433 cid on the stock sleeve, L92 engine
06-18-2007, 11:15 PM
#61
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elmhurst, IL (Chicago Suburb)
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HotRodV6
yeah id like to know how its been holding up also, im just about ready to start building my L92 and am thinking the 433 is the way to go.
That being said i think your best bet for a budget but reliable 427 motor which will make big torque and HP with the right h/c combo is a L92 Block with a 4.125 stroke for 427 cubes and without having to **** with the stock GM Bore size of the cylinders!
Don't forget that SDPC offers this shortblock for a very attractive price! 
06-19-2007, 08:30 PM
#62
Teching In
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that's a poor assumption.
This person was trying to give us the benefit of his experience. I and I'll bet a few others was very interested in what he had to say on this. He wasn't posting for him -- it was for the LSX community.
So why put up with the negative comments and have to defend himself? I'm pretty disappointed.
This person was trying to give us the benefit of his experience. I and I'll bet a few others was very interested in what he had to say on this. He wasn't posting for him -- it was for the LSX community.
So why put up with the negative comments and have to defend himself? I'm pretty disappointed.
06-19-2007, 11:54 PM
#63
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elmhurst, IL (Chicago Suburb)
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Torlow
I think that's a poor assumption.
This person was trying to give us the benefit of his experience. I and I'll bet a few others was very interested in what he had to say on this. He wasn't posting for him -- it was for the LSX community.
So why put up with the negative comments and have to defend himself? I'm pretty disappointed.
This person was trying to give us the benefit of his experience. I and I'll bet a few others was very interested in what he had to say on this. He wasn't posting for him -- it was for the LSX community.
So why put up with the negative comments and have to defend himself? I'm pretty disappointed.
Do yourself a favor and save some $ while you are at it, and if your interested in this combo go with a stock L92 block (where you don't have to overbore the stock GM bore size) and have a professional LSX engine builder put in a 4.125 crank and have him build yourself a nice reliable 427 Motor making tons of torque and without having to worry about the motor grenading anytime soon. Afterall, the difference in power between 6 cubic inches is nothing and the slightly bigger stroke will make more torque for you throughout the entire rpm band! Last edited by Chicago Crew UnderBoss; 06-20-2007 at 12:16 AM.
06-20-2007, 11:01 PM
#64
FormerVendor
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,940
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem I have seen is when you overbore the crappy cast sleeves their is a good chance it will distort and start losing ring seal. For .030" it is not worth the potential and probable headache getting lit. Even with ductile sleeves 70 thou is pushing it. Stay reliable, don't worry about 10 or 15 hp that could make a expensive mess.
06-21-2007, 11:46 PM
#65
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elmhurst, IL (Chicago Suburb)
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SLED28
The problem I have seen is when you overbore the crappy cast sleeves their is a good chance it will distort and start losing ring seal. For .030" it is not worth the potential and probable headache getting lit. Even with ductile sleeves 70 thou is pushing it. Stay reliable, don't worry about 10 or 15 hp that could make a expensive mess.
Still like to hear if this 433 motor is still alive for curosity sake at this point! SHIRL, where you at man people want to know what's up! 
06-22-2007, 04:56 PM
#67
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elmhurst, IL (Chicago Suburb)
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dug
Is it possible to bore an iron block to 4.1"? With a 4.125" crank itd be 435 cubes. Why settle for a measly 427?
No, the most overbore that the expert LS1 tuners like to bore the 6 liter iron block is 4.060 in N/A applications and even bored .060 you would want to have the block sonic tested for proper cylinder wall thickness. I have heard of a couple guys going with a 4.080 overbore for N/A but that is pushing the envelope and CERTAINLY would need to be sonic tested to make sure you got a 6 liter ironblock with TONS OF MEAT on it!
06-23-2007, 01:38 PM
#69
Crank strokes over 4.0" become a risky proposition in an iron 6.0l block due to the short sleeve length. Longer strokes don't play friendly with the production 6.0L iron block! Quite often they become oil burners. Piston design becomes very critical with these setups due to pin location and ring packaging. The wrist pin sits very close to the piston top and making ring packaging a headache. Skirt design is also a very critical element in building an engine to last. A large portion of the skirt drops out of the bottom of the bore. Also cranksahft counterweight clearance to the ring lands get crowded. We're currently going through a protracted process on a 4.10" stroke 6.0l engine build. It's not a pretty combination with these blocks. The LSX bocks look like they have a more favorable bore length and should be able to support these long stroke cranks more easily.
Good luck.
Richard
Good luck.
Richard
06-23-2007, 03:01 PM
#70
Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
Crank strokes over 4.0" become a risky proposition in an iron 6.0l block due to the short sleeve length. Longer strokes don't play friendly with the production 6.0L iron block! Quite often they become oil burners. Piston design becomes very critical with these setups due to pin location and ring packaging. The wrist pin sits very close to the piston top and making ring packaging a headache. Skirt design is also a very critical element in building an engine to last. A large portion of the skirt drops out of the bottom of the bore. Also cranksahft counterweight clearance to the ring lands get crowded. We're currently going through a protracted process on a 4.10" stroke 6.0l engine build. It's not a pretty combination with these blocks. The LSX bocks look like they have a more favorable bore length and should be able to support these long stroke cranks more easily.
Good luck.
Richard
Good luck.
Richard
Iron
LS2
LS1
L92
06-23-2007, 03:34 PM
#71
Originally Posted by Beaflag VonRathburg
What are the sleeve lengths of common blocks?
Iron
LS2
LS1
L92
Iron
LS2
LS1
L92
Here's what I find:
Iron 6.0l = 5.460"
LS1 & LS2 bore lengths = 5.650"
I don't have a L92 to measure
Nearly a .200" difference between the LS1/LS2 block and iron 6.0l block. Perhaps someone can post up the sleeve lengths of the L92, LSX and Warhawk blocks.
Richard
06-23-2007, 06:17 PM
#73
Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
This is a very good question
Here's what I find:
Iron 6.0l = 5.460"
LS1 & LS2 bore lengths = 5.650"
I don't have a L92 to measure
Nearly a .200" difference between the LS1/LS2 block and iron 6.0l block. Perhaps someone can post up the sleeve lengths of the L92, LSX and Warhawk blocks.
Richard
Here's what I find:
Iron 6.0l = 5.460"
LS1 & LS2 bore lengths = 5.650"
I don't have a L92 to measure
Nearly a .200" difference between the LS1/LS2 block and iron 6.0l block. Perhaps someone can post up the sleeve lengths of the L92, LSX and Warhawk blocks.
Richard
06-23-2007, 08:22 PM
#74
Originally Posted by Beaflag VonRathburg
That's good to know as I've always wanted to cram a 4.125 crank into something. Looks like the LS2 block would be the best choice. I've read that LS7 blocks have the longest stock sleeves, but I've never seen an actual number.
Richard
06-24-2007, 01:03 AM
#75
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Elmhurst, IL (Chicago Suburb)
Posts: 1,851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard@WCCH
Crank strokes over 4.0" become a risky proposition in an iron 6.0l block due to the short sleeve length. Longer strokes don't play friendly with the production 6.0L iron block! Quite often they become oil burners. Piston design becomes very critical with these setups due to pin location and ring packaging. The wrist pin sits very close to the piston top and making ring packaging a headache. Skirt design is also a very critical element in building an engine to last. A large portion of the skirt drops out of the bottom of the bore. Also cranksahft counterweight clearance to the ring lands get crowded. We're currently going through a protracted process on a 4.10" stroke 6.0l engine build. It's not a pretty combination with these blocks. The LSX bocks look like they have a more favorable bore length and should be able to support these long stroke cranks more easily.
Good luck.
Richard
Good luck.
Richard
You are exactly right and I wish I knew this 5 years ago when I had an iron LS 427 motor bored 4.060 with 4.125 crank which was a complete FAILURE of a motor. With less than 4000 miles on it the engine was consuming a ton of oil and the brand new CALLIES CRANK welds broke as well as the reluctor wheel!
I won't even mention what professional engine builder recommended this bore and stroke size for my old piece of **** 427 ironblock. 
06-28-2007, 04:47 PM
#78
The 433 stock sleeve L92 (4.1 x 4.1) continues to run exceptionally strong in my road race C5. I have no issues with oil burning. I was having some oil dumped to my catch can due to excess oil in the top end which I solved with restricted flow pushrods. The car holds several track records with this engine... I'm building another L92 433 for an Arizona road race driver who likes the way my car runs. This one will have a pair of Richards L92 CNC'd heads. Can't wait to see how it performs.
Shirl Dickey
SDRE
Shirl Dickey
SDRE
