Deck Plates on a Duramax
- Thread starter duramaxsandwich
- Start date
Lots of 2 stroker snowmobiles do this and it really does add a ton more power. I dont think it will ever come to realization due to SO many parts being needed. Custom rods, pushrods, gaskets etc.. you would pretty much need to be a millionaire
The reliability issues are probably the most valid argument against trying to make it work.
the reality is if a guy with deep pockets puts one together and is kicking everyone's ass, they will tell you its just a stock stroke motor so they can keep it to themselves and still kick your ass next year. welcome to sled pulling...
Your wrong. The time and money had been spent, on a dyno and all. Very minimal gains.
Maybe if someone uses billet heads we'll see some improvement. But that's not allowed in 3.0 anyways.there is replacement for displacement. It's called turbo. These aren't naturally aspirated big blocks.
Turbo only equals so much, at some point you need more displacement in your air pump (engine) though, Rob. By your logic, there'd be no need for 600+ CI supercharged engines in top fuel dragsters, they could just be LSx engines with more turbo/supercharger. 
. I know you understand that, just picking on your general statement.
Wes or Tim didn't find much gain w/ stroker?
. I know you understand that, just picking on your general statement. Wes or Tim didn't find much gain w/ stroker?
Turbo only equals so much, at some point you need more displacement in your air pump (engine) though, Rob. By your logic, there'd be no need for 600+ CI supercharged engines in top fuel dragsters, they could just be LSx engines with more turbo/supercharger.
Wes or Tim didn't find much gain w/ stroker?
I'm not mentioning names, just saying what I know. In the mod class, or an unlimited single class you could pick some up imo, but with a cubic inch limit, and a 3.0 charger in front, 50 more cubes on a long rod motor isn't going to clean house. Hell gains are minimal on a Cummins and they start 40 cubes less than us. The main thing it does for them is move the torque curve. The turbo is our limit, they go smooth bore in those classes and you could have a 600ci long rod motor and it won't make a bit of difference.
THis has been my thoughts as well, in a air limited class i feel the stroker actully is a disadvantage, now in a unlimited air class...game on!
For the record, I don't think a stroker is needed in 2.6 either as far as air movement is concerned.
How about for longevity at RPM though? A more square bore to stroke ratio is more stable at increased RPM isn't it? Thoughts?
How about for longevity at RPM though? A more square bore to stroke ratio is more stable at increased RPM isn't it? Thoughts?
Working on one now. Should have results in 4-6 weeks. Doing it exactly like the tractors have been doing it for years.
I engine dyno tested stroke to non exact cam, head, bla, bla with what i think is a larger turbo very minimal gains. The real gain is the way the turbo lights.
It would make sense that the stroker (more CID) would light the turbo faster (more air to spin the exducer), but it would also seem as though it would run out of air faster too given a turbo limit as more CID would theoretically need more air...
Now if it's able to supply air up to your target RPM all is good, but if it falls off the map way before, then you could be hurting yourself.
I'm assuming your tests showed it lighting quicker, did you see anything on the other end (drive pressure rising quicker, falling out of the map, etc)?
Edit: I'm assuming the smaller the turbo, the more noticeable it would be. If you were testing a larger turbo (depending on how large and more importantly flow), it might not be as noticeable.