500whp 5.3 N/A possible?
10-24-2017, 01:52 PM
#41
I agree. i sorta think it'll be needed, so it'd be cheaper to just do it vs building it twice.
it's tricky on speccing LLSR. Basically, i look a the hydraulic cam i'd suggest and add 5 degrees. At least for a starting point. Guys like Steve, Kip, and Martin are better at it than me. So, i threw 242/250 out there. might even want a bit more, but I don't think you'll want too much more than that.
I certainly felt like the the LLSR was a big kick in the pants on power over the hydraulic. Definitely more responsive to the throttle. I went from 496 through a stock-geared ten bolt to 519 through a 4.11 geared 9". So, it's at least 25 HP, plus overcoming additional drivetrain mass.
Cost of entry isn't too bad. The lifters aren't that much different from morel drop-in hydraulic lifters on price. Actually, cheaper than some of the high end hydraulic lifters. And you can do it without the adjustable rockers. Don't get me wrong, Jezels and HS are great rockers, but you can do it with YT non-adjustables as long as your cam base circles are about the same. You just need a set of machine shims to set the pedestal height to get to zero lash. you also need to match your pushrod lengths almost perfectly so that your rockers pairs are level - intake and exhaust. That's the short version of how I did mine. It was right near 150K when I did the swap, and it's 165K now, so it's reliable so far. Last i knew, Kip had LLSR on his DD Camaro, and was at 24K miles - at least a year ago, if not two years ago.
So, it's not the $3K+ upgrade it used to be by any stretch, and it's very durable. In a way, it might be better than adjustable rockers. I mean, is a rocker adjuster more likely to come lose or is a machine shim more likely to change it's thickness?
it's tricky on speccing LLSR. Basically, i look a the hydraulic cam i'd suggest and add 5 degrees. At least for a starting point. Guys like Steve, Kip, and Martin are better at it than me. So, i threw 242/250 out there. might even want a bit more, but I don't think you'll want too much more than that.
I certainly felt like the the LLSR was a big kick in the pants on power over the hydraulic. Definitely more responsive to the throttle. I went from 496 through a stock-geared ten bolt to 519 through a 4.11 geared 9". So, it's at least 25 HP, plus overcoming additional drivetrain mass.
Cost of entry isn't too bad. The lifters aren't that much different from morel drop-in hydraulic lifters on price. Actually, cheaper than some of the high end hydraulic lifters. And you can do it without the adjustable rockers. Don't get me wrong, Jezels and HS are great rockers, but you can do it with YT non-adjustables as long as your cam base circles are about the same. You just need a set of machine shims to set the pedestal height to get to zero lash. you also need to match your pushrod lengths almost perfectly so that your rockers pairs are level - intake and exhaust. That's the short version of how I did mine. It was right near 150K when I did the swap, and it's 165K now, so it's reliable so far. Last i knew, Kip had LLSR on his DD Camaro, and was at 24K miles - at least a year ago, if not two years ago.
So, it's not the $3K+ upgrade it used to be by any stretch, and it's very durable. In a way, it might be better than adjustable rockers. I mean, is a rocker adjuster more likely to come lose or is a machine shim more likely to change it's thickness?
Thanks For the info.
10-24-2017, 02:03 PM
#43
11 Second Club
So, in reality, a 5.3 making an honest 500whp is very slim. Not saying it cant be done. With that small a ci you are going to need at least 1.7-1.8 hp per cube. Also this will have to be done at high rpm as per the small cubes. So a mountain of a power curve peaking near max rpm. So even if it made 500whp it would still not be an efficient power band. Just a high peak hp number.
Still. If a 5.3 was making an honest 500whp I would like to see what it took.
Still. If a 5.3 was making an honest 500whp I would like to see what it took.
10-24-2017, 02:25 PM
#44
Another discussion, intake manifolds.
Pantera efi made a comment about itb's
As you can see on my dyno sheet "lets not get in a discussion on dyno's"
I have a double torque peak.
The peak doesnt coincide with any timing or fuel discrepancies. So I am thinking it must be something else.
Im wondering if it has something to do with intake runner length vs camshaft torque peak
I am trying to decide if i should build a more appropriate sheet metal intake or if i should build an itb setup.
Pantera efi made a comment about itb's
As you can see on my dyno sheet "lets not get in a discussion on dyno's"
I have a double torque peak.
The peak doesnt coincide with any timing or fuel discrepancies. So I am thinking it must be something else.
