Engine and Transmission Tech

Quote:

I believe Scott's LS4 used a 142 tooth flywheel with that even smaller bell. Of course, then you have to get a starter to mate up.

Carl, I'm using a 148 tooth flywheel with an S10 2.2 bellhousing.

I heard a rumor that a kit for a B could be out in the not too distant future where the motor is positioned behind the steering rack using a RB crossmember in I assume a RB car. Really interested in seeing that one. I am convinced that an LS will go into a RBB with no or minimal mods.

I know you didn't spend much time behind the wheel but did my footwell intrusion bother you? Quite honestly I don't notice or even think about it but I built it for me. 😊

Scott, didn't you cut a lot of metal out of your firewall, and wasn't the pulley too close to the steering to change the belt? How could it be done without cutting? There isn't really that much difference in the firewall of an RB car.

Jim

[quote]
Scott, didn't you cut a lot of metal out of your firewall, and wasn't the pulley too close to the steering to change the belt? How could it be done without cutting?
[/quote ]

Jim,

You do realize that CBB and RBB have different firewalls and placement of the steering rack? I think you're confusing the two. Mines a 68 so it's a CBB. Yes, I did cut metal out of my CB firewall like 99% of guys do when installing a V8 in a CB car. FYI, I have enough room to fit the belt between the pulley and the rack. The issue at the Gathering last fall was between the pulley and the crossmember which I corrected this past winter.

My comments above were regarding a RBB.

Scott

Oops, yeah, that 142 is for the fwd v6, 148 for RWD. Not clear if you can do that to an LS1.

I agree, Scott, a RBB should be easier. No, I really didn't notice the footwell. I really appreciate mine when doing 300-500+ mile days. I slide my foot under the gas pedal to stretch out with the cruise control on.

Put an Old Trans Behind Your New Gen III V-8

[www.hotrod.com]

Scott, I have a 74-1/2 MGB out in the shed. We put a V6-60 in it. I am pretty familiar with the differences thank you very much. My comments stand. You'll have to prove it before I will ever believe it. Every LS conversion I have ever seen had radical cuts to the firewall, yours is no different, and the RB firewall doesn't give you any more room where you made those cuts.

If you will recall, I tried to persuade you to try to do your installation without doing firewall butchery but you wouldn't listen to me because you had other ideas. So don't try telling me now that I am wrong.

Jim

Jim is from Missouri. :)

Scott put that engine exactly where he wanted it. Other locations would be interesting.

As for a kit, I have been hearing that rumor for a long time. May not be too long, now. ;)

Quote:

Not clear if you can do that to an LS1.

Carl, if you're wondering about using a 148 tooth flywheel I suspect the answer is yes it can be done. If you're going to go that route and 5.3l will do the job for you you might as well go with an LS4 at that point mainly for the costs.

Quote:

Scott, I have a 74-1/2 MGB out in the shed. We put a V6-60 in it. I am pretty familiar with the differences thank you very much. My comments stand. You'll have to prove it before I will ever believe it. Every LS conversion I have ever seen had radical cuts to the firewall, yours is no different, and the RB firewall doesn't give you any more room where you made those cuts.

If you will recall, I tried to persuade you to try to do your installation without doing firewall butchery but you wouldn't listen to me because you had other ideas. So don't try telling me now that I am wrong.

Jim, I was trying to make a point and now that I reread it it sounds like I'm trying to be condescending.....not my intent. I still disagree with you though. ☺ In this case I suspect my idea of minimal mods will always be radical mods in your eyes.

What I see and what I have been told is the rack on a RBB is 1" further forward when compared to a CBB. Also the curvature of the hood is greater on a RBB. You will be able to move the engine forward an inch and mount it higher in the engine bay because of this. That will make a huge difference. Given the steering is mounted lower in a RBB I'm confident the steering will stay put judging by how the LS4 fits into my CBB. You will have to make allowances for the heads by the firewall. In any event I can't see how you could describe the modifications as "radical". We will see.

As Carl stated, the engine is exactly where I want it. I spent over two years planning the conversion so I didn't just randomly decide to place it there. I'm trying to make a point again and I know you know this but no matter where you place the motor you will be making a compromise. More rearward you're looking at firewall mods, more forward involves the steering rack and radiator placement. Pick your poison. For me it was never a question that I was going rearward. Oh, just for the record, "weight distribution" wasn't even a consideration in my decision.

Any plans to go to the Dayton show this year? I think it's on the 6th of August. Hope so. I'm pretty sure I'll be there for at least part of the day.

Scott

Quote:

In this case I suspect my idea of minimal mods will always be radical mods in your eyes.

Now, that is hysterical. ;D

I agree with Jim, though, the closer the LSwap can be made to a bolt-in the more popular it will be. Personally, I am not chasing 300+ HP, so there is no sheet metal surgery in my future. This is why the 3.4 V6 is so popular. The power hungry junkies have no qualms about cutting it up to get their fix. ;) That is why Pete has sold 65 Ford V8 kits. Wow.

