Cheapest/Easiest Way to get to ~400 crank HP

[Mensaf]

Do a LS2 swap with the tranny from a SS Trailblazer. Would be awesome.

[RallyBob]

Originally Posted by Mensaf

Do a LS2 swap with the tranny from a SS Trailblazer. Would be awesome.

Probably a tough fit under an SVX hood I'd imagine? I didn't think a 'V' engine would fit well where a 'boxer' engine was designed to go!

[Mensaf]

Originally Posted by RallyBob

Probably a tough fit under an SVX hood I'd imagine? I didn't think a 'V' engine would fit well where a 'boxer' engine was designed to go!

You know what's funny about you? I make a joke and you actually have an answer for it I followed your build on nasioc a few years back when I was in an Impreza. You guys going to have any action vids other than the dyno anytime soon?

[RallyBob]

Originally Posted by Mensaf

You know what's funny about you? I make a joke and you actually have an answer for it

Sorry....I thought you were serious! My cousin has a Trailblazer SS, and I have to admit it moves right out for such a porker.

I followed your build on nasioc a few years back when I was in an Impreza. You guys going to have any action vids other than the dyno anytime soon?

I know I've been threatening to videotape the car in action, just never got around to it. Jack has a ton of in-car video, but it's all without sound. For some reason he can never get the sound to work at all...just static.

[STeeL25T]

I'm still not clear on what to do here... Let say I'm going for 400 crank hp, got a built bottom end and a good single turbo... What needs to be done to the head? Will getting Delta to do the 8 mm lift (i think I read 247* duration?) intake cam be all I need for this level or am I going to have to go to solid lifters?

[svxistentialist]

Originally Posted by RallyBob

IMO, the easiest way to get 400 crank hp (or 400 whp for that matter) is to go turbo. A single turbo would be easiest to fit, and something like a GT3076, a 'small' GT35, or a GT3782 (cheaper, non ball bearing) would easily produce the numbers and spool nicely. You could run lower boost to extract the same power if you 'freed up' the engine's breathing a little too. Mild head work and cams would compliment things immensely.

Pay someone to do it and it will always cost you. People don't work for free, nor should they be expected to. But if you're capable of doing all the work yourself you could probably put it together for about $8500 or so.

Bob, even though I have a supercharger on one of mine, and I'm a fan of them because of the low down torque, I'm 100% in agreement with what you say here.

FWIW in the UK on the 2.5 Sti engine for Time Attack cars they have big success with the Garrett GT35R which is a ball bearing model.

To me looking simplistically at it, this model should work very well on the 3.3's larger displacement and being twin scroll will spool up quickly for the low down punch, but still yield big numbers higher up if numbers is your thang.

If I was doing it though, even for a road car, I would rebuild the engine and semi close the deck using big liners. No point going to this expense and having it blow up.

Joe

[Myxalplyx]

Turbocharge that baby for 17psi. or

Intake/Exhaust/Header and a 150hp shot of nitrous. or

5psi of turbo boost and a 100hp shot or...................

[taylorbr]

To define my goals further - I would like to get the peak torque around 2700 to 3000 rpm and have the car still be emissions legal. I've chosen 3000 rpm so that I get good acceleration off the line AND great efficiency on the freeway (since the engine should be most efficient at peak torque).

I've been reading up on engine related topics all night and this is what I have so far, please correct me if I am wrong and keep in mind this only applies to a N/A build. I am simply posting it here to try to retain some of what I have learned and to get feedback on whether that applies in this case:

1. From Bob's threads, it seems like larger lift would be great
2. A narrow lobe separation angle should get more torque, but worse idle and a narrower powerband
3. I'm not sure about intake duration, probably just long enough to fill the cylinders at peak torque rpm
4. Exhaust duration should probably be longer
5. Some advance in the cam should give better low end torque and improve the idle
6. I would want a long smaller intake for more ram pressure (good for low rpm), but less re-fill ability (bad for high rpm)
7. Equal length headers that are as long as possible before convergence

[STeeL25T]

Originally Posted by STeeL25T

I'm still not clear on what to do here... Let say I'm going for 400 crank hp, got a built bottom end and a good single turbo... What needs to be done to the head? Will getting Delta to do the 8 mm lift (i think I read 247* duration?) intake cam be all I need for this level or am I going to have to go to solid lifters?

