maintaining 430 plus ft lbs of torque from 3100-5400rpm, and having well over 400hp makes that a very nice combo for a street rod
btw heres something to compare it too, look carefully at the components that were used and the resulting power curve
http://www.blueprintengines.com/popular ... s&pc_id=21
read this thread and sub linksviewtopic.php?f=50&t=1249 383 Alum / Forged / Carb
BP3837CTC
$7,595.00
bp3837ctcwebpicture.jpg
Block:
4 bolt main 1pc rear seal block w/Passenger side dipstick only
Square and parallel decked
Align honed main bearing bore
Cylinders honed on computer controlled machine to within .0002 straightness and roundness
Cylinders are sonic tested for thickness
Rotating Assembly:
New SCAT forged crankshaft
New SCAT I-beam rods
New PROBE forged pistons
Hastings Moly rings
Balanced rotating assembly
Melling high volume oil pump
Roller cam
Heavy duty double roller timing set
Comp Cams Pro Magnum roller rockers
Cylinder Heads:
New DART aluminum cylinder heads
1.437 diameter valve springs
Hardened retainers and springs
2.02 swirl polished intake valves
1.60 swirl polished exhaust valves
Hardened push rods
1.6 Ratio Rocker Arms
A Ton Of Extras:
Professional Products dual plane polished aluminum intake manifold
Edelbrock 750 cfm carburetor
MSD distributor and coil
Edelbrock 110GPH fuel pump
Edelbrock polished aluminum water pump
MSD plug wires
AC Delco spark plugs
9.5 to 1 compression
Signature series aluminum valve covers
Brass freeze plugs
Dyno tested – and shipped with results
Comes with 30 month / 50,000 mile warranty

Blueprint Engines recommends 91 Octane for this engine and a 2000-2400 RPM stall converter
Critical Specs:
Stroke:
3.75
Rod Length:
5.7
Camshaft:
.528 Int / .535 Exh & 220 Int / 226 Exh duration @ .050 - 110 degree lobe sep.
Horsepower:
430
Torque:
470
Compression Ratio:
9.5 to 1
Ignition Timing:
15 Degrees Initial / 36 Degrees Total
now read thru this threadviewtopic.php?f=32&t=430I get asked all the time if 6" or 5.7" rods are the best selection for the 383 sbc builds, the truth is both have some advantages and disadvantages, as an example I selected two very similar forged KB pistons to compare with similar compression ratios that might be used in a kick butt racing combo, with 12.5:1 cpr for a weekend warrior style 383 sbc
so lets look at the differences as they will have similar traits to other pistonsheres a link to KB pistons, Ive used dozens of these sets with good results
http://www.kb-silvolite.com/
MORE SOURCESviewtopic.php?f=53&t=2208advantages & disadvantages of the 5.7" rods and pistons, in a 383 sbc

less clearance for the counter weights , to pass under the skirt, higher thrust loads on cylinder walls
higher reciprocating weight
481 grams piston / 132 grams pinrings fully supported in oil ring groove, as the piston pin is lower
slightly longer and potentially more stable bore skirt contact area
advantages & disadvantages of the 6" rods and pistons, in a 383 sbclower reciprocating weight
http://www.kb-silvolite.com/test/icon/i ... s&P_id=391more clearance for the counter weights , to pass under the skirt, lower thrust loads on cylinder walls
418 grams piston / 132 grams pinTHATS 63 grams lighter than the 5.7" piston
rings not fully supported in oil ring groove, as the pin by-sects the lower oil ring groove
slightly shorter and potentially less stable bore skirt contact area
related infohttp://www.stahlheaders.com/Lit_Rod%20Length.htmhttp://www.rustpuppy.org/rodstudy.htmviewtopic.php?f=53&t=852&p=1311#p1311http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/rod-tech-c.htm ISKY CAMS POSTED THIS INFO
Tech Tip - 2005
Rod Lengths/Ratios: Much ado about almost nothing.
Why do people change connecting rod lengths or alter their rod length to stroke ratios? I know why, they think they are changing them. They expect to gain (usually based upon the hype of some magazine article or the sales pitch of someone in the parts business) Torque or Horsepower here or there in rather significant "chunks". Well, they will experience some gains and losses here or there in torque and or H.P., but unfortunately these "chunks" everyone talks about are more like "chips".
