right around $1900 minus block of course who knew... with a 400M crank and a 4.030 with a 6.125 rod you could have a cheap 426 CI with a 351 windsor block right around 500 Hp for $1900=deal to me this is kit is from Speed-O-Motive
You can buy the crankshaft on ebay pretty cheap. Then it won't be a 400 crank...it'll be a real (usually cast steel) crankshaft. 347 pistons, 6.250" rods and 4.250" stroke. AT .030 bore that's 434" standard bore 427" .060 is 440". There was a article over at hardcore 5.0 (site is down) that detailed a very similar build, but with a Dart block at 4.125" bore and 4.25" stroke. That was a 454" build. .030 would be 460" and .060" would be 466". Depending on how thick the bores are, you could conceiveably go up to about 470-some inches. From what I gathered, the build wasn't that hard...lots of clearancing, just like a 347, but it was pretty well straightfoward. Even at 434" stock block, you had better have some GOOD heads!
In the "old" days, the 408 stroker was a 400 crank. The snout had to be modified as the Cleveland snout is a little different than the windsor. Then balancing....lots of Mallory was needed because most times the crank's counterweights needed to be ground off to clear the Windsor block. The combo back then was 351W rods, 400 crank, and 350 Chevy pistons, IIRC. The parts were cheap but the machining was not. All said & done by the time the balancing was done, narrowing the rods slightly (IIRC), turning down the crank to fit in the block....it is not a lot cheaper to just buy an aftermarket chinese crank & rods & just be done with it.
wuss it says in this book i have a high nodular iron crank (if that makes a difference) just an idea , i figured its a bit of work to make it fit...
Really, why is that? Have either of you had problems with one? I have a 427 Windsor (400 crank) in a 66 Fairlane that runs 12 flat (built 4 years ago) and I had a 347 Mustang (10.30's @ 130 mph) that I raced for 4 years (Cleveland crank). I asked Jim Kuntz (who I purchased the 347 stroker kit from) about steel cranks and he laughed. He said Glidden, Nicholson, and Gapp & Roush used Cleveland cranks in their early Pro-Stocks with no problems.
400m crank fits without issue. I have never heard of needing mallory or any cutting off of the counterweights. The 400 has the same physical size as the C or W cranks. The snout must be turned some and the rear needs a ridge ground off. The main and rod size is almost identical to the W. With the grinding done, it is a drop in affair. I have an older friend that built many of these... Long before the aftermarket stepped in and provided the stuff. His first engine now has a new owner and is still prowling the Pensacola area. It was offset ground and bored .060" over. Is something like 420 cubes. Also has Cleveland heads. I have heard more than one passenger say it is a scary fast ride. Dave
There's nothing wrong with a cast iron crankshaft for most folks. A lot of you don't know it, but cast iron will flex a lot more than steel will before it breaks. The iron will flex MORE, but it eventually will stress crack...and when a crack starts in iron, ka-boom and it's over with. Steel will stress crack, sometimes it will break most times it won't, it'll just stay cracked. Iron is more brittle but its wear properties make it the choice for cranks, rods, blocks, etc. Some of the board users will tell you first hand how tough cast cranks are...I beat on a STOCK 351w cast crank (no mods at all, no polishing, grinding..nothing) for a couple years and never once had a problem. It wasn't the most powerful thing in the world but for no more than it was, it was a GREAT running engine (ran 6.20's 1/8 at 110, shift at 7200 cross finish line about 7000). Also had many 302's with iron cranks that did a great job, including the old turbocharged 302 I had in the '74, which broke a block or two but never hurt a crankshaft. Most 302's....you'll bust the block before you ever hurt a rod or crankshaft--and that is speaking from experience! Myself, however, I have broken a cast crank. It was actually a Scat 9000 series crankshaft (408w) that I broke last year in the burnout box. NO warning whatsoever, it just broke one of the rod journals right off of the crankshaft and of course took most everything else with it. The engine I have now is a 4340 crank, and the only reason that I have it is because it was cheap. Under $250. I scored another one off of ebay the other day that spun a rod bearing and needs repair...got it cheap too, but it may require some welding. Another project for another day, so to speak.
I've broken two of them. One in a 75 Torino Elite and one in a 78 F150. I'm personally not scared of cast cranks either. I've had Cleveland cranks (ground .030 under on the mains and .020 under on the rods) that went to 8800 rpm regularly. Our big blocks all run offset ground cast cranks at 4.140" stroke and go to 7400 with no problems. Not sure what the deal is with the 400 cranks. Maybe it's like the guys who hate Fords. They have one or two that are simply turds so they hate them all. I've had nothing but bad experiences with 400 engines. With all of the lower priced aftermarket cranks out there these days I don't see why someone would go through all the machine work to make a 400 crank fit a Windsor.
Ok,here's my problem w/351m/400m cranks.As Shadowmaster says,they break easily.How come just about every 351m/400m powered vehicle I've ever looked at was either just rebuilt,or needed a "crank kit"?Sure,cast cranks are fine(they're in every other motor I've got)but those(400) cranks are prone to failure.I'd hate to ruin a good block w/a junk crank when aftermarkets are available for a few $$ more.
Because they had oiling issues and wiped out the bearings. I worked for 25 years at the Ford and Mercury dealer. Never saw one broken crank, but we installed a lot of "crank kits". The reason I have the 400 crank is because that is what comes with the CHP stroker kit. Someone should let them know that these are no good so they stop selling hundreds of them.
What is this oiling issue I hear so much about? The 400 uses the exact same oiling system as the 385 series engines and you hardly ever see one of those with "issues". Could it be due to lack of maintenance?
