I have been looking in depth at several things related to engine swaps and have had no luck finding one specific I've been looking for. That is how much more does the 4.6 northstar with 5L50 versus the 4.9 with the 4T60E. I have been combing the web for days and haven't found specifics. Any information would be appreciated.
------------------ There is no better day than when your mods smoke your neighbors turn key sportscar
[This message has been edited by Artofkicking (edited 04-06-2015).]
Im a HUGE Cadillac enthusiast and I can honestly say, go with the 4.9L. The 4.6DOHC Northstar engine is notorious for blowing head gaskets right around 120K. If you feel like going through the engine and re-doing the head bolts than go for the Northstar. But be prepared to spend more $ than an entire 3800SC swap which has more after market support.
as far as specs go:
L26 4.9L OHV:
-200HP -275LBS of torque. Compression: 9:5:1
This engine is VERY reliable but does require premium fuel. It's a low rev 'high performance' engine that doesn't peak more than 4500RPM
L37 4.6L DOHC: -290-300HP (depends on year) -288-295LBS of torque Compression: 10:3:1 Prior to the year 2000. Afterwards it was 10:1.
------------------ Every fiero has a story, It's our job to keep that story alive.
That 5 speed automatic with that Northstar won't work anyway, as it's a longitudinal transmission (hence the L as the second character), unless perhaps you used the AWD version and only used the front drive output of the trans. You'd want to use the 4t80E with a Northstar if you wanted to go with a Northstar.
Originally posted by zzzhuh: L37 4.6L DOHC: -290-300HP (depends on year) -288-295LBS of torque Compression: 10:3:1 Prior to the year 2000. Afterwards it was 10:1.
Given the mention of the 5L50 transmission, the Northstar in question is the LH2, which is 320 HP, 315 lbs-ft of torque, has a 10.5:1 compression ratio, and includes VVT.
In this generation of the engine, I think the head bolts issue was also already fixed in the casting and machining from the factory, so pulling the heads to time-sert the bolt holes would probably not be necessary.
That said, the Northstar is a very heavy engine. The 4.9 isn't exactly lightweight either, though, and doesn't make a lot of power, nor have much aftermarket.
Originally posted by dobey: In this generation of the engine, I think the head bolts issue was also already fixed in the casting and machining from the factory, so pulling the heads to time-sert the bolt holes would probably not be necessary.
You are correct, the Northstar by that time was a pretty solid engine. If only GM would have gotten it right from the beginning, it would have been a GREAT engine.
Originally posted by zzzhuh: You are correct, the Northstar by that time was a pretty solid engine. If only GM would have gotten it right from the beginning, it would have been a GREAT engine.
It IS a great engine. I wish people would stop insisting some minor flaw that only appears after the thing has been driven over 120000 freaking miles, makes it a horrible engine. It doesn't. Even the 2.8 in the Fiero was a good engine for its time, but they don't last forever. Mine didn't even make it to 100000, let alone 120000+.
The head bolts issue was found and fixed, and when you've got a bone dry engine out of a car that you're preparing to swap into another car, isn't hard to fix either. GM is much better today at QA than they were 20 years ago, but still, unforeseeable things can, and will, happen. GM did plenty of testing during the development of the Northstar, and if it hadn't met the quality standards in place, it wouldn't have been released in so many cars. It was a small issue that didn't come up in testing for some reason, and was only discovered after people started having problems. Sometimes, that happens. Rather, it happens quite often. It doesn't make the engines bad, junk, or not great engines. It makes them engines great engines, some of which had a minor production flaw that is easily remedied. The vocal few on the Internet make the problem seem much worse than it actually is.
Very close weights on the 2.8 vs. 4.9. I wonder how much money a custom ground camshaft would be to up the HP curve to some higher RPM's Maybe that and a some chip tuning could produce a good boost to 1/4 mile pulls. It definitely looks like a solid place start a solid engine swap.
Has anyone here done anything like this?
[This message has been edited by Artofkicking (edited 04-07-2015).]
My 4.9 weighed right around 375lbs ready to install. Almost the same weight as the 2.8 it replaced.
The 4.9 can also rev to about 6000 stock. The stock programming in the 4.9 pcm limits the shift points to about 4500. It revs higher when not restrained. The shift points can be adjusted pretty easily. There are a few things that can be done to make it breath better also. No major performance products made for it though. Only cam, pistons, ignition, etc.
The 4.9 can add 60hp and 100tq over the 2.8 (stock numbers) with no weight penalty. That is not bad at all for the cost.
[This message has been edited by Fieroseverywhere (edited 04-08-2015).]
zzzhuh, you do realize the 4.9 had more than it's share of problems when it was introduced right?
I vote N*, they're plenty reliable. newer, more plentiful. more powerful ect....
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
Originally posted by Gall757: Welcome to the Forum! Still looking for the weight on 5L50e.....
The 5L50E will weigh roughly the same as all the other XLYYE AWD transmissions, which will be a bit more than the non-AWD transmissions. But it's mostly irrelevant for the Fiero, since it's a longitudinal transmission. Unless you're doing a stretch, and get the AWD version, it's probably not something you'd want to use in a Fiero. Even then, I'm not sure the FD ratio for the AWD axles would be necessarily favorable.
Originally posted by Artofkicking: Very close weights on the 2.8 vs. 4.9. I wonder how much money a custom ground camshaft would be to up the HP curve to some higher RPM's Maybe that and a some chip tuning could produce a good boost to 1/4 mile pulls. It definitely looks like a solid place start a solid engine swap.
Has anyone here done anything like this?
A custom ground cam will be a few hundred dollars most likely, if anyone will even do one for the 4.9. The heads and intake probably would need a fair bit of work as well, if you want to make power up there, rather than just over-rev the engine and poke a hole through the head gasket or such.
I see you set your location to Chesapeake. If that's VA, you should go to the next VA Fieros club meeting in a couple weeks. There are three cars in the club with LS376/480 swaps. Hopefully all three will be at the show.
A custom ground cam will be a few hundred dollars most likely, if anyone will even do one for the 4.9. The heads and intake probably would need a fair bit of work as well, if you want to make power up there, rather than just over-rev the engine and poke a hole through the head gasket or such.
I see you set your location to Chesapeake. If that's VA, you should go to the next VA Fieros club meeting in a couple weeks. There are three cars in the club with LS376/480 swaps. Hopefully all three will be at the show.
Few hundred is a good price. As for the other work I am a machinist and do have a good amount of experience with porting and polishing I can handle that as well as a good 3 angle valve job. I'm sure someone will do the grind, I'll have to research some on what I think would be best for me. I think I can sacrifice a little on the low end without killing my launch.
I'll have to try and make the Va. Fiero's meeting o check out the swaps first hand. Thanks for the info.
A custom cam for the 4.9 from Delta is $90 last I checked
They have quite a few profiles and can tell you exactly what you need to accompany depending on the lift you go with, if anything. I have ported 4.9 heads and both the standard and Allante intakes. The heads just straight up suck for top end, but making power above 5500 isn't totally out of the question
[This message has been edited by Slammed (edited 04-07-2015).]
Not knocking the 4.9 because I know that there are many satisfied users but I never understood why they put iron heads on an aluminum block. When most other V8s mix them it is an aluminum head on an iron block. Too bad someone has never made a high performance aluminum head for the 4.9.
It IS a great engine. I wish people would stop insisting some minor flaw that only appears after the thing has been driven over 120000 freaking miles, makes it a horrible engine. It doesn't. Even the 2.8 in the Fiero was a good engine for its time, but they don't last forever. Mine didn't even make it to 100000, let alone 120000+.
If you've owned plenty of Cadillac Sevilles and Eldorado's with the 4.6 you would take back that statement. I have read on plenty of threads that the 2.8 can last up to 175,000 with regular maintenance before they wear out. Yours must have just been taken care of poorly, or was abused a lot.
