Chevy SSR Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Premium Member
2005 Chevrolet SSR manual transmission
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just wondering. Has anyone in the forum (or out) put a normally aspirated LS7 crate motor into their SSR? Noticed on GM website they were on sale though I don't know how long that has been going on. Believe I had pulled up a current page of engine info.
Tuckerred :cool:
 

·
Premium Member
2004 Slingshot Yellow
Joined
·
2,467 Posts
Could be done with enough $$$$$
Stock drivetrain can't handle that power so there would be more heavy investment behind the motor required. Electronics upgrades and compatibility could also be a big challenge.
 

·
Registered
OBNOXIOUS Red 2004
Joined
·
439 Posts
why is more power not worth it? sounds awesome. yes sounds expensive....but, hey, if its your dream....go for it!
 

·
Premium Member
2005 Chevrolet SSR manual transmission
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
why is more power not worth it? sounds awesome. yes sounds expensive....but, hey, if its your dream....go for it!
TJ, actually it was more of a curiosity on my part. I am relatively satisfied with the almost 400HP (LS7 about 505 for a 26% gain) and the ability to row my on boat (six speed) for the purposes of my truck. I HAVE had a dream about a crate LS3 for my '99 Z-28. That would be much more affordable & I think going from 310HP to 460 or so (48%) would be a more significant gain plus the car is about 1400lbs lighter! It handles like on rails as well. Needs the SSR gear spread in it's six speed as well as long as we are dreaming & maybe a 3.73 gear in the place of the 3.42.
Just thinking,
Tuckerred :cool:
 

·
Premium Member
2004 Slingshot Yellow
Joined
·
2,467 Posts
So if you already have a 6.0L then just add a Magnuson Super charger and you will have near the same HP as that LS7 for much less work and $$$. You’ll still need to upgrade the clutch at a minimum
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSReplay

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,785 Posts
why is more power not worth it? sounds awesome. yes sounds expensive....but, hey, if its your dream....go for it!
I'd definitely never advocate less hp, it's just I hate to see someone waste their money on an inferior product. The LS7 has had nothing but issues since its inception! First it was dropping valves and destroying engines, then it was the titanium rods wearing badly and contaminating the bearing surfaces, and finally some blocks had cracking sleeves issues. It was so bad that ZO6 owners started a class action suit against GM. Finally, it's only 505 hp and you can make a lot more for a lot less money - I know I did!
 
  • Love
Reactions: TJ moneybags

·
Premium Member
2005 Chevrolet SSR manual transmission
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I'd definitely never advocate less hp, it's just I hate to see someone waste their money on an inferior product. The LS7 has had nothing but issues since its inception! First it was dropping valves and destroying engines, then it was the titanium rods wearing badly and contaminating the bearing surfaces, and finally some blocks had cracking sleeves issues. It was so bad that ZO6 owners started a class action suit against GM. Finally, it's only 505 hp and you can make a lot more for a lot less money - I know I did!
Maybe that's why they are on sale!!! I suspect the architecture of the LS platform is pretty well stretched at 7ltr for an engine that was originally 5.7ltr in the LS1. I have also always had my qualms about using titanium componentry in a 'street', potentially high mileage motor since its primary benefit is light weight, but it tends to fret & has a higher modulus of elasticity than steel so deck heights etc need to be adjusted to compensate. In the old days at least in race motors you had to put little buckets on top of the valve stems to prevent mushrooming. In all out race motors they limited the useful life at least of old style Ti rods, maybe the new ones have crystals embedded & will cycle more times. No I am not a candidate for an LS7. Just wondering.
Tuckerred :cool:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,785 Posts
Maybe that's why they are on sale!!! I suspect the architecture of the LS platform is pretty well stretched at 7ltr for an engine that was originally 5.7ltr in the LS1. I have also always had my qualms about using titanium componentry in a 'street', potentially high mileage motor since its primary benefit is light weight, but it tends to fret & has a higher modulus of elasticity than steel so deck heights etc need to be adjusted to compensate. In the old days at least in race motors you had to put little buckets on top of the valve stems to prevent mushrooming. In all out race motors they limited the useful life at least of old style Ti rods, maybe the new ones have crystals embedded & will cycle more times. No I am not a candidate for an LS7. Just wondering.
Tuckerred :cool:
Yep, 7L is about the practical limit for the Gen 3/4 architecture, in fact that's exactly what my current combo is. Same dimensionally as the LS7 - 4.125" bore with a 4" stroke, but with a good Dart aftermarket block.

GM shot themselves in the foot trying to get cute with the titanium connecting rods! They were trying to give the Vette boys something to brag about and ended up compromising the finished product!

The "buckets" you referred to, called lash caps, are still regularly used today. The more modern version has the lash cap and keeper combined as one piece, so there's no danger of the cap falling off.
 

·
Premium Member
2005 Chevrolet SSR manual transmission
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
So Topspin, you do have a 7L engine in your SSR? I know I have followed a couple of your older threads and you seem to be quite knowledgeable and somewhat of a craftsman, fabricated rocker stud girdles for valvetrain rigidity and so on. Is the Dart block externally compatible with all the accessory mounts and bolt-ons as on a GM LS unit would have. Do you have aftermarket cylinder heads as well or one of the GM variants & are you using larger valve sizing? I guess I've not noted whether your truck is artificially pressurized (super or turbocharged). What drivetrain upgrades have been required to handle the extra torque & HP? Is it just a toy or do you use it in some sort of organized competition? Sorry to be so inquisitive but you seem to have gone farther than most in this forum at this time as far as power associated modifications go.
Tuckerred :cool:.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,785 Posts
So Topspin, you do have a 7L engine in your SSR? I know I have followed a couple of your older threads and you seem to be quite knowledgeable and somewhat of a craftsman, fabricated rocker stud girdles for valvetrain rigidity and so on. Is the Dart block externally compatible with all the accessory mounts and bolt-ons as on a GM LS unit would have. Do you have aftermarket cylinder heads as well or one of the GM variants & are you using larger valve sizing? I guess I've not noted whether your truck is artificially pressurized (super or turbocharged). What drivetrain upgrades have been required to handle the extra torque & HP? Is it just a toy or do you use it in some sort of organized competition? Sorry to be so inquisitive but you seem to have gone farther than most in this forum at this time as far as power associated modifications go.
Tuckerred :cool:.
Yes, my combo works out to 428.25 cu in. The Dart SHP block is cast iron with steel splayed main caps and safe out to 4.185" bore. It offered only one surprise to me, that's when I tried to bolt up the air conditioner compressor mount - it needed some relieving to bolt up flush. All other components bolted up perfectly. The Dart block has a priority oil passage feeding the main bearings - a huge improvement over the stock blocks! The block also has larger head bolts and will accept 6 bolt heads.

I'm using TFS 220cc heads with 2.055" intake valves. These heads use the stock sized exhaust valve with improved port flow. I've enhanced flow slightly with some bowl blending and multi angle valve/seat grind. I wasn't looking for the highest peak flow head, but one with good port velocity for a broad torque curve. I'm naturally aspirated with an Edelbrock Pro-Flo XT being used currently.

I installed a ZR-1 twin disc clutch in mine, with a billet aluminum flywheel. There's a thread here titled "Clutch decision" that has the details in it. Another thread that may interest you is "C6 oil pan modifications". I increased the capacity of the C6 pan to help with oiling issues.

My R is strictly used for FUN! I like it to perform well, but more importantly it needs to go places - I drive it a lot!
 

