The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area General Truck Talk Jim G’s SLURP Project – Posting 11: Engines narrowed down!

Jim G’s SLURP Project – Posting 11: 6 Cool motors that are not right for SLURP, & 2 that are!

This posting is one in a series. If you have not yet read the earlier postings in the series, you’ll need to, as this posting won’t make much sense without having done so! Just do a search using the word “SLURP”.

In my last posting, we explored the dyno charts of our forefathers. Our dyno results for AD trucks generally, and Red specifically, showed us that more power could be helpful in a modern highway environment (and is always nice), and I asked for suggestions on what cool engines could be candidates for a transplant.

In this posting, we’ll examine what I found on several engines that you guys suggested that I researched, and for each explain why my enthusiasm for them was less than great. Then, we’ll look at one engine that looks pretty good, and one other engine family that rang almost all the prize buzzers!

The first approach I considered was souping up the 261 I already have. That has some pluses, a big one being that I DO already own it, and it’s already engineered into the vehicle – no cutting or fitting required. But it also has some shortcomings. It would cost $3500, would barely hit 250 horsepower, and would be maxxed out at that point with no future upgrade path. So, no cigar. Besides, it being so newly completely rebuilt (completely rebuilt professionally less than 5000 miles ago), I can get decent money for it selling it to someone who wants a very faithful AD restoration but appreciates the fact that my 261 is far stronger than the stock 235.

I considered also using one of the later 292 inline sixes. That would be suitably retro, and these engines had stronger lower ends than the 261 (more bearings), but they too are limited in the same way as the 261 with that non-crossflow head, with the performance door slamming shut before we get even close to our minimum target of 300 crank horsepower. They are also very expensive to build even to that modest performance level, because of the proprietary tricks involved to get whatever power CAN be gleaned. Again, no cigar.

The Buick 215 aluminum V8 was an intriguing one to investigate. This was an engine, produced very briefly in the early 1960s, and then sold off to Rover in England when GM figured the “temporary” public pre-occupation with fuel mileage was over. It weighed only 320 pounds fully dressed! That’s about 255 pounds less than the 261! But, again, it would cost a lot (one quote was $7500) to get one built in the larger 4.8 displacement that Rover ultimately bored it to, and even with that displacement, 275 crank horsepower was the limit according to the specialty shop that builds them, and that is attainable only if you have room for headers without hitting the steering. There would be no upgrade path beyond that 275 crank hp. Sigh . . . no cigar.

The Pontiac 250 Overhead Cam inline six was next. This was a racy little 230 and later 250 cubic inch engine brainchilded by John Delorean while he was at GM, that was available for 3 or 4 years in Pontiac Tempests and Firebirds. It had a redline of 6500 rpm, and came in two versions, that were about 160 crank hp and 215 to 230 crank hp (saw both figures quoted). But, these are frightfully rare, corresponding costly, very fragile (significant camshaft bearing issues), and ultimately struggling to hit 300 crank horsepower after only truly heroic measures have been taken. And just TRY to get one fixed in Anytown USA if it hiccups. Again, it is hard to get excited about spending the money on one.

Then there is the nostalgic Chevy 348 “W” engine. This is incredibly heavy – heavier than the 261 even – and VERY wide, so there is no way to fit it into Red gracefully. Another casualty.

Then we have the relatively new GM Vortec 4.2 liter inline 6 used in a number of SUVs. This is a high tech engine with double overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, and variable cam timing, that delivers 270 crank horsepower in factory trim. It weighs about 435 pounds, which is good too. The big disqualifier is that it requires a computer, complex wiring harness, and an army of sensors in order to work. This violates the SLURP guidelines pretty significantly, so again, no.

That brings us to the Chevy smallblock – everyone’s answer to best bang for the buck. And for good reason. The engines are relatively inexpensive, lots of used ones available, tons of GM and aftermarket soup-up parts at very competitive prices, and you can get it serviced just about anywhere! Even pedestrian versions come close to 300 crank horsepower, and that is just the foundational number; it is relatively easy and also inexpensive to buy these, or get them souped up, well PAST the 300 to 400 crank horsepower level, into the 500s, without supercharging or nitrous. You can also get one repaired ANYWHERE. This WAS looking like the winner, since I had ruled out the LS engine series because I “don’t want no stinking computer” and all the sensors it requires to do anything useful!

But, then I read about the carbureted versions of the GM all aluminum LS engines that both GM and Edelbrock are now supporting. Wow. The LS engine series was designed for fuel injection and thus “dry” intake flow (the injectors that spray the fuel are literally just before the individual intake valves), but you’d never guess that when you look at how these engines perform when fed an air/fuel mixture via carburetor. The raw performance, across the entire rpm range, is virtually identical to the EFI version! Now, I’m sure that the fuel mileage will be lower with the carb versus injection setup, but if I can use an LS engine without the complexity and cost of the computer, the wiring harness, and the number of sensors needed to provide the raw data to the computer, I can live with some reduced fuel efficiency. I really like the weight reduction this LS series engine offers: an LS1 weighs about 430 pounds or less fully dressed (add 65 pounds if I go with a less costly “truck” version that has cast iron block versus aluminum block). That’s about 100 pounds less than a smallblock Chevy with aluminum heads, and about 150 pounds less than a smallblock Chevy with iron heads, or my existing 261!

Here’s what clinched it for me: I modeled a plain Jane crate version of the LS1 available from GM in my simulation software that simulates Red with different engines and transmissions and vehicle weights. Even withOUT any weight reductions beyond the reduction achieved by simply subbing the LS1 and a 700R4 tranny (saves almost 200 pounds), the graphic below shows you the performance outcomes:
http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh16/JimGnitecki/RedwithLS1crateengine-700R4andnooth.jpg


Note that Red changes into something resembling a steet terror, because IF you can control the traction (we might not be able to), with half a tank of fuel and a 175 pound driver, he hits 60 mph in under 4 1/2 seconds, and runs the quarter in 13.10 seconds at 103 mph!

It gets better.

If you assume the additional weight savings, which I HAVE already verified as being achievable, that get Red to the magical 3000 lb. weight before fuel and driver, and then add the fuel and driver in, you get the graphic below.

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh16/JimGnitecki/RedwithLS1-700R4-weightreductions.jpg


Here, Red hits 60 mph in 4 seconds, and runs the quarter in 12.74 seconds at 106 mph, again assuming we can somehow manage the traction.

And remember, this is just your garden variety LS1 crate engine, or a used LS engine from a wrecked Corvette or Camaro.

If you install Edelbrock’s ENTIRE kit, which beyond the intake, carb, and ignition, adds a matched cam, the results get REALLY intense, as seen in the next graphic.

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh16/JimGnitecki/RedwithEdelbrockLS1-700R4-weightred.jpg



Now Red hits 60 mph in under 4 seconds, and runs the quarter in 12.27 seconds at 112 mph, again assuming we can somehow manage the traction. Remember, this is a pickup truck! I can live with that future upgrade path . . .

Finally, if you really want to get silly, you put on a Magnuson supercharger designed specifically for the LS series, and add 100 REAR WHEEL horsepower.

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh16/JimGnitecki/RedwithsuperchargedEdelbrockLS1-700.jpg



Now Red hits 60 mph in about 3 1/2 seconds, and runs the quarter in 11.5 seconds at 124 mph, again assuming we can somehow manage the traction, and at this point, I doubt we COULD manage the traction (you can’t get tires wide enough into the fenders), but highway acceleration would surely surprise a lot of modern performance car owners! Don’t even LOOK at the projected top speed in the graphic – you don’t want to be driving a leaf spring suspended refrigerator-tall 53 year old missile at anywhere NEAR that kind of speed.

So, as far as I am concerned, we have a winner: an LS series engine equipped with non-EFI intake, carburetor, MSD ignition box that PLUGS into the coil packs and reluctors (no mods required), and a control kit for the 700R4 ($30 more). It is just plain hard –no, probably impossible, to beat the combination of performance and value.

Second place is the Chevy smallblock, in case we find a much better deal on one of those versus an LS series. Yes, you can criticize this as “EVERYBODY does that”. But, sometimes there is a darn good reason that “everybody does that”, and in the case of the smallblock, it is simply a GREAT combination of cost, performance, simplicity, wide support, etc. You sort of have to be pretty contrary, and determined to be different, to say “no” to that. As for nostalgia, remember that the smallblock has been around since 1955, and available in Chevy pickups almost that long, so it’s definitely respectful of history. In fact, the smallblock is perhaps the longest running engine series ever.

The LS engine of course is “modern”, but it’s the son of Smallblock, so has good genes, and we can use either one or TWO 4-barrel carbs to help give it that “oldtime” look. Then we can revel in its power, its future expandability, and the immediate improvement it makes in weight distribution on Red, since both it and the 700R4 are forward positioned in the chassis, and will very favorably change the weight distribution over the 261 plus cast iron Hydra-Matic.

This is kind of the way I am thinking right now. What do YOU guys think?
Jim G

What do you want fer the 261?

11.5 ET 124 MPH.........Hogwash! Maybe tubbed with the right slicks, a 9" with the right gears, the right converter and a 6 or 8 point cage and someone good on the lights.......Sure. Kinda takes away the everyday driving but a really nice Pro Streeter! Have fun and good luck whatever route you go!
Dan

My opinion may not be welcome here, as I love OLD SCHOOL stuff.
If what you're after is a lightweight rocket, why not just hop-up a Honda Civic? If it was my truck, I'd put some vintage speed equipment on the 261, let that sweet 6-cylinder rap fill my ears, and grin from ear to ear, even while being passed by every import on the road.

Heck, my wife drives an old (2001) Chrysler 300M that almost meets your criteria, and gets 28mpg highway.

But, it's all about what you want to do. As 4t6 says, have fun and enjoy it, whatever you decide to do.

Under the better late than never category . . .

As luck would have it, today's mail finally brought the June 1966 Road & Track issue with the road test of the Tempest with the hot "Sprint" version of this Pontiac OHC six engine. I had ordered the magazine a LONG time ago while researching that engine.

It appears to show that while the Sprint may have been hot compared to some of its contemporaries, it might be a bit challenged on today's roads.

Here are the key statistics from that road test:
Test weight of the vehicle: 3780
Axle ratio: 3.55
0 to 60 mph: 10.0 seconds (not a misprint. ten seconds)
Quarter mile: 17.2 seconds at 82 mph

Maybe good in 1966, but today the Honda Civics do that

One other VERY interesting fact, which I double and triple checked to make sure it was not a misprint: the engine rpm at 60 mph in top gear was 2760 - virtually identical to the rpm of an AD truck with its inline non-OHC six. Apaprently our forefathers weren't afraid to let an engine SPIN in the rpm range where it works best. This engine made peak power at 5200, and could spin to 7000 rpm or so.

Jim G

Laroke: Someone else has also asked me the same question privately. I don't honestly know yet. I have not yet had any time to really research the value of a recently rebuilt 261. I am not going to be lookin g for a ton of money for it. Just a price that is fair to both seller and buyer. Maybe folks could send me PMs telling me what they think? PLEASE do not comment on buying or selling prices in the thread - it violates forum rules. PM me.

I WOULD love to have a pre-arranged buyer, and also, if someone buys it while it is still installed in Red, they can hear it and drive it before they buy it. So, if anyone out there is genuinely interested, shoot me a PM (!!) with an offer or suggested price.

The Hydra-Matic will also be available. I love this tranny, but my friend who owns and runs a transmission shop tells me I would be fighting city hall trying to mate it to a modern engine. He has offered me a 700R4 at a "firend's price".

Jim G

I LOVE the AD truck styling and its build philosophy (simple, exposed metal in cab, only 4 soft surfaces in cab, easy to see how everything on it works, etc). The ONLY critical things I really want to CHANGE are to add a bit more power, and air conditioning (so I can use it daily - I live in Texas). The other mods are just to get the icing on the cake: having a pickup truck that weighs under 3000 pounds is just plain cool, in a world where trucks now START at over 4500 pounds, and go well past 6000 pounds. It satisfies the engineer within me.

Jim G

I can't say it better than that. No rollcage, no crush zones, no air bags, speed limit still 65-70, it's all interesting Jim but many of us knew in our hearts (I think) that you'd go to a bent eight engine. Of course that's OK, it's your vehicle. Check out Grigg's sites for some real engineering and originality. I for one was hoping you would go along this path.

When you noted my faux pas in my last post regarding your project I had made the unforgivable mistake of not reading your posts completely, word for word, as reading any long posts are too boring for me.

Keep posting as IMHO you are very thorough and we all have much to learn from your particular journey. All the best to you and yours, Cosmo.

Do the buying and selling by private message.

My suggestion would be a 2006 or newer Vortec 4200 (295hp), custom flywheel, Vortec 3500 5-speed, and have Westers Garage re-program the ECM. then you have 5 wires to hook up. Battery, Ignition, crank, fuelpump.

Then again if you are going to build the 215, there are easy ways with a crank change from a 340 to get 300 cubes out of this little engine.

Scott

Sorry Cletis. I've been here long enough to know better

If you're going under 12 seconds on a sanctioned track, remember to add the weight of the rollcage and other safety equip.!So what's the cost comparison for the final two..hp/$?

