LS or HEMI motor in an 05+...any conversion parts out there???

Discussion in '2005 - 2009 Specific Tech' started by v8only, Jan 1, 2009.

  1. Read the posts. Brian gave him a temp vacation, it now says Banned under his name. Aparrently because he's been causing some other issues I was un-aware of, or maybe i'm reading the posts wrong. :shrug:
  2. temp ban will still say banned. he will be back soon enough. then he can elaborate on this topic. and brian was not the one that gave him the vacation. ;)
  3. Correct....I was merely making note of it. :)
  4. My apologies.

    By the timing and wording the post I assumed it had just happened.

    Back on track.

    Here's some reading info for a fox swap, done by a popular hotrodding magazine.

    1990 Ford Fox Mustang LS1 Engine Swap - Popular Hot Rodding Magazine

    Just little of the article:

    So why not modify the original 302 that came with the car? Well, the fact of the matter is that the LS1 is far superior from an engineering standpoint, no matter how you look at it. No lie, not opinion. It is just the cold, hard truth. A 302 would require heads, cam, and intake right off the bat to make the same power as a stock LS1. Though the Ford 302 design can handle immense horsepower levels, to get there you need an aftermarket block with serious internal rotating parts, as well as cylinder heads and trick valvetrain parts. For less time and money, you can buy an LS1 and benefit from 40 years of advanced technology with an all-aluminum motor that makes 350 hp box stock. With a stock LS6 intake manifold, small cam, and nicely ported heads, 500 hp is not out of the question. And if you want more, you can still rely on the LS1 design to take you above and beyond the Ford Windsor of yesteryear. Now count to three, take us off the dartboard, and put that weapon down

    Let's look at this both ways.

    Stock 4.6 3v buildup, 350 HP goal.

    Tune $350.00
    CAI $200.00
    Pullies $150.00

    $700.00 give or take, very reasonable for getting to stock LS1 Power.

    Here's where the magic happens. The LS1's 350 rating is with the stock tune. I ran dead on the number when my car was bone stock, around 290 RWHP through an auto, or 350 fly. Any quick search on LS1tech will prove that with multiple dynographs.

    With a Tune, Airlid (those of you who know what it is knows how much it helps) cutout and gutting the cats (yes, i still have manifolds to this day) I ran [email protected] And clocked 355RWHP.

    So that's about 50 fly horse for a tune, lid and cutout, or about $450.00

    Added the cam, still stock exhaust minus cats, and clocked 380 RWHP, or about 460 fly

    Cam kit was $900 with springs, gaskets and fluids.

    What would it take for a 4.6 3v to get to 460 fly HP?

    One last example, this pertains to me dumping the 4.6 2v and getting the Camaro.

    Brain. I see you have a very impressive 4.6 2v Cougar. I also see you have quite a mod list going, in fact it's a huge mod list.

    Here is the reason I switched over, and Brian, i'm not flaming you, you just have one of the best setups to use as and example for the 2V engines.

    I don't know if all his info is current, but in his profile video, he clocked a best run of [email protected] and lists 410HP. now, granted his car weighs in at 4100lbs, but the power the setup is making is my point.

    My stang would have cost around 5K to get to the Camaro's CURRENT power level. According to Brians profile, he's got quite a list on the Cougar. Rotating assembly, PnP'd PI heads, Cams, Supercharged, Intercooled, Headers, Injectors. I won't list it all, look at his profile.

    I paid $3100 for the LS1 motor my car has now. I have about $1600 or so in mods. So for $4700.00 you get 460 fly HP. Texas speed claims 480 fly hp on my setup, but I need longtubes to get that number. A charger setup alone for a 2v costs around 4K.

    I make More HP N/A with less money. And I've only got a cam.....
  5. I don't think anyone can argue that. It seems mustangs in general do not respond as well as several other manufacturers to "minor" mods. That's why I think if you buy a mustang with a mod motor and want to seriously up HP, you need a charger. All this n/a stuff will only take you so far. But most are happy there too so........ :shrug:
  6. Yes, a Charger will definately wake up the modulars. And i'm not really advocating FI at all, it works. But, like stated, i'm driving home the HP/$ point.

    LS makes more HP/$ than Modular, both N/A and charged.

    Which holds true the OP's idea, he wanted to go fast without dropping an unecessary amount of cash. That being, he wants a powertrain that produces a good HP/$ ratio.

    But, as stated, the conversion costs on that new of a model will exceed the cost of just using the 3v to go fast.
  7. right, because mod motors crave air and fuel.

    The most tried and proven way to get a mod motor fast is forge and boost the SOB, quickest and easiest way. But there are some mean NA ones out there. :shrug:
  8. Oh, I don't know about that. When the chips are down, I always see blown mod motors putting down better numbers than blown LS1's. I've seen a couple make as much power with the aid of nitrous, but when you consider that a blown 4.6L and a blown 5.7L are competing nearly head to head with one and other, it doesn't bode well for the LS1 considering the displacement advantage. That high 10.5:1 compression ratio really works against them with anything more than moderate boost levels. Nitrous loves compression, but boost....not so much.
  9. The 3-valve is capable of 900-HP with a Procharger. It seems to me to be much more simple. And, after all, no cross breeding!
  10. I still beg to differ on the HP/$ issue.

    Look at the new GM LS9, it should be noted that the LS9 is HIGHLY detuned at 638HP, but that's pretty much true with all LS engines.

    The LS9 is a 6.2 L (6,162 cc/376.0 cu in) supercharged engine, based on the LS3; the LS7 block was not used due to the higher cylinder pressures created by the supercharger requiring the thicker cylinder walls of the LS3. Cylinder dimensions are now 4.06 in (103.25 mm) bore with a 3.62 in (92 mm) stroke. It is equipped with an Eaton four-lobe Roots type supercharger. Power output is 638 hp (476 kW) at 6500 rpm and 604 lb·ft (819 N·m) of torque at 3800 rpm.


    2009 Chevrolet Corvette ZR1


    I think the meanest blown motor Ford makes is the GT's [email protected]? Then the GT500 at 500.

    I've seen a lot of 400 and higher RWHP cobras taken down by lightly modded LS1 cars for one reason. Power under the curve. LS motors produce a very flat and broad torque curve. Modulars tend to be peaky, hence good dyno numbers and poor track results because you're not in that 'peak' power for the whole time.

    Cubic inch, ya, the LS based are definately up there in cubes. This is also my standpoint for the HP/$ argument. More boost on bigger cubes = more hp. But, as Brian stated, the 10.5:1 necessitates a good tune, fuel and mid level boost. But, when you're starting at 350 HP and add boost, you're still ahead of the Modular, unless it's running 12+ PSI, then you're needing forged internals in the modular, ANOTHER big investment. thereby further reducing the HP/$.

    Back to the OP, yes, in all honesty, if you're not wanting to blow a wad, it would probably be easier to work with the stock 3v. But, if your pockets are deep and you want to go really fast for less money in the long run, LS.
  11. The GT500 is very conservatively tuned from the factory as well. Basic bolt ons are putting these into the 550-600rwhp mark with ease. So please don’t confuse an initial conservative effort by Ford, with an incapability to do so. I can think of about half a dozen fully streetable, 600+RWHP 4.6L 2V and 4V cars right off hand just on this site that put the stcok GT500 to shame. Hell, one member here is currently making over 700hp with his blown 2V. True, we’re talking the need to forge the bottom end, but I can’t think of one LS1 that’s pulling down those same numbers without having to swap out engine parts either? To be honest, aside from running full bolt ons and or nitrous I haven’t even seen one stock LS1 crack 500rwhp with a blower alone? On the other side of the scale, there are plenty of blown 5.4L/4.6L 2/3/4V’s that make those power figures regularly with their stock short blocks in tact.

    As far as the GT goes, it rates right up there with the GT500 for its “conservative” tuning prowess. Especially when you consider that the GTX-1 at 700hp was exactly the same engine combination, with smaller blower pulley, a freer flowing exhaust and a computer tune to tie it together.

    .....and to be fair, comparing the ZR1 to the GT isn’t exactly apples to apples either. For starters you’re comparing a 6.2L to a 5.4L and secondly the 4-lobe Eaton TVS2300 on the Corvette ZR1 is a far more efficient blower than the Lyshlom 2300 Twin Screw atop the Ford GT. And when you consider the 700hp output of the GTX-1.....I guess you could say the little Mod Motor is certainly more than capable of running with “the big dogs”.

    Furthermore.....power under the curve for an ‘03 Cobra being lesser than an LS1. I hate to call you out on this one, but are you serious?!? You can’t honestly think the LS1 comes anywhere close to matching the Eaton blown 4-Valve for “power under the curve”. The average stock Cobra puts out over 100lbs/ft of torque more than the LS1 at a measly 1,700RPM and continues to hold a horsepower and torque lead all the way to red line? Have you actually ever seen the dyno chart of an stock ’03 Cobra vs. a stock LS1? There’s nothing “peeky” about the figures. The Torque curve for the Cobra is broad and fat and the horsepower curve is strait and linear all the way across the rev range. Far more so than any stock LS1 has been able to muster.

    If anything’s hurting a Cobra in a race with an LS1 it’s the curb weight of the Cobra combined with poor driving and/or the fact that most LS1 drivers insist on street racing from rolling starts where they’ve just stepped into the meat of their power band. From a dig (like any drag race I’ve ever been to has always been done) any LS1 powered FBody I’ve seen (short of a cam/intake/exhaust package, or a healthy shot of nitrous) hasn’t got a prayer.....especially if the guys with the Cobra has done a little tinkering of his own.

    And to be honest…when you consider the cost of buying the LS1 engine to begin with, fabricating the necessary K-member, mounting and drive train adaptation to physically bolt it into place then tying in the needed exhaust, fuel system and computer tuning components necessary to make it’re no near as cost effective or as far ahead as you would be just modifying the existing 3V. Not even close!!!
  12. I can think of about half a dozen fully streetable, 600+RWHP 4.6L 2V and 4V cars right off hand just on this site that put the stcok GT500 to shame

    On the other side of the scale, there are plenty of blown 5.4L/4.6L 2/3/4V’s that make those power figures regularly with their stock short blocks in tact.

    So, if this is true, and in all honesty i'm not personally attacking you, why is your setup incapable of making more HP than my cam only LS1? I'm not picking on your 1/4 mile time, i know you're heavy, and in my own defense, my [email protected] is only because I have 2.73 gears, stock 245 tires and a stock 1800 stall all combining to create my awesome 2.19 60'.

    You have more in your blower than I have in my whole motor/cam setup, with less HP, and you have a blower, thereby checking my displacement advantage.

    So, if you're statement about blown modulars, including 2v's in your post, you should be able to equal or exceed my numbers.

    Please convince me, using your example, not others and internet garbage. If we play that game my neighbors dog has a 2 million HP LS1.

    I want to know why someone that says these motors produce just as much with less can't do it himself.
  13. First off, there’s a really big difference between “can’t” and “chose not to”, so if you're intrested in hearing it.....sit back and get comfy and I’ll explain it to you. ;)

    You really shouldn’t base your example on my engine combination. To be perfectly honest, my set up was built to accept a much, much larger blower, but because the company that built the kit went out of business before I purchased the kit, I settled for the deal the offered me on the entry level unit they had in stock. The horsepower limitations of my car are only limited by the incapability of the particular model of blower that’s on there, not the engine configuration itself that it’s bolted onto. The way it sits right now, my engine is ready to accept about 700hp. I just don’t happen to have the blower on there right now that’ll feed the need. Aside from forged bottom end components, the short block itself is the same as it was the day it rolled off the assembly line.

    Also, I have more into this blower because this kit was specifically built to be tailored to my car. At the time of purchase, there were no others designed to work with the stock MN12 accessory configuration, or that would clear the hood line. So needless to say, I went with the plug and play kit. You can pretty much take any aftermarket part on this car and divide it by 1/3 – 1/2 if it were designated for a Mustang. My headers with new O2 sensors for example were $1,400. Not anywhere near what they would have cost if I were building a Mustang!

    All that being said....this kit was designed to make torque, not horsepower. As you already have recognized, my car is both big and heavy. Who cares what kind of peak numbers it making if it hasn’t got the torque to get it off the line. My little 4.6L with its anemic entry level kit puts out over 360lbs/ft of torque at the wheels before reaching 2,000RPM. What’s your bolt on, cammed, big displacement LS1 make at that same RPM level?

    And while we’re at it....why are you so adamant about using my car as the example and dismissing any others I might provide as “internet bs”? It almost sounds as though you’ve purposely singled out my set up as the staple for blown 4.6L performance because it just happens to be churning out peek horsepower figures on the low side? Is that the case? You seem to have a decent automotive grasp in your arsenal, so please don’t disappoint me by leading me to believe that you think my car is the poster boy for blown 4.6L performance? I assure you....where horsepower and torque is concerned, my car is far, far down on that proverbial ladder.

    I wonder if you would be so eager to do so had I gone with something like a Tork Tech blower on my car instead of my Current Allen? How’s dyno proven 406rwhp and like amounts of torque on a bone stock 4.6L SOHC with the entry level intercooled configuration and over 520rwhp with a pulley swap, basic exhaust upgrades a set of mild cams and ported stock heads grab ya? That’s a 300rwhp increase for about $6,500 without the need to increase displacement, or add nitrous!!! And that’s just a 2V. The 3 and 4-valve engines are easily besting those figures and with a lot less effort and money.

    So tell me…now many LS1’s do you know of that are making better power, for less money with just bolt ons or boost alone? And keep in mind that huge displacement advantage the 5.7L has over the 4.6L! :shrug:
  14. Where to begin, oh, and honestly, thank you for making a decent valid discussion.

    So i've reviewed the Torq Tech website, and here's my findings, please correct if i've missed something or unfairly represented it.

    Link: Intercooled Supercharger Kit for the '99-04 Mustang GT - Click for more info.

    The Entry level kit you speak of is impressive, offering up 143 HP and 132 TQ over stock. On the Torq Tech website it claims 385 RWHP and 403 ft/lb, I am unable to find your example of 406HP and like amounts of torque. And for a very entry level price of $4499.99 for the entire kit. In their video they clearly show it running 9-10 PSI of boost. The car was a stock '99 GT with only a CAI and cat-back. Here's the interesting part, Taken directly from their website:

    Easy, low cost upgrades available to allow for significantly higher boost and power levels when the time comes. Requires only: a built engine, larger crank pulley, low cost fuel delivery upgrade option from TTI and new custom tune.

    I've highlighted the part in the paragraph I find most striking. So, to run more than 10 PSI and make more power, you must get a built engine minimum. I know that you're well aware that '03/4 cobras have this factory. So To me this says that's the limit with stock production 2v hardware. This negates you referencing any other HP numbers vs. a cam/bolt on LS1 unless you compare a forged LS1 to your required Forged 4.6. Remember, apples to apples.

    So, keeping in the realm of your argument, a stock 2V (we'll get to blown 3V numbers later) you get:

    An estimated 455 Hp at the fly, assuming a 15% drivetrain loss.

    Charger Kit, everything included except for dyno tuning

    All for a +143hp and 132tq increase, re****ing in $9.88/HP

    Same style kit for an LS1

    Here is a kit currently offered for the LS1 Fbody by Magnuson Products.

    The kit is similar, offering all the necessary hardware and uses the same style of blower as the Torq Tech kit.

    Here is the install and dyno numbers, their on PG. 3. Please read the article.

