LS Swap Afterthoughts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kansas Bu Wagon

G-Body Guru
Jul 9, 2012
500
15
18
Wichita, Ks
axld86 said:
KBW, I totally agree about using a complete install kit , being a BRP , Holley , etc.. ( I have the holley ls oil pan and the mounts ) . but those mounts are a pita and I have prothane frame mounts. from what I read and hear the BRP system seems to work out best ?

Hooker/Holley just released new mounts along with everything else for the swap about a month ago. The new motor mount design is different from the ones you probably have. The new system seems to have taken care of the majority of the common problems with G swaps.

Plus I like the fact that the head designer had a build thread on ls1tech while he was developing the system.

Here is a link to the thread if anyone is interested: http://ls1tech.com/forums/conversions-h ... eview.html
 

85Gold-Heart

Apprentice
Jan 7, 2014
73
1
6
Ft.Stewart, Ga
That kit requires you to move your trans up 3/4" and lengthen your driveshaft. If you have to buy a new driveshaft that would work but for me since this swap has been done so many times using 1" setback mounts successfully that moving the trans and driveshaft doesn't seem worth the hassle.
 

L92 OLDS

Comic Book Super Hero
Mar 30, 2012
2,872
3,050
113
West Michigan
YoungGuy said:
That kit requires you to move your trans up 3/4" and lengthen your driveshaft. If you have to buy a new driveshaft that would work but for me since this swap has been done so many times using 1" setback mounts successfully that moving the trans and driveshaft doesn't seem worth the hassle.

Seems asinine to me as well considering you can swap in an LS in the factory location using 1" set back mounts and factory accessories. Here is their reasoning.....

"In order to provide adequate accessory drive clearance up front, coil pack-to-A/C housing clearance in the back and trans case-to-tunnel clearance with optimized U-joint working angles, the engine is positioned with a 1/4" setback, which means you will have to move a stock 2004R or TH350 forward by 3/4" and lengthen your driveshaft accordingly"
 

Kansas Bu Wagon

G-Body Guru
Jul 9, 2012
500
15
18
Wichita, Ks
Anubis said:
YoungGuy said:
That kit requires you to move your trans up 3/4" and lengthen your driveshaft. If you have to buy a new driveshaft that would work but for me since this swap has been done so many times using 1" setback mounts successfully that moving the trans and driveshaft doesn't seem worth the hassle.

Seems asinine to me as well considering you can swap in an LS in the factory location using 1" set back mounts and factory accessories. Here is their reasoning.....

"In order to provide adequate accessory drive clearance up front, coil pack-to-A/C housing clearance in the back and trans case-to-tunnel clearance with optimized U-joint working angles, the engine is positioned with a 1/4" setback, which means you will have to move a stock 2004R or TH350 forward by 3/4" and lengthen your driveshaft accordingly"

Anubis, he did say that it's 1/4" setback, bet later corrected himself saying it is actually 3/4" setback. It confused me also.

Here is his reply to my post on this forum:
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    244.9 KB · Views: 577

L92 OLDS

Comic Book Super Hero
Mar 30, 2012
2,872
3,050
113
West Michigan
Kansas Bu Wagon said:
Anubis said:
YoungGuy said:
That kit requires you to move your trans up 3/4" and lengthen your driveshaft. If you have to buy a new driveshaft that would work but for me since this swap has been done so many times using 1" setback mounts successfully that moving the trans and driveshaft doesn't seem worth the hassle.

Seems asinine to me as well considering you can swap in an LS in the factory location using 1" set back mounts and factory accessories. Here is their reasoning.....

"In order to provide adequate accessory drive clearance up front, coil pack-to-A/C housing clearance in the back and trans case-to-tunnel clearance with optimized U-joint working angles, the engine is positioned with a 1/4" setback, which means you will have to move a stock 2004R or TH350 forward by 3/4" and lengthen your driveshaft accordingly"

Anubis, he did say that it's 1/4" setback, bet later corrected himself saying it is actually 3/4" setback. It confused me also.

Here is his reply to my post on this forum:

Aaah, thanks for the clarification. I'm still not excited about losing 1/4 of drive shaft spline engagement, dorking up the transmission cross member mount and factory linkage to make it work. I realize the kit is a one stop shop solution but it seems that there are better and less expensive ways to install an LS engine that allow factory transmission placement.
 

Kansas Bu Wagon

G-Body Guru
Jul 9, 2012
500
15
18
Wichita, Ks
[/quote] Aaah, thanks for the clarification. I'm still not excited about losing 1/4 of drive shaft spline engagement, dorking up the transmission cross member mount and factory linkage to make it work. I realize the kit is a one stop shop solution but it seems that there are better and less expensive ways to install an LS engine that allow factory transmission placement.[/quote]

There's definitely cheaper ways to get it done. It just seems to me like it would be worth the cost of getting a new driveshaft.

But if your keeping the stock th350 or 2004r you might as well just go with the 1" set back plates.
 

toddoky

Not-quite-so-new-guy
Oct 9, 2014
5
1
1
In reading the exchange of information regarding the new Hooker components here it seems that some key points regarding their geometry has not been mentioned/discussed, which makes it hard for someone contemplating an LS swap in a G-body to gauge their value in regards to be able to help achieve specific swap goals a G-body swapper might have.

It's absolutely true that many G-bodies have been LS swapped to date using inexpensive (we'll just say $45-$100 for the sake of comparison) 1" set-back plates. This is typically done in order to be able to leave the stock TH350 or 2004R transmission in place to minimize the overall cost of the swap. That's all fine and good, but the use of this method of swapping an LS into a G-body brings certain geometric characteristics with it that would be negative in the minds of those wanting to end up with a vehicle that is optimized for handling and performance once the swap in complete.

What I referring to here is the higher engine height that results from stacking swap plates on top of the factory clamshell brackets; it increases the center of gravity of the car as well as the engine inclination angle and working U-joint angles of the completed vehicle. Neither one of these characteristics is beneficial towards building a car that is optimized for performance. The way around this obvious deficiency is to make engine brackets specific to this application that LOWER the engine height in the car in order to achieve optimized installed powertrain/driveline geometries. This is exactly what the new Hooker engine brackets do; only you can decide whether or not the additional $50 you'll have to invest for them is worth it to you to be able to hammer the throttle down post-swap with less worry of spitting your driveshaft out from under your car.

Aside from the better vehicle operational geometry that comes from the lower height of the Hooker brackets, there also the top-side packaging benefit that should be considered, which specifically means you can run the full truck accessory drive set-up without have to cut into the under-side brace in the hood and you also end up with more greater packaging space for turbos, intake plumbing, intake manifolds and air cleaner assemblies.

The Hooker brackets relocate the transmission bellhousing mating surface ever so slightly forward ( 1/4") of the stock position for a valid reason, which is to provide compatibility with the stock A/C evaporator case and provide sufficient space to install a 4L60 or 4L80 dipstick tube when those transmissions are used. If you are absolutely committed to keeping your transmission in the stock location to retain the use of your driveshaft, then the Hooker brackets would not be a good choice for you when installed in their as-designed location. You should be aware however that you can indeed use them in such an installation by merely slotting the holes in your frame rearwards by 1/4", just be aware that you will then have definite interference issues with the A/C evaporator case and the right side cylinder head.

This exact method of installation was used by Holley last year to configure two cars for the LS swap challenge at last year's LSFest event. 5.3L GM crate engines were installed by both teams into these cars while leaving the TH350 transmissions in place. The last point I would like to add is that it seems there should be more concern regarding the suitability of the stock driveshaft to hold up to the increased output that the LS swap delivers to it...up to a stock 5.3L truck engine I wouldn't worry so much, but using one for anything beyond that is a bit risky in my opinion if you plan on enjoying the increased power of the LS swap in an aggressive fashion. Holley installs 3.5" driveshafts in all its LS project cars to ensure against catastrophic failure of that component.

This post is not intended to say one way of swapping an LS into a G-body is better for you than another, but instead is intended to arm you with comprehensive level of information that allows you to make the best choice for yourself and your project.

I don't get to this forum very often, but it seems like there's a great passionate group of folks here that really enjoy their cars...I have to say I'm a much bigger G-body fan now than I was before I began development of the new Hooker G-body LS swap components. These cars can be made into something that is a blast to drive for sure.

