which would buy aLQ4-6.o or l33 5.3
10-28-2013, 09:11 PM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
which would buy aLQ4-6.o or l33 5.3 putting in 1966 olds.I know the l33 is a 5.3 all aluminum and the lq4 is a 6.0cast iron with aluminum heads.Which one would you use.thanks fly442
10-29-2013, 04:42 AM
#3
10 Second Club
Both should work fine....but if you had 2 identical motors and one had only more cubic inches....the bigger ci motor would produce more torque which equal horsepower.
In a '66 Olds... I'd like the bigger inch motor if for no other reason than the TQ.
Again.... depends on use, as said above.
Now $$$ comes into play....budget Vs. use.
In a '66 Olds... I'd like the bigger inch motor if for no other reason than the TQ.
Again.... depends on use, as said above.
Now $$$ comes into play....budget Vs. use.
10-29-2013, 07:15 AM
#4
Both should work fine....but if you had 2 identical motors and one had only more cubic inches....the bigger ci motor would produce more torque which equal horsepower.
In a '66 Olds... I'd like the bigger inch motor if for no other reason than the TQ.
Again.... depends on use, as said above.
Now $$$ comes into play....budget Vs. use.
In a '66 Olds... I'd like the bigger inch motor if for no other reason than the TQ.
Again.... depends on use, as said above.
Now $$$ comes into play....budget Vs. use.
If it were me, I would have to take a long look at what the car will be asked to do. For all out acceleration , the HP advantage would have to go to the 6.0 and Im sure it would overcome the weight penalty of the iron block. It would also give the car a similar balance to the way it came from the factory. If the car is more for overall performance, like a pro-touring build, the 90 lbs weight advantage of the aluminum block would help out a lot in the balance department. A couple tricks like moving the battery, making light weight inner fenders, fiberglass hood (if anyone makes such a thing for a 66 olds) along with the light block would transform the handling of the car. Either way, welcome to the world of LSX performance ! Im sure you will love either one compared to the dead weight Dr Olds dropped under the hood of that classic, LOL.
10-29-2013, 11:25 AM
#5
6.0 ftw! IMO:
From a power/weight ratio, the additional power a 6.0 is capable of producing would be more beneiticial then the ~80lb weight savings offered by a L33.
From a future expansion standpoint, the 6.0 opens a whole new world. Square port heads? Bu-bye tires! Huge bore/stroke build? Here is my license Officer! Turbo boost? Bring it on baby! Spray with nitrous? Please Sir, I want some more! These options are either NOT possible or would really push the limits of an aluminum block LS.
The only exception I can think of is a purpose built strictly auto cross vehicle. In that case the 80lb weight loss over the front axle may prove more beneficial then the additional hp of a 6.0. Plus, without a skilled driver, that extra HP may be more of a hinderance.
Thats my $.02 anyway.
From a power/weight ratio, the additional power a 6.0 is capable of producing would be more beneiticial then the ~80lb weight savings offered by a L33.
From a future expansion standpoint, the 6.0 opens a whole new world. Square port heads? Bu-bye tires! Huge bore/stroke build? Here is my license Officer! Turbo boost? Bring it on baby! Spray with nitrous? Please Sir, I want some more! These options are either NOT possible or would really push the limits of an aluminum block LS.
The only exception I can think of is a purpose built strictly auto cross vehicle. In that case the 80lb weight loss over the front axle may prove more beneficial then the additional hp of a 6.0. Plus, without a skilled driver, that extra HP may be more of a hinderance.
Thats my $.02 anyway.
10-29-2013, 12:25 PM
#6
IMO:
From a power/weight ratio, the additional power a 6.0 is capable of producing would be more beneiticial then the ~80lb weight savings offered by a L33.
From a future expansion standpoint, the 6.0 opens a whole new world. Square port heads? Bu-bye tires! Huge bore/stroke build? Here is my license Officer! Turbo boost? Bring it on baby! Spray with nitrous? Please Sir, I want some more! These options are either NOT possible or would really push the limits of an aluminum block LS.
The only exception I can think of is a purpose built strictly auto cross vehicle. In that case the 80lb weight loss over the front axle may prove more beneficial then the additional hp of a 6.0. Plus, without a skilled driver, that extra HP may be more of a hinderance.
Thats my $.02 anyway.
From a power/weight ratio, the additional power a 6.0 is capable of producing would be more beneiticial then the ~80lb weight savings offered by a L33.
From a future expansion standpoint, the 6.0 opens a whole new world. Square port heads? Bu-bye tires! Huge bore/stroke build? Here is my license Officer! Turbo boost? Bring it on baby! Spray with nitrous? Please Sir, I want some more! These options are either NOT possible or would really push the limits of an aluminum block LS.
