When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
You don't want to give up fuel mileage (because of increased costs, I presume), yet you'd pay a professional to fabricate a one-off, custom intake? Illogical, Spock.
Also, you can keep from "accelerating too fast" by modulating the throttle with, like, your right foot...and can avoid "spending more time in the higher RPM ranges" by the simple expedience of upshifting.
I fail to follow your line of reasoning. After all, your search for more low-end torque is to provide faster acceleration (which would put you in a state of higher rpm sooner, usually)....is it not??
Sir, you misquote me and you misunderstand my intentions. The goal is not "more acceleration". More torque can help accelerate the car a little bit to get it going from a stop but I never said it would compare to a 4.10 rear gear ratio. I am keeping my stock gear ratio as it is more than adequate for the daily driving I am doing and I wish to preserve my average fuel economy rating. Now, I did read the link about long tube headers and I will finally admit I stand corrected. However, I need them specially modified to produce the torque spike low enough where I need it and to produce a broad torque curve. I looked into the stroker kit and frankly it is dangerous and it runs the risk of wearing out the motor too fast, and idle will be a problem as well. I am stuck using a custom grind "RV" camshaft for this build. So, we are back to the intake. In theory, long runners increase low end torque which is what I want. In order to fit in my engine bay, a hypothetical FIRST TPI intake will have to likely have shortened runners from that of the L98 version. This may bump up RPM power production while losing some low end torque unless it can be designed to still perform true with shortened runners. I am still left with how to optimize my planned exhaust system using California catalytic converters with a true dual exhaust linked by an H-pipe.
I thank you all for your comments and having this discussion.
Last edited by Phoenix'97; 10-13-2017 at 06:09 PM.
Sir, you misquote me and you misunderstand my intentions. The goal is not "more acceleration". More torque can help accelerate the car a little bit to get it going from a stop but I never said it would compare to a 4.10 rear gear ratio. I am keeping my stock gear ratio as it is more than adequate for the daily driving I am doing and I wish to preserve my average fuel economy rating. Now, I did read the link about long tube headers and I will finally admit I stand corrected. However, I need them specially modified to produce the torque spike low enough where I need it and to produce a broad torque curve. I looked into the stroker kit and frankly it is dangerous and it runs the risk of wearing out the motor too fast, and idle will be a problem as well. I am stuck using a custom grind "RV" camshaft for this build. So, we are back to the intake. In theory, long runners increase low end torque which is what I want. In order to fit in my engine bay, a hypothetical FIRST TPI intake will have to likely have shortened runners from that of the L98 version. This may bump up RPM power production while losing some low end torque unless it can be designed to still perform true with shortened runners. I am still left with how to optimize my planned exhaust system using California catalytic converters with a true dual exhaust linked by an H-pipe.
I thank you all for your comments and having this discussion.
What happens if your new intake isn't a good fit for your cam, you gonna go do a custom grind anyway?
Sir, you misquote me and you misunderstand my intentions. The goal is not "more acceleration". More torque can help accelerate the car a little bit to get it going from a stop but I never said it would compare to a 4.10 rear gear ratio. I am keeping my stock gear ratio as it is more than adequate for the daily driving I am doing and I wish to preserve my average fuel economy rating. Now, I did read the link about long tube headers and I will finally admit I stand corrected. However, I need them specially modified to produce the torque spike low enough where I need it and to produce a broad torque curve. I looked into the stroker kit and frankly it is dangerous and it runs the risk of wearing out the motor too fast, and idle will be a problem as well. I am stuck using a custom grind "RV" camshaft for this build. So, we are back to the intake. In theory, long runners increase low end torque which is what I want. In order to fit in my engine bay, a hypothetical FIRST TPI intake will have to likely have shortened runners from that of the L98 version. This may bump up RPM power production while losing some low end torque unless it can be designed to still perform true with shortened runners. I am still left with how to optimize my planned exhaust system using California catalytic converters with a true dual exhaust linked by an H-pipe.
I thank you all for your comments and having this discussion.
^This is a disaster. At least you learned something though (about headers). After 4 pages, it's about time that you read and comprehended something. Sorry, but that's true too.
A stroker crank won't wear out your engine faster. In fact, it could help your engine last longer since it's can run at a lower RPM (don't need to down shift on hills!). Second, a stroker crank will not hurt idle one iota. Cuisinartvette already told you that and explained why....did you even read his post?? IDK where you came up with those gems...but they are totally WRONG. Totally wrong.
Do you realize that the "stroker crank" is essentially a small block chevy 400 crank...in a 350? So if GM sold "stroker cranks" (sbc 400's) in cars and trucks for a decade...how could they do that if the crank created wear and idle issues? They couldn't. The crank doesn't do that. That statement is dead wrong.
Longer runners contribute to low end tq but won't make the difference that you're looking for. Did you see the tq graph that I posted? The long runners help tq in the 3000 RPM range. I've said that like 3 or 4 times now in this thread. READ IT. COMPREHEND IT.
Finally, you can get long tube headers and they'll help...a little bit. Just like the intake. What you really need is a long collector but you can't have that in Cali w/catalytic converters.
What happens if your new intake isn't a good fit for your cam, you gonna go do a custom grind anyway?
This is what I need to find out before hand. It is hard to prove a hypothesis when no actual intake exists to verify what I think it will do with an appropriate custom grind "RV" camshaft. If GM engineers had experimented with long runners on the test versions of the LT1, I sure wish that data existed somewhere. I am under the strong impression that the LT1 was merely an experiment to test reverse flow cooling and the short runner intake while GM was focused on whether to carry on development of the LT5 or focus on the LS1. I finally found an article by an engineer explaining why the LS1 won out, but GM may crank out a new LT5 anyways for the new corvette. History does repeat itself oddly enough.
Op has heard or read bad info somewhere & doesnt want to let go of what sounds like some wivestails. These guys for pages have been trying to help you, they have done it aleady some numerous times not just read about it.
-some AFR heads are 50 state legal
-Dougs I believe makes a 50 state legal shortie
-Cams doesnt matter just dont go big on overlap or duration
-Car would idle like a kitten and pull hard;gains will be huge
So you drop a mpg or 2 big deal.
^This is a disaster. At least you learned something though (about headers). After 4 pages, it's about time that you read and comprehended something. Sorry, but that's true too.
A stroker crank won't wear out your engine faster. In fact, it could help your engine last longer since it's can run at a lower RPM (don't need to down shift on hills!). Second, a stroker crank will not hurt idle one iota. Cuisinartvette already told you that and explained why....did you even read his post?? IDK where you came up with those gems...but they are totally WRONG. Totally wrong.
Do you realize that the "stroker crank" is essentially a small block chevy 400 crank...in a 350? So if GM sold "stroker cranks" (sbc 400's) in cars and trucks for a decade...how could they do that if the crank created wear and idle issues? They couldn't. The crank doesn't do that. That statement is dead wrong..
Quote: " Obvious dangers come with the smaller tolerances introduced with a longer stroke. Although the precautions mentioned earlier can be undertaken, the risk of collisions within the engine are inherently increased. A common issue is the crank journals contacting oil rails lying between the crankshaft and the oil pan. To counteract this, many stroker kits will provide modified sumps/pans to allow for a smidgen more clearance."
This is going to incur more money to get the kit to work right on my car...
Originally Posted by Tom400CFI
^Longer runners contribute to low end tq but won't make the difference that you're looking for. Did you see the tq graph that I posted? The long runners help tq in the 3000 RPM range. I've said that like 3 or 4 times now in this thread. READ IT. COMPREHEND IT.
