Bronco Forum - Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

Roller cam or not

400M rollerized

18K views 57 replies 19 participants last post by  Shaker666 
#1 ·
I was toying with the idea of upgrading my 400M build with a roller cam, but really can't justify the cost. The simulator does show a significant increase in low end torque however and improving the efficiency of the truck has always been a priority. I'm currently running a Crane 523902 hydraulic flat tappet. Runs great. I've been looking at the Crane 529541 hydraulic roller. Not really sure whether it's really worth $1200 in parts and the time. Thoughts? Can't attach images, so here's a table showing the differences:

Current flat tappet sim data:
RPM Power Torque
2000 157 411
2500 205 430
3000 253 443
3500 302 453
4000 333 438
4500 349 407
5000 337 354

Roller cam upgrade sim data:
RPM Power Torque
2000 178 468
2500 228 479
3000 281 492
3500 330 495
4000 358 469
4500 364 426
5000 348 366
 
See less See more
#3 ·
The heads are the stock open chamber 2V Cleveland heads that came on the 400M. They're certainly canted valves, I think they flow pretty well right from the factory. The valves are 2.04" intake and 1.67" exhaust. I am basically looking for improved fuel economy and low end torque.
 
#5 ·
It would be unique for sure, if I had the money I would do it to mine, those are decent gains and MPG would be a significant gain as well.
 
#7 ·
#19 ·
Money wise, what's the difference between a 400 roller and a 408w roller?

I have a 400 roller... ...makes a ton of torque..
outlawbob
I bet it does. :)

Those 4" stroke motors have got to be cool. :)

As a kid had a '67 Doge Dart with a 225 slant six = 4+1/8" stroke.
Their 170 with its 3+1/8" stroke was an absolute dog, could hardly
get out of its own way. LOL :)

Just thought... "ton of torque" = "2000ft/lbs" LOL :)

Alvin in AZ
 
#11 ·
You got that right. Motor's already pushing over 400 ft-lbs of torque at 2000 RPM. I really don't think it's worth the effort or the cabbage.
 
#12 ·
x2 on what InfoFord was saying....bragging rights is about it, IMO. I'm thinking your fuel injection is about the only thing that would let you see a "noticable" difference.
BTW, can I have your BKO?:haha
 
#14 ·
Rolling on a set of Toyo 35x13.50x15 M/Ts with 4.11 gears I'm seeing a solid 10 mpg regardless of whether I'm on a highway or in town. I'd love to get it up to 12 mpg if it were possible, but I don't think the cam's gonna do it for me.
 
#15 ·
I'm putting a 400 roller together for my '78. I didn't actually plan to build it..just came to the realization that my 20-years plus of collecting Ford engines and parts left me with everything I needed for a nice build except the TMeyer pistons. The ole '78 is in the midst of a 1-ton axle swap right now; the engine swap will follow.

- Aussie 2V heads, Ferrea stainless 2.07/1,6, with studs, guide plates and SVO roller rockers
- A custom 400 roller cam, NIB, that came with another project I bought. It's mostly a 290H grind that isn't far off the Comp Cams version.
- Multi-port EFI (mostly Ford parts...similar to the one Jopes did)
 
#16 ·
I've come to the decision that spending about $1200 on installing a roller cam in my 400 isn't worthwhile considering my future plans for the Bronco. First off, the roller cam won't actually yield much better power/torque numbers and certainly won't affect my fuel mileage appreciably. Second, I'm going to replace the engine with a Cummins 4BT at some point - 400M runs great since I injected it and fuel economy has been the only issue. 6000 lbs of truck requires a certain amount of energy to move and there's no changing that, however.
 
#24 ·
First off, the roller cam won't actually yield much better power/torque numbers
What made you change your mind since your sim showed 57 ft-lbs @ 2000RPM? Or was that mostly from the cam change (although the new cam was geared more towards top end, no???)


Probably the best money you could spend for getting better fuel economy is to buy a small car. They get better fuel economy, easier to park, have cheaper tires, and gives you a parts runner.
and handle better, cruise nice @ 80+.

The difference in cost between a 408M and a 408W is pretty huge. Basically, the heads on the Windsor block have to be replaced, which makes it far less affordable.
What compression are you running with those open chamber heads? Not sure I'd do a 400 build without at least going aussie, which are getting pricier, close to $800 full redone I think.

[*]335 series engine blocks are strong. The same cannot be said about small block Fords, especially factory roller blocks. Look for '69-74 Windsor blocks with the higher nickel content (much stronger).
[/LIST]
I'm a big 400 (M) fan, but there are plenty of roller block W's in the 700+ HP range.
 
