Jon Kaase Modular 4v wins Engine Masters...
#1
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
#2
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
keep in mind there is no such thing as after market heads.
this is the equivilent of making 800hp on factory ported LS1 heads.
409ci and it made it averaged over 600/600 from 3000 to 7000rpm with the Cobra R intake. With a Sullivan intake it made over 800 at only 7200 rpm.
#4
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I read that a few weeks back. I love that the motor made such good power. If the article had been about value, the the LS's there would have won hands down. However just based on bad-assness, I am glad the mod motor won. Wonder why they decided to allow them to compete in the last event.
#5
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
its called engine masters. and a LSX did not win it. there are lsx competitors...who lost.
#6
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Thursday’s qualifying eliminations were kicked off by legendary engine builder Ron Shaver running a GM LS engine. The build featured an RHS block and Heads, displacing 427 cubic inches. The late model engine was equipped with a Holley carburetor on a single plane intake manifold. Shaver’s engine was clearly a well-developed piece, running flawlessly in qualifying. The power output was outstanding, with peak output recorded at 738 horsepower and 653 lb-ft of peak torque. The engine’s score was hurt by a dip in the torque curve right at the bottom of the rpm range, but the final tally of 2720.4 was enough to put Shaver among the leaders.
Bret Bowers and the Racing Engine Design team brought another LS, this time a 417 cubic inch unit based on the LQ9 production engine. This high tech combination featured Holley’s impressive EFI induction. Bret had little run time prior to the event, and worked quickly to find a good calibration by starting with the Holley EFI working in the “self-learn” mode. The exceptionally detailed LS delivered 675 peak horsepower, and a peak torque reading of 615 lb-ft of torque. When the final qualifying score was added up, the team was a little short of qualifying with a score of 2630.7
Jon Lahone, an expert builder in his own right, is employed by BES racing and entered the competition under the Also BES team name. The engine is a stout GM LS displacing 401 cubic inches. Equipped with RHS cylinder heads and MegaSquirt electronic fuel injection, we expected spectacular power. The engine certainly delivered the goods, with 748 peak horsepower and 621 lb-ft of peak torque recoded. The crew from BES was obviously well prepared, and worked flawlessly through the test session for a score of 2837.1 points putting them into second place.
401 LSx loses.
the list goes on and on.
this is engine masters asshat. Tainted.
just STFU.
Tony Bischoff also looked to take advantage of the rules change allowing the Ford four-valve modular motor with a 401 cubic inch example. The power production capabilities had already been proven by the other competitors running this engine, and this time the attention was on Bischoff. Unlike the others, BES used a single plane intake manifold with a central throttle body location, which looked like a good choice for top-end power. In qualifying pulls the engine churned out 775 horsepower at peak, while torque peaked at 632 lb-ft. Tony’s MOD motor finished qualifying elimination with a score of 2867 points, putting it in the second spot with two engines left to run.
775hp. MORE THAN A 427 lsX. 401 CUBIC INCHES.
the flood gates have opened. i would expect a mercedes 400inch to win next year if one is run.
Last edited by assasinator; 01-24-2014 at 09:53 AM.
Trending Topics
#8
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Now tell me how much money is invested into that motor to get it to that point?
Show me it's cheaper and easier than an lsx setup and I'll retract my statement. Using stock heads is whatever on a max engine build if ya ask me since most would usually go aftermarket.
Show me it's cheaper and easier than an lsx setup and I'll retract my statement. Using stock heads is whatever on a max engine build if ya ask me since most would usually go aftermarket.
#11
TECH Senior Member
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Do you care to share a link to this?
From what Ive read that massive boat anchor is only making 5 peak more hp than the little LSx it was competing against.
http://www.enginelabs.com/news/jon-k...th-409ci-ford/
Regardless why does it matter? Why are you trying to use this as a troll/bragging point? This is restricted, rule limited engine building, not anything really relevant to the real world (in the real world displacement isn't limited, and engines actually have to fit in cars).
Im assuming its the typical ford fanboy way of being insecure, so you have to join GM forums to attempt to defend the "underdog". You're convincing absolutely no one that Ford engines are superior, and if anything you are only making the Ford crowd look more pathetic by making threads like these...
Wanna impress us? Show us a Ford engine thats comparable in physical size to an lsx while making the same hp/torque for less money. THAT is what matters in the real world. We don't care whats supposedly "stock". Youre not going to convince anyone with heavily restricted racing series or restricted engine building.
