I snapped some photos yesterday, and was just uploading them for you in case you hadn't seen the recent work. That must have come together quickly. Here's what it looked like yesterday afternoon

http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/o...A/DSC_0279.jpg

Matt

looks cool, what's the reasoning for this?
it doesn't look like you will get much more tire under there?

I was having a little rubbing in one spot so this will give me a bit more clearance.

Also, for a looks standpoint the old stock fenderwells didn't line up with the new upper control arms at all.. not even close.

They look nice ,I saw the markings on them when I was there.

Very nice Steve, I know you been wanting to do something different with the inners. I imagine you must be stoked! :thumbsup:

More cool stuff going on with Penny.

Steve, I really appreciate the fact that you drive the hell out of this car and keep upgrading along the way. Guys like you and Todd and several others that USE these cars keep the hobby that much more interesting for people like me.:thumbsup:

I have all my oil cooler stuff now. The main player is a Setrab 925 cooler.

The larger radiator opening will let me mount this without blocking most of the radiator. All the stuff will be hardlined from the Canton t-stat to the cooler and then to the bulkheads.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2j0bngp.jpg

Funny.. this just started out as a simple project.. lol

http://i47.tinypic.com/5fi620.jpg

Right now all the old undercoating is being stripped off so the new WURTH Stoneguard can be shot on.

The rear was gone over by Currie and new ends were welded on. I also had the third member rebuilt since it was out of the car.

I'm also making progress on the new engine. It's a RHS standard deck race block with 4.155 bore and a 4.25 stroke. The rotating guts will Lunati and the heads will Mast Motorsports LS3 12-degree big bore pieces. I call it a 454+ (the plus is because it's really a 461)

The inner fenders are now ready to be final welded and then bodyworked. I held them up there and there's TONS more tire space where it's needed. Brad (the Bradenator) at BOS did a great job making my vision a reality on these.

http://i46.tinypic.com/21jbyao.jpg

Interesting you went with the over square engine....

Wouldn't it really be an under square engine since the bore is less than the stroke?

If I do the 4.155/4.250 it equals .977 and is still considered by some to be "square" (range of .95 to 1.04) - If I could do a 4.250 bore I would. lol

I'm building another one (a 454) that's 4.185 bore and 4.125 stroke.. that's a combo I like better (bigger bore and less stroke). Now that would be and Over Square engine but it's still 1.014 and technically still "square" (but more square I guess)

BUT.. keep in mind that this block is made to go 4.250 on the stroke and due to the raised cam there's more "room". Also Wiseco is making me up a set of custom pistons. In other words we are keep all this math that makes my head hurt in mind.

Working with COMP, Lunati and Wiseco on this so I'm pretty confident it will all work out.

With the RHS block I was limited to 4.165 bore, but that's a scratch built piston unlike the 4.155. And it was either go 4.25 on the stroke or 4.125. With something this expensive I didn't think it was worth it to just end up with a 447...

I just finished a 440 (LSX iron block) build which had a perfect 4.125 bore and 4.125 stroke.. with a Fast 92 and 235 Trick Flow heads it made 660 hp and 625 lb-ft of torque. On 91 octane CA gas and 11.25:1 compression (but a big ass hyd cam)

Definitely over square...been through this whole analysis.

Over square is where the bore is larger than the stroke

Since my bore is 4.165 and my stroke is 4.250 the engine is really Under Square.

That's from Wikipedia.. but I double checked a few places. it's under square.

But these days that's pretty common. Take the Tall Deck RHS block. The max bore is still 4.165 but you can go 4.600 on the stroke and that's WAY under square.

I'm comfortable with the .977 ratio of my bore/stroke ..

Will be interesting to see how the two builds play out and how they compare to the 1.00 square 440 I just finished.

And keep in mind.. I'm NOT and engine building expert.. I just know lots of smart people to brain pick.

Steve, not to hijack the thread, how is the trackrat project coming along? If you keep "borrowing" the parts from it to "try" out on BP we may never see the thing :lol:

You've convinced me that if you are going to buck up for a radiator, that going the AutoRad setup is the way to go--I can't believe the amount of surface area available is so large for the radiator---they are spendy, but worth it now in my opinion.

Doug

Sorry Steve, it's late and I've had a few drinks. I meant under square. It's unusual to see an undersquare engine. Very few factory engines were built this way. The slant 6 is one bullet proof instance. I'm interested to see how it works out for you.

What happened to Track Rat is that BOS had it ready for paint and then I went and had the panels stretched.. now it needs to be readied for paint AGAIN.. BOS is swampped right now so we are putting off that body work until after the Del Mar show. Then we will dive back in. Should go fast since we have the drivetrain, suspension, and brakes all ready to go.

