cgb

I love these threads...too funny..

The LS1 engines are nice...but I'm not a fan of aluminum blocks...that's just me.

So let's take an "average" LS1 swap with the owner doing the wrenching...

Let's say $5500 invested for a LS1 / T56 swap, crossmember, wiring, exhaust etc etc...personally I think it could be done cheaper...but alot of times would cost more...


The last 400 I built was a 408 that went into guy's weekend warrior....


He had right at $6k invested in it when he was done. Of course he used REALLY good heads, and high quality hard parts, and topped it off with a Stealth Ram using Holleys' computer system... ( Commander 950? )...

I just built the shortblock...so I wasn't there for the tuning...

I do know that the motor runs mid 12's in a 3600lb car, and it gets over 20mpg average city / hwy...high 20's on just highway..

YMMV

anesthes

iTrader: (12)

Nah, if it was personal you'd know it.

Quote:

Markets vary
and yours may be different than ours in the Mid- Atlantic
States. One thing for sure is when you try to buy a nice
3rd Gen at a big Auto Auction here in Pa, you better
bring a wad of money with you. Granted, many
do not fall in the collectable catorgory YET, but then
again neither did 69-72 Chevelles 25 years ago.

I could have lined up a boat load of 69 chevelles in 1976
for an average price of $1200.

69 chevelles in 69 cost about what, $5,000 new?

Quote:

OBTW Anesthes, you really need to clean up that engine
bay, especially the wiring. Looks like a electrical fire
just waiting to happen.

[/quote]

Routing of wires have no direct impact on fire hazard. Ugly sure, but I don't go for looks.

-- Joe

Air_Adam

I know how expensive those kits are, I was just throwing ideas out there.

There are lots of people here (I'm not going to name names though) that bought their 3rdgens simply because they liked them (or bought them new even) and throw way more money into them than they are really worth. Why? Because they love these cars! Sure they could have bought a nice 1st or early 2ndgen, or a new 4thgen if they wanted too, but they just like the 3rdgen too much, and thats why they build them.

I'm one of those that bought a 3rdgen because it was the coolest thing in my price range (got it when I was 16), so I know exactly what you are talking about. Turned out for me that I now like these cars more than almost any other gen Camaro (love early 2ndgens too).

I'm just rambling... I'll quit now

Thunderstruck

Anesthes,


Love to see a video of your car doin the two-step boogie

Oh yeah, take care of it and it'll go up in value




John B. - If speed kills, how come I'm still here ?

blacksheep-1

I would use a Barry Grant carb on that intake instead of a Holley.

cam-

MrDude_1

curious.

why wouldnt you be a "fan" of alum blocks?

they weigh less.
they're just as strong ( that is, strong enough that nothing your building on the street is going to break them)
they're OEM designed that way, so theres no heat expansion issues.


really, theres NO problem with using them on the kind of car proposed here. and several benifits.

so, WHY?

blacksheep-1

Just a few words of caution:

Chevrolet Vega

cam-

Don't remind me please. Besides those were Cosworth engines were they not?


I do see your point about the aluminum but its no problem as long as you use the recomended torque specs for EVERY fastener. I have been an avid sledder since 1975 and prior to 1990 or so you had to pretty much be an ace mechanic to keep one of them running and all snowmobile engines are aluminum. Had one Cat motor appart four times and never stripped one bolt. One other thing to watch is careful what kind of water you put in as hard water and aluminum don't get along too well

blacksheep-1

Nope, they were Chevrolet designed all the way, at a later date they did have Cosworth build a head for them (thus the name cosworth Vega) and they actually ran very well. But by that time the damage was done. The vega is the only car that I know of, that if you're real quiet, and you close all of the shop doors and turn out the lights. If you listen real close.
You can actually hear the car rust.

406TPI

iTrader: (1)

I sure hope you were just kidding about that.

tubage

two cents from no expert.

