Cadillac CTS-V Forum banner
81 - 100 of 100 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
Finally made up my mind. Talk to them for about 30 minutes. I know they got tired of me asking questions
Mr. Big,
You do understand that this is not an lsX Iron Block / B15 Engine Block,
and your going to get an aluminum block here. . . .

This is, as it states up above; LS3 Short Block, which is made from
aluminum, and sleeved with thin cast sleeves, just like your LSA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigwilly1267

·
Registered
2011 cts v coupe
Joined
·
369 Posts
This thread is making me dizzy. Just pick a damn block already!
I KID I KID. TOTALLY JOKING

that being said there is some great info in this thread and I concur with I believe Mr surly who said, pump the brakes and take your time. Figure out what your end goal is and build accordingly
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #83 ·
Mr. Big,
You do understand that this is not an lsX Iron Block / B15 Engine Block,
and your going to get an aluminum block here. . . .

This is, as it states up above; LS3 Short Block, which is made from
aluminum, and sleeved with thin cast sleeves, just like your LSA.
Yes sir. I decided to save some money. As one member stated, i am not going to be doing much racing so i decided against a racing engine. I wash pretty satisfied with what i had before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #84 ·
This thread is making me dizzy. Just pick a damn block already!
I KID I KID. TOTALLY JOKING

that being said there is some great info in this thread and I concur with I believe Mr surly who said, pump the brakes and take your time. Figure out what your end goal is and build accordingly
Lmbo
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rubber Duck

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
Yes sir. I decided to save some money. As one member stated, i am not going to be doing much racing so i decided against a racing engine. I wash pretty satisfied with what i had before.
Why don't you ask them how much more it would be to use the lsX Iron Block / B-15 Block.

In other words; same build, just change the block to the lsX Iron Block.
It will be well worth it, if you can swing it.

Make sure you get the Compression Ratio issue resolved.

You may not be building a race engine, but these aluminum blocks
are fraught with problems, as soon as you add any power adders.

Spending the extra dollars now, is like purchasing an insurance policy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
One final thought for tonight:
This engine will have a 4" stroke, while your current engine has a 3.622" stroke.
That means you can pull more air into the cylinder, if you want to. . .

After you come up with a firm decision regarding the compression ratio,
you could, at that point, also want to think about another camshaft, 'If'
you want a 'bit' more HP, then you had before.

Additional torque will be dependent on the pressure in the cylinder, at
peak torque rpm, versus the internal volume of the engine.

However, with the larger engine, and the same cam, that torque will
most likely, be realized at a 'Lower' engine rpm then before.

Just attempting to help you think ahead. . .

But in my opinion, finding a way to get into the B-15 engine block would be your primary goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FINNDIAN

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #88 ·
After talking with Texas Speed I had to go with the 3cc pistons in order to get my compression in the 10:1.1 to 10:2.1 range with my heads. Can anyone confirm this. I know I ask a lot of question and I am so greatful for all the responses I have received.
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
13,657 Posts
After talking with Texas Speed I had to go with the 3cc pistons in order to get my compression in the 10:1.1 to 10:2.1 range with my heads. Can anyone confirm this. I know I ask a lot of question and I am so greatful for all the responses I have received.
Depends on the chamber cc of the heads, which head gasket is being used and how much the pistons end up in or out. Most likely in the 10-10.5:1 range with a -3cc piston and 3.62" stroke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #90 ·
Depends on the chamber cc of the heads, which head gasket is being used and how much the pistons end up in or out. Most likely in the 10-10.5:1 range with a -3cc piston and 3.62" stroke.
It has a 4.000 inch stroke from what I’m reading
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
It has a 4.000 inch stroke from what I’m reading
Mr. Big,
Texas Speed is a very knowledgeable company.

If you desire to cross check them, then get the name of the
piston company, along with the part number of the piston.

Then call the piston company, and ask them any question you might have, related to their pistons.

And yes, the 416 carries the same bore size as the 376, but does have the longer 4.0" Stroke. Given everything else remains the same, the longer stroke then, automatically generates more static compression ratio, over the shorter 3.622" stroke of the 376 LSA Engine.

And the combustion chamber size, given in CC's, is located within the information you put up on this forum.

-another consideration-
Please don't forget to discuss your camshaft requirements for the 416 with Texas Speed also. You don't have to correct for the difference in stroke 100%. Simply adding just a few more degrees of duration to the camshaft you have now, will add more power. Maybe just bump the duration up to 231°. . .

Or you can contact Matt @Lt1z, who has also helped answer your
questions here, and who has much experience regarding this matter.

Good Luck.. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
I would like to clarify one thing I wrote within this thread.

I wrote:
Why would anyone desire to use a 4" Bore, with a 2.165" Valve. . .

