Strength of ls7 titanium rods?
08-29-2006, 10:09 AM
#81
Originally Posted by chicane
Does "that" crate engine that "destroys it in hp/tq" for the same money or less also come with Ti valves ?? Is it the same CID ?? How about cylinder heads ?? Do they even come close to the broadband flo rates of the factory LS7's ?? Does it also include a drysump oiling system ?? And since when does a dyno say anything about longevity and/or durability when concerning horsepower and torque ?? Does "that" crate engine come with that too ??
So. Lets take away the Ti rods and valves, the dry sump and put on a lesser cylinder head. Is this what you talk about when you say "for the same money or less" at the same CID ??
And since when doesnt a lower MOI help in horsepower production.... regardless of the price tag ?? Id like an explaination on that one.
So. Lets take away the Ti rods and valves, the dry sump and put on a lesser cylinder head. Is this what you talk about when you say "for the same money or less" at the same CID ??
And since when doesnt a lower MOI help in horsepower production.... regardless of the price tag ?? Id like an explaination on that one.
Yes, "that" engine that is sitting in my car right now. Using LS7 heads/Intake, same CID.
Also, the crate engine does not include the entire dry sump system, so there goes another couple grand on top of the 13.5K you already spent. Also, lets not forget to mention as well the incompatibility with LS1 pcms so you'd have to either tear the engine apart and replace the cam sprocket and reluctor wheel or get the LS7 PCM which is still new territory when tuning comes into play...plus a million other things...
Anything else you'd like to add? I think Quicken has a valid point.
08-29-2006, 01:06 PM
#82
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Posts: 4,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOWTIE
4.6xx unless they set a new record this week. 4.4xx for the top fuel. And they both run aluminum rods...
08-29-2006, 01:44 PM
#83
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Posts: 4,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by chicane
Does "that" crate engine that "destroys it in hp/tq" for the same money or less also come with Ti valves ?? Is it the same CID ?? How about cylinder heads ?? Do they even come close to the broadband flo rates of the factory LS7's ?? Does it also include a drysump oiling system ?? And since when does a dyno say anything about longevity and/or durability when concerning horsepower and torque ?? Does "that" crate engine come with that too ??
So. Lets take away the Ti rods and valves, the dry sump and put on a lesser cylinder head. Is this what you talk about when you say "for the same money or less" at the same CID ??
And since when doesnt a lower MOI help in horsepower production.... regardless of the price tag ?? Id like an explaination on that one.
So. Lets take away the Ti rods and valves, the dry sump and put on a lesser cylinder head. Is this what you talk about when you say "for the same money or less" at the same CID ??
And since when doesnt a lower MOI help in horsepower production.... regardless of the price tag ?? Id like an explaination on that one.
MOI this and that...its just not a big deal with a stock GM 427. Its not as if they were building a 900 RWHP beast where every bit counts. A damn air lid or aftermarket airbox probably adds double the amount of power these Ti rods are alleged to add to this LS7 engine over steel forged.
I guarantee if people could get the LS7 crate engine for ~$2,000 less because they used badass steel forged rods instead of exotic Ti rods, they would be selling like hotcakes. (Like the word exotic even goes with the letters GM) And you know as well as I do, the power outputs would be the same...give or take 2-3 meaningless hp....so C'Mon.
08-30-2006, 12:42 AM
#84
TECH Fanatic
Originally Posted by Haans249
.....the crate engine does not include the entire dry sump system, so there goes another couple grand on top of the 13.5K you already spent. Also, lets not forget to mention as well the incompatibility with LS1 pcms so you'd have to either tear the engine apart and replace the cam sprocket and reluctor wheel or get the LS7 PCM which is still new territory when tuning comes into play...plus a million other things...
Anything else you'd like to add? I think Quicken has a valid point.
Anything else you'd like to add? I think Quicken has a valid point.
Well... first of all, to finish the dry sump isnt going to cost you a "couple" of grand more on top of the engine price. Last time I checked, a tank can be had for 300-400 and all you need after that is two line's and some fittings to the tank.... so what another 200 ?? The pump is included with the engine so there is no extra expense for that.... where does the extra "couple" of grand come from ??
Not to mention, you dont need an LS1 PCM.... you dont need to change the reluctor. And no, it isnt "new" territory for programming either.
Maybe it isnt a million other things (?) If you might have actually planned it out correctly before you started throwing a bunch of money at it that you didnt have to. Keep... it... simple... maybe ??
Engine = 13k (Classic Ind or Scoggins)
PCM and harness = 1700 (UMI)
Tank and lines = 500-600 (Peterson)
Accessories = sky is the limit, depends on what you require
A cam change and the right set of headers = 150hp
Gee, I dunno.
08-30-2006, 07:04 AM
#85
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
I feel so much dumber after reading some of the comments in this thread. Honestly, do some of you people ever get out? There are a few folks in here who "get it", and post up informative factual data, but honestly. Do some of y'all actually read what you write?
I see comments in here which are basically just someone's wild guess with ZERO knowledge about any of the points at hand, and then passed off as a best guess, or actual fact.
Here is a hint. If you don't know, then don't post like you do. "I hear Prostock changes out the rods ever 2 passes and has eleventy billion to one compression, and they coat the pistons with fairy dust to make them lighter"
"F1 piston speed is 20X that of NASCAR. I know that because Michael Schumacher comes over to my house and I do the rebuild on the Ferrari motors in my garage".
Piston speed, and piston speed in F1 vs NASCAR has been covered by people who actually have a clue in the advanced tech section. I recommend some of you read it.
A couple of things about GM. They don't do things halfway. Whatever is in the car has passed an endurance test that most of you can't even fathom. There is a considerable saftey margin built into all those systems.
If you don't think reciprocating mass isn't a consideration when it comes to an engine package, you are so sadly mistaken. If you have a rod that is HUNDREDS of grams lighter and as strong or stronger than the rod it replaces, then why wouldn't you go with it. in this case, it is material cost. But, in the analysis of this engine, durability and mass reduction is a much higher priority over most passenger car motors.
But, I expect this to fall on deaf ears to many based on some of the comments. I've run into this before when trying to explain parts selection to people. They want to put a rod in a motor that will handle 1000 HP in a motor that will never see a fraction of that power. Keep in mind if the rod is rated to 1000 HP, then in all actuality there is a factor of 10+% (or sometimes much more) that the mfg build in as a safety factor. In some cases it may be as high as 50% for whatever the object in question is.
I ran into this the other day. A guy I know spent big money on a superlight crank. Then he bought the equivilant of a Lunati Pro-Mod rod. So, you have this 40 lb crank with a 700+ Gram rod, and a big heavy piston. Yeah, he stuck a big heavy piston on it to handle a bunch of power it probably won't make. So, the net result was having to add two handfuls of mallory metal to the crank to get it to balance up. Proper parts selection, and the selection of a rod that meets your actual needs is much smarter than buying the bigest baddest rods on the block.
Too many "hot-rodders" seem to overlook that there is power locked up in mass. Have any of you ever wondered why people loose power when going from the stock engine to a forged bottom end? Have any of you even checked that? I'd guess no. Newsflash. Forged bottom ends are in most cases heavier, so you loose power. If you can reduce mass, its free HP. Why do you think our cast piton powdered metal rod motors make such good power? Here is a clue. Least ammount of mass required to make target power levels.
As for T/F. if you want me to post up some pics of some T/F gear, I'll be happy to. I have boxes of pistons and rods at my shop. You ask, why doesn't T/F use Ti. Well if there was somthing to be gained by it, they probably would. But for what they do, Al is fine. Think about it this way. That Al rod is actually a bit of a shock absorber in that motor. Why do you think they don't run steel rods?
When we ran BIG hits of Dope on a cast crank GEN I motor, we'd use AL rods to keep the engine alive, and prevent sawing the crank in half.
Look at a Jager transformed AL rod. Same strength and durability as steel. Much less mass. The OEMs and the DOE are looking at it. A drop of that much mass in an engine over a large scale could save millions of barrels of oil per year. Again, it takes energy to move mass. Reduce that mass, and you can put more of it to the ground, and accelerate quicker.
Most rod failures (unless the rod is simply outside its strength window) are from a lack of valve control. Rods aren't broken under compressive force. They are pulled apart on the down stroke of the exhaust. Valve float reduces the cushion on the exhaust side. Thus the rod gets lung up on the exhaust side, and nothing stops it or slows it on the way up. So it is suddenly just chaging direction, and the rod is ripped in half.
They pull apart at the hinge point on the rod. IMHO, this is why folks have rod failures on LS1's. They spin the motor too tight, and they don't control the valve train.
Here is somethig to learn about:
Force = Mass x Acceleration
I see comments in here which are basically just someone's wild guess with ZERO knowledge about any of the points at hand, and then passed off as a best guess, or actual fact.
Here is a hint. If you don't know, then don't post like you do. "I hear Prostock changes out the rods ever 2 passes and has eleventy billion to one compression, and they coat the pistons with fairy dust to make them lighter"
"F1 piston speed is 20X that of NASCAR. I know that because Michael Schumacher comes over to my house and I do the rebuild on the Ferrari motors in my garage".
Piston speed, and piston speed in F1 vs NASCAR has been covered by people who actually have a clue in the advanced tech section. I recommend some of you read it.
A couple of things about GM. They don't do things halfway. Whatever is in the car has passed an endurance test that most of you can't even fathom. There is a considerable saftey margin built into all those systems.