Sorry, Cletis. MY error.

Jim G

Scott: Are you sure you can run a Vortec 4200 inline six without all the wiring harness and sensors stuff? I hads not seen ANY articles or ads in any of the research I have done that says someone supports this. Does it retain the EFI, but eliminate the closed loop operation (since no sensors to provide the reedback data)?

IF so, that could indeed be a dynamite package.

What about size? How does it compare in length and height to the Stovebolt sixes?

I'm really afraid of that Buick route. I spoke with a guy who apaprently knows a l;ot about them and builds them, and got scared off by both the costs of proeprly building one and the peak power available. He would not guarantee even 275 hp, despite the displacement increase.

The 4200 could be magical if someone offers a simple, non-harnessed and sensored version. I don't want anything to do with those wiring harnesses and sensors. Had enough of that!

Jim G

I won't be visiting any tracks. Past experiences when I was younger taught me I can't afford to pay for the parts breakages, and recent experiences watching OTHERS break parts has reinforced my thoughts! My speed experiences are limited to quick few-second blasts on deserted highways, and the occasional exuberent getaway from a light.

The LS series engines are a real bargain. Their basic strength right from the factory is incredible, and the hopup parts are both cheap and easy, as these engines are used in every GM V8 pickup and SUV made, so great economies of scale.

NEW crate LS engines, with all the components and accessories on them - not stripped - realistically go for $4500 and up, but deliver at LEAST 350 and sometimes close to 400 guaranteed crank horsepower as delivered.

Fully functional 5.3 to 6.0 liter LS engines pulled from recent model trucks or SUVs start at $1000 or less with $2000 being the high end (because there are so MANY), and then you add $1000 worth of Edelbrock / MSD/GM Performance parts to convert to carbureted versus EFI operation, and $500 more if you want to bump the power (cam and LS6 springs at worst) and you end up with at LEAST 425 crank horsepower, and 500 or more is not difficult or expensive. No computer except the ignition black box that connects up right to the factory coil packs and reluctors.

The LS series is actually a bit more costly than the Chevy smallblock engines available are, if you are satisfied with 300 to 350 crank horsepower, but the LS series is far less costly to hop up in the future, due to features like replicated ports, 6-bolt mains, and incredibly strong cranks/rods/pistons that you don't need to worry about till close to 600 crank horsepower. So, the LS series is actually the "engine with a future" in comparing the two. Remember, the 575 crank horsepower engine in my supercharged SSR started out as a lowly 5.3 liter TRUCK engine. It evcen still has the "inferior" truck heads versus the Corvette LS6 heads.

The guys offering me the Buick and Pontiac OHC and hi-performance all-out 271s were needing way more money than I'd spend on the LS series, and not even hitting the 300 crank hp low end of my target range. I'm talking that they need $5700 to $7500, and who knows what that does NOT include.

I have a limited budget, so . . .

Jim G

Jim,

I have seen a custom vortec 4200 with carbs. You have to get an MSD ignition setup. That is as much work if not more than leaving the engine intact. However as I stated, keep the engine fuel injected and have Westers Garage re-program the ECM to make your life easier.

You can do the Mega Squirt route as DIYEFI did
https://www.stovebolt.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Main/47046/Number/351699#Post351699

More info on using the vortec on http://www.inliners.org/

Here is some info on the Buick V8 http://www.aluminumv8.com/tech/tech.htm

There is more information out there. If you want cheap power, you have to go SBC. Simply by shear volume of engines out there, it is one of the cheapest engines to build just short of an air-cooled VW engine.

Carburated LS engines are becoming popular. Simply look to the racing market as this is the Late Model route. However the engine requires a re-programmed ECM. ASA rules dictate a standardized ECM. All that has been removed is the injectors. You still need the ECM, Wiring, and a pile of other electronics (Crank and cam triggers). MSD has a setup that is similar. Talking to the racers at work, most stepped out of Late Model and have gone back down to Mid-Am simply because of the 10:1 cost of building and maintaining the LS vs a Gen 1 SBC.

If you want coolness, then go with the Buick, build it with about 9:1 and bolt on a 471. Polish the block for that extra wow factor. I have built buicks and yes they are about twice the cost of an SBC. You can go to any engine builder and get a 350HP SBC for $1500. You can get your buick heads and intake ported and gasket matched for $1500 (and you havent touched the bottom end yet)

If you want low $ performance, your two choices are carburated SBC, or a late-model transplant (complete with wiring, ECM, etc.) A vortec 6.0 truck motor, wiring, ecm and transmission have been going as low as $2500

Although an alternative would be a 300HP Ecotech (supercharged or turbocharged). There is a GM manual on building Ecotechs up to 1000HP (available on-line if you want to download 80 Megs). However 4-cylinder building is double V8 building prices.

