five7kid

iTrader: (14)

To refresh, I am concerned about the piston slap in the LS1/4L60E engine, 3 pistons having kissed valves before I got it. I replaced the 853 heads with shaved/L92-sprung 317's, and although it runs decent, it has a pretty nasty oil leak at the right rear corner (cause yet unknown).

Over the holidays, I picked up another LS1 longblock removed from a running 112k mile 2001 Camaro (the Camaro was getting the 413 Procharged LS1 removed from the Vette-specialty-business owner's Vette). I removed the rockers last night, ran it through various crank positions then put compressed air on each cylinder, and determined leak-down is minimal (not a proper "leak down" test, I know - but was certainly a lot less than the 396 exhibited under similar conditions...). Pulled the heads (I plan on putting the 317's back on), cylinder walls look very good. No carbon scratches, can still see the crosshatch, minimal carbon deposits. I was contemplating re-ringing it, but I think I'll skip that now. Reportedly the PO was a Mobil 1 believer.

I do still plan on ARP rod bolts and an oil pump upgrade. Then install the LS6 (0950) cam. Haven't decided whether or not to go with LS7 lifters at this time (probably should).

Curious on one thing, though. The block is casting 12559378 - which according to the Mortec casting number guide is: "350...99-up...crossbolted block, Gen.III, "LS1", aluminum." I thought 2001 was the beginning of the "better" block casting. Maybe it was a late-year change-over.

It did have 241 heads (not 853's as 1999 and most 2000 seemed to have).

When the currently-installed LS1 comes out, I think I'll have the converter restalled as well. I think it would like at least 3500 (currently 3000).

xpndbl3

iTrader: (5)

my thoughts, so take it for what it's worth here.


You're going to drop compression by tossing 317s on there. Sell them, sell the 241s, buy some 799 or 243s, or used ported 5.3L castings off tech. Shouldn't cost more than $150 out of pocket at most. ARP bolts are great, a new oil pump or melling replacement is another good idea. As for cam selection, I'd really like to see a 3600 stall and a 230 duration something. It'll idle at 700 in gear and have gobs more power. Sell the LS6 cam to a boost guy. Not worth spending all that cash on gaskets to not add power to the motor.

White'89

iTrader: (8)

I don't have the casting # of my block handy but I was told it was out of a 2000 and it has 241 heads. Did you look to see if maybe it has an ls6 intake manifold?

Edit: Whoops just noticed you said it was a longblock, but I suppose he took the manifold off because it had one on it?

one92rs

iTrader: (5)

found these interesting-
http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/genera...ng-my-ls1.html

http://summitracing.custhelp.com/ci/...974/1164656520

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Note the 317's are shaved. CR is back to the same as 853/241's.

I did the oil pump the last time, but not the rod bolts. Not taking any chances this time.

It should be adding power just going from the stock 2000 LS1 cam to the LS6. I know it isn't much, but I'm not really after much. With additional stall, the 60' should improve, which should lower ET even if the cam stayed the same, and the little bit more cam should keep it moving down the track. Between them that should be a few tenths, which is fine with me. Quite frankly, I don't need/want more than that (don't want to get below 12.0 at sea level).

Right, no manifold. My two 2000 f-body LS1's had different heads - one had 853's, the other had 241's. This third LS1, of the 2001 variety, has the 241's as well.

The casting # sheet is good info. I forgot that only some of the 2001 f-bodies got the "improved" block.

The VIN link indicates it is indeed a 2001 engine.

1badeagle

iTrader: (2)

I would run the Katech rod bolts if I were you. There a few threads going on at ls1 tech right now about failed arp rod bolts.

xpndbl3

iTrader: (5)

installer error there, one guy forgot to torque one bolt completely since it backed all the way out and obviously spun a bearing. Personally I've installed probably 15 sets of ARP rod bolts in my garage and not had a single issue, these are DD cars for some guys and my last 3 ls based motors have all hit 7300 rpm without a hiccup.

ShiftyCapone

iTrader: (7)

That casting # is indeed from 2000 on up. There are three different casting number(s) for the '99 blocks. Some '99 blocks, and all post '99 blocks are the better block with the improved oiling at the rear end of the block. Your block should also have cast in "slots" in the base of the crank mains, which is also a desireable feature for better crankcase breathing.

These LS1 casting numbers are considered by most builders to "avoid". (They lack the crankcase breathing and rear oiling improvements GM considered were necessary for longevity)

12550592
12559846
12559090

The LS6 blocks are considred the most desireable of the Gen III aluminum blocks and have the casting number 12561168, however, they are almost identical to the 12559378 blocks and not worth the extra cost.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I'll look for that while I have the shortblock open. I've always heard even the least of the LS1 blocks were good for plenty of power.

And, like I said, I'm not looking for gobs of power out of this one. If it runs 12.0's at sea level, I'm good. Although 12.75's NA at altitude on a hot summer day with a 15 mph head wind wouldn't break my heart, either...

I just may let 'er rip with the LQ4 in the '57, though. But, that's a topic for a different thread.

cam-

I have to agree with the cam suggestion. But then again I cant understand why anyone wouldnt go for the most they could get out of an engine. For a few hundo you could add 50rwhp over the LS6 cam just by picking a better cam. I heard your comments about not wanting more but I cant accept that we always want more thats why we keep building a better mouse trap.

Go ahead five7... indulge yourself you deserve it

As for the rod bolts? Heck yeah 7K RPM here too alllll good. I did run the Katechs though but ARP are good as well

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

It has to do with the classes I race in. Most of them I can go faster, but should I make it to the Div V ET finals, 12.00 is the quickest you can dial in Sportsman. Get bumped to Pro, and you're running against 9-sec cars with trans brakes. Plus, if I make it quicker than 11.50, I'll need to install a 6-point roll bar. And I'd probably need something better than the beefed-up 10-bolt.

So, that couple hundo could end up costing me dearly...

cam-

Well... No one says you have to floor it out of the hole. You could roll into it easy, then hammer it, still not break out, or break parts, or need a cage, plus you'll have more power for whatever whenever you might just want it...

As for the ten bolt holding up? Good luck...

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I'll pop the cover off the rear before the season starts to see what things look like. I'm not too concerned about it, though. The high stall softens the shock, and it really has been just as quiet after a bunch of runs and highway use as it was when first installed. But, if it does end up breaking, I'll just scramble and put a 9" or 12 bolt in it (or maybe see if there's anything to that S60 rear).

xpndbl3

iTrader: (5)

there's a lot to that S60 rear......well a lot of weight

No reason to pick ANYTHING other than a 9" when it comes to aftermarket support, parts are everywhere in every speed shop in the country, more gear choices, etc.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Yeah, I know. It's just that the 9" is non-GM...

Pocket

iTrader: (24)

If it works dont knock it

xpndbl3

iTrader: (5)

these 9" are non-ford too, not a single part is the same as how they came down the assembly line besides the size of the ring gear.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I've been knocking the snot out of the 9" in the LS1/T56 car. Already twisted the splines of at least one Moser 31-spline axle (haven't pulled the other one yet - too much else going on). It's no lightweight, either (especially if you don't want to shell out for an aluminum center section).

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Top Fuelers don't run Mopar Hemi's, either...

one92rs

iTrader: (5)

kieth black.

xpndbl3

iTrader: (5)

My builds start with a 35 spline axle and move up from there Sounds like it's spool time for you and some big boy axles then. 9" is a LOT lighter than the S60 even with a nodular center section, but for $400 more that thru bolted aluminum one I run sure is nice, you only live once

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

Man, i dont even know what axles are in my moser, but if that stock LS1 is twisting splines, might there be another issue somewhere?c

cam-

You guys are missing out... 8.8 is the way to go ( yes perhaps I am biased ) but you can get 35 spline axles if you want. 3% more efficient than a 9" and a LOT lighter too. Heck even Mark Williams builds them for 8 second cars... Really isnt any need for more rear IMO plus 8.8's have the highest selection of internals and lowest costs ( yes even less than 9" and more carrier options available )

Plus 9" axle tubes are larger diameter and rob some of the very limited suspension travel our cars have. Plus you need new sway bar brackets and/or adapters.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Yes, there is. Or, was. I tried to convert the LCAs to ladder bars, and it was hitting the rear so hard it was picking the tires up off the pavement. With sticky tires, bouncing starts, hard connection between the engine and rear end, things are going to be stressed.

