sweetbmxrider

iTrader: (13)

Speak for yourself and your idea of risks. Your opinion couldn't be further from the truth.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

Actually what happens is people want instant results, so instead of taking the time to do their homework and searching around for a reputable machine shop they give their money to the first flavor-of-the-month shop they run into and get burned. The way you are typing this makes it read as though no machine shop can be trusted and that just isn't true.

kingtal0n

iTrader: (1)

SO if you are 16 years old and building your first V8 engine, you get 200k out of it? Doubtful anybody will, at that age/experience level, even a stock rebuild, doing it themselves for the first time. Common sense is elusive and those kids (novices) are getting on forums, and think its easy to put something hot together because everyone here seems to have an 8 second car.


It isn't always easy on a budget. And budget that relies on "cheap" machine work is a root, but not the total cause. How many novices have to break the plastic radiator end tanks by over tightening them? How many belts have been stretched to the point the engine bearings have felt the wick? How many fingers get burnt changing plugs on a hot engine? Do they understand how important it is to keep oil clean? The amount of damage a tiny sliver of metal can do? Novices tend to over/under do many simple procedures we take for granted, some of it is tolerate/livable (burnt fingers) and some of it is not (improperly positioned oil seal during a cam swap, metal fragments due to inexperienced "block clearance mods") and will result with a perfectly good engine getting trashed (learned the hard way, myself). They are more likely to make mistakes trusting machine work, more likely to get taken advantage of and unable to determine if the work has been done correctly. This is the truth of an untrained/inexperienced eye or due to lack of proper tools. Detail oriented procedures should be over-viewed by a second pair of experienced eyes, but not everybody has that available.

Popular, high quality machine shops are run by humans, and may have twenty or thirty+ engine projects going at once with less skillful/low paid employees (sometimes kids trying to learn about engines, themselves). We have all seen bad machine work, or at least know it can happen. Sometimes we let our guards down. Since it is possible for people to make mistakes, put the work load with the mistake making ability of human employees, and combine it with the novice's untrained eye against output work, and you have a recipe for potential chaos. The more that is being done to an engine, the more times a human has a chance to make a mistake. Its just a recipe, a bit of data. Interpret how you see fit, modify, repair, I don't care. Just being aware is sometimes enough.

kingtal0n

iTrader: (1)

There is a high ratio of small displacement engines (2-3L) built here in America (as opposed to their country of origin) to failure rates, and it is primarily due to machine work. I realize that in the world of V8 engines there are many more experienced, higher quality option for machine work. But you need to realize that, for those smaller engines (such as the sr20det) there is literally almost no machine shop you can trust to do the work (despite all engines being "similar"), as they require experience which most places will claim to have, but do not, and it flavors my general recommendation for beginners to building engines (seeing how many ways to screw up machine work on various platforms / get lied to has made it the last thing I want to do with any engine on a budget build). Once you combine the word budget with novice I will strongly recommend avoiding any pathway that takes one inside the engine- for the simple reason that "budget" truly at it's heart has "daily driver" and "reliability" on the fore-front, and the best way a beginner can hit those two key words is with an mostly OEM engine, there is much less risk if you start with, and end with, the same complete engine. I am not against building something "Extra" (an extra, uninstalled engine), but I would be against someone who has only 1 engine, cannot afford a second one, taking apart their one single engine and sending it off to a machine shop.

ugh procrastinating my homework

fbody_brian

^^^This.

I built my first engine when I was 17, It was a smog era 350 in a second gen, with a small crane cam and headers it ran 14.1 1/4 mile, lasted through three different cars, and made weekly 400 mile trips when I was commuting out of state for work 5 years later when I was still using the motor.
Motor was still running great when I got rid of the car.

I think it depends on the person building the motor, some people are more inclined, regardless of age.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

I see. So you are flip flopping around/changing the subject matter to fit your agenda? The subject is understood regarding the LT1. Even on smaller displacement motors I've known several from 10 years ago that are comparable to some of the radical small block setups of today, and stay together fine. It all comes down to your research and inquiry of machine shop regardless of engine displacement.

You should probably stop procrastinating on the experience part too before going on and lecturing the internet of your mechanical engineering prowess...