I just borrowed the CF panels. The radiator was taken from the TR project for Penny since it's a bit more expensive and more fitting BP than TR whis is SUPPOSED to be a lower $$$ project.

As for the AutoRad deal.. Yea, it's a bit more $$ but that's because of the core support. The radiator itself is priced pretty good. I had a friend get one because if figured the core support was cheaper than having hours spent making a stock one look good (welding up holes, smoothing out).

The bodywork on TR has taken a lot longer than expected.. but that's what happens and I don't want to just slap the car together.

Hey, send a few drinks over here! lol

I always mix up high and low impedence in regards to injectors..

Under Square is becomming more common, especially in LS applications where crazy long strokes are. Hell, Lunati just came out with a 4.625 stroke crank.. Obviously that's going to be WAY bigger than any possible bore size.

So I have three engines going now.. an Over Square (1.017).. and Under Square (0.977) and a Square 1.00 -- should be interesting to compare.

On the one for Penny I feel the ratio of .977 is close enough to true square as not to be an issue.

Not to jack the thread -- but in 140 characters or less.... what is the advantage in a motor that is over sq vs under??

I once read an article where they built two motors to do this comparo... big bore short stroke - and same disp with longer stroke. If I remember right - they made the same power = just at different RPMS... and the conclusion was inconclusive.

U-S engines
 

Greg-
It will depend on the breathing characteristics of the engine. The better the heads / chamber / cam are, the easier it is to go under-square.

The easy answer is that that fast acceleration & decelration (for a given RPM) of the piston will help produce more power across the band. The hard part is getting the combo right...but LS engines are almost too easy now.

Todd- Like Steve said, there are lots of US engines being produce now, especially inline engines. I know it sounds counterintuitive, but they are actually easier to produce and balance as well.

Back to your regularly scheduled Penny update...

Normally it's more low end torque and slightly less high end horsepower.

Nowhere in Steve's math did he mention ROD RATIO.... and I always thought that this was important. I've actually been thinking of de-stroking the 427 because it has such "bad" rod ratio (4.125 bore - 4.00 stroke - 6" rod)

Is this no longer an issue with the taller decks of the LSx ?

Steve --- LOVE the updates -- like Eric said - it's fun to live vicariously.

What he said.. lol

It use to be a bigger issue that it is today and typically you were better off being over-square than under. Today, with the right parts it's not such a big deal. I feel my ratio of .977 is pretty damn close to square. Imagine if you had a 4.165 bore and 4.625 stroke. Would i have ran a 4.200 crank if I could have? Yea, but they don't so I decided I would rather have more displacement rather than move to an over-square (4.165 x 4.125).

Todd-
Yes, for the same heads / cam combo & just a stroke change, that's generally true. Due to most new LS heads & 4 valve heads, that isn't necesarily the case anymore. Regardless, the engine is always about the combo rather than the resume of it's parts.

It is.. but again after talking with Brian Nutter at Wiseco he feels his piston design will be good to go. My rod choices consist of one size. 6.125.. At least from the Lunati catalog that I'm dealing with.

We will see if they are right :)

Yep.. and to be honest that's really goal. Personally I didn't want anything bigger than a 440, but the 454 just sounds so damn sexy.

I'm going to cam it down so that it still has a great street idle. I guess you could say that I'm going to size the cam like the engine is a 440 and the extra displacement will help smooth stuff out. I would be happy with 650/600 but after running this 440 last week I think it might be more.

A few good cubes are always agood thing.

I was considering doing an undersquare engine as well. I have a bore size of 4.280. My block will take a 4.375 stroke. Ultimately my engine builder didn't feel it was a good trade off in power vs. cost and longevity. I had to ask myself, why don't you see them in any high performance application from the factory? The only conclusion I had was longevity and warranty. I ended up with a 4.25 stroke with a 6.385 rod. Another thing is big block stuff is heavy and they are harder to turn rpm with. Adding more low end torque and less high end hp didn't make sense for me where it may very well for you. I love this stuff.

Never met a cube I didn't like. lol

I figure if Jackass and Blue Bomber can hook up 700-800 hp then I can hook up 680.. :)

And the lack of a weight penalty is a bonus...

Because the factory uses inferior parts for the most part.. they certainly don't use forged cranks and all the other goodies that make a reliable under-square engine possible.

You combo was just barely under-square with a ratio of .978 ... I don't think it would have been a huge issue so long as you have good parts, especially the crank.

And you're right, there's a big difference between a big-block and an LS.. seems like you can get away with more on the LS side.

Well, it doesn't feel like it but progress is being made.

