500+ ci LSx
There are some people here posting without bothering to do some basic research. The ERL 500 was first seen at PRI in 2005.-long before anyone elses. The ERL/SAM 500ci is a street engine..pure and simple. You can buy a turn key version of it from ERL today if you want. ERL and Jud decided a "race" version would scare potential buyers into thinking it was a exotic high maintenance piece...so a pump gas small cam wet sump version was decided for the first go. Brushed up Ls7 heads and factory LS7 manifold---doesn't get much more simple that that. low 250@.050 cam idles nice in this cube engine. Made a bit over 700 horsepower at the crank at 6300 and held power well up to 7000....Linda was holding it at 7300 at 1000 ft. mark against the limiter when her car wasn't geared for the increased Trapspeed at the first LSX shootout. Torque starts at around 600 and hits 650 ft. lbs at 3600 if I remember right. 10.200 deck in this case (but can be made at different heights easily). A boost version is available with a 6.600 rod and the street version comes with a 6.800 rod. It was sprayed with a simple NOS ring 250 shot for test purposes (making sure the head gaskets would be happy at 4.200 bore) which resulted in around 92x hp and torque. That thing was hammered on the dyno over 60 pulls before being going into Lindas car. Sleeve length and rod angle are real nice...the engine will run for a long time on the street. At some point, someone will spend the bucks on a race engine....Canted Valve heads and sheetmetal on it will make 1000hp N.A.
No oil burning issues from that long stroke? Like zero?
You just need custom long tubes for that right? Everything else is pretty much interchangable from a regular LSx engine, right?
Why would ANY engine burn oil if it were put together with the right parts and knowledge? No competent engine builder so compromises an engine that it may be an oil-burner. Some people around here need to get it out of there heads that big-stroke automatically makes an oil-burner.
Why would ANY engine burn oil if it were put together with the right parts and knowledge? No competent engine builder so compromises an engine that it may be an oil-burner. Some people around here need to get it out of there heads that big-stroke automatically makes an oil-burner.
I don't know anything about the ERL engines, I have no idea what sleeves they use, but engines runs perfectly and still have too much piston come out the bottom of the cylinder and they burn oil if the stroke is too long.
I just find it hard to believe that the big ERL stroker doesn't burn a drop more than say a 4" stroke LS7 engine would.
Maybe though, thats why I asked what the results have been with them, since they are so rare and noone around here has one. "b-nutter" seems to know about them.
And if this is a 100% "street engine" then it can't burn a drop more than any other LSx engine does, or it's gonna be a pain in the *** to own for a daily driver.
Last edited by LS6427; Jan 25, 2009 at 11:43 AM.
On The Tree
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
From: Maryland
IMO ... I dont think you NEED 500+ci.
Eric vonHentschel built a pair of engines for a guys brand new 28' Skater that were very impressive. They are 460ci based on the 9.800 Warhawk block and used ETs 4.0" small valve LS7 head, mild solid roller, 10.7:1 compression and on pump gas they made 720HP @ 6700, held over 600 ft/lbs from 4300 to 6300 and peak TQ was 645 @ 5100. Imagine the possibilities w/ the larger LS7head or even a C5R head and a more aggressive camshaft. This is honest, RELIABLE N/A HP on 91 octane.
Just some food for thought.
Eric also built this N/A LS7 in DBNs Corvette:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/drag-raci...-144-83-a.html
Eric vonHentschel built a pair of engines for a guys brand new 28' Skater that were very impressive. They are 460ci based on the 9.800 Warhawk block and used ETs 4.0" small valve LS7 head, mild solid roller, 10.7:1 compression and on pump gas they made 720HP @ 6700, held over 600 ft/lbs from 4300 to 6300 and peak TQ was 645 @ 5100. Imagine the possibilities w/ the larger LS7head or even a C5R head and a more aggressive camshaft. This is honest, RELIABLE N/A HP on 91 octane.
Just some food for thought.
Eric also built this N/A LS7 in DBNs Corvette:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/drag-raci...-144-83-a.html
edit: I see how they don't have oil burning issues, tall deck, which allows for longer sleeves, which gives better piston support. Thats what I gather anyway.
I don't know anything about the ERL engines, I have no idea what sleeves they use, but engines runs perfectly and still have too much piston come out the bottom of the cylinder and they burn oil if the stroke is too long.
I just find it hard to believe that the big ERL stroker doesn't burn a drop more than say a 4" stroke LS7 engine would.
Maybe though, thats why I asked what the results have been with them, since they are so rare and noone around here has one. "b-nutter" seems to know about them.
And if this is a 100% "street engine" then it can't burn a drop more than any other LSx engine does, or it's gonna be a pain in the *** to own for a daily driver.
I don't know anything about the ERL engines, I have no idea what sleeves they use, but engines runs perfectly and still have too much piston come out the bottom of the cylinder and they burn oil if the stroke is too long.
I just find it hard to believe that the big ERL stroker doesn't burn a drop more than say a 4" stroke LS7 engine would.
Maybe though, thats why I asked what the results have been with them, since they are so rare and noone around here has one. "b-nutter" seems to know about them.
And if this is a 100% "street engine" then it can't burn a drop more than any other LSx engine does, or it's gonna be a pain in the *** to own for a daily driver.
That is the piston at BDC, and thats all it protrudes from the bottom. No abnormal oil consumption, even after multiple 900+hp pulls on the dyno. Not even smoke out the header.
I have ridden in this monster and it pulls like a f'ing freight train. After a tune on the chassis dyno, it idled better than most of the "donkey dick" cammed streetcars out there. It didn't even have the oh-so-common surge issues.
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 437
Likes: 2
From: Cleveland
As the heads continue to get better, the added cubes from the ERL, Warhawk, RHS and LSX tall decks are going to do a good job of keeping the rpm down to a level that's valvetrain friendly (hydraulic roller...etc.etc.). I also have a customer that put a 4.500 stroke in a warhawk...the skirt shape we use on our stroker pistons has a break point (where taper is introduced) above the bottom of the sleeve length which will keep the piston stable in the bore at bdc. This is the "secret" to keeping the strokers from oiling.
Fritz from Katech spoke at AETC about oiling issues (at first) with their latter 500 program, but theirs was a billet Nicasil bore Dart block to start with, It was later iron sleeved-apparently fixing the issue...although he did say bore was brought down a bit from original as well. I can tell to from experience that ring availability in 4.200 is mediocre at the moment and Nicasil has requirements that Iron doesn't. I do not know deck height or sleeve length in that engine..but I think it's closer to 9.8 than 10.2.
Yep, custom headers were needed for a couple reasons. One was the need for bigger than typical primaries. The collectors were too high up as well on normal headers. The 9.800 versions of all blocks will be a bit better in that respect...but comes with the penalties of shorter rod lengths.
Fritz from Katech spoke at AETC about oiling issues (at first) with their latter 500 program, but theirs was a billet Nicasil bore Dart block to start with, It was later iron sleeved-apparently fixing the issue...although he did say bore was brought down a bit from original as well. I can tell to from experience that ring availability in 4.200 is mediocre at the moment and Nicasil has requirements that Iron doesn't. I do not know deck height or sleeve length in that engine..but I think it's closer to 9.8 than 10.2.
Yep, custom headers were needed for a couple reasons. One was the need for bigger than typical primaries. The collectors were too high up as well on normal headers. The 9.800 versions of all blocks will be a bit better in that respect...but comes with the penalties of shorter rod lengths.
Why would ANY engine burn oil if it were put together with the right parts and knowledge? No competent engine builder so compromises an engine that it may be an oil-burner. Some people around here need to get it out of there heads that big-stroke automatically makes an oil-burner.
As the heads continue to get better, the added cubes from the ERL, Warhawk, RHS and LSX tall decks are going to do a good job of keeping the rpm down to a level that's valvetrain friendly (hydraulic roller...etc.etc.).
