What's new
CK5
Register an account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members.

C30 6.0, is NOW a burb swap, thread.

The clam shells for a 4x4 square body have the engine mount thru bolts located about 1" lower than the ones for 2wd and cars ,to raise the engine up a bit,to keep the harmonic balancer from rubbing on the frame cross member..

I had "fun" putting an engine in a 4x4 I had that came with car clam shell mounts on the "new" engine ,after I finally got the engine to drop in place and get the long bolts thru them,the front of the engine looked like it was pointing downhill,and the oil pan & balancer were almost touching the cross member...had to yank it back up and swap the clam shells off the original engine onto it,it was then I noticed the difference between them..
I have used 350 clam shells off a 4x4 on a 454 I swapped in, and they worked fine.
 
I know when I swapped 454s between my rumble bee, and the blue truck the mounts were different. That's actually why I have these black poly ones. Because when I tried to put it all together the mounts didn't jive. I ended up running the old ones. I couldn't get the bolts to line up at all when I tried using half from one and the other half from the other truck.
Everything I've found has made no distinction between 4wd or 2wd. Just small and big block..

Even Kurt's adapters says for small block mounts. I emailed them to ask if they would work with bb ones but haven't gotten a reply..... Unless it's in spam:thinking: didn't think to check there.
 
I'm talking about the part that bolts to the engine block,not the frame mounts with the rubber inserts,being "taller"..
One of my old Haynes manuals showed the frame mounts on a BBC being bolted in to different set of holes in the cross member,but I didn't have to move mine,they lined right up fine..
I suppose some years were different than others..
 
I know the couple of trucks and even cars that I've swapped to big blocks, I've always used the mounts that were on the original SB. I never changed the rubber mounts at all. I was gonna change em in something I was building, but was a bitch to get the bolts, so I said screw in left em in. I think Brett is the only one I've heard that had bad luck with the DD mounts. Some say it mounts the motor lil high, but only thing I've heard.
 
i know gm trucks had specific BBC frame side mounts / rubber & clamb shell . as there is a part# for them when ordering energy suspension bushing replacements for the stock rubber .
 
Well, I got some cash up finally to start ordering parts. :woot:.

I'm going to get install related things first.
Mounts, headers, dipsticks, etc.

When I have all that stuff ordered I'll move on to see how far down the rabbit hole I can go :D.
I was mentioning to the wife that I'll have to pull it again in a few years to rebuild and upgrade the stuff I want in it.... She said why do it twice, just do it now. :thinking:. I love her:love:.

So I'm building up a parts list to see just how far down the hole I can go.

What I'd LIKE to do,
4" stroke, with the least amount of bore I can do. Trying to make it as close to square as I can. I'd also like to maintain hypereutectic pistons for every day use if possible. But 4032 forged with coated skirts would probably be fine... Just more $.

What I'll probably do,
New rings, bearings, gaskets, ball hone the cylinders, max torque RV cam, springs, lifters, timing set, all new ignition components (Couple coils broke from us man handling it lol), and have it reflashed to compensate for cam.

I don't want to make it a 7000 rpm strip truck. Just a stump yanking, pull a house down, low end torque monster. :thumb:

If I can get my spare tons liquidated, and volunteer some more OT, I may actually be able to do the whole works.

As is, I have enough now to to 80% of the second list and get it in the truck.
 
shady said:
I don't want to make it a 7000 rpm strip truck. Just a stump yanking, pull a house down, low end torque monster.
Click to expand...
Then it's time to ask, since it wasn't covered in this thread, why go 6.0 instead of 7.4?
 
Because nobody ever makes an LS for torque.. and I wanna try lol.

Plus I'm sick of 7.4 mpg. :dunno:

I had an option of a complete LS with a 4l80e, and harness/ecm.
Or just a gen6 7.4 with no harness/ecm, or trans... For nearly the same money.

Everyone around here seems to get 11-12 towing with their 6.0.
While I couldn't get 11 down hill with a tail wind out of my 7.4/465 combo.
So I figured why not give something new a try ??
 
shady said:
Because nobody ever makes an LS for torque.. and I wanna try lol.

Plus I'm sick of 7.4 mpg. :dunno:

I had an option of a complete LS with a 4l80e, and harness/ecm.
Or just a gen6 7.4 with no harness/ecm, or trans... For nearly the same money.

Everyone around here seems to get 11-12 towing with their 6.0.
While I couldn't get 11 down hill with a tail wind out of my 7.4/465 combo.
So I figured why not give something new a try ??
Click to expand...

I get the idea of trying something new. Nothing wrong with that. But great low-end torque and solid fuel economy don't go hand in hand even on LS engines. Going with a stroker crank for more leverage is going to help the torque production. Cam choice is going to be key since most are going to move the torque curve up to a higher RPM which is defeating the purpose of the project.

The crappy 7.4 mileage has just as much to do with the lack of OD as it does the large displacement. So the 4L80e will help with the OD.

The last part that is going to be critical is the tune. The larger displacement and more radical cam are going to require some serious fiddling with the VE tables, fuel, and spark curves. A stock tune will leave power and fuel economy on the table.

I'm not saying don't do it. But do more homework on it so you can optimize the combination of parts to hit the goals you have.
 
The cam is pretty much super mild. And designed specifically for low end, off idle torque. I figured between that, and the stroked crank it should be close enough to the BB in the low end dept, and won't be that much worse on gas than stock. Basically due to moving the torque curve down.

And low end torque and economy go perfectly hand in hand lol. It's the whole reason diesels get better milage. They can do the same amount of work without being at 4000 rpm.:waytogo:
 
Actually been doing homework on how to build low end in an LS for about 2 years. Watched more videos and read more articles than I care to think about.

I think it's funny that all the "Truck" cams that say they build torque for that heavy truck, still don't build chit until 3000 rpm.
And the TSP "torker" builds less torque throughout most of the rpm range than most ALL of their other cams :rolleyes:.

I actually debated building a 6.2 out of this, because the L92 is actually a very decent engine for economy and power.
Mainly due to its low torque curve.
My big azz heavy tahoe denali regularly got 18-20. Our in town/occasional highway average was 15-16. From an engine with 400+hp and 400+ftlbs in an AWD truck that weighed like 5400lbs.
They're just EXPENSIVE to buy in that form:doah:.
The 6.2, and all the crappy LS low-end I seen in dyno tests over the years is what got me on the kick to design and try to build an LS that makes phat bottom end lol.
 
shady said:
Well, I got some cash up finally to start ordering parts. :woot:.

I'm going to get install related things first.
Mounts, headers, dipsticks, etc.

When I have all that stuff ordered I'll move on to see how far down the rabbit hole I can go :D.
I was mentioning to the wife that I'll have to pull it again in a few years to rebuild and upgrade the stuff I want in it.... She said why do it twice, just do it now. :thinking:. I love her:love:.

So I'm building up a parts list to see just how far down the hole I can go.
Click to expand...
I think your wife pushed you down that rabbit hole...lol
 
shady said:
The cam is pretty much super mild. And designed specifically for low end, off idle torque. I figured between that, and the stroked crank it should be close enough to the BB in the low end dept, and won't be that much worse on gas than stock. Basically due to moving the torque curve down.

And low end torque and economy go perfectly hand in hand lol. It's the whole reason diesels get better milage. They can do the same amount of work without being at 4000 rpm.:waytogo:
Click to expand...
I went with Comp Cams XR265HR grind (pt#54-424-11) .558/.563 lift split lift, a 212/218° duration split and 115° Isa
And installed 706 heads in my LQ9
Tops out at 5K RPM but the torque is ridiculous. I got 12-14 MPG in my c10...I’m installing it in my 69 K5 now.
Big cubes are not the only way to get 500ft lbs of torque
 
shady said:
It's the whole reason diesels get better milage. They can do the same amount of work without being at 4000 rpm.:waytogo:
Click to expand...

No. Not at all. Diesel fuel has more energy per gallon than gasoline, and diesel engines are able to extract that energy more efficiently. That is why they get better mileage. Not all diesel engines run slowly. And the ones that do are chasing longevity and emissions rather than efficiency.

I'm not recommending this for your truck, because you said you want torque. But, in general, you will get more horsepower-hours per gallon out of a small four-banger than a comparable V8. High-revving engines can be annoying, but there's a reason econocars use them... :deal:
 
As said above, having the right gear ratios is important. That O/D will make a large difference on the highway. Can be good or bad depending on what you have now.
 
There's a simple physics that goes in there also. 3000x8 explosions per minute, to get the same amount of torque/work as 1000x8 explosions per minute is going to use less fuel.
The reason the diesel can do the same amount of work, at 1000 rpm is because of the things you stated. Which means that it IS still basically due to the fact that it's turning slower lol.
 
Blue85 said:
Sure, but at what RPM? Low-end torque is mostly bore and stroke, unless we're talking superchargers or diesels.
Click to expand...
Equipped with the 706 head upgrade and mild COMP 265 cam, the 6.0L produced 487 hp at 6,100 rpm and 478 lb-ft of torque at 4,800 rpm. Thanks to the added compression from the 706 heads, torque production improved through the entire rev range. I got this from here. I have an LQ9 not the LQ4 that they used. of course it’s all about your use or purpose but the tune shop graph for my engine had improved torque just around 1300 & peaked @ 503ft lbs @ 4650.
https://www.cpgnation.com/lets-talk-torque-ls-truck-upgrades/

I agree that big cubes is the best way to add torque but it cost me under $1000 that works for my situation
 
Most diesels have a long stroke compared to gas engines and large bores,both of which create more torque at lower rpms ...and they are often coupled to high gearing in the rear diff so the torque curve is matched better to the engine's rpm.

Some gas engines like the 292 straight six with a 4.125" stroke made 280 ft/lbs at 1600 rpms,but only had 165 hp... and a 300 Ford six created up to 283 ft/lbs @ 1600 rpms with a 3.98" stroke, and 170 HP @ 3800 rpms..

The old saying goes :
HP vs Torque.jpg

I have a 6 HP Briggs on one of my tractors..it has a longer stroke than another Tecumseh engine I have that is also a 6 HP,but the Briggs will out pull it with it just chugging along,the Tecumseh needs to be would up to about 3000 rpms to do the same work..(and often stalls !).
A Wisconsin engine that is 7.25 HP I have has a longer stroke than the Briggs and it is about impossible to lug down low enough to stall it..granted it has a heavier flywheel,but its the long stroke that gets the work done ..
Long stroke engines generally don't like high rpms and tend to come apart if revved too high though..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Posts

Top Bottom