Nicks Garage 383 build

-
I watched a few of his other videos the other day.
Sure, there are things I don’t agree with or would do differently myself(the same is true for Enginemasters tv show)….…..but I’ll give him and the production group some props.
The recent stuff has a pretty professional look to it.
 
Last edited:
RAMM said:
First off I despise 383's possibly more than the 318. The 383 has no right to call itself a big block. I've built more than a few and they always disappoint. ALWAYS. I've actually been refusing to build them if the customer wants a " stock rebuild, im only cruising, don't care about performance" etc... Because they always lie. When the numbers are in they are always disappointed and ask " Why is the HP so shitty?" And they don't like my answer. "Because you insisted on a stock rebuild and lied about not wanting performance" I always suggest a 431 build or something else..even a small block. Oh and Nick's dyno must be off because any 383bIve built needs headers to get to 349hp. His engine is either amazing "although the TQ numbers don't suggest that" or his dyno is very forgiving. I love his head scratching.....Why is it so low? Because it never made 425tq in the first place. A 383 Chev seriously embarrasses our big block. Oh and anyone saying they had a strong 383 back in the day is delusional or never drove anything faster than a 1984 Dodge Magicwagon. J.Rob
Click to expand...
Yet engine masters did a heads up dyno run between similarly built 383s of the mopar and chevy variety, and the mopar was much better.
 
PRH said:
I watched a few of his other videos the other day.
Sure, there are things I don’t agree with or would do differently myself(the same is true for Enginemasters tv show)….…..but I’ll give him and the production group some props.
The recent stuff has a pretty professional look to it.
Click to expand...
He knows how to dyno an engine. Not everybody does.
 
92b said:
What lead you to choose STP rather than a SAE correction factor?
Click to expand...
Richard Petty, of course! LOL
STP.jpg
 
92b said:
What lead you to choose STP rather than a SAE correction factor?
Click to expand...

That is an SAE correction factor. There are several of them and I’ve looked at most.

None of them do anything STP doesn’t do.

It is for reference. It allows year round, coast to coast and border to border testing with at least some standard to make things equal.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
That is an SAE correction factor. There are several of them and I’ve looked at most.

None of them do anything STP doesn’t do.

It is for reference. It allows year round, coast to coast and border to border testing with at least some standard to make things equal.
Click to expand...
Do use the frictional correction like the SAE J607 or just STP?
 
Newbomb Turk said:
That is an SAE correction factor. There are several of them and I’ve looked at most.

None of them do anything STP doesn’t do.

It is for reference. It allows year round, coast to coast and border to border testing with at least some standard to make things equal.
Click to expand...
My answer in post #406 was better.
 
I never thought I'd see the day when people tout how great a 318 is and then slam the 383 Mopar B engine...
 
Gomer Pyle said:
That + .020" is the NHRA blueprint spec for Stock and Superstock, an untouched 68-9 HP 383 is about .025" to .030" in the hole.
Click to expand...
Chrysler is the one that gave NHRA the spec, and actually..........they were all over the place. I tore down one that was untouched at .005 - .009 positive.
 
Last edited:
Newbomb Turk said:
The only way that can happen is if the dyno operator is an idiot or a liar.

If you are using the same correction factor (and is should be STP and not the newer factors) there shouldn’t be 10 hp difference from corner to corner of the country.
Click to expand...
What newer factors do you believe shouldn't be used and why?
 
92b said:
What newer factors do you believe shouldn't be used and why?
Click to expand...
At the risk of this thread becoming even more convoluted-Its not really the correction factors, everyone uses the old STP/SAEJ607 and not the newer SAEJ1349 which is how the OEM's rate their products. Dyno's are all over the place more than likely because of other factors like cell construction. Where does the engine receive its intake air from? How is the air circulated/exchanged? Is the air pushed in or pulled out? I know of a dyno facility that doesn't even have any air movement at all, so as the day goes on it just gets hotter and hotter and more contaminated. That definitely effects the numbers. @ UNOH they blow air into the room while my own system blows it out. What does the exhaust system look like? I'm below grade so my exhaust actually travels up and then out about 13' into 6 large mufflers. How restrictive is the system? Is there any weird adapters involved? And so on and so forth. Correction factors can't possibly account for all of that with 100% accuracy, but it actually does a pretty good job. FWIW I think Nick's dyno is spot on and maybe even on the "tight" side. J.Rob
 
As RAMM was saying………most of the results readily available from the media are going to be showing results using the STP/J607 correction factor.
Why? Well………it corrects to the best weather standards/conditions of them all……..which means, the numbers are higher.

It’s the same with media flow numbers…….the standard depression is 28”.
 
RAMM said:
At the risk of this thread becoming even more convoluted-Its not really the correction factors, everyone uses the old STP/SAEJ607 and not the newer SAEJ1349 which is how the OEM's rate their products. Dyno's are all over the place more than likely because of other factors like cell construction. Where does the engine receive its intake air from? How is the air circulated/exchanged? Is the air pushed in or pulled out? I know of a dyno facility that doesn't even have any air movement at all, so as the day goes on it just gets hotter and hotter and more contaminated. That definitely effects the numbers. @ UNOH they blow air into the room while my own system blows it out. What does the exhaust system look like? I'm below grade so my exhaust actually travels up and then out about 13' into 6 large mufflers. How restrictive is the system? Is there any weird adapters involved? And so on and so forth. Correction factors can't possibly account for all of that with 100% accuracy, but it actually does a pretty good job. FWIW I think Nick's dyno is spot on and maybe even on the "tight" side. J.Rob
Click to expand...
I agree test proceedure and control over variables are very important.
I think correction factors are most useful when comparing data on the same dyno on different days. I also think correction factors are more accurate when they don't have to correct very much. Unless you are testing under conditions close to 60 degrees, 29.92 pressure and 0% moisture, why wouldn't you use a correction factor closer to the actual conditions you are testing at? I can think of a few reasons and these are not without some merit.
1. Everybody else (my competitors) uses it.
2. That's how I have always done it.
3. I can't or don't know how to change it.
4. I didn't know there was an alternative.
5. It gives me or my customer bigger numbers.

