possible 396 engine install?

[slowfinger]

Does the small block manual bell housing bolt up to the chevy 396 block? and can I use small block starter? Would the 56 chevy stock clutch bolt to the 396 flywheel? What kind of clearance would we have with the big block? Can we use stock motor mounts with it? Might have line on a decent 396 engine for rebuild project. Please let me know if you have used a big block in your beloved chevy tri five and what we might encounter! Mad mook out there? Thanks George

[Rick_L]

Yes the stock V8 bellhousing bolts up to a big block, and you can use the starter. You need to use a clutch for the 396 and it will fit in the bellhousing. You can't use stock front engine mounts as they won't fit the 396. A much bigger deal is where the big block needs to be mounted fore and aft. Having the bellhousing in the original location means that the 396 will interfere with your firewall. Moving it forward means that your oil pan won't clear the steering and that there will be problems with the fan clearing the radiator. The best compromise is usually 3/4" to 1-1/4" forward. This gives you a situation where the firewall mods are minimal but not avoided altogether, the oil pan to steering linkage problem is also there but manageable, and the fan to radiator clearance is ok if you mount the radiator in front of the radiator support, which is where it is for a stock 6 cylinder engine.

Lots of details and choices accompany all that, but it's a start.

[chevynut]

I don't know why anyone would use such a tiny BBC ...it makes no more power than a big SBC and it's quite a bit heavier. Unless it's "free" stuff you have laying around, or it's for a restored muscle car, I think it's a waste. It's going to cost more than a SBC installation. An LS engine will put out much more power and can be built to the same cubic inches and everything is available to install one. It would probably cost more in the end, but you'd end up with a better setup. JMHO.

I have a 502 BBC in my Nomad and had a 427 in it before that. Everything behind bolts up just like the SBC but the engine is 2" or so longer in front of the side mounts. You need to move it forward about 1 1/2" to fully clear the firewall, unless you plan to replace the firewall anyhow with an aftermarket one. That will alleviate a lot of headaches. At 3/4" forward you will still have to modify the stock firewall. If you are using a crossflow radiator and SPAL electric fans, there's no problem in front of the engine. Oilpans are made that work in the BBC applications, or you can otherwise modify the steering like using a dropped drag link. There are headers available that work but I'm not sure which cast iron manifolds work with the stock steering box. I would not try to use the bellhousing mounts but go with side mounts and tranny crossmember if you move it forward. Thousands of BBCs have been put in these cars....it can be done.

[markm]

I run a 1965 Impala SS396 motor for nostalgia purposes using CCI/Ecklers 2.25 forward mounts with style 500 power steering. I was pleasantly surprised at the power of the old boat anchor. Particularly on the day I ate my buddy's 502 crate motor powered 57 lunch. . I did not make ant firewall modifications and am able to remove valve covers with no hassle, additionally if I had only went 3/4 or so forward I would have issues with carb /air clearance on my tunnel ram. I use an Earl Williams upgraded stock clutch linkage with a modified block bracket. I told my 55 is was a 67 Camaro SS 386 when it came to buying pulleys, alt and PS brackets & hoses and the stuff all fit excellent

[rockytopper R.I.P 5-13-2017]

I like the 396 lol. I miss the torque. Yes my stock LS1 will spank it in stock form but it still no feel as good on the bottom end as that ole tiny little BB cheby.......

[chevynut]

I fail to see how a 396 BBC has more torque than a 400 SBC as the bore and stroke are almost identical. Please explain. You need more displacement or higher cylinder pressures to get more torque.

[chevynut]

I run a 1965 Impala SS396 motor for nostalgia purposes using CCI/Ecklers 2.25 forward mounts with style 500 power steering. I was pleasantly surprised at the power of the old boat anchor. Particularly on the day I ate my buddy's 502 crate motor powered 57 lunch.

Your "buddy's" 502 must be the low performance version and running really bad that day. Or maybe it had a carb that didn't work right.

I did not make ant firewall modifications and am able to remove valve covers with no hassle,

Really? At only 2.25" forward you have no firewall issues? That's excessive and is not needed to clear the firewall and remove valve covers. I don't know why CCI went so far forward when it's not needed. It will cause other problems, imo, depending on where the radiator sits and with the steering.

[Rick_L]

I fail to see how a 396 BBC has more torque than a 400 SBC as the bore and stroke are almost identical. Please explain. You need more displacement or higher cylinder pressures to get more torque.

A stock 396 in the 325, 350, or 360 hp versions will spank any stock 400 SBC big time because the cylinder heads are so much bigger and flow better. That translates to higher cylinder pressures. As you move to modified stuff, the same holds true as long as the mods are of the same scope. Of course as you do that the rpm where peak torque occurs goes up. The main downside of the big block is size and weight, but it doesn't let a small block overcome better heads in most cases. The 375 hp 396 is a form of a modified engine as it has bigger heads and camshaft.

On the other hand, you can just as easily and cheaply use a 454 and get that much more. Unless you get a "deal" on something.

As for a 396 outrunning a 502, obviously it won't if equipped similarly.

[chevynut]

Good points Rick, I hadn't considered the better heads and bigger valves and was too focused on displacement.

I agree that even a lower performance 502 would out-perform a 396 unless the 396 is a lot more radical. Not to mention the torque and HP of a ZZ502 with the higher compression, bigger heads and valves, and a bigger roller cam.

The 502HO crate engine with cast iron heads puts out 558 ft-lb and 461 HP. http://www.chevrolet.com/performance...ck-502-ho.html

Even the lowest performance HT502 puts out 548 ft-lb and 406 HP. http://www.chevrolet.com/performance...ck-ht-502.html

I don't think a streetable 396 could touch those torque numbers.

[markm]

Your "buddy's" 502 must be the low performance version and running really bad that day. Or maybe it had a carb that didn't work right

Says the guy who has not owned a running Hotrod in this century.

Really? At only 2.25" forward you have no firewall issues? That's excessive and is not needed to clear the firewall and remove valve covers. I don't know why CCI went so far forward when it's not needed. It will cause other problems, imo, depending on where the radiator sits and with the steering.

I could have got by on valve covers with a little less, but would have probably had issues up high with carbs and air cleaners. I told OP what brackets pulleys etc. to use to not have issues with PS. All available from Ricks Camaro.

Rick is correct they never made a 400 SBC that ran worth a crap out of the box, They were all 2 barrel until the late 70s and by then they were blue smog motors.

The SBC 400 was a replacement for the 265 hp 396 which also was a 2 barrel and a boat anchor, but I bet you do not know what contribution it made to the world of performance.

Yes my 408 was well tuned that day and I had my 4.56 Dana 60 and BW Super T10 that day. The 502 had to big of Cam for Convertor and Two Eldecrap carbs.