SSflyer Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I mentioned the Camaro tank because my LS1 engine requires approx. 55lbs of fuel pressure, and all of the communication wiring between the PCM and the gas tank sending unit and sensors remained stock and functional. I'm not familiar with LS2 engines, but I suspect they're very similar. It's such an easy install that it may be easier than figuring out what engine controls in the PCM are affected if the stock wiring is eliminated. An added plus is that the filler tube lines up pretty well with the stock opening and the plumbing can be indexed to allow the fuel lines to run right up inside the drivers side frame rail. I'm not necessarily advocating this change, just offering a suggestion. Jeromios' web page has a good write up and pictures if you're interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZHeadV8 Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 That makes a great deal of sense and is something I had overlooked - thanks. Will find Jeromio's site and read up on it. The engineer building the car suggested two pumps but if the wiring is already there for one and it works........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinhZXT Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I'm going through the sames issue. GM Direct appears to be the way to go for non-USA builders. You can purchase new parts from them for less than some are paying on e-bay. The pick-up tube part number refered to is called a 'screen' at GM Direct - I know there would be a screen on the bottom of the tube but just make sure on that part. Otherwise all the items listed by Pop on the other thread are clear.I am worried about all the ancillary bits for the engine (pollution gear, etc. necessary down here) so I'm hoping to get a wreck and transplant everything (see below). One more thought. I'm really keen on an 'over the radiator' cold air intake arrangement and I'm considering setting the radiator back (75-100mm) and lower to facilitate the intake. I know some have tilted the radiator to do this but you might want to give some thought to the 'back & lower' idea. I think that properly executed it would look terrific. Oh, and pass on the problems you encountered so that I can avoid them! You owe it to me after we let you win the ODI series! http://www.manheimfowles.com.au/find_buy/power_search/index.mpl?unit_key=34276_AU202049423-34276;detail_tab=vinfo;tab=transmission_name;fulltext=;stream=Salvage;vehicle_type_desc=4x4s;vehicle_type_desc=Cars;vehicle_type_desc=Trucks;vehicle_type_desc=Vans;make=Holden;displacement=5.7L;transmission_name=Manual;state_all=1;rm=view_detail Are you talking about this? This is my setup. This is my friend's setup. If you go this route don't forget to start searching for a C5 air intake duct on Ebay. I have more pictures and info on my web site on how much to lean the radiator back. Oh yeah I just bought an extra one for my future LSx project for like 15 off ebay. The one I bought for my friend's swap was like $60. GL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1noel Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 I used the stock gas tank and had all the fuel issues programmed out of the ECM. Works fine. The shifter issue is that inside the white plastic cover (which will not allow the trans to fit up high enough into the stock shifter hole) has about 3 inches of linkage that can be eliminated by using the B&M. I found mine on EBAY, the best price was from Atlantic Speed and they were great to work with. The shift action is much better, direct, and shorter with the B&M. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy from Oz Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 These are more the style of over-the-radiator cold air intakes I was thinking of. http://www.surefloexhaust.com.au/otrcai.htm http://cgi.ebay.com.au/COLD-AIR-INTAKE-VT-VX-VU-HOLDEN-HSV-MONARO-UTE_W0QQitemZ300081010841QQihZ020QQcategoryZ102360QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem They were on e-Bay a few months ago with a range of colours and even one with a carbon-fibre appearance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZHeadV8 Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 VinhZXT - great idea with the CAI, thanks.... was trying to work that one out in my head. Had thought about a longer pipe going around the side of the radiator, over the top looks a much better idea. M1noel - my chassis has been built to have a tank across the centre of the car behind the seats, I will not be able to use the standard tank. I can get the original pump / sender unit but what exactly are the issues ? Is there any reason that it cannot just have twin pumps as planned ? If you have to have the ECU reprogrammed anyway does it make a difference which way to go ? Boy from Oz - those look really slick but can you still shut the bonnet of a Z with one oth those ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy from Oz Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 Boy from Oz - those look really slick but can you still shut the bonnet of a Z with one oth those ? No, I don't think so, that's why I feel the radiator needs to be moved back and lowered. You would have to fabricate a new lower radiator mount - either at piece across the rails or two support brackets protruding back from the existing heavy front cross-rail. The top supports should not be too difficult as they are not weight bearing. The V8s leave a fair bit of space up front so the relocation should not be a problem nor would lowering the radiator expose it to bottoming. However, you would be reducing section of the radiator subject to direct air flow and I'm not sure how critical that will be or whether it could be compensated for with scoops and deflectors. I would very much appreciate you spending time, money and effort on this idea and then letting me know if it works!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZHeadV8 Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 I would very much appreciate you spending time, money and effort on this idea and then letting me know if it works!!! AWESOME :-) Love your style :-) I have seen lots of pictures where the CAI is routed around the side of the radiator. One of the key things about my engine bay will be "cleanliness", I do not want extraneous pipes, wires, cables etc etc hanging around and looking ugly. I have seen an L Series engined car with a bay so clean it makes you dribble, all pipes and wires hidden, all lines routed through the inner wings etc etc. That is the look I would like with the LS2. The CAI will take some thinking about to get right............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1noel Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 M1noel - my chassis has been built to have a tank across the centre of the car behind the seats, I will not be able to use the standard tank. I can get the original pump / sender unit but what exactly are the issues ? Is there any reason that it cannot just have twin pumps as planned ? If you have to have the ECU reprogrammed anyway does it make a difference which way to go ? I was saying that I really don't think there are any issues. And, I really don't know why you would need two pumps. I am only using one. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZHeadV8 Posted February 17, 2007 Author Share Posted February 17, 2007 And, I really don't know why you would need two pumps. I am only using one.Mike What you have to remember is that I am probably far far less skilled that most guys here, I am an IT guy NOT an engineer and I am running a project based on advice from more skilled people like you and the other guys here. The help you guys give me is invaluable and I appreciate it - the twin pump thing has been recommended by one of the engineers building the car. His reasoning is that is the engine requires say 55psi and if he uses a pair of 60psi pumps then the regulator up front will keep the pressure to 55psi as required ... BUT... in the event of failure there is always the second one and having two pumps will ensure consistent fuel delivery. Another MAJOR reason for twin pumps is the shape of the tank - it fits behind the seats and goes over the gear tunnel so when fuel gets lower there will effectively be a reservoir of fuel on either side of the tunnel. This effectively means that when full it will work as one tank but when half empty it will work as two tanks. It has been put inside the car to help keep the weight inside the wheelbase as close to the centre as possible. Because the LS2 sits pretty much behind the front axle his reasoning is that THEORETICALLY this will become a mid engined car ?????? HUH ???????? If the tank is inside along with various other bits, it can be set up and corner weighted to be a very neutral 50 / 50 weight distribution. Again, I have been told that taking the tank out from underneath and cutting away the rear valance will allow faster airflow and higher volume airflow underneath, supposedly helping stability. Please do not shoot the messenger I may be buying the Emperor's new clothes here but some of it makes sense to the un-initiated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1noel Posted February 17, 2007 Share Posted February 17, 2007 makes sense to me now- Oh and you have mistaken me for someone with skills. Sometimes I have to do it wrong a few times before I figure it out, or I can just ask someone who's already done it (like MAS280). The other thing I forgot to add about the stock shifter is that with the linkage under the white plastic thing, it is just too far back. The reason to get the clutch master, is that it is just too simple to put it where the Z master was, plug in the GM quick-connects, and go. Cuts down on adapters and such, and they usually throw that in with the engine/tranny anyway. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZHeadV8 Posted February 18, 2007 Author Share Posted February 18, 2007 Having gone through the links you guys have kindly posted and researched some other threads, it woul seem that the install is none too difficult. The wiring will be taken care of by a friend of mine who is an electrical engineer, cars are WAY below his capability level and the fuel supply will be sorted by him as well. The CAI idea is a good one, I like the over the top idea but think I prefer the flatter wider intake to the C5 one, may be forced to go C5 because it does not look like the bonnet will shut with the wide flat one. Fly by wire looks quite easy too....... Exhausts will be the next pain..... The JCI supplied headers will not work on a RHD car because the steering rod is in the wrong place - may have to have some made. IS there anyone who has had full mandrel bent exhausts made where the bending program still exists ? ie, could I order a front to back mandrel bent system from anywhere ? to fit a 1971 240Z with an LS2 / T56 ?? one pipe either side at the back ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZHeadV8 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 Hi Guys, I have found where to get all of the bits listed but am slightly confused.... The part number given for the oil pan is for an LS1 engine, I have been told that the LS2 oil pan is baffled better so I should use that. Now .... everything I have heard and read here tells me I need an "f" body oil pan from a camaro or a firebird ....but.... they never had LS2 engines. Before I spend any money can someone (Pop'n'Wood????) confirm that I actually need the LS1 oil pan on the bottom of the LS2 engine please ? Or is there an LS2 pan that will fit ??? Sorry to be a bit slow on the uptake guys, we do not have many LS1s and 2s over here, very very few people I can ask about this stuff. Many Thanks Andy F Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop N Wood Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 This question would be better answered my m1noel, ulissis, mas280. someone who actually did an LS2 pull out. I am pretty certain the GTO pans will not work cause they have a front sump. The LS2 corvettes have the wierd wings that will need to be cut off. The truck motors have pans that are too deep. I don't know of any other options. I bought a carb'd ls2 crate motor, and GM themselves knew to put an LS1 F body oil pan on that motor. I got if brand new from GM that way. I know the LS2 motor has better oil windows in the block, but I wasn't aware there was a difference in the pans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZHeadV8 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 After some more ringing around and question asking, I have been told that a Corvette LS2 oil pan (NOT the big wing sump) will also fit and is better than the LS1 oil pan. Anyone have any experience of the Corvette pan please ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mas28O Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 I think that the c6 oil pan might fit. It is a better pan than the ls1 pan for oil control. It also offers more ground clearance. I know that the front of the pan is 1/2" deeper than the ls1 pan, so make sure that it fits. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZHeadV8 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 Thanks Mike ....... Well found, even though I forgot to PM you the link I have the GTO engine but my friend also has a spare F Body LS1 oil pan..... will that do ? or should I really be looking for a baffled pan ? If that will do the job then I should be sorted. Have today found a company to make the exhausts, custom headers, mandrel bent stainless tubing etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mas28O Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 If you are road racing the ls2 pan will be better. for street driving the ls1 pan will work just fine. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZHeadV8 Posted February 19, 2007 Author Share Posted February 19, 2007 If you are road racing the ls2 pan will be better. for street driving the ls1 pan will work just fine. Mike 99% of the time this will be a normal road car, very occasionally it will run the quarter mile and very occasionally it will go on a track ...... Does that constitute street driving ? Definitely not a full time road racer but a very fast road and occasional track car. What do you think ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m1noel Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 I would probably just use the LS1 pan you have available and when you hit a road track put in an extra half quart? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.