Just to name a few I'm sure there are other reasons.
Just so you don't think I am "correction factor Shaming". I have three correction factors loaded into my dyno program. I do all my testing with the CF that is closest to my conditions J1985. If it is a street or non competition type motor I will also offer (with a shortish explanation) the "higher" numbers with the J607 standard. I ask the customer which they would like me to print out for them. Guess which one they choose? If I were them I would probably pick the bigger numbers. It's human nature I think.
 
92b said:
I agree test proceedure and control over variables are very important.
I think correction factors are most useful when comparing data on the same dyno on different days. I also think correction factors are more accurate when they don't have to correct very much. Unless you are testing under conditions close to 60 degrees, 29.92 pressure and 0% moisture, why wouldn't you use a correction factor closer to the actual conditions you are testing at? I can think of a few reasons and these are not without some merit.
1. Everybody else (my competitors) uses it.
2. That's how I have always done it.
3. I can't or don't know how to change it.
4. I didn't know there was an alternative.
5. It gives me or my customer bigger numbers.

Just to name a few I'm sure there are other reasons.
Just so you don't think I am "correction factor Shaming". I have three correction factors loaded into my dyno program. I do all my testing with the CF that is closest to my conditions J1985. If it is a street or non competition type motor I will also offer (with a shortish explanation) the "higher" numbers with the J607 standard. I ask the customer which they would like me to print out for them. Guess which one they choose? If I were them I would probably pick the bigger numbers. It's human nature I think.
Click to expand...


I guess my answer is what difference does it make? The observed numbers is what the engine sees.

You could correct to a 30.5 barometer, 45 degrees and 100% humidity and what would it matter??

You almost never get conditions to match any correction.

So I use the STP correction and you use one of the other correction factor and Ramm uses a different one and PHR uses a different one yet.

And we all test the same engine and ship it around so we can all test. We all test at different correction factors so we all have different corrected numbers and observed numbers unless two of us got lucky enough that we were testing with conditions so close the observed numbers were close.

And what did we learn by doing that test? Nothing. The observed numbers are only good for those weather conditions. The corrected numbers are the same. The engine will only make corrected power when the conditions are met.

Trying to get corrected numbers that standardize everyone doesn’t matter. I think the STP correction is no better or worse than any other correction factor.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
I guess my answer is what difference does it make? The observed numbers is what the engine sees.

You could correct to a 30.5 barometer, 45 degrees and 100% humidity and what would it matter??

You almost never get conditions to match any correction.

So I use the STP correction and you use one of the other correction factor and Ramm uses a different one and PHR uses a different one yet.

And we all test the same engine and ship it around so we can all test. We all test at different correction factors so we all have different corrected numbers and observed numbers unless two of us got lucky enough that we were testing with conditions so close the observed numbers were close.

And what did we learn by doing that test? Nothing. The observed numbers are only good for those weather conditions. The corrected numbers are the same. The engine will only make corrected power when the conditions are met.

Trying to get corrected numbers that standardize everyone doesn’t matter. I think the STP correction is no better or worse than any other correction factor.
Click to expand...
I think correction factors are most useful for comparing data on the same dyno on different weather days. Also the more you have to correct, the more potential for error in the correction. Here is an example of why I think correction factors are useful.
You have a motor on your dyno and have it fully dialed in. The pressure is 28.5 temp is 84 degrees humidity is 30%. Customer wants to try an intake manifold modification. Customer returns with the manifold 2 days later and you test his modification. On this day the pressure is 29.5 and 74 degrees and 10% humidity. If you use no correction factor how do you decide losses or gains due to change in weather or change in the manifold? And if you do use a correction factor to account for the change In weather which correction factor will do this more accurately?
 
92b said:
I think correction factors are most useful for comparing data on the same dyno on different weather days. Also the more you have to correct, the more potential for error in the correction. Here is an example of why I think correction factors are useful.
You have a motor on your dyno and have it fully dialed in. The pressure is 28.5 temp is 84 degrees humidity is 30%. Customer wants to try an intake manifold modification. Customer returns with the manifold 2 days later and you test his modification. On this day the pressure is 29.5 and 74 degrees and 10% humidity. If you use no correction factor how do you decide losses or gains due to change in weather or change in the manifold? And if you do use a correction factor to account for the change In weather which correction factor will do this more accurately?
Click to expand...


I agree. So tell me what difference it makes what correction factor you use? All it does is change the corrected number.

I’ve had swings from about a 5% correction to over 13% correction. I don’t know that the numbers are more or less accurate at either end of the range but again it doesn’t matter which CF you use the only time those numbers will be correct in the car is when the weather conditions match the CF.

There isn’t one CF that’s better or more correct. Using a CF other than STP doesn’t change anything other than the end number.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
I agree. So tell me what difference it makes what correction factor you use? All it does is change the corrected number.

I’ve had swings from about a 5% correction to over 13% correction. I don’t know that the numbers are more or less accurate at either end of the range but again it doesn’t matter which CF you use the only time those numbers will be correct in the car is when the weather conditions match the CF.

There isn’t one CF that’s better or more correct. Using a CF other than STP doesn’t change anything other than the end number.
Click to expand...
The more you have to correct the more likely your correction is not accurate. Correcting to the standard that is closer to the actual conditions increases the likelihood of it being accurate. A correction factor of 1 is ideal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top