73-87chevytrucks.com
73-87 Chevy _ GMC Trucks => Engine/Drivetrain => LT/LS Swaps => Topic started by: Stewart G Griffin on August 26, 2009, 10:43:52 PM
-
Well, i think it's high time to discuss the LS series of engines. Why?
a) Because i don't know jack about them (never had the time to get into them). i DO know that this engine has nothing to do with the SBC we all know and love. Even though alot of people say it is an "evolution" or the "next generation small block" etc. but it has nothing in common with the previous sbc----sort of like a 2009 corvette has nothing to do with a 53 corvette.
Technically, it's not even an "chevrolet" engine being that it was designed by gm powertrain.
b) and i'm thinking of getting one (impala) because possible job changes mean much more money, but much less time to "fiddle" with used cars even though this is in general the most economical way to go. Yes, things are that tight time-wise for me.
-
I wouldn't get a 5.3L Impala. It's a V8 yes, but it's driving the wrong wheels. I think the new Malibus aren't too bad as Chevys go.
-
I love these engines. Most efficient smallblock ever built in my mind. They are very modular and the variations provide a ton of factory choices when wanting to build one. They are compact, can be really light, they get better than decent mpg's, can be used as a supercar engine, can run down the drag strip, can tow in a truck, or cruise. The only real problems I have dealt with so far are rings and stuck valves. The factory heads and intake are top notch, the low riding fuel injection setup is versatile.
;DI'm a fan.
-
i know it's fwd, but what are you going to do? i think it could beat a v-6 challenger and possibly a hemi challenger due to it's lighter weight.
-
I can only add that the LS is the answer to all my SBC needs. I will never rebuilt another old gen block. (ok, I am still into BBC's) In fact I am selling off any old SBC I have laying around.
-
Oh, you are only interested in the new impala?
i know it's fwd, but what are you going to do? i think it could beat a v-6 challenger and possibly a hemi challenger due to it's lighter weight.
"What are you going to do?" Get a G8 or similar offering. Especially if you are interested in "beating" challengers, or other new age muscle. As I'm certain any spirited driving will reward you with plenty of torque steer and copious amounts of electronic interference under the guise of traction control.
-
I can only add that the LS is the answer to all my SBC needs. I will never rebuilt another old gen block. (ok, I am still into BBC's) In fact I am selling off any old SBC I have laying around.
What about the TPI Jimmy?
-
As I'm certain any spirited driving will reward you with plenty of torque steer and copious amounts of electronic interference under the guise of traction control.
Yeppers
-
1) i don't particularly like the g8, camaro etc. this "zeta" chassis.
2) But anyways, could we get back to the actual description/history/segments of the LS engines?
-
2) But anyways, could we get back to the actual description/history/segments of the LS engines?
What do you want to know?
-
What about the TPI Jimmy?
Already Built. In fact it was the last old gen I built.
What are you wanting to know Stewart? Rather open ended question,
-
As far as I know (and I could be wrong or misinformed) but some improvements/differences are:
- cathedral style ports which flow better and change how air enters the combustion chamber for improved efficiency
- larger cam base circle (and shaft diameter?) which I believe allows for larger lobes, higher lifts and possibly better high RPM stability
- 15 (or is it 18?) degree heads vs. the Gen I SBC usual 23. The lower the angle, the easier it is for air to flow into the ports and combustion chamber.
Again, I may have left stuff out or oversimplified but this is what I understand some benefits are of the LS architecture.
-
Again, I may have left stuff out or oversimplified but this is what I understand some benefits are of the LS architecture.
Y-Block design 6 bolt mains= stronger bottom end
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine
-
The LS do not have enough improvements in technology and performance to get me excited. I would build one if one falls into my lap really cheap or free but it's already dated technology. There are so many better designed engines out there. Comparing them to an sbc when you weigh cost factor to output there's no spectacular end result. A finger follower DOHC aluminum V8 would be a nice start.
-
The LS do not have enough improvements in technology and performance to get me excited. I would build one if one falls into my lap really cheap or free but it's already dated technology. There are so many better designed engines out there. Comparing them to an sbc when you weigh cost factor to output there's no spectacular end result. A finger follower DOHC aluminum V8 would be a nice start.
