Nicks Garage 383 build

-
It’s a subject I rarely bother debating anymore(and I’m not going to here either).

I’ll just leave it with, I have tested many motors that were tested at other shops where the differences were well above 10hp.
In fact, it’s kind of surprising when we see one that’s that close.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
I know that. I was adding some detail for the guys who think the machine is inducing errors.

BTW, I loved your last song. Going to play it for the wife here in a bit so she can enjoy it. Thanks for that.
Click to expand...
Oh cool. Glad you saw it. You said you wanted a 12 strAng song so I did that one. I know I was sharp and flat in a few places with my vocals, but it's really out of my range. I was proud I did it as good as I did. LOL
 
PRH said:
It’s a subject I rarely bother debating anymore(and I’m not going to here either).

I’ll just leave it with, I have tested many motors that were tested at other shops where the differences were well above 10hp.
In fact, it’s kind of surprising when we see one that’s that close.
Click to expand...

I’ve seen that too. Guys claim 30-40 more HP than most of the class is even claiming and with that extra power they aren’t even on the same lap.

If you look at the observed numbers and fuel flow you can tell pretty quickly when they are fudging numbers.
 
RustyRatRod said:
Oh cool. Glad you saw it. You said you wanted a 12 strAng song so I did that one. I know I was sharp and flat in a few places with my vocals, but it's really out of my range. I was proud I did it as good as I did. LOL
Click to expand...

You should be proud. I enjoyed it.
 
I’m actually going to help another somewhat local builder dyno a BBC pulling truck motor tomorrow.
I did some updates on the heads and got him a new cam…….. we’ll find out if any of that moves the needle in the right direction.
 
Just getting back to the SD455 Pontiac.....
P built this engine for racing. Completely re-designed block that was strengthened & had provision for dry sump oiling. It had round exh ports & the intake ports were widened at the pushrod pinch, & had steel tubes inserted, & the prods ran inside these.
As I said in post #194, the 1973 SD was tested by motoring journalist & DID run sub - 14 sec quarter mile. It failed emissions, & the RA4 cam was removed & a milder emissions friendly cam fitted, which reduced performance.

Agree with others that low dyno numbers are an enigma. Nick's recent 383 test shows that & he would not be the first one to come up short on HP..........
All the right parts used, nothing obviously wrong, but.....
 
Yes, I know.....& I did NOT introduce Pontiac into this thread.....somebody else did...& many others commented...not just me.
 
Bewy said:
Yes, I know.....& I did NOT introduce Pontiac into this thread.....somebody else did...& many others commented...not just me.
Click to expand...
Yeah yeah. blah blah blah. lol
 
oh, what about that Buick 455 Stage 1? now that was a 455, boy howdy! pert near enough torque to separate your head from your spinal column!

and them cars was lookers too!
 
was thinking bout this, cause everything seems good in that motor... could bad cam timing do this or would it just move the powerband up/down? I have never seen nick degree a cam and would bet he just throws them in. He did try 2 cams.. was just thinking is all... will be interesting to see if he finds it
 
junkyardhero said:
oh, what about that Buick 455 Stage 1? now that was a 455, boy howdy! pert near enough torque to separate your head from your spinal column!

and them cars was lookers too!
Click to expand...
I like the 430 better. I don't know why. I just do.
 
PRH said:
The real question is……

Has Nick bothered to lurk on here to check out the buzz about his video?
Click to expand...

I was with him yesterday and I pointed out the thread and he says he'll look at it, He was working on cust cars.
 
PRH said:
Doing my best to not sound like I’m full of myself……..I feel I’m in that category.

The engine shop where I tested that Pontiac, I probably did the testing for 75% of the engines that got run on that dyno for 8 years.
Click to expand...
Island Racing??? They been around a long time
 
RustyRatRod said:
I like the 430 better. I don't know why. I just do.
Click to expand...
My guess it probably has a bit higher rpm band, seems like people don't want a performance engine having the rpm range of a dump truck. Why I think people prefer a certain ish cid for a certain ish hp (rpm) range.
 
fishmens67 said:
Fact is, all short stroke engines need to spin to make power. The sweet spot is between 5500- 7000 rpm or higher depending on compression ,cylinder head, intake and camshaft.
Click to expand...
This is correct. So we have a short stroke engine that needs engine speed(piston speed) so Mopar puts a restrictive intake on it that checks out @ 5000-5500 rpm , along with a hydraulic cam that is designed to work from 1400-5000rpm, lets also put cast pistons that weigh a hundred pounds and leave them -.055-.075" in the hole for abysmal compression and non-existant quench, oh and then we can put restricitive exh manifolds on etc........ It's no mystery to me why they underperform in their OEM configuration. Take a look at Nicks video where he tests a 383/431--Look how much better that engine performs with the 3.75" crank. J.Rob
 
RAMM said:
This is correct. So we have a short stroke engine that needs engine speed(piston speed) so Mopar puts a restrictive intake on it that checks out @ 5000-5500 rpm , along with a hydraulic cam that is designed to work from 1400-5000rpm, lets also put cast pistons that weigh a hundred pounds and leave them -.055-.075" in the hole for abysmal compression and non-existant quench, oh and then we can put restricitive exh manifolds on etc........ It's no mystery to me why they underperform in their OEM configuration. Take a look at Nicks video where he tests a 383/431--Look how much better that engine performs with the 3.75" crank. J.Rob
Click to expand...
Just took a look for that video--It's the 383 6-pack video. So even with that non-optimal 6 -pack manifold that engine made close to 500ft/lbs and 430hp with the 3.75" crank. I think I'd choose 110ft/lbs / + 90hp if I just had to keep a 383 block under the hood for some reason or other. J.Rob

 
3.75” is probably the stroke the B series of engine should of came with but it I was to go all that trouble to stroking it, I’d go with something more like 3.915”-4.25” for 451-496 cid.
 
273 said:
My guess it probably has a bit higher rpm band, seems like people don't want a performance engine having the rpm range of a dump truck. Why I think people prefer a certain ish cid for a certain ish hp (rpm) range.
Click to expand...
That and the fact that the 430 is like the 340. It only came one way. Hot. Much like the 425 Oldsmobile.
 
m79ded said:
Island Racing??? They been around a long time
Click to expand...
No.
Those guys would do their own head mods and get their own cams.

However, the fruits of my efforts exceeded expectations slightly.
About 10tq/10-15hp better than what I was expecting.
 
What this all boils down to is....... Uncle Tony was right, like the 225 Slanty, the deck's too tall & the rod's too long for the stroke......the rod angle's too far behind the burn at lower rpm's.............................
:popcorn:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top