ryeguy2006a

iTrader: (27)

Great innovation on that clutch setup. Should be good from there once it's broke in. You must be a pro by now at removing and installing the motor in that car!

Sway Tale

I got rid of the Toy-Jet coolant manifold, it kept leaking from the NPT threads and I didnt feel like welding them. I asked 417 Motorsport to send me one of their manifolds.
I think it fits better.




Four 16AN oring ports and two 1/8npt ports on top. It also uses stock style gaskets unlike the toy-jet that uses unique gaskets.
Too bad it came out so late in the game.

I used to have a custom adjustable Koni shocks/hypercoil springs setup on my car but i got tired of paying $1k +/- everytime the shocks would wear out. That and my custom housings were bent from multiple incidents.
I have been running god awful GODSPEED mono coilovers. The kind that makes you feel like you have at least a C cup on every bump.
The stock shocks on the STi are inverted monotube strut inserts and even with the stock valving they work. They also take impacts (jumps, ruts, curbs) like a champ, at the expense of the bumpstop.
I wanted to get one of my spare sets re-valved but you cannot buy stock shock inserts. Most of the spares I have are damaged (rust, stripped threads, bent).
So.....I went and bought a set of Bilstein PSS10 and some DMS camber plates. I have never tried them before but they were exactly what I wanted.





I setup an oil cooler from CSF for the BMW e30 right in the stock grill. I am using an improved racing oil thermostat/remote oil filter base. I like it and it actually works but...... The CSF coolers are based on bar and plate intercooler construction. It even says intercooler on the box it comes in. I normally use Setrab oil coolers but their COM (heavy duty trucks and such) line of coolers was just too big. I did however use their M22 banjo fittings at the cooler ends, they are like $50 each, very overpriced.






These are PACO motorsport hubstands. DIY alignment. The pics are when I was setting camber. There are toe plates that go on the stand but I didn't snap a picture of that. The car is sitting on the hubstands. The jackstands are not holding anything up, I was too lazy to move them out of the way.

Sway Tale

So meanwhile the LS2 "blew up" and I rebuilt an aluminum 5.3 with flat tops and 862 heads. I tried a few different cams and a FAST 102/102. Ultimately the best response and drive-ability came from a Victor Jr and a 4150 throttle body. I want to like the FAST but it just cause a huge torque spike and lops off air flow after 6,500 rpm, it really doesn't work for me unless I short shift.


LS2 sloppy rebuild aftermath, coolant in the oil, heavy oil consumption:


Rebuilding my L33, the 243s that came off this engine caused the majority of my problems


MAHLE OE replacement flat tops


New stock rod bolts, my favorite


My favorite tool, it makes this much easier than it has to be


I usually go over everything with a torque wrench but using the torque to angle method lets me sit in both camps


Swapped out the springs the bilsteins came with, Front 550lb/ Rear 450lb.


The mahle oe pistons also don't go above the deck and they are consistently 20 grams lighter than OEM


junk 862 heads that don't leak, I have been reusing the Melling 10296, Katech C5R chain 5 times now.


I have also been reusing the CamMotion double valve springs, keepers, and retainers on 3 different heads. This time around I bought BTR titanium retainers and put them in. Apparently everyone is using the same .660" double valve springs or at least the same specs


I am trying to figure out an easy way to put twin S257s without making custom headers


Same CHE trunnions being used over and over again.


Everyone keeps saying, you can always make space even for a T6 flange.... this billet S471 (K31) doesn't seem to think so.
In reality my problem is not the hotside, its the massive outside diameter of the compressor. I would have to chop the frame rail.
I am curious if a single S366 will work at 7,000rpm on a 5.3...



I always wondered how dumb the FAST would look if I mounted it the normal way





More hood ideas specific to using the FAST 102




Making some USCAR to EV1 adapters



How my FAST 102 setup looked



These actually fit with no spacers or washers on the FAST 102 with Radium fuel rails. They are not made by Ford, they are rebranded Siemens Deka 60 lb with an EV6/USCAR connector. They use the same USCAR connector on LS3, LS7 and a few other GM cars. The tall style Siemens Deka also come in EV1 connector from other re-branders. These require the bottom injector o-rings that came with the FAST 102.


I really want to know the performance/mechanical difference the length of the injector makes.

The most common injector types I have used are (I may have left out a lot of info):
Bosch style, short, long, mid length EV1, EV6, EV14 ("Re-branders" Injector Dynamics, Deatschwerks, FIC). They advertise they are the best and the injectors are their own specific bosch motorsport versions. Hard to believe because USCAR and Mini-Timer connectors have nothing to do with injector type.

Siemens Deka, short, long, Mini-Timer/USCAR connectors ("Re-branders" Injector Dynamics, Deatschwerks, FIC)

Magneti Marelli, "Pico" short, body of injector is bigger diameter than most others. Sometimes stainless housings. Common on European cars. This one of the injectors edelbrock sells (35 lb/hr), I have these for my Victor Jr and they will not fit in the FAST 102 injector bores.

Sumitomo, Denso, Top feed are usually mid-length. The sidefeed are usually more resilient and easier to tune but rare in higher flow rates. Common on Japanese cars, ie Nissan, Subaru ("Re-branders" HKS, SARD, Greddy, STI, Ralliart)

FAST rebrands a lot of the above, deatschwerks as well, Ford Motorsport, GRAMS, FIC, Five-O motorsport....

Edelbrock openly states whose injector they re-sell.

