Gen III/IV Destrokers, Parts Interchange, Cylinder head data



Gen III/IV Destrokers, Parts Interchange, Cylinder head data

Postby philly » January 28th, 2014, 7:57 pm

heres a great perspective from a few years back off the popular hot rodding forums: i pulled the relevant info from this link
http://forums.popularhotrodding.com/70/ ... page2.html

Flexfuel E85 => 105 octane ethanol alcohol

Mr Hunkins, I believe there is a small block motor rendition that has not been done yet. One that exploits the 105 octane feature of E85. This is essentially alcohol racing fuel which is becoming more and more available at the pump in Midwest gas stations as Flexfuel, and the availability is spreading across the rest of the nation rather quickly.

http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php

I would especially like to see an updated version of the LS1, LSx, Gen III engine Norm Brandes of WESTECH Auto in Wisconsin built for a Camaro 302 show car for GM about 5 years ago. The motor was I believe a 5.7 block with a 4.8 crank shaft and rods.

http://www.ttspowersystems.com/articles/7/index.htm

http://www.camaroz28.com/articles/302camaro/index.shtml

http://www.yearone.com/enthusiast/tours ... amaro.html

http://www.westechauto.com/tech_talk/ar ... 5_01_1.htm

If you used a 4.8 crank and rods in a 6.0 block, the cid becomes approximately 327 cid with a rather large rod/stroke ration of 6.275/3.268 = 1.92:1

If you started with a LS7 bore (4.125) and the 4.8 stroke (3.268) you get a nice 349.4 (5.7L) engine with a piston speed of about 4350 @ 8000. That was the formula for the first CTS-VR race car a couple of years ago. They cleaned up at Sebring, but got a rev limit (7100 I think) and some weight added right after that.

The LSx cranks are very strong, especially the short stroke one. A 1.92 Rod/Stroke ratio isn't out of line at all. That's just about where Cup engines run. Nothing magic about it. It just fits well in the block with a 3.26 stroke. This short stroke combined with high compression and 105 octane fuel would be a flash back to the rev happy 283-302 cube SBC in the 50s-60s.

An interesting side bar to this type of engine build up would be how to get the GM OBDII to operate on E85 only, not full of Flexfuel compromises. As far as all the alcohol compatible materials and fuel system components, I believe GM has already figured this out. You can mix and match fuel pumps, injectors, and other fuel system components from GM’s fleet of E85 compatible vehicles. It is extensive.

http://www.gm.com/company/onlygm/energy_flexfuel.html#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

Why E85 only?

1) E100 (100% ethanol)can be run in motors with a compression ratio as high as 19.5:1. Really, 19.5! Determining the upper compression limits of E85 when used in a purpose built motor should be of interest to readers.

http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/hyview/ ... om-ethanol

2. E85 has a much higher evaporative cooling power than gasoline so the intake air charge in the cylinder is significantly cooler that it is with a comparable mixture of gasoline --- that means higher VE.

3. E85 has an octane of 105!!!

4. E85 (ethanol) burns faster than gasoline but has a slightly longer ignition delay during the slow burn phase of combustion so the engine does not do as much negative work fighting rising cylinder pressures due to large ignition advances. The total ignition advance for E85 is almost identical to the ideal advance for gasoline so it does not cause the ECU problems when you mix them.

5. At proper mixture you actually are releasing more energy in the cylinder due to the higher quantity of fuel you can burn. (Ethanol can burn efficiently at much richer mixtures than gasoline can) That means about a 5% increase in energy release all by itself.

6. Peak combustion pressures are actually lower for ethanol than for gasoline but the cylinder pressures stay higher longer, so you have more (longer) crank angle that is usable by the engine. This lower peak cylinder pressure also helps with detonation control. With this characteristic, I think having a longer rod to stroke ratio, which will make the piston stall somewhat longer at TDC, will help.

A piston with a stock 5.7 or 6.0 pin height will be down in the hole 0.177" when using a 4.8 crankshaft and rod. I sent a note to Diamond Racing and they responded they would be able to make one of their standard catalog pistons (dished, flat top, or 10cc dome) with the pin hole moved down 0.177 to compensate. I believe other piston manufacturers could accomplish the same.

As long as custom pistons are necessary, there is a possibility of using even longer rods. Yes they are available. Forged rods at 6.348" are available from here -

https://www.shop.crankshaftdepot.com/di ... egoryId=89

These longer rods are stronger than stock, and this added length reduced the piston height difference from 0.177 to only 0.073.

With the longer rods, the rod/stroke ratio increases from 1.92:1 to 1.94:1, which might be a good thing for the combustion properties of alcohol.

These forged rods used with forged Diamond pistons should be good for piston speeds of over 4300 ft/minute. With the 4.8 crank stroke, this calculates to be a short block capable of nearly 8000 rpms. Set the rpm redline to 7500 rpms to provide a safety cushion, find a camshaft with a power peak between 6500 and 7000, and this would be a very rev happy motor. The 105 octane E85 should allow one to select a camshaft with a low valve overlap so the cylinder pressure is high at low rpms. This would be impossible to do with a conventional gas motor as knocking and preignition would be tremendous with high cylinder pressure. If you could get David Vizard to work with Norm Brandes to find a camshaft profile that would allow for a 850 idle rpm with the GM OBDII PCM as Norm accomplished on his concept 302, and a red line of 8000rpm, how cool would that be?

If this all came together, this would be a rev friendly motor in the spirit of, and improved upon, the '67-'69 Z28 302 Trans Am motors. This would be a great motor build to associate with the upcoming new Camaro.

EDIT - Here is something to look into that is happening later this week at the Engine Rebuilders Association Show in Indiana -

http://www.aera.org/expo2006.aspx

http://www.aera.org/docs/other/E85Rules.pdf

EDIT 2 - I found the following from one of your archived articles by Mr Vizard on the benifits of high compression. I think it gives support to a high rpm motor that makes good power at higher rpm's yet retains good torque at lower rpm's. How far a camshaft designer could extend this range using E85 would be a very interesting study.

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0 ... atio_tech/

"... a high-compression cylinder produces better power and fuel economy. It is not just because the charge is squeezed harder and the resulting combustion pressure goes up, but also because the higher expansion ratio allows more energy to be extracted from the original high-pressure charge."

"Because the high compression cylinder makes its power much earlier on in the power stroke there are other implications we can take advantage of. The most obvious is that we can apply the earlier exhaust valve opening needed for higher rpm output without significantly impacting the engines low speed output. Using as much compression as circumstances will allow makes dual pattern cams work at their best."

Read more: http://forums.popularhotrodding.com/70/ ... z2rk9v5MDJ




Here I will provide you a great example of one such build that reflects alot of the ideas used in the above statement: from LS1TECH, Project "redheaded screamer" built and owned by jakson of TPI Specialties:

general overview of the combination:

"Iron "5.3" 332ci on E85, ARP head/main studs, custom coated diamond pistons, callies rods, stock crank.
Ported LS3 heads, LS3 hollow stem intake valves, LY6 inconel exhausts, PRC EHT springs
LS9 headgaskets
239/243 .625/.625 116lsa Comp Cam
Morel link bar lifters, 3/8 pushrods
9.5:1 Compression Ratio

Some may be wondering how I am going to fit LS3 heads on a little old 5.3. Well, I'm using a 6.0 block .020 over, and a stock 4.8 3.267" crank.
Going with the 4.8 crank mostly to try something different, boost will be my replacement for displacement in this case. Somewhat similar to the new COPO Camaro 5.3 engine setup. Hoping to turn it 7500+, obviously the stock intake will be the limiting factor somewhere along the line.
I will most likely go to a single plane later on. Just going to get it running in this configuration first, work out the bugs and go from there."

this combo did him good for 1096 hp @ 7600 rpm at 20 psi through an 88mm turbocharger

if you want to follow jakson's saga:

http://ls1tech.com/forums/forced-induct ... 5-7-a.html

theres dyno videos with graphs on pages 5 and 7 of that thread.




In case you all decide to dabble in the LS family of small block chevrolet engines heres some information for you all. nothing too crazy just trying to get the thoughts flowing...

GMHTP article with brief history and general parts interchangeability:

http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/te ... ewall.html

Gen III factory cylinder head comparo by car craft:

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/cc ... ewall.html

Cathedral port vs Rectangular port heads:

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/cc ... ort_heads/

its important to note (and if you read the GM high tech article above you would know) that if you have cathedral port heads you need an intake for those heads, and if you have rectangular port heads you need an intake for those. they are NOT interchangeable.

factory camshaft swap comparison with dyno results and cam specs:

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/13 ... omparison/

hot rod magazine ls cylinder head comparo genIII and genIV aftermarket heads with flow bench and dyno data included: 10 sets of aftermarket heads, lots of info:

http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engi ... ewall.html
Last edited by philly on February 2nd, 2014, 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers

Postby philly » January 28th, 2014, 8:10 pm

oh and if you were wondering with 9.5:1 compression naturally aspirated that little 330 cube motor made 499 hp and 434 lbft
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers

Postby grumpyvette » January 28th, 2014, 8:33 pm

THANKS FOR POSTING , THAT!
THATS A REALLY INTERESTING POST WITH USEFUL LINKS, that I,ll be using, and I,m sure others will refer too.


I really like the LS series engines ability with proper parts to run E85 at high compression and the availability of factory blocks in both iron and aluminum, that are available now in salvage yards, and from manufacturers.
theres zero doubt that a properly assembled LS series engine will produce good horse power levels, but I will point out that back in the late 1966-70 era the 327 and 377 SBC first gens were the hot ticket, simply because the then available cylinder heads were just not available that could efficiently fill anything much larger than a 331-377 displacement, and cam and valve train technology made accurate controlled valves , running over about 7500rpm just an engineering dream at that time.
Neither of those limitations are now a problem, with the after marlket components for the LS series engines!
If you look closely at what eventually happened to the first generation small blocks there's BEEN a strong trend to build 383-406 displacement engines rather that the once much more popular 302-377 engines and the reason is that increased displacement and the ability to make considerably more low and mid range torque makes the larger displacement engine combos far better on the heavy street cars we drive, so while I REALLY SEE A GREAT DEAL OF POTENTIAL IN THE ls SERIES ENGINES I ALSO THINK THAT YOULL SEE DISPLACEMENT INCREASES RATHER THAN TRYING TO RUN THE ENGINES PAST 7500RPM AS THE TREND THAT WILL PREVAIL.
just as a properly built first generation 383-406 sbc will generally eat a older 302 -327 built to similar specs,for lunch in a common street car that weights 3500lbs or more.
Image

you might want to watch this video start to finish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpQlD-FL ... BC&index=1
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers

Postby grumpyvette » January 28th, 2014, 9:10 pm

http://www.carcraft.com/projectbuild/11 ... ort_block/

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/cc ... ine_build/

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/cc ... ine_build/

I liked the show you linked too, and theres zero doubt a LS based engine can produce impressive power, but because I build easily 8-9 big blocks for every other engine design I build (INCLUDING SMALL BLOCKS) I have a bit different perspective and Id point out that if your willing to spend some cash the big block engine has a great deal of research already done,and parts availability and while 700hp is impressive its certainly not even approaching what a properly build big block can provide.
keep in mind that for street use anything much over about 1 hp for every 6 lbs of car weight will require a great deal of suspension and drive train mods to remain semi street-able,and if you stick a couple turbos , on a properly built big block, and use E85 as fuel, you can make absurd power levels

http://www.carcraft.com/featuredvehicle ... ock_chevy/

http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/cc ... ock_chevy/
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers

Postby philly » January 28th, 2014, 10:40 pm

Thanks for that, grumpy. And I agree, if i was going to power a fourth gen camaro like the redheaded screamer project i would have used a big displacement motor. the only reason i happened across this was because i have used 5.3/4.8 ls series motors in old datsuns in the past, and am considering using a combination like this one (although somewhat tamer) in my 280zx (about 2700 pounds with me in it). having limited resources ive been forced to use the smaller displacement motors for exactly the reason we wouldnt use them in heavier cars, because they make less torque. This feature combined with an automatic transmission does a great service in conserving the stock rear end, half shafts, and doesnt blow the tires off of the smaller lighter car (first generation Z cars (1970-78) wont tolerate much bigger than a 235/60/15 mickey thompson without some modification) so for guys wanting to build a cool v8 swapped small car like a maverick or a vega, one of these destrokes might be the hot ticket!
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers

Postby philly » January 28th, 2014, 10:44 pm

by the way, you dont need callies rods or diamond pistons to make this combination, just throwing together the 4.8 crank and rods on the 6.0 pistons will work, however the stock pistons will be .177" below deck height. (i would recommend balancing before assembly)

gen3 and gen4 motors can rev with stock bottom ends, the valvetrain weight and materials in stock form are the limiting factor to rpm there, however we know a shorter stroke keeps piston speeds lower at higher rpm and a larger rod stroke ratio also helps reduce lateral pressures in the cylinder. so one could make the argument that although you are sacrificing some CID, you are adding alot of longevity to the bottom end of your combination by running a setup like this.
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers

Postby philly » February 2nd, 2014, 4:38 am

more gen III ls cylinder head info compiled from

http://houstonperformancetrucks.com/sho ... ow-numbers
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/new-ls...casting-s.html
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=410492


these are all early LS heads that can be had for next to nothing nowadays with so many people throwing them out for aftermarket stuff.

Here is a list of a known production casting #'s:

933 97 aluminum perimeter bolt 5.7
806 97-98 aluminum perimeter bolt 5.7
853 99-00 aluminum center bolt 5.7
241 01-03 aluminum center bolt 5.7 (some late MY00 cars got 241 castings)
243 04 up LS6 aluminum center bolt 5.7 ***These castings were also used around 05 in truck applications***
862 99 and up 4.8-5.3 Truck heads
706 99 and up 4.8-5.3 Truck heads
799 05 and up 4.8-5.3Truck heads ***reportedly came on a few corvette's too*** These are basically 243 Heads
873 99-00 LQ4 6.0 Iron center bolt heads
317 01 and up LQ4 and LQ9 6.0 aluminum center bolt heads
035 01 - 04 LQ9 6.0 aluminum center bolt heads

Even more detailed info:

Casting Numbers 241, 806, 853
Head: 1997+ LS1 5.7 Liter Passenger Car
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12559806 (1997-98) Chambers = 69cc
12559853 (1999-00)
12564241 (2000-03)
Combustion Chamber Volume: 66.67cc
Compression Ratio: 10.1:1
Intake Port Volume: 200cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 70cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Stock Head Flow Numbers
Chamber 66.67 cc------0.100--0.200---0.300---0.400---0.500---0.550--0.600
Intake 200 cc------------67----122-----178-----215-----219-----223---227
Exhaust 70 cc------------52-----97-----133-----156-----170-----76----180


What you need to know:
The standard issue LS1 heads is best all-around head for the street / strip engines . A thorough porting and millimg job plus a valve upgrade on these will really wake up your engine.The heads have undergone only minor revisions since their introduction in 1997 , most notably a switch from perimeter to center valvcover bolt configuration for the 1999 model year. Each style has its own dedicated valvecovers and coilpacks mounting apparatus.



Casting Number 243
Head: 2001 LS6 5.7 Liter Passenger Car
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12564243
Combustion Chamber Volume: 64.45cc
Compression Ratio: 10.5:1
Intake Port Volume: 210cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 75cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Stock Head Flow Numbers
Chamber 64.45 cc-------0.100---0.200--0.300--0.400---0.500---0.550---0.600
Intake 210 cc------------62------126----184----224-----251----256----257
Exhaust 75 cc------------57------108----143----163-----176----180----183


What you need to know:
The LS6 cylinder heads is essentially a tuned-up version of the LS1 head. At 65cc, the combustion chamber is slightly smaller and more efficient than the LS1. The more efficient design shortens burn times and ultimately means less ignition timing advance is required to produce the same power. And because less timing allows more efficient combustion, the Ls6 heads allow the engine to produce more torque. The exhaust port is a unique D-shape that improves flow. LS6 heads are the best choice only when all-out power is needed. Be prepared for a big price tag at the dealer or steep core charge from your head porter.



