Hi,
I am currently restoring an MGB GT 1966. I would like to install an LS1.Having used this engine on a previous project with excellent results in both power and reliability.
I looked at some photos posted on "British V8" web site.
A few questions:
1. It looks as if the inner wings and bulkhead is unchanged is this correct.
2. What age is the body shell Is it a three syncro transmission tunnel or the wide later tunnel
3. What transmission was used? – I was thinking of the T5 due to the restrictions in the tunnel
4. The car is fitted with a "Fast" front cross member - how is this on the road?
Regards
Neil
Were you looking at Keith Tanner's car or a different one? His is a '72 so wider tunnel & uses a T56. Pics I've seen of his don't show the front cross member so not sure he used FastCars IFS.
As I recall, Keith discarded the MGB crossmember in lieu of his own structure and a Miata-based custom front suspension.
How is the Fast Cars suspension on the road? Regardless of what engine is installed, the Fast Cars suspension will perform pretty much the same. Excellent precision and ride quality. Significantly lower steering effort than stock, even with greatly oversize tires and track width. More information here: http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/MGB-Front-Suspension-Upgrade.htm and here: http://www.britishv8.org/Articles/2007-TechSession2.htm
I've heard of so many MGB LS1 conversions, but so far I haven't received a How It Was Done submission...
Have any of them been actually finished? We haven't had one at the annual meet yet that I can recall.
JB
Chris Longo in Pittsburg completed his last year (gt). I'll see if I can get him to submit some details
I have not heard from Chris, but here are a couple of pics I found.
LS1MGBb.jpg
LS1MGBa.jpg
There are a number of threads on this site and others on the LS1, the main concern in the transmission tunnel. The smallest manual I transmission can find is the Ford T5 from a Cosworth Sierra. But the size and width of the belhousing LS1 could cause problems. The aim of the project is to keep the car as stock as possible and changes need to be reversible. – This could be a pipe dream.
I tried to post photos using the fink at the bottom of the page. It didn't work any guidance would be appreciated.
The floors, chassis rail and roll cage is finished not sure on the Sebring arches. This is in keeping with the ability to reverse any of the work.
Neil
Why do you want it reversible?
This is not advice, just my opinion and I'm sure others will disagree with me. Having put a V8 in a chrome bumper MG, and it wasn't even a LS1, I'd have to say the chance of reverting back to original is at best doubtful; there are just way too many modifications necessary to make it work and though I'm not saying it couldn't be patched back together, the firewall would probably have to be replaced entirely. Keep in mind the Chevy engine is 2" wider than a Ford. I'm also not sure the cost, and man-hours of reversing the modifications would result is a higher value car.
These cars are not irreplaceable classics with only a few treasured examples existing in the world. The fact the MGB's are relatively plentiful and inexpensive is what makes them such good candidates for doing these engine swaps. If you have a car that has special meaning to you in some way, keep it stock and preserve the memories and buy another car to do the swap with. Getting a V8 engine in an MGB requires cutting if you are going to do it right ie: half the engine is not sticking out of the hood and the car does not handle miserably. My car has less than 300 lbs of original MG metal remaining and of the remaining panels there is not a single one that has not been modified. Mine is probably an extreme example but go through the gallery of MGB's and see what others have done to make a good swap.
As I recall, the Sierra 5-speed is a T9 - not a T5 - and the torque rating is about half what you'll want for an LS1.
I've never understood why people want changes to be reversible... it shows a shortage of confidence. If the modification are good, no one will ever want to reverse them! That said, just about anything you can do to an MGB can be put back to original since all the parts are available brand new except the skinny first generation ("non-synchro") transmission tunnel, which the GT in question doesn't have, and even those tunnels can be found in good used condition. Is it about the money? Anyone who's trying to make money by fixing up MGBs should probably have their head examined. If you're not doing it for fun, you're doing it for the wrong reason.
Curtis, thanks for your comments. – Certainly not in it for the money. We have a superb historic rally net work in the UK. This was my basis for the comments about the ability to reverse any work. I don't want to rule eligibility for some events in the long term. I think the answer is to run a four cylinder 16 Valve engine as opposed to the V8.
The Ford T5 (N5) via T9
The Borg Warner T5 is used on the Cosworth Sierra and also Mustang . There are two versions a T5 the Mustang being the stronger.
The T9 is used in the Ford Sierra and Capri etc and your correct its only good for 150bhp. I have seen the conversion on the standard 1800cc B engine.
Thanks Neil
In the UK a good 4 cylinder choice might be the Rover T16 turbo engine. 200 bhp as standard on the later ones. 180 bhp before that. As it is a desendant of the B series I think you can put a B series back plate on the block and use your original gear box!!! A guy did this with a 3 syncro box. You can improve the laygear/shaft life in the 4 sync by modifying it to take more bearings.
However, an LT77 could be used with minor tunnel mods and the rwd bell housing from an SD1 Rover 2000, a 5 speed O series Sherpa van, Rover M16/T16 powered Morgan Plus 4 or the short lived T16 powered LR Discovery. None of which grow on trees but they come up on ebay from time to time.
If you want to keep the heater you would have to mirror the inlet manifold.
Nearing completion (8 months) of my 302/T5 conversion into my '67 GT... I don't know why anyone would want to put an LS1 in one of these cars. I'm not talking about power or reliability... just the act of physically cramming one in there! I can understand not being a Ford guy and wanting to put a Chevy motor in your car... but geez... just doing it would almost make someone want to convert! :)
In way of reversing the modifications... hey, anything is possible, but you won't. Nobody in the history of V8 MGB's has every converted their car back to stock. I think thats pretty safe to say.
Good luck with your project. ESPECIALLY if you decide to go LS1...
-Chris
What Chris said. Personally I don't know why anyone would want to put a SBF in their car when a 300 Buick is so much easier. No cutting the frame, no cutting the crossmember, all off the shelf parts. And if you want to can go back easily.
JB
Jim,
Mainly so I wouldn't have to have a blower sticking out of my hood to make a lot of power. :)
Plus the expense of making decent power with a 215. I've got friends with these engines in their cars. The money they have in their engines is insane. The one with the stroker especially.
You got me beat on the fitment though! Can't beat a 215 for cramming into small British cars. The weight is also a very big plus.
Happy motoring, I like your car a lot.
-Chris
Thanks Chris, but I've moved beyond the 215 I'm afraid. Current mill is a 350 ci 340 Buick, blown, injected and intercooled. Still tidying up the details. But more to the point, a 300 Buick block gives plenty of power with no fitment issues and only a mild weight penalty. It can be stroked out to 350 using a stock crank with the mains cut down, and extremely good heads are available. Cost a bit more of course, as you mentioned, but worth it in my opinion. If we were that cost conscious we wouldn't be doing this in the first place.
As a sterling example, Mike Moore has run a 300 Buick in his car since before the Champaign V8 meet (ten years or so). I've ridden in his car and can assure you that it is a powerhouse. Moreover, it is a characteristic of the Buick engines that they produce much higher than average torque. This is crucial for any street driven car, as the old quote says, horsepower sells cars but torque wins races.
JB
I agree Jim, anybody who doubts that torque makes the world go around should try a big block.
Good idea Paul... Hey, why not put a big block in an MGB ?? Torque = LOL. roverman.
The model A (ford) purists bemoan the cutting up /modifying of any model A cars, funny thing tho,, that the well done street rodded model A's are worth more than restored stock ones except in the case of the FEW really rare ones, maybe in England because there are fewer cars there there is a bigger issue but I don't believe so here.
Dave Craddock
The idea of a big block in an MG is intriguing but after putting a 302 in mine I think I'll let someone else do it first; but on second thought! My daughter's boy friend lives in England and she spends a lot of time there; she says it's rare to see classic British sports cars. It's probably like here though, you never see one unless you have one and then they seem to appear out of nowhere. Before the T-Bucket, and before the MG's, I had a Hemi powered original model A 2 door sudan. I wouldn't call myself a purist or I wouldn't have put a 302 in my GT nor would I have put the Hemi in the A if it had been capable of restoration, but it wasn't within a reasonable budget, and let's be honest, hemi torque is a turn on. Not long ago I sold my bucket and could never have sold an original T for what I got for it and it would have taken much longer. Most hot rodders today build fiberglass cars, but metal is also available for a lot more money. I plan to start a glass full fender 32 3 window Ford coupe project (Ford powered this time), but it will take place after the GT is on the road. I say on the road rather than finished because project cars never seem to get finished.
Big Block? If I can ever get home to work on it, I'll let you know how a 454 feels in an MGB! Not sure what to expect as the 350 B gets my attention already! If the engine is worthwhile it will get aluminum heads. And yes, it will get fender flares!
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3149161/1974-mg-mgb/page-1
Bill
Are you guys forgetting about the Roadmaster project... http://forum.britishv8.org/read.php?2,166?
Hi Rob,
Yeah, thanks for reminding us of the Roadmaster project. It looks great!!! I just got caught up on the progress and what it stands for. Great Stuff!
Bill
There certainly is at least one finished LS1-powered GT. I drove it to work this morning :)
Well, not FINISHED finished. You know how it is with these. But it's close enough that I was stopping in to BritishV8 to see if Curtis was interested.
Full details at slowcarfast.com, but here are the answers to some of the questions.
- I used a front end of my own design. It's quite possible a Fast Cars setup would have worked, I did have my mockup engine in between the frame rails at one point.
- I've used a T5 on another LS build in the past. The bellhousing isn't much smaller but the trans certainly is. The torque ratings on the T5 worry me which is one big reason I used a T56. And yes, my car is a 1972 chassis.
- while I did a lot of modification on the engine bay, I had to do very little to the bulkhead.
As for packaging, the LS engine is actually a surprisingly compact beast. Not as small as a Rover engine, but there are a lot more horsepowers stuffed inside :) It was the packaging that made me change from my original plan of a 302 actually. The thing about the LS is that nothing protrudes. It's all packed into a cube with no water pumps, distributors or other protuberances to hassle you. They're light, too - my car is under 2400 lbs wet with no attempt at weight loss.
(http://www.slowcarfast.com/MG/images_lrg/img_8751.jpg)
Beautiful GT Keith, I'd love to see more pictures. I also wish I had the nerve to do the flares and paint mine black (my 23 roadster was black as is my Harley and daily driver), but I just don't have the "tin man" skills. I'm impressed!
Sorry, I just found your pictures on the "Rabit Flare" post.
Interesting discussion. I feel that the LS engine would be a very good choice for our British cars. It's lightweight, relatively compact, will fit underneath the hood (when using fuel injection) without modification to the "bonnet". It also produces lots and lots of power (both hp. and torque). You will also retain most of the handling characteristics that the MG had with the origional power train.
These engines are a bit expensive to build, but as time goes by I think the prices will come down .It could also infuse new blood into the hobby, and a renewed excitement about the British V8.
Most of us have an opinion as to the "perfect" powerplant for our little British cars, I just hope that we can keep an open mind about the choices. To me, it is fun to see innovation and new ideas.
smallIMG_1543.jpg
So far every LSswap I have seen involved radical surgery to the bodyshell and front suspension. I would like to see someone try to do it while keeping that to a minimum.
Jim
Radical surgery?
What I saw at Mantell Motorsport didn't look that serious. Wonder if Pete has any pics of that project.
Not serious Carl? Seems to me both sides of the tunnel to firewall area were completely gone. To me that is a little radical. Do you remember what he was using for the front suspension?
Jim
Not the way I remember it, Jim. At the time, I thought it fit pretty nice. Where is Pete, anyway? We need more pics of that car. Oh, he used the wider version Fast Cars front crossmember.
Only pic I could find:
http://www.mgexperience.net/member/usedmgbparts
Radical!
.3.JPG
Ouch!
I'm pretty certain that is totally unnecessary. Somebody wanted a lot of setback.
