Why LS swaps made everything better
- Thread starter 81cutlass
- Start date
- Status
Some of us still cruise these "EV's" & may have more than a person should own.I owned electric cars before electric cars were cool. They had drive by wire already, with brand names like Aurora and Tyco. And had slots in the "roads" to keep them stable.
I found the same in every truck I drove with the 5.3 and even one 6L. I found the Gen 5 8 spd was massively better. Again, if I would have been impressed and probably drove a 4th Gen Firebird, GTO or G8 like I almost bought, I might have LS fever as well. The Olds V8's, not even the 455's, the SBO, I have a stupid, feel good underdog sentiment about them. They were even dead reliable while SBC's were flattening cams and 351/400M's were knocking down the road in 70's. We owned the other makes from that time period and worked on others, not good.I think you guys’ goals are a little too low - a 4.8 in a van or pickup is a pig. And the factory cam and rpm range created by it makes it even worse. Maybe if it would’ve been offered in a lightweight car I’d have a different opinion, but in a 4000-8000 application it flat out sucks in stock form.
I think you guys should aim higher
Ah, but .... how much does that pull out of the battery how fast, and how long does it take to put that back into the battery? And what does this mean for the Texas power grid? Not to mention the lifespan of the battery, which is large and heavy and expensive and liquid-cooled.
How many Tesla owners own Teslas only? This is a spec I've not seen discussed very many places. On a Tesla owners forum I dropped in on, however, the general consensus seemed to be none, zero. The same discussion could include all EV owners of any stripe.
This is relevant to this thread, as it impacts the future of the LS vs. BB-brain debate. How many these days would own a BB only? Quite a few might have an LS as their only ride.
Is the future LS = 'Lectric Stuff?
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree, the 6.0 and 6.2 flat out haul *ss in a truck IMHO. The 5.3 is a happy medium between the 4.8 and 6._ and all 3, 5.3, 6.0, 6.2, can tow respectfully.
To be fair the 6L was higher miles, abused and had exhaust leaks. Both the 5.3L trucks I drove quite a bit sucked, sorry and yes I did tow with them, they still sucked. I use my 94 Z71 TBI Olds 350 with 307 heads, 204/214 cam, shorty headers with 2.25" dual exhaust had the same 1500 stall 4L60E and 3.73 gears with slightly taller tires than the LS powered trucks, very apples to apples. Idle to 4000 rpm, it killed them with the stock 450 cfm TB mildly massaged. Over 4000 rpm If my the 454 TBI didn't have issues, it really killed them down low and matched them up top. Remember a TBI sbc swirl port tune is far from ideal on an Olds 350, it needs 20 degrees added, ran like sh*t below 10 degrees, especially in open loop, which ran pretty rough in really cold weather. That is why I had a circulating block heater, that burnt it to the ground. I saw the intake tract was restricted on the 2003 GMC, I never really looked at the exhaust on the LS trucks. Was the tune limited down low to protect the fragile 4L60E transmission? The 6 spd truck I drove was no better, constantly hunting for torque, never finding it. None of them felt like 300+ hp and especially 350 ft/lbs. Both the Gen 5/8 spd seriously felt like they gained 100 hp, not 30 hp. Maybe I expected too much, they sure didn't deliver.
Last edited:
Having had 5.3 and now a 6.2 truck, the 6.2 is a lot different as far as grunt. Had 3.42 behind the 2010's 5.3 with 6 speed and it was respectable as far as general power. I also disabled AFM which I believed saved that engine from the oil-past-the-rings early death. The 6.2 has 3.23, but also a 10 speed trans but no way to disable AFM. It's also a 4WD so it's a bit heavier. But the 6.2 doesn't seem to care.
Was the 5.3 a torque monster? No. Could it haul a trailer with a car on it when I needed it to? No problemo. It was adequate, and I think the gearing helped a bit. My 2006 had 5.3/3.23 and it didn't seem as peppy for whatever reason, my guess is the gearing. If my main goal was a tow vehicle, though, I'd have probably went diesel. I loved that truck. Not for the engine (reliable without a single engine issue in the 10 years/60K miles I owned it) but it was the overall package. Master cylinder leaked into the booster so I fixed that, and the dash cracked as nearly all of them did by the passenger air bag, but other than that, tires, alignment, belts, antifreeze, oil and one battery after 7 years. That's all I did. But with my old azz and the better feel in the seats and all the bells and whistles of comfort, save for that fugging sunroof, the 6.2 is perfect all-around for me.
