What will I need to do to break 7k?
11-10-2008, 12:53 PM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What will I need to do to break 7k? Hey everybody. Im getting ready to pick up a 4th Gen of my very own soon. And im looking at building a new engine to stick in which will cube out at 333ci. So as far as header size, and intake capability im not detered. However, I am a complete LSx noob. I have zero idea as to the requirements needed to assure reliable operation in the LSx past 7k (7800 goal). What kind of gear will I need to be using in the valvetrain? Or is a high winded LSx out of the question?
Any input is greatly appreciated.
Any input is greatly appreciated.
11-10-2008, 01:07 PM
#2
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 3,776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey everybody. Im getting ready to pick up a 4th Gen of my very own soon. And im looking at building a new engine to stick in which will cube out at 333ci. So as far as header size, and intake capability im not detered. However, I am a complete LSx noob. I have zero idea as to the requirements needed to assure reliable operation in the LSx past 7k (7800 goal). What kind of gear will I need to be using in the valvetrain? Or is a high winded LSx out of the question?
Any input is greatly appreciated.
Any input is greatly appreciated.
11-12-2008, 02:02 PM
#5
definately need a light valvetrain, solid lifter and most likely a dry sump setup. i think you could get by with a super victor intake, i don't know that you'd NEED a custom sheetmetal setup. stock crank should work fine, but you'd definately need aftermarket rods and pistons.
Last edited by s346k; 11-12-2008 at 02:36 PM.
11-12-2008, 02:09 PM
#6
Saying you want to spin up to 7800 rpm is pointless on a car that sees more street than strip, its just for bragging rights (almost sounds like a ricer concept 
)
The trick is to maximize the area under the curve. you say you want to run mostly street? I can't picture a cam that will allow power to the 7k range and still let you drive on street without alerting the whole state you are heavily cammed.
I'd start with how you want to run your car, then let the cam gurus on here point you in a direction that fits how you drive the car, rather than an idea that revving high sounds cool.
)The trick is to maximize the area under the curve. you say you want to run mostly street? I can't picture a cam that will allow power to the 7k range and still let you drive on street without alerting the whole state you are heavily cammed.
I'd start with how you want to run your car, then let the cam gurus on here point you in a direction that fits how you drive the car, rather than an idea that revving high sounds cool.
Trending Topics
11-12-2008, 03:18 PM
#8
TECH Fanatic
Saying you want to spin up to 7800 rpm is pointless on a car that sees more street than strip, its just for bragging rights (almost sounds like a ricer concept )
The trick is to maximize the area under the curve. you say you want to run mostly street? I can't picture a cam that will allow power to the 7k range and still let you drive on street without alerting the whole state you are heavily cammed.
I'd start with how you want to run your car, then let the cam gurus on here point you in a direction that fits how you drive the car, rather than an idea that revving high sounds cool.
)The trick is to maximize the area under the curve. you say you want to run mostly street? I can't picture a cam that will allow power to the 7k range and still let you drive on street without alerting the whole state you are heavily cammed.
I'd start with how you want to run your car, then let the cam gurus on here point you in a direction that fits how you drive the car, rather than an idea that revving high sounds cool.
. But I believe that was in the 4xx cubes. And a drivetrain that was designed for that high of RPM. 
11-12-2008, 05:11 PM
#11
Where did 333 ci come from? How do you plan on putting that together and why?
It's all about what you want. Having a ton of torque down low is almost pointless. There's only so much you can really hook on the streets. High RPM power is almost like traction control. I'll be spinning my 408, dry sump, solid roller engine as high as it wants to keep making power and I'm sure that will be over 8000rpms. I don't see that as pointless.
I do agree with you though on everything else. A mild street combo that will make power under 7k is more desirable for drivability and wear issues. Not everyone wants to run a gianormous cam and spin the hell out of their engines. Most people that want to probably don't know what is truely involved in doing so.
Saying you want to spin up to 7800 rpm is pointless on a car that sees more street than strip, its just for bragging rights (almost sounds like a ricer concept )
The trick is to maximize the area under the curve. you say you want to run mostly street? I can't picture a cam that will allow power to the 7k range and still let you drive on street without alerting the whole state you are heavily cammed.
I'd start with how you want to run your car, then let the cam gurus on here point you in a direction that fits how you drive the car, rather than an idea that revving high sounds cool.
)The trick is to maximize the area under the curve. you say you want to run mostly street? I can't picture a cam that will allow power to the 7k range and still let you drive on street without alerting the whole state you are heavily cammed.