I think the first photo is after the holes were welded back up. Looks to me like there are some indentations that weren't there to start with but I will look at the '74-1/2 tomorrow evening. The second photo does look a little excessive. What is that thing sticking out at the front of the engine?
Using the FC front end is also pretty radical if you ask me. $5k is a LOT to spend on an MG!
Jim
I've been told that when dealing with an LS1 conversion (EFI) you need to add 50% plus to your budget. IMHO, the Ford set up is still the best bang for your buck, although, the LS series being the latest and greatest, don't forget that the early design had some flaws such as oil consumption problem caused by poorly designed pistons and rings (low tension) and a poor PCV system that most people ended up installing a catch can (I did) so that the oil would not enter and sit at the bottom of the intake manifold. It also had some valve-train minor issues (long story), and If you wonder how I know about these problems, it is because I've own a 1998 Z-28 Camaro that I was very happy when I finally sold it. The latest LS series motors have all of these issues resolved and, yes it is a kick ass and now reliable motor; too bad that someone hasn't tried to fit Ford's new "Coyote" 5.0L in an MG as we all know that the Detroit horsepower rivalry is back on between the three American auto makers.
My two cents, cheers!
Jacques the new Ford engines are awesome but the big problem with trying to fit them in LBC's is that these engines are quite wide. The Coyote engine looks like it it is wider than the LS engine. I imagine these Ford engines are also quite tall also. The LS engine apart from its issues in its earlier stages is very compact and it is light.
Cheers
Byron
Byron, by what I have observed, I believe that someone could drop a Ford Coyote motor in the "B". Also, let's not forget that a Fox body Mustang with a few upgrades were a handful to go against at the drag strip; why do I know? again, I went through with the Z-28 and lost. That was a 5.0 Liter against a 5.7 Liter although the Camaro Z-28 was a much heavier car.
What I do like about the new LS motors in EFI form is the unbelievable fuel mileage they deliver. I still would like to see a "B" with the Ford Racing Coyote motor shame the bigger cubic inch LS motor (LOL).......
QuoteUsing the FC front end is also pretty radical if you ask me.
Customer preference for wider track/flares. Stock crossmember will work with little to no modifying. Lots of oil pan options.
http://ls1tech.com/forums/conversions-hybrids/817787-lsx-oil-pans.html
Found this online. Notice the difference in height
5.0L DOHC
28" Length
26" Height
27-1/2" Wide
4.6L DOHC
28" Length
29-7/8" Height
30" Wide
4.6L SOHC
28" Length
26" Height
28-5/8" Wide
Coyoteenginedimensions.jpg
LS1 engine dimensions
CorvetteLS1Dimensions.jpg
Thanks Jim for the data; it shows to me that that the swap is certainly tight but doable. I'd love to see it, E-Rod versus Coyote.
P.S. I'd like to remind everyone that Ford is the only government "loan free" entity... :)
Cheers
Make it happen Jacques
Use a pre-gov't LS engine , Jacques. ;)
BTW, looks like Jim's measurement pic uses the Corvette batwing oil pan. Not sure that one willl work on our conversions. All the other factory pans will be a bit deeper.
http://ls1tech.com/forums/conversions-hybrids/1065342-lsx-powered-late-model-nissan-300-zx-aka-z-32-a.html
I know I could have put the engine and trans in my car without so much surgery, but I wanted to address some other aspects of the car. Still, I didn't touch the firewall at all in my '72. Here's an early test fit with an unmodified engine bay other than removed motor mounts.
(http://www.slowcarfast.com/MG/images_lrg/img_0802.jpg)
(http://www.slowcarfast.com/MG/images_lrg/img_0774.jpg)
Keep in mind there are a number of other options for the accessory belt setup. The one from the Cadillac CTS-V is close to the block (closer than an F-body) and drops the alternator down close to the oil pan.
(http://www.flyinmiata.com/V8/RonMSM/images/img_1438.jpg)
The Coyote is certainly larger - DOHC heads will do that for you.
There ya go, Jimbo. As Keith's pics show, radical surgery not required. ;)
Looks almost at home as the 455!
