Why should I NOT build a 404 cu in LT1/4?
#1
Why should I NOT build a 404 cu in LT1/4?
Block Deck Height = 9.025” with studs on the main journals
Bore = 4.03” (0.030” overbore)
Stroke = 3.96”
(REAL Forged 3.75" Gen II SBC stroker crankshaft [i.e. - NOT Scat nor Eagle] produced for standard 2.10” rod journals, then offset ground for 1.89” rod journals)
Connecting Rods = Forged I-beam 6.00” units with 1.89" (i.e. – Honda sized) journals; (stress relieved and polished, with ARP fasteners)
Pistons = SRP 4.030 diameter units with a compression height of 1.000”
Rod to Stroke Ratio = 1.515 (JUST above the minimum suggested ratio of 1.5, and much better than the SB Chevy 400 ratio of 1.45)
ALL –
If I’ve done the math right, then half the stroke (1.98”) plus the length of the rod (6.00”) plus the compression height of the piston (1.00”) = 8.98” so even if the block has to be decked down to 9.000” (fairly standard with SB Chevy blocks), that still leaves the piston in the bore by 0.002”
Given that, my logic behind building a 404 cu in LT1/4 (or 406 if I need to go 0.040” over) is that offset grinding the crankshaft (by 0.105”) is better than partially block filling and then grinding / clearancing the block to accept a 3.875 stroke crankshaft. I’ll get more cubic inches (8 additional cubes) and I will NOT hack up and weaken the bottom portion of my block.
So, and I ask this in all seriousness, what have I overlooked?
Why should I NOT build an engine with this configuration?
What are the downsides, if any, to this layout?
Thanks in advance!
Bore = 4.03” (0.030” overbore)
Stroke = 3.96”
(REAL Forged 3.75" Gen II SBC stroker crankshaft [i.e. - NOT Scat nor Eagle] produced for standard 2.10” rod journals, then offset ground for 1.89” rod journals)
Connecting Rods = Forged I-beam 6.00” units with 1.89" (i.e. – Honda sized) journals; (stress relieved and polished, with ARP fasteners)
Pistons = SRP 4.030 diameter units with a compression height of 1.000”
Rod to Stroke Ratio = 1.515 (JUST above the minimum suggested ratio of 1.5, and much better than the SB Chevy 400 ratio of 1.45)
ALL –
If I’ve done the math right, then half the stroke (1.98”) plus the length of the rod (6.00”) plus the compression height of the piston (1.00”) = 8.98” so even if the block has to be decked down to 9.000” (fairly standard with SB Chevy blocks), that still leaves the piston in the bore by 0.002”
Given that, my logic behind building a 404 cu in LT1/4 (or 406 if I need to go 0.040” over) is that offset grinding the crankshaft (by 0.105”) is better than partially block filling and then grinding / clearancing the block to accept a 3.875 stroke crankshaft. I’ll get more cubic inches (8 additional cubes) and I will NOT hack up and weaken the bottom portion of my block.
So, and I ask this in all seriousness, what have I overlooked?
Why should I NOT build an engine with this configuration?
What are the downsides, if any, to this layout?
Thanks in advance!
#2
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (14)
wait you say 3.96 stroke but clearancing block for 3.875 stroke..i will tell you ditch the 6" rod...you will want a 5.85 rod for a better comp height specialy if u ever even think about spraying it..with that low of a ch your pins in your ring stack..other then that build it aslong as u have the heads to support it
#5
Answer and Question
This makes the stroke longer without actually increasing the physical diamentions of the crankshaft.
Now, having said that, is a small base circle cam required when using a 383 (i.e. - 3.75" stroke) crankshaft?
Trending Topics
#8
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Yes a 3.75 stroker crank offset ground on the connecting rod journals, reducing the diameter from 2.10" down to 1.89" - by grinding away the INSIDE surface only the effective stroke is increased by 0.105" - which, when doubled = 0.210" or (3.75 + 0.21) 3.960"
This makes the straoke longer without actually increasing the physical diamentions of the crankshaft.
Now, having said that, is a small base circle cam required when using a 383 (i.e. - 3.75" stroke) crankshaft?
This makes the straoke longer without actually increasing the physical diamentions of the crankshaft.
Now, having said that, is a small base circle cam required when using a 383 (i.e. - 3.75" stroke) crankshaft?
#10
8 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
I have LT1s that are .040 and .030 you need to sonic test them if you want to go crazy. You can go .060 but you have to check that. There are some freaks out there that have been full filled and paper thin walls. My machinist basically said this about them, "yea I've done it and they have lasted longer than they should have."
Last edited by fex77k; 11-10-2010 at 10:16 PM.
#12
Some people say .100" is the min wall thickness, however if you hardblok fill it you can make the wall paper and still get some runs out of it.