I'd start with how you want to run your car, then let the cam gurus on here point you in a direction that fits how you drive the car, rather than an idea that revving high sounds cool.
I do agree with you though on everything else. A mild street combo that will make power under 7k is more desirable for drivability and wear issues. Not everyone wants to run a gianormous cam and spin the hell out of their engines. Most people that want to probably don't know what is truely involved in doing so.
11-12-2008, 07:08 PM
#12
Its a lot better to increase the cubic inches and have the power come in a more usable form, than spin it to the moon. First you need to set a budget.. a line in the sand of how much you have to spend on the whole project. Or if your doing it in stages then set a budget for each component. What power level are you looking for? Then we can talk about engine choices.
11-12-2008, 07:47 PM
#14
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haha ricer concept...thats cute. No the engine idea came up by trying to build an engine with the best dwell off of the piston (for good reason, read on). And the parts I wanted to use were a worked set of the rods and crank out of a 4.8L in a 6.0 block. It will need custom pistons which sucks, but whatever.
333 came out like this - 4.03 x 3.27.
Now the reason for wanting so much rpm is because I do want the engine to produce power, a smaller engine at lower speeds is probably worth nothing. I mean haha seriously that little engine at 3k-4.5k isnt going to be a stump puller. And as far as I could figure being just under 8 grand is about the limit of a SEMI budget consious pushrod engine. <--- why im asking yalls.
Lastly this setup is for turbo. Which is why I wanted so much dwell.
Also from what I (think) I know fewer cubes will mean that less cam can go further. As well as everything else; so bringing a 333 up to the bottom of 8k shouldnt be too unbelievable. Especially with the kind of heads the LS series has available. Haha like the CNCd L92 heads flowing 350 CFM!
So with that, any of you camshaft gurus have any ideas about how to take advantage of a 1.92 rod ratio in a high rpm turbo engine? haha
And the FAST 92/92 or even a ported 90/90 should be enough to feed the holes especially under moderate boost right? I wasnt expecting to need a sheetmetal intake.
333 came out like this - 4.03 x 3.27.
Now the reason for wanting so much rpm is because I do want the engine to produce power, a smaller engine at lower speeds is probably worth nothing. I mean haha seriously that little engine at 3k-4.5k isnt going to be a stump puller. And as far as I could figure being just under 8 grand is about the limit of a SEMI budget consious pushrod engine. <--- why im asking yalls.
Lastly this setup is for turbo. Which is why I wanted so much dwell.
Also from what I (think
) I know fewer cubes will mean that less cam can go further. As well as everything else; so bringing a 333 up to the bottom of 8k shouldnt be too unbelievable. Especially with the kind of heads the LS series has available. Haha like the CNCd L92 heads flowing 350 CFM! So with that, any of you camshaft gurus have any ideas about how to take advantage of a 1.92 rod ratio in a high rpm turbo engine? haha
And the FAST 92/92 or even a ported 90/90 should be enough to feed the holes especially under moderate boost right? I wasnt expecting to need a sheetmetal intake.
11-12-2008, 08:49 PM
#16
Teching In
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the higher the rpm the more power you will make (supporting parts assumed). The fastest N/A cars out there make their power way up high for a reason. Schroeder, don't let these anti-rpm fools get u down, they just don't know. They need to do their research on how many rpm pro stock guys, nascar, F1, etc run in their cars. There is a reason. More effective rpm = more explosions per turn of the tire = more POWER
11-12-2008, 08:51 PM
#17
Even with that short of a crank you're not going to get away with that sort of oiling system long. You'd want at the bare minimum an accusump and a canton oil pan.
The main point everyone is trying to pass to you is don't get caught building a specific cubic inch combination unless you are restricted by race class rules. More cubic inches will always make more power. You could build a 370 for less money, have more cubes, and spend the money you saved on better valve train components.
I completely agree with 99blancoSS also. You've got to set a budget for yourself. Once you step over 7k everything starts getting expensive really quickly. You can get there with a hydraulic cam, but you're still going to be spending big money on valve springs. That's where the cubic inch trade off comes into place. In limiting yourself to 7k RPMs you could build something with more cubes for the same price that will probably make more power.
EDIT:
Good observation captain obvious. The thing is he said he's doing this on a budget so perhaps you should bow down before the, "anti-rpm fool's" reading comprehension. It goes beyond just putting parts together. At that level you're spending huge money on valvetrain components and an oiling system that will take the RPMs. This is coming directly from someone who is building a high RPM engine.