Scott

GREAT overview, Scott.

I am confused by one aspect of what you said though. You seem to believe that an LS1 requires a PCM to run. Not so. At least, not on the street (racing catgeory rules may require the cmputer - I don't know).

With the Edelbrock approach, you do NOT use either the PCM or the harness. You also don't use the injectors of course. You use a carb and intake, and then an MSD-sourced blackbox that connects plug-and-play (literally plugs into)to the factory coil packs, crankshaft sensor, and camshaft sensor. If you want more power, Edelbrock also has a version of the kit where they incldue a cam "matched" to the intake and carb, and that adds lots more easy, and cheap, power. (LS engines respond to cams VERY well, as that replciated port design is just dynamite for breathing).

Your racing friends must be trying to stay within some rules that are inflating the costs. The STREET costs of a CARB-fed LS engine are very modest - better hp per dollar than even the smallblock!

I agree about the ready source of LS engines on eBay and elsewhere. In fact, $2500 is about the MAXIMUM that they are advertised for, unless they are the "Camaro" or "Corvette" LS1, LS6, or LS2 versions being marketed to the young guys who don't realize you don't need those specific versions to "go fast", as ANY of the LS engines will accept almost all the speed parts. Will Handzel's book on the LS engines, which is EXCELLENT, explains all this.

Yesterday, I watched as a buyer got an LM7 (Silverado 5.3 liter) for $310 from an eBay supplier whose satisfaction rating for the past severla years is 100% (not even 99.9%), but that engine had 70K miles on it, so not my cup of tea unless dirt cheap.

I'm trying to avoid a blower, for the sake of simplicity. One of the reasons for favoring an AD truck is thta it is so LIGHT that you don't NEED more power than you can get in a plain Jane SBC or LS engine.

The Ecotech is just "wrong" for an old pickup, in my personal opinion. That's a high rpm screamer before it makes sufficient power, and I READ that manual on bulding that 1000 hp version, and it is a truly heroic effort you go through for a VERY specialized and limited engine.

I'm going to read that info you linked to on the Vortec 4200. That one does intrigue me, if I could get it simple enough, like Edelbrock has made the LS with its kit. But, I also need to see some dimensions on that 4200. I'm not sure it's short enough to fit easily without extensive mods. And, it's set up for the 4L60E or manual only - not for the 700R4, and I don't want a computer controlled tranny like the 4L60E.

Jim G

whether you are using the MSD ECM or a re-programmed factory unit, you are still pluging into the crank and cam sensors, so you still have have of a full EFI setup.

Ebay has gotten really expensive for motors as I see used go for more than new. A local yard charges $300 for running engines irregardless of size, make, displacement, etc. I keep checking for a 98 or newer F-body. The LT1's and L98's go quick as others watch as well.

I still say, polished 215 with the 340 crank, mild port work, cam and a 471 with a 600CFM carb. You will have old-school coolness. downside is the 215 only flywheel housing bolt pattern.

If you want pics of a vortec 4200, email me at [email protected]. I pulled some off the net. However DIYEFI can measure his in the AD. The engine should be about the same length, however a little wider (especially stock accessories) and a lot lighter being aluminum.

I have been trying to get to the chat room on inliners, however something keeps timing out. otherwise I would have more links to share.

I even thought of a Jag 4.2 liter engine as I really like the look of the old Jag engines with the double-hump valve covers. The good news is the later Jags had GM bolt patterns as they switched to 700R4 transmissions for a while. I would ditch the SU's for a set of Webbers. The 4.2 engine would propel an AD quite well. The later supercharged versions are hard to get for a good price as these are usually transplanted into other Jags.

I went Northstar for my Opel project's next engine simply because if I change my suspension to Cadillac CTS, I then have a full OPEL sourced street rod. It then fits the homogination update/backdate rules for SCCA - (The GT was based on the Kadett. The Kadett became the Calibra. The Calibra chassis was stretched to the Astra. The V8 Astra was powered by Northstar. The V6 Astra became the Cadillac Catera. The Catera became the CTS.

I emailed you!

No Jags! This is complex enough without introducing an International factor!!

Jim G