    LS1 FBody Performance Kit - GM High Tech Performance Magazine

    Kit Price: Magna Charger LS1 Fbody Supercharger Kit

    453 RWHP and 431 TQ @ 7PSI

    530 Fly HP estimated using 15% loss.

    The baseline pull was 324Hp/327tq , so that's an increase of 128 hp and 84 tq

    Kit cost: $6495.00


    Yes, you are correct, the 4.6 Makes more HP/$ Boosted in this instance for what I can find. On the other hand, 455 HP is all the further you can go by following the manufacturer's kit instructions. The LS1 is around 530 HP at a lower boost level. Both test cars had stock exhaust manifolds and cats. More interesting, and as i've stated earlier, look at the torque curve. The ls1's dyno is nearly flat, making 400ft/lb at 2100RPM compared to the 4.6 making 320ft/lb at 2100. Peak power is made at 4K with the LS1 and 5100 RPM with the 4.6. Broad curves, that's what wins races, not peak.

    As for me personally attacking you, maybe. I assumed that you had went with the best of the best hardware including blower, my bad.

    And as for your comment on my setup making power, you were almost on par. I have a cam only motor. Stock manifolds, stock Y pipe and stock cat back. Only exhaust mods are gutted cats and a removeable cutout lid before the muffler. Other then that, a computer tune and an air lid. Stock Intake, no pullies, no CAI.

    380 RWHP - Verified

    460 fly HP (estimated 18% loss, as I have an Auto)

    The camshaft manufacturer and several individual reports verify that with the much needed longtubes and true dual exhaust I will see around 480 fly hp. That combined with the soon to be installed 4K yank converter, 3.73's and drag radials should propel my 3620lb sled well into the high 11's, using my current MPH figures. I am told my MPH will increase with the stall and gears keeping me in the powerband faster and longer.

    Using your supplied Torq Tech information, you do realize that i'm knocking down THEIR dyno proven SUPERCHARGED 4.6 2v numbers with my N/A LS1, right? I should also mention that these numbers aren't corrected to sea level. They were taken at my corrected D/A at the time of the run.

  15. We got a know it all who can't be wrong on our hands !! :stupid:
  16. You're right.

    Maybe you should come up and school me with your 316 RWHP. :hail2:
  17. Before we get going here, let’s recognize that even though there was no mention of it in the article at 324.9rwhp/347.6 as a base pull starting point is roughly 25-45rwhp higher than any stock LS1 that I’m aware off. The average LS1 depending on the year dyno’s in the 265rwhp on the low side, to 280rwhp range on the high side. The odd factory freak might come in right around 290-300rwhp, but another 25rwhp beyond that for a stock LS1.....I have trouble swallowing it?!?. This leads me to believe that there were either modifications performed to the car previously, or there are calibration issues with their dyno? If in fact either one or the other is the case, I would hope you would agree said blown results would be positively affected and more probably misrepresented as well as well? :shrug:

    And just to clarify, the Tork Tech kit powered car in which I was referring to was installed and tested by Ron Feddeman ( rfedd here on Stangnet) and the guys at Fast Specialties in Vancouver, Washington which was featured in the Feb 2009 issue of New Edge Mustang Supercharger - '99-'04 Two-Valve Roots Blower Kit - 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords Magazine. The car baselined at 237rwhp/261rwtq (a little on the high end of the norm, but still within believable limits). After the install, the car dyno'd at 406rwhp/399rwtq at just a hair over 9psi on a rock stock '99 GT with 88K on the clock. The set up was later detuned for what they felt was a safer margin of error to keep the stock bottom end happy, but A/F ratio's and timing levels were well within safe limits. Either way, that’s a gain of 169rwhp/138rwtq, not the initially advertised early figures of 143hr/132tq on their web site.

