LS3 for the Tuscan
Discussion
tinker-27 said:
Where are these " big angles" ? The reason I posted on here is because I have done a Ls in a Tuscan and want people to have some answers , so there are four or five people going it with no problems and someone saying they are all wrong !! , and it seems to me when you answer the questions it all goes quite ? . We are all entitled to our opinions , it does seem that some people through the teddy out if they don't get there way . There are always more than one way to do things and they can both be right ! Comment like engines fitted on roofs are just stupid and don't help the people who are looking at doing a conversion ( as per the title ) . The "facts are they fit " the flywheel is pretty much the lowest point even with a wet sump
Guys, I am thinking about an LS conversion for my SP6 Cerb, but honestly posting pictures of an install from a distance doesn't help me one bit, is it to much to ask that when you put a picture up you explain what we are looking at?.
And please try to be as constructive as possible it would really help those of as looking at the thread.
Tinker-27 and Walford please keep posting I really welcome the info you guys have on these installs.
George
And please try to be as constructive as possible it would really help those of as looking at the thread.
Tinker-27 and Walford please keep posting I really welcome the info you guys have on these installs.
George
So it is either mount the engine a bit higher, and we are only talking an inch or so or get it an inch or so lower but you have to widen the chassis. Is this correct??
Apart from Walford everyone has mounted it a bit higher, Walfords is probably the best way but is by far the most expensive and requires a body off.
Most have installed slightly higher and not had the expense of widening the chassis.
I am not aware of any issues ie reliability problems for those who have it slightly higher and did one of these installs not do 200mph recently.
What are the problems if any with the engine that little bit higher,handling,understear, prop shaft can someone explain.
Apart from Walford everyone has mounted it a bit higher, Walfords is probably the best way but is by far the most expensive and requires a body off.
Most have installed slightly higher and not had the expense of widening the chassis.
I am not aware of any issues ie reliability problems for those who have it slightly higher and did one of these installs not do 200mph recently.
What are the problems if any with the engine that little bit higher,handling,understear, prop shaft can someone explain.
I will keep posting and if I say anything that is wrong I will put my hands up and admit it , I spend hours every week helping people with conversions , some that have taken then on and got stuck and some who are about who to start ( for no money just trying to help ) . Right as far as it goes if you put a TKO 600 in with the out put shaft in the same height as std and the engine in position the flywheel is pretty much the lowest point , so why bother with dry sump ? ( unless it's a proper race car ), that leaves the engine where it needs to be , remember comparing crank nose heights with a speed six that sits nose done will give different front heights .do this gives you a engine in the bay where it wants to be , the exhausts are a pain to do but they can be done . This is the same for cerbera, and t chassis . We dont not cut the chassis because we are lazy or it's cheaper but why would we ? If the chassis was a pile of rust and had to be redone I would allow more room but just go make life easier . If you are trying to use std headers then you will have to chop the chassis but if you have the skills to do that then you should be able to make headers .I have disagreed with people on here and showed pics of it done but not had any sensible reply since , what does that tell you ! It is up to people to chose who they want to agree with and we will never all agree but atleast some of us have actually built a Ls powered car . Take your pic chop the chassis or don't !!
Out of interest how much lower do you think a ls7 dry sump Is? , bearing in mind the engine in a c6 and z06 ls3/ls7 are in the same place ! They both use the same oil filter which is pretty much level with the bottom , on the z06 the dry dump is fitted for oil feed NOT to lower the engine .so why bother with one in a road car ?
bikealarmblair said:
I think that's a pic of one with these big angles........
Ps it's walfords
No it's not.Ps it's walfords
It's a pic I put up showing that the LS fits with no chassis mods when you use the right manifolds that have been designed to block hug. Craig made his own but it is similar.
The interesting point is that when the photo was taken, the gearbox wasn't on its final mounts and so the rear of the engine is lower than it would be and the front tilted upwards. It was assumed by many that it showed the final resting point of the engine.
I've never had any problems with with Gm sumps even on
Time attack cars with big tyres which gave good cornering ,they are 5" deep and $300 . if I was building a full on race car I would use a dry sump but for the oiling not to lower the engine any more. As for gear ratios the TKO is ok but even better with a bigger diff ratio ( it all depends on the engine spec) and who is driving it some people like to rev the tits off the motors and some just want to use the torque so it's best to spec it to suit the driver ,some of my guys only rev to std 6200 ish and some spin them to 7400 this also changes how to gear them so it very difficult to say xxx is the ratios you need as whats right for you won't be right for the next guy , ( 1st is low regardless ) I run a 3.08 diff but that would suit most people ls3 upwards really .
