|
Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
#13914
01/04/05 02:31 PM
01/04/05 02:31 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
Building a Budget 383/432 Stroker. I have seen this idea going around before, but it seems to get shifted to a 400 Stroker build-up, or a discussion on high horsepower, the 4.15" Crankshaft, or the use of Chevy rods/pistons. Some people don't want to build a 400 or spend the money on pricey cranks or rods. So what are we to do? Tell me where I'm going wrong on my thought process. These are my design parameters, what is missing? Crankshaft: OEM 440 Forged Crank w/383 mains Stroke: 3.75" Rods: OEM 383 Rods w/ARP bolts Rod Length: 6.358" Bore: 4.25" (+ .030") Preferred CR: 9.0:1 to 9.5:1 Piston Pin: 1.094" Application: Torque, Mild Performance (350 - 375HP), Stock Appearing, Driver I would think that the crankshaft may have to have the weights turned down some for clearance, either block or piston. Next, a custom set of pistons would need to be made. Then what? Maybe if more people would voice their choice to build the 432 Stroker to the piston manufactures, someone would create an off-the-shelf piston. Just like they did for the 400 and the 4.15" crankshaft. Opinions anyone? Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Texas_Jacksons]
#13915
01/04/05 03:06 PM
01/04/05 03:06 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,034
Oregon
AndyF
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,034
Oregon
|
It is a fine motor. Basically a low deck version of the factory 426 which was a very, very good motor design. Ford 427, Chevy 427 and the Mopar 426 are all classic 4.25 x 3.75 (or close enough) motors.
Only thing I'd suggest is to use the longer 440 connecting rod in order to give you a lighter piston. You'll still have plenty of piston height with the 3.75 stroke. If you're willing to spend a few more bucks then use an aftermarket 440 rod with a .990 pin and you'll shave even more weight from the rotating assembly.
Call Diamond Racing for the pistons. They build the 383 stroker piston on a regular basis even if it isn't a stocking part number.
Last edited by JohnRR; 01/04/05 03:23 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: JohnRR]
#13920
01/04/05 06:27 PM
01/04/05 06:27 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
I just got an email that says I need to cut my 440 crankshaft counterweights down to 7.25" to clear the block. I know that many people have built the 400/451 combo. So what did you cut the crankshaft down to? Besides cutting some room on the block for rod bolts, were there any other block modification that were needed to install a 440 crank in a 383/400? Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Texas_Jacksons]
#13921
01/04/05 07:17 PM
01/04/05 07:17 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,034
Oregon
AndyF
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,034
Oregon
|
Sorry, I did mean 440 rod. The longer rod lets you use a shorter piston and gets the pistons up away from the crank. Turning the crank down to 7.250 is what I've been recommending for years. It takes weight out of the assembly and it provides for clearance. Read the 451 Manifesto on my website at www.arengineering.com in the article section.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: AndyF]
#13922
01/04/05 10:21 PM
01/04/05 10:21 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
2fast4yourBrain
Whack top Dodger
|
Whack top Dodger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
|
Quote:
Sorry, I did mean 440 rod. The longer rod lets you use a shorter piston and gets the pistons up away from the crank.
Turning the crank down to 7.250 is what I've been recommending for years. It takes weight out of the assembly and it provides for clearance. Read the 451 Manifesto on my website at www.arengineering.com in the article section.
Interesting that the latest Popular HOt Rodding mag for the Jeg's engine shootout suggests using a smallish bore (not too small otherwise you'll get valve shrouding) and to use a short rod as the latter will decrease the dwell time the piston is in its comp. stroke and is less likely to detonate.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: 2fast4yourBrain]
#13923
01/04/05 10:54 PM
01/04/05 10:54 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 101
Oregon
RoadRaceDart
member
|
member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 101
Oregon
|
Quote:
Interesting that the latest Popular HOt Rodding mag for the Jeg's engine shootout suggests using a smallish bore (not too small otherwise you'll get valve shrouding) and to use a short rod as the latter will decrease the dwell time the piston is in its comp. stroke and is less likely to detonate.
I can see the smaller bore, but the short rod seems counter intuative. I mean if you have longer dwell on a quench chamber engine then there is more time to transfer heat OUT of the charge into the combustion chamber.
Did PH explain the reasoning behind the short rod?
Joshua
Last edited by JohnRR; 01/10/05 01:41 PM.
