iron LQ4 427 (4.060 by 4.125)... Why not?
09-30-2002, 10:59 AM
#1
iron LQ4 427 (4.060 by 4.125)... Why not? I understand the weight issue (consider it compensated for)... But for total NA endurance beating on... could there be a better setup? I understand folks like the 415/408s alot with their 4.000 stroke, but if its the same $$$, why not add the 4.125" stroke for great below 4000 torque?
chris
chris
09-30-2002, 11:47 AM
#3
Re: iron LQ4 427 (4.060 by 4.125)... Why not? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Nasty N8:
<strong>Great TQ no RPM extention.
Nate</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">From all the other threads, the RPM extention I do not think will be a big issue. I am guessing 6300 vs 6900 with a 4.125" Stroke compaired to a 4.000" Stroke. Now if it was 8000 vs 6300, now that is an issue <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
<strong>Great TQ no RPM extention.
Nate</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">From all the other threads, the RPM extention I do not think will be a big issue. I am guessing 6300 vs 6900 with a 4.125" Stroke compaired to a 4.000" Stroke. Now if it was 8000 vs 6300, now that is an issue <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
