Ls 327
05-25-2009, 02:25 PM
#32
Tribe Shaman
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My basic reason for the idea is that the 327's 3" stroke allows it to rev very nicely and the 4" bore allows for some deep breathing. I have always been a fan of reving over sheer torque. It goes against everything I tell people to do to heavy vehicles or things that will tow, but the sound of a healthy motor spining 2500rpm is music.
So if it is possable "economicaly" I will go hipocritic and build my waste of money 327 with deep gears to get the barge off the line. Plus it probily only spin 2500rpm going down the freeway with 4.33 gears. Which ironically enough is what I roughly spin now when I accidently leave my truck in D instead of going to OD.
If somehow enough money will not fix said problem I will go get a 408 stroker, and 3.73 gears. Maybe even just do a overbored 6.2 if they get cheap enough, but currently 408 are pretty damn cheap.
I drive alot for work and play so I figure I will have to rebuild the truck once atleast.
So if it is possable "economicaly" I will go hipocritic and build my waste of money 327 with deep gears to get the barge off the line. Plus it probily only spin 2500rpm going down the freeway with 4.33 gears. Which ironically enough is what I roughly spin now when I accidently leave my truck in D instead of going to OD.
If somehow enough money will not fix said problem I will go get a 408 stroker, and 3.73 gears. Maybe even just do a overbored 6.2 if they get cheap enough, but currently 408 are pretty damn cheap.
I drive alot for work and play so I figure I will have to rebuild the truck once atleast.
right off the bat, you state a flaw in your thinking.
327 stroke you will not have, you will have the short stroke of a 298. with a 4" piston.
i could go on about how bad this idea is but their is no point to it.
it is your money, your mind is set, you have planed it out.
sometimes you have to grab the pot to know it is hot.
05-25-2009, 06:01 PM
#33
TECH Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chino Hills, Ca
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sorry 3.25" or 3.29 for a stock 4.8
I drive 45000-65000 miles a year. Unless I get 1 of 2 new jobs I am looking at where I will burn there gas. So a 327 will fit my bill perfectly for HP and MPG.
Theres always a balance of performance and mpg you just have to look around a bit. With Corvettes you can have your cake and eat it to plus porches and most other exotics. I just want a little more not alot more.
I drive 45000-65000 miles a year. Unless I get 1 of 2 new jobs I am looking at where I will burn there gas. So a 327 will fit my bill perfectly for HP and MPG.
Theres always a balance of performance and mpg you just have to look around a bit. With Corvettes you can have your cake and eat it to plus porches and most other exotics. I just want a little more not alot more.
05-25-2009, 07:36 PM
#34
I understand your thinking, but as mentioned, taking a 6.0 block and making it smaller, just sounds like you're taking two steps back. Unless you already had a combination of the parts for free and you wanted to bolt it together to have a cool mill on the cheap, I don't see the point...especially just to say that you have a 327+2.
05-25-2009, 08:18 PM
#35
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: bakersfield, ca
Posts: 865
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/h...ement_rpm.html
read on and realize that unless you drive around at 6000+ daily then there is no need to be so concerned with the big bore short stroke theory, cubes are what matters. shorter cranks keep the piston speed low and that takes away from the responsiveness of an engine at the lower rpm's, not to mention the shorter crank reduces the ability of the force the piston exerts to convert its motion into rotational force because of the reduced amount of leverage due to the shorter crank. so all that compensation of the larger piston means nothing, until you reach 6k+ rpms where it would benefit by keeping your piston speed down, but the engine would need alot more work in heads and intake to let it breathe. and even then all it will have done is moved the peak torque further up the rpm range. and none of this apply's to a dd anyway in a mild cammed engine the power band will never extend into the usefullness of the short stroke big bore theory. so lets say you did build this and dynoed it back to back with a 5.3, same cam same heads set up exactly the same in every way except for the bore and stroke being different. i would bet that you would see the same numbers on both engines with the 5.3 hitting its peak maybe 300-500rpm sooner, thats it.
and if your worried about mpg's buy a honda.
read on and realize that unless you drive around at 6000+ daily then there is no need to be so concerned with the big bore short stroke theory, cubes are what matters. shorter cranks keep the piston speed low and that takes away from the responsiveness of an engine at the lower rpm's, not to mention the shorter crank reduces the ability of the force the piston exerts to convert its motion into rotational force because of the reduced amount of leverage due to the shorter crank. so all that compensation of the larger piston means nothing, until you reach 6k+ rpms where it would benefit by keeping your piston speed down, but the engine would need alot more work in heads and intake to let it breathe. and even then all it will have done is moved the peak torque further up the rpm range. and none of this apply's to a dd anyway in a mild cammed engine the power band will never extend into the usefullness of the short stroke big bore theory. so lets say you did build this and dynoed it back to back with a 5.3, same cam same heads set up exactly the same in every way except for the bore and stroke being different. i would bet that you would see the same numbers on both engines with the 5.3 hitting its peak maybe 300-500rpm sooner, thats it.
and if your worried about mpg's buy a honda.
05-25-2009, 08:44 PM
#36
It's amazing this is still going. I'll give my personal experience (and thus why I feel it's a bad idea) and be out.
My Camaro is (currently) built around a Darton Sleeved 4.130" bore block. With a factory 3.622" stroke it works out to 388CIs. I used forged 6.300" rods (stock is 6.125") to mate up to "off the shelf" forged 427LS1 pistons. The heads are 2.080" intake/1.60" exhaust and flow 330CFM/250CFM respectively. The cam is a 244/249 solid roller with 0.650" lift. The engine uses a 5 stage dedicated Dry Sump pump and remote tank to provide oil (I found even a ported LS6 pump unable to provide reliable oil past 7000RPM) and prevent bearing damage.
Results, it's dead weight below 3500RPM. It REQUIRED 4.56 gears to make the 5th and 6th gear USABLE AT ALL!
Now, above 3500RPM it's a F*ing riot to drive and pulls like a raped ape till around 7500RPM (when the heads and LS6 manifold choke it)! WOT and you can feel your arms/legs/head (hell even you lips and cheeks) pull wanting to stay in place. 500+ RWHP does wonders to a car.
Would I do it again? NO! It's too RPM dependent, too finicky, too demanding of head flow, and left CIs on the table for nothing. The intention was to build something "different" (since I had the crank already) and see how it performed. The car is going to be rebuilt with a supercharged big block (again...CIs) but this engine will get rebuilt with a 4" stroke crank and be put into something else (I'm thinking 427 powered Z4 would be fun).
I run 4.56 gears in both my Tahoe and Silverado, but with the 32" tires 4th is about 2400RPM at 70MPH (which is about the same as Auto F-bodies with 3.73s).
My Camaro is (currently) built around a Darton Sleeved 4.130" bore block. With a factory 3.622" stroke it works out to 388CIs. I used forged 6.300" rods (stock is 6.125") to mate up to "off the shelf" forged 427LS1 pistons. The heads are 2.080" intake/1.60" exhaust and flow 330CFM/250CFM respectively. The cam is a 244/249 solid roller with 0.650" lift. The engine uses a 5 stage dedicated Dry Sump pump and remote tank to provide oil (I found even a ported LS6 pump unable to provide reliable oil past 7000RPM) and prevent bearing damage.
Results, it's dead weight below 3500RPM. It REQUIRED 4.56 gears to make the 5th and 6th gear USABLE AT ALL!
Now, above 3500RPM it's a F*ing riot to drive and pulls like a raped ape till around 7500RPM (when the heads and LS6 manifold choke it)! WOT and you can feel your arms/legs/head (hell even you lips and cheeks) pull wanting to stay in place. 500+ RWHP does wonders to a car.
Would I do it again? NO! It's too RPM dependent, too finicky, too demanding of head flow, and left CIs on the table for nothing. The intention was to build something "different" (since I had the crank already) and see how it performed. The car is going to be rebuilt with a supercharged big block (again...CIs) but this engine will get rebuilt with a 4" stroke crank and be put into something else (I'm thinking 427 powered Z4 would be fun).
I run 4.56 gears in both my Tahoe and Silverado, but with the 32" tires 4th is about 2400RPM at 70MPH (which is about the same as Auto F-bodies with 3.73s).
05-26-2009, 07:25 PM
#37
TECH Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Chino Hills, Ca
Posts: 492
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am looking for a good balance of power and economy. I either will build a 6.0 or if parts are cheaply available a LS327. I would like a touch over 400hp with all the bolt-ons included. Anything more while not killing my economy is great too, and either a LS 327 or 6.0 would be easy to get that with out expensive parts.
Not 650 NA crank HP or a on the edge meth inhaling DD street terror with the largest TVS ever built.
I need a truck pure and simple for work I haul to much crap. A honda civic would likely get me killed with in a month. I had a 69 bug with $3000 dollers worth of subie conversion parts ready to go in when I got ran off the road for the last time. I also been in 2 fairly major accidents this year one totaling my wifes CRV, and the offending A-6 along with it for good measure. I appreciate the full use of my legs, and would like not to spend another 6 hours strapped to a plastic board under bright lights.
