When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Fast355, I have that same setup collecting dust in my basement, because it won't clear the Firebird hood. I assumed wrong, and was very surprised how tall the single planes are, especially once you add the elbow. TV bracket made it even worse.
They're very cool though.
That setup clears the firebird hood just fine. I ran this setup a decade ago:
That setup clears the firebird hood just fine. I ran this setup a decade ago:
Did you cut battery tray for intercooler piping or run through fenders? I'm leaning towards A2W to try and limit distance. But packaging isn't too easy on a bird
How were your IATs w the filter there? I'm the process of collecting stuff for a blower this winter and struggling w the air intake in that area.
If you have a cowl hood like Joe does, it wouldn't be tool awfully hard to fab up a tin tray that would isolate the filter to the cowl when the hood is closed.
How were your IATs w the filter there? I'm the process of collecting stuff for a blower this winter and struggling w the air intake in that area.
Absolutely terrible.
I also ran a vortech on the passenger side with the air filter pretty much in the same location, with the same issue. Then the pressure drop through the intercooler is absolutely insane because it's taking out so much heat.
If you have a cowl hood like Joe does, it wouldn't be tool awfully hard to fab up a tin tray that would isolate the filter to the cowl when the hood is closed.
I think Willie did that 20+ years ago, and it came out great. In the photos above, that's a stock formula cowl but I suppose one could fabricate a mechanism to draw the intake air through the opening. The cowl I have now would probably work even better but I never bothered to fabricate such a thing.
Now I have the turbo with the air intake facing forward and I'm in the process of re-routing everything again to draw even colder air from the front right fender.
I'd like to go back to the formula hood eventually. I painted the car in 2013 and it honestly is ready for another paint job. Maybe next year.
Yeah, I was thinking about some way to isolate the intake. I was also wondering if there's a way to get the intake in front. I'm sure that would take some piping wizardry.
Yeah, I was thinking about some way to isolate the intake. I was also wondering if there's a way to get the intake in front. I'm sure that would take some piping wizardry.
That's how Vortech does it with the fbody kit. You remove the washer tank and run some 90's an the air cleaner hangs out over the battery tray on the driver side. But, it makes it impossible to route an intercooler that way.
Yeah, I've seen that. I know it's gonna be a deal. I'll find out soon. I know a really insane fabricator who does 2-3000 hp cars. I have some hope he can come w something cool, he's a pretty brilliant guy.
The money means nothing, What don't you seem to understand?? Besides a lot?? It's simple it's an old dying Gen 1 SBC.
Sorry SBC is not dying at all, they are still easy to make power out of, cheap and extremely reliable. Just worked on one that had a mouse chew on the harness a bit and would not start. It was installed brand new about 6 months ago. 6.2L of aluminum headed turbocharged SBC running on natural gas. Seriously though when it comes to big power it does not matter if it is a SBC or LS, cost about the same to build and it is all going to be aftermarket. Plenty of 410s make more power than most naturally aspirated LS engines dream of every weekend and run lap after lap. Plenty of drag cars running small blocks and the owners will not be replacing those engines with LS engines anytime soon. I personally prefer the SBC over the LS. More torque where you actually drive 95% of the time with a SBC.
BasIcally brand new SBC 377. 4.00" bore and 3.75 stroke, aftermarket block and aluminum heads.
Sorry SBC is not dying at all, they are still easy to make power out of, cheap and extremely reliable. Just worked on one that had a mouse chew on the harness a bit and would not start. It was installed brand new about 6 months ago. 6.2L of aluminum headed turbocharged SBC running on natural gas. Seriously though when it comes to big power it does not matter if it is a SBC or LS, cost about the same to build and it is all going to be aftermarket. Plenty of 410s make more power than most naturally aspirated LS engines dream of every weekend and run lap after lap. Plenty of drag cars running small blocks and the owners will not be replacing those engines with LS engines anytime soon. I personally prefer the SBC over the LS. More torque where you actually drive 95% of the time with a SBC.
I used to feel the same way but, all the shops I'm friends with like 90% of the cars get repowered with LS.
As far as torque goes, honestly they are about the same. If you look at a dyno graph of a stock L31 for example (yes I know, vortec) vs an LC9 (aluminum 5.3) the peak torque is about the same at 330-338 foot lbs, and the average torque is about the same from 2000 to 4500rpm.
I've owned Chevy and GMC trucks all my life, and I've always towed. The TBI trucks, Vortec L31 trucks, 5.3 and 6.0 LS. The 6.0 is the winner, followed by the 5.3. I'd tow my bobcat (12,000lbs loaded) with the 6.0 or 5.3, but absolutely not with a L31 or TBI 350.
As far as the car stuff goes, I ran a 412" SBC for a decade in the thirdgen before switching to LS. It made plenty of torque, but the turbo 5.3 is way faster than the supercharged 412. On the street the car is almost dangerous with 235mm tires.
