Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

Ok so im in the midst of doing my first engine swap, I am using a lq4 out of a 2000 silverado, this is what I have, or will be getting so far,
Stock lq4 bottom end
Livernoise stage 2. 243 heads, stock replacement head gaskets
Doug thorley mid length 1 7/8" mid length headers
Plan on putting ls6 intake/ throttle body on top
Double roller timing chain

4l80e, probably a 3000 rpm stall running 3:73 posi in a 12 bolt rear end with a 28-29" tire

Looking for a good street able cam with a nice chop
So far I'm kinda set on the, TSP 228r with 112 lsa

Any input would be greatly appreciated, but bear with me as I'm still learning about building engines, ls swaps, Also anyone running a setup like this what kind of power are you making
Posted via Mobile Device

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

If you want an actual rough idle your LSA should be tighter like 109-110.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

Shoot the guys from Comp Cams a cam suggestion request, their Lsr cams are very specific to application. I contacted them for mine a 6l with L92 heads, 700r with 3.73 gears for my Blazer. They came up with the 281lsr, here is what it sounds like in a 2010 Camaro.... sorry motor for the blazer is still on the engine stand.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

Ok cool I might do that, that cam sounds good
Posted via Mobile Device

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

It will take them a week or so to get back to you but...its worth it. Really, whats more disappointing than shelling out a crap load of cash for something that is suppose to make it faster and it falls flat on its face... As for the sound of that cam...I love it. I play it through the surround sound LOUD..It makes me happy

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

why 243s instead of 317s or l92 heads? Other than that you have pretty much the exact combo I'd like to put in mine. Be sure to link your build thread if you have one!

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

Oohh ya... it made 455 hp at the Wheels

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

The heads are from livernoise stage 2 ls heads,

I don't have a build thread yet but I'm taking some pics and might start one once I get into it a bit more
Posted via Mobile Device

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

I built this car for my brother. LQ4 with stock 317 heads, Comp Cams XR281HR, 228/230, .571"/.573" - 112 LSA, patriot dual springs, 4L80E with a 9.5" 3400 stall.


Made 536 to the tires on a 150 shot.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

I was looking at that cam too,it makes great power and sounds awesome. With the L92 flow characteristics I can get away with some more lift. SWEET Monte.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

This is a really good practical setup. I would go with a TBSS (trail blazer SS) or new style 07-13 intake( both are the same) and 90 mm throttle body. these will save you money in the long run. With this intake you can run the truck accessories. I would look at a 3500-3600 stall also. Get a custom stall from Yank, PI, Circle D or FTI.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

Truck accessories and "car" intakes are not mutually exclusive.

More pics of the monte.
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e...p/IMG_4698.jpg

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/e...p/IMG_4697.jpg

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

I've heard the ls6 cam and springs are a good alternative to the stock truck cam.....especially if you can find a good used one.....

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

Onboard for future reference.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

OK guys, "Stage x" doesn't mean ANYTHING. Not since the Buick GS has the phrase "stage" in front of a setup mean anything, its just an arbitrary word. Stage 3 always sounds cooler than stage 2...its 1 more!

If you are going to buy expensive aftermarket heads, and do an intake swap...then just get an L92 setup and put the extra cash into the cam and stuff. The l92's are just nice with it in the flow game. The intake manifolds that go with them are also superior. Its not more work then what your already planning to do, and if you tell your harness person, it shouldn't make any drastic differences in the cost/work in the harness.

You can also run more cam since you'll have the flow to use it, between L92's and DT big tubes. Drop the lsa down, if you want that lump. 109-111 will usually get you there in good form. The 112 is ok depending on the cam, but anything higher and you might be disappointed.

I'd also think about going with a little more stall. With the right cam that will pull past 6k, and a good stall will give you a nice challenge to hold back with foot brakes.

North of 400 at the wheels wouldn't even be a second thought, even through the 80e.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

I'm running the setup similar to what you are wanting and I love it. Please see my sig. I have a vid of my truck running with open headers some where, I'll see if I can find it and post it here.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

To get the most out of your combo, don't get an off the shelf cam. You can get everything you want and possibly a little more with a custom grind. PatG, Martin@tick, and a few others over on ls1tech will get you what you want. The price difference between off the shelf and custom grind is negligible. 243s are good heads and with some port work are great heads for stock castings and will give you fairly big bump in compression compare to 317s. Should be a good running combo for sure.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

And both fall short of what the l92 can do.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

L92's on a stock short block 6 liter are overkill. You'll get more power under the curve with cathedral port heads. Sure, they'll make more power over 5500 but how often are you there?
Now, FI…another story.

