Re: 383 VS 440
[Re: HYPER8oSoNic]
#1017262
07/08/11 12:21 AM
07/08/11 12:21 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,765
quick77rt
Parts Problem
|
Parts Problem
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,765
|
Yep $ for $ its the BB, Im just a bit. Ive alot in my 2 stage six pack spray motor, and overall alot in all my small strokers, could have a hell of a BB stroker for equal money and dont think its not been tempting. But honestly it would have to be a BB stroker, but on a budget or lookng back on the late 70-s early 80s, you were Bob G. if you could pop 11s or 12s in a bias tired 440 car.
|
|
|
Re: 383 VS 440
[Re: quick77rt ]
#1017263
07/08/11 01:02 AM
07/08/11 01:02 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,445 N.Wilkesboro,NC
DusterKrazy
master
|
master
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,445
N.Wilkesboro,NC
|
The easiest and cheapest route to 500hp will be the 440 hands down. But as far as a 440 ALWAYS outrunning a 383? No way. 383's can be had cheap which is appealing to poor people like me. To many variables. Vehicle weight,gears, and the most important part to factor in is the overall engine combination. A well thought out 383 is very capable of taking down a 440 that's using a crappy selection of parts. I like both but I have a soft spot for the 383. A 383 with Indy heads can be down right nasty fast. Some disadvantages include lower torque and more expensive pistons. Block strength? 383 or 400 for the win hands down... For a lighter vehicle, I'd have no problem with using a 383 at all. A nicely tinkered 383 in an a body is too much fun but for the amount of headache and expense to swap in, I'd just go with a small block. Sometimes I like to build a smaller engine just to see what I can get out of it Some people are stuck in the past. Newsflash!! Performance parts have come a very long way since the '70's. I am a nostalgia buff and I will gladly admit that. There are great cams,intakes and anything else you can think of being made now. Take the 340 vs. 360 debate for example. Stock for stock, the 340 WAS a better performance engine. Today the 360 will get the job done cheaper and better (again combination and YMMV factored in!) . I hear so many older people talk about how crappy the 360 is. Whatever. Just like the 440, more cubes and more torque equals the old saying "cubic inches or cubic dollars". Yes, it's only 20 extra cubes but it makes a difference in the end. I mean with today's parts you can make a 318 haul booty. Build what you have and never be afraid of learning something new. There is nothing like knowledge to make power
|
|
|
Re: 383 VS 440
[Re: HYPER8oSoNic]
#1017264
07/08/11 01:11 AM
07/08/11 01:11 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275 Desert Tracker
HYPER8oSoNic
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Well ive tried not to but since you BB guys cant agree one one thing while your trying to figure out how to make a tiny 3.75 stroke 440 motor work in the 11-s 12-s us 4 inch plus small block stroker guys are in the 9s-10s all day running less bobweight, less head flow and more rpm.
Well you've ALREADY and it's starting to bubble!! 3.75 inch, tiny, by YOUR standards I guess. LEGENDARY MOTORS were built utilizing this stroke length, so now that 4 inch strokes are the rage, are we supposed to be in awe, now? I don't think so. Stroker motors are a blessing, since they produce "full race type" power at below 6500 rpm, instead of 7 to 8000 rpms. BIG PLUS, they are EXTREMELY streetable (unless you are running class). Stroker small blocks DO make a great deal of power, just as stroker big blocks do, BUT given an EQUAL, LIGHTWEIGHT chassis, the comparison could be VERY close IF both motors are nearly close in power output, not neccesarily in engine size. One motor could have a large bore, moderate stroke and have a similar output as a moderate bore, longer stroke combo. It would be the rpms of peak torque and hp that would tell the tale of winning on the street vs. winning on the track.
"Stupidity is Ignorance on Steroids" "Yeah, it's hopped to over 160" (quote by Kowalski in the movie Vanishing Point 1970 - Cupid Productions)
|
|
|
Re: 383 VS 440
[Re: DusterKrazy]
#1017265
07/08/11 01:13 AM
07/08/11 01:13 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275 Desert Tracker
HYPER8oSoNic
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
|
Quote:
The easiest and cheapest route to 500hp will be the 440 hands down. But as far as a 440 ALWAYS outrunning a 383? No way. 383's can be had cheap which is appealing to poor people like me.
