LS9 cutaway

[Topspin]

While cleaning out my inbox, I ran into this LS9 cutaway that has some relevance to the engines in our Rs. It's of the same basic design, with some subtle and not so subtle differences that allow it to produce 638 hp in the ZR1 Vette. Not sure if it's been posted before, but I thought it's kinda neat.

[Cash]

Cool picture all right. I could probably get this easily enough on the net but for the sake of conversation what ci is the LS9?
The LS7 is about 427 ci correct? Although I don't do it, I would prefer to say I have a 364 ci small block Chevy. LS2 6L means crap to me.

[REBEL]

Don't look like the 283 I had boared out to 301 for the 57 belair. Those where simple times.

[Cash]

Originally Posted by REBEL

Don't look like the 283 I had boared out to 301 for the 57 belair. Those where simple times.

Ah, the older 4.62 to 4.67L rebuild. Remember it well!
Actually I do as I had the same operation on my '61 Vette. It was an original fuelie but the f.i. was missing when I bought it. Finally found one for it that cost me $150. This may sound insane but I thought I heard someone on BJ say a f.i. unit on it's own for a C1 sold for $12k!
I may have misheard though as it sounds rather unbelievable.

[REBEL]

local guy good friend has a 1 of 6 GM injection systems from 1951 or 52.
They where all suppose to be crushed. Its tall and would come tru hood on most cars. He had it running on 327 in a american graffiti clone coupe.

[Topspin]

I'm with you $, I always need to convert back to cu. in. to make any sense of things. The LS9 shares the same dimensions as the LS3 - 4.060 bore, 3.62 stroke = 376 cu. in. Yep the LS7 is 427 inches with the only 4.0" stroke in the LS family. It's coupled with a 4.125" bore.

I'm sure you heard correctly on the early F.I. unit - they're gold nowadays. Actually they've been pricey for many, many years now - you flat stole the one that you bought!!

[Cash]

Originally Posted by Topspin

I'm with you $, I always need to convert back to cu. in. to make any sense of things. The LS9 shares the same dimensions as the LS3 - 4.060 bore, 3.62 stroke = 376 cu. in. Yep the LS7 is 427 inches with the only 4.0" stroke in the LS family. It's coupled with a 4.125" bore.

I'm sure you heard correctly on the early F.I. unit - they're gold nowadays. Actually they've been pricey for many, many years now - you flat stole the one that you bought!!

Jeez, you would think at least they would make the LS9 a bigger displacement than the LS7 given the larger number. We all used to know the engine displacements. I would not have had a clue the LS9 was 376 ci. I would have guessed a 502 ci or something of that nature.
I spend half my life converting. Km/hr to mph, celsius to fahrenheit, grams to ounces, litres per 100km to mpg. It's freaking endless!

It was a few years ago, about 1973 I think, when I bought the f.i. so it was only 12 years old at the time. Probably considered outdated technology then. I wonder if the guy I bought it from remembers, knows todays value and has the same lament we all do about "I remember when... and I sold it for". Crap, I sold the gorgeous little car, f.i. and all, for $4500 in the late '70's.

[Cash]

Thinking fiurther on the LS bit, I think my '70 Vette has an LS1, but at the time, and still today everyone says big block 454.
No fun saying you have an LS1 4sp Vette.
I guess the LS1 - LS9 is more of a time related evolution but not sure why they would have a big block/small block mixture in there.

[Topspin]

I think you might be mixing up to different engines. In your 70 car there was an LT1, which was a small block @ 370 hp. Then the big block option was the LS5 @ 390 hp.

My "what was I thinking" story concerns a '68 Mustang GT. I bought it for my wife in about 75 and she drove it to work for a few years. It was a convertible and a little chilly in the winter (nothing like the nice solid top on our Rs) so she wanted to get rid of it. It was cherry red with a black top and interior and had a 390 hi-po big block in it with a 4 speed. I had it nicely repainted and the first kid that saw it paid me the $2500. I was asking. Now since the advent of Barret-Jackson on TV, I've been watching for one to see what they're worth, and have never seen one offered. I've got a feeling they're quite rare? Kind of like your $4500 giveaway - who knew?!

