DESTROKED LS TURBO (BOOSTED 4.8L CRANK/LS3 BLOCK)

[@zapa47]

I did a Google search for this combo. Found an article and was reading it thinking "this is written how Richard Holdner talks". Sure enough you wrote it.

[@angelovasilikos7980]

Sometimes I think it’s just Freiburger messing with Richard and giving the thumbs down. Love the videos! Can’t wait for the next one :)

[@richardholdener1727]

I have had to remove a couple of people-might be them

[@matmichalke5734]

I’d love to see a stroker 6.0! Who wouldn’t want to put a 4.00in bore x 4.00 stroke ls in a classic and still rock the 396(402cu in) tag on the fender

[@dennismindock6276]

Squared up motor. I’ve seen a square sbc run on a dyno. Amazing engine that was. I too think about this combo

[@MrAPCProductions]

There is a 468 in the previous video.

[@hugieflhr03]

Mat Michalke I loved my LQ9 in my SILVERADO SS. I always wonder how much bore could that iron block take for a big bore short stroke set up.

[@tylerkurfees4762]

People that’re tired of seeing the same shut over and over.

[@tamanko21]

Run the big bore 5.3 (destroked 6.0) with square port heads against a standard 5.3 with cathedral port heads. This would be a cool test.

[@pisstoffcat5136]

Tom nelson did a destroked ls, 260 ci for a boat, whole nother level of a build but looked like it was built to live at 1000hp and high rpm..

[@dingomanz7]

Those boating guys can run super unrestricted. Great cooling. I can see 9k rpm for an hour straight

[@kennyallison7201]

They had a 260ci limit in that class. I guarantee if they didnt have that limit the cubic inch would have been whatever the limit is. Lol

[@dr_tate]

@@kennyallison7201 i believe the restrictions were because the turbos were added.. I think Tom said the other engines in the same class were big inch N/A engines

[@jkheslekrants]

@@dr_tate You are Correct Sir

[@RadDadisRad]

Destroked motors are great for road racing applications because of the lower torque output. Torque is an awesome thing to have unless you can’t harness it either mechanically with grip or physically with limitations in the ability of your equipment like clutches, driveshaft and axles. Also when class rules dictate you have to run a specific engine size.

[@MrAPCProductions]

The only time a destroked motor makes sense is your last example. When class dictates displacement. For example Nascar engines. 358 ci, but also the rules dictate a max bore of 4.185, hands are pretty well tied on your stroke options.

[@ScootyPuff_Jr]

Ideally in a race situation you want a huge bore because that deshrouds the valves, and whatever stroke will fit in your displacement rules. The torque you put to the ground can be changed with gearing, so horsepower is king if you can turn the rpm for it.

[@jasonbirch1182]

Nascar motors are 358 Max cu in. and are way destroked and large bore. And run like 9000rpm

[@jasonbirch1182]

@@MrAPCProductions interesting. I didn't know about the bore limit.

[@dinkchow]

@Jim Palmer What the hell makes 209 ci?

[@craigchiddo2794]

I would like to see if a 327 sbc with 195 afr heads dual plane intake and similar cam would make a similar graph

[@woodgrain18]

N.a or boosted

[@craigchiddo2794]

@@woodgrain18 n.a.

[@robertkeime4907]

Both would be cool for us 327 guys

[@shawnbell7570]

We had small journal 327 that we turned 9500 rpm every weekend for 20 laps. Used double hump heads, stock crank, good rods, and slightly domed pistons. Most reliable engine we ever used. Lasted 7 years,

[@tomrose6292]

Pretty sure the old school is not going to do as good ..let me know if richard does that.in case I miss it

[@xozindustries7451]

That’s ca crazy amount of power for the similar boost, I’d love to see the airflow from the two combinations measured on the dyno. I like the destroked combo because it would be easier to manage traction at the track, and like you said the power is just a setting on a four port boost controller away for the destroked motor

[@Brock_Landers]

Rich, PLEASE do an Olds 260 build. I had one in my 76 Skylark and I've always wanted to see someone make some decent power out of such a small displacement V8. I'd REALLY love to see one with a Procharger on it too!

[@alexzgolak8820]

I particularly like the boxes holding up the intercooler

[@christianmeeks4430]

I think the thoughts that a destroked LS revs higher has to do with the reduction in piston speed of a shorter stroke allowing higher rpm with less stress on the rods and crank. I think though that with a set of forged 4340 rods you'll run into valve control issues at higher rpm before piston speed and con rod stretch really become an issue.

[@richardholdener1727]

piston speed is not an issue with either at 8000 rpm

[@beardbuilds5140]

Run the “big bore” 4.8 with a bigger cam shaft and better boost control. I’d love to see it utilise all of the camshaft and cylinder head flow and really get it revving up higher in the RPM ! Love the comparison! It is definitely food for thought about what you can do with a destroked motor

[@Matt_Lanzer_13]

Yeah it has capabilities to run much higher than 7000 rpm

[@ericgarrison5097]

Love this. Ive been pondering something similar to this for a long time now,only difference was I was gonna use the 6.0l block instead of LS3. Because I was planning to twin turbo it,i was gonna use the GM LS9 cylinder heads(upgraded duel springs) and BTR intake manifold. Only reason I wanted this is cuz it's being put together for a lighter 2800-3000lbs max car. I wanted an engine that made peak hp between 7500-7700rpm but,was reliable enough to daily drive if I wanted to. Im not looking for ultimate hp so much as,I wanted an American v8 that rev's more like a jdm engine. Ive always been a huge fan of the DZ302, wanted to make a modern day boosted version of it(esp in a 350z). Plus I can't see any true gearhead saying "sounds ok but a twin turbo vq35 sounds better",just don't see it happening.

[@scottbeckman4887]

Hey Richard, the comparison of the two was not equal but very interesting to see what different combos do.

[@ThatGuy-kf7fo]

Common sense says the destroker will only have an advantage if you spin it higher than the standard displacement. You’d have to max the rpm on both with very similar components to have a truly fair comparison. Neat video either way.

[@whataboutbob7967]

Another great video. I aways learn something. I think the destroke combo is great when you want a quick reving N/A motor when you might not need the extra tq. It could get better mpg on the street too. Thanks Richard

[@kurtisbennett7272]

I've always felt for the "average person" who likes to simply hit the skinny and go in a straight line standard bore and stroke is great. Destroked is more for people looking for a specific purpose. Sounds fantastic for a road course car. Where you spend a lot of time closer to the higher end of the rpm range. Flat torque curve and short gearing would make a hell of a lightweight road course car

[@robertmacpeek424]

Destroked stuff is Great! It gets the imagination going of those of us who roam the junkyards & CL searching for eng combos...Years ago GM released a "prototype" 4th gen Camaro with 302 badges. I wanna say it was a 302 ci LS1. That would be cool to see, as well as 327 & BBC 427 stuff. I would throw LS7 in there too but no ones gonna find one in any junkyard lol

[@safetyfirstintexas]

In archery you eliminate the variables to increase the accuracy. The same applies to ls engines.

[@ja5435]

I’ll literally do anything to get a chance of getting whatever old engine you can sell. My 86” Buick Regal’s engine is basically blown. The car is in perfect condition

[@Rampant_Colt]

eighty-six inch Buick?

[@jafferm1938]

WHYYYYY don’t ruin the turbo regal🥺 I have a grand national!!!! Save the 6🥺🥺🥺

[@Turbogto_guy]

Junkyard 5.3 and 4l60

[@trev6783]

I'm so confused with the comparison here. The entire point of de-stroking an engine is to accompany it with mod's that allow you to extend your power band out an extra 2-3k rpms. This is comparing the mid range band and of course a stroked or normal stroke engine will destroy a de-stroked engine in performance in the low to mid range.

[@andrewmontgomery1763]

But you're putting forth the assumption that destroking a motor by itself allows you to rev higher, when he's shown many times that it's not how it works. It's all about cam, springs, and intake, and the stroke doesn't really limit you RPM wise.

[@trev6783]

@@andrewmontgomery1763 As I stated "accompanying mods". There's always going to be an RPM bottleneck. Once you've get the valve's setup for high rpm, your next limit will be your bore/stroke ratio. A lower stroke engine all else being equal will always produce less power. THE ONLY REASON to de-stroke an engine is to produce higher rpms.

[@andrewmontgomery1763]

@@trev6783 but that’s what Richard has shown multiple times, that stroke doesn’t really matter for high RPM capability

[@trev6783]

@@andrewmontgomery1763 can you refer me to a reference video for this? I mean this is a fundamental fact of combustion engines, higher bore over stroke allows much faster reving and higher peak rpms.. This is exactly what they do in F1 racing and moto gp.

[@pgf202]

@@trev6783 I think his point is when considering LS engines other factors will limit max RPM before bore vs stroke ratio needs to be addressed.

[@gkinghsmith9352]

Is it possible to compare a stroked v destroked but at the same displacement? That would be most interesting. Anyway, CC's always win!

[@MrAPCProductions]

All other things being equal (head flow, camshaft, intake, exhaust...) Same displacment is almost always very similar power.

[@tomstech4390]

I think there was an episode like that on MTOD engine masters. Might be worth a look.

[@hamadalshaqsi2005]

Smaller engines will handle more boost though. It would’ve been fun if we saw both maxed out on those combos.

[@cdr6042]

Hey Richard have u ever done any intercooler comparisons like the ones that are 3000 bucs or more vs the cheapo after markets

[@s2upid]

There are a few tests on various forums. I've seen gains of 1-2psi and 30+ degree IAT drops going from a eBay intercooler to the same size Garrett core.

[@MrAPCProductions]

Rishard has one of the two specific cores listed in this video. The comparison is 2-3% in power. At a 1000hp level I think it was 25 hp difference.

