700hp n/a...how can it be done?
01-19-2007, 04:45 PM
#41
Launching!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Commerce, MI
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the reason for not using the 4.125" crank? If the right rod length and piston is used doesn't that eliminate the problem. Or is it that the block is going to need so much clearancing to accomadate the big stroke?
Will the stock L92 rockers handle 7000+ rpms and high spring pressures even with the harland sharp bearings?
Will the stock L92 rockers handle 7000+ rpms and high spring pressures even with the harland sharp bearings?
01-19-2007, 05:00 PM
#42
y not look into the LSx block and just build more cubes and use LS7 heads
or heavily ported and worked L92's?
4.25 bore and 4 in. stroke would bring you to 454 ci,
seems it will be easier to make 700 hp with a 454 instead of a 427
on pump gas, or even push the bore on the LSx to a 4.28 with the same stroke to build a 460 ci engine,
just my thoughts, cant wait for that block to be released
gl
or heavily ported and worked L92's?
4.25 bore and 4 in. stroke would bring you to 454 ci,
seems it will be easier to make 700 hp with a 454 instead of a 427
on pump gas, or even push the bore on the LSx to a 4.28 with the same stroke to build a 460 ci engine,
just my thoughts, cant wait for that block to be released
gl
01-19-2007, 05:32 PM
#43
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 NemeSS
y not look into the LSx block and just build more cubes and use LS7 heads
or heavily ported and worked L92's?
4.25 bore and 4 in. stroke would bring you to 454 ci,
seems it will be easier to make 700 hp with a 454 instead of a 427
on pump gas, or even push the bore on the LSx to a 4.28 with the same stroke to build a 460 ci engine,
just my thoughts, cant wait for that block to be released
gl
or heavily ported and worked L92's?
4.25 bore and 4 in. stroke would bring you to 454 ci,
seems it will be easier to make 700 hp with a 454 instead of a 427
on pump gas, or even push the bore on the LSx to a 4.28 with the same stroke to build a 460 ci engine,
just my thoughts, cant wait for that block to be released
gl
I agree 1000% and that is EXAXCTLY what I plan on doing!!
01-19-2007, 07:58 PM
#44
Launching!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Commerce, MI
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My car didn't run last year and I'm not gonna have that happen again. If I wait around for that block to come out...the car might not make it out again! Plus it's cast iron and it weighs a lot more than the aluminum blocks. Not good for an all motor car! I agree though it would be badass!
01-19-2007, 08:20 PM
#45
Staging Lane
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Saint Clair Shores Mi
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the stock L92 rockers handle 7000+ rpms and high spring pressures even with the harland sharp bearings?[/QUOTE]
No, from what Ive been told. I wanted to run the L92 heads but I wont pay $1625 for Jesels for a car thats being built for fun.
W2W, SDPC and a friend who works for the GM performance race shop in Wixom told me not to run the stockers with 200+psi on the seat and 700+open.
If someone is doing this please, let me know.
No, from what Ive been told. I wanted to run the L92 heads but I wont pay $1625 for Jesels for a car thats being built for fun.
W2W, SDPC and a friend who works for the GM performance race shop in Wixom told me not to run the stockers with 200+psi on the seat and 700+open.
If someone is doing this please, let me know.
01-19-2007, 11:34 PM
#47
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by NemeSS
y not look into the LSx block and just build more cubes and use LS7 heads
or heavily ported and worked L92's?
4.25 bore and 4 in. stroke would bring you to 454 ci,
seems it will be easier to make 700 hp with a 454 instead of a 427
on pump gas, or even push the bore on the LSx to a 4.28 with the same stroke to build a 460 ci engine,
just my thoughts, cant wait for that block to be released
gl
or heavily ported and worked L92's?
