Engine and Transmission Tech

Quote: (all in fun)
There are other reasons... (Enlighten me)
It's all aluminum (yes, but so of many other Ford)
It's modern (Not really, the LS series have been around since 1997 and revised 6 times because of engineering defects)
It's efficient (Yes it is, in stock form only, now outdone by the newly designed LT1)
It's a GM (Not really, we'll just call it Obama Motors or Government Motors and China owned, OUCH)

The only mistake that Ford made is to built a modular super engine that's too wide at the top for our application. However, lets stick with comparable cubic inch displacement, again Ford wins hands down when using the same V-8 displacement such as 4.6 Liter, 5.0 Liter (Coyote), 5.4 Liter and etc,. They simply can breath more air in when naturally aspirated.

All of this makes for good old time rivalry between one American company and two co-owned (LOL). Technology is now advancing faster than we can discuss it on these forums. The V-8 is the preferred engine (power source) only because of its unique exhaust tone. I'd like to chose a four banger conversion to shame all other aspects of a performance V-8 and IMHO, we're already there. Fuel economy, drivability, torque and horse-power can be delivered under pretty small cubic inches; let's call it "cubic inch simulation through power adders". Something like breast implants!?!?!?! :)

Our forum should not try in beating the automakers to the latest and greatest but rather follow power trains a few years behind while showcasing our ability to improve on this not so far distant technology while further pushing our ability to adaptation to clean performance. Personally, I really relish reading about someone like Rob who mixed and matched different performance parts from mixed brand and components from salvage yards and fabricated the missing links; Jim Blackwood is another one that comes to mind when it comes down to transferring technology into these light cars.

I also love to observe any young and talented kid coming around and that shows some engineering adaptation to impress even the most seasoned mechanics on our forum. Finally, what I'm personally looking for is green high performance with great drivability and plenty of aging cars left in circulation to support wild conversions...

My 2 cents

Quote:

Can you rotate the intake manifold 180 degrees for a cowl-induction installation?

Curtis, it comes pointing to the back of the engine in the FWD configuration so yes it can be rotated. Just an FYI, the stock LS4 intake was designed to point "rearward" on this particular engine. If you upgraded to an LS2/LS6 intake you would have to so some modification. I've read that the easiest way is to swap out the valley cover to a non-DOD version.

-- Scott

Jim B,Actually you can use the Toyota/Lexus automatic with the Isuzu bellhousing(small GM V6 engine side,Toyota transmission side), The LS2 intake and valley cover swap is better than the stock DOD with its problems to just gain an average of 2 MPG.There are aftermarket blockhugger headers for the LS engine. Ryan modified his Ford blockhuggers by adding 2" to header flange. When you go to the non DOD lifters it is very important to change the oil pump relief spring to the 42lb one. It is a Hi Volume and Hi pressure pump for running the DOD. The racers use it as a Hi performance replacement. I also read about porting the inlet and outlet on the pump to smooth flow and prevent cavitation.

[www.fieroaddiction.com]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2013 01:22PM by mgb260.

Jacques, it's good to see your perspective. We could get into a real good F v C contest right here, couldn't we? But let's not, what do you say? (I think they do pretty good in NASCAR)

The motor is just about old enough now that it's coming up in u-pull yards. To me that's the real benchmark for when a new engine is old enough for conversion use and if we aren't quite there we should be soon. At that point the cost to do a conversion really goes down. It really is too bad the Ford DOHC engines are so darned wide.

I think V8's are here to stay, but if you want smaller displacements, the F1 engines are pretty slick. Don't think they'd have a whole lot of trouble with a turbo'd four, even detuned. And they are very small. Saw a Honda one at the Detroit auto show, it was so cute I wanted to take it home with me.

Jim

You can clean up the stock valve covers and paint them.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2013 08:00PM by mgb260.

Here is a picture of 4 barrel throttle body port fuel injection. I think Edelbrock,Holley and Accel do those. Anything that fits Gen III/Gen IV LS2,LS3 or LS6 will fit the LS4. I know Scott wants to keep everything short but if you use a 3/8' spacer on damper/crank pulley you can use Camaro water pump and fancy front assemblies like shown.

Give you Ford vs Chevy guys, something new to hate, Gen III Hemi ! Yea baby, 485 lbs, hi nickel block, cross bolted mains and 352 cfm.@ .6" on the intake side(stock). 440cu. in. potential. So far, their holding 1,300 rwhp. How do you like me now ? Happy Motoring, roverman.

NASCAR? Please, now we're comparing apples to oranges driven by their politics. That's why I hardly watch the NASCAR races anymore. Jim, do you seriously think that NASCAR would let Ford enter their high breathing overhead camshaft engine on the track and race? But they do let Chevy race their LS design motors. It reminds me when Ford introduced the Cammer, it was their own version in answering the new and potent Chrysler "Hemi". Following a short visit to the Ford engine plant, NASCAR immediately outlawed the engine after fearing a potential instant winning answer from Ford; however, Dodge and Plymouth also had their one year old Hemi disqualified from NASCAR's tracks. Bill France thought that it would be more profitable to keep winning technology out of their agenda. Although, I do give them a "B" on safety development.

I used to admire the NASCAR mono "win on Sunday, sell on Monday" It now resembles Capitol Hill loaded with countless lobbyist to argue against Goliath NASCAR. I say, lets go back to the old days before Bill France interfered with competitive engineering and where technology won races in the hands of good drivers and not a superstar contest. We may have gotten a marriage between efficiency and performance 30 years ahead of its time if it wasn't of NASCAR's Bill France distorted fear of losing race fans; I sure would have stayed to follow how brands could recuperate from competitor's newly introduced technology..........

Read here on the Cammer story: [www.musclecarreport.com]

NASCAR is not about R & D, they're about profit. Look at how much NASCAR messed with Bill Elliot and his brother Ernie that could make a head flow like no other could. Oh by the way, Jim you did caution to not enter that NASCAR debate so OK, I'll stop now but remember that you'll often hear me state to compare apple to apple and orange to orange. I've never met any of you guys other than Jim Stuart. but I'm not blind and I have admired some interesting modifications and reasonable engineering sharing among yourselves, but I do think that some of these posting are way outside of the intent of this kind of forum exchange.

Cheers,

Was the T56 ever mated to the small GM corporate bellhousing pattern? (I'm guessing no.)

Jim


[60degreev6.com]
Not sure if this helps any but he put a t56 behind a gm 3500 v6.

To answer your question Curtis!

"Yes" It has been done flipping the intake 180 degrees....At least it has been done on a Ls7 in a Porsche 911.

Didn't mean to open a hornet's nest there, sorry guys. Robbie, thanks for the T56 info. Sounds complicated but I guess it's possible, huh?

All I meant with the NASCAR comment was that the LS engines have been pretty well developed. Using engineering based performance standards they seem to compare favorably with F1 which most consider to be the epitome of engine development. Read the following article for the details on the comparison:

[www.epi-eng.com]

Now I don't have any similar comparisons of LS or F1 to Ford or Mopar engines but it wasn't my intention to debate the superiority of one over the other because of one simple fact. They don't fit in an MGB, at least not without major work. The point is, given existing technology, availability, cost, size and weight restraints, etc, etc, GM has a winner on their hands with this engine and until the LT1 becomes available to us at a reasonable cost, this is very likely the most highly developed engine that is a practical candidate for these cars. All of the other engines are gradually becoming a bit long in the tooth and it is refreshing to see something this good becoming a viable candidate, primarily because the cost of acquiring what is really a very good engine is coming within our budget range. That's all I'm saying.

Jim

Hey, it's February 26th in Nebraska. This thread is the most exciting thing I've seen in weeks. One thing I've never (ever) understood is how adamant people can be on the whole ford vs. chevy thing. They're engines people, no one offended your sister here. But I'm just weird. If I had a chevy car I'd probably want to put a ford engine in it, and if I had a ford car I'd probably want to swap in a chevy.

I've seen firsthand how amazing an mgb is with the ford engine, I just think it's exciting that there might be another option to consider. I remember circa 2000 when someone would ask one of the message boards about using a sbf they would be roundly criticized that it didn't fit well and the Rover should be used. It took Larry Embrey, Pete Mantell and few others to prove that was bunk.

You are right Ryan, and a few of us even proved a 455 Buick could work. But is it a practical engine for a swap? Maybe not, and the same goes for the Mod and the Hemi, though neither of those have been done. The LS4 looks like a practical swap. If there is any other modern engine of about the same vintage that is I can't think of it. In a way, at least where we're concerned, GM has recreated the small block V8. A more perfect candidate is hard to imagine. It's just up to us to sort out the driveline, mounts and accessories. I think we can handle that part, and when the LT1 gets to us, we'll be ready. If Ford and Chrysler, as well as Toyota or even Hyundai chooses to follow suit we'll try their engines too, if they can be made to fit. That is, unless we all become tired old men first.