[@richardholdener1727]

I have not compared two intercoolers based on price-a lot of the expensive intercoolers are actually cheap cores

[@MrAPCProductions]

@@richardholdener1727 I apologize the way I worded that makes it seem like I was saying you have performed that test. My mistake, but..... video idea? Seems simple enough. Build big motor, swap only the intercooler.

[@tgrghostrider]

I would like to see a similar displacement to the "destroked" with the same heads and cam combo

[@andyharman3022]

I think destroking is best saved for racing where a displacement limit forces engine speed to increase in order to make more power. A stock displacement LS3 has enough cylinder head flow to reach 7000+ rpm. Destroking it 10% then requires a 10% increase in operating speed to take advantage of the cylinder head. Then it becomes more difficult to build a valvetrain because it will have to go over 8000 rpm. Titanium valves become necessary. Better rocker arm trunnions. Stronger springs. High conductivity valve seats. Just a lot more expense in order to rev higher, and then all that just to make the same power as the original engine.

[@jakeschultz2183]

I think you should set up both for what they would be good at, short stroke with a super charger for faster revs or stroker with long intake runners and a turbo for high torque and hp....

[@chrisyanez2299]

something to ponder . like you richard ,ive noticed that the destroked engine might be beneficial in the land speed application . raising the torque/hp levels to higher rpm to help with traction issues on the salt . also the crazy river race ski guys in Australia run engines that maintain a higher level of rpm for longer periods of time . {and they runa jet pump as a drive . }

[@rolandtamaccio3285]

The hypothetical increase with 2 more pounds of boost is fine, but I would really like to see you sort out a cam for the 4.8 crank @ another 15 hun or 2 thou more revs .

[@richardholdener1727]

that takes much more than a cam

[@patlandymore7035]

This was an interesting and thought provoking test all around. Thanks for posting it! Really interesting to me would be to see two engines of the same family (Ford, BBC, LS...whatever) built to the same (larger) size. One overbored to get the displacement, one stroke to achieve it. I could swear that one of the major magazines did something like that with BBC’s but I can’t find any of the articles. ??

[@richardholdener1727]

bore vs stroke has been done-if the displacement is the same-the power is the same until the bigger bore allows better head flow (that the motor needs)

[@patlandymore7035]

Thanks very much for replying. 🍻

[@tator4209]

Yes. But I'd like to look at it as a bored 4.8. Can we have a video of a bossted 4.8 and a boosted destroked 6.0???

[@richardholdener1727]

A BIGGER MOTOR THAT MAKES MORE NA POWER WILL MAKE MORE BOOSTED POWER AT ANY GIVEN BOOST LEVEL

[@frankm8533]

Ur vids are great!! I'm friends with LS guys that's all they do since the LS life started, I have a stock 4.8 in my shortbed Silverado. Theres so many configurations now on these engines I don't know where to start Lol I'm going to leave it stock.

[@bdugle1]

Inspection of the top end of the power curve indicates the “unstroker” is peaking lower, thus there may be a big difference in the cams. Putting the 469 cam in both may have shown a closer competition if the short stroke engine was revved out to where it was moving as much air. Maybe that was just the manual waste gate and falling boost curve, though. Comparing displacements, the smaller engine should have to spin roughly 12% faster, or another almost 1000 rpm. My preference would be the 415, the TFS GenX 255s, and enough cam (and valve springs), to peak at 7500. THEN add boost! More cubic inches! Who cares about piston speed, put in the stroker crank!

[@jacobbergen6317]

Richard u should do a boosted 460 bbf

[@MrAPCProductions]

There are a few BBF videos in his playlist.

[@jacobbergen6317]

MrAPCProductions but he should do a Big Bang version to see what they can do like he did with the 351w

[@manitoublack]

Only reason to de-stroke is to meet a particular displacement class.

[@ryanmalin]

Or to get efficiency

[@deanstevenson6527]

manitoublack : Or to look after a block. Or to have a squirell crapload of fun with a high rev engine that doesnt break. The Alpine Renault used the de stroked 2.45 liter turbo PRV V6 originally destined for the 83 Deloren DMC...to protect the stand alone open deck liners from moving under boost. And what is the DZ code 302 Z28 but The most fun V8 small block ever made. These engines are doing 10 grand now and people come just to see them do sub 9s. Or the early 1964 970 Cooper S Mini with 6 inch rods. Or the Aussie 302 Cleveland, a destroked 351 Cleveland engine, 240, 230, 207 or 188 hp from the factory, sweeter than a 5 sugared coffee. And the stock 302C engine block, in a twin turboed with a four CDS188 Zenith Strombergs for a Bensons Turbo Center offshore boat...900 hp at 6500 rpm. YES. The Bonneville A, B and C combo engines are lovely and exist to reduce cylinder pressure and stop liner failure at 1500 hp and when cylinder pressure spikes occur under nitrous and/ or more boost. Even a 386 is a destroked LS7 427 kzbin.info/www/bejne/opiwoIeHgcqVitU

[@deanstevenson6527]

Ryan Malin : Specific hp per cube goes up when capacity goes down.

[@michaelrodgers6559]

Bigger bore means being able to run bigger valves than a stock 4.8 head can fit if it benefits your goals as well.

[@trashbandit2449]

Or to have easy high rpm, or to have fun, or to be better on the track (less spinning out because lower torque)

[@trentcrompton9527]

More cubes = More power

[@mchristr]

Having come of age when 1st Gen Z/28s were the coolest car on the planet, I've thought that a 7,500 rpm 302 LS in a newer Camaro would be a fun project. You'll need a steep ratio in back and lots of transmission gears.

[@zackarymorrow6484]

Don't know if you've heard but someone made a destroked LS7 that revs to 8500 in a 3rd gen camaro

[@richardholdener1727]

you don't have to destroke the LS7 to run to 8500 rpm

[@Techangler65]

Your videos are so throughout lol crazy testing. So helpful as I am working out what to do to my 2014 Silverado 6.2l Taking plenty of notes

[@oceanwaves83]

Go to a performance shop and see if they have any blowers from CTS-V's or ZL1's laying around and get a price quote on putting one on your truck. Run 10psi and have a very fun torque monster for the street.

[@wastedwagesmercuryman6018]

Wish you were close to me! I have a couple of creations that I came up with from reading your books! So curious to the power that they would make!

[@getawayperformance]

I want to do a texas speed re-sleeved ls3 block (4.125') with the gen 4 4.8 crank and 6.300 rods and custom pistons, kinda like what you built just more bore lol.

[@michaelblacktree]

If I did the math right, the destroked LS3 should have about 5.5 liters of displacement. It would be interesting to see how the performance compares to a 5.3... maybe bore out the 5.3 to increase displacement a bit. I'm willing to bet performance would be similar, unless the destroked engine is configured for high RPM.

[@williamjarman7466]

The question isn't whether or not the destroke makes more power it is how quickly does it RPM that's the point of doing a short stroke is as soon as you hit the gas it's right up to the high RPM Peak power level or the other longer stroke takes longer to ramp up.

[@richardholdener1727]

that is not accurate

[@FairladyS130]

Interesting stuff, as was mentioned LS's have lube problems at higher RPM, 6,500 seems to be a safe limit. So that would have to be addressed using a dry sump system if the de-stroked LS is going to make useful power above 6.5 going around corners.

[@richardholdener1727]

it doesn't need a dry sump for 6500+rpm-we run stock stuff past 7500 all the time

[@FairladyS130]

@@richardholdener1727 Are you talking road racing? Because typically serious LS road racers have dry sumps. Now I don't know specifically the reasons why oil pressure can fail with the stock setup, but there is oil surge, foaming, excess oil pump capacity and insufficient drain down to consider.

[@benhowe2087]

What were the compression ratios? With that huge short runner intake it could use compression and a larger camshaft. If you build a short stroke high rpm engine. Than it needs to make power at 8k. I think the peak power numbers would be closer if the short stroke engine was optimized for high rpm power.

[@dingomanz7]

Now this is science! Comparing a destroked version with boost with the standard version with boost. Let's see if RPM can win vs torque

[@richardholdener1727]

that video just posted

[@dingomanz7]

@@richardholdener1727 Turns out: 'There's no replacement for displacement'! Thank you for all of this. You've single handedly educated some of car culture to understand why engines win Wards Best Engine.

[@kylej489]

Would love a boosted iron vs alloy block big bang comparison!

[@turbhoeheflin1168]

I still don’t understand how this is hard for people to understand. Build it N/A then add turbo! It blows my mind. I’ve been trying to build to this idea since 2008. Being navy, that when could afford to do it... lol.

[@hassanabas1549]

It's not about the more power na you can always replace the na power with boost it depends on your target hp because if you stroker a 6.0 to a 408ci and then add boost yes it will make alot of power until a point when you can't go further like say 24 psi however if you have destroked ls3 6.2 to a 6.0 and then you add boost your stroked engine may outperform mine until 24psi but then I will have the upper hand more rpms more boost like say 30 psi or so which will make up for that higher displacement of yours in the 1/4mile ofcourse I will need to stay in the PowerBaND because of the higher rpm =high rpm torque converter high rpm intake =high rpm heads ....etc I have no experience whatsoever but that is what I have concluded after gathering so much info on the Internet concerning this topic

[@mewrongwayKOCXF]

What is the part number for the pistons? 6.3" rods are not custom all manufacturers have them!👍👍👍

[@richardholdener1727]

THERE IS NO PART NUMBER-IT WAS A CUSTOM SET WITH CUSTOM RODS

[@mewrongwayKOCXF]

@@richardholdener1727 Adam at Wiseco Canada set me up but thanks anyway!

[@chris49ford]

I want to see a comparison between a 366 cubic inch destroked gen 2 hemi and a built 360 small block mopar. Be interesting to see if the hemi heads make enough difference to justify 843 lbs vs 550 lbs (maybe calculate power to weight difference on a Colt - say a roller weighs 1800 lbs so say 2350 small block vs 2643 hemi). 426 hemis destroked to 366 were used in both NHRA and NASCAR. NHRA gave a weight break for less cubic inches (the 366 hemi in Dodge Colts and Plymouth Arrows was a potent yet wiley combo) and NASCAR penalized and restricted engines over 366. Of course you could probably build three or four 360 LA/Magnums for the cost of one 366 destroked gen 2 426 hemi ..

[@ZackNakazora1]

Anytime I see 4.8 crank I get happy. I keep lurking.. If I ever found a gen 4 6.2 block or 6.0 block I could be tempted..

[@andyharman3022]

Go extreme and put a 4.8 crank in an LS7...

[@PMcGuffin]

Have you ever done any tests with LSA superchargers on different sized LS engines or any tests on pulpy size with an LSA engine?

[@richardholdener1727]

no lsa testing yet

[@mcjoneszin]

Bigger displacement is going to win always given everything else is somewhat equal. The real question is make the displacement the same, and bore and stroke different.

[@matt-vr1rd]

We need a destroked big bang! Also.. maybe I'm talking out my ass, but here it goes.. it seems alot of really high power 4 and 6 cylinders intentionally avoid lower rpm pulls to avoid breaking internals, obviously they make power up there due to boost so that goes hand in hand. So my brain has been really itching to see what a setup like this is capable of with a couple big snails and good boost control.. big bang style ;)

[@richardholdener1727]

I'm doing as big bang on the K24 honda and the 3800 series 2 v6

[@francesco461]

Hey Richard, so the 4.8 makes more power per liter. The 4.8 makes 152.7 hp/L The 6.2 makes 133 hp/L Even if you add the 60hp to make up for the difference in boost the 6.2 makes 142.7 hp/L. So my question is, is it the cam that's making the 4.8 in this test more efficient or is it another factor? Compression ratio different? And would the 4.8 get better fuel economy with daily driving?

[@richardholdener1727]

different intake, ported heads, and more boost-but more hp is still more hp

[@francesco461]

@@richardholdener1727 Would you get better fuel economy out of the 4.8?

[@richardholdener1727]

I would not pick that cam, those heads or that intake for fuel mileage on the 4.8L

[@dandailey1857]

Circle track perspective. Flat, sandy track does better with a smaller motor with a broad rpm range to find sweet spot in power slides. Bigger motor would only throw more sand around hurting times on flat track (very little bank through curves) if your not getting bite, your not making flight. Tactical maneuver, backed with winners trophies.

[@p.warner9121]

Richard, you drive me crazy man, Why don't you run the exact same cam and heads. That way it's a true comparison. Don't get me wrong your videos are a wealth of knowledge and I even bought one of your LS books. Just give us a true comparison.

[@richardholdener1727]

there was no need to do that for this comparison

[@captainobvious9188]

I dig that they are both the same turbo/wastegate(spring), because working backwards it shows that for X turbo working the same amount, this is the boost and power it generates on Y respective engine. I would be willing to bet that the turbo reached the same speeds for both engines.

[@opieg7333]

Richard - theory question - De-stroked as I understand it was a means to increase the peak RMP, essentially reducing the piston speed and rod stresses... with modern materials, can we apply the same strategy to a longer stoke? To me the "magic" of de-stroking is more about the required valve-train stability to sustain higher RPMs allowing more air to be pumped by virtue of increased piston cycles. So, could we apply the same strategy to say a LS7 with a 4" stroke and design for 8,000 rpm and reliably get the benefit of increased RPM and displacement?

[@richardholdener1727]

if the valve train is right (and cam) are right, you can run any LS stroke, rod, piston combo to 8000 rpm

[@opieg7333]

@@richardholdener1727 I know what I want for Christmas!!!!!

[@nhardy419]

Hey Richard I have a 97 police package LT1 Z28 6sp. I refuse to go LS. Please help me get 500+ out of it. I can keep up with stock C5 LS1.

[@richardholdener1727]

heads and cam go a long way-then 383 stroker

[@captainobvious9188]

At least with the turbo setup I dug into, the small peaks and valleys in the boost curve are inverse of the small peaks and valleys in the n/a torque curve. The turbo spools relatively smoothly to the goal boost level RPMs it needs, and then slowly increases RPM to match the flow until redline. The peaks and valleys in boost pressure are reflected by the volumetric efficiency going up and down: The turbo can't change speed instantly to match, but for the relatively same speed can change pressure ratios.

[@NealHodgden]

Try the same thing with a destroked ls7 and get the overall cubic inch displacement closer

[@jasonbirch1182]

Love to see a comparable cube pair with a large stroke small bore and a short stroke large bore with the same heads. I'm also curious, if you were to measure fuel consumption and boost the destroker motor until it used the same fuel load would it be making the same power?

[@smokenchoken1736]

Generally the larger bore will make more power all other things equal mainly because of the airflow around the valves and ability to use larger valves, Jason over at Engineering Explained did a great video on that subject

[@jasonbirch1182]

@@smokenchoken1736 yeah but horsepower and torque are very different animals. I'd like to see how far down on torque the short stroke motor is. In my vintage mercrdes world there is exactly this combo. A pair of 3.8 ltr v8. One 88mm bore one 92mm. I can't remember stroke or torque off the top of my head but the 92mm makes almost 20hp more which in these little things is basically 10%. I think torque is down considerably though. After the small bore replaced the short stroke they just said f it and combined them to make a 4.2 that was better. But the short stroke motor was a 6700 rpm redline screamer (very high for a factory v8). Sound wicked even at 227hp.

[@orangetruckman]

Love the “outside the box” thinking 😎 how about a stroked 4.8l 🤗 keep putting the amazing videos out sir 🤘🏻

[@andyharman3022]

The 5.3 is a stroked 4.8.

[@orangetruckman]

Andy Harman -haha, true. I haven’t looked into all the measurements, but something like a 6.2l crank in a 4.8l block. It would be interesting and kinda fun-in my opinion. What would a bigger stroke and smaller bore LS produce? It’s probably not ideal, but then again this is all about fun right?

[@andyharman3022]

The 3.62 stroke crank is bread and butter in the LS series. It is used in the 5.3, 5.7, 6.0, and 6.2. The new crank in town is a 3.86 stroke that is used in the 6.6 truck engine. That would take a 5.3 out to 5.7 (346 cubes).

[@orangetruckman]

Andy Harman -WOW! You’re on it 👍🏻 I’m planning a small cubic inch motor that will have good torque-4,000 lb truck 💁🏼‍♂️ it will be turbocharged and “sip” gas when not in boost. Well, that’s the goal 😬

[@mattbludgen4357]

Get an electronic boost control already!! Great show by the way! Have you tried decaffeinated coffee? LOL!!

[@tator4209]

Looks like as a bored out 4.8 it makes 75++ ish more horsepower than a standard 4.8 with similar boost?

[@alejandroledesma8060]

What if that destroker had the ported 823 factory heads, ls Fast intake & that 469 comp cam ? 🔥🇺🇸

[@richardholdener1727]

I RAN THE DESTROKED SHORT BLOCK WITH PORTED REC PORT HEADS TOO

[@craigritchie1933]

Hay Richard ,you need a new rule for comparison testing , (always use a electronic boost controller) manual boost controllers are cheap and effective however they usually skews the results making direct comparisons difficult

[@TheTmshuman]

Why can’t you have a cam cut for peak VE farther out in the RPM range say 7k? I don’t understand. I am under the impression that horsepower is a factor of torque over time and therefore moving peak VE (peak torque) out leads to more effective combustion cycles out at higher rpm and therefore making more horsepower as it’s not just a bunch of 60% VE power cycles at 8k but more like 100-120%. Narrower overlap and more scavenge? Less lift for greater valve stability? What could you do to move peak VE where it needs to be to continue to make power? Maybe more advance on the cam?

[@richardholdener1727]

the cam isn't the only thing that determines what rpm the motor makes peak power at

[@TheTmshuman]

Richard Holdener I know intake runner tuning for reverb and target port velocity etc. make a difference but I’ll bet you’ve got a few high RPM intakes kicking around.

[@kevincollins2184]

Honestly a more fair comparison would be same heads and cam between the two engines but the cams were very close same LSA which is important, but I'm surprised the destroked engine didn't carry power out further I'm the RPM range then it did.

[@bobqzzi]

I've been meaning to ask: budget considerations aside, is there a sweetspot displacement for a turbo LS? By this I mean a point after which the cost/difficulty/relibility/wear curve steepens considerably? 427"?

[@richardholdener1727]

I tend to look at the situation in terms of power-what power do you want? a boosted 4.8l or 5.3l will service most anyone up to 1,000 hp (or beyond)

[@bobqzzi]

@@richardholdener1727 Well, I'm kind of stuck on the idea of buiding one that tickles 1000HP at 7500 RPM, but makes a flat 700 ft ;lbs from

[@bobqzzi]

Also, thank you for such a great channel

[@utahcountypicazospage5412]

How soon do you want to make the power Richard is right 4.8/5.3 will make 1000 hp but later 6.0/7.0 will make that much sooner in the rpm with way more tq 4.8 drag radial 7.0 tubbed slick car lol

[@thereluctantgearhead4544]

Be interesting to see what they both do NA with 13-1 compression and a lumpy 270+@.050 solid roller. Same components on both, just the crankshaft stroke being different. Big singleplane intake with a 750cfm 4500 Dominator, then swap on a 1050 4500 Dominator and see the difference. Rev the hell out of them.