Yeah but do you also notice the spike in torque to 3000 RPM before it drops for the L98? If this behavior holds true for the LT1, the LT1 stands to gain a hefty torque curve at the RPM ranges I am driving in! Shift that L98 torque curve up to where the LT1 starts and you will see how this intake is perfect for my driving and RPM range. Even when it would start to drop off at 3000 RPM, it is still higher than the stock LT1, assuming the same behavior holds true for the LT1 TPI set-up.
Originally Posted by Tom400CFI
^Finally, you can get long tube headers and they'll help...a little bit. Just like the intake. What you really need is a long collector but you can't have that in Cali w/catalytic converters.
I need to talk to the shop and an engine builder on how best to manage the exhaust flow from my set-up. Yes, the correct length and diameter and collector size long tube header will help a little in torque production for my RPM range and the TPI style intake shall make it's small contribution. The goal here is to optimize my LT1 for torque production at the low end, so the intake and header combination may be necessary for what I am trying to achieve.
Op has heard or read bad info somewhere & doesnt want to let go of what sounds like some wivestails. These guys for pages have been trying to help you, they have done it aleady some numerous times not just read about it.
-some AFR heads are 50 state legal
-Dougs I believe makes a 50 state legal shortie
-Cams doesnt matter just dont go big on overlap or duration
-Car would idle like a kitten and pull hard;gains will be huge
So you drop a mpg or 2 big deal.
We are sifting through proposals and studying them as we go. This topic is very irritating for many people so forgive me. This project of mine is a couple of YEARS away! Funding for it will be in the form of a personal car loan after I have paid off my student loan for college, which I am still attending! I have plenty of time to figure out if I should also fund this intake for the LT1 or not and assuming if the company can and is willing to make it for me.
Is it just me...or is this a '98^, LS1 Trans Am?? I've never seen that hood on a '97 or earlier car...
EDIT: Someone must have put on a later hood. Fenders and bumper look like '97..
What you are seeing is an actual LT1 1997 Trans Am WS6 with an aftermarket LS1 styled Trans Am WS6 hood. I bought this in 2006 when I was a lowly furniture delivery guy for my then 1997 automatic Firebird 6-cylinder. The hood would later go into storage and I upgraded to the V-8 LT1, but the hood would not work with my factory ram air box! The fiberglass piece of junk that was made for this hood was nothing more than a rain collector so I had to put the hood back into storage until the day came when my factory air box started to peel apart allowing outside unfiltered air into the motor. I have since replaced my factory LT1 ram air box with a Camaro LS1 factory air box. This required me to cut up the hood from inside and fabricate it "poor man style" to duct the air into the small inlet. This is far more better than my factory LT1 air box and my mileage actually improved!
Quote: " Obvious dangers come with the smaller tolerances introduced with a longer stroke. Although the precautions mentioned earlier can be undertaken, the risk of collisions within the engine are inherently increased. A common issue is the crank journals contacting oil rails lying between the crankshaft and the oil pan. To counteract this, many stroker kits will provide modified sumps/pans to allow for a smidgen more clearance."
This is going to incur more money to get the kit to work right on my car...
This "problem" is extremely easily delt with...and for FAR less money than you're proposed intake.
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97
Yeah but do you also notice the spike in torque to 3000 RPM before it drops for the L98? If this behavior holds true for the LT1, the LT1 stands to gain a hefty torque curve at the RPM ranges I am driving in! Shift that L98 torque curve up to where the LT1 starts and you will see how this intake is perfect for my driving and RPM range. Even when it would start to drop off at 3000 RPM, it is still higher than the stock LT1, assuming the same behavior holds true for the LT1 TPI set-up.
Whoa whoa WHOA! Now, earlier, you (incorrectly) said that you didn't want a stroker crank b/c it only helped in the mid range. You said that you wanted to improve LOW end tq...not just mid range.
