Well first off i'd like to say thanks to Delawarefiero for finding this for me. I was planning on doing a SBC 327 swap and eventually build up an aluminum version because iron is just plain to heavy. I finally came to a conclusion to just do the all aluminum motor and drop the 327 in my Blazer. So here are some pics of my brand spanking new LS4 with tranny that i got my mitts on . It only had 5 miles when pulled. . or so said the warranty tag.
fresh off the crate


After some slight dis-assembly


Boy does that bolt pattern look familiar


So the plan now is to further tear the motor down and remove the cam to determin if a normal LSx cam will be able to be swapped in. Then it will be built up to make some Turbo 4cylinder destroying power . More pics to come so stay "tuned" and enjoy . . .

------------------
HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?

wow, now what about the flywheel, thats the tricky part I see. And, i hope you dont plan on putting such a mighty fine motor in front of a slushbox.

I'll be watching this with interest. Have you considered how to handle the Displacement on Demand, yet?

quote Originally posted by FieroWannaBe: wow, now what about the flywheel, thats the tricky part I see. And, i hope you dont plan on putting such a mighty fine motor in front of a slushbox.

Well unfortunatly the power levels i want to generate have split manual transaxles like melons so i'm gonna go with a strong 4spd auto. The starter is bolted to the bell housing of the tranny so that kinda seals my fate . . maybe. There is always more than one way to skin a cat .

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Have you considered how to handle the Displacement on Demand, yet?

I plan on eliminating the DoD feature and using a Ls1 harness and computer . Since the Ls1 is fairly common i can get it tuned quite easily. The LS4 uses the "drive by wire" throttle body which limits my upgradeabilty, with the ls1 comp i can use a bigger TB to help this motor breath better.

------------------
HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?

That gets rid of the electronics, but what about the DoD hardware?
Once sorted out, this could be a nice alternative swap since it doesn't require an adapter plate and has the shorter overall length compared to an LS1.

All you need is a Gen3 valley cover and that seals off all the oil lines that would normally interact with the lifters. You can also get 90mm cable operated TBs for your intake.

EDIT: Oh yeah, FANTASTIC choice!!!

------------------
Christian Thomas
87 Pontiac Fiero GT Burgandy/Silver 5.7L ZZ4 5spd
301rwhp/345rwtq

Next Mod: 88 suspension, C6 polished wheels, Z06 brakes, Konis, poly'd ...AKA NEW CAR!
06 Cobalt SS/SC w/ LSD

[This message has been edited by CTFieroGT87 (edited 11-10-2006).]

OOOHHHH WTF





why oh why did i move to europe..this suckz they have nothing here..


OH by the way SWEET ENGINE SWAP

Very cool but I don't think the LS1/2/6/7 are very related to the LS4. Pretty sure it's a smaller block. Either no one has cracked the LS4's comp or someone has very recently.

If you can do it, More friggin power to you because I think it'd be an AWESOME swap and definately worth challenging the sc3800 if they become popular and the A/M follows.

Yeah that DelawareFiero is 1 cool kat!!!

Slushboxes RULE!!!

[This message has been edited by 88GT5.0KILLER (edited 11-10-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Scurvy: Very cool but I don't think the LS1/2/6/7 are very related to the LS4. Pretty sure it's a smaller block. Either no one has cracked the LS4's comp or someone has very recently. If you can do it, More friggin power to you because I think it'd be an AWESOME swap and definately worth challenging the sc3800 if they become popular and the A/M follows.

From what i've read and figured the block has a differant construction in the bellhousing area. The heads are LS6 heads with LS1 springs and valves. So the valves will be getting replaced and springs will be matched to the cam when it is descided on. I still have to research the sleeving on these LS motors , but if possible i'd like to resleeve it up to a 5.7 liter . The DoD hardware can be removed like CT fiero said and a gen3 valley cover bolted on.

------------------
HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?

