...

Go Back   Lateral-g Forums > Technical Discussions > Engine
User Name
Password



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-10-2006, 07:12 PM
ron w ron w is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: long island ny
Posts: 56
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

on my 69 camaro I am rasing the engine so I can lower the car and I like the lsx motor sitting hi in the engine compartment. if that sovles other problems why not
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-10-2006, 07:17 PM
ProdigyCustoms ProdigyCustoms is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,859
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Why the hell would anyone want to raise the COG raising the engine 2"? Talk about a stupid move!
__________________
Frank Serafine
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-10-2006, 08:59 PM
71Nova 71Nova is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 514
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I saw the episode and was very happy and excited to see a 3rd gen Nova getting an LSx. Thought the curb feelers were a bit wierd but still a cool project. At the end of the show he said that he would like to get some feedback on the project and said to e-mail him. I looked on the spike web site for a e-mail address for muscle car tv, but could not find one. Do any of you know what it is? I have a T56 in my nova and it does fit without raising the trans tunnel using ATS trans mount, but it is extremely tight. We are talking like 1/4 inch between tranz and tunnel. I used Global West solid body bushings to eliminate the trans slapping the tunnel when I get on it. I wonder if they just don't know that companys like ATS have already done the home work and figured out how to do it without raising the engine and COG.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-11-2006, 08:04 AM
XcYZ's Avatar
XcYZ XcYZ is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Rochester, Minnesota
Posts: 8,998
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71Nova
At the end of the show he said that he would like to get some feedback on the project and said to e-mail him. I looked on the spike web site for a e-mail address for muscle car tv, but could not find one. Do any of you know what it is?
[email protected]
__________________
Scott

My LS7 69 Camaro
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-11-2006, 12:44 PM
ironworks's Avatar
ironworks ironworks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bakersfield, Ca
Posts: 5,155
Thanks: 4
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
Default

I have never done a swap into an 1 gen but I have been putting the Ls2 oil pan in stuff with limited clearence. I was not sure if you guys had tried that pan yet. It is even more shallow then the Corvette BATMAN looking pan.

it is hard to see pic but here is vague side profile of the pan, I believe it is 4.75 from rail to bottom of pan.

Rodger
Attached Images
 
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-11-2006, 03:23 PM
ron w ron w is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: long island ny
Posts: 56
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I'm alittle confused are you guys saying raising the engine up for clearance issue's is something you never heard of or am I missing something here
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-11-2006, 05:13 PM
ArisESQ ArisESQ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Gatos
Posts: 765
Thanks: 8
Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ron w
I'm alittle confused are you guys saying raising the engine up for clearance issue's is something you never heard of or am I missing something here


I think the issue is that by raising the engine 2 inches to solve clearance issues with the oil pan, you are creating more clearance issues with the trans tunnel, changing the cars center of gravity, as well as other problems regarding driveshaft angle and etc etc.

The main point that i've gathered is that modifying the oil pan would not only be a more cost effective strategy for clearance issues, but would also require much less time and work to execute.

Thats just what I gathered. I could be wrong, but it makes a lot of sense. If there was another reason to raise the engine 2 inches, other than for clearance issues, then perhaps it is a viable option, but from the way it sounds right now, it just seems like they are creating a lot of extra work for themselves, and complicating the install more than it needs to be.

aris
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-11-2006, 07:58 PM
ron w ron w is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: long island ny
Posts: 56
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I appreciate that I was looking at from a differant angle.thanks
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-13-2006, 02:19 PM
awr68's Avatar
awr68 awr68 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,478
Thanks: 0
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ill steez
I think the issue is that by raising the engine 2 inches to solve clearance issues with the oil pan, you are creating more clearance issues with the trans tunnel, changing the cars center of gravity, as well as other problems regarding driveshaft angle and etc etc.

The main point that i've gathered is that modifying the oil pan would not only be a more cost effective strategy for clearance issues, but would also require much less time and work to execute.

Thats just what I gathered. I could be wrong, but it makes a lot of sense. If there was another reason to raise the engine 2 inches, other than for clearance issues, then perhaps it is a viable option, but from the way it sounds right now, it just seems like they are creating a lot of extra work for themselves, and complicating the install more than it needs to be.

aris
Yes, they opened a BIG can of worms by raising the motor...they should have done a little more homework and saved a lot of fab work and screwing up the COG and driveline angle....I bet Jared is rolling his eyes!!
__________________
Tony
'68 Camaro
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-13-2006, 04:08 PM
Steve1968LS2's Avatar
Steve1968LS2 Steve1968LS2 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Anaheim Hills, CA
Posts: 5,534
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Default

As said.. why would anyone want to RAISE the engine??.. it's just wrong on every level.. and to do that just to keep from modding a pan or buying the right pan??
__________________
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."

See Bad Penny run the cones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GUPPIX-92U

1971 Chevelle Wagon - Roadster Shop Chassis ProCharged Shafiroff LS and lots of yada yada

1968 Camaro - Project Track Rat - 440 RHS LS
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net