I probily built, wasted more money on, had more fun with, and watched pretty costly motors shed themselves of un-nessacary parts such as the crank in my search for fun. Then most people I have meet who were twice my age who claim to be hot-rodders.
I will soon enough be re-building my 400 SBC which is a insane motor for the street. Its propelled my 69 Camaro to roughly 185mph up I-5, and a 12.3 with 255/60/15 normal BFG's. Also it never had a gear deeper the 3.23's to do it.
I don't need my truck to do this. I just want a couple more hp, and I'm starting to scrounge parts for my future plans. I almost got a 4L80E, but the 454 told me to look else where. And I kick myself for not getting the 6.0 a few months back, but at the time I didn't feel like driving for a dead motor.
Not 650 NA crank HP or a on the edge meth inhaling DD street terror with the largest TVS ever built.
I need a truck pure and simple for work I haul to much crap. A honda civic would likely get me killed with in a month. I had a 69 bug with $3000 dollers worth of subie conversion parts ready to go in when I got ran off the road for the last time. I also been in 2 fairly major accidents this year one totaling my wifes CRV, and the offending A-6 along with it for good measure. I appreciate the full use of my legs, and would like not to spend another 6 hours strapped to a plastic board under bright lights.
I probily built, wasted more money on, had more fun with, and watched pretty costly motors shed themselves of un-nessacary parts such as the crank in my search for fun. Then most people I have meet who were twice my age who claim to be hot-rodders.
I will soon enough be re-building my 400 SBC which is a insane motor for the street. Its propelled my 69 Camaro to roughly 185mph up I-5, and a 12.3 with 255/60/15 normal BFG's. Also it never had a gear deeper the 3.23's to do it.
I don't need my truck to do this. I just want a couple more hp, and I'm starting to scrounge parts for my future plans. I almost got a 4L80E, but the 454 told me to look else where. And I kick myself for not getting the 6.0 a few months back, but at the time I didn't feel like driving for a dead motor.
05-26-2009, 08:42 PM
#38
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: bakersfield, ca
Posts: 865
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol this is nuts do what every you want, you post a thread about how to do something unheard of and it never occurs to you why... the reason no one has done it is because these are trucks, that weigh in at over 4k+lbs not a lightweight car, they need torque.now on to your most recent statement...
"I need a truck pure and simple for work I haul to much crap"-you, l7 sierra
"Results, it's dead weight below 3500RPM. It REQUIRED 4.56 gears to make the 5th and 6th gear USABLE AT ALL! "-2001CamaroGuy
"unless you drive around at 6000+ daily then there is no need to be so concerned with the big bore short stroke theory, cubes are what matters. shorter cranks keep the piston speed low and that takes away from the responsiveness of an engine at the lower rpm's, not to mention the shorter crank reduces the ability of the force the piston exerts to convert its motion into rotational force because of the reduced amount of leverage due to the shorter crank."-006rcsb
i think it'd be pretty fun in a light weight car to hide the lack of low-end torque.-PathfinderJr
i under stand your plan it could work but you will need more than 4.30 gears and you'll need a big verter.-litreddevil
are you following yet? i know you will still argue, you are one of those kind of people, but im done. just build it already, post it up as the greatest thing since sliced bread and we will all have a good laugh.
"I need a truck pure and simple for work I haul to much crap"-you, l7 sierra
"Results, it's dead weight below 3500RPM. It REQUIRED 4.56 gears to make the 5th and 6th gear USABLE AT ALL! "-2001CamaroGuy
"unless you drive around at 6000+ daily then there is no need to be so concerned with the big bore short stroke theory, cubes are what matters. shorter cranks keep the piston speed low and that takes away from the responsiveness of an engine at the lower rpm's, not to mention the shorter crank reduces the ability of the force the piston exerts to convert its motion into rotational force because of the reduced amount of leverage due to the shorter crank."-006rcsb
i think it'd be pretty fun in a light weight car to hide the lack of low-end torque.-PathfinderJr
i under stand your plan it could work but you will need more than 4.30 gears and you'll need a big verter.-litreddevil
are you following yet? i know you will still argue, you are one of those kind of people, but im done. just build it already, post it up as the greatest thing since sliced bread and we will all have a good laugh.
05-26-2009, 11:16 PM
#40
ya know, if you absolutely wanna do it, I say go for it. Sure it'd be different, and that alone has a kind of cool factor. It's not our time and money, so it'd be interesting to see the final product if you decide to forge a new path. Especially if you use the L92 top end, cause slap a cam and headers on that bad boy and I'd be curious what kind of output you'd get and what the curve would look like.