View Poll Results: You choose what you favor
LS Based new school engines
268
89.93%
Old school engines
30
10.07%
Voters: 298. You may not vote on this poll
NEW SCHOOL(lsBASED) VS OLD SCHOOL!!
11-14-2006, 02:14 PM
#101
Originally Posted by BOWTIE
While i tend to agree the LS1 is an improvement over the SBC, I do not feel it is all that. Also, not everything on the LS1 is an improvement... Non adjustable valvetrain strikes me as the most obvious one. Some people like to flaunt the 6 bolt mains, the old Hemi's had those, some like the aluminum blocks, those have been around for years as well, the improved valve angle which allows better flow is nothing new either, it was just not used in production before. Speaking of old school, how about that TPI GMHTP did not too long ago. .030 350, cast iron vortec heads, different intake, etc. and made like 417 hp and 486 ft/lbs. granted this was at the flywheel, but still not too shabby. Honestly i do not subscribe tyo the mag so I do not know exactly what was involved in the build up, but the conclusion was very impressive.
think about this... 90% of us can reuse whats almost a roller rocker... it works at high RPM and it doesnt have to be replaced... its a true ratio... unlike that stamped steel crap.
basiclly. it works perfect for anyone with a street or street/strip motor that is keeping the hyd roller...
anyone building something beyond that would need to replace the rockers on either motor... and its therefore a moot point.
so while its true that you'll need diffrent pushrods to adjust the valvetrain in a motor your building.... you dont need new rockers unless you're going all out.
and in that case, just buy adjustible ones... the option is right there.. and right there in price with SBC rockers of similar quality.
11-14-2006, 02:54 PM
#103
14 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, Il
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrDude_1
but it still bugs me that people claim the LS1 costs more. i know its only because they dont realise the real value into it... but none the less, its annoying.
11-15-2006, 06:17 AM
#104
Originally Posted by 98RedZone
Someone mentioned the article in CHP this month, which I got around to reading last night. They both made the same HP and cost the same. The "old school" ,however, had CNC ported Dart heads (vs as cast Darts), and a CNC ported prototype intake (both Edelbrock carb intakes). It also had a cam that made 6.5 in. of vacuum vs the LSx's 10 in. The cam used in the LS2 was a comp 281 (XER lobe I think). They said the old school was not streetable at all. I understand them showing what it takes to make two different engines with similar numbers, but why not go further and show what the Gen IV would have done with better heads and a more agressive cam.
As far as the budgets coming so close. I think it was because there were a few more "exotic" parts on the old school motor. But that goes to show you what it takes to keep up with the LSX motors.
11-15-2006, 03:55 PM
#106
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: E-Hurst IL
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrDude_1
why didnt your friend do the work himself? or you help him?
i mean, the LS1 is easier to work on then the SBC... for example, in a cam swap, theres no dropping the pan. no distrib timing, no need to pull the intake, no gasketmaker involved (maybe 2 dabs if you want, but its not required), you can potentally reuse every gasket.. its as simple as it gets.
i tossed in a stock LS1 drivetrain for under 4,000 and got a 6spd trans, 32+mpg, and cut a 8.2 thru the stock z28 muffler..
just getting the trans under your car would be half that cost... what part of the LS1 costs more? our ported heads are half the cost of your AFRs..... if you want to go cheap GM stock vs stock, your "vortec" heads are right where our L92s are.. both are a great value straight from GM, and both require a unique intake... only the L92 stuff flows better.
really, it all comes down to what you know, and what your goals are.... but it still bugs me that people claim the LS1 costs more. i know its only because they dont realise the real value into it... but none the less, its annoying.
i mean, the LS1 is easier to work on then the SBC... for example, in a cam swap, theres no dropping the pan. no distrib timing, no need to pull the intake, no gasketmaker involved (maybe 2 dabs if you want, but its not required), you can potentally reuse every gasket.. its as simple as it gets.
i tossed in a stock LS1 drivetrain for under 4,000 and got a 6spd trans, 32+mpg, and cut a 8.2 thru the stock z28 muffler..
just getting the trans under your car would be half that cost... what part of the LS1 costs more? our ported heads are half the cost of your AFRs..... if you want to go cheap GM stock vs stock, your "vortec" heads are right where our L92s are.. both are a great value straight from GM, and both require a unique intake... only the L92 stuff flows better.
really, it all comes down to what you know, and what your goals are.... but it still bugs me that people claim the LS1 costs more. i know its only because they dont realise the real value into it... but none the less, its annoying.
