LS1 Swap

[Dr. Dyno]

Dino, I've always wondered, is that imperial or US gallons?

Sorry, I keep forgetting about the two different sizes of gallons. It's imperial gallons.

 

[Talyn]

So, you would be getting 15.82 to 19.15 mpg using US gallons, which makes better sense than 23 US MPG.

 

[GoSlowGetStuck]

OK, I am thinking about this swap too mainly for the fuel mileage increase. I am up in the air between this and stroked 4.0l. I only get somewhere around 15 mpg with my current mods on a 200K 4.0l. Will this get worse when I stroke the engine and add the 23lb injectors? Can I swap in the LS1 or an LS3 and get 20 mpg? Let me know if I am wrong here.

I agree that the mileage increase might be a neat side effect, but considering the cost I don't think it should be the main reason for doing it. A stroker gives a lot better (and reliable) MPG gain per dollar spent. Of course if you're doing a project like this you probably have another vehicle to drive, but buying an econobox for a DD is another great way to get good mileage

I just think if you're doing an LSx swap into anything your goal should be becoming a total badass, not mileage.

 

[cherokeeboi]

Any updates , looking forward to this.

 

[Dr. Dyno]

I just think if you're doing an LSx swap into anything your goal should be becoming a total badass

:wstupid: :thumbup:

 

[Johnnie Walker]

I just think if you're doing an LSx swap into anything your goal should be becoming a total badass, not mileage.

Why not be badass and get great mileage? I had a mild built LT1/T-56 With a LT4 top end in a 2wd S-10 with 4.88's and 32's The thing had power and mileage.

 

[gradon]

That sounded like a fun toy--why'd you get rid of it?

 

[AIbandit]

To much gas....

Selarep updates?

 

[Johnnie Walker]

That sounded like a fun toy--why'd you get rid of it?

I kind of needed cash, and had another project. And the price offered was right. It was actually a lot more than the time/money I had actually put in it. Hopefully soon I can build a MJ or 2nd gen dakota with an LS motor in it (=
When I had it, I got 24mpg consistently on the hwy.. good ol really tall OD gear. Ha.

 

[ChevelleSSLS6]

I just think if you're doing an LSx swap into anything your goal should be becoming a total badass, not mileage.

might as well go LS9 then.:firedevil

...gosh that's a lot of money though. I think a mild LS1/truck engine equivilant (get one from an Escalade, they have better heads and a hotter cam) would be good- just remember that you don't want too big a cam and stuff as you want torque to go wheeling with.

About the guy who talks about 200hp v8s, that's smogger engines. pre-smoggers usually had 280-340hp, and of course the higher performance engines were rated to 450hp back then. Oh, the days before the EPA...:thumbup:

 

[Jeepcrush4]

Hey saleorop. In the very fist post what front/rear bumper is that? I've Been having nixed feelings and I love that design. Thanx

 

[Darky]

might as well go LS9 then.:firedevil

...gosh that's a lot of money though. I think a mild LS1/truck engine equivilant (get one from an Escalade, they have better heads and a hotter cam) would be good- just remember that you don't want too big a cam and stuff as you want torque to go wheeling with.

About the guy who talks about 200hp v8s, that's smogger engines. pre-smoggers usually had 280-340hp, and of course the higher performance engines were rated to 450hp back then. Oh, the days before the EPA...:thumbup:

The rating system was also different in the days of the 450+ hp Chevelle. That's why you'll see ratings today listed as SAE Net vs SAE gross from back in the day.

SAE gross horsepower

Prior to the 1972 model year, American automakers rated and advertised their engines in brake horsepower (bhp), frequently referred to as SAE gross horsepower, because it was measured in accord with the protocols defined in SAE standards J245 and J1995. As with other brake horsepower test protocols, SAE gross hp was measured using a stock test engine, generally running with few belt-driven accessories and sometimes fitted with long tube (test headers) in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature for testing were relatively idealistic.
[edit] SAE net horsepower

In the United States, the term bhp fell into disuse in 1971-72, as automakers began to quote power in terms of SAE net horsepower in accord with SAE standard J1349. Like SAE gross and other brake horsepower protocols, SAE Net hp is measured at the engine's crankshaft, and so does not account for transmission losses. However, the SAE net hp testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#SAE_gross_horsepower

 

[ChevelleSSLS6]

The rating system was also different in the days of the 450+ hp Chevelle. That's why you'll see ratings today listed as SAE Net vs SAE gross from back in the day.

True, they rated engines differently (no accessories) then compared to now (accessories), and this caused a 'drop' in power (on paper), but also consider the drops from 1971 engines (EPA starts their power trip) compared to those from, say, 1972- this is even before catalytic converters (which early ones were very restrictive compared to modern designs).

Consider the Ford 351 (from wikipedia)
1971 R-code (Boss 351)

See also Ford Boss 351 engine The 1971 R-code "Boss 351" used higher compression (11.7:1) with the quench head 4V heads, solid lifters, an aluminum intake manifold, and 4-bolt main caps. so It produced about 330 hp (246 kW).
[edit] 1972 R-code

The R-code 351 Cleveland for 1972 was considerably different. It had reduced compression for emissions compliance and used open-chamber heads. It had a solid lifter camshaft, however a four barrel carburetor was retained. It produced 275 hp (205 kW) using the new SAE net system.

Don't forget the power of that 302 in the King Cobra from the late 1970s. Our Jeeps (stock) make more horsepower.:worship:

 

[yossarian19]

So, what we're saying is: Back before there was anyone to say "guys, you are making *a lot* of airborne poison with these engines. Stop it, please" engines were big, loud & badass.
Then they had to find ways to make them emit less of what the EPA was objecting to, and they got bitch-like.
Now, we have much more advanced engines that make more power than they used to with less fuel and LOTS less of what the EPA didn't like.
Awesome.
So, when do we see a startup video & parts list?