First off I am putting a t56 in my 70 rs and I am told that I have to buy a special flywheel from Mcloed. I didn't see any mention of this with the 400. I am presently carbed in the 70 rs, which brings up my two cents. I also have my 91 formula. Basically stock motor. super trick exhaust, t56, and 4.10s. It is a 305tpi. This car sees the street and roadtrips. performance is outstanding and mpg is always high 20s on the highway. I have never understood what was so wrong with stock tpi systems for street cars. LS1 cars are sweet, but so are the so called "old" tpi systems. In my opinion, the 400 with even an "old style" tpi with some runner cleaning and fuel pressure regulating would be cheaper and just as cool, reliable, and get mpg .

blacksheep-1

Well now that this post has been truly hijacked. You don't need a special flywheeel that I'm aware of. The 400 is externally balanced and you can get a counter weight that bolts on to the flywheel and alleviates the need for the special flywheel in most applications, Stand by, I'll try to find the link.....
http://www.mantrans.com/t56.html

there, it should only be a short time before we're locked.

MrDude_1

the counterweight thing is a cruddy way to go about doing it.

i sure as heck wouldnt put one of them on any of my cars.

tubage

my intentions were not to hijack but more to point out that you can not bolt a t56 behind a two piece crank motor. You either pay for the custom flywheel or pay to have your tranny reworked. What about my thoughts on tpi? I am curious of others thoughts on that.

Tom 400 CFI

None of the above is true. I bolted an unmodified T-56 trans and clutch to the rear of 2 pc RMS engine, using a slightly modified, stock T56 flywheel, all w/no issues. Here is a little more reading for you;
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...&highlight=t56

https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...&highlight=t56

This has been beaten to dry, dusty death. Try a search, but most who know, will maintain that TPI is too restrictive to ake meaningful power. Even more so on a 400 CID engine.

-Tom

blacksheep-1

About that counterweight. The roundy-round guys run them with out problems, that being said, there is no way NHRA would let you pull that off (if they knew about it). Like anything else, it's a tradeoff. The flywheel is a high-zoot option that is better but, the counterweight is less expensive, but has issues of it's own.
I wasn't trying to bust on you about the thread, I was just havin' some fun

tubage

Thank you Tom. I never saw those threads before. Good stuff. Correct me here if need be. That definately seems like the best way to me now. But if I want to go back to a 1prms block than i would have to get another LT1 flywheel due to the inner boring?

tubage

As far as the tpi goes though, I searched and read and back again. I guess I just don't understand when so many cars, primarily driven on the street, with stock tpi motors run so well with such minor mods.

Tom 400 CFI

You are correct about the flywheel. If you bore and drill the flywheel for a 2 pc RMS, it will nit be any good for a 1 pc RMS crank. You would then have to buy a new or used flywheel.

As for the TPI I never did think they did respond very well to mods; minor or major. Just a difference of opinion or perspective I guess though.

Tom 400 CFI

You're right about the flywheel. If you bore it and drill it to fit a 2 pc cranck, it will be no good for a 1 pc crank in the future. You would then have to get a new or another used flywheel.

As for TPI I never did think it responded well to any mods, major or minor, at least not until you completely replace every componenet of the intake, at which point it really isn't TPI anymore. JMO though and probably from a different perspective.

-Tom

EDIT: WTF!? I hit "submit", I get "Page cannot be displayed", I hit the "back" button, my text is all gone. I re-type it all, hit "submit", and boom, I now have two posts. WTF I say.

tubage

I agree, it must be perspective. I only want a street and highway cruiser that will get upper 20s mpg and run a low 13qm. a reasonably built 355 with a t56 and a 4.10 will do that. anyway, thanks again for the new info. Perspective is what makes us unique.

406TPI

iTrader: (1)

That may be a bit optimistic...upper 20's for MPG. I have a fairly built 350.... AFR heads,10.5:1,mild cam....I tuned my ecm with a wide band O2 for highway driving and I can get 24mpg tops and that's with 3:42 gears and my T56. Still pretty darn good though.

Back to the thread......

Anybody read the editor's letter in the december issue of Car Craft...it just came out...anyways, it goes right along with the topic of this thread...check it out if you get a chance.

