lsx really all that great?

[SShep71]

Just as SBC had their oiling problems LS had theirs, and just as SBC guys got further into it with trap doors and baffling in their pans, LS did the same thing. Almost every aspect of the LS is an improvement of the SBC. The machined tolerances themselves are WAY more precise than a SBC. The metal composition of the parts and the manufacturing that goes into them are light years ahead. The volumetric efficiency of the intake and exhaust system is a massive increase. The ease of assembly is better, and more reliable. The ONE downside that I can possibly see is that doing cam changes can be a PITA because of the way that the head covers the lifters, HOWEVER! If you are using the stock lifter trays there is no reason to fret as the lifter trays will assist you.

[uxojerry]

In two years, will anyone be talking about LS engines with Gen 5 crate motors available? I think the LSX platform is great, if you go after market block capable of a large bore, and 6 bolt heads. Contrary to popular belief, the BBC and SBC are alive and well. Look at any racing forum and you will get a clear picture of how an LSX motor compares to other platforms. It is a more popular than a Ford Modular but much less popular than SBC and BBC.

If I was building an FI motor, I would probably go LSX. For an NA build, I would not.

[CarlC]

I remember Ron S saying they lost 5 LS's at one event alone due to oil starvation including his in his Mustang and he went on to say the Vette GM dry sump was the only real cure. I guess you missed that. Fascinating. I was wondering what the current status of that situation was.

It depends on how much tire and the type of driving.

I've run mine since 2008 at more road coarse events than I can remember with no problems. However, the car has Michelin PSS tires, ATS wet sump pan, and a few internal modifications to facilitate oil drainback.

A slick may, under some conditions, mandate a dry sump. That would hold true for any engine.

As to the OP's question, if the SBC had an overall package that is comparable to the LS series of engines then GM would not have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop them.

As for the 50 year production run, the last 15-20 years were nothing to wave the GM flag about.

[WS6]

Yes, they are that good. Sure, other engines can be built to make power and be great engines. No one can possibly deny that fact, but it also doesn't take away from how good of a motor the LSx platform is either. They are an excellent choice.

[shortrack]

It depends on how much tire and the type of driving.

I've run mine since 2008 at more road coarse events than I can remember with no problems. However, the car has Michelin PSS tires, ATS wet sump pan, and a few internal modifications to facilitate oil drainback.

A slick may, under some conditions, mandate a dry sump. That would hold true for any engine.

As to the OP's question, if the SBC had an overall package that is comparable to the LS series of engines then GM would not have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop them.

As for the 50 year production run, the last 15-20 years were nothing to wave the GM flag about.

In the event that Ron was talking about there were no slicks allowed.

Hey, make no mistake I wouldnt mind having one but to hear people talk around here you'd think you just yank your old school sbc, "toss in" a LS, hook up a couple of wires and away you go. What could be easier? The TPI in my Iroc is pizzing me off so I thought Id quickly just throw in an LQ4 in front of the stock 5spd and get the car back on the road while Im slugging away on the Chevelle. So I checked out TGO and Wow not even close to a drop in especially if you want the A/C , cruise and everything to work. Thats the "not great'' part about LSs

[novaderrik]

Improved racing claims to have fixed most of the oiling issues with the stock wet sump LS oil pans- a $200 baffle seems like a bargain if it saves an engine. you can also add an accusump for some extra insurance..

but even after 50+ years of refinement and use in every race series ever thought up, stock gen 1 small blocks don't really hold up all that well in road racing, either... they don't have a stellar reputation in the Chumpcar and 24 Hours of LeMons racing series for holding up for entire races without baffled pans and accusumps.

having been inside a few LS engines and looking at them, they are works of art... even the worst heads ever put on them have a 15 degree valve angle- which is what the best gen 1 full race heads had- and the ports are HUGE and just beautiful to look at.

regarding cost: i picked up an aluminum 5.3 out of an '09 Suburban that had 340,000 miles on it for $100... it was replaced because it had a slight tick when cold that went away when it got warm... it looked damn near brand new inside with crosshatch still visible on the cylinders, and came with the stock LS6 heads.. the plan is to clean it up, throw an LS9 cam and lifters in it, throw it back together, and put it in my 86 Camaro with an Edelbrock carb intake and MSD ignition control... my total cost by the time the car is in the car and running will be under $1500 and i'll have an all aluminum 400+hp engine that should have the street manners of a stock engine and get awesome fuel economy..