Time attack cars with big tyres which gave good cornering ,they are 5" deep and $300 . if I was building a full on race car I would use a dry sump but for the oiling not to lower the engine any more. As for gear ratios the TKO is ok but even better with a bigger diff ratio ( it all depends on the engine spec) and who is driving it some people like to rev the tits off the motors and some just want to use the torque so it's best to spec it to suit the driver ,some of my guys only rev to std 6200 ish and some spin them to 7400 this also changes how to gear them so it very difficult to say xxx is the ratios you need as whats right for you won't be right for the next guy , ( 1st is low regardless ) I run a 3.08 diff but that would suit most people ls3 upwards really .
Walford said:
I have never commented on one of your builds,
I have said there are some poor conversions out there
You have said lots but it's all he said/she said/ they said, pub talk... Unless you say tinker/walford/sloweight/brummie/topcats/BoostedLs1 etc has done it wrong & why nobody apart from YOU know's what YOU think is right/wrong even after all these pages I have no idea who you think is doing a good/bad job, I still don't know even after asking directly if your own conversion is finished?I have said there are some poor conversions out there
I was told by a well respected LS builder in Daventry the GM sumps are crap, maybe that is not correct i dont know, he said other good drysumps are
I'd agree with you on the fact that you can't supply & fit a NEW engine for £8k (my own conversion using a used LS1 cost more than that) and that using the original TVR box isn't best practice and something I would't have myself.
I do think you've got hung up on 'theory' a bit too much tho, obv in an ideal world the engine would be as low as poss & as far back as poss to create the best weight distribution but theory & practice are different things the original Audi quattro had the engine hanging on the front bumper but seemed to handle pretty well when 'theory' said it shouldn't. I'm no knocking you or your conversion but to say you 'have' to move the frame rail isn't true if like yourself you have tired rusty chasis then it would make sense but if your starting with a decent chasis it's not necc.
I do think you've got hung up on 'theory' a bit too much tho, obv in an ideal world the engine would be as low as poss & as far back as poss to create the best weight distribution but theory & practice are different things the original Audi quattro had the engine hanging on the front bumper but seemed to handle pretty well when 'theory' said it shouldn't. I'm no knocking you or your conversion but to say you 'have' to move the frame rail isn't true if like yourself you have tired rusty chasis then it would make sense but if your starting with a decent chasis it's not necc.
Walford said:
Are you Doing or planning a Tuscan conversion ?
Nope I have an E46 BMW with a 5.7LS1 in & am interested in all things petrol..... And I have just wired an LS3 into a Tuscan.SSPPGG said:
might i ask what headers they were........and do you have any images
I think you will find they are the one's listed below.https://delta.securesslhost.net/~shenglt/catalog/p...
relating to dry sump ls engines for information purposes only basrd upon my experience, the LS7 dry sump is fine for road use & general track use,
Start to get into racing situations on track & push the engine to its limit you will get oil surge & starvation on the standard LS7 dry sump, and drysump upgrades will be needed,
Again from a well known LS builder called peter knight, this happened on a upgraded LS7 motor he built for me giving 720hp.
Hope this helps
Start to get into racing situations on track & push the engine to its limit you will get oil surge & starvation on the standard LS7 dry sump, and drysump upgrades will be needed,
Again from a well known LS builder called peter knight, this happened on a upgraded LS7 motor he built for me giving 720hp.
Hope this helps
bikealarmblair said:
I'd agree with you on the fact that you can't supply & fit a NEW engine for £8k (my own conversion using a used LS1 cost more than that) and that using the original TVR box isn't best practice and something I would't have myself.
I do think you've got hung up on 'theory' a bit too much tho, obv in an ideal world the engine would be as low as poss & as far back as poss to create the best weight distribution but theory & practice are different things the original Audi quattro had the engine hanging on the front bumper but seemed to handle pretty well when 'theory' said it shouldn't. I'm no knocking you or your conversion but to say you 'have' to move the frame rail isn't true if like yourself you have tired rusty chasis then it would make sense but if your starting with a decent chasis it's not necc.
Quattro = Four as in 4 wheel driveI do think you've got hung up on 'theory' a bit too much tho, obv in an ideal world the engine would be as low as poss & as far back as poss to create the best weight distribution but theory & practice are different things the original Audi quattro had the engine hanging on the front bumper but seemed to handle pretty well when 'theory' said it shouldn't. I'm no knocking you or your conversion but to say you 'have' to move the frame rail isn't true if like yourself you have tired rusty chasis then it would make sense but if your starting with a decent chasis it's not necc.
Walford said:
Are you Doing or planning a Tuscan conversion ?
Nope I have an E46 BMW with a 5.7LS1 in & am interested in all things petrol..... And I have just wired an LS3 into a Tuscan.Torsen = Audi speak for Torque Sensing Diff
These cars can put as much as 75% of there torque through the front wheels it would be difficult to think of a car that has less in common with the TVR Tuscan
are you trying to spoil this forum ?
Edited by Ken Barlow on Tuesday 20th September 12:24
Gassing Station | TVR Major Mods | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff