STROKER LS VS DESTROKER-WHICH ONE WORKS BETTER, 340, 383 OR 416? ALL THE TORQUE OR ALL THE RPM?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 เม.ย. 2023
- CAN I RUN A 4.8L CRANK IN MY 6.0L OR 6.2L BLOCK TO MAKE A HIGH-RPM DESTROKER? HOW MUCH POWER DOES A HIGH-RPM DESTROKER MAKE? HOW MICH POWER DOES A 383 OR 416 STROKER LS MAKE? WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO MAKE 600 HP? CAN I RUN 8000 RPM WITH AN LS? DOES A STROKER LS MAKE MORE TORQUE? IS RPM BETTER THAN LOW-SPEED TORQUE? CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO WHERE I COMPARED A 383 (5.3L) STROKER AND 416 (LS3) STROKER TO A DESTROKED LS WITH A 4.8L CRANK. CHECK OUT THE CHANGES IN PEAK AND AVERAGE TORQUE PRODUCTION ON ALL THREE COMBOS THAT MADE OVER 600 HP. WHO LIKES GRUNT AND WHO LIKES TO HEAR THEM SCREAM AT HIGH RPM?
- ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
![BOWKYLION - เจ้านายคะ (work-life imbalance) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6bFj8G2pOi4/mqdefault.jpg)
Torque per cubic inch (BMEP) was basically the same for both the 415 and 340. 1.36 for the 415 and 1.37 for the 340.
The 340 makes basically the same power through the rev range as the 415, it just does it at 1200 higher rpm.
The 415 makes 550 hp at 5200 rpm. The 340 makes 550 hp at 6400 rpm.
Everything here scales pretty linearly: 415 cubes is 22% more than 340. 6400 rpm is 23% more revs than 5200 rpm.
Displacement times rpm is very close to equal: 340 x 6400 = 2176000. 415 x 5200 = 2158000
I love math.
It would of been cool to see the mass air flow going into each. It was probably close, with the 416 being a bit more efficient.
Hadn’t seen a smaller engine win the emc challenge
Put them in a average street car the 416 will be the clear winner not to mention way more fun to drive running a ton of rear gear for a street car sucks and it just a crutch for lack of foot pounds bigger is better 99% of the time why do you think people love big blocks so much average power is better little motors don't produce it
One can be in a 7000 pound truck towing you fast car the other little motor would not be happy at all average is not good
It depends on the application. Most race engines make more peak hp than tq. So for a street car of course the lower the tq the more efficient. But I'm a gear head and I don't build cars to be efficient. I build cars that I want. So if I want a 340 screaming to 9k rpm that's what I want...I can promise you a 6.0 ls de-stroked with afr heads in a 3000lbs car will be Hella fun! And melt tires..
388ci destroked ls7 is an awesome route, IMO - particularly for swaps into smaller, lighter vehicles.
IMO the stroker combo would be great for a truck. The destroked combo would be great for a street/strip car.
A lot of people use the small C. I. Engines to tame down the hit for traction purposes and then pour the power on in the higher RPM. It seems that is the way people keep from lifting the heads, which LSs are known for
Richard is right. Something magical happens above 8500 rpm.. Esp in v6 and v8s. I it's like the harmonics reverb and pulses hit different. It's a sound to beholden
Same as always...
All depends on application, and "where" you want your power.
Rear gear ratio, vehicle weight and intended use.
After listening to a engine on a spintron it's amazing how much of the noise is actually the valvetrain
Back when I ran the dyno @ GM Racing, we had a test cell setup to be a "spintron" valvetrain kinematics testcell. When a NASCAR spin buck passed about 8200rpm, the sound was identical to that of an actual running engine... No rods, no pistons, no combustion, no airflow... Just a crankshaft spinning a camshaft, actuating valves - yet ALL the noise of a real engine making 750-800hp
I mess around with diesels and that typical diesel noise on older dieses is generated by the injection pump and echoed by the engine. The more modern CDI engines sound different.
Absolutely! The valves are LOUD when they have big springs, are in some monster ports in the heads, and then are snapped open and closed by a big solid roller cam. I've heard a Spintron in person before also, and I was AMAZED by the sound the first time I heard it too.
@@AshGTE Modern diesel combustion is what sounds radically different than diesel engines of the past, and is mostly responsible for the change in engine noise. With the newer piezo injectors and more powerful ECMs driving them that pulse the injectors several times during each combustion event instead of once, the engines are much quieter and sound way different that they did in the past.