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97
The car spends most of it's time at 1000 to 3000 RPM which is where she cruises and shifts. My complaint is high way cruising when I enter a steep incline, the car starts slowing down indicating to me that it requires more low end torque. I don't need mid-range torque as in a stroker because I am not driving most of my time beyond 3000 RPM, where it would make a difference!
As I said earlier ^That is incorrect; the stroker will increase tq at ALL RPM. It's a longer lever arm. Conversely, the intake will only help from about 2600 RPM to about 3600 RPM. Anyway, you went on to clarify just how important LOW RPM tq is to you...
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97
I can't take a loss on the bottom end to gain mid-range power when really I need to bump up the bottom end torque...As I said, I am trying to squeeze out as much low end torque as I possibly can. This car is going to remain pretty much stock with the exception of building the motor to have low end torque
So which is it? Are you looking do drive around from idle to 3000 RPM? Or are you going to drive around at 3200 RPM all day/everyday, reveling in the TOWQAK MONSTAH TPI intake's narrow RPM range "glory", from ~2600-3500...
I think what you really need is a nice little diesel in there. I'm not kidding.
This "problem" is extremely easily delt with...and for FAR less money than you're proposed intake.
Could you elaborate then? What would I need to configure my LT1 safely and cheaply as you so ardently claim? You have plenty of jokes but where is that configuration?
Originally Posted by Tom400CFI
Whoa whoa WHOA! Now, earlier, you (incorrectly) said that you didn't want a stroker crank b/c it only helped in the mid range. You said that you wanted to improve LOW end tq...not just mid range.
As I said earlier ^That is incorrect; the stroker will increase tq at ALL RPM. It's a longer lever arm. Conversely, the intake will only help from about 2600 RPM to about 3600 RPM. Anyway, later you went on to clarify just how important LOW RPM tq is to you...
So which is it? Are you looking do drive around from idle to 3000 RPM? Or are you going to drive around at 3200 RPM all day/everyday, reveling in the TOWQAK MONSTAH TPI intake's narrow RPM range "glory", from ~2600-3500...
Do you understand what daily driving entails or shall I safely assume you are high revving everywhere you go from point A to point B? You have jokes but where is your configuration for me? The car needs to get up and go from stop and go traffic, hence why I see the value in a mild "RV" camshaft customized for better performance over something on a store shelf. The TPI intake serves the RPM range I will be driving my car in from idle to aggressive at most 5000 RPM. Why is this so funny?
Originally Posted by Tom400CFI
I think what you really need is a nice little diesel in there. I'm not kidding.
Are you going to offer meaningful suggestions and technical information or are you just going to trash talk for a lack of anything worthwhile to contribute? I don't want a race car and I don't want a high performance high horsepower car. I am building a daily driver with the goal of maximizing torque on the bottom end to mid range. What solutions do you have?
Could you elaborate then? What would I need to configure my LT1 safely and cheaply as you so ardently claim? You have plenty of jokes but where is that configuration?
You can clearance the block w/a die grinder
You can use different connecting rods that have a smaller "big end" (while being stronger) and eliminate the clearance issue altogether.
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97
Do you understand what daily driving entails or shall I safely assume you are high revving everywhere you go from point A to point B? You have jokes but where is your configuration for me?
I've given you my opinion for a configuration. Pages ago. A STROKER CRANK. I wouldn't change the cam, the intake, the shorty headers that you have. None of it. I'd spend <$1000 on a "Stroker rotating assembly", I'd install it in my engine, and I'd go burn some rubber and love the "push me back in the seat/whiplash" experience that it would provide. From idle to 3000 RPM (and beyond). I'd love the 25+ mpg on the highway, and I'd use the money that I saved by NOT buying a custom intake, to buy ****-box 4 cylinder beater for my city driving. There is my "configuration". For like the what, 4th? 5th time in this thread?
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97
The car needs to get up and go from stop and go traffic, hence why I see the value in a mild "RV" camshaft customized for better performance over something on a store shelf. The TPI intake serves the RPM range I will be driving my car in from idle to aggressive at most 5000 RPM. Why is this so funny?
Because it's so wrong, and you're SO SLOW to "get it". The TPI DOES NOT serve the RPM range you will be driving your car in...oh wait! You just moved you're claimed "RPM RANGE in which you drive", up to 5000?? We can't help you with moving targets. I asked above. What do you want?
What ever it is, the TPI intake isn't going to help from idle to ~2600 RPM. Look at the graphs. LOOK at them.
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97
I am building a daily driver with the goal of maximizing torque on the bottom end to mid range. What solutions do you have?
STROKER CRANK.
Or a diesel. That is not trash talk. A diesel will provide WAY more tq from idle to mid range, than any intake ever would or could. Literally a what you're describing is a diesel.
Finally...I have given you TONS of good information in this thread. Are you f'n kidding us here? I've posted graphs, links, articles....all to back up, just to convince you or 'prove to you' that which I already know. Then you have the gall to come on here and bust MY ***** with;
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97
Are you going to offer meaningful suggestions and technical information or are you just going to trash talk for a lack of anything worthwhile to contribute?
Yes I have the gall, insults don't get anyone anywhere especially when this is an honest question. Now that I have your configuration with regards to the stroker kit, I will have to research it some more on my own time. We are done talking about the intake. I need more technical information on exactly why it would be of no use for my application. Thank you. This thread should be locked down now.
2020 Corvette of the Year Finalist (appearance mods)
C4 of Year Winner (appearance mods) 2019
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97
Sir, you misquote me and you misunderstand my intentions. The goal is not "more acceleration". More torque can help accelerate the car a little bit to get it going from a stop but I never said it would compare to a 4.10 rear gear ratio. I am keeping my stock gear ratio as it is more than adequate for the daily driving I am doing and I wish to preserve my average fuel economy rating. Now, I did read the link about long tube headers and I will finally admit I stand corrected. However, I need them specially modified to produce the torque spike low enough where I need it and to produce a broad torque curve. I looked into the stroker kit and frankly it is dangerous and it runs the risk of wearing out the motor too fast, and idle will be a problem as well. I am stuck using a custom grind "RV" camshaft for this build. So, we are back to the intake. In theory, long runners increase low end torque which is what I want. In order to fit in my engine bay, a hypothetical FIRST TPI intake will have to likely have shortened runners from that of the L98 version. This may bump up RPM power production while losing some low end torque unless it can be designed to still perform true with shortened runners. I am still left with how to optimize my planned exhaust system using California catalytic converters with a true dual exhaust linked by an H-pipe.
I thank you all for your comments and having this discussion.
The goal is not more acceleration. THE GOAL IS NOT MORE ACCELERATION. WTF?
Dude...you are now hearing from one of this forum's "original" torque-wanna-be's. I built a stroker still using a longtube setup BECAUSE I wanted more power, wanted better power in 3rd, and I didn't want to lose much MPGs...when not nailing it. To say the goal is not better acceleration (even in that narrow sub 3k rpm range you're talking about) is FOOLING yourself.
You want a more fun TOY without hurting it's MPG. Listen...technology has been chasing that for several generations...and made some headway with the LTx (vs L98), then the LSx motors, now newer ones with direct injection. Your problem is you can't afford to upgrade AND you live in Californicatia. You get to look at a higher average of big ***** but you don't get to alter what's under your right foot....at least not without staying "clean". And, there's some good reasons for people feeling that way.
I see some of the thinking I started out with...in the way you present arguments AND what you hope to gain. My VERY FIRST PM in this forum stated I was searching for reasonable cost power gains in the idle-4500rpm range. MOST of the reason for that is I'm an urban driver and KNOW that revving beyond that attracts attention and tickets. Also, that a short burst pretty much accomplishes any functional traffic maneuvers you need. But...there IS irony in looking to SPEND money for more torque w/o wanting to spend it under your right foot. There IS flaw in your thinking!!!