I still own some SBC/LT1 stuff, of course, and I have 3 LS powered vehicles. There are pros and cons to each, but if I had a roller in my shop that was a blank slate I wouldn't even consider a SBC. It just doesn't make sense dollar per hp.
With that said, there are still millions of SBC vehicles on the road that people have zero intention of LS swapping, so it's important to still have strong aftermarket support. I still believe this particular intake was poorly executed, vs the LS version.
I used to feel the same way but, all the shops I'm friends with like 90% of the cars get repowered with LS.
As far as torque goes, honestly they are about the same. If you look at a dyno graph of a stock L31 for example (yes I know, vortec) vs an LC9 (aluminum 5.3) the peak torque is about the same at 330-338 foot lbs, and the average torque is about the same from 2000 to 4500rpm.
I've owned Chevy and GMC trucks all my life, and I've always towed. The TBI trucks, Vortec L31 trucks, 5.3 and 6.0 LS. The 6.0 is the winner, followed by the 5.3. I'd tow my bobcat (12,000lbs loaded) with the 6.0 or 5.3, but absolutely not with a L31 or TBI 350.
As far as the car stuff goes, I ran a 412" SBC for a decade in the thirdgen before switching to LS. It made plenty of torque, but the turbo 5.3 is way faster than the supercharged 412. On the street the car is almost dangerous with 235mm tires.
I still own some SBC/LT1 stuff, of course, and I have 3 LS powered vehicles. There are pros and cons to each, but if I had a roller in my shop that was a blank slate I wouldn't even consider a SBC. It just doesn't make sense dollar per hp.
With that said, there are still millions of SBC vehicles on the road that people have zero intention of LS swapping, so it's important to still have strong aftermarket support. I still believe this particular intake was poorly executed, vs the LS version.
-- Joe
Tuned L31 wipes the floor under 4,000 rpm with a tuned LQ9. L31 had a 4L85E behind it vs the 4L65E behind the LQ9 as well. They both had the same 3.73 geared 9.5 SF 14 bolt. L31 had a clutch fan and the LQ9 had factory electrics as well. I tuned both back to back on the same dyno and same day. Down at 2,500 rpm the L31 had 40 ft/lbs more torque than the LQ9. Both made about 310 wtq at peak. The L31 made its peak at 2,900 rpm, the LQ9 at 4,400 rpm.
I had a 2003 Sonora with a L31/5spd. It was a much better driveline than the LM7/4L60E my sister had in an otherwise identical 2003 Tahoe. I now own a GMT800 2002 Suburban with a L31/4L60E and it is a great running unit too.
Tuned L31 wipes the floor under 4,000 rpm with a tuned LQ9. L31 had a 4L85E behind it vs the 4L65E behind the LQ9 as well. They both had the same 3.73 geared 9.5 SF 14 bolt. L31 had a clutch fan and the LQ9 had factory electrics as well. I tuned both back to back on the same dyno and same day. Down at 2,500 rpm the L31 had 40 ft/lbs more torque than the LQ9. Both made about 310 wtq at peak. The L31 made its peak at 2,900 rpm, the LQ9 at 4,400 rpm.
I'm not sure what the deal was there, but I can tell you we have had a lot of L31 trucks, and now everything is 6.0 or 5.3 and they tow significantly better. My last L31 truck (a 99 or 2000) would slow down, drop two gears and scream for mercy trying to maintain 65mph going up hill through the mountains here. My 6.0 will haul the same load at 75mph without breaking a sweat.
The 6.0 does make peak torque higher at 4400 RPM, I've noticed that, but the peak number on the 6.0 was always higher than the L31 though. I suspect cam timing has a lot to do with that. The neat thing about the 6.0 is you can do a small turbo with the factory cam, and basically double everything for fairly cheap. The turbo truck scene is huge around here.
Now, I will say my new Tahoe with the 5.3 is very laggy. It weighs less than the 2022 Sierra with the same engine, but for some reason it's just laggy. (AFM is disabled). I don't know what the deal is there, it just requires more pedal for the same output.
I'm not sure what the deal was there, but I can tell you we have had a lot of L31 trucks, and now everything is 6.0 or 5.3 and they tow significantly better. My last L31 truck (a 99 or 2000) would slow down, drop two gears and scream for mercy trying to maintain 65mph going up hill through the mountains here. My 6.0 will haul the same load at 75mph without breaking a sweat.
The 6.0 does make peak torque higher at 4400 RPM, I've noticed that, but the peak number on the 6.0 was always higher than the L31 though. I suspect cam timing has a lot to do with that. The neat thing about the 6.0 is you can do a small turbo with the factory cam, and basically double everything for fairly cheap. The turbo truck scene is huge around here.
Now, I will say my new Tahoe with the 5.3 is very laggy. It weighs less than the 2022 Sierra with the same engine, but for some reason it's just laggy. (AFM is disabled). I don't know what the deal is there, it just requires more pedal for the same output.
Manifold, heads, cam profile, rod/stroke ratio all have an effect. Stock L31 has a ton of torque hiding in the stock PCM calibration. Over 13.5K all together and aerodynamics of a brick. Loafed along at 2,400 rpm @ 70 mph. Long grade typically in 3rd. Real steep mountain passes at 10,000 ft put it into 2nd at 4,000 rpm but still holding 65 mph. 350/4L85E and 3.73 geared 9.5 SF 14-bolt. Stock 4L60E could not even haul the van itself around for 40K miles. Stock one failed at 38K, replacement 65E build went 40K. Put the 85E into it st 78K. Rolling at highway speed the 350 literally towed as well as my uncles 6.2L 1500. His had 3.08s though, 3.42s would have been alot better.
Doesn't an L31 and an LQ9 both make about 330 lbs at 2500 RPM? I think the LQ9 (and all modern engines) move the tq curve up b/c of the good flowing heads....but that (by itself) doesn't mean that the LQ9 has less low end tq....In the very few graphs that I've seen where people actually measure low end tq, most "LS" is in the same ball part as most Gen I.
Doesn't an L31 and an LQ9 both make about 330 lbs at 2500 RPM? I think the LQ9 (and all modern engines) move the tq curve up b/c of the good flowing heads....but that (by itself) doesn't mean that the LQ9 has less low end tq....In the very few graphs that I've seen where people actually measure low end tq, most "LS" is in the same ball part as most Gen I.
Not even close, takes a LY6 with VVT to even come close to the L31s low-speed torque and even then the LY6 is still softer under 3,000 rpm on torque. The L31 350 makes close to 400 ft/lbs from 2,000-3,500 rpm with a good tune. Best comparisons I have that have a good clean pull at lower rpm are all net rated marine engine setups running optimized tunes for torque production. L31 5.7L, LY6 6.0L and L83 5.3L with direct injection for comparison.
Not even close, takes a LY6 with VVT to even come close to the L31s low-speed torque and even then the LY6 is still softer under 3,000 rpm on torque. The L31 350 makes close to 400 ft/lbs from 2,000-3,500 rpm with a good tune.
Yeah? A STOCK one does? You're saying that there is 50 lb-ft in a tune only??? Let's see it......
Not that it matters, b/c I thought the discussion about towing was Re: stock trucks.
Yeah? A STOCK one does? You're saying that there is 50 lb-ft in a tune only??? Let's see it......
Not that it matters, b/c I thought the discussion about towing was Re: stock trucks.
Mine went from 185 whp and 250 wtq to 229 whp and 304 wtq with PCM tuning. Stock L31 through a 4L85E and 9.5 semi float also turning a 9 bladed Duramax fan blade when it made those numbers. Both were done in over 100F ambient temps. I changed the valve springs and put 1.6 rockers on it and made 257 whp and 310 wtq. I was getting valve float over 4,500 rpm so severely it lost nearly 40 whp between 5,150 and 5,350 but the valves started noticeably floating at 4,500.
My stock 8.75:1 L05 TBI 350 long block with bolt ons and tune made over 300 wtq itself.
Yeah? A STOCK one does? You're saying that there is 50 lb-ft in a tune only??? Let's see it......
Not that it matters, b/c I thought the discussion about towing was Re: stock trucks.
It was claimed small blocks were dead in this post. Those of us that actually tow have a reason we like the SBC and not the LS. Then again I like the 8100 myself for actual work. While some like them in trucks, i never have been a fan of the 5.3L in a truck. I jumped ship to Nissan's 5.6L rather than a 5.3L powered truck. That DOHC 5.6L engine with an aftermarket 4" intake setup, magnaflow muffler swap and tuning will make nearly 400 wtq @ 3,000 rpm and tows effortlessly compared to a LS. That 5.6L made nearly 100 ft/lbs more at 3,000 rpm than the LQ9 6.0L made.
I like the Gen I just fine; I'm not arguing "against" it....just terms like "wipes the floor", when both engines make ~300 lbs at 1000 RPM, stock. They're both pretty similar, down low. I think the LQ9 is a 6 liter, which what Joe was talking about, and you were "wiping the floor" of. IDK how 5.3L's and Nissan engines came into the convo.
I like the Gen I just fine; I'm not arguing "against" it....just terms like "wipes the floor", when both engines make ~300 lbs at 1000 RPM, stock. They're both pretty similar, down low. I think the LQ9 is a 6 liter, which what Joe was talking about, and you were "wiping the floor" of. IDK how 5.3L's and Nissan engines came into the convo.
