383 cam clearance question - The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

vern350 · 03-15-2010, 04:18 PM

I'm looking to stroke my 350 to 383. I found this kit, B13405E from eagle specialty products. Currous if anyone had problems with cam clearance - the cam hitting the rods?

ERASER5 · 03-15-2010, 04:56 PM

Use a small base circle cam. If your block has a lot of core shift, thing could still hit. Check it carefully.

swb85 · 03-15-2010, 05:25 PM

I didn't look up the kit you listed, but Eagle makes rods designed for stroker applications that give way more cam->rod clearance. I run Scat's stroker rods in my 383 and have plenty of room with a standard base circle roller cam. Definitely measure though, every block is different.

*Ticker* · 03-15-2010, 05:47 PM

A 3.75 stroke typically doesn't require a small base-circle cam if the rods are the capscrew vs. the bolt type...usually listed as "stroker clearanced". You're also typically better off to grind the rods to clear vs. a small base-circle cam.

A 3.875 stroke almost always requires a small base-circle cam.

FWIW, I won't purchase Eagle rotating ass'ys any more after getting 3 in a row that were way out of spec. Take that for what it's worth, but I'd highly recommend SCAT - especially for a cast crank.

vern350 · 03-15-2010, 06:04 PM

Thanks for the reply, more and more that I read on this forum and elsewhere on the net is saying to stay away from eagle. Why is this? Both scat and eagle products are made offshore.

*Ticker* · 03-15-2010, 06:11 PM

I can't really say why they're so different. The last cranks I got from Eagle were way out on journal taper and index...and after trying to swap a few times and getting the same junk I gave up. I do maybe 10 engines a year or so, sometimes more, and it seems like it kind of went bad for Eagle about 2 years ago.

I think (not sure) for both companies they're buying overseas castings and doing the machining in the US...so I think the fault is here and not overseas.

Scat cranks are also typically easier to balance - the bobweights are more consistent with the light rotating ass'ys we see nowadays with relatively light rods, hypereutectic pistons and thin rings.

03-15-2010, 04:18 PM	#1
vern350 like a rock Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 517	383 cam clearance question I'm looking to stroke my 350 to 383. I found this kit, B13405E from eagle specialty products. Currous if anyone had problems with cam clearance - the cam hitting the rods?

03-15-2010, 04:56 PM	#2
ERASER5 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,859	Re: 383 cam clearance question Use a small base circle cam. If your block has a lot of core shift, thing could still hit. Check it carefully. __________________ '70 GMC C1500 LWB Power disc brakes. WooHoo! Posi 6 Lug Dana 60

03-15-2010, 05:25 PM	#3
swb85 On a budget like Fred Sanford Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Topeka, KS Posts: 2,031	Re: 383 cam clearance question I didn't look up the kit you listed, but Eagle makes rods designed for stroker applications that give way more cam->rod clearance. I run Scat's stroker rods in my 383 and have plenty of room with a standard base circle roller cam. Definitely measure though, every block is different. __________________ '85 Silverado swb: 383 stroker, 10.5:1, vortec heads, 232/238 roller cam, RPM air gap, performer 750 carb, stainless longtubes, 3" duals/super 44's, T56/4.11 383ci build / exterior refresh thread '98 Camaro z28: 370ci twin turbo 370ci build '01 Tahoe LT 4x4: 5.3, longtubes/ory, magnaflow duals, custom tune....wife's DD

03-15-2010, 05:47 PM	#4
Ticker Account Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Sammamish, WA Posts: 2,404	Re: 383 cam clearance question A 3.75 stroke typically doesn't require a small base-circle cam if the rods are the capscrew vs. the bolt type...usually listed as "stroker clearanced". You're also typically better off to grind the rods to clear vs. a small base-circle cam. A 3.875 stroke almost always requires a small base-circle cam. FWIW, I won't purchase Eagle rotating ass'ys any more after getting 3 in a row that were way out of spec. Take that for what it's worth, but I'd highly recommend SCAT - especially for a cast crank. Last edited by Ticker; 03-15-2010 at 07:40 PM.

03-15-2010, 06:04 PM	#5
vern350 like a rock Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 517	Re: 383 cam clearance question Thanks for the reply, more and more that I read on this forum and elsewhere on the net is saying to stay away from eagle. Why is this? Both scat and eagle products are made offshore.

03-15-2010, 06:11 PM	#6
Ticker Account Suspended Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Sammamish, WA Posts: 2,404	Re: 383 cam clearance question I can't really say why they're so different. The last cranks I got from Eagle were way out on journal taper and index...and after trying to swap a few times and getting the same junk I gave up. I do maybe 10 engines a year or so, sometimes more, and it seems like it kind of went bad for Eagle about 2 years ago. I think (not sure) for both companies they're buying overseas castings and doing the machining in the US...so I think the fault is here and not overseas. Scat cranks are also typically easier to balance - the bobweights are more consistent with the light rotating ass'ys we see nowadays with relatively light rods, hypereutectic pistons and thin rings.



Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.