Lq9 twin turbo build for 77 TA
04-28-2018, 03:15 PM
#42
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OH
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-28-2018, 03:19 PM
#43
I guess it depends where you live if e85 is easily accessible. You could set up a flex fuel sensor with the ego. and switch if you needed to. Just don't go into boost. I do that with my C5. A properly sizes turbo wouldn't be much of restriction. Even 8lbs of boost on a high compression 462 cid would be fun!
Again I would contact Butler. Worst case scenario its a wasted phone call. They have experience with this. I'm just giving my opinion on an Internet forum
Again I would contact Butler. Worst case scenario its a wasted phone call. They have experience with this. I'm just giving my opinion on an Internet forum
04-28-2018, 03:22 PM
#44
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OH
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it depends where you live if e85 is easily accessible. You could set up a flex fuel sensor with the ego. and switch if you needed to. Just don't go into boost. I do that with my C5. A properly sizes turbo wouldn't be much of restriction. Even 8lbs of boost on a high compression 462 cid would be fun!
Again I would contact Butler. Worst case scenario its a wasted phone call. They have experience with this. I'm just giving my opinion on an Internet forum
Again I would contact Butler. Worst case scenario its a wasted phone call. They have experience with this. I'm just giving my opinion on an Internet forum
04-28-2018, 03:27 PM
#45
Sorry, 1 more thought. If you are running the high compression heads email combustion chamber heads switch to a 455 HO head which would significantly drop your compression to run 93. And then sell your current heads .
04-29-2018, 11:49 AM
#46
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OH
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any opinions on turbo'ing a 383 stroker? Seems like it's easy to squeeze big numbers out of them as NA, and I see some forged rotating assemblies on Craigslist right now that I might be able to take advantage of. 3.75" stroke. The heads' combustion chambers would have to be made larger to lower the compression, and id also be effectively lowering my max RPM rate too though, right?
04-30-2018, 08:29 AM
#47
I have a couple observations on your projected build. First off, i think you will have a very difficult time making 1000rwhp on pump gas with 325 cid . You are pretty accurate on the concept of boost effectively increasing the HP of your engine, ie about 15 lbs doubling you output, EXCEPT you need to deduct hp for the power lost through exhaust back pressure .
i have no idea what your talking about with different sized turboes in a dual setup. The only way ive ever seen that done is COMPOUNDING where a smaller turbo feeds a large turbo to help produce extreme amounts of boost, most used in the diesel world because gas engines dont normally shoot for 100 psi !!
Cylinder heads are important in turbo power production. Boost is just restriction in the intake/exhaust system. The more free flowing an engine is the less boost you need to make power, and likewise, the more power you can expect with the same boost number as the more restrictive engine.
Have you ever driven a car with an honest 750-800 RWHP ( 900-1000 FWHP ) ? On the street, thats massive power ! Feels like the car is trying to kill you at any chance you give it .
its usually not an easy cookie cutter kind of deal when you turbo a street car. There is a long , drawn out tweak and tune time and running one at the ragged edge will lead to engine disaster if anything goes sideways just a little bit on the tune or set up. Just about everyone on this forum has the pics and the tee shirt .
if you REALLY want 1000 rwhp 93 octane ONLY fueled , DAILEY DRIVABLE STREET CAR, expect to spend alot more than 10k and look for more cid than 325. .
It you want to consider other fueling methods , you can push the envelope further . Water/meth helps and will allow a more aggresive tune safely. E85 works really well to allow a more aggresive street turbo setup. Most tuners wont push past 14-15 psi MAX on 93 pump gas. Use your double power for double atmosphere guideline and deduct 5% for pumping losses. You need to make an honest 650 fwhp NA to have a chance to make 1000 wheel on pump premium. It takes a high strung 325-364 cid engine to make that happen ( read expensive) OR more CID , a lot more .
none of what i said is ment to deter you from building you turbo TA. Just a reality check. 1000 rwhp gets thrown around alot on the web, but to get there with a PUMPGAS STREETCAR takes a very serious bullet !
i have no idea what your talking about with different sized turboes in a dual setup. The only way ive ever seen that done is COMPOUNDING where a smaller turbo feeds a large turbo to help produce extreme amounts of boost, most used in the diesel world because gas engines dont normally shoot for 100 psi !!
Cylinder heads are important in turbo power production. Boost is just restriction in the intake/exhaust system. The more free flowing an engine is the less boost you need to make power, and likewise, the more power you can expect with the same boost number as the more restrictive engine.
Have you ever driven a car with an honest 750-800 RWHP ( 900-1000 FWHP ) ? On the street, thats massive power ! Feels like the car is trying to kill you at any chance you give it .
its usually not an easy cookie cutter kind of deal when you turbo a street car. There is a long , drawn out tweak and tune time and running one at the ragged edge will lead to engine disaster if anything goes sideways just a little bit on the tune or set up. Just about everyone on this forum has the pics and the tee shirt .
if you REALLY want 1000 rwhp 93 octane ONLY fueled , DAILEY DRIVABLE STREET CAR, expect to spend alot more than 10k and look for more cid than 325. .
It you want to consider other fueling methods , you can push the envelope further . Water/meth helps and will allow a more aggresive tune safely. E85 works really well to allow a more aggresive street turbo setup. Most tuners wont push past 14-15 psi MAX on 93 pump gas. Use your double power for double atmosphere guideline and deduct 5% for pumping losses. You need to make an honest 650 fwhp NA to have a chance to make 1000 wheel on pump premium. It takes a high strung 325-364 cid engine to make that happen ( read expensive) OR more CID , a lot more .
none of what i said is ment to deter you from building you turbo TA. Just a reality check. 1000 rwhp gets thrown around alot on the web, but to get there with a PUMPGAS STREETCAR takes a very serious bullet !
04-30-2018, 09:09 AM
#48
For what its worth, i would go with a 6.2 block for the better breathing bore size. Throw a 4" crank in it for 416 cid. Now you in the ballpark to make 650 fwhp and still have something you can actually drive around . Your still looking at 1.5-1.6 hp per cid, so you have to build it pretty stout to get the number and still keep the compression around 9 to 1. Thats pretty well accepted as a good PUMPGAS ONLY turbo engine comp . You will also need a BIG turbine on the turbo to avoid choking it down before you get enough rpms to make the number.
the borg 96x88 turbine would be the minimum. Another plus to the 416 would have stout power when out of boost, so it will feel good just cruising around.
the borg 96x88 turbine would be the minimum. Another plus to the 416 would have stout power when out of boost, so it will feel good just cruising around.
04-30-2018, 09:32 AM
#49
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OH
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a couple observations on your projected build. First off, i think you will have a very difficult time making 1000rwhp on pump gas with 325 cid . You are pretty accurate on the concept of boost effectively increasing the HP of your engine, ie about 15 lbs doubling you output, EXCEPT you need to deduct hp for the power lost through exhaust back pressure .
i have no idea what your talking about with different sized turboes in a dual setup. The only way ive ever seen that done is COMPOUNDING where a smaller turbo feeds a large turbo to help produce extreme amounts of boost, most used in the diesel world because gas engines dont normally shoot for 100 psi !!
Cylinder heads are important in turbo power production. Boost is just restriction in the intake/exhaust system. The more free flowing an engine is the less boost you need to make power, and likewise, the more power you can expect with the same boost number as the more restrictive engine.
Have you ever driven a car with an honest 750-800 RWHP ( 900-1000 FWHP ) ? On the street, thats massive power ! Feels like the car is trying to kill you at any chance you give it .
its usually not an easy cookie cutter kind of deal when you turbo a street car. There is a long , drawn out tweak and tune time and running one at the ragged edge will lead to engine disaster if anything goes sideways just a little bit on the tune or set up. Just about everyone on this forum has the pics and the tee shirt .
if you REALLY want 1000 rwhp 93 octane ONLY fueled , DAILEY DRIVABLE STREET CAR, expect to spend alot more than 10k and look for more cid than 325. .