Sure, the lack of noise from a mechanical injection pump is part of it, but it's mostly a reduction in noise from much better, and more closely controlled, combustion happening inside the cylinders.
@@davelowets exactly. I have one of the quietest mechanical diesels ever made. I also have a modern piezo diesel. Changing the injection timing or turning off the pilot injection on the piezo truck makes it sound like a loud old diesel. With the two of them running side by side, you can't even hear the old truck over the new one.
No replacement for displacement! If not being constrained by rules, biggest bore/stroke that the block will hold “usually” makes the most torque and power.
Yes, I would love to see that “8000” rpm cam with the big displacement!
Same way I think. Knowing some of the big boys at MBE and SMX have taken 4.5" stroke to over 10000 rpm, I have no issues taking 4" of stroke to 8000+
@@dennisrobinson8008 he stated he wanted to see the high rpm cam in the big engine, not high rpm big engine.....
@@trailerparkcryptoking5213 My thought was when you increase the engine displacement (holding everything else constant) you tend to make a cam much more “docile”, more power at a somewhat lower RPM. But with much more “cam” and displacement, that engine would be a monster! Of course it never ends, as now the heads max flow may be tested with the bigger cam and displacement…
Gearing will make the revver feel stronger than it is, but to me it's always $/horsepower unless, like you said, rules.
th-cam.com/users/shortstGBpkX9oCoI?si=1ruG6ehNNnKmVJc5
Detroit Speeds de stroked LS7 in their 3rd gen Z/28 revs like a banshee to 8500... 💕❤️
I'd take the stroker over the destroker any day of the week for two reasons: More torque everywhere through the range (and a lot more down low); Lower rpm HP/TQ peaks should mean the engine will stay together better because you aren't spinning it as high.
Man I'm right with you. Especially for a street motor, where it's all about 0-100, torque is where it's at.
Right, but if your making a strip motor that low end torque will bend rods quickly
@@fromthebeginning6064 - In most cases, no. Besides, if it's a strip motor, I'm going to have the bottom end built, anyways ... forged.
Same 100%
25 years ago my uncle took a 400 SBC and put a 350 crank in it. He dropped it in a ‘83 1/2 ton short bed 2wd square body with 4:10 gears and TH350 tranny. On Sunoco racing gas, it turned in a 11.83 1/4 mile run at 117mph. After his death, my cousin swapped the TH350 with a 2 speed power glide and changed the 4:10 gears to 4:56. The truck then turned in a 1/4 mile time in the 10s at over 120.
Great test Richard!
Now put a 427 LS up against a 427 BBC to compare!
There's no comparison... lol
But like Richard was saying just because it has a shorter stroke doesn’t necessarily mean it will rev higher don’t know if he touched on this but the shorter stroke engines would rev up faster and that’s what made the 427 BBC a real ripper it was a big bore short stroke monster!!! 427 BBC is a destroked 454 BBC!!
LS7 427 4.00 stroke 4.125 bore
454 BBC 4.00 stroke 4.250 bore
427 BBC 3.76 stroke 4.250 bore
396 BBC 3.76 stroke 4.094 bore
402 BBC 3.76 stroke 4.126 bore
But in 1970 and later 396’s we’re actually 402’s but retained 396 badge 🤷♂️ The good ol’ horsepower wars!!
@thecamdenyard its the heads that matter most. That's why LS motors trash on old school big blocks.
Another awesome video! I love your energy, Richard.
Would have loved to see this test with the same cam in both engines 😊
Yeah this is a terrible test of nothing! Two completely different engines with different parts. Of course apples and oranges are different.
You save me so much money with all the work you do. Thank you so much
For the price of a stroker crank, you could turbo. Cubic inches are good, 50 cubic inches adds at least 50 lbs of torque through most of the rpm range. But a turbo can add more.
Bob if you don't mind me asking what is the price of SAID items or modifications?
@travisquintero8334 a turbo by itself can be as little as $200. The plumbing can be inexpensive if you can well, and use used tubing from a wrecker
An old drag racers adage is simple, "Their is no replacement for displacement!"
For a lightweight, no prep/street race car I like the idea of the de stroke motor.
I can imagine the short stroke version with a close-ratio gearbox behind it would be make all the right noises, but that's a lot of expense and a significant torque sacrifice compared to the big-inch version. I would take the stroker unless some rules require the destroked setup.
Thank you so much....Now I can see just about what I thought....
I appreciate this video so much..327 fan here
Nice video, not quite apples and apples with the different heads and intake setup, but interesting for sure. Would have liked to see same intake on both engines... thanks
Keep testing. Thanks for the info.
*Depending on Goals (and Limitations if any) Stroke selection can be seen as almost a by-product of the HP/RPM/Valve Size/Air Flow requirements of the engine (especially when a Cubic Inch Limit/Goal is in mind).* For example, there is a reason that GM's COPO Camaro N/A "350" in 2013/14/15 (in layman's terms) used what was essentially an LS7 Bore (4.125") and a 4.8L LS sized Crankshaft (3.268") topped off with LS7 valve-sized cylinder heads, rather than simply throwing in an LS1/6 @ 3.898" Bore x 3.622" Stroke. Big Valves and Air Flow for the RPM required was the goal at that specific engine capacity.
For the LS/LT platforms specifically, in terms of awesome Street Performance, it's not a coincidence that most of the 'Performance' Engines use the same 4.065" x 3.622" bore/stroke configurations (with the exception of the LS7 and new L8T). GM seems to have found the magic ratio of bore/stroke for the application, RPM/HP ranges as well as longevity and cost for OEM Performance. In the AFTERMARKET however, where cost is less of a concern with Cylinder heads/valve sizes and longevity, the 4.125" bore is KING and my favorite for all out performance in 350cu (4.125" x 3.268"), 387cu (4.125" x 3.622") and 427cu (4.125" x 4.000"), depending on application requirements.
Unfortunately the average guy doesn't need the Air Flow potential of the big valve high flowing Cylinder heads that these combos are topped off with or the RPM capabilities, so the smaller bore and longer stroke with smaller valved heads suite more 'average' needs. For a performance STREET build, turning your 5.3/328cu LS into a 363cu, your LS1/6 into a 383, your 6.0L LS into a 406cu or even your LS3/LT1 into a 416cu all with the addition of a 4.00" Stroke Crankshaft (and required rods/pistons) is the easiest way to get a big bump in performance without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak (your OEM block).
Ultimately, depends on the application. Gear ratio, weight/balance, traction, and range of use.
Bigger engines always win for power but the little engines tend to burn less fuel when at low loads like driving.
Thank you very much Richard! This truly is an interesting set up of combo engines! The question is which one of these two would provide more fuel economy at the enjoyable driving rpm and how much of a difference there is in miles/gallon? The true acceleration benefits and enjoyability should come with the torque.
The trend has been to keep the bore smaller and stroke longer in a lot of newer engines with high compression and direct injection. The small bore I think is intended for more compact combustion area and more efficient burn. But that's going quite smaller on bore than the stroke. Not sure how big the impact is going to be on these kinds of LS builds. Shifting the torque to lower RPM and gearing to operate in that range is also important for efficiency. Reducing losses by doing work with the least drag and pumping losses. At some point you have to reduce number of cylinders and overall displacement, then turbocharge instead for more power.
Great video!
It would be cool to see these engine set ups running the same induction system. Carb vs carb etc.
HP from torque = street, HP from RPM = drag strip (add larger tq multiplier->gearing, and launch @high rpm, clutchless manual tranny). Great comparison!
Smaller displacement comes into its own in lb per CI class racing. The classic example is Grumpy’s Vega. If you watch vids of that car racing the big blocks he kills them early in the run because of the lighter weight.
Not when you are running big block sized small blocks.
@@steveletson6616 so....Grumpy wasn’t killing them?!? That’s what was stated! It is a fact, not a matter of opinion! The OP is stating fact that lb/CI class racing a high revving small engine in a light car has a huge advantage. Used to watch a mid 60’s vette with a 280” destroked sbc with a 5-sp Doug Nash spin 10,000+ rpm win weigh/CI class racing in west Texas and he mowed down the competition.....👀
@@steveletson6616 What does "Pounds Per Cubic Inch" mean ?
I always thought that the high rev destroked motor would be a good application in say a light weight pickup (street) truck that may have a little harder time with traction due to the lack of rear weight bias and the overall light weight to begin with being a small pick up (s-10, ranger, etc…) I know that a coyote swapped ranger is an absolute riot of a combo… but other than youtube, I don’t know anyone who has applied tho personally, to which my curiosity runs deep in this topic.