Casting Number 706 and 862
Head: 1999+ 4.8L / 5.3 Liter Truck
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12559862
12561706
Combustion Chamber Volume: 61.15cc
Compression Ratio: 9.5:1
Intake Port Volume: 200cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 70cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 1.89 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Stock Head Flow Numbers
Chamber 61.15 cc----0.100--0.200--0.300-- 0.400--0.500---0.550---0.600
Intake 200 cc----------63 ---128----179-----210----218----221-----226
Exhaust 70 cc----------54 -- 93 ----121----145-----163----168----174


What you need to know:
These small combustion chamber truck heads offer no advantage over an LS1 head except the smaller combustion chamber. This along with milling of the deck surface will allow a slightly higher compression ratio to be achieved. Because of the smaller intake valve installed in these heads a valve upgrade is practically mandatory.



Casting Number 873
Head: 1999-2000 LQ4 6.0 Liter Truck
Material: ***Cast Iron***
Part Number:
12561873
Combustion Chamber Volume: 71.06cc
Compression Ratio: 9.5:1
Intake Port Volume: 210cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 75cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Casting Number 317, 035
Head: 2001+ LQ4 and LQ9 6.0 Liter Truck
Material: Aluminimum
Part Number:
12562317 -LQ4
12572317 -LQ9
12572035 -LQ9
Combustion Chamber Volume: 71.06cc
Compression Ratio: 10:1 LQ9 Flat top pistons
Compression Ratio: 9.6:1 LQ4 Dish piston
Intake Port Volume: 210cc
Exhaust Port Volume: 75cc
Intake Valve Diameter: 2.00 inches
Exhaust Valve Diameter: 1.55 inches

Stock Head Flow Numbers
Chamber 71.06cc----0.100---0.200--0.300--0.400--0.500--0.550--0.600
Intake 210cc-----------66-----142-----196---228----236---238-----240
Exhaust 75cc----------59-----104-----137---155----167---173-----177



What you need to know:
The LQ4 head received aluminum heads starting in models year 2001. All other features are the same as previous years iron heads. This is the workhorse head for street / strip turbo and blower cars. They offer a large combustion chamber that lowers compression ratio making them perfect for a forced induction application. Swapping on the LQ4 head drops the compression ratio of a typical LS1 engine to 9:5.1
The Cast-iron casting are heavy!

So you want to figure out how much to mill:

It takes about .005" milling of the block deck to remove 1cc of volume. It takes .007" milling to remove 1cc from an LS1 head

Simple Milling Math:

You have a stock 66cc chamber and you want to get down to 63cc

66-63 = 3. You have to remove 3cc's

.007 x 3 = .021. So to get your 66cc chambers down to 63cc you'd have to mill ~.021.

You can also do the reverse, say you want to mill a head .030 to figure out how many CC's that removes you take .030 / .007 = ~ 4.28. Milling a stock 5.7 head .030 puts your chamber at ~ 62.



241 cast heads were Die Cast which is a process that smooths up the ports a bit compared to the Sand Cast procedure that was done on the 806 and 853 heads. Once ported any "advantage" the 241 cast had is moot.

Same Info applies to the:
4.8L/5.3L Truck 862 and 706 Head castings
While the 706 Heads are a SPM = Semi Permanent-mold And considerd to be a more consistant head casting then the 862 wich are Sand cast, Once ported There Is no difference.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
799 Vs. 243 Info Copied From pillboxesghost Post's in ths thread http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/conver...l#post10241473

This appears to be one of the common misconceptions about heads having the 243 casting no. -- they are not necessarily LS6 head assemblies. The LS2 heads (243 or 799 casting) have the "heavy" standard LS1 valves. However, they do have the LS6 springs.

Only the true LS6 engine heads have stainless steel (not titanium) hollow stem valves (the exhaust stems are sodium filled). These valves are slightly longer than LS1 valves too.

The LS7 heads do have titanium valves.

New LS2 heads are about half the price of new LS6 heads (check sdparts.com). GM is "really proud" of those hollow stem valves!

Oh, if you have the 799 castings -- the only thing "Corvette" about them is the valve springs/retainers! Still a desirable set of LS1 heads though!

Supposedly, the 243 mold was done at GM Research, the 799 mold furnished to other vendors. The same vendor may have the 243 and 799 mold.

