5.6L 2UR-GSE for SEMA
11-02-16, 05:35 AM
#1
Pole Position
Thread Starter
5.6L 2UR-GSE for SEMA
Thought you guys might find this interesting
Dsport Mag building a 2UR-GSE to 5.6L
http://dsportmag.com/the-cars/club-d...gse-sema-2016/
cheers
Dsport Mag building a 2UR-GSE to 5.6L
- Increased Bore Size from 94mm to 99.5 mm
- Increased Displacement from 4,969 cc (5.0L) to 5,569 (5.6L)
- Power increased from 467hp to 525hp
- Torque increased from 391 lb.-ft. to 440 lb.-ft.
- Custom Moly-2000 Amphibian Sleeves from LA Sleeve
- Custom Carrillo 4340 H-beam Connecting Rods
http://dsportmag.com/the-cars/club-d...gse-sema-2016/
cheers
11-02-16, 06:51 AM
#2
Thought you guys might find this interesting
Dsport Mag building a 2UR-GSE to 5.6L
http://dsportmag.com/the-cars/club-d...gse-sema-2016/
cheers
Dsport Mag building a 2UR-GSE to 5.6L
- Increased Bore Size from 94mm to 99.5 mm
- Increased Displacement from 4,969 cc (5.0L) to 5,569 (5.6L)
- Power increased from 467hp to 525hp
- Torque increased from 391 lb.-ft. to 440 lb.-ft.
- Custom Moly-2000 Amphibian Sleeves from LA Sleeve
- Custom Carrillo 4340 H-beam Connecting Rods
http://dsportmag.com/the-cars/club-d...gse-sema-2016/
cheers
Bad ***
11-02-16, 06:53 AM
#3
Racer
so does this mean if I bore out my engine to a 5.6L then we should see similar hp?
11-02-16, 07:18 AM
#6
Driver
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: OR
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is cool!
With a tune out stroking the engine is a possibility. Lots of R&D though. I'd bet the cost is as much as a supercharger possibly more as there's a lot more labor charges to pull the engine and dissemble.
With a tune out stroking the engine is a possibility. Lots of R&D though. I'd bet the cost is as much as a supercharger possibly more as there's a lot more labor charges to pull the engine and dissemble.
Trending Topics
11-02-16, 10:11 AM
#10
Sleeved all motor build? Yeah, I'd say it's going to cost more than a supercharger, easily.
11-02-16, 11:37 AM
#11
I agree. 9K is probably a drop in the bucket for what they actually spent on doing this. Not to mention the 525 could possibly be at the crank. Curious if they engine or chassis dyno'd that?
Last edited by Justin727; 11-02-16 at 11:41 AM.
11-02-16, 12:52 PM
#12
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
The bore centers are too close for this to be a long term reliable build. There can't be much metal between the cylinders, and sealing with a small surface area like that can be very tricky. Great for someone expecting to replace head gaskets routinely, but not so great for anyone with a DD.
It's really cool they went with a bore instead of stroking. Increasing stroke always limits red line and service life. Boring just limits service life when the bore spacing isn't great enough to support a reliable headgasket seal.
It's really cool they went with a bore instead of stroking. Increasing stroke always limits red line and service life. Boring just limits service life when the bore spacing isn't great enough to support a reliable headgasket seal.
11-02-16, 01:22 PM
#13
You are probably right about sleeving this particular aluminum block. However, the sleeves look pretty large, but still may move around.
I wonder if the iron block from the Tundra would be a better option. Wonder if a good set of IS F heads would fit. The motors should not be that different. Might be better to machine the iron block to work. Bet they are cheap to.
My education suggests that an Iron block is just about always better. Bet it would add less than 100 lbs. to our cars and there is always lightning of the block to cure that.
I wonder if the iron block from the Tundra would be a better option. Wonder if a good set of IS F heads would fit. The motors should not be that different. Might be better to machine the iron block to work. Bet they are cheap to.
My education suggests that an Iron block is just about always better. Bet it would add less than 100 lbs. to our cars and there is always lightning of the block to cure that.
11-02-16, 01:40 PM
#14
Pole Position
You are probably right about sleeving this particular aluminum block. However, the sleeves look pretty large, but still may move around.
I wonder if the iron block from the Tundra would be a better option. Wonder if a good set of IS F heads would fit. The motors should not be that different. Might be better to machine the iron block to work. Bet they are cheap to.
My education suggests that an Iron block is just about always better. Bet it would add less than 100 lbs. to our cars and there is always lightning of the block to cure that.
I wonder if the iron block from the Tundra would be a better option. Wonder if a good set of IS F heads would fit. The motors should not be that different. Might be better to machine the iron block to work. Bet they are cheap to.
My education suggests that an Iron block is just about always better. Bet it would add less than 100 lbs. to our cars and there is always lightning of the block to cure that.
11-02-16, 02:05 PM
#15
Tech Info Resource
iTrader: (2)
3UR-FE - service weight 483.5 lbs, bore and stroke 94.0mm x 102.0mm.
2UR-GSE - service weight not published, bore and stroke 94.0mm x 89.5mm
Sounds like the bores are probably spaced the same as the 2UR series, but the real question is, do the head bolt patterns line up? What other Frankenstein issues will one have using the Tundra block? No guarantees the timing chain cover will fit, and it has to for VVTi to work. Lots of potential problems putting heads on the 3UR, and only one way to find out - try it.
2UR-GSE - service weight not published, bore and stroke 94.0mm x 89.5mm
Sounds like the bores are probably spaced the same as the 2UR series, but the real question is, do the head bolt patterns line up? What other Frankenstein issues will one have using the Tundra block? No guarantees the timing chain cover will fit, and it has to for VVTi to work. Lots of potential problems putting heads on the 3UR, and only one way to find out - try it.