pistons, shooting for a 10.1:1 compression ratio. He has the crank, rods and block, but has not sourced pistons yet. My goal is a street friendly motor with an occasional blast down the 1/4. Hydraulic roller cam, TH400 trans, 12 bolt rear (gears undecided).

Since the block has not been finished yet, I am wondering if we should shoot for 540 cubes using the same crank with a 4.5 bore. Is there any distinct advantage to the 540 over the 496 aside from 44 additional cubes?

Thanks,
Rob
__________________
www.classicsandperformance.com

1966 Ford Mustang
289 V8
3-speed Manual

1987 Ford Mustang LX
5.0 (302) V8
5-speed Manual

1989 Ford Mustang LX
5.0 (302) V8
5-speed Manual

1995 Ford Mustang GT
5.0 (302) V8
5-speed Manual
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 1:24 PM
wildman926 wildman926 is offline
Team Member
Walter
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: CTX
Posts: 3,513
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

Unless you are going for all out power, that 496 will easily achieve 600 hp/tq, and be a blast to drive, keep your expense down including drivetrain expense.

No doubt that the 540 would be best for all out power, but unless you have the money to build the supporting cast for it, then that 496 will be all you will need, and still generate that ear to ear grin....
__________________
69 Chevelle SS
10.5-1 496/AFR 305's/Voodoo 60234 Solid Roller/TH400 4000 Stall/4.11 12 Bolt
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 2:55 PM
jbird jbird is offline
Senior Tech Team
wannabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Sticks, TX
Posts: 3,210
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

JMHO, but I can't imagine being able to use all the HP you can get from a good pump gas 496 on the street anyway. You should be able to build over 600hp easily. The 540 has the cool factor for a street driven vehicle, but it is overkill for most people. If you want the ultimate street strip engine, and cost is not a concern, build the 540. If you want close to the ultimate, and want to save $1800+, build the 496.
__________________
Jay Campbell
Campbell Competition Motorsports
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 3:00 PM
kacp-o kacp-o is offline
Tech Team
Rob
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 219
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

Thanks for all the quick replies. Sounds like the 496 should be plenty and cut an additional 2K plus out of the price by avoiding a new block and all that extra machine work. 600/600 was pretty much my goal for this one.

After I typed the note, I figured you could not get 4.5 bore out of a factory block...but it's all about learning
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 3:15 PM
adamrharris adamrharris is offline
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 53
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

does anyone have a dyno proven 600hp 600tq 496 combo that they can post the components and specs? must be pump gas friendly (91 octane)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 3:34 PM
jbird jbird is offline
Senior Tech Team
wannabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: The Sticks, TX
Posts: 3,210
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

Quote:
Originally Posted by adamrharris
does anyone have a dyno proven 600hp 600tq 496 combo that they can post the components and specs? must be pump gas friendly (91 octane)
Close. Link 586/600.

Belongs to Britt. (PURS)
__________________
Jay Campbell
Campbell Competition Motorsports
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 4:48 PM
Whittaker Whittaker is offline
Lifetime Premium Member
Rob
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Mahomet, Illinois, USA
Posts: 1,443
Send a message via ICQ to Whittaker Send a message via AIM to Whittaker
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

I'm hoping mine is close. Its a 489 with 781 iron ovals mild port and valve work, 2.19/1.88 SS valves, Performer RPM Airgap intake, Holley 870 Street Avenger, (get a double pumper), 1 7/8 headers, 10:1, MSD distributor, MSD 6 AL box and wires. I have just added a hyd roller cam, from Cammotion. It is .618/.630, 240/249 on a 112 LSA it is a billet cam with the pressed on iron gear.

If I had the chance to do mine again and was only $1,800 away from a 540, I would have done it. Shafiroff http://www.shafiroff.com/ has some killer 540 packages.

It puts down more power than I really can use with street tires and tight suspension
__________________
1966 Chevelle Malibu 489, 870 Holley, Edelbrock RPM Air Gap, 781 oval ports, TH 400 Gearvendors OD/UD, 12" disks up front and 9 inch with 3.50s.

