SAM's 500" LS2 Project *Progress Pics*
06-30-2006, 08:47 AM
#81
Originally Posted by BigBronco
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.
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.
what you will do for the headers? and what car this motor will be in?
thanks.
06-30-2006, 01:09 PM
#82
TECH Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 10,591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, we are going to see how our Kooks work in the car so we can let the public know how much needs to be changed to make this work.
The motor is going in our Black 98 Z28.
We will be updating everything with numbers shortly. We have been on summer break but trying to catch up on all of our projects. We have been swamped lately so I apologize on the time. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Gray Arrington
www.SAMracing.com
The motor is going in our Black 98 Z28.
We will be updating everything with numbers shortly. We have been on summer break but trying to catch up on all of our projects. We have been swamped lately so I apologize on the time. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Gray Arrington
www.SAMracing.com
07-01-2006, 03:13 PM
#84
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 xfactor_pitbulls
That thing still hasnt run yet........jeez get to work and off the computer.
Brandon
Brandon
no, it HAS been running. I just kept a TIGHT lid on it
Results here Brandon
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...61#post5102061
11-30-2006, 05:38 PM
#87
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elmhurst, IL (Chicago Suburb)
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is AWESOME and that CRANK is SIMPLY OUTRAGEOUS!!! 
Who offers the LSX type crank this big 4.5 inches, as this will be the perfect MONSTER CRANK to put in that new GM LSX Iron motor which will make about 511 cubes when matched with the 4.25 cylinder bore size.
GOOD LUCK on the results and GREAT JOB!!
Who offers the LSX type crank this big 4.5 inches, as this will be the perfect MONSTER CRANK to put in that new GM LSX Iron motor which will make about 511 cubes when matched with the 4.25 cylinder bore size.
GOOD LUCK on the results and GREAT JOB!!
12-01-2006, 07:29 AM
#89
Maybe I can find and post the dyno video. This one is solid after being a dyno mule for testing intakes and cams all on pump gas. The stock LS7 intake, LS7 head, pump gas set-up was just over 700 HP and 650 tq. in this mild set-up. With a 250 NOS shot it made 922 HP and just over 900 ft/lbs. all below 6300. What a street sleeper since the idle and lack of FI wouldn't indicate 900 HP,900 ft/lb on tap.
With the sheet metal intake it has spun up to 7300 (thanks to the bulletproof Carrillo rods,Wiseco pistons) to see where it quit making power since it was still climbing at 6300. That 7300 was with a 4.5 stroke, no dry sump, hydraulic lifters. The lifters are bushed and lengthened to improve the oil pressure.
We are installing a similar LS7 head/ intake version in a 2005 GTO as a sleeper. I guess we'll see if the tires will work as a fuse or the IRS can handle the massive torque. His plan is to keep as stock appearance as possible and have a crazy driver with all that off idle HP and tq.
We are producing these and have the cranks, but from doing some calculating makes it obvious that the other 9.7 and 9.8" "tall deck" blocks are better suited for shorter strokes. This motor showing at SEMA last year put the pressure on to handle a 4.5 stroke in their "tall blocks". The 6.8 rod/ 4.5 stroke/ long sleeve in this engine eliminates the skirt scuffing, side loading, piston rock and oil burning typical in stroker motors. I know a hundred people are going to say that theres works great, but you have to admit the ideal set-up leaves the piston in the bore, not in the crankcase. You even have room to run a full round skirt for big HP applications, since reluctor wheel clearance isn't an issue.
The pat pending deckplate design actually improves head gasket sealing and cooling over a typical solid deck. That is how we have small 2L (120 ci) turbo motors making 900 whp with ridiculous cylinder pressures that are sealing with (4) 11mm head bolts per cylinder, no o-ring, MLS gaskets on what was originally a 1.6L block.
It would be interesting to see if the head mfg.'s or porters are looking at unshrouding the valves for big bore blocks like this, our other 4.200 bore std. deck height block and the cast iron GM coming? Their looks to be a great deal to be gained in flow from looking at the LS7 heads with the exhaust valve tight to the chamber wall and the spark plug in the way. The intake would benefit as well.
With the sheet metal intake it has spun up to 7300 (thanks to the bulletproof Carrillo rods,Wiseco pistons) to see where it quit making power since it was still climbing at 6300. That 7300 was with a 4.5 stroke, no dry sump, hydraulic lifters. The lifters are bushed and lengthened to improve the oil pressure.