Awesome video as always!!
Had a brodix BBC that took sbc crankshaft. That rig was able turn 9200 rpm 3.625 stroke 4.300 bore just insane sounds. Ran on dirt it was a beast
Man good stuff
I may use this combo for my limited late engine
It really comes down to the old torque vs horsepower
Great comparsion. Now lets twin turbo each engine to matching 1,000hp 😊
It depends on the application. For street use, I'd use the 383 or 416 build. The lower RPM is easier on the valvetrain. I bet if you run them with mechanical water pumps, the lower RPM turns out better on the strokers. That said.... I'd really like to put Comp CR 236 cams on a coyote and rev it to 8100.
A destroked V8 paired with the proper transmission and proper final drive ratio can greatly significantly fuel economy at highway cruising speeds but still provide enough power at high revs. The downside would be sluggishness at low rpm and worse fuel economy in city driving (the smaller engine needs to work harder while accelerating).
For those who are used to driving turbocharged rice rockets but prefer the V8 sound over 4-banger fart exhaust, a destroked LS is an excellent option!
Great test… you finally got a 416 LS😊…I think the 416 is gonna last a lot longer compared to the 8000 rpm screamer . Perfect motor for up coming intake test .
finally got? I think That 416 was done back in like 2005
@@richardholdener1727 had to be later… the 6.2L aluminum block and 6L aluminum blocks didn’t come out tell 07 08 but maybe I’m mistaken. But let me rephrase the finally got the 416 . I should say that the 416 engine you’re testing is pretty much exactly what I have under the hood.
With the heads available flowing insanely high CFM I'm going with the cubes and revving it anyways unless I'm doing something class limited for some crazy reason. If it's boost, I'm just doing whatever will hold together the best and shrugging at how many cubes I get; Then again if it's near 400ish I'm not complaining!
IMO, if the base engine has enough displacement right out of the box, I'm always going to go towards destroking for a few reasons:
1) Less internal stresses for the internals and less overall friction from piston ring travel, so parts last longer
2) 'smaller' cams still act relatively big on lower displacement engines, so having something like a 218/226 on a 4.8l isn't going to act the same as on a 6.0 or larger.
3) Any loss in low end torque I can find a way to overcome with gearing. Torque at the rear end is really all I care about, so as long as I gear correctly for the engine's torque curve, I'll be fine.
4) overall good fuel economy. With a relatively smaller displacement, I can still get decent power, and I don't need 500 HP to push around what equates to a modified 3rd gen Camaro. Being able to get a tune supporting nearly 30 mpg highway along with 360 HP? Sounds good to me.
You should take a calculus class.
@@mrsir7453 I can't tell if this comment is genuine or sarcastic, so I'll leave you with this: 👍
A guy that live near me has 415 ls3 in a c5 with the new tvs blower. It will make a believer out of ya. Guy just drives it to work on Fridays and home from cars shows with the 🏆.
This is great! I'm wondering if you can put these videos into a podcast form?
I do a live feed nightly
As someone once said, "there's no replacement for displacement". I'll take torque over high rpm hp most of the time. After all it's tq that gets a car moving and accelerating. Where are you going to use that high rpm motor except at a track right, like a circle track or road course.
These same 2 motors, with the same turbo setup, would be an awesome comparison!
I built a pump gas 417 L92 factory rec port heads ported by reher morrison,btr na cam for big cid,supervictor intake,1000 cfm pro systems carb 6014 msd ignition .made 705hp @7,100 598 tq .with some more tuning left on the table I figured it could make about 730 ish.and boy it does sound sweet at 7,100
705 at the flywheel?
@@ryanholmes5364 yes
Spray it .
What Was head cfm and cam duration?
@@donaldgminski8621 it can be the rings are gapped for a 250 shot .makes alot of power without spray.
If your car is sufficiently light…otherwise all engines are within a linear envelope and less rpm/higher displacement means longer engine life. Ran a 290 sbc, several 350, 355 and 396BB with standard valve train and one built up 355 reving to 7000rpm in a 900kg Cobra. The Renault Hemi 1.6 100 hp in my Lotus Europa S2… was snappy and its original 60s roller cam definitely made it pump better, faster. It was half a hemi and served ss s benchmark for losses in the bigger engines.
