1500 if I remember correctly. The cheap upgrade was an 4200 Trailblazer converter.
Torque! Rocket power vs LS power
- Thread starter L92 OLDS
- Start date
- Status
1500 if I remember correctly. The cheap upgrade was an 4200 Trailblazer converter.
That is impressive then, the tune and gearing along with the better intake were the difference makers.
Gotta say i've had old school and new school engines and when it comes to building them the LS was an absolute joy. The modern designs of the gaskets and the way it all goes together went so well i cant wait to build another. I think tuning is everything. My Trans Am stock was... well it was okay. After head work, cam and a full rebuild (needed because it was wore out not for performance) and tuning it was an absolute animal. It wasn't even a racing engine by any means but man that thing would get off the line. I've had several roller small blocks that couldn't hold a candle to it if they tried. We will see how my 383 holds up to that stigma. However i agree with others that you cant judge them by the stock tune. GM (or any company) has to tune them to work "okay" in every situation and until a lot of the self tuning type of computers came along the vehicles were stuck with that tuning. The LS engines are just an advancement like everything else, they are simply better than the old engines and its no different now than a guy in the 60's ripping out the engine in his 57 chevy to drop in a 409 or some other hot engine. Happens with every era.
My whole point is due to GM's incompetence on the tune for these LS, I see them as weak and overated. Same reason I have no fondness for the sbc. Till the mid 80's, it was a sort of reliable motor. I saw quite a few flat cams and enough oil burners. Same goes for the junk Ford 351M/400 and nearly every Motorcraft carb made. It is up to a manufacturer to win and keep our loyalties. Don't be sheep people. I run Olds SB because they were the most reliable V8's from their era. I dare to be different, can you say the same?
Those Olds engines of the mid to late 70's are low compression, strangled malaise era engines. Reliable, sure. No more or no less than engines from the other divisions at that time. Bump up the compression, and make supporting modifications (cam, intake, exhaust, tuning) and they made respectable power.
A 5.3 needs a tune, a cam and exhaust to make even more power. The heads, intake and compression ratio require no attention.
A 5.3 needs a tune, a cam and exhaust to make even more power. The heads, intake and compression ratio require no attention.
I should also point out that the 6.0 has a 60 second timer on PE mode, so you'd need to keep it floored for a full minute to get any sort of fuel enrichment or timing adder. That alone adds some *ss to the things.
I don't know, Ford had some awful, unreliable vehicles from that era, criminal bad. The Olds Diesel may be Ford's equal to their whole line. I still say from what I saw, Olds only real defect was the nylon coated cam gear and was more durable than most other makes. Over 300,000 miles on the Olds 350 in our 75, supposedly was doing 100+ mph ditch driving at the end. I got 450,000 km on the 81 Olds 307 from our 81 Delta 88, 420,000 on the car, when the timing chain skipped when it was in my 78 Chevrolet 1/2 ton. I had all the bills from new in 82, only basic maintenance, no major work. Only the Olds 307 held up to much more than 300,000 km on a regular basis on reserve duty. That means our First Nations people bought them well used and they did no, I repeat no oil changes. I saw only one 305 survive over 300,000 km and a couple of Ford's. Again, just what I saw working in shops and owning them.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
