omc8

iTrader: (7)

Recently looking at the LS1 that was in my 98 Z28 it was not the original engine for the car. It was a Jasper reman ,if any one knows what Jasper typically does in their reman LS1 I would like to know.The block is not a 1998, What year and casting # did they revise and improve the rear oiling core and strength of the block? I have read mid 99 and another said 2000 . I see at least 3 different casting # for LS1 and 2 for LS6. I did a search and have not found much detailed info on what block casting # the revised . Hope this makes sense.

dr_whigham

iTrader: (49)

Revised casting should end in 1168. My car has an 1168, and a T56 from Jasper's. Didn't find that out till I did longtubes and had my head under there.

PREDATOR-Z

www.chevythunder.com
http://www.chevythunder.com/LS1%20components.htm

omc8

iTrader: (7)

You lucky dude, 1168 thats an LS6 block isnt it . I not that lucky do not have a 1168.

omc8

iTrader: (7)

Thanks for the link, but I already had that. I have not found anything that identify the revised block by casting #. I'm guessing that it was not 99 because 0592 and 9846 are carry over block numbers from 98. So my guess is that 2000 casting # 9378 , 9846 and 0626 are the revised version. Can any one confirm this?

bww3588

iTrader: (49)

The overall strength of the block did not change from year to year, however, some will argue that the LS6 blocks are actually weaker than the LS1 counterparts due to the windows being cast into the main webbing. however, I beleive that any change in strength between the LS6 and LS1 blocks is neglagiable.

As far as the revised oiling passage...IMO, a simple casting number is still a crap shoot simply because it is a machining process, not a casting process.

example, I work at the plant that makes hard tops for Jeep Wranglers. we make very subtle changes to them every now and again such as wiring harness upgrades, different fasteners or seals in the J-rail...etc, but every part carries the same P/N.

3rdCoastPowerSports

iTrader: (5)

I never really understood why company's do this and don't change or alter the part number in anyway. For a quick example when Kent Moore makes change to their tool they follow the original P/N with: -a, -b, ect... why don't other company's do this? It would make like a little easier for those of us in the restoration world if the part number was altered when the part was altered.

omc8

iTrader: (7)

Still need any info on Jasper remanufactured LS1 .

dr_whigham

iTrader: (49)

Did you call them? I found out everything about my T56 from them when I called. If its still legible, there should be a sticker with a phone and serial number.

omc8

iTrader: (7)

Yes, I had called them before, just to get info on typically what they use as cores for their reman , they were no help at all. I thought they may only use later blocks ,due to thicker liner. From what they told me , they do not have a preferred casting that they look for as far as block or heads. They will use any casting that they can machine into spec. Some time this week I will pull my LS1 out and get the numbers off the sticker and call them back, thanks for the tip. Hope they still have record of it.

omc8

iTrader: (7)

Well found the the info I was looking for the early 97-98 0592 was the weakest casting. Later 1998 casting 9846 had improved liner design. And the 2000 casting 9378 had a cored rear cover oil passage for improved casting.


> Here's a good bit of info to know: The '97 to mid-'99 LS1 block (bottom) should not be used for high-performance applications.





Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/howto/113_0504...#ixzz23G7DFtTr

omc8

iTrader: (7)

Hotrod mag link

http://www.hotrod.com/howto/113_0504.../photo_06.html

bww3588

iTrader: (49)

Don't believe everything you see in magazines. Many many 97-99 blocks have been used in extremely powerful applications. The blocks themselves are just as strong, they just have thinner sleeves in them making them basically useless if the cylinder walls have scoring or wear upon disassembley.

omc8

iTrader: (7)

How true, car magazines are notorious for getting things wrong. My guess is that not many 0592 blocks are showing up as reman blocks because of what you have stated, a thinner liner. The Hotrod article is good for the picture showing the rear oil passage design change on later blocks.

dr_whigham

iTrader: (49)

Hell, I'm just impressed you came back and updated the thread. Anyways, what casting number did you wind up with?

omc8

iTrader: (7)

Well it turns its a 9378 , which I was happy to see. I was hoping it might be a 1168 like yours but not that lucky . But short of that its the next best thing. Been to busy lately to do much else . But this motor has 317 heads or at least on one side . My guess on why Jasper used these is thats what was available and it appears they decked the block considerable amount. So thats why they went 317 to get closer to factory spec CR. They probably milled the heads too. Some day I will get around to tearing it down , to really see what Ive got.

bww3588

iTrader: (49)

From what I have seen from jasper, they assemble engines with whatever is laying around. To them, an ls head is an ls head. Same with old small blocks. I had a jasper reman 350 a while back that had a 1.94 valve head on one side and a 1.72 valve head on the other. That thing ran like a champ...

dr_whigham

iTrader: (49)

^^ Dude, every time you post I can't help but laugh. I read all your posts in Milton's voice.

bww3588

iTrader: (49)

it's cause I haven't been paid in 3 weeks and my office is in the basement.