Which is better will depend a lot on what its being used for. If its on short gearing or in a light car the big engine is going to need more gear changing to keep it in the happy spot and will also have 100lb more to light the rubber if not controlled correctly. If you gear it for 550lb its only making that from about 4000 to about 5500. The smaller engine geared for 425lb is making it from around 4500 to around 7500 - even then its tailing off much more gradually.
The larger engine will also need a transmission which can handle that extra 100lb - not a problem in most normal road cars but it can make a significant difference whe speccing for racing.
The differences would be better pointed out if you just move the small engine's graph 17 lines to the left which puts both the graph ends in the same place. Thats effectively what you do when you gear them to suit and its what the dyno would read as rwhp if they hit the rev limter at the same road speed in a gear.
I’m currently running an Lq4 block bored to 4.065 with 4.8 crank and rods with valve relief pistons, ported 5364 heads and an lsa supercharger bolted on top. Can verify when it revs out to 7k+ rpm it sounds amazing and makes good power on the top end lol all slammed into an 06 gto.
I notice you didn't brag about the bottom end 🤔
Vids or it didn't happen 🤓
If it’s for the street and you need a meaty torque curve add stroke if it’s a dedicated race engine go for bore and larger valves obviously a lot more goes into it than that. But as we’ve seen if you give a race engine builder cubic inch rules say 500 cid for drag racing or 358cid for NASCAR and they can get there anyway they always go for the largest bore possible and then go with a stroke that gets them to the desired cubic inches
Right on
Bore Displacement vs Stroke displacement
Stroke is always going to generate more torque and do it much sooner.
Besides the obvious increase in stroke length that makes more torque. Like a longer prybar… I believe it’s the piston speed that makes it occur much sooner…
Like hp; the rate at which work is done. Think about it. If the piston speed is much faster, it’s technically “doing the work” faster. Meaning everything happens sooner…
Put these two engines in a pull truck and you find out real fast. There’s no replacement for displacement.
But I 100% agree, there’s nothing like a buzz saw of an over square small block. Lol
My ls2 corvette is currently down doing a 402 stroker, 11:1, fast 102, prc225 heads, magic stick 3 cam (238/242 .600 112 lsa) shooting for 500+ wheel
The experimentation never seems to end! Here is one maybe nobody is interested in: fuel economy? Is fuel economy the opposite of making power or can they work together?
I have done fuel economy testing in vehicle many times
Would have loved to see the top ends swapped. Cnc’d ls3’s on the destroked engine may have carried that thing out to 8500 or better
For an application with limited traction the destroked engine may be better. Sometimes torque can be your enemy. The new Zo6 is an example of that. It's much quicker than the previous generation while having much less torque. The c7 could never really put the power down with 650 torque. Of course the mid engine of the c8 also helps.
You control traction in other ways. Always build for max hp.
In a destroked application you typically make up for lost engine torque with lower gearing, which recovers that Tq and then some...
All good performers. I could see a use for the destrokers in a cubic inch limited situation like a spec class where a big bore might unshroud the valves on a bigger better head
This is the only good reason to destroke
This is why I'm building a short stroke C5R for my capacity limited race car. 6120cc maximum
There can be a point of diminishing return on that as well (especially if you work within a design). I've seen a few engines where it's not doing anything or it's just starting to go the opposite direction even, too much can become a problem. 🙂
I'm just reminded by all the folks who swear by the 377 vs a 406 sbc. Why you'd give up free cubes is beyond me for a street application.
Because 377 is the flyby engine , they are serious !
The 340 would be an awesome track car engine.
The 8,500 rpm, destroked LS7 from Detroit Speed is the most insane LS engine I've ever seen!
you don't need to destroke to run 8500 rpm
@richardholdener1727 really? I had no idea.
Thank you for all the time and effort you put into helping us understand these things better!
i personally prefer strokers cause if your drag racing heavy trucks or running a heavy fat slick, you need as much torque as possible so you can get off the line quickly. especially if your running all wheel drive on a heavy gas or diesel truck or car. plus high rev's doesnt always mean a good run or good power. you need torque if your gonna run something like a supercharger(like a whipple). there are some people are running sticky tires or the track has some really nasty prep(which will bog your engine down if you dont got enough torque)
Torque moves Mass.Low gears and high rpm will move light or heavy mass with Big sticky tires and no bog.Look at NHRA Super Stocks.