The underside is scraped and the new Wurth stuff should be on there by tomorrow.

With any luck I should be picking up the rearend housing from powder this week as well, then we can put the rear back together and get her rolling again. Found that he axle tubes were pretty warped from the 3-link brackets so Currie cut off the ends and welded on new ones.. straight.

Parts are moving for the 460 cube RHS LS engine, biggest delay will be the 4.250 Lunati crank which is two weeks out. That's the only delayed part though.

Cam selected is a 247/261 .624 114 LSA stick.. Any guess as to power? :)

Should be good to go for having the car done by April.. knock on wood.

The LM clutch is over at Centerforce getting refubed (figured I might as well since it's out)

The oil cooler system is also in progress getting all hard lined up. The Setrab 925 fits perfect. This is being done at Fast Eddies Fabrication in Orange, CA.

http://i50.tinypic.com/14trero.jpg

Steve...is that an autorad setup? Your car is amazing :hail: :hail: :hail:

Yea, there are more pictures earlier in the thread. Of course we're modifying it for the oil cooler deal.

The nice part is how much radiator is still uncovered even with the huge cooler.

And thanks for the compliment on the car.. it's a team effort.

autorad
 

Steve- are they going to put vibration isolators on the Setrab?

That's a good looking piece.

Power guesses? Hmmmmmm...need more specs (too lazy to surf the old posts at this point). My spider-senses tell me the driver is going to need to be retuned as well haha.

They are there.. put them in myself today. Small pads at each of the four attachment points. Came with the Setrab mounting brackets.

247/261 114 cam
461 cubic inches
11.5:1 compression
Lunati 4.250 stroke crank
I-beam 6.125 rods (609 grams)
Wiseco pistons
Mast Motorsports 12-degree big bore rec port heads
FAST 102mm LS3 intake
RHS race block, standard deck, raised cam - 6-bolt
Mike Norris ported LS2 TBW throttle body

And a bunch of other stuff that don't make power.

It will most likely make more than I need.. so I'm not going to be able to just flat foot it like I did before. I'm thinking I'm also going to have to run short autocrosses like Goodguys in second gear.

Do I smell compition ? :willy:

No.. Not really.. Fast Eddies is a hardcore fab shop and my go to guy for welding aluminum.

Since he was welding the tabs on for the mounts I thought I would have him bend the lines up front since he can bend stuff that big. It was more of a time saver since he's a few miles away and you're.. well.. farther. lol

The plan is to get her running and then take her to you for the gas tank trunk lines and a couple very hard lines in the engine bay.

You really need to move down to Orange County.. :yes:

I bet it makes North of 700hp and 640-650lbft easy. Why a 114lsa with 11.5:1?

Good. I know who Fast Eddie is very talented and professional.

No! No! No! I think you need to move to the S.F.V. Besides how many times do you go and see Cris at J.C.G. He's even further:lol:

What's funny about Eddie is that I took him my '67 back in the 80s for cage work.. he's been around forever.

And yea, driving to JCG is a nightmare.. LA sucks so bad. Took me three hours last time and he's only 90 miles away. My new rule is to try and only go there on weekends :)

The fuel/vent lines in my trunk need your assitance badly..

I was leaning toward 112 LSA, but Craig over at COMP thought idle quality would suffer and the additional overlap would make the whole deal less street friendly. He did think it would generate more low and mid-range power though.

In the end I'm going to end up with more power than I really need so I erred on the side of idle and drivability.

For compression I was really shooting for 11.1 or 11.2 to one, but this is how it's working out with the pistons and the 72cc Mast heads. We might adjust it down a touch with the head gasket, but 11.5:1 isn't high, even for out crappy CA pump gas.

Horace at Mast was thinking it would be pushing 700hp.. now I just need to be able to hook it up. Also, while 700 is a good "magazine number" I would be happy with 650-670hp and a bad ass super flat torque curve.

I agree, we are both pushing our chassis's to the max. I felt like my 491/497 at the tires was really managable across the board. I have similar expectations. 650-675hp and 625 ftlbs. Your making a vast improvment in your low end torque with identical stroke to me. I was able to hook up that 497 at 3800 with R888's in second gear matted during autocross. I felt it was about the limit however. A little loose but biting hard. On 200 tread wear tires I'm not to sure. You're going to gain some pull out of those slow corners and I'm going to gain 500-700 rpm to avoid shifting into 3rd until 85 or so. We'll put all that power to use on the road course for sure. :thumbsup: Crazy you can run 11.5:1 on a 114 with 91 octane. Do you run a knock sensor? I'd error on the side caution. Compression doesn't gain that much power.