Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 44
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Is a 5.7 based 426 possible?

    Arrington 6.1 based 440 has a 4.25" stroke. can a 5.7 block handle a 4.25" stroke too?

    Arrington 5.7 based 410 has a 4.0" bore.

    4.0" bore & 4.25" stroke = 426 cid 5.7 based stroker. will this work?



  2. #2
    InferAl's Avatar
    InferAl is offline "R.I.P. Lou1355 "The Hellbitch lives On"
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    8,670
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wouldn't recomend it
    2009 B5 Blue Challenger R/T /Billy Briggs 426/ Thitek Heads & Cam /
    Installed By BFNY Performance/
    SHR Trans Paramount 8.8 & Dominator TC /Tuned By Jerseyboy /
    Atco
    Video





  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by InferAl View Post
    I wouldn't recomend it
    would you please explain? I am a gear-head & would appreciate some details of why not to do this in GearHead-ese.

  4. #4
    InferAl's Avatar
    InferAl is offline "R.I.P. Lou1355 "The Hellbitch lives On"
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    8,670
    Post Thanks / Like
    The bore and stroke are pretty extreme for a 5.7 block
    2009 B5 Blue Challenger R/T /Billy Briggs 426/ Thitek Heads & Cam /
    Installed By BFNY Performance/
    SHR Trans Paramount 8.8 & Dominator TC /Tuned By Jerseyboy /
    Atco
    Video





  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by InferAl View Post
    The bore and stroke are pretty extreme for a 5.7 block
    so Arrinton is pushing the envelope pretty hard to punch the 5.7 block out to 4.0" bore? cylinder walls are too thin?

    what do you consider the max safe 5.7 block bore to be, 3.98"? 3.96"?

    is the 5.7 block deck height lower than the 6.1 block? why will the 6.1 block take a 4.25" stroke, but he 5.7 block won't?

  6. #6
    InferAl's Avatar
    InferAl is offline "R.I.P. Lou1355 "The Hellbitch lives On"
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    8,670
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by white lightning View Post
    so Arrinton is pushing the envelope pretty hard to punch the 5.7 block out to 4.0" bore? cylinder walls are too thin?

    what do you consider the max safe 5.7 block bore to be, 3.98"? 3.96"?

    is the 5.7 block deck height lower than the 6.1 block? why will the 6.1 block take a 4.25" stroke, but he 5.7 block won't?
    i considered a 4in bore 383 before my current setup, but the 4in bore stopped me.

    Not every 5.7 block could handle it, they had to be checked and even then it had to be done perfect. Not good % in my book and that was with a 3.795 stroke.

    IMO both the 5.7 410 and the 6.1 440 are pushing the limits unless someone just wants something for show and not racing and to last
    2009 B5 Blue Challenger R/T /Billy Briggs 426/ Thitek Heads & Cam /
    Installed By BFNY Performance/
    SHR Trans Paramount 8.8 & Dominator TC /Tuned By Jerseyboy /
    Atco
    Video




    Likes Cuda SRT8 liked this post

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Welland ON
    Posts
    8,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    essentially, it's a 0.080" overbore on a 5.7.
    a 0.060" overbore would yield a 423
    0.080" would be a 427
    0.040 would be 419 etc, etc...

    im not an engine builder, but old rule of thumb used to be 0.060" is max. newer engines have less metal to play with as well.
    the 4.25" stroke is pretty wild IMO, but i dont see any reason it couldnt be done in a 5.7 where it would in a 6.1
    http://www.lxforums.com/board/signaturepics/sigpic18566_2.gif


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    831
    Post Thanks / Like
    A 4.25" stroke distributed through a 4.065" piston is one thing, but a 4.25" stroke distributed through a 4.00" piston is really asking for trouble. What that much stroke, you need as much piston as possible for skirt control. IMO, I would be very shocked if Arrington built this motor, but stranger things have happened.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by fargo59 View Post
    essentially, it's a 0.080" overbore on a 5.7.
    that I knew, stock bore is 3.92"

    Quote Originally Posted by fargo59 View Post
    old rule of thumb used to be 0.060" is max. newer engines have less metal to play with as well.
    that's what I thought. I was surprised when the 4" bore 383 was built.

    Quote Originally Posted by fargo59 View Post
    the 4.25" stroke is pretty wild IMO, but i dont see any reason it couldnt be done in a 5.7 where it would in a 6.1
    I thought the 4.25" stroke was a bit much too, but Arrigton did it. any idea what the longevity of the 6.1 based 440 is?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by SLICKHER1 View Post
    A 4.25" stroke distributed through a 4.065" piston is one thing, but a 4.25" stroke distributed through a 4.00" piston is really asking for trouble. What that much stroke, you need as much piston as possible for skirt control.
    good to know. that must be why Arrington didn't go past 4.08" stroke on 5.7 block builds.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by InferAl View Post
    i considered a 4in bore 383 before my current setup, but the 4in bore stopped me.

    Not every 5.7 block could handle it, they had to be checked and even then it had to be done perfect. Not good % in my book and that was with a 3.795 stroke.

    IMO both the 5.7 410 and the 6.1 440 are pushing the limits unless someone just wants something for show and not racing and to last
    how long do you think the 5.7 410 and the 6.1 440 will last?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    2,397
    Post Thanks / Like
    is 392 not enough???
    SOLD.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    16,628
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sergeo'shemi View Post
    is 392 not enough???
    Sure is for me. NA, us 392 guys can hang with the big boys in the power department

    I didn't have my block sonic'd. In retrospect, I should have. I don't drive Bean hard though, so I should be good for a while.

    My buddy MattRobertson did have his (first block) sonic'd and it came back way to thin, so he started over and went with the safer .020" bore (netted a 390ci). He drives his Mag harder than anyone on these boards (hell, maybe anywhere) and he's never had a single issue. I'd be foolish to try what he does with mine.
    On to... ...the next

  14. #14
    InferAl's Avatar
    InferAl is offline "R.I.P. Lou1355 "The Hellbitch lives On"
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    8,670
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sergeo'shemi View Post
    is 392 not enough???
    Why 392's are running 11.5x's NA right up there with the 426's

    And to go a step further Hemi~C~'s Blown 392 ran 9.85 which no other car has done on this forum..........426 or 440
    2009 B5 Blue Challenger R/T /Billy Briggs 426/ Thitek Heads & Cam /
    Installed By BFNY Performance/
    SHR Trans Paramount 8.8 & Dominator TC /Tuned By Jerseyboy /
    Atco
    Video





  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    16,628
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by sergeo'shemi View Post
    is 392 not enough???
    Quote Originally Posted by InferAl View Post
    Why 392's are running 11.5x's NA right up there with the 426's

    And to go a step further Hemi~C~'s Blown 392 ran 9.85 which no other car has done on this forum..........426 or 440
    Great point Al. You're absolutely right.
    On to... ...the next

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Share This Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •