RyanPerrella

yes Greg, i know your skeptical about their numbers, you never fail to mention that. I can understand why too when you have another 1500cc and produce the same numbers. I too was shocked they got so much power out of a 5.0L but i think at this point i take their word for it. I think there is a ton left on the table with the shark tuner and Jim has really found a way to pull extra power out of the thing.

Lets just assume for a moment the numbers dont lie. I think its safe to assume a 5.4L will probably find another 13hp from its added displacement, manifold work and air intake.

MK,

I agree that the stroker crank sounds like the way to go. Especially when you think its $2500 and is already drilled. I would have to pull the GTS crank, drill it, polish it and balance it and so what, the stroker becomes just a $1000-$1500 dollar part now. This is why i thought i would just start with a 5.0L bottom end and just sell the GTS short block. The GTS short block i think is worth $4,000 PLUS, i think a 5.0L block can be had for much less then $1000. This too is the way i would lean but i am just curious what other combinations are out there. I actually like the 100mm bore. Its really optimum for many reasons.

RyanPerrella

I am curious about this.

I like the alusil and prefer not to have to send the block to US Chrome. Are guys now boring the stock 928 block and honing the cylinders with that alusil paste or whatever and exposing that silicon imbedded in the bores?

I didnt know some guys that were boring were doing this. It seems like the way to go but i thought everyone was just of the assumption that you just send it to us chrome.

This also reduces block machining costs

i am not against replacing pistons as they have really come a long way in the last 20 years. There is also a pretty well known defect with GTS pistons so this does intrigue me.

I would prefer to have a much more over square engine personally. Opening up the bores i would also likely need to address the combustion chamber in the heads and probably go with larger valves to take advantage of the extra real estate that the extra bore provides.

GregBBRD

I'm not skeptical. I believe everything that has ever been said or printed...especially when it comes to engines and performance.

RyanPerrella

LOL

alrighty Greg

Actually I would love to see Dennis come down with that thing and run it on your dyno. I dont doubt the numbers as i know or have dealt with both Jim and Bill and they arent the type to just pull numbers out of their ***.

I still would love to see that car run on your dyno, maybe then you wont be so skeptical?

Bill Ball

Remember Dennis' car has headers and exhaust as well, and we don't have a baseline in that case for the cam change. In Jim's case, that question should be answered.

GregBBRD

Better idea. Let's grab a stroker car (with less claimed power) and run them side by side at the dragstrip...let's make it easy....for 10K. Weights need to be equal. Displacement to be verified. Both use same exact 91 octane fuel. No power adder or additives....continuously monitored during runs. Both cars to be carefully inspected by all parties. Any irregularities result in instant forfit of funds. I'll get "Pinks" to film it.

Should be easy money for the higher output engine....

RyanPerrella

NO WAY!

Then we will have to watch that bald headed dusche show up in his kids sized shirt!

Bill Ball

We've done a number of "street dyno" sessions. My car was 336 RWHP (Dynapac) before I changed the pulley from 5 to 6 PSI and added the intercooler. Jim stays pretty close to me. Dennis pulls away from me. I cream Brian's M3.

BC

Does Todd get to come?

Jim Morton

So much for a friendly post to an interest group.

Why on earth do these threads have to go the way taht they do. Come on folks, this is a hobby and done for fun... at least for most of us.

THREAD IS CLOSED... MOVING ON.