Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical Need some opinions/advice - 383 chrysler build

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Barsteel, May 17, 2016.

  1. Barsteel
    Joined: Oct 15, 2008
    Posts: 726

    Barsteel
    Member
    from Monroe, CT

    Hello!
    When I took my '65 Fury home, I knew that the motor was tired. It smokes, ticks, and generally runs like shit. The (broken) odometer shows 38k miles, so my guess is that the motor probably has close to 150K on it. The car is a Fury III 2 dr hard top with a factory 4spd and a 383 that was a 2bbl but is now a 4bbl. I believe that the rear end is in the 3.2:1 range (factory).

    I will not be building the engine for the strip - it will likely see 100% street use. I believe that "there ain't no replacement for displacement", so the plan so far is to use a stroker kit from 440 source to get the cubes into the mid-400s, (450 or so). I will likely never spin the motor much over 5k, and I'm planning on having a well recommended local machine shop build the engine. I have a budget of up to $7,000.

    Since I'm spending the money, I want a fast car. Given that the Fury is a fairly heavy car, and that the rear end gears are somewhat high, it seems that building a motor for maximum torque would give me what I want, hence the stroker kit (longer stroke = torque).

    Here's what I'd like to know:

    1) I have 2406516-8 heads, which have 2.08 intakes and 1.60 exhaust valves. They were used on 64 - 67 361/383/413/426 engines. Can these heads give me the torque needed to get the Fury rolling, or should I spring for aftermarket heads?

    2) The engine has an newer Edelbrock 1411 (750cfm electric choke "performance with economy" rating from Edelbrock). The machine shop guy says that a Holley "will get me at least 20 more hp" than an Eddy. I did some interweb reading, and not a lot of people share his opinion. Some people like Hollys, some like Eddys, and they both seem to perform well on all the test reviews I read. Am I really better off with a Holley?

    As an aside, Edelbrock's website says that the 1411 "should not be run on an RPM manifold or a Torker II.

    3) The engine also has an Edelbrock Torker intake. I've read that I'd really be better off with a dual plane intake for the way I want to drive the car for. Thoughts?

    4) I've heard that the stock Chrysler exhaust manifolds flow very well. True? Not true?

    5) Of course, there's the camshaft question, which I haven't even started looking into, although I will very likely be staying with a flat tappet hydraulic cam. Thoughts on Specs? 440 Source seems to love Comp Cam Xtreme Energy Hi-Lift .545 and Comp Cam Xtreme Energy Hi-Lift .564"

    I hope I'm not kicking a hornet's nest here, but I'm looking for opinions on how to approach this build.

    Thanks...

    Chris
     
  2. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 47,426

    squirrel
    Member

    My thoughts...I'd keep the compression to where you can run pump gas, which is 9 or less with old iron heads, or 10 with modern aluminum heads.

    I'd run a hydraulic roller, for reliability, with a cam with that much lift.

    Aftermarket heads, and headers, will help you make the torque you want so much.
     
  3. Barsteel
    Joined: Oct 15, 2008
    Posts: 726

    Barsteel
    Member
    from Monroe, CT

    Squirrel - Agreed on the CR.

    As far as the hydraulic rollers, I'm not set on using either of those cams. I've only built one engine from top to bottom in my life, so I don't have the experience in picking the best cams for a particular application. I can only go by what I read. Might there be a better cam for what I have and the way I intend to drive the car?

    Those hydraulic rollers are freakin' expensive!
    Chris
     
  4. 73RR
    Joined: Jan 29, 2007
    Posts: 6,515

    73RR
    Member

    You want a big torque, but not so much high-rpm assembly, if I read your post correctly.
    •The single plane intake wakes up around 2500 rpm and goes into the 7's.
    A good, street design, dual plane starts at idle and should be good into the 5's.
    •I prefer the Holley.
    •Your valve train will like you more if you back off a bit on lift and duration,
    maybe around the .500 x 235 range.
    •Roller tip rockers are a good idea when lifts go past 500.
    •The Edelbrock aluminum heads allow for a full point of compression over the iron but you already own the 516 which is a decent mid level performer.
    •The Mopar 'muscle-car-era' exhaust manifolds perform very well but they may not fit the early 'C' body.....
    •Lots of info here: http://www.moparts.com/
    •You might invest in this book for reference/ideas: [​IMG]

    .
     
    wraymen likes this.

