Take this for what it's worth. I found it interesting.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VsmbbuSq9m0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
All good info.
For my money, IF sheet metal mods for an LS swap into an MGB could be minimal, that would be the way to go without question. Unfortunately, thus far nobody has shown us how to do that.
There seems in my mind to be a misconception that you have to position the engine rearward to achieve acceptable weight distribution. I do not buy this for two reasons. First, the car is very tolerant of extra weight on the front end, and second, when the rear axle is upgraded you will add ballast.
I would therefore suggest that somebody at least attempt a forward engine placement to see if it is at least possible to fit the LS in the car without carving great holes in the firewall. I realize this might be difficult but we need to know. If it can be done, we need to know how.
I noted that several of the LS claims to fame also apply to the SBB. "Y" block, light(er) weight, cast iron rigidity, and availability of good heads. The SBB also uses a long skirt piston, and we could use a little more study of bore length.
Good article Scott, thanks for posting.
Jim
Quote...when the rear axle is upgraded you will add ballast.
Just for the record, a Ford 8" axle with an aluminum carrier housing and disc brakes weighs 135 pounds, per Ted Lathrop. A stock B axle with drum brakes weighs 165 pounds, as reported by some one whom I can't recall - Dan Lagrue?
Still, I'd like to see more on MGB/LS conversions.
Nice video! The LS really is a great alternative.
I beg to differ on some of Jim's points. I don't think a few firewall and tunnel mods are a big deal. Also, the later MGB (Salisbury) axle is heavier than an 8" Ford (for example), leaf springs with lever shocks are much heavier than a 3 or 4 link with coilovers, and disc brakes can be lighter than drum brakes. Question: is a 5-speed readily available for LS? (T56 is so big and heavy!)
Scott, have you weighed your car yet?
Didn't mean to start an argument, but dollars to pounds... IF you could even buy an aluminum 8" carrier anymore since Currie quit making them, and IF an 8" axle is considered strong enough for an LS which I'd say it isn't.
And yes, for many of us firewall mods are no big deal especially if you have what it takes to do the LS conversion in the first place, BUT Firewall mods tend to impinge on the rest of the vehicle, specifically the driver's footwell and the heater location and there's little enough real estate in the footwell already. Besides which, most owners I think really would prefer not to cut the car if they could avoid it. At least that's what I've been hearing.
But it seems to me this entire disagreement is really about the weight balance of the car. So the first question to answer is, "How much does the LS weigh?" I've seen figures around 418 to 450 lbs as being in the ballpark of the lightest practical weight. Considering the stock engine was 350 lbs that is a very reasonable range to work with. 68-100 lbs extra. Even if you center it where the stock engine was and don't do anything to the axle that's going to change the weight balance very little. Less than loading your weekend gear in the trunk will, and less than the difference between a full and an empty gas tank. You might get a one or two percent shift in the weight balance, and that simply isn't going to be enough that anyone but a race car driver out on the track would be able to tell the difference. What little change there might be can be readily tuned out with tire pressure and swaybar adjustments if deemed necessary, and in a high horsepower RWD car it is better to have a little more forward weight bias anyway, as it gives improved handling under throttle, and since most owners will not be using staggered tire sizes front to rear, will have absolutely no effect on braking.
So why cut up the firewall just for some theoretical advantage? I haven't heard any complaints about the 302's or 300's having weight balance problems and in a best case we are only talking about an 18 lb difference. Surely not enough to notice. By anybody, anywhere.
Jim
Curtis, Scott's LS4 uses the small 60 degree V6 bellhousing(check Scott's thread with custom flywheel and starter mods). The other LS are able to use a SBC with mods(1 bolt hole and TQ spacer for Auto). T5 is doable or Colorado/Solstice/Toyota R154 with Novak or Advance adapter.
QuoteScott, have you weighed your car yet?
Curtis, yes, at the meet last year. It was 2104# with a 1/4 tank of gas. The LS added 100# compared to the V6. I'm using a T5....same one I had with the V6.
Are you coming to the meet? Hope so!
I have kept an eye out for a used Currie 8" aluminum carrier. They seem to be extinct. :(
As Jim N. mentioned there are ways to still use a T-5.
I have pics of 2 different LS builds where the stock heater is still in place, so it doesn't have to be hacked up. Some just want more setback. Like Jim B., our feet are too big to lose any real estate in the driver toe box area.
Jim B., you are sounding like Deja vu all over again. :)
http://forum.britishv8.org/read.php?2,24116
Quote"How much does the LS weigh?" I've seen figures around 418 to 450 lbs as being in the ballpark of the lightest practical weight. Considering the stock engine was 350 lbs that is a very reasonable range to work with. 68-100 lbs extra.
Again, just for the record - a stock MGB engine weighs very close to 400 pounds, so we're talking 20-50 pounds difference? As Jim says, no big deal.
MGBengine.jpg
Here's another current LS MGB/GT build. It was a hack job Olds 215 TH350 conversion many years ago. The Son is now trying to repair the damage & go LS T-5. It looks like it will have more setback, too.
http://corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49020
I know you guys like your MGBs, but I'm getting ready to stuff a LS3 and the Tremec TR6060 6 speed into a TR8 coupe. As soon as I get done reinforcing the body that is. Thats a 2010 Camaro SS with 11,097 miles. Bought the whole car at salvage auction for less than what I paid to build my last 5.0 Rover engine that made 327HP. Stock LS3 makes 426. This one has been warmed over and makes closer to 500. By the time I get done selling the good pieces off this Camaro that I don't use in the TR, my buy in should be around what it costs to do a nice rebuild on a 3.5 Rover.
DSC04053.JPG
DSC04051.JPG
DSC04052.JPG
What is wrong with the Camaro?! RR quarter panel?
A TR7/LS3 & Group 44 flares would be mighty tempting to switch Marques! ;)
Looks like the whole right side went up against a guard rail. Front and rear bumper covers tore at the ends. Both right side wheels have slight curbage. Tie rod end snapped and lower control arm bent. Would be an easy fix, but thats not going to happen. Pretty sure it was totaled because of all the engine and exhaust mods done to it. First owner only covered 1700 miles in 5 years and did all the mods. 2nd owner covered 9300 miles in 7 weeks and wrecked it. 2nd owner wasn't able to get it to pass Mass emissions because of the mods, so I'm sure that played into it getting totaled. Saw the salvage report, and there were things listed on there that were perfectly fine. Even with the phantom repair work, there was only $12K worth of repairs, and payout was 34,000. I don't get it, but I'm not complaining. No Group 44 flares for me. Trying to keep it stealthy. Cage is as hidden and fully incorporated into the body as is possible. Fenders were forcibly flared enough to get a full 12" or tire in the rear and 11" in the front. Goal is 500hp and somewhere around 2500 pounds. Once I get use to that, I'll think about a small turbo for it.
I think you folks with the small British sports car are just amazing at your creative talents with V8's! I have a much larger Jaguar 3.8s and used the 5.3 liter aluminum block/head LS1 truck motor with a mild cam, upgraded ECU/computer, headers, and it puts out about 460 hp at the fly wheel. It was still a tight fit but it did fit. Some things like the horns, AC had to be mounted into the wheel wells. Also a good tip look into creating additional air intake to route air into the engine bay. I had no issues with upgraded radiator,etc. for the engine but the engine bay being so stuffed need more air flow. I solved this with a ram air intake under the car that routed air around the V8/headers and then out larger holes in the inner wheel wells near the firewall. These motors are great with so much power, so many after market performance parts and kits for engine swaps. They will last easily 200 to 300K.
Pulled the engine trans combo from the Camaro today and put it on the scales. Engine with trans bolted to it comes in under 650 pounds. No exhaust manifolds/headers, no power steering pump, no AC compressor, no engine mounts. Had the complete intake with a cold air kit, complete wiring harness, shifter, clutch, flywheel, starter. Engine still had the oil and tranny still had the fluid and the fluid lines. Seems these trannys have an internal pump that sends the oil to a cooler and then sprays the fluid onto the gears. Tranny alone is listed at 142 pounds... ouch! 650 for the complete ready to drop in weight is not too hard to handle. I should weigh up a complete Rover with intake and tranny to see how much of a difference there is.
I know for a fact one won't fit into a sprite without extensive mods... I had one shoe horned in, even had forward facing manifolds, but there was no way to get it to fit under the hood, which was the big selling point of the LS engine for me... Even with the intake swapped around backwards and the TB in the dash area. Ended up just putting a SBC in and a 142 through the hood. I have pics of the LS stuff though in the Sprite if anyone wants them.
Can you post the pics?
http://forum.britishv8.org/read.php?4,42640
most of the pics are in there but I can dig up specific pics if needed
QuoteTranny alone is listed at 142 pounds.]
I'm guessing that number is a dry weight.
As for adding ballast with a heavier rear end such as an 8.8, unsprung weight gain? You feeling okay, Jim? ;)
Other than the LS4, I believe the common flywheel is 14" 168 tooth, way big, like BBC. a "621" BBC bell housing can be used. We need to go smaller, though, for our LBC. As Jim N. mentioned a SBC bell will work using 5 of the 6 bolt holes along with a 153 tooth flywheel. I believe Scott's LS4 used a 142 tooth flywheel with that even smaller bell. Of course, then you have to get a starter to mate up.
So for mockup, we need the smallest bell & flywheel combo that will work with all the other LS variants (since the LS4 is the red headed stepchild), then we can see how well it will fit in a RB MG without ANY footwell intrusions.
LS motor mount adapter plate template.
https://www.diyautotune.com/support/tech/install/chevrolet-gm/ls-central/free-downloadable-ls-motor-swap-templates/
More bellhousing/flywheel/clutch info.
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/1502-legacy-manual-trans-behind-ls-style-block/
Thats why I ponied up the big dollars and bought a whole Camaro. I figured in the end I would have spent the same amount or more trying to piece it together. This way I get everything, including a tunable ECM. Now I just need to figure out how I want to go about moving the shifter forward.
QuoteI believe Scott's LS4 used a 142 tooth flywheel with that even smaller bell. Of course, then you have to get a starter to mate up.
Carl, I'm using a 148 tooth flywheel with an S10 2.2 bellhousing.
I heard a rumor that a kit for a B could be out in the not too distant future where the motor is positioned behind the steering rack using a RB crossmember in I assume a RB car. Really interested in seeing that one. I am convinced that an LS will go into a RBB with no or minimal mods.
I know you didn't spend much time behind the wheel but did my footwell intrusion bother you? Quite honestly I don't notice or even think about it but I built it for me. 😊
Scott, didn't you cut a lot of metal out of your firewall, and wasn't the pulley too close to the steering to change the belt? How could it be done without cutting? There isn't really that much difference in the firewall of an RB car.
Jim
QuoteScott, didn't you cut a lot of metal out of your firewall, and wasn't the pulley too close to the steering to change the belt? How could it be done without cutting?
[/quote ]
Jim,
You do realize that CBB and RBB have different firewalls and placement of the steering rack? I think you're confusing the two. Mines a 68 so it's a CBB. Yes, I did cut metal out of my CB firewall like 99% of guys do when installing a V8 in a CB car. FYI, I have enough room to fit the belt between the pulley and the rack. The issue at the Gathering last fall was between the pulley and the crossmember which I corrected this past winter.
My comments above were regarding a RBB.
Scott
Oops, yeah, that 142 is for the fwd v6, 148 for RWD. Not clear if you can do that to an LS1.
I agree, Scott, a RBB should be easier. No, I really didn't notice the footwell. I really appreciate mine when doing 300-500+ mile days. I slide my foot under the gas pedal to stretch out with the cruise control on.
Put an Old Trans Behind Your New Gen III V-8
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/transmission-drivetrain/ccrp-0810-engine-transmission-swap-gen-3/
Scott, I have a 74-1/2 MGB out in the shed. We put a V6-60 in it. I am pretty familiar with the differences thank you very much. My comments stand. You'll have to prove it before I will ever believe it. Every LS conversion I have ever seen had radical cuts to the firewall, yours is no different, and the RB firewall doesn't give you any more room where you made those cuts.
If you will recall, I tried to persuade you to try to do your installation without doing firewall butchery but you wouldn't listen to me because you had other ideas. So don't try telling me now that I am wrong.
Jim
Jim is from Missouri. :)
Scott put that engine exactly where he wanted it. Other locations would be interesting.
As for a kit, I have been hearing that rumor for a long time. May not be too long, now. ;)
QuoteNot clear if you can do that to an LS1.
Carl, if you're wondering about using a 148 tooth flywheel I suspect the answer is yes it can be done. If you're going to go that route and 5.3l will do the job for you you might as well go with an LS4 at that point mainly for the costs.
QuoteScott, I have a 74-1/2 MGB out in the shed. We put a V6-60 in it. I am pretty familiar with the differences thank you very much. My comments stand. You'll have to prove it before I will ever believe it. Every LS conversion I have ever seen had radical cuts to the firewall, yours is no different, and the RB firewall doesn't give you any more room where you made those cuts.
If you will recall, I tried to persuade you to try to do your installation without doing firewall butchery but you wouldn't listen to me because you had other ideas. So don't try telling me now that I am wrong.
Jim, I was trying to make a point and now that I reread it it sounds like I'm trying to be condescending.....not my intent. I still disagree with you though. ☺ In this case I suspect my idea of minimal mods will always be radical mods in your eyes.
What I see and what I have been told is the rack on a RBB is 1" further forward when compared to a CBB. Also the curvature of the hood is greater on a RBB. You will be able to move the engine forward an inch and mount it higher in the engine bay because of this. That will make a huge difference. Given the steering is mounted lower in a RBB I'm confident the steering will stay put judging by how the LS4 fits into my CBB. You will have to make allowances for the heads by the firewall. In any event I can't see how you could describe the modifications as "radical". We will see.
As Carl stated, the engine is exactly where I want it. I spent over two years planning the conversion so I didn't just randomly decide to place it there. I'm trying to make a point again and I know you know this but no matter where you place the motor you will be making a compromise. More rearward you're looking at firewall mods, more forward involves the steering rack and radiator placement. Pick your poison. For me it was never a question that I was going rearward. Oh, just for the record, "weight distribution" wasn't even a consideration in my decision.
Any plans to go to the Dayton show this year? I think it's on the 6th of August. Hope so. I'm pretty sure I'll be there for at least part of the day.
Scott
QuoteIn this case I suspect my idea of minimal mods will always be radical mods in your eyes.
Now, that is hysterical. ;D
I agree with Jim, though, the closer the LSwap can be made to a bolt-in the more popular it will be. Personally, I am not chasing 300+ HP, so there is no sheet metal surgery in my future. This is why the 3.4 V6 is so popular. The power hungry junkies have no qualms about cutting it up to get their fix. ;) That is why Pete has sold 65 Ford V8 kits. Wow.
Thanks Scott, to be fair I had let myself get a little irritated. Not my finest moment.
I would indeed like to see a "bolt-in" LS swap. If that could be done it would be a fine thing for the MGB conversions.
Regrettably, I suspect the RB advantages of rack placement and hood curvature may not be as beneficial as you hope, but that's no reason not to try. Realistically however, given what we are working with the only way to do it is to, well, actually do it.
Jim
I forgot to address the bonnet. IMO, that the RBB bonnet has more curvature than a CBB is a urban myth.
If I were to entertain an LS variant, I know it's not the cubic inch thing to do, but I have a fixation on using the 4.8L short stroke crank. Something like a 4.00" bore with a 3.267" stroke. :)
That should make an engine that would suit you well Carl, at least I would think so. If it was LS4 based with Scott's flywheel and starter setup it could have a decent chance, but depending on engine location I wonder just how great that an advantage the smaller bellhousing really is. To fully take advantage of the forward position some crossmember bashing to lower the engine a bit might be helpful provided the rack can be cleared.
I'm very familiar with forward engine placements. My engine, and probably the 455 are located farther forward than any other conversion I've ever seen. Typically with the Buick the rack/pan interference is the limiting factor if the engine is positioned forward of the usual location with the rack between the damper and the front cover. The rack can be lowered but this can bring further complications beyond a limited point. With the crank pulley of the LS4 being tucked in tight to the cover the same conditions apply to pulley/rack clearance. Moving the accessory drive out away from the front cover could allow the engine to be lowered by straddling the rack if the parts are available to do it. (could require balancing) It could also allow the engine to be moved further forward at which point pan to crossmember clearance becomes an issue.
Like I say, I'd like to see it done. In fact Carl, if you come up with an engine I expect we could test fit it in the Chump car to get an idea of what you'd have to do to put it in yours.
Jim
How about a plastic block w/bellhousing?
Wouldn't hurt to compare the SBC & BBC bellhousings to each other. It would likely be cheaper/easier to use the stock 14" flywheel & BBC bell. I think I have a spare bell, not sure which one.
Fitment check. It fits, sort of. I want to raise the tranny tunnel and clearance the firewall. That tube at the rear of the engine bay is in the way by about an inch. I'll cut that out and move it back. Tomorrow I will try and find the time to cut out the spine of this beast and start bending some new panels. I wanted to raise it and widen it TVR style. That should give extra room to run a 3" exhaust if I so choose. The Camaro headers don't fit. They hang way too low. Need to go get a set of shorty headers. The Camaro has an aluminum hood that is very lightweight. Laid the TR7 hood over it and its just big enough that I can cut out a TR7 hood from the aluminum Camaro hood. Has the built in power bulge down the middle to give me a little more clearance over the intake manifold. I was planning on making a fiberglass hood, but the aluminum is cooler and easier to do, plus its going to be free.
DSC04168.JPG
DSC04169.JPG
DSC04171.JPG
DSC04174.JPG
That looks pretty good. I think it will fit. How does it look on the bottom, with the crossmember?
I think the deep part of this style pan extends a little too far forward to use the stock cross member. Its similar to those larger aluminum pans on the 4.0s that don't fit with the wedge subframe. I'm planning on making a tubular cross member anyway, but there are other oil pans that will fit with the stock cross member. Where I had the engine sitting in the driveway is about ride height, and the body was lowered to about ride height, based on measurements taken from some of the other wedges here. Todays exercise was just the first fitting. Time to cut and remake the tunnel, and cut back a couple of bulges in the firewall. Then check again. Then make the engine and tranny cradles. Biggest issues are engine won't go all the way back to the firewall because of roll cage tubing and tranny tunnel is not tall enough to use remote shifter. Doing away with remote shifter and going straight out of the top of the tranny will place it too far forward, so easiest solution to those issues will be to cut out and remake the whole tunnel. Enlarging tunnel cutout area in firewall and rear bulkhead will allow the engine to go back another 2.5" comfortably, and will give more room for the exhaust and the fat driveshaft I need to run. If the engine stays right where it is now, I may have steering rack to oil pan clearance issues. Get it back a couple of inches and I'm sure there won't be a problem When the pictures were taken, there was still 3 plus inches between the back of the heads and those bulges in the firewall I want to smooth out. If you know TR7s, its right where the coil sits and on the other side of the tunnel near the gas pedal mounts.
LS Accessory-Drive Swap Guide
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/transmission-drivetrain/ccrp-0905-ls-accessory-drive-swap-guide/#photo-17
LS-Series Engine Oil Pan Dimensions
https://www.improvedracing.com/tech/LS-oil-pan-dimensions.php
Ought to fit no problem now. Surgically removed the tranny tunnel in one piece so my buddy can reuse it in this MGA thats getting a Ford 302.
DSC04175.JPG
DSC04176.JPG
This show why the GM LS family is so popular. Easy horsepower.
http://www.superchevy.com/how-to/engines-drivetrain/1306-4-8l-vs-5-3l-engine-tech-little-ls-slugfest/
Not to de-rail the conversation but wouldn't those threads be better suited in a stickie or something at the start of the forum?
I don't think Curtis would want a stickie for every engine choice. This thread is titled LS Engines. Those links will be easy to find later via the search feature. ;)
QuoteThanks Scott, to be fair I had let myself get a little irritated. Not my finest moment.
I would indeed like to see a "bolt-in" LS swap. If that could be done it would be a fine thing for the MGB conversions.
Regrettably, I suspect the RB advantages of rack placement and hood curvature may not be as beneficial as you hope, but that's no reason not to try. Realistically however, given what we are working with the only way to do it is to, well, actually do it.
Jim,
No issues on my end at all.
I'm a little behind here.....been way too busy lately.
You are right that someone needs to put an LS in a RBB.....I'm really anxious to see that done. I wish I had an opportunity to try it myself. I am going to stick by my statement though. I'm going to qualify it to using the LS4 . I just went out to the garage and checked again and still feel the same. Here are a couple of pictures that I think show what I'm trying to describe. This one shows the initial cuts I made.
<img width="600" src="http://forum.britishv8.org/file.php?2,file=13598" />
This basically shows the cut outs for the heads. The LS4 just fit between the rack and the firewall but I couldn't tilt it at all. I needed an additional 3/4" at the firewall which resulted in these additional cuts.
<img width="600" src="http://forum.britishv8.org/file.php?2,file=13984" />
What I'm saying is I think the RBB mods are going to be closer to the first picture. Do you consider the first pic radical? These are all guesses but I think they are educated guesses. Hope we find out soon!
QuoteI forgot to address the bonnet. IMO, that the RBB bonnet has more curvature than a CBB is a urban myth.
Carl, I'm sure you're right....I might have been getting carried away a bit. ☺ I still see all these later grills that seem to be made for a bonnet that has more of a curve (I've got one on my car) and I wonder if they are just poorly made or if a change was actually made to the bonnet at some point? In either case you could use an LS1 or LS6 intake and still gain a bunch of room at the throttle body and bonnet. I have at least a 1/2" to 3/4" there with the LS4 intake.
QuoteMoving the accessory drive out away from the front cover could allow the engine to be lowered by straddling the rack if the parts are available to do it. (could require balancing) It could also allow the engine to be moved further forward at which point pan to crossmember clearance becomes an issue.
Jim,
The truck crank pulley is the only pulley that might work but there isn't much room there. Based on what I see with my LS4 it's going to require you to raise the motor at least an inch if not more and you're going to be into the bonnet in a CBB at least. It's only going to get you around an inch further forward anyway.
The Corvette crank pulley gives you 24" from the edge of the pulley to the bellhousing mounting surface. The LS4 is 23.25 in that same dimension. The truck is the longest by far and the F-body is in between.
I got some pictures for you Scott. The upload order sucks, but what you have here is a top view, (1st and last) and then a detail shot showing the shelf down low on each side (and those are in reverse order. Sorry.)
IMG_0007.JPG
IMG_0009.JPG
IMG_0008.JPG
IMG_0011.JPG
This is an unmolested 74-1/2 which has the factory firewall mods for the V8.
Incidentally, on the Roadmaster, to fit the 455 there were cuts made to widen the tunnel for the bellhousing, but the corner of the passenger side shelf was only moved back 1/2" at the top only IIRC for head clearance, the driver's side being unchanged. The steering rack is below the oil pan.
Jim
Thank you Jim! Very interesting. Someone has to try this.
Well, Carl suggested a plastic engine, wonder if he knows where there is one?
Jim
I bet Pete has one. ;) I have been looking for a used one. Not interested in paying $425 for a new one
Yeah, you could probably just buy the LS engine.
Jim
You do know there is a 5.3 vortec engine in my ol' Silverado? ;)