A 350 Vs 383 question
It has home ported stock heads on it and a lingenfelter 213/219 baby camshaft. Power peaks at right around 6K RPM. I purposely built it this way to keep the driveability, torque, and sleeper factor up on it.
I am actually pretty happy with the overall power on it, but I would like to up the low end UMPH on it a bit. It really doesnt turn on until it gets over 4000 RPM. My thought was to build a 383 with the CC305 camshaft, thinking this should keep my RPM range about the same, just give me some more umph down low from the extra cubes.
So I modeled it in Dynosim. I have my current motor modeled pretty well in this program, making around 425 hp @ just under 6K, and if I do the MPH/weight math based on my 1/4 mile MPH this peak HP is just about right.
I was surprised to find if I swap all of my current bolt on parts over from my current motor to the 383 with the bigger cam that the two run nearly identically up until about 3500 RPM! Then the 383 slowly pulls away only ever besting my current 350 by about 13 ft lbs of torque at 4K RPM and 19 Hp at 6000 RPM.
I was sort of surprised at this, I thought the 383 would out torque the 350 considerably, especially in the daily driving range below 3500 RPM. This small difference in top end only seems to not make it worth it to build another motor.
So after all that background info, here is my question. Does this seem right? Or is Dynosim out to lunch on this comparo in the lower RPM range? Am I actually going to realize a much more feel able difference in daily driving?
Thanks
Roy
Last edited by Fastmax; Jan 3, 2009 at 02:16 PM.
My 383 runs a weenie 226/234 .568" cam and Lingenfelter/E.B. Porting LT1 heads...Last year with a Vig 3600 and 4.10s it went the times/mph in my sig...The bottom end is all Lingenfelter and was built back in 1995 and remains untouched with 52,000 hard miles on it... The dyno numbers stink around 375 rwhp on a calibrated Mustang dyno, but its a friggin rocket ship on the street and it only needs 63-6500 rpm to get the job done..If you went by dyno numbers alone you'd laugh at my set up. Dynos are great for tuning but I cant tell you how many times I've out mph'd guys with much higher dyno numbers...
--Alan
425hp at the flywheel is pretty LOW for a heads/cam LT1.
IMO there is a LOT left in the 350 with a different topend on it and with a potential for a torque increase everywhere.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/lt1-lt4-m...s-429rwhp.html
My 383 runs a weenie 226/234 .568" cam and Lingenfelter/E.B. Porting LT1 heads...Last year with a Vig 3600 and 4.10s it went the times/mph in my sig...The bottom end is all Lingenfelter and was built back in 1995 and remains untouched with 52,000 hard miles on it... The dyno numbers stink around 375 rwhp on a calibrated Mustang dyno, but its a friggin rocket ship on the street and it only needs 63-6500 rpm to get the job done..If you went by dyno numbers alone you'd laugh at my set up. Dynos are great for tuning but I cant tell you how many times I've out mph'd guys with much higher dyno numbers...
--Alan
My stock cube setup with an almost identical cam only put barely 350 to the wheels through a loose stalled auto, and ran 11.7s consistantly
. There are a LOT of people who overcam their stock cube and mild headed builds.My cam for the 383 is MUCH healthier though, but its not really a street car anymore either
. We'll see how it goes
. So lets forget my particular motor. What I am trying to figure out is the answer to this question from a more theoretical standpoint.
What I am trying to figure out is whether or not the dynosim predictiion makes any sense or not. It doesnt sem to make sense to me that if you build a 350 and a 383 with similar compression, designed to peak in the same RPM range, using the same top end parts that you should not make considerably more power below 3500 RPM with the 383. Why would the power curves be nearly identical up until 3500 RPM with the bigger motor when they make peak power at the roughly the same high RPM?
Is there a valid reason I am not seeing for this to happen? Is the smaller Lingenfelter cam just plain better than the CC305 that it creates the same low end power from the smaller cubes? Something else? Or is the Dynosim program just all washed up with its predictions at these lower RPM ranges and cant be relied upon?
Thanks
Roy
Stoker torque is overhyped, yes a well done stroker should make more torque BUT a well done stock shortblock should have part throttle traction issues on the street so how much more torque is useable??
HP is a function of airflow not displacement, people get carried away in their quest for displacement all the time.
The 305 is not that great a cam, far as I know that is usually ground on a 114 which is a step in the wrong direction. http://www.babcox.com/editorial/ar/eb90252.htm
The Lingenfelter cams work well, ever example of their use I have seen has run respectably.
Use the cheap simulation programs for entertainment only, you don't get any meaningful information from them.
All that said a stroker can be better than stock displacement but people jump on that bandwagon too soon, at this point spending $3000+ on a shortblock wont gain you much of anything, but putting that same $3000(or less since you could reuse rockers and such) into a new topend will gain you more like 50 hp at the crank. Look at the link I posted, that is more RWHP than you have at the flywheel.
Topend makes power, without a proper topend the bottom build wont be worthwhile. Your results say there is a LOT more to be had with the 350 yet.
With the relatively low rpms the computer allows us a 350 should make great lowend.
To be clear I would like a 383, but wont do it till I can do it right, expect to spend an easy $3500+ on a good shortblock.
I know my opinion clashes with "common knowledge", most opinions and a LOT of stroker owners egos but when I can drive 500 miles and stomp on trailered stroker I think that maybe I have something figured out. The FEW strokers done well can walk all over my car but so few folks get them right, because they are more worried about displacement than topend.
With an engine like the LT1 that has a stout shortblock, spend the money on the topend first, if it were a weak bottomend then I could see doing the shortblock first and then upgrading the heads as funds permitted but that is not the case here.
Trending Topics
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
With 3.42 gears & a 2800 stall, a cc305 cam through cats & exhaust on 255 drag radials, it went 12.1's in a full option Z28. Obviously with 11:1 compression, more converter & 3.73 gears, it would have run a lot better.
With the charger installed the same combo went 10.0's still through cats.
I personally ran my 383 w/ a cc305 cam & it would pull 6th gear down to 900rpm with 3.42's with the same engine combo above.
6th gear was way more usable than when it was stock. Something to be said for that 383/cam combo relating to low end torque. Not saying it is by any means the best combo out there, but nothing to criticize either.

