LPEZR1

Talked to MTI yesterday and I think I'm gonna do a stroker. Asked about a big bore but just 30% more to have to the biggest baddest! Anyone here done 434 with MTI yet? Any reason not to do a 434 vs a 422?

RyanJ

i know a guy that will have a 434 in a few weeks <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Ryan

SStrokerAce

iTrader: (2)

isin't a 422 Al?

The 434 is a beast but it should make more TQ than the 422.

Good luck

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

I will be the first one to have an MTI 434ci stroker. Possibly two weeks if things go as planned.

4.155" bore x 4.00" stroke
LS6 Stage 3 heads
"S1" 244/244 .610/.610 112 cam

Should be *fun* <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

Tony

jmX

S1? Who is S?

BTW, it looks like the G5 is close to a cam I once had. Should be the J5 yo!

Crazyquik

The S is from Sanders, should be a bit more streetable with Tony's added cubes and M6 though.

J.

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

Yep, the "Sanders1" cam. Same one that is in his current 9-second 422ci setup. There will be a "S2" coming in a few months though (muahahaha!)

The S1 cam was also used in Bill Walters' 9-second MTI 422 C5 6-speed. Sounds badass!

PS, I'm not the first one getting the MTI 4.155" bore though. They are almost finished with an all-bore 393ci setup that uses the stock 3.62" stroke crank. Should be interesting <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

Tony

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Tony you are going to have the most monstrous street machine on the road... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

449pacecar

Good luck with MTI.

xxxhp

I chose to have the S1 cam in my motor but with 114 LS. Hopefully that will help the car to idle better.

Will Race 4 Food

Tony, what are they doing for a 4.155" bore? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> A 6 litre Iron block bored or linered, or an Alloy LS1 block bored/linered?
would like to know!!!
Also, Question two, how come that stroke? Wouldn't the Lunati 4.25" crank, taking it out to 454" would be better? On on olp post here I read that Colonel considered, along with others that a 454 inch engine would be the 'ticket'? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Cool]" src="gr_images/icons/cool.gif" />
Your thoughts, as you are very respected on this site! Thanks!! <img border="0" alt="[Burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" />

RyanJ

actually the colonel and others considered the 422 the 'ticket'. optimun performance for our intake and a good rod/stroke ratio. i would NEVER under-square a motor (more stroke than bore). 434 is just the next logical step. BTW, its a re-sleeved aluminum ls1 block. iron blocks can only be safely bored to 4.060" if that. most stick to 4.04 or 4.03. luckily new development is happening everyday. 4.155" now....4.25 later <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> but thats kinda stretching it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Ryan

Will Race 4 Food

Ryan (The Judge),
Whats the cost (to your knowledge) of the 4.155" liners in an alloy LS1 block run? Can any good engine machine shop handle it, or one that specialises in LS1's you think? (As I'm here in Sydney) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" />

Will Race 4 Food

Any takers? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" />

strife

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by The Judge:
<strong>actually the colonel and others considered the 422 the 'ticket'. optimun performance for our intake and a good rod/stroke ratio. i would NEVER under-square a motor (more stroke than bore). 434 is just the next logical step. BTW, its a re-sleeved aluminum ls1 block. iron blocks can only be safely bored to 4.060" if that. most stick to 4.04 or 4.03. luckily new development is happening everyday. 4.155" now....4.25 later <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> but thats kinda stretching it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />

Ryan</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">what is the impact of being under-square

I guess all the 382 strokers are under square

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

Ryan is correct, my block will be a resleeved aluminum LS1 block. MTI has three different sizes of custom-made cylinder liners, the smallest ones are used for the 422ci blocks.

How much to expect to spend? Just the sleeves are around $600 a set, and the cost to machine/insert them into an aluminum block is most likely over $100 per cylinder.

As for the size of the motor, yes I could have gone with a 4.25" stroker crank. That would have produced an under-square motor though, and I am not a fan of such setups. Also, with our restrictive intake manifolds (using the LS6 here), the additional cubes will most likely be choked severely and we would just be riding on the limits of any additional returns from cubes. So, in other words, I'd rather have a badass running 434ci motor than a mediocre 461ci setup <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> . The over-square 434ci might even make more power than the under-square 461ci.

Another option I'd have considered is a square motor with 4.155 bore and stroke = 451ci, but again we are probaly still intake limited there.

Now, with some custom sheetmetal intake and a solid roller camshaft, things could get nasty! Maybe next season <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

Tony

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

Strife, there isn't anything "wrong" so to speak with an under-square motor. Every shop and engine builder has his own "rules" that they wish to follow when spec'ing out a motor. I know of many, many racing motor builders (drag racing, circle track, NASCAR, etc..) that swear by the results of either a square or over-square setup. Even our stock LS1s are over-square. These over-square setups tend to rev quicker, and also allow for larger valves in most cases due to the opened up cylinder head chambers (compared to motors of the same cubes with more stroke).

A good example of a factory undersquare motor that is weak? The 4.6L Modular Ford motor haha

Tony

MattG

ARE is just about finished building my 436 which is a 4.125 stroke and 4.100 bore. I went with the slightly extra stroke because I want the most low RPM torque I can get for pulling out of corners on a roadcourse.

I am having a pretty large 112LSA cam installed as well with > .610 lift. I am looking very forward to the results and going for a first drive! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />

strife

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by MattG:
<strong>ARE is just about finished building my 436 which is a 4.125 stroke and 4.100 bore. I went with the slightly extra stroke because I want the most low RPM torque I can get for pulling out of corners on a roadcourse.

I am having a pretty large 112LSA cam installed as well with > .610 lift. I am looking very forward to the results and going for a first drive! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">hence my question I have a 436 sitting at ARE waiting to ship

and a supercharged 382 in my barge

MattG

A 4.125 x 4.100 436ci isnt that far under square at all (0.025). I do agree that an engine with more bore than stroke is better for a high rev'ing dragrace application, which is not what I wanted.

I wanted max bore for unshrouding my 2.08/1.60 valves and the extra stroke for low end grunt.