If you don't think reciprocating mass isn't a consideration when it comes to an engine package, you are so sadly mistaken. If you have a rod that is HUNDREDS of grams lighter and as strong or stronger than the rod it replaces, then why wouldn't you go with it. in this case, it is material cost. But, in the analysis of this engine, durability and mass reduction is a much higher priority over most passenger car motors.
But, I expect this to fall on deaf ears to many based on some of the comments. I've run into this before when trying to explain parts selection to people. They want to put a rod in a motor that will handle 1000 HP in a motor that will never see a fraction of that power. Keep in mind if the rod is rated to 1000 HP, then in all actuality there is a factor of 10+% (or sometimes much more) that the mfg build in as a safety factor. In some cases it may be as high as 50% for whatever the object in question is.
I ran into this the other day. A guy I know spent big money on a superlight crank. Then he bought the equivilant of a Lunati Pro-Mod rod. So, you have this 40 lb crank with a 700+ Gram rod, and a big heavy piston. Yeah, he stuck a big heavy piston on it to handle a bunch of power it probably won't make. So, the net result was having to add two handfuls of mallory metal to the crank to get it to balance up. Proper parts selection, and the selection of a rod that meets your actual needs is much smarter than buying the bigest baddest rods on the block.
Too many "hot-rodders" seem to overlook that there is power locked up in mass. Have any of you ever wondered why people loose power when going from the stock engine to a forged bottom end? Have any of you even checked that? I'd guess no. Newsflash. Forged bottom ends are in most cases heavier, so you loose power. If you can reduce mass, its free HP. Why do you think our cast piton powdered metal rod motors make such good power? Here is a clue. Least ammount of mass required to make target power levels.
As for T/F. if you want me to post up some pics of some T/F gear, I'll be happy to. I have boxes of pistons and rods at my shop. You ask, why doesn't T/F use Ti. Well if there was somthing to be gained by it, they probably would. But for what they do, Al is fine. Think about it this way. That Al rod is actually a bit of a shock absorber in that motor. Why do you think they don't run steel rods?
When we ran BIG hits of Dope on a cast crank GEN I motor, we'd use AL rods to keep the engine alive, and prevent sawing the crank in half.
Look at a Jager transformed AL rod. Same strength and durability as steel. Much less mass. The OEMs and the DOE are looking at it. A drop of that much mass in an engine over a large scale could save millions of barrels of oil per year. Again, it takes energy to move mass. Reduce that mass, and you can put more of it to the ground, and accelerate quicker.
Most rod failures (unless the rod is simply outside its strength window) are from a lack of valve control. Rods aren't broken under compressive force. They are pulled apart on the down stroke of the exhaust. Valve float reduces the cushion on the exhaust side. Thus the rod gets lung up on the exhaust side, and nothing stops it or slows it on the way up. So it is suddenly just chaging direction, and the rod is ripped in half.
They pull apart at the hinge point on the rod. IMHO, this is why folks have rod failures on LS1's. They spin the motor too tight, and they don't control the valve train.
Here is somethig to learn about:
Force = Mass x Acceleration
08-30-2006, 10:20 AM
#87
Great post J-rod.
Exactly! Why get an engine where you have to build/buy a bunch of custom stuff, when you can get basically the same engine that makes the same power or more and you can still use your stock PCM/harness/oil system/ect... save a couple grand AND still have room to grow down the road when you want to bore those cylinders out and have more cubes 
Plus, if you're putting this stuff into an F-body, good luck using the LS7 pcm with a cable drive TB, or I guess you could convert your f-body to ETC which is more custom stuff.
I guess for the guy who's putting these kind of engines into an F-body, and don't have the funds to spend on all the customizations for the LS7, then a great option is to go the sleeved route and build the thing from ground up. Just check out Katech for example...one of the first, if not the first to put the LS7 into a F-body....massive amounts of R&D/money went into the project.
Also, I definitely consider LS2/7 tuning new territory, it hasn't been out that long, and even in LS1 PCM tuning, there are STILL advances happening. So I can't imagine that LS2/7 tuning capabilities are as good as LS1. But you're right, give it time and LS2/7 will be more powerful simply because the hardware will allow more fine detail when it comes to parameters/lookups, but the software for it just isn't there yet.
Best Regards,
Adrian
Originally Posted by chicane
Yup.
Well... first of all, to finish the dry sump isnt going to cost you a "couple" of grand more on top of the engine price. Last time I checked, a tank can be had for 300-400 and all you need after that is two line's and some fittings to the tank.... so what another 200 ?? The pump is included with the engine so there is no extra expense for that.... where does the extra "couple" of grand come from ??
Not to mention, you dont need an LS1 PCM.... you dont need to change the reluctor. And no, it isnt "new" territory for programming either.
Maybe it isnt a million other things (?) If you might have actually planned it out correctly before you started throwing a bunch of money at it that you didnt have to. Keep... it... simple... maybe ??