I did not bring up the 5.3L, I responded to it being brought up. Look at the torque at 2500 rpm in the SAE power charts I posted above. Even the LY6 with VVT does not make as much torque. The VVT version of the 6.0L makes considerably more torque at low rpm than the non VVT versions. The VVT setup adds a solid 30 ft/lbs down low.
This is a tuned L31 complete with junk flowing Mexican 062s on it turning a 4L85E and 9.5 SF 14 bolt.
With a NV3500 5spd, 4x4 transfer case and 8.6 10 bolt my 2003 Sonora (rebadged GMT800 Tahoe) made over 240 whp and 320 wtq from a tuned stock L31. The 2003 had a much better flowing air intake that uses an 85mm LS MAF. I broke 250 whp and 335 wtq with the GMT800 electric fans swapped on it even with the stock exhaust manifolds, stock cats and stock Y-pipe. The only non-stock part on the 2003 when I bought it with 160K miles on it was the aerochamber muffler it had. The stock Vortec PCM calibrations only have 20-22° total advance in them at WOT. They come alive with a real advance curve and leaning out the PE air/fuel ratio a bit. The PCM is also capped at 300 ft/lbs of delivered engine torque output. A set of LS beehives fix the top end valve float whackines which the L31 and the iron head LT1 both share from their junk stock springs.
Look at the torque at 2500 rpm in the SAE power charts I posted above.
Those aren't engines in trucks towing though....those are different engines w/different exhaust, accessories, tune, op temps.....not really great to "compare" or use as an example when comparing against trucks with the stock motors in 'em.
Those aren't engines in trucks towing though....those are different engines w/different exhaust, accessories, tune, op temps.....not really great to "compare" or use as an example when comparing against trucks with the stock motors in 'em.
Lol of course they aren't "comparable" nothing will be "good enough" because no two engines are the "same" or run in the same "conditions". LoooooLLLL. He's at least showing "something"
We'll, that just ain't true at all. GM's engines run on GM's dyno's are run in the same conditions. In fact, any OEM engine run on the OEM's dyno for cert's is run in the same conditions, and those conditions are defined by SAE. It's weird that you don't already know that.
But anyway, if you can find OEM dyno graphs for L31 Vortecs, and the same for "LS's", that go into GM trucks, you find that they make pretty darned similar tq numbers in the "low end" (defined by me, as idle to ~2500 RPM). About 300 lbs at 1000 RPM. I can't find a GM produced, L31 graph....I'm betting that Fast couldn't find one either. It probably wasn't a "sexy" engine for GM to show off, when it came out!
If you want to use Fast's graphs against each other, and assume that the engines being tested are configured the same, we can do that too. Let's do that and compare a few "low RPM" points and torks:
Both pulls appear to start at a high 1500 RPM, so,
RPM.......L31.....LY6
1500.......348.....353
2000.......380.......377
2500.......390.......380
3000.......385.......390
Ave ......375.5......375
IDK....that 0.5 lb of difference average in that RPM range is not what *I* would call, "Wiping the floor". Or "softer below 3000..." I'd call that a wash. Maybe our definitions of floor wiping are different?
If you want to use Fast's graphs against each other, and assume that the engines being tested are configured the same, we can do that too. Let's do that and compare a few "low RPM" points and torks:
Both pulls appear to start at a high 1500 RPM, so,
RPM.......L31.....LY6
1500.......348.....353
2000.......380.......377
2500.......390.......380
3000.......385.......390
Ave ......375.5......375
IDK....that 0.5 lb of difference average in that RPM range is not what *I* would call, "Wiping the floor". Or "softer below 3000..." I'd call that a wash. Maybe our definitions of floor wiping are different?
You realize that is a GenIV LY6 with VVT. The older Gen3 6.0L made signifigantly less low-end torque. So a LQ4 or even LQ9 is a good bit weaker at lower rpm. So yes 350 wipes the floor down low with a Gen3 as I previously stated. The VVT system added 30-40 ft/lbs at 2,500 rpm on every LS offering GM added it to.
Both of these graphs are just VVT related adjustments. 1st on is a 6.2L with functional VVT vs camshaft locked at the setting that produces peak HP. On a Gen3 engine with a fixed cam it does not get that extra low-midrange torque. Without VVT the L92 6.2L is only making 320 tq @ 2,000 rpm. With VVT it is around 360 tq @ 2,000. Expect the same kind of low-speed torque loss with a LQ4/LQ9 vs the LY6 in that previous graph.
2nd was a 3.5L V6 with cam phasing adjustments on a dyno to optimize output compared to the factory emissions driven settings. I did the adjustments on the 2nd setup myself. VVT was functional on both graphs, just cam phasing optimized for output.
