I am going to start a page showing different dyno runs we have done with the 400 compared to a 460. Here is the first dyno chart showing a 400 and a 460.
I will add details soon.



This 460 has an nice RV cam and a good fresh rebuild. Very close to stock with a little cam.

This 400 is the last we did for a customer, it has the aussie heads and a hyd roller cam. I have a stock 400 with a cam, and a few other to compare.

 

I have an opinion, Why is torque figures so low for the 400? I expect more out of a 9.5:1 built with an rv cam, its as if the camshaft choice was poor and more throwing against HP than what it should have and not matching the head choice. I dont mean to insult no one with my opinion, its just an opinion.... I was going to make the same statement to the post you made about the 400 alone.... besides that interesting comparison...

 

What do you mean? The torque is almost identical to the 460, and has a flatter curve...? This is just an Aussie 2V headed 400. I thought it was a nice package, and I bet relatively inexpensive power.

 

I mean, i expected peak torque to ocur sooner with an rv cam and around 470-460lbs, also for it to fall sooner, anyways, look at 2500 rpm only 405 lbs of torque? i excpect an rv cam to give me at least 450lbs of torque down at 2000rpm work its way till 3500 then fall faster, so this engine was not built for a truck i guess...

 

https://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/7...-for-brad.html thats the built, anyways im sure it has a bigger cam than the usual rv, it woulb be cool to have the cam specs.

 

it's interesting but that 460 is sick, even a stock cam on a properly done rebuild properly tuned should be 350hp without even trying. put anything for a cam in a 460 and that hp and torque should easily be over 425 on BOTH. I have failed to see a 460 meet those numbers yet.
I know this forum wants to build the 400 up and convince everyone it's a wonderful motor, but comparing it to a improperly tuned or built 460 really doesn't do much IMHO. Those numbers for the 460 won't even meet stock specs from the early 70s right out of the factory.

 

Yea, something is wrong there. 60 more c.i. & no more power.

 

My factory 1971 manual says 500 ft lbs for a stock 460. That must be with
D0VE C heads for that year? That is a monster to untap!
But hey, I really like the 400 still, and always will. It is a unique motor to build up that wasn't a headliner at any time.

 

I agree, even though I bought a set of 400 pistons from TMI last week and i am building a 400 at the moment. It looks like we are comparing a stock 460 to a built 400 what fun is that. I have no doubt that a built 460 will outperform a similarly built 400 any day. I have a 460 laying in my garage but right now it was cheaper to build a 400.

 

Nice, a site Moderator talking **** about one of the sites MAJOR sponsors post..

Keep the dyno runs coming Tim, maybe one day you can dyno a 460 built by monsterbaby and be dazzled.

 

I didnt see anyone talking **** about any one or any thing. How about when my built 400 is done in the next few weeks we compare that to my built 460 when its done in 1-2 years.

 

Colo you might want to reconsider your post, yes I am a moderator BUT NOT IN THIS SECTION. I have met Tim and he has seen what i can do for building motors so don't even go there and yo violated 2 forum guidelines in ONE post.

Now all that said when it comes to posting I am no different as a moderator then anyone other poster. I am allowed to have an opinion, I am allowed to state facts, I can make posts if I want too and hey guess what I can even question site sponsors if I think the info is wrong because guess what, Tim isn't posting as a sponsor with this thread.

Now if you are trying to claim that a site sponsor is writting threads advertising in the forums well then you would be claiming Tim is violating the guidelines too. so is that what your claiming? (No Tim I don't believe thats what your doing for a second )

 

IM bored, and i have a keyboard...

I think that the 460 came stock with impressive numbers... early on... and you cant argue that the "best" combo for money invested and performance expected is a ford 514... out of chevy, dodge, BOP, and ford...

 

Here is a 400 all stock fresh rebuilt, better pistons and a Crane cam.

I figured I would get these comments, I am working on a web page to detail
all the engine components.

The idea of this thread was not to show that the 400 is a better engine than the 460, but to allow the people who are contemplating weather they should
pull there 400 and install a 460.

This is the only stock 460 we have built and dyno'd for a customer. Last time I talked to the customer, he said it was a great running engine.

Why it does not have the power you think it should, I don't know. It is a '77-'79 460. If you have another dyno chart of a stock rebuild with an RV cam, lets see it.

The owner of the engine was maybe going to stop by here and give his opinion, but again, not a lot of people dyno a stock engine.

I can't disagree with your comments, but I also know we do not try to build customers crappy engines.

 

But, i also believe that a smaller HP engine can be more dependable and versitile than a higher HP engine. There are a ton of ways to make a smaller HP engine run off and hide from a higher HP engine in a same weight vehicle. Its fun to run within a second of competitors who have "close to 500 HP" in their 3250 pound cars in my 5,860 pound truck with maybe 240 hp to the ground.