Katech employee Dan's 729hp (NA) 6.0L drag race engine
12-14-2012, 08:37 AM
#21
Not hating and not one upping.
It is a gen 1 that makes the same power and seems to use a similar rpm range and hell probably cost the same despite a plain old Callies magnum crank and Lunati rods instead of Bryant/Carrillo.
I just thought the LS platform with their advanced heads could do better.
It is a gen 1 that makes the same power and seems to use a similar rpm range and hell probably cost the same despite a plain old Callies magnum crank and Lunati rods instead of Bryant/Carrillo.
I just thought the LS platform with their advanced heads could do better.
12-14-2012, 12:20 PM
#22
Launching!
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Harrisburg PA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is that really that exciting a number for a dry sump 15:1 LS variant?
A friend has a 23degree pump gas 402 that makes that, sure it has a displacement advantage but it is wet sump, pump gas 23degree all substantial disadvantages.
http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicl...g_to_be_small/ won his class on dragweek this year.
I would have expected more from such a max effort build, though I haven't really gotten my hand dirty with the LS yet.
A friend has a 23degree pump gas 402 that makes that, sure it has a displacement advantage but it is wet sump, pump gas 23degree all substantial disadvantages.
http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicl...g_to_be_small/ won his class on dragweek this year.
I would have expected more from such a max effort build, though I haven't really gotten my hand dirty with the LS yet.
Your attempt at arguing kinda proves the other way around. Ask Jake how 'easy' it would be to make 2hp/c.i.
Thanks for sharing Jason
12-15-2012, 09:46 AM
#24
It can do much better. It has small port C5-R heads and Kinsler intake because that's what we had. Put the large port on there and it's got a lot more potential. Also they cut the dyno short before it was completely maxed out in timing. There is definitely more in it. They were just conservative and want to get this thing up and running and in the truck.
Let's not forget your buddy used an aftermarket Dart block with BBC cam core and a 4.130" bore. It doesn't say in the article, but I'd bet he is running a lifter much larger than the original .842" Chevy diameter as well. Dan is still using an OEM 6.0L block which really limits the size of the valves and consequently the ports, as well as what you can do with the valvetrain. It is quite an accomplishment to make that kind of power per cubic inch with parts he used. You're just trying to compare apples to oranges.
12-15-2012, 11:08 AM
#25
I know much of what is in Jake's car, not sure on the lifters though.
Still though you are dismissing 15:1 compression and 11degree heads.
730hp is a LOT NA regardless. I just don't see this as spectacular.
I thought the LS variant heads were amazing.................
Still though you are dismissing 15:1 compression and 11degree heads.
730hp is a LOT NA regardless. I just don't see this as spectacular.
I thought the LS variant heads were amazing.................
12-15-2012, 11:14 AM
#26
I think this LS is cool, I just think its really expensive and doesn't run on pump gas....
A more powerful street friendly bbc still wins in this case especially for the $$$
A 700hp pump gas bbc can be bought for $15K.
A more powerful street friendly bbc still wins in this case especially for the $$$
A 700hp pump gas bbc can be bought for $15K.
12-15-2012, 12:54 PM
#28
I know much of what is in Jake's car, not sure on the lifters though.
Still though you are dismissing 15:1 compression and 11degree heads.
730hp is a LOT NA regardless. I just don't see this as spectacular.
I thought the LS variant heads were amazing.................
Still though you are dismissing 15:1 compression and 11degree heads.
730hp is a LOT NA regardless. I just don't see this as spectacular.
I thought the LS variant heads were amazing.................
Regardless, what's so hard about just saying, "hey cool build" and let that be it? What are you trying to prove?
12-15-2012, 03:28 PM
#30
Now if this was a 6.0 that runs on pump gas, was remotely cost effective and made that kind of power? That would be awesome.
But I have seen too many stroked LS3s with a fraction of the money invested making nearly the same power spinning less RPMS and on Pump gas...
To the OP, like I said "Cool LS" because it is...but its not
12-15-2012, 05:54 PM
#31
Because its not impressive. We all know the LS has huge potential and can make big cube power on small cubes, but when you say it would cost $40K+ to build it, has 15 to 1 compression..etc...You can make those #s out a traditional SBC with that compression and $$. You can buy a used 800hp Nascar engine all day long for $10 grand.
Now if this was a 6.0 that runs on pump gas, was remotely cost effective and made that kind of power? That would be awesome.
But I have seen too many stroked LS3s with a fraction of the money invested making nearly the same power spinning less RPMS and on Pump gas...
To the OP, like I said "Cool LS" because it is...but its not
Now if this was a 6.0 that runs on pump gas, was remotely cost effective and made that kind of power? That would be awesome.
But I have seen too many stroked LS3s with a fraction of the money invested making nearly the same power spinning less RPMS and on Pump gas...
To the OP, like I said "Cool LS" because it is...but its not
How is it not impressive when a 6.0L engine is making this sort of power?
Cost aside the motor itself is impressive, might not fit your budget, but it does not make it any less impressive?
Just because it does not fit your budget or doesnt consist of a build that fits YOUR needs or likes, does not make this setup less impressive.
You are aware compression is an aid for displacement correct? Only reason why an LS3 or a BBC or any bigger engine does it on pump gas with less compression is because it HAS displacement. derp.
I can say the same thing about a big block chevy being un-impressive to lets say a UGR lambo setup? See how retarded your agrument is. Its apples to oranges.