38Chevy454

Wow, you are sure getting good at taking the engine(s) in and out. Great documentation of the way you show how you addressed the challenges of getting everything to fit and work. Your swap is certainly 10 lbs in a 5 lb sack, especially the front clearance. Do you think the TBI setup having better driveability is because it is more fogiving, and a more precise tuning session in the injectors could ultimately work out? Just curious on that.

Sway Tale

TBI? Do you mean Throttle Body Injection? My 4 barrel throttle body doesn't have fuel rails/injectors on it. They are on the intake manifold, like the FAST 102. Tuning injectors is about the same since I don't use a MAF or stock ECU.
While using the Edelbrock Pro-Flo 4 ecu there isn't much you adjust except for AFR and long term/initial compensation. If using AEM infinity you can put in exact values and/or use auto-tune to help then adjust on the fly while driving.
I have never tuned for TBI but I have worked on cars with factory OEM TBI. I wasn't very impressed compared to just using a carb.

Its a combination of things that make the FAST and victor jr so different.

Sway Tale

Ok, time for a wall of text. I typed this up anyway as a reply to a question about something else. Maybe it will help someone decide on which intake manifold style they like. I have not been able to compare dyno numbers, or ET/trap speeds for now.

I have been swapping back and forth between the FAST 102/102mm throttle body and the Victor JR/4150 throttle body. The 4150 is just more responsive and feels faster, but why?

Reasons for the difference:
The gearing on my car is is really short....and I have the transmission with long 1st-4th gears, compared to other STI transmissions. Imagine putting a 4.70 rear diff gear on a T56 and hooking like it was a 2.70.
On top of that, shifting at 7000rpm in 4th puts you back at 6000rpm in 5th. I don't see 4,500 rpm at WOT, torque there only breaks **** on my car or induces gymkahana.
The difference in power is not only there, even at 3,000rpm to 5,500rpm it feels as if the FAST 102 is building up a huge torque spike and then the power drops off. The 4150 just accelerates and doesn't drop in power.

Gear Ratios:

• 1st - 3.636
• 2nd - 2.235
• 3rd - 1.521
• 4th - 1.137
• 5th - 0.971
• 6th - 0.756
• Reverse - 3.545
• Front differential ratio - 3.900
• The transmission uses a center differential instead of a transfer case, so that is FRONT 1:1.1 REAR with variable LSD(0%-30%)/electromagnetic lockup(31%-100%)
• Rear differential ratio- 3.545
• ..Normally, DCCD (center diff control) splits power 49% front and 51% rear. Sensors monitor parameters such as wheel slippage, steering angle, throttle position and braking to help determine torque distribution to the wheels with optimum traction...which is still working on my car. This is not the same as lockup of the diff, that can be adjusted from 30% to 100%.

1. Perception of pedal travel VS response.
The FAST 102 throttle body cam (the thing you attach the throttle cable to) requires a longer travel than the 4 barrel style throttle linkage. This is also true for all LSx throttle bodies I have seen thus far. Even the OEM LS1 3 or 3.5 cam style (which most aftermarket throttle bodies have provisions for).
That means your accelerator pedal requires more travel. Since I have used both intakes/throttle body styles, I ended up making two different pedals.
I have swapped intakes a lot of times at this point....I am considering doing a legit cam+tune/4150TB/single plane VS cam+tune/FAST102/102 test.

The short list of differences: length of bare cable attached to the linkage, the linkage attachment (ball/pin), overall pedal to throttle body cable length, the fulcrum/angle of the pedal itself.

An original unmodified 2002-2005 (they went DBW in 2004-2006) Impreza/WRX pedal + cable will work with the 4150 style perfectly on my car. The stock pedal travel works correctly. The only mod needed is to cut the end of the stock cable, attach the universal carb linkage end, and a bracket to hold the cable to the manifold.
For the FAST/LS1 style I had to mess with the angle of the pedal. That meant taking the pedal off, putting it in a vice, bending it, reinstalling it, taking it off........yea, lots of trial and error. The pedal travel is almost double compared to 4150, the top of the pedal with the cable end actually started hitting my pedal box/clutch pedal linkage. Then after I did all that and started adjusting the throttle blade to lower IAC%, I got too much slack in the cable and almost ran out of adjustment. I ended up cutting half inch of the cable. There is also one more hurdle with the FAST 102, the throttle cable attachment sucks on it. the actual manifold blocks the cable from aligning straight with the throttle body cam. As I am using LOKAR ends to make a subaru cable work, the bare cable rubs the adjuster nut/rod and will eventually cut a slit in it.

I have been keeping an eye on my TPS% (I have a dash display the lets me map whatever I want to see, that and I log) while driving/racing and I use about the same amount of throttle even though the pedal movement is further.

2. Airflow CFM VS Velocity
The Wilson 4150 4 Barrel (as well as FAST 4150 and many others) has a progressive linkage, so up to ~50% TPS (42-48%, depends how you scale it in the ECU and what TPS you use) you are only partially opening 2 barrels. The response will be even more noticeable if you swap out the progressive link for a solid one (all 4 barrels open evenly). edit: I eventually did swap out the progressive linkage for a solid and it helped with drive-ability immensely, I have no idea what the progressive is meant to help with.
I am still yawning with the FAST 102 at 50% TPS... even in 1st. To be fair I was using a camshaft that works decent on the FAST102; 226/234 112+4 .600/.600. I tried this on a 5.3 and a 6.0.
Before you say but TPS has nothing to do with that or depends how you tune the car......I am referencing my setup.

