The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network







Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Go Back   The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network > 47 - Current classic GM Trucks > The 1967 - 1972 Chevrolet & GMC Pickups Message Board

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-18-2002, 02:23 AM   #1
pscmj84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5
Horsepower for a 72 with a 400

My friend has a 72 Cheyenne that says 400 on the front side. I am a little confused as to wether this is actually a 402 Big Block or 396 small block. It seems pretty quick, especially in the mid-range. Feels like 0-60 is in about 8-9 second area. I have searched previous posts about this. Do you think a stock 400 would be that quick? Seems like estimates are from 210-375HP and from 300 to 400 lbs/ft so I really I have no idea which one it is.
pscmj84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2002, 02:40 AM   #2
Hooter
My other Love
 
Hooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Castlegar B.C. Canada
Posts: 4,085
most likely it is a 402 . Any big block is gonna have some power to it even 366 have a little torque. What i have learned 9being a 67-72 truck guy and a first generation monte guy0 is that a 402 was a 396 with flaws so chevy bored them out 30 over and voila a 42
__________________




Castlegar B.C.The great white North (Canada Eh!)
Hooter_5@hotmail.com
First generation Monte Carlo club
pictures of my life
Hooter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2002, 11:25 AM   #3
slam33
Registered User
 
slam33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Long Beach, Ca
Posts: 1,432
It's a 402, and if it has the 396 badge, thats a BB also
__________________
71 LWB 350/350still working on it but it's going tp be sweet. www.geocities.com/stevemau/slam33page.html

" TARGET=_blank>http://www.geocities.com/stevemau/slam33page.html?1004806705410

</A>
slam33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2002, 01:16 PM   #4
pscmj84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5
I forgot to add that I was wondering what the horsepower estimates are for the truck also.
pscmj84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2002, 10:04 PM   #5
minibike
Registered User
 
minibike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Lafayette, LA
Posts: 500
A stock 72 402 has 210 HP at 4000rpm and 320 foot pounds of torque at 2800 according to the Chilton's repair manaul. That sounds low to me, though.
__________________
69 SWB
LT1/4L60E
www.classicplace.com
minibike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 12:13 AM   #6
pscmj84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5
Yeah after riding in that truck that seems low to me. Its a long bed model so I would guess it weighs well over 4000 pounds with everything in it.
pscmj84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 04:07 AM   #7
trukman1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio 45431
Posts: 737
Just for the record...You have to remember that in prior to 1970 the government was starting to eyeball the muscle car situation and by 71 smog pumps appeared on some vehicles. The auto industry knew about that before most people (obviously) and started down-playing horsepower ratings.
Also, about the 402 being a bunch of rusted blocks that GM wanted to salvage, I'd heard that too ,however, after meeting with some GM personnel, some of which were engineers 20+ years (10 years ago), it was pointed out to me that GM wouldn't change to new emblems, marketing, etc. for a batch of bad engines. They would have simply scrapped anything not up to standard as was the customary business practice in those days. I was told 1) The 402 was simply a way to economically overcome the empending smog equipment add-ons, and 2) Since the 396 was the standard BB, labeling the new engine 400 seemed like someone just rounded up the number and it didn't attract much attention from the government. The average consumer, however, would realize this was just a larger engine. (Makes sense to me but they could have just been feeding me a line, who knows.)
Anyway, I've got a 402 that runs way better than any 210hp engine I've ever driven so maybe someone out there has put theirs on a dyno and can give us the scoop. Gary

Last edited by trukman1; 08-19-2002 at 04:10 AM.
trukman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 08:20 AM   #8
minibike
Registered User
 
minibike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Lafayette, LA
Posts: 500
The Chilton's manual called it "advertised" horsepower. Maybe it was intentionally rated lower.
__________________
69 SWB
LT1/4L60E
www.classicplace.com
minibike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 08:52 AM   #9
jflem3
Registered User
 
jflem3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Davisburg, MI. USA
Posts: 124
I've got a 71 c/20 that used to have a 402/400 (now sitting on stand right now and a FI 454 is going in its place). I'm Pretty sure the 71's were rated at 310 gross HP and 240 SAE net HP. SAE net is the way motors are rated today. My 71 was significantly quicker than my 90 454 burb with 230HP/385lbft.(bad emissiions JUJU) although there was a several hundred pound weight difference. the little 402 revved easier
A well broken in 402 (not tired) w/ a good dual exhaust would easily put out 250-275 net hp and over 300 if you do a mild cam and intake.
__________________
Jim
Davisburg, MI

69 Camaro SS LT-1/6-spd
71 C-20custom deluxe burb 402/400
(gonna get back to it)
72 C-10base burb 350/3-spd
79-VW Scirocco GT-3 race car 2.0L/5-spd
02 chevy suburban LT Supercharged dropped on 22's
jflem3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 10:56 AM   #10
pscmj84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5
Its only got about 42k miles so it could be considered to be in the "well broken in" phase.
pscmj84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 11:34 AM   #11
fastbagged68
Registered User
 
fastbagged68's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Tri Valley California
Posts: 792
dont the heads have small valves? Something like 2.06int. The big horse power vette motors i believe had 2.19 int valves. That would make a world of difference.
fastbagged68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2002, 11:40 AM   #12
pscmj84
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 5
It could benefit greatly from some better breathing and a more some agressive cams. When you get on it it just sounds almost like it isn't even trying as hard as it could, like it could do more if it wanted to. Its got some great torque though, its the only automatic i've seen that squeaks the tires going into second gear!
pscmj84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2002, 12:17 PM   #13
jflem3
Registered User
 
jflem3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Davisburg, MI. USA
Posts: 124
you've got to watch the costs of changing to larger valves in a set of heads, it usaully ends up being cheaper to buy a finished set of heads. and then it isn't much of a stretch to buy new aftermarket heads,( they usaually come comlplete with springs and all you need for one price. that way outflow the stock heads and won't lose low end velocity.

the small valves are still larger than the biggest small block valves and the 400sb's can make some ponies.
__________________
Jim
Davisburg, MI

69 Camaro SS LT-1/6-spd
71 C-20custom deluxe burb 402/400
(gonna get back to it)
72 C-10base burb 350/3-spd
79-VW Scirocco GT-3 race car 2.0L/5-spd
02 chevy suburban LT Supercharged dropped on 22's
jflem3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright 1997-2022 67-72chevytrucks.com