[novaderrik]

and the LS engine isn't dead yet- the new gen 5 engines are refinements of the LS architecture with direct injection and a few other improvements... it's actually more evolutionary than revolutionary, and GM is working on easy to install crate motors to put in whatever you want.. give it a few years, and they will be cheap in junkyards and the parts needed to swap them into older cars will be figured out..

[LS1NOVA]

Yes

[shortrack]

and i'll have an all aluminum 400+hp engine that should have the street manners of a stock engine and get awesome fuel economy..

wouldnt your fuel eco go out the window without the fuel injection?

[Ron Sutton]

I don't have a dog in this hunt yet, so I take a broader view. I'll outline my viewpoints of pros & cons and maybe that clarifies things better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The SBC is older technology. The 23° valve angle & port shape haven't changed much since 1955 ... almost 60 years. The heads flow less air than modern designs because the port shape was designed for packaging, not power. The low intake port goes up over a hump, then makes a sharp turn down into the valve. We can make them flow a little more without enlarging the port ... but to make them flow significantly better, we have to run bigger ports. (This is true of all heads) That's where you see "runner sizes" in CC's come into play ... stock in the 135-160cc range ... with larger ports measuring from 180-290cc in volume.

Cylinder port basics:
When you make any port flow more ... by changing its shape, angle, contours, surface, etc ... without increasing the port cross section area (height and/or width) ... you are increasing velocity. When you make any port flow more ... by increasing its cross section area (height and/or width of the port) ... you are reducing velocity. When we build more power in the SBC platform, it's harder to achieve the same levels of fuel efficiency as the LS partly because of this.

Yes, for big bucks you can buy aftermarket race only heads & intake with large, raised ports & valve angles from 9° to 18° to achieve "some" of what is built into the LS. Most of these head & intake combos start around $5000 & go up. Without going to aftermarket high port/low valve angle race heads, you can still build great power in a standard SBC platform. Racers & Hot Rodders have been doing so for ... well ... almost 60 years.

The SBC is the best supported engine platform of all time, with a gazillion fully developed parts from manufacturers. Parts are inexpensive, plentiful & 99% of engine shops know how to build them. Factory aluminum blocks are not plentiful, so aftermarket versions are very expensive. Factory iron blocks are good for 400hp in thin cast versions ... 600hp in thick cast versions. Aftermarket iron blocks to handle 700-1000+hp are available from Dart, RHS & World products

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The LS is modern technology. The cylinder head port, valve angle & chamber design are right out of modern race technology. The heads flow more air not because the port is bigger ... which would lose some velocity if it was ... but because the port is raised significantly enough to have a straighter entry to the back side of the valve. The valve train design, internal water cooling, firing order & block design are all improved over the older SBC design.

Basically, every solution that racers & engineers came up with over the years racing the SBC went into the design of the LS.

This is part of why these engines make more power ... easily ... and still achieve good fuel mileage. The production LS aluminum block is very durable well into the 600+ hp range. The iron block can handle more & the LSX & RHS iron blocks are solid platforms to build 800-1200hp.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As with any engine platform, the fuel & timing curves are key to optimizing power & fuel efficiency. Modern technology has given us options & improvements for how we achieve this.

Obviously SBC's were designed with a distributor to "distribute" the spark. The challenge with weights & springs ... is the timing curve is linear ... and that's not optimum for power or fuel efficiency. We can tune on the advance curve with weights & springs to find the best compromise ... add on electronic band aids ... replace it with an electronic controlled advance unit ... or change it out altogether to a fully computerized ignition, which can be tuned to exactly what the engine needs for optimum power & fuel efficiency. As we know LS engines start with a fully computerized ignition & can't go backwards. Why would you want to?

Carb or EFI ... are options with either engine platform. Some guys think carburetors are complicated. Some guys think EFI is complicated. Some of us are more familiar ... and therefore more comfortable with one or the other. In my early days as a young racer, when I found the key to power was fuel curve & ignition curve, I became a student of both until I mastered them. I can tune a carb as well as anyone. When I first entered a series running mechanical fuel injection, I had a steep learning curve, but got it mastered with time, learning, testing, etc.

