Cwarta

iTrader: (12)

I'm in the middle of the new build for the Gto, and were building a completely new engine. I originally was planing a 5.3 turbo build, but have since decided on a max effort N/A setup 6.0.

I work at a well drilling company and we have precision instruments to measure well casings thickness. I used the cast calibration, and tested all 8 cylinders, ran the instrument over every inch of that cylinder and recorded the thinnest # for each "side"

In a week I will be having the block professionally sonic tested to compare with my results. As a test method I checked a few places on the block with both the calipers and this wall thickness tester. The calipers showed .010 THICKER than the tester did, so take that for what it's worth.

These are my results, please excuse my poorly drawn paper. Ill be attempting a bore from 3.780 to 4.00.

dr_whigham

iTrader: (49)

In for results.

I've only ever "heard" (never saw a thread) of this being done once, and it worked. NA only, of course. Very curious as to how this turns out...

adamantium

iTrader: (3)

Sick cwarta, in to see how this turns out.

Cwarta

iTrader: (12)

I'm excited to get this underway. I splurged on this new build.

Level2 Tick trans rebuild
McLeod rst twin disk
Vic jr single plane
New king bearings
Ported 243's
Max effort FTI cam
I'm debating between Childs & Albert steel rings with Napier seconds or the same total seals
Arp rod bolts
All fresh machine work etc

southpaw0314

iTrader: (5)

im in for results as well

dr_whigham

iTrader: (49)

I stopped reading at "max effort FTI cam"

You're not only in GOOD hands. You're in THE BEST.

Might I ask where the 243's are coming from?

Cwarta

iTrader: (12)

Ed has my unwavering business. My last cam was an absolute powerhouse from 2,000 all the way to 7,000 and I will be sending all my business his way! Couldn't be happier.

Based on my above findings, the thinnest point of the thinnest cylinder is .140 wall thickness. Little thin, but for nA I think it will live....

Anyone out there attempted this yet? I want first hand experience, not hearsay.

Cwarta

iTrader: (12)

Also these 243's are hand ported by me :/
Decked .020
5 angle valve job
Bowl blended
Etc

LS1MCSS

iTrader: (18)

My figures came out at .100 wall thickness in some places. That seems too thin.

redtan

iTrader: (5)

If you have to take .220 in diameter, means around .110 each side. That would put #6 at just about .100 on each end.

Anyone know how thick are other liners are (LS2, LS3)? I heard that the LS2 comes stock with 0.080 liners...which is already thinner than this block bored out to 4 inches.

NAVY99B4C

iTrader: (7)

I just picked up a full dress 5.3 tonight, Im going FI but im still in for the results. I was wondering the same thing on the way home.

Cwarta

iTrader: (12)

I appreciate the input and I am enjoying this discussion! I agree I'm pushing it, but u think N/A it's doable.

I'm very interested to hear about the ls2/3 liners as well!

Paul Bell

iTrader: (9)

I think going that big is too much for these bores. Even if you don't hit the ribbing on the outside of the sleeves, they'll be so thin that they'll be moving around. You'll have unacceptable oil consumption due to out of round bores.

RonSSNova

iTrader: (3)

For all the trouble, and uncertainty after boring, I think it would be cheaper to just get an LQ4/9 block and be done with it. Or just stop at the LS1 bore size.

Even though you have measured the thickness, what happens if you find a casting flaw and end up with a pin hole? That either you can't see, or find on the last hole. You still get to pay for the bore job.

If it were totally safe to do this, I would think it's being done all the time, and we don't seem to hear that.

My dollar six eighty worth of thoughts.

Ron

Old Geezer

iTrader: (3)

What Ron said^^^.

adamantium

iTrader: (3)

Cwarta i forgot about this thread but a member on here threw in OEM LS3 sleeves in an LS1 block.

https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...e-4-085-a.html

A.R. Shale Targa

iTrader: (2)

I would definitely stop at 3.908 and be happy with a reliable 347 as opposed
to trying to squeeze it out to a 364. If you were just doing a stock like idle to
5000 type towing motor it would live but lets face it you probably have 7000
rpm nasty on the mind and those thin *** cylinder walls WILL be deflecting !!
Even if ls2/3 liners are only .080" thick they are still supported by aluminum
on the backside to reduce/diminish bore deflection. Not too long ago I read
an article where Joe Sherman (father of the GEN I 383) found that an after
market block (dart or world) was worth nearly 20 horsepower over a well
machined 35 year old 010 GM block. Obviously the old block with 3 decades
worth of coolant porosity and rot thinned out the cylinders in addition to the
.030" bore. He atributed the power increase to the thickness and casting
rigidity of the aftermarket block which holds the cylinder barrels from defl-
ection as the piston travels the bore. Not only is ring seal improved (less
flutter) but oil control is improved (less consumption)

KCS

iTrader: (20)

I bored a 5.3L out to 4.055" and IIRC, it got as thin as .070-.080" or so in the area between the cylinders. It's a coffee table now lol.

Cwarta

iTrader: (12)

So what would you say the bare minimum is on a h/c N/A motor for wall thickness cast block?

KCS

iTrader: (20)

It depends, but I'd be fine with .100" in a performance oriented streetcar especially with cast OEM pistons. Obviously, the more power and RPM the engine will endure, the thicker the walls should be.