Any decent aftermarket cam will get the job done. 228r is a great grind and a 112 will chatter nice at idle. The rest of your plan sounds good. It should move good. Maybe think about a little more converter.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

take-off L92's on a cammed 6.0, with the DT big primary longtubes, is not overkill...especially not when comparing it to going with an aftermarket head like was originally considered.

And again, why would you go through all the work of buying the ls car intake, aftermarket heads etc, and spending more to make less power.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

I agree. If I didn't already have the van intake and DBC setup I'd probably be going L92.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

A cathedral port will give more power under the curve on a stock displacement 6 liter than a rectangle port head.
That's what OP is after based on his mild converter and gear selection.
Peak power the rectangle will pull ahead but it shines over 5k.

I went rectangle on mine as with boost it's a whole different ballgame.

For OP, I'd just leave the 317's as they are, swap valvesprings and stick the cam in it and enjoy it. 317's have the same intake runner as 243's, just a bigger combustion chamber to drop compression.
If you want to bump compression pull them and have them milled or get a set of 799's.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

um no not so. this is a very mild cam, does not even require a stall. 221/226 .565/.560 on 114 http://youtu.be/XGpzf7mNJxs now don't get me wrong its not radical sounding but it hits hard enough

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

Sorry, that is not a big cam and it does not sound like one. Put exhaust on it and it will tame the lope down a lot.

LSA and overlap are the key components to a rowdy idle.
Here, good reading:
http://www.crankshaftcoalition.com/w...ose_a_camshaft

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

Well im not sure if this reply is for me but i said this is a mild cam, and it has a full 3" exhaust with headers and turbo muffler. Lsa does make the overlap and sound difference but what you really need to consider is the rpm range and driving style of the car or truck. I have. A friend with a dunk proven 450 whp ss camaro with oddles of $ thrown at it and another buddy with a ta with tune exhaust and 6speed eats his lunch in the 1/4.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

You make no sense. First you say LSA has nothing to do with sound then you do. Which way is it?

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

look dude I was not saying that it did not make a difference. what I was getting at is that ls engines are not like old school engines that run 106-110 duraration. the point is that just because the cam does not have a lot of overlap does not mean you wont hear it. believe me I know what makes power and I know the difference between usable power and max power. most people like my buddy with the 2010 ss Camaro go for #S and for the radical sound. and they end up with a ride that is almost impossible to drive everyday. he has to keep his foot in it to keep from having slow speed stall and dying issues. but the sound and dyno #s are rad. most people on the net are looking for advice and most want that cam sound. and most jake legs tell them oh you need a 228-232 cam with a 112 and those are good if you want to deal with some drivability issues and put out for a $$$ stall that will run your tranny hot in regular traffic. yes I know for ls even those are med cams. but most people who have been doing it a while will tell you that a mild cam is a lot more fun to drive and the tq in the low speed gives a great seat of the pants feel expecially if you have a good set of gears. if you have a heavy truck or any kind of heavy vehicle. your better with less overlap and more slow speed tq. I was just proving you can have a good sounding truck even with a mild cam! Also before anyone else blowes up this thread I like the 228-230 ish cams. infact if you can get a stall id say the best all around is the 228R much bigger than that for the street and you are peeing in the wind. just my .02

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

I agree but I thought he already had the heads. If not, then it will be cheaper to do the L92 swap bc the heads can stay stock and move alot of air. 799/243s are the best stock cathedral port heads you can get, rectangle ports are a totally different beast.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

I'm not attacking you, sorry, I'm very direct…we're on the same page.
A good tuner can make even the big/nasty cams easy to drive.
My LS2 GTO had a MS3, 237/242 on a 111. I daily drove it in the summer. FWIW, that car made 452 to the tire, stock 243's and short block - cam, FAST 90, MS3, Kooks LT's.
A friend had a 427/solid roller 99 SS that I tuned, it was tame as a kitten(literally reach in and tap the key and it'd sit and idle till it ran out of gas) despite idling like a pro-mod. It made 510rwhp N/A and ran bottom 10's.

With those bad manners your friend's camaro exhibits he needs to find a new tuner.