Consider alternatives to wake yourself up: How would you feel if you had a 454 under the hood? How would you feel if you had a 3.0L direct injection with more torque and better mileage? What if it was a 6-cylinder and didn't SOUND like a V8?
From 2007 to 2010, I lived in this forum and learned A LOT from it. There were a few (very knowledgeable) guys that gave me a hard time and deservedly so. Answers to your questions aren't necessarily black and white. What you read about strokers is "theory". Longer stroke motors can have more clearance and side-loading issues BUT built correctly, they can live as long (or longer) than your OEM setup. AND...they make more power everywhere.
While it's true that long-runner intakes make more TORQUE in a specific HARMONIC range, they don't make more power. Lower gears have more torque multiplication which makes even MORE "power" than a long-runner setup. With YOUR worries about clearance, I think gears ARE your best option. And the mpg's aren't going to be THAT much worse...as a result of final drive ratios. Plus, MOST people don't know that a long-runner intake has someone worse "tip-in" and doesn't move air quite as quickly. In short, it's somewhat less responsive off-idle because it doesn't have to MOVE a long column of air. Air has weight AND it comes into play with intake dynamics.
The REASON you THINK you want a longrunner intake is that shorter RPM "distance" before you hit the peak harmonic of the pressure in the intake. There's a MILD compression of air that gets more IN the motor at the specific harmonic peak of the intake. (BTW...any intake has a peak point...and you are correct that a long-runner setup peaks earlier). Besides not knowing long-runners are less responsive off-idle, they create negative pressure at higher rpms. They HOLD BACK pistons and put pressure on the piston's/wrist pins. If/when you do need more power (not torque), there's some theoretical "wear" created by the limitation of that top-end-inhibiting (TPI) intake.
So get OFF the notion that stroking isn't going to help. Built correctly with 6" rods and a smaller ring set (than you currently have), you'd likely end up with less wear than you're getting now. (That's assuming they weren't running 3mm rings by '97...which I don't know.)
If you have a custom FFI intake built by Ken, you'd be better off with a cam AND headers. If you are going to tear it apart for a cam, stroking is almost a waste NOT to do while it's apart. I didn't see your currently mileage but you'd be starting over...as a new motor. SUBTRACT your current mileage from what you HOPE to get out of the car you have now. Ask owners of strokers in any forum and see what they are getting from their setups. I found several members in THIS forum well beyond 100k miles on a well-built setup. Not that many have talked about 200k miles but that's true for factory cars...and the difference is attributable in the ratio of each (stroker vs 350) out there.
Now...back to the REAL issue. You should not be building a motor with the intent to retain mileage and/or NOT spend more money. Either spend it, run it, and enjoy it, or quit whining about that part. FWIW, I'm getting about 15mpg city and 28mpg hwy with a 383. At most, I lost 10% .... BUT .... I've NEVER tried to get maximum MPG for comparison. It's TOO EASY to jump on the power of a stroker vs the original motor! It's TOO EASY NOT to enjoy the extra power/torque you get...no matter where you put it.
ICE's are inherently inefficient anyway. More compression typically results in better mileage. That's probably why I can get the same (or near the same) MPG even with 100rwtq/100rwhp more than I had before. When I'm not "asking" for it, the car is still using the same amount of power: Getting to speed AND staying at speed ... as it took before. This point was presented to you already (though in slightly different words).
With a longtube "big-mouth" stroker setup, I have about all the torque I can use. In 1st/2nd, I have MORE than I need. Waaaay more. In YOUR eyes, you THINK you need more torque for daily driving but I had way more torque (in terms of traction) in 1st/2nd BEFORE my build. What you can gain is responsiveness/torque in 3rd gear on up.
In EVERYONE'S driving technique, 3rd gear is a hwy passing gear. You don't NEED more torque for daily urban driving. If you don't need more acceleration, it SOUNDS like you want the damn thing to be more responsive and that's about it.
