Engine and Transmission Tech

Jim, unfortunately no flex plate came with the motor. I'll try to fab something up out of cardboard. The fixturing boss may have to go away depending on which starter is used. It will be very tight for sure.

Scott

Scott, I chose the Northstar starter as it is compact(mini starter) and has the smallest 2 bolt mount. I didn't realize I could mount on the opposite side with no alteration. I think I finally found a good picture of one. You would have better luck getting one off Ebay. GM mounted it inside the engine valley under the intake manifold. You should be able to find a 2.2 flywheel at the junkyard. The Northstar flywheel/flexplate is 142 tooth also. I don't know if it would work but thats the main reason I chose the starter. I know the 2.2 plugged and redrilled will.





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2013 11:10PM by mgb260.

Here is a flywheel interchange,unfortunately the LS4 only came with a Auto trans flexplate. I wonder if it would interchange with another vehicle with same bolt pattern? I know the 95 and older 2.2 and FWD 2.8 and 3.1 and 3100 and 3400 flywheels will work if plugged and redrilled. G136 is the flexplate in the interchange but would help in finding what cars had flywheels that would work.


[www.kingomatic.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2013 11:51PM by mgb260.

I think the other LS series flywheels can be used if the OD is turned down and the smaller ring gear is fitted. Some of the Fiero guys are doing that. There may be a thin spacer needed (or not) or the back side trimmed a bit. Apparently the LS4 flange doesn't stick out quite as far. Seems I saw something on that, maybe in the range of 3mm to 3/16". I don't know if it would be any problem in our application. This remedy also gives us a little more leeway in positioning the starter both fore/aft and in the size of the ring gear. I have some old 215 ring gears, I wonder what is the largest size that will fit in the bellhousing? (It also affects our largest clutch size.)

Jim

Jim B, I think the 142 is snug in the 2.2 bell, the slightly larger 148 in the RWD bellhousings. Diameter aproximately 11 1/2"-11 3/4". LS4 crank flange is 3mm shorter than other LS. Front snout is 10mm shorter. all made to fit transverse FWD. Joe Shafer told me 2.2 flange is 1/8" aproximately inside engine bellhousing flange. Scott said the LS4 is .012.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2013 08:34AM by mgb260.

Bracket with tab:

Made a flywheel out of cardboard. I sized it at the 148 tooth size and marked the 142 tooth size to show the comparison.



This one shows the difference in size between the 142 and 148 tooth flywheels. The 142 tooth line you see on the mockup measures 1" along the top by the bellhousing extension on the block from the block to the line. The edge of the mockup which is the 148 tooth diameter measures about 1.25"



Here's one along the edge of the block.


I got the diameters of the flywheels off of Rockauto:

148 - 12.5"
142 - 11.875"

Looks like it'll have to be the 142, yes?
That will show how big the starter can be and if the offset gear drive is required or the Northstar starter can be used without cutting the block.

Guys, I think we almost have a plan in place.

Jim

I didn't realize that fixturing boss stuck out so far. I think it'll have to go.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2013 01:28PM by BlownMGB-V8.

You guys finish this up while I go out to garage and yank out my 5.0! I want one!

Will a ford pattern t5 bolt up to the 2.2 bellhousing?

Yes. I think it has to be the ford straight up pattern.

Quote:

Looks like it'll have to be the 142, yes?

Jim, I think either should work. But it brings up other questions. I'm not sure the148 tooth will fit into the 2.2 bellhousing. It obviously will fit the S-10 bellhousing and if you're using an older T-5 with the GM pattern then using that bellhousing is the way you'd probably want to go. From the information Jim N. supplied it sounds like the flywheel is not going to be placed exactly like it would be stock...at least in the 2.2 flywheel/bellhousing case. If the bellhousing mounting surface is proud of the crankshaft flange by 1/8" on the 2.2 and only around .012" on the LS4, would that be enough upset the geometry of the stock clutch lever? I don't know the answer to that question, maybe you do? Maybe a HTOB might be the only alternative in some combinations which isn't a bad thing at all just nice knowing up front. I'm going to try everything I can to find a solution for the 142 tooth flywheel.

I still think the mini-starter is the best option but the Northstar might work if it's small enough. It seems like the starter gear teeth need to be within a paper clip wire diameter of hitting bottom into the flywheel gear to mesh properly. (Read the paper clip thing from several sources) I just did a rough measurement and about an inch down from the bottom of the bellhousing mount, the 142 tooth mark on the mock up flywheel is about 3/4" from the edge of the block. So the starter housing would have to have a radius in that area of about an inch to place the starter gear in the proper location. It sure looks like the mini-starter just about meets those dimensions. You could probably grind the block to allow the starter to move up 1/4"-3/8" maybe more. This would expose more of the flywheel to the starter gear.

