INTERNAL ENGINE MODIFICATIONS Valvetrain |Heads | Strokers | Design | Assembly

let me raddle your brain on this... plz help

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-28-2007, 12:07 PM
  #11  
On The Tree
Thread Starter
 
whitesilvy04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: DFW, Tx
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PappyDan
Lets see where your going with this.
your 4.8 head has a 61.15 cc chamber and 1.89/ 1.55 valves
with a piston size of 3,779 with a stroke of 3,270 to give you
A compression of 9.49.

your 243 ls1 heads come with a 66.67 cc chamber and 2.00/ 1.55 valves
to work with a piston size of 3,893 with a stroke of 3,622 to give it
A compression of 10.19.

now the 243 heads will flow better but you increased your
chamber size on a smaller piston and a smaller stroke
That will drop your compression down close to a 9.0 or even a 8.9.
their is no cam on this world that will make up the lost power
From the lower compression on your 4.8.
Now a turbo or a supercharger would love this kind of low compression.

the best way to go is to shave 0.20 or 0.30 off of your 4.8 heads to up
Compression from 9.49 to a close 10.0.
Then add your cam for more power.
Thanks for taking the time and helping me understand it better Pappydan
Old 09-28-2007, 12:21 PM
  #12  
Moderator
iTrader: (19)
 
TXsilverado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Humble Texas
Posts: 18,318
Received 226 Likes on 150 Posts
Default

wait....pappy made a mistake in his math. the chambers on 243 heads are 64.45cc not 66.67. 66.67 is the compression of a stock LS1 head. the compression will still be lower but not as bad as pappys math shows using the wrong chamber size.

Last edited by TXsilverado; 09-28-2007 at 12:37 PM.
Old 09-28-2007, 12:35 PM
  #13  
Tribe Shaman
iTrader: (4)
 
PappyDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

damn it, well i was not too far off from the top of my head.
243 is LS6 not LS1 guess i need to read that book again.
thanks stew for the correction.
Old 09-28-2007, 12:38 PM
  #14  
Moderator
iTrader: (19)
 
TXsilverado's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Humble Texas
Posts: 18,318
Received 226 Likes on 150 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by PappyDan
damn it, well i was not too far off from the top of my head.
243 is LS6 not LS1 guess i need to read that book again.
thanks stew for the correction.
could you look up what size chambers your book says the 243 head is. i think 64.45 is a rough estimate floating around the net.
Old 09-28-2007, 12:43 PM
  #15  
Tribe Shaman
iTrader: (4)
 
PappyDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

LS6 01-04 243 cast in/ex port 210/75 cc chamber size + gasket is 64.45 cc
from the book.
Old 09-28-2007, 01:59 PM
  #16  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
 
ap2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 6,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

damn yall got my brain fried with all those numbers!! I dont understand **** about cc and stuff...
Old 09-28-2007, 03:48 PM
  #17  
On The Tree
Thread Starter
 
whitesilvy04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: DFW, Tx
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

so what would the compression be then with the correction?
Old 09-28-2007, 04:33 PM
  #18  
Tribe Shaman
iTrader: (4)
 
PappyDan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,050
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

shaved down 0.30 will have it close to normal
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Go5.3tt06
Dynamometer Results & Comparisons
25
09-04-2016 10:25 AM
Mr. Chainsaw
FORCED INDUCTION
27
10-18-2015 08:00 PM
InsaneDomestics
Tuning, Diagnostics, Electronics, and Wiring
5
07-27-2015 02:42 PM
sleepersilverado
GMT 800 & Older GM General Discussion
7
04-04-2003 03:04 AM



Quick Reply: let me raddle your brain on this... plz help



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29 AM.