Both heads have identical sized intake and exhaust valves
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers, Parts Interchange, Cylinder head

Postby 87vette81big » February 2nd, 2014, 5:07 am

Its real important in my experience to obtain a Zero deck clearance with a flat top piston and single or dual quench combustion chambers Phil.
.177" down in the hole deck clearance will never allow the engine to perform as expected.
Likely cost 40-100 HP.
If your brave and use premium billet 4340 Steel rods or 6AL4V Ti rods you can have a Positive deck clearance. Close quench as tight as .010". Done in NHRA Supte Stock Racing.
Have to check main & Rod bearings often.
If clearances get loose from wear pistons will tag the heads.
.039" -.028" True quench at TDC" works great in Pontiac V8's.
I get a 90-95% pure clean burn across the piston tops
Last edited by 87vette81big on February 2nd, 2014, 5:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers, Parts Interchange, Cylinder head

Postby 87vette81big » February 2nd, 2014, 5:14 am

400 To 550ci installed in a Datsun 280 Z would be fun.
I would use a Muncie M22 Rockcrusher.
Ditch IRS And install a Dana 60 rear or built 9 inch.
Gear 3.54 to 3.73.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers, Parts Interchange, Cylinder head

Postby 87vette81big » February 2nd, 2014, 9:08 am

I am going to pick up a LS Engine for myself this year Phil.
Wanted a 6.0L but every time I find one it sells fast.
Going to buy a 5.3 LS V8. Sell for $300-400 around me.
Single Turbo it.
If it blows No Biggie.
Car Craft or Hotrod had a stock 5.3 LS V8 pushing 1000+ HP. a few years back in a test.
China ebay turbo used.
Just have to replace stock cast iron balancer pulley with an aftermarket Steel SFI Unit.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers, Parts Interchange, Cylinder head

Postby grumpyvette » February 2nd, 2014, 9:55 am

one of the local guys has a 5.3 ltr LS installed in a custom built dune buggy , that looks vaguely similar to this picture I found posted , Ill try to take a few pictures next time I see the car.

Image
from what he told me, even though his is longer and heavier and has an oil cooler and radiator up front and its a mid engine design where the engine and trans basically bolt to a c4 corvette rear differential with no drive shaft,rather than true rear engine, its scary fast
IF YOU CAN,T SMOKE THE TIRES AT WILL,FROM A 60 MPH ROLLING START YOUR ENGINE NEEDS MORE WORK!!"!
IF YOU CAN , YOU NEED BETTER TIRES AND YOUR SUSPENSION NEEDS MORE WORK!!
grumpyvette

User avatar
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14105
Joined: September 14th, 2008, 1:40 pm
Location: florida

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers, Parts Interchange, Cylinder head

Postby 87vette81big » February 2nd, 2014, 10:08 am

Its like Rick's T-bucket Grumpy.
Built for Sand dune fun.

Those little 5.3 LS V8 engines run hard behind a 4L60E trans. 3.06 1st gear ratio.
Gear rear diff 3.73- 3.89- 4.30 on street.
Be quick.
Lower bottem end torque than 6.0 LS but it will catch up after 60 feet.
Not enough torque to blow 4L60E trans easily either.
87vette81big

User avatar
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: February 28th, 2012, 12:34 am
Location: Central Illinois

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers, Parts Interchange, Cylinder head

Postby philly » February 2nd, 2014, 12:25 pm

87vette81big wrote:400 To 550ci installed in a Datsun 280 Z would be fun.
I would use a Muncie M22 Rockcrusher.
Ditch IRS And install a Dana 60 rear or built 9 inch.
Gear 3.54 to 3.73.


got an old friend down here with a 540" BBC and a 9" in a 240z, the earliest and lightest Z car. two stages of nitrous, built th400 in the sevens at over 190... if you tease him enough he'll race it on the street, quite a sight to see.
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers, Parts Interchange, Cylinder head

Postby philly » February 2nd, 2014, 12:41 pm

87vette81big wrote:I am going to pick up a LS Engine for myself this year Phil.
Wanted a 6.0L but every time I find one it sells fast.
Going to buy a 5.3 LS V8. Sell for $300-400 around me.
Single Turbo it.
If it blows No Biggie.
Car Craft or Hotrod had a stock 5.3 LS V8 pushing 1000+ HP. a few years back in a test.
China ebay turbo used.
Just have to replace stock cast iron balancer pulley with an aftermarket Steel SFI Unit.