Joshua
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: RoadRaceDart]
#13924
01/05/05 12:43 AM
01/05/05 12:43 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Whats the reason for the small bore? Maybe velocity in the intake port but I'm not sure it would be NET GAIN OVER A LARGER BORE BENNIFIT IN relation to more cubes.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
#13925
01/07/05 08:11 PM
01/07/05 08:11 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
2fast4yourBrain
Whack top Dodger
|
Whack top Dodger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
|
Quote:
Whats the reason for the small bore? Maybe velocity in the intake port but I'm not sure it would be NET GAIN OVER A LARGER BORE BENNIFIT IN relation to more cubes.
Here's what they say:
According to two-time champion Jon Kasse the short rod yields very fast piston action at TDC and minimizes dwell time so the pistons get away from the chambers as quicly as possible. More time spent at TDC in creases the chance that non-homgenized portions of the mixture will ignite on their own and rattle the motor. Smaller bores are advantageous because they reduce the distance the flame front has to travel and the smaller area also offers less opportunity for unwanted secondary flame fronts to develop. The small bore theory must not be taken to the extreme or valve shrouding becomes a larger issue.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: dogdays]
#13927
01/13/05 11:23 AM
01/13/05 11:23 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
All, I have received emails from most of the piston manufactures on the market. Basically, they have custom pistons for $1000+. However, there were a couple of exceptions. Ron at Diamond Pistons said that they are interested in creating an "off-the-shelf" piston for the 383/431 Stroker. It would come in a flat-top and a dish configuration. It would be designed using the 440 rod length. However, after reading the previous posts and maybe some research about the small bore/short rod phenomenon, they may want to look at the 383 rod also. Mike at Muscle Motors Racing said he would have some sets in stock in a few weeks. The cost is $559. I bet these are custom Ross Pistons, but I’m not sure. So if anyone out there wants to build this Stroker or thinks it’s a good idea, you had better start sending so emails to these guys an let them know. Capitalize on the opportunity. Here are some links. Diamond Pistons Muscle Motors Racing Thanks, Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Texas_Jacksons]
#13928
01/13/05 11:45 AM
01/13/05 11:45 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,875
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,875
Weddington, N.C.
|
I agree with most of what is offered here except I prefer the shorter 6.36" rod, all else being equal I find 6.36 motors to be a little torquier, more responsive and on the street a little more "bad batch of gas forgiving" IMO.
While it's true the piston with the shorter rod is a little heavier, the shorter rod itself is a little lighter (and even lighter after evivalent pad trimming and beam polishing) so IMO it's somewhat of an 'offsetting penalty'. A lot of people have come over to the Short rod "Dark side" in recent years although mathematically in a 431/451 it's not really as significant as in many other Bore/Stroke/Deck height combos. I was building 431's back in the early 80's using 454 chevy slugs! We tried keeping Strokers a big secret back then!
Last edited by Streetwize; 01/13/05 11:50 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: ph23vo]
#13931
01/13/05 11:50 PM
01/13/05 11:50 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,610
Not2farfromNashville, TN
Rug_Trucker
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,610
Not2farfromNashville, TN
|
I am confused!! Not being "Mr. Engine" scientist I was always told longer rods are better for the dwell time @TDC. For the slant the longer stroke 225 crank with the longer rods fromthe 198. An advantage of the 360's in roundy round racing is their longer rod for pulling out of the corners. SB Chevy's cheat and run longer rods to stay competitive, and at some tracks the tech guys have been known to turn a blind eye to the longer rods. I know a guy that built a SBC with longer rods on the side that usually didn't get checked on tear down after winning. Broke 2 cranks and quit doing it! 
Why not just build the engine to not detonate through cam, chamber/piston design?
I got my popcorn and an open ear 
BTW would the 356 heads on my '65 383 be less likely to detonate?
Last edited by Rug_Trucker; 01/13/05 11:52 PM.
"The only thing to do for triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
"NUNQUAM NON PARATUS!"
