Team Chevelle banner

468 vs 496

20K views 96 replies 32 participants last post by  77 cruiser 
#1 ·
As far as a street/strip motor, which one do you feel would be better with a manual transmission? Especially in the 1/4 mile? I know the longer stroke of the 496 will be more torquey but will it be able to wind as high of an RPM as a 468 would when drag racing? Or would a 496 feel like a fast truck??
 
#2 ·
They both can rev to whatever you want. It just costs money.

I have had my 489 at 7200 before, just because I was out of gear on a high speed run at a local track.

I would opt for the extra cubes.

If you are worried about it feeling like a fast truck why not build a small block since only those can rev high :clonk:
 
#3 ·
If they're built the same with stroke being the only difference, the only difference you will feel is more power with the bigger engine.

There have been tests where engines were built identical except different bore and stroke combos. Like one had a bigger bore and shorter stroke and one with longer stroke and smaller bore but both coming out close to same displacement. Same heads, cam, intake, exhaust, etc. It was concluded that it basically didn't matter how you arrived at the displacement if everything else was the same. Both engines made the same power at the same RPMs. Turns out the heads and cam have the most influence on the attitude of the engine.
 
#48 ·
Hilariously flawed point of view.
To the OP, I would absolutely go with the stroker option. When I was building my engine, I needed a crank anyway, so I stroked it and didn't look back. I have hit the 7k chip in my MSD before. I'm pretty sure I could rev the rods out of it if I didn't have the limiter. Thats with a silly little comp 274XE flat tappet cam. I get plenty of engine vacuum to run factory power disks, and have enough torque to get daylight under the right front with ET Streets and 3.73 gears. 11.69 at 110 mph running out of fuel at the top end. Its going to cost almost the same either way, you wont be disappointed.
 
#6 ·
My 496 feels like a fast truck - in my 65 ElCamino! Torque is always fun, but it'll rev to whatever you set the heads and cam up to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr 4 speed
#7 ·
build as big as you can. The old "but short stroke engines like to rev'so WHAT. They have to in order to go anywhere and still dont have any torque.
I was never more disappointed than the day I went for a ride in a crossram 302...one of the slowest cars Ive been in outside a 73 vette.
Bought a 70 with a well worked over Lt1 much happier.

Most days happy with this 383 that revs fine..others I want that brutal big block torque less gear etc.
 
#8 ·
I was in the same spot 4 years ago 467 or 489 in my 69'. I wanted to run the 1/4 or 1/8 mile also. With the limited room for tires I went with 467 to reduce torque. I could not be happier, It will dead hook at the track and runs like I stole it. On the street none are good at traction. What are your block, crank, rods, compression and pistons? You will need to move up a step or 2 on the cam.
 
#9 ·
Since the subject of truck engines was brought up in relation to long strokes let's not forget that all the GM tall-deck truck engines were 366s and 427s with 3.76" strokes. They could've easily used a 4"or 4.25" so why didn't they? Maybe the theory of long stroke=low RPM "truck" engine doesn't prove out in real life. I imagine the engineers at GM might know a bit about what's best in what application.

But carry on with the old rhetoric of "short stroke=no torque and high RPMs and long stroke=big torque and won't rev" if you prefer.
 
#10 ·
#11 ·
I have to agree. I’ve had my 489 to 8k on a missed 2/3 shift and routinely shift 2/3at 6600 to get the drop back I need. It was tuned to 6800 on the dyno. Making more than a dozen pulls. It’s all about what’s on top of the block, rather than what’s below it stroke wise. I’m still in disbelief that my 489 revs cleaner and higher than a lot of my friends running sbc. All while holding a nice flat power band. There’s some guys on the board straub that definitely seem to know the tricks to valve train cam set up. I would be thinking more about traction than anything. Seems to still be my major problem. 6 months ago all I wanted was rpm and hp. Now all I want is traction and good seat belts. Best of luck you’ll be happy either way. Particulars car is one bad street mobile.
 
#12 ·
I opted for a professionally built 467 that equals or exceeds anything I could have done with off the shelf 496 parts. https://vortecpro454.com/

Shifted the 427 at 6800+ rpm, this beast is limited to 6200 rpm and its WAY faster. Street tires are useless at WOT come to find out.

M23Z 4 speed and 3.31s rear gear.
 
#34 ·
Hey Gene: Is it too late for us to put money on the Bills/Browns game?;)

Glad your motor is running strong!
 
#13 ·
If you want to talk about real "race" engines, neither are anywhere near optimal. There are huge differences in the way either engine will make power and how to go about it but based on cubic inches alone the 496 is going to make more power, all said and done. I've made well over 800 with a 467 and made 900 with an almost identically built 496. Both had compression, both had tunnel ram carbs, both had Canfield heads, both even had the same Dan Olson oil pans. The 467 had a vac pump, the 496 did not. Both made peak power above 7000rpm. The bore dia. is the restriction bot both engines. When you start adding bore, I tend to favor the 4" stroke and the longer rod for a purely race, n/a build and even a good running street pump gas engine. Our ZZ532 (4.60 x 4.0) is a very efficient, very good running platform that we haven't really even scratched the surface of it's potential. Add the 1/4" stroke and you get a 565 which is a very well proven combination as well. It's mostly in how you go about looking at the combination, understanding the requirements and limitations of each, and building accordingly. Increasing stroke, with no increase in rod length, shortens the rod/stroke ratio and brings negatives to the table. Very few advantages to a shorter rod/stroke ratio but it's usually done in the name of displacement. If the gains of the displacement outweigh the negatives of the shorter ratio, then it can be a win. This is why we usually see an increase in rod length with an increase in stroke...to offset those negatives. Just one of those things to consider when building an engine.
 
