The LS does many things pretty well. The suspension is probably its best attribute besides looks. Sure it leaves something to be desired by today's HP war standards. Either buy something else or do something to your LS. A few people here have added turbos, a supercharger, and a couple nitrous users, myself included. With a first gear smokeshow on 245 45 17 all seasons, it ran a 13.7 @100.8 the rest being stock. Since then I made a minor fuel delivery upgrade so I could raise the jets to 125, and wider 285 35 17 tires. Never got my limited slip in or back to the track since then due to having a family and the car's high mileage but guess its capable of very low 13's , maybe a peek into high 12's. It can turn and stop pretty well and serves as a great daily driver. I have 234K or so, and can get 27-28 mpg highway. It has enough power to merge on the highway without fear of getting run over.
I've deserted.
- Thread starter TerryinNC
- Start date
Funny you should bring up All Season tires. I've tried my damnedest to find a road test of the LS using Summer tires to no avail. Most comparisons I remember the testers remark how the LS would have better performance with tires other than All Season. I'm sure most would agree there is a substantial grip advantage. That alone would account for half a second on the time slips on average as your post indicates. I have noticed a huge leap in grip even with my "Cheap Chinese" tires and have had owners of those benchmark Bahn Burners comment how my car corners like an F1 car. I know it doesn't but that just goes to show you if you have the right driver whose familiar with the equipment, the LS has a more than reasonable chance of surprising a lot of people in more capable cars.
Telco
Dedicated LVC Member
What's sad about it is if they'd not have tried to reinvent the wheel they likely would have made more money because they could have sold them for less. They could have used a regular, tried and true heating system instead of the overcomplicated DCCV. A simple electric fan instead of the hydraulic thing. A simple alternator for power instead of the PCM controlled mess. Steel hood and trunk lid instead of the far more expensive aluminum parts because there really wasn't that much weight saved. An actual Ford engine instead of the Jag mess (yes, I realize it was a joint development thing but I'm addressing what they should have done to make the LS more profitable). A 4.6L with an option for the big Marauder heads in a hipo model would have been perfect. And yes, that engine would have fit between the shock towers if they had designed for that engine to begin with.
elephantrider
Dedicated LVC Member
and an early 2000 m5 would walk a ls like a new puppy on a leash, just sayin'.
Why are you guys comparing the LS to everyone else's halo cars? The LS was never the pinnacle of anything; never meant to be. It was a 7-Series for 3-Series prices. Not supposed to be a high performance anything. It was the entry-level, sporty luxury car. More comparable to a "3", ES3xx, Audi 4, etc.
The LS performed exactly as it was designed. The problem was the business model and bad timing.
The LS performed exactly as it was designed. The problem was the business model and bad timing.
1LoudLS
Dedicated LVC Member
yeah, 98-03 E39 M5... with a german 302, just shy of 150 more horses(vs a similar year ls), a proper gearbox, and LSD... not even a competition... I wouldn't call that unimpressive even by today's sedan standards.
near 400 Hp, thats just under what american muscle cars are pushing these days, and that's out of a 17 year old motor!
1LoudLS
Dedicated LVC Member
that is the whole point... sadly they didn't make a high performance or Halo version of the LS. and it really isn't anything that special... I guess we're still just blown away that ford was able to make a car that actually handle well and so we forget about everything else...
I just agreed with elephantrider that the LS isn't really that fast of a car just to hear that it must be because of our poor maintenance or too many people's LS are just "sorry" and that a lot of guys are much faster... when in reality, FWD GTP's will embarrass an LS with a $20 pulley
I just find it funny that everybody talks about how fast and powerful the LS is when it really aint nothing too special considering what else was available at the same time... it seems that everybody thinks that back when the LS came out, it was the top dog and everybody's cars were equally that slow, when in fact, its the opposite, just about everybody else makes a much faster version (even back then). its really is a shame, ford COULD have done so much more, hell even an STR equivalent would have been great! but as you mentioned bad timing and bad decisions led us to where we are...