  5. I've been contemplating a RB swap into the '56 Desoto I bought (another heavy car at nearly 4000 lbs) and the research I'm finding seems to suggest the aluminum heads really aren't needed unless you're planning on going racing, although they will allow you to run more compression with pump gas. If you want to maximize power but retain good low-speed manners, spend the money on the roller cam instead (yep, the Mopar rollers are expensive..). You can increase lift without having to eat quite so much cam duration with a roller. I'm sure the cam manufacturer can recommend a 'torque monster' cam profile, which is what I'd go for. Definitely go with a dual-plane intake. The stock exhaust manifolds are good up to about 5K, which is your cut-off, so you shouldn't 'need' headers.
     
  6. Let me offer a little help here, a 3.26 gear is a low gear for a B/B so you are good gear wise.

    Your torque is coming from displacement on that build and you really could stay with the 383 just punched to clean it up for a motor and be plenty fast enough for a street car.

    have fun with it that were nice old cars and a lot of fun to drive.
     
    jack_pine likes this.
  7. RichFox
    Joined: Dec 3, 2006
    Posts: 9,980

    RichFox
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Am I wrong? Again. I think that if you put a 440 crank in a 383 you will have a 426. Wouldn't you be happier with a 440 to start with?
     
  8. Its not just a simple swap. The RB crank journal is 2.750 and the B motors have a 2.625, not that big a deal I suppose.

    I am more of a low deck guy on the B motors. I have had 440s and just prefer the 383. I have no logical reason why.
     
  9. bonzo-1
    Joined: Oct 13, 2010
    Posts: 335

    bonzo-1
    Member

    Regarding the roller cam, nice but beware of sticker shock!
     
  10. RichFox
    Joined: Dec 3, 2006
    Posts: 9,980

    RichFox
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Well the guy said he wanted around 450 cid. Seems like a 440 would be a more economical way to get there.
     
    falcongeorge likes this.
  11. The 440 crank into the B motors not only requires turning the journals down (and renitriding them) but you also have to cut down the counterweights.

    440 source offers two 383 kits; a 438, and a 496. The larger one needs some block relieving. The hot ticket IMO if you want a big inch B motor is use the 400 block with it's larger bore, they offer a 450" version that still has a good rod ratio, basically the stock 440 stroke but configured to fit the B block.
     
    wraymen likes this.
  12. Yea and only two ways to get adjustable rockers, 426 rockers which are basically made from unobtainium or after market. Harland Sharp makes a nice set of adjustable rockers. they are made from expensium but well worth the price of admission. ;)
     
  13. Barsteel
    Joined: Oct 15, 2008
    Posts: 726

    Barsteel
    Member
    from Monroe, CT

    Thanks for the additional replies.

    The motor in the car is original, I'd like to keep it that way if I can. It runs, albeit not very well, but it's a complete motor with everything in place and working, so I'd rather not start searching for another block or complete engine, etc.
    Definitely sounds like a dual plane intake is the way to go, which was what I was thinking.

    I'll see what the machine shop recommends for a cam, and what they say about the heads. They're just going to hand me a parts list once we know what the build will be, so they won't stand to make any money if I buy new heads.

    I'm aware that I will need adjustable roller rockers. 440 source has some nice ones that aren't crazy expensive.

    Keep the suggestions and thoughts coming...

    Thanks...

    Chris
     
  14. steinauge
    Joined: Feb 28, 2014
    Posts: 1,507

    steinauge
    Member
    from 1960

    Try not to cam the engine to death.So many people will use a whole bunch of valve timing in a relatively low compression engine and promptly lose cylinder pressure at low rpm.This gives you an engine that wont pull a greasy string out of a cats ass at low rpm and has a miserable idle.If you use somewhat less cam than your machinist thinks you need you will likely be much happier with your car. Or you could ask 73RR what cam you should use when you have figured out exactly what you want for your engine.Those are really nice cars and the big block mopars were pretty stout stock.
     
  15. Barsteel
    Joined: Oct 15, 2008
    Posts: 726

    Barsteel
    Member
    from Monroe, CT

    Thanks for the additional replies. I did some more reading and realized that the cam suggestions in the OP are probably far too hot for the way I will drive the car. I also might run into spring binding problems with that much lift. It seems that something like a Comp Cams XE274H might be more appropriate for how I want to run the car. Also, it seems that a milder grind would allow me to stay away from roller lifters. I have to start thinking about cost at some point....

    A few more questions -

    I've read that using any given cam in a larger displacement motor will lower the effective rpm range - 440 Source says as much on their website - Is this the case, and if so, how much of a drop in the rpm range will I see? For instance, if a cam "normally" starts working at 2,000rpm in a 383, where would it start working in a 496?

