|
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: 75,005
U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,005
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: 75,005
U.S.S.A.
JohnRR
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 75,005
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
|
|
|
|
|