Looks really good!
But why do people cut them up if it fits without doing it? I don't understand. I mean in Keith's case I get it, also Jim S., but otherwise? I always take a minimalist approach to that part. Make the body mods as simple and easy as they can be to get the minimum space needed. Otherwise you start running into all sorts of other problems.
Jim
Of course, the T56 barely fits the MG late tunnel. Keith's mockup has no bellhousing. That is probably the biggest issue, cause I would stick with a 5 speed.
I'm sorry to hear the T56 won't fit. I'd better go fix my car :) One thing to note is that a T5 is going to have a shifter about 3.5" further forward in my experience, which would not improve the shifter location.
Here's the trans about 1.5" below the final location with the bellhousing removed. I forgot, I did have to take part of the firewall out in front of the gas pedal. Oddly enough, this area isn't used on a LHD car, I suspect it's more useful in a RHD setup. I basically mirrored the right side.
(http://www.slowcarfast.com/MG/images_lrg/img_1275.jpg)
I had to add an access panel for the reverse lockout solenoid and rework the very top of the tunnel a bit. You can see the biggest cut in this picture. With my oversize Hurst shifter, I had to open up the hole for the shifter but the stock one in this shot would have fit fine.
(http://www.slowcarfast.com/MG/images_lrg/img_1333.jpg)
Access panel, Hurst shifter
(http://www.slowcarfast.com/MG/images_lrg/img_6848.jpg)
(http://www.slowcarfast.com/MG/images_lrg/img_6862.jpg)
here are a couple of pictures of the LS1 & 4L60E i put in my 67 BGT. I moved the engine much further aft than shown because I wanted to, not because I had to, took lots of measurements and did a bit of studying just to think about what could be done. I didn't use the stock frontend but I did a trial fit, with allthread thru the mounting holes and the front end, the front end would get within .250 inch before touching the oil pan. meaning minimal trimming to the crossmember. plenty of clearance with the inner fenders and hood, tunnel would need minor trimming but perfectly doable
ENGINEINSTALL008.jpg
ENGINEINSTALL009.jpg
ENGINEINSTALL007.jpg
Thanks, Jay.
Now Keith, I didn't say the T-56 wouldn't fit. It is very snug compared to a T-5 in a late tunnel. Probably won't fit an early tunnel, though.
I really need to do something with my engine before the Omaha Meet. Y'all are killin' me with these pics!
Oh my god. I want to do an LS1 swap sooo badly now! Especially with a miata suspension.
Nice work guys.
The LS4 found in FWD(5.3 and 300HP) uses the small V6 bellhousing. The only problem is the starter is mounted on the transverse FWD transaxle and no provision for block mounting. The Pennock's Fiero forum has some uniqe solutions for the starter. Also the LS2 intake and lifters are used to eliminate the DOD(displacement on demand). The water pump should be changed also as the FWD is offset to the side. There is an adapter to use the big block Chevy water pump(stock or electric aftermarket). The larger throttle body and better flowing intake on the LS2 may boost the power up to 325HP. Edelbrock makes a couple of intakes for the carb guys or for the aftermarket TBI. The heads on this little motor are the same as the LS6 and the sleeves are thick and can be bored out to fit the 5.7 pistons. Plus the junkyard prices are cheap because it hasn't been as popular because of the starter issue. I thought about making a block plate with starter mount and using the 2.2 Chevy S10 bellhousing like they do with the Cadillac 4.9 to convert to RWD clutch. You would have to use a heavy duty clutch because the stock 4cyl/V6 clutch will slip under the power. Spec,Ram and Zoom have those.
Now this engine is the baby you "really need to have" in a small British sports car...... :)
http://www.gmhightechperformance.com/hotnews/ghtp_1210_gen5_inside_gms_all_new_lt1_small_block/
M.
I have an LT1 in my car - just not THAT LT1. It does make my mouth water though.
Now someone needs to make an installation kit for rubber bumper Bgts. Motor, trans mount, headers with basic instructions on where to cut.... Hmmmm I might start keeping my eye out for a rolling Bgt shell.