dec010974

iTrader: (1)

im almost at the end of my 5.3/dbw/4l60 swap into my '87 c10 and friends who have made the swap have mixed views. is the 5.3 less than adequate. i scored the 5.3/dbw/4l60e for $1200.00, with accessories, which a good deal considering all the places ive been to wanted at least $1000.00 for the 6.0 alone with no accessories. i found a 6.0 for sale for $1200.00 and with no accessories and actually givin it some thought. ls1tech fam let me know.

50adrod

iTrader: (1)

no replacement for displacement, but the fuel mileage will suffer

kj598bbc

Personally i think that a 327 was adequate to power heavier trucks in the 60's and with gen III technology being light years ahead of gen I ..... nothing wrong with a 5.3; i put my build even further on the back burner to score a good deal on a low mile 5.3 theres definitely no replacement for displacement, but definitely adequate.

DiscerningZ32

I would definitely go with the 6.0l if you can swing it.
Which one is it? LQ9? LQ4?

dec010974

iTrader: (1)

its a 2004 lq4 with 104k on the clock.

tennerv8

iTrader: (7)

Im building a 6.0 because thats the smallest engine that L92 heads will fit on. Hehe.

gofastwclass

iTrader: (2)

One thing to remember is a 5.3 doesn't really make that much less power than a 6.0 unless you get the LQ9. I like additional displacement but i've seen too many people make changes and only end up 5 - 10 HP off the bigger engine with the same setup. According to my research a 1999 5.3 is 265 HP and 355 LB and for 2004 they moved to 295 / 330. The highest powered 6.0 for those years was an 04 LQ9 at 345 / 380 - well within the range of bolt-on's, especially since you already have the 5.3. I say install what you have and if it isn't enough put in a cam or maybe heads. I think you may be pleasantly surprised with the stock 5.3.

The 2004 LQ4 is "only" 325 / 370, what year is your 5.3? I bet you would only gain about 25 - 30 HP/TQ peak. To really take advantage of the 6.0 you would need the PCM that came with it or yours upgraded with the correct fuel and timing maps. Then there is the 24x or 58x crank / cam trigger question unless the 6.0 comes with wiring and PCM which renders this moot. Not to rain on your parade but I think that isn't near worth the expense or effort even with wiring and computer.

black87c4

My 2000 Z71 would spin the tires from takeoff and it has 33's. You would notice the difference between the two but other than heavy towing that truck did all it needed to do and was 4 wheel drive. No replacement for displacement, yea I sure like that but what do YOU need out of it? I like the 6.0

WSsick

iTrader: (13)

6.0 for 2 reasons:
1. you can use L92 heads.
2. you can take it out to a 408 later
...and i guess you get more power to begin with, but the other 2 are my main reasons.


5.3 is good enough, but more cubes are never a bad thing. you can make plenty of power with a 5.3. just remember, a big cam for an LS1 is a lot different than a big cam for a 5.3. even the LS6 cam gives the 5.3's a big boost if that gives you some perspective

themachasy

iTrader: (5)

Why can't you use L92 heads on a 5.3? Bore is too small?

I know the intake ports are a different shape and you'll need an intake mani and fuel rails to match, but whats preventing you from bolting them on otherwise?

Pop N Wood

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, bolt ons will get a 5.3 into the same HP range as a stock 6.0. But the same $$ in bolts ons in a 6.0 will put you in the neighborhood of 500 HP.

That's a nice neighborhood to be in.

cooks 7

what kind of numbers can you get out of each max?
Just curious, for my next project I am going to go with a turbo'd ls family engine in an older chevy truck, I see lots of 5.3l turbo setups running decent numbers, how much more power could you pull from a 6.0L?

WSsick

iTrader: (13)

yes, bore is too small.

where the hell are you getting 500hp from? flywheel/crank hp? there are two iron 6.0L's.
LQ9=345hp
LQ4=300-325hp (less compression from piston difference)

i guess an LS2 full bolt on & tuned would be 370ish. 370 x 15% for DT loss= ~425 to the crank. still not even youre 500hp. with a cam, then yes, btu you said bolt ons.

the iron blocks wont make those kind of numbers. the LQ9 would be closer, since it typically is close with what an LS1 would do. so no, bolt ons will NOT put you in the neighborhood of 500hp, rw or crank, as you said it would.

that depends on your wallet and how empty you want it to be. someone here slapped an 88mm turbo on a stock LQ9 and ran it til it blew (he was learning FI tuning). i cant remember what his #s were, but im pretty sure he was deep into the 10s. he kept having to get new converters b/c of the power levels. i wanna say 750+ but dont quote me. ill have to look it up.

using them for a n/a build, people use the block so they can throw a big crank in for a 402+ci as well as the L92 heads can be put on because of the bore. a well setup 402+ with L92s & a FAST can easily make 520rwhp. that is by no means the limits.

tennerv8

iTrader: (7)

You guys are nuts. You can easily get over 500 hp from a 6.0. With L92 heads on a 6.0 with only a cam change you can get 550hp. And run it on junk gas as well. This setup is with a carb. There are only two aftermarket parts needed inside the engine to do it too. Cam and valve springs.

here you go http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles...ads/index.html

gofastwclass

iTrader: (2)

A 5.3 will do that too, the main party killer is the bore size which limits your head options.

I'm not trying to put words in someone's mouth but from the look of things he has nearly completed a cool truck that he wants to drive and have fun with, not a race car. Since he already has the 5.3 and all that goes with it I would use it. Starting from ground zero I agree with the 6.0 chanters if one can be acquired for the "right" price but he isn't at ground zero and $1200 bare (to me) isn't the "right" price. Especially since the first sentence was "I'm almost at the end of 5.3/dbw/4l60 swap..." Just looking at things from a practical angle.

71 chevelle

iTrader: (13)

Documented 491 out a 5.3l

http://www.pro-touring.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56501

I myself like the 6.0. I will be running a ported ls2 intake with ****** thumper cam, pushrods and springs. a bit thiker head gaskets to get a bit more c/r, double roller timing.

I will also be trying to duplicate the 5.3l in the link over the next couple of months.

NemeSS

iTrader: (127)

6.0 will net better results with equivalent mods.
6.0 has capacity to use up the available head more.
6.0 can use L92 heads.
6.0 will make up to 375ci or 6.2 with stock crank.
408+ with 4in. stroke crank

the 4.8/5.3 engines are easy to make low compression for high PSI

NemeSS

iTrader: (127)

thicker gasket will drop SCR and affect quench area negatively, resulting in lower power n/a, everything else being equal

WSsick

iTrader: (13)

2 parts inside the engine, yes. but theres also:
a carb intake
L92 heads
kooks headers
...and its an engine dyno so its what, 550 x .15 DT loss= 467.5rwhp. [DT loss is for a manual obviously]. thats really not all THAT impressive. yes, its good but its still just a H/C 6.0. i just skimmed it so maybe it was tuned as well?

500 or 550 crank hp isnt that huge. theres people making that all the time with 346's, let alone the 6.0s. i never said you couldnt make 500crank hp from a 6.0, but the guy i quoted said you could make it with boltons only. see the difference?

tennerv8

iTrader: (7)

Either way its still 550hp. The L92 heads are a stock production head. So internally there are only two aftermarket parts inside the engine. With a smallish cam for that matter. Actually one aftermarket part...the springs were Ls6.