What is everyone's engine design preference?

[DavidBoren]

That's the whole point of this, though. I'm trying to make the form of the motor fit the function of the vehicle.

I am trying to get everything working in concert. Engine design theory and architecture, cam profile and useable powerband, transmission gearing, rear axle ratio, suspension and brakes... Isn't the purpose of starting over to do everything over? Everything, for the most part, on the S-10 is set up from the factory to work as a system. Even though it's made from GM's leftover parts bin, some amount of engineering went into making sure that the parts selected meshed together for its intended purpose.

So, for me to change anything, I need to adjust all things. And since there is no single redeeming quality of the original S-10 worth saving (other than its compact chassis/body), I might as well design a whole new system, including an engine specifically designed for the rpm range and powerband I want, and a suspension set up for exactly how I feel a vehicle should handle.

When I see a 10k redline, I think "why" because I know it's possible to make the power sooner. And if you can't make enough power to do... ANYTHING you want... before 7500rpms, then you need less mass, not a higher redline.

My idea of reinventing the 6.0L with a 3.8x4.0 architecture vs the 4.0x3.6 bore and stroke is to shift the powerband left, favoring early torque production. The exact same crankshafts are used in OEM engines that spin to 7k rpms. I have no doubts, whatsoever, that any engine built using this crank will be in any way redline limited.

So, it's up to proper cam selection, valvetrain components, and transmission/axle gearing to best utilize a powerband that both comes on early, and can extend to 7k rpms.

Mind you, the torque will come on early compared to a 6.0L with the 3.6" crank. But it won't subtract from the upper limit of the same mid-stroke 6.0L, given proper valvetrain and cam selection... So I literally do not see a downside to building a undersquare 6.0L motor.

All that needs to be done is porting the heads to provide adequate air flow for six liters of displacement spinning at 7k rpms... Which I know is possible, even with the little valves.

Little valves and little pistons are easy to move, so the rotating mass will be able to rev as high as the big LS7 components, even with the LS7 using titanium.

Everyone always says that they want a broad powerband, and yet it seems no attention is ever paid to broadening it to the left. People go through great lengths to expand the powerband to the right, ever increasing the redline. And engine design and architecture reflects the chase for higher redlines with oversquare engines. Yet you can achieve roughly the same effect starting power production earlier.

3000-8500 powerband is 5500 useable rpms...

So is... 1500-7000...

Things that make you say, "hmm..."