It you want to consider other fueling methods , you can push the envelope further . Water/meth helps and will allow a more aggresive tune safely. E85 works really well to allow a more aggresive street turbo setup. Most tuners wont push past 14-15 psi MAX on 93 pump gas. Use your double power for double atmosphere guideline and deduct 5% for pumping losses. You need to make an honest 650 fwhp NA to have a chance to make 1000 wheel on pump premium. It takes a high strung 325-364 cid engine to make that happen ( read expensive) OR more CID , a lot more .
none of what i said is ment to deter you from building you turbo TA. Just a reality check. 1000 rwhp gets thrown around alot on the web, but to get there with a PUMPGAS STREETCAR takes a very serious bullet !
i have no idea what your talking about with different sized turboes in a dual setup. The only way ive ever seen that done is COMPOUNDING where a smaller turbo feeds a large turbo to help produce extreme amounts of boost, most used in the diesel world because gas engines dont normally shoot for 100 psi !!
Cylinder heads are important in turbo power production. Boost is just restriction in the intake/exhaust system. The more free flowing an engine is the less boost you need to make power, and likewise, the more power you can expect with the same boost number as the more restrictive engine.
Have you ever driven a car with an honest 750-800 RWHP ( 900-1000 FWHP ) ? On the street, thats massive power ! Feels like the car is trying to kill you at any chance you give it .
its usually not an easy cookie cutter kind of deal when you turbo a street car. There is a long , drawn out tweak and tune time and running one at the ragged edge will lead to engine disaster if anything goes sideways just a little bit on the tune or set up. Just about everyone on this forum has the pics and the tee shirt .
if you REALLY want 1000 rwhp 93 octane ONLY fueled , DAILEY DRIVABLE STREET CAR, expect to spend alot more than 10k and look for more cid than 325. .
It you want to consider other fueling methods , you can push the envelope further . Water/meth helps and will allow a more aggresive tune safely. E85 works really well to allow a more aggresive street turbo setup. Most tuners wont push past 14-15 psi MAX on 93 pump gas. Use your double power for double atmosphere guideline and deduct 5% for pumping losses. You need to make an honest 650 fwhp NA to have a chance to make 1000 wheel on pump premium. It takes a high strung 325-364 cid engine to make that happen ( read expensive) OR more CID , a lot more .
none of what i said is ment to deter you from building you turbo TA. Just a reality check. 1000 rwhp gets thrown around alot on the web, but to get there with a PUMPGAS STREETCAR takes a very serious bullet !
Excellent post. Thanks. I appreciate any and all reality checks. This thread is serving as a way for me to get a parts list down so I can get an estimated cost together. I NEED to be realistic here to decide if I wanna fork out this cash, and if I can even do it for the amount I am willing to spend.
Your guess of 650HP NA engine to get 1000 to the ground is right where I was, and actually I had even figured I'd actually need a 700HP NA engine to even get 900HP to the ground on a bit safer 12psi.
A 700HP NA engine is getting pretty expensive and tough to do. I think a couple posts in I mentioned being fine with somewhere in the range of 800-1000.
No, I haven't driven a 800 rwhp car. 400max, and I want more. That's why I'm here
. I know it's a big jump and to be cost effective and realistic im ok with 800rwhp, but nothing less!The problem with alternative fuels is their lack of availability in my area. I live in a rural area. The gas station right down the road used to have "gasohol" but that pump is now regular gas. I asked yesterday why that was, and they said because they didn't sell enough of it. If I had E85 readily available I wouldn't care to use it.