i would tell you that it would go a long way to do a couple things for the turbo motor if you expect it to live very long and reliably past the 700hp mark. i dont know about you but im racing almost every night, and with a fast high powered car im racing multiple times in one night, practically every night of the week. a little preventative measures will keep your 400 dollar motor in one piece for longer.

first, get yourself a set of pac 1519 springs to keep those valves doing what the heck you want em to.

http://www.racingsprings.com/Beehive-LS-Springs/sku/171

a good set of connecting rod bolts

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/arp-1 ... /chevrolet

some head studs

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/arp-2 ... /chevrolet

a set of MLS head gaskets from cometic would definitely help keep everything in the chamber.... also may wanna consider a thicker than stock gasket to lower compression a bit. remember that 4.8s were all flat tops and early 5.3's were dish... later they all came with the 4.8 flat tops in them.

if you really wanna get crazy you have the head flow data i posted there on the previous page, a set of 243 heads would be ideal but any better than regular 4.8 head would definitely improve your setup. depending on your budget a cam would really do a number to wake the car up also... its all about what you can afford to do

also, many people have had great success with the LS9 head gasket with the larger 4 inch bore motors... they are great quality MLS have .051" compressed thickness and the pair are less than $90 from scoggin dickey

https://sdparts1.reachlocal.net/details ... s/12622033
Last edited by philly on February 2nd, 2014, 2:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers, Parts Interchange, Cylinder head

Postby philly » February 2nd, 2014, 1:53 pm

FWIW i thought i would put this up here as a way of keeping everyone in the conversation, even the passers by that may not have a complete idea of what we're talking about. all LS cylinder heads come with an identifying casting mark from the factory. this number is not the actual gm part number but rather an identifying mark used for the manufacturer to be able to quickly differentiate between castings, each has its own unique properties and many carry over similarities from previous iterations.

the head casting number can easily be seen on either cylinder head in this location:

ls casting.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Gen III/IV Destrokers, Parts Interchange, Cylinder head

Postby philly » February 2nd, 2014, 2:21 pm

more LS specific info from

http://www.smokemup.com/tech/ls1.php

stock camshaft specs

1998 - 2000 Fbody
202/210 int/exh @ 0.05" duration
0.496" / 0.496" int/exh lift
116 LSA

2001 - 2002 Fbody
197/207 int/exh @ 0.05" duration
0.467" / 0.479" int/exh lift
116 LSA

2001 LS6 cam
207/217 int/exh @ 0.05" duration
0.525" / 0.525" int/exh lift
116 LSA

2002+ LS6 cam
204/218 int/exh @ 0.05" duration
0.551" / 0.547" int/exh lift
117 LSA

GMPP Hot Cam
218/227 int/exh @ 0.05" duration
0.525" / 0.525" int/exh lift
112 LSA

GMPP ASA Cam
226/236 int/exh @ 0.05" duration
0.525" / 0.525" int/exh lift
110 LSA

6.0 LQ9
207/196 int/exh @ 0.05" duration
0.479" / 0.467" int/exh lift
116 LSA

5.3 LM7
190/191 int/exh @ 0.05" duration
0.466" / 0.457" int/exh lift
114 LSA

Throttle Body Information:
A 98-99 TB has a brown spring on it and a smaller throttle cam, GM Part# 17113390.

A 2000-2002 TB has a blue spring on it and it has the biggest throttle cam, GM Part# 17113647.

A Truck TB has a orange spring on it and a cam that is close to the 98-99 F-body ones but it's not an exact fit.

In short when looking for swapping throttle bodies from one car to another check the color of the spring.

Intake Manifolds
Part # Engine Plenum Volume Runner Volume Runner Length
12556333 1997-2000 LS1 5.06 L 0.536 L 262 mm
12561182 2001-2002 LS1/6 5.19 L 0.541 L 262 mm
12573572 2002+ LS1/6 5.19 L 0.541 L 262 mm
-phil

There's never enough money to build it right, but there's always enough to build it twice!
philly

User avatar
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: December 12th, 2013, 4:08 pm
Location: Miami FL

Next

Return to Engine Combos and Dynometer Database

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests