355 or 383 with 5.7/6.0 rods for a twin turbo?

Subscribe
Sep 13, 2000 | 05:49 PM
  #1  
I am building a twin turbo motor over the winter and want a redline of about 6500-6800. I know that 383's stress the rod's more, but if they are forged then i dont see why it would matter. Also, the intake i am going to use is a victor jr converted to fuel injection. Please give me your thoughts and opinions. The main reason why i thought 383 is because i dont want to run a trans brake and with the extra cubes it could make up for some turbo lag.
Reply 0
Sep 13, 2000 | 10:14 PM
  #2  
This is exactly what I was considering... I've decided to go with the big rod 355. The longer rod lengths are more efficient at translating the down force of combustion into spinning the crank. Yeah, its just a few percent, but it all adds up. I'm going for 6" to 6.2" rods, depending on what JE recommends for piston ring lands. From what I've seen, the 383 is great for NA street driving since it makes its power down lower. Above 4000 rpm, it seems the 355 will be equal, if not better (from the dyno charts I've seen). Have you considered a 377? Short stroke and big bore does magic for breathing and hp

Andris

Reply 0
Sep 13, 2000 | 11:40 PM
  #3  
What's up, Procharged!!?? Go for long rods on strokers. Longer rods also = less thrust and wear on cylinder walls! May the boost be with you...

------------------
1989 Formula, 383", DFI, Mini-Ram, S-Trim Vortech, blah, blah...
Best ET: 10.796 @ 125.8 mph

TURBO 406 PROJECT STARTED!!!

Other expensive hobby: assault weapons/shooting sports

Employed at:
Hahn Racecraft
Accel EMIC/DFI Tuning
Turbosystems & Custom EFI

Member of Midwest F-Body Association
http://www.mfba.org
Reply 0
Sep 14, 2000 | 06:02 PM
  #4  
Well, i dont have a 400 block to destroke to a 377 anyway and i saw a test that pitted a 383 vs a 377 and the 383 actually won and its dyno peak i think was very similar to the 377.
What's up my turbo, shooten, mfba slingn' brother? I'm going to give you a call at Hahn tomorrow about those turbos.
EX 108 right?
Reply 0
Subscribe