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