I must apologize for this, as after rereading this, I realize, it may sound arrogant to some.

-context-
I made the statement as I was attempting to explain to Matt, that if one is going to build a race engine, looking for maximum performance, the valve to bore ratio would not allow for ideal flow.

On the other hand, after rereading much of that thread, I want members to understand, that I do understand that not all desire to build an engine, looking for max peak performance.

------------------------------------------------------------

Also, as we roll a cylinder head over, we change the angle of the valve, to the piston / engine deck.

This helps, as a wedge head, having a large valve angle allows for the valve when approaching peak lift, to move very close to the deep part of the chamber, on the spark plug / exhaust side.

This then tends to impede flow at peak valve lift.
Depending on the depth of the combustion chamber, this can help.

Some car manufacturers in the past, rolled that part of the combustion chamber, attempting to help this issue. And some cylinder head porters, tended to lay that area back.

Shallow, but no flat combustion chamber floors, with a 10° to 12° valve to deck angle work the best

------------------------------------------------------------

However, when we stuff large valves into a too small a chamber, there is nothing we can do. With this scenario, there is insufficient space between the valve and the combustion chamber wall. This is what the valve to bore ratio tells us.

Again, while my statement was not meant to be arrogant, I apologize for the tone it might have given to those that do use the 2.165" valve, in a 4.0" bore.

Ideal Wedge Head, Valve to Bore percent is 52%.
If we divide the 2.165" valve by the 4.0" bore, we arrive at 54%.

Rolling the cylinder head, which changes the valve to deck angle, will not correct for this. . . . .

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: Blades1_99

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #93 ·
Ok so these are the numbers I can up with after talking to Texas Speed.
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
Ok so these are the numbers I can up with after talking to Texas Speed.
Willy,
I have not run any numbers on this, as there are so many online calculators that one can use.

High Engine RPM, and High Boost, ruins engines.
In fact, RPM stands for 'Ruins Peoples Motors'..lol

-comparatively-
Larger volume engines, simply make more HP, without the need for high engine rpm, or high boost. And a higher static compression ratio shows an increase in torque and hp, with any engine volume, at any engine rpm.

With the 416 cid engine, your goal here, is to have an efficient engine,
run on low boost, at a lower engine rpm then with the 376 cid engine,
with a quality fuel.

That static compression ratio, will give one about as much
efficiency, as one can generate with these engines.

Here efficiency relates compression ratios, to how quickly
the mass charge is burnt, along with how much, or what
percentage of the mass charge is burnt, and used. . .

The more the static compression, the faster the mass charge
is burnt, and the more thoroughly it is burnt. So one makes
more power, and the exhaust temperature is lower.

The downside is; you must always run the E85.

But the downside to E85 is; you must change the oil and filter about every
2,000 Miles, or every 90 -120 Days, even if you don't drive the car much,
in order to rid the engine oil, of water.

Before you optimize the tune, I would not run over 8 - 10psi of boost.

And be careful if the tuner attempts to increase boost, and tune for MBT,
or Maximum Brake Torque, even with the E85.

This is because the RON rating for E85 is very good.
But the MON rating, is not so good.

On the Dyno, short bursts with a cold engine, on a cool day, don't test the MON rating much.

But then you take the car out on the road, on a hot day, and hold the accelerator
down for a long period of time, and you might lose the engine..:mad:

Also, this 416 cid engine, is a bit larger then was your 376 cid / lsa.
The 416 engine is about 11% larger. . . .

So your blower is going to be working harder, if you ask it to fill and hold a high pressure ratio with your 416. This could generate additional heat, which in turn can cause the engine to go into self-detonation.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Willy,
Did you decide to go with the B-15 Engine Block, or the Aluminum LS-3?

Cheers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
339 Posts
Discussion Starter · #95 ·
Mr Rubber Duck stayed with the LS3. I didn’t want to pay the $2000 they wanted and it was going to be a 4 month wait. Ok so what I gather is my compression can be lower with this engine? Sir I really do appreciate the time you have taken out to school me on this matter. I’m actually catching on now. Lmbo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rubber Duck

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
Mr Rubber Duck stayed with the LS3. I didn’t want to pay the $2000 they wanted and it was going to be a 4 month wait. Ok so what I gather is my compression can be lower with this engine? Sir I really do appreciate the time you have taken out to school me on this matter. I’m actually catching on now. Lmbo.
Willy, wouldn’t matter if it was the 416, or the 427 regarding the compression, my friend.

It depends upon you, and what you desire of the engine.

Can’t explain anymore tonight my friend.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
Willy,
Explaining the difference in static / geometric compression ratios,
versus 'Trapped Compression', which is generated from an increase
in engine rpm / piston speed, for a highly efficient engine, having
a high volumetric efficiency (VE%), is very difficult.

If I leave anything out, please don't hesitate to ask questions..lol

-within reason-
Let's just say, I will take the high static / geometric compression ratio,
over the lower compression ratio, when using an inefficient blower,
such as the roots blower, which comes on our cars (JMHO).

Both options, will require an optimized fuel and tune, for a given engine performance.

And similar to when we run E85, we can reduce the
camshaft duration of the exhaust lobe. Many times
this can mean, we don't have to run stupidly wide
LSA / LCA values required with long duration cams.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Willy,
You, and all automotive performance enthusiast' have a HP Goal in mind.

If you reduce the static / geometric compression ratio, your engine becomes less efficient.

You then must either increase the engine rpm, or increase your boost, to obtain your HP Goal.

Either way, you must pay strict attention to the fuel you use, and the accuracy of the tune.

Large volume engines pull in more air, per unit of time / engine rpm.
They therefore can / should make more HP then a smaller volume engine, at any engine rpm.

One can easily achieve a higher static / geometric compression ratio, with larger volume engines.

We don't have to run a domed piston, which inhibits flame travel,
across the piston, as we must do with smaller volume engines..

With the larger volume engine, having an increase in static / geometric compression, one can now lower the boost of the engine. This then reduces heat that all 'Roots Blowers' generate.

Once you determine if the little blower you have now, is not sufficient,
simply put on a larger, and more efficient blower later.

-nothing happens until the piston moves-
In your case, you have increased the stroke of the crankshaft.
Engines with a larger / longer stroke, naturally increase piston speed, at any engine rpm.

An increase in piston speed, requires an improvement within the entire induction system.
You have improved yours with the cylinder heads, and the camshaft.
Maybe a better blower, at a later time?. . . . . .

This means that the larger volume engine then, will make
more HP & Torque, at a lower engine rpm, then will the
engine with the shorter stroke. . . .

Any other questions?..:)

Cheers
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
Willy,
This thread has taken many turns.
Let's take a moment to look back regarding why I discussed the higher compression ratio, versus where we are today.

Large volume engines produce big torque easily.
Higher static / geometric compression ratios help produce more torque, as well as more HP.

So you put the two together. . . .

Large volume engines, in this case, 416 cid, 427 cid, etc, require a larger blower to fill the larger volume engine. However, they are overfilling the cylinders with large amounts of fuel and air (mass charge), where the little blowers cant do that. When the little blowers are pushed to far, they generate much heat.

So with the larger volume engines, we don't want to push the little blower. . . .
So we move towards what racers have done for years.
We use a large volume engine, and increase the static compression ratio.

This above engine package, along with a roots blower, makes huge amounts of torque.

And a large volume engine, having a longer stroke (as does yours), we don't have to shift at a too high of an engine rpm, as the longer stroke generates more piston speed, at any engine rpm.
***HP is simply Torque, multiplied by RPM.
If you desire more HP, then improve the inductions system, and spin the engine higher. That is not what I am suggesting with this type of engine package. We have an InFlow restricted engine here. Won't make big HP!
***Increasing either the geometric or trapped compression, or adding boost, or even both, will make big Torque.
***Piston speed is what generates the depression across the intake valve, which in turn fills the cylinders.

So now with you, we will have:
a larger volume engine
a longer stroke
and we increased the compression ratio.

This will produce excellent torque, making the car easy to drive.
And your rwHP of your 376 cid engine, should be about the same.

-with the above in mind-
So I simply suggested to you, that you increase the static / geometric compression ratio, and also advised you not to change your pulley ratio from your 376 / LSA. I also advised you to be sure you always used E85. And to be sure the car was not initially tuned for max perf.

Because this can be very confusing, let's go over the 'hard part' again. :eek:
.
At the static compression ratio of ~10.25:1, your engine is just becoming efficient.
Below ~10.0:1, your engine is beginning to become inefficient.

With the above, we can see where the 10.25:1 ratio would be the best.

But to be safe, why don't you consider this:
Tell the piston manufacturer, that you desire to have 10:0:1, and not drop below 9.8:1.

-to begin with-
Please do not change your pulley ratio. . . Yet!

Short Shift: Begin shifting at an RPM of around 90%, of where you used to shift.
If you shifted at about 6600 rpm before, that means you would shift at about 6000 rpm now.

As you tune the car, and everything looks good / safe, then you can begin to increase the shift point.

At 6800 rpm, with E85, that engine should easily / safely produce 760 rwHP.
But the torque could easily be much higher, depending on what your boost levels are.

With the aluminum LS3 Block, I would not suggest you go higher.
Some have and it worked. But others tried it, and it didn't. . .

Hang in there my friend.. :giggle:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 07GTS
81 - 100 of 100 Posts
Top