turbo

iTrader: (10)

A 5.0L LS1. The one motor trend did a article on. http://www.cz28.com/articles/302camaro/index.shtml

How do you get to a 5.0L? What size pistons? What length of rods do you use?

Do you have to get a seperate crank?

Anything you have to do to the heads? Like valves or sort?

Just curious how they did this...

They all used JE pitons, Lightweight Dyer rods. and a Solid roller camshaft.

Casey

Crazyquik

Yeah it was built by Westech. Solid roller cam, ported heads, think it made ~375 rwhp or so, PSJ has driven it, he knows more than most about its specs.

The 4.8 liter LS1 has a stroke of 3.268" The 4.8 and 5.3 share the same bore.

A 4.8 with an offset ground crank is ~302. (3.779 bore x 3.368 stroke). That seems like the easiest way to me. They could have bored a 4.8 block .050 for 301 ci or .060 for 303 ci, but I dont know if the 4.8/5.3 block can be bored that much.

J.

BIGBOS

It would of made a nice little collector car...I got to ask PSJ about this one... <img src="gr_stretch.gif" border="0">

RyanJ

i would think the easiest way is to take a stock 6.0L block (4" bore) and stick in a custom 3" crank. money talks and Westech has plenty of it. those were the dimensions of the original 302 anyway.


Ryan

Crazyquik

Ok, found the Motor Trend article about it.

ported LS6 heads, shaft mounted roller rockers, 14" cross drilled brake discs, TTS headers, 378 rwhp@6800 rpm.

They said it was still pulling at 7500 rpm. Now for the acceleration numbers, they dont run on a prepped drag track. On 18" Torque Thrust II's with BFG tires it ran 12.82@115 and 0-60 in 4.60. Braking from 60-0 was 112 feet.

They complained about the loud exhaust though <img src="gr_tounge.gif" border="0">

The article says it uses the stock block though, and even with the shortest stock GEN-III crank that would be too many cubes, so it might have a totally custom crank.

[ December 18, 2001: Message edited by: Crazyquik ]</p>

turbo

iTrader: (10)

They said they used a Westech aluminum block, not a stock one..

Id really like to know how they did this..


Casey

turbo

iTrader: (10)

TTT! lets figure this out!

Casey

racer7088

You could do it any way you want. It's not anything very mysterious or hard to do. It offers a reduction of hp that now occurs higher than a bigger motor basically.

ChrisB

[quote]Originally posted by turbo:
<strong>Id really like to know how they did this..
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'd rather know *why* they did this - I can't think of a good reason other than for nostalgia.


Chris

One Monkey

Well, why there did it is Just for press! Onless it's a a rule for a racing saction. They is really no reason to Destroke a engine, The thing every one like too say is it can rev high. But the 346 Cube can Rev just as high and make more power. (this is excluding the stuff it takes to make ether engine run that high) A 382 Big bore would be even better. A stroker 402 with a 4" stroke might be even better. As long as the heads could keep up the bigger motors will make more power and rev just as high. the heads and Intake will give up before the piston speed dose on most of these applications.

turbo

iTrader: (10)

I still would think it would be safer and last longer without such a big stroke.

What do all the guys with a 422 or 418 or whatever runs theirs up too?

Casey

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: turbo ]</p>

racer7088

Turbo,

The more cubic inches you have the less you will rev with the same heads and intake and/or cam. The bigger engine will wear LESS since your overall rpm will be DOWN. The 418 would wear more if you did rev it to 8000 though but it would have a hell of a lot more power too!
<img src="graemlins/burnout.gif" border="0" alt="[Burnout]" />

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

That car has LS6 heads, LS6 intake, and an aluminum block. I think it's a stock bore motor with JE pistons. It has a Comp solid roller camshaft and I think it has Jesel rockers.

If I recall Westech used a 4.8 liter crankshaft. Find the stroke for one of those and multiply it by bore (3.900) and see if that sounds right. I know that Westech did have a prototype motor lying around that GM had made in 1996 that had a custom size crank in it, but I think the last motor in that showcar had a 4.8 liter crank.

The first camshaft in that car was too mild. The second one is not bad, it's like 25_/25_ duration//112 LSA, so it's healthy but I would go even a bit more. Car had a lot of huevos from 5500 to infinity. I know it has 4.56 gears now too.

Matt98SS

I'm with one monkey and Eric K (racer7088) why destroke it and make it smaller and have to rev it to 7500 just to make less power than most heads/cam cars with not so exotic parts?

only reason would be if you were racing in a sanctioned body that required under 305 cubic inches

turbo

iTrader: (10)

Because I for what I want to do I would like a higher reving motor. The thing puts out plenty of horse power and topend(not that any LS1s dont), which also, what I want. I dont think I would go all the way to a 302 though. But would be nice.

I got plans for this setup that I have been pondering in my head. I wont do it for a while anyways.

Pro Stock John, what cam would you put in that thing, also what cam would you use if you went forced induction.

Casey

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: turbo ]</p>

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

Dunno, displacement is bore X stroke. One of those #'s would need be smaller. Custom crank will be over $2000.

I would not go over 600 lift in really most applications. Hard on the springs.

turbo

iTrader: (10)

Why so high on the 260/270? I dont know understand cams completly. Why run 260/270, when I run a 222/222 on my LS1, just curious cause I dont know.

Thanks for your time.

Casey

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

We need a solid roller guru to now take over but basically a 260/270 solid roller is equivalent to a smaller hydraulic roller.

turbo

iTrader: (10)

ah cool, thanks. I totally forgot about them using a solid roller.

Casey

Pro Stock John

iTrader: (34)

Casey, that solid roller is a big deal. Increases the cost by quite a few bux.

Perhaps also try sending an email to Westech:

Westech@techheadnet.com
262.889.4346
Norm Brandes