LLLosingit

iTrader: (4)

I'm actually very good at math, For example.....Topic + kingtal0n reply = Drivel

G Atsma

Bingo!!

mcculleyman1

I think this has gone a bit off the rails. The OP has 2 engines available and if I were him, I'd wouldn't kill myself over sourcing a new engine. But who knows, maybe he has plans to turn it into an autox monster and weight does matter.

G Atsma

No cutoff point, just common(??) sense. Get some....

kingtal0n

iTrader: (1)

For some reason I thought it said somewhere up there that he "had other options" or "could get other engines easily"

Its still good to have these discussions, maybe he doesn't realize about the aluminum blocks being 'better',
Dear thread op, for performance reasons the L33 aluminum 5.3L engine is superior to the 6.0L in many ways, so the legends say

to everyone else, it shouldn't be looked down on as 'BAD' when somebody new to LS engines is reading and coming up with ideas, questions, etc...
The more people that chime in the better IMO. Even if its just more food for thought, why should that be a bad thing?
You can work on something your whole life and still be learning every day about it.

forum + people = infinite discussion potential, don't hate!

G Atsma

Talon - The L33 is no different than the spate of aluminum block 5.3's that came after it. It has 243 heads, which all Gen IV 5.3's have, and a tiny bit larger cam than the LM7. The later 5.3's even have a larger cam than the L33. It's a good engine, but the later aluminum 5.3's are as good or better in some ways.

kingtal0n

iTrader: (1)

thanks for the info,

I thought the L33 held the world record for fastest SBE 5.3?
Everytime I see a stock bottom end 1000rwhp car it seems to use the L33.
Perhaps due to low cost?
Are you saying there are other SBE aluminum 5.x engines with that kind of throughput/reliability list?
Just thought it was the go-to engine

found link
https://www.lsxmag.com/news/fastest-...rld-goes-7-81/
https://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/s....php?t=2449666

garys 68

iTrader: (1)

To the OP, google castech heads on the 5.3, a possible problem but not on all engines.
I've swapped an LQ9 and a 5.3, both great engines. The LQ9 has considerably more power. If you're going to tow with the truck, that would be my choice. But you have to consider your current rear end ratio too.
One downside of the LQ9 with the high compression is that I could feel the timing the ecu takes out on very hot days with low octane gas and hard driving. But I had a mild tune on my ecu too.

LS1 TJ

I'd vote for the 6.0 since it has the bigger bore. You can run L92 heads if so desired. A little bit bigger cam in the 6.0 compared to the 5.3 because of the bigger cubes and still have nice manners on the street.
Depending on project direction you can't really go wrong with either.

G Atsma

The L33 has the same bottom end as all 5.3's from the same production period. It was sold as a "high performance" 5.3 as it had 243/799 heads, which ALL Gen IV truck engines got, and a VERY SLIGHTLY larger cam than the LM7 or LQ4. Other than that it's a pretty normal aluminum 5.3. Gen IV aluminum 5.3's are the LH6, LH8, LH9, and LC9

Haggar

*Shrug*.... I had a perfectly good 403" LS2 on the floor, and still put an Iron block 6.0 into my truck

I wouldn't worry at all about the weight, on a truck. In fact, lightening it might make it sit funny without resorting to special springs. In my 71 GMC, replacing the original all iron small block, SM465 / NP205 combo with an LQ4/4L65e/NP208 took over 100lbs off the nose, and now it sits a little high in the front.

For me, if its going to see boost, i'd go 5.3, if it's NA, I'd go 6.0. The LQ9 is basically an iron LS2 bottom end, so with good heads, you can get to good compression ratios easily.

I care about weight, obsessively, in most of my vehicles, but not in that truck. I'm putting the LS2 stroker into my Valiant which will be under 3000 lbs.

FWIW, I did make the effort to source an L33 for my off road Jeep to keep weight down. To the point above, you forgot to mention the L33s have flat top pistons vs the 'regular' 5.3s of the era, adds about 0.5 points of compression.

JoeNova

Capizzi went just as fast with an iron 4.8 as he did with the aluminum 5.3.
Team North went 7.teens with an iron block 5.3 and stock rotating assembly.

$1000 for 100 lbs is probably relevant here. That's about the going rate on an L33 long block and the weight reduction achieved from it.
You want to know what else is relevant? The REAL big picture (which you missed).

$1000/100 lbs = $10/1 lb.
Average weight of an 85 C10 = 4000 lbs.
100 lbs of 4000 lbs = 2.5%.
That's $1000 for a 2.5% improvement on weight going to an aluminum block.


Lets compare the LQ9 to an L33, power AND weight included.
I'll highlight the winner in bold.

Stock LQ9 = 345 horsepower.
Stock L33 = 310 horsepower.

