Yet Another Lsx Build Up

[supersub]

Decided to let out some of the things I have been rounding up these days and in turn try to gain some new info needed to finish this build up of sorts...

 

So here goes.

 

LSX #416 from my local dealer.

4.125 bore

4.00 stroke callies 24x crank

6.125 callies comp H-Beam rods

-5 cc 2618 Manley coated pistons

Hell Fire 1/16 1/16 3/16 nitrous rings

N-Motion single row T/Chain

Lingenfelter H/V Oil pump

227/240 639/649 on 114

L92 CNC'D 2.18 1.60 73cc heads (WCCH)Flow #'s Soon to be released.

Harland Sharp 1.7 Roller Rockers

arp ls2 head studs

L92 truck intake w/90mm DBW T/Body(For Now!)(Awaiting TVS)

60lb EV6 Injectors w/E-85 capability(For Now!)

1 3/4 Long tube headers

2600 triple disc Stall(?????)

 

Thats hitting the big stuff so far.Machine work is a joint effort from both very reputable and affordable sponsors from this site.(TPIS)(WCCH)(MAGNACHARGER)Parts gathered are also mostly procurred from sponsors(SDPC) and members from this site.

This build up will be flywheel dyno'd and hopefully turn out some really nice Numbers.

This is where the help comes in.

1. 6050lb total weight DD Suburban.It currently has a 5.3 maggie equip'd 4l65 Built tranny.will the 2600 stall be enough?Should I go larger and if so How much larger.

2. Constanly Bothering the guys over at Magnasun for the Soon to Be released TVS L92 Based Blower.Did my Cam choice Go too far? It is Really hard to try to create a NA/FI cam grind W/little draw backs from one to the other.(WCCH)Heads will take the Flow.

3.Total compression is falling in at 11.1 to 1 So 6 psi will probably be the max.Am i Going to far?(Vortec's are pushing 5-6 psi on the ls7 vettes @ the same compression ratio).

4. Gears Upgraded,Currently they are the stockers but would like to go to 3.73-4.10's with new lockers.Hopeing to help move this weight around a little easier.

5. Headers?Should i Go Full Custom and Supersize them to 1 7/8 step 2" and

3" dual exhaust out?.

 

And the last one How Much HP NA/FI with TVS2300 do you THink this COULD produce.Idle Quality,And Did I just take the DD out of my fun family go getter.

 

Supersub:nod:

[hellbents10]

I wouldn't waste my time with a maggie on a motor like that. Not worth it to add 50-100 over what it will make N/A.

[Quik]

personally would go a different route for the topend

[supersub]

personally would go a different route for the topend

Which Part??

[Quik]

Which Part??

the heads and intake. first off the truck intake is horrible. so if your going to run a set of ported L92s with a intake the flows less the a stock ls1 intake then your kinda kicking yoruself in the nuts. also L92s IMHO arent woth the effort on anything larger then a 6.0 or 6.2. To run a set of L92s that have to be ported to make even remotely close numbers as a catheral port head is just a waste of effort. your spending top dollar on your bottomend why cheap out and put a set of budget heads on that motor? I learned the hard way, hell a local 408 just put down 426hp thru an auto with L92s. a waste, a 408 with L92s in a truck can only muster 11.9 in a RCSB another waste, L92s on a 383 all bore cant go anybetter then 11.8 in a 3300 lb car. All cams spec'd out by professionals. along with it the topend wont make power past 6200-6300 and thats using the car intake, just think on how limited you will be using the truck intake.

 

if you want to make your motor work well run either catheral port proven heads/intake or run the Ls7 setup....Me personally i would rather run the catherals that been proven

[supersub]

the heads and intake. first off the truck intake is horrible. so if your going to run a set of ported L92s with a intake the flows less the a stock ls1 intake then your kinda kicking yoruself in the nuts. also L92s IMHO arent woth the effort on anything larger then a 6.0 or 6.2. To run a set of L92s that have to be ported to make even remotely close numbers as a catheral port head is just a waste of effort. your spending top dollar on your bottomend why cheap out and put a set of budget heads on that motor? I learned the hard way, hell a local 408 just put down 426hp thru an auto with L92s. a waste, a 408 with L92s in a truck can only muster 11.9 in a RCSB another waste, L92s on a 383 all bore cant go anybetter then 11.8 in a 3300 lb car. All cams spec'd out by professionals. along with it the topend wont make power past 6200-6300 and thats using the car intake, just think on how limited you will be using the truck intake.

 

if you want to make your motor work well run either catheral port proven heads/intake or run the Ls7 setup....Me personally i would rather run the catherals that been proven

 

Very Solid points "quik" Very!

 

I originally planned ongoing edels new 245's portd,then possibly ls7's but recent research that i have found are that l92's ported properly with the right valve combo have flow'd 350/250 with out a stub.the new edel's finish way before that.I have been led to believe they (l92's)are a very good head just not proven yet.

 

Still planning on replacing the Truck intake with a TVS. ITS Just for Comparison an short lived street use before its benched

[Quik]

Very Solid points "quik" Very!

 

I originally planned ongoing edels new 245's portd,then possibly ls7's but recent research that i have found are that l92's ported properly with the right valve combo have flow'd 350/250 with out a stub.the new edel's finish way before that.I have been led to believe they (l92's)are a very good head just not proven yet.

 

Still planning on replacing the Truck intake with a TVS. ITS Just for Comparison an short lived street use before its benched

look at it like this. its not all about head flow, its about effiecenty. why would you need a head that flows 350cfm when you can have a head that flows 310 and make the same HP or more? I mean 335cfm is a hell of a number in air flow but to make L92s work you need them ported. but if you get a set of stage 3 Ls6 head that flow 330 and whomp the streets with the l92 package that flows more!!

also with a L92 head you should be only running 1 7/8 primarys, 1 3/4 will restrict those heads. i at first was on the bandwagon about CFM but then some old school guys explained and show the way.

