LS7 cam in a LS1
TECH Addict
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 123
From: Portland, Oregon
I don't know what else to say, really. My point of view is one that values efficiency over power. I see power as a byproduct of efficiency, and increasing the demand for airflow without increasing the ability to flow more air seems backwards to me.
I also think that the ls1 block, in general, isn't worth boosting or stroking, due to the almost fragile cylinder sleeves. There's probably more success stories than failures, but it's a risk I'm not willing to take if I'm paying good money for a stroker kit or boost.
I also think that the ls1 block, in general, isn't worth boosting or stroking, due to the almost fragile cylinder sleeves. There's probably more success stories than failures, but it's a risk I'm not willing to take if I'm paying good money for a stroker kit or boost.
I don't know what else to say, really. My point of view is one that values efficiency over power. I see power as a byproduct of efficiency, and increasing the demand for airflow without increasing the ability to flow more air seems backwards to me.
I also think that the ls1 block, in general, isn't worth boosting or stroking, due to the almost fragile cylinder sleeves. There's probably more success stories than failures, but it's a risk I'm not willing to take if I'm paying good money for a stroker kit or boost.
I also think that the ls1 block, in general, isn't worth boosting or stroking, due to the almost fragile cylinder sleeves. There's probably more success stories than failures, but it's a risk I'm not willing to take if I'm paying good money for a stroker kit or boost.
Thread Starter
Staging Lane
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
holy **** guys! lol. first off the oil pressure issue will be adressed when the engine is rebuilt. ill probably keep it a 346. i feel like if im gonna buy a stroker kit i should go for the 6.0 as a solid platform.
Poor OP over here didn't mean to start this argument. Sorry about that, man!!
If you want a good laugh, read 5 liter eaters build thread turned header argument. Poor guy couldn't get a word in edgewise on his own build thread.
Just an update. The red LS2 C6 ran 177.3mph today in the Texas Mile, which backs up the dyno numbers in a big way. To put that speed in perspective, a stock C6 with an LS3 (6 speed manual) ran 160mph today in the same weather. Modded ZR1 Vette was running low 170s. Good bang for the buck (the cammed LS2).
The LS1 is limited on bore (and therefore power compared to a LS2). I thought this was the gen III section? 
However 500+ RWHP has been done on a 5.7 LS1 with ported 243s.....so I think the OP is on the right path!
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 Apples to oranges comparison....I'm talking Gen III LS1...the engine this thread is about. The 6.0 Gen IV LS2 has bigger bores and obviously will make more power than a comparable LS1 with the same 243 heads. The LS1 is limited on bore (and therefore power compared to a LS2). I thought this was the gen III section?
However 500+ RWHP has been done on a 5.7 LS1 with ported 243s.....so I think the OP is on the right path!
The LS1 is limited on bore (and therefore power compared to a LS2). I thought this was the gen III section? However 500+ RWHP has been done on a 5.7 LS1 with ported 243s.....so I think the OP is on the right path!
I'm not so sure about that reasoning....increasing bore size is generally more beneficial than adding stroke; bigger bores mean bigger breathing; not so much with added stroke....otherwise GM would not have increased the bore while keeping stroke the same when they designed the LS2 gen IV. Now you're getting into theory instead of proven combinations.
I'm not so sure about that reasoning....increasing bore size is generally more beneficial than adding stroke; bigger bores mean bigger breathing; not so much with added stroke....otherwise GM would not have increased the bore while keeping stroke the same when they designed the LS2 gen IV. Now you're getting into theory instead of proven combinations.
Ported heads go with bigger valves, as high as 2.080" in a 3.905" bore. I really doubt the stock 2" valve is really that shrouded by the bore. Now the chamber may be shrouding the valve, in which case the LS2 is hindered just as badly as an LS1.
I'm not so sure about that reasoning....increasing bore size is generally more beneficial than adding stroke; bigger bores mean bigger breathing; not so much with added stroke....otherwise GM would not have increased the bore while keeping stroke the same when they designed the LS2 gen IV. Now you're getting into theory instead of proven combinations.
Could it be possible that ported heads are less expensive and more effective at making HP than spending thousands a forged stroker bottom end? Also I'm referring to LS1 gen IIIs....not sure how LS2's got dragged into this. I agree the 383 will have more TQ and feel faster...but the better breathing 346 will eventually outflow (outrun) it!
If you are talking about a 346 with a CNC ported or good aftermarket head vs. a 383 with a stock 243, I would agree. But if both have the same stock 243 head. My money is on the 383 over the stock 6 liter, even though a 6 liter cannot be mentioned in this section of the forum by law.
Bigger is better, everything else equal no doubt. "Others" were suggesting spending thousands on adding stroke to make a 383 while keeping stock 243s would be the better option for adding HP as opposed to stock 346 displacement and professionally CNC ported 243s.
That is exactly what I'm saying and we are in agreement Bigger is better, everything else equal no doubt.
"Others" were suggesting spending thousands on adding stroke to make a 383 while keeping stock 243s would be the better option for adding HP as opposed to stock 346 displacement and professionally CNC ported 243s.
Bigger is better, everything else equal no doubt. "Others" were suggesting spending thousands on adding stroke to make a 383 while keeping stock 243s would be the better option for adding HP as opposed to stock 346 displacement and professionally CNC ported 243s.
So, I chimed in because I disagree with the concept. I'm not saying everyone should go out a buy a 383ci LS1 and keep the stock heads, what I'm saying is that IF someone were to pick up a stroker either to replace a damaged engine or just for the extra displacement, it's not like it's a bad idea to top it off with a set of stock heads. As shown with the 503whp LS2 example I posted, the stock heads are capable of making 500whp without even being ported or milled.
That cam will lose low-mid range torque and probably gain 10-15 up top. Not worth the swap, imo. Unless you're already there and have a free LS7 cam or something. It has huge exhaust duration (for a stock car cam) and a super wide LSA. You will lose cylinder pressure with that.
Thread Starter
Staging Lane
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
i did in fact get the cam for free, i wanna use it becasue lets face it...its the largest factory production cam gm made. i did some research and i forget who, i think hot rod mag, did a cam test and the LS7 was the best in their 5.3 which was otherwise stock. but like i said i have 243 heads which add compression from what i hear. as for the toque, i have 3:73 gears so i wont miss the loss...
TECH Addict
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 123
From: Portland, Oregon
So, to summarize what's going on, and clear up any confusion that may have been caused by the stroker debate...
You are staying stock displacement with a rebuilt shortblock, having advanced induction port your 243's, and installing the ls7 cam, with a fast 92, and 1.75" headers, correct?
You are staying stock displacement with a rebuilt shortblock, having advanced induction port your 243's, and installing the ls7 cam, with a fast 92, and 1.75" headers, correct?