PS. It seems that a lot of people slap in an LS engine "because it works" and call it good. But I asking more of a preference towards one design theory over another, and for what reason.
Example:
I want to build a 359ci LC9 stroker with stock 3.78" bores and a 4" crank. This makes the motor undersquare. The tall, narrow cylinders are better air pumps for naturally aspirated applications, and the long rod design reduces piston speed towards top dead center, which reduces the likelihood of detonation. This should allow for higher compression and more timing.
There is more to that, but I don't want to bore you with a pipe dream engine that I haven't built yet. Those are the kinds of thoughts and explanations I am looking for with this question.
I get that a lot of people just use what works, without having a real preference towards how the results are achieved. But I want to build an engine with the theories I, personally, think makes sense to test whether or not the engine performs how I want it to using the theories I want it to incorporate. If that makes sense.
Building the engine as I want it built, just to see if I want the right things... if the theories that make sense to me actually give the performance I want. Otherwise, I have to re-evaluate my understanding of engines, and how they work, and figure out what it is that I am wrong about. Why what I think should work does (or does not) actually work. That sort of thing.
Anyone else building an engine or picking a particular engine using this approach?
|