View Full Version : Re-Sleeving LS4's for larger displacement


lsxregal
11-06-2007, 06:38 PM
I'm in the research stage of upgrading my '02 Regal with an LS4. What do you think of re-sleeving the block for larger pistons to get more power.

Area47
11-07-2007, 10:07 AM
anything that can be done in theory to the ls1-6 can be done on the ls4. well, except for crank changes.

Notime383
11-07-2007, 11:02 AM
Even cranks shouldn't be a problem given enough demand/dollars! I think a good topend Intake/heads/cam should produce some real good power (400-500HP) outta a 325 CID LSX! Does anyone have bore/stroke specs on a LS4? I tell ya a decent intake with a LS6 cam alone should do damage!

lsxregal
11-07-2007, 06:32 PM
I plan the standard LS2 4" bore with pistons to match. SLP has an L92 head/intake package for LS2's, and with a Livernois Motorsports Stage II cam, GM High Tech Performance did a dyno with this combo and got 546hp. Of course the trans will need to be built much stronger. I'm not sure which way to go in the cam b/c of the Active Fuel Management/DOD.

Nacho SS
11-07-2007, 07:15 PM
Even cranks shouldn't be a problem given enough demand/dollars! I think a good topend Intake/heads/cam should produce some real good power (400-500HP) outta a 325 CID LSX! Does anyone have bore/stroke specs on a LS4? I tell ya a decent intake with a LS6 cam alone should do damage!

Technically, we are 323ci, not 325.

lsxregal
11-07-2007, 07:30 PM
Even cranks shouldn't be a problem given enough demand/dollars! I think a good topend Intake/heads/cam should produce some real good power (400-500HP) outta a 325 CID LSX! Does anyone have bore/stroke specs on a LS4? I tell ya a decent intake with a LS6 cam alone should do damage!

Try this link for specs:

http://www.gmtuners.com/LS4/index.htm

eddiemoney
11-07-2007, 10:22 PM
Try this link for specs:

http://www.gmtuners.com/LS4/index.htm

Some pretty good pics there. Is that where you are getting your swap done?

lsxregal
11-07-2007, 11:48 PM
No, I wish I had the cash to have someone do it for me but I'm on my own. That's just a site I found during research.

Notime383
11-19-2007, 10:06 PM
Sorry! 323 not 325! I was hoping it was a 327 not 323!

06MonteSS
11-19-2007, 11:04 PM
I believe Notime is correct... we're 325 ci....

in addition to lsxregal's link, here's specs from GM as well:


Displacement (cu. in./liters) 325/5,328
Bore x stroke (in.) 3.78 x 3.62
Bore x stroke (mm) 96.0 x 92.0
Compression ratio 10.0:1
Block material cast-aluminum
Cylinder head material cast-aluminum
Valvetrain configuration OHV
Valves per cylinder 2
Ignition system coil-near-plug
Lifters hydraulic roller
Cam drive chain
Redline (RPM) 6000
Horsepower @ engine RPM 303 @ 5600
Torque (lb.-ft.) @ RPM 323 @ 4400


go here and enter 5.328 liters and hit the convert button...

http://www.csgnetwork.com/cubicinchlitercvt.html

http://www.4lo.com/calc/literstocid.htm

Nacho SS
11-20-2007, 01:42 AM
I believe Notime is correct... we're 325 ci....

in addition to lsxregal's link, here's specs from GM as well:


Displacement (cu. in./liters) 325/5,328
Bore x stroke (in.) 3.78 x 3.62
Bore x stroke (mm) 96.0 x 92.0
Compression ratio 10.0:1
Block material cast-aluminum
Cylinder head material cast-aluminum
Valvetrain configuration OHV
Valves per cylinder 2
Ignition system coil-near-plug
Lifters hydraulic roller
Cam drive chain
Redline (RPM) 6000
Horsepower @ engine RPM 303 @ 5600
Torque (lb.-ft.) @ RPM 323 @ 4400


go here and enter 5.328 liters and hit the convert button...

http://www.csgnetwork.com/cubicinchlitercvt.html

http://www.4lo.com/calc/literstocid.htm
Well....I used that same calculator earlier and punched in 5.3L, getting 323cid...good find on the 5.328 liters lew :)!

lsxregal
11-24-2007, 02:03 AM
I know it's off subject but do the 5.3's have the same 6.098" connecting rod as the LS2's?

FIEROPHREK
11-24-2007, 10:22 PM
I know it's off subject but do the 5.3's have the same 6.098" connecting rod as the LS2's?

Yes the LS4's connecting rods are 6.098 inches long powdered metal rods. Not sure if they are the exact same p/n though. I imagine that GM would cut costs buy using the same parts that are common to differant engines though ie: rods, rockers, pushrods . . . .