I recently made intake cam phasing adjustments to the 4.0L V6 in my Pathfinder via tuning. It is not even the same engine any longer. Much smoother torque delivery and it is far stronger at lower rpm than it was. I ended up tuning it with HP Tuners after adding headers to it to replace the cracked OE exhaust manifolds and it needed some work to get the fueling back in line anyway, so why not work on optimizing the cam phasing for better driveability and more torque output.
Stock L31 350 that had shorty headers on it because the OE manifolds had cracked. 4L80E trans and 9.5SF 8-lug 2500 truck. Looks like it too had valvetrain stability issues above 4,800 too. This one vs mine that made 229 whp and 304 wtq I forgot mine did have Thorley tri-ys by that point but the tuning was a huge gain by itself. Mine made 185 whp and 250 wtq stock. Ended up swapping valve springs and running it again, later locking the converter and some more adjustments to the tune and it made 257 whp and 310 wtq. On E85 made 272 whp and 330wtq.
Stock L31 350 that had shorty headers on it because the OE manifolds had cracked. 4L80E trans and 9.5SF 8-lug 2500 truck. This one vs mine that made 229 whp and 304 wtq I forgot mine did have Thorley tri-ys by that point but the tuning was a huge gain by itself. Mine made 185 whp and 250 wtq stock. Ended up swapping valve springs and running it again, later locking the converter and some more adjustments to the tune and it made 257 whp and 310 wtq. On E85 made 272 whp and 330wtq.
I get what you are saying, my point is that in my experience towing bobcats and excavators, stock for stock, the 6.0 trucks were the best, followed by 5.3 and L31. Like actual towing, ability to maintain speed on grade, etc.
But getting back to this intake, it looks cool but I still stick by what I said about it being poorly executed. If the low-ram version could take an intercooler I think it would be way more popular for turbo guys.
I get what you are saying, my point is that in my experience towing bobcats and excavators, stock for stock, the 6.0 trucks were the best, followed by 5.3 and L31. Like actual towing, ability to maintain speed on grade, etc.
But getting back to this intake, it looks cool but I still stick by what I said about it being poorly executed. If the low-ram version could take an intercooler I think it would be way more popular for turbo guys.
I liked the 8.1L I had for towing myself. Found the 6.0L even in a 1/2 ton gutless. My next half ton had the Nissan 5.6L because it was night and day stronger than a 6.0L.
I agree on intercooler being helpful but most people run NA so probably not high on the list of being compatible with one. I am not a big fan of the fuel injector angle on any of the SBC port fuel manifolds. The only PFI SBC manifold that has a good injector angle is the stock L31 truck manifold with the spider. With sequential injection it does make a noticeable difference spraying fuel directly on the back of a hot intake valve vs the port floor. Spraying fuel directly on the valve you use less fuel to make the same power and it burns cleaner with less carbon buildup.
View through my inspection camera down a L31 spider manifold injector hole. Right at the valve like a LS. Other injector angles definitely result in less MPG and soggy throttle response using sequential injection especially. Many LS manifolds have poor injector placement and angles as well, so I tend to stick with the stock GM manifolds.
LS engines are a simple design and easy to work on, fit in anything plus all of these points:
- LS = no intake manifold water leaks and better sealing all the way around vs weap, seap, leak of SBC on everything over time
- LS = no ICM or other ignition failures that leave you stranded
- LS = starter that can be swapped without wondering is the shimming correct for the new one that will eat your flywheel ring
- LS = ECM (assuming OEM swap) with great tuning ability and great diagnostics
- LS = design tolerances built in that allow you to swap intakes, etc with almost certainty that parts fit right vs get out the grinder, welder, etc to make things work
- LS = better, better, better long term durability all the way around of a base motor, ie 100k junkyard motor can easily be found that is a great base
Not to mention that a simple cam swap and you'll make a whole bunch more power whether you're towing, street performance or boosted
LS engines are a simple design and easy to work on, fit in anything plus all of these points:
- LS = no intake manifold water leaks and better sealing all the way around vs weap, seap, leak of SBC on everything over time
- LS = no ICM or other ignition failures that leave you stranded
- LS = starter that can be swapped without wondering is the shimming correct for the new one that will eat your flywheel ring
- LS = ECM (assuming OEM swap) with great tuning ability and great diagnostics
- LS = design tolerances built in that allow you to swap intakes, etc with almost certainty that parts fit right vs get out the grinder, welder, etc to make things work
- LS = better, better, better long term durability all the way around of a base motor, ie 100k junkyard motor can easily be found that is a great base
Not to mention that a simple cam swap and you'll make a whole bunch more power whether you're towing, street performance or boosted
LS does not seal up any better than a SBC oil leak wise. In my experience they tend to leak more often, especially the rear main. Anything sealed with rubber tends to leak. About to have to do the valve cover gaskets on my Pathfinders 4.0L for the same reason and had to change the oil cooler oring already multiple times since new on it. A LS will leak here before you get to 100K, the heat just kills anything rubber and bakes it to a crisp. The timing cover, rear main, oil pan, and valve covers are all highly prone to leaks on the LS. The oil pan gasket loves to leak in the LH rear where GMs lovely engineering staff decided to run the oil passageways to the oil filter through the pan gasket. Seen a leak there destroy several of them suddenly without prior warning.
SBC is easy to run with 24x LS management, no difference there.
Never had to shim a late model SBC starter. They just do not have the same issue as the older 70s junk blocks.
SBC has great interchangability and tolerences as well, parts fit without having to worry too.
As for longevity, a LS is no better and in some ways worse than a SBC. Never seen a SBC lose oil pressure and grenade because of a failed oil pump pickup tube oring or a failed plastic barbell. Also LS are notorious cam bearing and lifter eaters. I have seen SBCs with over 500K and even over 1,000,000 miles too many times to count.
Simple cam swap will add ~100 hp to a Vortec 350 as well while still having excellent low-speed torque. I put a XM270HR and Rhoads roller lifters in the L31 powered pontoon boat I had. Outdrive boats have to idle at a very low rpm to save wear and tear on the shifting dogs in the lower unit. It idled dead smooth at 500 rpm and gained power pretty much everywhere.
LS engines are a simple design and easy to work on, fit in anything plus all of these points:
- LS = no intake manifold water leaks and better sealing all the way around vs weap, seap, leak of SBC on everything over time
- LS = no ICM or other ignition failures that leave you stranded
- LS = starter that can be swapped without wondering is the shimming correct for the new one that will eat your flywheel ring
- LS = ECM (assuming OEM swap) with great tuning ability and great diagnostics
- LS = design tolerances built in that allow you to swap intakes, etc with almost certainty that parts fit right vs get out the grinder, welder, etc to make things work
- LS = better, better, better long term durability all the way around of a base motor, ie 100k junkyard motor can easily be found that is a great base
Not to mention that a simple cam swap and you'll make a whole bunch more power whether you're towing, street performance or boosted
Practically all of that is factually incorrect or pure opinion.
LS does not seal up any better than a SBC oil leak wise. In my experience they tend to leak more often, especially the rear main. Anything sealed with rubber tends to leak. About to have to do the valve cover gaskets on my Pathfinders 4.0L for the same reason and had to change the oil cooler oring already multiple times since new on it. A LS will leak here before you get to 100K, the heat just kills anything rubber and bakes it to a crisp. The timing cover, rear main, oil pan, and valve covers are all highly prone to leaks on the LS. The oil pan gasket loves to leak in the LH rear where GMs lovely engineering staff decided to run the oil passageways to the oil filter through the pan gasket. Seen a leak there destroy several of them suddenly without prior warning.
- I nor have any of the other peeps I play around with have seen any of these issues. So 100% disagree with you there
SBC is easy to run with 24x LS management, no difference there.
- Why would anybody waste money doing this to a SBC when an LS does this from the factory??
Never had to shim a late model SBC starter. They just do not have the same issue as the older 70s junk blocks.
- My new from the factory 305 SBC in 08 needed s a shim for the starter
SBC has great interchangability and tolerences as well, parts fit without having to worry too.
- Not all of them, the later model stuff is slightly different that it wont fit with everything. Stealth Ram intake comes to mind here
As for longevity, a LS is no better and in some ways worse than a SBC. Never seen a SBC lose oil pressure and grenade because of a failed oil pump pickup tube oring or a failed plastic barbell. Also LS are notorious cam bearing and lifter eaters. I have seen SBCs with over 500K and even over 1,000,000 miles too many times to count.
- I couldn't disagree more you haven't seen any 1 million mile SBC's that haven't also been rebuilt over a dozen times
Simple cam swap will add ~100 hp to a Vortec 350 as well while still having excellent low-speed torque. I put a XM270HR and Rhoads roller lifters in the L31 powered pontoon boat I had. Outdrive boats have to idle at a very low rpm to save wear and tear on the shifting dogs in the lower unit. It idled dead smooth at 500 rpm and gained power pretty much everywhere.
-Nobody is talking about boats here but I can definitely find you some examples of an LS in a boat
LS engines are a simple design and easy to work on, fit in anything plus all of these points:
- LS = no intake manifold water leaks and better sealing all the way around vs weap, seap, leak of SBC on everything over time Other than intake all other gaskets are just as likely to leak. RMS the most common.
- LS = no ICM or other ignition failures that leave you stranded See below.
- LS = starter that can be swapped without wondering is the shimming correct for the new one that will eat your flywheel ring Not once has this ever been a concern or issue of mine. On Several SBCs including a old 70s 400 block.
