Anyone running a 393 ci all bore?
#1
Anyone running a 393 ci all bore?
I am looking into purchasing a 393 all bore short block. This is one that I have never heard of being used before. 4.155 bore and stock stroke. What might be the potential downsides to this motor or the upsides. this just sounds like a HUGE bore. I have never seriously looked into a stroker before just do to the costs involved, but for the parts that are in this one, its a steal at what this guy wants for it. I would be using my MTI stage 2 LS6 heads and an X1 cam on this short block. So i am guessing that 460rwp wouldnt be out of the question.
A side question is what kind of improvments would I see "under the curve" on a dyno vs. a cam/heads stock c.i. motor? I have heard that a 420rwhp stroker will always be faster than a 420rwhp cam/heads stock c.i. car.
A side question is what kind of improvments would I see "under the curve" on a dyno vs. a cam/heads stock c.i. motor? I have heard that a 420rwhp stroker will always be faster than a 420rwhp cam/heads stock c.i. car.
#2
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't do it. I know of several shops (some sponsors on this site) have had problems with 4.155 bores and reliability/sleeve dropping issues, even with darton wet sleeves. To me, it seems that getting the bore to a 4.125 has been pretty well perfected, I don't think it's worth the extra 5-6 cubic inches to go to a 4.155 bore yet. Just my .02 I
#3
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (6)
4.125" bore and a stock crank = 392CI
4.155" bore and a stock crank = 397CI
I will be doing a Darton Wet sleeve soon and with the recommended max being 4.160", I'm going to stay down at the 4.125" level. The extra 5 CIs are not worth the loss in structural integrity. If you stay with 4.125" bore, you get a FULL 1/4" of material all the way around the bore.
If you want more than 392CI, look into adding more stroke.
4.155" bore and a stock crank = 397CI
I will be doing a Darton Wet sleeve soon and with the recommended max being 4.160", I'm going to stay down at the 4.125" level. The extra 5 CIs are not worth the loss in structural integrity. If you stay with 4.125" bore, you get a FULL 1/4" of material all the way around the bore.
If you want more than 392CI, look into adding more stroke.
#4
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes sir, I have one. 4.100x3.72=393.
I call it a 396, (because it's close enough, & sounds cool). Crank is ofset ground stock.
Track times in the sig. Dyno shows 420/500 HP/TQ with a 232/236 112 ls. This motor was built for nitrous. Dyno # were achieved with 1 3/4" Grott headers, all bolt ons, TH400, heavy driveshaft, 12 bolt, & 10" ET Streets. So, not a dyno queen, but nontheless, track times in the 9's on spray, & a 11.1@121 NA. Look for a 10 on motor soon. Car weighed 3550.
I chose to keep the liners thick, for future build ups, and more sturdy for the heavy nitrous shots.
Motor was built by ARE.
I call it a 396, (because it's close enough, & sounds cool). Crank is ofset ground stock.
Track times in the sig. Dyno shows 420/500 HP/TQ with a 232/236 112 ls. This motor was built for nitrous. Dyno # were achieved with 1 3/4" Grott headers, all bolt ons, TH400, heavy driveshaft, 12 bolt, & 10" ET Streets. So, not a dyno queen, but nontheless, track times in the 9's on spray, & a 11.1@121 NA. Look for a 10 on motor soon. Car weighed 3550.
I chose to keep the liners thick, for future build ups, and more sturdy for the heavy nitrous shots.
Motor was built by ARE.
#5
7 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Grove City Ohio/Port Washington L.I sometimes
Posts: 2,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Black Sunshine/ 00SS
So, not a dyno queen, but nontheless, track times in the 9's on spray, & a 11.1@121 NA. Look for a 10 on motor soon. Car weighed 3550.
Motor was built by ARE.
Motor was built by ARE.
#6
FormerVendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lake in the Hills, IL
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is safe to do a bore that size if you are keeping it N/A. The only problem I see if anything ever does happen to a cyl. it would need to be replaced there is no room for cleanup. Btw these can be replaced individualy.
Nate
Nate
Trending Topics
#9
TECH Resident
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Huntington Beach, Ca
Posts: 813
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2001CamaroGuy
4.125" bore and a stock crank = 392CI
4.155" bore and a stock crank = 397CI
4.155" bore and a stock crank = 397CI
4.125" x 3.622 (stock) stroke = 387.24 CID (388)
4.155" x 3.622 (stock) stroke = 392.89 CID (393)
4.125" x 3.72 (offset) stroke = 397.71 CID
4.155" x 3.72 (offset) stroke = 403.52 CID
Class dismissed.
