Why aren't 396 LS1 Strokers popular?
02-14-2004, 04:10 AM
#21
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Midland Texas
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone else with recent updates on the 396 strokers? I am contimplating on one of these or a 383 stroker. The all bore seems to be more popular with everyone but 2 times the price.
All 396 stroker people feel free to chime in.
Thanks DG
All 396 stroker people feel free to chime in.
Thanks DG
02-14-2004, 07:49 AM
#22
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DaveSchott
remember most ss396's were actually 402's! put whatever badges on it and have fun, who'll know? 
All 396ci were 396ci until 1970 when they were bored 30 over to make a 402.
02-14-2004, 08:58 AM
#23
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a Lunati 396. Have had it for 9 months and 13,000 miles now. Zero problems. Still under warranty and I trust my engine builder.
When I used to race it, I burned about 1 quart every 3000 miles. But I burned that much on my bone stock 02 Z06 motor when driving it hard.
I beat the crap out of this for the first 6 months or so. Lots of 50-180 runs and trips to the track. LOTS.
I am going in for some updates later this month and am gonna be making 500+rwhp. Last time I dynoed, it was around 480-485. I havent seen any 383s do that.
When I bought my motor, I was not convinced on the reliability of the all bores. I still dont think I am. If I ever decide to upgrade, I will probably just save for the C5R block and try to make 550rwhp.
When I used to race it, I burned about 1 quart every 3000 miles. But I burned that much on my bone stock 02 Z06 motor when driving it hard.
I beat the crap out of this for the first 6 months or so. Lots of 50-180 runs and trips to the track. LOTS.
I am going in for some updates later this month and am gonna be making 500+rwhp. Last time I dynoed, it was around 480-485. I havent seen any 383s do that.
When I bought my motor, I was not convinced on the reliability of the all bores. I still dont think I am. If I ever decide to upgrade, I will probably just save for the C5R block and try to make 550rwhp.
02-14-2004, 09:03 AM
#24
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-14-2004, 09:20 AM
#25
Banned
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 2,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're building a LS1 395ci stroker right now. I'll keep you guys updated with #'s. We will be in the 480+ range no problem with some extreme torque. It's a bit of an experiment but we have some a solution to the oil consumption issues people have seen with the big stroke.
We should have this built and in a car by mid-March... stay tuned.
- Matt
We should have this built and in a car by mid-March... stay tuned.
- Matt
02-14-2004, 11:04 AM
#26
10 Second Club + 14 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ne Pa
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i'm also in the process of building a 395 stroker, i wont have it back from the machine shop until the first week of march, and im hoping to have it all together and tuned for the f-body vs mustang event at island on the 28th.
02-14-2004, 02:06 PM
#29
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peak will depend on the cam choice.
I think anything under 7200rpm with a stock bore and 4.125 stroke is fine. There are guys revving the 4.125 cranks to 8500rpm in certain apps
For an NA motor I dont think there would be any problems. For a motor with spray/FI piston thickness becomes an issue as do the rod length limitations and pin placement. Depends on the amount of spray though. The 4.00 inch stroke crank gives you more options here. Also with any stroke longer than stock you will see more side loading but I dont think it is that big a deal
I personally love stroker motors
I think anything under 7200rpm with a stock bore and 4.125 stroke is fine. There are guys revving the 4.125 cranks to 8500rpm in certain apps
For an NA motor I dont think there would be any problems. For a motor with spray/FI piston thickness becomes an issue as do the rod length limitations and pin placement. Depends on the amount of spray though. The 4.00 inch stroke crank gives you more options here. Also with any stroke longer than stock you will see more side loading but I dont think it is that big a deal
I personally love stroker motors
02-14-2004, 02:40 PM
#31
TECH Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 10,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a simplified sense you need to stop thinking about the bore when it comes to piston speed and rpm capability. In some cases too big a bore isn't good. (piston stability at high revs)
The stroke will determine piston speed. In an IDEAL situation you would like perfectly square with as big as you can get on both bore and stroke but factory limitations in block deck height and bore spacing limit it.
ARE's 4 inch stroke 422 revved to more than ~8000rpms on more than one occassion on the big end of the track as far as I remember and so did several 4.125 stroke cars.
Oiling is the bigger issue at those revs and rod/rod bolt strength.
With our motors and the rpms we typically see on the street (sub 7000rpm on average) I would go for as much displacement as possible.
Ideally a 4.125 stroke x 4.155 bore would be awesome. I believe hotrod magazine built a 454 ci LS1 with a custom 4.25 stroke crank.
In some cases too big a bore isn't good. (piston stability at high revs)The stroke will determine piston speed. In an IDEAL situation you would like perfectly square with as big as you can get on both bore and stroke but factory limitations in block deck height and bore spacing limit it.
ARE's 4 inch stroke 422 revved to more than ~8000rpms on more than one occassion on the big end of the track as far as I remember and so did several 4.125 stroke cars.
Oiling is the bigger issue at those revs and rod/rod bolt strength.
With our motors and the rpms we typically see on the street (sub 7000rpm on average) I would go for as much displacement as possible.
Ideally a 4.125 stroke x 4.155 bore would be awesome. I believe hotrod magazine built a 454 ci LS1 with a custom 4.25 stroke crank.
02-14-2004, 08:32 PM
#33
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Midland Texas
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the 395s how much rpms would one of these be good for and anyone else here anything about the oil issue?
Also would my cam (see sig) be ok to reuse?
Also would my cam (see sig) be ok to reuse?
02-15-2004, 02:21 AM
#34
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Dallas
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VINCE
I think a 396ci Stroker in a F-body or Y-body is basically a car with the ability to pull a house. You will probably peak around 5500rpm or less depending on the cam.. I like to rev..
