383 Cam choices

[scstoddard70]

I have a 1970 charger with a 383. I have just pulled the motor ready for a rebuild. I'm thinking I'm gonna get Diamond 51910  piston and Edelbrock RPM heads. Stock crank will be used. its gonna be mostly a street car might take it down the tracks once or twice. What would be a good cam for this set up ?

[68blue]

My 68 383 has the 84cc heads and RPM manifold with a 750 DP. The cam is a Comp 21-223-4, there is a dyno ticket for it posted somewhere here.

[Challenger340]

My 68 383 has the 84cc heads and RPM manifold with a 750 DP. The cam is a Comp 21-223-4, there is a dyno ticket for it posted somewhere here.

2nd vote.

[BSB67]

What will be your intake and exhaust set up?

[scstoddard70]

I have 2 intakes I could use either a edelbrock performer or torker intake. And I have 1 7/8 hooker headers I plan on using. I Will be using the edelbrock performer rpm heads with 84 cc chambers. It's going to a 727 with a 2900 stall right now. I might replace the converter as well though.

[firefighter3931]

Comp XS274S would be a nice cam for that build. 


Ron

[Sixt8Chrgr]

Comp XS274S would be a nice cam for that build. 


Ron

Ron do you know the Lobe separation for that cam?

[BSB67]

Comp XS274S would be a nice cam for that build. 


Ron

Yes.  I too would pick a small solid flat tappet cam. 

[71383bee]

I have 2 intakes I could use either a edelbrock performer or torker intake. And I have 1 7/8 hooker headers I plan on using. I Will be using the edelbrock performer rpm heads with 84 cc chambers. It's going to a 727 with a 2900 stall right now. I might replace the converter as well though.

The standard performer intake is basically an aluminum version of the stock iron intake.  The torker has some advantages, but its a single plain which is geared towards higher RPM apps.  With the heads and 274 or up cam I would go with either the street dominator or the best pick of the Edelbrock Performer RPM. 

[firefighter3931]

Comp XS274S would be a nice cam for that build. 


Ron

Ron do you know the Lobe separation for that cam?

All the Comp extreme energy solids are 110* LSA 


Ron

[scstoddard70]

Well things might change now I'm going to look at a 69 casting 440 for sale here locally. It us a complete engine minus the cam. It's stock with 906 heads rods and crank.  If all looks good when I take it to a machine shop to have a look at it I'll probably go with it instead of the original 383. Probably have it bored .030 and use some mid 9:1 forged pistons. I was wrong also I have a 2500 stall not 2700. Would you still run a solid lifter in this or back to hyd? I have a new engle k60H cam probably a bit large though?

What all would need to be changed to swap the 383 and 440? I have a 727  trans.

[BSB67]

I have 2 intakes I could use either a edelbrock performer or torker intake. And I have 1 7/8 hooker headers I plan on using. I Will be using the edelbrock performer rpm heads with 84 cc chambers. It's going to a 727 with a 2900 stall right now. I might replace the converter as well though.

The standard performer intake is basically an aluminum version of the stock iron intake.  The torker has some advantages, but its a single plain which is geared towards higher RPM apps.  With the heads and 274 or up cam I would go with either the street dominator or the best pick of the Edelbrock Performer RPM. 

The 383 Performer is the DP4B flipped end for end, and a spreadbore flange added.  It is a better performance manifold than the factory intake.  The runner volume, and cross sectional area is noticeably larger.

[Nacho-RT74]

The 383 Performer is the DP4B flipped end for end, and a spreadbore flange added.  It is a better performance manifold than the factory intake.  The runner volume, and cross sectional area is noticeably larger.

Really? I though it was just a replacement aluminium unit, but practically same stock unit!

If so, the $60 I paid for it will get me a better result then

[Ghoste]

I didn't notice the runners looking any bigger when I put a Performer on my car but I wasn't looking either.  I am going to have to dig that doorstop out and compare them now though.
I will add that even if it is bigger, it most definitely did NOT perform better than the stock one in my case.

[71383bee]

I didn't notice the runners looking any bigger when I put a Performer on my car but I wasn't looking either.  I am going to have to dig that doorstop out and compare them now though.
I will add that even if it is bigger, it most definitely did NOT perform better than the stock one in my case.

exactly...if your gonna plunk 100+ on one I would get something WAY better.  The Holley Street Dominator to me is one of the best used intakes you can get for cheap.  The weiand action + is not bad either.  The RPM though is top dog. 

[BSB67]

I didn't notice the runners looking any bigger when I put a Performer on my car but I wasn't looking either.  I am going to have to dig that doorstop out and compare them now though.
I will add that even if it is bigger, it most definitely did NOT perform better than the stock one in my case.

exactly...if your gonna plunk 100+ on one I would get something WAY better.  The Holley Street Dominator to me is one of the best used intakes you can get for cheap.  The weiand action + is not bad either.  The RPM though is top dog. 

Please compare them.  Pull out the 383 Performer and compare it to a stock cast iron HP 383 intake.  The 383 Performer will work at least as well as the Action Plus.  Personally, I would not put a SD on a B motor at this performance level if it is primarly street car and not going for every last Hp, but it would probably be okay.

[71383bee]

well...the SD works damn good on my 383 and it has a smaller cam than the one the OP is posting.  I HAD a regular performer intake on there and was NOT impressed. 