#11
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: At the office
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Linear Velocity
Sorry, that's not correct .
4.125" x 3.622 (stock) stroke = 387.24 CID (388)
4.155" x 3.622 (stock) stroke = 392.89 CID (393)
4.125" x 3.72 (offset) stroke = 397.71 CID
4.155" x 3.72 (offset) stroke = 403.52 CID
Class dismissed.
4.125" x 3.622 (stock) stroke = 387.24 CID (388)
4.155" x 3.622 (stock) stroke = 392.89 CID (393)
4.125" x 3.72 (offset) stroke = 397.71 CID
4.155" x 3.72 (offset) stroke = 403.52 CID
Class dismissed.
#12
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: May 2002
Location: one step ahead of you
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So to have the 3.72 stroke, is that an offset ground stock crank? You can only go with carillo rods then and Acura rod bearings or something like that right?
#14
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (6)
Originally Posted by Linear Velocity
Sorry, that's not correct .
4.125" x 3.622 (stock) stroke = 387.24 CID (388)
4.155" x 3.622 (stock) stroke = 392.89 CID (393)
4.125" x 3.72 (offset) stroke = 397.71 CID
4.155" x 3.72 (offset) stroke = 403.52 CID
Class dismissed.
4.125" x 3.622 (stock) stroke = 387.24 CID (388)
4.155" x 3.622 (stock) stroke = 392.89 CID (393)
4.125" x 3.72 (offset) stroke = 397.71 CID
4.155" x 3.72 (offset) stroke = 403.52 CID
Class dismissed.
"The liners are finished with a bore size of 99 millimeters (3.8976 -in.). That, with a stroke of 92 mm (3.6620-in), makes the LS1's displacement 5.665 liters or 345.69 cubic inches."
edit: it has to be 3.622" like you said, 3.662" would make a 349.6CI stock motor.........damn 0.040" ..........
thats not bad......gives me better bore to stroke and rod to stroke ratios
that web site and the "Chevy LS1/LS6 Performance" book are both off.........hey the Haynes and Thunder Racing have it right.....
Last edited by 2001CamaroGuy; 12-16-2003 at 09:47 PM.
#16
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
Originally Posted by 422 SS
The ARE engines are never dyno queens.ARE cars prove themselves at the track not on a dyno.
That's what ARE has proved over the last few months since getting booted as sponsor for failing to pay their monthly dues...
Last edited by 99 Black Bird T/A; 12-16-2003 at 11:30 PM.
#18
A side question is what kind of improvments would I see "under the curve" on a dyno vs. a cam/heads stock c.i. motor? I have heard that a 420rwhp stroker will always be faster than a 420rwhp cam/heads stock c.i. car.
More stroke will make much more torque up until the old horsepower peak where the curves will more or less come together as they drop off.
#19
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Back to the original question, I suppose...
a) I have a 387, not a 393 (4.125")
b) I do have the LS6 stage 3 MTI heads and the X1
BUT I dont have a reliable clutch at this point, so I havent dyno'd the car :-/
I do enjoy it alot, and there is some crazy power up high, although I havent spent much time up there (if barely any) because I want to break the car in well, and well, I'm suffering through the same weather you are and I dont drive the car on wet roads.
Its a great setup, although for my purposes (street giggles) a 427 will be a better fit. (I'm waiting for experiences with the Eagle crank before sending the car back to MTI for the 4" stroke sometime in the next year or so, roughly)
Its interesting to note that the two items I need right now are 315 Nitto DRs and a Spec stage 3.
chris
a) I have a 387, not a 393 (4.125")
b) I do have the LS6 stage 3 MTI heads and the X1
BUT I dont have a reliable clutch at this point, so I havent dyno'd the car :-/
I do enjoy it alot, and there is some crazy power up high, although I havent spent much time up there (if barely any) because I want to break the car in well, and well, I'm suffering through the same weather you are and I dont drive the car on wet roads.
Its a great setup, although for my purposes (street giggles) a 427 will be a better fit. (I'm waiting for experiences with the Eagle crank before sending the car back to MTI for the 4" stroke sometime in the next year or so, roughly)
Its interesting to note that the two items I need right now are 315 Nitto DRs and a Spec stage 3.
chris