Dyno numbers for Bauer 383
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,985
From: In a house by the bay
Originally posted by SStrokerAce
Trey,
It's not silly. For once.
Anyone care to look at the difference in curves from the 383 to the 350? How about 50 ft lbs? And it's there most of the way up. That's a ton. I usually don't see LT1's that are 420 ft lbs and 430hp. That's alot of TQ from a crappy intake manifold. Another thing was to keep the HP peak down, that is going limit some things. Namely HP. If we moved the peak up another 500rpm then it would take more budget to do it right (to not lose TQ) but I could get feaseably another 15-25hp. Droping a Solid Roller in this (which is basically a cam and lifter swap in his motor) will get you there easier.
BTW cubes (as in going to 383 from 350) is not going to make HP. You can make the same HP from a 350 as you can a 383 for the most part on a street engine. Mainly due to the fact that you are using the same parts, which will limit you. In racing, yeah you could gain anywhere from 60-80 hp with the whole engine designed around those extra cubes. On the street that's generally much less.
There are a few things I would like to try on Matt's engine in the valvetrain to gain some more power, but the basic setup is not bad at all. What are they? Those 3 things are most likely not going to be found on the forum for a while, but guys could take a good guess at one of them, the next two probably not. BTW it's not changing the cam specs. One hint is that it's applying some LS1 technology to LT1's. Like I said it's only going to get us to about 450rwhp or so.
Trey, your cam in comparison to Matt's is a monster.
Bret
Trey,
It's not silly. For once.
Anyone care to look at the difference in curves from the 383 to the 350? How about 50 ft lbs? And it's there most of the way up. That's a ton. I usually don't see LT1's that are 420 ft lbs and 430hp. That's alot of TQ from a crappy intake manifold. Another thing was to keep the HP peak down, that is going limit some things. Namely HP. If we moved the peak up another 500rpm then it would take more budget to do it right (to not lose TQ) but I could get feaseably another 15-25hp. Droping a Solid Roller in this (which is basically a cam and lifter swap in his motor) will get you there easier.
BTW cubes (as in going to 383 from 350) is not going to make HP. You can make the same HP from a 350 as you can a 383 for the most part on a street engine. Mainly due to the fact that you are using the same parts, which will limit you. In racing, yeah you could gain anywhere from 60-80 hp with the whole engine designed around those extra cubes. On the street that's generally much less.
There are a few things I would like to try on Matt's engine in the valvetrain to gain some more power, but the basic setup is not bad at all. What are they? Those 3 things are most likely not going to be found on the forum for a while, but guys could take a good guess at one of them, the next two probably not. BTW it's not changing the cam specs. One hint is that it's applying some LS1 technology to LT1's. Like I said it's only going to get us to about 450rwhp or so.
Trey, your cam in comparison to Matt's is a monster.
Bret
I'm not turning backflips but those are very nice numbers when you read into it a bit more. Then again, on the outside looking in, it's tough to get a perspective on just how mild this combination is. About how much vacuum are you making at idle, and what idle rpm..... that may give some perspective without telling too much.
"LS1 Technology"...... I expect that you're talking about lighter valvetrain components... namely springs and retainers. There was a discussion on this a while back in LT1 T but it went over like a lead balloon, so I'll just keep my mouth shut on this one. My hunch is you're running some 3100 series lobes, about 224* of duration and maybe a 1.6 rocker on the top of that.... of course with the lightweight goodies. Tell me how far off I am Bret.
I like the choices here though... the KB pistons, maybe a lightweight pin, making a nice light bobweight. I can't say the things I've done to a set of Scat I-beam rods and they still held together..... probably the best inexpensive rod on the market with a tad of prepping.
Again, good job. First tune and 430+... yep, you should find another 10-20 without too much trouble.
-Mindgame
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,735
From: Buffalo, NY
Originally posted by treyZ28
I just have to insert this shamelss plug for fred-
his is an NA 425- dont forget his NAWSSS
hes also got a TH400, non-locking converter and 12 bolt sucking up power
his car is a work of art-
i'd hate to be the one figuring out where all those wires and steel braided lines go
I just have to insert this shamelss plug for fred-
his is an NA 425- dont forget his NAWSSS
hes also got a TH400, non-locking converter and 12 bolt sucking up power
his car is a work of art-
i'd hate to be the one figuring out where all those wires and steel braided lines go
Still again not too bad with what turned out.
