New L88?

[Eric Bryant]

> From: Ethan [mailto:c5efiecm at performanceresearchonline.com]
> Subject: Re: New L88?
> 
> Aren't engineers paid to formulate the simplest functional 
> solution that
> operates within project performance and reliability parameters?
> 

Generally speaking, simple = less-expensive, and simple = less likely to
fail.  If you can accomplish simplicity while achieving performance goals,
that's something to be admired.  Just about any monkey can add complexity.

> We would like to see a 4 valve LSx, but perhaps with single 
> cam or a more
> creative form of valve actuation. The current 
> platform/configuration has
> great potential still, with research lacking in 
> induction/head design and
> engine geometry. Our suggestions to GM (which we convey 
> periodically in
> conversation with Hill and his team) would be to experiment with
> hemispherical chambers and a longer [connecting] rod length.

I thought that hemispherical chambers and two-valve heads don't mix well,
since it's difficult to fit big valves into small combustion chamber
volumes.  Even the modern four-valve heads that I've worked with (all
motorcycle engines, BTW) have evolved from a hemi chamber to one that's more
of a cloverleaf shape in order to combine high compression with a decent
quench band.  

As far as connecting-rods go, I can only think that there's some hangup at
GM about placing rings any further towards the top of the piston.  I can
understand why they wouldn't want the wristpin up into the oil ring groove
(like on my new LT1 396 with 6" rods), but they could go a bit longer on the
rod while still maintaining durability, I'd think. 

Eric Bryant
mailto:bryante at ghsp.com
http://www.novagate.com/~bryante 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org