500RWHP stock bottom end, hydraulic roller, M6 LS1/LS6 recipe?
10-17-2011, 04:33 PM
#21
On The Tree
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: dayton ohio
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am in the middle of a all out rebuild of a 5.3 going to 395 c.i.
this unit will be FI and natural aspiration also
i am doing all the machine work myself to keep the cost way down but by the time I am done in the spring I am thinking somewhere in the 600 rwhp if not more
I have alot of things to do to this block including clearancing but it will be a hell of a ride when I am done and dyno the engine, then a month or so later dyno the car
this unit will be FI and natural aspiration also
i am doing all the machine work myself to keep the cost way down but by the time I am done in the spring I am thinking somewhere in the 600 rwhp if not more
I have alot of things to do to this block including clearancing but it will be a hell of a ride when I am done and dyno the engine, then a month or so later dyno the car
10-17-2011, 06:26 PM
#22
TECH Resident
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Salisbury, NC
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you really need to ditch 3/4 of your idea's and if you are serious talk to a sponsor about doing it. It definately isnt easy..... And you dont need 2" Headers on a 346 ci motor, I have 1 7/8" on mine, and Im at 500rwhp on a 346, My rev limiter is set to 7800 rpm, and I shift at 7700, so they flow plenty.
I dont think PRC will be in your mod list, no offense, and to do it reliably with hydraulic roller you are going to be precise with your lifter preload, and running GREAT valvesprings. Cam is going to be custom too...
Just a little food for thought....
I dont think PRC will be in your mod list, no offense, and to do it reliably with hydraulic roller you are going to be precise with your lifter preload, and running GREAT valvesprings. Cam is going to be custom too...
Just a little food for thought....
12-11-2011, 06:15 PM
#24
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At this point I am simply giving a list to guarantee 500RWHP on a hydraulic roller LS1/6 but if you want it to last with the AFR 230cc V2 heads and Texas Speed Tsunami camshaft, you will certainly have to flycut the pistons and since the engine is spinning to at least 7000RPM, rod bolts will be necessary.
Last edited by 35thAnniversaryPhil; 12-11-2011 at 06:21 PM.
12-11-2011, 06:17 PM
#25
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I updated the list to include KOOKS headers with 1 7/8" primaries and 3" collector. I also included the matching KOOKS 3" true duals exhaust system
Last edited by 35thAnniversaryPhil; 01-14-2012 at 03:30 PM.
12-11-2011, 11:26 PM
#26
Really don't understand why this thread was started? Every other post suggests the PatG thread & you have already read it. The requirements haven't changed.
2" primaries on 5.7L stock cubes are too big. 2" primaries are best for larger displacement engines that are moving a larger volume of air.
12-11-2011, 11:50 PM
#27
On The Tree
Really don't understand why this thread was started? Every other post suggests the PatG thread & you have already read it. The requirements haven't changed.
2" primaries on 5.7L stock cubes are too big. 2" primaries are best for larger displacement engines that are moving a larger volume of air.
2" primaries on 5.7L stock cubes are too big. 2" primaries are best for larger displacement engines that are moving a larger volume of air.
12-12-2011, 09:35 AM
#28
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at thread #20, you will see that PAT G's setup from 2007 would be different today in 2011 due to the availability of newer and better parts. That being said, I compared the parts he used that have been improved since then.
I believe that the improvements in the parts, some quite major like the AFR 205 VS the 230 V2 will allow more regular mechanically inclined guys like myself to achieve that special 500RWHP mark.
Of course if we had 6 liters to work with like an LS2 or even 6.2 liters like an LS3, reaching 500RWHP would be a different and easier ballgame. To do it in our 5.7 liter LS1s is awesome.
12-12-2011, 09:45 AM
#30
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Source:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...o-results.html
I actually suggested that they do a follow up 1 7/8" VS 2" primary comparison to end all discussion.
12-12-2011, 09:58 AM
#31
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Tremec T56 6 speed manual transmission VS the GM 4L60e automatic transmission always puts down more power on the chassis dyno. Automatic transmissions eat up more horsepower before it can make it to the rear wheels. Its a fact.
The automatics require more power to drive them which makes it much harder or impossible for an automatic equipped car to put down 500HP to the rear wheels.
As far as I know, only 6 speed manual cars can get to that number but somebody here might prove me wrong and show me an utter extreme case where an automatic has gotten to 500RWHP on a stock bottom end without nitrous, forced induction or race gas.
