Best CID for the "cheap" B/W S475...
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 234
Likes: 1
Best CID for the "cheap" B/W S475... Have a debate going with some buddy's over which CID would be best for the "cheap" b/w s475 (75/96 1.32 a/r)
Assuming all three have the same heads(799)/cam(spec. for turbo)/compression(9.1) running intercooled on 91 with meth.
1) 5.3
2) 5.7
3) 6.0
Curious to see everyone's choice and why.
Assuming all three have the same heads(799)/cam(spec. for turbo)/compression(9.1) running intercooled on 91 with meth.
1) 5.3
2) 5.7
3) 6.0
Curious to see everyone's choice and why.
In my opinion with a good cam spec'd for the combo that turbo will work good on all 3 engines. I've had that exact turbo on a lq9 6.0 and now a 370 and it's been awesome on both. It's more about the set up then the CID with these 3 v8's and that turbo.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 728
Likes: 3
Won't be much of a difference in boost between the three. Maybe a couple more psi to make the same power with the 5.3, but alas, it'll still make the same power. You're only looking at a 5% increase in displacement from 5.7 to 6.0. With boost, this is almost trivial.
The 5.7 should be removed. The only 2 contenders here are 5.3 and 6.0. The 5.7 engines are far more expensive than either without much reason. The 5.3 can be had in aluminum pretty cheap, and are plentiful and proven. The 6.0 is more expensive and more scarce, but opens up option for the L92 and LS3 heads which is where most of the power difference will come from when comparing to the 5.3. The 5.7 is usually reserved for the actual LS engines and carries an unwarranted price tag when going boost. It won't be anymore reliable or easier to replace.
The 5.7 should be removed. The only 2 contenders here are 5.3 and 6.0. The 5.7 engines are far more expensive than either without much reason. The 5.3 can be had in aluminum pretty cheap, and are plentiful and proven. The 6.0 is more expensive and more scarce, but opens up option for the L92 and LS3 heads which is where most of the power difference will come from when comparing to the 5.3. The 5.7 is usually reserved for the actual LS engines and carries an unwarranted price tag when going boost. It won't be anymore reliable or easier to replace.
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 234
Likes: 1
Thank you both for your input.
We understand that it would work on all three engines.
We have access to all three (well the 5.7 would be made out of a scored 5.3 block and some ls1 rods/pistons we have laying around, so it was thrown into the choice as a "middle" ground.)
The debate centers around is one more optimal for that size turbine/compressor/ar ?
It's understood that the difference is most likely small but in theory one should be a better fit.
Some of the things that have been debated are...
Turbine lag on the 5.3 vs the others.
Compressor side running out of steam on the 6.0 at high boost levels.
Advantage of 5.3 at higher boost level.
Which one would be closer to the the "sweet spot" on the compressor map at max boost ?
This and a bunch of other things were just being thrown around while bench racing and having a few brews...
Figured it might make for a good debate on here, as a lot of people use this turbo because of it best "bang for the buck" status.
Oh...And just to make it more fun...
Lets throw in the other "cheap" b/w turbo.
The s475 (75/83 1.10 t4) into the mix.
We understand that it would work on all three engines.
We have access to all three (well the 5.7 would be made out of a scored 5.3 block and some ls1 rods/pistons we have laying around, so it was thrown into the choice as a "middle" ground.)
The debate centers around is one more optimal for that size turbine/compressor/ar ?
It's understood that the difference is most likely small but in theory one should be a better fit.
Some of the things that have been debated are...
Turbine lag on the 5.3 vs the others.
Compressor side running out of steam on the 6.0 at high boost levels.
Advantage of 5.3 at higher boost level.
Which one would be closer to the the "sweet spot" on the compressor map at max boost ?
This and a bunch of other things were just being thrown around while bench racing and having a few brews...
Figured it might make for a good debate on here, as a lot of people use this turbo because of it best "bang for the buck" status.
Oh...And just to make it more fun...
Lets throw in the other "cheap" b/w turbo.
The s475 (75/83 1.10 t4) into the mix.
