TKO600 with LSX???

[scherp69]

So I know nothing about putting an LS engine into an older car. I have a question that may seem dumb to some of you. I'm leaning towards putting an LSX (possibly the new GM LSX454) into my 68 Acadian (Nova). I already have a new TKO600 and would rather not get rid of it. Can I use the TKO600 with a fuel injected LS if I do go that route? Any info would be great. Thanks in advance.

[ProdigyCustoms]

No problem, you just need the right flywheel / clutch set up. You can use you small block bell, just will be missing one bolt hole at the top you can do without. You will need to you a hydraulic release bearing.

[scherp69]

Thanks Frank. I'll be giving you a call when I get closer. I wanted to get a scattershield instead of the bellhousing anyways.

[andrewb70]

No problem, you just need the right flywheel / clutch set up. You can use you small block bell, just will be missing one bolt hole at the top you can do without. You will need to you a hydraulic release bearing.

There is no need for a special clutch. Any flywheel and clutch package that is designed for any engine other than the LS9 will work with the TKO 600. You can also use a mechanical clutch linkage since the TKO has a bearing retainer similar to a Muncie. The bellhousing that you use must have provisions for a clutch fork pivot and you will need to figure something out for the clutch linkage z-bar attaching point, since the LSx block has no such provisions. You must also use the LS7 style pilot bearing. More details can be found in my build thread. Link in sig. The TKO will fit just like a Richmond 6spd does. I prefer a hydraulic TOB.

Andrew

[scherp69]

Thanks Andrew. Great build btw. Nice detail on the build too. So it sounds like it would be easier to just switch to a hydraulic set up then? When I ordered the kit, I was told that since my car will be sitting over the winters, a mechanical set up is better. With a hydraulic set up, I was told I'd have to go out and pump it every month or so to make sure it works properly. Any truth to this???

[andrewb70]

....With a hydraulic set up, I was told I'd have to go out and pump it every month or so to make sure it works properly. Any truth to this???

Would you go out and pump your brakes every month?

Andrew

[scherp69]

No...my wife's got a 97 Camaro and I'm assuming it has a hydraulic clutch and it sits all winter. We don't touch it and it works fine every spring. Not sure why I was told that. It was one of the techs from a very reputable Tremec dealer too. I'll switch to hydraulic in the spring when I get the motor.

[KeislerRich]

There is no need for a special clutch. Any flywheel and clutch package that is designed for any engine other than the LS9 will work with the TKO 600. You can also use a mechanical clutch linkage since the TKO has a bearing retainer similar to a Muncie. The bellhousing that you use must have provisions for a clutch fork pivot and you will need to figure something out for the clutch linkage z-bar attaching point, since the LSx block has no such provisions. You must also use the LS7 style pilot bearing. More details can be found in my build thread. Link in sig. The TKO will fit just like a Richmond 6spd does. I prefer a hydraulic TOB.

Andrew

While I don't post here alot, I do lurk and read and figured out along time ago, that you are the resident "go to guy" for good, accurate, information...

The question I have is the statement above about using any clutch as long as it is not LS9?. What I have found when mating TKO's up to LS engines is because the LS crank is inset further to the engine than a standard SBC (about 7/16" or so) that using a standard clutch throws off the geometry of the throw of the clutch fork? Have you not seen that? When using an LS specfic clutch and flywheel, they are inset moreso than a standard clutch and flywheel setup but the finger height is about 1" taller than a standard SBC clutch kit(and flwyheel).

I/we had a customer of ours who came by 1 afternoon with a LS motor and we spent the better part of an afternoon measuring and mocking up a TKO to it. The 1st thing we noticed was that a regular LS pilot bearing in the crank did not support the input shaft. In fact, the input shaft fell short of reaching the pilot bearing. We rectified this by using a "stepped" pilot bearing that protrudes from the crank flange hub about 3/8". The next thing I noticed was that when using a standard GM 621 bell with it's 6.29 depth and a standard clutch and flywheel, we couldn't get the clutch adjustment right and the geometry was out of whack so we switched to a deeper bell. One that was 6.5" deep. All in all, it was a great learning experience for myself and opened my eyes to trials and issues that hot rodding presents.

