Welcome to Club Hot Rod!  The premier site for everything to do with Hot Rod, Customs, Low Riders, Rat Rods, and more. 

  •  » Members from all over the US and the world!
  •  » Help from all over the world for your questions
  •  » Build logs for you and all members
  •  » Blogs
  •  » Image Gallery
  •  » Many thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of posts! 

YES! I want to register an account for free right now!  p.s.: For registered members this ad will NOT show

 

Thread: horsepower torque
          
   
   

Reply To Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    chriswhite is offline Registered User Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    alma
    Posts
    2

    horsepower torque

     



    how much horsepower and torque does my motor make

    chevy 383 stroker

    steel crank
    10:1 hypereutectic pistons
    comp hyd. lift cam ink.480 exhaust.480 tappet lift 280 duration at .050 231
    double hump heads 64cc 202ink 1.60exh open chamber
    roller rockers
    elderbrock jr victor alum. intake
    650 holley double pumper
    hei ignition
    hedders

    3000stall 350 turbo 411 posi rear

  2. #2
    erik erikson's Avatar
    erik erikson is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    clive
    Car Year, Make, Model: BLOWN 540 57 CHEVY
    Posts
    2,878

    Quote Originally Posted by chriswhite
    how much horsepower and torque does my motor make

    chevy 383 stroker

    steel crank
    10:1 hypereutectic pistons
    comp hyd. lift cam ink.480 exhaust.480 tappet lift 280 duration at .050 231
    double hump heads 64cc 202ink 1.60exh open chamber
    roller rockers
    elderbrock jr victor alum. intake
    650 holley double pumper
    hei ignition
    hedders

    3000stall 350 turbo 411 posi rear
    I would guess with a good tune it would be capable of making 400 hp.

  3. #3
    viking's Avatar
    viking is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Branson area
    Car Year, Make, Model: 23 T, 53 FLH , 66 C-10 454, 03 CVPI
    Posts
    968

    This was assuming hyd lifters and open headers
    Attached Images
    Objects in the mirror are losing

  4. #4
    erik erikson's Avatar
    erik erikson is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    clive
    Car Year, Make, Model: BLOWN 540 57 CHEVY
    Posts
    2,878

    Quote Originally Posted by viking
    This was assuming hyd lifters and open headers
    The problem with some of the computer software is it does not give you the ability to input all the data unless you have the software that costs over $1,000 dollars.
    In the 60's some of the factory 327's did 350 hp.
    This was with a cam that was .447/.447 and duration at .050 was 222/222.
    Also the intake manifolds have come a long way in 35+ years.
    So he has a 383 which is 56 cubes larger than the 327 a larger cam with .480/.480 lift and a duration at .050 of 230/230 and better induction.
    I.M.O. this would put him right at 400 hp.

  5. #5
    viking's Avatar
    viking is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Branson area
    Car Year, Make, Model: 23 T, 53 FLH , 66 C-10 454, 03 CVPI
    Posts
    968

    O.K. next dyno sim with the "cheap" (sorry Mr.Gasket) software, the changes were displacement dropped to "327" and lift to "447" all other fields, Heads, comp, induction and exhaust were left alone.

    Notice the Vol eff goes up (as does the HP ), this leads most to believe that these heads are flowing better with this smaller displacement (I believe these heads were designed for a 327) than they are with the 383, with out a doubt the 383 would benefit greatly from better flowing heads.(which can be compared with this software along with all other paramators)

    The 383 of course wins the torque war in this sim and seat of the pants real world feeling.

    When I post these sim generated graphs it is to pass alone the best info I can come up, use it how you will, or mock it as you may.
    Attached Images
    Objects in the mirror are losing

  6. #6
    65cayne's Avatar
    65cayne is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    moore
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1965 Chevy Biscayne
    Posts
    258

    Quote Originally Posted by chriswhite
    how much horsepower and torque does my motor make

    chevy 383 stroker
    ....comp hyd. lift cam ink.480 exhaust.480 tappet lift 280 duration at .050 231
    double hump heads 64cc 202ink 1.60exh ....


    Erik, he said it had 280 degs @ .050.....not 230. Could be a typo or I could be mis-reading it (thinking the 231 was a type of SBC head) ? Should it be read as 280adv, 231@.050 ?

    That would change your numbers quite a bit I would think...(if it was indeed 280@.050)

  7. #7
    rumrumm's Avatar
    rumrumm is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Macomb
    Car Year, Make, Model: '32 Ford 3W Coupe, 383 sbc
    Posts
    1,593

    Your cam figures were correct the first time--it has 280 degrees duration and it is 230 @ .050. It is CompCams 280 Magnum cam, and I run that one in my 383.
    Last edited by rumrumm; 01-22-2007 at 02:25 PM.


    Lynn
    '32 3W

    There's no 12 step program for stupid!

    http://photo.net/photos/Lynn%20Johanson

  8. #8
    erik erikson's Avatar
    erik erikson is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    clive
    Car Year, Make, Model: BLOWN 540 57 CHEVY
    Posts
    2,878

    Quote Originally Posted by viking
    O.K. next dyno sim with the "cheap" (sorry Mr.Gasket) software, the changes were displacement dropped to "327" and lift to "447" all other fields, Heads, comp, induction and exhaust were left alone.