Good luck to all you guys doing this swap and send me a PM if you need any further information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Csilvy2000

Master Mechanic
Mar 14, 2012
251
87
28
Texarkana, AR
Anyone who has done the LS swap into a G-body and is now dealing with a guilty conscience, due to those 'mean 'ol smog police', instant message me. I'll be glad to take the project off your hands.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

williamattop

Master Mechanic
Apr 9, 2014
455
53
28
Appleton WI
toddoky said:
In reading the exchange of information regarding the new Hooker components here it seems that some key points regarding their geometry has not been mentioned/discussed, which makes it hard for someone contemplating an LS swap in a G-body to gauge their value in regards to be able to help achieve specific swap goals a G-body swapper might have.

It's absolutely true that many G-bodies have been LS swapped to date using inexpensive (we'll just say $45-$100 for the sake of comparison) 1" set-back plates. This is typically done in order to be able to leave the stock TH350 or 2004R transmission in place to minimize the overall cost of the swap. That's all fine and good, but the use of this method of swapping an LS into a G-body brings certain geometric characteristics with it that would be negative in the minds of those wanting to end up with a vehicle that is optimized for handling and performance once the swap in complete.

What I referring to here is the higher engine height that results from stacking swap plates on top of the factory clamshell brackets; it increases the center of gravity of the car as well as the engine inclination angle and working U-joint angles of the completed vehicle. Neither one of these characteristics is beneficial towards building a car that is optimized for performance. The way around this obvious deficiency is to make engine brackets specific to this application that LOWER the engine height in the car in order to achieve optimized installed powertrain/driveline geometries. This is exactly what the new Hooker engine brackets do; only you can decide whether or not the additional $50 you'll have to invest for them is worth it to you to be able to hammer the throttle down post-swap with less worry of spitting your driveshaft out from under your car.

Aside from the better vehicle operational geometry that comes from the lower height of the Hooker brackets, there also the top-side packaging benefit that should be considered, which specifically means you can run the full truck accessory drive set-up without have to cut into the under-side brace in the hood and you also end up with more greater packaging space for turbos, intake plumbing, intake manifolds and air cleaner assemblies.

The Hooker brackets relocate the transmission bellhousing mating surface ever so slightly forward ( 1/4") of the stock position for a valid reason, which is to provide compatibility with the stock A/C evaporator case and provide sufficient space to install a 4L60 or 4L80 dipstick tube when those transmissions are used. If you are absolutely committed to keeping your transmission in the stock location to retain the use of your driveshaft, then the Hooker brackets would not be a good choice for you when installed in their as-designed location. You should be aware however that you can indeed use them in such an installation by merely slotting the holes in your frame rearwards by 1/4", just be aware that you will then have definite interference issues with the A/C evaporator case and the right side cylinder head.

This exact method of installation was used by Holley last year to configure two cars for the LS swap challenge at last year's LSFest event. 5.3L GM crate engines were installed by both teams into these cars while leaving the TH350 transmissions in place. The last point I would like to add is that it seems there should be more concern regarding the suitability of the stock driveshaft to hold up to the increased output that the LS swap delivers to it...up to a stock 5.3L truck engine I wouldn't worry so much, but using one for anything beyond that is a bit risky in my opinion if you plan on enjoying the increased power of the LS swap in an aggressive fashion. Holley installs 3.5" driveshafts in all its LS project cars to ensure against catastrophic failure of that component.

This post is not intended to say one way of swapping an LS into a G-body is better for you than another, but instead is intended to arm you with comprehensive level of information that allows you to make the best choice for yourself and your project.

I don't get to this forum very often, but it seems like there's a great passionate group of folks here that really enjoy their cars...I have to say I'm a much bigger G-body fan now than I was before I began development of the new Hooker G-body LS swap components. These cars can be made into something that is a blast to drive for sure.

Good luck to all you guys doing this swap and send me a PM if you need any further information.

So, with the new engine placement from these, is there a differant recomended oil pan for a Gbody swap?
 

toddoky

Not-quite-so-new-guy
Oct 9, 2014
5
1
1
The Holley 302-2 would be called for in both cases, or you would need an oil pan with similar fitment geometry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GBodyForum is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com. Amazon, the Amazon logo, AmazonSupply, and the AmazonSupply logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.

Please support GBodyForum Sponsors

Classic Truck Consoles Dixie Restoration Depot UMI Performance

Contact [email protected] for info on becoming a sponsor