·
Premium Member
2005 Chevrolet SSR manual transmission
Joined
·
1,192 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Hey Topspin,
Went back and read your oil pan mod thread & had already seen & scanned the clutch one. Like many of your commenters in these early threads, I wish I lived down the street & could watch/comment on your work real time. A question regarding the twin-disc clutch. In my previous experience, earlier versions of this type of setup such as in L88 'Vettes & Z28 upgrades required shimming the pressure plate upon install & as the discs wore. Is that still required or do or do the modern ones auto-compensate? Also I love your signature. I read a bio of Sir Henry a while back and the writer bemoaned the fact that the car wasn't named Royce-Rolls as Royce was the visionary, perfectionist who designed and manufactured the car. Charles Rolls was mainly a sales agent who helped get the cars in front of the public. An old hot rodder friend of mine, Larry Rollin, was for years the go to RR guy here in Atlanta, working for Hennessy RR if memory serves. In the drag racing days & afterward he was known as Cougar Man due to his fast & competitive XR-7('67 I think), of many years.
Tuckerred :cool:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,785 Posts
Hey Topspin,
Went back and read your oil pan mod thread & had already seen & scanned the clutch one. Like many of your commenters in these early threads, I wish I lived down the street & could watch/comment on your work real time. A question regarding the twin-disc clutch. In my previous experience, earlier versions of this type of setup such as in L88 'Vettes & Z28 upgrades required shimming the pressure plate upon install & as the discs wore. Is that still required or do or do the modern ones auto-compensate? Also I love your signature. I read a bio of Sir Henry a while back and the writer bemoaned the fact that the car wasn't named Royce-Rolls as Royce was the visionary, perfectionist who designed and manufactured the car. Charles Rolls was mainly a sales agent who helped get the cars in front of the public. An old hot rodder friend of mine, Larry Rollin, was for years the go to RR guy here in Atlanta, working for Hennessy RR if memory serves. In the drag racing days & afterward he was known as Cougar Man due to his fast & competitive XR-7('67 I think), of many years.
Tuckerred :cool:
Thanks, for the kind words and the RR info - interesting. You'd be bored to tears watching me do anything as I seem to take forever to get anything accomplished! I do everything "old school" with floor jacks, creepers, and hand tools!

No, the GM twin disc needs no adjusting, it uses a conventional diaphragm clutch cover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TJ moneybags

·
Registered
OBNOXIOUS Red 2004
Joined
·
439 Posts
I'd definitely never advocate less hp, it's just I hate to see someone waste their money on an inferior product. The LS7 has had nothing but issues since its inception! First it was dropping valves and destroying engines, then it was the titanium rods wearing badly and contaminating the bearing surfaces, and finally some blocks had cracking sleeves issues. It was so bad that ZO6 owners started a class action suit against GM. Finally, it's only 505 hp and you can make a lot more for a lot less money - I know I did!
I just saw this all this time later. I'd love 500 hp in my 04. I think the Maggie's are overpriced for what could be built far cheaper I think. What is an affordable way to get there? Are turbos cheaper than cubic inches?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tuckerred1948

·
Premium Member
2006 S/C Silver & 2006 S/C Pac Blue 6spd
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
I just saw this all this time later. I'd love 500 hp in my 04. I think the Maggie's are overpriced for what could be built far cheaper I think. What is an affordable way to get there? Are turbos cheaper than cubic inches?
As my dad used to say, there is no substitute for cubic inches. That said, there is a lot of work and patience to put bigger cubes in a small place. The 05-06 6spds have the bigger rear end to start with, and the 6spd. To put a good chunk more HP through the 4L65 and keep it reliable, its a very quick $3K or more, and then there is the rear end to think about.

The other thing my dad said was, Don’t underestimate that small block as I rolled up on a 69 Camaro with a healthy sounding 350 at a stop light. I was in a 70 Camaro with a very healthy 454 (one of a ~375 from the factory). We were were at the bottom of a mile long 6% grade hill. He left me at the line and was still ahead of me as we crested the hill, but I was reeling him in. There was a ”but” there. My dad said, I told you, then he added, you needed to bring the Rs up and leave harder. The back story: The Camaro I was dIrving, was my grandfather‘s “gray car” it was my favorite of his stable. My dad could regularly run away from my grandfather’s LS6 70 ‘vette (now mine), in is 70 240Z.

@Topspin and @jackatg450 do it on jackstands. My silver is on four right now.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top