Cool stuff, though for making a full out pass in the 1/4 to hit the 160 mph plus trap speeds that mph could support you'd probably want to run C16 for insurance. But that's a convo for another time.

Maybe I can read a summary of the details on this build, but I don't anyone would ever recommend going for 1000rwhp with torque to yield head bolts. That's hardly GM's fault. As a different example look at the Evo guys. The guys who start trying to push 500rwhp swap out the head bolts for head studs. I've always run head studs for boost. My old stuff hit 21 to 25 psi.

 

All LS1-2-3-6-7-X we build at our shop n/a or boosted get ARP studs top to bottom. Spending a extra $1000 in bolts is better than 50k on a engine lol. This 454 boosted setup sounds plain stupid. I would really like to see a datalog file of the dyno. If it was running on C-16 there must have been a very bad tune or just way too much DCR.

 

last time in going to post this,

The argument is pointless, we have virtually zero information on the engine at all, much less the time of failure. post data log or STFU

 

^ either way, data log or not, trying to make 1300hp with an N/A crate motor is irresponsible.

 

regardless, blaming GM and posting on forums with zero proof is way more than irresponsible, you and I agree here for different reasons lol.

 

This post made me want to slam my head into the desk. I would rather take a cheese grater to my ******* than have an in person conversation with you or anyone like you. This entire thread, and nearly everyone in here's point, has gone way over your head.

 

I go back to the basic point. I would never ever use torque to yield head bolts for a boosted application. And I would NEVER risk using them for a combo shooting for 1000 at the wheels. Head bolts stretch, you can lift the heads and you can end up with damage like that. I really doubt core shift has anything thing to do with this. Whenever I've seen damage like that water/coolant got into the cylinder. I'm just one perspective. I think pointing back to Jamie over and over is pointless, I think you need to look at your shop and make sure they know what the reasonable do's and don'ts are for a build like that.

You know, 1000rwhp is a big deal. Even when my old turbo combo made 867rwhp back in 2007 I knew that I was taking a lot of risks with respect to block integrity, crank flex, and about a thousand other things. Stock oiling systems are in many cases beyond their capacity.

Just saying, it's not so simple to point fingers at one spokesperson for a crate engine because ultimately he's not the shop building the combo.

 

I still want to know how thin the cylinder walls are allowed to be on these crate 454's from GM to make it thru QC.

 

GM states for the lsx block: "Maximum 4.250" bore at .200" minimum wall thickness".

my lsx-454 crate engine bore was only 4.185 and the piece that blew out was measured by my race car shop and was as little as .185, showing that my bore thickness was short at least .080!

soon, a full sonic test and i'll post results

 

I dont know where you got that data, but it is a little different, and a little out of context from the data I've seen..

Maximum 4.200" bore at .200" minimum wall thickness (naturally aspirated applications)

source: http://www.jegs.com/i/GM%20Performan...0002/-1?CT=999

 

my thoughts exactly, i got that feeling as soon as i looked at the pic.

 

EXACTLY. HA.

some people...

 

Is the connecting rod for the damaged cylinder bent? Has that been looked at?

 

 

yea it was, according to another thread.

 

ANOTHER GEEK INTERNET EXPERT. you're getting your silly numbers from a jegs catolog? my numbers come from the real source "GM performance parts"

http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/_r...09_Catalog.pdf
page 200, 3/4 down: Maximum 4.250" bore at .200" minimum wall thickness
and you got the nerve to say its out of context?

i'm done informing you mongoloids of facts. you just want to disagree like a lynch mob. this is my last post here. goodbye and good riddance.

 

Ummm can you read? the GMPP catalog says the EXACT SAME THING.

Post pictures of the rod from the cylinder in question. While where at it, the head gasket too.

 

HAHAHA. TALK TO AN EXPERT NOOB. anyone who knows their *** from a hole in the ground knows that a 4.250" bore leaves way too thin of a cyl wall for any power adder. its been said over and over in this thread alone.

 

I think the point he was trying to make is, that the cylinder wall was thinner than advertised at the 4.185 bore. This indicates core shift, and I believe that's why he is saying that they are going to do more sonic testing.

It is obvious to the majority of us realize that the 454 crate motor was the wrong choice for the intended application, BUT maybe his investigation and prodding of GM will lead to better quality control. Who know, just a thought...

 

okay, sorry, the maximum bore in most boosted applications is roughly 4.125.