Excellent post. I agree 110%

 

You haven't given me proof of your statement about them being more streetable with more power. I'm not manipulating anyone, and I'm not playing games. I'm not being overtechnical, you are just being under technical. Now please, back up your statement.

 

what rob raymer did is prove how strong an ls1 bottom end is.with over 130 pulls and making well over 700 hp is proof enough for me.


i guess not for other people.


with better flowing heads its alot easier to make more power and be streetable.

 

and you havent proved that an lt1 is stronger.not even close.please back that up.

ive given examples youve given me nothing but BS.

 

Lets just say they are both strong and streetable and let this thread die.

 

fine with me.but another one will just come up and we'll be at it again.

ls1s are stronger though.

 

I guess you can look at this subject like the POS 10 bolt rears.. Most people will destroy one eventually when making decent power with traction.. There are some lucky ones who make 100 passes on a stock 10 bolt, but most people are not that LUCKY..

Same with stock bottom ends... It is great that someone had great luck with a stock bottom end.. But most people will not withthat power level. That being said, in my opinion neither engine has a stronger bottom end over the other stock wise in the real world.

 

Why do you have to get so defensive and say that I'm full of BS? I'm not taking any of this personally and neither should you. I don't want anyone to have a coronary here, it's just a little debate. And I would like you to show me some BS that I have written.

I've given examples: Bigger bore, shorter stroke, iron block, stronger valvetrain, less piston speed for a given RPM.

Better flowing heads are a great selling point on the LS1. I will be the first to admit that. The LS1 has a FAR superior cylinder head. BUT.... the original topic here was durability, and a better flowing head doesn't make it more durable, and well ported LT1 heads flow great.... so there goes that theory.

 

i dont think it was luck at all.it was someone with knowledge and the willingness to try.there was nothing special about that motor.rob knows how to tune and he got the power and proved it could be done.others have made good power too from stock bottom ends and theyve held up.


these rears do suck.mine blew with stockish HP but the guy that tuned my car ran 10s with 1.5 60s' on slicks before his went.i witnessed this.it had several passes on it before it finally gave out.

 

you asked what makes able to make more power with streetability.i said a major reason were the heads.and ported ls1/ls6 heads will flow even better.


ive given a durability example already.


youre right and i apologize for using the BS remark.this is all in fun.

 

He would be a millionaire if he could do that with every other Ls1 he worked on.. Fact of the matter is will not happen. LS1s will blow up trying that same combo on many LS1 cars. The bottom end and pistons are just too weak to have it consistant. He has great skill, but also lucky as hell also.. If the LS1 could handle that h.p. level consistantly stock, then it would prove your point.. but noone has done that on many LS1 cars..Look at what consistantly works and then use that as a basis for strength.


I also had bad luck.. Broke a 12 bolt also

 

the car in question had 130+ pulls on it.if he had others blow he got this one right.its called experimenting.he apparently found the right combo and proved it could be done.


fact is theres not a ton of tuners willing to try FI on ls1s.at least not alot im aware of.people were saying years ago they couldnt stand up to much boost and thats been proven incorrect many times.its a matter of comon sense and tuning.

as far as ls1s having weaker valve trains im not convinced.theyve help up to well over 500rwhp in stock form and a simple thing like a spring swap and theyve held up under alot more.


harlan is another example of a stock internalled ls1 holding up.


theres others i just cant think of any right now.

 

Common sense and tuning means not throwing massive boost through a stock bottom end.. I do not know any LS1s hitting the kind of h.p. on stock bottom ends without having problems except one example. That example does not define the real world strength of the LS1.. Like I said the example you used is not even close to the norm when having problems. Like I also said before, if he truely has a setup that can make that kind of power on a stock bottom end reliably, then he would be rich off it that and be able to duplicate that with many other cars..

Lidio ran 9's @ over 140 with a stock 4.6 modular engine... Very impressive but also not the norm or could be considered reliable.. No one is running around saying a 4.6 should handle that h.p. and no one should claim the h.p. on the example you posted as being what an LS1 should handle. That is stretching it, and basically what you are stating in this post.

This has been beaten to death though and I will just agree to disagree on this one.

 

Brent on Turbomustangs.com has made numerous dyno pulls on his stock bottom end turbo 5.0.... best of which to date is 770RWHP/836RWTQ. Perhaps a stock bottom end 5.0 is the strongest thing out there?

 

Well that is also debatable. The 5.0 does have forged pistons stock till 1992 I think. But I have seen 5.0 blocks split in half at 500RWHP.. You can have the best tuned engine ever but those blocks are weak when talking big h.p.