383 stroker

[Tmb84]

this sits in my Challenger, 383/489

first run:
577 hp/5200
671 tq/3800

final:
616 hp/5000rpm
720 tq/3800
(dynapack dyno)

440 Source 496 stroker kit, borred 0,30=489ci
upgraded rods
edelbrock performer heads
edelbrock rpm intake
holley dp 950
comp cam 286 extreme roller
TTI 1,7/8" crome headers
3" exhaust
arp bolts
sfi damper
melling high volume oil pump
billett timing Chain
Electric water pump
Electric fuel pump
2500 stall speed

original full weight car, Automatic, 489 house, Detroit trutrac, 4,11 gear, 8 year old M/T slicks
1/8 drag times:
0-60ft= 1,86
1/8= 7,62/98mph

[Tmb84]

[metcoll]

those are awesome numbers back to the wheels....

[metcoll]

can you post the sheet

[chapel40]

What is the compression?

[Tmb84]

Post the sheet tomorrow, not sure about compression, previous owner build it. If someone got Instagram i got some videos on my open profile. Nick: tmbandit

[Tmb84]

477 RWHP, i want to convert it to 4 speed, but its expensive..

[chapel40]

Wow!!

[Challenger340]

Good for you  

I am not at all familiar with a DynaPack ?
So you are reading Torque Multiplication through the Auto/Stall Torque Converter as well ?

I'm not sure if you can ever really accurately guesstimate Engine Flywheel HP/Trq at the rear wheels through a Torque Converter ?
just say'in....
I believe the Track E.T. and mph may be a better barometer if it is Engine HP number wanted ?


Great Engine and no disrespect intended here.....
Lots of calculators out there, but if using a weight of 3800 Lbs on 7.62 E.T. in the 1/8th at 98 mph ? would seem to suggest closer to 550 Flywheel HP ? (424 Rear Wheel), which would "fit" with the std Edelbrock rpm Head Flow OOTB ? (270'ish)

http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph-8th.php

[BSB67]

Good for you  

I am not at all familiar with a DynaPack ?
So you are reading Torque Multiplication through the Auto/Stall Torque Converter as well ?

I'm not sure if you can ever really accurately guesstimate Engine Flywheel HP/Trq at the rear wheels through a Torque Converter ?
just say'in....
I believe the Track E.T. and mph may be a better barometer if it is Engine HP number wanted ?


Great Engine and no disrespect intended here.....
Lots of calculators out there, but if using a weight of 3800 Lbs on 7.62 E.T. in the 1/8th at 98 mph ? would seem to suggest closer to 550 Flywheel HP ? (424 Rear Wheel), which would "fit" with the std Edelbrock rpm Head Flow OOTB ? (270'ish)

http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph-8th.php

Moroso has it closer to 520 at the flywheel, but that would be uncorrected.

Like Bob said, great running car no matter what the dynos say, or don't say.

Is that the XR286R solid roller cam? and what rockers and ratio?  What compression ratio?

[stuubi]

Good for you  

I am not at all familiar with a DynaPack ?
So you are reading Torque Multiplication through the Auto/Stall Torque Converter as well ?

I'm not sure if you can ever really accurately guesstimate Engine Flywheel HP/Trq at the rear wheels through a Torque Converter ?
just say'in....
I believe the Track E.T. and mph may be a better barometer if it is Engine HP number wanted ?


Great Engine and no disrespect intended here.....
Lots of calculators out there, but if using a weight of 3800 Lbs on 7.62 E.T. in the 1/8th at 98 mph ? would seem to suggest closer to 550 Flywheel HP ? (424 Rear Wheel), which would "fit" with the std Edelbrock rpm Head Flow OOTB ? (270'ish)

http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph-8th.php

Moroso has it closer to 520 at the flywheel, but that would be uncorrected.

Like Bob said, great running car no matter what the dynos say, or don't say.

Is that the XR286R solid roller cam? and what rockers and ratio?  What compression ratio?

Agreed on previous posts..

7,62 on 1/8 mile stands for 11.8 for 1/4.
I ran 7.70 with 442hp sbc that had way less torq,3500stall and stock weight '57 Chevy with 3,73 gears.

Those rear wheel numbers,gear ratio and  strip times,i would say you have honest 470-500 on crank.Based also for unported heads and 2plane and small cam for 489cid.
What i have ran on engine dyno,and wheel dyno,difference is about 6% on manual trans and automatic that has correct converter.

Some say it's 25% but thats just bull in my book and want to have great numbers on their wheel dyno.
It's not so great number,power parasites i mean.Lower than you think.

Still,even with 500hp its blast to drive.And should be pretty snappy on throttle

[Challenger340]

Good for you  

I am not at all familiar with a DynaPack ?
So you are reading Torque Multiplication through the Auto/Stall Torque Converter as well ?

I'm not sure if you can ever really accurately guesstimate Engine Flywheel HP/Trq at the rear wheels through a Torque Converter ?
just say'in....
I believe the Track E.T. and mph may be a better barometer if it is Engine HP number wanted ?



Great Engine and no disrespect intended here.....
Lots of calculators out there, but if using a weight of 3800 Lbs on 7.62 E.T. in the 1/8th at 98 mph ? would seem to suggest closer to 550 Flywheel HP ? (424 Rear Wheel), which would "fit" with the std Edelbrock rpm Head Flow OOTB ? (270'ish)

http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph-8th.php

Moroso has it closer to 520 at the flywheel, but that would be uncorrected.

Like Bob said, great running car no matter what the dynos say, or don't say.

Is that the XR286R solid roller cam? and what rockers and ratio?  What compression ratio?

Agreed on previous posts..

7,62 on 1/8 mile stands for 11.8 for 1/4.
I ran 7.70 with 442hp sbc that had way less torq,3500stall and stock weight '57 Chevy with 3,73 gears.

Those rear wheel numbers,gear ratio and  strip times,i would say you have honest 470-500 on crank.Based also for unported heads and 2plane and small cam for 489cid.
What i have ran on engine dyno,and wheel dyno,difference is about 6% on manual trans and automatic that has correct converter.

Some say it's 25% but thats just bull in my book and want to have great numbers on their wheel dyno.
It's not so great number,power parasites i mean.Lower than you think.

Still,even with 500hp its blast to drive.And should be pretty snappy on throttle

Excuse my french/spanish/bad gibber'ish here for a second...

But most guys just have NO CLUE how Fucking QUICK the above is in the REAL world on the street !

my apologies for the mini-rant....
just far too many posers on the internet that seem to turn their noses up at 500 hp ..... when the truth be known most would promptly shit their drawers if they ever actually did experience it for real !
Good Job 

[alfaitalia]

Absolutely.....I took a 505 horse modern car for a test drive the other day. Anyone who says they realistically NEED more that that on the street is lying or insane....and thats with every modern safety and traction control system and ceramic brakes....let alone a 50 year old wobbly chassis, suspect handling and stopping power!!

[stuubi]

I don't know that was this "internet posers" aimed at who exatly,but if i can clarify something here:

Question is not that ,is a 500hp car fast on street.
Point here from me and few others was that raw numbers from that engine,dyno and drag strip JUST won't add up.
Even 400hp is freaking fast.
We know that.

Just to correct fellow gear head,that those numbers don't line up.It's still really good looking car,and surely a stormer.That's not the case on these answers.