5.3 or 5.7
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 680
Likes: 2
From: Lincoln, NE
Car: 86 Iroc-Z28
Engine: 5.3
Transmission: 4l60
5.3 or 5.7
Wanting to do an ls swap but trying to decide between a 5.3 truck ls and a 5.7 fbody ls wanting to know besides the price wats the difference between the two?
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
You really should try a google search. This forum has ridiculous amounts of information on this swap and it has been repeated over and over many times. So please do yourself a favor and read wikipedia about vortec engines and ls engines. You should spend hours upon hours of researching all that you care to know about the newer generation engines and put yourself ahead of the curve and then perhaps you'll be able to make an informed decision about whether you wish to dive into this swap at all. Good luck.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine
Edit: You should've already read this:
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/ltx-...third-gen.html
And since you've asked about costs, everyone has different builds. So what may cost someone $2500 to do, may cost another $6500.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortec
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LS_engine
Edit: You should've already read this:
https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/ltx-...third-gen.html
And since you've asked about costs, everyone has different builds. So what may cost someone $2500 to do, may cost another $6500.
Last edited by Iroc'nthe87; Aug 30, 2011 at 09:24 PM.
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,538
Likes: 0
From: Hou. TX
Car: 86 TA, 91 B4C
Engine: 5.3, 4.8
Transmission: 4L80 4000, T56
Axle/Gears: 4.30 M12, 23.42 10 bolt
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
5.3=budget, 5.7=lighter weight and more power (30-40 more), more cubes=more low end TQ.
In the long run, the iron 5.3 wins over aluminum under severe boosy or nitrous applications since the iron is stronger, seen many aluminum blocks bust under power.
NA vs NA maxed out, the 5.3 can go to 383 cubes easily, even a bit more if desired with the right kit, the LS1 can be jugged to 427 cubes.
In the long run, the 6.0 is the best with a starting 4 inch bore, but that is another story.
In the long run, the iron 5.3 wins over aluminum under severe boosy or nitrous applications since the iron is stronger, seen many aluminum blocks bust under power.
NA vs NA maxed out, the 5.3 can go to 383 cubes easily, even a bit more if desired with the right kit, the LS1 can be jugged to 427 cubes.
In the long run, the 6.0 is the best with a starting 4 inch bore, but that is another story.
Supreme Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 3,079
Likes: 4
From: Pepperell, MA
Car: 1987 Trans Am
Engine: LQ9/L92
Transmission: 4L60E
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
depending on how complete you get your motor will can add up too; basic 5.3 will require the fbody accessories, oil pan, and intake.
slight power differences, but that can be fixed real quick. 5.3 tends to be the budget motor of choice now for those going with turbo setups. you can also get a 5.3 bored out to 5.7 specs.
slight power differences, but that can be fixed real quick. 5.3 tends to be the budget motor of choice now for those going with turbo setups. you can also get a 5.3 bored out to 5.7 specs.
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
From: Alabama
Car: 1986 camaro
Engine: ls2
Transmission: FLT stage 6 60e
Axle/Gears: 8.8 with 3.73's
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
N/a the 5.7 will make 20-30 more hp than a 5.3... And a 6.0 will make 10-20 more hp than a 5.7.. Its really based on what you can afford... I have a ls2, its light weight, makes nice hp, and it gets 21 mpg making 463 hp through a 6 speed.
Senior Member
iTrader: (8)
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 655
Likes: 2
From: NH
Car: 1967 Firebird P.T.
Engine: LS3 4" Strkr 422ci
Transmission: MN12 6 speed
Axle/Gears: 3.73 8.5" 10 Bolt Eaton
Trending Topics
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,538
Likes: 0
From: Hou. TX
Car: 86 TA, 91 B4C
Engine: 5.3, 4.8
Transmission: 4L80 4000, T56
Axle/Gears: 4.30 M12, 23.42 10 bolt
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
I am comparing iron to aluminum in general and power wise, with modifications. The 6.0 will make 30ish more HP than the LS1 with being a 4 inch bore and nearly 20 more cubes. You see LS1s with H/C/I making 400-420 RWHP all day, the 6.0s go 430-460.
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Lake Havasu City, AZ
Car: 87 IROC Z
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: auto
Axle/Gears: 9 bolt posi
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
If you can find a aluminum 5.3 you can have it bored to 5.7. The 5.3 uses the same block casting and cylinder sleeve as the 5.7 except that the 5.3 isn't bored out as much. I started with 5.3 had it bored to 5.7 with a set of LS 2 heads. I know where you can usually find a 5.3 short block for around $250.