Im wondering if it has something to do with intake runner length vs camshaft torque peak
I am trying to decide if i should build a more appropriate sheet metal intake or if i should build an itb setup.
10-24-2017, 02:27 PM
#45
Restricted User
A buddy of mine owns a shop. They did a 4.8 for a boat not long ago, and it made like 650 on the engine dyno. That would certainly be in the 500whp range if it was put in a 6-speed car, so its definitely possible.
10-24-2017, 02:40 PM
#46
11 Second Club
Wow. Thats about 2.2hp per cube. Do you remember at what rpm it made that power?
10-24-2017, 05:39 PM
#50
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,446
Received 1,835 Likes
on
1,145 Posts
I think it's an intake runner length / harmonic thing. Look at my fast102 curve vs the MSD. Several torque humps. MSD was smooth. I've also read - I think it was Martin who posted this - that the characteristic double hump curves happen when the cam is used to cheat the power band higher than the 6300 RPM it really wants to hit based on runner length. Now, given those two curves in mine were the same cam, and only the intake changes, I think that at least supports Martin's statement.
So, I guess, yes, I'd say either a sheet metal intake or ITB. I seriously considered ITB, just because it's an infinitely large plenum. Where there is a benefit to a sheet metal intake is a CAI that goes down to the nose of the car like CHRS1313 built could pressurize a sheet metal intake, but not an ITB, unless the ITB was then encased in a larger plenum. A true ram air that works quite well, actually...
but if you're asking between the two, which to choose? I'd have to punt.
So, I guess, yes, I'd say either a sheet metal intake or ITB. I seriously considered ITB, just because it's an infinitely large plenum. Where there is a benefit to a sheet metal intake is a CAI that goes down to the nose of the car like CHRS1313 built could pressurize a sheet metal intake, but not an ITB, unless the ITB was then encased in a larger plenum. A true ram air that works quite well, actually...
but if you're asking between the two, which to choose? I'd have to punt.
Another discussion, intake manifolds.
Pantera efi made a comment about itb's
As you can see on my dyno sheet "lets not get in a discussion on dyno's"
I have a double torque peak.
The peak doesnt coincide with any timing or fuel discrepancies. So I am thinking it must be something else.
Im wondering if it has something to do with intake runner length vs camshaft torque peak
I am trying to decide if i should build a more appropriate sheet metal intake or if i should build an itb setup.
Pantera efi made a comment about itb's
As you can see on my dyno sheet "lets not get in a discussion on dyno's"
I have a double torque peak.
The peak doesnt coincide with any timing or fuel discrepancies. So I am thinking it must be something else.
Im wondering if it has something to do with intake runner length vs camshaft torque peak
I am trying to decide if i should build a more appropriate sheet metal intake or if i should build an itb setup.
10-25-2017, 08:37 AM
#51
FormerVendor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA. USA
Posts: 2,157
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
16 Posts
First 600 HP LS-347 (LS-1 Based) Hi Speed1, your question "twin peaks" is answered by stating that your EXHAUST does NOT MATCH your INTAKE.
There ARE many applications where this is good, not for HP "peaks" but needed to win races by having a WIDE torque range engine.
I was the first to assembly a LS-1 with stock bore/stroke (N/A) and bench over 600 HP. (Chevy Hi-Perf Article)
I used AFR cylinder heads I bought from Guy Trip when he worked for AFR.
I state an engine with "flat tops", my ITB's, a street-able camshaft (246/252 .600"/.561" 116C/L (solid rollers), CHE's, no special "exotic" items.
My EAP (engine dyno inside a PC) method for your needed 500 Wheel (620HP bench) required a much larger camshaft. (not street friendly)
So I ask AGAIN, could you state your C.R., port flow numbers, intake style, exhaust pipe length/tube bore, lifter solid/hyd, etc. ?
AS for Valve Lash, I have used Lash Caps when stock rockers (with CHE's) are required.
If you want to try my 65mm ITB's I will make you a "best price" dealer.
Lance
There ARE many applications where this is good, not for HP "peaks" but needed to win races by having a WIDE torque range engine.
I was the first to assembly a LS-1 with stock bore/stroke (N/A) and bench over 600 HP. (Chevy Hi-Perf Article)
I used AFR cylinder heads I bought from Guy Trip when he worked for AFR.
I state an engine with "flat tops", my ITB's, a street-able camshaft (246/252 .600"/.561" 116C/L (solid rollers), CHE's, no special "exotic" items.
