In some ways yes, but if you can't afford a set of super duper triple X heads, what's wrong with a few extra cubes? It's not like the extra displacement is going to have a negative effect.

 

Any head no matter what it flows "chokes" a motor The heads that restrict the least will make the most power.

Heck, a bone stock head'd 383 will still make more power/tq than a stock headed 350 (same cam).

Jason

 

Yea, plus it's cool to say you have a 396 under the hood.

 

Good point, I wish I would have said that.

 

Touché.

 

Ray@NitroDaves, looks like you're the guy I need to ask this of?

What brand of rods are in your 396? Are they 6.0" or 5.7"? If 6.0", does the oil control ring protrude into the wrist pin area? You're using a regular base circle cam, right, what brand, duration, lsa and lift? Any hardbloc in the lower block end along the oil pan rails where it's clearenced? How many miles have you put on this engine so far? Any oil control issues that you're aware of? The stock oil pan also worked for you with little or no ( ) "messaging"? Any help you offer would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

P.S. Any other 396 owners care to share the above info?

 

basiclly im using 5.850 rods with my dragon slayer 3.875 crank the price diffrence i really only seeing being diffrent in making sure the engine is built to support the increased cubes well that and the parts used to support xxx hp

 

how will i be choking it with the le2 stuff? those heads flow pretty good dont they? im sure several people have them with bigger cube engines and turn good times

 

Thx...not sure if I am "The" guy but I will do my best

6" Eagle H-Beam rods

Not sure....???

My cam was cut by Lazer Cams out of Memphis Tn
The first was a 222/228 .544/.538 112 (made 422/447 w/LT1 heads)
the current is 246/254 .613/.590 112 (no dyno #'s)

No hardblock at all

approx 12k miles and ~30 passes in the low 11's NA and mid 10's NX

no major oil control issues...it burns approx 1/2 qt every 3k miles.

Still running a stock oil pan.....the builder said it did not take much to make it work...I had originally said if it was going to be an issue I would buy a Milodon.


Hope I answered your questions ...let me know if I didn't

 

when building a large cid LT1 you will always be leaving HP on the table due to the inability of the factory casting to completely fill the cylinders...that is why most cars max NA cars go with aftermarket castings....AFR, converted SBC, etc.

Even the LS1 heads are limiting for large cid motors......ETP makes a 255cc intake casting for the guys looking to build 400+ ci motors

 

I know I have a 383, but I figure I could answer the questions to give you more info.

Eagle H-beams, 6" full floating with ARP L19 rod bolts.

Yes. Got shorted 1 oil rail support from JE too...they overnighted a new one free of charge though

Old cam was 234/242 @.050 .576/.544 on a 109lsa from Joe Overton when he was spec'ing cams for LE,
Before the 9", it made 409rwhp/396rwtq with 3" of vacuum in the upper rpm, and an obvious ignition issue.Then after a new intake, monoblade, and a delteq, it made 413rwhp/390rwtq (see graph below)
through a 35 spline 9".

The numbers that Injuneer has posted on here before show a 9" losing ~3% of power over a GM 10/12 bolt setup. At this power level, that works out to about 12 hp and tq. So instead of only gaining 4hp and losing 6tq, I really gained 16hp and 4tq if the 3% figure is accurate.

New cam is a little bigger on the intake (not much) duration wise and low .600's for lift. LSA is also tighter. Bret Bauer spec'd it to match the Super Victor intake and the rest of my combo. 7000rpm shift point was the goal due to the stock PCM. No final dyno numbers yet as I am still sorting out issues, but I hope to redyno before christmas.

None here.

Approximately 10k miles.

I had about 0.5qt of consumption per 3kmi when running a stock pan without a windage tray.

The stock pan worked, but I saw pressure drop under WOT. I now run the Canton 242-t pan and don't see this drop anymore.

The stock pan needed some convincing from a ball peen hammer to clear the stroke but I guess it worked. I would definitely drop the coin on either the new Moroso pan or the Canton on anything that you are putting thousands of dollars into.


10 bolt pulling up to 3"Hg:

With Moser 9" pulling only .7"Hg:

 

I ran Eagle 6" H-beams in my 396. The Eagle's will require the most clearancing on the pan rail. There are other rods that have a more "profiled" big end (which in turn requires less grinding on the pan rail). Those rods are usually the more expensive ones....Lunati, Oliver, etc... I would recommend at least .060" clearance between the rod bolt and block. The bottom of each cylinder wall will also need to be clearanced accordingly as well.

As mentioned before, you also need to make sure that the rods dont hit the cam...hence the reason for needing a small base circle. I would plan on going with a small base circle cam anyway just to avoid a potential problem. The only thing that requires is a longer pushrod which is something that you would most likely be buying anyway with a new motor (different deck height, headgasket thickness, etc..).

Jason

 

I used the half pour because I caught 1 water jacket clearancing for the rod bolts. I also of course notched the bottom of each cylinder and remember having to do quite a bit of grinding for the rear counterweights. I am also using a 2-piece rear seal crank with a Moroso adapter, and 6 inch rods with ARP2000's. Don't be afraid of the block filler on the street - especially with the reverse cool that we have. It works out great - just run an oil cooler and you will be just fine. The cam is a small base circle Comp Xtreme solid roller 254/260 with .622/.628 lift 112 LSA (I drive this thing around alot). The tight lash is amazingly quiet .014/.016 and I use Howard's Cams rollers which are 239.00 a set. I took a Dremel and cut a .010 slot on the side of the lifter much like the Endure-X lifter to help with oiling at idle. The intake was port matched only and opened up to 58mm for the BBK tb. The heads are Lingenfelter LT1's 2.0/1.56 192cc runners that flowed in the 280 range. I'm at zero deck with an .039 gasket putting me at 12.8 to 1. Peak power was at 6350 and laid flat all the way to 7200.

 

Yeah the shop I'm using is going to block fill part of the passages in the rail. My builder said the block would be much better off w/ block fill rather than breaking through a passage and then having to worry whether or not the block was salvagable.

 

First of all Thanks! to all who have replied so far, (there really is a wealth of info here on LT1 stroker motors), and, for Ray@NitroDaves and TQdrivenws6 I have a couple of "follow up" questions.

Ray I assume your first cam, the 222/228 was a hydralic roller and the later 246/254 was a solid roller??? And, TQ even though you have a 383, (i.e. 3.750" crank), your oil control ring still protrudes into the wrist pin area? What compression height pistons did you use with your 6.0" rods? Also your old cam, the 234/242 I assume was also a hydralic roller??? You also went with a tigher lsa than 109 on your new cam, where are you expecting to make peak power at with a 7,000 RPM shift point? From your "old" dyno charts it looks like your first cam peeked around what 6,200/6,400 RPM? Keep me "in the loop" if you do get your new combo dynoed before Christmas, okay. And again thanks to all who have, or will reply!