But I am really not interested in big power on this particular car. What I am interested in is having it drive like stock, Idle like stock, get great gas mileage, and pull like a big block when I roll into it in 3rd or 4th gear. And cubic inches makes that easier to accomplish.
I have to build another LT1 motor for a 78 vette I am resto-modding anyhow, so to build a 383 for this car and put the one in it now in the other vette really doesnt cost me much at all.
And hey you guys, Stop hijacking my thread!

Roy
With 3.42 gears & a 2800 stall, a cc305 cam through cats & exhaust on 255 drag radials, it went 12.1's in a full option Z28. Obviously with 11:1 compression, more converter & 3.73 gears, it would have run a lot better.
With the charger installed the same combo went 10.0's still through cats.
I personally ran my 383 w/ a cc305 cam & it would pull 6th gear down to 900rpm with 3.42's with the same engine combo above.
6th gear was way more usable than when it was stock. Something to be said for that 383/cam combo relating to low end torque. Not saying it is by any means the best combo out there, but nothing to criticize either.
Or maybe you or someone else has a reccomendation for a better camshaft to accomplish this goal?
Thanks
Roy
I honestly like the short stroke 350 myself, but if your buying a new crank might as well go with the 383. I know that i have been in some 350ci LTs that will put most 383s to shame in the TQ department, its all in the setup
I honestly like the short stroke 350 myself, but if your buying a new crank might as well go with the 383. I know that i have been in some 350ci LTs that will put most 383s to shame in the TQ department, its all in the setup

Roy

Roy
Then again if I had a car so much lighter with more spent on mods and only went .2 faster I might be bitter too.
I am comparing my car to other b-bodies. I am sure that is much too fair a comparison for a feeble minded dolt like you to accept.
feeble minded dolt, LMAO! Aww...is someone upset? The internet toughguy, BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
The 12.7 was on street tires you proved how feeble minded you are because apparently traction or lack thereof is beyond your grasp.








