Car Battery Insanity

I knew the 440 is taller, but beyond knowing that I don't know that I could look at one and go "oh yeah, thats the tall deck one". Similar difference with a Ford 302 and 351W.

Friend had a Cordoba with a 400, but in 1977 emissions crap tune. The lean burn had been removed but the Thermoquad was never re-jetted so it had a horrible lean ping just before the secondary opened. Even at full go it did a better job of making noise than acceleration. I think it got about the same fuel econ as your Newport though.
 
gadget73 said:
I knew the 440 is taller, but beyond knowing that I don't know that I could look at one and go "oh yeah, thats the tall deck one". Similar difference with a Ford 302 and 351W.

Friend had a Cordoba with a 400, but in 1977 emissions crap tune. The lean burn had been removed but the Thermoquad was never re-jetted so it had a horrible lean ping just before the secondary opened. Even at full go it did a better job of making noise than acceleration. I think it got about the same fuel econ as your Newport though.
Click to expand...
By 1974 the compression ration was knocked way down, they changed the piston height so that even at TDC the top of the piston was almost 1/4" down in the bore - those things were under powered pigs (of course all manufacturers engines ran like crap from 1973 to about 1985).
Easiest way to tell the difference quickly is to look at the front of the block- the "RB" 440 block had a raised pad on the right side where the serial number is stamped, the "B" block 383-400 doesn't have that pad cast into the block.
low deck B block.JPGRB block.jpg
 
Pontiac's SD455 might be an exception to crappy running during that window. Sorta last of the true muscle cars until many years later.
 
whoaru99 said:
Pontiac's SD455 might be an exception to crappy running during that window. Sorta last of the true muscle cars until many years later.
Click to expand...
That is no exception. While not “crappy running”, it is a shadow of things that were, prior to the malaise era.

A big block engine should produce more than 310hp.
 
Yeah, I’d say that American cars generally fit that “crappy running” thing, the European engines were nice running hemi-head engines with cross-flow heads and port fuel injection, … some with turbos, and were kicking our asses in everything from fuel efficiency, reliability, lower maintenance, power per Ci/Litre, idle quality, … we were served. Detroit was busy injecting air into the exhaust to meet emission standards and running too lean to avoid moving from carburetors on pushrod engines to fuel injection the Europeans had been refining since the 1950s, …
 
0b11011001 said:
That is no exception. While not “crappy running”, it is a shadow of things that were, prior to the malaise era.

A big block engine should produce more than 310hp.
Click to expand...
Uhhh... the comment is relative to the stated period 73 to 85.

(that said, compared to "things that were, prior" it did produce probably closer to 400hp apples to apples, since the change from net to gross hp ratings in '72)
 
Last edited:
whoaru99 said:
Uhhh... the comment is relative to the stated period 73 to 85.

(that said, compared to "things that were, prior" it did produce probably closer to 400hp apples to apples, since the change from net to gross hp ratings in '72)
Click to expand...

The malaise era is the early 70s to the early 80s. I was quoting power numbers from 1973. It was worse in 74.

Regardless, of the period, 310hp from a 455ci engine is pathetic.
 
whoaru99 said:
I think it's appropriate to say "duh" but, again, in the context, it is an exception. All you gotta do is look at what else was in that window to see it.
Click to expand...

That all depends on what window you
are looking in. The 73 911RS produded 210hp from a flat 6, that was in the rear, where all engines should be. It also only weighed 2200#. By comparison the TA weighed in at 3800-4000#. The weight number is even more ludicrous than the paltry HP number.
 
I think my favorite absurd power to displacement ratio from that period might be the Cadillac engines. 500 CID, 190 horsepower and 360 lb-ft in 1975. I get that they were never built as a high HP engine but thats just sad.
 
whoaru99 said:
The thought of 150mph from some of the older rigs doesn't concern me a bit, what with thier great tires, awesome brakes, and exceptional handling. ;)
Click to expand...
My comment was more about that car having the HP to over come its weight and lack of aero, especially with the top down, to even get close to 150mph. Let alone the things you mentioned.
 
whoaru99 said:
@GChief

Yeah, I understand. Was just poking a bit of fun at the older beasts.
Click to expand...
I get it, my 65 Galaxie still has 4 drums, with the original 390 now a stout 445ci stroker, I do not let many other people drive it. Looks.like grandpa's old car until I start it.

I need to finish putting it back together, life has a habit of getting in the way :(
 
gadget73 said:
I think my favorite absurd power to displacement ratio from that period might be the Cadillac engines. 500 CID, 190 horsepower and 360 lb-ft in 1975. I get that they were never built as a high HP engine but thats just sad.
Click to expand...
I have a naive question-----
Did that 500 cid engine, loafing along as it was, last a long time? Were they reliable?
I'm wondering in light of how many engines today have chronic failure modes. Ex: trying to extract too much power out of small displacement motors?
 
DesertRatt said:
I have a naive question-----
Did that 500 cid engine, loafing along as it was, last a long time? Were they reliable?
I'm wondering in light of how many engines today have chronic failure modes. Ex: trying to extract too much power out of small displacement motors?
Click to expand...
Yes, they were under-stressed engines and would last a long time with regular maintenance, provided it did not develop recessed valve seats, due to the use of unleaded fuel.

There is nothing wrong with extracting max HP from a 4 cylinder engine. Motorcycle manufacturers have been doing it for years. Ducati has a model that can produce 240hp from their V4, if you choose to pay for it.

The problem auto manufacturers have today, is building such engines, but with questionable design decisions. Take the Ford 1.0L ecoBUST. It runs a timing belt through the oil sump. They are essentially cooking the belt in a hot oil bath. Of course using a belt at all is questionable. Chains last a lot longer than belts. Audi built a V8 with the timing chain in the rear of the engine. They did this because chains last forever. That is true. But Audi “screwed the pooch” by sourcing inferior chain tensioners.
:rflmao:

But it is not a problem for a 4 cylinder to produce significant hp, especially with forced induction.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom