View Single Post
  #187  
Old 02-06-2010, 09:47 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 Vegas69 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"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