The smaller throttle blades on the 4150 TB have a similar effect to 4 valves per cylinder. Actual sizes and shapes are more important than just proportions and ratios. Four barrel throttle bodies are based on an old idea that was developed to improve carburetors and engine control.
On the flip side, the FAST 102 has a very smooth and large torque curve compared to the 4150/vic jr but the top end is just not there with the FAST. This also means my 5.3/862 heads engine doesn't flow enough air to make use of the FAST.

3. Airflow distribution
Air enters the intake manifold plenum then the vacuum from the cylinders continues to pull the air through the runners. How can you shape that movement and what does it do?
The single plane/4150 combo tries to mimic an ITB (individual throttle body) setup. Its not quite there because of the open plenum, and at the same time does not require synchronizing vacuum among the throttle bodies. This is generally why the response seems faster even if it makes less power and/or torque at a given RPM compared to the FAST 102.
Strangely ITB setups suffer if the diameter of the throttle bodies is too big or too small for the engine setup but I have never seen a drop in power from anyone switching from a EFI single plane 4150 to a 4500 (4150 is usually 4 x 1.75" blades and 4500 can be 2.00" to 2.5"). Maybe the intake manifold itself play a role in that.
The FAST 102 has a large plenum with long runners, this smooths out and tries to balance airflow to each cylinder. This gives that feel of slow response.

For the past 4 months I have only been using the cam I mentioned earlier. This cam cause quite a bit of surge from 1,500-2,200 rpm in low gears. With the 4150 this is annoying but livable.
With the FAST 102, the engine would be drastically easier to stall out (less torque at idle speed), would not idle clean at anything below 1,100 (vs 900 with the Vic Jr), surge would happen less often but if the engine did begin to surge it would shock the drive line much harder.

4. Accessibility
This is really subjective and influenced my decision. Even though I will probably swap back and forth between manifolds on my next engine.

FAST 102 pros: overall height is lower

FAST 102 cons: I can't run the steam ports under the FAST 102
I only have 5 inches of space from the throttle body to the firewall
I have to run the coolant reservoir in a place I don't like, on top of the clutch cylinder
Fuel lines to rails routing sucks, has to go above manifold, rail ends are offset
Length is longer
"Front" of manifold is much taller
Tall injectors are a better fit, of which I only have 60lbers and cant use my Pico injectors
IAT tends to be higher, cant exactly stick the filter in front of the car.

38Chevy454

Thanks for the clarification, I used TBI when I meant throttle body. Error on my part since TBI does in fact imply the injectors in the throttle body, and not individual at each intake runner.

Thanks also for the more detailed writeup of the comparison and reasons on the TB vs FAST intakes. Appreciate the time it takes to write it up and help others like me to understand.

Sway Tale

You're welcome.

Tuning process for fueling is about the same but you can't use the same maps/tables. I'm using the same AFR targets but initial/short/long term trims are different.

Thinking back to when I started. I have to say you're right. I spent less time overall tuning for a 4150, and I ran the FAST only months after that. On the 4150 I let the AEM auto tune most of the fueling but with the FAST I had to tweak it myself quite a bit, even with the PF4.

38Chevy454

Continuing the discussion, do you think the runner length is what makes the most difference, or the plenum volume? The more conventional intake with the four hole throttle body setup has the shorter runners, and (assuming, seems pretty clear visually) lower plenum volume than the FAST with the big single throttle body plate. Plenum volume might be why the surging seems worse on the FAST intake? For sure the self tuning aspect helps to tweak in easier than you having to do it.

I am trying to decide what to do on one of my old hot rods (52 GMC) that currently has SBC with 700R4. Thinking about going with LS swap. Your post has me leaning to maybe going with the more conventional style intake with the four hole throttle body. If only because I like the appearance of that better, but also as it seems like it just works really well. Guess it is budget vs performance decision. Not a hood or other engine clearance issue for me. I have even thought about a carb LS swap, but that gives up the benefits of the fuel injection.

Sway Tale

A larger plenum is needed to make use of a longer runner, if its too small then you make less power. If a short runner has too large of a plenum then you gain nothing and lose response. Generally plenums are sized to keep up with the runners and do not change response, just move the HP/TQ around. Shape plays a role in plenum size though.
The 4 hole throttle body and the direct path of air to the runners helps with air distribution. Adding open spacers to the single plane flange will increase power and 4 hole spacers will improve air distribution (cylinders run more equal). Some intakes, like the Super Victor, try to extend the runners inside the plenum. I am actually going to throw a wilson tapered 4 hole 1" spacer on this week and see if anything changes. It is supposed to help with carb tuning problems.

Shorter runners make peak power at higher engine speeds and improve response. Almost all professional race cars (road racing) have a short runner setup, usually ITB. They want that peak power and response. Even 4 barrel/single plane is common on v8 race cars (EFI or Carb), very popular in IMSA, American Iron. Ignition timing and airflow velocity change response as well.

The large plenum with long runners makes more torque everywhere but my engine just feels sluggish. The FAST, for lack of a better word and I quote, homogenizes the airflow. Once your top end outflows your bottom end, the FAST just stops making power.

What I didn't tell you is, it doesn't surge if I accelerate (even slowly) through that area nor does it happen in gears 4,5, and 6. Its only when I change throttle position to hold rpms, in that rpm range, that I feel like my input shaft is about to shear with the FAST. I have the surging problem only if I have to drive the car on the street in traffic or a parking lot. With the FAST I clutch in when the engine surges or the driveline jerks. With the 4150 I can either let off the throttle or give it more. I forget I have poly bushing/solid engine/trans mounts with the 4150, the FAST reminds me I have them.
With any of the OEM camshafts, even the LS9 cam, the car drove better in every way compared to the subaru engine when the car was brand new. I am talking 1,200rpms in 6th without any vibration from solid motor mounts, granted thats only like 30mph on my car. That feeling made the whole build worth it.

I would definitely do single plane 4 barrel if space allows. Its much easier to work with. I don't even care about the looks, I originally chose it to make the hood line lower.
Carb'd LS needs more ignition timing which can be a good thing. The fuel at the carb lowers IAT a bit but that's mostly for blow-through. Carb'd LS is also easier to install if you already have a carb setup. On the other hand the main reason for EFI is drivability and compensation for environment changes (including changes to the engine/fuel). I however do not recommend OEM ecus (unless they are free...), they have too many variables for tuning that can't all be solved with a few hours on the dyno. Their only benefit is OBD2 compliance and automatic transmission control.
EFI and Carb are pretty equal in power.

The reasons to run the long runner manifolds are: being greedy for torque, comes free with the engine, doesn't fit otherwise, using GM ECU and Throttle body.
The FAST 102/102 is a tad big for a 5.3. FAST 92/92 would be better even if all you want it top end power. Even so I would still get the 102 on a 4.8. Its just a better design overall.
​​​
The runners inside the FAST 102 variants are removable. There are short and mid length runners from FAST for the 102 rectangle port (LS3/L92) and I think the LSXRT (Truck/Tall cathedral port heads). They are only available separately and they are not offered for plain cathedral 102. I considered making them out of the long ones but its $500 for a replacement long runner set so that will have to wait....I would rather get a super vic, short runnner sheet metal intake, or the BTR equalizer instead.

MSD Atomic Air Force has shorter runners and horsepower peaks higher compared to the FAST.

Then you have the Holley Hi Ram which has a gigantic plenum and usually makes the most peak power. The runners are close to mid length though.

I have not tried an elbow with a TB on the 4150 flange. Carb hat on 4 barrel though is about the same as a round air cleaner and isn't much taller.


Fun facts about LS single plane intakes:

Super Victor for cathedral heads (6.07" carb pad height) and Victor Jr for rectangle port (6.00" carb pad height) heads are the same height and design but the Victor Jr for cathedral heads (4.95" carb pad height) is 1" shorter than either of them. Obviously the plenum and runners have a lot to do with the displacement and air flow cfm.

The Holley split design comes with a 4500 flange (7.32" carb pad height). It is the only cathedral port single plane with a 4500 flange that I have found. Its also about the same height as the Super Victor 4500 flange (7.67" carb pad height) for the LS3.

The CID intake which is a 9.5" tall single plane 4150 or 4500 intake is really popular for drag racers and usually puts down good power on 400+ cubes but I have only seen it for the LS3/LS7 heads. This intake was designed to keep runner length equal.

Single plane intakes use the crappy Fel-pro paper gaskets for the intake manifold. Examples: GMPP, Super Victor. They are crappy because they like to glue themselves to aluminum.
Victor Jr and the Holley use the OEM LS1/LS6 o rings

Sway Tale

Looks like I am making custom headers.

Sway Tale

I found the cause of 90% of my surging. I forgot I had a progressive link on my 4 barrel throttle body. I switched to the solid link and it drives considerably better at lower rpms. Stills surges mildly at the same rpms but anything over 5% TPS it goes away.

This is the solid link, I was using one that is slotted. The rear 2 barrels would open late and that caused my surging. My AFRs even leveled out and became more consistent. I really have no idea why I even left the progressive linkage in there.
\



I tried out the 4 hole tapered spacer and it made absolutely no difference, even the tune didn't need any adjustment.







I am still building my LS2. I am waiting on the camshaft so I can order pushrods.

Johnson 2116LSR, I am trying to get rid of the lifter trays. I finally have an engine worth putting these into.





New OE MAHLE LS2 pistons, The vvt pistons have useless valve reliefs so they went in the garbage.




I want to try something I haven't seen anyone do...probably for a good reason. S366 with a Tial 1.27 A/R turbine housing.
The plan is to try a s372SX-E afterwards and dyno the differences. At least it fits....somewhat.







My other option with the borg housing. It doesnt fit very well with a stock manifold. I have eveything to make custom headers for twins so I probably wont attempt this.





My continuing failure to get an S475 96mm in there.

Sway Tale

So I got some PRC 225 62cc heads for my N/A LS2 build. They feel to the touch more bulky and thicker as a casting compared to the GM stuff. The quality is nice and most people at work, who build oem engines, thought they were worked over oem heads.
If you are deciding on what heads to go with, then PRC is a good deal.
Do not waste money on porting stock heads, they are a pretty weak casting to begin with. They don't get better after 15 years either. Most cathedral heads are usually cracked somewhere and leak coolant internally.
I have two sets of 243s with this problem that I wanted to get ported, That could be as high as $1,500 with valves, guide replacement, milling, etc. and BAM! you find coolant in your oil.......and your cylinders liners have funky wear on them.....
I payed less than $2,200 with shipping for brand new heads with valves, valve springs, and a better casting core. A wet sump LS7 is still $12,000 new with manifolds, an LS3 is $5,000 for a new long block, LSA heads are $1,200 for the pair and don't include rockers.
TFS heads are another option but they cost a little bit more money and there is a lot of rumors concerning guide wear/valvetrain geometry that no one objectively answers.

I wanted naturally aspirated power and owned a $400 6.0 long block with bad heads.



I also ordered a PatG spec'd custom cam made by Cam Motion. I failed to read that the cam core would be an 8620. Apparently 8620 core don't have a large hole in the middle like the 5150 (like OEM), so you can't use a 1/2" extension to help you hold the cam while sliding it into the block. Had to actually thread bolts into the cam this time.





PRC heads are shipped individually and in a box inside a box so damage from shipping is highly unlikely. They are 6 bolt and you can use them on 5 bolt blocks.
I got mine with dual valve springs w/titanium retainers for 0.660" lift, Texas Speed advertises them as PAC springs.
I can't tell if the springs are the same ones everyone sells but I can tell you the retainers look really different compared to BTR, CamMotion, etc. I think they use an integrated valve spring seat/seal like oem, at least that's what it look like assembled.





There is CNC work on the heads even though they are advertised as-cast.





The chambers and head casting look like they are CNC'ed to finish specs. Much like the OEM GM castings have flash where machining is not needed.










I didn't take pictures of the runners but they also have machining done to them. All the important parts are machined on the head really well. Awesome replacement heads. The only thing better about stock GM heads is that you already own them.



Johnson 2116 lifters, I wanted a better lifter and to get rid of the trays.


The 6th bolt doesn't stick out as bad as I thought it would. I could probably grind them down in the future.

Sway Tale

I bought the BTR shaft rocker kit. I am hoping this will help my combo with the power at 7,000+ rpm.

Its like a trunnion kit.





Except for this part:






Geometry is the same but the support for the pedestal is much better. The 3 holes on the shaft are extra bolts that don't let the shaft move around.

Sway Tale

I swapped the motor out on the weekend. I reused the chain, oil pump, and dampener again. Left is the L33/862 heads engine I took out and right is the LS2/PRC 225 I put in.
I ended up with 7.625" pushrods with the BTR shaft rocker kit and johnson 2116LSR lifters.




I killed the clutch master twin disc really quick, mostly my fault. I decided to try out the Powertrain Technology twin disc. I am still using the Clutch Masters flywheel. Most 7.25" clutches use the dimensions.
One note though, the spline hubs from PTT are different in terms of height and spacing. The clutch disc material and shape is a bit different. Both twin discs are 0.200" thick ceramics discs and rated for 600 lb/ft torque.
I have driven the car with the PTT and the new engine and its a lot smoother and easier to engage. I think the larger displacement and better heads are the reason.



This is what the ACT single looked like after 3,500 miles of torture. I did chill out with the top speed runs on this disc. The flywheel needs to be cut, I don't like the wear pattern on the single disc. I was also getting vibration with it that I don't have anymore.



My LS7 exhaust manifolds are touching the 6th bolt area of the PRC heads. I am debating grinding the heads or denting the manifolds. As of now the header flange leaks a tiny bit because of this.




The L33 aftermath:
I was thrashing the 5.3 as much as I could. I ran low on oil twice and oil pressure dropped to 45 psi at 6,500ish rpm during cornering.
I could not find any damage on the valve train, nothing in the oil pan, oil filter was clean. There was some metal dust on the drain plug but that is most likely piston rings/cylinder liners, PTW clearance was really big for any pistons.
I am aware of the bad wear pattern on the rockers, they were like that when I got the engine from the junkyard. I have been pushing it expecting it to fail or show more wear.
I may pull the rod bearings out of curiosity. For now the L33/862 heads engine will go back to a 0.051" head gasket and wait for my turbo setup. I want to get Johnson 2110 or 2116LSR lifters for it and see if there is any more power to be had at 7,000+ rpm.
Oh yea, no coolant in the oil this time. The 862 heads I used have really old casting stamps on them, like circa 1997-1998.




I still have to swap injectors. I put in 60lb/hr and its too much. Once I get that sorted I can try to see what it puts down in the 1/4. Maybe dyno soon.

Sway Tale

I ended up denting the LS7 manifolds to clear the 6th bolt. It didn't take much, hard to tell I even did something.

I swapped out the 60lb/hr @ 43.5 psi to my trusty Edelbrock injectors and I started to creep up on 95% injector duty cycle on my LS2/PRC225 engine.
35lb/hr@43.5psi injectors at 58psi base pressure is good for 600hp+.....there is no way I am making that much power with my current camshaft and ls7 exhaust manifolds.
The fuel pressure was dropping to 48 psi at 6-7k rpm, so the duty cycle kept climbing to keep up with the afr. The car was turbo before I did the swap so why am I running out of fuel pressure?
I am implying that I should have at some point have installed a fuel pump good for 500whp when I had a turbocharged subaru engine in the car. Wait a minute, do I have a walbro 255 in the tank?



Well the sock for the pump is really dirty, I should change that. Then there's the fuel filter in the engine bay that barely has any miles on it.
Wait. WTF pump is this?



That's not a fuel pump. That is garbage. I want to like this company but everything they sell/rebrand is just garbage compared to other recognized brands.
It is supposed to flow ~300lph@13.5V and 60 psi. It doesn't.

I installed this pump right before the swap. Back then I was running an unusual 2.0 Liter with a stock style turbo and a stock fuel pressure regulator. I remember now that the stock FPR was being overrun by a single walbro 450 and would hit 43 PSI with -18 inHG manifold vaccum (stock fpr is 43.5 psi). I wanted to review this pump for pump gas/small turbo users as an alternative to a Walbro. Its a good thing I forgot all about it.

