409 ls2?
Melting Slicks
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,356
Likes: 1
From: Chesapeake Va
You're chasing your tail looking for that special crank to yield you the desired 409 ci. First I don't think you can bore the LS2 to 4.068 dia. There sleves don't have enough thickness. The standard approch before the LS3 block (L92) was to stroke the LS2 with a 4.00 crank for 402 inches. On the other hand, I took an LS3 block and stroked it with a 4.100 crank for a total displacment of 427 ci. Question, why are you stuck on having a 409 ci ????. Secondly, do you have any idea of how much $ a custom crank would be to yield you the 409 inches???.
Thread Starter
Somba master
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 10,554
Likes: 63
Cruise-In 7, 9 & 12 Veteran
Wounded Warrior Escort '11
St. Jude Donor '07-'08-'09-'10-'11
Guys, this is a thought experiment of mine. I've heard about 402, 408, 412, 416, 427 possibilities.
I know new Darton liners could be bored to over 4.10 or so, and with the 4.00"stroker crank, I can get 427ci. That's a well known quantity.
But, since my knowlege of engine building is just north of zero, I thought maybe I'd see if a 409 was doable. With you guys' input I'm seeing how this is an orange zebra.
I get lots of stupid ideas, every once in awhile one ain't so stupid.
Lots of 427 'C6 'vettes out there now, and they're great. The sound of a 409 'vette is cool, though. Especially when you have no idea what it would take to get there.
Again, thanks for the information!
GM
I know new Darton liners could be bored to over 4.10 or so, and with the 4.00"stroker crank, I can get 427ci. That's a well known quantity.
But, since my knowlege of engine building is just north of zero, I thought maybe I'd see if a 409 was doable. With you guys' input I'm seeing how this is an orange zebra.
I get lots of stupid ideas, every once in awhile one ain't so stupid.
Lots of 427 'C6 'vettes out there now, and they're great. The sound of a 409 'vette is cool, though. Especially when you have no idea what it would take to get there.
Again, thanks for the information!
GM
Racer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
From: Lynchburg VA
St. Jude Donor '11
I guess the real issue is what is the most economical approach if you own a LS2 and are interested in stroking it. I recently had a tuner tell me the LS3 block would only go out 416 and that was close enough to 427. I'm not sure if he did not know it would go to 427 or it was more econimical to go out only to 416.
I would also be curious to know how much of the LS2 engine could be used on a stroker project. It's obvious if you select the LS3 block path to a stroker, the block is not usable LOL. I wonder if the FAST Intake Manifold I have on my LS2 would work on the LS3 stroker. Will the Kooks headers still fit the LS3 stroker. I'm pretty sure I would have to buy new heads since I am running stock LS2 heads right now. I do have a 228/232 @112 LSA cam. I wonder if I could reuse the cam in a LS3 stroker? I would expect my Callaway Honker CAI and UD Pulley would also be usable on a LS3 stroker project??
I just modded my LS2, but I am thinking about the next mod already. Reading all the post, it appears that stroking the LS3 or LS2 is the most economical approach to boosting the lower end torque. That's the area where my car suffers the most right now. If I had it to do over again, I would have probably stroked the engine from the get go!
I have $4100 tied up in my current engine mods (Parts only). I wonder how much of the parts could be used on a stroker project?
Maybe next time I will drive that extra 1 1/2 hour or so and come see Ed about a 427 stroker project. It sounds like he knows what he is talking about.
I would also be curious to know how much of the LS2 engine could be used on a stroker project. It's obvious if you select the LS3 block path to a stroker, the block is not usable LOL. I wonder if the FAST Intake Manifold I have on my LS2 would work on the LS3 stroker. Will the Kooks headers still fit the LS3 stroker. I'm pretty sure I would have to buy new heads since I am running stock LS2 heads right now. I do have a 228/232 @112 LSA cam. I wonder if I could reuse the cam in a LS3 stroker? I would expect my Callaway Honker CAI and UD Pulley would also be usable on a LS3 stroker project??