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Rug_Trucker]
#13932
01/14/05 12:08 AM
01/14/05 12:08 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,875
Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,875
Weddington, N.C.
|
At 9:1 with a 431 I'd run a Street dominator, ported 906 and a Crower 32242 cam. .486/.496, 222/234 @.050 112 centers in at 108. As for short rods, the slighty shorter "dwell" near TDC is actually beneficial on the street as it makes it less likely to detonate, with a still big ~4.31" bore and an open chamber, short rods help. Faster pull away from TDC also increases the intake fuel metering signal, if only slightly. Stronger signal is good for torque and can make a motor feel a little less Cammy off idle. 431/451 I'd always go 6.36" but....opinions vary  My 427" (4.04"B x 4.17"S) 351W in my cobra replica has a ~1.46:1 (6.123" 340 rods BTW) rod ratio and it's inch for inch about the torquiest mutha I ever built!! With ~300cfm Trick flow heads it has no trouble pulling to 6500 but I usually short-shift it at about 5800.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: 2fast4yourBrain]
#13934
01/14/05 10:54 AM
01/14/05 10:54 AM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
And the #1 reason not to read PHR: they don't understand the difference between what Kaase explained, and what they said ("More time spent at TDC").
The difference? Not important? About as important as the difference between "dead" and "almost dead".
There is no "time spent at TDC".
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: dogdays]
#13936
01/14/05 05:39 PM
01/14/05 05:39 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,607
Lapeer, MI.
todd440
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,607
Lapeer, MI.
|
Yes, JohnRR is correct. I do normally carry these pistons. I have tried to do a "group buy" in the past, but here is what happened. Every one wanted a 440 rod length with a standard 1.094 pin size(1.320 comp ht). Now, after the pistons were ordered, I need to order 5 sets, people then changed their minds to the .990 pin. Now, with the short rod version, that means 4 different versions of this piston.
If people do want a short rod version of this in 4.280 bore, just start listing it with pin size. I'll try to keep track. These would be the forged Diamond pistons, and the price would be $5.00 more than stocking pistons.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: todd440]
#13937
01/14/05 06:18 PM
01/14/05 06:18 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:
Yes, JohnRR is correct. I do normally carry these pistons. I have tried to do a "group buy" in the past, but here is what happened. Every one wanted a 440 rod length with a standard 1.094 pin size(1.320 comp ht). Now, after the pistons were ordered, I need to order 5 sets, people then changed their minds to the .990 pin. Now, with the short rod version, that means 4 different versions of this piston.
If people do want a short rod version of this in 4.280 bore, just start listing it with pin size. I'll try to keep track. These would be the forged Diamond pistons, and the price would be $5.00 more than stocking pistons.
...
running up my post count some more .
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: todd440]
#13940
01/15/05 01:27 AM
01/15/05 01:27 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 902
Bellevue, WA
Blackwidow69
Ring Knocker
|
Ring Knocker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 902
Bellevue, WA
|
Todd,
You have a PM as I am interested in these pistons for your possible group buy.
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]
#13941
01/17/05 04:45 PM
01/17/05 04:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,607
Lapeer, MI.
todd440
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,607
Lapeer, MI.
|
Ok board members, you have asked for it, now you shall receive. I just talked to Diamond, and the first batch is on it's way. We will have the 1.320 comp ht., .990 pin, forged flat tops with valve reliefs, in the bore size of 4.280. These will have the double pin oilers, lock removal grove, and 1/16th ring grooves. Price will be around $540, with pins, locks, and pin fit. The short rod version will follow soon. I should have them in a few weeks. You might as well use those 383 blocks sitting in the corner! PM me for more details.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: todd440]
#13942
01/17/05 10:02 PM
01/17/05 10:02 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
2fast4yourBrain
Whack top Dodger
|
Whack top Dodger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
|
Quote:
Ok board members, you have asked for it, now you shall receive. I just talked to Diamond, and the first batch is on it's way. We will have the 1.320 comp ht., .990 pin, forged flat tops with valve reliefs, in the bore size of 4.280. These will have the double pin oilers, lock removal grove, and 1/16th ring grooves. Price will be around $540, with pins, locks, and pin fit. The short rod version will follow soon. I should have them in a few weeks. You might as well use those 383 blocks sitting in the corner! PM me for more details.
Sweet! Looking forward to the short rod version. Now is that using the 6.358" stock rod length or the slightly extended 6.385" stock rod length?
Hopefully the latter as Eagle makes that rod with the .990" pin size.:
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
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: todd440]
#13944
01/18/05 11:24 AM
01/18/05 11:24 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
2fast4yourBrain
Whack top Dodger
|
Whack top Dodger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
|
Quote:
That would be using the 6.358 stock length rod. To run the .990 pin version, you would have to bush the small end of the rod. Bushings are available too.