To many variables. Vehicle weight,gears, and the most important part to factor in is the overall engine combination. A well thought out 383 is very capable of taking down a 440 that's using a crappy selection of parts. I like both but I have a soft spot for the 383. A 383 with Indy heads can be down right nasty fast. Some disadvantages include lower torque and more expensive pistons. Block strength? 383 or 400 for the win hands down...
For a lighter vehicle, I'd have no problem with using a 383 at all. A nicely tinkered 383 in an a body is too much fun but for the amount of headache and expense to swap in, I'd just go with a small block. Sometimes I like to build a smaller engine just to see what I can get out of it
Some people are stuck in the past. Newsflash!! Performance parts have come a very long way since the '70's. I am a nostalgia buff and I will gladly admit that. There are great cams,intakes and anything else you can think of being made now. Take the 340 vs. 360 debate for example. Stock for stock, the 340 WAS a better performance engine. Today the 360 will get the job done cheaper and better (again combination and YMMV factored in!) . I hear so many older people talk about how crappy the 360 is. Whatever. Just like the 440, more cubes and more torque equals the old saying "cubic inches or cubic dollars". Yes, it's only 20 extra cubes but it makes a difference in the end.
I mean with today's parts you can make a 318 haul booty. Build what you have and never be afraid of learning something new. There is nothing like knowledge to make power
100% with ya!!
"Stupidity is Ignorance on Steroids" "Yeah, it's hopped to over 160" (quote by Kowalski in the movie Vanishing Point 1970 - Cupid Productions)
|
|
|
Re: 383 VS 440
[Re: DusterKrazy]
#1017267
07/11/11 02:50 PM
07/11/11 02:50 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275 Desert Tracker
HYPER8oSoNic
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
|
Quote:
The easiest and cheapest route to 500hp will be the 440 hands down. But as far as a 440 ALWAYS outrunning a 383? No way. 383's can be had cheap which is appealing to poor people like me.
To many variables. Vehicle weight,gears, and the most important part to factor in is the overall engine combination. A well thought out 383 is very capable of taking down a 440 that's using a crappy selection of parts. I like both but I have a soft spot for the 383. A 383 with Indy heads can be down right nasty fast. Some disadvantages include lower torque and more expensive pistons. Block strength? 383 or 400 for the win hands down...
For a lighter vehicle, I'd have no problem with using a 383 at all. A nicely tinkered 383 in an a body is too much fun but for the amount of headache and expense to swap in, I'd just go with a small block. Sometimes I like to build a smaller engine just to see what I can get out of it
Some people are stuck in the past. Newsflash!! Performance parts have come a very long way since the '70's. I am a nostalgia buff and I will gladly admit that. There are great cams,intakes and anything else you can think of being made now. Take the 340 vs. 360 debate for example. Stock for stock, the 340 WAS a better performance engine. Today the 360 will get the job done cheaper and better (again combination and YMMV factored in!) . I hear so many older people talk about how crappy the 360 is. Whatever. Just like the 440, more cubes and more torque equals the old saying "cubic inches or cubic dollars". Yes, it's only 20 extra cubes but it makes a difference in the end.
I mean with today's parts you can make a 318 haul booty. Build what you have and never be afraid of learning something new. There is nothing like knowledge to make power
Exactly!!
"Stupidity is Ignorance on Steroids" "Yeah, it's hopped to over 160" (quote by Kowalski in the movie Vanishing Point 1970 - Cupid Productions)
|
|
|
Re: 383 VS 440
[Re: RemCharger]
#1017269
07/11/11 08:45 PM
07/11/11 08:45 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,186 Wherever I am.