We are installing a similar LS7 head/ intake version in a 2005 GTO as a sleeper. I guess we'll see if the tires will work as a fuse or the IRS can handle the massive torque. His plan is to keep as stock appearance as possible and have a crazy driver with all that off idle HP and tq.
We are producing these and have the cranks, but from doing some calculating makes it obvious that the other 9.7 and 9.8" "tall deck" blocks are better suited for shorter strokes. This motor showing at SEMA last year put the pressure on to handle a 4.5 stroke in their "tall blocks". The 6.8 rod/ 4.5 stroke/ long sleeve in this engine eliminates the skirt scuffing, side loading, piston rock and oil burning typical in stroker motors. I know a hundred people are going to say that theres works great, but you have to admit the ideal set-up leaves the piston in the bore, not in the crankcase. You even have room to run a full round skirt for big HP applications, since reluctor wheel clearance isn't an issue.
The pat pending deckplate design actually improves head gasket sealing and cooling over a typical solid deck. That is how we have small 2L (120 ci) turbo motors making 900 whp with ridiculous cylinder pressures that are sealing with (4) 11mm head bolts per cylinder, no o-ring, MLS gaskets on what was originally a 1.6L block.
It would be interesting to see if the head mfg.'s or porters are looking at unshrouding the valves for big bore blocks like this, our other 4.200 bore std. deck height block and the cast iron GM coming? Their looks to be a great deal to be gained in flow from looking at the LS7 heads with the exhaust valve tight to the chamber wall and the spark plug in the way. The intake would benefit as well.
12-02-2006, 06:42 AM
#90
Quick Carl, that insane! over 900bhp on the bottle?? and with only a little 200shot?? now thats good!
how about you guys stick a F3 on there and see what it can really do!
but really, this is amazing! really good work guys
thanks Chris
how about you guys stick a F3 on there and see what it can really do!
but really, this is amazing! really good work guys
thanks Chris
12-05-2006, 06:56 AM
#92
Originally Posted by Quick Carl
"how about you guys stick a F3 on there and see what it can really do!"
You mean something like this
You mean something like this
i know its a bit of a guesstimate, but could a very streetable 1500bhp be made from this motor on boost??
are you guys still going down the ported LS7 head route? how about the warhawk LSx heads???
thanks Chris.
ps sorry if my posts make no sense but this block has that effect on me! lol
12-05-2006, 08:01 AM
#93
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (53)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Monticello, Kentucky
Posts: 4,433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Quick Carl
We are producing these and have the cranks, but from doing some calculating makes it obvious that the other 9.7 and 9.8" "tall deck" blocks are better suited for shorter strokes. This motor showing at SEMA last year put the pressure on to handle a 4.5 stroke in their "tall blocks". The 6.8 rod/ 4.5 stroke/ long sleeve in this engine eliminates the skirt scuffing, side loading, piston rock and oil burning typical in stroker motors. I know a hundred people are going to say that theres works great, but you have to admit the ideal set-up leaves the piston in the bore, not in the crankcase. You even have room to run a full round skirt for big HP applications, since reluctor wheel clearance isn't an issue.
12-05-2006, 01:44 PM
#94
One of the issues with the 4.5 crank in the LS block is sleeve length to allow the skirt of the piston to remain in the bore to minimize piston rocking and side loading of the piston skirt. As RPM's go up or in a FI motor that has residual cylinder pressure at BDC the chance for skirt scuffing increases. The 10.2 deck height used in the ERL block is .400-.500" more than the "other tall deck blocks" and will leave that much more of the skirt in the bore. This allows a more traditional skirt grind to reduce piston rocking rather than moving the largest diameter up to keep it in the bore. Piston rock lends to oil consumption and skirt wear.
Another issue is rod length when trying to maintain ring land strength, dish volume to run FI, dome thickness to withstand high cylinder pressures and at least a .927 pin. This particular set-up in the picture uses a 6.600" long rod to allow for these parameters in a FI set-up. To keep the same set-up in the shorter blocks the rod would be 6.200 - 6.100" long with a 4.5 stroke. Not only does this give you a poor R/S ratio, but requires cutting more of the lower bore away for stroker clearance worsening the issues that causes. There is also counterweight radius issues to leave strength in the pin boss with such a short rod/long stroke combo and causing balancing issues.