Fritz from Katech spoke at AETC about oiling issues (at first) with their latter 500 program, but theirs was a billet Nicasil bore Dart block to start with, It was later iron sleeved-apparently fixing the issue...although he did say bore was brought down a bit from original as well. I can tell to from experience that ring availability in 4.200 is mediocre at the moment and Nicasil has requirements that Iron doesn't. .
Fritz from Katech spoke at AETC about oiling issues (at first) with their latter 500 program, but theirs was a billet Nicasil bore Dart block to start with, It was later iron sleeved-apparently fixing the issue...although he did say bore was brought down a bit from original as well. I can tell to from experience that ring availability in 4.200 is mediocre at the moment and Nicasil has requirements that Iron doesn't. .
Bigger is better afterall
We might see 800-850 hp "normal" hyd roller engines some day Brian with these larger engines and good cyl heads. 
Fritz said they were still having decent amount of oiling issue I thought.He was really interested in what Carduccio was talking about with their final bore finishing it seemed like at lunch the one day.
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 437
Likes: 2
From: Cleveland
Bigger is better afterall We might see 800-850 hp "normal" hyd roller engines some day Brian with these larger engines and good cyl heads.
Fritz said they were still having decent amount of oiling issue I thought.He was really interested in what Carduccio was talking about with their final bore finishing it seemed like at lunch the one day.
We might see 800-850 hp "normal" hyd roller engines some day Brian with these larger engines and good cyl heads. Fritz said they were still having decent amount of oiling issue I thought.He was really interested in what Carduccio was talking about with their final bore finishing it seemed like at lunch the one day.
Yes, 4.250, 4.375, and 4.500 stroke LS cranks are in the works by all the players. The rod and piston guys are working out the best combinations...although I wished the RHS block was 9.800 out of the box rather than 9.750...it makes it tough to make a stadardized (read inexpensive) part numbers.
The ERL/Sam bore finish was pretty ordinary.. Rings too...just plasma moly iron. Machine work was excellent though which always helps. Fritz does a good job though and I'll be eager to see how their program is comes along....
Yes, 4.250, 4.375, and 4.500 stroke LS cranks are in the works by all the players. The rod and piston guys are working out the best combinations...although I wished the RHS block was 9.800 out of the box rather than 9.750...it makes it tough to make a stadardized (read inexpensive) part numbers.
Yes, 4.250, 4.375, and 4.500 stroke LS cranks are in the works by all the players. The rod and piston guys are working out the best combinations...although I wished the RHS block was 9.800 out of the box rather than 9.750...it makes it tough to make a stadardized (read inexpensive) part numbers.
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,280
Likes: 49
From: Hampstead, NC
thanks for the input everyone. sounds like there will be some progression in bigger displacement in the coming months, and it will be interesting to see how as more and more people build these bigger (around 500 ci) engines how they fare. i still wanna see someone do a 4.5 inch stroke 4.25 inch bore LSx.
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 437
Likes: 2
From: Cleveland
I'd probably count the 4.250 bore sizes out because of the thin spot between the cylinders..there just a gigantic hole between 4.200 and 4.250 on the ring sizes....and we hit the magic "500" number with a 4.2025 bore.
I myself am waiting to try and do a solid roller 481 ci when the 4.5" cranks become available. 4.500" stroke x 4.125" bore with some cnc'd l92's and some nitrous to get a somewhat budget 1000hp.
Getting horsepower and worrying about RPM is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Prostock racers are always looking for more RPM because thats how they MAKE hp. Internally balanced motors can spin to their hearts content, especially with a dry sump (and on a 30k budget a dry sump is a drop in the bucket).
Getting horsepower and worrying about RPM is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Prostock racers are always looking for more RPM because thats how they MAKE hp. Internally balanced motors can spin to their hearts content, especially with a dry sump (and on a 30k budget a dry sump is a drop in the bucket).
Im more rpm is better as well, within reasonable limits
Getting horsepower and worrying about RPM is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Prostock racers are always looking for more RPM because thats how they MAKE hp. Internally balanced motors can spin to their hearts content, especially with a dry sump (and on a 30k budget a dry sump is a drop in the bucket).