SAM's 500" LS2 Project *Progress Pics*
04-16-2006, 03:08 AM
#63
TECH Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 10,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Frans96SS
i wanna see...... tell Jud Fran Fran the nitrous man says whats up 
I will pass the words bro. How is everything going on up there? Hit me up with a PM!
04-16-2006, 08:24 AM
#65
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lake Jackson,TX
Posts: 2,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice set-up. Who made the intake? and how much does it flow? I`m trying to figure out a custom intake for my 408 with ET 245`s. Thanks for the pics, SWEET!
04-16-2006, 09:55 PM
#68
TECH Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 10,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by beardWS6
Nice set-up. Who made the intake? and how much does it flow? I`m trying to figure out a custom intake for my 408 with ET 245`s. Thanks for the pics, SWEET!
Well for the C5-R, it is a Beck Intake.
For the 500" LS2, it is an LS7 Intake and LS7 heads that we broomed up.
Todd, I will pass the kind words to Jud and Linda. By the way, when is the best time to call you? I am going to be in Michigan in two weeks and would like to come and check out w2w and other things.
04-17-2006, 06:30 PM
#70
TECH Resident
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Back Door...
Posts: 796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Gray, you didnt mention this on Saturday!!! Holy Mother of God what a project!!!
Will the GI Bill pay me to go there??
We were talking about flow #'s on LS7 heads on Saturday....The heads that yall Broomed up...are those the ones you were talking about Saturday? If they are...now I see why.
Will the GI Bill pay me to go there??
We were talking about flow #'s on LS7 heads on Saturday....The heads that yall Broomed up...are those the ones you were talking about Saturday? If they are...now I see why.
04-18-2006, 01:02 AM
#71
Originally Posted by A_W_O_L
Hey Gray, you didnt mention this on Saturday!!! Holy Mother of God what a project!!!
Will the GI Bill pay me to go there??
We were talking about flow #'s on LS7 heads on Saturday....The heads that yall Broomed up...are those the ones you were talking about Saturday? If they are...now I see why.
Will the GI Bill pay me to go there??
We were talking about flow #'s on LS7 heads on Saturday....The heads that yall Broomed up...are those the ones you were talking about Saturday? If they are...now I see why.
I'll tell ya more about it next time I see ya, just remind me.
And those flow numbers I mentioned Saturday, that was what they flowed right out of the box, BEFORE any work was done on em.
-Kent
06-29-2006, 11:08 AM
#74
Is the huge compression height needed to keep the rings below the deck extension? Even with the grooves on the top land, won't that be a significant source of potential detonation?
Have any allowances been made for side loading on the pistons withe low 1.33 bore/stroke ratio?
Have any allowances been made for side loading on the pistons withe low 1.33 bore/stroke ratio?
06-29-2006, 03:48 PM
#75
TECH Regular
Hey there, I can field this one. The rod length of 6.800 with the 4.500 stroke still yields a rod ratio very simular to a normal 427. The pistons still come to the top of the deck just like normal. To lower the compression to a pumpgas level, a 26cc reverse dome was utilized. The 10.2 deck height was decided upon because the pistons needed to be of a certain height and certain skirt profile to have good long gevity. When people start to add turbo's/big nitrous, ect... to these engines, they will move down to a 6.700 RL to get the extra ring land material and dish volume necessary to lower compression for high boost levels.
06-30-2006, 06:48 AM
#77
Originally Posted by DavidNJ
Is the huge compression height needed to keep the rings below the deck extension? Even with the grooves on the top land, won't that be a significant source of potential detonation?
Have any allowances been made for side loading on the pistons withe low 1.33 bore/stroke ratio?
Have any allowances been made for side loading on the pistons withe low 1.33 bore/stroke ratio?
The R/S ratio is 1.51 with the 6.8 rod.
Congratulations to everyone at S.A.M. . Who gets to be the first to drive it when it's in a car?
06-30-2006, 08:06 AM
#78
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancleave, Ms.
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BigBronco
The Piston speed is going to be right at 5250 at 7,000 rpms.
Our C5-R has the same piston speed at 8,000 rpms.
We are going to keep it nice and safe and churn it around 6800 to 7000 rpms.
Our C5-R has the same piston speed at 8,000 rpms.
We are going to keep it nice and safe and churn it around 6800 to 7000 rpms.
James Last edited by Mean lx; 06-30-2006 at 08:23 AM.
06-30-2006, 08:35 AM
#80
Originally Posted by DavidNJ
Is the huge compression height needed to keep the rings below the deck extension? Even with the grooves on the top land, won't that be a significant source of potential detonation?
Have any allowances been made for side loading on the pistons withe low 1.33 bore/stroke ratio?
Have any allowances been made for side loading on the pistons withe low 1.33 bore/stroke ratio?
I think the sleeves are 1 piece all the way down., not just a sleeved block with a plate slapped on it.
PS - Last I heard, this beast was RUNNING.