Why stop at 5.7 if you're paying the $2500 to have it sleeved?

I noticed another engine in the background with a sc. Will there be any need for that??? ; )

Nice engine and good luck to you.

While I understand people have issues in their mind with adapter plates, the automatic 4t65eHD to the LS1, LS6, LS2, LQ4, LQ9, L33. LM7.... and a few others is only .500 thick.

I have all this developed, for the automatic, and I even have the solution for putting the starter on the bell housing instead of the custom oil pan deal I was using.

Here are some pics... Maybe in December I will have this finally running in something besides a Grand Prix GTP.





here is the final LS1 on the 65eHD on the 88 cradle



The final in the Grand Prix...

http://www.fastfieros.com/p.../tomkls1/tomkls1.htm



I have 3 of the 5.3 DoD enignes also... I like the engine, but I will one day install it as a DoD since the M6 pattern is not that big deal.

Loyde@FastFieros.com

http://www.fastfieros.com/catalog.htm

[This message has been edited by FastFieros (edited 10-07-2009).]

Lloyd nice pics ! I chose the LS4 because i didn't want to purchase a new LSX and then have to build/buy an adapter plate as well. Keeping the DoD feature would be nice but i'm not to worried cause this car will be my toy . Well i got some more pics taken and found out something else this motor has in common with a 2.8. Besides having the same bolt pattern it also has a bottle neck in the intake manifold as well



I had to brighten the picture so it was visible. I measured the throttle body and it came in at 3.027 inches which converts to 76.88 MM but i think it's larger than the manifold can use LOL. more to come. . .

oh yeah ROK the 3800 SC needs rebuilt it has a rod knock . It will probably end up in my daily driver .

------------------
HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?

pickup a new bottom end from a junkyard, cheaper and easier.

quote Originally posted by FastFieros: I have all this developed, for the automatic, and I even have the solution for putting the starter on the bell housing instead of the custom oil pan deal I was using.

Do this with the LS4 and use a stick.

quote Originally posted by FastFieros: While I understand people have issues in their mind with adapter plates, the automatic 4t65eHD to the LS1, LS6, LS2, LQ4, LQ9, L33. LM7.... and a few others is only .500 thick. I have all this developed, for the automatic, and I even have the solution for putting the starter on the bell housing instead of the custom oil pan deal I was using. Loyde

Did someone say, "Automatic"? I heard that, hehe. I need to "save" this thread.

Well got a couple more pics today. Nothing to eventfull when i pulled the DoD valley cover. Just some solenoids and thats about it. There are some extra bosses in the "lifter valley" (even though there are no lifters there) to pass the oil to the lifters .

The DoD cover


Solenoid and gasket




The lifter (less) valley

------------------
HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?

Isnt the LS4 a 327?

quote Originally posted by 4-mulaGT: Isnt the LS4 a 327?

Almost it's a 325 cid

Bore x Stroke: 3.78" x 3.622"

quote Originally posted by Scurvy: Very cool but I don't think the LS1/2/6/7 are very related to the LS4. Pretty sure it's a smaller block. Either no one has cracked the LS4's comp or someone has very recently. If you can do it, More friggin power to you because I think it'd be an AWESOME swap and definately worth challenging the sc3800 if they become popular and the A/M follows.

The LS4 is absolutely related to the LS1/2/6/7. Same design, same block, just a different bolt pattern cast into the block. Most of the changes to make it fit in a FWD engine bay was done with the accessory drives. I do believe there might be some differences in the crank snout, though? Or something having to do with one of the crank, I can't remember.