Holy ****...

95sscamaro

iTrader: (6)

hrcslam

Nice short sig, must have a fast car. What car do you drive? What mods have you done?

For some engines (like tiny imports), I recommend boost as the goal for power. I say it for 1 major reason, they are tiny. Your power is limited to air in and air out, the smaller the engine, the higher it needs to rev to make the same power as a larger one. So a 2 liter would have to rev 3 times higher than a 6 liter (both at 100% VE) to make the same power, considering 6 liters are easily revving to 6000+rpm, that means that 2 liter would have to rev 18,000rpm to make the same power. That isn't reasonably practical.

Considering most 2L NA cars today are around 140-180hp, to get that power up to Fast and Furious levels would take quite a knowledgeable person with a good machine shop helping out.

Add to that a 2L at 180 HP is closer to peak NA output than a 6L at 400, and you see where boost is needed on the smaller engines vs larger ones. You'll also note that those Tiny Boosted engines usually get worse MPG than a similar car with a V8.......

So boost. Some of those little engines come with forged internals already. They also have 4V heads that flow great air. The cheaper and easier route to power in that case is Boost.

But, we are on LS1Tech in the LT1 section. Recommending boost for a high compression 5.7L V8 with hypereutectic pistons and weak rod bolts is just down right ignorant. It doesn't need boost to achieve power levels boosted FnF bois dream of.

When a "novice" comes here to LT1 land and asks for advice, we ask for budget and goals. There's a reason for that.

If you truly want power and reliability, go buy a C7 Corvette, take it to Lingenfelter or Hennessy and pay them top dollar.

In any case, stop giving advice on the Gen 2 LT1. You have no idea what you're talking about.

kingtal0n

iTrader: (1)

I already gave reasons why it would be acceptable, and in what situations.

I guess I need to point this out again.

Seeking power from any engine, regardless of Lt1/Ls1/l98, means more airflow.

You can get it with a head mod, a cam mod, or a turbocharger, or all of the above and other options as well. Each option has a pro/con.
If you are increasing power, you are increasing the overall airflow capacity of the engine in question.

Doesn't matter if you make 400 horsepower with head/cam or turbo, there is just as much "Stress incident" on that particular engine.
Turbo just has the benefit of being adjustable, increasing off-boost economy, prevents opening of the engine, and if you are smart about it, you can have an even safer (cooler) intake air temperature (meth/water injection for example). Turbocharger is ALWAYS the winner (without considering cost), hands down, every engine every platform. I can provide a nice comparison / model to prove this (and I will, once I gather a bit more hate).

Any novice who owns an LT engine, that has never opened an engine before, comes to the forum for advice. People are here saying "Make the extra power with a head/cam because it is safer than a turbo" are completely wrong. There is no/little difference between 400 out of a head/cam and 400 from a turbo, all else equal, and if you look at the benefits (improved economy, OEM drivability, no open engines) the only drawback is the (massive) additional cost, which involves proprietary fabrication for best results (not easy / just as difficult as machine work / just as much of a challenge) for which I Provided my outlet response: Directed towards future builds who one day wish for 500+ horsepower on a forged bottom end (requires machine work). Also, it would be cheaper to turbo an OEM engine, than to blow the OEM engine after a shoddy cam swap (oil related failure) and have to replace the entire engine.

sigh, all of these "benefits" are only attainable if you are a master with programming/tuning/combustion theory. So yeah I guess I am wasting my time here.
Still, is fun to gather the hate in my hate jar. Doesn't matter if you are in politics, human resources, mechanics, rocket science, biotechnology, cancer research, med school, nobody is every going to always agree with everything anyone says, even if they have substantial evidence, some people are just unwilling to accept reason or change. "I've been doing it this way for 30 years, it works fine, no need to change" one day, many methods will become obsolete, as "old timers" die off and nobody remembers when people churned their own butter.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

There is just too much dumbfuckery with the above post it cannot undone. Just one question- Hate jar? Are you ten?

bufmatmuslepants

iTrader: (3)

Hey hate jar, your not the only ME here, although you may be the only one who is still a student. Stop cluttering up other people's threads with crap nobody asked about.

hrcslam

While we are at it, if turbos give better fuel economy, explain this...... Also note, Corvettes routinely crush their FE estimates on the highway. I've personally gotten 34mpg out of a C5 Corvette rated at 24mpg. And that was without even trying.

