Hot Rod Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

396bbc vs 400 sbc ?

15K views 23 replies 9 participants last post by  matt406 
#1 ·
me and my dad got into a heated debat . he thinks the 396 is capable of more hp than a 400 . i obviously think the 400 sbc can match the 396 bbc hp and torque or better it.:boxing: what do you guys think.
 
#4 ·
Power is in the heads and BBC's have an advantage in that department.

Also a stock 396 bbc block can handle more max power as compared to a stock 400 sbc block.

However, a BBC will get 25% less MPG as compared to a similarly built SBC.

Plus a BBC is a tougher fit and puts an extra 150 pound on the front end.

And a BBC is more expensive to build.
 
#5 ·
I have a 1967 Camaro that I bought in 1997. I rebuilt a 1971 454 engine for it. The compression ratio was about 11:1 and I mixed 93 octane pump gas with turbo blue 50/50. Well I got the idea to replace it with a 383 mechanical roller motor to use all pump gas and set my big block up on an engine stand for storage. Man, was I disappointed. Don't get me wrong it had power but not the the torque the big block had. A couple years later I ordered an Eagle 4.00" stroke rotating assembly with pistons that gave me 9:1 compression and rebuilt the big block again and reinstalled it. I sold the 383 and will keep the big block in it.
 
#9 ·
Over the years, I have put in 396, a 454, a 350, and a 400 in my truck (all in the same truck). And BBC's get 25% worst mileage, that is it. In fact, the 454 got slightly better mpg than the 396. (+0.5 mpg)

It is no secret that BBC heads are very inefficient. Plus the blocks have more energy losses (more bearings surface and more rotational mass) as compared to a SBC.

here is some data BSFC data that might help.
http://www.strokerengine.com/NGPCT.html
 
#7 ·
Add one more vote for the BBC.

When I was looking to repower my 66, replacing the buzzin' half dozen, I took a look at some HP/TQ graphs and decided to go with the rat.
The HP/TQ peaks just looked very sharp on the SBC, and so much broader on the BBC.
I reasoned that I could make a lot more dependable power at significantly lower RPM's, and lose very little power between shift points.

Well that, and simply going for a ride in my brother's 69 GMC with a 427 in it. It was just a weapon!

The sound of a big-breathing BBC trying to suck air past closed throttle plates on decelleration was a factor!
 
#10 ·
If you compare SFC based on fuel burnt per horse power produced,you will find that there is very little difference between small and big blocks.You cannot directly compare a 350 hp 350 to a 350 hp 454.MPG is dependent on gearing and other factors.A 454 that makes the same horse power as a 350 will make more torque,there fore to compare MPG the 454 can use a taller gear because of the higher torque output so should be operated at a lower rpm for fuel economy.Both engine convert the same fuel to heat,,,, If you get down to the technical differences then the BB will lose some efficiency due to the heavier crank and reciprocating weight,slightly more friction because of bore,extra few horses required to move the extra 100 pounds.
again horse power is a part of the power formula,torque is also a part to consider.High performance engines require similar pounds of fuel to create similar power outputs.If you compared a 700 hp 350 to a 900 hp 454,the pounds of fuel burnt per horse power create would be very close.
 
#16 ·
You do know they make some killer BBC stroker kits now too? These days, life starts at 496 for the big block guys. And personally, I wouldn't trust many of the 400 blocks left around these days, they've been pretty picked over. And, many prefer the 2 bolt main version to the 4 bolt.
 
#17 ·
well i have a virgin 509 blockn thats been maged and hot tanked got it for a 100 dollars. got a new eagle crankshft for 130.00 and scat procomp rods 6" for 195.00 . i dont have really have the cash for a big block. it is going to be a daily driver. so fuel milge and performance will be in consideration.
 
#21 ·
I read a lot of stuff bout the vortec from alot of places and they all say 2.02 vavles dont help stay with 1.94 just go to 1.60 on exhaust vavle but before I would spend all that money on vortec heads I would buy a aftermarket set of heads that are alot better vortec are not a real good head unless u talking stock stuff they better than most stock gm heads but thats not saying much by time you buy the head port polish have spring pocket clearence for a real spring. Buy all new springs and vavles Do screw in studs u could buy set of dart heads or some other aftermarket head that will outflow them and make more power
 
#22 ·
vortecs also require the use for vortec rockers, vortec valve covers, and a vortec intake. So, the price goes up if you already have these parts for a non-vortec head.

I would get a set of edelbrock performer heads or maybe a set of dart iron eagles. The vortecs are good but consider all the extra money you will spend to use them.
 
#23 ·
the valvecovers any chevy small block valve cover from '87 up..
cheap as dirt at a junk yard.. same with the vortec rockers if you are going to compair him reuse'n the ones he has over buying new..
the intake, yup.. got to be vortec style.. but I'm willing to bet the edel heads cost more than the vortecs AND the intake compined...
not to many people buy'n new heads and reuse'n the old rockers and pushrods,, kinda a moot point.. same with the dirt cheap valvecovers
 
#24 ·
well i have a machinist that will sell me a set of 906 vortec heads fully ported and polish with 2.02 &1.60 valves with screw in studes guid plates .550 lift springs for 600.00 out the door with no core charge. he said i wont need the vortec roller rockers with the guid plates. im wanting peak torque at 3900 rpm.i think dart heads are twice that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top