TheWolfMatt

Really excellent build info on this thread as I'm going to be doing roughly the same thing to a 5.3 very shortly. I do hope you keep the posts coming as I will be taking lots of notes and using your thread as reference while I'm doing my motor. Thanks soo very much for starting this for everyone here. Very, very informative, keep it up.

ckpitt55

iTrader: (4)

Thank you sir, I will. That's the whole point of the thread is to share info for the other DIY'ers or interested minds out there. Good luck with your 5.3

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

With the 102 I think you will not have left anything on the table like you had spoken to me about. The car will drive very nicely with the relatively low amount of overlap the cam has also. So for the amount of power this combination will be capable of, the driving manners will be a pleasant bonus.

Like I said earlier in the thread we had a customer put down 430-435rwhp/425rwtq completely 100% un-tuned with just headers, exhaust and a fast intake. I would say he'd probably be in the 440rwhp/430rwtq range once tuned. This was a 6.0 with 11.0:1 compression, but with your AFR heads, 11.5:1 compression and a Fast 102 I don't see any reason why you can't or won't make 460-470rwhp/420-430rwtq and that is a conservative estimate for sure.

Detoxx03

iTrader: (14)

Good idea

ckpitt55

iTrader: (4)

I think I might end up at slightly less than 11.5, taking into account volume above top ring land and the larger bore gaskets that I need to run with the 215s (4.135s recommended vs. the 3.910s I was basing calcs off of). They're already being milled to 60cc, not sure how much further I could or would want to take them while still coming out of it with an efficient chamber. But a tenth or two probably won't make a huge difference in the grand scope of things. Will definitely be above 11.0.

Detoxx, any recs on a throttle body? 92 vs. 102mm? The low speed stability, a deciding factor for some, (from what I've read) seems to really be dependent on what MAF is in front of it and the proficiency of whoever is tuning it. Ultimately looking to go with whichever one will provide for a snappier throttle, not really looking to this for significant power increases.

TheWolfMatt

I have an interesting question that I've had in the back of my mind for a while. If you do swap to a FAST 102 intake with the 102 TB and you had a CAI for your LS1/LS6 intake/TB combo, will the CAI still fit the new FAST 102?

Just curious

ckpitt55

iTrader: (4)

Which CAI are you speaking of? At the very least I'd suspect you'd need to run an adapter coupling to adapt the 102 TB to the smaller-than-102 stock MAF. Kind of defeats the purpose of the better flowing TB when you stick a restriction in front of it though, so larger tubing and bigger MAF are often warranted. I doubt the lid/filter would be as much of a restriction in this case as the plumbing leading up to the TB would be, so aside from discrepancies in physical fitment you'd probably want to replace that section regardless.

I'm no expert though, perhaps someone else can chime in that actually has done the swap / dealt with integrating different components.

TheWolfMatt

I figured it would be something like that. There's only so far the K&N CAI will go before you need to consider how much CFM its actually getting through to the now, larger, TB. Much less the already restrictive MAF that most people don't hollow out to begin with.

ckpitt55

iTrader: (4)

Another thing to consider is how many CFM's your engine will actually consume, as well as how much can get through your heads. Small displacement motors won't run out of headroom on a 102 setup (especially a ported one) - the point of going to the larger intake is to maintain a volume of air available for the engine to consume at all times, such that it isn't waiting for it to get there so to speak. "Air on demand" if you will.

The fact is that with airflow, there are so many variables that to make any kind of accurate assumptions you need to have experience with a flowbench, access to FEA software (which is only as accurate as the assumptions you make when setting up the flow study), or access to a dyno. A change that would seem like common sense may not actually produce the results you're after. Case in point: cylinder head porting. Lots of guys try it, lots of guys end up hurting flow instead of helping it. Chasing peak CFM isn't the end game either, air velocity is important as well.

This stuff is fun

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

Wow, I would never of used that large of a gasket bore diameter for a 3.9" bore motor. We've always ran .030" larger on the gasket bore than cylinder bore, and unless the chamber on the 215's is just that large I would run the smaller gasket bore diameter. That said I've never measured the CC chamber of an AFR 215 so I couldn't offer real world advice there.

The 102's are EXTREMELY touchy. They are much more difficult to dial in than a 92mm throttle body. I would of recommended a 92mm Fast just for the fact that the 102mm TB is so touchy, but the 102mm will be fine if enough time is spent tuning the larger TB.

ckpitt55

iTrader: (4)

I asked the same question -The 215's are designed for a 4"-ish bore, so they have larger chambers and need the larger gaskets. The 215's were recommended to me on the basis that putting the larger chambers on a smaller bore help to unshroud the valves at low and mid-lift and help improve flow into the chamber, giving it an advantage over using a small diameter chamber on a smaller bore. This allows the 215's to retain low end punch while also having more flow capacity up high due to the slightly larger intake runners. More balanced than a 205 or 210. Or so I'm told.

Is there any advantage running a 102 vs. a 92 on a small cube setup, assuming the 102 is stable? If it's going to be a pita to tune and there's no real performance difference then I'll get the 92. The jury is still out on the fast setup, I'm still researching here and haven't bought anything yet.

Btw, I tried calling you around 5-ish. I'm the 724 number, give me a shout back when you get a minute. I know you're a busy man.

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

We don't have caller ID believe it or not! Call my cell phone in about 30 minutes.

ironmanLS1

iTrader: (9)

Hey ck. Nice cam choice. I had the exact same cam hit my doorstep today. Looking forward to seeing what it does at prp this year.

ckpitt55

iTrader: (4)

Nice man. What's the rest of your setup look like? I see you're also in pa, where at?

ironmanLS1

iTrader: (9)

My car is pretty basic, 2002 b4c, or ls1, a4 combo. Already has an ls6 intake. Changing to 799 heads. Add in the tick cam and fti 4k converter.

