90 hp for 6100 dollars?

[SuperBuickGuy]

The CC rambler 401 engine build - near as I can figure it, they spent at least 6100 dollars (plus the price of custom JE pistons) and got 90 more hp over the 360.... where's the logic in that?

[IRONHEAD]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

it's what you take , from the story..
my take, that a guy with a 360 thats itch'n for a hard to find 401, and might think twice..
after reading this..
or not

[Thumpin455]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

A bud of mine who lives near Geneva Ne had two 401s that he couldnt give away. No bids on ebay, nobody wanted them and they were running engines. Go figure.

If I am going to spend $6000 on an engine the thing had better make 600 hp/tq

[sedandelivery55]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

"where's the logic in that?"

Since when is this hobby supposed to be logical? ;D I don't think I've done anything logically thought out since I started this recent 'rebuild'. :

[Scott Liggett]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

Did you take into effect that the 360 went kaboom. Not worth rebuilding.

[1988montecarloss]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

If I am going to spend $6000 on an engine the thing had better make 600 hp/tq

i was thinking like 8/900 ;D

[dieselgeek]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

If I am going to spend $6000 on an engine the thing had better make 600 hp/tq

i was thinking like 8/900 ;D

same here

[Thumpin455]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

Its kinda an at least number guys, not everyone can cruise in a 900hp car, 600 is easier on you. Spending more than $4k on anything less than 500hp is kinda silly and wasteful, even in my N/A Pontiac world.

I do applaud them for keeping it AMC and not shoving a sbc in it. To me it seems like the guys who complain about how expensive a Pontiac is, but they put forged cranks and Oliver rods in a 350hp mild 400 build. Sure AMC stuff is harder to find, but geez.

[38P]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

Douglas Glad should have followed the advice in the "So we're not rich but we aren't stupid" thread on the CC board and went with a turbo set-up. http://forums.carcraft.com/70/668919/general-car-craft-discussion/so-were-not-rich-but-we-arent-stupid/index.html

A turbocharged, mostly stock AMC V8 in one of the more common displacements would have been cheaper and would have belted out more "area under the curve" than the CC/Rambler's "all motor" 401. Building torque with more cubes and RPM is often significantly more expensive than turbocharging. This is even more true when you're building less common "orphan" engines.

On the other hand, if you're building a truly emissions-legal late model car, you may end up spending more than $4k on ~ 500 h.p., so I cannot completely agree with Thumpin455.

[Thumpin455]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

Yeah it is really easy for me to make my engines bigger. I mean REALLY easy, and not terribly expensive either. A $280 crank and my 400 is now a 462. It costs me about the same to build a 350, 400, or 455, and a little bit more for a 428, and they are all bolt in engines that use all the same stuff externally, so its different for me.

Still its not like they had a running 360 and then decided to upgrade it with more parts into an engine that made power like a 401. Building another engine will obviously cost more than upgrading one that is already running.. usually.. in this sense. They can always add a turbo later.

[dieselgeek]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

On the other hand, if you're building a truly emissions-legal late model car, you may end up spending more than $4k on ~ 500 h.p., so I cannot completely agree with Thumpin455.

wouldn't it be pretty difficult to do this? I know you can buy a few engines that make this kind of power, and are emissions legal... but there are very few CARB-exempted parts that can get you there.

I can put together a high power turbocharged EFI tuned car that MEETS emissions standards - cheap, now that Megasquirt has their sequential system available - but it still won't be "legal" because I've "tampered" with OEM systems and can't pass the "visual" test either.

(which, might I add, is total BS because I should be able to test for emissions and pass strictly on the exhaust gases, not on the politics of what parts I use).

[IRONHEAD]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

Douglas Glad should have followed the advice in the "So we're not rich but we aren't stupid" thread on the CC board and went with a turbo set-up. http://forums.carcraft.com/70/668919/general-car-craft-discussion/so-were-not-rich-but-we-arent-stupid/index.html

A turbocharged, mostly stock AMC V8 in one of the more common displacements would have been cheaper and would have belted out more "area under the curve" than the CC/Rambler's "all motor" 401. Building torque with more cubes and RPM is often significantly more expensive than turbocharging. This is even more true when you're building less common "orphan" engines.

On the other hand, if you're building a truly emissions-legal late model car, you may end up spending more than $4k on ~ 500 h.p., so I cannot completely agree with Thumpin455.

oh god not that thread again..

[SuperBuickGuy]

Re: 90 hp for 6100 dollars?

funny thing is, I did enjoy several things about the article. For instance, they discussed weaknesses of the AMC motor and how to fix them (i.e. the oil line bypass, the benefits of offset grinding a crank and key things to watch out for).... but my criticism remains the same, it seemed they threw a lot of money at that motor without much to show for it..... it would have been nice if they had done a bit of analyzing and found why that motor isn't making power and addressed that issue - if there's a flow problem with the heads or whatever... really IMO that kind of dough should make 600 hp without a power added; and I do know if I had done/spent so much on a motor, I'd have been very disappointed with those numbers.... especially since this is supposed to be a race car, not a fairgrounds cruiser.
perhaps it's the dual quad sheet metal intake? I can't imagine that motor would ever get to a RPM where that manifold would be in its zone...