Here's where I'm at with my 383 build - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-10-2007, 03:08 AM
Malibu73's Avatar
'68 Chevelle Malibu Sedan
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oregon
Age: 27
Posts: 353
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Here's where I'm at with my 383 build

Alright so after some deliberation (and price checking) I've come to the conclusion that it would be almost stupid of me not to build a 383 stroker out of my 355 I have now. The cost is just so low for the extra cubes you get with almost no work required.

This combination is very much still a work in progress, the actual engine isn't going to get built until late this year, so I have plenty of time to change my list.
The motor will be going into my 3400lb '68 chevelle malibu sedan with my built 700R4 and 3.73 posi.

So, here we have it: NEW LIST

BUILD 383c.i. stroker:

Brodix IK200 (Iron Killer) Aluminum Heads 200cc 70cc 2.02/1.60 CnC chambers $1229

Edelbrock Performer RPM Aluminum intake = $159.95

Speed Pro Hypereutectic flattop 5cc Pistons (set of 8) = $277.52

Sealed Power File-Fit Plasma-Moly Rings (set of 8) = $102.95

Lunati Voodoo 276/284 hydraulic flat tappet camshaft + Lifter kit = $189.95

Scat 9000 Cast Pro Comp 3.75" stroke crankshaft 2 piece rear seal = $231.99

TCI 400 Flex Plate = $70 TCI-399373 summitracing.com

Fluidampr Harmonic Damper 400c.i. external balance = $230.95

ARP Flex plate bolts = $12.95

Fel-Pro Performance Gasket 0.039" compressed thickness = $37.95

Hooker Super Comp headers 1 3/4" full length = $399.95

TCI Breakaway 2400 stall/lockup converter = $399.88

Quench 0.039", 0 deck height, 10.36:1 CR; 8.37:1 DCR, 4.166 gasket bore. To be run on 91 Octane.


Parts I already have: GM 5.7" rods, GM HEI, Comp double roller timing chain, edelbrock chrome water pump, 1500 stall/lockup converter, 355 block, Crane 1.52:1 Roller rockers, 750CFM Q-jet, Tri-Y 1 5/8" headers (with clearance dings).

I'm planning on using my Q-jet carb/GM HEI/waterpump/rockers/pushrods from my current motor as it all works perfectly. I am planning on buying a new stall /lockup converter as this one won't cut the mustard for this build.

With this combo DD gave me 436HP @ 5500RPM / 464lb-ft of Torque @ 4000RPM and over 400lb-ft of torque between 2000-5500RPM with over 400HP up to 6500RPM.

I'm also getting the Brodix heads for a good deal so they look real attractive at the moment, plus they're not half bad either.

So that's it, my streetable 383 engine, weekend driver that I can take to the coast and back (200mi) without worrying about crap breaking. As always I welcome comments/critiques with open arms, I know this combo isn't perfect and it probably will never be. Desktop dyno gave me some pretty solid numbers though and I think it'll perform well. I plan on revving this to 6400RPM or there abouts.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	DD 383 build.jpg
Views:	144
Size:	163.5 KB
ID:	21113  

    Advertisement

Last edited by Malibu73; 05-13-2007 at 09:07 PM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-10-2007, 06:27 PM
Malibu73's Avatar
'68 Chevelle Malibu Sedan
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oregon
Age: 27
Posts: 353
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Sure has been a lot of people eyeballing this, no comments yet huh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-10-2007, 06:33 PM
DeathRattle's Avatar
Some Punk Kid
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Michigan
Age: 28
Posts: 787
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Have you priced out any 6" con rods? and pistons to match?
Been told a few times that 6" is only way to go with 383. takes a load off the thrust side. Thats the route I'm taking for my 383 build.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-10-2007, 06:56 PM
opinionated old fart
 

Last journal entry: Sheetmetal
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Round Rock, Tx
Posts: 65
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
ck out Doug Herbert for a solid roller cam and lifters, the price will be close to the lunati solid flat tappets , roller would be my recomendation

Larry
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-10-2007, 06:57 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Alabama
Posts: 165
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
we are also building a 388 with 6 inch rods and afr 210s
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2007, 12:19 AM
Malibu73's Avatar
'68 Chevelle Malibu Sedan
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oregon
Age: 27
Posts: 353
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I haven't priced out some 6" rods. I've been told that it doesn't really matter which rod you go with, no power increase at all. I have heard about the 6" rods lessening the side load or what not of the piston. The KB pistons I have picked, would they work with 6" rods?

