"Cathedral" or Rectangular" Cylinder Heads ?
Reliability, "Stealth", longevity, mpg, and lack of oil consumption are highly important.
I'm looking at a Stroker, but the "combinations" are messing with my mind . . . I know that I will be going "all forged", even though this is a street motor.
I am trying to decide the "H-Beam" vs. "I-Beam" connecting rod issue . . . Thoughts ?
These are the combinations I'm considering :
LS2 Block :
4.000" Bore X 3.900" Stroke = 392 - 398 ci ( + .030" or less is OK )
4.000" Bore X 4.000" Stroke = 402 - 408 ci ( + .030" or less is OK )
LQ4 / LQ9 Block: ( The extra 60 lbs. doesn't bother me )
4.000" Bore X 3.900" Stroke = 392 - 398 ci ( + .030" or less is OK )
4.000" Bore X 4.000" Stroke = 402 - 408 ci ( + .030" or less is OK )
LS3 Block :
4.065" Bore X 3.900" Stroke = 405 ci
4.065" Bore X 4.000" Stroke = 415 ci
I am favoring the 3.900" Stroke to reduce piston rock, decrease oil consumption, and to get the Wrist Pin out the the Oil Ring Land.
HEADS : "CATHEDRAL" or "RECTANGULAR" Port Heads ???
This is my BIGGEST question . . . I really need HELP on this area !!!
I have been thinking about CNC ported L92 / LS3 heads from Scoggin-Dickey, but am worried they might be "too large" for a street motor and "lazy" at low rpm. Heads are an area where I have very little technical knowledge, so I need all the help I can get !
CAMSHAFT : I have been looking at the Lingenfelter (LPE ) GT-11 Cam, but I would like to get Patrick G. to optimize a cam, based on my specific motor.
Thanks, in advance, for you input !
I have no intention of spending $2000 apiece for cylinder heads. That's why the L92 heads appeal to me . . . Big flow at a low price, only $850 each, CNC ported.
https://sdparts.com/details/scoggin-...enter/sd8804-1
I want a dynamic compression of 8.5:1, for pump gas, on the street.
I'm concerned that the large ports might be sluggish in street driving.
Last edited by ez2cdave; Feb 8, 2014 at 01:30 AM.

https://sdparts.com/details/scoggin-...enter/sd8804-1
Trending Topics
Figure out what size block you want to use as your foundation and go from there.
You could easily attain your results with any of the blocks you named off, including the LS1 the car came with. Wouldn't really need to build a stroker either. Good H/C/I set up runs 420-450rwhp easily. Stroker obviously would make this easier.
H beam rods are budget friendly as far as reliable power rating goes. For 545 bucks, the Callies pieces have been ran way past their rated limit and are a steal honestly.
Oil consumption is more or less related to the factory pcv system, its junk.
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
I have no intention of spending $2000 apiece for cylinder heads. That's why the L92 heads appeal to me . . . Big flow at a low price, only $850 each, CNC ported.
https://sdparts.com/details/scoggin-...enter/sd8804-1
I want a dynamic compression of 8.5:1, for pump gas, on the street.
I'm concerned that the large ports might be sluggish in street driving.
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...d/viewall.html
Figure out what size block you want to use as your foundation and go from there.
You could easily attain your results with any of the blocks you named off, including the LS1 the car came with. Wouldn't really need to build a stroker either. Good H/C/I set up runs 420-450rwhp easily. Stroker obviously would make this easier.
H beam rods are budget friendly as far as reliable power rating goes. For 545 bucks, the Callies pieces have been ran way past their rated limit and are a steal honestly.
Oil consumption is more or less related to the factory pcv system, its junk.
The 346 LS1 would never be able to deliver the "numbers" without having a fairly radical cam.
I am looking for a smooth idle ( or barely noticeable ), as this is a stealth / sleeper project and a true daily driver ( 40-50 miles a day )
By upping the cubes to 392 - 408, a far less aggressive cam profile would be needed. Also, with more torque on hand, deep rear end gearing wouldn't be necessary. That would help my mpg and not sacrifice any top end speed, as a tradeoff would occur with a lower ring & pinion.
I have read about oil consumption problems, in stroker motors, being caused by the pistons rocking at the bottom of the bore, caused by the increased stroke length. Also, it negatively affects engine longevity.
Last edited by ez2cdave; Feb 8, 2014 at 01:56 AM.
I am still "on the fence" on the issue of the stroke . . . 3.900" vs. 4.000".
I would seriously have to differ with you on a "radical cam" needed to make 400-450rwhp. Most of the time people compensate poor heads with a bigger camshaft. Or the cam is way too big in the first place. A properly designed cam can be tame as a kitten. I daily drove a stock cube cam only MS3 6 speed with 3.42's for 3 years, no problems LOL. Mid 230's duration cam's in a LS1 with good heads have made 430-450 with DD quality. Overlap is usually thought of in terms of how radical a cam is, not just duration figures.
Unless your building a stump puller type engine not meant for a sports car, you will most likely end up with some what of a gear change different from the factory size you have now.
Piston rock isn't much of a problem with LS style engines. Properly designed pistons for the rod and stroke, accurate bore, and awesome ring packs we have now help eliminate this problem. I mean if your really asking about H beam vs I beam "issue", which I wasn't aware there was an issue, only in terms of material and power handling abilities, piston rock should be at the bottom of your list of things to think about. I think your concerning yourself with shorter deck height issues of the past than anything.
Chevrolet did produce an engine known as a LY6, essentially a 6.0 iron block with LS3/L92 heads on it out of the factory. You can usually pick one of those up as a entire pull out unit for around 2,000. Also another good starting point to use as a build. A lot of your hard parts are already together, your just swapping out some components.
If you want a serious recommendation, ask the guys that have built both style of engine (your going to talk to pat G, ask his opinion) and you'll get your answer. I've built both, and nagged other people to death who did LOL. I'd take rectangular heads on a 7000+rpm strip motor, cathedral heads for a street/strip car (or small-med bore aftermarket LS3/7 heads, TSP, MAST). Choice is really budget dependent. Nice thing about LS3 heads is the intake is dirt cheap LOL. If your not going ***** out though, I don't think either decision you make on heads will really matter. Either way, it'll be fun to drive.
If you want more of a torquey street motor, go 4" stroke. Get off the fence, its not a pleasant place to sit. You'd have a nice 408.

Good luck on whichever route you decide to take!
Piston rock isn't much of a problem with LS style engines. Properly designed pistons for the rod and stroke, accurate bore, and awesome ring packs we have now help eliminate this problem. I mean if your really asking about H beam vs I beam "issue", which I wasn't aware there was an issue, only in terms of material and power handling abilities, piston rock should be at the bottom of your list of things to think about. I think your concerning yourself with shorter deck height issues of the past than anything.
Chevrolet did produce an engine known as a LY6, essentially a 6.0 iron block with LS3/L92 heads on it out of the factory. You can usually pick one of those up as a entire pull out unit for around 2,000. Also another good starting point to use as a build. A lot of your hard parts are already together, your just swapping out some components.
Piston rock is a factor in any stroke over 4", from what I've read online.
"Shorter Deck Height issues of the past" ? Don't all of the production LS motors have a 9.240" Deck Height ? I'm worried about Compression Height issues, oil consumption, and longevity, even with a 4" Stroke.
The rod "issue" is a question of strength vs. weight (I-Beams are usually lighter ).
LY6 - I have considered that, but the static compression is only 9.67:1 and I would be getting a cast rotating assembly. It also retains the stock 3.622" stroke.
Last edited by ez2cdave; Feb 8, 2014 at 11:41 AM.