1966 Chevelle wagon, 408 SB, 3.73 12 bolt, 700R4, 12" discs front 10" rear.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 6:27 PM
Motorhead62 Motorhead62 is offline
Lifetime Premium Member
Chris
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Wichita Falls,Tx
Posts: 3,158
Send a message via AIM to Motorhead62
Talking Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildman926
Unless you are going for all out power, that 496 will easily achieve 600 hp/tq, and be a blast to drive, keep your expense down including drivetrain expense.

No doubt that the 540 would be best for all out power, but unless you have the money to build the supporting cast for it, then that 496 will be all you will need, and still generate that ear to ear grin....
I agree with this statement!
__________________
1967 Chevelle 496BB/TH400/Dana-60 (Show and Go)
1967 El Camino 388SB/700R4/12-bolt posi (Rat Muscle Parts Hauler)
1967 C10 Short-Wide 489BB/TH400/12-bolt (The Future Shop Truck)
2008 Harley Davidson Dyna Low Rider (Stress Buster)
2003 Harley Davidson Road King Classic 100th Anniversary Edition (Cruiser)
2013 Chevy Cruze RS Turbo (Daily Driver)



My Chevelle: http://www.chevelles.com/feature/nov98.html


C & D Performance

North Texas Chevelles
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 6:39 PM
pdq67 pdq67 is offline
Guest
Paul
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Columbia, MO, USA
Posts: 14,685
Thumbs up Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

Imho, I figure that you can use a stock, 502 block bored .030" over to make it a 4.50" bore and then use a rear crank seal adapter so that you can use an inexpensive Mark IV 496 rotation assembly from Ohio Crankshaft Co. to build a CHEAP 540 motor!!

It WON'T be a race motor, but should still be one heck of a street motor, again, imho!!

pdq67
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 8:27 PM
ProdigyCustoms ProdigyCustoms is offline
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Orlando, Fl
Posts: 846
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

The 540 would easily blow away the 496 if for no other reason, the larger bore and unshrouding of vavles. But as stated, you can make 600 by accident with a 496. I would not use a hydraulic roller in anything but a truck. You will need some fairly hefty cam specs to do what you are looking to do, and a hydraulic is not the way to go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 8:36 PM
mr 4 speed mr 4 speed is offline
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Under the hood of some musclecar
Posts: 22,773
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

I'd go for the 496 and some aftermarket heads..throw in a big flat tappet solid
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 8:42 PM
wildman926 wildman926 is offline
Team Member
Walter
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: CTX
Posts: 3,513
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr 4 speed
I'd go for the 496 and some aftermarket heads..throw in a big flat tappet solid
Exactly what I did...
__________________
69 Chevelle SS
10.5-1 496/AFR 305's/Voodoo 60234 Solid Roller/TH400 4000 Stall/4.11 12 Bolt
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15  
Old Jul 14th, 06, 8:50 PM
GRN69CHV GRN69CHV is offline
Team Member
Joe
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Thornton, Pa
Posts: 12,520
Default Re: 496 vs 540 BB?

Don't see how 600/600 is that tall an order from a hyd roller 496 motor with decent heads. Not dyno'd yet but from comparison to some published dyno'd motors, my 454.030 motor with GMPP 2.25/1.88 heads, 10.3/1 CR, 233/236, .600/.610 112 LSA hyd roller, Air Gap, 870 combo is probably in the 550/550 range. Can tell you, it is a handful on street tires.
__________________
Status: Car-Less

http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/sh...2/limit/recent
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply
Chevelle Tech > General Tech Area > Performance      Current Topic: 496 vs 540 BB?
Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Chevelle Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address. Note, you will be sent a confirmation request to this address.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Should I consider a "tame" 496??? DallasMalibu Performance 12 Nov 6th, 06 3:41 PM
Cam Selection vs C.R. on 540 Scott's_70 Performance 14 Apr 19th, 06 9:18 PM
Am I doing the right thing?in regards to 496 big454blockchevy Performance 20 Mar 22nd, 06 12:21 PM
Starting from scartch...540 or 496, help me decide.. L-78 GUY Performance 15 Jan 30th, 06 11:32 AM
468 or make it a 496 if I have to bore it out? Jsavdog Performance 9 Sep 6th, 05 4:18 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:30 AM.


Is there a site like this for?    El Caminos Camaros Novas Impalas GTO Chevy Punch All Chevys

© 2009 Team Chevelle - AutoForums