B4Ctom1

yeah because this is the 1970's an the LS1 is the only aluminum block on the road. What about the hundreds of others with aluminum blocks, yo, mcfly what about all of those?

Get real, try and find me a dozen cars that use an iron block today and the rest of the people here on the board and I will find you 4 dozen that run aluminum ones without issue sheesh...

I thought "omg! nitrovs is cheeting mmmkay" fogeys were bad, I can't believe there are even any "omg! aluminum heads/blocks are bad mmmmkay" left!

89rsragtop

Back to the topic. LS1 will cost more money, BUT...
1. More HP than you really need. (verts are really just for cruising)
2. Better gas mileage than you deserve
3. Easy to live with in traffic etc.
4. Still has a Gee-Wizz factor

cam-

Sacre' bleu!!!

There is NEVER enough power thats why the LS1 exists more effeciency equals more power plus the power to weight ratio is very tasty

blacksheep-1

Living proof some of us were born last night........
McFly was in the 80's
The 70's aluminum block was the ZL-1 (actually late 69)
There are some problems with the aluminum LS-1 engines, which is why the current crop of LS-1 based race cars are using the iron block, although I'm sure this will change shortly.
Next time try spell check.
OK Fetus?

89rsragtop

Yeah ...I know I should be shot with talk like that. The truth is I have a LS1 with a cam pushrods springs and some porting done. If I really get on it I just spin the tires and it wants to go sideways. (even with posi). If I had to do it again, I would save the extra money and just go stock. The standard LS1 makes enough power to make any passenger's hair stand on end.

blacksheep-1

Well there is no doubt the LS-1 is the next best thing and the days of the SBC are getting shorter. My comment about the Vega was that it too was supposedly a well developed aluminum engine built by Chevy, and it crapped the bed. In fact if you want to know everything that can go wrong with an aluminum block engine, work on one of those POS. I have been fortunate enough to own every body style camaro there is.
68-350/350 4spd 4.56
77 Z28 automatic
78 Z28 4spd 350 (built to 350/350) 3.73 gear
83 Z28 305 HO 5spd 4.11 (my autocrosser)
00 SS LS-1 6spd
and the LS-1 is probably the best powerplant, but I love my old 83.
http://www.fl-thirdgen.org/blacksheep-1/camaro.mov

B4Ctom1

oh really? they are?

can you give me an example of these problems?

give me an example of these "race cars" forced to trade in the bad *** aluminum race blocks for the lowly non performance truck iron blocks?

Maybe the C5R?

how about the ASA circle track teams? (STOCK LS1 BLOCKS ONLY!)


or the 700+ hp twin turbo lingenfelter cars and trucks?

and the magnusen blowers installed on stock LS1 and LS6 engines making 400 to 500 hp without issues, even LPE will stand behind.

I havent even gotten started on the hondas or the 4.6 fords yet

I could come up with reasons for condemning an LS1 but none of them are because of the aluminum.

blacksheep-1

You really know how to take something out of context, but I would expect that from a Kerry supporter.
All those print ads look good with the aluminum LS-1, but they went to iron and then went back to aluminum.
Try a magnet next time.
http://www.lingenfelter.com/lingenfe...21&pf%5Fid=534
OOPS! the race blocks ARE different!! Whatta ya know! I wonder when they got around to doing that?, How about after they made scrap out of the first ones!
Also:http://www.c5rmotorsports.com/engine.htm
notice about the 12th paragraph where they call the engine "purpose built". As in the block was purpose built.
And lastly, we "fogies" as you call us were running N2O back in the early 70's. when we had to make our own hardware.
It has been around since the 1940s, just because you were finally old enough to see a movie that talked about "nozz" doesn't mean it was invented last week.

B4Ctom1

as I see it is YOU that likes to take things out of context like your kerry remark. who the **** wants to vote for kerry? get a brain.

1st) I see you have provided me a link to an aluminum engine to make my arguement for me thank you

2nd) provide me some real evidence of this supposed aluminum to iron to aluminum "switch" that you have now refined your story to.

