Cadillac CTS-V Forum banner
1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I'm getting ready to build my first LS engine and thought I'd look for any words of wisdom from the group since this forum seems to have the most experience with the LSAs. I've built several small block and big block chevys but this is my first LS. I've been reading several posts and am a little concerned about my cam choice for one and need to size the injectors. I'm thinking ID1300s for the injectors. Also I'm trying to decide between a 3" and 3.25" upper pulley for the supercharger. I'd like to be able to run on 93 pump gas but am planning on adding a flex fuel sensor to allow for E85. Also I'm hoping by going to a 3.825" stroke instead of a 4" stroke the stock piston oil squirters will work.

For starters, I looked at the Lingenfelter 900hp crank HP on 93 octane pump gas engine to get ideas and would like to get somewhere in that neighborhood. I've changed things enough that the engine will be a little unique.

-4.065 bore x 3.825 stroke (Same bore and stroke as COPO 396)
-LS9 Block and LS9 CNC Heads
-Callies Magnum 3.825 Stroke 8 CTW crank
-Callies Ultra I beam 6.125 Rods
-JE Pistons 8.9:1 with ceramic coating
-Total Seal Rings (second ring "gapless")
-BTR Stage 3 torque cam
-BTR Shaft Rockers
-Johnson 2110 Lifters
-Katech LS9 Head Studs
-Katech Timing Chain
-LS9 Head Gaskets
-Kong 2650 LSA Superchager
-ZL1 Supercharger Cover
-ATI balancer (8.66 SC Pulley)

FWIW - The rotating assembly arrived today from Callies so now I have most of the parts.
 

·
Premium Member
V Coupe Pedal car
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Sounds sweet!
"FWIW - The rotating assembly arrived today from Callies so now I have most of the parts. " this is a VERY interesting option. Is there a part# for this as a set? Source?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
Sounds sweet!
"FWIW - The rotating assembly arrived today from Callies so now I have most of the parts. " this is a VERY interesting option. Is there a part# for this as a set? Source?
It was custom. The crank is a custom stroke Magnum with the center counter weights . The pistons are JE 324033 which are for a 3.9 stroke but the pin loc was changed for the 3.825 stroke. I had the ceramic coating added and upgraded the pins to a thicker wall. Interestingly the Total Seal rings also say custom on the box. The rods are stock Callies. I wanted Callies to balance it so I ordered it all through them.

My son and I are planning on building the engine over the week after 4th of July. I'm still waiting on the BTR Rocker Shafts, the Johnson lifters, and the Kong 2650.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,456 Posts
You could run more compression- you'll have no issues running 93 pump on that and use a 3" pulley.

I'll be pulling my 3.0" off my Kong for a 2.75 / 9.55 rario and I have 10.1 - 1 CR on my motor. So if anything you're being conservative on the pulley ratio and that will make heat management easier!

The BTR cam should be fine also. Maybe not "ideal" but it will make good power for a street car. (Specs: 223/246 .610"/.600" 117+6). I think you'll be very pleased!

The ID1300s should work great for you - I run similar options with a bigger cam and have no problems after some tuning running full e85 to 7k RPM on a 400" build.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
You could run more compression- you'll have no issues running 93 pump on that and use a 3" pulley.

I'll be pulling my 3.0" off my Kong for a 2.75 / 9.55 rario and I have 10.1 - 1 CR on my motor. So if anything you're being conservative on the pulley ratio and that will make heat management easier!

The BTR cam should be fine also. Maybe not "ideal" but it will make good power for a street car. (Specs: 223/246 .610"/.600" 117+6). I think you'll be very pleased!

The ID1300s should work great for you - I run similar options with a bigger cam and have no problems after some tuning running full e85 to 7k RPM on a 400" build.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk
Thanks for the response...

What size was your lower pulley and how much boost were you getting with the 3" combo? From reading various posts it looked like an 8.66/3 combo was getting around 20lbs. That had me a little concerned for the pump gas side. On the other hand by keeping the static compression ratio down and the ceramic coating on the pistons, I figured I could get by with running a little more boost.

On the cam I debated going with the Lingenfelter GT22 (Specs - 228/232 .588"/.595 118) since that is what they were running in their crate engine but it looked like most were getting good results with the BTR cams. The Lingenfelter cam has the intake closing event at 52* ABDC @.050" vs. the Stage 3 Torque cam is 42* ABDC @ .050" which raises my DCR. I'm a little concerned that the 10* difference will limit me a little on boost which will hurt top end performance but gain a little on the lower end performance due to the higher DCR. On the other hand, I was thinking my lower end performance would still be ok with the Kong 2650 and the later intake closing event. I also thought about running the BTR stage 3 (non torque) or the BTR stage 4. I have the BTR Stage 3 torque cam but I believe I could still return it. Thus the analysis paralysis.

On compression, I believe I could bump it a little by changing head gaskets. I did the calcs and it would take it to 9:1 if I used .040 gaskets. My combination should be at zero deck but with the valve reliefs in the pistons I should be ok on piston to valve clearance. I'm not sure it's worth it for such a little gain though. FWIW - I went with the lower compression because that's what the Lingenfelter engine was and in doing research, my understanding was the lower compression ratio was more tunable and would allow for higher boost on pump gas. Basically I was thinking abut the effective compression ratio - low compression/high boost vs high compression/low boost.

On the Lingenfelter engine, they're using a Kenne Bell 3.6L supercharger. Hopefully the Kong 2650 will produce similar results.

What are you going to do with the 3" Kong pulley? I haven't ordered the upper yet.

Tool Auto part Bicycle part Titanium Nickel
Wood Gas Auto part Automotive exterior Metal
Hood Automotive lighting Motor vehicle Bumper Automotive exterior
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,456 Posts
Thanks for the response...

What size was your lower pulley and how much boost were you getting with the 3" combo? From reading various posts it looked like an 8.66/3 combo was getting around 20lbs. That had me a little concerned for the pump gas side. On the other hand by keeping the static compression ratio down and the ceramic coating on the pistons, I figured I could get by with running a little more boost.

On the cam I debated going with the Lingenfelter GT22 (Specs - 228/232 .588"/.595 118) since that is what they were running in their crate engine but it looked like most were getting good results with the BTR cams. The Lingenfelter cam has the intake closing event at 52* ABDC @.050" vs. the Stage 3 Torque cam is 42* ABDC @ .050" which raises my DCR. I'm a little concerned that the 10* difference will limit me a little on boost which will hurt top end performance but gain a little on the lower end performance due to the higher DCR. On the other hand, I was thinking my lower end performance would still be ok with the Kong 2650 and the later intake closing event. I also thought about running the BTR stage 3 (non torque) or the BTR stage 4. I have the BTR Stage 3 torque cam but I believe I could still return it. Thus the analysis paralysis.

On compression, I believe I could bump it a little by changing head gaskets. I did the calcs and it would take it to 9:1 if I used .040 gaskets. My combination should be at zero deck but with the valve reliefs in the pistons I should be ok on piston to valve clearance. I'm not sure it's worth it for such a little gain though. FWIW - I went with the lower compression because that's what the Lingenfelter engine was and in doing research, my understanding was the lower compression ratio was more tunable and would allow for higher boost on pump gas. Basically I was thinking abut the effective compression ratio - low compression/high boost vs high compression/low boost.

On the Lingenfelter engine, they're using a Kenne Bell 3.6L supercharger. Hopefully the Kong 2650 will produce similar results.

What are you going to do with the 3" Kong pulley? I haven't ordered the upper yet.
So you're running ported LS9 heads - you might see 20psi there with the Kong. The Kong is a great blower - I'm making almost as much boost as Adianity did with a twin screw blower on the same setup with more pulley to go.

I'm running a 9.55 / 3.0 but as I said I am going to pulley up when I'm done with the fuel system. I'll gladly sell it to you but it will be a week or two before I'm ready. I also am running bigger heads and a bigger cam (234 / 252 with. 648 lift IIRC). It idles at 800 RPM with my M6 and has 6psi engine vacuum at idle.

The lower compression is easier to tune in part because it's less efficient, so the range of timing tolerated increases, but you're not necessarily making more power. If I were you I'd shoot for more compression but I don't know what you're trying to do with the build.

You're going to be happy as is no matter what - nitpicking details like cam and compression are just our collective OCD on "can it be better? "

I'd also encourage you to tall your build over with LT1z (Matt) and have him spec you a cam to your needs - you'll be happier than with an off the shelf BTR grind.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,238 Posts
I'd also encourage you to tall your build over with LT1z (Matt) and have him spec you a cam to your needs - you'll be happier than with an off the shelf BTR grind.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk
@rpol78 ^^^this BTR "custom" is a bit of an oxymoron.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,583 Posts
If it were me, I'd want more compression and less boost, but it sounds like it will be a monster regardless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,238 Posts
OP....BTW nice early post. Came running out of the gate. Probably to Mod(s) a bit by surprise.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
On the heads I bought them awhile back and was originally going to use them on a takeout L99 which I was planning to modify and run a Maggie TVS2300. I'm a little concerned about the guides with the DelWest titanium valves. I'm hoping the heads are late enough production that GM had the additional polishing done on the intake valves. Rumors were that GM was esending valves they had back to DelWest for t polishing. I don't know if there's a way to tell.

If I had it to do over I'd probably would have gotten FED 310s or some Trick Flows. At some point I have to quit making changes and just build the engine.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,456 Posts
For the Kong 2650, you'll need a 102mm Nick Williams for sure. I don't see a 90mm LS7 being helpful at all given the relative cost of a ported unit and it being a known restriction. It's debatable as to whether you would be better off with a larger throttle body, given they are significantly more expensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
It looks like I'll have to bend my oil squirters to clear the JE piston pin webbing so I'm looking for a little advice from those that have done this. Just eyeballing, it looks like they'll be pretty close to the center of the pin webbing. I'm thinking I'd like to move them toward the rod side but won't know for sure if this causes a different problem until I get further along. The stroke is 3.825" so I don't believe the piston skirt will extend much if any beyond the bottom of the cylinder.

Are they easy enough to bend that you just bend them by hand?
How much can you bend them side to side?
How much clearance do they need from the webbing and/or rod?
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,456 Posts
They likely can be bent but there's always a risk of snapping one.

At full extension I'd say a mm is plenty of clearance but I'm just making that number up. Might be worth calling Katech or something and asking.

Sent from my SM-G991U1 using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 · (Edited)
I've read where other's have bent the squirter nozzles and it doesn't look like I'll have to move them alot so hopefully that will work out. The nozzle tubes are pretty small so hopefully they'll bend fairly easily. I may use some needle nose pliers to be a little more precise on the bend.

On another topic, I'm thinking of using oil restricting pushrods. I have a Melling 10355HV oil pump that I'm planning on using. I got that pump because the radiator has an oil cooler in it and I figured between the oil squirters and the cooler extra flow wouldn't hurt. Also I've read that the Johnson 2110 lifter lowered idle oil pressure and some on the corvette forums ran the 10355HV to keep the oil pressure up. Given this I figured that oil restricting pushrods would help to ensure the lower end gets proper oiling. Is there any reason I shouldn't run oil restricting pushrods?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I did a mock up of the engine but didn't like the way the Katech studs were working out so I bought some ARP 2000 head bolts. The Katech studs didn't take advantage of the thread depth available in the block and they stuck up far enough that they interfered with the header flanges.

152309


152310
 

·
Premium Member
V Coupe Pedal car
Joined
·
1,217 Posts
Following this....
building a stroker and hoping to mod the squirters to work, possibly notching pistons before balancing.
Looking at pics of the LT5squirters....
I think they might be a bit longer/larger
Needing to find out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
We took the squirters out and straightened out the first bend from the mounting bolt with a screw driver to give them a little more length and then straightened the nozzle bend a little to give a little more clearance using a piece of stainless brake line I had. I trial fitted a piston with each one to make sure we had at least .080 clearance. I'm going to check them again during final assembly. I assume the LT4 is the same as the LT5 squirters. I know they carry a different part number and seem to be less expensive than the LSA squirters. There's a set of 8 on ebay for $89.95 vs a single LSA squirter is $25 from Pace Performance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
My son and I didn't make it as far as we wanted to during the July 4th week. We went to put the ARP main studs in and the kit had 2 nuts that were too big for the studs. Summit Racing worked with me and sent the the replacement nuts 1 day air. We started measuring everything and there was very little variance in the bores, pistons, mains, etc. I measured with and without a torque plate and there was up to .002 difference in the cylinder bore with the torque plate vs without. The torque plate brought the bores very close to dead on the bore spec.

I struggled getting a valid measurement on the main clearances with the groove in the block half of the bearing so I ended up using some plastigage. All of the mains are between .001 and .0015 which is within spec. Also the bearing that came with the rotating assembly are Calico which have a "dry film lubricant" coating. I believe this make the bearings a little tighter also. It looks like 0w-20w or 5w-20w is in my future.

152316


Gapped the rings at a tight .028 since Total Seal call for .007 per bore inch for 15-30 lbs of boost when running a gapless 2nd ring. They call for .0055 per bore inch for up to 15 lbs of boost. Since I figure I'll target the 15 - 20 lbs of boost .028 should work. I ended up using a vernier caliper to square the ring in the bore.
152317


File fitting the gapless 2nd ring was a bit of a pain. The gapless rail took a bit to figure out how to do it. I ended up filing the main ring first and then fit the rail in the main ring and then filed the rail to match the main ring.
152318


The ring filer sure helped out on this. You can pretty much measure the initial gap and then take off what you need. Usually I'd run about .0005 less than what I needed. If initial measurement was .0018, I'd take .0095 off the ring to get to a tight .0028.

152319
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
197 Posts
thought that was a bit tight for mains in alloy block ? thought at least the .0027 - .003 would be better for high loads and keep more flow thru the bearings to keep them little cooler ?
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Top