#20 ·
The difference in cost between a 408M and a 408W is pretty huge. Basically, the heads on the Windsor block have to be replaced, which makes it far less affordable. Any Cleveland head is a far cry above and beyond in performance compared to a stock SBF piece. I built my 400M for less than $2K, that included new pistons, rings, valve job, bearings, cutting the crank down, ARP Wave-loc rod bolts, cam, double roller timing chain, oil pump, rockers, Glyptal, and long tube ceramic coated headers. The roller cammed 408W in my Mustang was a bit more $$$ and the heads were a sizable part of that cost.

Regarding fuel economy, I already ride a motorcycle to work everyday (50-60 mpg) and have a small 4 cylinder Jap car as well... the need to improve the fuel economy is driven by the cost of travel when going on adventures to Colorado for skiing, mountain biking, etc. in Bronco. Not my daily commute which often involves riding a mountain bike.
 
#22 ·
I have been debating using a 400 or a roller cam 351W in my 1966 F100 4x4 project on a 78 F150 frame. I am leaning more and more towards the 351w. It will bolt up to the 300 six bellhousing I have,, I have the proper flywheel, I have the complete serpentine belt setup with a van saginaw bracket and pump and 3g alternator. I have a roller cam shortblock sitting here, GT40P heads, Edelbrock Performer carb intake and other parts. The 400 is expensive for all the upgrades, roller cam, Saginaw pump, serpentine, finding the right flywheel and bellhousing is not so simple. And the 351W will probably be about 75 pounds lighter and will be easier to add fuel injection to in the future.
 
#23 ·
I agree with you on some points and not so much on others.

  • The small block bellhousing bolt pattern was found on early vintage 400s, which would resolve your transmission mating issue. Unfortunately, they're not very common (I don't think, I could be wrong).
  • Serpentine is very easy and inexpensively added to a 351W, whereas it's certainly not a cheap upgrade for the 400 or any 335 series engine.
  • Roller cam and all other upgrades for the 400 are not necessarily any more/less expensive.
  • Injecting a 400 is as simple as getting an intake adapter from Price Motorsports and moving on. Heads on any 335 series engine are far better than most aftermarket heads for the Windsor!
  • 335 series engine blocks are strong. The same cannot be said about small block Fords, especially factory roller blocks. Look for '69-74 Windsor blocks with the higher nickel content (much stronger).

I think that if I were to rebuild the engine in my Mustang again, I would jump for the Cleveland (car came with a 351CJ originally). The lack of coolant in the intake makes for a much more reliable setup and I've had far fewer oil leaks with the Cleveland as well. Both Windsors and Clevelands are excellent engines however, and nobody will argue that the Windsor oiling scheme is a huge improvement over the 335 series.
 
#25 ·
I ran a better simulation at my friend's office, who owns a company specializing in fuel injection and engines for aircraft. His guys developed a very high fidelity simulation to more accurately model the pressure dynamics of the cam and frictional effects. Not a significant improvement at low engine speeds at all according to that sim. My original numbers came from Dyno2000.

Those 2V open chambers make a ton of torque, man. I'm running 8.5:1 compression and it'll roast my 35s with a flat tappet hydraulic, stock converter, and stock transmission. I think the major torque adder when rebuilding the 400 was ditching the severely retarded timing chain (no pun intended). Open chamber heads will deal with heavier loads, lugging, and towing better than the closed chamber heads. If I wanted a CR higher than 11:1 I'd probably swing for a set of Aussie heads or just go out and buy some of the new Cleveland offerings from Edelbrock or Trickflow.

Regarding the Windsors, I've had my share of breakage. Personally, I'd stay away from any F4xx Windsor block if you're going to be putting power through it. I've split one F3 302 block at 500 horse as well. If you dig around on the net you should be able to find some horror stories, I'm sure. I think it's hit and miss. Just like M blocks prior to '77 had some cracking issues, I think the late model roller Windsors do as well. I've running a 408 Windsor based on a '69 C9AE block with a girdle and a retrofit roller cam conversion... lives at 550 horse and 500 ft-lbs of torque all day long, no problems, have been running it since 1994. Dollar for dollar however, I'm sure I could've got that M block making the same power for about $2000 less!
 
#26 ·
[

Yeah, I was surprised at the first sim, as most factory engines that went roller didn't gain a crapload of torque. Like the 84 to 85 5.0, it went from 245 to 275 ft-lbs, but it also got tubular headers, new heads, revised 4 bbl carb, decent bump in cam lift, in addition to roller. I'm also glad it does not add that much torque, as I'd have to consider it and I don't want to spend the money :toothless (already have my cam/lifters/rockers)

I was always under the impression the open chamber 2V's had "bad" quench characteristcs, hence they were not very friendly to increased compression and/or timing. I have a 400 which I think is built close to yours (not EFI or duals, but cam/intake/4 bbl/chain/ign..etc... It is also stock compression, but I believe that was 8.4:1 on the 400's. It is pretty peppy, but sure doesn't roast my 35's.
 