So I went to order a pump and realized a walbro 255 wasn't going to work. I decided let me do my surge tank setup now. I went to go look up part #s for a lift pump for the main tank and a walbro 450 for the surge tank. I contemplated buying two walbro 255s for the surge tank and one as a lift pump.
I was perusing TI automotive's website catalog and said WTF is a GSS352? GSS342 is a drop in 255 for a subaru (it also means the style of pump body) so what exactly is a GSS352G3?




Its basically a 350 version of the 255. Its nicknamed the Walbro 350lph and it's also listed as flowing 300lph@60 psi and 13.5 volts. This pump actually does the job. My fuel pressure is on point now and injector duty cycle doesn't go over 80%.
I didn't know this pump existed. Everyone I told about this pump told me I have been living under a rock.

There is also a GSS350G3 (22mm center inlet) and a GSS351G3 (11mm inlet 180 degrees from outlet). G3 just means "Generation 3". These pumps are very quiet compared to the walbro 255 are to supersede it.

Short story: Buy Walbro (TI Automotive) fuel pumps, they are great!

I now have a new problem though. I am only getting 50-55 psi of oil pressure @ 5,000+ rpm with 220F oil temperature. I am already running a melling 10296 with the "COPO Camaro" spring.
I tried a 5w30 and a 10w40, maybe a 2-3 psi change. Oil pressure drops after 215F oil temperature which is when my oil cooler thermostat opens fully, before that I get my usual 65-70 psi at high rpm. Idle at 225F is around 30-35psi which is fine.
I want to get a Melling 10355 but I found out there is a 10355HV. It would be great if anybody has some input on how much GPM the 10355HV actually flows. All I know is it supposedly flows 53% more than a 10295 which only gives me a rough estimate that may be off by 1 GPM. I am trying to rev up to 7,600+ rpm.

I will take all the oil pressure I can get, otherwise I may have to blame the stock rod bolts for my oiling problem.

Edit: I decided to prove a point. I am going to get the 10355HV for my non-DOD/AFM LS2 and have extremely high oil pressures of 80+ psi and cause my engine to have a long and happy life.
I may ask the oil pump not to hide all 8.5 quarts of oil so I don't empty the oil pan.......or I'll just ask the guys with an LSA powered CTS V what they are using for an oil pump. There is more to it than just piston oil squirters.
Second Edit: I ended up getting 90+ psi depending on oil temp but I figured out where all the oil ends up going when its not returning to the pan. See Post #61.

Cliff notes: my new engine is making good power but I had to get a new fuel pump to keep up. Also my oil pump isn't keeping up with my oil cooler and 7" tall oil filter.

Sway Tale

Edit: I found Melling's application chart

I installed the melling 10355HV oil pump.
I get minimum 65 psi at idle now at any temperature. Usually 95 psi at idle when cold. I installed the green high pressure spring. I no longer get a large pressure drop (47-53 psi at 7,000rpm) at 215°F when my oil cooler thermostat is fully open. The HV version of the 10355 flows a lot and the bypass opens by 2,000 rpm. That is great for high oil temps.

The are things I don't like. Lifters are noisy when oil is cold, could be I messed up on pushrod length. I routinely hit over 100 psi of oil pressure under 190°F oil temp and over 3,500 rpm. Slightly more oil getting caught in the catch cans, then again I should have already added an air oil separator that drains back into the pan. My oil temps actually dropped 7°F on average and the oil temperature is more consistent (doesn't spike from 195°F to 230°F in 15 seconds). The oil temperature drops as fast as it climbs, I was not expecting this. This isn't necessarily bad, Subaru engines have 75-90 psi oil pressure at 3000ish rpm from the factory. It is one of the reasons they used to come with engine coolant/oil heat exchangers. None of that matters....

I now get at least 85psi of oil pressure at 7,500rpm and 220F oil temp. That is perfect for what I am doing. The 10355HV is perfect for high rpm, oil cooler, two turbo oil feeds, aftermarket lifters, and looser bearing clearances. This is why the LSA engine guys like this pump when they go turbo. The LSA engine also comes with piston oil squirters and comes with the AFM/DoD pump stock aka 10355.

I will most likely pick up a melling 10355 and put it to the test versus the 10355HV. I have used the GM AFM pump before but unfortunately I had a low bypass spring in it and chucked it away thinking it wasn't keeping up.

Bottom line is you should use at least a 10355 or GM DoD/AFM pump on a performance build with an oil cooler. Just change the spring for proper oil pressure and don't use a stock oil pan.

Melling's application chart, specific data and GM equivalent

Note, there is also:
M295HV which is a high volume version of an M295 and no idea whether it flows more or less than an M296 or its just a spring difference.
10294 which is a lower volume version of a 10295 which would only be useful for a really low rpm or next level low friction setup......but why? Edit: Figured this out, see below

My opinion on LS oil pumps

GM's reasoning for the many pumps has to do with what oil requirements the engine had. VVT, AFM/DoD, oil pan style/sump/filter/bypass, high performance, all at the same time, etc. It is also normal to have high oil pressure early in the RPM range, as long as its bypassing. You will notice the pressure drop anyway when the oil temperature increases if you don't then your bypass is stuck or too much spring/shim.

10294 - lower volume version of a 10295/stock pump, I can see this for a precision machined assembly with extremely small clearance ie; 0.0008 or less bearing clearance. That still doesn't solve the lower volume part, unless you're trying to gain another 2-3 hp with a unique racing oil such as 0w-5. Apparently my ignorant self has been told this is the pump to run with priority main oiling blocks....my reply was what about the hydraulic lifters? They would see very little oil flow/pressure being at the end of the oil feed. The counter-argument was solid roller should take care of that....