4.25 bore and 4 in. stroke would bring you to 454 ci,
seems it will be easier to make 700 hp with a 454 instead of a 427
on pump gas, or even push the bore on the LSx to a 4.28 with the same stroke to build a 460 ci engine,
just my thoughts, cant wait for that block to be released
gl
-Geoff
01-20-2007, 03:09 AM
#49
Restricted User
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: California
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ls1Joe
Matt,
We are not using either. We use a custom filter that you have to get from CV Products. They are $54.87 each and hold 1.5 quarts. It is a custom filter for there remote filter relocater.
Thanks,
Amber
We are not using either. We use a custom filter that you have to get from CV Products. They are $54.87 each and hold 1.5 quarts. It is a custom filter for there remote filter relocater.
Thanks,
Amber
How do you think a ported LS6 Pump do reving up to around 8400 rpm or so with a stock pan? Just curious, ran into this thread while doing reasearch on my new to be solid roller set up.
01-20-2007, 06:42 AM
#50
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (37)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wentzville MO
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have the 4.125 stroke in my motor with the 6.0 block. Also STOCK oiling system in my car its been 8200 rpm for 3 years no signs of anything going wrong. I beat the **** out of this motor and go through the traps and 8200 to 8300 everytime. I'm sure a dry sump is better ,but I haven't gone to one yet.
And 700 flywheel h/p N/A on pump gas with 427 ci now a days, I don't see a problem with the heads out now. Hell I've got ported ls6 heads that flow 317 to 320 cfm at 700 and I made 630 rwhp granted on 110 octane ,but still the heads are awesome today. I can't wait to try some of these new heads out!
And 700 flywheel h/p N/A on pump gas with 427 ci now a days, I don't see a problem with the heads out now. Hell I've got ported ls6 heads that flow 317 to 320 cfm at 700 and I made 630 rwhp granted on 110 octane ,but still the heads are awesome today. I can't wait to try some of these new heads out!
01-20-2007, 12:03 PM
#51
TECH Addict
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere I Belong
Posts: 2,906
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TOSTO RACING
I have the 4.125 stroke in my motor with the 6.0 block. Also STOCK oiling system in my car its been 8200 rpm for 3 years no signs of anything going wrong. I beat the **** out of this motor and go through the traps and 8200 to 8300 everytime. I'm sure a dry sump is better ,but I haven't gone to one yet.
And 700 flywheel h/p N/A on pump gas with 427 ci now a days, I don't see a problem with the heads out now. Hell I've got ported ls6 heads that flow 317 to 320 cfm at 700 and I made 630 rwhp granted on 110 octane ,but still the heads are awesome today. I can't wait to try some of these new heads out!
And 700 flywheel h/p N/A on pump gas with 427 ci now a days, I don't see a problem with the heads out now. Hell I've got ported ls6 heads that flow 317 to 320 cfm at 700 and I made 630 rwhp granted on 110 octane ,but still the heads are awesome today. I can't wait to try some of these new heads out!
peace
01-20-2007, 04:19 PM
#52
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 TOSTO RACING
I have the 4.125 stroke in my motor with the 6.0 block. Also STOCK oiling system in my car its been 8200 rpm for 3 years no signs of anything going wrong. I beat the **** out of this motor and go through the traps and 8200 to 8300 everytime. I'm sure a dry sump is better ,but I haven't gone to one yet.
And 700 flywheel h/p N/A on pump gas with 427 ci now a days, I don't see a problem with the heads out now. Hell I've got ported ls6 heads that flow 317 to 320 cfm at 700 and I made 630 rwhp granted on 110 octane ,but still the heads are awesome today. I can't wait to try some of these new heads out!
And 700 flywheel h/p N/A on pump gas with 427 ci now a days, I don't see a problem with the heads out now. Hell I've got ported ls6 heads that flow 317 to 320 cfm at 700 and I made 630 rwhp granted on 110 octane ,but still the heads are awesome today. I can't wait to try some of these new heads out!
Bad *** f-body my friend I love it and INCREDIBLE N/A times. How many cubes you putting out and what bore size are you running on your 6 liter motor, 4.060?
What compression is that bad boy making 13.5 to 1?
