|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: 440FISH]
#13974
01/19/05 09:54 PM
01/19/05 09:54 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
""OK, I'll be the guy in the flame suit and ask the question - Why alter the short stroke (oversquare)design of the engine? Conventional thought says to use as large a bore as possible (in combination w/short stroke)""
I have to admit the ratio's of the 383 are pretty good, and and I dont really understand why it wouldn't be best to keep them close to original. The rs is about 1.8 if I remember right, which is even better than a chevy 302. While it may not generate the torque of a 440 or a stroker combo, its still pretty good, and with the right gears and stall in a 3200 lb car it would seem to my uneducated opinion that it should perform pretty well. If it can get to 6000 rpm plus quick and stay there, isnt it crank revs ( at say a 1:1 final ratio to the rear for example) that gets the job done? I mean if there is enough torque to the rear wheels with engine and gearing to get up and moving, at some point the higher crank revolutions mean faster speeds ie MPH, which in the right balance means faster times.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: 440FISH]
#13975
01/19/05 11:43 PM
01/19/05 11:43 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
Quote:
block info.
Go read this if you have not read it yet.
Thanks for the link. That is a very interesting article. I read it and have now have seen the light in Mopar Block myths. So as for building a 400/451 vs. a 383/431, I guess it comes down to wanting to be like everyone else or marching to a different drummer.
Marching on,
Mark Jackson
The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
#13976
01/20/05 01:02 AM
01/20/05 01:02 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
2fast4yourBrain
Whack top Dodger
|
Whack top Dodger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
|
Quote:
""OK, I'll be the guy in the flame suit and ask the question - Why alter the short stroke (oversquare)design of the engine? Conventional thought says to use as large a bore as possible (in combination w/short stroke)""
I have to admit the ratio's of the 383 are pretty good, and and I dont really understand why it wouldn't be best to keep them close to original. The rs is about 1.8 if I remember right, which is even better than a chevy 302. While it may not generate the torque of a 440 or a stroker combo, its still pretty good, and with the right gears and stall in a 3200 lb car it would seem to my uneducated opinion that it should perform pretty well. If it can get to 6000 rpm plus quick and stay there, isnt it crank revs ( at say a 1:1 final ratio to the rear for example) that gets the job done? I mean if there is enough torque to the rear wheels with engine and gearing to get up and moving, at some point the higher crank revolutions mean faster speeds ie MPH, which in the right balance means faster times.
Not everyone wants to run super steep gears, nor owns a 3200lb car.
For a street car, torque is where it's at and is most fun to have, which is usable in any gear. How do you get torque? Cubic inches.
I think the 400 block is the best of the wedges Chrysler has made from the factory, but I want to use a stroked 383 as it's what's "right" for my B'Cuda and I want to do something diff.
If you want to run high RPMs all day long, then you're talking Billet cranks, aluminum rods, Casidiam-coated titanium wrist pins, etc. But who does that on the street?
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: JohnRR]
#13978
01/20/05 08:34 AM
01/20/05 08:34 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,001
Coram, NY
Pool Fixer
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,001
Coram, NY
|
along the lines of using the chevy rod, did anyone see the latest issue of car craft. they built budget 383 using 440 crank offset ground with mains turned down to B size.
they used the stock chevy rod and bored it so the chrysler 1.094" pin would fit. they did state that using the chevy rod will produce .065" of side clearance, and after one dyno pull, they acted as if that would not be a problem ever because they did not blow it up.
pistons ended up at 0 deck after they took .040" off the decks and compression was 10.3:1.
final displacement was 443" (.060 over block)
with stock, untouched eddy heads, they made 557 lbs of torque at 4200 rpm. the motor also made 527hp at 5600 rpm.
I have no idea if this the best way to go, but I thought this buildup fit in with the discussion of a "budget" stroker build up. However, I don't know how much money is saved doing the machine work to the chevy rods. how much are the stock pistons they used (kb silvolites) vs the stroker pistons talked about here?
You know who I am
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Pool Fixer]
#13980
01/20/05 10:54 AM
01/20/05 10:54 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
patrick
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,123
Grand Haven, MI
|
Quote:
along the lines of using the chevy rod, did anyone see the latest issue of car craft. they built budget 383 using 440 crank offset ground with mains turned down to B size.
they used the stock chevy rod and bored it so the chrysler 1.094" pin would fit. they did state that using the chevy rod will produce .065" of side clearance, and after one dyno pull, they acted as if that would not be a problem ever because they did not blow it up.
pistons ended up at 0 deck after they took .040" off the decks and compression was 10.3:1.
final displacement was 443" (.060 over block)
with stock, untouched eddy heads, they made 557 lbs of torque at 4200 rpm. the motor also made 527hp at 5600 rpm.
