Who says a 383 can't make BIG power????
Good numbers and glad everything is coming together nicley. When is the article coming out? 
02-06-2006, 10:16 AM
#25
Banned
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Patrick G
The thing that many people will miss is that Tony's motor is only 11.0 to 1 SCR and his solid roller cam would be equivalent to a 234/240 hydraulic cam (after you account for lash). That's a pretty tame for a 383 if you ask me.
Next week won't come soon enough for my ride in that vette.
02-06-2006, 10:55 AM
#28
10 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony,
Man, that car of yours sounds unbelieveable! I will be definitely be picking your brain when I do my stroker motor next winter. Also want to compliment you on some of the best shifting I have seen on here or anywhere else. I can't wait to see what you do with some sticky tires on a decently prepped track. Please keep us up to date on the car's progress.
Jimbo
Man, that car of yours sounds unbelieveable! I will be definitely be picking your brain when I do my stroker motor next winter. Also want to compliment you on some of the best shifting I have seen on here or anywhere else. I can't wait to see what you do with some sticky tires on a decently prepped track. Please keep us up to date on the car's progress.
Jimbo
02-06-2006, 08:01 PM
#33
Hey Guys...
Want to try and quickly address most of your questions....
Lets take the obvious first....Why a 383 build-up? Numerous reasons actually....I feel a 383 is still a relatively easy and quick upgrade for most people that already have a block in good condition (a 382 doesn't even need an overbore). No conversion to LS2 accesories, moving knock sensors, etc. and the reality here which I feel I hope I made a point with is that a 383 will get the job done on the HP side of the equation (with the proper combination of parts and a good flowing solid cylinder head), however it will make less TQ than its larger 402 and 408 brothers purely due to its lack of displacement. In a street car or even a track car with limited traction available, that may actually prove to be a good thing. The other reason is that the I knew this wasn't the final engine to be installed in my vehicle (I am building at least two more larger displacement engines in the future to also feature with AFR parts....a 415 LS2 build is next), and I was very curious what a good, cost effective 383 could actually muster.
Crane's new shaftmount rockers (composite bearing design)....in a word I think they are awesome. They were worth 10 ponies over the same exact ratio studmount (check my original engine dyno thread for more info). The few negatives with this system is they are NOT a "bolt-on" and require cylinder head machining, stand and/or head clearancing, and last but not least are not available in production yet. They are rumored to be a month away and will cost somewhere in the $850-900 range. They are not for guys wanting to simply bolt on a set of shaftmounts....you will invest a little time installing them but the end results are certainly strong.
Why the mill to 65 cc's when I advocate to you guys not to go below 66 cc's (67 preferably)?? GOOD question actually and the answer is that unfortunately, the pistons I received with the kit had a -7 cc dish, and due to a misunderstanding I thought I was receiving a flat top with 2 cc valve reliefs. My targeted static CR was 11.2-11.3 to one (similar to my 346) and when I received the pistons realized my actual CR was going to be closer to 10.5 which I felt was to low to make effectrive cylinder pressure with the overlap of the cams I had chosen to test with. I opted to mill the heads a little more to at least get to an honest 11.0 to one (it's actually like 10.95), a little short of where I wanted to be but close enough. I felt the wrong compression could hurt me worse than the slight loss of flow from another small shave off the heads (.018) Another reason I am very pleased with the numbers is the fact I went into this a little down on compression (at least a little more than I was targeting initially with the build).
Random Cats....quite honestly, I don't know if they are "the best" or not, all I knew is they have worked beautifully on my first combo and look to be working great on this one. I have heard from a reputable source who did some testing that these cats were worth 2-3 HP over a cheaper less expensive alternative. I have also read posts of people removing them and only seeing 1-2 HP gains. For that small a number I would rather run them as I kind of like how they act as a slight resonator (takes the "edge" off the same exhaust not running cats) and keep fumes and tearing eyes to a minimum.
Nate....as Patrick G. has pointed out, the solid roller I chose to run is actually quite conservative, both duration and lift. You will see a common theme in all of my builds and that theme is attempting to make big power in mild mannered packages....its more difficult to do and obviously more challenging but its that much sweeter when you pull it off. And typically that means more money invested for better parts, and crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's from the airfilter to your exhaust tips. A solid roller will act like a hydraulic cam some 8 degrees smaller (to account for the lash) and note that some of the more aggressive hydraulic cams are vaulting the valve to .650 these days (LSK Comp lobes, etc.). Also, if you look back at my extensive post detailing all the data from the engine dyno testing of this exact engine, I actually pitted this solid roller against two similar hydraulic grinds, The smaller grind (a 234/238 stick) made only 15 less peak (and had a stronger bottom), but didnt carry nearly as well in the very high RPM's past peak HP....the larger of the two hydraulics, a 239/243 grind made within 8 HP of the solid roller, but lost considerable bottom end TQ and didnt carry as well upstairs either. I have updated my original thread with a link to the information containing the first thread I started detailing the engine dyno results. Bottom line here, I knew a solid would make good peak numbers, provide good area under the curve AND cleaner high RPM figures as well, not to mention be a LOT more reliable turning in the low/mid 7K range (due to perfect valve control....no floating with a hydraulic tappet) which is where I anticipated shifting this combination.
