SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Rubber Side Down! >> LS400 - bore and stroke size?
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1181545509

Message started by DrT on 06/11/07 at 00:05:09

Title: LS400 - bore and stroke size?
Post by DrT on 06/11/07 at 00:05:09

Anyone know what the bore and stroke of the LS400 engine is? Is the bottom ends the same as the LS650 (apart from sprocket vs belt drive)? If they are different, is the crank the only difference? I may be able to acquire a good LS400 engine and I have a dismantled complete spare LS650 engine so I was wondering about making one good engine from the two.

Title: Re: LS400 - bore and stroke size?
Post by DrT on 06/11/07 at 10:58:12

OK - I think its 65mm stroke and 88mm bore. This based on a passing reference on the Heise Savage pages to the Suzuki Tempter 400cc single, saying it is similar to a Savage but the stroke had been reduced to 65mm. 65 x 88 would give around 395cc. Odds are the LS400 uses the same engine as the Tempter.

I wonder if the cylinder heads on these bikes are the same as the LS650 head. Of course, if the LS400 uses smaller valves and combustion chamber then it raises interesting possibilities - higher compression ratio and smaller valves could work better than many people might think. For example, Harley 883 heads works really well on a 1200 conversion.

Anyone got any better info?

Title: Re: LS400 - bore and stroke size?
Post by justin_o_guy on 06/11/07 at 12:35:42

I only have questions after reading your post. I am no hot rod mechanic, so bear with me. I have always thought that better performance was dependent on getting air flow thru the engine. With bigger valves, or higher lift cams, longer durations, unrestricted intakes & free flowing exhausts all working together to increase air thru the engine to mix with fuel as it passes thru. How could smaller valves ever increase performance?

Title: Re: LS400 - bore and stroke size?
Post by DrT on 06/11/07 at 14:49:29

Smaller ports can increase velocity of fuel/air mixture, improving fill rate. With 140 CC.s less than a Harley 1340 Big Twin, a 1200 with 883 heads (smaller valves than a genuine 1200) can produce very similar torque and horsepower numbers. This is well established.
There is, of course, a trade-off. You tend to get better low-down torque at the expense of top end. If valves are much too small then there is a reduction in power.

A VERY crude analogy is using a hose to water the garden. If you want the water to flow faster and further you restrict the opening at the end of the hose. It all depends whether you want a lot of water all in one place or slighly less water but fully distributed around the garden. When a large cylinder is filling rapidly high velocity from a smaller valve may be more important than the slower fill from a big valve.

Title: Re: LS400 - bore and stroke size?
Post by justin_o_guy on 06/11/07 at 19:58:09

I used to say things like" That just doesnt make sense"
Now, I have been indictrinated with new words by the PC & sophisticated crowd &^ I say stuff like"well, thats counterintuitive"

But, now that you splained it, I get it, in a kinda sorta way.

Title: Re: LS400 - bore and stroke size?
Post by Rockin_John on 06/11/07 at 20:53:06

justin_o_guy wrote:

Actually, that was a very good analogy of how it works out, and indeed the difference is Low RPM torque vs a high reving engine that will "pull all the way out the back door" (in drag racer terminology) due to it's free flowing design.

Some internal combustion engine science is counter intuitive. I was not really well informed that 2-stroke engines were capable of pulling at low RPMs until I got a Trials bike. The first being a 70s Suzuki RL-250. They make torque (and HP) all the way down to just above idle, by having very different carb/head flow/valving/compression ratio and exhaust tuning, plus spark timing than a higher HP Motocross type bike. But a 2-stroke can indeed pull like a little tractor. They don't all have to go "zing" to pull.

In the case of the LS400, being such an "under square" motor (stroke being much less than bore; and "square" being where bore and stroke are the same) it may need the restriction of smaller intake and exhaust to allow it to produce torque and prevent it from being an all top end and wound up motor. Not what you want on a cruiser style bike. As DrT suggested, this principal only works to the point that the 'restriction' starts to cause power loss instead of more complete combustion through higher intake velocity/swirl etc...