Is a 4.125 stroke X 4.125 bore possible?
01-03-2004, 06:32 PM
#4
On The Tree
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dallas
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by romanss
Just wondering why nobody has tried this yet in a LS1?
Is there too much clearancing to do in order to make this happen?
Thanks,
Roman
Is there too much clearancing to do in order to make this happen?
Thanks,
Roman
01-03-2004, 06:33 PM
#5
Adkoonerstrator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Deep in the seedy underworld of Koonerville
Posts: 21,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I've heard of a few of those motors being built. 441ci
Probably money is the reason more people don't have big bore strokers.
With the new Darton wet sleeves It would be possible to build a 4.155 bore * 4.125" stroke motor at the limits of the cylinder walls. 447+ci
Lunati used to make a 4.25" stroke for the LS1 but, the last time I checked they said they don't make it anymore.
That and a Darton wet sleeve block at the max bore would make a 461ci motor but, the 4.25" stroke is not optimal in a LS1, maybe if we had a tall deck LS1 version.
Probably money is the reason more people don't have big bore strokers.
With the new Darton wet sleeves It would be possible to build a 4.155 bore * 4.125" stroke motor at the limits of the cylinder walls. 447+ci
Lunati used to make a 4.25" stroke for the LS1 but, the last time I checked they said they don't make it anymore.
That and a Darton wet sleeve block at the max bore would make a 461ci motor but, the 4.25" stroke is not optimal in a LS1, maybe if we had a tall deck LS1 version.
01-03-2004, 07:13 PM
#7
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oceanside CA
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can do a 4.125 x 4.125, you'll just need to clearance the block for the rod ends. The pistons are going to have a fair amount cut-out also as the #8 is really coming down on the reluctor wheel. Consequently, the other seven have to be lightened to match. Balancing them is a pain, but definitely doable.
Trending Topics
01-04-2004, 09:15 AM
#8
Since prior 436's like the ARE 436 had ring sealing/high oil consumption to the point ARE will only build 436's now for race only applications according to one of ARE's customers. Likewise, isn't this also an issue with a stock 3.9 bore LS1 with the 4.125 crank as well?
Would a MID with 4.125 crank be prone to have the same issues too?
Seems like this would be the sort of application that one of those trick no skirt racing pistions with struts to support the crown would be just the ticket for. These are designed to be very light and very strong without a skirt.
Would a MID with 4.125 crank be prone to have the same issues too?
Seems like this would be the sort of application that one of those trick no skirt racing pistions with struts to support the crown would be just the ticket for. These are designed to be very light and very strong without a skirt.
01-04-2004, 09:37 PM
#9
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oceanside CA
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahhh, the old "what can I do", vs "what should I do"?????
Yes, the 4.125 stroke can cause ring problems because of the side-loading created on the piston brought about by the rod angle. If you may recall, Hot Rod did a "King Kong C5R" buildup, which BTW got a lot of comments ont this board, in which they used a 4.155 stroke and a 4.155 bore in a C5R block. Most of the comments on the board ran along the lines of "why didn't they make more power?". The engine came in at about 550 HP/570 TQ with 1.85 rocker arms. One of the big reasons it "only" made that much power was to allow it to stay together. Realizing that cutting the pistons so much the pins intruded into the oiling rings probably was pushing the reliability envelope, the builders chose to keep the power conservative.
Could they have made more, oh yes, much, much more. Problem is, it would have ate its own guts. How do I know? I work very closely with some of the vendors in that article, and that was the spoken word to me. Not to mention I've seen a couple of motors pushed to this stroke with devastating results when the power was pushed hard past the ~525 HP/550 TQ point. By that I mean continuous, hard, and mildly abusive use. What you and I might term "street use".
What's my point? If you want a torque monster you can put in a car a bust the rearend loose at the slightest thought, and intend on the car it's put in living a mostly cruiser lifestyle, build one. If you're going to pound the motor by street/drag racing it AND you don't want high maintenance, maybe look for another combo and stick with a 4" stroke.
Yes, the 4.125 stroke can cause ring problems because of the side-loading created on the piston brought about by the rod angle. If you may recall, Hot Rod did a "King Kong C5R" buildup, which BTW got a lot of comments ont this board, in which they used a 4.155 stroke and a 4.155 bore in a C5R block. Most of the comments on the board ran along the lines of "why didn't they make more power?". The engine came in at about 550 HP/570 TQ with 1.85 rocker arms. One of the big reasons it "only" made that much power was to allow it to stay together. Realizing that cutting the pistons so much the pins intruded into the oiling rings probably was pushing the reliability envelope, the builders chose to keep the power conservative.
Could they have made more, oh yes, much, much more. Problem is, it would have ate its own guts. How do I know? I work very closely with some of the vendors in that article, and that was the spoken word to me. Not to mention I've seen a couple of motors pushed to this stroke with devastating results when the power was pushed hard past the ~525 HP/550 TQ point. By that I mean continuous, hard, and mildly abusive use. What you and I might term "street use".