[@242bleek]

Can't really take advantage of the shorter stroke without more RPM which means more and more $$$

[@dr_tate]

The LS3 intake manifold is much better than the High Ram in the RPM provided.. The comparison is same heads same intake same cam same boost.. We know the bigger motor is gonna win But it's like someone talking CRAP on your little dog.. ya big dogs are cool but there is just something special about my little dog..

[@gtgodbear6320]

I wish someone would make a crank rod and piston combo that came out to 302ci. Make a modern Trans Am series motor for circuit racing classic Pony cars with new tech. Mustang would probably win if they got to use dual overhead cam 302's. But the lighter LS3 302's might have an advantage. Maybe even with a 4.8/5.3 vortec with a 302ci setup would be great for a Camaro or a Trans Am. Even let Mustangs use the LS302 pushrod engine.

[@snappeddegree7]

It would be nice to see the Destroked motor revving out to 8k on boost . Because it’s not in it’s Rpm efficiency range if it’s only revving to 6500

[@richardholdener1727]

the motor already reached peak power-running to 8000 rpm on this combo would do nothing as described

[@snappeddegree7]

Richard Holdener I’m saying with the cam you had before that went to 8k. That cam, with boost

[@finnroen2334]

More and more often, I find myself outside your 90% rule.

[@mcjoneszin]

I want to see a test for even firing order. (screamer cam) and everything else equal.

[@richardholdener1727]

what is even firing order?

[@mcjoneszin]

@@richardholdener1727 15374826 .. Where you do not have two pulses on the same bank right next to each other. This should make the manifold signal better and scavenging in the header better.

[@andyharman3022]

@@mcjoneszin You want to fire all the cylinders on the left bank before you fire the cylinders on the right bank? How are you numbering the cylinders here? left bank 1357, right bank 2468? or left bank 1234, right bank 5678?

[@jasonstewart6022]

Okay, respectfully, you're wrong but right at some parts. When reving over 8k, stroke definitely plays a role. Reduces piston speed relative to crank speed. Rod angularity is reduced. Rotational mass is reduced. Reduces bearing journal size, which in turn reduces bearing speed. If they are not smaller, you would grind or offset grind the journal. I can go on and on.

[@richardholdener1727]

there is no change in journal size. rotational mass can be either increased, decreased or remain the same. Rod angularity change is minimal in these displacements. piston speed is not changed enough to make any difference in these ranges. I could go on and on-smaller displacement makes less power and you can rev the larger displacement to the same rpm (its valve train in these rpm ranges)

[@ddn79]

I would bet a bone stock LS3 with boost will still out-perform the destroked LS3 with aftermarket heads and bigger cam.

[@richardholdener1727]

a stock one makes less peak hp than the destroke-but it would be better down low

[@utahcountypicazospage5412]

Exactly unless you got a bunch of stuff for cheap then a destroked would make sense 4.8 cracked block 6.0 ruined crank mix them up with what was best from both viola destroked saved money lol

[@MrZX1206]

People in the comments that keep saying "short stroke is less stress at high RPMs" don't get that RPMs are stress.

[@dmzk1ng658]

Hard to say as i couldn't see the engines run. Im a destroke fan, i still think that stock block vs stock block destroked w/ forced injection blowwwws it away. Would love more destroke vids

[@richardholdener1727]

did you watch the video?

[@reevinriggin3570]

Of course the bigger displacement will make more power than the smaller destroked engine in all instances AT THE SAME RPM RANGES. It used to be that the lore of building a "destroked" engine was lack of really good parts that would take the rpm and laugh it off. I will reference piston speed (yes I know Richard doesn't believe it makes a difference) as a variable. The shorter stroke engine will have a slower acceleration and slower deceleration of the piston at the moment of leaving the dwell of the stroke. As RPM rises the forces generated on the piston and rod greatly increase to the point of failure of lesser parts quickly. So back in the day, before stroker cranks and good affordable rods and pistons were a shelf option, some liked to make more HP using higher RPM. Easier and cheaper to get there with a shorter stroke. IF it lacked torque then you used steeper gears, shorter tires, etc......And as we all know boost just makes it all better. Doesn' matter the stroke length. In those days a 600CI engine was a pro-stock mountain motor on alcohol. Very few racers could financially touch those. Now any boob can build a 600+ engine making 1000hp for far less money then back then. Heck, most can build something with the old e-bay turbo and top 1200 hp. At least for a little while. Meanwhile, Chevrolet "destroked" a 327 to make the "legendary" (tongue in cheek) 302. That was for class racing only. There was no need to make less power, but there was a 5L limit in Trans-Am. They had to spin it to be competitive with the level of power generated by the boss heads Ford was running. So the myth of the legend of the high RPM, high strung race motor 302 was born. The 327 will out muscle the 302 at all RPM ranges provided you can feed it, so it would be stupid to destroke it to make power. That's my take on how these myths get started and proliferate.

