Real world Engine opinions, sbc vs ls swap

[greengrenade]

Whatsup guys, i never really posted on here much as most of my activity was over on the h.a.m.b forum and my truck was originally going to be a traditional build. Well ive turned the tables on my build direction

I have a 59 apache shortbed stepside that originally had a healthy 350, th350 and 10 bolt with an 81 camaro front clip. I have completely disassembled the truck and after some work on my stock frame which has seen better days, and deciding id like to bag it and go with a modern drivetrain and steering/suspension setup, Ive decided to fab a new frame from scratch. Mustang ii front clip, 4 link rear, bagged etc. ive also decided to change my drivetrain plan. I bought a 4 speed muncie to back up what was to be a hot 355. But now im really digging the idea of a 383 or possible ls swap and either will have a 6 speed manual behind it. This truck will be driven ALOT when its done. I drove the hell out of it when i bought at age 18 and now that im 22, id like to do it right so i can run the hell out of it for the next 10 plus years

Who has experience with an injected 383? Im looking for around 400 horse, nothing too wild. But i dont wanna spend an arm and a nut on an injection setup for a 383 if its worth it in the end to pop in a 6.0 ls or similar. Again the truck is a ground up build so wiring etc will all be done from scratch. What are real world mpg numbers, reliability, driveability etc between a tbi or similar 383 and ls2. Thanks for any and all opinions

[hugger6933]

Go with the LS motor. I put a LS1 6.0 in my 68 LeMans convert and did little more than pcm reflash and exhaust upgrades and are getting close to the numbers your gonna want just by opening up the intake side and the exhaust. If you were to add a cam change into that mix you could add another say 100hp pretty easy, these motors are so held back it isn't funny. Oh, and welcome to this site hope you feel welcome here you will find a great wealth of things to help you and your truck. Jim

[sixtyeightC10]

If it weren't for the fact that I have a unique motor (300+ HP 327 with the large journal crank) that is still in great running condition, I would have been dropping in an LS motor.

Fuel injection is the way to go, as long as you understand it's operation and know how to work on it.

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by sixtyeightC10

If it weren't for the fact that I have a unique motor (300+ HP 327 with the large journal crank) that is still in great running condition, I would have been dropping in an LS motor.

Fuel injection is the way to go, as long as you understand it's operation and know how to work on it.

a 300 hp 327 is not that unique. Power ratings for 327's were 210 HP, 250 HP, 300 HP, 340 HP, 350 HP, 365 HP and 375 HP. If it were 375, it would be special but standard police Biscaynes came with the 300 HP motor, and GM made over 50,000 of those. Canadian cars had two other versions, a 295 HP and a 325 HP version of that motor.

[sixtyeightC10]

Originally Posted by Fitz

a 300 hp 327 is not that unique. Power ratings for 327's were 210 HP, 250 HP, 300 HP, 340 HP, 350 HP, 365 HP and 375 HP. If it were 375, it would be special but standard police Biscaynes came with the 300 HP motor, and GM made over 50,000 of those. Canadian cars had two other versions, a 295 HP and a 325 HP version of that motor.

Even for a truck?

[Fitz]

Originally Posted by sixtyeightC10

Even for a truck?

The GM Historical center lists only one 327 engine available as an option in a C series in 1968...the L30. That engine was de-tuned for truck applications and was rated at 245 HP @ 4400 rpm. Check your SPID. If your truck is equipped as your tag line says: 1968 C10, 327 large journal crank, TH400 trans, 12 bolt 3.73 geared rear axle there is something wrong. The 3 speed TH trans option available for the 327 equipped trucks was M49 and was only available with a 3.07 rear axle ratio.

I would say that if your truck is equipped as you say, it has been modified by a previous owner.

[sixtyeightC10]

Originally Posted by Fitz

The GM Historical center lists only one 327 engine available as an option in a C series in 1968...the L30. That engine was de-tuned for truck applications and was rated at 245 HP @ 4400 rpm. Check your SPID. If your truck is equipped as your tag line says: 1968 C10, 327 large journal crank, TH400 trans, 12 bolt 3.73 geared rear axle there is something wrong. The 3 speed TH trans option available for the 327 equipped trucks was M49 and was only available with a 3.07 rear axle ratio.