I've had a few PM's about compression ratio with the flat top pistons. Zero deck, 9.9cc composite gasket, and a 4 cc valave pocket figures out to this:
84 cc = 10.03 to 1
88 cc= 9.67 to 1
Is that with a 4.15" crank? Seems kinda low to me.
I guess my car will be a street motor, rarely seeing >6000 RPM, so I guess I can run the heavier (850g as as opposed to 790g) stock length rod w/the bigger pin and bigger rod journals. That way, I can use a 440source crank w/o having to turn down the rod journals to 2.2".
But racers would want to run the lighter components, but I guess they'd be running 400 blocks anyways.
Let us know when the pistons (for the short rods) become available! I need to get my block squared (to determine the true deck height) before I can order these pistons.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: 2fast4yourBrain]
#13945
01/18/05 01:49 PM
01/18/05 01:49 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
All, Well it is exciting to see all of this happening. Thanks Todd, for working with Diamond. I'm sure that many members will be able build exactly what they wanted. Unfortunately, I started the topic to discuss using an aftermarket piston with OEM components to build a Stroker. The pistons that Todd will have in stock from Diamond will be using aftermarket rods, which I don't have. I'm still talking to Ron at Diamond about the possibility of building the 383/431 using 440 LY rods and maybe OEM 383 rods in the future. Maybe once some more interest in using the OEM parts are considered, and then Todd will be able to get those pistons also. Thanks, Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Texas_Jacksons]
#13946
01/18/05 02:23 PM
01/18/05 02:23 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,607
Lapeer, MI.
todd440
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,607
Lapeer, MI.
|
Mark, these ARE for the mopar rods, just in 440 length. Known as "LY" rods. You could use an aftermarket rod, but that's not what I was working on here. It would be this piston, a 440 rod, and the turned down 440 crank.
Now, for the more performance minded, use this same piston with a 3.90 stroke crank and a 6.700 rod, 449 cubes of fun.
As for the other question about compression, the swept volume of the 383's small bore is low, 884.11 cc's. You would have to go to a small dome, or just use a smaller cc head to raise the compression.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: todd440]
#13947
01/18/05 03:48 PM
01/18/05 03:48 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
Todd, When you mentioned the 0.990" pin, I thought you were talking about using aftermarket rods. What you are saying is that the LY rods will need to have bushings installed to make everything fit. I misunderstood. It is too bad that Diamond won't just build the pistons with a 1.094" pin and save me some money at the machine shop. What are the prices on a set of bushings? Thanks, Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Texas_Jacksons]
#13949
01/18/05 05:34 PM
01/18/05 05:34 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
All, Just got an email from Ron at Diamond. We were talking about the Short Rod (SR) 431 Stroker vs. the Long Rod (LR) 431 Stroker. They are currently working on drawings for the SR431. He asked me what the Compression Height did I want. I thought that I would ask my fellow enthusiasts, before I wrote him back. For the LR451, with the 440 LY Rod - 1.320" seems to be common. Ross sells a piston for the SR451 with a Compression Height of 1.728". I see no reason that the SR431 should be any different, unless a lower compression engine is more desirable. Opinions? Thanks, Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Texas_Jacksons]
#13950
01/18/05 05:49 PM
01/18/05 05:49 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,273
Greenville, South Carolina
BBLM23
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,273
Greenville, South Carolina
|
Ok. I want to use the 383 block sitting in the corner. How about the cast 440 crank with the mains already cut for B motor I already have? (I also have a NOS 440 cast crank) Has anyone built a 431/383 with a cast crank? How much did you turn off the counterweights? What rods? (LY or aftermarket?) External balance damper? External balance convertor or flexplate? How much mallory?
Hopefully I am on Todd's list and I want to start gathering pieces that I don't already have.
Do I break out my spare 915's, my B1BS's or my Stage VI's?
Walter
1969 Dart Swinger w/ARC Pump Gas 493 B1/BS 10.18 at 130mph
Racing Pro in street trim.