I was just going to use my 5.7" rods because I don't think it's essential to have 6" rods, just costs more. I'm on a budget, I have priced a roller setup and it's darn expensive, a lot more expensive then a flat tappet. I don't know what "a lot more expensive" means to you but to me a roller cam + lifters etc.. runs $400-500 and I'm just not going to spend that, I don't have it. A flat tappet makes plenty of power.

I'll look into the 6" rods though, I had thought up until this point that they were not necessary.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2007, 03:06 AM
ericnova72's Avatar
More for Less Racer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: S.W. Lower Michigan
Age: 48
Posts: 9,888
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 54
Thanked 628 Times in 558 Posts
383 build

Don't worry about the rods, too many people worry about that non-issue waaayyy too much, independent testing has shown that most times there is no power difference on the dyno; and wear differences are going to take 75,000 miles to show up. I would re-think the Eagle crank though, they seem to have pretty poor finish and quality control. Scat is where my money goes. Is this a daily driver or more of a nice-weather toy? If it's a hot rod-what about a flat tappet solid!?! Makes a bunch more power than a hydro stick, and the maintenance isn't like it was in the sixties, everything is made of better materials and to better tolerances today-I only need to adjust mine twice a summer( 6000 miles and 10+ trips to the drags). My only other suggestion on solids is spend the extra bucks and get the ones with the lazered oil hole in the face-they are worth it.

Last edited by ericnova72; 05-11-2007 at 03:16 AM.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-11-2007, 05:25 AM
Malibu73's Avatar
'68 Chevelle Malibu Sedan
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oregon
Age: 27
Posts: 353
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericnova72
Don't worry about the rods, too many people worry about that non-issue waaayyy too much, independent testing has shown that most times there is no power difference on the dyno; and wear differences are going to take 75,000 miles to show up. I would re-think the Eagle crank though, they seem to have pretty poor finish and quality control. Scat is where my money goes. Is this a daily driver or more of a nice-weather toy? If it's a hot rod-what about a flat tappet solid!?! Makes a bunch more power than a hydro stick, and the maintenance isn't like it was in the sixties, everything is made of better materials and to better tolerances today-I only need to adjust mine twice a summer( 6000 miles and 10+ trips to the drags). My only other suggestion on solids is spend the extra bucks and get the ones with the lazered oil hole in the face-they are worth it.
Lol sounds good eric. I'm glad you're enthused about them.

I on the other hand am almost completely lost in the mechanical side of things. The hydraulic are the ultimate in reliability and ease of maintenance, on the cheap of course

If was more power hungry I'd probably throw in a solid cam, but the whole world changes to me. They're more for racing (I think) and such with their lifter adjustments and radical LSAs. I know there are guys that successfully run them with no trouble at all but I don't think I'm ready for one myself.

I just want to enjoy my zero lash setting without worrying about getting that lifter pre-load just right. It's probably not all that hard but solid cams don't excite me at the moment. I'm familiar with hydraulic flat tappets so I'd like to keep to those for this build

Though I wouldn't mind trying out a mechanical tappet camshaft in the future to compare with flat tappet cams.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-12-2007, 05:34 PM
DeathRattle's Avatar
Some Punk Kid
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Michigan
Age: 28
Posts: 787
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I doubt it'll take 75k to show up when your revving 6500 RPM. But thats just a thought/opinion.
And the solid cam seems like a better choice for that RPM range. I know you wont be constantly at 6500, but when you are....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-13-2007, 06:08 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Largo Florida
Posts: 8
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
re: Here's where I'm At

Consider 1.6 rockers with the hyd. flat tappet cam. More lift for those heads and a couple degrees duration. Also, would consider advancing the cam 4 degrees if it is a 110 or 112. For a street car you will be adding good torque on the bottom (where you want it on a street car). First -find out if Lunati builds in any advance on their cams. I have a 383 and love the torque. Installing a solid roller next week, new springs, stud girdle, blah,blah,blah.
Good Luck!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-13-2007, 06:58 PM
How fast is fast enough?
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St. Louis, MO
Age: 29
Posts: 9,484
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 20
Thanked 388 Times in 364 Posts
Now if this were my car I would step down some on the cam duration- perhaps the 268 VooDoo... I'm building a 383 for my TA this July and plan on running a 262 VooDoo with a 700R4 and 4.10s... I just like to replace tires I guess Seriously though, your cam will work and may get you an extra tenth or two at the dreag strip, but on the street its a little big in my opinion... Though I have used bigger cams in smaller engines on the street successfully...

