LQ9 swap with Vinci trucker cam(Cammed 5.3 vs. Cammed LQ9)
03-14-2010, 07:35 PM
#1
9 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LQ9 swap with Vinci trucker cam(Cammed 5.3 vs. Cammed LQ9)
LM7 212/218 114lsa vs. LQ9 216/224 115lsa
Alright so since I can't leave anything alone again I was browsing around for 6.0s and found a screaming deal on an LQ9 with only 45k miles on it. The 5.3L with the Comp XR265 has done me well but I get bored easily and it was too good of a deal to pass up.
I wanted to do a comparable 6.0 configuration that wouldn't give up anything down low and just add to the midrange and top end like the 5.3L with the XR265 and settled on the Vinci trucker cam. It's listed at a 216/224 duration @ .050 with .551 lift on a 115 LSA. What's not listed is that it has 4 degrees of advance ground into it as well. I also came upon a good deal on a TBSS intake/TB so I ordered up the x-link to make it work properly. My factory airbox with it's pretty dirty and old paper filter is going by the wayside as well and being replaced with the S&B CAI setup.
My old XR265 in the 5.3L made ~310 rwhp and 312 ft/lbs of torque so it will be interesting to see the comparison between the two combos. Besides the stuff I listed above I did a gear change and went from 3.23s to 3.73s after that dyno so it will definitely bring the numbers down and won't be a direct comparison unfortunately. I usually see a ~15 rwhp/torque drop when going from 3.23s to 3.73s on trucks so I can assume my old numbers would have been around 295 rwhp with the 3.73s for comparison's sake.
I was going to throw it on the dyno yesterday but the CAI didn't show up on Friday like I was hoping so it will have to wait till Tuesday. I am going to guesstimate it to be around 345 rwhp and 355 rwtq. It's definitely a more torque oriented setup and probably won't need to rev very high, maybe a few hundred RPM less than the 5.3L but it's hard to tell the difference anymore. I am fairly sure my *** dyno is broken after all these years and driving around the Camaro and GTO doesn't help.
As far as gas mileage is concerned I tried to drive around last week like I always do using the same routes, etc for a good comparison and I only lost ~1 mpg. I am sure if I put my foot into it more that will drop off quicker but I am happy only losing that much.
After this not really sure what's next except I have already been looking at 4l80e swaps. My 78k mile 4l60e is probably not going to be very happy behind the LQ9 and a 100 shot for long. Does it ever end, I think I know the answer to that... Maybe I'll be doing a 4l60 to 4l80 dyno comparison here in the future to really get some hard data on how much power is lost between the two.
Alright so since I can't leave anything alone again I was browsing around for 6.0s and found a screaming deal on an LQ9 with only 45k miles on it. The 5.3L with the Comp XR265 has done me well but I get bored easily and it was too good of a deal to pass up.
I wanted to do a comparable 6.0 configuration that wouldn't give up anything down low and just add to the midrange and top end like the 5.3L with the XR265 and settled on the Vinci trucker cam. It's listed at a 216/224 duration @ .050 with .551 lift on a 115 LSA. What's not listed is that it has 4 degrees of advance ground into it as well. I also came upon a good deal on a TBSS intake/TB so I ordered up the x-link to make it work properly. My factory airbox with it's pretty dirty and old paper filter is going by the wayside as well and being replaced with the S&B CAI setup.
My old XR265 in the 5.3L made ~310 rwhp and 312 ft/lbs of torque so it will be interesting to see the comparison between the two combos. Besides the stuff I listed above I did a gear change and went from 3.23s to 3.73s after that dyno so it will definitely bring the numbers down and won't be a direct comparison unfortunately. I usually see a ~15 rwhp/torque drop when going from 3.23s to 3.73s on trucks so I can assume my old numbers would have been around 295 rwhp with the 3.73s for comparison's sake.
I was going to throw it on the dyno yesterday but the CAI didn't show up on Friday like I was hoping so it will have to wait till Tuesday. I am going to guesstimate it to be around 345 rwhp and 355 rwtq. It's definitely a more torque oriented setup and probably won't need to rev very high, maybe a few hundred RPM less than the 5.3L but it's hard to tell the difference anymore. I am fairly sure my *** dyno is broken after all these years and driving around the Camaro and GTO doesn't help.