With carbs & mechanical fuel injection, they naturally want to be linear, which is not optimum. So we're tuning & tweaking them in various ways to adjust the fuel curve "towards" optimum ... in sections of the rpm range & trying to best deal with changes in throttle position. But "close" & "good compromise" is about all these are capable of. With EFI ... if we have the correct flowing nozzles ... we can simply program any fuel curve we want. I mean ANY. We can make the A/F ratio exactly what the engine needs to be optimum at every rpm point & every condition.

With a carburetor or mechanical fuel injection, we can tune either to make optimum power at a specific rpm ... equal to what is achievable with Electronic Fuel Injection. EFI doesn't make more peak power. But these mechanical fuel mixers are not capable of achieving optimum power at every point like a good EFI system. Simply put, we can achieve more power under the total operating curve with EFI ... and better mileage too.

If you're building from scratch ... buying a carb is much cheaper than an EFI system. If you're buying a used take out LS engine & keeping the factory injection, the cost is built in. You just need a good controller. If you're going for much bigger power than the stock EFI is capable of ... then you'll be buying parts or a complete new system. With an LS ... even if you go carbureted ... you still need an ignition controller.

The last points are more personal. Which fuel mixing option fits your budget, your tastes, your comfort zone & your goals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think engine choices are personal too ... and should take into account your budget, your tastes, your comfort zone & your goals. Some guys want to build an engine either themselves or through a shop. Others want to buy an engine ready to go. That's a personal choice.

If you're doing a low-mileage take out ... we're obviously talking LS platform ... you can get impressive power, technology, drivability, fuel mileage, etc at a bargain price. How much … is dependent on the gem you found.

When you doing an engine (or engine & trans) swap ... always take into account ALL you have to change ... headers, exhaust, engine & trans mounts, driveshaft mods, belts, plumbing, wiring, alternator, fuel tank, pumps, etc, etc ... and potentially firewall and/or trans tunnel mods. There is more time & money in a change over than most plan for.

When you're building a car from scratch that doesn't have an existing engine & peripheral parts ... you have a clean slate. So then it comes back to budget, personal preference, goals, etc.

If you're building a new engine from scratch, using all new parts, the LS platform can be more spendy than an SBC. Of course you can pour crazy amounts of money into any build. If you're re-building an engine using existing parts ... it depends on what you already own. You will get more power, drivability & fuel mileage … for your buck … with the LS platform.

If you're buying a "crate engine" or "ready to run engine" from one of the zillion sources ... there are good & bad choices in both traditional SBC & modern LS based platforms. You have GM, many reputable engine shops & a few corner cutting engine shops ... all offering lots of choices.

If you can get the power you want, in an affordable SBC package ... and this achieves your goals .... why not? On the other hand, if your power goals are higher, want optimum drivability & fuel mileage ... and can justify the changeover time & costs ... go that way. The future is LS engines. But today you have choices.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2011, I worked out a 400-410" SBC combination that made 730hp & 600# of torque with 23° heads with a 4-barrel. When we raced this in our NASCAR Modifieds with a 2-barrel (per rules) and it made 597hp & 510# torque. It took a lot testing & development. It's a great package, powerful, responsive & reliable. I run a lot of Dart stuff, because Richard Maskin is one of the sharpest engine builders I know of & his stuff is always top notch. This 400-410" uses 227cc CNC aluminum Pro1 Dart heads with the standard 23° SBC valve angle ... and an aggressive Comp Cams roller grind & valvetrain. But fuel mileage? Hmmmm ... not good.

I have scheduled development in 2014 of a mean street/track warrior LS based package & expect 820hp with "decent" fuel mileage. The LS7 port style & 12° valve angle heads we'll use have a similar cross section & flow 379cfm of air at .600" valve lift. The 227cc CNC aluminum Pro1 Dart heads with the standard 23° SBC valve angle flow 309cfm at .700". That, my friends, is a HUGE difference. We're able to achieve much more power with a much less aggressive, smaller cam profile ... and have a more drivable package with increased fuel mileage ... with that kind of cylinder head advantage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we all know ... just a short time after the original SBC came out ... hot rodders were putting it all kinds of different cars. They were bolting on parts to increase power. Engine shops were building them to awesome power for the time period. Manufacturers started developing parts to build higher power levels. The LS is the next "small block Chevy." It's like the son that paid attention and learned all that the father taught it. Now is its time. Dad can hang around ... and occasionally give "the boy" a run for his money ... but the writing is on the wall.