1LoudLS
Dedicated LVC Member
and how have those held up? half of them have blown their engines up, and the other half sold the cars before they had the chance to blow it up. and for every boosted LS that made it, there are probably 5 that started and gave up or are still working on it years later...
more and more people are just going to go your other route of buying something else, kinda like the OP.
True on failed attempts to add power, especially with turbos, but we don't know if it was poor design, execution, prior engine damage etc. Its also too easy to get hooked on power and keep turning up the wick. Most people have no wideband system installed to ensure fuel delivery is up to snuff. They don't data log to watch fuel pump duty cycle with small HP increases, knock sensors or use progressive controllers for nitrous and fuel pressure interlocks... Most importantly a proper tune by an experience local tuner that can test along the way. All that stuff can cost more money than the power adder itself but has to be done to have a chance of lasting. Remember you're using up every last safety margin built into the engine. Sometimes things give. Take less and it should last longer. The other thing is that we tend to get the crowd that is maybe less experienced so they use forums for help along the way much like I did. I suspect most people that do this type of project aren't the forum type. Just speculation though. For example, the guys that put that "LS in an LS" and the widebody dohc vortec SC'ed 4.6.... never saw any of that here until it was said and done.
And getting something else is fine too, if you don't want to be bothered with the effort. Now that these cars are aging, it is hard to justify. Some people still like the car enough to do it though and you can't really say that's wrong.
I said awhile back that the LS was a car that needed just about 40HP and I would be happy with the power. The new cam grind and tuning I've had done has me at just about 30HP gain but most of that is in the upper 3rd of the range. Hopefully I can get 10 more with intake and exhaust and regain what I lost in the low end due to the valve overlap.
I doubt you'd get 10 HP with intake and exhaust unless you at least included high flow converters. The exhaust is another well executed part of this car- design and longevity. Unless you're at 50% power increase, the magnaflow cat back is overkill from power standpoint (if you want the sound then have at it). The price on exhaust is still high, at least for my blood. I think money better spent would be change rear gears and higher stall converter if your power curve is up higher (bye bye gas milage). Do you have before and after dyno plots for the cam job? Post em up
My intention originally was to increase city fuel economy. That actually happened and had the side benefit of changing the power curve. I've actually lost quite a bit of grunt on the lower end but gained quite a bit on the top end. My car sounds like it has exhaust and intake but it doesn't. As I posted on an earlier post last year, I can see almost 27mpg doing 85 mph on old plugs and coils while at the same time seeing 18mpg in the city. That was the whole purpose of doing the cams in the first place. Yes, high flow cats are an option. I don't think I will be going with too much name brand designer pieces. I might go with the Magnaflo X Flow muffler to replace the resonators but I'm not going to buy an expensive cat back system. Yes, I am looking into shorter gearing but not short enough to hurt mpg that much. I don't need a high stall tower converter as I don't and won't drag race my car. Remember, I'm a high speed corner carver. I will get one of those dump printouts as soon as I can. Honestly, I never really thought about it. My estimated HP numbers are based on the top speed I was able to reach which I think is pretty accurate. But, I know how you guys are so, I'll get on that.
Re: High flow cats....
When Magnaflow had my car to develop their cat-back system I asked about that. Their flow engineer said the LS cats already were a high-flow type and couldn't really be improved upon.
Food for thought.....
When Magnaflow had my car to develop their cat-back system I asked about that. Their flow engineer said the LS cats already were a high-flow type and couldn't really be improved upon.
Food for thought.....
Telco
Dedicated LVC Member
Have you thought about having the heads cleaned up and ported? A good head porter can usually find some extra power and remember these engines have mass produced heads and they aren't going to spend a whole lot of time on them. Might even see if they can increase valve size a bit.
You can also look into Singh grooves, which is supposed to improve power and mileage quite a bit. They have a pretty good internet reputation but I don't know anyone who's actually tried them. Might be a load of bull.