As far as gas mileage is concerned I tried to drive around last week like I always do using the same routes, etc for a good comparison and I only lost ~1 mpg. I am sure if I put my foot into it more that will drop off quicker but I am happy only losing that much.After this not really sure what's next except I have already been looking at 4l80e swaps. My 78k mile 4l60e is probably not going to be very happy behind the LQ9 and a 100 shot for long. Does it ever end, I think I know the answer to that...
Maybe I'll be doing a 4l60 to 4l80 dyno comparison here in the future to really get some hard data on how much power is lost between the two.
Last edited by 1slow01Z71; 03-17-2010 at 01:23 PM.
03-14-2010, 10:38 PM
#2
Interesting, I remember I got the same cam as you around the time when you posted the dyno graph on the 5.3 and you answered a couple of questions I had.
I've been thinking on a 6.0 swap with a mild cam from some time now, please post the graphs once you have them ready.
I've been thinking on a 6.0 swap with a mild cam from some time now, please post the graphs once you have them ready.
03-16-2010, 12:16 PM
#4
9 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should hit the rollers today if I have time so I can get some actual numbers.
The driveability is damn near identical to the old cam which essentially was driving like stock just with more power everywhere. I like that it makes a ton of torque down low and in the midrange because I may be doing a 4L80 sooner than later and that will help with the longer 1st gear.
The driveability is damn near identical to the old cam which essentially was driving like stock just with more power everywhere. I like that it makes a ton of torque down low and in the midrange because I may be doing a 4L80 sooner than later and that will help with the longer 1st gear.
03-16-2010, 12:31 PM
#5
9 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yea, about the S&B CAI. I received it yesterday and the install took all of 45 minutes but unfortunately most of that time was fixing a few problems I found. In the molded plastic pipe that goes between the MAF and the TB there was a pinhole opening and the fresh air vent that goes to the valve cover didn't go through after I clipped the end off. It was still sealed down at the base so I just ran a drill bit through it really quick to open it up and cleaned it out. Then I used a very small amount of JB Weld to seal up the extraneous pinhole opening so there wasn't a small leak.
After all of that I went for a drive and am happy to say that while before I would drop nearly ~6 kpa from baro zero to 6000 rpm it now only drops 3 kpa. The factory airbox with the factory air filter was definitely a restriction at this point.
After all of that I went for a drive and am happy to say that while before I would drop nearly ~6 kpa from baro zero to 6000 rpm it now only drops 3 kpa. The factory airbox with the factory air filter was definitely a restriction at this point.
03-16-2010, 09:11 PM
#7
9 Second Club
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alright, and the numbers are in!
Looks like I was fairly close in my estimate. The following graph has two runs on it. The only difference between the back to back pulls was one was in 2nd gear and the other was in 3rd gear. I usually do all truck dynos in 2nd gear unless they have a different driveshaft/tires just for safety. At that high of a speed in 3rd gear you could watch my tire distort as it's not rated to be spinning that high which also brought the numbers down up top. Just goes to show the difference between 2nd and 3rd gear pulls and also what a tire wrapping up at high speed on the rollers does. Had there been a better tire on the back it would have held it's ~26 hp-tq gain in 3rd gear the whole way up top.
The other interesting thing is that the curve is damn near identical to my old 5.3 with the XR265, just ~80 rwhp and rwtq higher EVERYWHERE. I have it set to shift around 6200 rpm for now and it should be fairly optimal without having to rev it very high.
Looks like I was fairly close in my estimate. The following graph has two runs on it. The only difference between the back to back pulls was one was in 2nd gear and the other was in 3rd gear. I usually do all truck dynos in 2nd gear unless they have a different driveshaft/tires just for safety. At that high of a speed in 3rd gear you could watch my tire distort as it's not rated to be spinning that high which also brought the numbers down up top. Just goes to show the difference between 2nd and 3rd gear pulls and also what a tire wrapping up at high speed on the rollers does.
Had there been a better tire on the back it would have held it's ~26 hp-tq gain in 3rd gear the whole way up top.The other interesting thing is that the curve is damn near identical to my old 5.3 with the XR265, just ~80 rwhp and rwtq higher EVERYWHERE. I have it set to shift around 6200 rpm for now and it should be fairly optimal without having to rev it very high.
Trending Topics
03-16-2010, 10:17 PM
#9
Congrats man, sounds like a good setup. I had that cam in the box which I was going to put in my LQ9, then I sold it to help fund my trans. Now that I have a beater DD and my truck won't see the DD service that it used to, I might go just a tad wilder on the cam...but not much
