305 TPI Trans VS 73 Plymoth Satelite 400

Subscribe
Mar 21, 2005 | 02:42 AM
  #1  
Me and a friend of mine ran our cars on rt30 in valparaiso.....He has a roadrunner clone (a satelite) w/ a 400 in it....and i have a nice 305 TPI.... well we ran up to 120 mph and he didn't win, and niether did i. we pretty much stayed even. it was cool as hell, and quite the rush....but don't race off the track
Reply 0
Mar 21, 2005 | 08:13 AM
  #2  
Sounds like a fun run.

By the way you have a spelling error in your sig.
Reply 0
Mar 21, 2005 | 09:25 AM
  #3  
Quote:
Originally posted by ShiftyCapone


By the way you have a spelling error in your sig.
Reply 0
Mar 22, 2005 | 09:16 PM
  #4  
Plymouth made a 400?? pretty sure the only engines available were 318, 340, 383,440 and HEMI,,, ya HEMI!! lol
Reply 0
Mar 22, 2005 | 10:12 PM
  #5  
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris5k
Plymouth made a 400?? pretty sure the only engines available were 318, 340, 383,440 and HEMI,,, ya HEMI!! lol
Chrysler actually... those were all used by Chrysler, Dodge, and Plymouth. And yea, there was a 400. Its actually a common thing among Mopar guys to use a 400 crank in a 440 block to gain a few extra inches. Don't remember what size that makes though.
Reply 0
Mar 22, 2005 | 10:29 PM
  #6  
I thought they made a 401 or 403 but was not available in the satellite/road runner... never really studied the satelite but my dad had a 69 440 road runner that was bad @$$ I loved that car.... sigh. thanks for the info though.
Reply 0
Mar 23, 2005 | 11:01 AM
  #7  
Chrysler never made a 401 or 403. Small blocks listed as follows...273 (1964-1969), 318 "A" (1957-1966), 318 "LA" (1967-later), 340 (1968-1973), 360 (1971-later). Big blocks....350 (1958), 361 (1958-1966), 383 (1959-1971), 400 (1972-1978), 413 (1959-1965), 426 "RB" (1963-1965), 440 (1966-1978), 426 HEMI (1964-1965 race, and 1966-1971 street). That should clear up any misunderstanding.
Reply 0
Mar 23, 2005 | 11:11 AM
  #8  
Quote:
Originally posted by Air_Adam
Chrysler actually... those were all used by Chrysler, Dodge, and Plymouth. And yea, there was a 400. Its actually a common thing among Mopar guys to use a 400 crank in a 440 block to gain a few extra inches. Don't remember what size that makes though.
Actually, no. Putting a 400 crank in a 440 block would decrease displacement. The 400 has a bore of 4.34" and a stroke of 3.38", while the 440 has a 4.32" bore, and stroke of 3.75". The hot ticket is to run a low deck, "B" engine 400 block, with a 440 crank. That creates the ever so popular 451 stroker.
Reply 0
Mar 23, 2005 | 02:06 PM
  #9  
You should have him from a dig if he is stock if not run him through a curving road that B body doesn't handle good at all
Reply 0
Mar 24, 2005 | 11:26 AM
  #10  
Thats the stupidest thing ive ever heard. Thats like a 4X4 guy saing "yeah, you kicked my *** on the street, but lets race across the desert or up the side of a mountain and see who wins". If your car is a dog...then its a dog. Anyway, if I was running a LB9/auto, I sure as hell wouldnt go around racing people....not without some serious work done to it.
Reply 0
Mar 24, 2005 | 01:35 PM
  #11  
you forgot about the early hemi motors
Reply 0
Mar 24, 2005 | 05:48 PM
  #12  
I also forgot about the early "poly" engines. The 277, and 301. I listed the poly 318 above though.
Reply 0
Mar 24, 2005 | 08:56 PM
  #13  
damn.....looks like i caused a heated argument?


To end it....the car DOES have a 400, i know what i'm talking about when it comes to cars.
Reply 0
Mar 25, 2005 | 12:32 AM
  #14  
I never said it didnt have a 400......
Reply 0
Mar 25, 2005 | 01:17 PM
  #15  
Quote:
Originally posted by 84L69TA
Actually, no. Putting a 400 crank in a 440 block would decrease displacement. The 400 has a bore of 4.34" and a stroke of 3.38", while the 440 has a 4.32" bore, and stroke of 3.75". The hot ticket is to run a low deck, "B" engine 400 block, with a 440 crank. That creates the ever so popular 451 stroker.


Thats what I meant to say, lol
Reply 0
Mar 25, 2005 | 01:31 PM
  #16  
you also forgot the red ram motors.
Reply 0
Mar 25, 2005 | 02:36 PM
  #17  
Reply 0
Subscribe