Junky
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,186
Wherever I am.
|
Quote:
Just took out another 440 on saturday in the final. 11.78 at 114~ 115. Getting there quick is fun, but flat-out-powering a guy at the stripe is funner.
|
|
|
Re: 383 VS 440
[Re: Junky]
#1017270
07/11/11 09:02 PM
07/11/11 09:02 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 843 Suffolk,VA
ireland383
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 843
Suffolk,VA
|
Quote:
Quote:
Just took out another 440 on saturday in the final. 11.78 at 114~ 115. Getting there quick is fun, but flat-out-powering a guy at the stripe is funner.
|
|
|
Re: 383 VS 440
[Re: dodgeboy11]
#1017275
07/13/11 12:27 AM
07/13/11 12:27 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,323 NY NY
340duster340
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,323
NY NY
|
hypothetical example...two core motors 1) 383 and 2) a 440 both have steel crank.
to do a budget rebuild (reuse block, crank, rods, heads)...assume new rings, brearings, came, intake.....I imagine the cost would be the same/similar as labor is a constant
to do a hi-po rebuild, new crank, rods, pistons, etc...again, i imagine the cost would have to be the same or similar.
that being said, why wouldnt you want to start with bigger motor to begin with?
regardless...just make sure you build a hemi 440...thats always the best way to go
|
|
|
Re: 383 VS 440
[Re: DPelletier]
#1017276
07/13/11 03:43 AM
07/13/11 03:43 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,825 Sk. Canada
RemCharger
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,825
Sk. Canada
|
Quote:
Quote:
Just took out another 440 on saturday in the final. 11.78 at 114~ 115. Getting there quick is fun, but flat-out-powering a guy at the stripe is funner.
Good for you! I saw a VW beetle outrun a 383 Charger a couple of weekends back at the strip in Ashcroft.....not sure what that proves about the superiority of VW beetles, though.
Dave
That they can easily beat 440 cudas?
and six pak super beez...
|
|
|
Re: 383 VS 440
[Re: 340duster340]
#1017278
07/13/11 12:59 PM
07/13/11 12:59 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 15,134 Kelowna, B.C. Canada
DPelletier
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 15,134
Kelowna, B.C. Canada
|
Quote:
hypothetical example...two core motors 1) 383 and 2) a 440 both have steel crank.
to do a budget rebuild (reuse block, crank, rods, heads)...assume new rings, brearings, came, intake.....I imagine the cost would be the same/similar as labor is a constant
to do a hi-po rebuild, new crank, rods, pistons, etc...again, i imagine the cost would have to be the same or similar.
that being said, why wouldnt you want to start with bigger motor to begin with?
You're wasting your breath spouting logic to the illogical.
Dave
1970 Super Bee 440 Six Pack
1974 'Cuda
2008 Ram 3500 Diesel
2006 Ram 3500 Diesel
2004.5 Ram 2500 Diesel
2003 Ram 3500 Diesel
2006 Durango Limited
[url] http://1970superbee.piczo.com [/url]
|
|
|
Re: 383 VS 440
[Re: DPelletier]
#1017279
07/16/11 12:59 PM
07/16/11 12:59 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275 Desert Tracker
HYPER8oSoNic
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,275
Desert Tracker
|
Quote:
Quote:
hypothetical example...two core motors 1) 383 and 2) a 440 both have steel crank.
to do a budget rebuild (reuse block, crank, rods, heads)...assume new rings, brearings, came, intake.....I imagine the cost would be the same/similar as labor is a constant
to do a hi-po rebuild, new crank, rods, pistons, etc...again, i imagine the cost would have to be the same or similar.
that being said, why wouldnt you want to start with bigger motor to begin with?
You're wasting your breath spouting logic to the illogical.
Dave
Sometimes, GREAT and INNOVATIVE concepts come from the ILLOGICAL!! Being cheap HAS it's limitations.
Last edited by HYPER8oSoNic; 07/16/11 11:23 PM.
"Stupidity is Ignorance on Steroids" "Yeah, it's hopped to over 160" (quote by Kowalski in the movie Vanishing Point 1970 - Cupid Productions)
|
|
|
|
|