[@georgebrooks58]

Will a destroyed combo reach peak rpm faster than a regular stroke or even a stroked combo? That’d be interesting

[@richardholdener1727]

no

[@eliasmelendez1271]

I think you should run the same cylinder heads the same cam the same turbo everything except the short block. What you should see is that the destroke ls3 will make the same hp at a higher rpm vs the ls3 with the stock crank shaft. Thats all but not fare though

[@richardholdener1727]

it will not make the same power

[@eliasmelendez1271]

@@richardholdener1727 have you tried?

[@samgourzis9300]

Hey Richard, that 226/230 on 113 cam. Where did you put the intake lobe centre, how many degrees Advance ?

[@richardholdener1727]

dot to dot

[@kevinhedgecock5046]

When ever you talk about stroking or destroking an engine it might be nice to include information such as before and after ci of displacement etc.......btw with a 5.3 block and a 4.8 crank....what's the ci of displacement?

[@fascistpedant758]

They have the same bore.

[@kevinhedgecock5046]

@@fascistpedant758 so changing the crank and stroke length does not change the cc or ci of the engine ? ie: a 5.3 with a destroyed rotating assembly leaves its cc/ci still a 5300cc/325ci ?

[@fascistpedant758]

@@kevinhedgecock5046 They use the same block and bore. the only difference is that the 5.3 has a longer stroke and dished pistons to reduce the compression ratio. A 5.3 with a 4.8 crankshaft is a 4.8.

[@kevinhedgecock5046]

@@fascistpedant758 thank you....Ya learn somethin new every day ! LOL literally......I love the educational format of these videos and sense I am disabled learning is a big part of my day ! From engine building to racing tech in street cars to building your own frames and body panels how (more importantly why) down force is applied in racecar applications....KZbin is great and I am a big fan of the channel! Thank you so much for your time, experience and expertise !

[@FELiPES101]

Am I wrong in thinking that a destroked motor should be capable of more rpm than this?

[@racecitypatriot5017]

Rpm is cam and heads not stroke

[@danielsullivan9865]

It had the wrong cam. that's all that cam can do. that's why it laid over. we run the same cam in a 6.0 twin turbo and have the same problem. That small engine needs solid lifter camshaft and shaft rockers to get 8000 RPM for things to be equal. The small engine should have a higher volume metric efficiency than the large engine. The small engine will never compare to the large engine for torque but should beat the large Engine with horsepower at the same piston speed

[@richardholdener1727]

it doesn't need a solid lifter cam

[@HotGritz910]

Bigger motor make more powr..of course.. i would like to see which one will make the most power at 9k though...when most guys compare against the 4.8 or destroke engines they never go up to 8k, they stop at 6500 rpm

[@pancudowny]

I recall once reading about theory of a 2.0:1 rod/stroke ratio would be ideal for running a boosted/turbocharged application. Did you attempt/find that with the longer rods & custom pistons here, Rich?

[@richardholdener1727]

rod ratio plays almost no part in power

[@mattymatt669]

Hey Ricard I’m wondering what brand Exhaust manifolds are you using

[@richardholdener1727]

they were dna stainless headers but i prefer stock truck manifolds

[@mattymatt669]

Richard Holdener why the stock truck do they make better power

[@TwoLotus2]

@@mattymatt669 Power is probably less, but they will last longer. But you can get reliable stainless headers if you want to spend some cash. Lots of expansion and contraction going on.

[@mattymatt669]

@twoLotus2 I have a question does the Ls1 and the LQ4 mount the same ?

[@shanielluciano9649]

Can u make a video with a Destroke V8 at 9K RPM? please

[@richardholdener1727]

destoke does not do that

[@shanielluciano9649]

@@richardholdener1727 I know, u say it, but I think it helps the engine Rev highs due the lower weight, but how u say, camshaft do the work, not the destroke.

[@FTR_Performance]

Hey Richard, have you done a turbo LS3 with Cath port heads?

[@philipferreira33]

Hello Richard. By keeping the cam and just increasing the boost to get the same power. Will the loads on the engine be significantly more?

[@richardholdener1727]

no

[@phlodel]

So, you found out there's no replacement for displacement?

[@BigRichEHhthang100]

Do I need to change the rods to do this

[@richardholdener1727]

you can run stock 4.8l crank and rods and 6.2l pistons-can also be done with a 6.0L. But pressing pistons on and off is sometimes difficult (use Gen 4 stuff)

[@Headsup9550]

Wasn't the rpm limited by the top end combo & turbo and less about amount of boost?

[@Parents_of_Twins]

Perhaps I missed it but I didn't hear what the compression was for each engine if it was the same or different between engines?

[@warrenlancaster8045]

The 4.8 crank LS3 was like 11.3:1. Read about it on some site

[@Parents_of_Twins]

@@warrenlancaster8045 Thank you very much.

[@PrettyGoodShot]

HELLLLL YEAH BOIS! WE BURNING TIRES DOWN OUT HERE!

[@Darylrb1983]

I think i high revving v8 would be hilarious in my tbss. But this thing is heeeeavy

[@antonjimmy5636]

I expected a bigger difference in below peak torque, peak HP I thought would be closer