Compared to a Honda or Toyota engine, 120,000 miles is very low, but with your Avatar im sure you know that.
Originally posted by zzzhuh: If you've owned plenty of Cadillac Sevilles and Eldorado's with the 4.6 you would take back that statement. I have read on plenty of threads that the 2.8 can last up to 175,000 with regular maintenance before they wear out. Yours must have just been taken care of poorly, or was abused a lot.
Compared to a Honda or Toyota engine, 120,000 miles is very low, but with your Avatar im sure you know that.
If I owned a Cadillac, it probably wouldn't have 120K miles on it either. But with proper maintenance the Northstars you are complaining about would also last several hundred thousand miles. It just happens that proper maintenance on those Northstars that did have the head bolt issue, include having the dealer perform the tech bulletin work to fix the head bolt issue. Just because people refuse to get that done when the time comes, doesn't mean the engines are definitely crap. It means the owners are cheap and don't want to maintain the car properly. It's no different than when people don't want to pay to have the timing belts changed and other such proper maintenance.
If I was going to buy an older Cadillac with one of these engines, I'd verify that the work had been done by taking the VIN to a dealer and having the shop look up on the computer if it's been done or not. But I'm not going to buy one; not because I have a problem with the engine, but because I don't necessarily like the looks of those Cadillacs, and I have no need to buy a Northstar since I'm not putting one in anything.
I've only ever owned one Honda. It's currently not running either, sadly, and it only has 160K miles on it. There are very few Honda cars that I would actually own. Never owned any Toyotas either, but have felt the desire to get a Lexus lately. Of course, finding a good manual IS 300 is incredibly hard.
But with proper maintenance the Northstars you are complaining about would also last several hundred thousand miles. It just happens that proper maintenance on those Northstars that did have the head bolt issue, include having the dealer perform the tech bulletin work to fix the head bolt issue.
I've only ever owned one Honda. It's currently not running either, sadly, and it only has 160K miles on it. There are very few Honda cars that I would actually own. Never owned any Toyotas either, but have felt the desire to get a Lexus lately. Of course, finding a good manual IS 300 is incredibly hard.
Actually, people (like myself) have properly maintain the Northstar and they end up having issues still. I don't mean to sound that EVERY Northstar is going to have the issue, but from my experience it hasn't been good. I have read people saying that flushing the OEM coolant out as quick as possible can help keep the engine running longer and stronger.
False, the 4.1 and the 4.5 had plenty of issues (mainly the 4.1.)
The 4.9 was extremely solid.
and the 4.9 was a direct descendant of the 4.1/4.5. GM improved the engine in it's production run just like with the N*.
------------------ "I am not what you so glibly call to be a civilized man. I have broken with society for reasons which I alone am able to appreciate. I am therefore not subject to it's stupid laws, and I ask you to never allude to them in my presence again."
Originally posted by ericjon262: and the 4.9 was a direct descendant of the 4.1/4.5. GM improved the engine in it's production run just like with the N*.
True, but the 4.1 went over several changes by itself and didn't improve reliability. It came out in 1982 and was replaced with the 4.5 by 88. Shortly after that it was AGAIN replaced by the 4.9 in 91. As it went on it improved a lot, both with reliability AND horsepower. On top of that, they obviously seemed more dedicated to getting the engine right.
The same Northstar was used from 93-04 with minor changes, but still had the same flaw.
I don't blame Cadillac, because they just didn't know about it until customers started reaching up into the 100,000 mile mark. But by 96 they should of started to know about the issue, and they just didn't seem to address it.
Just to add my .02 cents into where this post ended up at: reliability....4.9 vs. N* I know of 2 people who have had N* die at under 50K miles. Now they may or may not have been maintenance but I also know of 1 person with 4.9 with over 130K miles who I personally wouldn't let change the oil in my lawnmower.