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 3,544
Likes: 19
From: WI,USA
Car: 89 FORMULA 350, 91 Z28 Convertible
Engine: ls1, LB9
Transmission: t56, Auto
Axle/Gears: S60/ 3.73
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
5.3=budget, 5.7=lighter weight and more power (30-40 more), more cubes=more low end TQ.
In the long run, the iron 5.3 wins over aluminum under severe boosy or nitrous applications since the iron is stronger, seen many aluminum blocks bust under power.
NA vs NA maxed out, the 5.3 can go to 383 cubes easily, even a bit more if desired with the right kit, the LS1 can be jugged to 427 cubes.
In the long run, the 6.0 is the best with a starting 4 inch bore, but that is another story.
In the long run, the iron 5.3 wins over aluminum under severe boosy or nitrous applications since the iron is stronger, seen many aluminum blocks bust under power.
NA vs NA maxed out, the 5.3 can go to 383 cubes easily, even a bit more if desired with the right kit, the LS1 can be jugged to 427 cubes.
In the long run, the 6.0 is the best with a starting 4 inch bore, but that is another story.
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,538
Likes: 0
From: Hou. TX
Car: 86 TA, 91 B4C
Engine: 5.3, 4.8
Transmission: 4L80 4000, T56
Axle/Gears: 4.30 M12, 23.42 10 bolt
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
There is a car craft issue, 4.8 liter, stock short block made 1200 FWHP.
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
It was a stock long block with a turbo cam and matching springs
Stock heads, rod bolts, rings (worn out), pistons, rods, crank etc. They took a fully built LSx turbo setup and swapped in the stock engine to see if they could kill it
Stock heads, rod bolts, rings (worn out), pistons, rods, crank etc. They took a fully built LSx turbo setup and swapped in the stock engine to see if they could kill it
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 680
Likes: 2
From: Lincoln, NE
Car: 86 Iroc-Z28
Engine: 5.3
Transmission: 4l60
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
Ok so think im going to go with the 5.3 just have it bored out to a 383 doing this because i can find one fairly cheap where i live and also due to it being iron because i plan on doin either a turbo or procharger system in the future thanks for the information guys hopefully this winter i can get started on this build
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
Personally, Id either stroke it OR boost it, not both
Boost is essentially artificial displacement, so stroking and boosting could be countered by a stock displacement just upping the boost
Its your car, just my
Boost is essentially artificial displacement, so stroking and boosting could be countered by a stock displacement just upping the boost
Its your car, just my
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,538
Likes: 0
From: Hou. TX
Car: 86 TA, 91 B4C
Engine: 5.3, 4.8
Transmission: 4L80 4000, T56
Axle/Gears: 4.30 M12, 23.42 10 bolt
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 43,187
Likes: 43
From: Littleton, CO USA
Car: 82 Berlinetta/57 Bel Air
Engine: L92/LQ4 (both w/4" stroke)
Transmission: 4L80E/4L80E
Axle/Gears: 12B-3.73/9"-3.89
Okay, about this 1200 HP 4.8: It was Hot Rod magazine (where I saw it - I don't get Car Craft so I don't know if it was in that mag as well) http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/h...g_bang_theory/ . The heads were ported and 2.00" intake valve installed, used MLS head gaskets and ARP head studs. They took the engine apart and put it back together with regapped rings. Regardless, it was an amazing exercise (hard to say how long it would hold together under those conditions).
Now, back to 5.3 vs. 5.7: Don't forget that the intake, oil pan and accessories need to be from f-body (or Vette). With the 5.3 swap, you're basically only going to be able to use the bare longblock. That seems to be conveniently left out when people talk about the "budget" 5.3 swap.
And, I don't believe you can bore out an aluminum 5.3 like you can the cast iron block. And, you can't bore to 383 (requires a stroke change).
Now, back to 5.3 vs. 5.7: Don't forget that the intake, oil pan and accessories need to be from f-body (or Vette). With the 5.3 swap, you're basically only going to be able to use the bare longblock. That seems to be conveniently left out when people talk about the "budget" 5.3 swap.
And, I don't believe you can bore out an aluminum 5.3 like you can the cast iron block. And, you can't bore to 383 (requires a stroke change).
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 680
Likes: 2
From: Lincoln, NE
Car: 86 Iroc-Z28
Engine: 5.3
Transmission: 4l60
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
Now, back to 5.3 vs. 5.7: Don't forget that the intake, oil pan and accessories need to be from f-body (or Vette). With the 5.3 swap, you're basically only going to be able to use the bare longblock. That seems to be conveniently left out when people talk about the "budget" 5.3 swap.