And money IS part of the equation. Would you spend $6k to have 360rwhp or $4k to have 400rwhp? All DIY BTW. That $6k is being very stingy too. That's a no brainer.

SS RRR

iTrader: (2)

Still laughing at hate jar. As soon as the tables turn on the self-proclaimed engine building messiah Romper Room tactics are engaged.

sweetbmxrider

iTrader: (13)

I don't mind this thread. Its a nice break from the "Guys I did a cam swap and my motor exploded?!?!?!?" threads. Would really like to see moar "Guys I turboed my stock motor and my edick grew 2 feet!!!!11!1!!!1!" threads.

BTC

I was on Romper Room. It was all positive all the time. Hate jars would have been busted upside one's head.

I actually built my first engine on Romper Room.

96silverram

iTrader: (12)

Nice job, silver paint is looking good

ninjai_ruken

Thanks, front bumper is spider webbed. Dang racoon ran out in front of me one morning on the way to school, didn't damage anything but the paint. I want to respray her the same color but the wife told me either pain or power mods this tax season...I went with power mods. LE2 Heads and Cam and a Mail Order Tune.

ACE1252

That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

sweetbmxrider

iTrader: (13)

But its so god damn entertaining

kingtal0n

iTrader: (1)

Actually its just math. Cost of turbocharger setup = $3000~ estimated DIY kit.

Cost of new engine plus old engine = $3000~ including all labor/time It would be very similar.

thats all I meant. It isn't ignorant to want to preserve our parts; it is ignorant to assume that nothing bad can happen to you if you open an engine up. I am nearing a stopping point I can take a minute to discuss atmosphere, since that is where this is all going eventually anyways.

Atmospheric pressure is variable. If you drive up mountains, atm goes down. if we normalize atmospheric pressure to sea level (Atm = 1 = 14.5psi) we have a standard from which to derive mass per unit volume at sea level, and any altitude (for example atm*.80 would be 80% of sea level pressure for a higher altitude in question).

From this you can see that power linearly falls off as one drives up a mountain, with atm=1/2 being at an altitude where atmospheric pressure is exactly half of sea level pressure. Larger diameter molecules behave differently than small diameter molecules but the difference is negligible, lets keep everything classical physics for the sake of discussion, newtonian physics and PV=nRT flies for the following discussions.

Engineering facility which manufacture engine parts, like those people in charge of the shape of pistons and combustion chambers, use models to determine safe operating parameters. Then they also probably test their live model in a real car. Because vehicle weight is a factor, parts robustness is usually based around a pre determined range of anticipated vehicle weights, i.e. full car with luggage and fuel. This is the minimum timing area, the point at which, under full engine load, the minimum timing advance (When compared to the lighter scenarios) is required. The factory map contains many "switches" algorithms such as knock and temp sensors which detect and respond with change to the timing profile to fit these different situations. This situation also tells the designers something else: minimum fuel quality requirement. They make a decision whether the engine will require 87, 93, 105, 125, etc... before the engine is built be determining all of these factors together, the atmospheric pressure range, the vehicle weight, the expected temperature ranges of the engine, and find a fuel quality requirement which under the most weight, load, and highest anticipated temperature, is adequate for the combustion chamber/piston design. The decision is usually a conservative one; there is a little headroom for slightly worse fuel, slightly higher temps, slightly more weight, just in case it happens you can still drive the vehicle.

Many engines will tolerate poor fuel, go on pinging/knocking for years in general service situations. The fuel quality requirement is not the complete story; just because you meet the fuel quality requirement, does not automatically guarantee the safety of operation. And just because you fail the fuel requirement, does not necessarily mean the engine will fail either. The main problem with the old "LT" series of engines is not the fuel requirement; you can adjust the fuel quality up better than race fuel, and still the engine will fail quickly in stock form at elevated power levels due to the piston. This is everyone's reasoning behind "do not turbo the engine- because the engine cannot handle it, period". And I am here to say, that this line of thinking can spare a fool his engine, but it is no solution, it only masks the real problem: the piston. First admit to yourself that the stock bottom end LT series from 93~ is the real issue at hand and should be addressed separately, and has nothing to do with turbocharging the vehicle.