10295/M295/12586665- useless for anything but a stock engine. It's basically a stock pump. Low rev limit (below 6,000 rpm), stock oil pan and daily driver, regardless of bypass spring used. I wouldn't even bother trying to run an oil cooler or remote oil filter with this pump.

10296/M295HV - only for stock to mild engines up to 7,000 rpm and change or shim the bypass spring if using a small oil cooler. Oil pan internal bypass needs to be removed. This pump is borderline if you are running looser bearing clearance, may need to run 5w-40 oil as a crutch. Not recommended for large oil cooler, long oil cooler lines, oil temperatures above 250°F or large remote oil filters. Need stock/tight bearing clearance for this pump to rev high.

10355/M365/12612289 (M355/12571885) - definitely for modded engines. Aftermarket lifters, 7,000+ rpm, large oil coolers, turbo oil feed, aftermarket oil pan, relocated oil filter, aftermarket heads, piston oil squirters, looser bearing clearance. Any one of those are a prerequisite to use this pump. Change oil bypass spring accordingly to your max rpm, shim the spring if you need a little bit more pressure. Great for 5w30 oil, high rpm, high oil temps. This pump is the same as the factory LSA (Cadillac CTS-V, Camaro ZL1) oil pump. Keep in mind that GM also put this pump on an engine without DoD/AFM, GM's reason was the piston oil squirters in the LSA engine required more oil flow.

10355HV/M365HV (???? GM equivalent)- perfect for 8,000+ rpm, low oil viscosity, large oil coolers, piston oil squirters all at the same time. If the 10355/M365 doesn't keep up, this is the pump to get. This is the performance upgrade pump for the LSA (cadillac ctsv/Camaro ZL1) and wet sump LS7. Neither of these pumps are listed in the application chart for some reason.

The bullshit about AFM/DoD pumps should not be used on anything other than AFM/DoD engines needs to stop.

Sway Tale

Swapping out the Melling 10296 for the 10355HV.





Oh, yeah I had a fun time this past weekend. I swapped out my 2007 sti transmission to my spare 2006 because two weeks ago I couldn't fully engage 1st gear and 2nd gear was completely blocked. While that means nothing to most people. 2006 has shorter 1-4 gears and the same 5th and 6th. Also my transmission started making a loud howling/whining under low rpm high load, that turned out to be a bearing on the transfer gears that needs to be replaced.


I have to pull the subframe to remove the transmission the correct way and there is nothing to hold the engine up while the transmission is out. I wanted to swap to the 10355HV oil pump anyway so I would have had to pull the subframe anyway. You can pull the transmission out of a subaru without removing the subframe and/or the engine but its a pain in the *** with solid/urethane bushing mounts. Faster to just drop the frame, lets you move the axles out of the way without disassembling the spindle side.


Very easy to disassemble to be honest.


The transmission hasn't been removed from this car since it got swapped from a 5 speed to a 6 speed around ten years ago. 5 speed transmissions are really weak even for subaru engines, they are based off 80s tech and meant to use really short gear ratios (think 4.44 final drive and 16" wheels) and 100-200hp. 6 speeds have an electro-mechanical adjustable lock-up center differential and the design trickled down from various sources such as the WRC program from the 90s. Everything about the 6 speed is large compared to the 5 speed, the JDM 2000-2001 STi (the "bugeye", not the old 90s impreza) was the first subaru to get this transmission. That was back when subaru was actually putting forged pistons in the STi and trying to be competitive in racing.




My next gen single post lift. I had to swap over the crossmember on the transmission.





PTT clutch looking good.





This is the transmission already disassembled, thats the bellhousing facing the ground and the drive gear shaft sticking out



That is the mainshaft. The "input shaft" is part of it, its not removeable. I would like to make a mainshaft that has a different end for the clutch splines. Longer so I can use 3 and 4 disc clutches with a larger spline. Someone suggested to put an adapter over it.



My 1st and 2nd gear engagement slider "broke". It got stuck and I couldn't force the shifter into 1st all the way and 2nd was completely blocked, even with the engine not running.
I took apart the transmission and had to press the slider off the engagement teeth/synchro. After that it started engaging 1st and 2nd. This means I forced it into gear at high rpm without the clutch disengaged enough. I had some issues with the hydraulic release bearing not working correctly and me not caring enough about that.




That metal sticking out at the ends, that's what was blocking the gears from engaging, it was stuck part way and pressing it off straightened it back out.

wretched73

My gosh you have so much time in this build.

Please keep updating, I really enjoy following along.

Sway Tale

After swapping to a Melling 10355HV I noticed I was getting more oil than normal in my catch cans. I was running an actual PCV system and the catch cans would overfill and get oil into the intake. I have a typical carb air cleaner so the breather hose would get oil all over the air filter.....

I had a couple of ideas of my own and already had catch cans and air/oil separators from previous builds. I even swapped the 10355HV for a 10355 to see the oil pressure vs crankcase pressure change, it didn't.
Melling 10355HV in the front, 10355 behind it. Look at difference in gear width.


I wanted to see what was the norm for LS engines and crankcase venting, so I looked at what was for sale. It turns out like most things that are being sold, they are misrepresented and the application is wrong. I ended up having to do bunch of experimenting and wiping oil off my windshield eight times.

Most of the valve covers for sale are junk, either the valve cover and/or vents have no baffling, or the vent ports are only 3/8" diameter. Engines with 2 liters of displacement run larger size breather ports than 3/8" with a square 3.385 bore & stroke. They also make considerably less crankcase pressure at the same power levels.

