In reply to 03Panther :
Basically my goal with the GTA was 5.7 TPI power but with more RPMs. But then I decided I want a cheap to run seat time car more than another money pit cobbled together 80s GM mess that sucks at most things.
In reply to 03Panther :
Basically my goal with the GTA was 5.7 TPI power but with more RPMs. But then I decided I want a cheap to run seat time car more than another money pit cobbled together 80s GM mess that sucks at most things.
Hmmmmmm. I wonder if this would fit in a Nissan hardbody.
spitfirebill said:Hmmmmmm. I wonder if this would fit in a Nissan hardbody.
It's the same outside dimensions as the larger 5.7, since the block and heads are the same.
so there's no real gain from the 4.3 over the 5.7 except lower power output and maybe some higher RPM capability after some changes (cam, lifter, springs, etc). In fact since the bores are smaller, there's more metal between the bores and therefore it could be slightly heavier than the 5.7.
Frustrating. I was looking at these for an interesting swap into a smaller car, but there's no benefit like you'd find on a European V8 of the same displacement. Those all tend to be more compact and lighter with similar or better power output. Annoying, since these motors are so damned cheap :/
spitfirebill said:Hmmmmmm. I wonder if this would fit in a Nissan hardbody.
It will fit anywhere a small block chevy will. With the same mounts, bell housing, and flexplate/flywheel.
I just did a quick googles and SBCs have been put in hardbodies.
I won't say names but you know who you are and should have mail.
Daylan C said:I won't say names but you know who you are and should have mail.
I didn't get it. Can you resend?
In reply to Indy-Guy :
Your carrier pigeon should be inbound. Very hard to get a bird to fly north this time of year so he may have gotten lost.
I'll drive 8 hours for that.
Sold to a local buyer.
We have one in York, Pa for sale if anyone is interested.
I need an excuse to visit y'all one day. How much..... No don't tell me, I like my wife too much to have her have to go to jail!!!!
Even though I know it won't spin any faster than the larger LT's, it be a cool novelty.
The 60's 302 spun high rpms for many reasons, but a stock 4.3 crank in a stock 5.7, does not meet many of them.
03Panther said:I need an excuse to visit y'all one day. How much..... No don't tell me, I like my wife too much to have her have to go to jail!!!!
Even though I know it won't spin any faster than the larger LT's, it be a cool novelty.
The 60's 302 spun high rpms for many reasons, but a stock 4.3 crank in a stock 5.7, does not meet many of them.
$100 obo.....but the fuel to get here from Alabama may by more than the engine. We can haul to Florida in October, buy really would like to sell before then.
They will and do spin harder than you would think. The LT1 heads are way better than the older heads and modern cams are really good
There are still CI limits in class racing and the 302 is a favorable size.
Naw, hope ya sell it. I'm trying to thin the herd. Not that I'll never put a LT1 engine in an astro, I doubt I'll have any toys with one again
Just wondering, since your a great source. Would a stock 4.3 crank in a stock 5.7 turn any higher than a stock 5.7? In know many things can be made to spin on up, but stock stuff I assumed wouldn't be much different.
How about a built 4.3/5.7 vs a built stroked 5.7? I hear there's some pretty large LT1's nowadays.
I won't be racing anything on my budget; just random thoughts!
I assume that classes that have a CI limit on an engine today, prolly don't have too many guys running LT1's? Don't really know.
My wife a 69Z back in 71 till early 80's. When she told most guys she had a camaro with a 302, they'd laugh and tell her "that's a Ford motor", she'd just smile.
In reply to 03Panther :
RPM is still limited by the valvetrain, which is why Chevy guys just go for broke with stroke and make 383-434ci monsters, and the jury is still out on how tough the 4.3's rods are. You'd be using the 4.3's rods with the 5.7's pistons if you wanted to make a Gen II 302. They're SO CLOSE to 6" long that I wonder if you could get away with good aftermarket 6" rods and double stacked head gaskets.
Me, I like the idea of the 4.3 as-is so as to both minimize engine inertia and have a favorable engine braking response. My priorities are, admittedly, a bit skewed. (The other engine I lust for is a Ford 255 - it has a hollow crank! But tiny bores so you can't use aluminum heads on it. Aluminum LT1 heads with stock 1.94/1.5 valves should clear a 4.3, since they work on 305s)
In reply to 03Panther :
The LT1 heads will peak 57-6000 assuming a head flow of 210-220 cfm at 28" and make 432 to 453 HP. Destroked it would make similar power at 67-7000. Valve train (not including the Valve spring) is not even a concern at that speed. Compression would be an issue. 6" Tod and zero deck would be ideal.
Cool info. More difference than I thought. You the man! And from the small time I've been on here, seems like all of us appreciate it.
So, more like he reasons the gm 302 worked out well than I thought.
If I remember right, and I grew up more of a ford/Shelby fan, so is just "I heard": the class CI restrictions were 305, and gm 283 stroke and 327 bore met that. I was out of diapers by then, but not by a lot, so wasn't much into racing! (I'm a '63 model and my dad was never a car guy)
In reply to Knurled. :
Are the B body 4.3 heads any different then the b body iron lt1 heads? I've "heard" there are some advantages to them, over the aluminum? If so, I guess you could just have some work done to the stock 4.3 heads? Might be a valve size difference, but I think the b body lt1 stuff is still in the parts yards..
In reply to 03Panther :
The main advantage is they make a little more power, because iron doesn't suck heat away from combustion the way aluminum does, so combustion is more efficient. Supposedly Chevy used iron heads because police departments didn't trust aluminum heads. If there's a difference between 4.3 iron heads and 5.7, I don't know myself. Info on the 4.3 is sparse.
They are very similar to Vortec heads.
The 4.3 has a smaller combustion chamber and small valves. We were able to get 217 cfm flow with very little porting work. We modified a conventional 262 and offset ground the crank to make it fit an E class in land speed racing.
Final CI was 260.
the 4.3 (L99) was a Head first coolant engine. We changed ours to be conventional flow and routed the water out of the heads into a remote manifold and then to the radiator. It was Calvin's first 13 second engine in his 'Baker and I almost set a LSR record but destroyed the trans at 155 mph.
Btw, if someone is wanting to do one, the '94 engines had better rods.
You'll need to log in to post.
