TheNeedForZ

Greetings, I have a question about using a 4WD 4L60E (from a 2004 GMC Sierra) in a 2WD application (my engine is a 98 Camaro LS1, Car is a 260Z). Is the 4L60E used in the 4WD application (trucks) basically the same as the 4L60E used in 2WD application? or are they totally different animals ? I do understand that they share the same bolt pattern, I am not sure if that's where the similarity ends, but I hope I can use the 4WD auto trans in a 2WD application without too much modification. TheNeedForZ

"recreational area" lol

Try http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/ Though members here might be able to give you some answers, you can find more in depth answers about GM gen3 engines there.

It does look very clean/decent. But the 5000$ Portland deal is very appealing.

Aluminum retainers are available from Nissan Motorsports, but is only slightly lighter than the steel ones according to the how to modify book. Titanium is also mentioned but is not considered cost-effective. I think the most effective valvetrain weight reduction start at the valves themselves since there is a chained effect. A lighter(titanium) valve require less spring force to control, meaning a weaker(lighter) spring is allowed. Weaker springs will allow lighter(weaker) retainers and rocker arms.

Interesting info on the emissivity test. Was the test done on emissivity alone or did the entire heat flow increase overall? With a radiator, I believe a bigger portion of heat is conducted away thru contact with air. If you put your hand near the radiator you will feel the heat but if you touch the radiator it'll be very hot. If the anodize coating promote heat radiation without hurting any contact transfer I'd say go for it.

really? you sure you didn't just miss the three casting letters and think the KEW ones are modified pieces? ...I kid, I kid. Anyway, you can take off material here or there but what Kameari shows is how modifying stock piece to 60g results in breakage in the strength test. In contrast, the 57g KEW pieces are lighter and passed the strength test. That's how they boast superiority, but it's their ad... *cough*titanium valves*cough*

I don't think those are modified stock pieces. There are three cast letters on the side of the rocker (looks like "KEW" = Kameari Engine Works?) that are not found on stock pieces. Those letters are above the surface reather than under the surface so the letters are not carved. I would bet they are new pieces. There is only one way to know for sure how they did it...you order some...and then let us know

Anodized coating have thermal insulation property, not something you want on a heat exchanger. Fresh aluminum surface will have a very thin layer of oxide after exposed to oxygen, but anodized layer is much thicker.

Who would be dumb enough to use sand? I always use thinned-down concrete in my engine-suck-porting job. That way after the porting is finished, all the ports will have a ceramic coating. BOING!

That solved a small mystery for me. In the Wangan Midnight PS2 trailer there is a glimpse of a flywheel with 7 bolt holes instead of the usual 6. Always wondered about that flywheel. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3353582178439412350&q=wangan+midnight+ps2&total=23&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3 That's a video of the trailer I am talking about. You can catch a glimpse of the 7 bolt hole flywheel at around 1:21

you mean ITB as in Independent TromBone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Length_Intake_Manifold IIRC there are systems that switch between two lengths of runners like Paul mentioned. There is also a type of system that connect/disconnect two plenums to create different amount of total plenum volume.

It's even fast in the reverse. good job.

Those are the kilter kits that complete the truck nuts mod. http://www.truck-nuts.com/index.html

=(

I compared the cam lobe width to the rocker pad width on my P90 head which is the only L series head I have. The cam lobe is wider than the rocker pad. That means even IF the valve location is different between the heads, you can still swap cams given the safety margin built within the wider cam lobes. So cam interchange capability doesn't 100% prove it for me....althought you could be right. Any taker on this?

The distance from the center of the intake valve to the center of exhaust valve on L series cylinder heads...did it change throughout the years or did it stay the same? I know the earlier heads have smaller valves, but is the valve center distance shorter compared to that on later heads with larger valves?

I totally agree on this. See it on eBay all the time. Hilarious.

"X'mas" instead of Christmas....what the hell is "X'mas"?

didn't notice you are from Finland. Is there any law against modifying original engine in Finland? You can bore out the L26 to 86mm if you want to.

Compression ratio is not where the problem is. Once you look at the parts dimension, the real problem becomes apparent. L26 block + P90 head is a poor combo because the P90 chamber width(approx 86mm) is bigger than the L26 bore(83mm), that leads to a variety of problems. will the valves hit the cylinder wall? that is a possibility if valve lift is high enough. even if the valves clear the wall, you will have serious shrouding problem. Not to mention the step formed at the chamber wall-to-cylinder wall is bad for air flow and bad for uniform fuel distribution. You need a bore size that is as big or bigger than the P90 head chamber width(86mm).

I guess I didn't really say what I meant. I mean ppl type " .30" over " on the screen, but thinking it stands for "thirty over".

What are those terms ppl use but are used wrong? 1. People say "bore the cylinder out thirty over (0.30" over)", but really it is 0.030" over. 2. "Harmonic balancer"----> it really is just a torsion vibration damper. 3. the revolver rimmed cartridge .45 "Long Colt" ----> it is called .45 Colt and what else?

Is the 5.3 bored out to 5.7? If it stays a 5.3 then some of the power you expect to gain from the cam swap won't be realised simply because the cam (5.7 LS1) is too much for a 5.3. The LS1 cam is specced to work on an 5.7 engine with 2" intake valves. The LM7 has smaller 1.890" intake valves and the same exhaust valve dia. as LS1. If the LS1 cam is used in the LM7, the whole setup will appear to be exhaust biased which does not help NA power production in general. The other concern is that in 2003, the cam bearing diameters(steps) changed. It is "possible" the 98 cam won't fit correctly in the 02 block if the 02 block caught up with the 03 change. If this engine is to go into a Z and you are allowed to remove the cat. converter...you could consider a complete new cam designed for the new application since removing some exhaust back pressure gives more potential gain that can only be realised with a cam specced to exploit the stronger ecavanging effect.

"The King is dead. Long live the King"..... that doesn't make sense to me.