Salter Racing Engines, 383 502 Hp & Tq

[PRH]

I think a smaller primary tubed header and RPM dual plane would do wonders on the curve, bring it all in.

Perhaps.
When I did the marathon test(114 pulls) on my 383, switching from 1-3/4 x 3 to 1-7/8 x 3 headers resulted in gains pretty much everywhere.
That had unported 906’s.

 

[RAMM]

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.

Agree fully and noticed the same narrow peak2peak. Indicative of an engine that may not be that fun to live with in reality. J.Rob

 

[RAMM]

Perhaps.
When I did the marathon test(114 pulls) on my 383, switching from 1-3/4 x 3 to 1-7/8 x 3 headers resulted in gains pretty much everywhere.
That had unported 906’s.

Thats probably because the stock exhaust is kinda terrible--lol. J.Rob

 

[RAMM]

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.

That 371 was the only engine that I took to UNOH that when fully loaded @ 2300rpm absolutely just hung there and sung as steady as the rock of Gibraltar. Every other engine I took struggled a little bit and the torque would fall off a touch under full low rpm load. The torque actually came up a few points once "settled in" which is very rare IME. J.Rob

 

[273]

More torque equals more HP since HP is a number derived by torque and rpm.

I know, my point was you would generally lose rpm also with buddies example, say going 365 to 408 will definitely gain torque but usually at a lower rpm powerband.

 

[fishmens67]

What if we added a point of compression and kicked it up to say 10.4.

 

[RAMM]

What if we added a point of compression and kicked it up to say 10.4.

Add 3-4% no mystery there. J.Rob

 

[MOPARMAGA]

Wow, this is a lot of talk over 500 HP lol

 

[TT5.9mag]

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.

Careful analyzing stuff that closely, you might find out how bad most stuff is screwed together.

 

[fishmens67]

Wow, this is a lot of talk over 500 HP lol

and one doing it with 9.4:1 comp on a short arm. lol

 

[PRH]

Careful analyzing stuff that closely, you might find out how bad most stuff is screwed together.

I’m not saying it would have turned out better if I had taken on that project.
In fact, if a customer came to me looking for a build that mild, that made 500hp…….. I would have just built it with more cubes(and it probably still would have gotten a longer duration cam).

Even though I nitpicked some aspects of the results, I can’t point to anything similar I built that’s any better……… so I should probably rephrase my response to:
“Good job”!!

 

[273]

I’m not saying it would have turned out better if I had taken on that project.
In fact, if a customer came to me looking for a build that mild, that made 500hp…….. I would have just built it with more cubes.

Even though I nitpicked some aspects of the results, I can’t point to anything similar I built that’s any better……… so I should probably rephrase my response to:
“Good job”!!

Probably the customer boxed him in with uncompromising wants.

 

[PRH]

Supposedly the target was 450/450.

 

[toolmanmike]

You can always make more power. (well there is a limit, or is there?) A 500 horse 383 with mild street manners can be a lot of fun for most of us and is pretty impressive for those same "most of us". My buddy Tom has a stroked 440 based mill in his race car. 900+ horse. Pretty impressive. Street engine? Hell no! Not all engines need to be built for maximum horsepower at maximum rpm.

 

[MOPARMAGA]

and one doing it with 9.4:1 comp on a short arm. lol

I suppose with what it is it's not bad.
Just seems like 500 HP is the new 300 lol
Since it's going in a charger it makes sense

 

[MOPARMAGA]

Supposedly the target was 450/450.

Then that's a very respectable final product

 

[fishmens67]

ust seems like 500 HP is the new 300 lol

So they say.

 

[mopowers]

I don't think I've ever had a crankshaft spin that easily.

 

[440 Mike]

Any idea what piston and rod are in this thing? If it’s a heavy stock piston, it’s even more impressive he made 500 hp.

Stock press fit rods with Summit Racing forged pistons. Total Seal gas ported rings.

CHRYSLER 6-3L-383 MOPAR-BIG-BLOCK-B Summit Racing Pistons - 6.358 in. Rod Length - Free Shipping on Orders Over $109 at Summit Racing

Find CHRYSLER 6-3L-383 MOPAR-BIG-BLOCK-B Summit Racing Pistons 6.358 in. Rod Length and get Free Shipping on Orders Over $109 at Summit Racing!

www.summitracing.com

 

[MOPARMAGA]

I don't think I've ever had a crankshaft spin that easily.

Yeah that was pretty impressive