The only exception I can think of is a purpose built strictly auto cross vehicle. In that case the 80lb weight loss over the front axle may prove more beneficial then the additional hp of a 6.0. Plus, without a skilled driver, that extra HP may be more of a hinderance.
Thats my $.02 anyway.
10-29-2013, 01:56 PM
#7
IMO:
From a power/weight ratio, the additional power a 6.0 is capable of producing would be more beneiticial then the ~80lb weight savings offered by a L33.
From a future expansion standpoint, the 6.0 opens a whole new world. Square port heads? Bu-bye tires! Huge bore/stroke build? Here is my license Officer! Turbo boost? Bring it on baby! Spray with nitrous? Please Sir, I want some more! These options are either NOT possible or would really push the limits of an aluminum block LS.
The only exception I can think of is a purpose built strictly auto cross vehicle. In that case the 80lb weight loss over the front axle may prove more beneficial then the additional hp of a 6.0. Plus, without a skilled driver, that extra HP may be more of a hinderance.
Thats my $.02 anyway.
From a power/weight ratio, the additional power a 6.0 is capable of producing would be more beneiticial then the ~80lb weight savings offered by a L33.
From a future expansion standpoint, the 6.0 opens a whole new world. Square port heads? Bu-bye tires! Huge bore/stroke build? Here is my license Officer! Turbo boost? Bring it on baby! Spray with nitrous? Please Sir, I want some more! These options are either NOT possible or would really push the limits of an aluminum block LS.
The only exception I can think of is a purpose built strictly auto cross vehicle. In that case the 80lb weight loss over the front axle may prove more beneficial then the additional hp of a 6.0. Plus, without a skilled driver, that extra HP may be more of a hinderance.
Thats my $.02 anyway.
Trending Topics
10-29-2013, 01:59 PM
#8
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went with an L33 for the weight savings and mpg. Autocross, road racing, and mpg is a huge thing for me so that was the logic behind it. Its all about what you want out of it. Hope this helps,
-Michael
-Michael
10-29-2013, 04:26 PM
#10
If I understand correctly, the L33 has 243 heads and 10:1 compression. To me, that makes it an interesting little Hot Rod motor. However, from a performance standpoint in a heavier car, I would be hard pressed to not choose the larger motor. How many guys have built stroker motors to get that extra 40 cubic inches? They didn't spend that money for no reason.
10-29-2013, 06:59 PM
#11
10 Second Club
10-29-2013, 08:38 PM
#12
My first car was a 1965 Olds Jetstar 88 with a 330 cu motor and 2 speed auto trans. That thing flat sailed! The little motor had some insane compression ratio and that seemed to be what made it go. For that reason alone I might consider the smaller cube.
About the only reason people buy the 5.3 over the 6.0 is price. And the 5.3's are cheaper because everyone wants the bigger motor. Ought to tell you something. But sometimes you have to build what you can afford.
Olds didn't make a small car in 1966 so weight can't be too much of an issue.
As for performance that larger bore really helps the heads breathe. 5.3's have shitty little cams and weak valve springs that float over 5500 RPM. Plan on changing that out if you want much get up and go.
About the only reason people buy the 5.3 over the 6.0 is price. And the 5.3's are cheaper because everyone wants the bigger motor. Ought to tell you something. But sometimes you have to build what you can afford.
Olds didn't make a small car in 1966 so weight can't be too much of an issue.
As for performance that larger bore really helps the heads breathe. 5.3's have shitty little cams and weak valve springs that float over 5500 RPM. Plan on changing that out if you want much get up and go.
10-30-2013, 07:26 AM
#13
I just did what I should have done before I posted that post. L33=335 ft lbs , LQ4=360 ft lbs. 25 ft lbs is more difference than I expected to see, but still not a blow out in the torque department. If the 90 lbs difference in physical weight is taken into account, it would most likely feel like less of a difference than the 25 ft lbs would seem to be.
I know that future mods would widen the gap between the two engines, but because the engines have the same crank, the little 5.3 wouldn't FEEL a lot slower in real world driving. The aluminum engine might even feel stronger from a stop, because going on a 90 lbs diet ,on the nose, would let the front of the car lift more from a stop and give better weight transfer and traction. At the track, the 6.0 would surely run quicker, but in the day to day stop light rally , the little 5.3 would be closer than you might think.
I know that future mods would widen the gap between the two engines, but because the engines have the same crank, the little 5.3 wouldn't FEEL a lot slower in real world driving. The aluminum engine might even feel stronger from a stop, because going on a 90 lbs diet ,on the nose, would let the front of the car lift more from a stop and give better weight transfer and traction. At the track, the 6.0 would surely run quicker, but in the day to day stop light rally , the little 5.3 would be closer than you might think.