3rd) of course there are LS1 aluminum race blocks just like there are SBC 350 and 400 IRON race blocks. I myself have confettied a couple 350 and 400 "stock blocks" why wouldnt you be able to do the same even to a superior heavy ribbed, cross bolt main capped STOCK LS1?

but you left out the real reason why LS1 race blocks were created. People wanted a larger bore than the LS1 even when resleeved could offer and just happened to throw in some extra strength.

4th) I know all about the Me-109 and Fw-190 original nitrous applications. I know all about the old scuba and welding tank original nitrous systems that are older than the trade name Nytrous plus. I don't know what "nozz" is I am unfamiliar with this term, also what movie are you talking about please elaborate?

5th) how old do you think I am?

B4Ctom1

I almost forgot all about the one of the most successful aluminum V8's in history. the 215 buick started life in american cars in the 60's and is still alive in the big dollar range rovers to this day. another wonderful example of aluminum technology that is very old.

blacksheep-1

The Buick 215 is not an example of a great engine. It was fair at best and had a lot of issues, they were sold to British Leyland in the mid 70's so they could put them in the TR-8's which eventually did win a couple of trans-am races, but they did it on mileage not HP. I know all about the little Buick, I had to fix my neighbors all of the time.
Don't mix apples and oranges, the LS-1 in your camaro is not the LS-1 in a C5R Vette, any more than a 350SBC in your car is not the same as a 355 in a cup car.
Even the new Caddy racecar did it's development with an iron motor.
If you want an aluminum engine with a history you should've used an Offenhauser, or a Cooper Climax.
The bottom line is the Vega is a great example of a supposedly well developed engine that was crap. The LS-1 is a great example of a supposedly well developed engine that hopefully will turn out to be as great as the original SBC.
I have no problem using an aluminum engine, there are pitfalls that you need to be aware of and avoid one of those is making sure the block is strong enough, especially if you go hanging suspension parts from it as Mercedes found out. You're the one that started the old -fogie back to the future BS.

http://www.ddavid.com/formula1/cooper.htm
http://www.teamwatsononline.com/rile...ycarspage1.htm

ljnowell

Thank ***, I was starting to wonder about you man!

B4Ctom1

I fought my war, did my hardships, I'm tired of war and greed. Im ready for something else.

B4Ctom1

I would say we are well past the "lets see how it turns out point, way past it..."

blacksheep-1

When you read this, don't miss the part about engine developemet and the problems they had with the blocks.
http://www.idavette.net/hib/ls1c.html

B4Ctom1

I have nodoubt they had development problems, they had development problems with the sbc as well.

thats why they call it "development"

blacksheep-1

Which is why they had to go back to iron blocks

B4Ctom1

where is this race team iron block LS1 use you are talking about?

edit: also, all I see in that link is how they used some iron versions AT FIRST and then DECIDED to switch to aluminum for "obvious reasons". big whoop, where is this problem or failure or snag?

blacksheep-1

Just like most kids, they never listen and are always right.
As long as it's all good in your world.

B4Ctom1

just like every stubborn old man

the "facts" mean nothing against "your feelings" about something totally different that happened sooo long ago.

blacksheep-1

Check a couple of posts up junior, I said I have no problem using an aluminum engine.
Which means this old dog can learn new tricks and you.......can't.

THEGENERAL

this has been entertaining but i have a feeling they are going to lock this one for the childish argueing

B4Ctom1

sure I can learn, I break everything regardless of its composition

406TPI

iTrader: (1)

No sh*t man! You guys keep saying the same stuff over and over again.......let it go, both make valid points. Why don't we just agree to disagree. It's all good.

jrg77

Here is the peace offering if you old cranky P'ssin contest warriors can get over yourselves:

Get an LQ9 (6.0L) which has a CAST IRON BLOCK. It has the LS1 heads on it already. And with a larger displacement to start you get the power and the glory forever. Sheesh!

This was also said earlier.

Jason

B4Ctom1

for the costs alone I could live with that!

jrg77

And it took someone who hates both Kerry and Bush to tell you all that...

GO BILL GATES!!!

Jason