Hot Rod Forum banner
1 - 20 of 97 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Hey guys started this new post so there wasnt anymore confusion, Sorry bout that. I have a 94 c1500 roller block (638) fully machined for roller setup and fuel pump. The plan is to get a forged bottom end from howards. This engine is going in a 79 El Camino SS with a 4 speed Muncie Trans, and 3.73 gears. Below is a list of parts I am going to use to try and reach my goal of 500 HP and TQ around there also. What do you all think about these parts? Ill be coming to you all in the future for help and advise while building this and Ill also have pictures posted in the project journal.

Here are two parts list with dyno results. They are fairly the same but Im thinkin one of these would work. Also thinking about going with the E-Street EFI system.

http://www.summitracing.com/search/product-line/edelbrock-e-street-efi-systems


Horsepower:503 HP @ 5500 rpm
Torque:517 @ 4500 rpm
Engine:383ci
Heads:AFR Street 195 Cylinder Heads
Compression:9.5
Carburetor:Holley 0-4779 750 cfm
Ignition:MSD Distributor 36° Timing
Cam:Comp Cams 12-433-8 Hyd Roller Cam
Exhaust:1 3/4" Headers
Fuel:93 Octane Pump Gas





Horsepower:491 @ 5500 rpm
Torque:501 @ 4000 rpm
Engine:383ci
Heads:AFR 180cc Street Cylinder Heads
Compression:9.5
Carburetor:Holley 0-4779 750 cfm
Ignition:MSD Distributor 36° Timing
Cam:Comp Cams 12-432-8 Hyd Roller Cam
Exhaust:1 3/4 Headers
Fuel:93 Octane Pump Gas
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,338 Posts
I like your choices.I hope that Muncie is built up?That really sounds like a fun engine with good manners. If you share the ride with a better 1/2 maybe disconnect the secondary linkage on the carb. If you like shifting gears???? what about the 180 heads with a little more cam timing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
Thanks guys Im sure Ill get back with you for some help on a few things. Tech Inspector got me intrested in those heads. What do you mean by: "If you share the ride with a better 1/2 maybe disconnect the secondary linkage on the carb. If you like shifting gears"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,338 Posts
SS thats 2 separate sentences. I would disconnect the secondaries to limit power if my wife drove the car.She already spun out her Jimmy twice on the same hill and same corner.I threatened to enter her in "Canadas worst driver" TV show. Im getting better at cooking,,,,
The shifting gears thing is: If you used the smaller heads,to get the HP back use a slightly bigger cam,giving a little more on top end. This would give you the opportunity to drive it more like a sports car.I like engines that rev freely and that takes a little more cam timing,though not ideal,I think they are more fun
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I actually dont like how fast I have to shift in this car. I cant even count to 1 before I gotta shift to second and the same going from 2 to 3rd. But from third gear on to 4th its nice with what I have in it now but I cant imagine how its gonna be when I get this 383 in there. Might switch to a automatic. As far as rods go. What is the purpose of 6 inch rods compared to 5.7 inch?? Are 6inchers what are in 400sbc?? Im trying to figure out what rods Im gonna go with. Do you need shorter pistons with 6 inch rods???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,338 Posts
The deflection angle of the rods at mid stroke compared to tdc/bdc.A longer rod will have the same deflection(determined by stroke) spread over a longer distance(rod length) a lot of unimportant math comes into affect,
what is the piston speed at different parts of the stroke

what is the side thrust on the cylinder wall

which one will produce more horse power(marginal under certain circumstances)

If it was critical,we would all have 318 dodges
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
698 Posts
ChevroletSS,
Another thing about 6" rods in a sbc is that it can become an internally balanced rotating assembly without adding heavy metal to the crank, at least it was for my Scat crank/rod assembly.
A lot less load on the front of the crank & #1 main bearing by using a neutral balanced dampner instead of the offset weighted type normaly used with 5.7" rods.
What alot of people would point out is that a 6" rod requires the use of a piston with the pin location raised closer to the top of the piston. This reduces the amount of room for the rings. Most but not all pistons for a 6" rod
have the pin hole intersecting the oil ring grove requiring an oil ring support rail.
I know of at least one piston that doesn't have the piston pin hole intersecting the oil ring groove, but it uses 1.5mm rings and is fairly expensive for a set($650). Mahle PN SBC125040F05 for 0.040" overbore.
High quality works of art IMO.
ssmonty
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I think Im gonna go with an assembly internally balanced with 5.7 rods. Its hard to pull the trigger and throw money at this cause I just wanna make sure I get what is best.

Thanks
 
1 - 20 of 97 Posts
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