Land Rover and Range Rover Forum banner

21 - 40 of 166 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
I'm still waiting to see a Land Rover with an LS1...
LS1 is god!!! That'll be my project once this ticking motor goes. Either a 6.0L LQ9 or an 6.2L L92.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
Those aren't LS1s.
An LQ9 is the same design as the LS1, except iron block and bigger displacement. Aluminum blocks fail in truck. I had a cam and bolt-on 98 LS1 that ran 11.4 in the 1/4 mile, i beileve i know what an LS1 is. People put 408 LQ9 strokers on F-bodies because they can take the abuse an aluminum block can't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
The TPI motor you have is probably a good choice anyways because it won't make the axle breaking power that the LS1 would. Either way good stuff...
L98's make a lot of torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
An LQ9 is the same design as the LS1, except iron block and bigger displacement. Aluminum blocks fail in truck. I had a cam and bolt-on 98 LS1 that ran 11.4 in the 1/4 mile, i beileve i know what an LS1 is. People put 408 LQ9 strokers on F-bodies because they can take the abuse an aluminum block can't.
I was just saying it isn't an LS1. an LS1 is an LS1. an LQ9 is an LQ9.

They are different. The bores are different. The stroke is the same. Cams are different-- LS1 has a gun-drilled cam, the LQ9 has a billet. Different rocker arms. The compression ratio is different as well. Sure, the LQ4 and LQ9 are based off of the rest of the Gen III small blocks (the first of which was the LS1), but they are different


And WTF is this BS about aluminum blocks not taking abuse as well as cast iron? So, are you saying the LS9 would be better with a cast iron block because aluminum isn't strong enough?
It is the most powerful engine from the factory GM has ever made. That is a testament to aluminum's durability.
Well, that and the fact that GM is moving to all aluminum blocks across the board.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
I was just saying it isn't an LS1. an LS1 is an LS1. an LQ9 is an LQ9.

They are different. The bores are different. The stroke is the same. Cams are different-- LS1 has a gun-drilled cam, the LQ9 has a billet. Different rocker arms. The compression ratio is different as well. Sure, the LQ4 and LQ9 are based off of the rest of the Gen III small blocks (the first of which was the LS1), but they are different


And WTF is this BS about aluminum blocks not taking abuse as well as cast iron? So, are you saying the LS9 would be better with a cast iron block because aluminum isn't strong enough?
It is the most powerful engine from the factory GM has ever made. That is a testament to aluminum's durability.
Well, that and the fact that GM is moving to all aluminum blocks across the board.
There's a bigger chance of a piston going through the block in an aluminum block than an iron block. Ask me how i know this :-D!!

I don't think a stock LS1 would take much abuse in a disco. But there's a reason GM used iron blocks in their trucks/suv's.
 

·
got mud?
Joined
·
1,917 Posts
There's a bigger chance of a piston going through the block in an aluminum block than an iron block. Ask me how i know this :-D!!

I don't think a stock LS1 would take much abuse in a disco. But there's a reason GM used iron blocks in their trucks/suv's.
Yeah, but I have a feeling the corvettes get more abused than the tahoes.
 

·
Rover-Holic and Admin
Joined
·
7,895 Posts
An LQ9 is the same design as the LS1, except iron block and bigger displacement. Aluminum blocks fail in truck. I had a cam and bolt-on 98 LS1 that ran 11.4 in the 1/4 mile, i beileve i know what an LS1 is. People put 408 LQ9 strokers on F-bodies because they can take the abuse an aluminum block can't.

Somebody better tell that aluminum V8 under my RRC's hood that it can't take the abuse. It's been taking it for a 150k + and still going strong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
There's a bigger chance of a piston going through the block in an aluminum block than an iron block. Ask me how i know this :-D!!

I don't think a stock LS1 would take much abuse in a disco. But there's a reason GM used iron blocks in their trucks/suv's.
I believe that GM used cast iron in the trucks to save cost. Weight is less of a factor in trucks than in cars. And aluminum is expensive. And cast iron blocks don't require cylinder sleeves. I think the aluminum block would hold up just fine. The whole LS1/LQ4 thing is just semantics. Almost all parts interchange- same engine family. I agree though that it is doubtful that the stock Rover drivetrain would hold up to a LS1 or LQ4. They make rediculous power, right out of the box. They are a totally different experience the the older generation SBC. Even the 5.3L truck motor makes really good power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,210 Posts
LebaneseShowoff said:
But there's a reason GM used iron blocks in their trucks/suv's.
did you read all of my post?

...and the fact that GM is moving to all aluminum blocks across the board.
the weight saving in SUVs and trucks because of mileage is becoming a big factor.

OldnDirty said:
The whole LS1/LQ4 thing is just semantics.
True. they are in the same engine family but they are not the same. It's like saying a Lexus is a Mercedes because they look the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
did you read all of my post?


the weight saving in SUVs and trucks because of mileage is becoming a big factor.



True. they are in the same engine family but they are not the same. It's like saying a Lexus is a Mercedes because they look the same.
No, it is like saying a Lexus is a Toyota, because they are of the same manufacturer and use the same technology. Anyway, not really worth getting in a pissing contest over details.:moon:
 

·
You can only go UPHILL in life
Joined
·
1,315 Posts
2 years ago, a guy in Florida was selling a Series 109 Stage I ( already v8 engine - pre 110 ) converted to a 350 Chevy, with GM tranny and selectable 2/4WD switch on demmand ( like a Blazer I guess ) and an auto tranny.

The 109 had so much power, scary to stop it , even with the Disc Brake conversion.

The finishing touches for the inside console were lousey, but a great runner
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
It really is an attractive swap. I can't stand the fact that my RRC won't run well whenever we get heavy rain. We got a bit of rain on Sat. due to Danny, and I drove my truck on Sun. and it ran like sh*t. It does that every time it rains hard.
 

·
NEW GUY
Joined
·
201 Posts
Who? I think he michaels explained it to a tee. Chevy thought why mess up a good thing and cut two cylinders off the block to fit into the S-10's Blazers, Jimmy's and whatnot....

Actually it will fit even if they didnt have the 2 cylinders cut off. Before I got in running Mustangs in Quick 10.5 . I had a 87 S-10 blazer with a 355 in it . On the motor it ran in the 10.80's on a drag radials
 
21 - 40 of 166 Posts
Top