LS4

[Scott Costanzo]

Looks like it'll have to be the 142, yes?  

Jim, I think either should work. But it brings up other questions. I'm not sure the148 tooth will fit into the 2.2 bellhousing. It obviously will fit the S-10 bellhousing and if you're using an older T-5 with the GM pattern then using that bellhousing is the way you'd probably want to go. From the information Jim N. supplied it sounds like the flywheel is not going to be placed exactly like it would be stock...at least in the 2.2 flywheel/bellhousing case. If the bellhousing mounting surface is proud of the crankshaft flange by 1/8" on the 2.2 and only around .012" on the LS4, would that be enough upset the geometry of the stock clutch lever? I don't know the answer to that question, maybe you do? Maybe a HTOB might be the only alternative in some combinations which isn't a bad thing at all just nice knowing up front. I'm going to try everything I can to find a solution for the 142 tooth flywheel.

I still think the mini-starter is the best option but the Northstar might work if it's small enough. It seems like the starter gear teeth need to be within a paper clip wire diameter of hitting bottom into the flywheel gear to mesh properly. (Read the paper clip thing from several sources) I just did a rough measurement and about an inch down from the bottom of the bellhousing mount, the 142 tooth mark on the mock up flywheel is about 3/4" from the edge of the block. So the starter housing would have to have a radius in that area of about an inch to place the starter gear in the proper location. It sure looks like the mini-starter just about meets those dimensions. You could probably grind the block to allow the starter to move up 1/4"-3/8" maybe more. This would expose more of the flywheel to the starter gear.

Can't tell if the Northstar starter's dimensions are close, the only way is to actually measure one. If time allows, I'll see if a local parts store has one I can measure. I also need to get to Jegs and see if I can get access to one of their mini-starters for measurement as well...maybe I'll just buy an ebay special at some point.

Regards

-- Scott

[Dan B]

According to Wikipedia, the crankshaft is 12mm shorter than an LS1. 10mm in the rear and 2mm in the front.

[Scott Costanzo]

If anyone might be interested, here are some dimensions for this motor. I'd be happy to supply any other measurements you might need as well. Just let me know.

The engine is incredibly compact. It's an unbelievable 23.25" long, bellhousing mounting surface to the front edge of the harmonic balancer. From the bottom of the harmonic balancer to the top of the throttle body flange is about 19.5". My FWD 3.1 V6 is 22" long and about 20.5" high..just to give some perspective. The intake manifold will need some clean-up on the top as you may notice but that shouldn't be a huge issue.

I hope to get some weights at some point. I came across someone who weighed one and what he found seemed to make sense to me. You can read about it at the following link:

http://www.realfierotech.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6815&sid=d4853bb7f0fcdf5bb718f0d120a2fc6b&start=20

Just to summarize, with all brackets and other accessories minus the power steering pump and wiring harness it was 478 lbs. We (maybe I should say I) wouldn't use any of the brackets and other junk the factory put on this block. Just the longblock is 339 lbs. I'd expect the motor to weigh around 400-420#, plus or minus, with flywheel, water pump, intake manifold and alternator plus brackets. Should put it close to what the 5.0 Ford weighs.

Will a ford pattern t5 bolt up to the 2.2 bellhousing?

Ryan, I have a Ford T5 bolted up to my 2.2 bellhousing so yes, it will.

Regards

Scott

[MGB-FV8]

IMHO, it's much more expensive and complexed than putting together a Ford E.F.I. 5.0 Liter; however, it is the latest and greatest that appeals to lots of people.  For that much and unless you invest towards some performance upgrade parts, you may be embarrassed going against a well put together 302 or 331 cubic inch Ford.  I'm just saying..............

[danmas]

Jacques,

That's what I was thinking.

It seems to me there are only two reasons for doing anything:

1. You enjoy doing it.
2. You are better off for having done it than you would be if you had not done it.

Number 1 is the preferred reason by far, and it seems this falls squarely into that category.

Do people climb mountains because they enjoy climbing mountains, or do they climb mountains because they enjoy having climbed a mountain?

[BlownMGB-V8]

There are other reasons...
It's all aluminum
It's modern
It's efficient
It's a GM
.  .  .  .

[mgbreis]

If I ever get around to finishing my project I'll stick with my 5.0 as the fab work is pretty much done and I already have it, but if I was starting from scratch and the issues with this LS4 had been sorted, I think I'd go with the LS4 in a heartbeat. We each have our own goals with a project, and I wanted my 5.0 to have fuel injection and to fit under a normal looking hood, in my case I used an mgc hood. The only way I could do this was to use a 94-95 mustang intake, and it's the worst one there is. Rated at the factory at 215 hp and 285 ft/lb. If I try to make more horsepower the mustang forums lead me to believe I'll be severely limited by the intake even if I port it, and the factory computer will deal me fits. And that's assuming I shell out more than $1,000 for a set of aluminum heads. I'm pretty sure I'll like the engine as-is, so I'm not too worried about it. I know I could make a lot more hp going with a carb, but I don't want to do that.

Yeah, I know all about the FAST EFI, etc., and I can't justify the cost, so I'm not going there.

The LS4, by comparison, would fit under the hood, makes 300/323 as-is, and will make 400+ hp with easy upgrades (including cheap cast offs from corvette/camaro owners wanting MORE POWER!). I haven't really researched this engine specifically, but I'm guessing with all the swapping craze over the LS motors there has to be established support on any computer/tuning issues.

Of course, the headers and mounts would be custom, but I made all that stuff for my 5.0 anyway. The 5.0 is proven to be a legendary motor, so either one would be a good choice.

[BlownMGB-V8]

...5.3L displacement
comes with the best factory heads available
over 10:1 compression
intake and header change gives a huge power boost and you really have to do that anyway
cheap and available
small package size
did I mention it's a GM?
...

[roverman]

The classic battle between Ford and Chevy continues, meanwhile the 350 Buick guys are crying in their milk, about no sp intake and aluminum heads. Meanwhile, lurking in the shadows, the RV8 is waiting for a megashot of airflow, all the better to pounce with.  Onward, roverman.

[BlownMGB-V8]

Curtis, I think it comes that way. That photo could have the LS2 intake and does have aftermarket valve covers. But you're right, a gorgeous engine. Won't work with the AA80E automatic though so no worries that I'll swap it for my Buick 340. Dan might go for it though, and I could definitely see Carl going thataway. I think Ford is about to lose their edge.

Jim

[MGB-FV8]

Quote:  (all in fun)
There are other reasons... (Enlighten me)
It's all aluminum (yes, but so of many other Ford)
It's modern (Not really, the LS series have been around since 1997 and revised 6 times because of engineering defects)
It's efficient (Yes it is, in stock form only, now outdone by the newly designed LT1)
It's a GM (Not really, we'll just call it Obama Motors or Government Motors and China owned, OUCH)

The only mistake that Ford made is to built a modular super engine that's too wide at the top for our application.  However, lets stick with comparable cubic inch displacement, again Ford wins hands down when using the same V-8 displacement  such as 4.6 Liter, 5.0 Liter (Coyote), 5.4 Liter and etc,.  They simply can breath more air in when naturally aspirated.

All of this makes for good old time rivalry between one American company and two co-owned (LOL).  Technology is now advancing faster than we can discuss it on these forums.  The V-8 is the preferred engine (power source) only because of its unique exhaust tone.  I'd like to chose a four banger conversion to shame all other aspects of a performance V-8 and IMHO, we're already there.  Fuel economy, drivability, torque and horse-power can be delivered under pretty small cubic inches; let's call it "cubic inch simulation through power adders".  Something like breast implants!?!?!?!

Our forum should not try in beating the automakers to the latest and greatest but rather follow power trains a few years behind while showcasing our ability to improve on this not so far distant technology while further pushing our ability to adaptation to clean performance.  Personally, I really relish reading about someone like Rob who mixed and matched different performance parts from mixed brand and components from salvage yards and fabricated the missing links; Jim Blackwood is another one that comes to mind when it comes down to transferring technology into these light cars.

I also love to observe any young and talented kid coming around and that shows some engineering adaptation to impress even the most seasoned mechanics on our forum.  Finally, what I'm personally looking for is green high performance with great drivability and plenty of aging cars left in circulation to support wild conversions...

My 2 cents

[Scott Costanzo]

Can you rotate the intake manifold 180 degrees for a cowl-induction installation?

Curtis, it comes pointing to the back of the engine in the FWD configuration so yes it can be rotated. Just an FYI, the stock LS4 intake was designed to point "rearward" on this particular engine. If you upgraded to an LS2/LS6 intake you would have to so some modification.  I've read that the easiest way is to swap out the valley cover to a non-DOD version.

-- Scott

[mgb260]

Jim B,Actually you can use the Toyota/Lexus automatic with the Isuzu bellhousing(small GM V6 engine side,Toyota transmission side), The LS2 intake and valley cover swap is better than the stock DOD with its problems to just gain an average of 2 MPG.There are aftermarket blockhugger headers for the LS engine. Ryan modified his Ford blockhuggers by adding 2" to header flange. When you go to the non DOD lifters it is very important to change the oil pump relief spring to the 42lb one. It is a Hi Volume and Hi pressure pump for running the DOD. The racers use it as a Hi performance replacement. I also read about porting the inlet and outlet on the pump to smooth flow and prevent cavitation.

http://www.fieroaddiction.com/LS4/engine.html

[BlownMGB-V8]

Jacques, it's good to see your perspective. We could get into a real good F v C contest right here, couldn't we? But let's not, what do you say? (I think they do pretty good in NASCAR)

The motor is just about old enough now that it's coming up in u-pull yards. To me that's the real benchmark for when a new engine is old enough for conversion use and if we aren't quite there we should be soon. At that point the cost to do a conversion really goes down. It really is too bad the Ford DOHC engines are so darned wide.

I think V8's are here to stay, but if you want smaller displacements, the F1 engines are pretty slick. Don't think they'd have a whole lot of trouble with a turbo'd four, even detuned. And they are very small. Saw a Honda one at the Detroit auto show, it was so cute I wanted to take it home with me.

Jim

[mgb260]

You can clean up the stock valve covers and paint them.

[mgb260]

Here is a picture of 4 barrel throttle body port fuel injection. I think Edelbrock,Holley and Accel do those. Anything that fits Gen III/Gen IV LS2,LS3 or LS6 will fit the LS4. I know Scott wants to keep everything short but if you use a 3/8' spacer on damper/crank pulley you can use Camaro water pump and fancy front assemblies like shown.

[roverman]

Give you Ford vs Chevy guys, something new to hate, Gen III Hemi ! Yea baby, 485 lbs, hi nickel block, cross bolted mains and 352 cfm.@ .6" on the intake side(stock). 440cu. in. potential. So far, their holding 1,300 rwhp. How do you like me now  ?  Happy Motoring, roverman.

[MGB-FV8]

NASCAR?  Please, now we're comparing apples to oranges driven by their politics.  That's why I hardly watch the NASCAR races anymore.  Jim, do you seriously think that NASCAR would let Ford enter their high breathing overhead camshaft engine on the track and race?  But they do let Chevy race their LS design motors.  It reminds me when Ford introduced the Cammer, it was their own version in answering the new and potent Chrysler "Hemi".  Following a short visit to the Ford engine plant, NASCAR immediately outlawed the engine after fearing a potential instant winning answer from Ford; however, Dodge and Plymouth also had their one year old Hemi disqualified from NASCAR's tracks.  Bill France thought that it would be more profitable to keep winning technology out of their agenda.  Although, I do give them a "B" on safety development.

I used to admire the NASCAR mono "win on Sunday, sell on Monday"  It now resembles Capitol Hill loaded with countless lobbyist to argue against Goliath NASCAR.  I say, lets go back to the old days before Bill France interfered with competitive engineering and where technology won races in the hands of good drivers and not a superstar contest.  We may have gotten a marriage between efficiency and performance 30 years ahead of its time if it wasn't of NASCAR's Bill France distorted fear of losing race fans; I sure would have stayed to follow how brands could recuperate from competitor's newly introduced technology..........