01-20-2007, 05:21 PM
#54
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (37)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wentzville MO
Posts: 1,601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MTI 427 C5 Roadster
Bad *** f-body my friend I love it and INCREDIBLE N/A times. How many cubes you putting out and what bore size are you running on your 6 liter motor, 4.060?
What compression is that bad boy making 13.5 to 1?
What compression is that bad boy making 13.5 to 1?
Its 4.030 bore and 15 to 1
01-20-2007, 05:46 PM
#55
Originally Posted by SStrokerAce
A 4.280" Bore? That ain't gonna happen.
left, will .030 more really make that much of a diff.,? on that particular block?
it is also advertised that the material used is also much more harder than the iron they use for convetional 6.0 blocks. i would think it would not affect it too much, for N/A 7000 RPM engine.
opinions?
01-20-2007, 08:22 PM
#57
FormerVendor
You just need a lot of inches and good heads and Ti valves and it's a total cakewalk. More stroke is better and more bore is better and lighter valves is better.
01-20-2007, 08:37 PM
#58
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's easier to make bigger power number with an LS1 compared to a conventional motor. It’s common to see 600HP with a (conventional) 23 degree head 406. There are a few reasons why the GEN III rocks here are just a few when you stroke a 400 the rods hit everything and to get any type of cam in it you had to run a small base circle cam. Thus any HP you gained by stroking it you lost because your cam was a torsion bar! These LS motors rock they have the super strong hollow large journal cam that doesn’t get in the way of a big stroke any you have a kick @$$ valve angle and the main thing nobody is talking about on the L92 stuff is the chamber kick but it’s superior to the old LS1, LS6 stuff. Anyway don’t build a inefficient big inch motor and don’t build a small inch motor build a good efficient motor in the 410's to 420's and I would stay away from the 4.100 arm. Personally I’m loving these L92 blocks with a 4" arm that’s a good little motor IT’S broad but the heads move enough air to make big power!
01-20-2007, 09:08 PM
#59
10 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ls1Joe
Matt,
Most of you guys keep forgetting we were turning my stock bottom end car 8200rpm's. It had between 400-600 passes when we pulled it apart to put the big inch engine in. We had several engine builders take a look at it and again no issues with oiling and we were advised that keeping this a wet sump would be just fine. I think most of the guys we asked have been in the engine building business for 25 plus years. Did you know that SBC's turned 9000rpms for years with a stock wet sump? Nascar was primarily a wet sump setup until the late 70's when they went to a dry sump setup. Just because some people can't keep them together doesn't mean in 100 passes we will have issues. We put about 1 year into this build doing research with both prostock guys we know, engine builders we know and so on. We built this thing to last so it does not have to be torn down. I will let you know in 150 passes if I have to tear it down but we don't think we will ever have an issue. It is more bearing clearance issues than anything. We now alot of SCCA guys turning in the low 8000rpms in the road racing because there class does not allow wet sumps.
Thanks,
Amber
T56Rebuilds.com
Most of you guys keep forgetting we were turning my stock bottom end car 8200rpm's. It had between 400-600 passes when we pulled it apart to put the big inch engine in. We had several engine builders take a look at it and again no issues with oiling and we were advised that keeping this a wet sump would be just fine. I think most of the guys we asked have been in the engine building business for 25 plus years. Did you know that SBC's turned 9000rpms for years with a stock wet sump? Nascar was primarily a wet sump setup until the late 70's when they went to a dry sump setup. Just because some people can't keep them together doesn't mean in 100 passes we will have issues. We put about 1 year into this build doing research with both prostock guys we know, engine builders we know and so on. We built this thing to last so it does not have to be torn down. I will let you know in 150 passes if I have to tear it down but we don't think we will ever have an issue. It is more bearing clearance issues than anything. We now alot of SCCA guys turning in the low 8000rpms in the road racing because there class does not allow wet sumps.
Thanks,
Amber
T56Rebuilds.com
What Oil are you running?
Congrat, keep up the good work and record setting set-ups
Bob