Jim

Scott, When your prowling the junkyard look at 96 and up Camaro/Firebird 3800 flywheels. 142 tooth and flatter than the 2.2,3100,3400. Might make the difference between flywheel flanges. I've been thinking once we get the starter figured out, the bellhousing can be any GM 60 degree V6. Just depends on what transmission a person wants. The 142 tooth is small enough to fit in any of them.

So, Jim N, if I understand you correctly, we could use a bell from an Isuzu to use Jim's A650e transmission?

Dan B

I think that at this point and time in the argument, true statements are being debated on emotional perceptions and in honor of brand defending (LOL). Truth to be told, Ford, Chevy, and Chrysler need each other in the name of competition, passion and fun. The perception that I probably projected is that I only like Ford powered vehicles; there's nothing further from the truth, in fact I like all three manufacturers. If God sees me through my health illness, I would love to built two vehicles powered by the LS series package; one is a LS powered Miata, and the other is a 1967-1972 Chevy pickup with a short bed. When it comes down to classic pick up trucks, Chevy does it for me.

Jim, all I wanted to point out is the fact that Ford is still a strong player with an engine that hasn't been produced for almost ten years now but still delivers wins for NASCAR. I often go through the MG photo galleries and I try to look for certain design and execution works of art; there's quite a few winners that stand up to that benchmark. A particular one that I keep admiring and wish that I could measure up to it, is "Dan Master's GT" The engine bay is second to none in look; colors, bodywork, and mechanical presentation all work in harmony to orchestrate a true "eye candy" winner.

I've been told many times that Ted is temperamental but most achieved fabricators tend to be and I must say that he can deliver a hotrod look with a very clean look; something very hard to achieve and envision. The high road that I want to follow has tremendous challenges to overcome if my car is to get any points for clean engine bay presentation, in fact I know that I can't possibly compete, therefore I better elevate and showcase the points of interest of my project, I'll probably fall short on that too. Just think of how many people you know that want to reduce the emission, increase drivability, performance, fuel efficiency, and all while adding creature comfort accessories to their project?!?!

Would it matter if I had an LS motor to execute my design and engineering goals? probably not. Dan is right in saying "built what you like and can afford; it's quite a balancing act. Since I can only afford what I can do myself then I better get my energy up, otherwise one heck of a deal could appear in the classified ads as an abandoned "project for sale"

It is sad to say, but I started this project 8 years ago and at that time the 5.0 Liter Ford was the only hot conversion in style. As you often also read under owner's comment, "don't wait too long as dream are meant to become reality. Strange enough, I also originally had bought with the car a 1987 Turbo-Bird complete drive train with only 45,000 miles and ready to drop in. It had many upgrades such as turbo and manifold, injectors, roller rockers and etc,.. Would I had stuck with that plan, I would have been enjoying the annual camaraderie meetings that I always wanted to attend. Guess what element changed my plan? Yes, "the good old rumbling sound of an American V-8"..........

I'm through interrupting the original discussion on this thread and I apologize for side tracking the issue at hand.

Cheers!

Dan B,Yep, Isuzu Trooper and Amigo V6(also Honda Passport) 30-40LE same as Toyota A340 and Jeep AW4. Probably use the Isuzu flex plate and torque converter too. Isuzu used the GM 2.8 and 3.1 V6 and their own 3.2 and 3.5 V6 had dual bolt pattern bellhousings that might work. I have a picture of one bolted to a GM 3800 V6(same small V6 bellhousing pattern).




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2013 07:25PM by mgb260.

Jacques, I agree whole heartedly with you, I like all the brands too but certain motors for certain vehicles.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2013 07:14PM by mgb260.

Thanks for the tip Jim! I had quickly looked at that flywheel but incorrectly thought it was a 148 tooth. It looks like a good candidate. The Northstar starter is in stock at Autozone and Advance Auto, I'm going to try to measure one over the weekend.

Thanks!

Scott

Jacques, I get it. 8 years is a long time but this last time it's been almost five for me if memory serves me. Well, if not that long it sure feels like it. And I too am in a somewhat similar position in that I decided to build the 340 Buick, only learning by experience that the 300 is probably a better choice and certainly easier. And now, there is this. Not that I could even consider abandoning the plan you understand, even though I suspect a simple plate would be enough to match the LS to the tranny. Well, maybe I'll just plan ahead to the LT1. (or LT4 maybe?) Or by then maybe there will be something better. I'm sure I'll be very happy with this build, and no doubt you will be thrilled with yours as well. We can never hope to have the very latest newest best thing unless money is not an object, and that's not a world I think I'd want to live in anyway, the reward is much sweeter when it requires a sacrifice.

Jim N, do you have anything showing the other side of the starter bulge for that bellhousing? Looks like Dan may want to go that way with the A650E.

Jim