I've since converted back to a torque arm, which launches with a lot more civility. So, I'm confident 31 splines can handle a stock LS1 when everything else is in order.

35 spline spool has crossed my mind, but I've got this "street car" thing stuck in my head...

xpndbl3

iTrader: (5)

8.8 with leaky c-clip eliminator kit seals, I'll pass.

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

Man, you had me really wondering!

So far, i dont even have the reported "12 bolt noise" in my car after several hard launches. I am lucky i guess, but LMR went mid 7s on a 12 bolt, so i am sticking with it in the 89, but if i got a deal on a 9 inch, i would surely use it. They all break under the right circumstances.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Ordered the rod bolts and oil pump today. I won't be able to work on it this weekend until Sunday afternoon at the earliest.

Haven't decided whether to spend $45 on a damper install tool, try to make one, or borrow one. I will be using it again, that's for sure.

(On a side note, my son dropped off his '01 Blazer w/5.3 bored to 5.7, 317 heads, unknown lumpity cam, 4000 stall, Hughes 4L60E at a shop yesterday for some tuning. I followed to give him a ride home and talked to the guy for a bit. He's excited about the Blazer, and got all excited when I told him about my Camaro and the possibility of having him do some tuning on it. From the way he talked, might be able to take .3-.5 off the ET with what I've got planned and with his tune.)

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

Thats good, just another reason i like my carbs. One day i might get he EFI tuning software if i ever get a shop and a chassis dyno, it would also be good for just removing top end limiters, rev limiter and line pressure ect.

Curious to what your sons project puts down. Probably close to 400.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Keep hearing the only way to properly tune a carb is on a dyno...

We won't need to retune when we go from our home track altitude of 5800' to sea level.

cam-

C-clip eliminators dont belong on any car they're junk and you cant run big enough axles.

As for myself Ive never used them nor would I recommend them. When i build an 8.8 I install the LARGE 9" bolt in retention housing ends and run the taper bearings. Moser or strange 9" or 12 bolt use the crapola roller ball bearings because they are cheap.

Im sure that .2" difference in ring gear helps many sleep at night and the almost 60lb weight penalty of a 9" over an 8.8 coupled with the fact that the 9" has 3 percent more parasitic losses than an 8.8 does which means the 9" is robbing horsepower. This is mainly due to the pinion location of the 9" as its an old design so it has its drawbacks. Plus 9" third members are a pita to set up in comparison.

Its all in how its built just like anything else. The only downside to an 8.8 in stock form is the crappy axles and c-clips but once the housing ends are changed and you step up to the same axles a 9" has they are very comparable in strength.

Once an 8.8 is built right they can support 1000 rwhp.

I wasnt lying before Mark Williams sells PRO class built 8.8's

As I said its all in the set up

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

The ball bearings in axles really that bad? I never see them take a crap on any drag cars that friends have, it is usually a broken axle, gear or carrier.

cam-

For drag cars they are not "that" bad but for any kind of cornering or primary street car use I think they suck completely as side loads or excess heat blows the seals out of them mighty quick. They are basically the same bearing that comes in C-Clip eliminators just a larger version which I find ironic considering comments a few posts back. I can buy the roller bearings Moser or Strange installs in their axles for $4.00 ea vs $40.00 ea for taper bearings ( My cost Moser charges 75 ea for taper bearings last time I checked ). Anyways If you search out 12 bolt or 9" axle bearing failures over at tech you'll see the many threads that come up.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

FWIW, I needed to visit my brother in Nebraska this weekend, so I braved it and drove the Camaro. I filled up after 275 miles, averaged 22.9. Not too bad for an untuned 12-sec car, eh?

Pocket

iTrader: (24)

Not bad at all

cam-

I think theres more to be had if you can believe that. Id bet the tune will pick you up at least 3mpg now that you have it breathing better. These things sure are great on fuel even cammed up they pull excellent mileage

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Over the 947 mile round trip, averaged 23.2 MPG.

Now I need to get back to work on the engine on the engine stand...

(Oh, the Blazer put down 308 RWHP after tuning. A few issues to address, such as fuel pressure being 43 psi and maxing out the injectors duty cycle. Not sure how they ended up with 43 psi, but we need to get it bumped up to 58.)

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Did a little more on it tonight. Didn't much feel like it when I got home from work, but forced myself out to the garage.

Got the shortblock disassembled as much as I'm going to - front cover & pan off, oil pump off, cam out. I went ahead and installed the ARP rod bolts, which went fairly smoothly. I didn't know before, though, that the rod caps had bushings in them for the bolts - interesting.

Now to get the pan cleaned up, cam in, new timing set and oil pump on, etc.

Pocket

iTrader: (24)

Some stock rods have the ferrules, some dont. Not really a year/engine break down to tell which do/dont. Just know the ARP/Kaytech bolts cant cope with the guides, so pull them out if they're present

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

Buddy of mine didnt remove them, so we will see if there is a issue with it.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I didn't even realize they were there until the 7th bolt or so. I thought perhaps that one was a "reworked" cap to save mismachined parts, but turns out they all had them.

You got me nervous enough to call ARP Tech Support. "Sam" said, "Take them out, our bolt shank is bigger than the stock bolts and the friction will keep them from going through. Even without the bushings, the cracked cap design will keep the cap from walking." Well, I ran them down with a speeder wrench, there wasn't enough resistance there for more than a couple of foot pounds at the most (much less than a lock nut, for reference). I'm not sure I want to rely on the cracked cap stuff, either. He said it's probably a judgment call, but if I still had access, he'd recommend going back and taking them out.

I'll think about it, but I think I'd rather keep it the way it is.

xpndbl3

iTrader: (5)

I haven't removed them on the last 4 or so motors I've tossed together for people, in fact the motor in my camaro presently has them still in there. Hit 7400 probably 100 times so far and no issues. I ran them down by hand all the way until the flange of the bolt was against the rod, so I don't see there being an interference issues, but this is a 2006 motor maybe that's why.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

Using ARP rod bolts, I presume.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

The front seal is pretty hard, although it didn't appear to be leaking. I think I'll change it, anyway.

I didn't change the rear main on the other engines, but given how hardened the front seal is, I think I'll change the rear on this one.

The passenger side of the pan showed a lot of seepage as well. Not sure if that was pan gasket or oil level sensor, but I think I'll try to take care of all of this with new stuff now.

Pocket

iTrader: (24)

Pan gaskets commonly leak after having it off for whatever reason. You have to drill the rivets out to get the old one off though

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

That sure flies in the face of "reusable gaskets" that I hear about LS1's all the time.

Pocket

iTrader: (24)

Its hit or miss

Ive had my waterpump off 4 times, each time reused the original gaskets that came stuck to it when I bought it used. On the other hand the intake gaskets were so flat I had a constant vacuum leak

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

I wish i didnt have to replace the front cam retainer EVERY time i removed one, LOL. But i have reused all the oil pan gaskets and one of them seems to seep a touch, i just blast it off every oil change, it is not enough to drip to make any real leak t speak of.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

The shortblock is basically back together. I still need to torque the damper bolt (kind of hard to do on an engine stand with no flexplate installed). I decided to leave the rod bolts the way they are, with the bushings in. Melling pump, new timing set installed.

The Felpro rear main seal weirded me out - couldn't tell which way it was supposed to go, so took my best shot. Last night I was picking things up, putting the old rear cover gasket in the box the new gasket/seal came in, and a piece of paper fell out. It said the seal was a "reverse lip" style with "This Side Out" printed on the side that was supposed to go out. Well, I didn't recall seeing any printing when I was looking it over, so I pulled the cover back off and popped the seal back out - came out a little easier than I expected. I looked all over that seal for that printing, couldn't find anything, the instructions also said the dust seal went to the outside, so I apparently chose wrong. When I put it back in, it didn't seem to drive in very hard. When I put the cover back on, the seal popped out of the cover. Not very confidence inspiring. I think I'll get a different seal and try again.

Should be pulling the engine this weekend. Guess I'll try dropping it this time. Might need to put the car in the middle of two stalls so I have room for the hoist on one side and can roll the engine/trans/cradle out the other side.

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (2)

Same thing with the 6.0 we just installed into the 95 Z28, seal went in easy and deep, didnt know they could go in so deep into the rear cover, i told him to use silicone to ensure the seal, so we will see.

White'89

iTrader: (8)

When I put mine in it did say this side out, you may need a magnifying glass but its there. I had a hard time finding something to knock it into the cover with, my bearing and seal installer/remover set isn't universal anymore.