OP - your plan sounds great. The only thing I'd think about would be a little more converter. I think you'll regret going rectangle on the heads, the ports are just too big to provide sufficient velocity at low RPM. They do flow more and will make more peak HP, at the expense of grunt.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

What about where the OP will drive it most? If he's making frequent highway trips the low end power may not matter as much to him. Opposite if its all around town driving.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

I keep hearing about how bad the rectangular port (L92/LS3) heads are on 6.0's...yet GM configured motors that way, as in the LY6 and L76 (plus 2 hybrids?). Now I can't speak to how the LY6 would run in stock form as I never ran it that way....its 1st spark was w/o the VVT setup and running a Comp 223/231 .610/.617 112 LSA cam and the required supporting gear....but having run it with both a carb setup and more recently with efi it has run very strong at lower rpm's and has always pulled very well. I compare to the old 383sbc it had previously as well as my 400hp/400tq LS2 powered and 4.10 geared TrailBlazerSS....and my cam'd LY6 powered truck pulls considerably harder.

just sayin...

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

The ly6 starts off with like .2-.3 more compression, and the ls3's were like 10.7-10.9, so the only thing I can think of is that the lack of compression and huge flow mean that it needs to get up a few r's....making it lose a few under the curve.

With the difference on the ls3 it makes sense I suppose, but I'm surpised that the .2-.3 difference between the lq4/ly6 would make as big a difference as some folks feel it does. I wonder if comparing the lq9 would eliminate most of that.

I'd still go l92, so when you get bored you don't have to go back and say "well I Coulda gone with the l92s" Room to grow, like buying kids shoes a half size big.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

Agreed. Not to mention, how come everyone is saying the l92s are too big, but the 1-7/8" headers aren't too big? Don't get me wrong, I run them on my stock lq4 for the same reason mentioned above, room to grow, but I thought they were less efficient on mild engines than the smaller primary version. Why get better flowing headers and not do the heads too?

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

Think about what you're saying here.
Highway = cruising at 2-2500. Rectangle ports won't pull ahead of cathedrals until 5k+ and then it's only @ WOT…highway PULLS, not cruising.

They're not BAD per se, there's just no reason to go to them when cathedral ports will easily get the job done.
Now, if you're starting from scratch and are going to be shooting for the moon then by all means do it. I'm not stating they won't make more power than cathedral port heads just that for a street motor that's going to run stoplight to stoplight they won't provide as good a result as cathedral heads.

You need to remember that LY6's/L76's and LS3's have VVT advancing and retarding the cam…When I was messing with the tune in our new Sierra Denali I locked it out and it made a HUGE difference in the midrange.

Big tube headers aren't going to gain much on an LQ4 but they will help out up top. I had them on my GTO and was glad I didn't get the 1-3/4 version.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

Idk what gears you have, but with my 4l80 and 3.73s I'm usually in the 27-2800 range on the highway, still not way up there sure, but when you need to get around someone on the highway you won't be putzing about.

Regardless, what we're saying is that if you are building the engine and you have the choice of rectangle or cathedrals, why choose a "stage" cathedral over a stock rectangle? You're definitely not saving any money.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

The "VVT / LS3" thing is tricky, because NOT all ls3's had vvt. M6 cars didn't come with AFM or VVT because of misfire detection problems.

The cars also had fly-cut relief in the pistons, changing their PTV clearance and making what works on one not necessarily work on the other. IIRC the version was the L99.

Billett- I run just a tad lower 24-2600, tho sometimes getting to 2800 closer to 75. This is through a 12bolt / 3;73s, my 4l80e, and a pair of heavy wheels with MT 325/50's



*woo I'm over 3k posts....

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

There wasn't an LS3 with VVT. It's the L99 like you said....but the LS3 itself has no VVT (or AFM). It's the off-shoots of that generation that have those features. LY6/L76, L92, L99, etc


............and if your on the fence just build your LQ4 with its OEM 317 heads and you'll be fine. If you decide you want more you can always add some L92's/LS3's later....maybe even get you some CNC'd LS3's....

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

This^ I think this thread has gotten way off track so let's bring it back, since I'm pretty sure we all agree anyway.

OP, if you have the stage 2 heads already, there's no point discussing this. Do it up and post pics! If you are just freshening the engine up and plan to keep it stock for a bit, keep the stock heads. If you plan on pushing some power through it, and plan to tear it apart, go for l92s.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

I am very curious, who that has commented in this thread has actually:

Built or helped build combos using similar combos using both a cathedral head and a L92 type head?

Have put multiple different cam shafts in the same motor only to see the results different valve events have on said combo?

Have dyno and track tested these different combos? Including tuning them?


I am not pointing at anyone specific, but it sure is easy to regurgitate what one reads on the internet.


I'm not going to get in a pissing match, but there is a lot of bad info with a little bit of good here.

Re: Lq4 Cam/ motor input ???
 

What are your thoughts then? Not trying to start anything either, I'm curious because if what I've read is wrong I'd like to correct it.