#27 ·
I haven't quite got the tune dialed into the Bronco yet, but maybe that's how I got it to roast the tires. I ended up using the Price Motorsport adapters to fit a 351W GT40 lower intake (ported) to the 400. I used a Cobra upper rotated 180*, 65mm throttle body, 70mm Cobra MAF, 30 lb/hr injectors, C&L 3.5" intake tubing, and a large 8" conical filter from Anderson Ford. I'm running an EEC with a tune I've been working on for a few years, a mix of A9L and X3Z strategies. I also retrofitted EDIS8 so I could theoretically submerge the engine (at least where the distributor used to be) and continue running. I've got DFSO working well (to save fuel on decel... :thumbup). Anyhow, I think the tip in is very aggressive and causes the tires to break loose if I really drop the hammer because of it. Cam is a Crane 523902, hydraulic flat tappet. Works GREAT in the 400 and the Bronco.

Never noticed any issues with pinging at such a low compression level, but I suppose you might run into issues trying to achieve 10:1 or higher with the open chambers.
 
#30 ·
Yeah, I posted most of the EFI conversion on EECTuning a few years ago.

The engine build itself was very straightforward. I got the motivation from reading an article in the September '98 edition of Hot Rod magazine, titled "Down & Dirty." It detailed a 380 hp, 468 ft-lb 400M build for less than $2K. That is basically what I ended up doing, splurging a little bit here and there. Here's a few details:
  • Dynagear P741-030 pistons ($100)
  • Perfect Circle 40564CP-30 piston rings ($60)
  • ARP 154-3604 head bolts ($55)
  • ARP 154-7905 oil pump driveshaft ($17)
  • Federal Mogul 8-3400CP rod bearings ($50)
  • Federal Mogul 5078M main bearings ($31)
  • Felpro KS 2308 gasket set ($45)
  • Crane Cams 523902 hydraulic flat tappet cam w/lifters ($150)
  • Crane Cams 35308-1 valvespring & retainer kit ($100)
  • Crane Cams 99097-1 valve stem locks ($32)
  • Cloyes CLO-9-3121 double roller timing chain ($74) WORTH EVERY PENNY
  • Sealed Power oil pupm 224-41166V ($40)
  • Sealed Poewr stock length pushrods ($24)
  • ARP 154-6001 rod bolts ($40)
  • Clevite77 SH710S cam bearings ($16)
  • Crane 52800 rocker arms ($109)
  • Flowkooler water pump ($72)

The machine work cost roughly $600 and I've actually gone through a few sets of headers (now running Hooker Jet Hot coated long tubes) because the truck has lived outdoors its entire life and part of that was in Canada. All the parts to perform the injection (which was done roughly 10 years after the engine was built), cost an additional $2000.
 
#35 ·
Yeah, I'd change a few things. You gotta remember that when I rebuilt the 400M, I was on a budget... I rebuilt it all for less than $2K. Cast pistons, reusing the heads, valves, etc. Just quality machine work and getting rid of that retarded timing chain and cam resulted in some really good power increases.

The only things I'd do different on the next go around would be:
  • If money were no object, splurge on a quality roller cam, Howards roller lifters, and upgrade to some Crane Energizer roller rocker arms. Of course, that's about $1200!
  • I have a spare 351CJ sitting in the corner of my shop. I'm not sure if the head would be a good option for a 4x4 motor, but it might be. It basically becomes a choice between 2V and 4V heads at that point.
  • Again, if money weren't an issue, perform the oil restriction and line rerouting for the Cleveland engine.
  • Run a Moates Quarterhorse with the tune selector switch upgrade instead of a TwEECer RT. It's a $200 savings.

I've always been tweaking the tune a bit. Initial setup wasn't hard, though. Basically setup the injectors for the 30 lb/hr red tops I'm running, dial in the MAF (stock Ford Cobra), alter injector timing for the new cam, make it all work with a single O2 instead of dual, and enable EDIS8. It's nice to not stall out when rockcrawling and there was definitely a low end torque increase from injecting the engine.

An already mass air '96 computer + harness might run the motor fine, but the calibration and strategy may not be well supported by the tuning community - just keep in mind that you need to be able to tweak the tune, so TwEECer, Moates QH, and some software like Binary Editor/EEC Analyzer will be useful. I used the GUFB strategy A9L as a basis. Very well supported since it's from the '89 5.0 Mustang. Harness came from there too.

I would love to run an OD, but all the forum posts and writeups I've read about AOD-NP205 and E4OD-NP205, along with Gear Vendors OD and even the obsolete US Gear upgrade just seem a bit out of reach for me. I'm not great with fabrication and I'd need a lot of help in that area to get something like that working, so for now I'm stuck with the old C6 (which is leaking like a sieve, mind you).
 