Rear will remain stock with 3.23 gears to start the season. Ill upgrade after it breaks or I get extra cash. Still have to decide on the exhaust. Going to be a weekend bracket car mostly. So its not a perfect combination but will work decent for now.
I
Im in delmont, about 15 minutes from the drag strip.

ckpitt55

iTrader: (4)

no ****, I'm in irwin. I'll have to stop out at the track once the weather breaks and check it out.

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

Good talking to you last night Chuck. Hopefully our conversation can point you in the right direction for your remaining parts list.

ckpitt55

iTrader: (4)

Back atcha Martin, you were tremendously helpful. Thanks for your time.

For any interested minds, the rest of the engine is looking like this:

Mamofied AFR 215cc heads, milled to 58.5cc, 8019 springs, 2.02" hollow stem intake valves - compression is back up near 11.4-11.5 range.
Martin's Street Heat Stage 2 cam
Fel-pro 4.135" x 0.041" gaskets (huge bore compared to my block, but required to fit the combustion chambers on the heads) - quench is to 0.0345"
Yella terra ultralite 1.7 roller rockers (eliminate side loading of valve guides)
LS7 lifters (was recommended comp short travel lifters, but hard to believe that they're really $400+ better than the LS7's) - jury is still out on these
FAST102/102 intake/TB setup
high flow MAF
42 lb injectors

Opinions on lifters?

Still have to measure for pushrod length obviously. starting to think elsewhere, the jury is still out on clutch and pulley. Thinking monster stage 2 and powerbond, respectively. suggestions?

ironmanLS1

iTrader: (9)

CK - what machine shops did the initial work and second round? Over in Irwin, ever hear of Parco Machine? I use Bennett's outside of Greensburg, but for the LS1 I was going to try Parco or DLK.

ckpitt55

iTrader: (4)

Never heard of Parco. A1 up in Greensburg is also supposed to be decent, but I have no experience with them.

The first shop was DLK - Jeff is the main man up there. Took it up to them first for a torque plate hone, balance of the rotating assembly, clean up cut on the decks, and to check the main bores for size and o-o-R. Their professionalism was there, but I'm not sure they're all that confident with the aluminum blocks...they told me from the get go they were nervous about line honing the mains with the material mismatch. The stones want to dig into the aluminum since it's softer than the steel obviously - some shops combat this by doing the machining with the caps facing down so gravity pulls the stones into the steel more. I don't know. Ended up telling me the mains were "fine" so they didn't line hone, but they weren't fine when I was inspecting the block. Almost a full thou out of round in some places, shouldn't be more than a few tenths. And other smaller things, like they didn't remove the galley plugs prior to machining or washing. It's also one of the pricier shops around.

The second shop where the block is currently is L.A.W. Engines in Belle Vernon, junction of 136 and 201 right by West Newton. They agreed to take a look at my block for free, wouldn't charge me anything unless they determined they needed to cut metal so figured I had nothing to lose trying them out. They've been in business a little over 10 years now. I was recommended to them by a friend, and if first impressions count for anything they seem a hell of a lot more familiar with LS engines than DLK was. The owner, Lee (personable guy too), brought me in to show me around and he had at least a half a dozen warhawk blocks sitting around and a bunch of other iron/aluminum blocks. He told me that they do line hones all the time on these motors. We'll see what happens.

I wish I could be of more help with this, but I still haven't found "the" shop yet. Despite how much game they all talk there's always a certain amount of trust involved. I don't like that because I can guarantee, with most of them, anyway, that they don't care about getting it right as much as I do. If I had the resources to do my own machining I absolutely would.

Messed around with the connecting rods tonight, measuring bearing bores for size and o-o-R.



I have a makeshift wooden vice I use to loosen/tighten the caps. Works pretty well, considering that it's made of wood lol.



I tried to bury the cap a bit to increase the bearing surface in contact with the vice, help prevent the cap from walking - though these caps are doweled so it probably didn't do much in that respect.



Results were a little interesting. I'll say off the bat that these compstars are advertised to be ready to go - and they are - but they're not perfect. During manufacturing they hone the bores, unbolt the cap to get rid of any residual stresses, torque it back down, then hone them again to final size. Spec for the bores are 2.224 - 2.225", and o-o-R spec is 0.00015" - 0.0003". I did the same with my measurements - torqued them up, measured, loosened the caps, reseated them as evenly and gradually as I could, re-torqued, then measured a second time. The two trials were consistent enough that I discarded my first run - I was more careful tightening the caps the second time so I used those measurements. Here they are.



The vertical measurement is the bore size taken parallel to the length of the rod, the horizontal is simply the measurement 90 degrees from that (slightly offset to avoid the split in the rod). Out-of-round is simply the difference between your highest and lowest measurement around the bore. You can add more points to gain resolution but it obviously makes the process much more tedious.

The bores are a few tenths oversized, but still close enough to spec that I don't think I have to worry about it. The journals on my crank were at the large side of the spec which well help keep my clearances tight (still have to measure again though). As far as the o-o-R, goes to show you that even high strength forged rods distort under a serious clamp load (in this case ARP 2000 series bolts torqued to 75 ft-lbs) and need to be checked. I'm still within the service limit but was pretty close to it in some places on a few of the rods. The idea that you can just throw bolts in a rod and go without measuring really needs to be put to bed.