Re: 468 vs 496
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.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.