Last edited by Torqueshaft; Dec 7, 2013 at 03:28 PM.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 728
Likes: 3
Boring out a 5.3 takes away the best part of it, the extremely thick cylinder walls, and names it bad for boost. 5.7 is pushing the limits of the max overbore for most 5.3s, especially boosted.
So once again, the real contenders are the 5.3 and 6.0. Either turbo is going to be 8 second capable on either engine, why complicate things to find out which one inches out the other? The 6.0 has access to rectangle port heads and will have more torque out of boost. That sounds like two good reasons to me.
Either motor with stock or small cams, stay with the smaller turbine. Cammed? Bigger turbine.
So once again, the real contenders are the 5.3 and 6.0. Either turbo is going to be 8 second capable on either engine, why complicate things to find out which one inches out the other? The 6.0 has access to rectangle port heads and will have more torque out of boost. That sounds like two good reasons to me.
Either motor with stock or small cams, stay with the smaller turbine. Cammed? Bigger turbine.
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 234
Likes: 1
HexenLord...
I think you are possibly missing the point of my post...
It was intended as more of a academic exercise to get the mind juices flowing.
I agree with you on the two reasons you gave for the 6.0. And you touched on one of the advantages of the 5.3... thicker cylinder walls.
To a degree I also agree with you on the "stock or small cams, stay with the smaller turbine. Cammed? Bigger turbine" theory.
Except on the 5.3...With the wrong valve events it's possible to make it lag more.
We will have to agree to disagree on the bored out 5.3 as I know someone with a forged rods/piston bored out iron 5.3 that has been been running as high as 26# boost and 1100+ rwp for the last 2 1/2 years without a hitch...Oh and it is his daily driver and runs it around 18# for the street.
I think you are possibly missing the point of my post...
It was intended as more of a academic exercise to get the mind juices flowing.
I agree with you on the two reasons you gave for the 6.0. And you touched on one of the advantages of the 5.3... thicker cylinder walls.
To a degree I also agree with you on the "stock or small cams, stay with the smaller turbine. Cammed? Bigger turbine" theory.
Except on the 5.3...With the wrong valve events it's possible to make it lag more.
We will have to agree to disagree on the bored out 5.3 as I know someone with a forged rods/piston bored out iron 5.3 that has been been running as high as 26# boost and 1100+ rwp for the last 2 1/2 years without a hitch...Oh and it is his daily driver and runs it around 18# for the street.
Trending Topics
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Topdon ONE vs. Artidiag 800 BT2: Which is the Diagnostic Tablet For You?
Pouria Savadkouei
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 234
Likes: 1
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-O...6_comp_map.jpg
I personally am thinking of doing a forged 5.3 with 12 to 13.0:1 compression with a 76R and 96mm turbine on E85.
I see several advantages of this
Sweet spot on the compressor wheel (75-76mm)
torque of a larger cube motor
Lower backpressure of a small cube motor
Thicker cylinder walls and shorter stroke of a 5.3
Higher Rpm engine
How much power do you gain per point of compression? I thought it was 4%??
If thats the case going from 9 to 13 to 1 is a 4 point increase which is roughly a 16% increase in power. That would make the 5.3 pretty close in power in terms of a 9 to 1 370 with all the advantages I mentioned.
I see several advantages of this
Sweet spot on the compressor wheel (75-76mm)
torque of a larger cube motor
Lower backpressure of a small cube motor
Thicker cylinder walls and shorter stroke of a 5.3
Higher Rpm engine
How much power do you gain per point of compression? I thought it was 4%??
If thats the case going from 9 to 13 to 1 is a 4 point increase which is roughly a 16% increase in power. That would make the 5.3 pretty close in power in terms of a 9 to 1 370 with all the advantages I mentioned.
Boring out a 5.3 takes away the best part of it, the extremely thick cylinder walls, and names it bad for boost. 5.7 is pushing the limits of the max overbore for most 5.3s, especially boosted.
