Sounds like an opportunity for a $100 bbc
Sounds like an opportunity for a $100 bbc
gumby (Forum Supporter) said:Sounds like an opportunity for a $100 bbc
Now that's funny right there.
Andy Neuman said:That engine lived a good life.
It did. And a replacement is now in and should be on the dyno this weekend. .
872 HP with our little 328 CI and a pair of $102 each eBay Turbos.
Now we are going to swap on the billet wheels.
Ya know......if you wouldn't cheap-out with those $102 turbos and splurge for the $112 ones, you could break 900.........just sayin'
In reply to DeadSkunk (Warren) :
889 was the highest, but we backed it down to the 872 HP level for reasons to be shared in the boys next video.
Sneak peak for the next video. Pay attention to the rear tire. That's a stiff sidewall radial tire.
What vehicle donated an intercooler the size of that monster?
In reply to DeadSkunk (Warren) :
That was an ebay purchase. I believe it is a CXracing intercooler. Side note, we saw a decrease from 270 degrees to 140 degrees across the intercooler at 19 psi.
What belt is that flying off in the beginning of the pull?
In reply to Mezzanine :
Alternator. Something that we are in the process of correcting.
Thank you for sharing this build! So much good info! I'm curious as to how you decide what ECU to run? (stock vs microsquirt vs megasquirt vs holley)
I'm in a gathering info stage for a build and don't have any efi tuning experience and really I'm not really sure what ECU to go with. I'm currently leaning towards a stock ECU and HP tuners (as I think it would offer more options for drivability and would be challenge budget friendly in the future.) setup will be a heads, cam and intake 6.0.
It may get an M122 or a single mount down the road for better smoke production. 
OneSickGNX said:Thank you for sharing this build! So much good info! I'm curious as to how you decide what ECU to run? (stock vs microsquirt vs megasquirt vs holley)
I'm in a gathering info stage for a build and don't have any efi tuning experience and really I'm not really sure what ECU to go with. I'm currently leaning towards a stock ECU and HP tuners (as I think it would offer more options for drivability and would be challenge budget friendly in the future.) setup will be a heads, cam and intake 6.0.
It may get an M122 or a single mount down the road for better smoke production.
Started with the stock ECU because it was going to be a Challenge car. When the $2018 event was canceled we decided to change the car from a NOS car to a SC+NOS car. Thats when we installed the Gold Box. It is easier to tune AND better for traction control.
Rather than running an M122, go turbo. You will be happier and it will c out less in the long run.
In reply to wheels777 :
Are those the $106 turbos in the video?
If I understand (ha!) it sounds like the net is...
-Billet impellers lowered the backpressure and the intake temps, probably because of design, not material
-Unsure how much this would improve HP/tq numbers because the tires were slipping on the dyno (causing hocky stick on the graph?) Improvement could be significant based on increased fuel needs.
-Current cam has too much duration, meaning backpressure from the exhaust is limiting intake charge, exhaust may be too small as well
Love these videos, thanks again for making them.
DeadSkunk (Warren) said:In reply to wheels777 :
Are those the $106 turbos in the video?
$102...yes. They work better on smaller engines. We beat them up because theyre too small.. I wanted to be try a new way to stage fast and went with the smallest turbo we could use and make 1000 HP. The unintended reality is we are wearing the thrust quickly. We will be going to 78-75 bullet wheeled units next. Should see four digit grunt next time out.
CrustyRedXpress said:If I understand (ha!) it sounds like the net is...
-Billet impellers lowered the backpressure and the intake temps, probably because of design, not material
-Unsure how much this would improve HP/tq numbers because the tires were slipping on the dyno (causing hocky stick on the graph?) Improvement could be significant based on increased fuel needs.
-Current cam has too much duration, meaning backpressure from the exhaust is limiting intake charge, exhaust may be too small as well
Love these videos, thanks again for making them.
Billet allows the blades to be thinner and more effective in design. Castings are thicker to make them strong enough and limited on shape due to manufacturing limits. Additionally the eye to be smaller on the billet wheel. Simply stated, the pumping efficacy and volume flow is improved. Consequently, the exhaust does not work as hard to produce the same boost level and thus the waste gate is open more and the exhaust pressure is lower. Less exhaust pressure is cleaning up the intake charge as this cam has too much overlap (free NA cam).
The HP spikes were after the tires hooked up and on the way down from the peaks. Just some general analysis we were likely over 920+ but did not get to "print the ticket". Next outing will be fun to watch!
The biggest surprise/discovery was/is the need for a third fuel pump at full boogie.
In reply to wheels777 :
Just so I understand what I'm reading here......the peak power was registered AFTER Calvin lifted off the throttle and the tires regained traction? So how much power would you guess didn't register?
DeadSkunk (Warren) said:In reply to wheels777 :
Just so I understand what I'm reading here......the peak power was registered AFTER Calvin lifted off the throttle and the tires regained traction? So how much power would you guess didn't register?
No the power peak would have been before the point where the tires regained traction. As the power came down from the peak the tires hooked up and that is the data shown. We probably/possibly were up at or above 920+.
Another question.........I had discussed throwing a 4.8 crank into larger LS engines with a friend quite a while ago. He questioned why I would even consider doing it , rather than just using the larger displacement engine to begin with. My answer was that I thought it might rev higher and "just cuz". So why did you decide to do it? Is there any advantage , or is this so you can say "It's just a 5.3" for giggles. Does the shorter stroke/larger bore give you something more than a conventional 5.3? The only thing I can think of is head selection , and thus breathing, might be better with a larger valved head, but that doesn't explain shortening the stroke.
RPM, piston speed, side wall loading, etc...
4.8 cranks are stiff. 5.3 crank is flexing at 1000. 6.0 cranks are comparatively weak ... think wet noodle at 1000. If you heard some of the details in the video.... some of the pulls were going to 7800.
Getting ready for the new turbos...
One in tank and 2 external pumps...
and yes that is 3/4" (-12) headed to the front.
You'll need to log in to post.