From what Ive read that massive boat anchor is only making 5 peak more hp than the little LSx it was competing against.
http://www.enginelabs.com/news/jon-k...th-409ci-ford/
Regardless why does it matter? Why are you trying to use this as a troll/bragging point? This is restricted, rule limited engine building, not anything really relevant to the real world (in the real world displacement isn't limited, and engines actually have to fit in cars).
Im assuming its the typical ford fanboy way of being insecure, so you have to join GM forums to attempt to defend the "underdog". You're convincing absolutely no one that Ford engines are superior, and if anything you are only making the Ford crowd look more pathetic by making threads like these...
Wanna impress us? Show us a Ford engine thats comparable in physical size to an lsx while making the same hp/torque for less money. THAT is what matters in the real world. We don't care whats supposedly "stock". Youre not going to convince anyone with heavily restricted racing series or restricted engine building.
#13
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It appears that the top 3 spots were taken by modular engines. One also took 5th. This is hardly John's 1st rodeo either. He's won like 3 or 4 other times.
Is this new stuff, because what I saw was from October of last yr and the 2014 challenge entry cutoff is in February?
Not likely. Ford engines really do very well in this competition and have won it several times.
Is this new stuff, because what I saw was from October of last yr and the 2014 challenge entry cutoff is in February?
Not likely. Ford engines really do very well in this competition and have won it several times.
#14
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Quick Google search shows a GM engine winning in 2012. 402ci small block making 853hp, 665tq. http://www.dragzine.com/news/sam-sch...ith-chevy-sb2/ I could not find a list of winners by year. All bad *** engines for sure!
#15
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Do you care to share a link to this?
From what Ive read that massive boat anchor is only making 5 peak more hp than the little LSx it was competing against.
http://www.enginelabs.com/news/jon-k...th-409ci-ford/
Regardless why does it matter? Why are you trying to use this as a troll/bragging point? This is restricted, rule limited engine building, not anything really relevant to the real world (in the real world displacement isn't limited, and engines actually have to fit in cars).
Im assuming its the typical ford fanboy way of being insecure, so you have to join GM forums to attempt to defend the "underdog". You're convincing absolutely no one that Ford engines are superior, and if anything you are only making the Ford crowd look more pathetic by making threads like these...
Wanna impress us? Show us a Ford engine thats comparable in physical size to an lsx while making the same hp/torque for less money. THAT is what matters in the real world. We don't care whats supposedly "stock". Youre not going to convince anyone with heavily restricted racing series or restricted engine building.
From what Ive read that massive boat anchor is only making 5 peak more hp than the little LSx it was competing against.
http://www.enginelabs.com/news/jon-k...th-409ci-ford/
Regardless why does it matter? Why are you trying to use this as a troll/bragging point? This is restricted, rule limited engine building, not anything really relevant to the real world (in the real world displacement isn't limited, and engines actually have to fit in cars).
Im assuming its the typical ford fanboy way of being insecure, so you have to join GM forums to attempt to defend the "underdog". You're convincing absolutely no one that Ford engines are superior, and if anything you are only making the Ford crowd look more pathetic by making threads like these...
Wanna impress us? Show us a Ford engine thats comparable in physical size to an lsx while making the same hp/torque for less money. THAT is what matters in the real world. We don't care whats supposedly "stock". Youre not going to convince anyone with heavily restricted racing series or restricted engine building.
#16
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Was displacement actually limited here? A Ford 572 was entered and made the most power overall, but since c.i. is factored, it didn't win the competition.
Besides, in actual racing, nearly every class in America has rules. In fact, all of them do, except illegal racing. I'm all for "run what ya brung," but let's not act as if the majority of legitimate racing doesn't have a plethora of rules to follow.
Further, the Ford modular has been used in millions of cars... It actually fit into every one of them. Just because the LS block is smaller hardly means the Mod motor won't fit. That's just junk thinking.
What I find MOST intriguing here, of course, is that these Ford Modular engines made WELL OVER 700hp N/A and not a peep from the "you need a blower to make power" crowd... Oh, the irony... Of course, even the small block Dodge broke 700.
The winner, Kaase, was actually the lowest hp of the modular top 3.
From the article in the magazine... "Starting with a 5.4 four cam powerplant, the engine was extensively modified to expand the displacement to 401 cubic inches to meet the minimum requirement for competition. All eyes were on the numbers as the engine buzzed effortlessly through the rev range, making phenomenal torque and power along the way. The power was devastating, with peak horsepower coming in at 736 horsepower, and torque peaking at a lofty 664 ft-lbs. That puts the specific torque at a staggering 1.66 lb-ft per cubic inch!"