So once again, the real contenders are the 5.3 and 6.0. Either turbo is going to be 8 second capable on either engine, why complicate things to find out which one inches out the other? The 6.0 has access to rectangle port heads and will have more torque out of boost. That sounds like two good reasons to me.
Either motor with stock or small cams, stay with the smaller turbine. Cammed? Bigger turbine.
So once again, the real contenders are the 5.3 and 6.0. Either turbo is going to be 8 second capable on either engine, why complicate things to find out which one inches out the other? The 6.0 has access to rectangle port heads and will have more torque out of boost. That sounds like two good reasons to me.
Either motor with stock or small cams, stay with the smaller turbine. Cammed? Bigger turbine.
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 234
Likes: 1
I personally am thinking of doing a forged 5.3 with 12 to 13.0:1 compression with a 76R and 96mm turbine on E85.
I see several advantages of this
Sweet spot on the compressor wheel (75-76mm)
torque of a larger cube motor
Lower backpressure of a small cube motor
Thicker cylinder walls and shorter stroke of a 5.3
Higher Rpm engine
How much power do you gain per point of compression? I thought it was 4%??
If thats the case going from 9 to 13 to 1 is a 4 point increase which is roughly a 16% increase in power. That would make the 5.3 pretty close in power in terms of a 9 to 1 370 with all the advantages I mentioned.
I see several advantages of this
Sweet spot on the compressor wheel (75-76mm)
torque of a larger cube motor
Lower backpressure of a small cube motor
Thicker cylinder walls and shorter stroke of a 5.3
Higher Rpm engine
How much power do you gain per point of compression? I thought it was 4%??
If thats the case going from 9 to 13 to 1 is a 4 point increase which is roughly a 16% increase in power. That would make the 5.3 pretty close in power in terms of a 9 to 1 370 with all the advantages I mentioned.
Second...A 5.3 has the same stroke as a 5.7,6.0 or 6.2. The only one with a shorter stroke is a 4.8.
Last edited by Torqueshaft; Dec 8, 2013 at 01:33 AM.
While I have run 12 compression on a blown alcohol (methanol) BBC, I don't think you have a chance of running that high of compression on e85 with any kind of boost or timing.
Second...A 5.3 has the same stroke as a 5.7,6.0 or 6.2. The only one with a shorter stroke is a 4.8.
Second...A 5.3 has the same stroke as a 5.7,6.0 or 6.2. The only one with a shorter stroke is a 4.8.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 728
Likes: 3
I've seen 13:1 on a turbocharged setup before with E85. The guy went to the extreme to keep IATs down and was spraying straight water instead of a water/meth mix. It worked, but he admitted it wasn't an ideal setup, as he had to keep the boost down at higher RPMs with his cam because he was seeing some signs of detonation.
I've never run this high. Most I've ran is 10.5:1 with E85 and didn't see any issues. I wasn't exactly pushing the envelope, either.
I've never run this high. Most I've ran is 10.5:1 with E85 and didn't see any issues. I wasn't exactly pushing the envelope, either.
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 234
Likes: 1
I'm impressed...
What type of intercooler is he running ? A2A or A2W...
Any idea on the timing at that boost ?
I am real familiar running with boost on methanol but have never had the chance to mess with e85 but would love too. (not available in my area)
I am going mostly by what I have read about other peoples experience/set ups.
What type of intercooler is he running ? A2A or A2W...
Any idea on the timing at that boost ?
I am real familiar running with boost on methanol but have never had the chance to mess with e85 but would love too. (not available in my area)
I am going mostly by what I have read about other peoples experience/set ups.
Thread Starter
Launching!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 234
Likes: 1
Yep...
Back in the day... Used to get 100/130 or 115/140 av gas depending on what engine/car I had.
Used to drive right up to the pump at the airport and pump it in...
Always loved the smell of it...Miss those days.
By the way...What is the octane rating of e85 ?
Back in the day... Used to get 100/130 or 115/140 av gas depending on what engine/car I had.
Used to drive right up to the pump at the airport and pump it in...
Always loved the smell of it...Miss those days.
By the way...What is the octane rating of e85 ?
