383 Vs 355
01-22-2008, 11:57 PM
#84
01-23-2008, 04:16 AM
#86
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: HAYS, KANSAS
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think we are going to tear the block apart with the 383 and what ever is salvageable where gonna keep it and what ever is fucked where gonna replace it. do you guys think that would be the smart thing to do. since i don't have a lot of money. And also getting rid of the 700r4 and getting a 4l60e.
01-23-2008, 06:26 AM
#87
I cannot and will not deny that fact.
Those choices include many camshaft designs all of which require a new spring, which in turn requires machine work to get the proper install heigth.
Then it would be best to run an NSA rocker vs. and SA rocker, but that would require guides and hardened pushrods.
The maximum you could see on a stock head non ported (remembering the HCK doesn't need a port job) you could achieve with ANY of those camshafts and springs would be a whopping 30 RWHP over the HCK and that to me doesn't justfy the extra bux.
So add it all up machine work, NSA rockers, springs, locks, retainers, locators andcamshaft and you have quite a bit more than what the HCK costs and not a whole lot more than what it produced
My point is not that the HCK is the greatest thing ever invented for the LT1. It is that it IS a very economical option for those aspiring to merely pep up their performance and still have a decent dd or cruiser. It is limited to itself, but will also improve with bolt on modifications and yes even some head work. However I am not advocating that if you are to go so far as to have your heads done to hold yourself back with the HCK.
I also understand that the smaller 227, and LPE grinds fit into the same category, but again the costs of springs put them into the same category as going bigger. Not to mention that when you take all of those cams 227,211,219 and compare them to the HCK with bolt ons they start losing their characterisitics by the time you introduce exhaust and intake (ie tb and cai).
It is what it is, and it has a proven history to produce for the price thats all I am saying. I think that it can and should be appreciated, even though newer technology has surpassed it, it holds its own for the budget orientated.
Those choices include many camshaft designs all of which require a new spring, which in turn requires machine work to get the proper install heigth.
Then it would be best to run an NSA rocker vs. and SA rocker, but that would require guides and hardened pushrods.
The maximum you could see on a stock head non ported (remembering the HCK doesn't need a port job) you could achieve with ANY of those camshafts and springs would be a whopping 30 RWHP over the HCK and that to me doesn't justfy the extra bux.
So add it all up machine work, NSA rockers, springs, locks, retainers, locators andcamshaft and you have quite a bit more than what the HCK costs and not a whole lot more than what it produced
My point is not that the HCK is the greatest thing ever invented for the LT1. It is that it IS a very economical option for those aspiring to merely pep up their performance and still have a decent dd or cruiser. It is limited to itself, but will also improve with bolt on modifications and yes even some head work. However I am not advocating that if you are to go so far as to have your heads done to hold yourself back with the HCK.
I also understand that the smaller 227, and LPE grinds fit into the same category, but again the costs of springs put them into the same category as going bigger. Not to mention that when you take all of those cams 227,211,219 and compare them to the HCK with bolt ons they start losing their characterisitics by the time you introduce exhaust and intake (ie tb and cai).
It is what it is, and it has a proven history to produce for the price thats all I am saying. I think that it can and should be appreciated, even though newer technology has surpassed it, it holds its own for the budget orientated.
01-26-2008, 09:30 PM
#88
On The Tree
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: HAYS, KANSAS
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well i know to save money and time im going with a 396 cause since my motor has cylinder scratches we are going to bore it more and get a cam and bigger pistons.
04-08-2008, 01:16 AM
#89
Not to bring back a dead thread but I think alot of the hotcam arguments are funny. Yes there are ALOT better camshafts out there, but the hotcam isn't a bad choice especially for a "beginner". A buddy of mine dropped a hotcam kit in his low mileage (52K) A4 car, mail order tune, pro-built 4L60E with 2800stall and on some DR's was running 12.50's all day, now he is running a 125 shot running mid 11's all day. not bad for stock 3.23's, stock heads, stock intake. Other mods include moroso cai, pacesetter longtubes, custom y-pipe and run of the mill flowmaster cat-back (no cat though). Depending on what you want for the application the hotcam is not a "bad" choice. I don't recall his dyno numbers, but it was over 300rwhp cam only, believe 323 but don't remember. He also launched somewhat easy trying to save his stock rear and doesn't hit the spray until 2nd. Drives the car everyday without any problems to date. Now on the 355-383 debate, it all depends on what you want power wise, where you want the power and how much your willing to spend. With the 383 setup you'll spend a little more for the crank, have to get new rods or have yours clearanced (if your going on the cheap, or get a smaller base-circle cam), get it balanced (with the 355 you could probably get away without if you just reuse stock parts cleaned up). As stated before gas mileage shouldn't be too different especially tuned right. I know guys with 350's getting worse mileage than big blocks, so it's all in how you tune it and drive it, and of course the cam choice helps. The more efficient your engine, the better mileage is possible. Higher compression also helps mileage (be careful here, don't go running 14.1:1 compression thinking you'll run pump gas).