I would say that if your truck is equipped as you say, it has been modified by a previous owner.

Thanks for the reply. I'll start digging through my stuff and see where I have buried all of my info. I'm now curious to see if it is all original or has been gone through, like you said, with said items.

[67 cst swb]

LS motor... 5.3L or 6.0L

[ArkGL01]

I did LS in my truck and its the best thing I have ever done. It fires up every time and gets great gas mileage. It was best investment I have ever made in my truck yet.

[greengrenade]

Ive been searching a lot on pricing and ive found some sweet deals on ls1's, and even some very good deals on ls2's with a t56 as a package. I believe the ls2's out of the gto etc are right around 410 horse or so ? That seems plenty good, though i may do a cam swap since it will be readily accesible. I dont know much as far as tuning on fuel injection, but all my buddys my age (early 20's) are really into the the newer cars and have a ton of experience with tunes and go fast goodies on these newer engines.

The only part i need to research more is the wiring end of an ls2 swap. I know theres tons of aftermarket support, but i need to research kits etc. i can fab mounts myself, i just need to get the harness situation figured out. What kind of mileage can i expect out of an ls2 with a few goodies on it, maybe a cam, headers etc ?? I believe the gto's that came with ls2 weigh around 3850 or so, id imagine 22 or so mpg from a lightly modded ls2/t56 in a truck that weighs ~3500 is doable. Thoughts ?? Any recommendations on a kit or resources i can check for wiring applications ?

[chipflyer]

Any recommendations on a kit or resources i can check for wiring applications ?

http://lt1swap.com/ is the best source I have found for harness info. I recently swapped a 5.3 and 4l60e into my 86 Jeep J10 and did the harness modifications myself in the basement over a weekend, very fun project and Brendon will reprogram the PCM for $75.

I'm personally done with the older pre vortec stuff, they are gas hogging dinosaurs. I like the availability of newer castings, fuel injection, better milage easy starts and the overall beautiful look of the LS engine, Probably the best thing about them is that there are millions of them out there waiting to be used at great prices.
Just my 2 cents.

[shearjs]

I have a 6.0L from an 04 Silverado and with a head and cam swap, just put down 368hp/360tq to the wheels. Check out Bill at bpautomotive.com for your harness needs. I originally reworked my stock harness using the lt1swap info, but I made some changes and moved the ecu around, and decided to go with Bill's harness to save some time from reworking it again. He does very nice work.

[Heavymetl]

If you get a 5.7+ LS then don't even bother with a cam swap at first. Just free up the intake and use long tube headers. Get a re-tune, and trust me, you won't be disappointed. LT1swap.com has all the wiring schematics, and even though it looks intimidating it really isnt.

Switched 12v to:
Injector/coil bank 1
Injector/coil bank 2
pcm/maf
Heated 02 bank 1
Heated O2 bank 2

Hot battery constant 12v to:
PCM
ALDL (which is the OBDII data port)

Tie your grounds together, and be sure to ground pin #5 on the ALDL on one of the black PCM ground wires.
Other things like FAN 1&2 are triggered by a ground from the PCM, while the fuel pump control is +12v for "ON" from the PCM. Browse the internet, spend time researching LS1tech.com, and any other swap sites you see. With some effort and organizational skill re-doing a factory harness is cheap and very easy.

These engines make so much more power than the old SBC its insane. My head/cam/intake LS1 dynoed 445rwhp, 11.26@122.8, and drives smoothly down the highway at 1500rpm in 6th gear.

In my honest opinion, unless you're going for nostalgia or are not motivated to learn something new, then there is no point in building a traditional small block chevy.

As for my truck, I'm limping the 250 until the fall and I've got parts gathered for a turbo 5.3. Hey, why not enjoy 600hp and a 600rpm smooth idle?