Engine = 13k (Classic Ind or Scoggins)
PCM and harness = 1700 (UMI)
Tank and lines = 500-600 (Peterson)
Accessories = sky is the limit, depends on what you require
A cam change and the right set of headers = 150hp
Gee, I dunno.
Well... first of all, to finish the dry sump isnt going to cost you a "couple" of grand more on top of the engine price. Last time I checked, a tank can be had for 300-400 and all you need after that is two line's and some fittings to the tank.... so what another 200 ?? The pump is included with the engine so there is no extra expense for that.... where does the extra "couple" of grand come from ??
Not to mention, you dont need an LS1 PCM.... you dont need to change the reluctor. And no, it isnt "new" territory for programming either.
Maybe it isnt a million other things (?) If you might have actually planned it out correctly before you started throwing a bunch of money at it that you didnt have to. Keep... it... simple... maybe ??
Engine = 13k (Classic Ind or Scoggins)
PCM and harness = 1700 (UMI)
Tank and lines = 500-600 (Peterson)
Accessories = sky is the limit, depends on what you require
A cam change and the right set of headers = 150hp
Gee, I dunno.
Why get an engine where you have to build/buy a bunch of custom stuff, when you can get basically the same engine that makes the same power or more and you can still use your stock PCM/harness/oil system/ect... save a couple grand AND still have room to grow down the road when you want to bore those cylinders out and have more cubes Plus, if you're putting this stuff into an F-body, good luck using the LS7 pcm with a cable drive TB, or I guess you could convert your f-body to ETC which is more custom stuff.
I guess for the guy who's putting these kind of engines into an F-body, and don't have the funds to spend on all the customizations for the LS7, then a great option is to go the sleeved route and build the thing from ground up. Just check out Katech for example...one of the first, if not the first to put the LS7 into a F-body....massive amounts of R&D/money went into the project.
Also, I definitely consider LS2/7 tuning new territory, it hasn't been out that long, and even in LS1 PCM tuning, there are STILL advances happening. So I can't imagine that LS2/7 tuning capabilities are as good as LS1. But you're right, give it time and LS2/7 will be more powerful simply because the hardware will allow more fine detail when it comes to parameters/lookups, but the software for it just isn't there yet.
Best Regards,
Adrian
Last edited by Haans249; 08-30-2006 at 10:48 AM.
08-30-2006, 03:16 PM
#89
Originally Posted by Haans249
Great post J-rod.
Exactly! Why get an engine where you have to build/buy a bunch of custom stuff, when you can get basically the same engine that makes the same power or more and you can still use your stock PCM/harness/oil system/ect... save a couple grand AND still have room to grow down the road when you want to bore those cylinders out and have more cubes
Plus, if you're putting this stuff into an F-body, good luck using the LS7 pcm with a cable drive TB, or I guess you could convert your f-body to ETC which is more custom stuff.
I guess for the guy who's putting these kind of engines into an F-body, and don't have the funds to spend on all the customizations for the LS7, then a great option is to go the sleeved route and build the thing from ground up. Just check out Katech for example...one of the first, if not the first to put the LS7 into a F-body....massive amounts of R&D/money went into the project.
Also, I definitely consider LS2/7 tuning new territory, it hasn't been out that long, and even in LS1 PCM tuning, there are STILL advances happening. So I can't imagine that LS2/7 tuning capabilities are as good as LS1. But you're right, give it time and LS2/7 will be more powerful simply because the hardware will allow more fine detail when it comes to parameters/lookups, but the software for it just isn't there yet.
Best Regards,
Adrian
Exactly!
Why get an engine where you have to build/buy a bunch of custom stuff, when you can get basically the same engine that makes the same power or more and you can still use your stock PCM/harness/oil system/ect... save a couple grand AND still have room to grow down the road when you want to bore those cylinders out and have more cubes Plus, if you're putting this stuff into an F-body, good luck using the LS7 pcm with a cable drive TB, or I guess you could convert your f-body to ETC which is more custom stuff.
I guess for the guy who's putting these kind of engines into an F-body, and don't have the funds to spend on all the customizations for the LS7, then a great option is to go the sleeved route and build the thing from ground up. Just check out Katech for example...one of the first, if not the first to put the LS7 into a F-body....massive amounts of R&D/money went into the project.
Also, I definitely consider LS2/7 tuning new territory, it hasn't been out that long, and even in LS1 PCM tuning, there are STILL advances happening. So I can't imagine that LS2/7 tuning capabilities are as good as LS1. But you're right, give it time and LS2/7 will be more powerful simply because the hardware will allow more fine detail when it comes to parameters/lookups, but the software for it just isn't there yet.
Best Regards,
Adrian
Yea, we were the first.