I personally love the fact that it isn't some over engineered exotic design. It's the pinnacle of pushrod v8 technology in my mind. Its true that LS cost vs sbc does not win it any accolades, but the aluminum block, factory head design and versatile intakes, fuel injection and multitude of factory options to build sure don't hurt. Stock for stock the LS out does the sbc in every way.
-
2) But anyways, could we get back to the actual description/history/segments of the LS engines?
What do you want to know?
Basically a general overview of the whole LS series. For example is the LS 2 the same engine as the LS 1? For example if talking about 305's and 350's, i know that they are basically the same engine except different bore size and heads. Really, all the sbc engines (except the 400) are basically the same engine; i'm familiar with the history, size progressions, interchangablility of the SBC.
However, when it comes to LS engines, i'm lost. i do know that they first started in 97 with the corvette and camaro. Other than that, i'm lost; i mean is the 700hp motor found in the corvette zr-1 really the same engine as in an impala/grand prix?
2) i somewhat agree that the LS engines are not exactly an earth-shattering "improvement" over the sbc, but they are lighter. i'm mainly interested because the cars i'm looking at have this engine and i want to know more about them.
-
go to my earlier post and click on that link and read.
Steve
-
The original LS motors are the Gen III, they were updated in 2004 to handle Displacement on Demand and were know as Gen IV, they all share the same basic architecture, but most people generalize like is done on the GEN I and Gen II calling them SBC.
LS1 is a 5.7L motor, LS2 is a 6.0L motor, otherwise they are identical in architecture.
The LS9 is 7.0L based on the LS3 which is based on the LS2, but still same architecture.
Simplifying it this way, there are basically 4 versions of the LS: LS1, LS2, LS3 and LS4. The LS4 is similar to the others but was redesigned from FWD use. The 1,2,3 are udated versions allowing more displacement with the same longevity.
FYI The 99-up pickups use the same LS architecture.
I just read over Joes link and it pretty much says the same.
-
Hey Capt I think you meant the LS7 is a 7.0L. The LS9 is a 6.2L like the LS3.
It should also be noted that the LS3, L92, LS7, and LS9 all have larger rectangular intake ports. The LS1, LS2, LS6, and all 4.8, 5.3, and 6.0L truck engines have the cathedral shape port. And the cathedral shape is not for the purpose of increased flow or swirl but rather is an effort to have the injectors fire at the back of the intake valve. Clearly, since the later higher performing engines feature rectangular port entry shape, this injector positioning was deemed unnecessary.
-
So basically all LS engines are basically the same and the number after is just a displacement difference?
Also, it seems as thought the ls4 is also the same but just a slightly shorter crankshaft to fit FWD applications?
2) Upon further research, the impala ss cannot outrun a hemi challenger--it is a about a second slower 1/4 mile. But who cares, i just like the car.
-
http://www.gmperformanceparts.com/Parts/showcase_detail.jsp?engine=2
-
Hey Capt I think you meant the LS7 is a 7.0L. The LS9 is a 6.2L like the LS3.
Oops, typo, sorry, I was thinking to far ahead while I was typing....
-
I love these engines. Most efficient smallblock ever built in my mind. They are very modular and the variations provide a ton of factory choices when wanting to build one. They are compact, can be really light, they get better than decent mpg's, can be used as a supercar engine, can run down the drag strip, can tow in a truck, or cruise. The only real problems I have dealt with so far are rings and stuck valves. The factory heads and intake are top notch, the low riding fuel injection setup is versatile.
;DI'm a fan.
What problems have you had with the rings? I think I may have had a problem with stuck valves at one time.
-
I love these engines. Most efficient smallblock ever built in my mind. They are very modular and the variations provide a ton of factory choices when wanting to build one. They are compact, can be really light, they get better than decent mpg's, can be used as a supercar engine, can run down the drag strip, can tow in a truck, or cruise. The only real problems I have dealt with so far are rings and stuck valves. The factory heads and intake are top notch, the low riding fuel injection setup is versatile.
;DI'm a fan.
What problems have you had with the rings? I think I may have had a problem with stuck valves at one time.
Just a few friends with nitrous had problems with the ring lands. The worst valve problem I had with valves, I think was due to dry gas, my 5.3 bent all but 5 pushrods and just as many valves on startup. I put it back together with just a valve job and not a problem since.
-
Well, it looks like the new position at work will not come thru. So, for all practical purposes, i /we can assume no promotion for the next forseeable future; This also means lesser income which means i probably won't be getting a more recent LS powered car---which also means more time to work on pre-existing but less current rides. Plan now is to work on the truck--get it more "commuter ready."
i have also thought that, even with the increased income (80K), it still would not really make financial sense to buy a 20K ride, when i have a pre-existing truck which would probably only take $100-200 to get "commuter ready."
a) my concerns were mostly of the time/low-expertise factor, thinking it would be less hassle to get a more current car i could bring to the dealer for service; i would have to fix the truck myself---which as we know in my case takes too long.
b) it would just be nice and exciting to have an impala SS.
But, we can still discuss the LS engines for when things change.
1) i think one of the advantages of an LS motor is that there are aftermarket turbo kits which are really compatable with the LS's EFI setup. i don't think there are any commercially available turbo kits for carbed small blocks. i believe there is a kit available from banks which will utilizes EFI for a SBC, but that's megabuck.
2) Has anyone swapped in an LS with the displacement on demand system? It would be interesting to see the MPG results.
-
b) it would just be nice and exciting to have an impala SS.
Doesn't sound too exicting to me.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/06q2/2006_chevrolet_impala_ss-road_test
1) i think one of the advantages of an LS motor is that there are aftermarket turbo kits which are really compatable with the LS's EFI setup. i don't think there are any commercially available turbo kits for carbed small blocks. i believe there is a kit available from banks which will utilizes EFI for a SBC, but that's megabuck.
Everything from Banks is megabuck. Capt is working on turbocharging a TPI 350 using a "remote mounted" STS turbo system. So there are practical ways to turbocharge Gen 1 SBC's.
-
We have turbo'd a couple of LS motors with STS kits with great results. Easily 100hp with 5lbs of boost.
I don't think they have a app for the Impala, but anything can be fabbed.
-
Generally speaking, carbs and turbos don't often make for a nicely compatible pair. Blow-through and draw-through designs each have their own disadvantages. A blow-through design is probably better, as long as you get a carb designed for positive pressures. Again though, other opinions may vary on the subject.
IMO, while the LS motor architecture may not be entirely thrilling technically-wise, it's a big improvement over the SBC. It's like they put into the LS what they learned over the years that could improve the SBC and made it a very impressive pushrod motor. Compared with say the 505 HP LS7, I'm not sure how docile and streetable an equally-performing SBC could be. Perhaps with enough computer programming and a fancy enough EFI system, this could be done.
-
Compared with say the 505 HP LS7, I'm not sure how docile and streetable an equally-performing SBC could be.
Not trying to downplay what you said, I agree wholeheartedly, but if it were a 500hp 427 SBC, it could be very docile, would produce much more than 470 ft-lbs, and would only need to rev to less than 6000. Oh, and it could be built for MUCH less than the LS7 crate's price.
-
I really dislike the sts rear mount kits. 99% of the sts cars I have seen run are turds from a stop.
-
Compared with say the 505 HP LS7, I'm not sure how docile and streetable an equally-performing SBC could be.
Not trying to downplay what you said, I agree wholeheartedly, but if it were a 500hp 427 SBC, it could be very docile, would produce much more than 470 ft-lbs, and would only need to rev to less than 6000. Oh, and it could be built for MUCH less than the LS7 crate's price.
Very interesting for sure. What kind of cam and heads would you say are needed for a 500 HP 427 SBC?
Not exactly a great comparison perhaps but I read an article last year I think in either Chevy Hi-Performance or Super Chevy where they took an LS2 I believe it was (alum. block 6.0L) and a 400 SBC and tried to make the same power and compare the manners of the two. I think the HP goal was 450 or something. Basically the 6.0 came out very nice and smooth and the SBC was all rough and snorty like you'd figure a big cam, big valve SBC might be. Again, perhaps they could have done it up better.
Another thing I don't like about HP ratings is how factories use net ratings in OEM applications yet magazines can use pretty much any rating they choose and most of those would be considered like the old gross rating system ie. absolutely zero accessories to draw any power from the motor. Although I believe OEM crate motors use more of a gross rating. I can't seem to find reliable data though to confirm this.
-
I really dislike the sts rear mount kits. 99% of the sts cars I have seen run are turds from a stop.
I can assume you are insinuating lag when you type this. If so, it is definitely not true as there isn't any noticeable lag. All the ones we have turbo'd are definitely not turds out of the hole. My brothers pickup does 60ft sub 2 seconds.
-
Very interesting for sure. What kind of cam and heads would you say are needed for a 500 HP 427 SBC?
Engine build #10 on the very last page of this book (everyone with the slightest interest in SBC engines should own a copy).
http://www.amazon.com/Build-Chevy-Small-Blocks-Budget-Performance/dp/1932494847/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252633449&sr=8-1
The author compares the engine to the LS7 as a matter of fact.
-
Not trying to downplay what you said, I agree wholeheartedly, but if it were a 500hp 427 SBC, it could be very docile, would produce much more than 470 ft-lbs, and would only need to rev to less than 6000. Oh, and it could be built for MUCH less than the LS7 crate's price.
But could it last 100000 miles or 6 years under warranty, be abused to death and be a daily driver and 99% of your target audience would put up with? Probably not.
I disagree, an old school SBC making that kind of power would have crappy idle, poor startup, temperamental to weather changes, need a huge stall and would need to turn at least 7000rpms to make the same power levels if you are talking carbs, the generaly public would reject it.
Can you make one that makes more power yes, would it be cheaper, maybe, could you mass produce it 100000 times at the same cost, no, cover it with a 6 year 100000 mile warranty knowing the people driving it are going to pound on it daily, no.
GM went to supercharging on the ZR1 and a smaller engine because the 7.0L making the same power N/A wouldn't cut the warranty period, but would make bigger power.
-
I really dislike the sts rear mount kits. 99% of the sts cars I have seen run are turds from a stop.
I can assume you are insinuating lag when you type this. If so, it is definitely not true as there isn't any noticeable lag. All the ones we have turbo'd are definitely not turds out of the hole. My brothers pickup does 60ft sub 2 seconds.
No, I can't say anything about lag, as I have never driven or owned a rear mount turbo car. I am an avid drag racing enthusiast and have kept a keen eye on these rear mount turbos because it seemed so odd when I first saw one. So every time I see one at the track I make sure to watch it run, and 99% of the rear mount turbo vehicles I have seen have been very sub par performers when compared to similarly built front mount turbo cars.
I do have other issues with the mounting, like the housing being exposed to water/weather, road debri, the oil system needed to run them, the ridiculous expanse of piping needed, but those are all personal opinions.
-
Oldyellers Firebird has the 5.7 LS1 in it rated at 320 hp, and it is a blast to drive. It will not only smoke the tires on the rear as long as you want to stay in the throttle, but driven normally (her driving, not me) it will get around 26 MPG. I know this car has lots more potential. Ive been told just changing the airbox lid adds substantial power. These engines facinate me. I have been reading stories about these engines and dyno charts where 400hp is easily changed with just a cam, headers, intake, and a program. You cant do that wil any stock small block and get the fuel economy and longevity, so I have to agree with Capt on the design being better. I have one going into my 86 hopefully within the next year. Im not looking for a speed demon, I want to be able to get in it, and just drive it without worrying the way I do our newer trucks. Stock they were 285 hp which isnt much, but considering the 305 at 150hp? that is in it now can spin the tires, at almost double the horsepower the truck should run great.
Stewart, you asked earlier about putting on of the displacement on demand engines in one. I have that in my 08 work truck. It doesnt make any difference. I keep up with my mileage due to business expenses. My 04 K1500 4x4 extended cab with the regular 5.3 got 19mpg at best, and mostly lived around 17mpg. My 08 with the same setup other than the displacement on demand gets the same. It shows you on the dash when it goes into the 4 cyl mode. The only time I"ve ever seen it is going down hill or letting off of the throttle. I dont see a benefit at all.
-
How many is this 99%? In the beginning everyone questioned them, that was over 6 years ago. They have more than proved themselves in my opinion and the turbo runs much cooler and keeps the heat out of the motor by being remotely mounted, big killers of performance.