Personally ... I am nostalgic about people, places & style ... not technology. Talking to, or just remembering, good friends & loved ones is a feel good moment. Revisiting places I've been before brings back fond memories. I love the look & style of older cars. But if I was nostalgic for old technology ... I'd be on my 286 computer, on dial up connection or no internet at all, no smart phone, no gps, waiting at the pharmacy for my photos to process. But that's not me.

Some guys & gals want their hot rod to take them back to a simpler time where none of these high tech gadgets existed ... even if it's only for a few hours at a time. That's cool too. One thing I love about hot rodding is we all get to make our own choices, for our own reasons. Now you simply have more to choose from.

[nekkidhillbilly]

wouldnt your fuel eco go out the window without the fuel injection?

no thats a myth really. fi doesnt make that much better mpg over a carb. its a slight gain. there are more than one car with a carb pulling down 20 mpg. fi has benifits with cold start idle and all that too though.

[andrewb70]

no thats a myth really. fi doesnt make that much better mpg over a carb. its a slight gain. there are more than one car with a carb pulling down 20 mpg. fi has benifits with cold start idle and all that too though.

That's assuming that the carb is tuned perfectly for a given engine. It takes a great deal of carb tuning experience to get it right in all driving conditions. So while a carb can be made almost as efficient as EFI, few ever are.

On the other hand, EFI can be tuned very precisely, and has the ability to compensate for a tune that might not be perfect.

Andrew

[wiedemab]

I want a T-shirt that says

"Ron = Wisdom"

;)

Nice post

[bret]

The LS platform is about as close as you can get to a nuclear power pill [so far]. As for oiling issues...I've had several in cars that see some reasonably hard lateral G loadings, and have done nothing special to accommodate that with dry sumps, special baffles, etc. All good so far.

Yeah, I'm a LS disciple.

[ravege]

What I don't get with the LSx is the reasoning that goes into the swap, its all numbers and logic. Which is great! but begs the question, using that same reasoning for putting an LSx engine in your car, why on earth would you ever drive anything made in the 20th century? People will say you have to spend sooo much money to get a SBC to perform like an LSx... this coming from guys that are spending sooo much money to get their gen 1 camaro to handle like a gen 5 camaro. If the numbers argument works so well with the motor, it works equally well with the platform. Motors can be the heart and soul of a car, sad to think of the tri power GTOs that have an LSx because "the numbers were better", or someone can't afford to get their hands dirty doing routine maintenance the LSx engines don't need.

And for God's sake, if someone is so concerned about mpg, maybe the Prius is really the right car for that person.

[Zanie]

Dang! I thought this was going to be a boring thread of a bunch of people saying: "yes".

Funny and enlightening! Good read.....except for this blurb.

[uxojerry]

The SBC is not older technology it is older architecture. There is a lot more aftermarket R&D going into SBC and BBC versus LSX. After market LSX stuff has a premium attached to everything. Block, rotating assy, heads, etc. all cost more than either of the two other platforms, especially if you stick with American made components. Even the new SBC stuff with 4.5'' bore spacing is comparable to LSX after market pricing.

[PT Sportwagon]

While I have changed my mind about the whole LS in everything. I will keep my small block Buick in my wagon. May even change to a Big Block buick with earth stopping torque and only 30 lbs heavier than a SBC.

Tim

[ho428]

At some point the opening of the Hood becomes "Bleah"
Either from a non-detailed factory engine and compartment or an LS swap that's just a swap. It's like putting big rims on a classic car, just doesn't fit or look right if that's all that's done.

I've seen a few LS swaps that looked decent, especially when they get those ugly coil packs off the valve covers but IMO, there's more to a cool car than that, it's got to be a total package.
An LS in a 68 Camaro with stock suspension and brakes is a pretty bad swap regardless of rims and tires. But add DS, ST or whomever "cookie cutter" everything else and it's ok, may be passe' to some but at least it's still a total package.

[CamaroMike]

Have the LS people solved their starve for oil blow up under hard cornering issues yet? Last I heard your only choice was to go to a GM dry sump system and how much is that?

Havent seen that happen yet and have seen quite a few at the road course