Thread: 383 build-Something Caught My Eye

Tweet

nope i just do not see a need for floaters in a every day engine and some race engines .more cost more parts and are not better less you plan on taking your piston on and off your rods alot. i can get a5.7 rods with press pin with scat scr5ap but like i said use what makes you happy 7/16 bolts ? hell i have many bbc with 3/8 bolts that seen the bad side of hell . stop building a race engine for a tow truck

Pat-the PBR cam# e119847 has a 112 L/C closer to the target for a EFI engine.What you think of that cam??.

well like you just posted about the old computer set up none of the cams are not going to work ??? all past the dur of a stock cam . the map will not like it. like i said on the phone to you and i posted so i can not help if your sticking to your old setup now if you go mass air then them cams will work .if you can fool your old setup fuel MPG is going to hurt and it will run crappy and wash down the walls idle very rich and wear out the engine seen it done .i can not add any more. i do know what i seen in the past and the last roller engine i built with a very small hyd cam with the PBm thunder heads and a Ersons custom ground for a K code and that was last year and could use a chip was used in a burb as a car hauler. you can go up on abit more cam lift then stock and have done that to with a stock cam and 1.6 rockers and may not see much. not to be a smart a$$ but i done this build with a 355 and whats holding you back is the old setup

Pat-just posted on the other thread.Mass air for the early on.So the lobe center outline being 112 or better still applies,right??.

you can run more cam with mass air .. talk to the guys you know thats going to tune it in for you but i think you can use any cams that have been listed . it s not just one part of the cam like 112 its the dur to

OK-FYI-the crank order will go out on the 13th.Jim said this wk the bore and hot tanking will be done.Wanted me to take the block back until the rest of the parts are here.I'll post detailed pictures of the bores and block once I get it back.(close shots of it that is)

Top ring was alittle tight and we took out one thousand.The rest was dead on perfect.Still tons to go on this build................we'll update as progress is made.

Got the block back with all the machine work done,painted,new copper soft plugs,new cam bearings etc.Buying the rods are next.Jim took the crank to check it out.

This thread has been rolling along for awhile. I had my sbc 383 built with torque in mind and as low in the rpm band as I could get it. What this gave me was a sweet, streetable engine that is overkill in the torque department for moving my 1790 lb Track-T. The last dyno sheet I have was last November at 4500' elevation in Sierra Vista, Arizona, during Fred's Fun Run. This are roller numbers, not crank numbers, but I have those too. On the chassis dyno...

272.2 hp @ 4050 rpm
432.5 lb/ft @ 2800 rpm

Dyno tech asked me if I was running a "rock crawler" engine in my Track-T. On the first few pages of this thread, compression was discussed a lot. My feeling is to run as high as your local pump gas will allow. For me here in California that means 91 octane, so if iron heads, 9.25 to 1 or aluminum heads, 10.25 to 1.

Crank ratings are
320 hp @ 4050 rpm
516 lb/ft @ 2800 rpm

Deckofficer..... do you use it on weekends for pulling stumps

Originally Posted by cffisher

Deckofficer..... do you use it on weekends for pulling stumps

Charlie-the second dyno sym that Richard ran for me was close to the same numbers.I do wish it was some more HP,but that is just me wanting his cake and eating it too.

Originally Posted by 1gary

Charlie-the second dyno sym that Richard ran for me was close to the same numbers.I do wish it was some more HP,but that is just me wanting his cake and eating it too.

Yeah, I sure miss the high rpm zing of the previous engine. And I'm no fan of externally balanced engines in super light cars. 1st attempt at getting this engine built resulted in too much vibration that more than likely would have gone un-noticed in a 5000 lb truck. But one thing that is truly fun to do to a friend with this engine and that is when on a deserted, limited access highway, slowly creep up to around 120 mph in the 0.64 OD top gear, and when your friends realize the speed and freaks a bit, you can roll it all on without downshifting, asking him if he wants you to pull a gear to really see what it will do? At 120 in top gear, I'm at my torque peak of 2800 rpms (I'm very talled geared) so I hope he says "no" because if I did pull that gear, the jig would be up because at that speed it would pull harder in the top OD gear, but most people have never experianced an engine with the peak torque so low in rpms. This engine's hp starts falling off at just 4050 rpms.

Yepper Bob.For one reason or another this build has gone on and refined for 5yrs.The assembly is close with the rods next and the bearings.I have to get a H/B and flexplate to do the balance.But once it started,the time to get to the finish has rapidly been coming to a end.I am still playing around with what EFI I will end up with taking all the cautions under consideration.

Bob-the Howards crank is internally balanced.So that part of it shouldn't be a issue.The 700R4 is O/D of .75.Yeah I wish I had the funds for a trans like yours.But that would be a death wish going that fast in a High top Astro.

Originally Posted by 1gary

Bob-the Howards crank is internally balanced.So that part of it shouldn't be a issue.The 700R4 is O/D of .75.Yeah I wish I had the funds for a trans like yours.But that would be a death wish going that fast in a High top Astro.

I just used a 400 crank, but should have gone your route with a special build crank that is internally balanced. As to gear ratio, I don't think you would be running 31" tires on an Astro, tends to gear ya up a bit right there.