To hear the hype about running a longer Rod and making more Torque @ low to mid RPM or mid to high RPM (yes, it is, believe it or not actually pitched both ways) you'd think that there must be a tremendous potential for gain, otherwise, why would anyone even bother? Good question. Let's begin with the basics. The manufacture's (Chevy, Ford, Chrysler etc.) employ automotive engineers and designers to do their best (especially today) in creating engine packages that are both powerful and efficient. They of course, must also consider longevity, for what good would come form designing an engine with say 5% more power at a price of one half the life factor? Obviously none. You usually don't get something for nothing - everything usually has its price. For example: I can design a cam with tremendous high RPM/H.P. potential, but it would be silly of me (not to mention the height of arrogance) to criticize the engineer who designed the stock camshaft. For this engine when I know how poorly this cam would perform at the lower operating RPM range in which this engineer was concerned with as his design objective!
Yet, I read of and hear about people who do this all the time with Rod lengths. They actually speak of the automotive engine designer responsible for running "such a short Rod" as a "stupid SOB." Well, folks I am here to tell you that those who spew such garbage should be ashamed of themselves - and not just because the original designer had different design criteria and objectives. I may shock some of you, but in your wildest dreams you are never going to achieve the level of power increase by changing your connecting rod lengths that you would, say in increasing compression ratio, cam duration or cylinder head flow capacity. To illustrate my point, take a look at the chart below. I have illustrated the crank angles and relative piston positions of today's most popular racing engine, the 3.48" stroke small block 350 V8 Chevy in standard 5.7", 6.00", 6.125" and 6.250" long rod lengths in 5 degree increments. Notice the infinitesimal (look it up in the dictionary) change in piston position for a given crank angle with the 4 different length rods. Not much here folks, but "oh, there must be a big difference in piston velocity, right?" Wrong! Again it's a marginal difference (check the source yourself - its performance calculator).
To hear all this hype about rod lengths I'm sure you were prepared for a nice 30, 40, or 50 HP increase, weren't you? Well its more like a 5-7 HP increase at best, and guess what? It comes at a price. The longer the rod, the closer your wrist pin boss will be to your ring lands. In extreme situations, 6.125" & 6.250" lengths for example, both ring and piston life are affected. The rings get a double whammy affect. First, with the pin boss crowding the rings, the normally designed space between the lands must be reduced to accommodate the higher wrist pin boss. Second, the rings wobble more and lose the seal of their fine edge as the piston rocks. A longer Rod influences the piston to dwell a bit longer at TDC than a shorter rod would and conversely, to dwell somewhat less at BDC. This is another area where people often get the information backwards.
In fact, this may surprise you, but I know of a gentleman who runs a 5.5" Rod in a 350 Small Block Chevy who makes more horsepower (we're talking top end here) than he would with a longer rod. Why? Because with a longer dwell time at BDC the short rod will actually allow you a slightly later intake closing point (about 1 or 2 degrees) in terms of crank angle, with the same piston rise in the cylinder. So in terms of the engines sensitivity to "reversion" with the shorter rod lengths you can run about 2-4 degrees more duration (1-2 degrees on both the opening & closing sides) without suffering this adverse affect! So much for the belief that longer rod's always enhance top end power!
Now to the subject of rod to stroke ratios. People are always looking for the "magic number" here - as if like Pythagoras they could possibly discover a mathematical relationship which would secure them a place in history. Rod to stroke ratios are for the most part the naturally occurring result of other engine design criteria. In other-words, much like with ignition timing (spark advance) they are what they are. In regards to the later, the actual number is not as important as finding the right point for a given engine. Why worry for example that a Chrysler "hemi" needs less spark advance that a Chevrolet "wedge" combustion chamber? The number in and of itself is not important and it is much the same with rod to stroke ratios. Unless you want to completely redesign the engine (including your block deck height etc.) leave your rod lengths alone. Let's not forget after all, most of us are not racing at the Indy 500 but rather are hot rodding stock blocks.
Only professional engine builders who have exhausted every other possible avenue of performance should ever consider a rod length change and even they should exercise care so as not to get caught up in the hype.
http://www.iskycams.com/ART/techinfo/ncrank1.pdfyeah I know most people won,t read all the sub links that contain a great deal of info, but youll be very surprised at all the info those sub links contain
viewtopic.php?f=44&t=38&p=46#p46viewtopic.php?f=50&t=428viewtopic.php?f=50&t=1249