I only started getting interested in the LSx series of engines about 3 years ago. I bought the LS1/T56 that is now in the Berlinetta #2 shortly thereafter, and have been a little disgruntled about how long it's taken to get it going (mostly because of lack of steady time to work on it, plus all I tackled as part of the swap - not due to the difficulty of the LSx swap itself).

On this and the main Engine Swap forum, there have been a lot of discussions about Gen I vs. Gen II vs. Gen III. I understand the Gen I SBC has been an icon, but rereading some magazine and on-line information in the past few days has gotten me to thinking about how far along the Gen III and IV engines have come.

The LS1 was introduced in Vettes in the 1997 model year. This is its 14th year. Compare that to the Gen I SBC, introduced in 1955, and what had changed on it by the 1968 model year.

SBC 1st year: 265 cubic inches, 2- and 4-bbl carbs, oil filter an extra option, rated a whopping 180 gross FWHP in the "power pack version ("gross" flywheel HP uses many "tricks" to bump the numbers up, doesn't really represent as-installed power). A big step up from what Chevy has offered, but an all cast-iron engine. Smoke Yunick called the casting quality "horrible".

SBC 14th year: 283 and 327 versions available, most 2-bbl, some 4-bbl and dual quads, a very few mechanical fuel injection versions available. Rated as high as 360 gross FWHP, drive-ability with those high HP engines is horrible, as is fuel economy. Quality has improved some, all have oil filters standard now. Still all cast iron (except for some aluminum intake manifolds). Hot rodders have grown to love these engines, aftermarket has blossomed to support even more power. The 350 CID version available in very limited models (would come to be one of the most prolifically produced engine in history).

LSx 1st year: 346 5.7l, electronic fuel injected, rated somewhere around 300 net flywheel HP (representative of as-installed power, would be at least 375 if rated using the old "gross" HP methods), only available in Vettes. Great drive-ability, very good fuel economy (especially considering the power). All-aluminum with lightweight plastic intake in a compact package.

LSx 14th year: Many different versions of the engine in various displacements have been produced by the factory, some with cast iron blocks, in trucks, sedans, sports cars. Hot rodders almost double factory power with heads/cam/exhaust/tuning. Factory has some versions making over 600 HP. Great aftermarket support. Still great drive-ability and fuel economy to go along with a light weight and compact package.

Point being that the development and proliferation of the LSx family far exceeds that of the venerable Gen I SBC in the same period of time. In addition, the early Gen I years were the "heyday" of the U.S. automotive industry, while the Gen III years have been some pretty tough ones. Granted, the first 14 years of the SBC saw the production of two different "big block" engines, which surely detracted some from the SBC development, but there was also some synergy between them (there is also still a BBC, used for heavier platforms like trucks and RV's). There have been a lot more LSx versions made than there were SBC in the same amount of time.

Well, just some rambling thoughts, from someone who has yet to actually drive an LSx vehicle (soon to change, I hope).

 

Where the rubber meets the road the LSx does some things far better than the average SBC. You get a smooth throttle response, flatter torque curve, and best of all, despite delivering quite a bit of power in many cases, they remain well mannered.

I've got an LS2 in my 2005 GTO. There really is nothing like them.

 

Are you freakin kidding? NEVER?

Ummm your in for a bit of a.... moment or two

Once its tuned that is. The tune makes ALL the difference with these things

 

I agree with all of that. But for the times the Gen 1 was built, it was well built. The 50s and 60s werent very advanced in terms of processes, and quality control. Nothing that couldnt be built today by a bunch of guys with a nice machine shop.

Not making excuses, but the LS family is a great engine family because of the computer revolution. Computers have allowed us to make better quality parts, have more precise control over the timing and fuel mapping, and even keep the cars we put them in on the wheels with stability and ABS controls.

Heres food for thought: Aviation has had a life of close to 100 years. It started with two guys building the first plane in the garage. Now we have Huge jumbo jets that carry hundreds of people, at speeds once thought impossible. We have Jets that can surpass the sound barrier several times over, and with thrust vectoring, they can turn the pilot into a pile of mush. We even have a civilian who has built the first ship that leaves the atmosphere, and a rover on another planet. All in about 100 years.

Why isnt the auto indusrty this advanced?

 

With regard to quality: The Gen I SBC years were pretty bad with regard to quality control until the mid-80's. By that time, emissions laws and foreign competition drove them to improve. The 283 in the '57 had 90k miles on it when I got the car in late '71, I had to ream the cylinder ridges to get the pistons out. The '86 305 I put in the Camaro had 123k miles on it, and when I finally pulled it for good with ~150k miles on it, there still wasn't enough ridge to catch a fingernail. I know of several late-60's SBC's that had a factory cam lobe go flat. The '69 Impala 350 that I took my first (and only) driver's license test in had to have a valve job at 90k miles, and there was a ridge at the top of the cylinders. All of these engines of which I speak had regular and at least as good or better than as-recommended maintenance. In contrast, the 2003 LQ4 I picked up for the '57 that came out of a service van with 147k miles has a layer of crude throughout the oiled parts, yet you can still see the hone marks in the cylinders. A lot of that has to do with superior fuel control with EFI, but it also goes back to manufacturing quality.

For engineering and manufacturing quality, I'll have to give the 14-year nod to the LSx family.

As for aviation, there are some pretty fantastic things out there, but for the general public, flight is either a cattle-car experience or something you see on cable TV. In the 50's and 60's, the "experts" were predicting "highways in the skies" for general commuting and travel - it never happened. The general aviation industry is almost completely dead, with most aircraft being over 30 years old. Simple things like advanced engine lubrication is limited to experimental aviation - the FAA is mired in the 60's. A lot of the blame is in the lap of suit-happy lawyers going after deep pockets (a plane crashes into a house because of clear pilot error, but the manufacturer of the spark plugs that were in the engine at the time is brought into the suit because they have more assets than the dead pilot's family). By comparison, we are far more advanced with even the least expensive new cars today.

I hope Government Motors doesn't suffer the same fate as the general aviation industry, but I'm not all that optimistic.

 

you arent really comparing apples to apples though.
the first year of the chevy V8 was more than the introduction of a new engine breed.
it was the INVENTION of a new TYPE of engine.
the chevy small block pioneered so many new technologies and had to create so many new manufacturing techniques to even be possible.

the LS engine family takes all of that engineering and knowledge built up over time and perfects the inherent flaws with the previous designs.

 

Ah, but you are not complete in your Chevrolet education.

The first Chevrolet V8 was produced in 1917. . . !

 

fair enough.
however it was a far cry from even the first gen1 sbc produced

 

Well, I still haven't really "driven" an LSx vehicle, but I was pleasantly surprised pulling it onto the trailer yesterday afternoon. I expected some issues getting the clutch to behave as it went up the ramps (the ramps are just "H" section square tubing, almost like rolling over a series of wheel chocks). It walked up onto the trailer like it was something it did every day.

The '57, on the other hand, was a handful going up the same ramps last September. With an auto trans, no less.

 

Hahaha be sure to post up your initial impressions after your first WOT runs

 

I've driven a few stock LS cars, but so far, no modified ones.

My feelings overall have been mixed.

I drove my friend's 99 Camaro SS automatic numerous times, and was simply mystified by the power on tap. One slight frustration was that it didn't deliver the low end torque that my modified TPI Corvette has, but the limitless midrange and high rpm power more than made up for it.

I drove a stock 99 or 2000 6-speed WS6 and basically felt the same.

I drove a stock C5 6-speed, and was somewhat let down. I was considering buying it, but after driving it, just couldn't find enough of an improvement over my C4 to spend the cash. I think the DBW and corresponding torque management had a lot to do with my opinion.

I drove a stock 06 Corvette 6 speed with the LS2. Meh. It was fast as hell, but the torque management completely neutered it, and it had no low rpm thrust at all as a result. I really didn't care for it. I preferred the C5 and f-body cars by a wide margin.

I've also driven a stock 2010 SS Camaro with the LS3/6-speed. Torque management completely sucks the fun out of that motor. I imagine that with an aftermarket tune, it would be vastly different, but due to the factory TM, you really can't get any expectation of what a modified LS motor into one of our cars will feel like.

 

Yup

Absolutely with any dbw LS car I've ever driven they are only fast feeling 1 out of every 50 or so romps. The torque management is terrible and debilitating for sure. Likely a direct result of the issues with all the Camaros smoking diffs and CTSV's blowing out halfshafts etc.

But with a tune...

 

Ive only driven one LS car. A friend had a 99 formula, 6 spd. It was pretty fast, and pulled through first and second straight to redline.

But FWIW, I drive an L03/auto. So, a newer V6 feels fast by comparison.

 

I swapped my LO3 for a LM7. What a difference

 

i have driven many stock and modified ls1 vehicles from cam and heads to full supercharged and turbo ls1 cars. i have driven and raced a 4.8, 5.3, and 6.0 trucks modified and stock. i can say inho that the gen3,gen4, and gen 5 engines can and will outpower all gen one and 2 small blocks. the design is so far advanced it is not even funny. the ls series engine was designed around the performance driven engine.

 

Today I picked up the Will Handzel book "How to Build High-Performance Chevy LS1/LS6 V-8's". In the title page information, he says, "The Gen III V-8 is a work of art."

I agree. That is why (and I probably won't make any friends by saying this) I absolutely hate coil covers. A cheap facade covering up simple beauty.

 

i have that bible. 6 bolt mains. crank set up in block. heads and flow that they have. the history of the designers. it is far superior in all ways. and i have abused the bajeebers out of the ones i have owned and never had them fail.

 

There is no doubt that LS engines are works of art...

Power? TONS....

Durable? Practically indestructible...

Efficient? 400rwhp LS1 was cheaper on fuel than my bone stock LB9 5spd by a landslide...

Maintenance? Oil changes and nothing else....

But above all they have this constant ability to put a smile on your face. If you have a tire that can put the power down these engines never fail to deliver what you want and expect time after time after time after time.

When i put the first half season on mine I sold off every other engine i had. My BBC's, SBC's gone. I unloaded em all I've seen the light and i aint turning back now

L92

 

I bought the book while getting the clutch MC pedal pin clip, told the counter guy I had 3 LSx's now, it was about time I bought the book.

I'll be selling off the last of my Gen I SBC stuff this summer, and BBC stuff this winter. I'm sold.

 

you know. yall are all making want to sell the 4 bolt main 99 vortec engine in the garage and get or build another ls series engine to put in mine. darn yall.

 

I need to sell the Vortec heads I had cut for 1.60" exhaust valves that I intended to put on the ZZ4 in Berlinetta #1 and race this season (already sold the Hooker 2210's). I found the LS1/4L60E at Christmas time and decided not to spend any more time or money on the ZZ4.

Committed myself to 3 LSx swaps before I had the first one running. . .

 

That really isn't a fair assessment though cam-. Yes, from the factory, the LSX engine family is far superior, but then again, any engine that flows that much more air, while being controlled by a much better PCM, to begin with, will normally yield such favoritism. Make it a more fair comparison, being that the stock LG4/L69/LO3/LB9/L98 heads, cam and ECM are prehistoric. Lets say 350-SBC w/Old Dominion (aero engineering) 32 valve cylinder heads, updated camshaft, controlled by XFI. If this is the case, then I'll stick with the SBC....

 

32-valves isn't a fair comparison, either. But, if you insist, compare your build to a same HP LSx, and who would have the best $/HP?

 

The only other heads that I could use for comparison would be the SB2.2 heads, because all of the other SBC heads out there will inevitably fall short to the best of the LSX heads at some point. Engine swap wise, sure, the LSX would be a huge cost savings in the end, but thats only if we swap the SBC that is in our car. Lets not lose sight of the fact that we can still find very nice, and complete, 3rd gens w/L98's for under two grand, so starting out with one of them saves a great deal of money right there, as opposed to buying one with a 305 and swapping in either an LSX or 350. Meh, its all personal preference in the end. To date though, the fastest Domestics out there were both equipped with twenty year old SBC's; Gale Banks' 270+mph passenger car 3rd gen Trans Am, and Calloway's 250+mph street legal sledgehammer corvette, and that is saying a lot, cuz no LSX has even come near that yet....

 

i owned a 2000 camaro ss m6. made me fall in love with the ls1!

 

maybe not on top end. but they have went 6.86@205 in the 1/4.

 

I didn't read the whole thread, it's way too damn long.
I just want to address a couple of points. First, '65 was the final year of the Rochester mechanical injection.
second, early blocks getting ring ridges isn't due to poor quality control, it's due to too much fuel washing the oil off the cylinder walls. In fact, the only quality issue was with the sand cores. Sometimes they made them too thick, leaving the iron too thin in places. Sometimes the cores would shift. And GM always neglected the molds used to make the cores. That's why you see so many jagged intake port openings.
The LS blocks are cast without using any sand after the '99 (calendar year) LQ4 iron heads. The SPM and lost foam techniques eliminate core shift. Lost foam is bad for the environment, which is why we got Semi-Permanent Molds. Lost foam did use sand. They'd make the block or head out of foam, pack sand around it, then the hot iron or aluminum would dissolve the foam into environment-harming fumes, thus the iron or aluminum took the exact shape of the foam.
I'm still trying to find out how the foam blocks and heads were made. Too bad they didn't sell copies to hot rodders to make it easier for us to mock up our swaps and retrofits. Woulda been about $50, rather than the $289 that P-Ayr wants. Or whoever bought them out.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love LSX engines, I'm just not ready to dismiss the SBC for them yet, and I don't think I will ever be able to. One of my buddies came down last weekend with his XFI powered '87 turbo regal, and the damn thing runs and drives like a brand new V6 (in terms of being just as refine on the road), so most of the LSX vs SBC comparisons mainly have to do with the fact that LSX's flow more air from the factory, have better cam specs from the factory, and are much more refine (PCM wise). I'm not too impressed with the differences in main bolts, cuz I see LSX's break every single weekend. Too many variables, but the LSX definitely has the advantage straight from the factory....