I have no idea if this the best way to go, but I thought this buildup fit in with the discussion of a "budget" stroker build up. However, I don't know how much money is saved doing the machine work to the chevy rods. how much are the stock pistons they used (kb silvolites) vs the stroker pistons talked about here?
brandon at 440source.com is getting rods made up for the chevy journal/pin size and the proper BB mopar width if the side clearance really bugs you...I think his target price is under $500 for a set of H beams using ARP bolts
1976 Spinnaker White Plymouth Duster, /6 A833OD
1986 Silver/Twilight Blue Chrysler 5th Ave HotRod **SOLD!***
2011 Toxic Orange Dodge Charger R/T
2017 Grand Cherokee Overland
2014 Jeep Cherokee Latitude (holy crap, my daughter is driving)
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: patrick]
#13981
01/20/05 11:37 AM
01/20/05 11:37 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
2fast4yourBrain
Whack top Dodger
|
Whack top Dodger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
|
Quote:
Quote:
along the lines of using the chevy rod, did anyone see the latest issue of car craft. they built budget 383 using 440 crank offset ground with mains turned down to B size.
they used the stock chevy rod and bored it so the chrysler 1.094" pin would fit. they did state that using the chevy rod will produce .065" of side clearance, and after one dyno pull, they acted as if that would not be a problem ever because they did not blow it up.
pistons ended up at 0 deck after they took .040" off the decks and compression was 10.3:1.
final displacement was 443" (.060 over block)
with stock, untouched eddy heads, they made 557 lbs of torque at 4200 rpm. the motor also made 527hp at 5600 rpm.
I have no idea if this the best way to go, but I thought this buildup fit in with the discussion of a "budget" stroker build up. However, I don't know how much money is saved doing the machine work to the chevy rods. how much are the stock pistons they used (kb silvolites) vs the stroker pistons talked about here?
brandon at 440source.com is getting rods made up for the chevy journal/pin size and the proper BB mopar width if the side clearance really bugs you...I think his target price is under $500 for a set of H beams using ARP bolts
With a 3.75" crank, RB length rods are Okay.
But with a 3.90" or 4.15" crank, I'm leaning towards short rods.
If the 4.15" crank shows too much interference, I'm leaning towards the 3.90" crank.
440source makes a 3.90" B crank w/the 2.2" rod journals! That means NO MACHINE WORK REQUIRED!
Eagle makes rods that would make this work:
Chrysler "RB" Stroker 413, 426W, 440- 2.200 crank pin/.990 piston pin/1.007 b.e. width
C-C LENGTH NOTES GRAM WEIGHT PART NUMBER
6.385 440 crank/400 block 790 CRS6385C3D
Makes for a nice 448" engine.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Pool Fixer]
#13982
01/20/05 11:59 AM
01/20/05 11:59 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
2fast4yourBrain
Whack top Dodger
|
Whack top Dodger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
|
Quote:
along the lines of using the chevy rod, did anyone see the latest issue of car craft. they built budget 383 using 440 crank offset ground with mains turned down to B size.
they used the stock chevy rod and bored it so the chrysler 1.094" pin would fit. they did state that using the chevy rod will produce .065" of side clearance, and after one dyno pull, they acted as if that would not be a problem ever because they did not blow it up.
pistons ended up at 0 deck after they took .040" off the decks and compression was 10.3:1.
final displacement was 443" (.060 over block)
How do you come up with 443" with a 4.31" bore and 3.75" stroke?
I come up w/438".
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Pool Fixer]
#13985
01/20/05 01:03 PM
01/20/05 01:03 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 902
Bellevue, WA
Blackwidow69
Ring Knocker
|
Ring Knocker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 902
Bellevue, WA
|
Ragtop,
I just saw that 440 source crank with the 3.9" stroke yesterday and thought the same thing, no machine work. But if you read all his info it says they leave the crank counterweights large, I am guessing standard 440 size so you will still have to get the counterweights turned down some to fit that crank in the 383. But maybe just wait a few more months and he will have them all worked out as it seems his inventory is growing pretty quick. Anyway still a really good deal if you ask me and the way I am going to go with a set of Todd's pistons he mentioned in this thread and the 6.7 rods.
Todd
1969 Ply Roadrunner, 383 4-speed on street tires.
3,830 lbs race weight.
Best 1/4: 13.1 @ 106.83
440 & overdrive 4 speed going in.