08-30-2006, 11:52 PM
#90
TECH Fanatic
Originally Posted by Haans249
....... Why get an engine where you have to build/buy a bunch of custom stuff, when you can get basically the same engine that makes the same power or more and you can still use your stock PCM/harness/oil system/ect... save a couple grand AND still have room to grow down the road when you want to bore those cylinders out and have more cubes
Plus, if you're putting this stuff into an F-body, good luck using the LS7 pcm with a cable drive TB, or I guess you could convert your f-body to ETC which is more custom stuff.
I guess for the guy who's putting these kind of engines into an F-body, and don't have the funds to spend on all the customizations for the LS7, then a great option is to go the sleeved route and build the thing from ground up. Just check out Katech for example...one of the first, if not the first to put the LS7 into a F-body....massive amounts of R&D/money went into the project.
Also, I definitely consider LS2/7 tuning new territory, it hasn't been out that long, and even in LS1 PCM tuning, there are STILL advances happening. So I can't imagine that LS2/7 tuning capabilities are as good as LS1. But you're right, give it time and LS2/7 will be more powerful simply because the hardware will allow more fine detail when it comes to parameters/lookups, but the software for it just isn't there yet.
Plus, if you're putting this stuff into an F-body, good luck using the LS7 pcm with a cable drive TB, or I guess you could convert your f-body to ETC which is more custom stuff.
I guess for the guy who's putting these kind of engines into an F-body, and don't have the funds to spend on all the customizations for the LS7, then a great option is to go the sleeved route and build the thing from ground up. Just check out Katech for example...one of the first, if not the first to put the LS7 into a F-body....massive amounts of R&D/money went into the project.
Also, I definitely consider LS2/7 tuning new territory, it hasn't been out that long, and even in LS1 PCM tuning, there are STILL advances happening. So I can't imagine that LS2/7 tuning capabilities are as good as LS1. But you're right, give it time and LS2/7 will be more powerful simply because the hardware will allow more fine detail when it comes to parameters/lookups, but the software for it just isn't there yet.
A 7.0L can achieve plenty of power naturally. Its already there and doesnt have to be bored to get it. And there is more required when you go from one displacement to another in terms of cost and strength... which adds up in cost. If it is already there, I guess one would not have to spend more money to get it.
I am gearing up for an LS7, but into my 2700lb, 40 yearold, 67 F-body. And you are correct...... Katech and their various ways to approach this is definately something to consider. I am more than familiar with Katech and what they have to offer. Which is why I have chosen a crate LS7 to begin with. Get it in, get the zippers installed and work out the bugs..... and have a lot of fun driving it. When the bugs are done, pull it out, drop Jason and Caleb and friendly call and wait for them to do a little "refresh" on the engine. Somewhere around 8k later and it will be within my target area of 650hp. With the low MOI package and durability I am looking for. And I am not going to brake the bank trying to get those wonderful peak dyno numbers that every around here, with the exception off a few, are after.
Besides, you can have your peaky numbers. I'll kill it with more power under the curve....
A PCM is a PCM. There really isnt anything new to this concept. Its not rocket science either..... I have been doing PCM programing since the middle to late eighties. But however, with the available software and technology make tuning of the, ok...... "newer" packages pretty simple. And no, you dont have to run the ETC TB. UMI has that covered.... but the swap to an ETC pedal assembly is a cake walk as it is.
08-31-2006, 12:44 AM
#91
TECH Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Posts: 4,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by J-Rod
I feel so much dumber after reading some of the comments in this thread. Honestly, do some of you people ever get out? There are a few folks in here who "get it", and post up informative factual data, but honestly. Do some of y'all actually read what you write?
I see comments in here which are basically just someone's wild guess with ZERO knowledge about any of the points at hand, and then passed off as a best guess, or actual fact.
Here is a hint. If you don't know, then don't post like you do. "I hear Prostock changes out the rods ever 2 passes and has eleventy billion to one compression, and they coat the pistons with fairy dust to make them lighter"
"F1 piston speed is 20X that of NASCAR. I know that because Michael Schumacher comes over to my house and I do the rebuild on the Ferrari motors in my garage".
Piston speed, and piston speed in F1 vs NASCAR has been covered by people who actually have a clue in the advanced tech section. I recommend some of you read it.
A couple of things about GM. They don't do things halfway. Whatever is in the car has passed an endurance test that most of you can't even fathom. There is a considerable saftey margin built into all those systems.
If you don't think reciprocating mass isn't a consideration when it comes to an engine package, you are so sadly mistaken. If you have a rod that is HUNDREDS of grams lighter and as strong or stronger than the rod it replaces, then why wouldn't you go with it. in this case, it is material cost. But, in the analysis of this engine, durability and mass reduction is a much higher priority over most passenger car motors.
But, I expect this to fall on deaf ears to many based on some of the comments. I've run into this before when trying to explain parts selection to people. They want to put a rod in a motor that will handle 1000 HP in a motor that will never see a fraction of that power. Keep in mind if the rod is rated to 1000 HP, then in all actuality there is a factor of 10+% (or sometimes much more) that the mfg build in as a safety factor. In some cases it may be as high as 50% for whatever the object in question is.