[greengrenade]

Im not hating on the sbc, i think its one of the greatest engines of all time and i am a hugeee traditional hot rod guy. Having said that, this truck was kinda my first real project and ive learned so much on it. I do wanna learn something new and also enjoy the aspects of a modern drivetrain while taking this truck to the next level in my mind. Id also like it to handle and ride great which im hoping i can achieve pretty well with the chassis i fab

Thanks for the harness info guys. Im not opposed to an ls1 but the ls2 just seems more the route id like to take. Its already at the power levels id like and i know eventually ill want to tinker more and more with it, so why not go bigger while you can lol. Also what would be my cheapest route for acquiring these parts. Ive found low milegae ls2/t56 combos for around 5k. Doesnt seem bad, but are there short or long block options i should consider ? Im totally new to the ls scene. Id imagine finding a complete swap out of a running vehicle would be ideal and hard to beat for price and convenience

[Heavymetl]

Oh yeah, no hate for the SBC from me either! I've been around them for several years but their time has passed. As far as HP ratings go, forget the "factory" numbers.

I had a 383 in my Camaro, Dart Pro 1 aluminim 200cc heads, Comp Xr288HR cam, Air Gap Intake, MSD, 750DP carb. Ran a best of 7.42@92 in the 1/8th. Swapped in a STOCK 2002 LS1 with headers, underdrive pulley, and a tune, ran 7.62@91, with a T56. In other words, a stock 346" LS with basic breathing mods ran nearly as hard as a "built" 383. Plus the LS felt way more torquey and was a blast to drive compared to the 383.

The key with doing an LS swap is get as much as you can. The physical engines are cheap, its the nickel and dime stuff that adds up quick. The six speed tremendously increases cost, so if can score a complete LS2/t56 combo for ~4500 you're doing ok.

[1972RedNeck]

Originally Posted by Heavymetl

if can score a complete LS2/t56 combo for ~4500 you're doing ok.

I found a running driving 4X4 pickup with a twelve valve and a five speed for $3500.

[68shortwide]

Make a build thread while you do this, thinking of doing an ls as well, hope to learn alot from your build, have access to a decent 58 step also but I think I'll go carbed if I buy that one also

[greengrenade]

Heres a few pics of what ive done so far. I did a notch on the rear and had plans to keep it a static drop, but after i bagged my 62 bel air ive decided to go with air on the truck. Plus the original c channel frame is thin and has seen better days and the cost to rebuild the 81 camaro clip fully and modify this frame to the point ill be happy, i might as well just fab a new stronger one



Here you can kinda see the step notch and stuff, also i drove this truck for quite a while and eventually ended up collecting new fenders, bed sides and a cab that was all from arizona. The original sheetmetal was roached as it was daily driven in nj and quite thick with bondo


Better pic of the notch, this truck really taught me alot about fabrication


Also i went with a gmc cab just to be a bit different and made a aluminum gauge panel for it. Found a sweet deal on these classic instruments gauges used too




This is just a fraction of work ive done on the truck. Ill have to get a thread up soon, heres some pics of the 62 thats sidetracked me from the truck, this is goin in for paint this week





Pic of the interior i re did with ezboy products. Its messy in this pic

['68OrangeSunshine]

Originally Posted by greengrenade

Heres a few pics of what ive done so far. ...
Also i went with a gmc cab just to be a bit different and made a aluminum gauge panel for it. Found a sweet deal on these classic instruments gauges used too

Greengrenade: Did you jewel [or 'damascene'] that instrument panel yourself? It's beautiful. Reminds me of the cowling of the Spirit of St Louis.

[sixtyeightC10]

With all technology, things improve over the years. I can bet that back in the day the sbc was the most sought after choice for all engine upgrades. There have even been a lot of sbc transplants into may Ford and Jeep vehicles. And as time passes, improvements are made. Every so often a newer design comes along that will eventually replace the long running but tired power plants that we have grown so fond of. Of course, with all technology, bugs need to be worked out of them. For many of us who have been around for some time we have seen the new technological advances become history. And when fuel injection started to come around, people didn't like it because they didn't understand it. Fuel injection for aviation and industrial use had actually started way back in 1902, but for the automotive gasoline engines it didn't start until 1952. Throughout the years it has been in constant improvement, but have never been successful enough for mass production. It wasn't until the heavier emissions restrictions of the seventies and the eighteis that fuel injection had started to become used more widespread.