1981 Aries ARC 548 B1 8.88 at 147mph (footbraking)
1996 Ram 2500 V10 16.52 at 80mph
1981 Reliant 400
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: BBLM23]
#13951
01/18/05 06:13 PM
01/18/05 06:13 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:
Ok. I want to use the 383 block sitting in the corner. How about the cast 440 crank with the mains already cut for B motor I already have? (I also have a NOS 440 cast crank) Has anyone built a 431/383 with a cast crank? How much did you turn off the counterweights? What rods? (LY or aftermarket?) External balance damper? External balance convertor or flexplate? How much mallory?
Hopefully I am on Todd's list and I want to start gathering pieces that I don't already have.
Do I break out my spare 915's, my B1BS's or my Stage VI's?
that shouldn't be a problem , if the counterweights are still the stock size leave them as is and notch the bottom of the bores , doing this you should be able to internal balance and not have to add an mallory . even if you have to add mallory the last thing i would do is external balance a performance engine .
for reference , the last set of those diamonds i had , with a manley sportsmaster 6.765 rod and .990 pin the bobweight was 2282 grams
Last edited by JohnRR; 01/18/05 06:17 PM.
running up my post count some more .
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Jerry]
#13952
01/18/05 06:41 PM
01/18/05 06:41 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
Quote:
the .990 pin will decrease the weight of the rotating assembly and will therefore be beneficial in the long run. getting the bushing put in isn't that costly and really should be done when you resize the rods anyway. at that time i would go ahead and polish the beams of the rods since your not replacing them to eliminate any stress risers then have the whole assembly dynamically balanced.
Jerry,
I understand the reasoning behind this, but is it really worth all of the effort. A Piston with the .990" pin weighs more than a piston with a 1.094" pin. But the pin weight is less with the .990" pin than the 1.094" pin. I know that is not an equal comparison, but is it really just to close to care about. I can see a high rpm engine benefiting, but a mild performance engine wouldn't see any difference. Would it? We are talking about 10 - 20 grams, right? I guess it would have to be based upon the level of the engine build-up.
Thanks for the input,
Mark Jackson
The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: 2fast4yourBrain]
#13954
01/18/05 10:18 PM
01/18/05 10:18 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 884
Vacaville/ El Dorado Hills ,Ca
440FISH
super gas
|
super gas
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 884
Vacaville/ El Dorado Hills ,Ca
|
Quote:
How about Diamond making pistons for the 4.15" crank?
I.e. a 470? Forget the 431!
CH w/4.15" arm and 6.385" short rod is: 1.547".
PERFECT!
Will that work?
with the short rod(6.385) and a big stroke(4.15"-4.25") the pistons might come to far out of the bottom of the bore.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: todd440]
#13956
01/19/05 06:55 AM
01/19/05 06:55 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
|
well, the density of aluminum is 1/3 the density of steel, so the smaller pin has a bigger net benefit.
if you're turning down a 440 crank mains, why not offset grind the throws to chevy journal size to get a 4.28x3.90 B/S and 449 cubes, and get custom pistons made for that?
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: todd440]
#13958
01/19/05 10:37 AM
01/19/05 10:37 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
All, There have been some interesting posts about using the 4.15" Crankshaft in the 383. Using the Short 383 Rod may not be feasible, but you could use the Long 440 Rod. Bore = 4.28" (4.25" + 0.030") Stroke = 4.15" Rod Length = 6.768" Pin = .990" Compression Height = 1.120" 6.768" Rod / 4.15" Stroke = 1.63 Rod Ratio Final Displacement = 477.6 cid And it looks like a seemingly unassuming 383. Thanks, Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Texas_Jacksons]
#13959
01/19/05 11:14 AM
01/19/05 11:14 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
2fast4yourBrain
Whack top Dodger
|
Whack top Dodger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
|
Quote:
All,
There have been some interesting posts about using the 4.15" Crankshaft in the 383. Using the Short 383 Rod may not be feasible, but you could use the Long 440 Rod.
Bore = 4.28" (4.25" + 0.030")
Stroke = 4.15"
Rod Length = 6.768"
Pin = .990"
Compression Height = 1.120"
6.768" Rod / 4.15" Stroke = 1.63 Rod Ratio
Final Displacement = 477.6 cid
And it looks like a seemingly unassuming 383.
Why do you say that? A 1.12" CH seems unfeasible to me.
A 4.15" crank in a 383 or 400, what's the diff? I've heard of many folks installing 4.15" cranks in 400s (MP makes a crank for such an application.
