67RS/SSx2

I've searched and not found much info on this combo. I am considering an LQ9 with L92 heads, a GM intake (or Edelbrock)m and a Pat G cam. Would this be a good combo for a '69 camaro with full Hotchkis treatment, Comp Engineering sub frame connectors and slide-a-links, and a PerformaBuilt 200 4R (2500 stall, 3.73 rear gears). This is a cruiser but I want it to have some spunk.

What could I expect from such a combo? I originally wanted a BIG cubic inch SBC gen I but this combo would be more in budget for me. Just not sure what it would give me. Could stroke it later but not for a while.

The efficiency and inexpensive power potential of these engines catches my attention. Not looking for extraordinary power but want it to be fun.

Thanks for any and all replies/comments.

ZONES89RS

iTrader: (25)

Honestly, with a mild cam that Pat will recommend, i bet it will still be around 500 HP, so i dont know what else you could look for, it will put a smile on your face when you smash it and have a fast idle. You wont end up with a aggressive grind, so it will be a really raspy, snappy cam. You are going to be glad you did it.

3pedals

iTrader: (3)

I run an LY6 (6.0 w/ oem L92 heads 9.6:1) which has less compression than the combo you listed, but much the same,
I think you will like it, I removed a 10:1 solid cam 454 from my 67 camaro and dropped in my LS, and it absolutely flys for being a junkyard motor with a cam and valvsprings

pairof69s

basically doing the same thing carbed LQ9+69maro, i'm gonna have to pussyfoot the saginaw until I get better trans

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

Back in the day I could break a Saginaw a week and that was not even trying.

If your parameter is "Spunk" I think you will be quite pleased.

melsie68

iTrader: (8)

Sounds like a good build to me. I would ditch the Comp Eng. slide-a-links and go with Caltracs. I would also do more stall speed, at least 3500 and why not go with a 4.10 gear since you are doing an over-drive transmission. The L92/LS3 heads are decent but would behave better with more gear and stall. If you don't want to go more aggressive with your gears/stall maybe go with 241/243 cathedral port heads which, if you ask me, are better suited to a 6.0L. For comparisons sake, the engine in my signature used cathedral port heads around 225cc on an engine with 40 more cubic inches by way of a 4.000" stroke. I was a gear swap away from getting my 60' down and making 9.90 passes. Without opening a can of worms and starting a debate, I want to mention that just because the L92/LS3 style square port heads are big doesn't mean you will go faster...just my .02 cents.

Note: aftermarket LS3 heads would be a whole different story.

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I have a 3.90 gear in my car with a 3.90 gear right now and it is great. From my experience I would say go with the 3.73 with the 200-R4. I say this because I feel like I have all the bottom end I could ever want and traction on the street is near impossible, so anything lower would be wasted for me. If it is primarily a track car, then I could see 4.10s.

melsie68

iTrader: (8)

The exact reason why I don't race people on the street. It is dangerous because you cannot get traction and your car will never perform as well as it could due to lack of traction. ET slips are the test and if you don't have one, or don't plan on trying the car out, why build it? That is just me. FWIW, at one point I was daily driving my '68 Camaro with a 4-spd and a 4.56 rear with 28" tall tire. If you are building it for gas mileage then go with a tall gear otherwise, build it to match your set-up.

All this talk about gear ratios also means nothing without knowing his tire size first... Assuming the tire size is constant variable for the sake of comparison and if your OD is a .67 reduction with the 200R4, your final drive ratios:
4.10(.67) = 2.75
3.90(.67) = 2.61
3.73(.67) = 2.50

Even a 2.75 final drive is pretty tall with any kind of performance camshaft if you ask me. But, to make this decision, I would talk to a transmission builder and try to make that the same guy who is building your stall converter. My preference is Coan Engineering for transmission and converters.

3pedals

iTrader: (3)

I agree with this 100%
I am fighting with my slide a links right now, they do not have the correct geometry, and the poly bushing in them just eliminates any possibility of them working properly.
so far I have a solid rod to replace the poly bushing, and now I am going to have to fabricate different mount points for the front rod :b ang::ban g: :b ang:
not sure if i posted enough head bangs

melsie68

iTrader: (8)

one more, okay now you are good.

Ha...well I hope you get it right! Your car runs pretty good and of course, you know I love the straight gear!

67RS/SSx2

Oops! Forgot to include tire size. Just bought a set of custom Cragar SS wheels (staying old school here) in 15 inch. Planning on 255/60/15 rears (~27" tall). Haven't found tires I like yet but hoping for RWL.

Have to remember this is a cruiser. I hope to get it on the drag strip and auto cross once in a while (probably special tires/rims for these) but it is first and foremost a cruiser.

My goal for the big inch SBC gen I was 525 hp & tq. Getting there with the first gen was beyond my budget (having the engine built and dyno'd by a reputable shop). It looked like I might get close with this very budget LQ9 build. I realize there will be additional cost getting the LQ in my '69 but it still looks cheaper than the gen I.

My only concern is the torque down low where it is fun on the street. Looks like these LS style engines like to spin. How are they down low, recall I have a 2500 stall?

S10xGN

iTrader: (11)

Careful where you buy a 200R4 from, there are some that can build them and some that cannot. Mostly the large companies that cannot. You're prolly less than 200 miles from Jake Shoemake, and he's one of the good builders. If you don't mind paying freight, there's Century in SW Houston and CK in NY.

67RS/SSx2

Thanks for the advise Russ but the Performabuilt is already paid for and in the car. The car has not yet left the operating room from that service, I'll let its performance be the judge. I tried Jake but he would not respond to my PMs so I went elsewhere. Time will tell........

67RS/SSx2

Would 243s be a better choice for a cam only engine, or even keep the 317s?????

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I thought you were going L92s?

67RS/SSx2

I'm asking for opinions on which head for basically a cam only LQ9 for my application. I have heard great things about the L92s and am leaning that way. Just wondering if the large ports of the L92s are going to cost me low rpm torque as compared to 243s or even 317s????

I'm not terribly hung up on peak numbers.

Didn't you use 243s?

speedtigger

iTrader: (16)

I have heard a lot of people philosophize that they should, but the dyno tests I have seen do not appear to demonstrate that at all. I will say that many of the dyno tests were with long runner fuel injection manifolds which may skew the results. But, if I were to do my build over I would go L92s with that high dollar GMPP dual plane intake. My disclaimer is that I am not saying that would be better for you, but that is what I would do.

The stunningman

iTrader: (47)

525hp easy with a mild cam with the L92's. Just make sure you check your PTV clearances. Check TSP they should be able to set you up with a great cam that would clear the L92 or LS3 heads and make the power you dream of. I would also go with a 3000 lock-up stall 3:73 gears. IMO 4.10's are for 28 to 30" tall tires.

243's will flow the same as the LQ9 317's but bump up your compression. How good is the gas in your area? IMO You will gain more power from the airflow potential of the L92's than you will gain with the even higher compression bump of the 243's and the added costly expense of needing to mix your gas.


A decent mileage LQ9 with a cam only upgrade should put you around 450 hp with decent torque numbers.... they are no slouch by any means.