Tweet
I guess you guys have never seen this, then...
-
-Brad-
89 Mustang : Future 60V6 Power
sigpic
Follow the build -> http://www.3x00swap.com/index.php?page=mustang-blog -
thats what im talking about when i say 4.3, its an LT1 thats been debored to a 305's cylinder bore (very close to), and destroked to be the same stroke as the 302.
its a dandy, its a shame they never updated it, it might be a very popular engine today otherwise, a bit under powered from the factory but im sure it could be decked out & made to be one hell of a mean sbc
actually i have seen that, its VERY impressive (not sure why its turd brown though), but im betting that would be easily to get the curves right on than an s7.
hes very talented but a 351 & poop brown coloring? awww... comon!Last edited by no_doz; 08-11-2009, 10:00 PM.Comment
-
holy f. thats hilarious!! love how he got it out of there!Originally posted by bszopi View PostComment
-
id imagine, its a destroked debored lt1 that has 60+ less hp and in stock trim is pretty gutless for everything but torque, most people would want to go with the LT1 anyways but the short stroke & small size as well as the reverse cooling-all sound fantastic to me.
once the optispark & the crappy water pump setup & etc... are removed & replaced. im just saying if i was going to build a v8, thats the one id build due to the short stroke & size, im sure if someone decked one out it would be mean & not bad on gas at all if you keep your foot out of it.
a 200hp stock engine in a car that weighs over 2 tons, & the torque maxes out at 2400rpm? in stock trim anyone that wants to run the hell out of it would hate it-itd pull like a damned 4 cylinder.
now build it & stick it in a much lighter vehicle, fix its shortcomings & build/cam it to rev like a GM 302-& you have yourself a mean little 4.3
plus its got that v8 sound...
Last edited by no_doz; 08-11-2009, 10:41 PM.Comment
-
i've never thought the LT motors were bad, but the cost to build them compared to a LS motor? there's not much point in keeping the LT1 when you can have a more powerful/higher revving/more supported/better economy LS motor...
just a simple comparison of cost rules out building it, as good as it may be, when there are better options.Comment
-
also i realize we are way off topic but until i go to the garage & start tearing body panels off & trying to fit things here tomorrow or thursday, i dont have any more to say specifically relating to the project other than:
hell yea im gonna try it!
until then atleast i didnt go make a thread in the OT forum about the potential of this 4.3 short stroke LT1
& robert-unless youd like a v8 that actually gets good mpg, im sure it could be achieved with the 4.3 much moreso than with something 25% bigger.
most poeple looking to build want as much hp as they could squeeze, if i ever built one id be looking for 300hp & id be thrilled.
would there be a chance that the 3" stroke crank would work in an LS1 to lower the displacement to 4.94L? & if so though, wouldnt the .6L difference have a pretty decent impact on mpg?Comment
-
due to the very strict laws of thermodynamics, shorter strokes lose fuel economy....
plus hooked up to a t56, the ls1 guys get 28mpg highway with no trouble at all...
i'm sure if you wanted you could hook a t56 from a LT1 up to a L99...Comment
-
not that im doubting you but what specific principle of thermodynamics assures that a 3" stroke is going to get less mpg than a 3.5 or so inch stroke on a v8, & if so why do these short stroke 4 cylinders get such good mpg?
im probably wrong but it certainly seems like the amount of cylinders & other factors would factor in when considering mpg. anyone have any science theyd like to throw at me? im always up for learning something new
also i dont see how an engine that costs $2,000-$4,000 more from the get go costs a lot more to build?Last edited by no_doz; 08-11-2009, 11:10 PM.Comment
-
basically: for a given displacement, a higher stroke to bore ratio will give better fuel economy. this is due to the engine being able to take advantage of the power stroke "longer" (not in time, since 3000RPM with a 1" stroke takes the same amount of time as a 3" stroke. there is more travel to the stroke).
thats why with the SBC to LS1 transition, the motor went from a 4" bore and 3.48" stroke to a longer stroke and smaller bore(not sure of the exact specs), and it only lost 2-3 cubic inches yet made more power and got better fuel economy(many other things affected this too)
somehow the rev limit was able to be raised as well, how, i don't know, but GM has run them up to 8K and didn't have issues, but stock they run out of steam by 7K, so thats where the limiter is set.
anything else?
EDIT: how much power/torque does a LS1 make stock?350/375 now how about a LT1?at best 305/330
how can you improve a LT1? LT4 conversion kit.... and not much else. and that conversion isn't cheap.
also, over at ls1tech, they sell ls1/t56 combos all the time CHEAP.Last edited by robertisaar; 08-11-2009, 11:19 PM.Comment
-
with the l99 im sure with porting, port matching, balance & knife edging the crank, nicely sized headers, a lightened roller or hydraulic roller valvetrain setup, & things like the optispark & goofy water pump setup removed & replaced with better electronic components, as well as h-beam rods & possibly pistons (im not counting on much in the piston category), 300hp could be achieved. naturally i'd go higher compression as well, depending on if that came from the heads being milled or the rods themselves being slightly longer (im not building one right now, so im not positive about that one).
im not talking about max power, im just talking about 300 horse as a goal out of 4.3L of short stroke V8, i find it hard to believe that its not possible (if thats at all what you are getting at).
260hp to 310hp doesnt seem like it warrants an extra $4000 before you start building, but the aluminum block is rather nice.Comment
-
WOW! thanks for that resource, there are like 40 LS blocks for $400-$600 on there, now if i could only find a short stroke crank to go with it & make it less displacement...
when driving as nicely as possible, i find it hard to believe with the same trans (& id be going as high geared as reasonably possible), that a properly tuned engine 1+L smaller wont get a few more mpgs, when you're driving it for them that-is.
once again though, why do the short stroke 4 cylinders get such great gas mileage? i had a toyota with a 3.03" stroke that got around 45mpg highway, based on that principle shouldnt my mpg have been nowhere near that?Comment
-
what size bore did it have?
and all of that stuff you listed for the LT1? how much will all of that cost? in the end, you would be spending thousands more on an LT1 just to get it to the power level of a LS motor...Comment
-
this isnt happening, while doing some EXTENSIVE cleaning-i found the title for the lumina packed away with a bunch of other stuff & my girlfriend found the key & my best friend in iraq wired me some money to get all my cars running so i can get a job & get my shit back on track (the damn camaro had the steering rack & PS pump take a shit on the drive home the day i got fired from my shitty minimum wage computer tech support job).
he was pissed when i told him my situation because hes saved up like 10 grand & doesnt have a damn thing he wants to spend it on other than cigs & beer when he gets back-& was happy to help me out & pissed that i havent told him, so now its just a matter of getting tags & putting on a set of intake manifold gaskets
if you want a dirt cheap car that needs like $50-$100 to get it running, check out the ohio craigslists, because if its ugly or it needs something-its not worth $#!T around here it seems.Comment
Comment