Fortunately our engines haven't been through as many improvements as fuel injection had underwent, but they still have seen technological advances. The classic sbc as we know it has had a long life spanning five decades (1955-2003), with the only major improvements being in the induction and the exhaust systems. Many of our current engines owe their thanks to the early sbc engines, for without them, we wouldn't have the power plants that we have today.

[sixtyeightC10]

Major changes[edit]

The original design of the small block remained remarkably unchanged for its production run, which began in 1955 and ended, in passenger vehicles, in 2003. The engine is still being built today for many aftermarket applications, both to replace worn-out older engines and also by many builders as high-performance applications. The principal changes to it over the years include:
1956 – Full-flow oil filtration was introduced, using a paper element filter in a canister that was mounted to a boss that was added to the left rear cylinder block casting and machined for this purpose.
1957 – The displacement of the base V-8 continued at 265 cubic inches, but optional V-8 engines were introduced with a displacement of 283 cubic inches.
1958 – Bosses for side motor mounts were added to the block casting, utilized for production mounts for this and all future model years. However, the features for front motor mounts as used in 1955–1957 remained part of the block casting in this and future years. The 265-cubic-inch version of the engine was discontinued. Also, the cylinder head valve cover mounting bolt holes were changed from the top row staggered (relative to the bottom row of bolts) to the "straight-across" pattern that remained the way of identifying the early heads from the newer ones with a valve cover design which lasted until the 1987 center-bolt-style covers.
1962 – The block's cylinder wall casting was revised to allow four-inch bores, and the 327-cubic-inch version of the engine, using this bore diameter and increased stroke, was introduced.
1967 - The oil filter mounting now came from the factory with an adapter and machining to allow the use of spin-on filters; canister mounting was possible by removing the adapter.
1968 – The main-journal diameter was increased from 2.30" (small) to 2.45" (medium), and the connecting-rod journal diameter was increased to 2.10" from 2.00". This allowed the use of cast-iron crankshafts; the previous crankshafts were made of forged steel, which was more expensive. The rod bolts were changed from 11/32" diameter to 3/8". The oil-fill location was moved from a tube on the front of the intake manifold to a cap on the left- or right-side valve cover, depending upon the application.
1970 - The "400" is introduced in September 1969 for the 1970 model year, with a bore of 4.125" and a stroke of 3.75". This engine introduced the "large-journal" crankshaft with a main journal size of 2.65" and rod bearing journals of 2.10". This engine also introduced "Siamese bores" to the Chevrolet small-block line, requiring "steam holes" in the cylinder heads and head gaskets, which were used to prevent hot spots and subsequent overheating. The connecting rods, due to the long stroke, are also shorter at 5.565", differing from all other 5.7" small-block connecting rods.
1986 – The rear main seal was changed from a 2-piece rubber design to a 1-piece rubber design that used a mounting appliance to hold it in place. This necessitated a change in the flywheel/flexplate bolt pattern as well as requiring an externally balanced flexplate/flywheel.
1987 – The valve cover surfaces were changed so that the mounting lip was raised and the bolt location was moved from 4 bolts on the perimeter to 4 bolts along the centerline of the valve covers (this design debuted on the Corvette in 1986, and the Chevrolet 4.3 L the year before). Also changed were the mounting angles of the two center bolts on each side of the intake manifold (from 90 to 73 degrees), and the lifter bosses were increased in height to accept roller lifters; the aluminum-alloy heads for use on the Corvette engines retained the non-angled bolts. Also, all carburetors were replaced by TBI (throttle-body injection) fuel injection.
1996 – This was the last change for the Generation I engine, which continued through the end of the production run in 2003; all 1997–2003 Generation I engines were "Vortec" truck engines. The cylinder heads were redesigned, using improved ports and combustion chambers similar to those in the Generation II LT1, resulting in significant power increases. The intake manifold bolt pattern was also changed to four bolts per cylinder head instead of the "traditional" six bolts.