#36 ·
I would love to run an OD, but all the forum posts and writeups I've read about AOD-NP205 and E4OD-NP205, along with Gear Vendors OD and even the obsolete US Gear upgrade just seem a bit out of reach for me. I'm not great with fabrication and I'd need a lot of help in that area to get something like that working, so for now I'm stuck with the old C6 (which is leaking like a sieve, mind you).
Too bad you weren't closer. I'd trade some fab work for some EFI tuning hints (once I get mine done, still on the fence of ford or aftermarket EFI).
 
#39 ·
Friction



There is no where that much friction loss with a flat tappet cam. It's probably more on the order of 5 hp/torque for a mid size v8, all else being equal. It's hard to measure since it is flat tappet and roller cams's have a different lobe lift curve. The best example I can come with is the 351w roller cam engines of 95-96 are only rated at 210hp/325 torque compared to a 1990 351w which was 210hp/315 torque.
 
#42 ·
You'll still need to tune your open loop fuel maps using a WBO2, even with the Ford EEC, although you can usually just copy the tables from a similar vehicle. For example, I researched the fuel maps on a '96 Bronco with a 351W and also a truck with a 460 to determine where I should really target enrichment. In any case, the Ford EEC and its associated map editors display the maps in terms of AFR, so that makes it really simple. It's not like my motorcycle where it displays fuel maps in terms of injector pulsewidth!

When comparing aftermarket vs Ford, consider the following possible concerns:
  • Closed loop feedback control system may not be ideal with aftermarket systems - sacrificing fuel economy.
  • Many do not support bonafide sequential injection, they do bank injection instead.
  • Cost! You'll be in for around $250 for a Moates QH + say another $100 in tuning software, whereas some of the aftermarket systems are prohibitively expensive.

You drive a Ford, may as well inject it with Ford parts too, they pretty much pioneered it on domestic vehicles.
 
#44 ·
As far as I can tell, there is no technical "open loop" with aftermarkets and a wideband. That is one of the draws for me, especially @ WOT. I could care less about sequential, or even port injection really. Mileage is not a conern for a trailer queen that will be getting maybe 4 MPG, hard core wheeling full time.

As for cost, with ford you need to add custom manifold/rails, modified EEC IV compatable distr, inj/mass air meter, harness, mass air computer, all new sensors (unless your trusting you stuff to sensors with 200K on them). It all adds up and can come real close to an aftermarket bolt on 4 bbl EFI.

The biggest draw for going ford is that worse case, you can take it somewhere (almost anywhere) and have it dyno tuned. Pros and cons to both sides. Still several years off by the time I get my rig finished and running, will see what the aftermarket has when the time comes.
 
#45 · (Edited)
There's no such thing as fuel economy when you are talking 400M motors. Same with 351W motors. We are talking mud-bog motors that get 10-14 mpg, tops.

If you want fuel economy, get a hybrid or 2.3 Ford anything. 2.3 Rangers are fun.

I love the 400 motors. Sure, the 460s are cool too, but the underdog 400M is a killer. Take those Cleveland-style ports. Do they flow? Didn't we just say "Cleveland"? Go ahead and go to Harbor Freight and get a die-grinder cheap. Grind out the offending exhaust hump. It's not difficult, it's easy. Those heads FLOW. Watch careful to get an old intake that matches the size of the ports. If your cam is not steep, the factory rocker setup does not suck. Me, I always deck the pedestals, run screw-in studs, adjustable roller-tip rockers and i am happy.

Don't waste your money throwing high-dollar retro-roller kits into a non-roller motor. For what? If you are gonna run the 351M\400M motors, run them the way they were designed, flat-tappet, juiced. Wanna play with a roller-motor? For a LOT less than the fancy aftermarket retro-roller kit for a 400M, you can have a whole roller-motor 460 engine. Buy the core motor salvage and build it cool, and jab into your Bronco of choice.

Same reasoning for EFI upgrades & aftermarket systems. Save your cash and spend it on beer. Run a new-gen carb, like any competing for your dollar on the market today, WAY cheaper than EFI.

Up-teching an old motor always cost WAY more than buying that stuff stock on a late-model motor.

Check out the coil-over Chinese copy DUI\HEI distributors. $59 for these motors, same one. An ignition system so good and cheap, you can buy a second dist to toss in your oh-shit box.

In the 78\79s, the 351M and 400M are already THERE. They don't suck. It's a good motor family. Yes, the 460 kicks ass and you can drop it right in place of the these other motors. Get the good motor mounts and you are also THERE.

It just doesn't suck having these options... :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top