Can't tell if the Northstar starter's dimensions are close, the only way is to actually measure one. If time allows, I'll see if a local parts store has one I can measure. I also need to get to Jegs and see if I can get access to one of their mini-starters for measurement as well...maybe I'll just buy an ebay special at some point.

Regards

-- Scott

According to Wikipedia, the crankshaft is 12mm shorter than an LS1. 10mm in the rear and 2mm in the front.

If anyone might be interested, here are some dimensions for this motor. I'd be happy to supply any other measurements you might need as well. Just let me know.

The engine is incredibly compact. It's an unbelievable 23.25" long, bellhousing mounting surface to the front edge of the harmonic balancer. From the bottom of the harmonic balancer to the top of the throttle body flange is about 19.5". My FWD 3.1 V6 is 22" long and about 20.5" high..just to give some perspective. The intake manifold will need some clean-up on the top as you may notice but that shouldn't be a huge issue.

I hope to get some weights at some point. I came across someone who weighed one and what he found seemed to make sense to me. You can read about it at the following link:

[www.realfierotech.com]

Just to summarize, with all brackets and other accessories minus the power steering pump and wiring harness it was 478 lbs. We (maybe I should say I) wouldn't use any of the brackets and other junk the factory put on this block. Just the longblock is 339 lbs. I'd expect the motor to weigh around 400-420#, plus or minus, with flywheel, water pump, intake manifold and alternator plus brackets. Should put it close to what the 5.0 Ford weighs.

Quote:

Will a ford pattern t5 bolt up to the 2.2 bellhousing?

Ryan, I have a Ford T5 bolted up to my 2.2 bellhousing so yes, it will.

Regards

Scott

IMHO, it's much more expensive and complexed than putting together a Ford E.F.I. 5.0 Liter; however, it is the latest and greatest that appeals to lots of people. For that much and unless you invest towards some performance upgrade parts, you may be embarrassed going against a well put together 302 or 331 cubic inch Ford. I'm just saying..............

Jacques,

That's what I was thinking.

It seems to me there are only two reasons for doing anything:

1. You enjoy doing it.
2. You are better off for having done it than you would be if you had not done it.

Number 1 is the preferred reason by far, and it seems this falls squarely into that category.

Do people climb mountains because they enjoy climbing mountains, or do they climb mountains because they enjoy having climbed a mountain?

There are other reasons...
It's all aluminum
It's modern
It's efficient
It's a GM
. . . .

If I ever get around to finishing my project I'll stick with my 5.0 as the fab work is pretty much done and I already have it, but if I was starting from scratch and the issues with this LS4 had been sorted, I think I'd go with the LS4 in a heartbeat. We each have our own goals with a project, and I wanted my 5.0 to have fuel injection and to fit under a normal looking hood, in my case I used an mgc hood. The only way I could do this was to use a 94-95 mustang intake, and it's the worst one there is. Rated at the factory at 215 hp and 285 ft/lb. If I try to make more horsepower the mustang forums lead me to believe I'll be severely limited by the intake even if I port it, and the factory computer will deal me fits. And that's assuming I shell out more than $1,000 for a set of aluminum heads. I'm pretty sure I'll like the engine as-is, so I'm not too worried about it. I know I could make a lot more hp going with a carb, but I don't want to do that.

Yeah, I know all about the FAST EFI, etc., and I can't justify the cost, so I'm not going there.

The LS4, by comparison, would fit under the hood, makes 300/323 as-is, and will make 400+ hp with easy upgrades (including cheap cast offs from corvette/camaro owners wanting MORE POWER!). I haven't really researched this engine specifically, but I'm guessing with all the swapping craze over the LS motors there has to be established support on any computer/tuning issues.

Of course, the headers and mounts would be custom, but I made all that stuff for my 5.0 anyway. The 5.0 is proven to be a legendary motor, so either one would be a good choice.

...5.3L displacement
comes with the best factory heads available
over 10:1 compression
intake and header change gives a huge power boost and you really have to do that anyway
cheap and available
small package size
did I mention it's a GM?
...

The classic battle between Ford and Chevy continues, meanwhile the 350 Buick guys are crying in their milk, about no sp intake and aluminum heads. Meanwhile, lurking in the shadows, the RV8 is waiting for a megashot of airflow, all the better to pounce with. Onward, roverman.

Curtis, I think it comes that way. That photo could have the LS2 intake and does have aftermarket valve covers. But you're right, a gorgeous engine. Won't work with the AA80E automatic though so no worries that I'll swap it for my Buick 340. Dan might go for it though, and I could definitely see Carl going thataway. I think Ford is about to lose their edge.

Jim