sled_dog
1 ton status
Hmm Pro Topline heads seem to be a good choice... Lot cheaper than World Products or Iron Eagles, sure not as much power, cheaper than Vortecs with the work they would take as well.
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.
355 or 383?
- Thread starter sled_dog
- Start date
[ QUOTE ]
I like high compression engines. MORE POWER !!!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Going from a 9:1 to a 10:1 is supposed to be good for 4% more power. But around here it'll cost you an extra 25 cents per gallon at each fill up. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
I like high compression engines. MORE POWER !!!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
Going from a 9:1 to a 10:1 is supposed to be good for 4% more power. But around here it'll cost you an extra 25 cents per gallon at each fill up. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
beater_k20
Banned
i see several mentions of "higher compression motors" and their "requirement for higher octane" if properly cammed and a good idea on where your timing is set at you can safely run 11:1 or more and still run pump gas. its all in knowing how to build the engine.
as for the actual topic... use a 355 if you want more revs, or a 383 if you want low end.
as for the actual topic... use a 355 if you want more revs, or a 383 if you want low end.
[ QUOTE ]
i see several mentions of "higher compression motors" and their "requirement for higher octane" if properly cammed and a good idea on where your timing is set at you can safely run 11:1 or more and still run pump gas. its all in knowing how to build the engine.
as for the actual topic... use a 355 if you want more revs, or a 383 if you want low end.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes but that pump gas will probably be premium if you want to get the full potential out of that motor (which is the reason for spending the extra money on it right?).
i see several mentions of "higher compression motors" and their "requirement for higher octane" if properly cammed and a good idea on where your timing is set at you can safely run 11:1 or more and still run pump gas. its all in knowing how to build the engine.
as for the actual topic... use a 355 if you want more revs, or a 383 if you want low end.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes but that pump gas will probably be premium if you want to get the full potential out of that motor (which is the reason for spending the extra money on it right?).
sled_dog
1 ton status
I'm building it to be a premium gas motor, maybe 94 rather than 93(yes we have that available). Anyway, well the cam won't be good for helping the compression issue, quick ramp up and down of the roller motor with low duration will = up to little compression bleed off. I wish I could plug this setup into Desktop dyno. The torque curver is always stupid on that program when running roller setup.
Read this link http://purplesagetradingpost.com/sumner/techinfo/350%20chevy%20engine.html this runs on 87 octane /forums/images/graemlins/yikes.gif this would be a great engine to build
sled_dog
1 ton status
not nearly impressive in my eyes. A good set of AFR heads on a 9.5:1 compression motor with a similar duration but straight hydraulic cam would make almost the same power except the torque peak is about 1000 RPMs higher. This is all according to Desktop Dyno. Building that motor would cost me MANY times what I plan to spend. I failed to mention I want to keep this as low buck as possible. If I could afford AFR heads I would buy them in a heartbeat. Oh and its not a 350, its a 352 destroke /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif. Oh and aluminum heads + high compression is a lot different than steelies boss.
sled_dog
1 ton status
Oh and I can't wait till someone catches wind of the fact taht this just turned into a long rod debate /forums/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
So, in other words, you're putting a 3.25" stroke crank in a 400 block, eh? Are you going to run obnoxiously long rods? Aiming for the illustrious 6.3" mark are we?
sled_dog
1 ton status
not me man, the guy who posted that link was just saying I should do that, and I must say, just plain no. 352 is stupid in my eyes. Technology has come somewhat along in the last 7 years. Oh and if you read that Chevy High Performance didn't even seem to realize that the Torker and Torker II manifolds are single not dual plane.... sad...
Run the roller cam as a flat tappet. Guy on the Monte List used DD2K for his setup, then went to the track and ran within about 5% of it, (calculated HP by ET) but ONLY when he chose hydraulic flat tappet (with the real cam specs) even though he has a roller cam.
84_Chevy_K10
Banned
[ QUOTE ]
i would go with a 355 and use the money you saved from the crank and put it to use in the rest of the motor.
[/ QUOTE ]
On what? Stroker cranks are $189 nowadays.
Dorian you're absolutely correct in your statement that DD2000 is off the wall if you select roller cam but is far more accuate as flat tappet.
I personally would build the 383 but I would use a bit larger cam. The additional stroke is going to give you a boost off the line and all that compression is going to help you too. I'd concentrate more on strengthening the midrange/upper RPM horsepower in that case because a 383 is going to have awesome torque anyway.
i would go with a 355 and use the money you saved from the crank and put it to use in the rest of the motor.
[/ QUOTE ]
On what? Stroker cranks are $189 nowadays.
Dorian you're absolutely correct in your statement that DD2000 is off the wall if you select roller cam but is far more accuate as flat tappet.
I personally would build the 383 but I would use a bit larger cam. The additional stroke is going to give you a boost off the line and all that compression is going to help you too. I'd concentrate more on strengthening the midrange/upper RPM horsepower in that case because a 383 is going to have awesome torque anyway.
Z3PR
Banned
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would go with a 355 and use the money you saved from the crank and put it to use in the rest of the motor.
[/ QUOTE ]
On what? Stroker cranks are $189 nowadays.