Thanks Mindgame. Right now the car idles steadily at 950. Not sure about the vaccume though..I dont have a gauge..isnt that directly related to MAP readings?
Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
Originally posted by Mindgame
Congrats guys.
I'm not turning backflips but those are very nice numbers when you read into it a bit more. Then again, on the outside looking in, it's tough to get a perspective on just how mild this combination is. About how much vacuum are you making at idle, and what idle rpm..... that may give some perspective without telling too much.
"LS1 Technology"...... I expect that you're talking about lighter valvetrain components... namely springs and retainers. There was a discussion on this a while back in LT1 T but it went over like a lead balloon, so I'll just keep my mouth shut on this one. My hunch is you're running some 3100 series lobes, about 224* of duration and maybe a 1.6 rocker on the top of that.... of course with the lightweight goodies. Tell me how far off I am Bret.
I like the choices here though... the KB pistons, maybe a lightweight pin, making a nice light bobweight. I can't say the things I've done to a set of Scat I-beam rods and they still held together..... probably the best inexpensive rod on the market with a tad of prepping.
Again, good job. First tune and 430+... yep, you should find another 10-20 without too much trouble.
-Mindgame
Congrats guys.
I'm not turning backflips but those are very nice numbers when you read into it a bit more. Then again, on the outside looking in, it's tough to get a perspective on just how mild this combination is. About how much vacuum are you making at idle, and what idle rpm..... that may give some perspective without telling too much.
"LS1 Technology"...... I expect that you're talking about lighter valvetrain components... namely springs and retainers. There was a discussion on this a while back in LT1 T but it went over like a lead balloon, so I'll just keep my mouth shut on this one. My hunch is you're running some 3100 series lobes, about 224* of duration and maybe a 1.6 rocker on the top of that.... of course with the lightweight goodies. Tell me how far off I am Bret.
I like the choices here though... the KB pistons, maybe a lightweight pin, making a nice light bobweight. I can't say the things I've done to a set of Scat I-beam rods and they still held together..... probably the best inexpensive rod on the market with a tad of prepping.
Again, good job. First tune and 430+... yep, you should find another 10-20 without too much trouble.
-Mindgame
Thanks.
We could get the idle vaccum off of the Autotap readings from the map no problem.
That's a interesting lead ballon you mention there. Getting it to work would be a interesting trick. You read into my posts pretty well.
Yeah the setup was a cheap strong alternative. I'm just not recomending N2O on those pistons because there already is enough stress on them right now. A Sub 1700g bobweight does help alot of things though.
Bret
Registered User
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 126
From: Shreveport, Louisiana
It's good to see folks still trying new things with LT1-based motors! (my comment doesn't just apply to this thread)
While many tuners have turned their backs on this market to focus on LS1s (which is understandable), now that LT1s are "old" and more of them are being heavily modded/rebuilt, I think this is a great time for new developments and new ways of thinking toward these motors.
While many tuners have turned their backs on this market to focus on LS1s (which is understandable), now that LT1s are "old" and more of them are being heavily modded/rebuilt, I think this is a great time for new developments and new ways of thinking toward these motors.
Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
Remember, there is more race engineering in these motors than about any other motor out there. It's still basically a bastard cousin of a SBC. So some of the racing tricks will work on the street.
I looked at some stuff today on a LT1 cylinder head and I might be able to pull my thought off. I basically want to pick up the RPM band and power of the lowly Hyd Roller motors.
Bret
I looked at some stuff today on a LT1 cylinder head and I might be able to pull my thought off. I basically want to pick up the RPM band and power of the lowly Hyd Roller motors.
Bret
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 382
From: VA
Budget?????? Ah hah hah hah hah hah!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought he was talking like a $1,000 budget build............ Ah hah hah hah hah hah hah. Me and my bear clawed wallet were fooled. I got all excited for nothing, lol. 
