View Single Post
  #11  
Old 02-06-2010, 08:44 AM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 5,534
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ohcbird View Post
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...
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).
__________________
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."

See Bad Penny run the cones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GUPPIX-92U

1971 Chevelle Wagon - Roadster Shop Chassis ProCharged Shafiroff LS and lots of yada yada

1968 Camaro - Project Track Rat - 440 RHS LS
Reply With Quote