You can also look into Singh grooves, which is supposed to improve power and mileage quite a bit. They have a pretty good internet reputation but I don't know anyone who's actually tried them. Might be a load of bull.
Fuel economy simply comes down to how much work you're doing. If you're going by the computer display, I doubt its accurate. For me to get near 26 mpg (over a 30 mile stretch), I could not go faster than 65 or I'd need a slight elevation drop the whole way. I verified computer display when I filled up; its usually within a half mpg. The largest factor, assuming the car is running decent, is the air drag. At 70-75, mpg drops to roughly 22-24. And at 85 you might see 23 if you're going down hill, drafting someone with a tail wind helping.
Just for reference, my brothers 400 HP cts-v is roughly the same weight and frontal area. He gets very close to the same fuel numbers as me because the work being done is the same and both cars are about equal in efficiency. This discussion of economy though takes away from our original posts saying these cars do many things well... Having economy that is not aweful but also in no way good (especially if you do any city or stop and go) while simultaneously not having enough HP to keep up with V6's of today is a major weak point. I prefer to sweep MPG and stock HP numbers under the carpet and keep my rose colored glasses on until I can replace it with something else that will satisfy me as much... a very tough thing to do for the same price range my LS was in (V8 RWD 3 years old certified $18K)
I suspected this myself. Even the manifolds are likely "OK". I never bothered to change them as there is much easier low lying fruit
1LoudLS
Dedicated LVC Member
while I'm sure that something could be cleaned up a bit, I wouldn't expect too much to be found. 4 valve motors tend to breath extremely well compared to older 2V ford or even chevys push rod motors (which is usually why the first things the other LS guys do is a cam, then heads, then headers.)
I fell in love with the LS based on what I thought of the E34 M5. I always wanted one of those.
1LoudLS
Dedicated LVC Member
M cars have always been some of my favorites especially the inline 6 torque monsters in the 3's, then when ford released the LS and they had copied a lot of what BMW was doing right, it was for sure a real winner to me. the one downside is that ford always seems to play it safe, and doesn't really do a lot of high performance cars other than the pony, I just wish they wouldn't have messed up the marketing trying to see the LS to the wrong group and not doing enough to attract the demo they really needed to. then they could have taken it to the next level and mode something for the guys that just want a little something more!
I would be super happy if they just made something compared to even just a 1st gen CTS-v with brembos and an LS1 or LS2 that made good power and great torque, but also has a "skys the limit" in terms of what can be done to support more power with many options to choose from with out having to resort to custom one off parts.
I would be super happy if they just made something compared to even just a 1st gen CTS-v with brembos and an LS1 or LS2 that made good power and great torque, but also has a "skys the limit" in terms of what can be done to support more power with many options to choose from with out having to resort to custom one off parts.
Telco
Dedicated LVC Member
Yeah, I know. Have you ever looked at what Arao heads are supposed to do to a 2 valve engine? Their setup uses the stock pushrods to actuate two smaller valves, and the power curve that normally drops off at around 5000RPM keeps going to 8000RPM and beyond. Unfortunately, complaints abound about them so I wouldn't try to do business with them but if their dyno pages are even halfway accurate... still and all I would think a good head man could pull another 30HP and 30 ft lbs of torque out of a set of the LS heads.
Even though the multivalve heads breathe better than 2 valvers, manufacturing constraints limit how much work beyond casting the factory is willing to do (I've actually seen heads come off an engine with cooling passages almost completely plugged by casting flash) plus that the OEM has their own design requirements that are often different from those of the enthusiast. I think I'd start that investigation on the Jaguar boards. Someone HAS to have tried this on the AJ engine, and the head design will be close enough that their results would translate over to the LS.
I'll also add... you know how everyone in the sports world makes fun of the Corvette for still using a 2 valve pushrod engine? Considering they're pushing close to 600HP with a smooth idle and decent mileage, can you imagine what they could get out of a multivalve overhead engine with the LSxs engine design? Heh heh heh... I think they'd get so much power out of one that they'd have to completely redesign the car to keep it from twisting itself in half.
1LoudLS
Dedicated LVC Member
I used to be in that same boat a few years ago, I couldn't stand push rod motors and chevys hanging on to such old school and old tech when there are so many improvements to dual cam motors. their biggest problems used to be they flowed too well and because of that they had very low low end torque due to the much slower air velocity, hence why ford used dues intake runners with a butterfly valve to keep one closed at low RPMs like my Mark had or when honda used VTech and started using variable timing (which btw, too bad ford waited so long to hop on that wagon!)
but then after seeing the engines side by side, you can see the benefits, especially after chevy started using aluminum blocks and heads, a 7.0 LS7/X motor is physically a lot smaller than a ford twin cam like the 4.6 & 5.4 (hell, I think its even smaller than our jag 3.9 or even the duratec 3.0.)
more so what makes them better in a car like a vette as opposed to motors of our design is where all the weight is... with such massive and wide heads like ours, that puts so much weight so high up raising the center of gravity, with only having one cam instead of four, and such smaller and lighter heads, the center of gravity is a lot lower in those motors which helps to lower the center of gravity in the car, there for making it handle better...
then you would just be talking about an over complicated large displacement northstar, and everybody knows how "awesome" those cars were! lol
i think chevy should just keep what they are doing, keep it simple with way fewer parts, load those top ends up with all sorts of titanium goodness, keep the displacement up, and then offer versions of them in everything you make from trucks, to family sedans, to muscle cars, to sport/track/race cars!
long story short, if its working well, keep it up!
also just for fun, compare the prices of a ecoboost v6, a coyote, and a LS3 that all can make in the same range of power power and tell me which price is the one you would want to pay!
elephantrider
Dedicated LVC Member
trading in the tried and true pushrod lsx platform for a multicam unit of some sort ? the laughter.
good lawd.
good lawd.
I agree with you there Loud. When I first looked at the LS, I was checking out the 6 cylinder manual hoping the engine would be an upgrade to the Yamaha SHO unit but it wasn't. Because of that, I started looking at the V8. I think the main issue was the fact the Lincoln was marketed keeping old folks that live in the snow belt in mind. I think it may have been different if the car was made somewhere else hence the excess wheel clearances. They don't seem to worry about that now which shows in the current designs. Perhaps if we had something equivalent to the Autobahn it may have been different also. That still doesn't explain how GM could come up with a powerful car like the CTS -V. Maybe they had younger designers. I can tell you from experience though the LS performs better in the corners than the same year CTS V and the 4 valve efficiency shows up in the numbers as the V could only manage 13 second quarter times with 3.73 gears. That's because it didn't breath that we'll up high in stock trim. However, like all LSx engines, they could be tweaked to fix that.
1LoudLS
Dedicated LVC Member
I'm not gonna lie, If i had the kind of money I wish I did, I would buy a brand new 5.0 pony and place a call to hellion... it may be a hell of a lot more complicated than any LS motor, but damn If its high tech doesn't make up for its (relatively)small displacement! and its one hell of a built short block right from the factory! they seem to have no problem reliably running in the mid 600s with only a fuel upgrade and a boost maker of your choice!
but then again, if I had to build my way up to that kind of power, it would be a lot cheaper starting with a 6.0 or 6.2!
Telco
Dedicated LVC Member
Hey now wait a minute, don't think for a second I have any problems with Chevy's approach. I absolutely LOVE the new Chevy engines. My only regret when I did my truck was I couldn't swing an LSX454. Put a blower on it and get over 1000HP on an engine with a small bit of a factory sounding lope, or I think 630HP as it comes. Point I was getting at was Chevy gets world class power with "old" tech.
BTW... Northstar engines, Cadillac's version of the LS 3.9.
BTW... Northstar engines, Cadillac's version of the LS 3.9.