My EAP (engine dyno inside a PC) method for your needed 500 Wheel (620HP bench) required a much larger camshaft. (not street friendly)
So I ask AGAIN, could you state your C.R., port flow numbers, intake style, exhaust pipe length/tube bore, lifter solid/hyd, etc. ?
AS for Valve Lash, I have used Lash Caps when stock rockers (with CHE's) are required.
If you want to try my 65mm ITB's I will make you a "best price" dealer.
Lance
10-25-2017, 12:53 PM
#52
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,446
Received 1,835 Likes
on
1,145 Posts
Lance, do you have an ITB that would clear an F body hood?
10-28-2017, 12:04 PM
#53
This article may be of interest. I think it suggests that aftermarket heads are needed for this builds goal.
There is a section that discusses the hp limiting factor of Valve size in an LS2. Basically it seems with top notch 799/243 ported cylinder heads and a 2 inch valve 620 flywheel hp is about the limit.
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ctrp-0704-nascar-new-motor/
The 5.3 engine with a stock bore of 3.780 is limited to about a 2.00 inch intake valve with a factory casting cylinder head like the 243/799. Since the Wegner heads are more capable than the "706" 5.3 castings. If 5.3 heads are 243/799 castings like the Wegner's I think they will max out at 620 hp best case after porting and valve job when limited to a 2 inch valve.
The NASCAR Spec LS2 in the article makes about with 620 flywheel hp. With the drive train mentioned above, like Lance/Pantera EFI mentioned the DL loss will be around 18% to 22% to the wheels. This would yield around ~495 whp plus or minus 10whp with a 620 flywheel engine. The 5.3 being bore limited would probably make a bit less hp than Nascar spec vacuum pump LS2 mentioned in the article did.
To me this makes the argument that an aftermarket head with a different valve angle is needed for this project. Heads with 11-13 degreed might allow for a bigger valve..maybe a 2.02 or better. In any case every hp will matter to reach the goal.
The heads Darth suggested are definitely worth considering. Trick Flow has offered a head specifically for the 5.3 that might be worth checking out too. Mast probably has some to consider as well.
Does the current 5.3 in the Focus have a crank scraper?
BTW - cool car and nice swap! A++
FWIW - I think the ITB manifold is almost certainly the best way to wring all the NA potential out of the cylinder heads.
There is a section that discusses the hp limiting factor of Valve size in an LS2. Basically it seems with top notch 799/243 ported cylinder heads and a 2 inch valve 620 flywheel hp is about the limit.
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ctrp-0704-nascar-new-motor/
The 5.3 engine with a stock bore of 3.780 is limited to about a 2.00 inch intake valve with a factory casting cylinder head like the 243/799. Since the Wegner heads are more capable than the "706" 5.3 castings. If 5.3 heads are 243/799 castings like the Wegner's I think they will max out at 620 hp best case after porting and valve job when limited to a 2 inch valve.
The NASCAR Spec LS2 in the article makes about with 620 flywheel hp. With the drive train mentioned above, like Lance/Pantera EFI mentioned the DL loss will be around 18% to 22% to the wheels. This would yield around ~495 whp plus or minus 10whp with a 620 flywheel engine. The 5.3 being bore limited would probably make a bit less hp than Nascar spec vacuum pump LS2 mentioned in the article did.
To me this makes the argument that an aftermarket head with a different valve angle is needed for this project. Heads with 11-13 degreed might allow for a bigger valve..maybe a 2.02 or better. In any case every hp will matter to reach the goal.
The heads Darth suggested are definitely worth considering. Trick Flow has offered a head specifically for the 5.3 that might be worth checking out too. Mast probably has some to consider as well.
Does the current 5.3 in the Focus have a crank scraper?
BTW - cool car and nice swap! A++
FWIW - I think the ITB manifold is almost certainly the best way to wring all the NA potential out of the cylinder heads.
Last edited by 99 Black Bird T/A; 11-01-2017 at 05:37 AM.
10-31-2017, 05:01 PM
#54
This article may be of interest. I think it suggests that aftermarket heads are needed for this builds goal.
There is a section that discusses the hp limiting factor of Valve size in an LS2. Basically it seems with top notch 799/243 ported cylinder heads and a 2 inch valve 620 flywheel hp is about the limit.
http://http://www.hotrod.com/article...car-new-motor/
The 5.3 engine with a stock bore of 3.780 is limited to about a 2.00 inch intake valve with a factory casting cylinder head like the 243/799. Since the Wegner heads are more capable than the "706" 5.3 castings. If 5.3 heads are 243/799 castings like the Wegner's I think they will max out at 620 hp best case after porting and valve job when limited to a 2 inch valve.
