LS-1 Parts on a Dodge, Myth or Real, you decide.
Oct 11, 2004 | 09:27 AM
#12
Staging Lane
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
From: Houston, Tx
Just because they run the same valve sizes.... Early year motors all used 2.02/1.60... A +.030 360 could use a standard bore 350 piston. Matter of fact, on my 408 stroker SB that I had before my current motor, I had "Chevy" (at least sized) pistons, rods, valves and still run a GM alternator.
They are not even close to each other, eventhough the intake is a composite and similar to an LS-1.
They are not even close to each other, eventhough the intake is a composite and similar to an LS-1.
I've 
a few.
Oct 11, 2004 | 10:27 AM
#14
How do all these Dodge guys find out about these post? Is there like a Dodge "Spy" that reads all the threads to make sure there isnt any Dodge bashing? Im not talking **** Im just asking! Because here lately there has been quite a few Dodge guys on this site.
Oct 12, 2004 | 04:19 PM
#18
TECH Fanatic
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
From: Cibolo Tx
[QUOTE=Silver2004]
That was part of the reason I originaly choose my 2000 silverado when I was looking at all 3, dodge, ford, and chevy. Ford was a little less mpg than chevy and the dodge 318-360 wasn't even close. Strangely my 2004 doesn't claim to get as good a mpg as my 2000, and they are both rcsb 5.3's.
I think Chevy really did their homework with the LS1's and it shows. I'm glad because I wasn't impressed with their LT1's. As for ford, one look at a 4.6 in a mustang and suddenly I didn't like the idea of modifying one. It probably wouldn't be as bad in a f-150 though. I guess I just like old school simplicity, 2 valve per cylinder single cam pushrod V8's. Thanks Chevy for keeping them alive.
I've gotten a best of 20.15 on mine so far (3.42) and don't even have cruise. That's much better my 86 G-10 with a 305 auto (rear?) and about what my 78 G-10, 250 , 3-spd got on the hwy. Seems pretty decent.
Looks like this reply didn't come out right...his whole msg is reprinted.
Originally Posted by SportSide 5.3I have a question on the topic. Is it just me or are the LS1 pushrod motors much more fuel efficient than some of the others. I guess, I dont have any examples.. :emb:[/QUOTE
That was part of the reason I originaly choose my 2000 silverado when I was looking at all 3, dodge, ford, and chevy. Ford was a little less mpg than chevy and the dodge 318-360 wasn't even close. Strangely my 2004 doesn't claim to get as good a mpg as my 2000, and they are both rcsb 5.3's.
I think Chevy really did their homework with the LS1's and it shows. I'm glad because I wasn't impressed with their LT1's. As for ford, one look at a 4.6 in a mustang and suddenly I didn't like the idea of modifying one. It probably wouldn't be as bad in a f-150 though. I guess I just like old school simplicity, 2 valve per cylinder single cam pushrod V8's. Thanks Chevy for keeping them alive.
I've gotten a best of 20.15 on mine so far (3.42) and don't even have cruise. That's much better my 86 G-10 with a 305 auto (rear?) and about what my 78 G-10, 250 , 3-spd got on the hwy. Seems pretty decent.
Looks like this reply didn't come out right...his whole msg is reprinted.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
V-seriesTech
GM Engine & Exhaust Performance
7
Jul 28, 2015 12:31 PM