Dorian you're absolutely correct in your statement that DD2000 is off the wall if you select roller cam but is far more accuate as flat tappet.
I personally would build the 383 but I would use a bit larger cam. The additional stroke is going to give you a boost off the line and all that compression is going to help you too. I'd concentrate more on strengthening the midrange/upper RPM horsepower in that case because a 383 is going to have awesome torque anyway.
[/ QUOTE ] Not for what I'd buy. http://www.crower.com/pdf/171.pdf
[ QUOTE ]
i would go with a 355 and use the money you saved from the crank and put it to use in the rest of the motor.
[/ QUOTE ]
On what? Stroker cranks are $189 nowadays.
Dorian you're absolutely correct in your statement that DD2000 is off the wall if you select roller cam but is far more accuate as flat tappet.
I personally would build the 383 but I would use a bit larger cam. The additional stroke is going to give you a boost off the line and all that compression is going to help you too. I'd concentrate more on strengthening the midrange/upper RPM horsepower in that case because a 383 is going to have awesome torque anyway.
[/ QUOTE ] Not for what I'd buy. http://www.crower.com/pdf/171.pdf
84_Chevy_K10
Banned
Ultra light crank in a truck? That sounds like swapping in a 7.5" 10 bolt in the rear because the 8.5" wasn't cutting it.
beater_k20
Banned
keep in mind that the forged cranks are also more brittle than a cast crank. more chance of breaking, and when it does break, way more expensive to fix. why would you need a lightweight crank in a truck anyways? only good reason i could see putting one in would be mud or sand drags in a purpose built truck.
84_Chevy_K10
Banned
I really can't see the need for a forged crank in any truck that will ever see street use at all. With a balance job I don't think I'd hesitate at all to take a 383 near 6,000 RPM with good components and not worry about breaking anything.
If you need to spin more than 6,000 RPM in a truck, your rig needs to be on a trailer to get to wherever you're doing that.
If you need to spin more than 6,000 RPM in a truck, your rig needs to be on a trailer to get to wherever you're doing that.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you want 10.1:1 compression? I have noticed a trend in you that you like high compression. Why? High compression motors are a PITA unless you plan on running propane. If it was me I would keep it about 9.1:1 comp so you can put gas in it that isn't $5 per gallon.
[/ QUOTE ] I like high compression engines. MORE POWER !!!!! But they do wear out quicker. I'm planning on closer to 11 to 1 on the next street screamer I build. But ofcorse I'm talking aluminum heads.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? You don't gain all that much power from a little more compression and if it is carbed you run the risk of having pinging problems. I guess I am just practicle, I would rather have a 9.1:1 motor that will run on 89-91 octane fine without any pinging and doesn't require a bottle of boost or a gallon or 2 of 110 every time I will work it hard.
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you want 10.1:1 compression? I have noticed a trend in you that you like high compression. Why? High compression motors are a PITA unless you plan on running propane. If it was me I would keep it about 9.1:1 comp so you can put gas in it that isn't $5 per gallon.
[/ QUOTE ] I like high compression engines. MORE POWER !!!!! But they do wear out quicker. I'm planning on closer to 11 to 1 on the next street screamer I build. But ofcorse I'm talking aluminum heads.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why? You don't gain all that much power from a little more compression and if it is carbed you run the risk of having pinging problems. I guess I am just practicle, I would rather have a 9.1:1 motor that will run on 89-91 octane fine without any pinging and doesn't require a bottle of boost or a gallon or 2 of 110 every time I will work it hard.
84_Chevy_K10
Banned
With today's combustion chambers you can have both. You can easily build something 9.25-9.5:1 that will run on 87.
If you pay attention to dynamic compression ratio, pick a camshaft wisely, set quench correctly, and do your homework when you build your engine instead of just throwing one together you have the potential to use that extra power gained from the additional compression without detonation and all while still running on pump gas.
MANY GM heads from yesteryear are VERY knock prone compared to the new stuff. The 305 is the best example of that.
If you pay attention to dynamic compression ratio, pick a camshaft wisely, set quench correctly, and do your homework when you build your engine instead of just throwing one together you have the potential to use that extra power gained from the additional compression without detonation and all while still running on pump gas.
MANY GM heads from yesteryear are VERY knock prone compared to the new stuff. The 305 is the best example of that.
sled_dog
1 ton status
A forged crank has no place? A forged crank will last longer with abuse than a standard cast. Not o mention the fact that if you have a good piston rod setup you can feed that thing some boost or nitrous with much more confidence. And why not on the street? Nitrous doesn't have to kick in every time you leave a light.
84_Chevy_K10
Banned
Not exactly sure what you're using nitrous or boost on a 4wd truck for, but obviously you already know that a forged crank isn't a bad idea if you're doing that.
I say it has no place in a truck because you're better off saving that $500 and having your engine balanced, decked, etc. with that money, or spending $500 more on your cylinder heads which will net a ton of additional power.
I say it has no place in a truck because you're better off saving that $500 and having your engine balanced, decked, etc. with that money, or spending $500 more on your cylinder heads which will net a ton of additional power.