    Re: balancing - I'm not too familiar with how its done. Does the lower end have to be assembled and in the block, or is a crank balanced while its out of the engine? I ask because 440 Source offers a balancing option for their kits - would their process be the same as a reputable shop?

    One thing I haven't mentioned...ignition. I want to get away from points if I can. Dave's small cap HEIs offers an electronic conversion with no external box needed. Any other options I should consider?

    Chris
     
  16. Wagonmaster2
    Joined: Aug 18, 2010
    Posts: 333

    Wagonmaster2
    Member

    For a street torquer, those heads will be fine. Use the Edelbrock if you want, doesn't matter much, and Comp Cams will steer you in the right direction from their Tech Line. Long tube headers and a good 2 1/2" exhaust with that dual plane intake (go with Edelbrock again) and you'll be good to go. More power is relatively east, but for a street driven heavy car with 3.23 gears, torque is king!!
     
  17. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    yea, but common sense floundered on the rocks of magazine conformity early on...;)
     
    73RR likes this.
  18. 73RR
    Joined: Jan 29, 2007
    Posts: 6,515

    73RR
    Member

    I have heard from friends in the business that the 440-source balancing is excellent and a waste of time to 'refine'.
    Their stroker kits are reasonably priced and an excellent way to get 450 inches from a B engine. That said, and as Rich accurately notes, starting with a 440 will save some money and allow you to park the original engine under the bench should you ever need the OE assembly.
    Have you ever had the opportunity to drive a stock 440 powered GTX, RoadRunner, Charger or ? The original 375hp package is a killer street engine as many on this board are old enough to verify. The 335hp 383 is no slouch and light years ahead of your starting point but duplicating the 375hp-440 is not expensive to do.
    As to gearing, recall that the standard gear in all 383-440 TF cars was 3.23 and 3.55 for 4-spd rigs unless you ordered something else. I have a 73 RoadRunner, 440-4-spd, and it will struggle, but it will start, from a dead stop in fourth. That's grunt.
    Duplicate the 375 package, use a warmer cam if you think you need it but go easy.
    As to ignition, use the Mopar system. Not much to improve on.
    Buy the book and read-up before spending money.

    .
     
  19. Barsteel
    Joined: Oct 15, 2008
    Posts: 726

    Barsteel
    Member
    from Monroe, CT

    Several people have commented on using the smaller stroker kit (438 ci). Is there any reason not to go whole hog and get the 496 ci option? 440 Source's website claims that the longer stroke crank (4.250 vs. 3.750 on the 438 kit) is set up to drop right into the stock 383 block. Are there any real issues with the 496 kit vs. the 438 kit?

    Thanks...

    Chris
     
  20. Barsteel
    Joined: Oct 15, 2008
    Posts: 726

    Barsteel
    Member
    from Monroe, CT

    Falcon George - How so? I'm using an engine that I already have vs. one that I might or might not be able to find. In my neck of the woods, 440 blocks are fairly hard to come by, and there's no guarantee that anything I find will be good, or that it will cost less in machine work than what I already have, forget the time involved in finding a block and the expense in buying it. If we tear down the 383 and it proves to need an unGodly amount of machine work, well then, yes, I might look for a 440 block.

    School me. What common sense points am I missing? Not trying to start a fight...hell, I don't even take offense to your comment, but I'd like to understand why you said what you said.

    I figure that if I'm going to spend the money, I might as well take it as far as I possibly can, and from what I understand, "there ain't no replacement for displacement". Am I wrong?

    Also, I'm trying to get it right the first time. Way back when I was a teenager, I built a 327 for my OT Camaro. I ran out of money and ended up with an over cammed motor that couldn't breath thru the small valve heads, backed up with gears that were meant for highway cruising. I want to avoid that this time around, so I'm asking for opinions from people who've done it more than I have.

    Chris
     
  21. vitamindart
    Joined: Jun 15, 2010
    Posts: 38

    vitamindart
    Member

    for a street car I would go 438 its a nice kit ( recently built one fro a buddy )
    the 496 uses shorter piston ( not a fan of for longevity ) and can cause oil pick up clearance issues.
    squirrel hit it pretty much on the head. 9 to 1 with iron heads, nice hydraulic roller and you will be set.
    maybe a little bowl work/gasket match on the heads. anything more than that and its almost cost ineffective to use the old iron heads.
     
    wraymen likes this.
  22. I would check out the book mentioned earlier, a lot of good info in there. There is an old Direct Connect racing book that is also great. Pretty much; what does it weigh and how fast do you want to go. Mancini Racing is a good source for parts and have a very helpful/knowledgeable staff.
     
  23. you are already set to buy a stroker kit so the best bang for the buck is starting with a 440 block. This will give you 500 inches. Or start with a 400 block. That will also give you 500 inches. These two combinations work very well. I have built several.
     
  24. There's issues, but you have to decide if they're important to you. Huge strokers definitely have some trade-offs. The big ones in this case are piston length and rod ratio, both of which effect engine longevity. The short pistons have less 'wear area' and the longer stroke requires shorter rods, which reduces rod ratio. Poor rod ratio increases side loading on the pistons/cylinders, which accelerates ring/piston/cylinder wear. As an example, the popular 347" SBF stokers are known for burning oil and needing to be rebuilt at a mere 50K miles. The racers don't care, they're after power.

    I'd look for a 400 block. Not as popular as the 440 so should be cheaper/easier to find, the same external dimensions as your 383 so it's a direct bolt-in, bigger bore than even a 440, and actually a bit beefier. Use the 450" kit; this uses short pistons, but retains the 'good' factory rod ratio. I believe this kit also uses all stock Mopar bearings, so no 'special' parts are needed.
     
  25. RichFox
    Joined: Dec 3, 2006
    Posts: 9,980

    RichFox
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Barsteel was clear that he wants to retain the original engine as much as possible. Nothing wrong with that. My thought was that starting with a 440 short block he could save enough on the stroker kit to afford the roller cam that is otherwise to expensive. And using standard OS pistons get the 450 inches he wants. But you can't always apply economic logic to hot rods. If we did there would be no hot rods. No racing. No customs. No fun at all. So, fine I hope you enjoy your stroked 383.
     
    falcongeorge likes this.
  26. Barsteel
    Joined: Oct 15, 2008
    Posts: 726

    Barsteel
    Member
    from Monroe, CT

    Crazy Steve -

    Thanks for the comment. I just did some reading and learned a bit about rod ratio.

    The 496 kit yields a rod ratio of 1.54 (6.535 rod length / 4.250 stroke), which, based on what I'm reading, is on the lower end of the scale, but not unacceptably low. A BBC 454 comes in at 1.53, and a SBC 400 comes in at 1.48.

    Here's a link to the article. http://www.eaglerod.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=25
     
  27. 73RR
    Joined: Jan 29, 2007
    Posts: 6,515

    73RR
    Member

    OK, you want a stroker, I get it. Not sure about spending money on a B stroker kit when the RB is still available but it is your money so you can figure out who gets it. The 440-source is good stuff, no issues there.
    I do have issues with 1.5 rod ratios...........

    ...couldn't resist....
    http://southcoast.craigslist.org/pts/5559010673.html
    http://providence.craigslist.org/pts/5563183485.html
    http://albany.craigslist.org/pts/5574668029.html
    http://hudsonvalley.craigslist.org/pts/5536476476.html
    http://newhaven.craigslist.org/pts/5485753761.html

    .
     
  28. ethe stroker kit pays for itself. it comes to your door ready to bolt together. there are no special parts needed. get a estimate on what it will cost to recondition all of your old parts. a 400 block is 35 lbs lighter. the block is considered stronger only because there is just a little more metal between the cam and crank due to the smaller crank journel. when you start making over 650 hp this is were they all break. if you don't plan on making that much its a non issue. the heads you have suck. for stockers go 452 they are preferred next would be 906. the 400 block is harder to find than a 440. they made less of them. with the larger bore of the 400 the valves are not shrouded as much. before I would spend money on roller rockers I would direct that money to a up graded oiling system.
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2016
  29. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    See posts #23, #25 and #27. And the difference in AVERAGE torque between 3500-6000 between the Performer RPM and Torker is somewhere between 0-8 ft lbs, depending on which info-mercial, oops, I mean "dyno comparision":rolleyes: you choose to believe...and some of them show the torker making more peak torque than the RPM. And yes, I have built a few 383's and 440's over the years. The fact that I have RB blocks stacked like cordwood might prejudice me a little, but if I wanted a 440, I'd start with one, not a 383.
    And Gary and I might not always agree, but one thing we DO agree on 100%, is 1.5 R/S ratios in blocks with "iffy" main web integrity. But hey, its your money...
     
  30. Barsteel
    Joined: Oct 15, 2008
    Posts: 726

    Barsteel
    Member
    from Monroe, CT

    Racer-x :

    What are the issues with the oiling system, and what would you do to upgrade it?

    Thanks...

    Chris
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2020 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.