Who votes death to the 401 thread?

[jeepsr4ever]

where is the 401 thread?????

[Elliott]

Originally posted by jeepsr4ever:
where is the 401 thread?????

Here: http://www.ifsja.org/ubb/ultimatebb....;f=10;t=000117

We got cut off.

Still need to examine the torque curves of a 500ftlb 401 compared to a 500ftlb 500 to see if they do compare or if the 500 builds torque faster. I think with the right cam in the 401 it might be able to match it.

[1studiac]

First off I have no preference on engines, they all have their good points as well as bad. I read up on the caddy 500 as I wanted to put one in my 51 studebaker truck. I think your numbers are a little off. The biggest problem with the caddy was breathing, takes alot to feed that many cubic inches. They are more and more performance parts out for the 500 so you can build a heck of a cad mill, for low end, you'll never spin high rpm's with one as that is'nt what they were made for (unless $$$ is'nt a factor). Yet at the same time I think it's how you build them (any motor). All that said if it were me and being where I am (the avalibility factor) I would go with a 460, not that I am a ford fan but around here they are a dime a dozen. You can get a long block 460 cheaper than a amc 360. I say what ever spins your tires and makes you happy is what you need!!! To back this up I looked in the Tech lib here and the 74 to 78 401 made 320 ft-lbs (it does'nt say @ what rpm) but that does'nt matter for this topic, this is peak ft-lbs. the same years 360 made 295 ft-lbs for a diff of 25 ft-lbs now the same mid 70's cad 500 made 410 ft-lbs @ a low 2400 rpm. for a diff of 90 ft-lbs. That cad # is the sae # by the way.

[ December 13, 2003, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: 1studiac ]

[Elliott]

The '76 Caddy 190hp/360ftlbs specs were cross checked between a couple of Caddy sites. I compared the Jeep 401 to those specs as they are both the lowest figures common to each manufacturer for their respective engines.
So, 25ft/lbs between the 360 and 401 at 41CI difference, then 40ft/lbs between the 401 and 500 at 99CI difference. Just pushing #s around here, but seems like for 99CI over the 401 it ought to put out at least 50ft/lbs difference. That's where you have to question the usefulness of the Caddy's CIs because the Jeep motors make more use of theirs.
The rest of my point here is that if you take that 500 and balance it, swap in 9.5:1 pistons, cam it, use a performer intake and stock exhaust it still will not produce the same amount of torque that a 401 will with the same mods. Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence yet and I suspect the 500 is going to need headwork to get it to 500ft/lbs, although Pete's flow specs looked pretty good to my uneducated eyes.
Then once you get to the same 500ft/lbs with the same level of mods the 401 still is going to be able to out rev the 500 and has a more durable forged crank and rods to boot. If you bought those (if they were available for the Caddy) they would add ~$800 to the cost of the build and then you would still need a stronger valve train for another ~$200+. When you get all that done is the aluminum block really going to hold up as well under severe conditions? Is it capable of reliably handling 250Hp of nitrous like the 401 is? Not that you are going to necessarily run nitrous, but the point is that we know the 401 can handle it over the long run because it's already built stouter then the Caddy.

[ December 13, 2003, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Elliott ]

[1studiac]

You may well be right, I did not look around enough to come up with a fair idea of what the caddy truely does I got my info from http://billee007.tripod.com/CadillacbyBond/id28.html

Like I said it's whatever spins your wheels, I know caddy fans brag that with a aftermarket intake the caddy engine weighs barely over a sbc. If you go to one of there sites they will argue all day long about this. And I havent had all these engines to compare myself so... if you all want to donate any of the fore mentioned engines I will run test and get back to you All I know is I am going to build one of my 360's (long term project) and when done I'll take it over to the dyno and see what it'll do.

[John V]

Originally posted by Elliott:
The Caddy is cheaper only to a point of build, barely above stock.
Still the specs don't lie (or do they? John ran a dyno and came up with the same thing). A 401 builds almost twice the torque difference between it and the 360 in 41 more CI. The Caddy, with 99 CI on the 401 required twice the CI to obtain the same (very close) torque gain. This is comparing the lowest common denominator 401 (Jeep) to the lowest common denominator 500 ('76). If the torque difference between a 360 and 401 were negligible as was suggested then the same could be said for the 500 over the 401.
Pretty much everybody spending money to rebuild a motor is going to be buying new pistons/cam and if it's stock, putting on a new manifold/carb and if they are wise... balancing it.
Do that lil bit-o work to a 401 and you are at 500ftlbs with the right choice of cam, and you're still running a stock exhaust for low end torque while running on pump gas. What amount of torque does the same mod do for a 500, and if it does not build the torque as fast as the 401 why not?