    Notice the Vol eff goes up (as does the HP ), this leads most to believe that these heads are flowing better with this smaller displacement (I believe these heads were designed for a 327) than they are with the 383, with out a doubt the 383 would benefit greatly from better flowing heads.(which can be compared with this software along with all other paramators)

    The 383 of course wins the torque war in this sim and seat of the pants real world feeling.

    When I post these sim generated graphs it is to pass alone the best info I can come up, use it how you will, or mock it as you may.
    This is great coming from a guy that thinks I gave him "mis -information "about a 400 sbc.
    A dyno sim is a tool and it won't work correctly un-less you have all the correct imformation and even then it will give questionable results.
    I will take my dyno or flowbench or lap times or E.T's any day over a "sim".
    There is a reason they call it a "simulation".

  9. #9
    69elko's Avatar
    69elko is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    San Jose
    Car Year, Make, Model: 1969 El Camino SS396 350HP
    Posts
    227

    Keep in mind that 383 may make only 400HP, but with a small 165cc intake runner on the camel hump heads that motor will be making a load of torque. Probably 450+ torque.

  10. #10
    viking's Avatar
    viking is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Branson area
    Car Year, Make, Model: 23 T, 53 FLH , 66 C-10 454, 03 CVPI
    Posts
    968

    Quote Originally Posted by erik erikson
    This is great coming from a guy that thinks I gave him "mis -information "about a 400 sbc.
    A dyno sim is a tool and it won't work correctly un-less you have all the correct imformation and even then it will give questionable results.
    I will take my dyno or flowbench or lap times or E.T's any day over a "sim".
    There is a reason they call it a "simulation".

    I agree 1000% with you, but since I don't own a dyno or flowbench yet (come on lottery) and can't afford to swap real world parts at will and head out to the track, I figure the sim method is my best bet to make a educated guess at which mods will add the best bang for the buck.

    As for the 400's, maybe I've just had better luck with them than most (no over heating issues) , or maybe I have'nt pushed em hard enough to blow one yet, all I can say is on mild hop up's they allways beat the 350's built the same way.
    Objects in the mirror are losing

  11. #11
    erik erikson's Avatar
    erik erikson is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    clive
    Car Year, Make, Model: BLOWN 540 57 CHEVY
    Posts
    2,878

    Quote Originally Posted by viking
    I agree 1000% with you, but since I don't own a dyno or flowbench yet (come on lottery) and can't afford to swap real world parts at will and head out to the track, I figure the sim method is my best bet to make a educated guess at which mods will add the best bang for the buck.

    As for the 400's, maybe I've just had better luck with them than most (no over heating issues) , or maybe I have'nt pushed em hard enough to blow one yet, all I can say is on mild hop up's they allways beat the 350's built the same way.
    I will agree with what you said on mild hop ups due to the 4.125 bore x the 3.75 stroke.

  12. #12
    rhamm1320 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    24

    I agree with the above the virtual dynos will never get a exact value like a true dyno run, but they have their advantages. I simulated the whole engine in under five minutes to get a good approximation of power output.

    I have put hundreds of engines on a real dynos (SF-800 and SF-901) and it takes hours to get the engine bolted up, started and the run-in. And that doesn't even count the time (and $$$) to change out parts. I can do all this in minutes on a virtual dyno.

    With your combo, the hydraulic camshaft and 650 cfm carb will keep you from crossing the 400hp mark. I was not sure of your lobe seperation, I guessed 108 degrees.
    Attached Images

  13. #13
    viking's Avatar
    viking is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Branson area
    Car Year, Make, Model: 23 T, 53 FLH , 66 C-10 454, 03 CVPI
    Posts
    968

    Pretty large bore there, 406.7ci
    Objects in the mirror are losing

  14. #14
    kitz's Avatar
    kitz is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Austin
    Car Year, Make, Model: 32 Roadster, BBC
    Posts
    962

    Erik, when I type in my ZZ502/502 (unported, stock cam) it matches real darn close.

    My useage has revealed to me that the (even baseline) sims these days ain't that bad. In general I would say within 5%-10% across the board. In most cases less than 5% error from reality.

    Physics is just physiscs after all ......................

    Kitz
    Jon Kitzmiller, MSME, PhD EE, 32 Ford Hiboy Roadster, Cornhusker frame, Heidts IFS/IRS, 3.50 Posi, Lone Star body, Lone Star/Kitz internal frame, ZZ502/550, TH400

  15. #15
    rumrumm's Avatar
    rumrumm is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Macomb
    Car Year, Make, Model: '32 Ford 3W Coupe, 383 sbc
    Posts
    1,593

    Put a set of the new AFR 195 heads and a 750 cfm carb on it and watch it light up! Gobs of power made with a small cam.


    Lynn
    '32 3W

    There's no 12 step program for stupid!

    http://photo.net/photos/Lynn%20Johanson

Reply To Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Links monetized by VigLink