The NASCAR Spec LS2 in the article makes about with 620 flywheel hp. With the drive train mentioned above, like Lance/Pantera EFI mentioned the DL loss will be around 18% to 22% to the wheels. This would yield around ~495 whp plus or minus 10whp with a 620 flywheel engine. The 5.3 being bore limited would probably make a bit less hp than Nascar spec vacuum pump LS2 mentioned in the article did.
To me this makes the argument that an aftermarket head with a different valve angle is needed for this project. Heads with 11-13 degreed might allow for a bigger valve..maybe a 2.02 or better. In any case every hp will matter to reach the goal.
The heads Darth suggested are definitely worth considering. Trick Flow has offered a head specifically for the 5.3 that might be worth checking out too. Mast probably has some to consider as well.
Does the current 5.3 in the Focus have a crank scraper?
BTW - cool car and nice swap! A++
FWIW - I think the ITB manifold is almost certainly the best way to wring all the NA potential out of the cylinder heads.
There is a section that discusses the hp limiting factor of Valve size in an LS2. Basically it seems with top notch 799/243 ported cylinder heads and a 2 inch valve 620 flywheel hp is about the limit.
http://http://www.hotrod.com/article...car-new-motor/
The 5.3 engine with a stock bore of 3.780 is limited to about a 2.00 inch intake valve with a factory casting cylinder head like the 243/799. Since the Wegner heads are more capable than the "706" 5.3 castings. If 5.3 heads are 243/799 castings like the Wegner's I think they will max out at 620 hp best case after porting and valve job when limited to a 2 inch valve.
The NASCAR Spec LS2 in the article makes about with 620 flywheel hp. With the drive train mentioned above, like Lance/Pantera EFI mentioned the DL loss will be around 18% to 22% to the wheels. This would yield around ~495 whp plus or minus 10whp with a 620 flywheel engine. The 5.3 being bore limited would probably make a bit less hp than Nascar spec vacuum pump LS2 mentioned in the article did.
To me this makes the argument that an aftermarket head with a different valve angle is needed for this project. Heads with 11-13 degreed might allow for a bigger valve..maybe a 2.02 or better. In any case every hp will matter to reach the goal.
The heads Darth suggested are definitely worth considering. Trick Flow has offered a head specifically for the 5.3 that might be worth checking out too. Mast probably has some to consider as well.
Does the current 5.3 in the Focus have a crank scraper?
BTW - cool car and nice swap! A++
FWIW - I think the ITB manifold is almost certainly the best way to wring all the NA potential out of the cylinder heads.
I cant get the link to work.
Also no it does not have a crank scraper
10-31-2017, 05:03 PM
#55
Since I need custom headers for the car any way and I am not satisfied with the chinese junk that is on it right now. I was thinking about going ahead and building my new headers. My trouble is I am struggling with header primary size and length.
I have seen contradictory tests with 1 3/4 and 1 7/8 comparisons.
Thoughts?
I have seen contradictory tests with 1 3/4 and 1 7/8 comparisons.
Thoughts?
10-31-2017, 05:29 PM
#56
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,446
Received 1,835 Likes
on
1,145 Posts
Since I need custom headers for the car any way and I am not satisfied with the chinese junk that is on it right now. I was thinking about going ahead and building my new headers. My trouble is I am struggling with header primary size and length.
I have seen contradictory tests with 1 3/4 and 1 7/8 comparisons.
Thoughts?
I have seen contradictory tests with 1 3/4 and 1 7/8 comparisons.
Thoughts?
11-01-2017, 05:40 AM
#58
http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ctrp-...car-new-motor/
I think this one should work.
Definitely 1 7/8 primary headers.
I think this one should work.
Definitely 1 7/8 primary headers.
11-01-2017, 06:11 AM
#59
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,446
Received 1,835 Likes
on
1,145 Posts
Originally Posted by topspeed1
Thats what i was thinking.
How long are your primaries?
How long are your primaries?
Last edited by Darth_V8r; 11-01-2017 at 04:35 PM.
11-01-2017, 09:38 AM
#60
May I ask what the purpose of this project is? I not trying to clog it up, just curious. You have owned a Dyno for years it seems and I would think you would exactly what is needed to make this happen. Heads would be the biggest part of this puzzle I would think. The big question here I would think would be weather to go with cathedral or rectangle. I would not think that anything with high enough flow numbers up high would be worth a crap down low for 5.3. That would really narrow the engine's window of usefulness. That's why I'm curious of the purpose of this.