robertbartsch

Anyone see this article? they used a c5r block, ported ls6 heads, and 4.155 stroker crank... also used a GM Hot Cam; weird???

Anyway, it claimed to make over 500RWHP...

30th TA 0219

Just posted my bitch about this in the Racer's Lounge. Lame to call it "Kong C5R," to use only the C5R block, and then a small (for the ci) Hot Cam. Thought the article was a HUGE letdown.

30th TA 0219

BTW, I don't believe they ever put it in a car, those were engine dyno numbers only.

robertbartsch

Yeh; your right the HP rating was on an engine dyno.

If you assume it made 425HP on the Dyno and that you lose 15% to the rear wheels, that is 442RWHP....not all that hot for a HUGE engine...

My confusion is with the lack of articles on our engine....the magazines seem to only want to cover really old technology....can't understand this at all...

Camaro_Zach

iTrader: (19)

mmmmm a 450 cid ls1...mmmmm

KGSloan

to bad they didn't put a cam that was suited for that motor in there

MrYenko

Article says it makes 554hp and 577ft-lbs, both at under 5,700rpm (5600 and 4400rpm, respectivly) and didnt make less than 420ft-lbs from 1600rpm-up. Pretty impressive for the cam.

The head and cam choices were pretty obviously picked by someone not into the late-model scene. He was talking about a "Hefty" 10.5:1 static compression ratio.

I get the feeling reading the article, that theres gonna be a cam change in the future, probably with a second article. I hope, at least...

Dope

iTrader: (2)

GM Hot cam or ASA hot cam? Big difference.

Dope

WoodManZ

Just an FYI,
Hot Rod Says "Hot-Cam" but lists the part # and specs for the ASA cam.
12480110
They are confused...
Ron

strokedls1

iTrader: (1)

The whole article was a let down. Way undersized cam. The heads had stock valves with 450ci??? 10.5 to 1 compression?? I don't get why kateck would build this. My buddy puts out more power on his 367ci then that 450ci??? I think the editors at hotrod should read the boards. Did you see the side note about a sleeved aluminum block with a 4.065 bore for $3k. Guess they never heard of darton sleeves.

robertbartsch

Stroked:
I agree.

The sleeved blocks are about $3K, right? Core 1200, sleeves 1300, machining $1,500.

Colonel

Damn, it sounds like Hot Rod is waaaaaaaaaaaay behind the times. That's lame...I mean, really, really lame. Now I remember why I didn't renew my subscription a few years ago.

They should read LS1Tech before they do their next LS1 article.

robertbartsch

Yeh: Hot Rod only knows how to build 30 year-old iron....

...Where did they get this 4.155 crank? Is this a 4.125 crank that has been offset ground? I never saw this size crank before? The article implies this was a custom crank....Anyone?

Did these guys use some strange parts or is it me?

Was the alternative block they suggested for $3k a Darton wet or dry sleeve?

...as a consulation, it looks like they used ARP 12 point studs.....

CHRISPY

EDIT THAT

I have the cam specs upstairs. I can't remember off the top of my head. 226/236 or similar with .525 lift on 110LSA?

cheers,
Chris

strokedls1

iTrader: (1)

The crank was a custom from hank the crank. They were the ones trying to sell a 4.065 sleeved aluminum block for 3K. It is a dry sleeve, and it is not a darton sleeve. You could buy a wet sleeve from a few places that can do 4.160 for the same price. They need to get on this board.

SSactionLs1

HUH? 425flywheel and 442whp?

math owns you

taqwache

the problem is that hotrod mag, just like most mags, are payed to use curtain parts on there engine builds for advertising. i am sure that Hank payed a great deal, plus gave them free parts to put them in the mag. then some guy will read the artical and think that they are the only company that makes parts for these engines and then builds this exact engine for his car and spends thousands. then he will take it out on the street and loose a race from a guy who reads the boards that spend thousands less. it is all a conserisy theory? thats why i never take mags seriously.

C_Williams

read the article and was got the impression that nobody there understands the LS1 motor. The cam was typical of their choices of components.

robertbartsch

SSAction:
HP rating on engine dyno was 545 not 445....anyway after you consider the loss to the RW it is not a very impresssive motor for the cubes and cost......

Hot Rod is clueless!!!!!

Scott Turvey

Hey all,
Wanted to throw out a few things on the HR article you’re talking about.

First, as you probably know, there's a three month lead time for things appearing in a national mag. Second, that's three months from when the project is done. Given it could take a few months to get something setup, we're talking perhaps greater that a 1/2 year lapse between project idea and print.

Having said that, I agree the output from that config was, uh, poor to be kind. The component selection also left me baffled. It was almost as if someone was curious how they could do a large-cube LS motor sing the oddest collection pf parts they could come up with. I build LS1/LS6 motors for a living, and I believe I would have very few takers on a product like that. Not to mention the cost, whoa! I have four 427 projects going on right now, and three of them don't approach that cost. One of them is a twin turbo job, so it's probably going to exceed that number. At any rate, even the most conventional of them is making almost 600 HP. That's using the lame Weiand manifold. The other two are using a Hilborn-style induction system that has much better air delivery balance.

Back to the article, did anyone else have a problem running the #8 piston so close to the reluctor wheel? I mean, if you're going to stroke a motor to that point, did anybody involved calc the rod/stroke ratio or the rod angle? Generally speaking, a rod/stroke ration of 1.6-1.8 is desirable with the low end for street being 1.5. Some of the Pro Stock huge-cubic-inch motors are into the high 1.4's, but that ain't flying here. Rod angle? A guy at Hot Rod did an article a while back about 17.5 probably being a reasonable limit, he was right. As he pointed out the 400 early small block had an angle of 19.33 and had problems with ring failures and piston side-loading. So what are the numbers for the 450 HR motor? Try 1.474 for the rod/stroke ratio and 19.827 for the rod angle!!!!

What does this mean in real terms? Well, it may go a ways in explaining the poor HP/TQ numbers (dumb component choices aside). The crank will be trying to drive the piston through the side of the cylinder as a result of the angle being so high. This is going to consume huge amounts of energy, not to mention create high loading. As far as I could see in the pictures, the piston's sides were not coated, not that it would help much. Now you might see why I thought the #8 piston to reluctor wheel clearance may be a teensy little problem. While I don't know the exact clearance between the two, they did mention the piston pin intrudes into the oil scraper-ring groove.

Whew. I better stop here; I'm getting worked up just writing about this. Ever since I saw the article, I've been waiting to vent on this, so thanks for your time!