|
![]() |
#1 |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: CenCoast California
Posts: 898
|
![]()
"Barney" my Dark Purple Metallic 95, has a little over 80,000 miles and about 60,000 on it's Automasters Street Skinner engine.
Back in April, my Wife (The Fairest Sandra the Red, Duchess of Goleta) and I ordered a '12 Z06 and after driving it a while, I'm thinking my old 2G ZR1 needs a "shot in the arm" So, I rang up the Beaglemaster, Jim Van Dorn at Automasters of Bowling Green, and asked him about taking my 350 out to 368. We'd pull my 350, send the block up to Lingenfelter's to have the steel sleeves put in. We'd send the heads over to Greg Van Deventer to be "freshened" and have a few more mods done which he puts in heads which go on 368s. I'm also thinking about changing the intake cams. Then we'd assemble the engine at Automasters and stick it back in the car. Right now my engine is at about 500-hp and I'd like to see it at 540-550. Think I can get there?
__________________
Hib Halverson Technical Writer former owner 95 VIN 0140 current owner 19 VIN 1878 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Mill Creek, Wa
Posts: 41
|
![]()
Should I.....Hell Ya!
Could I.....Hell Ya! Would I....Hell Ya! Then I would drive that beast to my favorite Army guys house and let him "drive" it!! ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
![]() Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Marcos CA
Posts: 1,786
|
![]()
I think you need to add at least 1/2 a liter seeing as how you have recently been corrupted by the thrust of a 7 liter in a lightweight C6.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Northridge, CA
Posts: 1,458
|
![]()
All that for 40-50 HP?
Hummmm ![]() ![]() Last edited by tf95ZR1; 09-20-2012 at 01:44 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
![]() Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland Oregon metro area (Washington side)
Posts: 3,193
|
![]()
Why only 368?
For a few $ more......
__________________
Scott ![]() Vett owner since 1979._It's about the car and the people |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
![]() Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Squires (near Ava MO in the Mark Twain N'tl Forest) - Missouri
Posts: 6,466
|
![]()
Baby steps, Hib. "State of the art" has eclipsed 368, and it will cost 80-90% of what a serious hp upgrade would cost. Course the result would eclipse the Z06, hp wise anyway.
Just sayin...but U did ask. P. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 9,686
|
![]()
I think you can be there w a 350 but you would not do it w just the intake cam.
Since you're in Cali, what about emissions? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
![]() Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: CenCoast California
Posts: 898
|
![]()
Well, I'm kinda fixated on the 368 because, if I did it, it'd have to be for under 10 grand and to go 385, I'd need a crankshaft which I bet costs $4000.
My 350 already makes about 500-hp via the port work and other engine mods I have already. I can easily spin the tires, which are F1 Supercars. A good 385 which is streetable, is going to make 580 or so and a good 415 is over 600. All that would do is spin the tires more, but not make the car that much quicker. Obviously, if I put slicks on the car, it'd be a different story...but then I'd be breaking driveline parts. A comment was made about a 368 with different intake cams failing California's smog check. No doubt, the reason I'm still not sure about the cams is just that–the smog check. Actually the smog check is also why I may have to retain my ported stock exhaust manifolds and cats. I'm not a drag racer (at least not a frequent one) and I think a 540-550-hp 368, coupled with the right suspension upgrades (right now, other than revalved SRC shocks, my suspension is stock) and a 3.73 axle (right now, the ratio is stock) would make a really fun car. It won't catch my 12 Z06 on a road course, but it will keep it in sight.
__________________
Hib Halverson Technical Writer former owner 95 VIN 0140 current owner 19 VIN 1878 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
![]() Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Portland Oregon metro area (Washington side)
Posts: 3,193
|
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
Scott ![]() Vett owner since 1979._It's about the car and the people |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
![]() Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Squires (near Ava MO in the Mark Twain N'tl Forest) - Missouri
Posts: 6,466
|
![]() Quote:
You're going to buy sleeves, pistons, rings, bearings anyway, so bigger is possible for very little more $$ e.g., 385. And, you keep your stock crank and cams and get close to 600 CHP, provided the porting is increased to handle it. somewhere above 385 you can transition to 402 via off-set grinding the crank. At 385 you should be able to get to close to 575 CHP, on stock cams (read: Kalifornia emmissions requirements in mind). There's porting, and there's porting... A lot has changed since porting was done in the 90s. One of the often said ditties is, "If you port the intake, you'll give up low/mid range torque for top end". Well, apparently the LT5 was starving for air from the git-go (read: doesn't appear to apply in this case!). Have you seen Marc Haibecks office "wall paper"? It is becoming covered with dyno graphs that show many motors not only making substantial power improvements, but without sacrificing torque anywhere in the band! The point is, HOW your porting is done (dare I say by whom?), could be important. (Some of these gurus are porting LT5 stuff almost weekly. And, now there is a proven CNC head porting program in IL for the LT5 to consider (@ about $2500 inclucing taking the motor apart and putting it back together with the ported heads). I guess the bottom line goes back to what I said earlier about the 368. Hib, you dropped a lot of big names around w/ regard to your project. But, truth is where you find it, and a lot of big names have refocused on other (e.g, LSx) projects - seldom do work on LT5s anymore. Yet, there are still some well known, dyed in the wool DOHC purists that are still dedicated to the LT5, that may have something to offer and won't cost you a fortune. I'm just sayin... P. Last edited by Paul Workman; 09-20-2012 at 07:25 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|