Phantom

Thanks for the info Mike. How did you run your exhaust? Fuel cell with duals out either side or some kind of dual to one side? I'm still pondering how to change mine away from what I have right now

Yeah - sometimes I really crack myself up.

Yeah - I second Mark! What have you done to the motor!?! I'm not sure what I'd do with another 80 HP and 100 lb-ft of torque but it would be great bragging rights!! Outstanding!!!

Yee Haw - That's Texans fo ya!!

I love you guys! This is so fun. Let's go have a beer. Oops - I forgot - I don't drink. Oh well - so much for that low tech solution.

"What you talkin' 'bout Willis?"

I ran a hillclimb many years ago. It was the old Winchester grade in northern Idaho. Had a '70 340 Cuda. Bone Stock. Won my class and came in third overall behind a Porsche 911 and a GT500 shelby Mustang. That was back when I was young and indestructible. Scared the crap out of everyone but me the way I was drifting the corners - that had no barriers except the rocks 300' below. Had to partially shut down part way through the run - lost oil pressure as it was all up in the sides of the pan away from the pump pick-up. Still avery fond memory - brought back by a recent romp thorugh a national forest between Rogers, AR & Branson, MO. This time, though, it was about 90 miles instead of 4.5.

It's on a single pipe flowmaster exhaust now but it's a single 2 1/2". Car is very quiet at cruise but starts to howl at high rpm. Actually a pretty nice set-up from a drivability standpoint but it's choking the LS1 and hurting both my 1/4 times and my fuel economy.

I just saw that kit in a new Scoggins-Dickey catalog. GM offers a Magna Charger for the LS1 that boosts HP by "63-125%" and doesn't void the warranty on the engine. 6-7 hours to install and comes with its own 3 yr warranty. $5,150. Let's see 350 HP x 1.63= 570 HP, BUT!! 350 HP x 2.25 = 788 HP!!!

I've searched them, Spintech and Flowmaster looking for a reasonably quiet unit that has 3 1/2" in and at least that out and I'm having a bugger of a time. Anybody with leads on a really big bore muffler? (LS1 piped through a single exhaust in the stock location.)

I think maybe the car has a Scarab style conversion but I think Scarab went out of business long before 1999. I saw an original Scarab car this past week up in Rogers, AR. It was a beautiful silver with black interior. It had the distinctive Scarab insignia on the side and the vents on the back hatch. This car doesn't appear to have those. Maybe I'm wrong but this wouldn't be the first time someone was a little off in their advertizing on ebay.

I just looked again at the torque "curve" on my LS1 dyno sheet. It is at 90%+ of maximum torque from 1,500 to 5,400 rpm with the maximum torque being 326 lb-ft. We have to be careful about making statements about where maximum torque occurs on a power band and look instead at the shape of the "curve" In the case of an LS1 it's more like a plateau. I've seen too many cars - especially NA high revving I4's that have an extremely peaky torque curve that forces them to remain in a very narrow, high rpm band. The Honda S2000 comes to mind. Great car but you have to thrash it to move it. Evo VIII & STI - let me boost the engine of my Z and they'll never get close on a dry road (can't beat the 4wd in the rain, even with boost). You are correct, the big move in the 80's to turbo-charging was to still maintain some semblance of performance while improving fuel economy. Then they learned how to do it without boosting (electronics, VVT, etc.). Now boosting is found only on the expensive models of most cars. It is there so those that want more performance than the standard engine can deliver can get it from the "standard" engine with boost. This saves the OEM money in developing a larger engine. Economics. I've run against an STI on the track. I beat him with a 2nd gear start and my 1/4 times fall between a stock C-5 and the Z06. Another thing, look at the top ten sellers and tell me that Americans are now buying the small cars. I see a lot of mid-size sedans, SUV's & pick-ups on that list. YOUNG people are buying the small cars because they can get something cool and that's fun to drive for a reasonable $$$. Economics again. When they get older and have 2 kids they'll also have at least one large car, and that may be the only one they have. I have two Z's and a Suburban. I drive my Z daily but last week when I went to Branson I drove the Suburban and towed the Z. I like my comfort and am not up to 6-8 hours in my Z. It would have made the trip but I wouldn't have. I think many people here will agree with that. All these vehicles have their place and most of them do a good job of doing what they were designed to do - some of them an outstanding job. Approaches to achieving those goals are as varied as paint colors. I'm seeing reports of hybrid gas/electric vehicles that will outrun and out mpg their gas only counterparts. Fuel cell development is getting closer and closer to marketability. The face of the market is continually changing but much of it is built on "old tech" just with a fresh appraoch.

My paint job cost $2,500. That included cutting out and replacing some sheet metal around the gas filler that had rusted through, replacing the windshield and hatch window seals, and installing and painting the MSA Aero II ground effects kit. They stripped the car down - took off doors, hood, hatch, glass, and painted the inside of everything except the engine bay ( had that done later for another $500). Painted the entire car a pearl red and then painted the white stripe up the middle with a 1/4" pinstripe on each side of it. The car has been a daily driver ever since then and over 6 years later I'm still being asked who painted the car. It now has many minor scratches and rock chips but that is the price I pay to "enjoy the ride" every day.

