GM Engine & Exhaust Performance EFI | GEN I/GEN II/GEN III/GEN IV Engines |Small Block | Big Block |

4.8 built into a 6.0

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 9, 2003 | 01:05 PM
  #31  
Flyer's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,342
Likes: 0
From: Armpit of East TX
Default

That one ... I would have NO idea about.

That new Eagle crank they are talking about in Internal Engine is sounding good to me though. That and some forged rods maybe, along with some nice low compression pistons. Maybe in the near future some cheaper rods will come out too to make engine building more affordable.
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2003 | 01:09 PM
  #32  
Hit Man X's Avatar
TECH Veteran
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,492
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Flyer
That one ... I would have NO idea about.

That new Eagle crank they are talking about in Internal Engine is sounding good to me though. That and some forged rods maybe, along with some nice low compression pistons. Maybe in the near future some cheaper rods will come out too to make engine building more affordable.

Are you planning to build a stroker? If not, I'd say that stock crank could hold 650rwhp+. I'd jst be scared about the rods and get a set of H beams
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2003 | 01:29 PM
  #33  
Flyer's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,342
Likes: 0
From: Armpit of East TX
Default

I would like to build something with some more cubes. I like to do a bore and stroke, but I don't know how the funds will hold out for that one.

I need a job to do all this of course, and the narrow job market here in East TX is tough to start with, being young without a BSA and 3-5 years exp makes it worse .... Maybe after the first of the year though.

But yea .. I'd like to get a 6.0 and bore it and stroke it. Maybe 400 or so cubes? I dunno .. Can you bore a 6.0 block out to 4.125? If so, that and a 4" crank would make 428! Could you imagine a blown 428 LS1?!
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2003 | 01:34 PM
  #34  
Flyer's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,342
Likes: 0
From: Armpit of East TX
Default

Or ... a 6.0 with just a 4" crank would make a 402.
Reply
Old Dec 12, 2003 | 04:22 PM
  #35  
bigeller's Avatar
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Default

Reply
Old Dec 12, 2003 | 04:52 PM
  #36  
Yelo's Avatar
TECH Addict
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 1
From: Geneseo, NY
Default

Originally Posted by bigeller
That chart is WRONG.......the 4.8, 5.7, and 6.0 ALL use the 6.098" connecting rod....that was what we were discussing about 10 posts up the thread
Reply
Old Dec 12, 2003 | 06:06 PM
  #37  
bigeller's Avatar
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Default

The link you posted is full of mistakes..

Here are my sources:
John Juriga, GM Powertrain Assistant Chief Engineer for Gen III Passenger Car Engines... "The sintered, forged and shotpeened, PF1159M steel, 6.1-inch connecting rod introduced in 1997 carries over to the LS6. Beginning in MY01, all Gen III rod cap screws are stronger through a change in manufacturing process used to heat-treat and roll the screw’s threads. This particular change came as a result of the LS1’s use in the American Speed Association (ASA) race series during 1999". http://www.idavette.net/hib/ls6/page3.htm

Manley Performance: A company that makes many aftermarket parts for the LS1/LS6 said this regarding their own connecting rods, "The rods come with a 6.125" center-to-center length and large style (2.225") crank journal size. They are .025" longer than stock LS1 rods, and designed to be used with aftermarket pistons (which must also accommodate lightweight .9281" diameter wrist pins; stock LS1 wrist pin bore is .945")". You do the math.. http://www.electronic-pr.com/pr/MP_H_BeamRods.html


NHRA

LS1
OE 6.100” length, 595 grams minimum
ROD MANUFACTURER NOTES PART NUMBER
MANLEY 14106
EAGLE 6125BS
CAT CRS-6125
http://www.nhra.com/tech_specs/rods

I can find more if need be.

Originally Posted by Yelo
That chart is WRONG.......the 4.8, 5.7, and 6.0 ALL use the 6.098" connecting rod....that was what we were discussing about 10 posts up the thread
Reply
Old Dec 12, 2003 | 06:08 PM
  #38  
Yelo's Avatar
TECH Addict
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,864
Likes: 1
From: Geneseo, NY
Default

then why are the part numbers the same for the 5.3 5.7 and 6.0 rods from GM ?????
Reply
Old Dec 12, 2003 | 06:19 PM
  #39  
bigeller's Avatar
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Default

My bad, I see what you are saying now.. The info regarding the rod length appears to be wrong in your link as well as the chart I posted.. I'm going to hunt that down.. Sorry if I've spread any misinformation.. I'm under the impression the 5.7 and 6.0 are 6.100"..
Reply
Old Dec 13, 2003 | 01:57 AM
  #40  
Flyer's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,342
Likes: 0
From: Armpit of East TX
Default

Yes .. please find the truth to this. I was wondering too. If they are infact the longer rods in the 5.3 it wouldn't worry me near as much if I were going to try and spin my motor up to 6500.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:35 AM.