A well chosen carb can for the most part, be set and forgotten. I don't imagine you'd be driving all elevations and weather extremes with your weekend toy, for 100k miles and demanding reliability? (I have, so this isn't new to me). Where I'm going with this is seeing these aspects not jive philosophically; 1. I want a budget engine that competes with more modern platforms but, 2. I'll spend more on a new fuel injection system and OD trans than the engine to gain no more power or mileage than a 3 spd trans and carb? If you are recalling days of old where people endlessly tinkered with the old leaker...they were using the wrong or worn out one to begin with and were maybe trying to buzz 4.56 gears down the freeway. Anything middle ground or intelligently chosen will negate perceived abilities of technology.
A well chosen carb can for the most part, be set and forgotten. I don't imagine you'd be driving all elevations and weather extremes with your weekend toy, for 100k miles and demanding reliability? (I have, so this isn't new to me). No rain or snow just freezing cold- 100° weather. I like the fuel injection stuff more then Carbed. The whole carbed vs fuel injection is a whole nother thread. Both have their faults but in the end it's up to the user to maintain the vehicle. Where I'm going with this is seeing these aspects not jive philosophically; 1. I want a budget engine that competes with more modern platforms but, 2. I'll spend more on a new fuel injection system and OD trans than the engine to gain no more power or mileage than a 3 spd trans and carb? 1.)Never said I want to build on a budget. Honestly that's the worse way to build. As we all know to be ready to fork over cash if you want to do it right the first time. Don't mind saving up more if need be. If you are recalling days of old where people endlessly tinkered with the old leaker...they were using the wrong or worn out one to begin with and were maybe trying to buzz 4.56 gears down the freeway. Anything middle ground or intelligently chosen will negate perceived abilities of technology.
For clarification... Mentioning the word budget wasn't meant to imply cheapness. Multi-million dollar budgets are still that...budgets. You had touched on comparing platforms in terms of ROI and absolute performance metrics. I'm calling your sources of tech info out as marketing hyperbole. The Buick is capable of anything the LS is. The machine is not the limitation there, the builder is. Anyone respectable at their craft doesn't rely on following what the masses read or necessary propaganda for business needs. The budget is going to depend on your abilities and resourcefulness. These are facts, not philosophy. Simply choose your results and formulate a plan. You'll have to study up on what makes engines do what they do and find appropriate limits in the physics end of things or work with a stellar builder towards achieving your goals. A niche platform might not be the best way to go about a plug and play foolproof hot rod...........yet. I know the injection vs carb thing is another thread, so take this how you will... Any of the performance metrics or paradigm you intend to operate your vehicle under are not dependent on any recent modern technology. If you aren't impressed with the results of others' similar projects, don't follow those people. (not referring to anyone on the forum, just a general statement, a philosophical one )
I just wanted to know what it would take to build the sbb 350 up to make the hp that a cammed 6.2 would make. Having said that... I'm just kinda tired of carbed engines at the moment. Had my share of them. Now it's time to step into the 21st century and fiddle with the new electronics If I could achieve my hp goal with FI then I'm a happy camper. No need to have the kid riding with friends calling saying she can't start the car and she's scared to because itty smells like gas.
Holley terminator efi. Or Fitech injection works well enough. Not sure what your idea is of the 6.2 is but I have driven the 6.0 trailblazer ss. It's mostly gear and upper rpm. Unlike the old Buick that is built for low rpm torque. Doesn't mean you can't use gears to your advantage. But in a lower rpm range where torque is high. Or port the heads to max with big valves flowing around 280-290and a hi rpm cam . That should bring rpm range up but give up the torque.
Once again, I'm not arguing that (You shouldn't have starting problems or funny smells with a modern carb...stop asserting your non-argumentative points, lol) I'm referring to the supposed advantage described with the LS being the very thing you aren't trying to argue. Power is simply how you combust your airflow. For starters, what kind of power are you seeing the example of a cammed up LS make? Some here might not know, care, or be familiar with the LS platform. ('Might give up torque' isn't necessarily true. You don't have to give up anything, make it do what you want it to)
Yup Ls engines need to spin to make the hp and tq. I do like how the 350 I have performed. I'm just torn between which of the two to build. Not really in this for the wow when i pop the hood just the wow when I floor it
I'm not arguingeither. Iirc stock the 6.2 comes making 420hp and 460tq this is what brings the question in mind. Is it worth trying to build the 350 up to compete with those#s or just go the easy route and cam a 6.2. Thus I come seeking answers I figured guys here would have exhausted all possibilities with the 350 by now. At least there's solid advice on what's needed. This forum has always been great!
To make your power goal, the induction tract needs to be able to supply at a minimum, a little less than half of the power number in CFM of air flow. For example, 500 hp needs appx. 250 CFM measured through the intake port, and not restricted by the intake or cam. That's do-able with iron heads yet. (arbitrary number I pulled from thin air) The Minimum Cross Sectional Area (MSCA) and airspeed through that choke point based on the cylinder it feeds determine speak torque RPM, mostly. Peak HP RPM is where the induction tract reaches sonic choke. This varies 'slightly' based on things like rod length and cam profiles or valve events. Longer intake runners (such as with LS) are able to enhance cylinder filling below peak torque, lending to driveability. High swirl combustion chambers and high energy ports, induction tracts also enhance driveability...as well as mileage (but that's much more dependent on the vehicle's factors). Keeping the port and valve area on the small side and still getting your airflow needs will allow all that you are asking of the platform. There are good build threads here to search your goals over. Last post popped up... Your goals are a walk in the park, just be aware that dyno ratings can be very fickle and misrepresented. Compare mph on timeslips and weight with the examples you ponder for comparison.
The possibilities and limits of this engine haven't come close to it's potential. The limitations are not exclusively in the machine or design, more the ability of the (re) engineering to make new goals from factory versions.
Turbos. Boost . Super charged. You can get a whole lot of OMG out of a stock 350 and some boost. That's an easy way. But as mentioned, air flow. 250 or better. Also you are alittle to worried about top or peak numbers. That's why dynos use a curve to show hp and torque. The longer flatter power curves means it maintains that power thru the rpm range. Vs 1 peak power output. If you want one peak power output look at an electric motor. See who makes similar power and follow their proven formula.
"4.)I'll look into the solid cam. I'm sure at that lift I'll need to source hydraboost for braking?" Its not the lift that kills the vacuum, its excessive duration @ .050" that does. That's the beauty about using a roller cam, you can lift the valves higher without raising the duration @ .050" as much as would be required on a high lift flat tappet grind. With a roller cam the ramp can be MUCH more aggressive than with a flat tappet cam, even more so with a solid roller cam while still being more mild than a flat tappet cam. With a roller lifting the valve higher than the max flow lift, the port will still flow @ max above the max flow lift. This gets the valve opened to the max flow faster and keeps it there longer because it will get there when the lifter on the lobe is before the apex it will hit the max flow lift early in the cam's rotation and hit the max lift on the other side of the apex of the lobe to more efficiently fill the cylinder to make more power. This is done without having to increase the duration @ .050" so high that you loose vacuum to your power brakes. A solid roller cam in the low to mid duration @ .050" in the 240 range with the extra cubes you should still have enough vacuum for power brakes and still exceed your power goals if your heads flow around 250 on the intake side. For a more street friendly engine a hyd. roller that can spin to 6,500 RPM max should still easily make your goals with the duration @ .050" in the mid 230 range on the intake and mid 240 range on exhaust depending on the intake to exhaust flow ratio is. With the hyd. cam you'll have a bit more low end torque but a bit less high end HP but will still be able to over lift the valve for more cylinder filling with less duration @ .050" than a flat tappet cam.
I would just leave your engine alone with the exception of adding a custom cam once you know the actual static compression and then put the TA alum heads on over the winter... That should run well... And find another 350 core to rebuild slowly with nice parts to swap in later.
From an induction standpoint, a 6.2l is roughly 380 cubes, so... 460 tq is 1.21x the cubes, 420 hp is 1.10x. That's reasonable with the induction of either, as long as everything applies proportionately. The feel of acceleration is comparable by torque x gear, so if kept as a 350, the difference between a 3.42 and a 3.70 rear axle would push the vehicle with similar authority. Stroking the crank only makes it easier to get the numbers at a lower rpm, and you end up with a bottom end far tougher than the LS comparison, component-wise. Powdered metal rods let go unpredictably, rather than predictably show signs prior to failure. Just like cast rods. Both are fine for the power level. Look into the sbb strokers here. Increased piston speed from stroking pulls harder on the induction, a good thing on an already long-ish stroke small block. There's even greater pull if shorter rods are used, it fools the induction with slightly greater peak piston speed during the intake cycle. The deck being tall gives a naturally long intake runner, the dual plane works well. Getting it to meet the hp goal without losing torque would entail the induction meeting the airflow requirement and having just enough cam to hang on up top.
Sean! What's up dude! Still biking? I always told myself I'd get the car going and go big as I could with hp and tq. If your not having fun what are ya doing?lol
Yup all is well, still biking.... Almost done building my new shop. Just waiting on the alum heads then i can finish up my new 350 with block girdle, billet crank etc... Will use the turbos on it too.
