What cubic inch
Thread Starter
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
From: Louisville
No I was just thinking about doing it I have the block and can get a stroker crank for fairly cheap plus it would leave alot of meat left on the cylinders if it needed another rebuild
Trending Topics
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
Sounds like a interesting little stroker. 360. Usually boost tends to match well with big bore small stroke, for the revs. I wouldn't put this on boost. Nitrous, or NA would be pretty stout. Not sure what this small bore/ long stroke setup would do power charactaristics wise. I'd throw it together with budget parts just to see what it's got.
But you can put a 4" crank in an ls1 and it's bore is roughly .2" larger than that of the 5.3. You may have to do some clearancing, but I don't think it would be that large of an issue for a machinist to deal with.
TECH Addict
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,481
Likes: 5
From: PA/MD
Most of the time clearance isn't a problem with a 4" stroke but very close, but 4.125" needs more work...might just need a small spot at each side of the bottom of the cylinder walls botched to clear the big end of the rods.
Id like to see someone use a 4.8l crank in a 4"+ bore with crazy boost to see just what it could do/ rev to.
Id like to see someone use a 4.8l crank in a 4"+ bore with crazy boost to see just what it could do/ rev to.
Sounds like a interesting little stroker. 360. Usually boost tends to match well with big bore small stroke, for the revs. I wouldn't put this on boost. Nitrous, or NA would be pretty stout. Not sure what this small bore/ long stroke setup would do power charactaristics wise. I'd throw it together with budget parts just to see what it's got.
I can see this 360 cube engine making more torque than anything. would make a good engine for someone looking to up the towing power of a truck, but in an f-body or similar, probably wouldnt be as good of a performer as say a 408/402. I can see power and torque levels being on the same plane as a 383 LS1, but a reasonable amount less.
Just because of the lack of displacement it probably won't make as much as a 383 or 408, but undersquare engines can be more efficient in lower RPM engines like hydraulic roller street engines. It would probably be a pretty nasty little motor with a T70 or T76.
I understand the lack of cubic inches, and the fact it is undersquare is what makes is more efficient at lower RPM's, which in turn, combined with the right cam, will make for an off idle torque monster. I agree with that. However, I still beleive that an oversquare engine would be better suited to a FI build.
I'm not sure what bore to stroke ratio has to do with the design of the lifters and fuel it runs on...
A hydraulic roller engine can be built to run to higher rpm's as well as low...most of it is in the cam. You know this.
Larger bore, short(er) stroke engines generally respond to FI builds better than small bore large stroke engines.
A hydraulic roller engine can be built to run to higher rpm's as well as low...most of it is in the cam. You know this.
Larger bore, short(er) stroke engines generally respond to FI builds better than small bore large stroke engines.
Pump gas hydraulic rollers are limited in RPM and octane, unlike most dedicated race cars that use solid rollers and race fuel. While a HR could turn "high rpm", it's still limited compared to solid roller combinations. Most HR setups that spin over 7500 RPM actually mimic a solid roller anyways.
So when you're limited in RPM, you're only going to be able to take in X amount of air naturally aspirated. With boost, it's not the RPM that limits the amount of air injested but the point at which the fuel/air mixture detonates. In either case, its very important to make the most out of the combustion which is where the undersquare combinations shine.
Larger bores are better suited to an engine that can run higher RPM and higher octane fuels.
So when you're limited in RPM, you're only going to be able to take in X amount of air naturally aspirated. With boost, it's not the RPM that limits the amount of air injested but the point at which the fuel/air mixture detonates. In either case, its very important to make the most out of the combustion which is where the undersquare combinations shine.
Larger bores are better suited to an engine that can run higher RPM and higher octane fuels.
Last edited by KCS; Feb 24, 2012 at 11:33 AM.
