Generation IV Internal Engine 2005-2014 LS2 | LS3 | LS7 | L92 | LS9

LQ9 Engine combo question. I did search, but I'm new to LS engines

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-01-2013, 02:15 AM
  #1  
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Avenger02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default LQ9 Engine combo question. I did search, but I'm new to LS engines

I've been searching for days and seem to get conflicting data.

I have a bone stock 03 LQ9. It's going in my daily driver 1985 caprice with a T-56 and 3.90 gears. My cruising RPM is about 2000, +/- 100rpm.
I will spend most of my time between 1500-4500rpm I bet. I wont take it past 6k much if ever.
If I were to swap an ls3 complete intake and ls3 heads on to this engine and do a mild cam swap (no idea on what cam yet) am I going to have crappy low-mid torque over a different head/intake combo? Should I mill the heads to bump compression?

I don't want to run anything so radical that I have to fly-cut the pistons. My goal is a 100% daily drive-able street motor that is fast.
What would you recommend for a budget friendly bad *** street-able setup if I'm way off?

FWIW, I bought a complete ls3 intake tonight and I am looking for heads. But if the ls3 combo will kill the low end power then I can always sell it.
Is it possible to run a low 89 octane and still have a fast and fun lq9? 91 octane is the max in my area.

Eventually down the road I will rebuild it an opt for a 408 or something so parts with room to grow is a consideration.
I'm new to the LS scene and I'm cramming my head with so much info trying not to bother you guys and figure it all out on my own.

Sorry for all the questions, and thanks in advance.
Old 03-01-2013, 07:46 AM
  #2  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Sorry edit misread part of that.

I reallllly think you can do a better top end and get more power down low. Youre gonna be limited by ptv clearance to mill and run a decent cam.

It always comes down to what do you want to spend.
Old 03-01-2013, 02:18 PM
  #3  
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Avenger02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

What would you recommend?
Old 03-01-2013, 02:38 PM
  #4  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

What do you want to spend is the question. If youre set on the ls3 top end then ballistic speed has some with 2.08 and 1.57 valves that would greatly help your ability to mill and run a bigger cam.

If you wanna spend some more though afr tfs prc, lots of good choices just depends on what you want to spend and what youre looking to gain.

Oh and you can run 91 as long as you tune for it.
Old 03-01-2013, 03:31 PM
  #5  
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Avenger02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

I'm on a budget so aftermarket heads are out of my price range. I'm just looking for cheap bolt-ons. I don't need a radical and expensive setup because it's my DD. Just looking for inexpensive mods that will put a grin on my face whenever I drive it.

Coming from a vortec headed sbc 350 im sure that wont be too hard.

I originally thought ls3 head/intake and gmpp hotcam.

I keep hearing the truck intakes like I have perform better than the car intakes...I also hear the 317 heads that is on the LQ9 are great with some work.
I also hear a ton of people running ls3 top ends on these so I'm confused about which setup will fit the bill the best.
Old 03-01-2013, 03:34 PM
  #6  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

If you dont have the money to spend on ported heads then just run the ls3 top end but make sure you get a cam thats proven to work well on ls3 heads and one that will fit without flycutting.
Old 03-01-2013, 03:43 PM
  #7  
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Avenger02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

That was basically my original plan until I started catching a few posts while searching saying that the ls3 top end would make it a dog down low unless I stroke it. Just looking for some confirmation one way or the other.

Thanks for your input! Anyone else have any opinions?
Old 03-01-2013, 04:04 PM
  #8  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

The ls3 stuff isnt ideal for small bores, but they work and people make good power but the cam has to be just right especially on the 6.0
Old 03-01-2013, 05:19 PM
  #9  
KCS
Moderator
iTrader: (20)
 
KCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Conroe, TX
Posts: 8,848
Received 307 Likes on 207 Posts

Default

The LS3 stuff makes decent peak power, but the lower rpm power is usually weaker than the cathedral port stuff. Like 50 to 100ft-lbs worse under 4000RPM.
Old 03-01-2013, 05:24 PM
  #10  
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (2)
 
WKMCD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 3,416
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

Really???? I did not know that.
Old 03-01-2013, 06:22 PM
  #11  
KCS
Moderator
iTrader: (20)
 
KCS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Conroe, TX
Posts: 8,848
Received 307 Likes on 207 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by WKMCD
Really???? I did not know that.
It's a crazy concept, I know. Totally defies all logic and concept of what is real. To think, a 260cc port makes less lower rpm power than a smaller 210cc port. It's like discovering the world isn't flat or that the other planets do not revolve around us. Blows my mind!