Thanks Scott, to be fair I had let myself get a little irritated. Not my finest moment.

I would indeed like to see a "bolt-in" LS swap. If that could be done it would be a fine thing for the MGB conversions.

Regrettably, I suspect the RB advantages of rack placement and hood curvature may not be as beneficial as you hope, but that's no reason not to try. Realistically however, given what we are working with the only way to do it is to, well, actually do it.

Jim

I forgot to address the bonnet. IMO, that the RBB bonnet has more curvature than a CBB is a urban myth.

If I were to entertain an LS variant, I know it's not the cubic inch thing to do, but I have a fixation on using the 4.8L short stroke crank. Something like a 4.00" bore with a 3.267" stroke. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2016 11:05AM by MGBV8.

That should make an engine that would suit you well Carl, at least I would think so. If it was LS4 based with Scott's flywheel and starter setup it could have a decent chance, but depending on engine location I wonder just how great that an advantage the smaller bellhousing really is. To fully take advantage of the forward position some crossmember bashing to lower the engine a bit might be helpful provided the rack can be cleared.

I'm very familiar with forward engine placements. My engine, and probably the 455 are located farther forward than any other conversion I've ever seen. Typically with the Buick the rack/pan interference is the limiting factor if the engine is positioned forward of the usual location with the rack between the damper and the front cover. The rack can be lowered but this can bring further complications beyond a limited point. With the crank pulley of the LS4 being tucked in tight to the cover the same conditions apply to pulley/rack clearance. Moving the accessory drive out away from the front cover could allow the engine to be lowered by straddling the rack if the parts are available to do it. (could require balancing) It could also allow the engine to be moved further forward at which point pan to crossmember clearance becomes an issue.

Like I say, I'd like to see it done. In fact Carl, if you come up with an engine I expect we could test fit it in the Chump car to get an idea of what you'd have to do to put it in yours.

Jim

How about a plastic block w/bellhousing?

Wouldn't hurt to compare the SBC & BBC bellhousings to each other. It would likely be cheaper/easier to use the stock 14" flywheel & BBC bell. I think I have a spare bell, not sure which one.

Fitment check. It fits, sort of. I want to raise the tranny tunnel and clearance the firewall. That tube at the rear of the engine bay is in the way by about an inch. I'll cut that out and move it back. Tomorrow I will try and find the time to cut out the spine of this beast and start bending some new panels. I wanted to raise it and widen it TVR style. That should give extra room to run a 3" exhaust if I so choose. The Camaro headers don't fit. They hang way too low. Need to go get a set of shorty headers. The Camaro has an aluminum hood that is very lightweight. Laid the TR7 hood over it and its just big enough that I can cut out a TR7 hood from the aluminum Camaro hood. Has the built in power bulge down the middle to give me a little more clearance over the intake manifold. I was planning on making a fiberglass hood, but the aluminum is cooler and easier to do, plus its going to be free.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2016 07:19PM by tr8todd.

That looks pretty good. I think it will fit. How does it look on the bottom, with the crossmember?

I think the deep part of this style pan extends a little too far forward to use the stock cross member. Its similar to those larger aluminum pans on the 4.0s that don't fit with the wedge subframe. I'm planning on making a tubular cross member anyway, but there are other oil pans that will fit with the stock cross member. Where I had the engine sitting in the driveway is about ride height, and the body was lowered to about ride height, based on measurements taken from some of the other wedges here. Todays exercise was just the first fitting. Time to cut and remake the tunnel, and cut back a couple of bulges in the firewall. Then check again. Then make the engine and tranny cradles. Biggest issues are engine won't go all the way back to the firewall because of roll cage tubing and tranny tunnel is not tall enough to use remote shifter. Doing away with remote shifter and going straight out of the top of the tranny will place it too far forward, so easiest solution to those issues will be to cut out and remake the whole tunnel. Enlarging tunnel cutout area in firewall and rear bulkhead will allow the engine to go back another 2.5" comfortably, and will give more room for the exhaust and the fat driveshaft I need to run. If the engine stays right where it is now, I may have steering rack to oil pan clearance issues. Get it back a couple of inches and I'm sure there won't be a problem When the pictures were taken, there was still 3 plus inches between the back of the heads and those bulges in the firewall I want to smooth out. If you know TR7s, its right where the coil sits and on the other side of the tunnel near the gas pedal mounts.

LS Accessory-Drive Swap Guide

[www.hotrod.com]

LS-Series Engine Oil Pan Dimensions

[www.improvedracing.com]

Ought to fit no problem now. Surgically removed the tranny tunnel in one piece so my buddy can reuse it in this MGA thats getting a Ford 302.

This show why the GM LS family is so popular. Easy horsepower.

[www.superchevy.com]