I'll take the extra 100 ftlbs of torque any day. The only reason I would be interested in the lower torque engine - is if I was class racing on a limited tire and needed to soften the hit on the tires. Even then, not sure it would do exactly what I want.
Team Destroked over here 2600Lbs stick shift car would fly
I'm having trouble deciding whether to go 383 stroker with my 5.7 LS1 or go to a LS3 for my fbody. I already have ported and decked 799 heads with all the btr valvetrain, a fast 92, 92 and btr injectors. I feel like in the end I would be capable of the same power but much less money spent going 383 because I wouldn't have anything but a stock LS3 if I went that route.
249K and counting!
LS2 with stock port LS3 heads, stock LS3 intake, ported LS2 throttle body with SD tuning or 94mm MAF will make 600 on a mild cam that still gets excellent MPG and still pulls well below 2k rpm.
no it won't
@richardholdener1727 personal incredulity/arrogance.
Lou said the same thing when we pulled one of *his 'street' builds* off of *his dyno* and immediately pulled mine on. He claimed mine must be a stroker motor even after showing him that the motor had obviously never been pulled out of the car. Just because *YOU* can't do something doesn't mean someone else can't. That car made 477whp through the stock 85mm MAF. 495whp through a 94mm billet MAF. 15-20% drivetrain loss through stock converter/4L65E gets you 582-619 flywheel. Based on injector pulswidth, it made just under 600 flywheel. Car idled at 750. Very mild mannered. No bucking, even with convertor locked. Ran the stock converter for the life of the tune-only 4L65E (about 2 weeks).
The car Lou pulled off the dyno was a stroker with a nasty cam and made 460ish through that same 85mm MAF and a 6-speed manual.
Lou argued with me ad nauseum about cam design when I worked for him. Ironically, about half of the time we spent together building two Le Mans cars was arguing about cam design. One car was his C5R with a 5.1L SBC that made 600+ whp. The other car was 5.7L DOHC that made 700+ whp. Both cars supported my cam design theory, yet he argued against them vehemently. Over 20 years later and the community is slowly but surely creeping toward better cam designs.
"But, I have a dyno. you couldn't possibly make more power than me because I know literally everything." -Richard
Fffffnnnnnfucktard
If I waited all the time it takes for a destroked ls3 to make power I wouldn't be getting the better 60 ft times I get from my ls3 Stroker. Know one ever complains about the sound either. I have 426CID JE 11.6 FTop pistons and 7600 rpm spected Cammotions cam kit. 0 lash cold roller. Street car, Can run 50/50 mix gas for max timing and max smell. 427 emblems on a 98 T/A, Ws6 style hood. I think Cammotions has spent the most time with the Dart pro 1 ls3 heads and jesel rockers to make it work. Intake is the same but with the mid length blue runners. 4:10 Moser for F-body.
Max Cubes mo fun for most. Destroke is usually to meet race class rules. Big Bore , Short Stroke always breath better !
Richard
Check out 1000hp na corvette mile racing !
Lol I noticed THINKORSWIM shortcut on the bottom
I grew up in a family who drag raced 301 / 327 / 331 SBC. All 8000 plus rpm. As awesome as that is, Torque wins races !!
Which one will live longer at drag strip and have more consecutive runs without breaking a rod, piston, etc? It's all about your application of the set up...
If I'm not mistaken - it appears the 340 makes more average power than the 416. I think the 416 would be more fun to drive - but the 340 power curve that just climbs and climbs and climbs would be pretty entertaining, too.
On those graphs the 340 is the better set up engine. Less difference between peak and average torque means you can have a lighter transmission behind it and its overall a much more progressive delivery. The 416 would be useful for pulling a trailer or something but its going to feel real on/off compared to the small engine. Not bad if you're drag racing but its going to need much better set up of gearing-traction.
I've always thought the 4.8's were the best sounding ls motors. Especially through a turbo at high rpm.
Seems destroke to be centrifugalsupercharger / turbo fun because rpm benefits both power adders.centri supercharger makes more boost with rpm keeps boost up between shifts.rpm spools big turbos easier keeps big turbos spooled between shifts
low speed torque improves boost response
The destroked would run great with those new 10 speed transmissions
Sure the valve train is important, but piston/bearing speed have a lot to do with them living for any amount of time... that's why de stroking is so popular...
