![]() |
Register or Log In To remove these advertisements. |
|
|
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#1 |
Chance
![]() Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belcourt ,ND, USA
Posts: 750
|
Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
Does anyone know if a 402bb or a 454bb is better for towing and pulling on a 1972 Chevy 3/4 ton 4x4? I think the 396, 402, & 427 had closed chamber heads for higher compression but the 454 had open chamber heads for lower compression. What are your opinions and/or experiences?
__________________
1968 Chevrolet Stepside BB 396 w/TH400 1972 Chevrolet 3/4 Ton 4x4 BB 496 w/TH400 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | ||
"I ain't nobody, dork."
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Whidbey Island, Washington
Posts: 8,940
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
No replacement for displacement... especially for towing. More torque.
Gary
__________________
'cuz chicks dig scars... My 1972 GMC 1500 Super Custom (Creeping Death) "long term" build thread. The Rebuild of Creeping Death after the wreck Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Southeast Missouri
Posts: 2,436
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
I am interested in this one since I have a 454 in my '71. My '92 K-3500 has a 454 and it tows pretty good. I normally tow a 8400 pound travel trailer with it.
__________________
'67 Chevy C-20 short stepper - build complete, 454/SM-465. '75 C-30 Single Cab DRW-350 small block/NP-435. '77 GMC-6500 Dump Truck, 427 Tall Deck. '92 GMC K-3500 Duallie, 454/4L80E. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Chance
![]() Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belcourt ,ND, USA
Posts: 750
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
I am asking because I want to know which engine block to go after. I already have one set of closed chamber heads and one set of open chamber heads. Pump gas will be an issue as well.
__________________
1968 Chevrolet Stepside BB 396 w/TH400 1972 Chevrolet 3/4 Ton 4x4 BB 496 w/TH400 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
What?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 7,617
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
My favorite...
396, 402, or a 427 with semi open chamber heads added with a dual plain intake manifold. Add SM465, low gears like 4.11 or 4.56 to the mix and I'd be a happy man. I like the stroke of those three, which are all the same just varying size bores. Get the early style semi opens, typically late 60's early 70's vintage. They will have the large oval ports instead of the later smaller smog models.
__________________
Chris 1968 K20 Suburban 1972 K10 LWB PU |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
I'm a poor spectator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Posts: 2,287
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
I vote 454, closed chamber, dual plane intake like Edelbrock, maybe even the air-gap variety, 9:1 compression hypereutectic pistons. This would be a good tow machine. Big RV cam and you would be set.
__________________
2006 Jeep Unlimited IMPACT ORANGE 1993 Chevy 2500 4x4 ExCab LWB 454/NV4500 Tow rig ![]() 1977 Ford F100 2x4 LWB 1st truck I owned, still have it!!! ![]() 1979 Ford F150 4x4 SWB Built Ford Tough!!! ![]() 1971 Chevy Blazer 350 / SM465 / NP205 UNDER CONSTRUCTION Soon to have a LQ4 6.0!!! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SUNNY WARM BIKE RIDING COTTONWOOD ARIZONA
Posts: 2,097
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
no replacement for displacement as said above but its gonna be all about your CAM/INTAKE more than anything... do some reading about duration/lift etc. and make a choice that will work for what you intend to do with the truck...
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lubbock Texas
Posts: 1,049
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
We like em original but the only substitute for cubic inches is cubic dollars.
__________________
You can shear a sheep every year, but you can only skin it once The person dealing with facts is never at the mercy of the person dealing with theory 1972 Cheyenne Super 402 400 A/c bucket seat tilt custom camper Longhorn 1975 Silverado 454 Crew cab camper special dually |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
My Carbon Footprint
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orygun
Posts: 5,527
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
Absolutely the 454. You have a longer stroke which = torque. I really need to do a vid or two of the truck below. It's our ranch/hay truck. I built a 454 for it about 3 years ago. Here are the specs:
454 with flat tops 781 early open heads crane 270H .515/.515 cam older Ed. performer 2.0 intake Holley 3310 (built by me ;xD) 1 7/8th headers with dual exhaust and H pipe TH400 This thing is a freaking torque monster. Some think that cam isn't an RV cam. It's more into the performance area. Not so. This was recommended by Harold Brookshire from Ultradyne Cams (I believe he is now heading up Lunati) who is one of the greatest cam designers of all time. He runs this cam profile in all of his 454 race car tow vehicles. I thought it might have been too big for an RV cam at first but this thing rips. Unreal torque and it hammers pretty good out the back. As far as the heads go. Forget the closed chambered heads. You are trying to build torque not HP. My prostreet truck had 781 opens on it and I made the mistake of putting on 702 '65-'66 395/427 closed heads. Bumping up compression will not help your towing like you think because you are giving up intake runner size. I'm at around 10.25:1 comp and wish I still had the 781's on it. The 781s and the 049s are just about the best iron oval port heads you can run on a big block. I'm also running about 18* initial timing. These BBC's love a lot of initial. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Registered User
![]() Join Date: May 2007
Location: Rapid City South Dakota
Posts: 2,359
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
One more thing. The closed chambers will bump compression, but they severely shroud the valves, which hurts airflow.
__________________
Turp Mcspray New life for an old 2wd, farm blazer http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=505987 My Blazer build http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=342299 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: MD
Posts: 1,937
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
This - ^^^
__________________
1969 c-10 Step Side Long Bed. I-6 250cid = ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
My Carbon Footprint
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orygun
Posts: 5,527
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
This is why the best senario is the get an old motor that needs rebuilt but has the bigger open heads and just get a piston with a slight dome to bump the compression. Quite frankly them stock flat tops with the 781's or 049's will make MORE than enough towing torque though. This is why the famous early 454 is so hard to beat. This is why I don't own a small block. All you gotta do is open them up just a bit on the top and bottom (get them to breathe) and put a decent cam in them. Ground pounding fun all day long.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tejas
Posts: 691
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
*flame suit on* you might consider peanut ports on a tow rig.
Check out the latest car craft, made 446/542 (good even if the numbers are inflated) with those and an xe268 in a 454. I've read alot about success stories with those for a torquey motor
__________________
'72 cheyenne super step, '05 long bed gmc |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 424
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
Quote:
Closed chambers will build compression, but don't breathe worth a damn. The valves are shrouded by the chamber walls. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 424
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
My Carbon Footprint
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orygun
Posts: 5,527
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
Also remember that the valves are shrouded by the walls of the closed heads.
The other thing is that the closed chambers will effect the valves.....will actually "shroud" them! LMAO.......sorry, couldn't resist the smart a$$ comment! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Leesburg, VA
Posts: 424
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
It's what I get for not reading every post before I chime in.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
My Carbon Footprint
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Orygun
Posts: 5,527
|
Re: Better for towing? 396, 402, 427 (closed chamber) vs. 454 (open chamber)
Believe me.......I do it all the time. That's why I thought it was so funny.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|