I"m sorry, I guess since the size of my penis is directly related to the number of cubic inches/liters a potential car to build may have.... I guess that only leaves me with a 8.1L big block.
I"m sorry, I guess since the size of my penis is directly related to the number of cubic inches/liters a potential car to build may have.... I guess that only leaves me with a 8.1L big block.
Did you say 8.1L Mustang? I'm ok with that too.
apparently I have to. Since this forum cannot stay on topic without getting stupid.... 
Don't get me wrong, it was fun for a little while, but when it becomes EVERY.DAMN. THREAD. it gets old.
I think the 4.8 would make a fun mustang motor. What do they weigh? I've been interested in then for swap potential and had high hopes for this thread but the signal to noise ratio in GRM land is getting bad lately.
the 92's were listed as 2800lbs. A little weight reduction could get a 350whp mustang in the 2800lb with driver range. Not sure how that would be a bad idea..... but apparently here it is.
The only problem I could think of is getting a bell housing and clutch to connect the two but as common as both are I would guess there is an easy answer by now.
In reply to Bobzilla:
Keep Calm Swap in 4.8L
I think a wcT-5 will last behind a 4.8L if you shift it nicely and use the clutch properly.
Over shifting, side stepping the clutch, drag launches on sticky tires all help with the demise of a T5.
Bell housing is easy if you are using a Chevy pattern wcT-5. Look for 621 bellhousing. Some of the early truck bellhousings work as well. I think you have to go aftermarket when using a Ford style wcT-5 case.
For the flywheel, Sachs NFW 1050. The clutch, I think, is LS1 for the 26 spline input (if using the Chevy T-5).
Shoot me a PM and I'll send you everything I have regarding this (I'm on the tablet and typing from memory).
Cam is up to you. LS6 (either version) will put you in the 270-300 whp range with torque a little lower to equal whp. A forum favorite is 220 or 224 single pattern cam (tons of vendors have their own version). Most of these should peak from 6000-6500. I spoke with a few cam dudes and they seem to agree that the 4.8L likes 6-8° less on the intake than LS1. Dyno charts I've seen indicate a any cam run in a 5.3 will peak 3-400 rpm later in a 4.8.
Search for 4.8L vs 5.3L Little LS Slugfest for 480hp, 7400rpm screamer . . . 
Strike_Zero wrote: Search for 4.8L vs 5.3L Little LS Slugfest for 480hp, 7400rpm screamer . . .
And that's what I love.... Mmmmmm screamin' 4.8
Here it is for those interested: http://www.superchevy.com/technical/engines_drivetrain/shortblock/1306_4_8l_vs_5_3l_engine_tech_little_ls_slugfest/4_8l_vs_5_3l_engines_.html
Crazy ain't it . . . 
I think they also did an article using GM stock cams in a 5.3L. Yea it does have some mistakes/issues, the articles gives you an idea how the cams for larger displacement engines play in sub 5.7 engines.
Bobzilla wrote:Strike_Zero wrote: Search for 4.8L vs 5.3L Little LS Slugfest for 480hp, 7400rpm screamer . . .And that's what I love.... Mmmmmm screamin' 4.8 Here it is for those interested: http://www.superchevy.com/technical/engines_drivetrain/shortblock/1306_4_8l_vs_5_3l_engine_tech_little_ls_slugfest/4_8l_vs_5_3l_engines_.html
Do it.
Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it. Do it.
Im still amazed that every dyno I see of the 4.8 shows them making 310-330hp when they were rated new at 265-285. Plus how easily they wake up and make stupid power.
I mean look at this thing:
Vigo wrote: Yup, only 4.8 Liters. That's why all mustangs until 2011 sucked, right? Because they were EVEN TINIER THAN THAT AND HAD NO TORQUE! Now with 5.0L they have 'borderline acceptable torque'.
You do realize i was joking around and only put in "puny" to show Bob that he's loved, right?
The 4.0 in our Cherokee is the 2nd biggest motor i've ever had.
That said, i was serious about the transmission comment if the intent is to build a small displacement high rpm V8. Sure, it CAN move with long gears, but that's kindof silly in a performance scenario.
In reply to Bobzilla:
On the S10 forum, one guy dynoed a stock 4.8L with LS1 intake (for fitment), Sanderson shorties, mail order tune and through a 4L60e making 280ish whp . . .