But the proof is out there. Time after time, I keep seeing the 6.2L engines making about 330-380ft-lbs below 4000RPM with mid-low 220 degree cams, while my 6.2L with 241's and a 235 degree cam makes 430ft-lbs below 4000RPM all on the same Mustang dyno.
Old 03-01-2013, 06:27 PM
  #12  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Careful now kcs wkmcd thinks ls3 heads are the end all be all answer for heads for anything. All you dumb ***** with cathedrals are wrong period
Old 03-01-2013, 07:16 PM
  #13  
MASS seller approved
iTrader: (148)
 
low2001gmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ELSA, South TEXAS (956) 802-7700
Posts: 1,403
Received 116 Likes on 79 Posts

Default

i got ls3 me exhaust ported heads on my lq9 milled .015 and with cometic .040 head gaskets for 11:1 with a 232-238 cam and it runs damn good but still fine tuning. had a 228-232 cam and it had plenty of torque and stronger than my previous lq4 with ported 243s. of course i got a ported l92 intake which stock was already better than an ls3 car intake.

i got alot of info from threads by spinmonster on corvetteforum.com and skeet on performancetrucks.net.

spinmoster cam recommendation for a 6spd is a comp 230-234, 612-598, 114+2 with exhaust ported heads on an ls2 with ls3 heads for 485rwhp.

skeet ran a 232-238, lift in the 600s, 113+1 to make 480rwhp.

another fella, philly goat, ran a 232-238, 595-605, 113 for 485hp.

pm me with whatever ?s you may have if you wish. i also got a 2 or 3 copies of valuable info on such combos as yours and mine i can email you if you pm me your email addy. good luck with your project, rob

Last edited by low2001gmc; 03-01-2013 at 08:29 PM.
Old 03-01-2013, 07:30 PM
  #14  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Good numbers. But the l92 intake isnt better I dont believe. The only truck intake that I know of better than the car intake is the FAST 102RT
Old 03-01-2013, 07:35 PM
  #15  
MASS seller approved
iTrader: (148)
 
low2001gmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ELSA, South TEXAS (956) 802-7700
Posts: 1,403
Received 116 Likes on 79 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Tainted
Good numbers. But the l92 intake isnt better I dont believe. The only truck intake that I know of better than the car intake is the FAST 102RT
theres a fast 102 for cars but not trucks cause the l92 truck is hard to beat. 10-12 hp better than ls3 just car guys dont like the look of it.
Old 03-01-2013, 07:47 PM
  #16  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by low2001gmc
theres a fast 102 for cars but not trucks cause the l92 truck is hard to beat. 10-12 hp better than ls3 just car guys dont like the look of it.
Oh yes there is. In fact tony mamo has a thread bragging about it and how much better it is over the ls3 car intake.

Look it up FAST 102Rt

T for truck, search it
Old 03-01-2013, 07:53 PM
  #17  
MASS seller approved
iTrader: (148)
 
low2001gmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ELSA, South TEXAS (956) 802-7700
Posts: 1,403
Received 116 Likes on 79 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Tainted
Oh yes there is. In fact tony mamo has a thread bragging about it and how much better it is over the ls3 car intake.

Look it up FAST 102Rt

T for truck, search it
omg. the fast 102rt with the t for truck is for cathedral port heads dude. ive had one. there is not a fast for rectangular port heads.
Old 03-01-2013, 07:56 PM
  #18  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by low2001gmc
omg. the fast 102rt with the t for truck is for cathedral port heads dude. ive had one. there is not a fast for rectangular port heads.
I gotta look myself I could have sworn to ******* god they were ls3
Old 03-01-2013, 07:59 PM
  #19  
MASS seller approved
iTrader: (148)
 
low2001gmc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ELSA, South TEXAS (956) 802-7700
Posts: 1,403
Received 116 Likes on 79 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Tainted
I gotta look myself I could have sworn to ******* god they were ls3
make sure you come back and clarify. dont taint the post
Old 03-01-2013, 08:01 PM
  #20  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Tainted's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 8,425
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

Sha ******* zam

https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...lts-added.html

Right there it is. I stand corrected.


Quick Reply: LQ9 Engine combo question. I did search, but I'm new to LS engines



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.