406 lsx vs 408 lsx
Last edited by my406cid; Aug 9, 2017 at 01:10 PM.
Trending Topics
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
I understand the thought of someone wanting to rev a engine. Why have a nice bore size with what I call non existent Tq. What 4 inch cranks don't spin anymore? That one little thread about a destroked Ls7 now 4 inch cranks don't rev to 8k+.
I understand being different. But cutting your self is not good. Bigger is better and easier on parts to make the same hp. The same 406 starting with a 4 inch crank does what in comparison to the 406. Destroke for what? I see guys saying how well they rev with smaller crank sizes... Didn't Tony Mamo just do something nice with a stroker build.
Last edited by Patron; Aug 9, 2017 at 02:31 PM.




CID. Bigger Bore = Bigger Valves and Bigger Airflow. Torque is Primarily
CID + Compression. Valve Events determine where the peaks are and
Shape of curve/plateau as long as cammed for intended purpose/RPM
Range.
Example:
Boss 429 VS 426 Hemi in NASCAR 69-71. Boss 429 made consistently
50 HP more and only Super Bird & Daytona bodies kept it close!
4.36" X 3.59" VS 4.25" X 3.75" 8000-8500 RPM.
Last edited by NAVYBLUE210; Aug 9, 2017 at 07:01 PM.
Last edited by my406cid; Aug 9, 2017 at 06:18 PM.
And for examples listed: how do you like SAM"s engine or this one not with some tiny crank.
And not some big block limited on displacement. Yes bore is better but why carry a 22 when you can have a 44 magnum in the same size. I want to see the comparison. I know of 2 408's spinning past 8k and both were past 800. ER with a bigger bore would make 800 but a drop on TQ and more RPM to make the same 800+. I'm with you all on bigger bore Not stroke. Also as I said once before go look at Speeds build and look at Navys build. It's there for you to see simple as that 406 vs 408 basically the same as Speed and Navy.
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/ght...-440ci-na-lsx/
The longer the stroke the more demand you place on your top end which far and away is the most expensive component - valvetrain, heads, and intake can either be $2000 or $10,000...
3.75" vs 4.00" is only a 6.67% increase in piston speed which is not outrageous. That's 6000 rpm vs 6400 rpm.
A stock ls3 stroke vs 4.00" stroke is 10.5% difference in piston speed which is getting to be significant.
Looking at the 4.125" racing builds gets a little nutso.. almost 14% increase in piston speed compared to a stock stroke ls3.
Yes - if you can feed the air to it build the biggest engine possible. Otherwise you'd better size your engine around your heads and intake or you're going to have a bad time.
Didn't mean for that to sound like hundreds of horsepowers.
The shorter stroke engine will be smoother running, last longer, have a quicker throttle response, and will make more power at the same RPM with all other variables held constant.
The reduced friction in my opinion will allow you to generate more average power where it matters (torque peak to past peak power) than you can with a longer stroke engine as the power will begin to fall off no matter what you do. (again - with all other variables held constant like cylinder head size and airflow potential)
Also, I am assuming you meant that if both engines have equal displacement. If they both have the same bore, the longer stroke engine will have more displacement and make more power. It would also allow you to increase the duration and in some cases lift of the camshaft to allow you to make even more power than the smaller engine in the same RPM range.
Last edited by Patron; Aug 9, 2017 at 04:19 PM.
The shorter stroke engine will be smoother running, last longer, have a quicker throttle response, and will make more power at the same RPM with all other variables held constant.
The reduced friction in my opinion will allow you to generate more average power where it matters (torque peak to past peak power) than you can with a longer stroke engine as the power will begin to fall off no matter what you do. (again - with all other variables held constant like cylinder head size and airflow potential)
I can oscillate at 360+ strokes per minute at 6mm stroke, but at 210, I can oscillate 14mm. I know compared to an engine, those seem small, but the mass that is oscillating is several tons.
Based on this - how I apply it to a motor is -- at a given RPM, the longer stroke has higher acceleration forces on the pistons and rods (necessary to reverse direction). As RPM increases, so does the increased stroke increase the effect on acceleration force. Also, as RPM increases, the acceleration on the pistons increases faster than RPM increases. Y=x vs Y=x-squared. BUT, the longer stroke due to more air and fuel should be making more torque and power. UNTIL the increase in internal acceleration of the engine increases faster than the airflow in can increase.
I think this is why shorter stroke engines tend to peak later in RPM and carry better, all else being equal. Conversely, I'd expect the longer stroke to bring the peak RPM down and fall off faster past peak. So, I think I'm seeing what Spanks is seeing.
But I also get what Patron is saying - why build a $15K 406, when for basically the same money you could build a 441.
What i'd like to see is dyno curves of both and the optimal shift points calculated and then calculate average power between upshift and shift point on each motor.
I'm really curious to see how 98_ws6_m6's 383 he's building with a mamo top end will compare with Big Hammer's 388. Both of those are very well built motors - not like its a bad 383 and a tremendous 388