I haven't heard of any extensive mods req'd to get a 4.15" arm in a 400. 383's the same deck height so it should work w/a 383; just need to find pistons for it.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: 2fast4yourBrain]
#13961
01/19/05 12:02 PM
01/19/05 12:02 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
Quote:
Why do you say that? A 1.12" CH seems unfeasible to me.
As far as your idea of a SR477, I like it. I like everything I have read about building a Short Rod Stroker. But without building one to see if the piston skirt would actually hit the crank, I left those feasibility issues to the engine builders. As far as the LR477, I just went to the Ross Piston website and looked at the 400/499 Stroker pistons. They have a piston P/N:99497 that uses a 6.768" Rod with a 4.15 Crank. It has a Compression Height of 1.120"
Here is the Link.
Ross Mopar Pistons
I figure if it is good enough for the 400, then it is fine for the 383. Will the combination work in the 383? I don't know. Feasible? Maybe.
Thanks for your input.
Mark Jackson
The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Texas_Jacksons]
#13962
01/19/05 12:15 PM
01/19/05 12:15 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:
Quote:
Why do you say that? A 1.12" CH seems unfeasible to me.
As far as your idea of a SR477, I like it. I like everything I have read about building a Short Rod Stroker. But without building one to see if the piston skirt would actually hit the crank, I left those feasibility issues to the engine builders. As far as the LR477, I just went to the Ross Piston website and looked at the 400/499 Stroker pistons. They have a piston P/N:99497 that uses a 6.768" Rod with a 4.15 Crank. It has a Compression Height of 1.120"
Here is the Link.
Ross Mopar Pistons
I figure if it is good enough for the 400, then it is fine for the 383. Will it work in the 383? I don't know. Feasible? Maybe.
Thanks for your input.
Mark Jackson
The Jackson Garage
mark , its doable , but thats really a race only piston, its way to short to make a stable long haul piston . also the pin will be in the oil ring , requiring a support rail which will add to the cost.
andy is right on the money , use a 6.535 rod chevy spec rod , the slightly smaller rod end will help in clearing the the oil pickup tube ...
why is it people can't afford to some something right , but they can afford to do it AGAIN ???
running up my post count some more .
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: JohnRR]
#13963
01/19/05 01:02 PM
01/19/05 01:02 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
All, This exchange of information is exactly why I started this thread. I have been very pleased that the topic hasn't deviated into using the 400 block instead of the 383. I'm sure that many people out there will use this info to help build their own 383 Stroker combination. There have been many different combinations discussed, from budget to race. Personally, I'm going to stick with the low budget buildup. I can only afford to build it once, not over and over. I will use good quality parts, but I don't need a set of rods that can handle 650HP or a billet crankshaft. We are building mild, not wild. But if you are building wild, there has been enough information on this topic to assist you. Thanks everyone, Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Texas_Jacksons]
#13964
01/19/05 01:11 PM
01/19/05 01:11 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,273
Greenville, South Carolina
BBLM23
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 2,273
Greenville, South Carolina
|
Yes, I have been happy with the info too. Usually it does turn into building a 400 or 440 block.
Walter
1969 Dart Swinger w/ARC Pump Gas 493 B1/BS 10.18 at 130mph
Racing Pro in street trim.
1981 Aries ARC 548 B1 8.88 at 147mph (footbraking)
1996 Ram 2500 V10 16.52 at 80mph
1981 Reliant 400
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Texas_Jacksons]
#13965
01/19/05 01:28 PM
01/19/05 01:28 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
2fast4yourBrain
Whack top Dodger
|
Whack top Dodger
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 6,085
NotRussia
|
the biggest pain in this whole idea is the lack of off-the-shelf pistons, but yes, this has been a serious learning experience on getting the right combo of R/S ratio, CH heights, comp. ratio, etc., etc.
Since there hasn't been too many engine builders doing this combo, we're all in the theoretical stage it seems like.
Does anyone have a spare stock rod and piston they care to "donate" so I can mock up my engine w/the 4.15" crank to see if there's any interference?
I'm definitely going w/that crank; it's just a matter of what rod to go with: 6.358", 6.385", 6.535" BBC (but definitely NOT the 6.76" RB rod). Then from that, I can figure out how to order custom ($$$???) pistons.