 

I've driven Gen 1 SBC, Gen 2 SBC (The LT1 in my GTA) and a Gen 3 (In my '98) I would take the LS based engine over the other two hands down, it's a totally new design that would only out perform (and outlast) the tried and true Gen 1 design.

The SBC wasn't actually the first type of engine produced like that, Cadillac and Oldsmobile had been making an OHV V8 since 1949 which is what the SBC was made from, plus you also have to remember, Chevrolet was the only company to make big block and small block engines (Ford does to an extent but not to where they physically looked different), whereas Olds, Pontiac and Buick you could take the heads from a 455 and bolt them right up to a 326.

Torque management, yeah, the LS series motors will always produce less torque than HP which is why that "seat of the pants" feeling isn't there like in a Gen 1 or Gen 2. Like I've told people when asked which one I like better "I can take my LT1 and run it to 2000 rpm in 1st gear, stomp it and it will just sit there roasting the tires off, my LS1 take it to 2000 rpm in 1st gear, stomp it and it's like a bullet being shot out of a gun, just squats and goes" I actually like both motors, but lean toward the LS1, when you can do a head swap even with a set of Patriot heads (stock castings, ported and polished) and pick up 50-75hp you would never see that much of a gain on an SBC without bolting up a set of Vortec heads.

 

As always, it's your money and your car, so do as you like.

Just be logical when touting one or the other. If a high school student has a 2.8l 3rd gen with a rod sticking out the side, my first recommendation to them for getting it back on the road will probably not be an LS9. . .

 

I still don't understand anyone choosing the Patriot CNC job when the TEA results are so much better, for slightly less $. The only way to beat TEA is to buy from Mast.

 

I hadn't looked at the TEA castings, I know that Patriot does new GM castings (instead of used and having to return a core) and cuts bigger valves in them, and 1k isn't a bad price for a set of new ported/polished heads with 2.02/1.57 valves

Actually, I just looked and the Patriots with bigger valves are actually less money than the TEAs, just a little less flow on them (until you get into the 243 castings, I was looking at the perimeter bolt heads, which my '98 uses)

 

As it's been well over a year since I did my comparison and gave up on Patriot, I concede that it might be possible that Patriot has taken steps since then to be more competitive.

 

I talked to a fellow racer yesterday after loading up. He was loading his '99 'Bird. I asked how it was running, 12.0's, he said. Stock internals '99 LS1, MS4 cam, LS6 intake, stock heads with TS&P-recommended valve springs, stock MAF and TB, tune (of course, but mail order from TS&P, not dyno), TH350 with 4000 stall, (forget gearing, 4.5-ish 9", I believe), 6-point, factory seats removed (didn't ask weight, probably in the 3300 range). He said the engine has never been out of the car, and the heads have never been off of the engine. Runs 11.1's at sea level.

If that doesn't impress, you're jaded.

 

Before I started running turbo's, the above would have impressed the hell out of me. What impresses me more though are guys like Ed Brewer, running 11.37 with an essentially stock '89 TTA, running the stock turbo, and his long block was never out of the car. Now that is impressive (especially if you seen what stock LC2 heads look like)....

 

Quick contribution to this thread. Here is my buddy Shawn's '88 GTA w/LS1 swap (stock) when he first bought it, followed by the first trip to the track just after it arrived, then after the Cartek dyno tune and 75-HP nitrous hit. Heads and cam is going in next week, should be good for easy tens when all is said and done. Not too shabby....;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppxtBfsVJmg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-5eZO1rubE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88OCGTUpSw

 

Exactly. Thats my point entirely that in stock trim LSx engines come equipped with stuff that sure one can retrofit to a SBC or even a BBC but at what cost? Even then you would have the typical reliability issues as its pretty darn difficult and mighty pricey to get a 6 bolt main sbc or bbc. Then add coil per cyl 58x crank trigger ign and engine management systems and aluminum block, 18 degree aluminum heads, composite intakes with coolant bypass relocation etc etc etc. Theres just so much newer and better technology that LS engines come with and considering the cost I just couldnt see the sense in keeping any of my sbc or bbc engines that I had planned to use for hot rods etc. I figured by the time I build these to where i want its going to cost me far more than to just start with another LSx and go so I sold them all.

Dont misunderstand i have no hate on for the sbc or the bbc they do and always will have a special place in my heart and my garage for that matter. I still own a stock 89 Players Challenge motorsport R7U 1LE Camaro and it will never see another engine for obvious reasons. My plow truck has a sbc in it and it will stay that way also.

My whole point is I think its a way better way to go for all of my above said reasons in post#18 when your trying to do an engine swap into just about anything that you want to go fast in. LS power is very difficult to argue against