I was hoping you would tell me something I didn't know... Of course bigger displacement makes more power. I said that.
"Also, I agree that a bigger cube motor will be cheaper and make more power."

 

Without going in to deep here it looked like you were advocating a smaller engine at higher rpms so I was just stating the obvious in case it was missed by anyone.

Now if he was running in a class that restricted his cubes then it's a different story.

 

Most of us are NOT anti high RPM, we read a few vital stats he wrote that would imply that lower RPM is the preferred choice. Whenever the word street is greater than the word strip, I would be inclined to say spinning high rpm is not advisable.

It's not like you can just slap components together and spin 8k all day long. There are serious things to consider when building an engine to rev up to the upper rpm range and stay there. Components that can handle high rpm, such as a lightweight valvetrain, a good oiling system, a cam and air induction system that can support such rpm has to be carefully picked, assembled and tested. I just don't see a setup being streetable in the upper rpm all day long if you find yourself having to hang at 4k just to cruise around. Sounds badass, but wanting, needing and realizing something are different things.

 

Wow, to start I would like to say that I really wish people would stay away from calling people things like "Ignorant". Especially when they know NOTHING about the person. For one you dont know me at all, and two who the hell are you to pass judgement like that?

Anyways...

The 333 idea isnt about maximum hp. Its about standing up for a personal theory, more proving that the CI/HP ratio is possible in something that can be driven on the street. Now believe me, if I could use more cubes I would But as far as it goes I dont have a choice. Other than a completly custom crankshaft I cannot achieve a 1.92 rod ratio. I mean seriously, one step up in crank would mean I need to use 7" rods, and that just wouldnt fit...unless I went crazy (and had the cash to do so). I have thought it out. 4.8L Crank and Rods worked over, paired with a 6.0L block; but unfortunatly it would still need custom pistons and believe me I REALLY wish I could use the factory 6L pistons but oh well. All in all it comes out to 10k, in the car. According to my math. However that doesnt include supporting mods like any upgrades to the axle tranny and chassis.

Whew...

So what I have come up with is that I will need shaft mounted rockers and quite possibly a dry sump oil system. Anything else?

 

It seems to me that you're getting hung up on an idea of what's going to work and not letting reality get in the way. Yea, with enough bucks you can get a badass 333 to work really good. For 2/3 of the money you can buy an off the shelf crate motor and have 95% of your horsepower goals and 150% of the torque. The bigger engine will be a much better street motor, last longer and almost certainly get better fuel economy too. For everything you want in a street motor the crate will rule. In a race maybe not as much but you don't race a street motor all the time. My 2 cents. Now go build your 333.

 

^ +1. Build the largest engine you can afford and put the turbo on it. You can let theory dictate what you're going to build all you want. Don't be dissapointed when reality hits, you have a small fortune in this, and are making the same results as people who spent half the money just because you wanted to, "Stand up for a personal theory." Good luck with the build.

 

i cant believe how many people shot your idea down just because its different or not how they'd do it.. or how 99% of the rest of the LSx world does it.. unreal.

on top of that rather than answering questions about valvetrain.. since they dont know they just ridicule. whats the point in posting? if i listened to people tell me "you cant do that".. geeze...

 

But why?

Why spend more money to make less power just so you can say you rev it 800rpm higher?

A 408 with a turbo would **** all over a 333 with a turbo from idle to 7000

And be cheaper?
And be faster at the strip?
And drive better on the street?

Its ok to be different, its just dumb to be poorer and slower

 

sounds like he is out to prove a point and spend big money more than try to make big power and monster tq.

 

You got it man. And to be honest its not my theory...its Smokeys haha.

 

It's an old theory, and has been debated here at length. Most of the discussion on rod length and rod ratios seem to point out the flaws that have come up here.

1) To get the ratio you want, you are limited to a short stroke, and therefore limited on displacement.

2) Mathematically speaking, more RPM's does equal more power, supporting mods assumed, but generally at a greater cost per HP than other tried & proven combos

3) Since the goal seems to be primarily streetable power, most people have a problem spinning a V8 powered street car much over 6,500. Reliability becomes a concern.

Recommended reading - Jason @ Katech on High RPM's - an extreme example at 12,000 rpms, but you get the idea. Whole thread here

Another good read - relationship between rod ratio and port volume

I'm guessing you've already seen this one, but if not - What are the advantages/disadvantages of longer connecting rods?

 

You do realize Smokey's rod ratio writings were made 40 years ago back when the best Nascar heads flowed 250cfm, don't you? Besides that, people have been mislead by his poor wording ever since:


Erik said it best here:

 

So what you want to prove is a much smaller motor (with a much higher rod/stroke ratio) that needs to turn very high RPM is better than a larger motor with a more conventional redline (6800-7000) all else being equal (turbo, heads, induction, exhaust, etc.)....in what sounds to be primarily a street or street/strip application

A 402 or better yet a 416 (cheap displacement) would be considerably stronger than a 333 CID build evaluating AVERAGE high RPM power (the portion of your tach you would use at WOT banging gears), and if we were to look at the bottom of the curve it would be a ridiculous comparison even more lopsided.

You think better rod ratio can make up for 80-100 CID?? Its just not a wise allocation of funds IMO but Im all about pulling out the and sitting back to watch this deal go down.

Build a bigger motor with the same turbo and have a more reliable piece thats enormously more fund to drive around town with an extra 100 plus foot/lbs at your discretion. The money you save in high RPM specific parts can pay for other go fast goodies or driveline upgrades as well.

Small high winding engines are purpose built and better suited in specific racing applications with deep pockets to back the project.

Just my .02 to add to all the others here as well who have shared similar opinion.

Tony

PS....Whats funny is I swore it was Smokey Yunick who almost said just the opposite....something along the lines of the right connecting rod is the one that fits beteen the crank and the piston....LOL Im serious btw and I may be completely off base here but I would like to see some quotes from Smokey on that topic. I dont think he was obsessed with a long rod but I could be wrong. Personally I will take displacement all day long over rod ratio if we are building engines for 3500+ pound street/strip cars. As long as the rod ratio is reasonable (1.5 ish or better), I will take the displacement every day and twice on Sunday In fact the 447 Im about to build will have a "horrific" rod ratio of 1.48 and I bet this combo makes excellent power and huge torque from off idle to its planned 7000 RPM shift point. If I added a turbo to the mix I dont have enough chassis or car to hook the type of power it would be capable of.

 

Might want to pay attention to Mr. Mamo on this one...

 

Well Tony im not hung up on having fewer cubes. Even though this engine is only 5% smaller than an LS1. But I was more hoping to prove that a 1.92 Rod Ratio is good to have. My problem is I cant find anyone that makes 7" rods to use with a 3.62" crank to achieve a similar ratio. If I could I would.

Also this engine isn't for so much street as the drive to the strip. The car isnt going to be driven very much.

 

The thing you're missing is everyone is telling you this is pointless and you don't want to listen. That includes Tony Mamo cylinder head designer at Airflow Research Cylinder Heads. Erik Koenig owner of HK Enterprises an engine building shop and instructor at the School of Automotive Machinists. Perhaps that's because they're trying to do so nicely.

I'm not so kind. What you're trying to do under these circumstances is pointless. You're trying to prove a theory from the 60s that has been beaten to death and proved flawed. You already have your answer of what would it take to for an LSx engine to survive over 7000rpms. Let this thread die along with your horrific idea.