383 crank same as 400 crank?
Devin Williams
looking for the solution to the cast crank.....My newest idea was that
the 383 has the same stroke as a 400 so what would be involved in using
a 383 steel crank in my 400. Should i just go for the 440 crank and
make it a 451 stroker? If the 383 crank just fits right in then im
really thinking about that. Thank you for any feedback.
Frederic Breitwieser
> a 383 steel crank in my 400. Should i just go for the 440 crank and
> make it a 451 stroker? If the 383 crank just fits right in then im
> really thinking about that. Thank you for any feedback.
The cranks will interchange no problem, so your 383 steel crank will fit
your 400, and if the stroke is the same, you have aquired a stronger
piece without any cost. If you wish to build a stroker, I would highly
recommend it. Massive power without a tremendous expense. Just keep in
mind that stroker motors make their power lower in the RPM, so you have
to tune your intake/carb or EFI for this. Strokers make more torque by
a typically higher C/R as well as keeping the piston at TDC longer.
Longer rods are definately a good thing.
We stroked a 383 to 431 using a steel 440 crank, and produced 800 ft/lbs
of torque at a mere 4100 RPM. Of course we had two TO3 turbos helping.
Here is the parts list for a 383 stroker, but you can build a 451 the
same way:
http://www.xephic.dynip.com/dodge/tt-bottom.htm
And the EFI intake conversion, if interested.
http://www.xephic.dynip.com/dodge/383intake.htm
Enjoy :)
--
Frederic Breitwieser
Xephic Technology
769 Sylvan Ave #9
Bridgeport CT 06606
Tele: (203) 372-2707
Fax: (603) 372-1147
Web: http://xephic.dynip.com/
Barry Lee
piston verses 4.25 the late 383's used the same cast crank as you now have.
Same rods, different harmonic and added balancing weights to the torque.
Use a steel 383 crank and your rods new pistons and go. Chrysler cast the
cylinders bigger hoping the added cubic inches would help make up for the
lower compression and the cast cranks for the same reason the 440's went
cast 2 years later with less stress from reduced compression less need for
steel and a cast crank is far cheaper to produce.
Barry A. Lee
Devin Williams wrote:
> Im in the process of building a 500 horse 400ci engine and im still
> looking for the solution to the cast crank.....My newest idea was that
Eugene Bain
you would be skeptical to. The stroke on the steel crank is 4.335 this was
taken from the 1968 fsm. The stroke on the 400 is 3.340, with some
components this could create some problems.
Barry Lee <68gt...@sentex.net> wrote in message
news:381D0F00...@sentex.net...
Tony Underwood
>
>Im in the process of building a 500 horse 400ci engine and im still
>looking for the solution to the cast crank.....My newest idea was that
>the 383 has the same stroke as a 400 so what would be involved in using
>a 383 steel crank in my 400. Should i just go for the 440 crank and
>make it a 451 stroker? If the 383 crank just fits right in then im
>really thinking about that. Thank you for any feedback.
The only practical difference (besides materials) between the 383 steel and
400 cast crank is a bit of balance and that's not likely to amount to all
that much, I've known at least one person who simply bolted a 383 crank
into a 400 and did __*nothing else*__ and used the same balancer etc and it
ran OK and remarkably didn't vibrate much at all. He was happy...
And the steel 383 crank is considerably stronger than the cast iron 400
version.
Besides, if you're really into making a 400 that is durable and strong
you'll be using forged pistons etc and will be balancing the reciprocating
mass anyway. Use the 383 steel crank and go on down the road. You'll
save some money on custom pistons and machine work trying to cut either the
block or the crank to do the "RB crank in a B block" trick.
Just my opinion,
tony..
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Barry Lee
stroke on a standard 383 4.250 piston would net 492 cubic inches. you are also
off on the the number as all 361/383/400s used the same 3.380 stroke whether
cast or steel. This is right from the Mopar Performance engine book, My 1968
Plymouth manual agrees. A 413/426/440 has a 3.75 stroke whether cast or steel.
Back to school for you.
Barry Lee
Eugene Bain wrote:
> if you have had as much experience with chrysler and there subtle changes
> you would be skeptical to. The stroke on the steel crank is 4.335 this was
> taken from the 1968 fsm. The stroke on the 400 is 3.340, with some
> components this could create some problems.
> Barry Lee <68gt...@sentex.net> wrote in message
> news:381D0F00...@sentex.net...
> > The 400 is just a over bored 383 (yes they cast the cylinder bigger) 4.34
> > piston verses 4.25 the late 383's used the same cast crank as you now
> have.
> > Same rods, different harmonic and added balancing weights to the torque.
> > Use a steel 383 crank and your rods new pistons and go. Chrysler cast the
> > cylinders bigger hoping the added cubic inches would help make up for the
> > lower compression and the cast cranks for the same reason the 440's went
> > cast 2 years later with less stress from reduced compression less need
> for
> > steel and a cast crank is far cheaper to produce.
> > Barry A. Lee
> >
Eugene Bain
the jourjal diameter, and the difference between the two is .0005news:38214712...@sentex.net...
Barry Lee
think I've seen any applications where this would be a problem but a good
machinist could polish that out if it were on the high side and I like .0005 to
1 extra clearance anyway. But something people should be aware of.
baeo...@leru.net
with a 3.38 stroke and it seems to me the book said the 383 had a 3.375 I
believe(been many years). I
went to a 440 crank when I did the stroke on my 400, though I don't remember
exactly why I didn't just put a 440 in. They were very plentiful at the time and
the cost would've ended up being actually less in the long run. Just being a kid
I guess:)
Fletcher wrote:
> About 6-8 years ago 'CircleTrack' mag did an article on this conversion (383
> crank into 400 block) and touted it as being one of the best torquer motors
> for a 'claimer' class situation. They had all of the build-up spec in
> there. I will look for that issue but the only real problem they noted was
> a counterweight clearance issue that could be relieved with a small
> die-grinder in about 5-10 minutes. The bearings are available OTC.
--
B. Rhodes Sr.
'One of the reasons Arnie (Arnold Palmer) is playing so well is
that, before each tee-shot,
his wife takes out his balls and kisses them - Oh my God, what have
I just said?'
(USTV commentator)
Fletcher
Frederic Breitwieser
> I guess:)
Simple.
You did it because "you could" :)
WmRobert
There are 3 very good reasons why you, and I would do this thing.
1) The total Mass of the assembly is a lot less. So it will rev faster.
2)If you used the longer rods from the 440 like I did then the wrist pin
will be very high and the pistons even lighter. Compared to 440. And with the
longer rods compared to 400/383 you move the torque curve up a lot.
3) Back in 1975 I removed my 383 mag out of my first Challenger (R/T
loaded) and installed a very hot 413M bored out to use 426 wedge pistons.
The Headers was a PAIN. Getting to 2 of the plugs WAS A PAIN. Going into my
Favorite s-curve and the Dam thing went from neutral steer to HEAVEY Understeer
lucky just before I lost it, I used the power to slide the back end out. This
was at ~50 MPH in a 25 MPH S-Curve if I had lost it 1st I would have had a
sand rise then Walnut trees then a DEEP canal. So the Size and weight of a
440 is not the best for a Challenger or Dart.
William . Robertson @ intel . Com (remove spaces)
1970 Challenger Base 400 stroker
In article <382B8B60...@xephic.dynip.com>, Frederic Breitwieser