What does the stroker look like with the same cam.
I’ll leave my opinion here : the choice in engine design goes back to what you use it for.
Class rules could make the choice . If they don’t you should chose what makes your setup the most reliable.
If you are breaking drivetrain parts and can’t find stuff that holds more torque (mostly stick shift problems) then spin the rpm ale the same power with less torque
Otherwise you’d be dumb not to run the stroker. Engine will be more reliable and it will be easier to light the turbos on the 2 step
Displacement wins every time!
you should try this on a ford 302 use a 289 crank vs 331
I’ve always wanted to see an aftermarket block short deck ford. 4.125 bore with a 289 crank. That would be fun.
@Justin Bales sounds similar to an Australian engine build that was 317ci. They were spinning that thing over 8k. Ford Performace Solutions was quoted in a SBF book about them.
@Justin Bales would be around 306 ci, would be cool to compare to an 4.03
I was planning on putting a 416 stroker together and thought I'd give Total seal a call before I bought my rotating assembly. When I spoke with Keith Jones he said that the 4" stroke is too much, and that those engines burn a bunch of oil because of excessive piston rock keeping the rings from sealing. I'm fairly certain in one of your videos you said 4" was the safe limit, but now I'm uncertain. Any chance you think he was confusing 4.125" stroke issues with 4"?
Interesting for sure. I've been thinking of my aluminum 5.3 destroked with the 4.8. Effectively making the 302 DZ combination. A little bigger like a 310 sort of but we always thought about equal bore and stroke combinations. But ultimately to get the more responsive high RPM engine isn't it required to run a lower weight rotating assembly? I'm torn because it's been years since I worked in a machine shop. LS is years ahead of that. I'll be lucky to be able to afford any kind of a project but being interested hasn't changed.
a 5.3l with a 4.8l crank is just a 4.8L
So the bore is the same. What I'd Dream of doing. Is crazy by this video. But it just seemed interesting. I originally had dreams of making a 302. But after long searches for a decent 327 or any small block I stumbled on my almost brand new 5.3 aluminum block engine. So the dream began. 83 mm stroke I'd need to bore it out to make it interesting, higher comparison 11 or 11.5 the a 6.2 cam maybe spring upgrade and some crake lighting. It's a dream but thanks for the reply. Looking on line is for the birds. I'd rather be in a shop.
So hypothetically speaking, couldn't we use a massive cam on a stock stroke 6.0 build with some valve reliefs and the right supporting mods and still spin the same 7500-8000peak power?
yes-a stock stroke will go to 8000
@@richardholdener1727 in other words if we just get a 6.0 and do the right build then we can have our torque and our revs too 😉 just wanted to put that out there for the people in the comment list. I've built a twin turbo destroke before and I wasn't as impressed with it as I thought I would be. I ended up going back to a stock 6.0 with twins instead and got faster
I had a 377 destroke sbc in my old s10 it worked good wouldn't just blow the tires off like a stroker would. Low end torque is great if you can put the power down. Spinning aint winning.
I have a very similar LS1 346ci combo that makes 517rwhp (600fwhp) spinning to 8000rpms with peak power at 7500rpms and peak torque at 6500rpms so is identical to your graph and you can't compare the noise of it at 8000rpms to a lower revving stroker as I have had them before also. :D
think a destroke 6.0 would be better than a stroker in something like an rx8? i want to keep high revving nature but the rotary is lacking everywhere. other options are an LFX v6 which only revs to 7200. or a MZR 2.5 build with an ecoboost 2.3 crank making it 2.4, and being very happy to go 8k, but half as many cylinders with just as much price...
If you like high revs then a de stroked LS for sure, I’ve had strokers and blown standard displacement engines and my high revving LS1 is one of my favourites for sure
how reliable would the destroked build be?
Torque ftw
Not sure if someone else pointed out - found it interesting that they both made right around the same horsepower at peak torque - so gear them to shift at similar MPH, should be similar torque to the tire, similar vehicle acceleration. Destroker seems more fun to me, but that's my biases.
Average HP is what's doing the acceleration as well, torque at the tire is only of interest for traction. 🙂
@@PSA78 For a "one number approximation thing" agreed; I tend to think in spreadsheets and whatnot (engineer brain) so for a lot of purposes I think in terms of torque at the tire or, really, tractive force...