You don't worry about your exhaust being exposed, or your engine being exposed currently do you? No difference.
How can you compare 2 completely different cars and say them are simularly built. You don't know what either driver has done other than mounting a turbo. You can get a bigger turbo in the front or rear mount version, how can you say they are simular if one has a larger turbo, or one has a different size engine, you can't you are just speculating.
Example: We put a TT kit on an aniversary Corvette recently because the owner (an older fellow) wanted big power. Without a tune and 5lbs of boost the car made 400hp, they tuned it to make around 525/575 on 10lbs. The owner was scared at 5lbs and has only ran the 10lb once because it really scared him so he keeps it at 5lb all the time.
The 2000 Silverado regular cab we first put one on made 400hp with 130K miles on a stock 5.3L motor at 8lbs of boost in 2003 and was running 12.23 quarter miles , it dyno'd around 525hp/653 on 14lbs and ran 7.50 in the 1/8th. Truck now has a stock block 6.0L with a bigger turbo and makes 490/613 on 9lbs and 606/800 on 14lb. It is no slouch, especially for a stock motor out of a 2003 van. BTW, the truck runs 1.6 60ft times, which is also no slouch. They are dyno'ing it again this weekend again to get more out of it to hopefully get to the track again.
-
You are totally missing my point.
How many is this 99%? In the beginning everyone questioned them, that was over 6 years ago. They have more than proved themselves in my opinion and the turbo runs much cooler and keeps the heat out of the motor by being remotely mounted, big killers of performance.
99% would be all but one rear mount car I have seen run (murillo's, although its obviously not sts) It's probably only about ten or so total. I'm glad they are cooler, but I don't see some of the quickest turbo cars in the nations' "performance being killed" by thier underhood turbos.
You don't worry about your exhaust being exposed, or your engine being exposed currently do you? No difference.
There is a difference, my exhaust and oil pan are not extremely hot turbine housings or air intake piping or air filters. But once again, if both are properly setup, its just a matter of taste/opinion.
How can you compare 2 completely different cars and say them are simularly built. You don't know what either driver has done other than mounting a turbo. You can get a bigger turbo in the front or rear mount version, how can you say they are simular if one has a larger turbo, or one has a different size engine, you can't you are just speculating.
That is speculation on your own part, captain. I can compare them by knowing details about the cars by talking to the owners/ builders or personal knowledge of vehicles I have built or worked on. I wouldn't say it if I was speculating.
Example: We put a TT kit on an aniversary Corvette recently because the owner (an older fellow) wanted big power. Without a tune and 5lbs of boost the car made 400hp, they tuned it to make around 525/575 on 10lbs. The owner was scared at 5lbs and has only ran the 10lb once because it really scared him so he keeps it at 5lb all the time.
The 2000 Silverado regular cab we first put one on made 400hp with 130K miles on a stock 5.3L motor at 8lbs of boost in 2003 and was running 12.23 quarter miles , it dyno'd around 525hp/653 on 14lbs and ran 7.50 in the 1/8th. Truck now has a stock block 6.0L with a bigger turbo and makes 490/613 on 9lbs and 606/800 on 14lb. It is no slouch, especially for a stock motor out of a 2003 van. BTW, the truck runs 1.6 60ft times, which is also no slouch. They are dyno'ing it again this weekend again to get more out of it to hopefully get to the track again.
I don't believe I ever said they didn't make power. I've seen the dyno numbers. I said they are unimpressive at the track. It sounds like that 2000 silverado runs good, although I have seen an NA 5.3 swb's run mid twelves.
-
1) RE: the car and driver review: the problem with these car and driver writers, and for that matter most automotive "journalists" is that i don't think they really know (or believe) what they are talking about. Here's a car for 26K that turns a 14.1 1/4 mile, sub 6 second 0-60 time and carries 6 adults to business meetings on a daily basis AND gets 24 mpg and they think it's a loser. Meanwhile they give the malibu car of the year? Hello? Aren't the malibu and impala built on the same/similar chassis? For that matter how is the malibu's chassis that far removed from a citation's chassis? And we all know how these "journalists" feel about the citation/X-bodys.
2) RE: turbo'ing the LS:
While this thread has taken an unexpected turn, please continue to discuss turbocharging the LS series engines as i am learning quite a bit.
