|
|
| Search | Car Forums | Gallery | Articles | Helper | Air Dried Fresh Beef Dog Food | IgorSushko.com | Corporate |
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Re: Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
Quote:
I'm with you brother("sarcasm"). Whats up with all this big block talk and everything else is crap stuff lately?. Its offensive and knock it off. You can love your big block all you want but if you love your engine thats no reason to put down other's, especially if as you put it your not even familiar with them. John
__________________
RIP Hypsi - I just want to express I will never be the same after having lost such a good friend. You meant alot to me and I feel I am a better person for having known you. Til the day we meet again my friend you will always be in my heart. Mods: Weight reduction (I don't wear underwear) Last edited by FormulaLT1; 02-25-2005 at 12:31 PM. |
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
I personally love big blocks because of the shock effect it has on a person. In my Nova, or Corvette, when I drive it around and I'll stop somewhere, people will always say "What's that thing got in it, a 350?" Anyone of you that own a car that sticks out knows what I'm talking about. A 350 is the most generic motor their is and people are just assumed to have one because they are so popular. When peope ask
"What's that thing got in it, a 350?" , I ALWAYS repond "Well come see for yourself," and they always shit theirselves (not literally) when I pop the hood to show them a big block stuffed in there. Big blocks make great streetable power. AT 2000 rpms, my motor is making 400 ftlbs of torque. Not many small blocks can do that. Dont get my wrong, I like small blocks, as I DO own a WS-6 LS1 trans am. But for a muscle car, I'll stick with my big blocks. And 89IROC&RS Please explain to me how you are planning to get 35MPG out of the motor your talking about. To get a 302 to make the kind of power your talking about, you going to have to REGULARLY spin the motor in excess of 6k rpms, and thats not exactly fuel efficent. Not many 4 cylinder imports get 35MPG, so I'm interested in hearing how you plan on doing it with your "big block whooping" 302... Rob
__________________
![]()
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
And 89IROC&RS
Please explain to me how you are planning to get 35MPG out of the motor your talking about. To get a 302 to make the kind of power your talking about, you going to have to REGULARLY spin the motor in excess of 6k rpms, and thats not exactly fuel efficent. Not many 4 cylinder imports get 35MPG, so I'm interested in hearing how you plan on doing it with your "big block whooping" 302... Rob[/quote] ooooooh, he tried you IROC, im curious as well, tell us more
|
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
If you saw the episode of trucks where they put a 572 in project "copperhead" they put a 572 in a 69 (I think) chevy truck and the beefed up that truck like no other, and still he did not get traction for 312 ft. at 75 mph
__________________
|
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
I saw that ^^^^^^^^^^^ That is AWSOME!!!!!
|
|
#21
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
Hey 89IROC, is that 302 the one you posted about awhile back, from a 69? Camaro?....Also, I think I remember you having a problem getting a forged crankshaft for it...Have that worked out yet??
j/w -Ryan |
|
#22
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
quite simple really guys, you see the power for the engine is going to be around 450 give or take so it could be 420 it could be 500, wont really know till i get it dynoed. The basic premis is that im using every trick in the book to make the engine work less to make power. First rule of performance, more air in, more air out makes more power. but you also have to figure that the main loss of power is to frictional losses and rotational losses from accelerating the internals of the engine, transmission, and drivetrain. Where a big block makes power by having more air and fuel stuffed into it, but only getting (purley example, no math to back this up, just making a point) 50% efficiency, my small block will work with the level of fuel and air it has but will burn it more completely, and will have signifigantly lower frictional losses so it will be operating at say, 80% efficiency (again, pulled out of my ass, but just making a point) By using thermal barrier coatings on the piston crown, combustion chamber, valve faces, intake and exhaust ports, high compression, fast burn chambers, and high power capasitive discharge ignition systems ill be able to maximise combustion pressures without detonation, and with anti friction coatings on all the metal on metal contact areas, as well as using baby bearings whereever possible, combined with a light synthetic oil, crank scrapers, windage trays, as many electronic driven accessories as i can, ill bring frictional losses to a bare minimum. This is linked to a four speed overdrive trans with a lockup converter, through a aluminum driveshaft, into a 9 bolt rear with 3.27 gears (much lower than many expect). As the IROC was driving home from arkansas, it had the shitty running 350, the same trans, and 2.77 gears and got a best of 26mpg, and an average of 23mpg on the highway at 70mph. I dont think that its much of a stretch to think that the smaller (22cid), better running engine, will get better mileage than that setup, OH and nearly forgot, im going to be putting a Gear Vendors overdrive on the tailshaft of the 700R4 which will give me three overdrive gears, which means i could even run a 3.5 rear gear and cruise at lower rpms than i am now with the 2.77's, but ill be running 3.27 so ill be even lower at cruise speed. So hope that clears up some things, i dont mean to say that ill be driving it at 6000rpms and getting 35mpg, thats absurd, what i mean that is that i can drive it to the strip at 30-35mpg, kick ass, then drive home at 30-35mpg.