And, I don't believe you can bore out an aluminum 5.3 like you can the cast iron block. And, you can't bore to 383 (requires a stroke change).
And, I don't believe you can bore out an aluminum 5.3 like you can the cast iron block. And, you can't bore to 383 (requires a stroke change).
Yeah i know that the parts need swapped to fbody but i can find a 5.3 a lot cheaper and then sell the stuff i dont need or go to a swap meet for other parts and how far can a aluminum be bored out to compared to a cast iron?
Supreme Member
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,622
Likes: 5
From: Orland Park, IL
Car: 1984 Z28
Engine: SLOW carbed ls
Transmission: TH400 with brake, 8" PTC converter
Axle/Gears: moser 9" 4.11
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
If you're boring and planning on stroking a 5.3L, just buy a 6.0L, have it bored if its even needed and you have a 370 for much cheaper.
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,538
Likes: 0
From: Hou. TX
Car: 86 TA, 91 B4C
Engine: 5.3, 4.8
Transmission: 4L80 4000, T56
Axle/Gears: 4.30 M12, 23.42 10 bolt
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
Now, back to 5.3 vs. 5.7: Don't forget that the intake, oil pan and accessories need to be from f-body (or Vette). With the 5.3 swap, you're basically only going to be able to use the bare longblock. That seems to be conveniently left out when people talk about the "budget" 5.3 swap.
And, I don't believe you can bore out an aluminum 5.3 like you can the cast iron block. And, you can't bore to 383 (requires a stroke change).
The carb swaps are fast and cheap. Unless you are like Pocket and a BAMFer at wiring, LOL.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 680
Likes: 2
From: Lincoln, NE
Car: 86 Iroc-Z28
Engine: 5.3
Transmission: 4l60
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
The truck accessories can be used, i did, as long as a cowl hood is used. But i am carbed so the front feed air inlet that is need to clear our hoods is a different story. So it all depends on what is being utilized.
The carb swaps are fast and cheap. Unless you are like Pocket and a BAMFer at wiring, LOL.
The carb swaps are fast and cheap. Unless you are like Pocket and a BAMFer at wiring, LOL.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,421
Likes: 2,083
Car: '89 Firebird
Engine: 7.0L
Transmission: T56
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
Is it actually cheaper to swap a 5.3L considering you have to get all the F body intake, accessories, and wiring anyway? All those bits and pieces add up when you have to buy them separately. If I'm going to spend money on an LS swap then I'm going to spend just a little extra to have a 6.0L because they run like a raped ape. That's just my thinking and we all have different reasons for doing the swap.
By the way, anybody who says a 6.0L is more than a 'little extra' hasn't taken the time to understand the total cost of an LS swap. Trust me, it's just a little extra when you get the whole picture.
By the way, anybody who says a 6.0L is more than a 'little extra' hasn't taken the time to understand the total cost of an LS swap. Trust me, it's just a little extra when you get the whole picture.
Last edited by QwkTrip; Sep 14, 2011 at 07:54 PM.
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,538
Likes: 0
From: Hou. TX
Car: 86 TA, 91 B4C
Engine: 5.3, 4.8
Transmission: 4L80 4000, T56
Axle/Gears: 4.30 M12, 23.42 10 bolt
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
The 6.0 is the way to go for performance and budget. Otherwise, the issues with any iron block is there must be 1 hole drilled and tapped to utilize the F car brackets.
Re: 5.3 or 5.7
Is it actually cheaper to swap a 5.3L considering you have to get all the F body intake, accessories, and wiring anyway? All those bits and pieces add up when you have to buy them separately. If I'm going to spend money on an LS swap then I'm going to spend just a little extra to have a 6.0L because they run like a raped ape. That's just my thinking and we all have different reasons for doing the swap.
By the way, anybody who says a 6.0L is more than a 'little extra' hasn't taken the time to understand the total cost of an LS swap. Trust me, it's just a little extra when you get the whole picture.
By the way, anybody who says a 6.0L is more than a 'little extra' hasn't taken the time to understand the total cost of an LS swap. Trust me, it's just a little extra when you get the whole picture.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ZZ3Astro
Power Adders
1045
Aug 13, 2019 12:57 AM
KO1
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
16
Oct 15, 2015 05:00 PM
LT1Formula
Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale
7
Oct 8, 2015 08:34 PM