The LS engine, IMO, has replaced the old school SBC. If anyone has owned a GM made in the last 20 years, likely nearly everyone had one at some point in their lives, they ended up in all sorts of engine swaps, and "relatively" cheap to build. As motorheadmike said, your ROI is pretty high by going with an LS. Simple mods recovers the choked off power and can save potential oiling and timing chain issues. However, the TTY left some letters off to describe the fasteners...shiTTY. I totally get the idea behind it, but man up and say what the bolt torque should be and rebuilding it would be even cheaper if you didn't have to replace the bolts. Torque angle gages be damned. I think that TTY was an evil money-grab plan by the bolt manufacturers...Hey, pass me another 2 sets of those 17800568 head bolts for $70!!! Some people recommend for low HP and stock rebuilds, go ahead and re-use your old TTY bolts. Seriously.
Was the 5.3 a torque monster? No. Could it haul a trailer with a car on it when I needed it to? No problemo. It was adequate, and I think the gearing helped a bit. My 2006 had 5.3/3.23 and it didn't seem as peppy for whatever reason, my guess is the gearing. If my main goal was a tow vehicle, though, I'd have probably went diesel. I loved that truck. Not for the engine (reliable without a single engine issue in the 10 years/60K miles I owned it) but it was the overall package. Master cylinder leaked into the booster so I fixed that, and the dash cracked as nearly all of them did by the passenger air bag, but other than that, tires, alignment, belts, antifreeze, oil and one battery after 7 years. That's all I did. But with my old azz and the better feel in the seats and all the bells and whistles of comfort, save for that fugging sunroof, the 6.2 is perfect all-around for me.
The LS engine, IMO, has replaced the old school SBC. If anyone has owned a GM made in the last 20 years, likely nearly everyone had one at some point in their lives, they ended up in all sorts of engine swaps, and "relatively" cheap to build. As motorheadmike said, your ROI is pretty high by going with an LS. Simple mods recovers the choked off power and can save potential oiling and timing chain issues. However, the TTY left some letters off to describe the fasteners...shiTTY. I totally get the idea behind it, but man up and say what the bolt torque should be and rebuilding it would be even cheaper if you didn't have to replace the bolts. Torque angle gages be damned. I think that TTY was an evil money-grab plan by the bolt manufacturers...Hey, pass me another 2 sets of those 17800568 head bolts for $70!!!
Some people recommend for low HP and stock rebuilds, go ahead and re-use your old TTY bolts. Seriously.
The LS engine, IMO, has replaced the old school SBC. If anyone has owned a GM made in the last 20 years, likely nearly everyone had one at some point in their lives, they ended up in all sorts of engine swaps, and "relatively" cheap to build. As motorheadmike said, your ROI is pretty high by going with an LS. Simple mods recovers the choked off power and can save potential oiling and timing chain issues. However, the TTY left some letters off to describe the fasteners...shiTTY. I totally get the idea behind it, but man up and say what the bolt torque should be and rebuilding it would be even cheaper if you didn't have to replace the bolts. Torque angle gages be damned. I think that TTY was an evil money-grab plan by the bolt manufacturers...Hey, pass me another 2 sets of those 17800568 head bolts for $70!!!
You do know that I have reused TTY head bolts in my boosted 5.3, right?
I don't see an issue reusing the bolts if they're not failed or fugged up. That's why I think it was a money grab by bolt manufacturers. Believe me, GM recommends buying NEW bolts every time.
For those wondering about whether to reuse TTY bolts, there was some pretty decent and comprehensive testing done on GM TTY bolts compared to new bolts and other brands and it was suggested to reuse TTY OEM bolts 3-5 times. Believe it or don't. But if you have doubts, replace the bolts. It's your money and peace of mind.
For Powerpoint and Excel files, here's the link.
For those who don't want to rifle through all that, here's the summary page below. Basically, he suggests ARP bolts are high quality, but not worth the ROI on a stock rebuild, but good for high HP applications. Chinesium...fuggedaboutit.
For those wondering about whether to reuse TTY bolts, there was some pretty decent and comprehensive testing done on GM TTY bolts compared to new bolts and other brands and it was suggested to reuse TTY OEM bolts 3-5 times. Believe it or don't. But if you have doubts, replace the bolts. It's your money and peace of mind.
For Powerpoint and Excel files, here's the link.
For those who don't want to rifle through all that, here's the summary page below. Basically, he suggests ARP bolts are high quality, but not worth the ROI on a stock rebuild, but good for high HP applications. Chinesium...fuggedaboutit.
- Status
Similar threads
