8 Micron WIX 57202 in a 383 SBC

[spartus]

I'm considering using the 57202 WIX filter on my 383 stroker. The 57202 is rated at 8 micron. The 51061 WIX which is spec'd for 350 Chevy engines is only rated at 19 micron.

How do you guys feel about this filter compared to what is spec'd for the 350? I installed one on my spare 350 and it mounts perfectly.

The 57202 has a built in 15lb bypass, where as the 51061 does not. My engine has a full flow adapter on it, so this is no big deal having one in the 57202 filter.


Another reason I'm asking how you guys feel about this filter is because it's what I use on my Duramax. I like the 8 micron rating, and I'd be able to keep one filter in stock instead of two.

Thanks,

-Tom

 

[Gary Allan]

I think only good things about it.

..but what do you mean by this

:

My engine has a full flow adapter on it, so this is no big deal having one in the 57202 filter.

Does this mean that you've defeated the in block bypass valve?? Either way, I would welcome the finer filtration ..but if you've dispenced with the in block bypass, I'd probably avoid the 51061.

 

[Big O Dave]

I'm about to try one of these 57202's on my SBC, which has no oil filter bypass currently. The 57202 is for a Duramax Diesel, but it perfectly replaces the standard SBC/BBC filters.

I am with you on this one!

 

[spartus]

Gary, you are correct in your thinking. I DO NOT run any type of bypass/pressure relief on my stroker. This engine is only ran during the summer months, and has instantanious oil pressure on startup due to the high volume, high pressure oiling system. You won't find many race/drag cars running a bypass. I don't want to take any chances of foreign material making it's way into the engine. I just keep an eye on the oil pressure, and if it looks like it's starting to restrict, then I'll change out the filter. I've yet to have this problem though.


But with the added benefit of better filtering from the Duramax filter, it looks like I'll have to allow a 15lb bypass into the loop. Gotta give and take I suppose.

 

[Gary Allan]

You are among the many that defeat the internal bypass on the SBC when it's tweeked a bit. Although I have my misgivings about the practice, I've cut open a few filters from some pretty worked weekend drag racers (the SBC being the mill of choice for most) and have yet to see the media show any signs of insult. No breaches ..no tears..no distortions

 

[toocrazy2yoo]

Not to hijack the thread, but what's a 383 SBC? No relation to the old 383 Magnum Mopars, I suppose?

 

[Shaman]

it's a stroked 350 I think.

 

[-Clayton-]

350 block 400 crank.

 

[spartus]

350 block 400 crank is old school.

This is a Small Block Chevy, bored .030" over running a 3.875 crank, with a 6.00" rod, fully forged. It's capable of handling 700-800hp according to the builder.

I think I'm going to order a case of these filters from FleetFilter on Monday.

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

This is a Small Block Chevy, bored .030" over running a 3.875 crank

---

Then it's a 395 not a 383.

 

[LargeCarMan]

spartus....what type of oil are you running? If your running a dino 20-50 would the rating of the filter allow the oil to flow freely?

But, if your new school...I am sure your running synthetics for more HP.....10-30?

Tell us some more?

[ January 28, 2006, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: LargeCarMan ]

 

[Bowser]

quote:

---

This is a Small Block Chevy, bored .030" over running a 3.875 crank, with a 6.00" rod, fully forged.

---

Off Topic...

The SBC 383 is a 4.030" x 3.75".

The choice of pistons (compression height) will vary with rod selection-5.565", 5.7" or 6'' rods. The 6" rod is preferred for street performance and racing, although the 5.7" will do for everyday street machines. The greater the rod length to stroke ratio, the better for friction and detonation.

Bowser

 

[427Z06]

quote:

---

The greater the rod length to stroke ratio, the better for friction and detonation.

---

Theory is fine, but real world data suggest you don't gain a lot for the effort:

http://www.hardcore50.com/Articles/georgeklass/greatmyths.htm

http://www.rehermorrison.com/techTalk/10b.htm

quote:

---

We also wanted to point out some of the common myths and misconceptions about high-performance motors. For example, I've seen dozens of magazine articles on supposedly "magic" connecting rod ratios. If you believe these stories, you would think that the ratio of the connecting rod length to the crankshaft stroke is vitally important to performance. Well, in my view, the most important thing about a connecting rod is whether or not the bolts are torqued!

---

 

[spartus]

Thanks for pointing out my T Y P O

3.75 for a 383
3.48 for a 350

I hit the 8 a lot when entering 7's. Must be from my broken wrist.

 

[Gary Allan]

Help me out here..

quote:

---

Here are a few examples of different OEM engine combinations and their rod /stroke ratios:

302 Small Block Ford (1.70:1)
351Windsor Ford (1.70:1)
350 Small Block Chevy (1.63:1)


Are these rod/stroke ratios "good"? Does anybody know for sure? Does it matter?

Let's do some comparison testing for fun. In this test, you have to pick which engine you would rather have for your performance car.

First, if you were going to pick a Small Block Ford powerplant, would it be a:

302 SB Ford (1.70:1), or a 289 SB Ford (1.78:1)?

For the Chevy fans, how about a 350 SB (1.63:1) or a 454 BB (1.53:1)?

For the Chevy SB Stroker Motor racers, would you favor a 350 (1.63:1) or the ever popular 383 (1.52:1)?

For the Ford Stroker Motor racers, how about a 302 SB (1.70:1) or a 347 SB (1.58:1)?

If you selected the larger displacement engines in each case, you get an "A". If you selected the larger rod/stroke ratios in each case, you will be required to go to the back of the classroom and face the corner (large, pointed hat included at no extra charge).

---

I didn't quite see the point of the exercize here. What would be the right answer, assuming that this was doable, if the choices looked like this:

302 SB Ford (1.70:1), or a 302 SB Ford (1.78:1)?

For the Chevy fans, how about a 350 SB (1.63:1) or a 350 SB (1.52:1)?

For the Chevy SB Stroker Motor racers, would you favor a 383 (1.63:1) or a 383 (1.52:1)?

For the Ford Stroker Motor racers, how about a 347 SB (1.70:1) or a 347 SB (1.58:1)?

Although not quite as severe ..he could have given a choice of a 480 Catipillar and a 3.5hp Brigs & Straton for comparative power differences.

 

[427Z06]

Gary, the point the writer of the article was trying to make was simply that achieving the magic rod/stroke ratio is much less important than cubic inches when one wants to make power and torque.

"The consensus with some of these people is that "longer is better" (we're talking about connecting rods, now), and in many cases they are willing to settle for a smaller displacement engine that has a "better" rod/stroke ratio."

And if you really want to get into details look at this picture and tell me what you see:

 

[Gary Allan]

Okay ...he could have just said "There's no replacement for displacement" and I would have been in tune.

In the above piston(s) the one on the right does appear to have the wrist pin elevated into the ring area. This would allow (assuming that they are for the same application) the same quench volume with a longer rod. The oil control ring needs a widgit to allow the OCR to not jerk around. It also appears to have a coated skirt.


But in the long way around ..I'm sure that rod length is trumped by a number of other factors. It would be some where along the lines of "well, while you're there

"

 

[spartus]

I see one piston tiped at an angle, and another piston laying flat.

 

[427Z06]

Gary, the point I was trying to make above, was there are limits to how long you can make the rod to achieve the magic rod/stroke ratio. I.e., eventually you run into the piston rings and it becomes impractical or at least highly problematic. But you knew that already.

 

[LargeCarMan]

So..spartus, what type of oil do you run in your stroker with the 8 micron Wix?