I just modded my LS2, but I am thinking about the next mod already. Reading all the post, it appears that stroking the LS3 or LS2 is the most economical approach to boosting the lower end torque. That's the area where my car suffers the most right now. If I had it to do over again, I would have probably stroked the engine from the get go!
I have $4100 tied up in my current engine mods (Parts only). I wonder how much of the parts could be used on a stroker project?
Maybe next time I will drive that extra 1 1/2 hour or so and come see Ed about a 427 stroker project. It sounds like he knows what he is talking about.
Drifting
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,651
Likes: 125
From: laguna niguel ca
I guess the real issue is what is the most economical approach if you own a LS2 and are interested in stroking it. I recently had a tuner tell me the LS3 block would only go out 416 and that was close enough to 427. I'm not sure if he did not know it would go to 427 or it was more econimical to go out only to 416.
I would also be curious to know how much of the LS2 engine could be used on a stroker project. It's obvious if you select the LS3 block path to a stroker, the block is not usable LOL. I wonder if the FAST Intake Manifold I have on my LS2 would work on the LS3 stroker. Will the Kooks headers still fit the LS3 stroker. I'm pretty sure I would have to buy new heads since I am running stock LS2 heads right now. I do have a 228/232 @112 LSA cam. I wonder if I could reuse the cam in a LS3 stroker? I would expect my Callaway Honker CAI and UD Pulley would also be usable on a LS3 stroker project??
I just modded my LS2, but I am thinking about the next mod already. Reading all the post, it appears that stroking the LS3 or LS2 is the most economical approach to boosting the lower end torque. That's the area where my car suffers the most right now. If I had it to do over again, I would have probably stroked the engine from the get go!
I have $4100 tied up in my current engine mods (Parts only). I wonder how much of the parts could be used on a stroker project?
Maybe next time I will drive that extra 1 1/2 hour or so and come see Ed about a 427 stroker project. It sounds like he knows what he is talking about.
I would also be curious to know how much of the LS2 engine could be used on a stroker project. It's obvious if you select the LS3 block path to a stroker, the block is not usable LOL. I wonder if the FAST Intake Manifold I have on my LS2 would work on the LS3 stroker. Will the Kooks headers still fit the LS3 stroker. I'm pretty sure I would have to buy new heads since I am running stock LS2 heads right now. I do have a 228/232 @112 LSA cam. I wonder if I could reuse the cam in a LS3 stroker? I would expect my Callaway Honker CAI and UD Pulley would also be usable on a LS3 stroker project??
I just modded my LS2, but I am thinking about the next mod already. Reading all the post, it appears that stroking the LS3 or LS2 is the most economical approach to boosting the lower end torque. That's the area where my car suffers the most right now. If I had it to do over again, I would have probably stroked the engine from the get go!
I have $4100 tied up in my current engine mods (Parts only). I wonder how much of the parts could be used on a stroker project?
Maybe next time I will drive that extra 1 1/2 hour or so and come see Ed about a 427 stroker project. It sounds like he knows what he is talking about.
Last edited by andreas g.; Nov 15, 2007 at 03:08 PM.
Melting Slicks
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,356
Likes: 1
From: Chesapeake Va
I guess the real issue is what is the most economical approach if you own a LS2 and are interested in stroking it. I recently had a tuner tell me the LS3 block would only go out 416 and that was close enough to 427. I'm not sure if he did not know it would go to 427 or it was more econimical to go out only to 416.
I would also be curious to know how much of the LS2 engine could be used on a stroker project. It's obvious if you select the LS3 block path to a stroker, the block is not usable LOL. I wonder if the FAST Intake Manifold I have on my LS2 would work on the LS3 stroker. Will the Kooks headers still fit the LS3 stroker. I'm pretty sure I would have to buy new heads since I am running stock LS2 heads right now. I do have a 228/232 @112 LSA cam. I wonder if I could reuse the cam in a LS3 stroker? I would expect my Callaway Honker CAI and UD Pulley would also be usable on a LS3 stroker project??
I just modded my LS2, but I am thinking about the next mod already. Reading all the post, it appears that stroking the LS3 or LS2 is the most economical approach to boosting the lower end torque. That's the area where my car suffers the most right now. If I had it to do over again, I would have probably stroked the engine from the get go!
I have $4100 tied up in my current engine mods (Parts only). I wonder how much of the parts could be used on a stroker project?
Maybe next time I will drive that extra 1 1/2 hour or so and come see Ed about a 427 stroker project. It sounds like he knows what he is talking about.
I would also be curious to know how much of the LS2 engine could be used on a stroker project. It's obvious if you select the LS3 block path to a stroker, the block is not usable LOL. I wonder if the FAST Intake Manifold I have on my LS2 would work on the LS3 stroker. Will the Kooks headers still fit the LS3 stroker. I'm pretty sure I would have to buy new heads since I am running stock LS2 heads right now. I do have a 228/232 @112 LSA cam. I wonder if I could reuse the cam in a LS3 stroker? I would expect my Callaway Honker CAI and UD Pulley would also be usable on a LS3 stroker project??
I just modded my LS2, but I am thinking about the next mod already. Reading all the post, it appears that stroking the LS3 or LS2 is the most economical approach to boosting the lower end torque. That's the area where my car suffers the most right now. If I had it to do over again, I would have probably stroked the engine from the get go!
I have $4100 tied up in my current engine mods (Parts only). I wonder how much of the parts could be used on a stroker project?
Maybe next time I will drive that extra 1 1/2 hour or so and come see Ed about a 427 stroker project. It sounds like he knows what he is talking about.
You FAST 90 would work.
Aftermarket heads would be your best bet. Or 4 in bore LS7s, or L92s, the last two requiring a new intake, which would mean you would have to give up your FAST.
PS, I too would recommend just stoking your motor. Much more economical that way.
Race Director
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 12,375
Likes: 406
From: Florida
With slightly lower compression, you have more room to tune aggressively. And for the most part you can tune around the SLIGHTLY LOWER compression. And the IATs dont exactly skyrocket. got a couple maggie graphs for ya.
First one is a 6.0, stock compression, 8.5 lbs of boost. Limited amount of timing. Now, I tune with a 5 gas, monitoring NOX, so I know when we're getting pretty hot, as far as combustion temps. Because of the comp, and the hypereutectic pistons, I'm limited to how aggressive I can tune this thing. Still pretty respectable #s.
-------------
This one, is a 6.0 with 9.5 comp, so almost a full point lower. higher boost, peaks at 12.3. Forged pistons. More aggressive tune.
Comparing the two, instead of just looking at the peak numbers, look at the torque at 2500, and the tq and hp curves. The second graph has a much broader curve, due to higher boost combined with a more aggressive tune, all in conjunction with lower compression. Again, almost a full point.
First one is a 6.0, stock compression, 8.5 lbs of boost. Limited amount of timing. Now, I tune with a 5 gas, monitoring NOX, so I know when we're getting pretty hot, as far as combustion temps. Because of the comp, and the hypereutectic pistons, I'm limited to how aggressive I can tune this thing. Still pretty respectable #s.
-------------
This one, is a 6.0 with 9.5 comp, so almost a full point lower. higher boost, peaks at 12.3. Forged pistons. More aggressive tune.
Comparing the two, instead of just looking at the peak numbers, look at the torque at 2500, and the tq and hp curves. The second graph has a much broader curve, due to higher boost combined with a more aggressive tune, all in conjunction with lower compression. Again, almost a full point.
Thanks for sharing.
Tech Contributor
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,094
Likes: 197
From: Colorado Springs, CO
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11
Sorry for the hijack again Gary.
To both you guys, I understand the limited displacement of a maggie. I'm not talking abourt running 8.5 or 9 to one. With slightly lower compression, you have more room to tune aggressively. And for the most part you can tune around the SLIGHTLY LOWER compression. And the IATs dont exactly skyrocket. got a couple maggie graphs for ya.
First one is a 6.0, stock compression, 8.5 lbs of boost. Limited amount of timing. Now, I tune with a 5 gas, monitoring NOX, so I know when we're getting pretty hot, as far as combustion temps. Because of the comp, and the hypereutectic pistons, I'm limited to how aggressive I can tune this thing. Still pretty respectable #s.
This one, is a 6.0 with 9.5 comp, so almost a full point lower. higher boost, peaks at 12.3. Forged pistons. More aggressive tune. The HP fall off is due to either belt slip, or loss of efficiency, we'll find out Monday.
My point being that with slightly lower compression, you are afforded the benefit of being able to be more aggressive with the tune.
Both cars were 112s. With a larger motor, of course you'd wanna run a 122. So, even with a maggie, you can benefit from dropping the comp some. I wouldnt have dropped this on to 9.5, but the results werent bad. The mad torque numbers are due to primarily being able to tune it more aggressively in that range. Even with the increased boost, the IATs arent much over that of a normal boost app. The start to climb @ idle, but all of them do. When you crack the throttle, even just a little, they come right back down instantly.
Comparing the two, instead of just looking at the peak numbers, look at the torque at 2500, and the tq and hp curves. The second graph has a much broader curve, due to higher boost combined with a more aggressive tune, all in conjunction with lower compression. Again, almost a full point.
This is as close as I could come to an apples to apples comparison. If the boost were exactly the same in both cases, only dif being compression, I'm sure the power dif would be closer, but still, the lower comp engine could most likely be tuned to more than make up for the lower compression, negating any benefit of running higher comp.
To both you guys, I understand the limited displacement of a maggie. I'm not talking abourt running 8.5 or 9 to one. With slightly lower compression, you have more room to tune aggressively. And for the most part you can tune around the SLIGHTLY LOWER compression. And the IATs dont exactly skyrocket. got a couple maggie graphs for ya.
First one is a 6.0, stock compression, 8.5 lbs of boost. Limited amount of timing. Now, I tune with a 5 gas, monitoring NOX, so I know when we're getting pretty hot, as far as combustion temps. Because of the comp, and the hypereutectic pistons, I'm limited to how aggressive I can tune this thing. Still pretty respectable #s.
This one, is a 6.0 with 9.5 comp, so almost a full point lower. higher boost, peaks at 12.3. Forged pistons. More aggressive tune. The HP fall off is due to either belt slip, or loss of efficiency, we'll find out Monday.
My point being that with slightly lower compression, you are afforded the benefit of being able to be more aggressive with the tune.
Both cars were 112s. With a larger motor, of course you'd wanna run a 122. So, even with a maggie, you can benefit from dropping the comp some. I wouldnt have dropped this on to 9.5, but the results werent bad. The mad torque numbers are due to primarily being able to tune it more aggressively in that range. Even with the increased boost, the IATs arent much over that of a normal boost app. The start to climb @ idle, but all of them do. When you crack the throttle, even just a little, they come right back down instantly.
Comparing the two, instead of just looking at the peak numbers, look at the torque at 2500, and the tq and hp curves. The second graph has a much broader curve, due to higher boost combined with a more aggressive tune, all in conjunction with lower compression. Again, almost a full point.
This is as close as I could come to an apples to apples comparison. If the boost were exactly the same in both cases, only dif being compression, I'm sure the power dif would be closer, but still, the lower comp engine could most likely be tuned to more than make up for the lower compression, negating any benefit of running higher comp.
People arent so willing to lower compression as I am. With the stock gaskets on the L92's and a 6 liter displacement, I would end up at or near 10.4:1 at best. The use of the mag on a stock motor is appealing to people that dont want to touch an otherwise stock motor. I would do what the install calls for.
Any word on when the LS3 mag is going to hit the public?
Thansk for sharing Ed.
Tech Contributor
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,094
Likes: 197
From: Colorado Springs, CO
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11
Comp stated they had the L92 completed and were testing its gains on the dyno while they were at SEMA. They claimed a year end release. Hopefully, it will end the L92 head vs. cathedral port head debate. Having seen the gains going to a ported L76 manifold for the L92 heads on my car I am sure it will better the performance at least as well as the old FAST did for cathedral heads.
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvette Engines RANKED by Peak Torque (70+ Years of Muscle!)
Joe Kucinski
Corvette ZR1X Will Be Pacing the Indy 500, And Could Probably Race, Too!
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvettes Coming to Mecum Indy 2026!
Brett Foote
Top 10 C9 Corvette MUST-HAVES to Fix These C8 Generation Flaws!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Revolutionary 'Corvette Firsts' Most People Don't Know
Joe Kucinski
5 Reasons to Upgrade to an LS6-Powered Corvette; 5 Reasons to Stay LT2
Michael S. Palmer
2027 Corvette vs The World: Every C8 vs Its Closest Competitor
Joe Kucinski
10 Most Common Corvette Problems of the Last 20 Years!
Joe Kucinski
Melting Slicks
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,356
Likes: 1
From: Chesapeake Va
Actually its 1.4 lower than stock at 9.5 but I'm sold on what you are saying. One thing no one would argue is that why run the compression with that insane level of low end TQ? If anyone has felt 30 or so increase at 4k rpm's I have no comprehension of what 500rwtq feelslike at 2.5k rpms. Makes me think its the best all around period. I couldn't imagine getting that to the ground so even if you werent tuning aggressively, it would make sense.
People arent so willing to lower compression as I am. With the stock gaskets on the L92's and a 6 liter displacement, I would end up at or near 10.4:1 at best. The use of the mag on a stock motor is appealing to people that dont want to touch an otherwise stock motor. I would do what the install calls for.
Any word on when the LS3 mag is going to hit the public?
Thansk for sharing Ed.
People arent so willing to lower compression as I am. With the stock gaskets on the L92's and a 6 liter displacement, I would end up at or near 10.4:1 at best. The use of the mag on a stock motor is appealing to people that dont want to touch an otherwise stock motor. I would do what the install calls for.
Any word on when the LS3 mag is going to hit the public?
Thansk for sharing Ed.
I dont know what I was thinkin. As for what that thing feels like, it'll rip your head off just blippin the throttle. Its tuned 2 bar SD, and the throttle response is BRUTAL.
As for tuning it, the timing table is pretty close to what a high compression H/C package would be, with ZERO KR, very low NOX PPM, and no meth. The owner is installing a meth kit this weekend.
Should have new numbers for it Monday.
I have no clue about the release of the LS3 maggie.
Melting Slicks
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,356
Likes: 1
From: Chesapeake Va
BTW, Gary, back to the original subject, you can have a custom crank ground, all it takes is $$.
You should be able to get one done for 1500 bucks or so.
Custom pistons, with the pins in the right location to be able to use an off the shelf rod, approx 800.
Being able to say you gotta 409 Vette, PRICELESS.
You should be able to get one done for 1500 bucks or so.
Custom pistons, with the pins in the right location to be able to use an off the shelf rod, approx 800.
Being able to say you gotta 409 Vette, PRICELESS.
Thread Starter
Somba master
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 10,554
Likes: 63
Cruise-In 7, 9 & 12 Veteran
Wounded Warrior Escort '11
St. Jude Donor '07-'08-'09-'10-'11
BTW, Gary, back to the original subject, you can have a custom crank ground, all it takes is $$.
You should be able to get one done for 1500 bucks or so.
Custom pistons, with the pins in the right location to be able to use an off the shelf rod, approx 800.
Being able to say you gotta 409 Vette, PRICELESS.
You should be able to get one done for 1500 bucks or so.
Custom pistons, with the pins in the right location to be able to use an off the shelf rod, approx 800.
Being able to say you gotta 409 Vette, PRICELESS.
So, lessee now...
LS3 block, custom crank or pistons, my current l92 heads, l76 intake, throttle body, accessories, headers etc used wherever possible to conserve cash. A final bitchin' tune. $?
GM
Shoot Ed, we could be famous!
Last edited by Shrike6; Nov 15, 2007 at 10:52 PM.