Now, on to the real solution to all internal combustion engines breathing capability. Realize that if you can drive up the side of a mountain and lose air pressure- the same applies to driving below sea level. If we could drive from sea level down several thousand feet, the engine would be just as much "turbocharged". If this was possible, the engineers who originally designed the engine would have had to question whether somebody would ever actually drive it down there, and if so, how to modify the engine's internals to support the additional weight of air at those low altitudes. If that means lower compression ratio across the board for all engines produced, would you ever "miss" the additional squeeze? In other words, at what point does what somebody tells you, or hands you from a factory, go from being a routine standard (every engine produced nowadays has more than 8:1 compression, we expect 9's 10's at least as "standard issue") to a questionable objective (Well, I live at 35,000 feet so I never need such low compression that comes in vehicles I buy in Florida...) which must be corrected somehow? This is where I introduce our air mass dial. Imagine if you had a dial in your vehicle which could adjust the atmospheric pressure up or down, as you saw fit, for each altitude you encounter? Engineers could hand you "standard" compression ratios "good for most altitudes/temperatures" and then leave it up to the adjustment dial (owners decision) to adjust the pressure at the manifold for safe operation. Indeed this would be the ideal solution, except that the typical owner is incapable of making this kind of decision for himself (spare a fool his engine). You may ask yourself "what about the added expense of such a dial?" Such decisions are made the same way all decisions should be made: by weighing the options and choosing the best fit. As proof, many engines do in fact come with such adjustment dials (although they are initially computer controlled) where manufacturers saw fit to add this additional atmospheric pressure increasing device to take advantage of headroom in the operation. A "safe" operating parameter, as I previously mentioned, goes beyond fuel quality; it extends into the parts themselves, and their ability to resist being damaged by the pressure/temp in the combustion chamber as it rises due to increased mass of air flow. If an engine cannot tolerate the additional pressure, then it is up to the operator to acknowledge this and turn the dial down somehow. Blaming the pressure device- the dial- would be the most ignorant thing you can do at this stage. YOU are in the control of the dial, YOU control the power output this way, and you must know the safe limitation of whatever kind of engine you have to control it correctly.


Correctly adjusting our mass dial is the safest way to control power output from an engine, and also the easiest way to amplify torque at whatever operating range the components are designed to run in. Engines with long duration camshafts and large port heads experience the same percentage boosts when increasing pressure to every point on the torque curve that stock engines do (double the pressure at the same temp and double the output of the engine) The mass dial is the central control point; when you get stuck in high temp traffic or drive up the side of a mountain, you need to adjust the mass dial, or performance will not be optimal. Finally a note about camshaft, rpm, and OEM bearings. As we increase engine RPM and use longer duration camshafts, we might be putting our OEM bearing engine out of a safe range. For example, the factory bearing clearance on an engine I am very familiar with is 0.0008", and the maximum RPM is nearly 7,800 for engines which we expect to last for 20~ years. Any more than that and you risk damaging a bearing. In other words, increasing RPM capacity is associated with increased potential for power output, as well as bearing failure. Maximum output is still achieved by dialing in the mass dial; just installing a camshaft and doing headwork by itself might raise engine volumetric efficiency towards the 105% mark in some places, or a 1.05atm standard, but they also tend to shift the power and can impact drivability, whereas additional mass improves it everywhere. The mass dial is capable of adjusting well beyond 1.05atm, consider if we only use 1.25atm, we have gained as much as an average camshaft swap times two in that example (from 85% baseline VE at 7000rpm to 125%VE as opposed to 105% with just a cam swap). Again, it is up to the owner to know how what the safe operating "altitude" is, and many people do not see it this way. Instead boost is portrayed as something "you are adding" when in fact your engine is running because of the weight of trillions of air molecules piled miles into the sky, forcing themselves into the less densely packed spaces you are providing, and being assisted by devices which help to pack them in tighter when the situation calls for it.