------------------
Christian Thomas
87 Pontiac Fiero GT Burgandy/Silver 5.7L ZZ4 5spd
301rwhp/345rwtq

Next Mod: 88 suspension, C6 polished wheels, Z06 brakes, Konis, poly'd ...AKA NEW CAR!
06 Cobalt SS/SC w/ LSD

[This message has been edited by CTFieroGT87 (edited 11-12-2006).]

quote Originally posted by CTFieroGT87: The LS4 is absolutely related to the LS1/2/6/7. Same design, same block, just a different bolt pattern cast into the block. Most of the changes to make it fit in a FWD engine bay was done with the accessory drives. I do believe there might be some differences in the crank snout, though? Or something having to do with one of the crank, I can't remember.

Crank snout is supposed to be 10 mm shorter . The block actually has casting for the standard LS bolt pattern with pilot holes and alignment dowels. The bellhousing looks like it was machined down a bit . My main concern now are the lifters . Should i replace with standar LS or leave the dod ones in. The dod one have alot of uneccesary weight from an extra spring and the collapse mechanism inside. this will limit RPM potential and it also part that might fail.

quote Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: RPM potential .

You actually typed that?

quote Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: Should i replace with standar LS or leave the dod ones in. The dod one have alot of uneccesary weight from an extra spring and the collapse mechanism inside. this will limit RPM potential and it also part that might fail.

Do a little searching over on LS1tech in the LS7 area. There was at least one guy who bought the new 6.2 L92 engine and had all of the DOD hardware removed, making it basically a standard LSx. I don't know that the marginal mpg improvement of the DOD would be worth the possible headache.

It was worthwhile for GM to design and build.
Similar system on the Chrysler Hemi is supposed to be worth 10% overall fuel economy. I read that the engines spend about 40% of their time in 4 cylinder operation.

quote Originally posted by Will:It was worthwhile for GM to design and build.

Just because GM put it into production doesn’t mean it was worthwhile.

quote Originally posted by Will:Similar system on the Chrysler Hemi is supposed to be worth 10% overall fuel economy. I read that the engines spend about 40% of their time in 4 cylinder operation.

The 10% and 40% are marketing numbers. The actual real-world mpg increase is up for debate. I would like to see some hard data to back it up. LS1tech owners are reporting ~2-4 mpg instantaneous increase during steady-state highway cruise. Overall economy improvement numbers would be lower.

The jury is still out on the long-term durability of the system. This unproven durability is especially important when you start adding high performance parts (IE camshaft). Until someone pushes the envelope with DOD, it will remain an untested system for performance applications.

The DoD is actually incredibly worthwhile for GM. Its ALL about the truck fleet's average MPG and the CAFE standards. The DoD is about a 6% increase in economy, but when averaging that across millions of vehicles, it makes a huge difference to the company.

I personally have a LOT more confidence in the durability of the GM system because its completely done with oil pressure. The Chrysler system is using shafts that slide in and out, preventing movement in the lifters. All those extra moving parts, moving at extreme speeds, has me a little worried about 100k+ miles...

Do people really drive Chryslers over 100k miles? 5 transmissions later... Just kiddin!

I'm thinking Will meant that GM is run by bean counters and cheap as hell, so it must be reasonably viable technology if GM spent the enormous amount money required to design, develope and build the system.

quote Originally posted by CTFieroGT87: .... Do people really drive Chryslers over 100k miles? 5 transmissions later... Just kiddin!

No BS on the transmissions... MOPARts for your tranny is more like it.

quote Originally posted by CTFieroGT87:The DoD is actually incredibly worthwhile for GM. Its ALL about the truck fleet's average MPG and the CAFE standards. The DoD is about a 6% increase in economy, but when averaging that across millions of vehicles, it makes a huge difference to the company.

Worthwhile for GM to meet arbitrary CAFE limits? I will buy that. Worthwhile to the car owner? That's debatable. These CAFE limits use EPA estimates that are based on the results of pre-determined test conditions, not real-world observed economy numbers by customers. It is real easy to come up with strategies that win on paper, but offer no real value to the end user (like the CAGS/Skipshift feature on the 6-spd cars)

quote Originally posted by CTFieroGT87:I personally have a LOT more confidence in the durability of the GM system because its completely done with oil pressure. The Chrysler system is using shafts that slide in and out, preventing movement in the lifters. All those extra moving parts, moving at extreme speeds, has me a little worried about 100k+ miles...

You might want to read up a little more on the GM system, because it uses moving pieces in the lifters, just like Chrysler. The oil pressure simply locks or unlocks the pins that allows the lifter to engage or not.

quote Originally posted by RacerX11: You might want to read up a little more on the GM system, because it uses moving pieces in the lifters, just like Chrysler. The oil pressure simply locks or unlocks the pins that allows the lifter to engage or not.

Funny, I was just looking through the online service manuals to try and get the description of operation for the MDS (Multi Displacement System). It uses engine oil pressure routed to 4 electronic actuated valves to lock unlock the tappets. Simple, and easy. -Jason

so exactly how does this system work ?i see solenoids and oil circuits but i dont see pusrods or lifters .what is opening and closing the valves?

quote Originally posted by RacerX11: There is a a big step from a "reasonably viable technology" to a reliable product. This bean-counter logic could also be used to argue that GM cut corners on the development/validation process of the system to save money and get a quick win on CAFE. GM has put out enough unreliable products in the past that you cannot assume something will be relaible just because they sell it. Only time will prove this out.

Granted, but the bean counter logic could then be applied again to say that GM stands to gain nothing from unreliable technology. More than that, they stand to lose significant money in warranty repairs if the technology is not reasonably reliable, especially with a system that is buried so deeply in the motor. Thats a lot of expense in labor alone. And this is all in light of the fact that GM recently extended their warranty program to keep up with the competition's warranty incentives.

Here is a diagram showing the GM DOD lifter:
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i92/bigmikegxp/472ee3e4.jpg

Here is a Chrysler MDS lifter (on the right):
http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/lg_mdsvalvelifter-lg.jpg

They both feature an inner and outer body with latching pins to lock the two together until oil pressure is applied. When locked, the engine runs normally. When unlocked, those cylinder's pushrods are disengaged and the valves don't open. Simple in theory, but there are still moving mechanical pieces that can fail.

[This message has been edited by RacerX11 (edited 11-14-2006).]

quote Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: So the plan now is to further tear the motor down and remove the cam to determin if a normal LSx cam will be able to be swapped in. Then it will be built up to make some Turbo 4cylinder destroying power . More pics to come so stay "tuned" and enjoy . . .

Man, that engine looks nice Good luck with the project!

Im sure Chris didnt buy this LS4 drivetrain for the DOD crap. I could be wrong, but Im gonna take a guess and say he like most people that make the cars go fast could give a SH!T about MPG.

Unless your a 4 banger guy and then you might as well add the rainbow sticker on your back window.

quote Originally posted by 88GT5.0KILLER: Im sure Chris didnt buy this LS4 drivetrain for the DOD crap. I could be wrong, but Im gonna take a guess and say he like most people that make the cars go fast could give a SH!T about MPG. Unless your a 4 banger guy and then you might as well add the rainbow sticker on your back window.

What he said ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ . I'm not to concerned about fuel economy with this car. It is my toy. It will see the strip the street and anything in between. If i was going to build up a car for good gas mpg i wouldn't even thing about stuffing in a big cam P&P ing the heads and all that jazz. The DoD lifters might work fine but who really knows? Not me. I do know that the standard style of lifter is out there getting the sh!t kicked out of it and asking for more so it only seems like a logical choice to go with a proven part than experiment with an unproven part. i know the only way to find out, is to do it, but you need to use your head with some things. Well more pics to come . . . when i get some time off work.

------------------
HARDCORE SBC CRONIE AND PROUD OF IT ! GOT TQ ?

Are the lifters interchangeable? I'm wondering if GM changed the lifter bosses on the DoD blocks for the DoD lifters vs. the regular lifters. If it's as simple as putting regular lifters on all the cylinders, that would be nice.