Power to weight ratio:
LQ9 - 4000 lbs/345 horsepower = 11.59 lbs/hp
L33 - 3900 lbs/310 horsepower = 12.58 lbs/hp

Stock LQ9 = 380 ft-lbs
Stock L33 = 335 ft-lbs

Torque to weight ratio:
LQ9 - 4000 lbs/380 ft lbs = 10.52 lbs/ft-lb
L33 - 3900 lbs/335 ft lbs = 11.64 lbs/ft-lb

Since he already has the LQ9, the L33 would be an increase of $1000 over the LQ9.

Stock LQ9 Price = $0
Stock L33 Price = $1000

HP vs Weight %:
345 - 310 = 35. 35/310 = 11.3% increase in power for free.
100 lbs/4000 lbs = 2.5% decrease in weight for $1000.

Offsetting the power/weight?
L33 - $1000 for 100 lbs for a ~ 2.5% weight saving = $400 per 1% power/weight increase.
LQ9 - 2.5% of 345 horsepower = 8.625 horsepower, 1% of 345 horsepower = 3.45 horsepower.
LQ9 - 8.625 horsepower for less than $1000, or 3.45 horsepower for less than $400? Even YOU can answer this one.

$10/lb of weight reduction.....
What else can do that?
-Seats, fiberglass bumpers.
What can do that with additional benefits?
-cheap aluminum wheels, tubular control arms, mono-leaf springs, retro-fit a later aluminum driveshaft
What can remove as much weight as an aluminum block for free?
-remove spare tire and tailgate, or remove A/C.

Nothing you said is statistically relevant.

Michael Yount

iTrader: (1)

JoeNova - math for the win.

kingtal0n

iTrader: (1)

Thats not really statistics lol. All you did is compare stock engine outputs. Larger engine wins? big shock, not worthy of actually writing that down
not a good use of statistics IMO

Who the hell runs a stock engine around here? Did you seriously just assume that? rofl
When making assumptions to create numerical data tree, you typically need to
1. write what the assumptions are so people trying to understand the data know where you are coming from
2. explain what the variables are and which ones are being held constant (and the reasoning) in order to compare data
3. use a statistical interface with commonly accepted annotations such as "mean, median, standard deviation, population attributes, sample size, etc..."

Since I am very lazy, I rarely post numbers unless the equation is memorized and I only have like 1 equation memorized so I don't usually do it.
However in this case it is fairly easy to grasp the two main ideas I have already posted but will try one more time (the thickness is real)
---->
When I recommended the L33 it was obviously(to me) with the intention of it producing at least around 800rwhp. Why else did I bother mentioning the 800-1000rwhp world record attributes?
You thought I mentioned that it was a record setting engine so that he could install an all original, completely stock L33 in place of a 6.0L?
Uh, no, would never suggest that, it just seems obvious but I guess I need to clarify. /sigh

a statistically relevant perspective is typically one which holds a variable or many variables steady, in this case it is power potential and price, which seems similar for both engines, in order to make a significant observation, which we just did... and I'll repeat:

Since the engines are fairly close in price (he could sell the 6.0 and buy an L33 and break even maybe?) and handle similar power (both are seen at 600-800-1000 frequently), and one is 100lbs less.
L33 wins, don't need numbers written down for that. fancy numbers lol 2nd grade math tho

blinded by hubris so hard it makes tangible fog

Besides power potential & price(similar) vs weight(dramatically different), there is another valid perspective which I will also repeat now:
It doesn't matter if the owner can do better later on weight savings vs money, lets say down the road he can drop 10lbs/$0.01, for example by removing a rear seat that weighs 10lbs,
The owner would do that anyways. there is nothing stopping him (not even statistics) because the dollar/weight is superior (its better ratio) than the weight savings of the engine would have been,

The issue that will eventually come up, however, is if he comes across a weight saving that is WORSE ratio, say $11/1lb which is just $1 worse per ratio
Now, you might think I am nit picking over this one. But its still a valid point IMO. If he pays $11 to remove 1lb after being offered a superior option of weight savings at $10/1lb earlier in the build, well that would be pretty poor decision, doing the more expensive reduction isn't it? Without taking the better offer first? So this is a sort of stopping point where the builder needs to look at the entire build before a single part is purchased and say to themself "hmm I don't think I can EVER beat $10/1lb so it's ok for me to turn it down this early in the build" OR "Hmm in the future I will have easy modifications I can make but they cost slightly more than $10/1lb so I had better do this cheaper weight reduction FIRST since its just as easy (motor isn't in yet) instead of putting everything together, and then trying to scrap 100lbs later by changing the engine."
Its not really statistics, its just a relevant question to ask oneself, "am I ever going to do worse" if so you had better opt for the "better" deal up front, it will cost less in the long run.

G Atsma

Talon- Those ARE stats. Quit being so stinkin' argumentative. Joe knows WAY more than you, so leave it alone. You seem to try to come off like a hip college prof, which actually is condescending.

Michael Yount

iTrader: (1)

For the sake of brevity, I simplified this last post so that the poster's relevant, self-analytical part is highlighted.

JoeNova

You always assume that every single person is going to run a max effort turbo setup to push the limits of a stock bottom end. Always. I can link SEVERAL threads where you always base your recommendations on a 1000 horsepower build.

Lets say they do both make 1000 horsepower. Lets say they both do it for the same price.
The torque difference in the LQ9 will still MORE than offset the weight of the block.
Any torque difference in excess of 2.5% will offset the power/weight ratio. There WILL be a torque difference in excess of 2.5%

Drop the notion that literally every build that everyone does is a max effort, rod crushing turbo build. Its annoying.
You've lost touch with 99% of the members here with poor assumptions and disconnected recommendations.

I love the L33. I believe it was forged with magical unicorn juice and that's why I use them in my cars, but I'm not so out of touch with reality that I think its a one-size-fits-all.

lemming104

I don't think the original poster even specified what he intends to do with this truck, what the budgetary constraints are, and whether it is even a performance-oriented build in the first place. For all we know, he's just looking for something more modern to replace an anemic 4.3L or 305, in which case either of the engines specified would be a nice improvement, and would be a good basis for a reliable cruiser (although I'd still recommend the LQ9 because, hey, more displacement, right?).

ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

I <3 this post

kingtal0n

iTrader: (1)

Whats the point of having an (any engine) at displacement of 4 or 5 Liters for performance? Do you have any clue how large that is? Anything that large, if you are not going to have at least 800rwhp is a verypoor decision for performance applications, why do you need my help? I can't help your kind-> No, these posts aren't for you, guys who only want a regular engine, don't bother reading my stuff. I only cater to the performance crowd, approx 200hp per liter is a rough minimum for any engine platform or you had better switch fast!
for example 2L @ 400hp is a minimum, any sr20/4g63 can do that
3L @ 600hp minimum same thing, Aristo/Supra think this is stock territory
... do the math



LOL why are you still here?

at it being 'rod crushing' get a clue? Not trying to talk down just saying, you really don't know huh?
3.0L engine with stock rods will support ~800ft*lbs of torque, OEM engine. For 2.0L historically somewhere around 500ft*lbs is typical. A Six liter with stock rods would then theoretically support approaching 1600 ft*lbs of torque! Even if we account for weaker rods/girdle/block/design/etc it still lands somewhere in the 1200-1300ft*lbs ranges.
By force analysis, it should be possible, given the evidence. No, this is not a *lot* of torque, just 800!
Because power gets inane above 1000~ for daily drivers, I recommend the smallest stock V8 engine usually- 4.8L in this platform. When turbocharged, the engine displacement no longer affects the output total. The only ones who care about large displacement (to repeat), shouldn't be reading, because they just want it to use like a regular engine, for towing or something, not max rpm performance.
4.8L makes as much power as the turbo can provide. 6L makes as much power as the turbo can provide. The number is based on the turbo, not the engine. For daily/reliable/economy, Smaller is better fuel efficiency, so for example I want ~3.5L based on the weight of my vehicle and intended application, but the closest I can get is 4.8, ok so I will take that. Oh they have one engine thats 100lbs less and also LARGER at 5.3? Hmmmm yeah... okay I'll take that... seems fishy (whats the catch) too good to be true... but it isn't too good to be true, it really is -100lbs and bigger displacement thats ******* crazy if you aren't using that, it weighs around what the 2.0L for my car weighs!! How are you not buying these things up and hoarding them in a pile to sleep on... mental note not to announce my plans...

don't buy the Al 5.3L, that leaves more for me to hoard, so 6L has my vote

be the rod
The most important aspect of 'taking care of the rods' in performance is to turbocharge the engine. Backpressure from the turbine will help hold the rod down to the crankshaft on the exhaust stroke, thus preserving the engine internals, increasing it's redline safety. Every engine will benefit in this way from turbocharging, it is part of the reason those small engines can support such large power, if there was no cushion on the exhaust stroke it would fly apart. Using stronger rods and powerful hardware specifically to protect the rod on the exhaust stroke is a half-assed band-aid for the real problem of lack of turbocharger! In this way, I see ALL engines with turbochargers... and there are minimum expectations which depend on displacement to consider for each individual case...



theres nothing wrong with my perception you guys just need to come up a bit , get more experience I guess. Try using smaller engines to get perception for bigger ones. 2L does 500rwhp now from factory (seen it a couple times on 'the' dyno) junk looking cars, VW and stuff front wheel drive E85. If that 2L has 500 and the 3L has 800, you do the math from there and tell me what you think 6L should have, as a minimum. Hint: Its more than 800.