Also Nate, you mention the EWP and 90 mm FAST etc.....MOST of the higher producing combinations are running the 90 mm FAST (at least out of the box) and a handfull are running the Mezeirre as well. I will take away 5 for the Mezeirre if you will give me 10 for my rear gear and another couple for the heavy rotors. You get my point....I don't think there is a strong argument that the results aren't solid...no matter who's product you may or may not be a fan of.
Valvesprings / Lash intervals etc......I am running an 1.550 solid roller spring that we opted to have cryogenically treated to promote much longer spring life and reliability. AFR will probably offer this spring as an upgrade if this and other testing prove to be positive. I would say that valve adjustment intervals with the quality of aftermarket components now available could go as long as 2-4000 miles depending on how you drive it and the quality of the valves and cylinder heads you are running. Adjusting these solids prior to going to the dyno this weekend took maybe one hour from the moment I loosened the first bolt and trust me that I was being "****" and taking my time trying to get them all exactly the same....I will do that a few time a year to reap the rewards a solid roller valvetrain can provide....plus its a good excuse to look and see how your valvetrain and springs are doing while you happen to be in there.
LSA/ICL.....Scott, is there any good buildup you dont inquire about cam installed position??....
It's ground on a 114 LSA....you know I like those wide LSA's to keep my street cars sounding stealthy. I actually installed this cam straight up, but if you didnt want to turn it as high could probably put a few degrees of advance in it to pick up the bottom a little bit. My car isn't as heavy as an F-Body with a cage etc. and I also knew I was going with a steeper rear gear with this set-up....I was wanting the extended RPM without having to step on the duration any further which would have hurt the bottom of the curve as well as the idle quality and driving manners.
OK....Im about all typed out for now. Catch you guys later
Tony M.
PS.....So much for the "quickly" part of addressing your questions....LOL
Want to try and quickly address most of your questions....
Lets take the obvious first....Why a 383 build-up? Numerous reasons actually....I feel a 383 is still a relatively easy and quick upgrade for most people that already have a block in good condition (a 382 doesn't even need an overbore). No conversion to LS2 accesories, moving knock sensors, etc. and the reality here which I feel I hope I made a point with is that a 383 will get the job done on the HP side of the equation (with the proper combination of parts and a good flowing solid cylinder head), however it will make less TQ than its larger 402 and 408 brothers purely due to its lack of displacement. In a street car or even a track car with limited traction available, that may actually prove to be a good thing. The other reason is that the I knew this wasn't the final engine to be installed in my vehicle (I am building at least two more larger displacement engines in the future to also feature with AFR parts....a 415 LS2 build is next), and I was very curious what a good, cost effective 383 could actually muster.
Crane's new shaftmount rockers (composite bearing design)....in a word I think they are awesome. They were worth 10 ponies over the same exact ratio studmount (check my original engine dyno thread for more info). The few negatives with this system is they are NOT a "bolt-on" and require cylinder head machining, stand and/or head clearancing, and last but not least are not available in production yet. They are rumored to be a month away and will cost somewhere in the $850-900 range. They are not for guys wanting to simply bolt on a set of shaftmounts....you will invest a little time installing them but the end results are certainly strong.
Why the mill to 65 cc's when I advocate to you guys not to go below 66 cc's (67 preferably)?? GOOD question actually and the answer is that unfortunately, the pistons I received with the kit had a -7 cc dish, and due to a misunderstanding I thought I was receiving a flat top with 2 cc valve reliefs. My targeted static CR was 11.2-11.3 to one (similar to my 346) and when I received the pistons realized my actual CR was going to be closer to 10.5 which I felt was to low to make effectrive cylinder pressure with the overlap of the cams I had chosen to test with. I opted to mill the heads a little more to at least get to an honest 11.0 to one (it's actually like 10.95), a little short of where I wanted to be but close enough. I felt the wrong compression could hurt me worse than the slight loss of flow from another small shave off the heads (.018) Another reason I am very pleased with the numbers is the fact I went into this a little down on compression (at least a little more than I was targeting initially with the build).
Random Cats....quite honestly, I don't know if they are "the best" or not, all I knew is they have worked beautifully on my first combo and look to be working great on this one. I have heard from a reputable source who did some testing that these cats were worth 2-3 HP over a cheaper less expensive alternative. I have also read posts of people removing them and only seeing 1-2 HP gains. For that small a number I would rather run them as I kind of like how they act as a slight resonator (takes the "edge" off the same exhaust not running cats) and keep fumes and tearing eyes to a minimum.
