Webster's 67 Bel Air Conversion

[VintageMusclecar]

I wonder if an EFI'd 500&quot; Big Block torque monster might sway Ken back over from the dark side... [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/naughty.gif[/img]

[Charley Lillard]

Been there-done that more than once. Still not as good as a good LS. At 950 hp I bet I still will get at least 18 mpg with the ac on this year on Hot Rod Power Tour.

[VintageMusclecar]

No arguing those numbers. [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/biggthumpup.gif[/img]

Just out of curiosity-- how many cubic inches, how much boost, and what's the cruise rpm on the highway (~70 mph)?

Lastly, what does an engine like that cost to build?

[Charley Lillard]

427&quot; Not sure of the boost but the engine makes 700 hp with no boost. At 80 mph I'm about 2200 rpm. Thomson Automotive sells the engines for 40K. Same engine with E85 will push over 1000 hp.

[PxTx]

Playing the devil's advocate:

This costs $13,781 for 620hp which is $22.22 per hp.


This on the other hand is $20k for $638hp which works out to be $31.35 pr hp. I can't begin to guess where the ratio goes at 950hp.


I realize there is more usable power under the curve on the LS AND it will get more mpg then the 572 but I also believe the cost to install the LS motor has significant adders over what it takes to install the 572 in a popular muscle car. I'm willing to bet that the install delta between these two options if not performing the swap yourself is close to 10K. If you are a diy- it is harder to speculate on a theoretical skill set and the value offset.

So one gets 10mpg and the other gets 18mpg while costing $10-20k more. How long till you make up that delta?

Taking the cost out and factoring only weight, performance, reliability type things- the LS certainly make a lot of sense. I do understand their appeal.

[VintageMusclecar]

As much as I detest quoting magazine articles, there are two that come to mind:

October 2014 (sorry, can't find a web link to the story online other than this, but it leads to a dead link): CC builds a turbocharged 454 pulled from a Suburban, added a mild HR cam and a pair of Brodix heads and winds up making 950+ HP and over 1030 lb.ft. at just over 19 psi. When they added race gas it made 1200+ HP and 1300+ lb.ft @ 29 psi. Note this was going through a single plane intake, an 850 Holley and still using the OEM short block--iron crank, cast pistons, and stock rods. All they did was open up the ring gaps. Disclaimer: IMO they're nuttier than squirrel sh*t making that kind of power on the stock bottom end.

2003: Import Killer Using a 454 HO crate short block, they added AFR heads, a Crane hydraulic roller, and a Vortec supercharger. On pump gas it made 950+ HP and 750+ lb.ft.

Both are admittedly old school approaches, but the power is still there. I wonder how civilized either of these could be with the addition of a modern EFI system.

Don't misunderstand, I'm a big fan of the LS platform, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel on the beloved rat motors just yet.

(Sorry to digress from the topic of the thread!!!! [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/frown.gif[/img] )

[Charley Lillard]

A huge difference is driveability. If my Mom were still alive she could drive my 950 hp car. I have a 509&quot; BBC old school EFI in a 32 Ford making a claimed 750 hp that I would never let my Mom drive. It is neat but not even in the same room with the LS. The 20K LS9 shown above can easily make a dependable and driveable 750 hp with a little tweaking.

[earntaz]

I am just short of 70 years old and have had more BBC than I can count. IMHO the Loose Squirrel (read LS) engines are for those that need a computer to tune for them. Also, they go to a junk yard, drop it in and bolt on a bunch of gee-gaw crap to hide the fact they have bolted in an LS -- and their happy.

Bottom line -- to each their own ... TAZ

[Charley Lillard]

I'm 62 and also have had more BBC than I can count. Currently in my barn is a 509&quot;, 494&quot;, 427&quot; 427&quot; and 427&quot;. They are all cool engines but nothing compared to my LS. Sorry if the thought of a computerized engine bugs you that much. Seems more like you don't want to learn any new tricks.

[earntaz]

Charley -- &quot;Sorry if the thought of a computerized engine bugs you that much&quot;. That's not it at all -- computerization is the way for the future. I am an aircraft maintainer by trade with access to everything to F-35s on down the line. Without computers, many aircraft would not be able to fly.

My hangup is old iron with an LS type engines. It is about like installing a PW F135 in an old P-51 Mustang ... UGH!