[REBEL]

WELL in 1987 (just married)sold 1968 rs camaro ragtop for $2000 because we did not want to drive it in winter weather, and hurt it.

Also once traded a 57 belair for a 81 buick electra ltd. don't know why???

[Cash]

Originally Posted by Topspin

I think you might be mixing up to different engines. In your 70 car there was an LT1, which was a small block @ 370 hp. Then the big block option was the LS5 @ 390 hp.

My "what was I thinking" story concerns a '68 Mustang GT. I bought it for my wife in about 75 and she drove it to work for a few years. It was a convertible and a little chilly in the winter (nothing like the nice solid top on our Rs) so she wanted to get rid of it. It was cherry red with a black top and interior and had a 390 hi-po big block in it with a 4 speed. I had it nicely repainted and the first kid that saw it paid me the $2500. I was asking. Now since the advent of Barret-Jackson on TV, I've been watching for one to see what they're worth, and have never seen one offered. I've got a feeling they're quite rare? Kind of like your $4500 giveaway - who knew?!

You are so correct. I have an LS5 390 hp. No wonder it didn't quite sound right to me!
The '70 Chevelle had a higher hp LS6, also a 454. Are these the first of the LS series or totally unrelated to todays models?

I was a year or so away from getting my licence when the '67 Mustang (F/B) arrived. I drooled over that Car & Driver. Although I have flirted all around it having had '68, '70 & '72 Vette's, '68 Firebird 400 and '68 Super Bee it is still a car I would like to eventually have, although I believe I would try to find a '66 fast back. '66 through '68 Mustangs are very cool and still just fine up to 1970.

Originally Posted by REBEL

WELL in 1987 (just married)sold 1968 rs camaro ragtop for $2000 because we did not want to drive it in winter weather, and hurt it.

Also once traded a 57 belair for a 81 buick electra ltd. don't know why???

Something in how I grew up, not having any money I suppose, instilled the concept that one person did not own 2 cars. Although in the early years purchasing a new car was usually only possible by selling the previous one, it took a while to see that it was okay to keep a car that you liked, even if you saw something you wanted more. Not that it would have great value, even today, but I sold my '57 Ford 2 dr post for $50 that I converted from a 6 cylinder 3 on the tree to a '352 4sp stick. Burning oil but really cute car and it's not like $50 was necessary to have. 5 tank fulls of gas - 5 Saturday nights cruising!

[Topspin]

You know $, I can't figure out why in the world they resurrected that LS moniker. The early LS -5,6, and 7 were all big block design and really far removed from the modern LS group. The new LS series are replacements for the original Gen 1 & 2 small blocks, and are slightly smaller and lighter than the originals. I guess the neat thing is that the little LS2, in your R, is 200# lighter and makes the same or more power than that monster LS-5 in your Vette. It probably almost doubles the gas mileage, too!

[Cash]

Originally Posted by Topspin

You know $, I can't figure out why in the world they resurrected that LS moniker. The early LS -5,6, and 7 were all big block design and really far removed from the modern LS group. The new LS series are replacements for the original Gen 1 & 2 small blocks, and are slightly smaller and lighter than the originals. I guess the neat thing is that the little LS2, in your R, is 200# lighter and makes the same or more power than that monster LS-5 in your Vette. It probably almost doubles the gas mileage, too!

Yes it seems odd because there has always been such a distinction between big and small block and to have the same call letters for each seems very odd.
Only 200 lbs lighter? I lost my steering fluid on the Corvette last fall. Well good luck trying to move that beast around!
Holy moly that front end is heavy.
I really never noticed the gas mileage because I would only take it out for short spins on occasion. Eventually I took it down to the coast to a car show and I thought it was going to break me. I think I was getting about 8-10 mpg. I remember it cost me $320 to go about 600 miles.
I don't recall what it cost per gallon at the time (2006) but I think just over half what costs are today.
Pretty hard to beat the roar of an old big block though.

[Topspin]

Well, since we're talking big blocks now, let's look at the evolution of them. Started out at as small as 366 cu. in., went to 396, then 402, then 427, then 454 in standard applications. You could get those 4 3/4" bore spacing blocks out to around 540 cu. in. with not too much effort. Wanting to get them larger, they started building 5" bore center blocks and 707 cu. in. became common. Not being big enough, the latest 5.3" bore center blocks will go out to just over 900 cu. in.! Photo one shows a 707 in my buddies 57. Now photo two is a monster 867 in the same car - just look at the mass of that thing!!

Oh Yeah, I know I've said it before, but that's a very sanitary Vette you have there $!

[Cash]

Originally Posted by Topspin

Well, since we're talking big blocks now, let's look at the evolution of them. Started out at as small as 366 cu. in., went to 396, then 402, then 427, then 454 in standard applications. You could get those 4 3/4" bore spacing blocks out to around 540 cu. in. with not too much effort. Wanting to get them larger, they started building 5" bore center blocks and 707 cu. in. became common. Not being big enough, the latest 5.3" bore center blocks will go out to just over 900 cu. in.! Photo one shows a 707 in my buddies 57. Now photo two is a monster 867 in the same car - just look at the mass of that thing!!

Oh Yeah, I know I've said it before, but that's a very sanitary Vette you have there $!

Thanks Topspin. I'm not exactly Joe Mechanic so it took me a long time to put it together.
Boy that thing is absolutely massive!! Certainly is very cool looking though.
Just read up a little on big blocks. The Generation 2 MK IV series 366 was the same as our LS2 except in a big block. 366 ci/6.0L. Says used in medium size trucks until mid '90's. I guess that means 1 ton plus because I never heard of it. What I remember in Chevy pickups from mid 60's on was 283, 327, 350 & 454. I don't know about 396 pickups.
When I was a kid on the farm I do remember having a 3 ton Chevy grain truck with a 427. That thing would go like hell!

[REBEL]

WET DREAMS

[Cash]

I can't get over the valve covers. Those heads are massive!

[xoxoxoBruce]

It's a crime to put a body around that motor, should be in a hoodless hot rod.

I wonder if the LS-9 artist used this?

[Topspin]

Rebel, not nice - sleeping with Maggie while lusting over old 867!

$, while both engines are about 6 liters, they couldn't be more different. The truck engine has a longer stroke @ 3.76 with a smaller bore in a real tall block that's .400" taller than the car Mark 4 stuff. It uses long heavy rods and even 4 ring pistons in some applications. It and the truck 427 are workhorses, but not particularly racey. They were even used in some school buses. The LS2 has a smaller 3.62 stroke with a larger bore that helps the heads breathe. The block deck height is an inch lower and of course is made of aluminum. Actually, the big block heads have caused problems for eons. They have 2 decent flowing intake ports and 2 bad flowing ports in each head, that will drive you nuts trying to jet a carb properly. Conversely, the LS heads flow like crazy with small valve sizes, that generate great port velocity for good drivability. Hands down the LS is better in every way, as it should be with the modern thinking behind it.

Bruce, that's pretty neat. The picture goes into a little more detail and looks a little deeper into the engine, but I'd love to have that piece sitting in my shop!

[Topspin]

Before filing away my Sept. Hot Rod issue, I thought I'd mention the new benchmark for "big block Chevy" size and hp. Out to 5.4" bore spacing, 5.220" bore dia., 5.875" stroke, making 1005 cu. in.!! It makes 2,150 hp and 1500 lb. ft. of torque naturally aspirated.

This was one of the best engine issues I've seen in a long time. In addition to that article, there was a new V4 motorcycle engine developed by my local hero Katech. They loosely based it on the LS Chevy engine. Then some insane truck dude is building a V24 diesel street/show truck with 12 GMC superchargers on it. Also they had an article on a junkyard 5.3 LS engine, that they stuck twin turbos on with the intention of destroying it. That didn't happen, they just made 1203 hp with a bunch of dyno passes and the engine lived! Great reading!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Is that 5.4 bore spacing big block from Chevy?

[Topspin]

No Bruce, strictly aftermarket blocks for 5" and up. About the only stock big block parts used, in these monster motors, are the main bearings and rear main seal. So calling it a "Chevy" anymore is kind of a stretch!