And now at least one more person understands why I opted for a "stock" LS1. It runs day in and day out at 180°F, with and without AC. It starts every time, needs a tune-up once every 100,000 miles, and absolutely whumps on most imports and domestics while still getting 20-22 mpg.

I think Jay Leno has the right idea. He has a hot rod with a Sherman Tank engine. 810 HP and 1276 lb-ft. of torque!!

Welcome aboard. What you want to do can all be done but is so extensive it would take pages of writing just to answer the questions you know to ask - not to mention the ones you don't know yet. I strongly suggest you make extensive use of the "search" function and start reading the 1,000's of posts on these various subjects. You will get the answers you have asked and to many more you haven't yet asked.

My paint job is 6+ years old and doing well - just a few chips from high speed rocks - or should I say low speed rocks & high speed car?

It sounds like a harmonic with the specific engine RPM - first place I would look is the exhaust system to see if a hanger is loose or it is touching a body member at some point.

I noticed the bid is at $7,100 and it still hasn't met the reserve on it. That pretty much says it all as to why it hasn't sold yet. The owner just doesn't have a realistic idea of his cars value. He's got $13,000 in his and I've got over twice that in mine and realistically wouldn't expect to be able to get over $8,000 for mine. And before you ask -NO - I won't sell it!

Engines are built for specific services. By definition America engines tend to be larger and designed for lower end torque for several reasons: 1) Our cars are generally larger & heavier, 2) Our people are generally larger & heavier 3) Our roads are designed for long distnace relatively high speed driving (no Autobahn arguments here please) by the masses rather than the rich elite, and 4) Americans have been spoiled by relatively powerfu, quiet automobiles. Please note that I am talking in generalities here - there will alwasy be exceptions. If you look at foreign cars you will notice an interesting trend. They came to this country with engines in the 1.3-1.8 liter size I4. Now they are up to a 5.6 liter V8 from Japan (Please note all the Japanese Luxury cars are over 3 liters now) and the Germans are up to 6 liters & V-12's. The high technology in the heads was induced again by need, not desire. The global economy has forced - especially in Japan - the development of small I4's. Just look at the taxes they pay for something larger than 2.0L!! Like any other enthusiasst they too like powerful engines so they focused on the smaller engines to try to provide something to their local market that would perform similarly to the american cars which were able to get the same HP by just going up in displacement. Fuel economy was not a major issue here (we may complain about the cost of fuel but how many guys on this forum are designing their cars for better fuel economy?) and the V-8 provided excellent low end torque (especially the 2-valve designs) and HP for daily driving in the larger sedans and SUV's that dominate the market. Remember the battle cry - "There is no replacement for dispacement!" It still holds true when talking apples to apples. Has anyone read up on the new Cadillac V-12? 750 HP and over 20 mpg. Variable valve timing, 3 or 4 valves per cylinder, dual overhead cams, rev's to like 9,000 RPM. I think it is due for production in 2005 or 2006. I postulated for 5 years about what I was going to put in my car and then opted for the LS1. I wanted an engine with readily available parts, significantly upgraded technology over the L28 and I wanted the day-to-day reliability I would get from a "stock" motor versus a hopped up I6. I've driven the L28 for 18 years now, it's a great engine but it is really long in the tooth design-wise. My co-workers 1967 Mercedes SL280 has the same basic engine but with mechanical injection - 40 year old technology! And the LS1 isn't higher technology?

Let me make a few observations. The LS1 has coil on plug ignition so it has no distributor nor any provision for one - that means you have to keep the ECU to fire the plugs. If you have to do that then you might as well keep the fuel injection. If you aren't keeping the electronic part of an LS1 then you are losing most of it's benefit. A standard, carburated SBC with aluminum heads and a bit of a cam can make as much HP and only be a bit heavier. It will get around 17 mpg vs the 21 mpg of the LS1. With a good overdrive and the right differential ratio it will probably do even better. From a day to day reliability standpoint you can't beat a fuel injected vehicle. I've driven both over the past 40 years and I'll take FI every time. THe other really sweet thing about the LS1 is the OBD II port. If it starts to not run right you take it to th elocal auto parts place with a reader, they read the error code(s), determine the malfunctioning part and you change that part out. It is generally just that simple - short of a swallowed valve, blown head gasket or some other catastrophic event. I love my LS1.

It has a vinyl top that is probably hiding a ton of rust - been there. It has rust in the rockers. IGood grief - it's a Colorado car - just think of the rust potential. It has sheepskins on the seats - probably because the original seats are shredded. It has a dash cap so we know the original dash is toast and it doesn't look like he did a very good job putting the cap on. 51,000 miles, 1,700 miles /year - I don't think so. If that's the case and this car is worth $8,000 then my '77 LS1 car with only 9,600 miles on it must be worth at least $30k. Oops, that is how much I have in it!

Tom, Overall it sits as low as the JTR. The engine heads sit about 4" forward of the firewall. Further forward than the JTR but aft of the Scarab. Saw them both this past wekend and was able to compare. The engine position allows enough room to access your heater and AC connections without having to modify something else.

Metro, Thanks for the photos. They confirm what I was thinking. The engine doesn't fit vertically without changing either the intake or the hood.