How come there are so few 382's??
11-24-2004, 02:47 PM
#21
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: harrisburg, pa
Posts: 1,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
my 383 uses 1qt of oil every 3k miles..better than stock
there is no piston slap or other noises.
408 is a great option if you can overcome the 50lbs on the nose with cost savings and/or hp...it can be done
I went for the wheelstand...
there is no piston slap or other noises.
408 is a great option if you can overcome the 50lbs on the nose with cost savings and/or hp...it can be done
I went for the wheelstand...
11-24-2004, 03:15 PM
#23
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Athens, Alabama
Posts: 724
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't wait to get my Stroker back (382).
We have some minor (I hope) tuning issues before I get to slide back behind the wheel.
Not to jack the thread, but does anybody know where I could start looking to get this thing running? The engine is complete and back in the car, wired, bolted and strapped in. We have an idle issue (wants to idle up to around 2000 when going from loaded to un-loaded, ie. when you press the clutch in, it wants to shoot up to 2000 R's) and I have a feeling the stock injectors aren't feeding it enough go juice to be safe. Is there anyway to tell AFR without Wideband O2's?
Thanks, and as soon as I get mine up and running, I'll be sure to post my dyno and/or ET's on here.
Taco
We have some minor (I hope) tuning issues before I get to slide back behind the wheel.
Not to jack the thread, but does anybody know where I could start looking to get this thing running? The engine is complete and back in the car, wired, bolted and strapped in. We have an idle issue (wants to idle up to around 2000 when going from loaded to un-loaded, ie. when you press the clutch in, it wants to shoot up to 2000 R's) and I have a feeling the stock injectors aren't feeding it enough go juice to be safe. Is there anyway to tell AFR without Wideband O2's?
Thanks, and as soon as I get mine up and running, I'll be sure to post my dyno and/or ET's on here.
Taco
11-24-2004, 03:24 PM
#24
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My stroker burns virtually NO oil. Way less oil consumption than stock.
I am not sure what you mean by noise with the piston. You will get more side loading in the bore with the 4.125 stroke and pin placement limits piston options and overall strength. (strength not really a factor in an NA application though)
Cost wise the 385 was my cheapest option of all the strokers available. (383, 395, 402+ iron or alum resleeved.
I am not sure what you mean by noise with the piston. You will get more side loading in the bore with the 4.125 stroke and pin placement limits piston options and overall strength. (strength not really a factor in an NA application though)
Cost wise the 385 was my cheapest option of all the strokers available. (383, 395, 402+ iron or alum resleeved.
11-24-2004, 04:09 PM
#25
Launching!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Trois-Rivières (Québec / Canada)
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gollum
Cris,
Do you hear more piston slap noises because of the shorter skirt forged pistons?
Do you have more engine oil consumption compaired to stock ?
Are there any downsides of the 383 stroker other than high cost that you have learned from personal experience?
Thanks
Do you hear more piston slap noises because of the shorter skirt forged pistons?
Do you have more engine oil consumption compaired to stock ?
Are there any downsides of the 383 stroker other than high cost that you have learned from personal experience?
Thanks
I have a slight slapping noise when the engine is cold. The noise will go away after 5-7 minutes (after the pistons took their full expansion).
Had to add 3 qts of oil during the first 1000 miles, but now that the rings are fully seated, no oil consumption whatsoever.
Only downside I can see is the lack of traction in 1st and 2nd
11-24-2004, 04:46 PM
#27
This is an MTI 383 ci Stroker combination quoted from a book called: CHEVY LS1/LS6 PERFORMANCE. Notice the power figures were made with stock maf, throttle body, injectors, fuel pump and LS1 intake!
Car: 1998 Z28
Displacement: 382ci
Compression: 11.25:1
Transmission: 6-speed
Clutch: McLeod
Gears: 3.73
Induction: Stock MAF and throttle body
Manifold: LS1
Heads: ported LS1, 2.08/1.60 valves
Cam: MTI 221/221 duration, .558/.558 lift, 116LSA
Shortblock: LS1, 4" sroker kit
Headers: Grotohann 1.75" withY-pipe
Exhaust: Borla, middle plate
Injectors: stock
Fuel Pump: stock
Horsepower: 440 rwhp
Torque: 436 rwft.-lbs.@4750 rpm (broad 400 ft.-lbs. 3000 thru 5750 rpm)
Compair these rear wheel power figures with mine below.
Car: 1998 Z28
Displacement: 382ci
Compression: 11.25:1
Transmission: 6-speed
Clutch: McLeod
Gears: 3.73
Induction: Stock MAF and throttle body
Manifold: LS1
Heads: ported LS1, 2.08/1.60 valves
Cam: MTI 221/221 duration, .558/.558 lift, 116LSA
Shortblock: LS1, 4" sroker kit
Headers: Grotohann 1.75" withY-pipe
Exhaust: Borla, middle plate
Injectors: stock
Fuel Pump: stock
Horsepower: 440 rwhp
Torque: 436 rwft.-lbs.@4750 rpm (broad 400 ft.-lbs. 3000 thru 5750 rpm)
Compair these rear wheel power figures with mine below.