Hoping the whole rotating mass to be under $2k.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: JohnRR]
#13967
01/19/05 05:41 PM
01/19/05 05:41 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I have a early 60's 383 and a 77 400. One of them is going to be a stroker. I am not trying to turn this into a 400/451/??? combo post. I just want to know what advantages there might be in using the 383 rather than 400. Advantages for 400 are stronger block and cheaper and plentifull pistons for a bunch of combo's. Also MAYBE the bigger bore is an advantage. But maybe not on the bore. Some talk about the smaller bore having better "full combustion...flame travel fuller and faster...". What advantages exist in the 383 stroker. The 4.15 is a little long I think but how about any advantage in 3.90 or stock 440 crank over the same in a 400?
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
#13968
01/19/05 06:49 PM
01/19/05 06:49 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
Texas_Jacksons
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Wichita Falls, TX
|
Quote:
I am not trying to turn this into a 400/451/??? combo post.
I was afraid that was going to happen. Just kidding. I'm sure some other "experts" will chime in later. I'm not an expert, but I do have some data that may help your decision.
From the Mopar Engines Manual:
The 1976-1977-1978 blocks for the 400 and the 440 are a thinwall casting design. As such they shouldn't be overbored more than .020".
Now most people will say that the only true way to tell is to have your block sonic tested, before you build it. I’m just giving you the info that I have.
As far as other factors for your decision, cost is not one of them. It will cost you roughly the same amount of money to build either the 431 or the 451. The only difference is the cost of the Piston and Rings, but that may not be enough to worry about. The weight of the Rotating Assembly would be slightly different, but is it enough to make the decision? Then is comes down to cubes, 20 more at 1hp per cubic inch is 20HP. It is just an example guys, so don't tell me that it will make more or less than 1hp per in3. It is an example.
Opinions?
Mark Jackson
The Jackson Garage
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: Texas_Jacksons]
#13969
01/19/05 07:16 PM
01/19/05 07:16 PM
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
""The 1976-1977-1978 blocks for the 400 and the 440 are a thinwall casting design. As such they shouldn't be overbored more than .020".""
If you check out the tech section here on sonic testing you will find that the thin wall therory has been pretty much proved wrong, and also the lower end strength around the mains (tech section from 440source) is considerably better on the later 70's blocks than on earlier blocks. Also some block ribbing improvements made later too.
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
#13971
01/19/05 08:48 PM
01/19/05 08:48 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) for high RPM power, e.g. F1, Indycar, motorcycle engines, etc. Would it be cost-prohibitive to enable to motor to rev to 8000rpm reliably, using a stock prepped 383 crank, GOOD quality aftermarket rods, lightweight pistons, and solid cam instead of spending the money on stroking? This would not seem a bad idea, especially in a lightweight car with 4.10/4.30 gears. I am just throwing this out there for an opinion from the builders, not trying to argue the merits of stroking the 383 (which sits in my Duster with a broken valve). 
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
#13973
01/19/05 09:07 PM
01/19/05 09:07 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 884
Vacaville/ El Dorado Hills ,Ca
440FISH
super gas
|
super gas
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 884
Vacaville/ El Dorado Hills ,Ca
|
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) for high RPM power, e.g. F1, Indycar, motorcycle engines, etc. Would it be cost-prohibitive to enable to motor to rev to 8000rpm reliably, using a stock prepped 383 crank, GOOD quality aftermarket rods, lightweight pistons, and solid cam instead of spending the money on stroking? This would not seem a bad idea, especially in a lightweight car with 4.10/4.30 gears. I am just throwing this out there for an opinion from the builders, not trying to argue the merits of stroking the 383 (which sits in my Duster with a broken valve).
Not everyone wants a 8000rpm screamer. Have you ever had a car that makes all it’s power up top(4000+) It gets old fast. So the stroker brings the same power but at a much lower and useable rpm…
|
|
|
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 .
|
|
|
Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea
[Re: JohnRR]
#13994
01/20/05 08:54 PM
01/20/05 08:54 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 902
Bellevue, WA
Blackwidow69
Ring Knocker
|
Ring Knocker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 902
Bellevue, WA
|
Whoa, that is a lot more than I anticipated and really puts a dent in the good value of these cranks. I will have to call the bunch down in Richmond tomorrow and see what they want. I wouldn't need any profiling or knife-edging so maybe it will be cheaper. At that price I would certainly count that as major machine work especially for a cheap-skate like myself!
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
|
|
|
|
|
