RAMM
Well-Known Member
Let me begin by saying that like many of you on FABO, I really enjoy the automotive content on YT--especially the Mopar stuff--like JustMoparJoe, DeadDodge Garage, even Nicks Garage whom Salter seems to be calling attention to with this video.
1. .609" lift with a 1.7 rocker is a .358" lobe. Mr.Salter likes lift and so do I. Hydraulic roller? No sweat.
2. Cam in first. Is this even a question? It's natural, when a block comes out of the wash station for the last time, the next step is cam bearing installation, then you need to ensure the cam spins freely and that is when the camshaft goes in for the last time. Also I leave the cam plug out so you can reach in and support the end of the cam as you install it so minimal contact is made with the bearings sliding it through the cam bores.
3. For a crank to spin like that after a line hone requires 3 things. Only a motor oil or penetrating fluid-no assembly lube, no rear main seal, and probably .003"+ clearance.
4. Rolled deck? Is this in reference to the bore notches (which create crevice volume and usually kill power) or is he saying he had the deck surface machined more on the exhaust side of the deck? Like angle milling a cylinder head? I honestly don't know.
5. He doesn't like ball adjusters but states he doesn't know why. I do understand that ball/ball pushrods are plentiful and inexpensive but thats not hard to articulate. The way those Hughes rockers are setup will absolutely direct oil into the pushrod cup and do a better job at capturing the pushrod at very high angularity. Now if the lifters used are oil through pushrods then a "Chevy" style pushrod will work just fine as well. I'm sure after changing the adjusters the cost would equal out to a custom length cup style pushrod which in my mind = completely unnecessary .
6. Smacking the roller tip rocker on the Sharpied' valve tip doesn't prove correct geometry---making it travel through its range of motion does. I doubt the pattern is that narrow.
7. The port match shot is nice but I'd like to see the other 3 that are easy to see....there is always at least 1 that looks perfect...getting them all perfect is ..a waste of time IMO
8. I would have liked to know what the RPM manifold produced for vacuum as usually a DP will pick up a couple of "s. Also I would have liked to have seen the torque curve with it.
9. 418HP on the first pull and then 482HP after timing was set @ 35? How far off was the timing on it for it to be down 64hp? An engine will not pickup that much power with a timing change unless it is off Oh about 25-30 degrees. Basically you don't perform a full load pull without knowing exactly what your timing is at ! I feel if I told the world that I picked up 64 HP with a timing change the world would think I didn't know how to use a timing light and rightfully so.
10. "Really went to work" "Issues" This corroborates my experience with the lowly 383 and its unresponsiveness to power production which is a result of its horrendously slow piston speed. He states being on the dyno for 3 days and suggests that getting this engine to perform was a huge task. I'm inclined to agree and would like to know just what work was done because a 3 day bill on my dyno would look something like $2250.00 and I've only got a few customers willing to go there and exactly zero would on a 383 BBM.
11. Since when is a .030" plug gap tight? It also took 15 pulls to figure out the plug gap? Yeah, I would be looking at other areas before spending more than 2 pulls chasing a suspected sparkplug issue.
12. The 1 pull that is shown the dyno readout is blocked---WTH!?
13. I agree about the Torker, its actually a great manifold when you invest quite a few hours in it.
For a fully "tricked out" 383 with TF heads and a custom cam to barely eek out 500hp after a 3 day development thrash on the dyno is underwhelming to me. Oh and didn't Dulcich already do this with Modern Cyl Head ported Edelbrocks and a flat tappet cam over a decade ago?
This may seem harsh but its actually not, its just what I see when I watch this stuff. I actually like Mr.Salter and enjoy his content I just wish he had shared a bit more. There is a lot of missing info in this video. A lot. Interesting to be sure. J.Rob
1. .609" lift with a 1.7 rocker is a .358" lobe. Mr.Salter likes lift and so do I. Hydraulic roller? No sweat.
2. Cam in first. Is this even a question? It's natural, when a block comes out of the wash station for the last time, the next step is cam bearing installation, then you need to ensure the cam spins freely and that is when the camshaft goes in for the last time. Also I leave the cam plug out so you can reach in and support the end of the cam as you install it so minimal contact is made with the bearings sliding it through the cam bores.
3. For a crank to spin like that after a line hone requires 3 things. Only a motor oil or penetrating fluid-no assembly lube, no rear main seal, and probably .003"+ clearance.
4. Rolled deck? Is this in reference to the bore notches (which create crevice volume and usually kill power) or is he saying he had the deck surface machined more on the exhaust side of the deck? Like angle milling a cylinder head? I honestly don't know.
5. He doesn't like ball adjusters but states he doesn't know why. I do understand that ball/ball pushrods are plentiful and inexpensive but thats not hard to articulate. The way those Hughes rockers are setup will absolutely direct oil into the pushrod cup and do a better job at capturing the pushrod at very high angularity. Now if the lifters used are oil through pushrods then a "Chevy" style pushrod will work just fine as well. I'm sure after changing the adjusters the cost would equal out to a custom length cup style pushrod which in my mind = completely unnecessary .
6. Smacking the roller tip rocker on the Sharpied' valve tip doesn't prove correct geometry---making it travel through its range of motion does. I doubt the pattern is that narrow.
7. The port match shot is nice but I'd like to see the other 3 that are easy to see....there is always at least 1 that looks perfect...getting them all perfect is ..a waste of time IMO
8. I would have liked to know what the RPM manifold produced for vacuum as usually a DP will pick up a couple of "s. Also I would have liked to have seen the torque curve with it.
9. 418HP on the first pull and then 482HP after timing was set @ 35? How far off was the timing on it for it to be down 64hp? An engine will not pickup that much power with a timing change unless it is off Oh about 25-30 degrees. Basically you don't perform a full load pull without knowing exactly what your timing is at ! I feel if I told the world that I picked up 64 HP with a timing change the world would think I didn't know how to use a timing light and rightfully so.
10. "Really went to work" "Issues" This corroborates my experience with the lowly 383 and its unresponsiveness to power production which is a result of its horrendously slow piston speed. He states being on the dyno for 3 days and suggests that getting this engine to perform was a huge task. I'm inclined to agree and would like to know just what work was done because a 3 day bill on my dyno would look something like $2250.00 and I've only got a few customers willing to go there and exactly zero would on a 383 BBM.
11. Since when is a .030" plug gap tight? It also took 15 pulls to figure out the plug gap? Yeah, I would be looking at other areas before spending more than 2 pulls chasing a suspected sparkplug issue.
12. The 1 pull that is shown the dyno readout is blocked---WTH!?
13. I agree about the Torker, its actually a great manifold when you invest quite a few hours in it.
For a fully "tricked out" 383 with TF heads and a custom cam to barely eek out 500hp after a 3 day development thrash on the dyno is underwhelming to me. Oh and didn't Dulcich already do this with Modern Cyl Head ported Edelbrocks and a flat tappet cam over a decade ago?
This may seem harsh but its actually not, its just what I see when I watch this stuff. I actually like Mr.Salter and enjoy his content I just wish he had shared a bit more. There is a lot of missing info in this video. A lot. Interesting to be sure. J.Rob
