Help me think of some large-cube, light-weight engines

BTW, if you look at the pics on that link the 625hp 540ci engine is going into a 1984 Land Cruiser... That'll fix it!

I am pretty sure a 12K big block isn't cheap or light.

625hp will not be cheap unless you only want it to make 625hp once. The original post said lighter than the current engiine and never mentioned cheap.

I think someone already mentioned a 351W-->427 stroker, that was gonna be my suggestion. Not sure that it would meet your power goals, though. 500 is easy with off-the-shelf parts, not so sure what it'd take to get the extra 150 you're looking for.

Kinda left field, and I'm not sure the weight, but I know guys make 6 and 7 hundred horsepower pretty easily with Terminator motors, and there's no adapting needed to fit a T56 behind one. You could even shed 80 lbs out of it by swapping out the stock Termie block for a Teskid (Teksid?).

Also, are you looking to make 650 at the crank or at the tires?

tuna55 wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: Off the shelf if you have deep pockets http://www.jegs.com/i/GM%20Performance/809/19211708/10002/-1?CT=999

Also a full 100 hp down from his target.

Wow, and nobody on this forum has ever found 100hp in a stock engine.....hmmmm. I did say deep pockets

John Brown wrote: 625hp will not be cheap unless you only want it to make 625hp once. The original post said lighter than the current engiine and never mentioned cheap.

OP wrote: not too exotic (meaning: affordable for the little guy)

tuna55 wrote:

John Brown wrote: 625hp will not be cheap unless you only want it to make 625hp once. The original post said lighter than the current engiine and never mentioned cheap.

OP wrote: not too exotic (meaning: affordable for the little guy)

Exotic to me is the guy rebuilding the TRD NASCAR engine for street use at $25,000 for the REBUILD. $12,000 for 625hp is damned thrifty! Quoting a NASCAR Q&A "The average cost for a new open engine is $45,000 and $60,000 for a restrictor plate engine. Rebuilding and maintenance on an engine costs around $28,000."

always a terminator engine also. a 2.1 liter blower will get 700

2JZ with lots of boost?

i would think a 2jz would be too slow to boost to really be useful for its intended purpose.

93EXCivic wrote: 2JZ with lots of boost?

This is what i would do, it'd be somewhat cheap-ish, still get decent MPG...

But, it's not big cube, not all that light weight.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: 2JZ with lots of boost?

This is what i would do, it'd be somewhat cheap-ish, still get decent MPG... But, it's not big cube, not all that light weight.

Also, I presume he would want something with a range of tractable power of more than 1000 RPM. A bigger engine is going to make that torque curve nice and flat.

tuna55 wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: 2JZ with lots of boost?

This is what i would do, it'd be somewhat cheap-ish, still get decent MPG... But, it's not big cube, not all that light weight.

Also, I presume he would want something with a range of tractable power of more than 1000 RPM. A bigger engine is going to make that torque curve nice and flat.

ALTHO I AGREE IF USEING SOME OF THE NEWER TURBOS NOT A PROBLEM REALLY. AS AN EXAMPLE HYUNDAIS NEW 2.0T MAKES PEAK TQ AT LESS THAN 2000 RPM AND PEAK HP AT AROUND 6K . BOTH NUMBERS BEING IN THE 270 RANGE. YA ITS A CRAP LOAD OF BOOST AROUND 1 BAR OR MORE I FORGET. NOW 2 OF THOSE ON A 2JZ OR DURATEC WOULD IN THEORY SPOOL BY 25 TO 2600 AND REALLY MAKE A SCREAMER

There's a massive difference between turbos that can make a torque curve @270HP and ones that can make a torque curve @650HP.

There's also something to be said for compound turbos, proper sized twins, or even just using ONE turbo sized correctly for your goals. I laugh to myself every time i see someone use that tired old argument of "I want a powerband that lasts more than 2rpms" or whatever it is.

But it's all off topic anyways. 3.0 litres does not "big cubes" make.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: There's also something to be said for compound turbos, proper sized twins, or even just using ONE turbo sized correctly for your goals. I laugh to myself every time i see someone use that tired old argument of "I want a powerband that lasts more than 2rpms" or whatever it is. But it's all off topic anyways. 3.0 litres does not "big cubes" make.

And again, there is a massive difference between a little boosted motor can do, even properly built, and a large motor. The new Bentley has a 6.8L V8, which is huge my normal standards but small by this threads topic, and even with properly sized twins and a real torque curve of 650+ FtLbs, is only in the 470HP range and has a 4K RPM powerband.

curtis73 wrote:

How similar are the Dodge V10 truck motors and the Viper ones? Could you bolt a set of Viper heads to the (assuming) iron truck block?

You and I think alike From what I understand, the iron truck shortblock is basically the same as the Gen 1 Viper, but the pistons are different for lower compression. I'm currently researching how much more the iron block weighs and what can be done about performance parts that don't have the word "Hennessey" on them. I'm also looking at costs to purchase parts individually and assemble vs. just sucking it up and buying a Viper V10

The Dodge 8L v10 (the iron block truck engine) is based on the 5.9L v8. The weight of a 318 long block is ~400lbs FWIW.

Javelin wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: There's also something to be said for compound turbos, proper sized twins, or even just using ONE turbo sized correctly for your goals. I laugh to myself every time i see someone use that tired old argument of "I want a powerband that lasts more than 2rpms" or whatever it is. But it's all off topic anyways. 3.0 litres does not "big cubes" make.

And again, there is a *massive* difference between a little boosted motor can do, even properly built, and a large motor. The new Bentley has a 6.8L V8, which is huge my normal standards but small by this threads topic, and even with properly sized twins and a real torque curve of 650+ FtLbs, is only in the 470HP range and has a 4K RPM powerband.

Not disagreeing with you on an absolute sense for sure.

Javelin wrote: There's a *massive* difference between turbos that can make a torque curve @270HP and ones that can make a torque curve @650HP.

yes there is but cfms is the key thus if one makes 270 and 270 with a flat tq curve then 540 is theoretically possible.... then again supposedly 250 plus whp with a duratec 3.0 na is impossible with a stock lower end . oh wait.....

and personally id rather 540 hp and 540 tq that is flat as hell than 650 hp and 550 tq that peaks at 4000 and hp peak at 5500. turbo would be faster

I have a 460 rotating assembly rebuilt with stock low-comp pistons if somebody's looking to boost a big block.

I'd just get a 6. whatever LS type V8 out of a truck and start looking for forced induction solutions. There's probably an intake for a Roots blower setup out there by now, or a hair drier, sky's the limit and these things are cheap and common.

Buick 4.5 V6? I know they make 600hp in road race trim but I am not sure how streetable that is. Nice and light/compact though compared to a BB.

John Brown wrote: 625hp will not be cheap unless you only want it to make 625hp once. The original post said lighter than the current engiine and never mentioned cheap.

You're right, I didn't mention cheap, but it will be. I have a knack for waiting for cheap parts and building what I want for a lot less money than buying a crate.

I built a 450hp 383 once with forged internals for $1300 by just waiting for cheap parts and re-using what I could off the old 350.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: But it's all off topic anyways. 3.0 litres does not "big cubes" make.

3.0litres is big cubes compared to anything I have ever owned or really worked on.