Nate....as Patrick G. has pointed out, the solid roller I chose to run is actually quite conservative, both duration and lift. You will see a common theme in all of my builds and that theme is attempting to make big power in mild mannered packages....its more difficult to do and obviously more challenging but its that much sweeter when you pull it off. And typically that means more money invested for better parts, and crossing all the T's and dotting all the I's from the airfilter to your exhaust tips. A solid roller will act like a hydraulic cam some 8 degrees smaller (to account for the lash) and note that some of the more aggressive hydraulic cams are vaulting the valve to .650 these days (LSK Comp lobes, etc.). Also, if you look back at my extensive post detailing all the data from the engine dyno testing of this exact engine, I actually pitted this solid roller against two similar hydraulic grinds, The smaller grind (a 234/238 stick) made only 15 less peak (and had a stronger bottom), but didnt carry nearly as well in the very high RPM's past peak HP....the larger of the two hydraulics, a 239/243 grind made within 8 HP of the solid roller, but lost considerable bottom end TQ and didnt carry as well upstairs either. I have updated my original thread with a link to the information containing the first thread I started detailing the engine dyno results. Bottom line here, I knew a solid would make good peak numbers, provide good area under the curve AND cleaner high RPM figures as well, not to mention be a LOT more reliable turning in the low/mid 7K range (due to perfect valve control....no floating with a hydraulic tappet) which is where I anticipated shifting this combination.
Also Nate, you mention the EWP and 90 mm FAST etc.....MOST of the higher producing combinations are running the 90 mm FAST (at least out of the box) and a handfull are running the Mezeirre as well. I will take away 5 for the Mezeirre if you will give me 10 for my rear gear and another couple for the heavy rotors. You get my point....I don't think there is a strong argument that the results aren't solid...no matter who's product you may or may not be a fan of.
Valvesprings / Lash intervals etc......I am running an 1.550 solid roller spring that we opted to have cryogenically treated to promote much longer spring life and reliability. AFR will probably offer this spring as an upgrade if this and other testing prove to be positive. I would say that valve adjustment intervals with the quality of aftermarket components now available could go as long as 2-4000 miles depending on how you drive it and the quality of the valves and cylinder heads you are running. Adjusting these solids prior to going to the dyno this weekend took maybe one hour from the moment I loosened the first bolt and trust me that I was being "****" and taking my time trying to get them all exactly the same....I will do that a few time a year to reap the rewards a solid roller valvetrain can provide....plus its a good excuse to look and see how your valvetrain and springs are doing while you happen to be in there.
LSA/ICL.....Scott, is there any good buildup you dont inquire about cam installed position??....
It's ground on a 114 LSA....you know I like those wide LSA's to keep my street cars sounding stealthy. I actually installed this cam straight up, but if you didnt want to turn it as high could probably put a few degrees of advance in it to pick up the bottom a little bit. My car isn't as heavy as an F-Body with a cage etc. and I also knew I was going with a steeper rear gear with this set-up....I was wanting the extended RPM without having to step on the duration any further which would have hurt the bottom of the curve as well as the idle quality and driving manners.OK....Im about all typed out for now. Catch you guys later
Tony M.
PS.....So much for the "quickly" part of addressing your questions....LOL
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 02-07-2006 at 08:53 AM.
02-06-2006, 10:34 PM
#35
Originally Posted by eamador11
Dam, thats like getting a procharger without the worry about 2 much boost! I love n/a cars! Congrats
This car will cruse a stock Supercharged car.
The power is amazing for the cubic inch size.
Just proves the right combo is very important.
Congs Tony.
Hope you get a raise soon as your tires are going to need changing as often as women change their minds.
02-07-2006, 09:48 AM
#38
TECH Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Laredo,Tx
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay guys,if Tony can pull those #'s with a 383,I assume a 408 can do better?I know Tony goes for any little thing that helps which obiously shows,that car is bad *** and sounds good too.Ive seen quite a few 408's and the average Ive seen is between 510 to 525,Ive even seen lower,whats gives?Combination of parts?Somebody needs to come up with the magic combo with a dailydriven 408.I fired my 408 last night sounds mean as hell with the TG cam,Ill post later with more info,Good Job Tony
02-07-2006, 02:34 PM
#39
Originally Posted by SideStep
I am almost embarrassed to ask but what head gasket did you go with??? .040 Cometic???
The Mahle pistons combined with the deck height provided be SSRE who did the machine work yeilded me a piston IN THE HOLE about .002-.003, therefore to try and maintain good quench (and get that compression back), I opted to run .030 thick Cometic.
Seems I have developed a little rear end whine after my dyno time on Sunday....looks like the car is going back up on jackstands already
Oh well....at least I know it rips when I get her back together again
Hotrods....
Tony M.
02-08-2006, 09:18 PM
#40
10 Second Club
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn good numbers Tony.. Props to you sir! Now lets get my 408 to put up some killer numbers.. I'll be giving you a call this week about the heads/cam setup.