@@mekilljoydammit Torque and traction do go hand in hand as a static situation, and with a gearbox you could have all the torque your tires can handle (if you wanted to, could help in say a rally car where driving sideways is a thing). 😄
@@PSA78 Well not all the torque my tires can handle necessarily, but I do roadrace stuff with lower powered cars. ;)
But yeah, so many folks don't think of gearing as a "variable"... anyway I think we're basically on the same page anyway.
Really should have did this as a stroked 5.3 to make it a closer displacement comparison. Would have prob had equal tq to hp vs the destroked with way more hp than tq. It makes a much more usable engine.
I personally prefer max displacement while still running 7-8k rpm. Both more bore and more stroke.
the video has a stroker 5.3l (383)
@@richardholdener1727 I thought it was 4.070in bore. Must have heard it wrong I guess.
the video had three combos-a 340, a 383 and a 416
@@richardholdener1727 I guess I missed the 383, I'll have to go back and look. I was working while I was watching dealing with a 429 haha
The best way to make 600 hp?? - " Summed up in 6 words - "There is no replacement for displacement!" An engine is merely an air pump and the more air it can draw in, the more fuel can be burned, the more power that will result. Given the same cylinder heads, camshaft and compression ratio, the bigger engine will always make more horsepower and more torque and at lower, more reliable rpm than the smaller one.
That old trope falls flat when forced induction gets to play. Not to mention the differences between less and more pistons, push rods vs. ohc, flat plane vs. cross plane crank, etc.
I'd like to see the power level of a NA 390 LS3.
can you make same but under boost scenario ? i think it will be interesting also
does the same thing
I am building a 377 right now gen 1... i bought parts a while ago and i got 5.7in rods... accidently! Crap.... so on mock up the pistons are .300 down the hole!
destroked with 8 into 1 headers🤤
yes
Now do it again with boost. I know the power curve will just be shifted up but I wanna see the boost curves. Mostly on the high revver
boost just multiplies what is there
@@richardholdener1727 yes and stroke will come apart faster than destroke that 8000 RPM for the the win , cheaper to build 😮
@@advance717 depends on the build my 463” has been reved to 8400 for years.
would be interesting to see a displacement equal comparison or as close as can get and load them up from lower rpm, let's say a small bore stroker at 340 to equalise the 340 destroker, because there is some reasoning to why you would want more stroke and less bore for torque, but would it be worth the loss of rpm capabilities
displacement determines torque-bore/stroke has very little change
@@richardholdener1727 so we agree it is a factor for torque, but disagree on how much of a factor then, there is a reasion we use breaker bars and not 1/4" socket wrenches to get bolts free 🙂
an apples to apples size stroke vs destroke would make more sense than different displacement engines if we talk the effects of bore and stroke.
only my personal take on it
@@Stale_Mahoney engine masters on motortrend did this. they ran two big block chevy bottom ends same displacement, most extreme opposite bore/stroke possible. they used the same top end on each. power was identical.
@@chipcurrey653 but again they only drag them from 3 3500rpm am i wrong?
@@Stale_Mahoney yes but they each make the same peak horsepower and torque at identical rpm and have identical power bands
I think it's very unlikely they are identical from 3000 to 6000 but differ below that
Back in the 70’s you wouldn’t run a stroker motor with such a long stroke. The best available Rods and Crankshafts wouldnt handle the stress. A prime sample is the 383 stoker Chevy small block. the cranks tended to break because the rod length was so short. Since then metallurgy has improved dramatically! These days 4” of stroke is on the small side for a stroker. Things stay in one piece and can endure a bearing so much better than the old factory pieces did.
The factory 3.75 crank from the 400cu sbc had cast crank. You could get a good after market 3.75 crank for $1800 to $2000 you could run 5.7in rod with the right piston combo and a small base circle cam.Your right about cast crank and 5.4 rod comb from the factory.The only 4in crank combo would be with a after block.
Do the same comparison with a 454 BBC
I bet the destroyed version would be quicker on a drag strip if you put enough converter in it. That being said, I’d rather have the striker for anything I drive.
The big inch engine would run off and hide from the little engine, simply based on the average torque difference. Never makes sense to intentionally make less cubic inches unless it's a class requirement. No replacement for displacement is a saying for a reason.
Id like to see how the destroked one behaves under boost
It behaves the same as it does NA-I have boosted video up with this motor