Building a Stroker LQ1

[robertisaar]

GM really went limp on things like cams, tuning and intake / exhaust.

you can probably thank CAFE standards and NVH...

the 3.4 N/A does have LOTS of capability, but performance parts are nonexistant. if you can make them, you WILL see results. and possibly customers who are also obsessed with the LQ1...

[pocket-rocket]

and possibly customers who are also obsessed with the LQ1...

*sheepishly raises his hand...*

[robertisaar]

*sheepishly raises his hand...*

you were the first that came to mind...

[IsaacHayes]

Some times building a unique powerful engine out of "rare" stuff is cool. It makes it almost like you designed it because no one else has such an animal.

I say go for the higher compression, the cam and headers and flow of the DOHC heads will love it.

[no_doz]

ive always wanted to build one but the whole having 4 cams reground just sounds like a shot to the wallet-also the whole reliability issue-what are the big things that could be fixed to make these things not likely to blow the F up?

montes & z34's with blown LQ1's all the time & a few of our local junkyards have several with smoked heads-on top of the one that i owned that blew the hell up-im a bit wary of them in the reliability aspect.

[pocket-rocket]

The only unreliable thing in an LQ1 (besides the dist. o ring which guess what? is in every 60v6) is the person that drives the car that doesn't keep up on maintenance or check fluid levels/wear items. I've had my 91 since 99, and the 92 for about 5 years now. Both have had long HARD (I can't stress this enough. I love taking off hard from stop lights.) miles, and I would take either to Florida. I would just want to do some tune-up work and stuff to it before leaving. That's the key. Staying on top of things before they become problems/blown engines. That's probably why the LQ1 got a bad rap. No one thought you should have to do more then change the oil and put gas in it. I mean, who would have thought you should check your oil level from time to time, change coolant and other stuff like that? That's too much work! Then again, I kind of like people like that, they keep me busy and put money in my pocket.

Edit: Now that GM has removed a good portion of the maintenance cost (timing belt), look what they can get out of an NA DOHC engine in a Camaro. Isn't the DFI 3.6l DOHC over 300 ponies?

[bszopi]

It should be up around there (300hp). I know I was looking at the new 3.0L DFI DOHC yesterday and its putting out 255-265hp (depending on model). That's 85hp+/L, which would put the 3.6L just over 300hp.

[joelbob]

Brad, I will be happy if I can produce at least one whp per 9-9.5lb. That would mean an output of 295whp - 310whp. - That's assuming I can liberate enough junk to keep the curb weight under 2,800lb. I plan on recording stock weight along with front / rear weight distribution before starting work on the car. It'll be interesting to see where it ends up when all is said and done. Speaking of "junk", I just received my "non a/c with rear defrost" heater control head. 'Can't have the car looking like it has air when it doesn't. Air is for wimps anyway, right?

[joelbob]

Ben, If you get a minute, could you please grab one of the stock 3.4L rods I measured (when I was at your place last week) and measure the width again. - I didn't write it down and I forgot what the measurement was. I was thinking it was around .869". - I don't have my engine core torn down yet and I am getting ready to call for the specs on the modified Ford stroker rods I am planning to use (for preliminary comparison). Anyone else that has one handy, feel free to chime in if you know what the width is or are willing to take a measurement. (Thanks in advance.)

[SappySE107]

.854" big end. I think that was what you were measuring. 593.4 grams for the bare rod btw (3.4 DOHC)

[joelbob]

Ben, Thanks. - That is exactly what I needed. Not sure why I was remembering .869". The Ford stroker rods are .935" wide at both ends with no offset. I already know that they use the CB1238 rod bearing (same as the LQ1). I would assume that the bearing is just centered in the bore of the rod. Maybe the stroker cranks are getting a larger radius machined into them for strength and the narrower bearings are being used in lieu of it. - It seems odd that they are using that much wider of a rod with a stock GM 60V6 rod bearing. Anyone else care to speculate? I guess I'll decide what to do once I get my rods. If nothing else, I'll cut .0405" off the sides of the big ends. I haven't checked the N-Star pistons to see if I will need to narrow the small ends. It is encouraging to hear that the stock 5.7" LQ rods weigh 593.4g since the 5.850" 4340 I-beams are advertised at 592g. If anyone has stock weight on an LQ piston, please chime in. - If not, I will wait till I tear mine down and compare.

[pocket-rocket]

The only reason I can think of for a narrower bearing is less drag. But for something not advertised for racing only, I wouldn't think that would be the reason. I also wouldn't think it was because of parts interchangeability.

[mrl390]

I can save you some time with weight and distribution. I weighed my 97 which is almost exactly like a 96 except with different trans. It was 3458lb with a full tank of gas. 50-50 ratio side to side an 65-35 front to rear.

[pocket-rocket]

That would help, except he is using a J-body to put this in. I've always wondered what the true weight of these cars are, thanks

[mrl390]

Opps, my bad. For some reason I thought it was going in a 96 z34