#15 ·
I'm bringing in my 454 shortblock to a reputable machine shop for a rebuild, but if the block doesn't check out okay, I was considering going with a crate motor. Probably the vortecpro, just looking at his 467s and 496s in his website. Just curious if there's any difference on the way they run due to the different strokes. I want to get the car to run in the mid to high 11's with a properly set up suspension in a 70 Chevelle full weight car, m22, and 3.73 rear with a 28" rear tire
 
#18 ·
I've broken tons of stuff with mine, too. Mine would probably put a Chevelle in the 10s with little effort. Very deep in the 10s in a well sorted car.
 
#22 ·
Those old truck tall deck 427's were actually a moderately good reving bbc. Running them loaded, one had to rev it hard thru the gears to keep the inertia going. They weren't a 2800 max rpm diesel type deal at all. They were meant to live in the 4,000 - 5,200 range all day. Tough engines!
 
#25 ·
454, RPM air gap, Harold's solid roller, 10.2 compression, 10 x 29" slicks, Richmond 5 speed, 4000 lbs 11.54 @ 6200 RPM, street car with AC. If I knew then what I know now, it would have been quicker.
 
#29 ·
Bill Waters 475CID.....9.8 to 1 Compression, ported Brodix RR by Foxwell. Custom hyd roller that is a reverse split. Note..9.8 to 1
 

Attachments

#30 ·
496:

2 bolt 454 block
Eagle 4.25 forged crank
Scat 6.385 rods
Autotec 10.5-1 custom pistons
1.5/1.5/3mm ring pack
Crane 131311 solid flat tappet cam
Milodon 31187 oil pan
Bone stock rectangle port closed chamber 291 casting heads w/3 angle valve job
2.19 1.72 valves
OEM 163 dual plane intake with divider removed
1000HP Holley I built from scratch
2"X3" Hedman headers
Full details here
 

Attachments

#31 ·
Big numbers that go up in smoke, wheel hop and tire spin don't work.
You have to be willing to spend the $$$$ on things that will support your plan or change the plan.
My MJ 467 is the best engine ever in my Chevelle. Things to make the car work probably cost as much as the engine and took the entire first summer to figure out. Now I get 10'-15' of light tire spin on a clean hot blacktop road and 0 at the track. Same tire, same pressure. It actually wrinkles the sidewall on the dot MT at the track.
 
#32 ·
Agreed, not an Ed Bigley fan but he once said, "instead of spending $1000 on more engine stuff, why dont you spend $1000 on a set of coil overs." The only power that counts is the power you can hook on the asphalt.
 
#37 ·
I took my 289 block to a good local shop. Had it checked and bored .030 for a 489 buuild. Every time I went there the guy wanted to talk about home stuff. Paid him and took the block.
All along I was talking with MJ and a very good local builder. This guy has 40 years experience, new shop with cnc, just 1 assistant also 20+ years. Went and watched them work several times. Very clean. Got estimate on 489.
Kept talking with MJ and finally sent him his deposit after 2 years. Excellent engine , affordable and has out run many larger CID's. I refer everyone to MJ.
 
#40 ·
Here's a quick analogy for comparison.


People hire professionals for almost anything they need that is outside their skill set if financially able but, when speaking about nutrition or physical training they are unwilling to pay for the professional guidance. "I'll buy a book or check the internet."



The same holds true for engines. I can buy all the parts and books I can afford but can't replicate the builds of MJ or Wolfy by a mile.
 
#42 ·
I was in a rush to get a SBC, Mike was not taking orders, Mark had room on his list, and Mike sent him the block, and parts. A great collaboration for me, it came out awesome. Mark does small blocks well.
406 650/550, cam 255/259 @ .050.

 
#45 ·
Boy o boy this brings back memories. Seems people do not remember that these cars make enough power that you do not need all these fancy big motors. In the 80s i had a 66 chevelle with a l78. Car had normal timely things like accel super coil holley 850 headers and ladder bars with air shocks in the back and 6 cylinder shocks up front i think this was a long time ago. I did have 4.10 and 4.56 gears in it. M21 lakewood blow proof bellhousing and ram clitches. But the motor was just a 30 over rebuilt l78 stock 396. The heads had a 3 angle grind port matched to strip dominator intake. Cam was gm l88. I do recall the stock distributor being recurved. With 9 inch Firestone slicks that car ran 11.70 all the time. So if this person wants a high mid 11 second car it most there with a factory l78 and a bit of work. I would think anyone can take that same combo and make it run on pump gas or back off the timing a bit and maybe get a good cam and still run 11.70 like i did. Car gig run faster when i put a 427 in it but that was too fast for this discussion.

RH
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top