Generation III Internal Engine 1997-2006 LS1 | LS6
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

2002 Escalade engine into Camaro swap HP/TQ ???

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-10-2003 | 06:57 PM
  #61  
vegasta's Avatar
Teching In
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Default Re: 2002 Escalade engine into Camaro swap HP/TQ ???

Please post dyno #'s when you get them. Thank you
Old 10-10-2003 | 08:03 PM
  #62  
bigeller's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Default Re: 2002 Escalade engine into Camaro swap HP/TQ ???

Will do.. I have a major tranny issue right now.. As soon as it's rebuilt and not slipping, I'll post up..
Old 11-27-2003 | 12:16 PM
  #63  
bigeller's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Default

I finally got the built tranny in and dynoed the car.. Overall, I was pretty happy with the results considering the 3.73s and the stall with Zr1s.. I suppose I could have done a few tricks and easily been to 400hp with the stock heads.. Also my A/F was a little off.. My timing is also 26 d.. I'm thinking about taking 93Ponys suggestion and retarding the cam 4-5 degrees since it had +2 ground in and we added +2 more.. Should pick up some more power.. The CNC LS6 are being smoothed out and will be on the car soon.. Anyway, here are the results.. I dig torque!
Old 11-27-2003 | 12:59 PM
  #64  
someday's Avatar
TECH Resident
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 859
Likes: 0
From: here, ny
Default

just a thought, but i think ur lack of bottom end and top end is ur 111LSA... go to a 113 or 114 and u'll gain back both top and bottom, as it will spread the power out instead of concentrating it in the middle...
Old 11-27-2003 | 01:21 PM
  #65  
SPANKY LS1's Avatar
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,489
Likes: 1
From: Chicago, IL
Default

*Flash back to 5/11/03*


Originally Posted by Bigeller
Essentially it's going to have all the bolt ons, cam, headers, stall. I would think 450+ HP and Tq are possible
Originally Posted by SPANKY LS1
With that motor and only a cam, you would probably get to about 380-400RWHP
Originally Posted by Bigeller
Anyone else care to chime in. I don't think the spank man has a clue.. I'm gonna put down some power..


Apology accepted.

Seriusly, slap a real cam in that thing already. Good luck, Shawn
Old 11-27-2003 | 01:38 PM
  #66  
bigeller's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Default

Too bad you didn't read my thread..... I had different gears in mind back then.. I'm not really going to get into excuses... Stock gears and stock rims and fix the A/F get me past 400 easy.. The LS6 heads will get me 30 maybe more.. And the cool part is that my torque will remain even with the hp.. I'm not a sucker for the most peaky cam I can buy.. I'm happy with my lil ole 228 for right now..
Old 11-27-2003 | 01:53 PM
  #67  
SPANKY LS1's Avatar
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,489
Likes: 1
From: Chicago, IL
Default

Originally Posted by bigeller
Too bad you didn't read my thread..... I had different gears in mind back then.. I'm not really going to get into excuses... I'm happy with my lil ole 228 for right now..
Actually you should probably re read the thread, nowhere does it say anything about a gear (other than your sig, 3.73) Anyways, NO gear is going to cost you 65rwhp and 61rwtq. Face it, you were wrong, plain and simple. You now have a motor that is >100 lbs heavier than you had before, that produces equal or lesser power than a 228 cammed 346.


Stock gears and stock rims and fix the A/F get me past 400 easy.. The LS6 heads will get me 30 maybe more
So, what you're saying is that a few "dyno tricks" and some LS6 heads will get you to ~430rwhp? Thats about on par with 346 H/C cars..... from a year ago.... And you're still handicapped by the 100+ extra lbs.
Old 11-28-2003 | 01:26 AM
  #68  
silverTA's Avatar
TECH Resident
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
From: Everywhere
Default

i know a guy with the same set up last year and he was spraying 200 NOS DP all day long with no proplem
Old 11-28-2003 | 11:16 AM
  #69  
11secLS1's Avatar
On The Tree
iTrader: (39)
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
From: Weatherford TX
Default

Whats up eller! It's cold here in KC. Don't you miss the midwest! Don't listen to the winers . Everyone thinks thier way is the best way. I say, more power to ya. In fact, I just purchased myself a 6.0 motor. I think there is definatly potential in that combo, especially considering the cost. That 4" is just straight killing ya. Get some Lanes duals and watch what that torque curve does! Good luck and keep us updated!
Ezra
Old 11-28-2003 | 12:58 PM
  #70  
Cricket99SS's Avatar
On The Tree
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Default

Eller good job with the car man! Don't listen to all the naysayers in here, they act like people didn't run around with iron block iron headed smallblocks for the past 30 years.

Also the iron block is about 60-70 lbs. more than the aluminum, not 100+ like Spanky seems to think. Guess what, you can get a cute girl that weighs 120 pounds in the passenger seat, and does that slow your car down so incredibly much that you wouldn't want her in the car? Hell no. Enjoy the big 6.0 man!
Old 11-28-2003 | 02:31 PM
  #71  
SPANKY LS1's Avatar
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,489
Likes: 1
From: Chicago, IL
Default

Originally Posted by Cricket99SS
Eller good job with the car man! Don't listen to all the naysayers in here.....
Refer to my statements on 5/11/03, and the follow ups by Bigeller. Kinda dead on, huh?

Originally Posted by Cricket99SS
Also the iron block is about 60-70 lbs. more than the aluminum, not 100+ like Spanky seems to think.
Actually, if you are interested in facts.... [Taken from another post, by a man who sells blocks for a living.]

Originally Posted by valvegod
Not sure why the weight on this block is always so different when I read posts. I have weighed both block many many times, and this is what I always see on my shipping scale. both have main caps and main bolts.

Aluminum LS1/LS6 block 107 lbs.
Cast iron 6.0L block 214 lbs.
Diff 107lbs.


Shaun (valvegod@aol.com)
Old 11-28-2003 | 03:03 PM
  #72  
Cricket99SS's Avatar
On The Tree
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Default

I have been owned. I see the thread where that came from now. I do trust Valvegod since that is the first time I've actually heard of someone putting them on a scale rather than guessing at the weights.

It still stands though that an iron block is not that big of a deal. Through all the years up to the LT1 it was iron/iron or iron/aluminum heads for most Chebby's. If he was going for an all out race setup, he could take weight from other places and make it up.

Now if he was an auto-xer or road racer he probably wouldn't have opted to go iron, but for what he is trying to do I'm sure it will be great.
Old 11-28-2003 | 06:20 PM
  #73  
CamaroSS's Avatar
11 Second Club
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,068
Likes: 0
From: Tampa, FL
Default

Wow, is every one here that dumb when it comes to cars? Everyone shut up!!! "Oh but the weight, the weight, the weight.."
Shut up you fools! See this is the kind of crap that made me leave this damn site, loosers who think they know what they are talking about when they don't! The reason for the 6.0L swaps is the fact the block is much stronger, compression is lower, and better for turbo, N2O, and SC. This engine is also great for those who want more cubes too (More crank clearence). The stock LS1 block sucks compared to the 6.0L, and yes, it adds a little more pounds to the ride, but if you are a serious power seeker, then this block is the nest for that. This is the cheaper alternative to the C5-R block, can be made for 427ci too. (CR-5 is still a better block just egg-spensive )

Now shut up you damn 15 hundred posts in 2 months *** holes! You are post ******, and try to post something that makes more sense than......"Is this a joke?" Thanks for contributing you asses!
Old 11-29-2003 | 01:23 AM
  #74  
z-mann's Avatar
Teching In
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: Festus MO
Default

WOW.I just read all of this. um. I still don't understand why everyone is so upset. His car makes good power and he did something different. I am wanting to do the same thing but I am gonna drop at least a 200 shot on it.
Old 11-29-2003 | 04:48 AM
  #75  
JoSeY's Avatar
TECH Fanatic
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,421
Likes: 0
From: Your Reality Check Bounced...
Default

damn get off his nuts, he did something "Different" and I applaud him for it....while yes the extra weight will hinder the block and all can take a lot of abuse to get him into the 10's and poss. 9's.....
Old 11-29-2003 | 01:55 PM
  #76  
bigeller's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Default

Thanks guys.. I really believe the LS6 CNC heads will wake it up.. I may consider duals.. as well
Old 11-29-2003 | 01:58 PM
  #77  
bigeller's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Default

Hey Ezra, good to hear all is well.. I may try out some duals.. Eat some of that fine KC BBQ for me.... Pork Ribs... mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Originally Posted by 11secLS1
Whats up eller! It's cold here in KC. Don't you miss the midwest! Don't listen to the winers . Everyone thinks thier way is the best way. I say, more power to ya. In fact, I just purchased myself a 6.0 motor. I think there is definatly potential in that combo, especially considering the cost. That 4" is just straight killing ya. Get some Lanes duals and watch what that torque curve does! Good luck and keep us updated!
Ezra
Old 11-29-2003 | 10:12 PM
  #78  
z98's Avatar
z98
TECH Fanatic
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,839
Likes: 0
Default

"The reason for the 6.0L swaps is the fact the block is much stronger, compression is lower, and better for turbo, N2O, and SC. This engine is also great for those who want more cubes too (More crank clearence)."

Well he never said this is why he wanted to use it.

If he would have, he wouldn't have been owned so bad.
Old 11-30-2003 | 03:26 AM
  #79  
bigeller's Avatar
Thread Starter
TECH Regular
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
From: Iowa
Default

You're kidding me... Where did I get owned? LOL Why don't you read he first post I made.... I got an amazing deal on the 6.0. I set my goal of 450 hp NA... At the time this thread started, I hadn't even decided on a cam, gears, heads and other mods at that point... I was simply asking for advice and input.. people have pmed me wondering about my numbers, so I posted them like I said I would. Now I get some guy that thinks he knows it all saying I told you so... WTF? My car runs friggin hard and I'm nowhere near through with it. Hey Spanky, tell me how much power I gain if I get my A/F tweaked correctly, my timing bumped from 26 to 28 degrees, stock rims, stock gears, LS1 crank instead of a solid truck crank, and LS6 ported heads? Seems like your a sucker for peak numbers.. All I'm saying is judge me when I'm through if anything. I wasn't concerned with peak numbers. I dynoed the car as it was, gears and all.. I'm able to take these things into account. No offense taken... BTW looks like you have a pretty stout setup, you should be runnin low 11s...

Originally Posted by z98
"The reason for the 6.0L swaps is the fact the block is much stronger, compression is lower, and better for turbo, N2O, and SC. This engine is also great for those who want more cubes too (More crank clearence)."

Well he never said this is why he wanted to use it.

If he would have, he wouldn't have been owned so bad.
Old 11-30-2003 | 03:48 AM
  #80  
LPCWS6's Avatar
Launching!
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix, AZ
Default

When I get my flux capacitor hooked up I will own everyone and everything


Quick Reply: 2002 Escalade engine into Camaro swap HP/TQ ???



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 PM.