pantera_efi

iTrader: (1)

Hi All, the question now is "What (short) can a LS block be in Deck Height ? "

Lance

NAVYBLUE210

I Do not know the answer to deck ht question.
Spinning 12,000-14,000 RPM I would think
Priority Main Oiling would be Essential, along
with Piston Squirters for 15:1 Comp?
I would ask Dart concerning their Iron
LSX NEXT BLOCK about Deck Ht.

1CAMWNDR

iTrader: (21)

I have never heard of anyone trying to shorten deck height so much so I have no idea about how short you can make it.
Priority Main is a must. And Dry Sump probably also. Are the Dart blocks Priority Main Oiling? I know the GM LSX block is.

NAVYBLUE210

Dart Block Is Priority Main Oiling, as are all aftermarket
LS Race Blocks I Believe.

North*power

iTrader: (1)

I'm guessing that ITB's or maybe a single plane manifold may be the only options as far as intakes go to operate at RPM's this high?
How important is exhaust pulsing and primary length for efficiency at this level?
Transmission options?

pantera_efi

iTrader: (1)

The Air Horn is 3" long with an inlet port length of 6" and a Diameter of 2.8" @ 3 degrees taper for the air horn.
This is a valve/bell of 9" OA length.

There are NO ITB's.

The Inlet Valve is used to limit air flow.
The Exhaust is 28" x 1.96" ID.

YES, Pressure Wave Tuning has great effect, just a click of a key.

Thanks ALL for the block help, I need more ?

Lance

Dark Energy

A good IRON block as things will tend or Start to move. 2.80 stroke Choose your bore Depending on block. A DAMN good ... high ram with Dual TB's or ITB. A Cam in the 288 to 294 @.050 with relatively low lift. Good dry sump to match a damn good set of rings. Think your on your way.

1CAMWNDR

iTrader: (21)

Reread all of the original poster's comments. It will not have a camshaft or throttle bodies....

Dark Energy

Yeah I caught it once you said it...LOL! Just saw what my eye's wanted to see,I'm suffering from selective looking now. To crazy for me I like mechanical working valves with a nice big old 4500 T/b. Look Ma that thing has a Dominator on it.


Hope it works out.

Martin Smallwood

iTrader: (2)

Put the longest rod you possibly can in it. You should be able to get away with 1.000" CH IMO on this combo since torque output will be fairly low due to the stroke of the engine.

I would do a 2.875" crank, 5.750" rod, 1.050" CH piston, 4.070" bore with a 8.24" deck height. 300" engine has a nice ring to it.

1CAMWNDR

iTrader: (21)

What is the reasoning for the much shorter deck height?

Would there be a real negative to The standard 9" deck height, a 3.00" stroke, a 6.46" rod, and say a 1.04" CH piston?

Long Rod 302".

96 Comp T/A

iTrader: (8)

Shorter and lighter rods along with stronger and lighter pushrods in the short deck engine. At 10,500 it all matters.

Dark Energy

98 comp T/a your correct along with as most all would say put the longest darn Rod you can to a point of Comp HT. of the piston.

Mars Your still here....Happy Face!

96 Comp T/A

iTrader: (8)

So while we are at it, let's list a couple of other challenges that need to be overcome.
1. Bearing Speed. You are stuck with main bearing journal diameter. There is no easy way to change that. Blocks optimized for this kind of cycling rate use smaller mains like a 2.3in main from a 283. You can have rod bearing journals turned down to either Honda or Aurora diameters. That will help.

2. Oiling and windage. At that kind of crank speed windage will be horrible. Keep in mind, what you displace above, you displace below. You need to pull down the crankcase to a vacuum to help the crank slice through that. Dry Sump territory, for sure.

3. Valvetrain. I think you are going to have a real tough time keeping the lifter on the lobe with stock diameter parts. You probably will need to step up to at least a 60mm cam core to get a larger base circle. A Larger diameter roller lifter probably wouldn't hurt either. You're going to need mega everything for this to work.


The good news is that this has all been done before by guys running Comp Eliminator and PS truck, albeit on Gen1 engines. All you have to do is follow their blueprint. For reference, here is the block they would use. Notice the low deck height and raised cam. The deck is so low in fact, it doesn't even use a standard chevy SBC bellhousing pattern, it won't fit the envelope. This block doesn't have headbolt holes or lifters drilled on it so you could theoretically Put LS heads on it with a little bit of work.
http://paceperformance.com/i-6255625...sed-bores.html

pantera_efi

iTrader: (1)

Hi All, again I want to THANK all here for help.
Many topics have been addressed (oil feed as one such) saving many mistakes.
Block selection may need to be Non-OEM due to deck/oiling.

My progress IS the operation of the Star Motor (rotary valve actuator).
This unit is in a current test mode NOW !

The last (in 1996) Electrohydraulic actuator I created with Eddie's Latching Valve ran to 14K RPM.

The Main Diameter is ALSO a good report, I would need to selection a block first.

My goal is 15K RPM with practical of 14K RPM.

I will post pictures soon.

Lance

1CAMWNDR

iTrader: (21)

None of this will matter since there will not be a "valvetrain" in the conventional cam/lifters/pushrods/rockers/valves scenario.

1CAMWNDR

iTrader: (21)

I can't wait to see some of this.

Martin Smallwood

iTrader: (2)

Lance,

If you can get a hold of Maskin at Dart, he can probably come up with something that will work deck height wise.

96 Comp T/A

iTrader: (8)

Then why even waste time with the LS platform? You'd be way ahead starting with a Northstar, Shortstar, LFX, or even a Ford Coyote or earlier Mod platform. If it has to be giant cubic inch, go with the previous gen Raptor 6.2 engine. They all already have the infrastructure in place to spin overhead cam/ spherical rotary valves. There will be a ton of grief and expense just to plug all the cam bearings and lifter galleries in a production block LS engine. You can't plug the driver's side galley from the back because it also feeds the mains. Buying an aftermarket block to basically cut up doesn't seem like a prudent idea either. I would not waste time or money developing the bottom end of a test mule when there are plenty of perfectly functional candidates available today, allowing you to start product design immediately.


To be honest, the manufacturers are getting squeezed pretty hard by CAFE standards. If the Coates system was viable and could have increased efficiency enough to make a difference, someone would have snapped it up under license by now and built a commercially viable product. I think the Freevalve set up by Koennigseg (sp?) is pretty interesting and has a brighter future, because you can alter, lift duration, and timing, all at the same time. The rotary valve is fixed duration, although you could advance or retard them individually.

1CAMWNDR

iTrader: (21)

Agreed. The digitally actuated electrohydraulic valve like Sturman Industries has developed is extremely interesting. But the original poster is trying something different with ?individually operated? barrel valves it appears.