It's sounds like you'd lean more towards a 6.0 to get where I want to be .There are several in my area for $1000-$1800. That seems to be the going rate. I did like the light aluminum 5.3 block, but if the 6.0 will be less expensive in the long run maybe that's what I have to do .Needless to say I have a lot of research left to do to decide on 5.3 or 6.0. at this point I would consider my mind made up on the 5.3.
You mention the heads and airflow. Are the trick flow gen x 205s for the 5.3 or 255 for the 6.0 a must in your opinion? Thus ffsr everyone in the thread has mainly indicated that stock heads are fine .
What did the 6.2 come in? Isn't that a Vette, Camaro, and g8 engine? That's probably a lot higher up front investment. What about stroking a 6.0 instead for a 408?
04-30-2018, 12:00 PM
#50
You can run stock heads and crank the boost up to the moon and make power, but if you ask on here, not a single person is making big power on pump gas only. Its just a simple fact that more head flow = more power, and in a boosted setup the payoff is multipled by the boost. More head flow = less restriction (if the rest of the supporting cast is up to par ) and less restriction = lower boost FOR THE SAME FLOW. The more NA power you can make the more power in boost you make.
the 6.2 came in trucks, vettes, g8 ( the last few HP versions ) and the 5th gen camaro. If you gonna stroke it, all you need is the block. Still kinda pricey compared to 6.0 and 5.3 stuff, but all 6.2s are aluminum, so weight savings is a bonus.
TF 235s would be amazing on the 6.2. Stock ls3 heads would do a great job too and save almost 2 grand off the TFs, if you shop around.
the 6.2 came in trucks, vettes, g8 ( the last few HP versions ) and the 5th gen camaro. If you gonna stroke it, all you need is the block. Still kinda pricey compared to 6.0 and 5.3 stuff, but all 6.2s are aluminum, so weight savings is a bonus.
TF 235s would be amazing on the 6.2. Stock ls3 heads would do a great job too and save almost 2 grand off the TFs, if you shop around.
04-30-2018, 12:16 PM
#51
Lot of 408s doing great work on here. Just like the 416, you gotta be careful not to choke it down with the turbine. Less back pressure from a big turbine = less heat. Less heat is extra important for your pump gas goals. By the way, water/meth is easy to come by. Windshield washer fluid is what most use. Snows boost juice is about 45 bucks a case (4 gallons) and last for a long time if you arent daily screaming the engine.
04-30-2018, 12:42 PM
#52
Restricted User
If you're fine giving up the aluminum block and going iron because of budget issues (expect to pay $3k+ for a complete aluminum 6.0/6.2), I'd get a 6.0 block, stock LS3 heads/intake. No need to get fancy.
04-30-2018, 02:03 PM
#53
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OH
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ls3 used l92 heads right? I just need to know what to look for. They have a 64cc combustion chamber and 2.165" intake valves and 1.59" exhaust it looks like from a quick Google search. Probably just go the 6.0. It's been there and the 5.3. I do see some aluminum escalade 6.2s for $2600
04-30-2018, 02:19 PM
#54
The L92 for 2600 would be great . But like Joe said ls3 heads, intake, and iron 6.0 is a great combo. Oh, and the l92/ls3 heads have 69-70cc chambers.
if you want the weight savings, it would be worth it, imo. I like the bore of the 6.2
makes any head breath better. Ive heard you can bore some 6.0 iron blocks to 4.065, so thats a tbought too.
from one of your earlier questions, the 4th gen f body oil pan works great on the second gen. Im running one on the LS3 in my 72 camaro. Sits flush with the engine crossmember. Tucks in really good.
if you want the weight savings, it would be worth it, imo. I like the bore of the 6.2
makes any head breath better. Ive heard you can bore some 6.0 iron blocks to 4.065, so thats a tbought too.
from one of your earlier questions, the 4th gen f body oil pan works great on the second gen. Im running one on the LS3 in my 72 camaro. Sits flush with the engine crossmember. Tucks in really good.
04-30-2018, 05:02 PM
#55
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OH
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The L92 for 2600 would be great . But like Joe said ls3 heads, intake, and iron 6.0 is a great combo. Oh, and the l92/ls3 heads have 69-70cc chambers.
if you want the weight savings, it would be worth it, imo. I like the bore of the 6.2
makes any head breath better. Ive heard you can bore some 6.0 iron blocks to 4.065, so thats a tbought too.
from one of your earlier questions, the 4th gen f body oil pan works great on the second gen. Im running one on the LS3 in my 72 camaro. Sits flush with the engine crossmember. Tucks in really good.
if you want the weight savings, it would be worth it, imo. I like the bore of the 6.2
makes any head breath better. Ive heard you can bore some 6.0 iron blocks to 4.065, so thats a tbought too.
from one of your earlier questions, the 4th gen f body oil pan works great on the second gen. Im running one on the LS3 in my 72 camaro. Sits flush with the engine crossmember. Tucks in really good.
Further inspection of the ad shows that the engine has piston slap. Not sure if that matters if I'm changing the rods and pistons. Could the crank be damaged?
Which particular 6.0 is a boring candidate? Aren't they all the same? Looks like there are a lot of 6.2s on the LS wiki I'm looking at. Any favorites that balance cost and performance? They All have different power numbers. I'm guessing that's all coming from different heads?
04-30-2018, 08:56 PM
#56
Heads, cam, compression, boost.... GM has put the 6.2 in a bunch of different apps. All the heads are similar . The L92 are the truck head. Designed for low rpm, they have heavy valves and require soft lobe designs and good springs. The LS3 uses the exact same head casting, but with hollow stem intake valves. They like to rev ! The Lsa is the mild SC engine in the 5th gen ZL1 and CTSV . They have good valves , better castings than the L92 and LS3, but smaller combustion chambers (66cc) . GM uses deep dished piston with the small chamber in the LSA to get 9 to 1 comp for the SC. The LS9 is the big dawg of the 6.2s (638 hp stock). Same basic setup as the LSA, but with titanium valves, forged pistons, titanium rods, bigger SC, more boost. There is another truck 6.2 that came after the L92 , but i dont know much about that one. I THINK its basically like the L92, but with more DOD type tricks for better fuel mileage.
piston slap means nothing if your gonna change the whole rotator, or even just the pistons and rods. GM had some teething pains with some of there earlier piston designs and could have cold start piston slap. Doesnt seem to affect durability and goes away when the engine warms up. LS1s were bad about it. I guess the L92s were too. Later piston designs with skirt coating dont has the cold start noise.
piston slap means nothing if your gonna change the whole rotator, or even just the pistons and rods. GM had some teething pains with some of there earlier piston designs and could have cold start piston slap. Doesnt seem to affect durability and goes away when the engine warms up. LS1s were bad about it. I guess the L92s were too. Later piston designs with skirt coating dont has the cold start noise.
04-30-2018, 09:41 PM
#57
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OH
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heads, cam, compression, boost.... GM has put the 6.2 in a bunch of different apps. All the heads are similar . The L92 are the truck head. Designed for low rpm, they have heavy valves and require soft lobe designs and good springs. The LS3 uses the exact same head casting, but with hollow stem intake valves. They like to rev ! The Lsa is the mild SC engine in the 5th gen ZL1 and CTSV . They have good valves , better castings than the L92 and LS3, but smaller combustion chambers (66cc) . GM uses deep dished piston with the small chamber in the LSA to get 9 to 1 comp for the SC. The LS9 is the big dawg of the 6.2s (638 hp stock). Same basic setup as the LSA, but with titanium valves, forged pistons, titanium rods, bigger SC, more boost. There is another truck 6.2 that came after the L92 , but i dont know much about that one. I THINK its basically like the L92, but with more DOD type tricks for better fuel mileage.
piston slap means nothing if your gonna change the whole rotator, or even just the pistons and rods. GM had some teething pains with some of there earlier piston designs and could have cold start piston slap. Doesnt seem to affect durability and goes away when the engine warms up. LS1s were bad about it. I guess the L92s were too. Later piston designs with skirt coating dont has the cold start noise.
piston slap means nothing if your gonna change the whole rotator, or even just the pistons and rods. GM had some teething pains with some of there earlier piston designs and could have cold start piston slap. Doesnt seem to affect durability and goes away when the engine warms up. LS1s were bad about it. I guess the L92s were too. Later piston designs with skirt coating dont has the cold start noise.
It's more of an up front investment, but 100-120lbs on weight savings is probably worth it.
05-01-2018, 02:19 AM
#58
Your always money ahead buying a complete engine with all the sensors, harness, computer.....but 2600 bucks for an aluminum 4.065 bore block and a set of square port heads is a pretty good deal. If things go sideways, a 90k sbe 376 long block can be used to make a really nice street engine with a safe tune and an s480 - 96x88 turbo. Not saying you would cheap out and do a low buck build but its nice to know you have the option to make a solid 700 rwhp street setup with a cam swap , home built turbo piping, and a 1200.00 turbo. That engine can easily make 500+ fwhp with just a mild cam upgrade. Do the math.....700 rwhp is doable on a low boost, pumpgas tune. Good heads and cubic inches make easy , safe , crazy rwhp almost too easy !
05-01-2018, 06:20 AM
#59
Staging Lane
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: OH
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your always money ahead buying a complete engine with all the sensors, harness, computer.....but 2600 bucks for an aluminum 4.065 bore block and a set of square port heads is a pretty good deal. If things go sideways, a 90k sbe 376 long block can be used to make a really nice street engine with a safe tune and an s480 - 96x88 turbo. Not saying you would cheap out and do a low buck build but its nice to know you have the option to make a solid 700 rwhp street setup with a cam swap , home built turbo piping, and a 1200.00 turbo. That engine can easily make 500+ fwhp with just a mild cam upgrade. Do the math.....700 rwhp is doable on a low boost, pumpgas tune. Good heads and cubic inches make easy , safe , crazy rwhp almost too easy !
As is usually the case, plans look like they're changing. An aluminum block sounds good. A 6.2 block sounds good. An aluminum 6.2 block sounds even better. There are multiple l9h truck engines on eBay for </= $3000 SHIPPED right now and they all have <110,000 miles.
There are a lot of l76 (aluminum 6.0) engines on there for about $3500 shipped with the same amount of miles.
I'm tempted to buy one of the aluminum 6.2s right now . They have warranties though, and I'm a year at best (probably more) off from even thinking about doing this. What would the L9H require as far as work to it to make it a 1000+HP FTLBS beast? Springs, valves, rockers, injectors, at home head porting, cam, and intake? if I'm better off just getting new heads I'll do it . I don't wanna cheap out (although I am trying to be budget conscious) and end up way short of my goal and have to redo stuff.
05-01-2018, 07:23 AM
#60
Restricted User
The heads already flow 320 CFM, and flow is far less important with boost. Even with less flowing cathedral heads have been well over your goal.
Replace the truck intake with an LS3 intake. They're cheap. $350 or so for a complete one.
Use the stock rockers. You can get a trunion upgrade if your cam is .620 lift or more. I always keep my cams under .600 lift and have NEVER used anything other than a stock rocker.
The #1 problem with these builds is that people complicate them. They start thinking they need the bigger engine, to replace every last part, this and that, and then it gets parted out.
Replace the truck intake with an LS3 intake. They're cheap. $350 or so for a complete one.
Use the stock rockers. You can get a trunion upgrade if your cam is .620 lift or more. I always keep my cams under .600 lift and have NEVER used anything other than a stock rocker.
The #1 problem with these builds is that people complicate them. They start thinking they need the bigger engine, to replace every last part, this and that, and then it gets parted out.