    Now, I’m not sure how you did your math here so stop me if this looks wrong, but even at your previous figure of 143hp gain, that translates to $31.47/hp, not $9.88. (4499.99/143 = 31.4684). Take the 406rwhp I originally quoted and we get a higher figure yet of 169rwhp.....which translates to $26.63/hp (4499.99/169 = 26.6271

    Compare that to your example below for the LS1 which works out to $50.35/hp (6494/129 = 50.3488) and you’ll see that the cost difference per horsepower is nearly double.

    As far as over all gain goes.....plenty on here have run into the 425-450range with their stock block blown 2V’s that have survived for months and even years now at that level of power. Its true at or beyond that, a 2V owner is going to have to spring for pistons and probably rods in order to capably run any more blower speed than that, but then again…so is the owner of the LS1. Sure their bottom ends are tougher stock (I never denied that), but their high compression prevents them from running anywhere near the timing needed to safely push beyond that 453rwhp mark. That is unless you want to run around with a very costly supply of race gas in your tank 24/7…which adds to the over investment. :shrug:

    Also, your torque estimations between the two seem to be a little off as well. The Mustang made 326rwtq at 2,100RPM and peeks at 399rwtq at 4,400RPM (during the latest test…which for some reason doesn’t post the dyno chart in the link like it does in my magazine copy?), where the LS1 based on what I see made somewhere around the 380-385lb/ft range at 2,100RPM and peeks at a little under 4,100RPM. Still a sizeable difference, but not nearly as cavernous as you made it seem. And peek horsepower is made at 5,700RPM with the Mustang, where peek is made at 6,000RPM with the LSI. Horsepower differences aside, lets keep in mind that it cost the LS1 owner another $2,000 to best the little mustang, which covers the cost of a rod and piston upgrade which will allow the Mustang to spin way beyond that recorded 406hp/399tq territory and up into the 500-550rwhp realm where the blower peeks and signs off for both cars. The only difference is that the Mustang going to hit that ceiling for less money, no matter how you slice it. ;)

    No worries, I didn’t consider your post a personal attack, I only found it strang that you would use my car as an example, when I’m sure you’re well aware that blown 4.6L horsepower figures are much higher than that as a norm.

    If we’re on part at 360rwtq at 2,000RPM, what in gods name does your peek at?
  18. So, looking at the article, it looks like they usually run a tune that will generally put out 380/390 RWHP, do you agree? Dyno numbers off? Possibly, who knows. The same could be true for any given test result at any time. Fact of the matter is, that's what's published and we have no way of arguing it further.

    On the HP/$ issue. I was actually calculating based of off total HP vs. $, not Mod vs. HP/$. Yes, it's true the 4.6 gains more on this particular example, but the LS1 starts with more HP to begin with, so don't take that out of the example just to make it look as if the HP/$ is actually wider than it is for the total package.

    So, i'm still trying to figure it out, why can a blown 4.6 2v at 9 PSI merely match a cam only LS1 on RWHP?
  19. I thought I covered that in my previous post? The LS1 made approx another 50rwhp in your example than the blown 4.6L....but it cost them an additional $2,000 to do it. That $2,000 goes a long way in fortifying the 4.6L bottom end to accept a lot more boost....and still barely puts the two at even money. I really don't see any controversy here. It's pretty clear to me that the mod motor wins this one…even if it does make initially less power? :shrug:

    A cam only LS1....or a cam, intake modification, exhaust modification and tune LS1? You know as well as I do that minor intake and exhaust mods on LS1's translate to big don't play it down like it didn't do anything. Especially when you couple them with an aftermarket cam and tune to boot. Or do you not consider an 80-9-rwhp gain a big deal? Probably the biggest deciding factor in the equation is displacement. It’s a big jump to go from 4.6L to 5.7L...power adder, or not.

    What I'd like to know is how the two engines would stack up should their displacement volume be equalized. I mean....we already know a blown 5.4L will destroy and LS1, but I wonder how impressive the LS1 would be should it displace the same 281cid as the smaller 4.6L. I wonder.....;)
  20. Gearbanger 101 after reading this thread and others where you discuss the Mod motors I see why you chose the Joker as your avatar. Always have an answer and a half step ahead.