Any help here would be great.

[RallyBob]

Originally Posted by taylorbr

To define my goals further - I would like to get the peak torque around 2700 to 3000 rpm and have the car still be emissions legal. I've chosen 3000 rpm so that I get good acceleration off the line AND great efficiency on the freeway (since the engine should be most efficient at peak torque).

That's a tall order. I think that in order to get the power improvement you desire and have the torque peak at that low an rpm, you're looking at either forced induction or variable induction technology. In general a higher hp number and lower rpm torque occurance don't go hand-in-hand.

1. From Bob's threads, it seems like larger lift would be great

Yes, but not *very* achievable with hydraulic lifters and stock valve lengths. Some improvement can certainly be had, but it's not optimal for the head's flow potential.

2. A narrow lobe separation angle should get more torque, but worse idle and a narrower powerband

And emissions levels will generally increase, at least at idle and low rpms.

Larger displacement certainly didn't hurt Jack's EG33 (or 'EG35.34' if you want), the engine saw nearly equal gains across the board in HP and torque. Compression helps both HP and torque of course, but may increase NOX emission levels.

Modest headwork and cam improvements while retaining the stock valvetrain can *probably* gain you 30-35 whp. I'm just extrapolating from the results we saw on Jack's engine. Add the larger displacement shortblock, more compression, standalone management (Hydra), and some nice headers with single exhaust (I prefer a single to duals for torque), and you can quite possibly see 250-265 whp, with a very streetable torque curve. Of course technically none of this is emissions legal....

[taylorbr]

Originally Posted by RallyBob

Modest headwork and cam improvements while retaining the stock valvetrain can *probably* gain you 30-35 whp. I'm just extrapolating from the results we saw on Jack's engine. Add the larger displacement shortblock, more compression, standalone management (Hydra), and some nice headers with single exhaust (I prefer a single to duals for torque), and you can quite possibly see 250-265 whp, with a very streetable torque curve. Of course technically none of this is emissions legal....

Seems legal enough if I can pass the sniffer test...how much higher compression could you go before having to pull timing? It seems like 10:1 to 11:1 is about the highest on pump fuel.

I agree I may have to rethink my HP desires since I would like to keep the torque at low rpm which will cut my higher rpm ability.

[taylorbr]

I'm now thinking of stroker options instead of an overbore, it seems like you get more bang for the buck that way...

[RallyBob]

Originally Posted by taylorbr

...how much higher compression could you go before having to pull timing? It seems like 10:1 to 11:1 is about the highest on pump fuel.

That depends on other variables. One of which is the cam choice. Unfortunately, a camshaft design which favors low end torque generally produces lots of cylinder pressure, even at small throttle openings. So the tolerance for timing is reduced.

IIRC you guys in CA only have 91 octane available, so that reduces the compression tolerance even more.

[subbieatnz]

Originally Posted by RallyBob

Larger displacement certainly didn't hurt Jack's EG33 (or 'EG35.34' if you want),

For some reason i thought the size of the motor was bigger

Would it be ok to do EG33 as a EG35.34 etc running a supercharger?
Or would the cylinder walls to thin to run F.I. when its bored to that size?

[RallyBob]

Originally Posted by subbieatnz

For some reason i thought the size of the motor was bigger

Nope, it's got a 100 mm bore x 75 mm stroke = 3534 cc's

Would it be ok to do EG33 as a EG35.34 etc running a supercharger?
Or would the cylinder walls to thin to run F.I. when its bored to that size?

I would certainly want to sleeve the block for forced induction with that bore diameter.