Getting a diesel VS my 454 chevy?
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 793
Likes: 0
From: West Warwick, RI
Originally Posted by 96_12V
His final reason for a Hemi instead - "My wife can't put up with some diesel smell."
Tell her the new 04.5 +'s have a kitty on there and they don't smell like a diesel, they smell like a rich running propane lift
That should get him one
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 6,564
Likes: 6
From: Cummins Technical Center, IN
Originally Posted by CTD NUT
While I am a fan of a good rod ratio for durability reasons, the shorter rod invariably does have some good attributes (believe it or not!). Time at TDC is low - not much dwell compared to something like a 440 Mopar (which has an excellent rod ratio of almost 2:1) which certainly contributes to having a more fuel efficient engine at similar torque levels. Reciporcating mass is notably lower with the shorter rod, also. The 454 rod is quite stout yet still weighs considerably less than that of a 440. As a result, you can typically see higher rpm operating ranges from the 454 compared to a 440 of similar specs. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge 440 fan and it's insane power curves that is difficult for a 454 to match but after many years of experience with both, I have not been so quick to right off the poor rod ratio of the 454. I have seen short deck 454's exceed 300k in heavy work vehicles without a rebuild so, we can see that while rod ratio is an important factor in the durability of a bottom end, it clearly isn't the only factor. 7 years ago we pulled a tall deck (it does have a somewhat better rod ratio) out of a running dump truck that had 500k on it and it still had the standard bore!
Mopar strokers work well with the MP 4.15" stroke crank, because you can take a 4.5" bore up to 528 CID and still keep a ratio of 1.63-- about what a stock small block 350 Chevy is (5.7rod/3.48 stroke)
Sorry for the OT.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
From: md
Originally Posted by v8440
The 396 was first. It was released in passenger cars in '65, and in large numbers in '66. I don't know exactly what year the 366 came out, but it was at least a little later than the 396. There's nothing wrong with the tall deck big block chevys-the deck height is enough to put some pretty long strokes in them while maintaining a reasonable rod/stroke ratio. The bottom end of those blocks is beefy enough to withstand some pretty big displacements beating on it without a bunch of trouble.
Anyway, none of this directly bears on your question. I'll say it again-I'd put a cadillac 500 in there if I could.
Anyway, none of this directly bears on your question. I'll say it again-I'd put a cadillac 500 in there if I could.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 934
Likes: 4
From: Alabama
The 348/409 are a completely different engine family than the 396 and cousins. Other than the fact that chevrolet produced them, and they're both cast iron 90 degree v8's, they don't have much else in common. The single biggest difference is the fact that the heads of the 348/409 have no combustion chambers-just the valves. The block has the combustion chambers in it, similar to the 462 cubic inch lincoln engine that was discontinued when the 460 came out. During the time the 396/454 engine family was being developed, the 409's were still being refined. Thus, there was a period when both were undergoing testing, and comparisons inevitably resulted. The consensus of the engineers was that in terms of power potential, the newer engine (396 and family) had it all over the 409's. Shortly thereafter, development ceased on the 409's.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,899
Likes: 3
From: Yuba city Kalifornia
Dump the 454 chevy !take a look in my photo gal. and see my 98 ccdrw 454 vortec ! the best that truck could do was 10 mpg MT and towing the toy hauler and suplies to mexico i would get 4-5 at best and would have to fill up every 150 miles or i was sitting on the side of the road out of gas!I traded it in on my 01 HO and never looked back .the chevy was a great truck but the Dodge rules, at 24 mpg MT and 10-12 pulling the same load the Chevy got 4 doing. topping mountain passes at 30 mph at 4200 rpm were the Cummins will do 60+ with the C/C set turning under 2000 rpm.Brother at the high price of fuel the cummins is a blessing. really nothing to think about 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