Once again, the only reason I bring this up is because every time I read a thread here, you seem to always have great, accurate advice/information and I was curious as to what you have found when working with this particular swap?



Richard
Tech Support

[69importkilla]

I have found a couple of points myself that could use some comments.

There is a .400" difference in crank flange locations relative to the bellhousing mounting surface between GEN 1 and GEN III engines. Some people say that its not that big of a deal, but yes there is possible geometry issue that can possibly be corrected with a taller TO bearing or a taller ball stud. I personally am using McLeods new flywheel which is .400" thicker to accomodate for this difference.

I believe Keisler's bellhousing for this application is cast .200" deeper than a 621 bellhousing which further worsens this condition. Which is why I dont understand Richards comment.

The next thing I noticed was that when using a standard GM 621 bell with it's 6.29 depth and a standard clutch and flywheel, we couldn't get the clutch adjustment right and the geometry was out of whack so we switched to a deeper bell. One that was 6.5" deep.

This has been a debated subject for sometime now. There really isnt a clear source of information for new comers to this swap and it would be nice to hammer out information on a swap that is becoming more popular....

[andrewb70]

While I don't post here alot, I do lurk and read and figured out along time ago, that you are the resident "go to guy" for good, accurate, information...

The question I have is the statement above about using any clutch as long as it is not LS9?. What I have found when mating TKO's up to LS engines is because the LS crank is inset further to the engine than a standard SBC (about 7/16" or so) that using a standard clutch throws off the geometry of the throw of the clutch fork? Have you not seen that? When using an LS specfic clutch and flywheel, they are inset moreso than a standard clutch and flywheel setup but the finger height is about 1" taller than a standard SBC clutch kit(and flwyheel).

I/we had a customer of ours who came by 1 afternoon with a LS motor and we spent the better part of an afternoon measuring and mocking up a TKO to it. The 1st thing we noticed was that a regular LS pilot bearing in the crank did not support the input shaft. In fact, the input shaft fell short of reaching the pilot bearing. We rectified this by using a "stepped" pilot bearing that protrudes from the crank flange hub about 3/8". The next thing I noticed was that when using a standard GM 621 bell with it's 6.29 depth and a standard clutch and flywheel, we couldn't get the clutch adjustment right and the geometry was out of whack so we switched to a deeper bell. One that was 6.5" deep. All in all, it was a great learning experience for myself and opened my eyes to trials and issues that hot rodding presents.

Once again, the only reason I bring this up is because every time I read a thread here, you seem to always have great, accurate advice/information and I was curious as to what you have found when working with this particular swap?



Richard
Tech Support

Richard,

I can't really comment about the issues that might pop up when mating a TKO to an LSx engine in conjunction with using a mechanical clutch linkage. You are certainly correct in stating that the LS crank flange does sit closer to the block. This creates a problem with the pilot bearing and I can certainly see that it might present a problem with the geometry of a clutch fork. I always prefer to use a hydraulic TOB so this has not been an issue that I have dealt with. One possible solution is to use a mechanical TOB with a different height. Getting a taller clutch pivot will also do it. Frankly, when all is said and done, I would prefer to use a hydraulic setup because it is simple to setup and it solves the problem of not having a z-bar pivot on the side of the LSx block.

I am using one of your 621 bellshousings with a Richmond 6spd. For the purpose of this discussion it fits the same way that a TKO would fit. I solved the pilot bearing issue by using an LS7 pilot bearing. Here is a picture of how my Richmond trans works with the LS7 pilot bearing and the 621 bellhousing:



What this discussion tells me is that everyone needs to double check their own combination, because obviously there can be a whole set of issues that arise when mixing and matching parts.

Andrew

[69importkilla]

Curious though Andrew, where does the clutch disk ride in that same mock-up? I bet it rides pretty close to the end of the splines? And how much engagement of the shaft into the bearing did you get?

[andrewb70]

Curious though Andrew, where does the clutch disk ride in that same mock-up? I bet it rides pretty close to the end of the splines? And how much engagement of the shaft into the bearing did you get?

Have a look here:



If you look closely, you will see two marks that I made with a Sharpie. One is on the splines and the other is on the tip of the input shaft. The mark on the splines is where the disk is, the other mark shows how far the input shaft engages the pilot. All of that looked good to me.