My car peaks at 6500 and pulls strong all the way to 7200.
Rev limiter is set at 7000 though. It probably has about 100 dyno runs on it not to mention a 21 year old beating the crap out of it.I think people are a little overly concerned about the stroke. There isnt a huge difference between 4" and 4.125". And for those of us who dont want to take the risk of sleeving, you have to decide whether the extra 13 cubic inches in worth it. Of course I would love to have a 4.125 or 4.100 bore to go along with it (maybe one day).
I am going to try and make 500+rwhp with mine (480+ currently) and sacrifice a little torque (maybe around 460) because I can always make up for that with gears.
I would have done an all bore if I wasnt concerned about realiability because you can run 2.08 or even 2.1 intake valves on an all bore and I think thats where the power is at.
Last edited by kumar75150; 02-15-2004 at 02:27 AM.
02-15-2004, 02:35 AM
#35
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: west coast
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Technoman64
Isn't there an old syaing there is no substitution for cubic inches. Or something like that
There's no replacement for displacement
02-15-2004, 08:28 AM
#36
Originally Posted by kumar75150
My car peaks at 6500 and pulls strong all the way to 7200. Rev limiter is set at 7000 though. It probably has about 100 dyno runs on it not to mention a 21 year old beating the crap out of it.
I think people are a little overly concerned about the stroke. There isnt a huge difference between 4" and 4.125". And for those of us who dont want to take the risk of sleeving, you have to decide whether the extra 13 cubic inches in worth it. Of course I would love to have a 4.125 or 4.100 bore to go along with it (maybe one day).
I am going to try and make 500+rwhp with mine (480+ currently) and sacrifice a little torque (maybe around 460) because I can always make up for that with gears.
I would have done an all bore if I wasnt concerned about realiability because you can run 2.08 or even 2.1 intake valves on an all bore and I think thats where the power is at.
Rev limiter is set at 7000 though. It probably has about 100 dyno runs on it not to mention a 21 year old beating the crap out of it.I think people are a little overly concerned about the stroke. There isnt a huge difference between 4" and 4.125". And for those of us who dont want to take the risk of sleeving, you have to decide whether the extra 13 cubic inches in worth it. Of course I would love to have a 4.125 or 4.100 bore to go along with it (maybe one day).
I am going to try and make 500+rwhp with mine (480+ currently) and sacrifice a little torque (maybe around 460) because I can always make up for that with gears.
I would have done an all bore if I wasnt concerned about realiability because you can run 2.08 or even 2.1 intake valves on an all bore and I think thats where the power is at.
02-15-2004, 09:45 AM
#38
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, there IS a replacement for CI's..it's called a turbo They don't care what is under them!
What about a 398? 6.0L block .030, Eagle 3.9" stroke. This would make a good strong foundation. The cam I ordered should spin this motor to 7500. It's a 248,256 solid roller with mid 600" lift. It should make some decent power and live a decent amount of time.
They don't care what is under them!What about a 398? 6.0L block .030, Eagle 3.9" stroke. This would make a good strong foundation. The cam I ordered should spin this motor to 7500. It's a 248,256 solid roller with mid 600" lift. It should make some decent power and live a decent amount of time.
02-15-2004, 11:05 AM
#39
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got me a little 393, that I like to call a 396, because it's close enough, and sounds cooler.
ARE 4.100 x 3.72, offset ground stock crank, O-ringed block, coper gaskets, upgraded head studs, mains, yada, yada, yada.
Made 420 HP through 400TH, nitrous driveshaft, 12 bolt Moser, and 10" slicks on 7.5" convos. Cam is a 232-236 on a 112 ls.
Times in the sig. At Thunder, the car ran a 11.1@ I think 122 mph, on motor right off the trailer. Car weighed 3550. Not too bad for such a small cam & heavy weight. Look for improved times on motor, this year.
ARE 4.100 x 3.72, offset ground stock crank, O-ringed block, coper gaskets, upgraded head studs, mains, yada, yada, yada.
Made 420 HP through 400TH, nitrous driveshaft, 12 bolt Moser, and 10" slicks on 7.5" convos. Cam is a 232-236 on a 112 ls.
Times in the sig. At Thunder, the car ran a 11.1@ I think 122 mph, on motor right off the trailer. Car weighed 3550. Not too bad for such a small cam & heavy weight. Look for improved times on motor, this year.
02-15-2004, 12:15 PM
#40
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 3,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Black Sunshine/ 00SS
I got me a little 393, that I like to call a 396, because it's close enough, and sounds cooler.
ARE 4.100 x 3.72, offset ground stock crank, O-ringed block, coper gaskets, upgraded head studs, mains, yada, yada, yada.
Made 420 HP through 400TH, nitrous driveshaft, 12 bolt Moser, and 10" slicks on 7.5" convos. Cam is a 232-236 on a 112 ls.
Times in the sig. At Thunder, the car ran a 11.1@ I think 122 mph, on motor right off the trailer. Car weighed 3550. Not too bad for such a small cam & heavy weight. Look for improved times on motor, this year.
ARE 4.100 x 3.72, offset ground stock crank, O-ringed block, coper gaskets, upgraded head studs, mains, yada, yada, yada.
Made 420 HP through 400TH, nitrous driveshaft, 12 bolt Moser, and 10" slicks on 7.5" convos. Cam is a 232-236 on a 112 ls.
Times in the sig. At Thunder, the car ran a 11.1@ I think 122 mph, on motor right off the trailer. Car weighed 3550. Not too bad for such a small cam & heavy weight. Look for improved times on motor, this year.
That is awesome for that cam size. I bet your setup is streetable as hell also which is awesome.