The stock valve covers are great for most applications and are very easy to modify. Just weld a -10AN bung (I prefer female ORB, more options with fittings) to where the stock PCV valve/port sits on the valve cover, you can even drill that spot and tap it for NPT if you can't/won't weld. For the second stock valve cover just buy a baffled oil cap with a -10AN ORB outlet, you can probably glue a -10AN fitting to the stock cap if you don't want to spend any money.

If you can afford billet valve covers then make sure you get them baffled, they are usually called the "race versions".

Here are a few examples:




The valley cover vent and any kind of PCV system on the LS is detrimental to performance. This is what causes oil to get into the intake. It has nothing to do with: "The intake manifold sucks the oil out of the crankcase .."
No, that is not the way it works. The LS actually pushes oil out through the valley cover and cylinder heads because so much crankcase pressure builds up in the oil pan......not the famous bullshit quote: "You are emptying your oil pan and all the oil pools in the heads".
It's just not draining well while the engine is under heavy load. LS3 heads don't pool oil in the heads neither do the cathedral heads, the crankcase pressure increases from the higher power production and an even bigger bore and/or stroke. The venerable LS1 is only a 5.7 and the LS3 is a 6.2. My 5.3L with 10.7:1 compression has considerably less crankcase pressure than my 11.6:1 Compression LS2. I rarely ever had to empty the catch cans on any of my 5.3 engines and I flog the car every time I drive it.

If you expect to install a working PCV and go wide open throttle often on your LS equipped vehicle, expect oil in your intake. I don't care what kind of super duper, special, custom, vented can you are using. I don't care who makes it, what other people say, or how little oil you find in it. There is no secret to it or combination of special valves. If you want the crankcase to vent into your intake you will get oil in it....even if the catch can is vented to atmosphere at the same time. The oil vapor still makes it to the intake, eventually you start to build up oil on the intake walls.

If you are trying to be vehicle emissions compliant in the US then, yeah, go ahead and install a PCV/intake breather system but don't bother venting from the valley cover. Also any catch can with PCV and a vent to atmosphere at the same time is not emissions compliant. Instead, you might as well just run a breather hose off the catch can to the rear of the car and you can avoid the smell in cabin.

The best thing you can do is install an Air/Oil Separator instead. Catch can and separator are not the same thing. An air/oil separator is meant to do as the name implies, and is usually a heated can that allows for oil to drain back into the engine while venting the crankcase at the same time. Hint: Very few turbocharged vehicles had this from the factory, look it up.

Now I attempted to do this my way because I have not seen anyone offer anything remotely useful for a performance application. Plenty of stuff for mild daily drivers, improvements for stock engines with stock camshafts, stock compression, etc. blah blah blah

So while I swapped the pump.....



I decided to weld bungs to my oil pan for future turbo oil drains....





The TIG machine I use is kind of broken. It takes hours to find a setting that will even work somewhat.




Oops, I missed






The rivets kept getting loose so I just welded the baffle in place



Lazy way of testing for leaks using Diesel Fuel




I also welded a bung on the valley cover. I chose the placement for ease of installation. It really doesn't matter where you put it because it sprays oil out no matter what. Also that far forward it slings up plenty of oil off the camshaft too. I'll elaborate more on this later...
The valve covers are on "backwards". The PCV valve cover is on the RH side of the engine because the 10AN ORB port I welded onto it makes it more compact. All I did was use a visegrip to pull out the stock PCV fitting, its actually removable and very easy to do so.
I put the valve cover with the oil filler on the LH side.




That is a Perrin Air/Oil Seperator meant for a turbocharged Subaru engine. It doesn't really matter since the layout of the Subaru engine matches a V8 in terms of valve covers and crankcase. An interesting thing is the Subaru engine has the actual crankcase and valve covers vented to each other seperately from the PCV system and intake, sort of like a balance hose. I am considering trying this out in the future. The can uses 3/8" NPT ports and I connected them to 8AN fittings.



In the photo I have both valve covers and the valley pan vented into the sides of the can with 8AN hose (1/2"). On the bottom is an oil drain 6AN hose that goes into the top of the oil pan. The top of the can is vented into my air filter/intake hose/carb base with an 8AN hose. Two 4AN coolant hoses go to the bottom of the can to keep it hot to prevent condensation. I have a port on top of my upper radiator hose that runs to my surge tank air bleed, so I am using that to heat the seperator.





This is what the Air/Oil Seperator looks like inside.



For the other valve cover I blocked of the port on top of the valve cover and used a baffled oil filler cap with a 10AN orb port on top of it. The fitting swivels when you unscrew the cap.


I did all that and took it for a test drive. I had oil all over my windshield within seconds while doing a 1 mile run.
I couldn't figure it out what was causing. I pulled the air filter and it was soaked in oil as well as the intake manifold. I thought the Perrin Air/Oil Seperator was leaking at the base where it disassembles and an o-ring is used as a seal.
I vented the separator to atmosphere, wiped all the oil off the windshield and attempted another 1 mile run. Same result, oil all over the windshield again.
Now I am thinking the separator is getting overfilled with oil faster than it can drain it. I proceed to install a larger separator with larger ports.

I made a bracket and everything:


It works the same way as the can above but the top port is the crankcase inlet and the side port is the air outlet but you can swap them around if necessary for space. The Perrin seperator had 3 inlets on the side and and air outlet on top and you cannot not change that.


Biggest waste of money so far has been fittings, and that's less than half of my collection.



Some of those are $25 on wholesale, I don't want to imagine retail cost.