Can it be done I don't see why not.

I know of a local race car (guy is in the top 3 for the last 15 years in super stock) He runs a small 304 ci motor and made 945 hp on an engine dyno with his motor. Granted on race gas but he was only running small cubes.
If you spend money on good heads (not lt1 stuff) I don't see why it can't be done. Just gonna take one hell of a buildup and super lighterweight components. An lt1 1k hp not gonna happen imo (would just be a waste)
If you have a big cube high spinning solid roller i dont see why it can't be done.

 

945hp out of a NA 304 cube engine = a 1554 HP Pro Stock Engine, I don't believe that.

 

No way a 304 makes 950hp in super stock. Your friend is mistaken. Do you know what class in S/S, because that much power would put him wayyyyy below the index. I just can't see that.

 

http://www.hancockandlane.com/

Go and whine to them. Sorry if you don't believe it honestly dont care.

Steven

 

Help me out here, Steven: I tried the link, but couldn't find that 304 SBC anywhere. What specific part of the link do I need to visit?

 

Are you wanting their dyno sheet? I do not have it, and i seriously doubt they will post it on the site. The car is the grand am.
Grand am

If you have any detailed questions about the car you could email them or call them at the shop.
This is prob the motor but i honestly have not seen the motor apart. Just the headers being built.

Steven

 

945hp with a 304 is 3.11 per inch...i dont believe it...

 

I am not sure if there's any relevance at all, but current F1 motors are 3L V-10 NA motors running on 100 octane unleaded. Current estimates for the top runners are in the range of 830hp. That's 4.5hp/ci!! Of course, these purpose built racing engines use exotic materials and are extremely expensive. It's difficut to estimate cost, because the R+D budgets aren't public. But I recall reading that customer (retail) motors, which are not top of the line, go for ~$250,000! A 400ci motor with this specific output would produce 1,800hp, and these things last for races up to 2h with 70% of the time at WOT!

Again, it has little to do with a SBC other than to point out the current limits of NA technology running on relatively low octane unleaded gas.

Rich Krause

 

Try 850-880hp Rich!

You need pheumatic valves to get that kind of HP per L, not valve springs. Probably more tricks than we know of in this forum too.

Anyways, a old Pro Stock Truck 358 which is pretty open on rules were only 900hp and they had 54 more cubes than what was mentioned here. Just saying if they can't do it, then those guys can't.

Bret

 

those arent small block chevrolet's, i think they are aurora V-8's, or they used to be and they run pneumatic valves springs because they turn them motors like 14k and theres no way any valvespring can handle that many RPM's

 

I saw a new type of engine on horsepower tv a while back. It was bigger than a big block, by quite a bit, they had them side to side, but they said you could bore and stroke them out to like 1000ci. I would immagine that you could make a 1000hp out of that. They were fuel injected, with twin throttle bodies, one in front and one in back of the intake.. I think there are supposed to be quite a bit of $$$$$ though.

 

F1 engines are pretty amazing, alright, but your cost estimate may be an order of magnitude low! They get the 4.5-4.8 hp/cu. in. by revving to 18000+, and having 300 cc (18.3 cu. in.) cylinders.

As far as relevance goes:

Specific output in torque per liter at power peak is an interesting engine comparison. F1 (850 hp @ 18000) and Pro Stock (1300hp @ 10000) both have about 83 lb-ft/liter at hp peak. True, PS's don't run very long between rebuilds (1 run for valve springs, maybe), but a 780 hp @ 8800 Winston Cup engine is around 80 lb-ft per liter at hp peak, and they turn about as many total revs in a race as do F1s. Cup engines have strokes about double F1 strokes (3.25 in. vs 1.625 in. approximately), and turn half the max rpm. (9500 vs 19000) so piston speeds are just about the same! Physical limits apply to almost everyone; F1 and SBC alike.

100 octane gasoline in F1. Well, it's far from pump gas! Teams have to submit samples of the "gasoline" for analysis of maybe 100 chemicals in it for approval prior to the season I think. There are major oil company sponsors involved. It's pretty exotic fuel, but does qualify as "gasoline".

BTW, look for some Cup engines to nudge close to 10K at the end of a long straight on some tracks this season. Flat lifters and metal springs and durability. Wow!

 

I have to agree with StrokerAce. Although, I have heard of some PS Truck teams making upwards of 950 hp. Anyway, if these guys couldn't do it, I doubt a Super Stock car can do it. I mean, you're dealing with the ELITE engine builders in the country. Maskin, Jenkins, etc. If someone out there could make more power with less cubes, everyone would be using his engines, not Grumpy's.

One other note I will add. First, if you stipulate pump gas, you are limited to a dynamic compression ratio, not so much the static compression ratio. What I'm saying is most PS Truck and Comp cars are running around 16-17:1 compression. This is a static ratio. You have to remember these cars can acheive over 110% volumetric efficiency. That means they are running oover 18:1 at some points in the power curve. Now, these engines are not fuel limited, they are usually space limited. Meaning, the fuel has no problem handling the compression, but to maintain any kind of combustion efficiency, the domes and chambers cannot be built to make any higher compression (at least not at this time). So, they are squeezing everything as tight as valve-to-piston clearance and flame propogation will allow.

Now, for pump gas, you are limited to a certain amount of combustion pressure before detonation occurs. Because of this, it doesn't matter what your static compression ratio is, you can only run so much dynamic compression. If you have a 10:1 engine with 120% voumetric efficiency, that is more prone to detonate than a 11:1 engine with an 80% volumetric efficiency.

What I'm trying to say is that comparing PS Truck engines or even Super Stock engines to pump gas engines is impossible. The design criteria for these two types of engines are too different. I will agree that 1000 hp MIGHT be possible with enough R&D and unlimited fuel, but on pump gas, I just don't see it.

If someone really knew their math, they could roughly compute the engine efficiency required for 1000 hp, N/A, on pump fuel. You know stoiciometric combustion is 14.7:1 air-to-fuel. Knowing the maximum allowable combustion pressure for pump fuel (probably about 11-11.5:1), and asssuming a max rpm of about 11,000 (about max for SBC at this time) and a max cubic inch (probably around 450-460 ci), you could calculate the air volume consumed, and therefore the fuel volume consumed. Based on the BTU/lb of the fuel, you could find the available energy, and find what engine efficiency would be required to attain 1000 hp. From this number you could tell whether it was even possible to get there, due to the inherent efficiencies of Otto cycle engines. Again, it could be done if someone knew all the variables. Something to think about.

Shane

 

Those are 2 good posts. That was a good read first thing in the morning.

I can't emphisize enough how comparing ft lbs per L on engines is really showing the limits of physics with the known technology that we have today.

Shane, I was thinking 959hp would be about the barrier for the PST's but I thought that was high, but I wouldn't doubt it in realtion to the big inch PS engines.

The dynamic ratio limit on gas is around 9:1, and even street engines an find that with 92 octane and 11.7:1 w/ the right cam. I know I've been there.

Bret

 

did any of you guys see the engine masters challenge in one of those magazines?? it was a contest to see who could make the most power out of a small block (chevy, mopar, or ford) that has to be under 360 inches and run on pump gas and they score it by averaging the hp and torque numbers from 2500-6500RPMs, there may be more rules, but one of the Ford guys was running 16:1 compression with 92 octane fuel!! im guessing he had a cam ground so that it would open a early enough to bleed the extra pressure off so it wouldnt detinate, i think that guy got second and it peaked at like 604 hp and 58X torque, it siad this motor would cost over $20000-25000 to duplicate! the guy that won had a SBC with AFR heads that made like 602 HP and 59X torque, this motor was something like 15000-20000 to duplicate