True the SD being a single plain it is more of a higher hp application, but as others and testing have found the short runners of the SD helps to produce quite a bit of tq making it a very good intake.  SInce I for one I am a bit biased I guess, but the builder who did my motor loved the combo and so did the dyno.  The only other intake we would consider would be the RPM. 

I have my perfromer for sale BTW...   Its yours if you want it...

 

[BSB67]

well...the SD works damn good on my 383 and it has a smaller cam than the one the OP is posting.  I HAD a regular performer intake on there and was NOT impressed. 

True the SD being a single plain it is more of a higher hp application, but as others and testing have found the short runners of the SD helps to produce quite a bit of tq making it a very good intake.  SInce I for one I am a bit biased I guess, but the builder who did my motor loved the combo and so did the dyno.  The only other intake we would consider would be the RPM. 

I have my perfromer for sale BTW...   Its yours if you want it...

 

No thanks, I have one.  I've done intake manifold testing including the SD and two dual planes.  Both dual planes made more power below 3500.  Test was not on a 383, and the Performer was not one of the manifolds.  I'm sure that It would have made more power down low too but would have killed this motor on top.
Do you have dyno or track data comparing the two manifolds?  I love good comparison data.     Thanks

[Ghoste]

I can't provide dyno but I can tell you that track testing (and not one or two trips but several) consistently put the Performer at a couple of tenths slower than the stock manifold.  Intertingly and relevant to this, I swapped out the Performer for the SD and improved my et over the stock one.  I'll never waste my money on the regular Performer again.

[BSB67]

I can't provide dyno but I can tell you that track testing (and not one or two trips but several) consistently put the Performer at a couple of tenths slower than the stock manifold.  Intertingly and relevant to this, I swapped out the Performer for the SD and improved my et over the stock one.  I'll never waste my money on the regular Performer again.

Do you have the ets and mph and weather conditions?  Thanks

[Ghoste]

Sorry I didn't catalog it but in all fairness I never foresaw a need.  It isn't a car that I run competitively each weekend, just something I take to the strip a few times a year.  What I know for sure are my experiences with those intakes on my car.  I can also say for sure that when I sell the car, I'm keeping the SD and the factory cast iron piece and the next owner is getting the car with the Performer installed.

[BSB67]

I'm glad the SD worked out for you.

But lets go back to my post where I stated facts about the Perfromer, and I've been challanged by you and another about what I stated.  Basically, no one has a bit of evidence that I misspoke.  None.  Clearly, if you don't even have the track data,  the mountain of other significant details effecting track performance were missed as well.   This is the same memory that has the Performer the same size as the cast iron manifold - right?  (have you dug it out yet and compared/measured it?)  Funny, I have every time slip and notes about every run since 1990 and I'm not a competative racer.  I'm sure that you remember that you had a better experiance with the other manifolds over the Performer, but the reality is that you really don't know why.  It is fine to express opinions, make sure that they are presented as such.

FWIW, the Action-Plus, DP4B, and Performer perform nearly spot on with each other given dyno accuracy and reproducibility.  They made 37 lb/ft more torque at 3000 rpm over the SD, and more power and torque from 2,500 to 4,500 rpm. 

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/hrdp_0712_mopar_intake_manifold_comparo/index.html

[Ghoste]

Whoa whoa whoa whoa here.  First of all I never said the Performer was the same size.  I very clearly said that I didn't remember it being larger.  You said it was noticeably larger and I never noticed it.   That is why I am going to compare the two-mechanical curiousity my friend nothing more.  Sorry if you think that I am implying you were not beign truthful but that is not case.  Nor should my results with the Performer be called into question merely because I didn't make the strip test into a carefully quantified scientific experiment.  I am also sorry I don't have the exact results at hand but it was seven years ago.  I could have easily made up all of the data you requested but I did not because there is no need to.  I ran it, the car slowed down.  I replaced it the car went quicker.  I replaced the factory unit with the single plane and it improved.  That is all I can tell you about it.
For what it's worth, you have only expressed opinion as well, you admitted that your dyno data did not include the Performer. 
I am not nor did I ever mean to imply that you are lying or even wrong.  But don't offhandedly dismiss my experience either.  Just because it is different than yours does not make it wrong. 

[Nacho-RT74]

FWIW, the Action-Plus, DP4B, and Performer perform nearly spot on with each other given dyno accuracy and reproducibility.  They made 37 lb/ft more torque at 3000 rpm over the SD, and more power and torque from 2,500 to 4,500 rpm. 

juts right what I'm interested LOL

[c00nhunterjoe]

my vote goes with the old school torker intake. its well worth picking up. i swapped the dp4b version on my 383 and it was horrible, noticable power drop across the boards. sorry, no dyno numbers.

i do have a video of my car running a 13.21@ 104 with 2.76's and street tires. car a time of video was 383, .030 over, 11:1 pistons, bone stock 906's fresh rebuild, valve springs to match cam. old grind racer brown cam, 292 adv dur, 238 @.050, 510 lift. wore out 727(as you can see) with 3000 stall.  2.76 gears, 255/60/15 pep boy's special tires, intake was the origonal torker(not torker II) topped by a 650 holley dp.  dont think i left anything out....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te8dfDlOITo&feature=PlayList&p=CD53AA672390665D&playnext_from=PL