Read here on the Cammer story:  http://www.musclecarreport.com/muscle-cars.Ford's%20Incredible%20427%20SOHC.001.php

NASCAR is not about R & D, they're about profit.  Look at how much NASCAR messed with Bill Elliot and his brother Ernie that could make a head flow like no other could.  Oh by the way, Jim you did caution to not enter that NASCAR debate so OK, I'll stop now but remember that you'll often hear me state to compare apple to apple and orange to orange.  I've never met any of you guys other than Jim Stuart. but I'm not blind and I have admired some interesting modifications and reasonable engineering sharing among yourselves, but I do think that some of these posting are way outside of the intent of this kind of forum exchange.

Cheers,

[socorob]

Was the T56 ever mated to the small GM corporate bellhousing pattern? (I'm guessing no.)

Jim
 

http://60degreev6.com/forum/showthread.php/50386-Adapting-T-56-to-60*V6
Not sure if this helps any but he put a t56 behind a gm 3500 v6.

[74ls1tr6]

To answer your question Curtis!

"Yes" It has been done flipping the intake 180 degrees....At least it has been done on a Ls7 in a Porsche 911.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NBF5HcXsiI4?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[BlownMGB-V8]

Didn't mean to open a hornet's nest there, sorry guys. Robbie, thanks for the T56 info. Sounds complicated but I guess it's possible, huh?

All I meant with the NASCAR comment was that the LS engines have been pretty well developed. Using engineering based performance standards they seem to compare favorably with F1 which most consider to be the epitome of engine development. Read the following article for the details on the comparison:

http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/comparison_of_cup_to_f1.htm

Now I don't have any similar comparisons of LS or F1 to Ford or Mopar engines but it wasn't my intention to debate the superiority of one over the other because of one simple fact. They don't fit in an MGB, at least not without major work. The point is, given existing technology, availability, cost, size and weight restraints, etc, etc, GM has a winner on their hands with this engine and until the LT1 becomes available to us at a reasonable cost, this is very likely the most highly developed engine that is a practical candidate for these cars. All of the other engines are gradually becoming a bit long in the tooth and it is refreshing to see something this good becoming a viable candidate, primarily because the cost of acquiring what is really a very good engine is coming within our budget range. That's all I'm saying.

Jim

[mgbreis]

Hey, it's February 26th in Nebraska. This thread is the most exciting thing I've seen in weeks. One thing I've never (ever) understood is how adamant people can be on the whole ford vs. chevy thing. They're engines people, no one offended your sister here. But I'm just weird. If I had a chevy car I'd probably want to put a ford engine in it, and if I had a ford car I'd probably want to swap in a chevy.

I've seen firsthand how amazing an mgb is with the ford engine, I just think it's exciting that there might be another option to consider. I remember circa 2000 when someone would ask one of the message boards about using a sbf they would be roundly criticized that it didn't fit well and the Rover should be used. It took Larry Embrey, Pete Mantell and few others to prove that was bunk.

[BlownMGB-V8]

You are right Ryan, and a few of us even proved a 455 Buick could work. But is it a practical engine for a swap? Maybe not, and the same goes for the Mod and the Hemi, though neither of those have been done. The LS4 looks like a practical swap. If there is any other modern engine of about the same vintage that is I can't think of it. In a way, at least where we're concerned, GM has recreated the small block V8. A more perfect candidate is hard to imagine. It's just up to us to sort out the driveline, mounts and accessories. I think we can handle that part, and when the LT1 gets to us, we'll be ready. If Ford and Chrysler, as well as Toyota or even Hyundai chooses to follow suit we'll try their engines too, if they can be made to fit. That is, unless we all become tired old men first.

Jim

[mgb260]

Scott, When your prowling the junkyard look at 96 and up Camaro/Firebird 3800 flywheels. 142 tooth  and flatter than the 2.2,3100,3400. Might make the difference between flywheel flanges. I've been thinking once we get the starter figured out, the bellhousing can be any GM 60 degree V6. Just depends on what transmission a person wants. The 142 tooth is small enough to fit in any of them.

[Dan B]

So, Jim N, if I understand you correctly, we could use a bell from an Isuzu to use Jim's A650e transmission?

Dan B