If 1/4 miles are your thing your cam looks good, if stoplights are more your deal I'd step down a size on the cam... and ask them to tighten the LSA a degree or two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-13-2007, 09:04 PM
Malibu73's Avatar
'68 Chevelle Malibu Sedan
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oregon
Age: 27
Posts: 353
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ap72
Now if this were my car I would step down some on the cam duration- perhaps the 268 VooDoo... I'm building a 383 for my TA this July and plan on running a 262 VooDoo with a 700R4 and 4.10s... I just like to replace tires I guess Seriously though, your cam will work and may get you an extra tenth or two at the dreag strip, but on the street its a little big in my opinion... Though I have used bigger cams in smaller engines on the street successfully...

If 1/4 miles are your thing your cam looks good, if stoplights are more your deal I'd step down a size on the cam... and ask them to tighten the LSA a degree or two.

Well I wouldn't mind using the "268" Voodoo cam but my only concern was my dynamic compression ratio was on the edge of what I've been told is safe for street engines: 8.61:1. I've been told 7.5:1-8.5:1 was safe for 91 octane fuel on the street, anything higher would risk detonation.

So by stepping up on the cam it bleeds off more cylinder pressure and puts the DCR at 8.37:1 which is a bit better.

This is all been based off what I've been told. If I've been mislead and can run that DCR with the 268 then I'll gladly do it I just don't want detonation

Check the list out, I've modified it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-13-2007, 11:49 PM
ericnova72's Avatar
More for Less Racer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: S.W. Lower Michigan
Age: 48
Posts: 9,888
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 54
Thanked 628 Times in 558 Posts
I would rethink using the fluid damper, if you research them on the web and at this forum you will find out that they aren't really the part to use. As a matter of fact Scat will NOT warrantee their cranks if you use a fluid damper. Many people have had broken cranks attributed to the use of a fluid damper, seems the fluid inside has a short life. You will not find a single nascar team using one, even the team for the company(Roush racing) that did the original testing for Fluidamper. Most crank companies recommend a good elastomer balancer for use with their products. and most seem to agree that ATI makes the very best balancer(but it ain't exactly cheap)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2007, 01:00 PM
Malibu73's Avatar
'68 Chevelle Malibu Sedan
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oregon
Age: 27
Posts: 353
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericnova72
I would rethink using the fluid damper, if you research them on the web and at this forum you will find out that they aren't really the part to use. As a matter of fact Scat will NOT warrantee their cranks if you use a fluid damper. Many people have had broken cranks attributed to the use of a fluid damper, seems the fluid inside has a short life. You will not find a single nascar team using one, even the team for the company(Roush racing) that did the original testing for Fluidamper. Most crank companies recommend a good elastomer balancer for use with their products. and most seem to agree that ATI makes the very best balancer(but it ain't exactly cheap)
Thanks for that, I'll go ahead and avoid those fluid dampers then. I wasn't sure if they were better or not but they sounded like they'd be better.

Makes sense they don't last though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2007, 02:03 PM
35WINDOW's Avatar
Member
 

Last journal entry: Dash Mock-up
Last photo:
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: utah
Age: 59
Posts: 1,426
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 9
Thanked 37 Times in 32 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericnova72
I would rethink using the fluid damper, if you research them on the web and at this forum you will find out that they aren't really the part to use. As a matter of fact Scat will NOT warrantee their cranks if you use a fluid damper. Many people have had broken cranks attributed to the use of a fluid damper, seems the fluid inside has a short life. You will not find a single nascar team using one, even the team for the company(Roush racing) that did the original testing for Fluidamper. Most crank companies recommend a good elastomer balancer for use with their products. and most seem to agree that ATI makes the very best balancer(but it ain't exactly cheap)

I am not here to debate your Post, but the question that comes into my mind is that if Fluidamper is a problem parts, why does GM offer them through Performance Parts (with a GM Logo on them?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
383 chrysler build up littlemoney-bigdream Engine 7 12-10-2006 11:19 AM
383 build reflog Engine 6 11-01-2006 09:28 AM
How to build a 383 stroker JAKE 68 GMC Engine 15 05-30-2006 02:28 PM
383 build: Any helpful comments? 85CHEVY Engine 10 10-27-2005 10:01 PM
383 build novatech Engine 1 03-10-2004 09:06 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.