Ive done a cam swap in an ls1 and your right its stupid easy so are headers (depending on the brand) my hookers were a total bitch but for what I have in the car I could not have picked up an ls1 or the trans to go with it (at least that I have seen) most the pull outs on ebay are like 4000 and up for that I can do a hell of a lot to my sbc which is already as fast as most bolt on ls1 cars
Dont get me wrong I would love to have one in my thirdgen but for me its not economical.... I just dont like the step by step instructions on how to build a ls1 car into a race machine it takes the work out of the hobby and cheapens it for all the people that really know what there doing IMHO
AL
11-15-2006, 08:14 PM
#107
On The Tree
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i voted old school. There are plenty of SBC heads out there that could outflow LSx Heads.Plus building an old sbc is alot cheaper than lsx.
When u say Old School do u include bbc??if so then BBC all the way.
When u say Old School do u include bbc??if so then BBC all the way.
11-16-2006, 10:00 AM
#109
14 Second Truck Club
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Chicago, Il
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by topend
i voted old school. There are plenty of SBC heads out there that could outflow LSx Heads.Plus building an old sbc is alot cheaper than lsx.
When u say Old School do u include bbc??if so then BBC all the way.
When u say Old School do u include bbc??if so then BBC all the way.
You can build a SBC for less, but only until a certain pawer level. Once you get past say 350 rwhp it is close if not in the LSx's favor. They can do that with bolt ons and a stock long block. You can go buy a used Vortec block, reuse the roller valve train, replace the cam, intake, buy a carb, distributor, that would be about your cheapest route. And even at that point you might have problems matching the power level of a stock LS1 long block, stock cam/intake motor. Put a cam in the LS1 and it is all over.
I own both so I am not biased, just realistic.
11-16-2006, 10:40 PM
#110
I'm going to vote for LSx engines for the obvious reasons, but its a tough choice. I guess what bugs me about making the choice are the guys who think LS1s were touched by the hand of God and are the only way to make power. I appreciate when they are around though, because my LT1 loves picking on them 
Im not a fan of aluminum LS1 blocks - I dont like the piston slap, 3.9 bores, 4 head bolts per cyl and exhuast rasp. But I am in love with the iron versions...I'm building an iron block LSx based turbo motor because I cant argue with the cylinder head design, computer control and strength of a 6 bolt iron block at the 1000+hp levels I want to see. Either way, Im all for any pushrod V8 that can haul ***, and I'll argue for either engine if the guy Im arguing with just doesnt understand in the first place
Im not a fan of aluminum LS1 blocks - I dont like the piston slap, 3.9 bores, 4 head bolts per cyl and exhuast rasp. But I am in love with the iron versions...I'm building an iron block LSx based turbo motor because I cant argue with the cylinder head design, computer control and strength of a 6 bolt iron block at the 1000+hp levels I want to see. Either way, Im all for any pushrod V8 that can haul ***, and I'll argue for either engine if the guy Im arguing with just doesnt understand in the first place
11-27-2006, 04:49 PM
#112
6600 rpm clutch dump of death Administrator
Most folks in here don't have the depth or background to comment on a Gen I or in many cases Gen II SBC. Most folks on here are Gen III/Gen IV enthusiasts. So it would stand to reason they pull for the Gen III/Gen IV.
As for the argument to call it a Romulus Small block that is some of the most ignorant posts I've see yet. Engines are built in numerous plants these aren't Ford Motors, so We don't call them Windsor, Cleveland, or Romulus motors. Does that mean I call Gen I motor Tonanwanda motors since Tonanwanda was a big engine plant in the day? Or should I call my LS6 St Therese?
If you want to argue Gen designation take it up with GM. They have been using the Gen designation on SBC and BBC motors for YEARS.
There are pluses and minuses for each engine. When I have more time I'll sit down and outline some of them. Keep in mind the aftermarket for the Gen I dwarfs the Gen II and Gen III. Also, there is plenty of power potential in a Gen I motor. Is the Gen III a good engine? Yes, of course it is. But don't exactly throw out the Gen I just yet....
As for the argument to call it a Romulus Small block that is some of the most ignorant posts I've see yet. Engines are built in numerous plants these aren't Ford Motors, so We don't call them Windsor, Cleveland, or Romulus motors. Does that mean I call Gen I motor Tonanwanda motors since Tonanwanda was a big engine plant in the day? Or should I call my LS6 St Therese?
If you want to argue Gen designation take it up with GM. They have been using the Gen designation on SBC and BBC motors for YEARS.
There are pluses and minuses for each engine. When I have more time I'll sit down and outline some of them. Keep in mind the aftermarket for the Gen I dwarfs the Gen II and Gen III. Also, there is plenty of power potential in a Gen I motor. Is the Gen III a good engine? Yes, of course it is. But don't exactly throw out the Gen I just yet....
