[DavidBoren]

I am not trying to argue with anything anyone has said. I think Ron nailed my objectives perfectly. I do have a question about using a 4" stroke and this phenomenon that has been brought up multiple times called "running out of steam"...

From what I have seen, on this forum and other places, the LS7 is a staple of the pro touring community. It has been put in plenty of performance cars that have never had a single complaint about running out of steam.

How many rpms do you use on a road course? The obvious answer is all of them. But seriously, is the 7k redline associated with the LS7, and it's 4" crank, not enough?

Ron says, in "C", to build as much power as you can use. I am building a S-10, it's going to weigh 3000# race weight, I don't think I can use a whole LS7. But it's the go-to engine for pro touring and I am building a pro touring S-10. So I am going to subtract one liter of displacement, but keep the things I like (4" stroke = torque, I like torque). And, at the same time, it provides me with an opportunity to test some design theory that I have for some reason attached myself to.

As for what is more fun to drive. I favor torque here as well. I would rather spin my tires rather than spin the crap out of my engine. I don't roast my tires, and I know spinning tires isn't fast. But I prefer the feeling of taking off in a 500hp duramax diesel truck more than the feeling of "launching" with a 500hp evo8.

I would rather have a car that I have to drive with respect, more than a car I have to abuse. Hunter S. Thompson said that men like big guns and fast cars because they push us to our limits, rather than us pushing the machine to its limits. And with rpm motors, it's like you have to keep them at the upper limit for them to be any fun. But with a torque engine, you have to respect the machine.

Maybe I am just retarded. But I'm under the impression that using a 4" stroke crankshaft will in no way limit my useable rpms.

Is 7000rpms not enough?
Are LS7's hard to drive?