- LS = ECM (assuming OEM swap) with great tuning ability and great diagnostics Mentioned countless times now but 24x is easily done. Its 2024 not 2000. Why would someone do it isn't a valid argument either.
- LS = design tolerances built in that allow you to swap intakes, etc with almost certainty that parts fit right vs get out the grinder, welder, etc to make things work Again never even heard of this as a concern for a majority of aftermarket parts. OEM parts its definitely not a concern any more than it would for LS.
- LS = better, better, better long term durability all the way around of a base motor, ie 100k junkyard motor can easily be found that is a great base Opinion. Durability is a very subjective measurement of comparison.
Not to mention that a simple cam swap and you'll make a whole bunch more power whether you're towing, street performance or boosted Right because cams do nothing in SBCs...
See bold above.
Look, I like LS motors. I love my 6.2L in my 2015 Silverado. Could I see myself doing a LS swap, definitely. Do I think they are better overall, also yes. But your arguments for why or opinion that the SBC is dead aren't really based in reality. And my tuning is going just fine with the "OEM" ECM, thank you for the concern.
Look, I like LS motors. I love my 6.2L in my 2015 Silverado. Could I see myself doing a LS swap, definitely. Do I think they are better overall, also yes. But your arguments for why or opinion that the SBC is dead aren't really based in reality. And my tuning is going just fine with the "OEM" ECM, thank you for the concern.
100% based in reality. Sorry bud. Most people these days just aren't tossing another SBC in their whip when you could get an LS 5.3/6.0 with transmission, harness and ECU for $2500 or under. It's just a far superior platform. Period.
On top of that if I wanted to throw a turbo on there I'd open the ring gaps up a bit and suddenly I'm 700+ whp reliably. You're just not doing that with a Gen 1 SBC, the metallurgy wasn't there to make it reliable enough. If it was then we wouldn't have the Gen 3, 4 or 5 small block. Also I never said the Gen 1 was dead I said it was dying...........
Look, I like LS motors. I love my 6.2L in my 2015 Silverado. Could I see myself doing a LS swap, definitely. Do I think they are better overall, also yes. But your arguments for why or opinion that the SBC is dead aren't really based in reality. And my tuning is going just fine with the "OEM" ECM, thank you for the concern.
You have never dealt with intake alignment issues or wiped out flywheel ring gears on SBC?
The reason LS engines respond so well to cam swaps is due to the valve angle and superior flow on the cylinder heads. For example, the 243 casting heads on my 5.3 have 210cc intake runners. This is why a little baby 209/217 cam on a 5.3 makes 400hp and idles like stock with no other mods.
This is honestly the #1 benefit over SBC, especially TPI. You know how much work it was getting a TPI engine to 400hp in the 90s? man..
The strength of the whole mainline and overall durability of the block makes it easy to make 800-1000hp reliably. And if you do blow it up, you buy another $600 junkyard 5.3 ..
As far as the electronics go, I have not touched OE TPI ECM's in over 20 years now. That stuff was dated then. Even the MS2 I've been running since 2012 is dated and I just upgraded to MS3. I can't imagine tuning a stock ECM or EBL in 2024.
Some of the other stuff brought up in this thread is just plane silly. I can't even begin to tell you guys how many SBC and LT1 blocks I've had in my shop that had spun cam bearings, rods through the side of the block, broken main caps, etc.
And sure, LS engines blow up too, but how many of you are making more than 700hp on a stock junkyard SBC rotating assembly?
It took me decades to give up my SBC stuff too.. I started this forum 20 years ago when trying to make these cars go faster with port EFI intakes. I had 2,000 square feet of SBC/LT1 stuff. It's just cheaper and easier to make power with the LS now. I don't think at this stage in my life I would invest in SBC parts unless I already had a car that was done up.
Sorry SBC is not dying at all, they are still easy to make power out of, cheap and extremely reliable. Just worked on one that had a mouse chew on the harness a bit and would not start. It was installed brand new about 6 months ago. 6.2L of aluminum headed turbocharged SBC running on natural gas. Seriously though when it comes to big power it does not matter if it is a SBC or LS, cost about the same to build and it is all going to be aftermarket. Plenty of 410s make more power than most naturally aspirated LS engines dream of every weekend and run lap after lap. Plenty of drag cars running small blocks and the owners will not be replacing those engines with LS engines anytime soon. I personally prefer the SBC over the LS. More torque where you actually drive 95% of the time with a SBC.
BasIcally brand new SBC 377. 4.00" bore and 3.75 stroke, aftermarket block and aluminum heads.
You have never dealt with intake alignment issues or wiped out flywheel ring gears on SBC?
The reason LS engines respond so well to cam swaps is due to the valve angle and superior flow on the cylinder heads. For example, the 243 casting heads on my 5.3 have 210cc intake runners. This is why a little baby 209/217 cam on a 5.3 makes 400hp and idles like stock with no other mods.