I ran into this the other day. A guy I know spent big money on a superlight crank. Then he bought the equivilant of a Lunati Pro-Mod rod. So, you have this 40 lb crank with a 700+ Gram rod, and a big heavy piston. Yeah, he stuck a big heavy piston on it to handle a bunch of power it probably won't make. So, the net result was having to add two handfuls of mallory metal to the crank to get it to balance up. Proper parts selection, and the selection of a rod that meets your actual needs is much smarter than buying the bigest baddest rods on the block.
Too many "hot-rodders" seem to overlook that there is power locked up in mass. Have any of you ever wondered why people loose power when going from the stock engine to a forged bottom end? Have any of you even checked that? I'd guess no. Newsflash. Forged bottom ends are in most cases heavier, so you loose power. If you can reduce mass, its free HP. Why do you think our cast piton powdered metal rod motors make such good power? Here is a clue. Least ammount of mass required to make target power levels.
As for T/F. if you want me to post up some pics of some T/F gear, I'll be happy to. I have boxes of pistons and rods at my shop. You ask, why doesn't T/F use Ti. Well if there was somthing to be gained by it, they probably would. But for what they do, Al is fine. Think about it this way. That Al rod is actually a bit of a shock absorber in that motor. Why do you think they don't run steel rods?
When we ran BIG hits of Dope on a cast crank GEN I motor, we'd use AL rods to keep the engine alive, and prevent sawing the crank in half.
Look at a Jager transformed AL rod. Same strength and durability as steel. Much less mass. The OEMs and the DOE are looking at it. A drop of that much mass in an engine over a large scale could save millions of barrels of oil per year. Again, it takes energy to move mass. Reduce that mass, and you can put more of it to the ground, and accelerate quicker.
Most rod failures (unless the rod is simply outside its strength window) are from a lack of valve control. Rods aren't broken under compressive force. They are pulled apart on the down stroke of the exhaust. Valve float reduces the cushion on the exhaust side. Thus the rod gets lung up on the exhaust side, and nothing stops it or slows it on the way up. So it is suddenly just chaging direction, and the rod is ripped in half.
They pull apart at the hinge point on the rod. IMHO, this is why folks have rod failures on LS1's. They spin the motor too tight, and they don't control the valve train.
Here is somethig to learn about:
Force = Mass x Acceleration
I see comments in here which are basically just someone's wild guess with ZERO knowledge about any of the points at hand, and then passed off as a best guess, or actual fact.
Here is a hint. If you don't know, then don't post like you do. "I hear Prostock changes out the rods ever 2 passes and has eleventy billion to one compression, and they coat the pistons with fairy dust to make them lighter"
"F1 piston speed is 20X that of NASCAR. I know that because Michael Schumacher comes over to my house and I do the rebuild on the Ferrari motors in my garage".
Piston speed, and piston speed in F1 vs NASCAR has been covered by people who actually have a clue in the advanced tech section. I recommend some of you read it.
A couple of things about GM. They don't do things halfway. Whatever is in the car has passed an endurance test that most of you can't even fathom. There is a considerable saftey margin built into all those systems.
If you don't think reciprocating mass isn't a consideration when it comes to an engine package, you are so sadly mistaken. If you have a rod that is HUNDREDS of grams lighter and as strong or stronger than the rod it replaces, then why wouldn't you go with it. in this case, it is material cost. But, in the analysis of this engine, durability and mass reduction is a much higher priority over most passenger car motors.
But, I expect this to fall on deaf ears to many based on some of the comments. I've run into this before when trying to explain parts selection to people. They want to put a rod in a motor that will handle 1000 HP in a motor that will never see a fraction of that power. Keep in mind if the rod is rated to 1000 HP, then in all actuality there is a factor of 10+% (or sometimes much more) that the mfg build in as a safety factor. In some cases it may be as high as 50% for whatever the object in question is.
I ran into this the other day. A guy I know spent big money on a superlight crank. Then he bought the equivilant of a Lunati Pro-Mod rod. So, you have this 40 lb crank with a 700+ Gram rod, and a big heavy piston. Yeah, he stuck a big heavy piston on it to handle a bunch of power it probably won't make. So, the net result was having to add two handfuls of mallory metal to the crank to get it to balance up. Proper parts selection, and the selection of a rod that meets your actual needs is much smarter than buying the bigest baddest rods on the block.
Too many "hot-rodders" seem to overlook that there is power locked up in mass. Have any of you ever wondered why people loose power when going from the stock engine to a forged bottom end? Have any of you even checked that? I'd guess no. Newsflash. Forged bottom ends are in most cases heavier, so you loose power. If you can reduce mass, its free HP. Why do you think our cast piton powdered metal rod motors make such good power? Here is a clue. Least ammount of mass required to make target power levels.
As for T/F. if you want me to post up some pics of some T/F gear, I'll be happy to. I have boxes of pistons and rods at my shop. You ask, why doesn't T/F use Ti. Well if there was somthing to be gained by it, they probably would. But for what they do, Al is fine. Think about it this way. That Al rod is actually a bit of a shock absorber in that motor. Why do you think they don't run steel rods?
When we ran BIG hits of Dope on a cast crank GEN I motor, we'd use AL rods to keep the engine alive, and prevent sawing the crank in half.
Look at a Jager transformed AL rod. Same strength and durability as steel. Much less mass. The OEMs and the DOE are looking at it. A drop of that much mass in an engine over a large scale could save millions of barrels of oil per year. Again, it takes energy to move mass. Reduce that mass, and you can put more of it to the ground, and accelerate quicker.
Most rod failures (unless the rod is simply outside its strength window) are from a lack of valve control. Rods aren't broken under compressive force. They are pulled apart on the down stroke of the exhaust. Valve float reduces the cushion on the exhaust side. Thus the rod gets lung up on the exhaust side, and nothing stops it or slows it on the way up. So it is suddenly just chaging direction, and the rod is ripped in half.
They pull apart at the hinge point on the rod. IMHO, this is why folks have rod failures on LS1's. They spin the motor too tight, and they don't control the valve train.
Here is somethig to learn about:
Force = Mass x Acceleration
Don't need to be an expert to know that.
.
08-31-2006, 03:37 AM
#92
Originally Posted by Quickin
Still a waste from a $$$ standpoint in a ~400 RWHP production engine, period. And its not giving the LS7 a power/torque or rev advantage that anyone will be able to feel, hear, smell, touch, or see on a time slip, its just something to chat about and it jacks up the already ridiculous price of that engine, period number two.
Don't need to be an expert to know that.
.
Don't need to be an expert to know that.
.
What Joe won't tell you is that Valerie Plame-Wilson is actually a GM board member AND secretly assists on the CCUAW - Communist Councel of the United Auto Workers Union... A COVERT operation (your are on your own) NOT managed or "owned" by the CIA.. well beyond the fragile imaginations of the Hollywood elitists... well, maybe except for Tom Cruise and his insideously accurate portrals of the Pinko Commie bed wetters in the Mission Impossible trilogy... fact more than you know! Oh, ****... did I say too much? Does anybody have the phone number to Dick Armitage's lawyers?
Ask Rush Limbaugh... he predicted this mass illusion already... and actually told everybody... if you would JUST listen to his show... but the Patrician Illusionists just didn't wake up in time.
(edit) Dammit, I'm a Rush ditto head... should have known the Doctor of Democracy, AMERICA'S ANCHOR MAN!!!! already knew the conspiracy was against YOU!!! the consumer!!! Don't buy Ti rods... they are not near the potential as Iran claims they are... Iran is only out to capitalize (western speak for you commies) on Russia's vast quantities of Titanium ore. MSNBC just stated, through one of their investigative illusionists, (Chris Matthews) that Jimmy Carter was going to build a (COMPLETE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY) habitat for humanity safe haven for the leftist rebels who shop at Walmart in TEHRAN!!! Dammit, that can't be true... Carter would have sent helicopters into Iran to DEMAND equal ripoff from American HMO's.
Bill
Last edited by billreid1@cox.net; 08-31-2006 at 05:51 AM.
08-31-2006, 09:07 AM
#93
Originally Posted by billreid1@***.net
Period #3... Karl Rove was involved... its a friggin conspiracy I tell you. Karl told GM that titanium was the next best way to screw the consumer... and (you libs won't like it) Joe Wilson ACTUALLY worked WITH Karl... investigated GM and CAUGHT THEM RED HANDED with yellow cake titanium... and also found documents to prove that GM wanted to screw their most coveted unionized employee base AND MOST NOTIBLY its affluent customer base. It was Joe that worked with the unions to have union employee's stay home and earn full wages and benefits while he blamed Bush for the militant islamo-fascist Titanium rod... ACTUALLY produced in IRAN!!! (rod bolts produced by a company in "East" Germany who has ties with Vladmir Putin (former KGB) of all people!). Geez, no wonder why Putin rejects the "westernization" of Iran. Putin doesn't want to drill his own (largest in the world) oil reserves until he dry's up his Persian ally's supply. Screw China he says! Sorry for the rant, back on topic... Karl made sure the Union guys who calibrate the Geiger Counter's knew that the new alloy Ti could NEVER produce radiation... which by the way is good for a minimum of 100rwhp (caveat - depends on actual engine compartment air flow and its lack of removing ionized "air")
08-31-2006, 10:49 AM
#94
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
I guess I disagree with several of the points. If cost is your only motivating factor, then I can see not buying an Ls7. If you are looking for a well engineered package, then I certainly could see the logic in going with an Ls7.