280.... AT THE WHEELS through the horrible 4L60. Jeebus. I'd say GM definitely under-rated these engines.
They where calling shenanigans on the forum . . . Indicating 230-250 is more realistic. It was pretty funny as the guys that were calling the numbers out only had access to dyno numbers from 4wd trucks with huge ass tires. They never really knew what the 4.8L was capable of when spinning above 5800rpm and NOT running through all those drive line components + big tires.
that would have been closer to 300 at the wheels with a decent trans. Holy crap. That's not even cam swapped is it? stock heads, spring upgrade and a mild cam would put that mid 300's easy at the rear wheels.
OK, time to look into a good platform to stuff taht engine into.
Cool thing about the LSx motors is the factory ECU can be used and if you're handy with HPTuners or EFILive they can be tuned for pretty much ANY combination of cams/boost/displacement/injector size etc. Very, very tuner friendly. I don't think it's a bad idea at all.
I'm thinking of going the other way though...408 stroker setup for my 6.0. But it's in my 2500 truck, that I use for towing.
I love the idea of a high winding 4.8 in the right application.
I'm running the 4.8 stock (exhaust and K&N FIPK) in my crew cab and it does great and sips the fuel while still towing well. I'm just imagining that setup in something that weighs at least 2500 lbs less (truck weighs 5500 on the truck scales with me in it) and it makes me giddy with bad bad thoughts.
Although this is a 5.3L (Volvo 960), hp would be nearly the same (lower tq, of course) through a 4L60e, 01 LS6 cam, Hooker block hugger shorties Y'd into a stock Volvo exhaust and mail order tune on 89.
so running that cam in the 4.8 would put peak power at ~6k over that chart's 5650 with a nice 6500rpm shift point/redline.
Why use a factory cam? The cam choices for these motors are staggering. Pretty easy to improve over an LS6 cam for not much $beans and still have good drivability.
I just ordered a baby cam for my 6.0 for towing that would really wake up a little 4.8. 210/218 .551 lift, 114lsa. LS6 from the quick search is 204/211 .525 lift, 116.5lsa.
LS6 springs are good to .570 lift so I'm just using a new set of those.
I think the rational behind the stock cam is cost. Just like the old days, people pull out a "better than what you have now" cam in their own car and put something better in. So you can upgrade what you hve for pennies on the dollar.
Factory cams = cheap!! They can be found as low as $50 and most work with LS6 springs (as mentioned).
The 01 LS6 cam (204/211 0.525 116lsa) was used in the LS2. The LS3 cam(204/211 0.551/0.525 117lsa) is a hybrid of both LS6 cams. The 02+ LS6 cam (204/218 0.551/0.547 117.5lsa (need .025" longer pushrod for best geometry)) give a little kick up in power in the mid to upper range.
20-30 hp for a $50-100 cam and $50-75 valve springs (+ cam swap materials) ain't too bad. The guys that designed the LS6 indicated in some interviews that the 01 LS6 cam + springs was the greatest factory bang for buck for GenIII V8 engines. Now that they are even cheaper now, I'd have to agree.
If I wanted to build a cheap, powerful GenIII V8:
Add manual and have ~300-320whp to beat the E36 M3 out of for days.
With that recipe, add a sub 3300 car, you can use just about any cheap manual trans out there (no need for T-56). If you do it right, you can almost get engine, trans and mods (incidentals incl) for less than complete 6.0L.
In reply to Bobzilla:
92 V8 notch curb weight from Ford was 3010 lbs. Curb weights from Ford ranged from 2754 to 3350 for the fox bodies depending on engine, option level and body style with later model (93) V8, auto trans verts being the heaviest and early (87) 4 cylinder notches being the lightest. So a non-optioned 4cylinder/manual trans car might have gotten into the 2800 lbs range. V8 notchers who've had their cars on corner scales usually find they're in the 3050-3150 lb. range. And yes, with a lightening regimen, you can drop significant weight while compromising refinement and streetability.
Bobzilla wrote: I"m sorry, I guess since the size of my penis is directly related to the number of cubic inches/liters a potential car to build may have.... I guess that only leaves me with a 8.1L big block.
LOL - actually, the data shows that relationship to be INVERSELY proportional.
You'll need to log in to post.