The main point everyone is trying to pass to you is don't get caught building a specific cubic inch combination unless you are restricted by race class rules. More cubic inches will always make more power. You could build a 370 for less money, have more cubes, and spend the money you saved on better valve train components.
I completely agree with 99blancoSS also. You've got to set a budget for yourself. Once you step over 7k everything starts getting expensive really quickly. You can get there with a hydraulic cam, but you're still going to be spending big money on valve springs. That's where the cubic inch trade off comes into place. In limiting yourself to 7k RPMs you could build something with more cubes for the same price that will probably make more power.
EDIT:
the higher the rpm the more power you will make (supporting parts assumed). The fastest N/A cars out there make their power way up high for a reason. Schroeder, don't let these anti-rpm fools get u down, they just don't know. They need to do their research on how many rpm pro stock guys, nascar, F1, etc run in their cars. There is a reason. More effective rpm = more explosions per turn of the tire = more POWER
11-12-2008, 09:10 PM
#18
And the parts I wanted to use were a worked set of the rods and crank out of a 4.8L in a 6.0 block.
Especially with the kind of heads the LS series has available. Haha like the CNCd L92 heads flowing 350 CFM!
And the FAST 92/92 or even a ported 90/90 should be enough to feed the holes especially under moderate boost right? I wasnt expecting to need a sheetmetal intake.
Especially with the kind of heads the LS series has available. Haha like the CNCd L92 heads flowing 350 CFM!
And the FAST 92/92 or even a ported 90/90 should be enough to feed the holes especially under moderate boost right? I wasnt expecting to need a sheetmetal intake.
2) just fyi, the L92 heads will only work on a 4" bore and larger. you'll most likely need a set of custom etp heads or something to accomodate an engine of such description
3) i can't see a crossover style intake of any making supporting 7,800 rpm.
if you're serious about a build of this caliber i recommend you simply give a blank check to the sponsor of your choice. there are so many places to royally **** this up it's unbelievable. the questions you're asking show your ignorance to the concept, i really hope you don't think you can touch a 333cid, 7800 rpm turbo LSX motor for less than $15,000 and countless hours of research, trial and error, and tuning.
11-12-2008, 09:19 PM
#19
Teching In
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Atlantic City, NJ
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even with that short of a crank you're not going to get away with that sort of oiling system long. You'd want at the bare minimum an accusump and a canton oil pan.
The main point everyone is trying to pass to you is don't get caught building a specific cubic inch combination unless you are restricted by race class rules. More cubic inches will always make more power. You could build a 370 for less money, have more cubes, and spend the money you saved on better valve train components.
I completely agree with 99blancoSS also. You've got to set a budget for yourself. Once you step over 7k everything starts getting expensive really quickly. You can get there with a hydraulic cam, but you're still going to be spending big money on valve springs. That's where the cubic inch trade off comes into place. In limiting yourself to 7k RPMs you could build something with more cubes for the same price that will probably make more power.
EDIT:
Good observation captain obvious. The thing is he said he's doing this on a budget so perhaps you should bow down before the, "anti-rpm fool's" reading comprehension. It goes beyond just putting parts together. At that level you're spending huge money on valvetrain components and an oiling system that will take the RPMs. This is coming directly from someone who is building a high RPM engine.
The main point everyone is trying to pass to you is don't get caught building a specific cubic inch combination unless you are restricted by race class rules. More cubic inches will always make more power. You could build a 370 for less money, have more cubes, and spend the money you saved on better valve train components.
I completely agree with 99blancoSS also. You've got to set a budget for yourself. Once you step over 7k everything starts getting expensive really quickly. You can get there with a hydraulic cam, but you're still going to be spending big money on valve springs. That's where the cubic inch trade off comes into place. In limiting yourself to 7k RPMs you could build something with more cubes for the same price that will probably make more power.
EDIT:
Good observation captain obvious. The thing is he said he's doing this on a budget so perhaps you should bow down before the, "anti-rpm fool's" reading comprehension. It goes beyond just putting parts together. At that level you're spending huge money on valvetrain components and an oiling system that will take the RPMs. This is coming directly from someone who is building a high RPM engine.
, I was aiming at those that agree that high rpm sounds like an import theory, but since I didn't specify, here we go. Maybe your idea of a budget is much smaller than mine. It wouldn't be all that much, and you don't even need pistons/rods. You need oil and a good valvetrain, shaft mount/solid roller recommended. Then you need to support the rpm with an intake system, but he has already factored in the turbo to push it, so nothing too drastic. Also, I agree that a bigger cube motor will be cheaper and make more power.