What's my point? If you want a torque monster you can put in a car a bust the rearend loose at the slightest thought, and intend on the car it's put in living a mostly cruiser lifestyle, build one. If you're going to pound the motor by street/drag racing it AND you don't want high maintenance, maybe look for another combo and stick with a 4" stroke.
01-05-2004, 05:10 PM
#12
Originally Posted by Scott Turvey
Ahhh, the old "what can I do", vs "what should I do"?????
Yes, the 4.125 stroke can cause ring problems because of the side-loading created on the piston brought about by the rod angle. If you may recall, Hot Rod did a "King Kong C5R" buildup, which BTW got a lot of comments ont this board, in which they used a 4.155 stroke and a 4.155 bore in a C5R block. Most of the comments on the board ran along the lines of "why didn't they make more power?". The engine came in at about 550 HP/570 TQ with 1.85 rocker arms. One of the big reasons it "only" made that much power was to allow it to stay together. Realizing that cutting the pistons so much the pins intruded into the oiling rings probably was pushing the reliability envelope, the builders chose to keep the power conservative.
Could they have made more, oh yes, much, much more. Problem is, it would have ate its own guts. How do I know? I work very closely with some of the vendors in that article, and that was the spoken word to me. Not to mention I've seen a couple of motors pushed to this stroke with devastating results when the power was pushed hard past the ~525 HP/550 TQ point. By that I mean continuous, hard, and mildly abusive use. What you and I might term "street use".
What's my point? If you want a torque monster you can put in a car a bust the rearend loose at the slightest thought, and intend on the car it's put in living a mostly cruiser lifestyle, build one. If you're going to pound the motor by street/drag racing it AND you don't want high maintenance, maybe look for another combo and stick with a 4" stroke.
Yes, the 4.125 stroke can cause ring problems because of the side-loading created on the piston brought about by the rod angle. If you may recall, Hot Rod did a "King Kong C5R" buildup, which BTW got a lot of comments ont this board, in which they used a 4.155 stroke and a 4.155 bore in a C5R block. Most of the comments on the board ran along the lines of "why didn't they make more power?". The engine came in at about 550 HP/570 TQ with 1.85 rocker arms. One of the big reasons it "only" made that much power was to allow it to stay together. Realizing that cutting the pistons so much the pins intruded into the oiling rings probably was pushing the reliability envelope, the builders chose to keep the power conservative.
Could they have made more, oh yes, much, much more. Problem is, it would have ate its own guts. How do I know? I work very closely with some of the vendors in that article, and that was the spoken word to me. Not to mention I've seen a couple of motors pushed to this stroke with devastating results when the power was pushed hard past the ~525 HP/550 TQ point. By that I mean continuous, hard, and mildly abusive use. What you and I might term "street use".
What's my point? If you want a torque monster you can put in a car a bust the rearend loose at the slightest thought, and intend on the car it's put in living a mostly cruiser lifestyle, build one. If you're going to pound the motor by street/drag racing it AND you don't want high maintenance, maybe look for another combo and stick with a 4" stroke.
That's what I am worried about.
I am looking at what kind of combo I can do with my 4.125 stroke crankshaft and ??????? bore
I was running a 4.125 stroke with 4.03 bore iron block until now and was looking at some other possible combo/s.
Thanks for the responses guys.
01-05-2004, 06:16 PM
#13
Launching!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oceanside CA
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by romanss
Thanks Scott.
That's what I am worried about.
I am looking at what kind of combo I can do with my 4.125 stroke crankshaft and ??????? bore
I was running a 4.125 stroke with 4.03 bore iron block until now and was looking at some other possible combo/s.
Thanks for the responses guys.
That's what I am worried about.
I am looking at what kind of combo I can do with my 4.125 stroke crankshaft and ??????? bore
I was running a 4.125 stroke with 4.03 bore iron block until now and was looking at some other possible combo/s.
Thanks for the responses guys.
01-05-2004, 08:30 PM
#14
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Bring it........ b*tch
Posts: 1,084
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm.... I've been wondering about some of these options also. I noticed that Lunati is selling 434 and 447 rotating assemblies...... TByrne has them.
A 447 LS1 would be awesome but if it can't take much hard driving or racing what's the point? I wonder why they even offer stroker kits such as those if reliability and maitenance is a real issue even running it with no power adders.
I guess the LS1 is limited to probably 408-427 cubes at the most then to have a reliable stroker setup? It's too bad because I could imagine the torque on a 447 would be incredible.
A 447 LS1 would be awesome but if it can't take much hard driving or racing what's the point? I wonder why they even offer stroker kits such as those if reliability and maitenance is a real issue even running it with no power adders.
I guess the LS1 is limited to probably 408-427 cubes at the most then to have a reliable stroker setup? It's too bad because I could imagine the torque on a 447 would be incredible.
