...

Go Back   Lateral-g Forums > Lateral-G Open Discussions > Project Updates
User Name
Password



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-06-2010, 08:26 AM
Vegas69's Avatar
Vegas69 Vegas69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,692
Thanks: 87
Thanked 215 Times in 120 Posts
Default

Normally it's more low end torque and slightly less high end horsepower.
__________________
Todd
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-06-2010, 08:33 AM
GregWeld's Avatar
GregWeld GregWeld is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AriDzona
Posts: 20,741
Thanks: 504
Thanked 1,080 Times in 388 Posts
Default

Nowhere in Steve's math did he mention ROD RATIO.... and I always thought that this was important. I've actually been thinking of de-stroking the 427 because it has such "bad" rod ratio (4.125 bore - 4.00 stroke - 6" rod)

Is this no longer an issue with the taller decks of the LSx ?

Steve --- LOVE the updates -- like Eric said - it's fun to live vicariously.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-06-2010, 08:46 AM
ohcbird's Avatar
ohcbird ohcbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NE FL
Posts: 345
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Todd-
Yes, for the same heads / cam combo & just a stroke change, that's generally true. Due to most new LS heads & 4 valve heads, that isn't necesarily the case anymore. Regardless, the engine is always about the combo rather than the resume of it's parts.

Last edited by Steve1968LS2; 02-06-2010 at 08:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-06-2010, 08:47 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 GregWeld View Post
Nowhere in Steve's math did he mention ROD RATIO.... and I always thought that this was important. I've actually been thinking of de-stroking the 427 because it has such "bad" rod ratio (4.125 bore - 4.00 stroke - 6" rod)

Is this no longer an issue with the taller decks of the LSx ?

Steve --- LOVE the updates -- like Eric said - it's fun to live vicariously.
It is.. but again after talking with Brian Nutter at Wiseco he feels his piston design will be good to go. My rod choices consist of one size. 6.125.. At least from the Lunati catalog that I'm dealing with.

We will see if they are right

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas69 View Post
Normally it's more low end torque and slightly less high end horsepower.
Yep.. and to be honest that's really goal. Personally I didn't want anything bigger than a 440, but the 454 just sounds so damn sexy.

I'm going to cam it down so that it still has a great street idle. I guess you could say that I'm going to size the cam like the engine is a 440 and the extra displacement will help smooth stuff out. I would be happy with 650/600 but after running this 440 last week I think it might be more.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Steve1968LS2; 02-06-2010 at 08:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-06-2010, 09:04 AM
ohcbird's Avatar
ohcbird ohcbird is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NE FL
Posts: 345
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

A few good cubes are always agood thing.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-06-2010, 09:43 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
A few good cubes are always agood thing.
Never met a cube I didn't like. lol

I figure if Jackass and Blue Bomber can hook up 700-800 hp then I can hook up 680..

And the lack of a weight penalty is a bonus...
__________________
"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
  #7  
Old 02-06-2010, 09:42 AM
Vegas69's Avatar
Vegas69 Vegas69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,692
Thanks: 87
Thanked 215 Times in 120 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
Todd
Reply With Quote
  #8  
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
  #9  
Old 02-17-2010, 06:17 PM
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

Well, it doesn't feel like it but progress is being made.

The underside is scraped and the new Wurth stuff should be on there by tomorrow.

With any luck I should be picking up the rearend housing from powder this week as well, then we can put the rear back together and get her rolling again. Found that he axle tubes were pretty warped from the 3-link brackets so Currie cut off the ends and welded on new ones.. straight.

Parts are moving for the 460 cube RHS LS engine, biggest delay will be the 4.250 Lunati crank which is two weeks out. That's the only delayed part though.

Cam selected is a 247/261 .624 114 LSA stick.. Any guess as to power?

Should be good to go for having the car done by April.. knock on wood.

The LM clutch is over at Centerforce getting refubed (figured I might as well since it's out)

The oil cooler system is also in progress getting all hard lined up. The Setrab 925 fits perfect. This is being done at Fast Eddies Fabrication in Orange, CA.

__________________
"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
  #10  
Old 02-17-2010, 07:34 PM
scherp69's Avatar
scherp69 scherp69 is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 882
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Steve...is that an autorad setup? Your car is amazing
__________________
Mike

Pro Touring 68 Acadian(Nova)
Speedtech subframe with high clearance control arms
Prodigy Bar rear suspension
Ridetech single adjustable coilovers
Wilwood 12.2" brakes
New Gen Splitters
LS3 and TKO600

Link to my build: https://lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php4?t=14349

Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net