If you haven't ever seen or used a dry sump, then you obviously won't appreciate its benefits. Converting a car to use the Ls7 dry sump isn't that big a deal. But there are gains. I know folks who were involved in its development, the dry sump oiling system is good to at least 8500 FYI.
If you want to denegrate the Ls7 to give props to your homebuilt 427 or 441, thats fine. To each his own. Unless you are starting with a C5R block, you are int eh same boat as everyone else including Ls7 owners when it comes to "expandability".
Am I saying the Ls7 is the be all or end all. No, But, I challege you to find a similar "package" that has either the engineering, or the test cycles behind it tha the Ls7 has. We all know there is none.
Again, everyone is entitle to their opinion about what is a waste of money, etc... If you notice GM has reasons for NaK filled valves, or Ti rods, or dry sump oiling systems. Even if you don't understand it, it doesn't mean there isn't a VERY functional reason for them. Most shops who build crate engines don't do 100K mile torture tests on the engines they supply. GM ont he other hand does.
How many folks have oil consumption issues on big inch LSx based motors? Do you think that would be acceptable to tell all Z06 owners they have to adda quart ever 1000 miles?
This is basically the same argument you get from folks who want to defend their choices in headers, cylinder heads, or whatever the case may be that they have to justify to themselves. Its not to say the choice of a homebuilt big inch motor is right, or wrong. Or that a LS7 is right or wrong. It simply is what it is...
If you feel like the Ls7 is too costly, and you see no reason for Ti rods, then great, I'm happy for you. Don't buy them. But, before you go dismissing them, maybe try to understand the reasons for them.
If you haven't ever seen or used a dry sump, then you obviously won't appreciate its benefits. Converting a car to use the Ls7 dry sump isn't that big a deal. But there are gains. I know folks who were involved in its development, the dry sump oiling system is good to at least 8500 FYI.
If you want to denegrate the Ls7 to give props to your homebuilt 427 or 441, thats fine. To each his own. Unless you are starting with a C5R block, you are int eh same boat as everyone else including Ls7 owners when it comes to "expandability".
Am I saying the Ls7 is the be all or end all. No, But, I challege you to find a similar "package" that has either the engineering, or the test cycles behind it tha the Ls7 has. We all know there is none.
Again, everyone is entitle to their opinion about what is a waste of money, etc... If you notice GM has reasons for NaK filled valves, or Ti rods, or dry sump oiling systems. Even if you don't understand it, it doesn't mean there isn't a VERY functional reason for them. Most shops who build crate engines don't do 100K mile torture tests on the engines they supply. GM ont he other hand does.
How many folks have oil consumption issues on big inch LSx based motors? Do you think that would be acceptable to tell all Z06 owners they have to adda quart ever 1000 miles?
This is basically the same argument you get from folks who want to defend their choices in headers, cylinder heads, or whatever the case may be that they have to justify to themselves. Its not to say the choice of a homebuilt big inch motor is right, or wrong. Or that a LS7 is right or wrong. It simply is what it is...
If you feel like the Ls7 is too costly, and you see no reason for Ti rods, then great, I'm happy for you. Don't buy them. But, before you go dismissing them, maybe try to understand the reasons for them.
08-31-2006, 11:41 AM
#95
My guess would be that they did TI rods for balancing. Their accountants caculated that installing Mallory metal is exspensive and had no "Sales Bling" like TI rods. It does get your attention! All the GM Performance people that came by the booth at SEMA /PRI to check out the 4.5 stroke/Carrillo rod motor had the same question; How are we going to balance it ? So it was a well known concern to them.
Now at the RPM show in Indy they have a pic. of the LSX block with a 4.5 crank, so Billreids fairy dust is at it again.
Now at the RPM show in Indy they have a pic. of the LSX block with a 4.5 crank, so Billreids fairy dust is at it again.
09-01-2006, 02:42 AM
#99
F****** outstangying guys, just outstanding, if I had the money for TI rods, I would be right there, but, I missed out on the good pricing...oh well, guess I'll have to stick with my cheap carrillo rods w/arp2000 bolts....
Best regards to a great night,
Adrian
Best regards to a great night,
Adrian
09-01-2006, 03:41 AM
#100
TECH Fanatic
Originally Posted by Haans249
F****** outstangying guys, just outstanding, if I had the money for TI rods, I would be right there, but, I missed out on the good pricing...oh well, guess I'll have to stick with my cheap carrillo rods w/arp2000 bolts....
Best regards to a great night,
Adrian
Best regards to a great night,
Adrian
For the extra nickel.... you coulda at least stepped up to the AGE or L19 fasteners.
Last edited by chicane; 09-01-2006 at 01:51 PM.