The automatics require more power to drive them which makes it much harder or impossible for an automatic equipped car to put down 500HP to the rear wheels.
As far as I know, only 6 speed manual cars can get to that number but somebody here might prove me wrong and show me an utter extreme case where an automatic has gotten to 500RWHP on a stock bottom end without nitrous, forced induction or race gas.
12-12-2011, 11:21 AM
#35
I started this thread to give people a list of off the shelf parts that they can use to guide them into achieving that special 500RWHP in their "stock bottom" LS1/6. Of course, fly cutting and rod bolts will probably be necessary.
If you look at thread #20, you will see that PAT G's setup from 2007 would be different today in 2011 due to the availability of newer and better parts. That being said, I compared the parts he used that have been improved since then.
I believe that the improvements in the parts, some quite major like the AFR 205 VS the 230 V2 will allow more regular mechanically inclined guys like myself to achieve that special 500RWHP mark.
Of course if we had 6 liters to work with like an LS2 or even 6.2 liters like an LS3, reaching 500RWHP would be a different and easier ballgame. To do it in our 5.7 liter LS1s is awesome.
If you look at thread #20, you will see that PAT G's setup from 2007 would be different today in 2011 due to the availability of newer and better parts. That being said, I compared the parts he used that have been improved since then.
I believe that the improvements in the parts, some quite major like the AFR 205 VS the 230 V2 will allow more regular mechanically inclined guys like myself to achieve that special 500RWHP mark.
Of course if we had 6 liters to work with like an LS2 or even 6.2 liters like an LS3, reaching 500RWHP would be a different and easier ballgame. To do it in our 5.7 liter LS1s is awesome.
OK, I get it now. This is meant to be an update to the process using parts that have been improved since the original thread. Good idea. I'm looking for cams that have a power band from 3K through 7,800 RPM through 5.7L stock cubes.
Agreed, rod bolts & fly cutting are going to be required.
12-12-2011, 03:00 PM
#38
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I get it now. This is meant to be an update to the process using parts that have been improved since the original thread. Good idea. I'm looking for cams that have a power band from 3K through 7,800 RPM through 5.7L stock cubes.
Agreed, rod bolts & fly cutting are going to be required.
Agreed, rod bolts & fly cutting are going to be required.
-Speed density tune V.S. TODAY'S 100MM TexasSpeed OR Lingenfelter MAF
-Custom camshaft V.S. TODAY'S many sponsors who make excellent top end cams like TSP's Tsunami for example
-Custom Y-pipe V.S. TODAY'S true dual setups
12-12-2011, 03:31 PM
#39
You are right, besides PatG was using a lot of custom parts like;
-Speed density tune V.S. TODAY'S 100MM TexasSpeed OR Lingenfelter MAF
-Custom camshaft V.S. TODAY'S many sponsors who make excellent top end cams like TSP's Tsunami for example
-Custom Y-pipe V.S. TODAY'S true dual setups
-Speed density tune V.S. TODAY'S 100MM TexasSpeed OR Lingenfelter MAF
-Custom camshaft V.S. TODAY'S many sponsors who make excellent top end cams like TSP's Tsunami for example
-Custom Y-pipe V.S. TODAY'S true dual setups
-100mm MAF won't make much difference. I have tuning software & have measured pressure/flow through varying set ups. MAF has least effect. Although, I will say that by simply rotating it, the low end scaling of the table will change.
-Agreed, CAM is a big factor. I really liked Pat G's view regarding how lifts in the .600's are beneficial not necessarily due to the max lift, but in the extra lift available while getting into the .600's (guess we could call it "under the curve" lift).
-IDK, regarding the true dual as opposed to the Pat G "Y". The benefit from his Y was the near parallel flow in the Y as it merged. Can't get that in a true dual very easily. Yes, we get the benefit of a dual, but, the merging is not as efficient as can be had in the Y. The true dual is a less parallel X or an H in the merge area. The X would have to be near half the length of the car to get the benefit of a near parallel merge.
Side Note:
I removed my true dual X that dumped through bullets out the rear for a true dual w/ no X (no merging) through dual cat backs that dump before the rear axle. Can't confirm the exact improvement 'cuz I also made a RAM air mod @ the same time. Anyway, it is 2 kPa more stable (MAP) @ WOT. Airflow (MAF) was a little better, but, can fluctuate normally due to ambient temps.