Building a "mild" 2.7 Tall Deck?

[mbreinin]

Has anyone ever built a mild 2.7-2.8 tall deck stroker?



By mild, I mean not max effort.



Iron head with non-radical porting.



Hydraulic cam.



Reasonably sized turbo.



Higher compression and E85.



All I ever see are ARCA headed, giant turbo wearing, methanol guzzling 800-1000 HP engines based on the tall deck. I can't recall seeing a more mild combo that would be similar to how you would build a 2.3, but with the extra cubes.



I was figuring that with the extra grunt from displacement and compression, plus the E85, you would have a fast spooling, hard hitting combo that would not need moon boost to haul around a Mustang and would be durable and long lasting.



In one of my turbo LS swapped Datsuns, I ran a single BW Billet S366 on a 5.3. It spooled like a supercharger and the car was enormously responsive and quick, I would say it was frighteningly quick as a matter of fact. I would like to take this same kind of approach with a tall deck, but as I have never built one, I wanted some input from those here who may have experience.



Thanks!

[Stinger]

There is someone on here with a tall deck "street car" that I believe is built similar to what you're saying (I think it's got an aluminum head but it's not a max effort deal).

The main reason you don't see many people do it is the upfront cost of the tall deck, internals, etc. normally puts it out of the realm of "street car" budget for 2.3 guys as the shortblock would be worth 2-3x more than the car at that point.

Overbuilding the engine and then turning it down is certainly a way to increase reliability so you're on the right track there. I wouldn't do it with a stock(ish) iron head but it could work with a fully built iron head and intake and something like a stage 2.1 or 2.5 cam.

[mbreinin]

Mar 30, 2020 19:44:02 GMT -5 Stinger said:

There is someone on here with a tall deck "street car" that I believe is built similar to what you're saying (I think it's got an aluminum head but it's not a max effort deal).

The main reason you don't see many people do it is the upfront cost of the tall deck, internals, etc. normally puts it out of the realm of "street car" budget for 2.3 guys as the shortblock would be worth 2-3x more than the car at that point.

Overbuilding the engine and then turning it down is certainly a way to increase reliability so you're on the right track there. I wouldn't do it with a stock(ish) iron head but it could work with a fully built iron head and intake and something like a stage 2.1 or 2.5 cam.

Yes, the initial investment can be hefty, no doubt. I was thinking of using what I had, with the exception of the cam and possibly turbo, and slowly building from there. An easy 500 RWHP would be the ultimate goal. A better head can be had as time allows. I have a hand ported iron head now and not super radically ported intakes, although ported. Lots of cubes, compression, smallish turbo and a good fuel (E85 or c16) for a very responsive engine with ample torque. 

[Stinger]

Good fuel will go a long way as it's much easier to reach a power goal if you're not octane limited and can crank the boost way up. A stock head/cam 2.3L will make about 400hp at the wheels at about 30-32 psi with good fuel and a turbo large enough to support that power. So adding 15% more displacement, a somewhat better head/cam, etc. should allow it to get to 500 hp, though head flow can be a point of restriction, particularly if you spin it very high. There comes a point where the head can only flow so much and it doesn't matter how large the engine is, it's restricted by head flow. At that point more boost is the only way to increase flow (other than porting/larger cam/better head, etc.).

[mbreinin]

Mar 30, 2020 21:22:30 GMT -5 Stinger said:

Good fuel will go a long way as it's much easier to reach a power goal if you're not octane limited and can crank the boost way up. A stock head/cam 2.3L will make about 400hp at the wheels at about 30-32 psi with good fuel and a turbo large enough to support that power. So adding 15% more displacement, a somewhat better head/cam, etc. should allow it to get to 500 hp, though head flow can be a point of restriction, particularly if you spin it very high. There comes a point where the head can only flow so much and it doesn't matter how large the engine is, it's restricted by head flow. At that point more boost is the only way to increase flow (other than porting/larger cam/better head, etc.).

Without a doubt. I was planning on either E85 or C16. E85 being much more wallet friendly. I have run both with good success in Turbo LS cars. C16 is very resistant to detonation and works extremely well in higher heat forced induction situations. It was actually designed for non-intercooled forced induction applications, so it is a tough fuel. E85 is cheap, plenty of octane the cooling properties of ethanol also assist with intercooling. Of course, E85 at higher blends needs an increase in volume, so you are looking hard at the fuel system in its entirety. Technically, you gain no real world advantages in knock resistance over blends of E50, the Delphi test proved that, but you do pick up additional cooling properties. 

[Stinger]

Yeah, E85 is hard to beat for a street car in terms of value. For a race car pushed to the ragged edge and not burning a ton of fuel, C16 it is.

[wesk]

It really depends on what your "mild" is. At that displacement level, unless you want it to be a low revver it will take a decent amount of head. That being said, with compression and dislplacement, it could certainly feel snappy down low even with a relatively large turbo. I think for most people, simply going to a 2.5 with some compression gets you a decent way in that direction without the expense of a crank and a tall deck. You reference your 5.3, but in terms of head flow verses displacement, those are already up in the range of a fairly well ported 2.3 head as cast.