FWIW, the numbers IMO were surprising for such a small camshaft. The added rocker ratio was a big help. But it’s still a small cam duration wise, non the less.
Salter Racing Engines, 383 502 Hp & Tq
- Thread starter 273
- Start date
-
Don't worry about hi-jacking, itls all good, I don't mind, talk about whatever you want
Last edited:
Sure it more than just a slapped together ootb engine. But Max effort with a 218 cam ?
autoxcuda
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 9,522
- Reaction score
- 5,048
The 1.7 rockers are giving it a “big cam” lift. 109 L.S.
This effectively is a larger cam than the cam card showed. The winner guessed closest to the lift with 1.5 rockers. Which were not used and irrelevant.
Wonder how many street miles and cold starts that 600 lift cam will last.
This effectively is a larger cam than the cam card showed. The winner guessed closest to the lift with 1.5 rockers. Which were not used and irrelevant.
Wonder how many street miles and cold starts that 600 lift cam will last.
What I have noticed about the 'stroker' engines, no matter the brand: 400 SBM, 383 Chev, 347 Ford. They all produce more HP than non-stroked engines of the same cubes/family........and......they all have smaller rod/stroke ratios.
autoxcuda
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2007
- Messages
- 9,522
- Reaction score
- 5,048
This was a stock stroke 383 in this test.
I wouldn't say that's entirely true, that a stroker and or displacement automatically adds power, especially when you look at in hp per cid.
IDK, but, he gave you the ratio and the head used. Grab a compression ratio calc and start figuring. Then perhaps line it up with a piston on the shelf if you can find one for a MoPar 383. That’s the tuff part.
It does make the cam bigger by a small amount. The real plus is the increased intensity of the rate of lift.
I’d say it depends on rocker geometry. The valve guides are effected by the valves not going straight up and down, so the rockers have to be right on the money for longevity.
After that, spring life is questionable. Quality springs vs not so good springs etc….
I otherwise don’t see a problem.
Adds torque but gives up rpm, it takes both to make power.
More torque at a lower rpm doesn't necessarily equal more power.
2nd issues what would be an fair comparison, what's considered same/similar level of build between two engines of different displacements and bore, stroke and rod ratio's ? Aka, 345 VS 416 or 355 VS 383 or 306 VS 347 etc.. Or different brands and or families ?
Yea and it's not all that special of a build, a flat top piston on the deck, and a decent top end.
I think a ported RPM or Street dominator would be a nice test.
Ramm,
I believe it was you who built a 360 ci with EQ heads some years ago that was making 500 HP.
Do you have a link to compare the dyno results between the two engines?
Last edited:
apples and oranges
Salter has a pretty nice video on a Chevy 383 stroker putting out 600 hp
RAMM
Well-Known Member
The Hinkles are about the nicest people you could ever meet, I really liked this build and had hoped it would make better power than it actually did. The BBM Victors are just that difficult to get power out of. That engine sounded good and revv'd like a smallblock..So much effort went into that build. I wish they had scored much higher, it deserved to. J.Rob
That's quite a complex build.
RAMM
Well-Known Member
I loved it but the climb ain't worth the view IMO. J.Rob
PRH
Well-Known Member
I’m sure most won’t agree with(one of) my takeaway(s) on this one.
The heads are “too big”, and the cam is “too small”.
The result being heads that produce a TQ peak at an rpm that’s “too high” for the cam duration, and a cam that makes peak hp at an rpm too low to really take advantage of the big heads/valves.
It’s barely a 1000rpm spread between peak TQ/HP, and the numbers nose dive shortly after the low rpm hp peak.
The heads are “too big”, and the cam is “too small”.
The result being heads that produce a TQ peak at an rpm that’s “too high” for the cam duration, and a cam that makes peak hp at an rpm too low to really take advantage of the big heads/valves.
It’s barely a 1000rpm spread between peak TQ/HP, and the numbers nose dive shortly after the low rpm hp peak.
PRH
Well-Known Member
I realize they had a few days of sorting out ignition woes(which is why I like to start out with “known good” accessories), and most dyno shops probably don’t have many options on hand for Mopar headers…….. but it would have been nice to see what happened to the curve with non-fenderwell headers.
Not true. More torque equals more HP since HP is a number derived by torque and rpm.
TEST THEM ALL!
Agreed
It kind of reminded me of the engine masters episode of “How much cylinder head is too much.”
I think a smaller primary tubed header and RPM dual plane would do wonders on the curve, bring it all in.
The torque curve of the 371" combination is what was so intriguing to me.
The 383 build is extremely well thought out, obviously. Perhaps the numbers make a case for not "over-camming" a short stroke build. It would be interesting to compare a similarly built 383 without the cylinder bore notches, and catalog how much power is left behind without the modification.
-