[Doug's68SS]

You have already answered your question, you plan on driving the hell out of it then LS it is.
If you were going to try to show it and only drive on occasion stick with the Stock look.

[greengrenade]

Yea from what i understand the germans and other had fuel injection dialed in back in the 50's on a lot of engines. I think race stuff more specifically. I could be wrong tho. Now if only america would catch up to the guys over the pond with diesel vehicles........

Anyways. From what ive gathered, and it was mentioned above^^^ truck motors are much much cheaper. Downfall being the iron block, well really just the weight of the iron block. Ive read the sleeves on the aluminum block have there downfalls as well. I believe the truck version 6.0 came in at around 330 horse or something similar?? Id assume i could swap parts around and bump the power considerably on that engine to get it back around 400hp, ill have to research more tho. And i know the automatics would be cheaper and easier, but i like rowing gears man, just personal preference i guess. And ive always wanted a 6 speed. Lol i had a 12v cummins i blew the automatic up in and swapped to a 5 speed, my jeep actually had problems with the supposedly super strong aw4 auto in it, and my apache had issues with the th350 in it( although id probably blame that on the previous owner). Regardless, ive kinda lost faith in automatics, and i just prefer the experience of a manual anyways

[sixtyeightC10]

Originally Posted by greengrenade

Yea from what i understand the germans and other had fuel injection dialed in back in the 50's on a lot of engines. I think race stuff more specifically. I could be wrong tho. Now if only america would catch up to the guys over the pond with diesel vehicles........

Anyways. From what ive gathered, and it was mentioned above^^^ truck motors are much much cheaper. Downfall being the iron block, well really just the weight of the iron block. Ive read the sleeves on the aluminum block have there downfalls as well. I believe the truck version 6.0 came in at around 330 horse or something similar?? Id assume i could swap parts around and bump the power considerably on that engine to get it back around 400hp, ill have to research more tho. And i know the automatics would be cheaper and easier, but i like rowing gears man, just personal preference i guess. And ive always wanted a 6 speed. Lol i had a 12v cummins i blew the automatic up in and swapped to a 5 speed, my jeep actually had problems with the supposedly super strong aw4 auto in it, and my apache had issues with the th350 in it( although id probably blame that on the previous owner). Regardless, ive kinda lost faith in automatics, and i just prefer the experience of a manual anyways

The information that you have posted regarding the truck LS engines is good to know. There are a few truck versions of the LS available in my local salvage yards, probably even more so than the car versions.

When the newer style dodge came out in the early 90's, they were notorious for dropping their slush boxes.

The AW4 is a god strong automatic, unless it has not been taken care of and maintained properly. Their major downfall was that they generated excessive amounts of heat.

I currently am on my second TH400 (and 12-bolt rearend) in my '68. Eventually I would like to go for a heavy duty overdrive, like the 4L80E or either a 5-speed or 6-speed manual.

I guess the only reason that I have not swapped out my motor for an LS is probably that I am partial to the little power plant and it's simplicity. Don't get me wrong, I can work on wiring and fuel injection, but I'm not ready to take on that project yet. Besides, why replace the engine when it is in perfect running condition?

[streetstar]

Originally Posted by greengrenade

I believe the truck version 6.0 came in at around 330 horse or something similar?? Id assume i could swap parts around and bump the power considerably on that engine to get it back around 400hp, ill have to research more tho. anyways

I have an 07 6.0 and i believe it is factory rated at 360 or 365. --granted, not an earth shattering difference over 330, but with the factory 6 speed auto, it can haul the mail for a crew cab 3/4 ton
I have been looking for one off and on for my project---- im not a serious go faster, so the stock 6.0 would be fine for me in the much ighter c10