I have solved my delema in finding a crankshaft, i can use the one out of a 4.3L LT1. Now let me re-iterate, i am not a opponent to big blocks, by any means, i did grow up around the mountain motors, i love the feel of the vibrations shaking my innards like no other engine could hope to do. I am an opponent to the view that you cant make power any other way. Are big blocks cool, hell yeah, but theyre not the only way anymore, thats just the way it is, and thats the point im trying to make.
__________________
Chevrolet Camaro - I enjoy beating the hell out of people http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=68052 |
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
Thanks 89, atleast I (don't know about other people smarter than me...) found that interesting and informational
-Ryan |
|
#24
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Re: Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
Quote:
keep in mind, in the muscle car era, the fastest cars were low 14, maybe solid 14 second cars. stock ls1 camaros have run between 13.6 and 12.6! food for that thought, and if you want to get a chill down your spine, you should hear an ls1 that has an slp loudmouth cat-back
__________________
'92 RS lt1/t56, lt4 hot cam, 30lb injectors, 54mm throttle body, full exhaust, 4.11 posi, 4 coil ignition, alluminum driveshaft, adj rear suspension, low. springs, electric water pump, custom tune. |
|
#25
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
oh and lest i forget modern LS1 based engines in the Fbodys that get 30mpg, or the ZO6 that gets 32mpg out of 346cid, while making 405hp, and not using any of the tricks that im looking to use. again, i dont think its a stretch to think a smaller displacement engine with my mods will get equil or better mileage.
Anybody wanna call me out for BS again as if i were a noob claiming to have built the 400mpg carb?? i guess i have been gone for longer than i thought to get that kinda reaction. Note that my first post was to offer help, i was supporting the kid until the ignorance started to rear its head, I spoke against an uninformed and flat out wrong viewpoint, i dont expect to get called out for it. Ive been here a while now, and i feel that ive prooved myself already, just my two cents.
__________________
Chevrolet Camaro - I enjoy beating the hell out of people http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=68052 |
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
You want to have the edge then go with a 454, if you go with a 572 you will need to redo the firewall and the frame to support it. And the transmission
|
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
hey.. 89IROC, what car is that going into? one of your Camaros?
__________________
90 Camaro RS V6 - swapped to V8 -350 block, GM Vortec L31 Heads, Edelbrock Performer RPM Vortec intake, 750cfm carb, CompCams XE268 Camshaft ESTIMATED 360-420 hp 380-430lb/ft torque
|
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
wow see what happens when u wake up a sleeping giant...
__________________
![]() Quote:
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
and if you want to get a chill down your spine, you should hear an ls1 that has an slp loudmouth cat-back[/quote]
i know someone with 98 LS1 with midlength hedders, high flow cats and flowmaster-my LT1 sounds way louder and in my opinion better (midlength hedders, gutted cat, and flowmaster) |
|
#30
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: 572 vs. the 4 bangers!
yup, the IROC is the one being subjected to the mods including the 302, 8 speed 700R4, and all that jazz. (shes the red one in the sig pic)
__________________
Chevrolet Camaro - I enjoy beating the hell out of people http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=68052 |
|
![]() |
POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD |
![]() |
|
|