Trying to figure Dynamic Ratio
Going to be running a stock LQ9 and 243 Heads
Figure the heads to be around 63-64cc
Stock LQ9 specs
4" Bore
3.622 Stroke
Flat top Pistons
.052 Gasket
6.098 Rod Length
Cam Specs
230/238 .600/.603 112+3
Further details in the pic below

Appreciate any and all help
Thanks
Last edited by tatertot91; Jan 2, 2014 at 06:24 AM.
4.0" bore
3.622" stroke
6.098" rod
.052"x4.010" gasket
.006" out of the hole
64cc chamber
0cc piston head
44* IVC
SCR = 11.146 and DCR = 9.25
note.....the way some of these calc use the IVC is suspect IMO.
.
Last edited by LSOHOLIC; Jan 1, 2014 at 06:27 PM.
The DCR figure I provided is accurate.
Trending Topics
NOW we all know the LS-x heads love tight(small) squish AND small chambers.
The question is DCR reduction which is GREATLY enhanced with a wider 116-118 LCA.
The choice of this "wide center" camshaft will allow for the use of a higher SCR.
Results ARE better fuel mileage, better low end torque, greater top end horsepower.
The only loss is a small amount of "mid-range torque" though the average torque is much better.
There ARE exceptions like a DD Air Boat engine@3200 RPM Max.
Lance
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Now, when you go with a wide LSA, you can throw more SCR at it. The benefit is a wider, flatter torque curve. The compression creates the low-end grunt, not the valve events. So you are correct there.
Ideally, you want the valve events to be right for the heads and intended usage. You then optimize the compression for those events.
A wider LSA is better on bigger cubic inch motors with longer strokes.
Tighter LSAs are better with carb style intakes.
Tighter LSAs work great with stock heads, because you are dealing with relatively low compression and need the cam events to overcome low static compression.
First, I have order a camshaft from COMP, paid for the camshaft, then have the order refused by their engineering though they use the same core (Engine Machine) as does Crower Cams that I then received three days later with no advance charges.
MY VIEW of Overlap Requirement IS based on the RPM of the engine, I your terms the time when both valves are "off seat". (Agreed)
Your statement "upstairs" is completely incorrect. (WRONG)
Your statement "where people go" is relative to needs. (Undetermined)
Your statements, next two, I agree
Your statement "wider for large cubes" is incorrect (WRONG)
My example is our customers that 572/632 BBC for Irrigation/NG pumping@102 LCA
Your statement "carbs" completely correct (AGREE)
Your statement "stock heads" completely correct (Agree due to lower low lift of stock head)
Lance
And you can change the characteristics of the cam by centering overlap over TDC or BTDC or ATDC. That will predicate how the torque comes on in the midrange (at the expense of power after peak) or design the cam to "hang on" longer after peak, at the expense of power in the midrange.
That's interesting on Comp refusing the cam. Why did they do that? Because they didn't want to cut a 118 LSA 240 duration cam? Who cares, it's your cam.