By the way, it appears there IS a cubic inch limit... A lower end limit of somewhere around 400 cubes. I think I read of 4 SBC's entered and 1 of them broke 700hp(711) while another nearly did and the other 2 weren't even close to the competition. I think the engine I liked most was the SAM entry, a 436cube LS which made 775/677... respekatibal...
Honestly, it seems that would've won, had it been in the 401-416ci range with the same power.
Besides, in actual racing, nearly every class in America has rules. In fact, all of them do, except illegal racing. I'm all for "run what ya brung," but let's not act as if the majority of legitimate racing doesn't have a plethora of rules to follow.
Further, the Ford modular has been used in millions of cars... It actually fit into every one of them. Just because the LS block is smaller hardly means the Mod motor won't fit. That's just junk thinking.
What I find MOST intriguing here, of course, is that these Ford Modular engines made WELL OVER 700hp N/A and not a peep from the "you need a blower to make power" crowd... Oh, the irony... Of course, even the small block Dodge broke 700.
![Grin](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_grin.gif)
From the article in the magazine... "Starting with a 5.4 four cam powerplant, the engine was extensively modified to expand the displacement to 401 cubic inches to meet the minimum requirement for competition. All eyes were on the numbers as the engine buzzed effortlessly through the rev range, making phenomenal torque and power along the way. The power was devastating, with peak horsepower coming in at 736 horsepower, and torque peaking at a lofty 664 ft-lbs. That puts the specific torque at a staggering 1.66 lb-ft per cubic inch!"
By the way, it appears there IS a cubic inch limit... A lower end limit of somewhere around 400 cubes. I think I read of 4 SBC's entered and 1 of them broke 700hp(711) while another nearly did and the other 2 weren't even close to the competition. I think the engine I liked most was the SAM entry, a 436cube LS which made 775/677... respekatibal...
![Grin](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_grin.gif)
#17
TECH Senior Member
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Besides, in actual racing, nearly every class in America has rules. In fact, all of them do, except illegal racing. I'm all for "run what ya brung," but let's not act as if the majority of legitimate racing doesn't have a plethora of rules to follow.
Further, the Ford modular has been used in millions of cars... It actually fit into every one of them. Just because the LS block is smaller hardly means the Mod motor won't fit. That's just junk thinking.
And its not just about getting the engine to fit (although im sure in most cases it take quite a bit of cutting to get a mod motor to fit in most smaller engine bays), but its about where it fits. With a smaller engine you can mount it lower and closer to the center of the chassis for better all around performance.
What I find MOST intriguing here, of course, is that these Ford Modular engines made WELL OVER 700hp N/A and not a peep from the "you need a blower to make power" crowd... Oh, the irony... Of course, even the small block Dodge broke 700.
The winner, Kaase, was actually the lowest hp of the modular top 3.
![Grin](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_grin.gif)
On the flip side look at how many N/A LSx's or SBC's run around with 700FWHP, TONS! Ill go to a local car show and see a handful of NA LSx's making those numbers, along with BBC's, while the closest N/A Mod motor will be fully built making 400RWHP on a good day...
By the way, it appears there IS a cubic inch limit... A lower end limit of somewhere around 400 cubes. I think I read of 4 SBC's entered and 1 of them broke 700hp(711) while another nearly did and the other 2 weren't even close to the competition. I think the engine I liked most was the SAM entry, a 436cube LS which made 775/677... respekatibal...
Honestly, it seems that would've won, had it been in the 401-416ci range with the same power.
![Grin](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_grin.gif)
That is whats impressive, not that a full custom $$$ mod motor won a heavily restricted engine comparison.
#18
11 Second Club
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Jonesboro, Ga
Posts: 1,988
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech20year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
It's a cool novelty thing... but I think most of us already knew you could make more horsepower/torque per liter with multi-valved engines. Yet, none of us are driving hondas... because that **** doesn't matter. There's a dozen other variables that come into play.
At the end of the day, I bought a 6.0 to put in my s10 because it's light, cheap, and small. For $2400 I have a 500+ flywheel horsepower engine that I can be happy with the reliability of, and get mid 20's mpg. I would RATHER there be a better budget/size option out there, I would gladly choose it.
At the end of the day, I bought a 6.0 to put in my s10 because it's light, cheap, and small. For $2400 I have a 500+ flywheel horsepower engine that I can be happy with the reliability of, and get mid 20's mpg. I would RATHER there be a better budget/size option out there, I would gladly choose it.
Last edited by distortion_69; 01-27-2014 at 05:29 PM.
#20
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
8th place engine. We scored over 100 points less at the event than at home.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/parts-cla...t-rodding.html
https://ls1tech.com/forums/parts-cla...t-rodding.html