Why the Chevy LS is so good

[ls1mike]

You can pick up a low mile iron block 6.0 around here with everything for 1000 to 1500 bucks. Pick up the 4l80E to got with you are talk tops 2500 bucks.
OHC, push rod doesn't really matter to me how you make the power, but I do always laugh at the guys who talk about how high tech OHC engines are and that they are so much better than push rod engines. It is simply not the case.

Love my two LS based engines.

 

[hatt]

Originally Posted By: Rust_Belt_Pete
Absolutely nothing wrong with OHC and DOHC engines, as long as you have a single bank of cylinders I4 or I6.
OHC Engines in V formation are the devil.

LOL. Someone went off their meds to create that.

 

[Ramblejam]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike
Pick up the 4l80E to got with you are talk tops 2500 bucks.


You can purchase an entire 6.0/4L80E/4x4 clean-title vehicle in good condition nowadays for around that...

 

[UncleDave]

Great video.

Tom Nelson is a brilliant auto engine builder. One of the best.

LS family in general are great mills - super simple, stout and oodles of power.

UD

 

[dareo]

To any OHC V8 haters, 1UZFE. 2UZFE. 3UZFE. Thanks.

 

[Michael_P]

I don't think there are many OHC haters here, but the simplicity of the LS is definitely something to be admired. Especially when you look at its power, weight and fuel economy.

 

[wirelessF]

Originally Posted By: dareo
To any OHC V8 haters, 1UZFE. 2UZFE. 3UZFE. Thanks.


Heh

I don't hate OHC engines, heck in my garage I have all three Toyota/Lexus V8 engines (90 4Runner w/1UZ engine swap, 01 Tundra V8, 04 Lexus LS430) and the LM7 LS truck engine in my daily truck wanting to be swapped out for a LQ4 or even an LQ9 6.0L HD truck engine.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Just wish they were as cheap as the old small blocks.


I think for what you're getting- they really are. To make a traditional SBC do the things that an LS will do (virtually stock) as reliably as it does, it's going to take some dough. I think if you factor in the durability and power of an LS, the cost is probably similar.


That is not my experience. When I have gone to build/rebuild them, not pluck them from a junkyard used, they are much more expensive. Gaskets, intakes, cams, etc are all higher priced than for a good old 350.

I never trust junk yard motors

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Just wish they were as cheap as the old small blocks.


I think for what you're getting- they really are. To make a traditional SBC do the things that an LS will do (virtually stock) as reliably as it does, it's going to take some dough. I think if you factor in the durability and power of an LS, the cost is probably similar.


That is not my experience. When I have gone to build/rebuild them, not pluck them from a junkyard used, they are much more expensive. Gaskets, intakes, cams, etc are all higher priced than for a good old 350.

I never trust junk yard motors

Durability and reliability hands down go to the LS motor. Heads cost about the same between the two. Reusable intake gaskets, but 74 bucks for the good one. Where they can be pricey is the bottom end, which is a 6 bolt main. Aftermarket heads cost about the same on a LS as the previous generation SBC. Cam for my LS1 Trans Am with springs was identically priced to the cam for my LT1 Car and. About 380 bucks.

 

[Robenstein]

I was referring to Gen I SBC not Gen II

 

[UncleDave]

Not sure show much more reliable it is than the older design, but its got better heads, and its easier to make power.

Yeah parts a bit more than an old school small block but the good stuff is never cheap regardless.

My old school 406 belt out 500HP and 500 FT lb and idled at 900 RPM.

UD

 

[Cujet]

In the aviation world, 360 cubic inch, air cooled, pushrod, 4 cylinder engines produce 195HP (rated at 200HP, but never actually produce a true 200)

HOWEVER, that 200HP old-tech engine, complete, is around 300 pounds. For a fantastic power to weight, power to size and BSFC (efficiency numbers) In fact, it's efficiency is still not matched by modern engines!

The LS engine is rather similar in many ways. Yes, Ford makes as much HP from less displacement. But, the trade-off is that Ford's 5.0 has far more weight, complexity, and physical size. Again, just how is that better?

I think people consider displacement as a key factor with regard to HP, when weight and size might actually be more important.

I'm utterly convinced the GM formula for HP is the right one. Simplicity, compactness, robustness, efficiency and capability.

It's almost too bad the other manufacturers did not continue the development of their "legacy" engines.

 

[UncleDave]

Taken further than GM did is the retooled BBC. Not a single GM part but a big block chevy no less. physical package pretty much bolts to wherever a big block did

HP is great, but as a boater the number I care about the most is torque and where.

588 cubes and a bunch of expensive parts gets you 800FT/lb @ 3K - not getting that from an N/A LS anything.

UD

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
I was referring to Gen I SBC not Gen II

Either way the LT1 cam didn't even the gear for the distributor. Cams cost about the same, heads cost about the same and durability? Not even a contest. Take a the "Modern" 350 aka 364 6.0 or modern 305 aka 5.3 and there really isn't a contest.
I have had a bunch of 350s. A really nice one in 71 K5 and it was just a pricey to build right as it was to build the LS1 in My WS6. I am not knocking the old stuff, but it just isn't as good as an LS.

 

[Robenstein]

I must have just a good line for SBC parts, because when I built my Gen 1 LT1 (1970) it cost about 30% less than when we redid my friends 5.3 he transplanted into a 49 Ford custom.

The big thing in the difference of cost was the cam. Gen 1's have flat tappets. The big thing going for the LS he has is that he can run any off the shelf oil and pretty much any gas. I have to run more robust oil because of my flat tappet Clay Smith cam and need to use octane booster or 91 octane because of the higher compression pistons in mine. So OVER time, he has the cheaper engine due to just cheaper running costs. And likely, he will get more miles out of it.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
I must have just a good line for SBC parts, because when I built my Gen 1 LT1 (1970) it cost about 30% less than when we redid my friends 5.3 he transplanted into a 49 Ford custom.

The big thing in the difference of cost was the cam. Gen 1's have flat tappets. The big thing going for the LS he has is that he can run any off the shelf oil and pretty much any gas. I have to run more robust oil because of my flat tappet Clay Smith cam and need to use octane booster or 91 octane because of the higher compression pistons in mine. So OVER time, he has the cheaper engine due to just cheaper running costs. And likely, he will get more miles out of it.

Fair enough! Perhaps I am doing it wrong with the old stuff and doing it differently with the LS stuff.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: ls1mike

Fair enough! Perhaps I am doing it wrong with the old stuff and doing it differently with the LS stuff.

There's tons more gen1 stuff still. Look thru the catalogs.

 

[ls1mike]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: ls1mike

Fair enough! Perhaps I am doing it wrong with the old stuff and doing it differently with the LS stuff.

There's tons more gen1 stuff still. Look thru the catalogs.


I concur, but the cheap stuff is usually poop.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Cujet

It's almost too bad the other manufacturers did not continue the development of their "legacy" engines.


The modern Mopar HEMI is another pushrod mill FWIW.

 

[xxch4osxx]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Cujet

It's almost too bad the other manufacturers did not continue the development of their "legacy" engines.


The modern Mopar HEMI is another pushrod mill FWIW.
And it also has VVT!