Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea - Moparts Forums

Register Log In Moparts Forums Best of Moparts / Tech Archive Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea

Print Thread

Page 1 of 5

1

2

3

4

5

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 T Texas_Jacksons OP member
Texas_Jacksons OP member T 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 Thanks, 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: 31,027 Oregon A AndyF I Win
AndyF I Win A Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 31,027 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: AndyF] #13916 01/04/05 03:18 PM 01/04/05 03:18 PM
Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 79 Wichita Falls, TX T Texas_Jacksons OP member
Texas_Jacksons OP member T Joined: Jan 2004 Posts: 79 Wichita Falls, TX	Quote: 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. Doesn't the 350/361/383/400 "B" engines used the same rod? Bore is the only difference. I'll contact Diamond Racing and get some more information about the pistons. I can see some benefit in using the 440 long rods because of rod angle. But again for a budget build-up, I have to assume that 383 rods are readily available. Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage Last edited by JohnRR; 01/18/05 06:18 PM. Thanks, Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage

Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea [Re: Texas_Jacksons] #13917 01/04/05 03:26 PM 01/04/05 03:26 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,005 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,005 U.S.S.A.	Quote: Quote: 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. Doesn't the 350/361/383/400 "B" engines used the same rod? Bore is the only difference. I'll contact Diamond Racing and get some more information about the pistons. I can see some benefit in using the 440 long rods because of rod angle. But again for a budget build-up, I have to assume that 383 rods are readily available. Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage mark , i edited andy's post , i'm sure that was a typo . but to answer your question here , yes the 400 rod is the same low deck rod in all the other low deck mopar engines . diamond has a 431 piston on file , i had a set made a few years ago , for whatever reason i never did build that engine and sold the pistons . they had a 1.320 CH with a .990 pin . build the engine with a refurbed LY rod or better yet a decent set of aftermarket 440 rods with a .990 pin size . shoot to have the piston .000 to .005 in the hole and use a closed chamber head . running up my post count some more .

Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea [Re: JohnRR] #13918 01/04/05 03:32 PM 01/04/05 03:32 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,988 Warren, MI J Jerry master
Jerry master J Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,988 Warren, MI	depending on cost of the pistons i'd be interested in a set as well for use with the 3.75 stroke and the LY rods. i plan on having my rods bushed to accept the .990 pin. this will be a budget street engine as well with home ported heads and some efi. Superior Design Concepts 2574 Elliott Dr Troy MI 48083 jerry@sdconcepts.com www.sdconcepts.com Facebook page: Superior Design Concepts www.bcrproducts.com

Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea [Re: Jerry] #13919 01/04/05 03:43 PM 01/04/05 03:43 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,005 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,005 U.S.S.A.	Quote: depending on cost of the pistons i'd be interested in a set as well for use with the 3.75 stroke and the LY rods. i plan on having my rods bushed to accept the .990 pin. this will be a budget street engine as well with home ported heads and some efi. jerry , contact todd440 , he had a bunch of the pistons at one point and thats who i got mine thru . price at that time was very reasonable . that piston , a manley sportsmaster rod with a .990 pin i had a 2282 gram bobweight , cut the counterweights to clear the block and the crank won't look like a piece of swiss cheese after balancing running up my post count some more .

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 T Texas_Jacksons OP member
Texas_Jacksons OP member T 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 Thanks, 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: 31,027 Oregon A AndyF I Win
AndyF I Win A Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 31,027 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 2 2fast4yourBrain Whack top Dodger
2fast4yourBrain Whack top Dodger 2 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. 70 318 Chally vert FC7/XW (sold) 06 300c SRT8 04 2500 QCLB 4x4 HO 1971 BMW 2800CS 1955 Nomad 1970 280SL

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 R RoadRaceDart member
RoadRaceDart member R 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
A Anonymous Unregistered
Anonymous Unregistered A	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 2 2fast4yourBrain Whack top Dodger
2fast4yourBrain Whack top Dodger 2 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. 70 318 Chally vert FC7/XW (sold) 06 300c SRT8 04 2500 QCLB 4x4 HO 1971 BMW 2800CS 1955 Nomad 1970 280SL

Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea [Re: 2fast4yourBrain] #13926 01/10/05 01:19 PM 01/10/05 01:19 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376 D dogdays I Live Here
dogdays I Live Here D Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376	Thank you for posting that. To answer the question about smaller bores, the competitions have engine cubic inch limits so something has to give. The block dimensions sort of control what rod length to use and the rod length sort of controls the stroke because one is looking for a particular rod/stroke ratio. Kaase is a very savvy engine builder and his winning big block used a sleeved 460 ford block with a long stroke. Then he used the biggest set of heads to get the breathing. the theory is that the shorter rod gets the piston moving sooner so you can really use a big intake port. The flame travel issue is true, that's one reason 400s are relatively intolerant of bad gas, even with low compression ratios. Smaller bore can be used with higher compression ratios, all other things being equal. Detonation usually occurs when the fuel in the chamber (but far from the fire so it isn't lit yet) degrades into different compounds that self-ignite because of the heat and pressure in the chamber. Moving the piston away from TDC earlier reduces the pressure and therefore the tendency to knock. I am not completely comfortable with this, but Kaase's results speak for themselves. R.

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 T Texas_Jacksons OP member
Texas_Jacksons OP member T 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 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
Streetwize 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. WIZE World's Quickest Diahatsu Rocky (??) 414" Stroker Small block Mopar Powered. 10.84 @ 123...and gettin' quicker! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mWzLma3YGI In Car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXcf95e6v0

Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea [Re: Streetwize] #13929 01/13/05 06:57 PM 01/13/05 06:57 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376 D dogdays I Live Here
dogdays I Live Here D Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376	Shoot, 6.358 / 3.75 = 1.695 rod ratio, that's right at the magic 1.7/1.8 promised land. 6.535/3.915 = 1.669, slightly shorter but not by much. For reference a 350 chevy is 5.700 / 3.48 or 1.638 Won't JE make custom pistons for about $700 a set any more??? R.

Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea [Re: dogdays] #13930 01/13/05 07:52 PM 01/13/05 07:52 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 14,471 renton, Washington ph23vo I Live Here
ph23vo I Live Here Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 14,471 renton, Washington	so how would this engine work with turned down 440 crank, 383 rods, the mentioned ross pistons. and stock 906 heads? would there be any detonation problems on a 9.5 motor with a smallish hydraulic cam? thinking about doing my engine in my ragtop like this but it has to have its stock heads etc as the car is #,s matching and 1 of 24 made.. lmk a good combo for a reasonable idle [can lope a bit] and the darn factory BB A body manifolds! thanks dan

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 R Rug_Trucker I Live Here
Rug_Trucker I Live Here R 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
Streetwize 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. WIZE World's Quickest Diahatsu Rocky (??) 414" Stroker Small block Mopar Powered. 10.84 @ 123...and gettin' quicker! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mWzLma3YGI In Car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjXcf95e6v0

Re: Revisiting the 383 Stroker Idea [Re: Texas_Jacksons] #13933 01/14/05 12:56 AM 01/14/05 12:56 AM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,005 U.S.S.A. JohnRR I Win
JohnRR I Win Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 75,005 U.S.S.A.	Quote: 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. Thanks, Mark Jackson The Jackson Garage i had the very piston ron was talking about , flat top, CH of 1.320 running up my post count some more .

Page 1 of 5

1

2

3

4

5

Moderated by Al_Alguire, Hotwheelsjr, moparts, not_a_charger, RangerDan440, tboomer

Hop To

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1