2005 Power Wagon 35X12.5 KM2's
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Pool Fixer]
#13986
01/20/05 01:46 PM
01/20/05 01:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,940
Holly/MI
Dean_Kuzluzski
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,940
Holly/MI
|
This is a GREAT post/topic!! Good fodder for the Tech. Archives or Moparts Best. Ever since Bobby/Streetwize mentioned a "short rod" stroker B-motor about a year ago, I've been interested for 2 of my applications. Since I'm a budget limited kind of guy a stock rod combo would work for me and I'm really only interested in spinning that combo to 5800 or 6000 at the most. My jet boat application would only let the motor spin to 4800-5400 or a little higher with a standard A or AA impeller. And the 69 Rr I have will eventually go back to a B-motor/4 speed/3.55:1 gear, plus a 6-Pack on a 383 Edelbrock intake. A nice combo for neck snapping mid-range torque and I like to dump the clutch when slightly above idle to stealthly launch hard from a light on the street with no bog.  Oh, yeah, 4.31 X 3.75 = 438c.i. Glad to see some serious Mopar hobbyiests staying on-topic and focused.  Dean
R.I.P.- Gary "Coop" Davis 02/09/68-05/13/04
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Blackwidow69]
#13987
01/20/05 03:40 PM
01/20/05 03:40 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
2fast4yourBrain
Whack top Dodger
|
Whack top Dodger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
|
Quote:
Ragtop,
I just saw that 440 source crank with the 3.9" stroke yesterday and thought the same thing, no machine work. But if you read all his info it says they leave the crank counterweights large, I am guessing standard 440 size so you will still have to get the counterweights turned down some to fit that crank in the 383. But maybe just wait a few more months and he will have them all worked out as it seems his inventory is growing pretty quick. Anyway still a really good deal if you ask me and the way I am going to go with a set of Todd's pistons he mentioned in this thread and the 6.7 rods.
Todd
When you get all of the rotating parts balanced (rods, pistons, crank) together (internal balancing that is), you may need to cut or add metal to the crank.
The site talks about having extra metal on the counterweights so it's easy to balance.
But the major machine work, of cutting the mains down to B-size, or the rods down to 2.2" has already been done!
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Pool Fixer]
#13988
01/20/05 03:43 PM
01/20/05 03:43 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
2fast4yourBrain
Whack top Dodger
|
Whack top Dodger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
along the lines of using the chevy rod, did anyone see the latest issue of car craft. they built budget 383 using 440 crank offset ground with mains turned down to B size.
they used the stock chevy rod and bored it so the chrysler 1.094" pin would fit. they did state that using the chevy rod will produce .065" of side clearance, and after one dyno pull, they acted as if that would not be a problem ever because they did not blow it up.
pistons ended up at 0 deck after they took .040" off the decks and compression was 10.3:1.
final displacement was 443" (.060 over block)
How do you come up with 443" with a 4.31" bore and 3.75" stroke?
I come up w/438".
"how do you come with 443" "I" don't come up with anything, I was just posting the details of the article I read.
Ahhh...okay, I didn't read carefully. Crank "offset ground" so it's probably 3.90", so that would make 443.
Sorry. 
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: 2fast4yourBrain]
#13989
01/20/05 06:36 PM
01/20/05 06:36 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,607
Lapeer, MI.
todd440
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,607
Lapeer, MI.
|
I just read the article, they offset ground the crank to 3.794. The pistons were .040 in the hole, with KB's. Odd combo, extra decking, milling intake..........should have just got the proper piston is my thought. On another note, I just talked to Diamond, and the second batch of short rod pistons are in the works, with the 1.094 pin. There, now 50 % of the people will be happy.  Both new items will be regular shelf items, so no "custom piston" prices!
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: todd440]
#13990
01/20/05 06:58 PM
01/20/05 06:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,008
U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,008
U.S.S.A.
|
Quote:
I just read the article, they offset ground the crank to 3.794. The pistons were .040 in the hole, with KB's. Odd combo, extra decking, milling intake..........should have just got the proper piston is my thought.
On another note, I just talked to Diamond, and the second batch of short rod pistons are in the works, with the 1.094 pin. There, now 50 % of the people will be happy. Both new items will be regular shelf items, so no "custom piston" prices!
todd , i think they prefer to diss the 383 ...
to you and diamond for stepping up for the 383 guys ...
running up my post count some more .
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Clair]
#13992
01/20/05 07:46 PM
01/20/05 07:46 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 902
Bellevue, WA
Blackwidow69
Ring Knocker
|
Ring Knocker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 902
Bellevue, WA
|
Ragtop,
I am no machinist but from the 440source site it definitely seems like there will be extra metal on the counterweights to remove above the drilling for balancing. I don't know which of the three machine processes that have to be done to make this crank are considered major but I guarantee you that finishing up this crank will be more than just the balancing price. Doesn't seem like it should be much more to turn the counterweights down but my poor machine shops around here don't even want to do it! Maybe someone here can give us a guess on how much this would cost. Like I said though still a good deal in my book.
Todd
1969 Ply Roadrunner, 383 4-speed on street tires.
3,830 lbs race weight.
Best 1/4: 13.1 @ 106.83
440 & overdrive 4 speed going in.
2005 Power Wagon 35X12.5 KM2's
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Blackwidow69]
#13993
01/20/05 08:01 PM
01/20/05 08:01 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,008
U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,008
U.S.S.A.
|
i had it done on my crank , it was in the lathe for about 10 hours , the guy charged me something like 250 bucks for it . it did look alot nicer than hitting it with a hand grinder , but if you are planning of doing any profiling , like knifedging i would do that FIRST before removing weight , the 4340 eagle crank used in the EM470 was profiled and needed 2 slugs of mallory to balance at 2191
running up my post count some more .
|
|
|
|
|