With a 6-spd, I'd think you have all that you can get.....especially since revving the motor before dropping the clutch controls HOW MUCH responsiveness you get here/there. The ONLY thing left if how responsive it is when you are motoring along and press the pedal.
People have already said AND I WILL ADD that gears will provide more noticeable TORQUE than an intake targeted to specific rpms. Gears work in all rpms. PLUS, gears aren't going to be ANY risk in the California regime. Anything else is going to have risk, require LOTS more money than you think and (potentionally) require rework until you finally THINK you have it right. My guess is...if/when that time comes, you'll wish you'd built the stroker...or bought a newer car...or installed gears.
Modification isn't about improving the efficiency of an ICE....at least not with what you've posted here. Just wake up and realize you do want better acceleration. You're not looking for efficiency and the responsiveness of your right pinky toe.
Well good f'n luck then. I'm sorry that I wasted my valuable timing with you. I wonder why things didn't work out for you on that other forum? Can't you YOU, right?
Originally Posted by Phoenix'97
This thread should be locked down now.
First intelligent thing you've published on this forum.
OP... now that the real identity of the car has been released days later I'm wondering if you looked in to the Tram? Will that fit? I'm not familiar with F bodies, plus I once bought an intake from a guy on here that claimed it fit and I ended up cutting my hood, so who knows until they try it.
Last edited by pologreen1; 10-14-2017 at 01:13 AM.
Modification isn't about improving the efficiency of an ICE....at least not with what you've posted here. Just wake up and realize you do want better acceleration. You're not looking for efficiency and the responsiveness of your right pinky toe.
First off, thank you for your response. Second, I don't have a problem with my driving foot, that was when I had a 6-cylinder Firebird trying to show off for a lack of a powerful motor and I learned a lot by spinning out in traffic from loss of traction on the rear tires in that car. I got my V-8 and I soon gained a respect for the motor. After being an 18-wheeler truck driver, my driving has since tamed even more further. I have no desire to swap out rear gears when I am happy with the current acceleration of my car for the daily driving I encounter. With this said, I want more lower end torque without screwing with the gearing on my car too much and if anything, I would go higher in gear not lower, I would take better cruising performance over more acceleration at higher RPMs!
So, if I have a choice on what camshaft to use with a stroker kit, what problems do I get into by choosing a very mild camshaft as opposed to one that should be larger for the stroker kit? As per the website, quote, "Strokers increase the displacement of an engine which in turn makes the cam act smaller."
I am really having a bad feeling that the stroker kit is NOT what I am looking for.
Last edited by Phoenix'97; 10-14-2017 at 08:10 AM.
First off, thank you for your response. Second, I don't have a problem with my driving foot, that was when I had a 6-cylinder Firebird trying to show off for a lack of a powerful motor and I learned a lot by spinning out in traffic from loss of traction on the rear tires in that car. I got my V-8 and I soon gained a respect for the motor. After being an 18-wheeler truck driver, my driving has since tamed even more further. I have no desire to swap out rear gears when I am happy with the current acceleration of my car for the daily driving I encounter. With this said, I want more lower end torque without screwing with the gearing on my car too much and if anything, I would go higher in gear not lower, I would take better cruising performance over more acceleration at higher RPMs!
So, if I have a choice on what camshaft to use with a stroker kit, what problems do I get into by choosing a very mild camshaft as opposed to one that should be larger for the stroker kit? As per the website, quote, "Strokers increase the displacement of an engine which in turn makes the cam act smaller."
I am really having a bad feeling that the stroker kit is NOT what I am looking for.
maybe because you don't know what you are looking for...
A supercharger might do the trick. And you wouldn't be giving up the LT1s higher rpm potential. The only issue is Kaliforny compliance. But, done right, engineered right, emissions could be contained to spec. The question is what will CARB allow? Just a thought...
10-13-2017, 06:07 PM