This is honestly the #1 benefit over SBC, especially TPI. You know how much work it was getting a TPI engine to 400hp in the 90s? man..
The strength of the whole mainline and overall durability of the block makes it easy to make 800-1000hp reliably. And if you do blow it up, you buy another $600 junkyard 5.3 ..
As far as the electronics go, I have not touched OE TPI ECM's in over 20 years now. That stuff was dated then. Even the MS2 I've been running since 2012 is dated and I just upgraded to MS3. I can't imagine tuning a stock ECM or EBL in 2024.
Some of the other stuff brought up in this thread is just plane silly. I can't even begin to tell you guys how many SBC and LT1 blocks I've had in my shop that had spun cam bearings, rods through the side of the block, broken main caps, etc.
And sure, LS engines blow up too, but how many of you are making more than 700hp on a stock junkyard SBC rotating assembly?
It took me decades to give up my SBC stuff too.. I started this forum 20 years ago when trying to make these cars go faster with port EFI intakes. I had 2,000 square feet of SBC/LT1 stuff. It's just cheaper and easier to make power with the LS now. I don't think at this stage in my life I would invest in SBC parts unless I already had a car that was done up.
You have never dealt with intake alignment issues or wiped out flywheel ring gears on SBC?
The reason LS engines respond so well to cam swaps is due to the valve angle and superior flow on the cylinder heads. For example, the 243 casting heads on my 5.3 have 210cc intake runners. This is why a little baby 209/217 cam on a 5.3 makes 400hp and idles like stock with no other mods.
This is honestly the #1 benefit over SBC, especially TPI. You know how much work it was getting a TPI engine to 400hp in the 90s? man..
The strength of the whole mainline and overall durability of the block makes it easy to make 800-1000hp reliably. And if you do blow it up, you buy another $600 junkyard 5.3 ..
As far as the electronics go, I have not touched OE TPI ECM's in over 20 years now. That stuff was dated then. Even the MS2 I've been running since 2012 is dated and I just upgraded to MS3. I can't imagine tuning a stock ECM or EBL in 2024.
Some of the other stuff brought up in this thread is just plane silly. I can't even begin to tell you guys how many SBC and LT1 blocks I've had in my shop that had spun cam bearings, rods through the side of the block, broken main caps, etc.
And sure, LS engines blow up too, but how many of you are making more than 700hp on a stock junkyard SBC rotating assembly?
It took me decades to give up my SBC stuff too.. I started this forum 20 years ago when trying to make these cars go faster with port EFI intakes. I had 2,000 square feet of SBC/LT1 stuff. It's just cheaper and easier to make power with the LS now. I don't think at this stage in my life I would invest in SBC parts unless I already had a car that was done up.
I think you are missing what I am arguing. I agree the LS is better. But him saying SBC is dead due to X,Y,Z when those points are either easily solved or not necessarily true is where I disagree. This convo has gone so far off topic it is comical.
Holley obviously sees a potential market so they designed and produced a brand new efi intake for the old SBCs. People are acting like it was said these will be the new LS killers jeez. Nobody is coming after your precious LS swaps.
I think you are missing what I am arguing. I agree the LS is better. But him saying SBC is dead due to X,Y,Z when those points are either easily solved or not necessarily true is where I disagree. This convo has gone so far off topic it is comical.
Holley obviously sees a potential market so they designed and produced a brand new efi intake for the old SBCs. People are acting like it was said these will be the new LS killers jeez. Nobody is coming after your precious LS swaps.
Sorry not dying far from it. There are 1,000 hp NA small blocks with 23° heads now days. If you want 1,000+ HP it is cheaper to start with an aftermarket SBC block than a LS.
Personally I am planning a L8T soon in a Tahoe. L8T with basically a LT2 cam makes the L8P and it is a potent engine. Unlike a LS the L8T actually makes great low-midrange torque and an inexpensive cam makes it produce 520+ HP.
You also said the "only" way to go sequential on a SBC was to go dual sync distributor...
I'm done here. All hail the mighty LS Swap gods and their infinite wisdom....
Didn't you know the only way to make more than 300 hp is a LS? I build some pretty rowdy small blocks and drive them everywhere myself. My 383 decided to roach its decade old high flow cats but cannot blame that on the SBC itself. What it sounds like through the factory 3" dual piping off the Thorley headers with the old plugged up cats gone. Just a little SBC. My 97 350 came from the factory sequentially injected and did not have a junky dual pickup distributor. It has had LS engine management with all the stock electronics for over a decade. Ran an 0411 for years and about 5 years ago upgraded to an even better P59. ROFL. This is the engine I built to tow with and does it well with 520 ft/lbs @ 3,500 rpm. That engine is spinning a full weight stock diameter 4L80E converter and a clutch fan on it even.
