Ol 383 back on the rollers.
11-08-2018, 07:22 PM
#21
10 Second Club
I can agree with this. Past around 6500 rpm though. It's ok you can post your opinion. These heads are only 215cc but are great heads. The best heads? No of coarse not. We've seen tests against the MSD on cath heads. The fast manifolds make better tq/hp up to about 6500rpm. Also the highest I spin is about 7200 & that's only racing or dyno. With the shift drop about 2k rpm I'm just above 5k on an up shift. It would be cool to see the average hp numbers between my manifold & a msd between these rpm. Hams just think if I put some llsr big cam in it with a msd & spun it to 7500+. I bet it would make a nice amount more power with same heads. Ls3 heads would make more power up top but I'm just not a fan. Try to remember this is a skreet car.
No hams a 5.3 will not make this power in this rpm range. Now a 8-9k rpm screamer. Sure. The piston is a nice bit smaller. Hey I could be wrong. I also would like to see a 5.3 making similar power.
11-08-2018, 07:51 PM
#22
10 Second Club
Your tq is decent. Indicative of a decent overall package. But your TQ is also indicative of hp potential. It’s really not hard at all to make 100 rwhp more than your rwtq. Right now I’m at 130 more. Darth HCI ls1 was 100 more and he drove it everywhere. He made around 540/440. There’s potential for even more rwhp there either more rpm but not sure how the Stock bottom would like it
so you being at 460 rwtq well you can see where your hp potential lies with simple math. I think being in that 80-100 more rwhp range than tq is about max and to keep real drivability. Tbh you
could get near 600 rwhp but that’s not really within the realm
ofnthe purpose of your car
so you being at 460 rwtq well you can see where your hp potential lies with simple math. I think being in that 80-100 more rwhp range than tq is about max and to keep real drivability. Tbh you
could get near 600 rwhp but that’s not really within the realm
ofnthe purpose of your car
11-09-2018, 04:17 PM
#24
Your tq is decent. Indicative of a decent overall package. But your TQ is also indicative of hp potential. It’s really not hard at all to make 100 rwhp more than your rwtq. Right now I’m at 130 more. Darth HCI ls1 was 100 more and he drove it everywhere. He made around 540/440. There’s potential for even more rwhp there either more rpm but not sure how the Stock bottom would like it
so you being at 460 rwtq well you can see where your hp potential lies with simple math. I think being in that 80-100 more rwhp range than tq is about max and to keep real drivability. Tbh you
could get near 600 rwhp but that’s not really within the realm
ofnthe purpose of your car
so you being at 460 rwtq well you can see where your hp potential lies with simple math. I think being in that 80-100 more rwhp range than tq is about max and to keep real drivability. Tbh you
could get near 600 rwhp but that’s not really within the realm
ofnthe purpose of your car
11-10-2018, 09:04 AM
#26
So Florida SS, I think the numbers look good. Nice set up.
Hammer, I think that's very well worded. When folks have a custom cam spec'd that's a great way to describe what they want out of the top end package with the goal of higher rpm hp.
Follow up question, say a ported 706 cathedral 5.3 cylinder head on a 5.7 flows enough air to too make 400 whp & 400 wtq with a 224 sized cam with the stock Ls6 intake. With a MSD or Fast 102 intake what sort of cam & lifter set do you think will get 500 whp & 400 wtq out of the engine?
Let's limit the rpm to 8,000 for the stock bottom end. LPE spun several stock bottoms to 8,000 rpm and they lived for a while. Let's assume the 5.3 heads can flow a max of 270 cfm of air with the MSD or 102 Fast intake.
Your tq is decent. Indicative of a decent overall package. But your TQ is also indicative of hp potential. It’s really not hard at all to make 100 rwhp more than your rwtq. Right now I’m at 130 more. Darth HCI ls1 was 100 more and he drove it everywhere. He made around 540/440. There’s potential for even more rwhp there either more rpm but not sure how the Stock bottom would like it
so you being at 460 rwtq well you can see where your hp potential lies with simple math. I think being in that 80-100 more rwhp range than tq is about max and to keep real drivability. Tbh you
could get near 600 rwhp but that’s not really within the realm
ofnthe purpose of your car
so you being at 460 rwtq well you can see where your hp potential lies with simple math. I think being in that 80-100 more rwhp range than tq is about max and to keep real drivability. Tbh you
could get near 600 rwhp but that’s not really within the realm
ofnthe purpose of your car
Follow up question, say a ported 706 cathedral 5.3 cylinder head on a 5.7 flows enough air to too make 400 whp & 400 wtq with a 224 sized cam with the stock Ls6 intake. With a MSD or Fast 102 intake what sort of cam & lifter set do you think will get 500 whp & 400 wtq out of the engine?
Let's limit the rpm to 8,000 for the stock bottom end. LPE spun several stock bottoms to 8,000 rpm and they lived for a while. Let's assume the 5.3 heads can flow a max of 270 cfm of air with the MSD or 102 Fast intake.
Last edited by 99 Black Bird T/A; 11-10-2018 at 09:17 AM.
11-15-2018, 06:37 PM
#29
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
11-16-2018, 12:24 PM
#32
I think it’s a nice overall package. I’m sure it has good drive ability and excellent power curve for any street car. Have you had any oil consumption issues with the 4” crank? I’m debating between a 3.9” or a 4” for my ls1 which is why I’m asking.
11-18-2018, 07:35 PM
#33
11 Second Club
Thread Starter
Thanks. The dumped exhaust makes it a little rowdy but the motor is pretty tame. Sometimes it smokes a little on start up. Doesn't bother me much. With oil consumption I'd say I will add maybe a quart between 3k mile oil changes. Engine has just over 12k miles on it. Been the same since new.
Last edited by SoFla01SSLookinstok; 11-18-2018 at 07:43 PM.
11-20-2018, 02:06 PM
#37
Chassis dyno of NA 650 whp minimum to make on line
Last edited by 99 Black Bird T/A; 11-20-2018 at 02:14 PM.
11-21-2018, 08:00 AM
#39
These are neat. They’re basically mast castings but not cnc’d. I think would be great on a 383
http://www.performance-world.com/Cyl...s-p/63240a.htm
http://www.performance-world.com/Cyl...s-p/63240a.htm
11-21-2018, 08:12 AM
#40
These are neat. They’re basically mast castings but not cnc’d. I think would be great on a 383
http://www.performance-world.com/Cyl...s-p/63240a.htm
http://www.performance-world.com/Cyl...s-p/63240a.htm