-
You can turbocharge or supercharge any sbc or LS. I'm still unimpressed with the LS design and that's why someone like me who is always knee deep in the latest and greatest in new technology doesn't get excited over the "newer" engine design. In my opinion GM flopped with this design. Sure there are improvements in many ways but impressive? I'm more impressed with more innovative 4 cylinder designs. I'm not knocking these engines just not enough to get excited about. I'd still rather build an old school bbc...
-
Yes, my thoughts on the Ls engines vs. the SBC are that the LSs are updated with improvements but they do not "blow away" the SBC; The SBC is already a great engine---the LSs have refinements and updates and other nice touches.
We are not comparing gold to crap. It's more like the sbc is a porche and the LS is a ferrari. In stock form it's obvious which is the higher performer but with some mods, the porche can outperform the ferrari---because the porche is a very good platform to begin with.
2) UPDATE: impala SS discontinued for 2010 So, i guess the impala ss haters win----for now. This news basically means my interest in the LS engines has now virtually evaporated. But you can still discuss them---the LS series. And please do.
a) strangely enough, the impala ss had higher top speed than the G8. Of course, none of this really makes a difference as both cars are canned.
i think gm is basically finished. They need better leadership.
-
You are totally missing my point.
I don't believe I ever said they didn't make power. I've seen the dyno numbers. I said they are unimpressive at the track. It sounds like that 2000 silverado runs good, although I have seen an NA 5.3 swb's run mid twelves.
Your point was MOST of them are slow.
My point is MOST of them are not slow.
The ones that you are seing are are not making the same power as underhood systems. The STS kits were made to add 100 to 150 on a STOCK motor with minor tweaking and target a broader consumer base than a specific built underhood setup. They are completely bolt on and require nothing for installation, it is a complete kit.
If they are making big power to the tires and hooking up, it doesn't matter HOW the power was made. Same vehicle making the same amount of power whether it be underhood turbo, rear turbo, supercharger, NA will run simular times. How the power is made is irrelevant which is my other point
I don't think that NA 5.3L is stock nor was it being driven daily as a service vehicle during the week either, which this one was.
-
You are totally missing my point.
I don't believe I ever said they didn't make power. I've seen the dyno numbers. I said they are unimpressive at the track. It sounds like that 2000 silverado runs good, although I have seen an NA 5.3 swb's run mid twelves.
Your point was MOST of them are slow.
My point is MOST of them are not slow.
The ones that you are seing are are not making the same power as underhood systems. The STS kits were made to add 100 to 150 on a STOCK motor with minor tweaking and target a broader consumer base than a specific built underhood setup. They are completely bolt on and require nothing for installation, it is a complete kit.
If they are making big power to the tires and hooking up, it doesn't matter HOW the power was made. Same vehicle making the same amount of power whether it be underhood turbo, rear turbo, supercharger, NA will run simular times. How the power is made is irrelevant which is my other point
I don't think that NA 5.3L is stock nor was it being driven daily as a service vehicle during the week either, which this one was.
No, one of the sts Fbodies that I remember was said to have put down in the mid four hundreds rear wheels and was running a second behind a stock internal nitrous fbody.
Most sts cars I have seen and researched are putting down good rwhp numbers, but aren't able to get good et's, they seem to run well from a roll though. Peak hp numbers mean little when compared to power under the curve, especially when drag racing.
The 5.3 was not at all stock, it had tires, cam, gear, and exhaust, + bolt ons. But for a daily driver truck with no power adders I personally thought 12.4's were awesome.
-
Running well out of the hole is a balance between engine power, traction (tires, chassis setup, track conditions), converter stall or launch rpm (MT), and gearing. I really don't see how the location of the turbocharger alone can be held responsible for poor ETs when so many other factors are responsible.
Jimbo: Maybe you are seeing a trend, but drawing the wrong conclusion. Maybe the typical racer who simply wants a bolt on turbo kit won't take the time or doesn't know how to make the rest of the car work as a package. But those who go to the trouble of fabricating an underhood system will also take the time to make the whole package work successfully and do have the technical expertise. This certainly wouldn't be a rule, but could explain what you are seeing. Just a thought.