Andrew

[Motown 454]

Nioce post Andrew and good information.

[KeislerRich]

....I believe Keisler's bellhousing for this application is cast .200" deeper than a 621 bellhousing which further worsens this condition. Which is why I dont understand Richards comment. .......

What I found when doing measurements on an actual LS motor that a customer of ours brought by here contradicted what an article in Car Craft magazine said(I think it was Car Craft).
In that article, they attempted to use our modified TKO and LS version bell housing (6.5" deep) along with McLeods clutch and flywheel combo for an LS.
The Mcleod clutch and flwyheel combo was built thicker so that it "takes up" the difference of the inset LS crank flange hub. In the article, they had issues getting everything to work and what I determined was this....
Keisler has been doing LS conversion kits for about 3 years now and we have our own combination of parts that go together perfectly on an LS equipped car. McLeod also has their own combination of parts to mate an LS motor to a manual transmission. The problem the article ran across is when they attempted to use parts from both Keisler and McLeod and expected them to work in conjunction with one another. That's ridiculous. McLeod and Keisler DID NOT work together in coming up with a solution to the problem. We each took different approaches. You can't expect parts from 2 completely different companies with different approaches to work together with no problems at all.

Now.... becuase the article used the McLeod clutch and flywheel which is thicker and puts the pressure plate fingers back out towards the transmission as opposed to the LS specific flywheel and clutch, our bell housing, 6.29" deep, in conjunction with these parts, made it impossible for us to get the geometry correct on a mechanical linkage setup. The throw out bearing was riding the fingers of the pressure plate. Therefore, when I switched to our LS version 621 that is 6.5" deep, the extra .200" or so, gave me the extra room to get the bearing adjusted properly.

Keisler's method for mating a TKO up to an LS uses our 6.5" bell, an LS specific clutch and flywheel as well as a stepped up pilot bearing much like the one McLeod used in the article and as I said, we have been selling this combination of parts for over 3 years now and nver have had a failure.

Just like Andrewb70....we prefer to use hydraulics instead of mechanical linkage as do most of our customers (running LS motors). Also...Andrew's statement about everyone double checking their own combination is perfect and to the point.



Richard
Tech Support

[69importkilla]

Now thats the type of info, I've been looking for....

Thanks Richard for the clarification, I think it will help a lot of people new to this particular conversion...

Now, can you make a suggestion using Keisler's parts for the following:

LSx motor with a "viperized" T-56. I know a few people in this forum and LS1Tech that are doing exactly the same thing and I would like to pass the info along...

[JEFFTATE]

I'm confused.....

[69importkilla]

thanks for the broad statement! What are you confused about?

[andrewb70]

I'm confused.....

What are you confused about Jeff?

Andrew

[JEFFTATE]

thanks for the broad statement! What are you confused about?

I was just cutting up.
Thanks for asking.

This is the sort of info that I would have to visually compare.
( I just can't visualize the differences. )
No biggy.

Thank you.

[KeislerRich]

I was just cutting up.
Thanks for asking.

This is the sort of info that I would have to visually compare.
( I just can't visualize the differences. )
No biggy.

Thank you.

I have the same problem. If I can't see it first hand, it's hard for me to visualize and understand. Fortunately for us, we had a gracious customer who was willing to swing by here with his newly acquired LS motor. Prior to that, I had been comparing drawings and pictures from articles, trying to get a good understanding.

If you, or someone you know, has an LS motor that you can look at, take a tape measure (micrometer would be better) and go and compare measurements. Start by getting an accurate measurement from the front face of the transmission out to the tip of the input shaft. Then take a measurement of the depth of the bell housing you are using. Get a measurement from the engine to bell mating surface, out to the flange on the crank as well as the thickness of the flange itself. Get a measurement of the depth of the crank where the input shaft goes in.
By comparing the input shaft length, against the depth of the bell housing with the crank height(distance from the engine to bell mating surface), you can get an idea of how much engagement you'll have of the input into the pilot bearing.
Until you figure out which clutch and flywheel combo you'll be using, it's hard to determine (or measure) for the clutch finger stackup height, to determine the throw out bearing placement as well as where the disc is going to ride on the splines of the input.

Does that clear it up at all or just confuse you more?




Richard
Tech Support
Keisler Engineering