The CI factor doesn't hold water, cost factor involved in a low level of build is definately in the 500's court.

I never ran a caddy 500. Also I want point out the 54 ft lb difference in the avg tq between the 502 and the 401, that's a pretty significant margin! the peak margine is 68 ft lbs, also pretty significant. And the 401 had open headers.

[Elliott]

John, maybe I'm mistaken but I think the 401 is going to make more torque down low with the stock manifolds then open headers with no tailpipe.

[ColeTrickle]

EDIT:
401 threads....

BTT

[John V]

Originally posted by Elliott:
John, maybe I'm mistaken but I think the 401 is going to make more torque down low with the stock manifolds then open headers with no tailpipe.

Yes, but it should put up a higher peak tq # with open headers. We will see soon enough .

[Elliott]

Originally posted by ColeTrickle:
EDIT:
401 threads....

BTT

Originally posted by Elliott:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ColeTrickle:
http://www.ifsja.org/ubb/ultimatebb....c;f=2;t=023820

Do the editing for yourself, as in don't read about (click on) topics that disinterest you. This is a Jeep forum after all, if you don't care to read about issues related to Jeep power plants the power is in your finger. </font>[/QUOTE]

[Elliott]

Originally posted by John V:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elliott:
John, maybe I'm mistaken but I think the 401 is going to make more torque down low with the stock manifolds then open headers with no tailpipe.

Yes, but it should put up a higher peak tq # with open headers. We will see soon enough .</font>[/QUOTE]I always thought, maybe that's the problem, that engines cammed for torque down low actually lose torque by having a free flow exhaust.
BTW, thanks for taking the time with the dyno program. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[John V]

Originally posted by Elliott:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by John V:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Elliott:
John, maybe I'm mistaken but I think the 401 is going to make more torque down low with the stock manifolds then open headers with no tailpipe.

Yes, but it should put up a higher peak tq # with open headers. We will see soon enough .</font>[/QUOTE]I always thought, maybe that's the problem, that engines cammed for torque down low actually lose torque by having a free flow exhaust.
BTW, thanks for taking the time with the dyno program. [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]No problem, I've got nothing but time untill I get my back squared away. I need something to do! As for an engine cammed for low end tq and free flowing exhaust, the effect I am seeing time and again (save for a bb mopar cam I'm playing with that falls on it's face above 4100 and makes peak tq of 513 @ 2400) is that it costs low end tq but the peak #'s are up slightly. I am also working on a AMC cam just for you buddy. [img]smile.gif[/img] Of course to run the bugger you might need a custom intake to get the #'s with it but oh man this thing makes WICKED tq down low. I need to check on a few things before I get it all worked out but it's peak is in the 450 ft lb range. oh yeah these #'s all reflect the mill installed in a vehicle. So the ? is if this cam works out on paper who is going to have one ground and try it out?

[Elliott]

Sounds Sweet John, I've got a rebuilt 401 with performer on it sitting in my Jeep right now. It was a std build up done by someone I don't know so I really ought to be tearing it down for blueprinting and balancing and while I'm in there some 9.5:1 pistons. I'm under carbed for a decent build with this 1406, strongly considering the bigger Holly Truck Avenger... what 750cfm? Running stock manifolds you should be able to come up with a cam that'll do me like my last one and I'll be major money ahead unless I find problems with the machining that was done already.
Should be able to duplicate my previous cam with 262deg to produce at least 300hp and 500ftlbs of torque at 2,400 rpm.
I don't have the time or money to do the work right now and run it for you, but I would sure like to have those cam #s again along with a graph of the torque curve.
Sure do appreciate it. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Maybe to be sensitive to other members issues you would post your findings over on the 401 Revisited thread. After all, this is the "Who votes death to the 401 thread"

[ December 14, 2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Elliott ]

[ColeTrickle]

Originally posted by Elliott:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ColeTrickle:
EDIT:
401 threads....

BTT

Originally posted by Elliott:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ColeTrickle:
http://www.ifsja.org/ubb/ultimatebb....c;f=2;t=023820

Do the editing for yourself, as in don't read about (click on) topics that disinterest you. This is a Jeep forum after all, if you don't care to read about issues related to Jeep power plants the power is in your finger. </font>[/QUOTE]</font>[/QUOTE]LOL!!!

Exactly....so BTT with my thread!