Last edited by gollum; 11-24-2004 at 05:06 PM.
11-24-2004, 05:40 PM
#29
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Posts: 3,726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PREDATOR-Z
Properly built, I do not see why this "offset" stroker wouldn't make lots of power.
Thing is, this type of stroker is short on rpm capability, due to it's stroke /rod combo, it tends to put a lot more stress on the cylinder walls, reducing it's longevity and adding to the oil consumption factor in LSx motors.
For some application though like trucks or really heavy cars, this can be a trq monster ticket.
All this would mean a light rod, piston assembly which would cost mucho mucho dinero.
Thing is, this type of stroker is short on rpm capability, due to it's stroke /rod combo, it tends to put a lot more stress on the cylinder walls, reducing it's longevity and adding to the oil consumption factor in LSx motors.
For some application though like trucks or really heavy cars, this can be a trq monster ticket.
All this would mean a light rod, piston assembly which would cost mucho mucho dinero.
11-24-2004, 05:46 PM
#30
Originally Posted by Chris ARE 385
that is a baby cam for a stroker as well. 40RWHP more can be had in a cam change easily
11-24-2004, 06:49 PM
#31
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you cant make that much more peak hp with an all stroke motor than the regular 346; believe me, I have tried and you are almost limited to a little over 500rwhp
If you want to make around 550rw which a lot of people spending the money do, you have to go with a bigger bore.
If you want to make around 550rw which a lot of people spending the money do, you have to go with a bigger bore.
11-24-2004, 10:52 PM
#32
I plan on going 4" stroke myself. I just decided to take it one step at a time towards the 427 and do the bore first and find a block/sleeve combo that worked. Im glad I did, because this has not been a trivial effort. I need to also get a few more wrinkles worked out of the system before spending the $4,000 on the 4" rotating assembly and the $2,000 on the install/labor. Since I plan to mainly track-day road race it, I need something light... the iron block is a no-no for me.
Don't expect to make the power that is thrown around on the forum. A lot of high power cars get paraded around for their dyno numbers, but the majority are a little more mediocre. Just have reasonable expectations, as with any big mod for this car. I'd like to be at 460-470 with a better cam, better tuning, and either the TPIS or FAST 90 mm setups.
There are heads/cam cars out there that dyno higher than mine.
Don't expect to make the power that is thrown around on the forum. A lot of high power cars get paraded around for their dyno numbers, but the majority are a little more mediocre. Just have reasonable expectations, as with any big mod for this car. I'd like to be at 460-470 with a better cam, better tuning, and either the TPIS or FAST 90 mm setups.
There are heads/cam cars out there that dyno higher than mine.
11-25-2004, 06:47 AM
#33
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LawmanSS
I'm having the same problem myself...I keep changing my mind. My latest position is that I am currently sitting at 421 rwhp with my MTI SII LS6 heads and a poorly spec'd cam...Now, basically, I can spend $1500 or so on a better suited camshaft for my setup and, based on recent successes in cam specs, intakes, etc...I could probably end up in the neighborhood of 500 rwhp...or I can spend $5K on a forged 382 stroker shortblock and end up with what?...25-50 additional rwhp? I just can't justify spending $3500 on those additional 50 horses...I guess that this is the frustrating part about reaching this stage in the modification process...the cost/hp factor skyrockets...just my thoughts.
regards sonny
11-25-2004, 11:15 AM
#35
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Short rod/ quicker accelerating away.....
Originally Posted by kumar75150
you cant make that much more peak hp with an all stroke motor than the regular 346; believe me, I have tried and you are almost limited to a little over 500rwhp
If you want to make around 550rw which a lot of people spending the money do, you have to go with a bigger bore.
If you want to make around 550rw which a lot of people spending the money do, you have to go with a bigger bore.
11-25-2004, 01:51 PM
#36
Staging Lane
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka, FL
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is definitely what I need for my truck ... I already have the iron block anyway (6.0L) and with the weight of the truck, the extra up front doesnt bother me (it weighs 6000 lbs) ...
What I need is big time torque ...
Who carries this crank and are they available in 4.25 strokes? I seem to remember somewhere that someone built a 454 LS1 with a C5R block and 4.25 stroker crank that, if I remember correctly, "bolted in with no clearance needed".
What I need is big time torque ...
Who carries this crank and are they available in 4.25 strokes? I seem to remember somewhere that someone built a 454 LS1 with a C5R block and 4.25 stroker crank that, if I remember correctly, "bolted in with no clearance needed".
11-25-2004, 02:19 PM
#38
Originally Posted by hangslo
Who carries this crank and are they available in 4.25 strokes? I seem to remember somewhere that someone built a 454 LS1 with a C5R block and 4.25 stroker crank that, if I remember correctly, "bolted in with no clearance needed".