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,517
From: Engineerland
if i know bret at all i think the a.u.c. on this engine should be every bit as impressive as the peaks were. next time you take it for a tune show us the dyno sheets.
BTW: brets running a gp on strokers right now. i've never had a question he couldnt answer. and he's very patient and helpful while i've thought out loud on several ocassion. even though i'm too far away for it to be cost effective for him to build my engine. he's still had a hand in every parts choice i've made so far. i figure for all the help he's given me i owe him a plug.
Heres a link to the GP for all of you interested.
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...hreadid=137241
BTW: brets running a gp on strokers right now. i've never had a question he couldnt answer. and he's very patient and helpful while i've thought out loud on several ocassion. even though i'm too far away for it to be cost effective for him to build my engine. he's still had a hand in every parts choice i've made so far. i figure for all the help he's given me i owe him a plug.
Heres a link to the GP for all of you interested.
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...hreadid=137241
Banned
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
Thanks for the plug. We have awesome shipping rates so it's almost never to far away if your in the USA.
a.u.c. = Area Under the Curve, which your right it was a flat TQ curve and made a nice 420 ft lbs at the rear wheels.
BTW Matt's cost in that stroker was a bit less than $6K.
SSCamaro, for the amount of $ 96z dropped into that engine you'd be hard pressed to beat him $ for $. $1,000 wouldn't even get you the crank and the oversize pistons and the machine work. Not to mention all the parts that made the power here, i.e. Heads & Cam. Next time you make a engine that you want to sell me for $1,000 that makes over 400rwhp I'll take you up on that offer. Then I'll hold you to your work if it blows up.
Bret
a.u.c. = Area Under the Curve, which your right it was a flat TQ curve and made a nice 420 ft lbs at the rear wheels.
BTW Matt's cost in that stroker was a bit less than $6K.
SSCamaro, for the amount of $ 96z dropped into that engine you'd be hard pressed to beat him $ for $. $1,000 wouldn't even get you the crank and the oversize pistons and the machine work. Not to mention all the parts that made the power here, i.e. Heads & Cam. Next time you make a engine that you want to sell me for $1,000 that makes over 400rwhp I'll take you up on that offer. Then I'll hold you to your work if it blows up.
Bret
Banned
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,505
From: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
Originally posted by SSCamaro
Budget?????? Ah hah hah hah hah hah!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought he was talking like a $1,000 budget build............ Ah hah hah hah hah hah hah. Me and my bear clawed wallet were fooled. I got all excited for nothing, lol.
Budget?????? Ah hah hah hah hah hah!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought he was talking like a $1,000 budget build............ Ah hah hah hah hah hah hah. Me and my bear clawed wallet were fooled. I got all excited for nothing, lol.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 382
From: VA
Well, I thought he might have prepped the block himself, aquired parts barried in a room out back in a shack, got a buddies cam and ground the **** out of his heads, wich netted him some great results. When I saw what he put into it, it wasnt the budget I had in mind. Sure, budget compared to xxxx but not my crainial cavitys xxxx .
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 2,735
From: Buffalo, NY
The motor was very budget. Anyone who builds a stroker will see right away how quick it can build up. Im happy with my wallet and the results.
If a poll was taken on how much $$ was spent on build ups along with the results the 6000 would be on the very low end.
There will always be doubters, naysayers, and pessimists, thats the way the world is...nothings free nowadays ya know.
If a poll was taken on how much $$ was spent on build ups along with the results the 6000 would be on the very low end.
There will always be doubters, naysayers, and pessimists, thats the way the world is...nothings free nowadays ya know.
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 382
From: VA
"There will always be doubters, naysayers, and pessimists, thats the way the world is...nothings free nowadays ya know."
I NEVER said any of that!! I just said my idea/thought and the printed version was totally differant. Thats all, nothing more, nada!!! Dont be reading more into it than there is maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnn!!!
I NEVER said any of that!! I just said my idea/thought and the printed version was totally differant. Thats all, nothing more, nada!!! Dont be reading more into it than there is maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnn!!!
Last edited by SSCamaro; Jun 25, 2003 at 09:27 AM.