Your argument is invalid.
No one is saying the engine is to die for or superior to every other engine out there.
Im personally impressed by the power per liter, 750hp out of a 6.0 is impressive which ever way you cut it.
12-15-2012, 06:05 PM
#32
How is it not impressive when a 6.0L engine is making this sort of power?
Cost aside the motor itself is impressive, might not fit your budget, but it does not make it any less impressive?
Just because it does not fit your budget or doesnt consist of a build that fits YOUR needs or likes, does not make this setup less impressive.
You are aware compression is an aid for displacement correct? Only reason why an LS3 or a BBC or any bigger engine does it on pump gas with less compression is because it HAS displacement. derp.
I can say the same thing about a big block chevy being un-impressive to lets say a UGR lambo setup? See how retarded your agrument is. Its apples to oranges.
Your argument is invalid.
No one is saying the engine is to die for or superior to every other engine out there.
Im personally impressed by the power per liter, 750hp out of a 6.0 is impressive which ever way you cut it.
Cost aside the motor itself is impressive, might not fit your budget, but it does not make it any less impressive?
Just because it does not fit your budget or doesnt consist of a build that fits YOUR needs or likes, does not make this setup less impressive.
You are aware compression is an aid for displacement correct? Only reason why an LS3 or a BBC or any bigger engine does it on pump gas with less compression is because it HAS displacement. derp.
I can say the same thing about a big block chevy being un-impressive to lets say a UGR lambo setup? See how retarded your agrument is. Its apples to oranges.
Your argument is invalid.
No one is saying the engine is to die for or superior to every other engine out there.
Im personally impressed by the power per liter, 750hp out of a 6.0 is impressive which ever way you cut it.
Like I said, if that feat was done and was street able, ran on pump gas, and was cost effective in comparison to other equal performing engines, I would be impressed. My opinion is a 700 hp drag engine that has 15-1 compression is nothing new or spectacular. A top fuel drag engine makes 16hp per cube and cost $50K...which I'm not using as an equal comparison...just bringing to light what $40K can get you. Alot more than 700hp
Last edited by badazz81z28; 12-15-2012 at 06:14 PM.
12-15-2012, 06:32 PM
#33
I didn't say it wasn't cool...or its too expensive for my budget...I just said there's nothing special about it to be all "awe'd" over. If a $40K engine that makes 2hp/1 cube floats your boat, than so be it. That's not uncommon though with full out race engines.
Like I said, if that feat was done and was street able, ran on pump gas, and was cost effective in comparison to other equal performing engines, I would be impressed. My opinion is a 700 hp drag engine that has 15-1 compression is nothing new or spectacular. A top fuel drag engine makes 16hp per cube and cost $50K...which I'm not using as an equal comparison...just bringing to light what $40K can get you. Alot more than 700hp
Like I said, if that feat was done and was street able, ran on pump gas, and was cost effective in comparison to other equal performing engines, I would be impressed. My opinion is a 700 hp drag engine that has 15-1 compression is nothing new or spectacular. A top fuel drag engine makes 16hp per cube and cost $50K...which I'm not using as an equal comparison...just bringing to light what $40K can get you. Alot more than 700hp
Was OP braging about the power per $ ratio in the original post? No. Was OP braging about it being the most streetable engine out there? No. Was OP comparing it to anything else? No.
He is just sharing his results.
Which IMO is impressive it has more HP per CI and L then most big block setups and bigger displacement setups.
How many 7xx break HP, high reving, small engines have you personally built/tuned? Just curious seems to be an easy feat in your eyes.
Comparing this to a top fuel dragster is just idiotic.
OP is this still a Hydraulic roller setup?
Last edited by adamantium; 12-15-2012 at 06:40 PM.
that intake 
12-16-2012, 12:14 PM
#36
Your not grasping the point of this thread. Plain and simple.
Was OP braging about the power per $ ratio in the original post? No. Was OP braging about it being the most streetable engine out there? No. Was OP comparing it to anything else? No.
He is just sharing his results.
Which IMO is impressive it has more HP per CI and L then most big block setups and bigger displacement setups.
How many 7xx break HP, high reving, small engines have you personally built/tuned? Just curious seems to be an easy feat in your eyes.
Comparing this to a top fuel dragster is just idiotic.
OP is this still a Hydraulic roller setup?
Was OP braging about the power per $ ratio in the original post? No. Was OP braging about it being the most streetable engine out there? No. Was OP comparing it to anything else? No.
He is just sharing his results.
Which IMO is impressive it has more HP per CI and L then most big block setups and bigger displacement setups.
How many 7xx break HP, high reving, small engines have you personally built/tuned? Just curious seems to be an easy feat in your eyes.
Comparing this to a top fuel dragster is just idiotic.
OP is this still a Hydraulic roller setup?
Thats my point...
What kind of post do you expect in this type of thread? only opinions that
this build....You can be impressed all you want....I just stated MHO. Building an engine is not rocket science....Designing your own heads, cam grind etc and having it perform....that is a challenge.
Last edited by badazz81z28; 12-16-2012 at 12:21 PM.
Just remind me to never post a thread on my "used parts" build when it happens... 
12-17-2012, 07:21 AM
#39
I probably should have never mentioned the cost to duplicate this engine because we have no intention of doing so. This engine was built with parts we had around the shop. I'm just sharing with the forum because I thought it was interesting. Maybe I should just keep what we do quiet.