The 10.2 deck height/ 4.5 stroke/ 6.6 -6.8 long rod is a proven combo used in the big block 540 engines, but in a small bock package. Where the 9.8/ 4.25 stroke/ 6.385 rod is used in the low deck big blocks. That would indicate a 6.3 rod in the GM block for a 4.25 stroke, except the chambers are smaller in a LS heads requiring more dish/shorter rod.
Another issue is rod length when trying to maintain ring land strength, dish volume to run FI, dome thickness to withstand high cylinder pressures and at least a .927 pin. This particular set-up in the picture uses a 6.600" long rod to allow for these parameters in a FI set-up. To keep the same set-up in the shorter blocks the rod would be 6.200 - 6.100" long with a 4.5 stroke. Not only does this give you a poor R/S ratio, but requires cutting more of the lower bore away for stroker clearance worsening the issues that causes. There is also counterweight radius issues to leave strength in the pin boss with such a short rod/long stroke combo and causing balancing issues.
The 10.2 deck height/ 4.5 stroke/ 6.6 -6.8 long rod is a proven combo used in the big block 540 engines, but in a small bock package. Where the 9.8/ 4.25 stroke/ 6.385 rod is used in the low deck big blocks. That would indicate a 6.3 rod in the GM block for a 4.25 stroke, except the chambers are smaller in a LS heads requiring more dish/shorter rod.
12-05-2006, 02:33 PM
#95
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (53)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Monticello, Kentucky
Posts: 4,433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So basically on the 9.8 deck, use the longest rod possible to achieve the best rod/stroke ratio? Considering the 9.8 LSX iron block touts a max stroke of 4.5", would it be safe to say that the hard part is already done for you?
Last edited by dhdenney; 12-05-2006 at 10:53 PM.
12-06-2006, 07:13 AM
#98
Quick Carl did you get any dyno numbers from the sheet metal intake version of the engine when you spun it to 7300rpm???
also other "stroker engines" have said they could achive upto 2000bhp. is there any reconmended max power figures that you guys beileve your block could take??
thanks again,
Chris.
also other "stroker engines" have said they could achive upto 2000bhp. is there any reconmended max power figures that you guys beileve your block could take??
thanks again,
Chris.
12-06-2006, 10:49 AM
#99
It didn't produce a huge increase with the same pump gas, LS7 intake, head, mild cam set-up. I believe it was around 30 HP which speaks well for the stock intake at that level. The sheet metal is better suited for a big cam, high compression set-up.
I'm not sure where their getting that 2000 HP number from, since none exist or have been tested in real world set-ups that anyone has seen. I would see what the constraints are and read the fine print since I have seen thin wall cast iron blocks blow out cylinder walls at the track at well under those levels. Most engine builders sonic test and use cast iron blocks with less than .200" wall for Daily Drivers, not race blocks. We have std. deck height aluminum LS blocks making over 1000HP FI with the upgrades to correct the issues with a stock block. Actually we have done it with a thinner cast LS6 with our pat. pend. SD1 truss design. It all depends on how you make the power as everyone knows nitrous is harder on parts than FI. We prefer to test to a level before announcing a number, but the FEA has shown good to 1500 if you count on computer analysis.
I'm not sure where their getting that 2000 HP number from, since none exist or have been tested in real world set-ups that anyone has seen. I would see what the constraints are and read the fine print since I have seen thin wall cast iron blocks blow out cylinder walls at the track at well under those levels. Most engine builders sonic test and use cast iron blocks with less than .200" wall for Daily Drivers, not race blocks. We have std. deck height aluminum LS blocks making over 1000HP FI with the upgrades to correct the issues with a stock block. Actually we have done it with a thinner cast LS6 with our pat. pend. SD1 truss design. It all depends on how you make the power as everyone knows nitrous is harder on parts than FI. We prefer to test to a level before announcing a number, but the FEA has shown good to 1500 if you count on computer analysis.
12-06-2006, 04:46 PM
#100
Did you guys ever think to try ET's canted valve heads? I don't know the exact details and flow numbers from your heads, but these look like they would match these cubes well. Especially with the solid roller going in and the sheet metal intake.