 

guy local goes 9.15s @ 151 on a 408 with 275 shot. his heads only flow 305cfm...his cam is in the 700 lift, 250 duration area..... yes that is old school motor but hell he is doing alot more with alot less

 

why do L92s have to flow 350 to come close to the perfromance of a catheral port head that flows less and makes more power with a better rpm range

[12'SROCK]

i agree with quik......from day one i never liked the l92's.......they have huge intake ports (lazy ports) thats why they flow good cfm out the box V.S. cathedrals that have a nice sized intake port and can still flow 330 cfm (ported by TEA)...........

[zippy]

I'm seeing numbers of track times from drag setups posted here. This is not a drag truck or a big time performance truck. Sure you can go through and make a checklist of everything that flows better and keep on that list until you have the biggest, baddest parts for that cubic inch possible. Yes, his cam could be bigger, headers could be bigger, intake could be bigger flowing, and a smaller port head could be used. The biggest reason the L92/L76 heads were developed as they were, is to use smaller cams. A bigger flowing head simply allows you to make the same or more hp and not need as much duration on the cam. LS6 heads have an advantage being built with a smaller chamber. To get more compression from an L92 head you need to mill it which reduces some of it's flow due to chamber design. Another issue isn't in the runners, it's valve size. It has been proven with the L92/L76 head that unless you have the big bore, you're just shrouding the valve and you aren't actually going to get the cylinder to draw in as much air as the intake runner is capable of. On something with as big of a bore as this engine is, I'd take the bigger valve L92/L76 head or LS7 head over the cathedral port heads any day.

[supersub]

I'm seeing numbers of track times from drag setups posted here. This is not a drag truck or a big time performance truck. Sure you can go through and make a checklist of everything that flows better and keep on that list until you have the biggest, baddest parts for that cubic inch possible. Yes, his cam could be bigger, headers could be bigger, intake could be bigger flowing, and a smaller port head could be used. The biggest reason the L92/L76 heads were developed as they were, is to use smaller cams. A bigger flowing head simply allows you to make the same or more hp and not need as much duration on the cam. LS6 heads have an advantage being built with a smaller chamber. To get more compression from an L92 head you need to mill it which reduces some of it's flow due to chamber design. Another issue isn't in the runners, it's valve size. It has been proven with the L92/L76 head that unless you have the big bore, you're just shrouding the valve and you aren't actually going to get the cylinder to draw in as much air as the intake runner is capable of. On something with as big of a bore as this engine is, I'd take the bigger valve L92/L76 head or LS7 head over the cathedral port heads any day.

 

Guess who the guinea pig is

[Quik]

I'm seeing numbers of track times from drag setups posted here. This is not a drag truck or a big time performance truck. Sure you can go through and make a checklist of everything that flows better and keep on that list until you have the biggest, baddest parts for that cubic inch possible. Yes, his cam could be bigger, headers could be bigger, intake could be bigger flowing, and a smaller port head could be used. The biggest reason the L92/L76 heads were developed as they were, is to use smaller cams. A bigger flowing head simply allows you to make the same or more hp and not need as much duration on the cam. LS6 heads have an advantage being built with a smaller chamber. To get more compression from an L92 head you need to mill it which reduces some of it's flow due to chamber design. Another issue isn't in the runners, it's valve size. It has been proven with the L92/L76 head that unless you have the big bore, you're just shrouding the valve and you aren't actually going to get the cylinder to draw in as much air as the intake runner is capable of. On something with as big of a bore as this engine is, I'd take the bigger valve L92/L76 head or LS7 head over the cathedral port heads any day.

its been proven time and time again in the past months a stroke'd L92 headed motor doesnt make the power it should. Stock L92s on a stroke'd motor are shitty none hte less for numbers. if you like 430, 450 tops out of a stroker then fine....but now you just spent thousands for a motor to produce underPar numbers. Camm'd 5.7s and 6.0s make those numbers all day long

[adams2003]

Ive seen with my own two eyes a CNC'd L92/L76 415ci Stroker make 630 hp on the engine dyno........A 454 with the same setup should make considerably more. I think zippy touched base with the biggest problem guys are having with the L92 and LS7 heads.......the cams these guys are running are to damn big!!!

[Quik]

Ive seen with my own two eyes a CNC'd L92/L76 415ci Stroker make 630 hp on the engine dyno........A 454 with the same setup should make considerably more. I think zippy touched base with the biggest problem guys are having with the L92 and LS7 heads.......the cams these guys are running are to damn big!!!

and yes, you have heads that flow over 335. thats alot higher then it has to be...that is my point. a stock L92 wont even come close to decent numbers. 630 crank hp and thats roughly 504 hp to the wheels....not to impressive from a 415 cubic inch motor. now if you said something like 560rwhp then yes it would be nice but to see 500 basically with heads that flow what???? 350cfm and you ahve 402 combos with heads that flow alot less making 540rwhp...

[zippy]

Once again on the stroked and stock stroke engines, that's not an issue with the heads. The bore size is a big problem. Just like on the gen I small blocks, unless you had the 4.125 (400 bore) you didn't go bigger than a 2.05" intake valve. Those were also around a 4.00" bore for normal combo's. The way to make best use of a head like that is to keep the same hp goal and run less duration.

[supersub]

OK! I believe both zippy and quik have relative pionts here.I am under the impression that maxing out a small cylinder head on a large bore/stroke combo is pushing its limits and possibly reliability,the l92/l76/ls7 heads were developed for the larger bore/displacment combo's without having to maximizing there efforts and sacrificing reliability.In time will tell.