: Why not a 4.6?



Mud
08-21-07, 01:24 PM
Well, the "restification" turned out well, car runs and drives and looks quite nice.
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1226/4329138/9121300/272541555.jpg
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL1226/4329138/9121300/272541552.jpg

I did a variety of mechanical and cosmetic work over the past month, which was not a ton of stuff actually. Spoke well of the condition of the car when I got it. All I lack is to finish off the pinstriping onto the rear fender fillers.

At 177K miles the original 307 is getting a little weary and I was mulling over options for replacement. Yes, I could find an Olds 350 to rebuild and install, but I started thinking about the Ford 4.6/4R70W drivetrain combination as a what if ....

Before the flames begin, in this case, I am not concerned about Ford in GM, GM in Ford, etc etc as long as the installation is clean and functional. In this particular model, purity is not a virtue - the 307 was a good engine, but would not be missed.

Anyway, here's what I was thinking about (pros):

As a current owner of 2 Crown Vics I am very familiar with the 4.6/4R70W combination
This is a proven durable and dependable drivetrain
CV's are plentiful and a complete engine/tranny/ECM is readily available and inexpensive
These engines work fine in larger heavier cars
Having an updated fully computer controlled injected engine is an advantage IMO
Fabrication/modification of engine/tranny mounts and driveshaft is not a problem


I'm not sure at all yet about oil pan vs crossmember, engine width, etc. so it is idle thought at this time. I know that LT-1's have been installed, etc, but I wondered if anyone had thought about the 4.6 installation. The 4.6 installation would include all peripherals, a/c compressor, exhaust, etc as well in order to use as complete a drivetrain package as possible.

There is still a benefit to using a 350/403 - obviously it's a bolt in and you use everything that's already there. So that is still certainly a consideration.

I'm more interested in technical info please, looking to avoid a branding war. At this point, the 307 is still ticking along, but it's never a bad idea to think about options before they are actually needed.

Your thoughts?

96Fleetwood
08-21-07, 01:57 PM
If you are going that far, you might as well go with a SBC 350. It will be far less work and will fit in your current engine bay.

z06bigbird
08-21-07, 02:31 PM
Ls1 ???

Mud
08-21-07, 02:53 PM
When you say less work, can you please clarify? I'm assuming that I would just stay with the carb set-up that's on the car now? I have not checked to see if this engine will bolt up to the 200-4R that is in the car now. Incidentally, that tranny was a rebuilt unit installed last year, so it's fairly fresh, although other than a filter/fluid change and a look at the valve body, I cannot verify quality of the rebuild. It seems to work fine though.

Anyway, I do agree that there are a ton of 350's out there as well. If I went the 350 route then I would also go with a 700R4 as well unless the SBC is a bolt-up to the 200-4R. Advantage is about 60 cubic inches over the 4.6, but both drivetrain combos are readily available. The LS-1 would probably need something like a 4L80E behind it I suppose, I think that is a harder combination to find and higher cost when you find one in good shape.

Thanks for your input.

96Fleetwood
08-21-07, 07:09 PM
A SBC 350 will bolt up to your current 200r, but sadly that tranny would not last that long.

You can find a used 350 with 700R4 for under $700 dollars.

You can even do a TBI motor if you get the PCM as well.

N0DIH
08-21-07, 10:25 PM
Honestly the Ford drivetrain would be more of a headache to do, and you would lose much of the electronics too. It is just a pain to do a nonstandard engine/trans. And that 4.6L is a tall sucker, might be a real problem.

A LS1 is sweet, especially a 6L LQ4. Toss in a 4L65E and have a killer combo with better mpg than the 307. 4L80E is hardly needed for it, 4L60E/4L65E is more than enough.

A SBC is also another great choice, bolts in, all parts are available for it in that chassis. The THM200 4R can easily be made to handle loads of power. Heck if you are going to SBC, a 700 R4/4L60 bolts in too with a shorter first gear. Out of the box the 4L60 will take a tad more power than the 200 4R, but not much, and reliability is just as marginal when run hard, on a stock trans, built, have a blast beating it....

The Olds 350/403 is a direct 100% legal bolt in. Legal in all 50 states. Even a Olds 400/400/425/455 if you can convince the inspector, even in California, it is still technically the engine family as the SB Olds, but just a tad wider....

Even a L29 454 would be a killer combo. You'll need a 4L80E for that one....

You can LS1's cheap on car-part.com. A 4.8L or 5.3L is a great all around engine. Toss in some 3.42 gears and you have a wonderful combo. Make sure you have a 8.5" axle. That is my recommendation. Might be a touch expensive initially, but if you are gonna keep it, the long term gains will be very very worth it.

Mud
08-22-07, 08:49 AM
Excellent info - thanks:thumbsup:

I did some measuring and the 4.6 would be fairly involved to install, plus it looked like the oil pan was going to be an issue. For a driver, I'm looking for a more straightforward approach and based on the info, it does not look like the 4.6 is really feasible. Yes, anything is do-able, but I don't need another project car.

All this leads me back to the 350 SBC. It can bolt to the existing 200-4R so intially I can just do the engine. I've rebuilt enough trannies that a failure does not really concern me that much, but if it cratered, I would go with a 700R4 at that time. Or I could just rebuild the 200-4R if needed, either way. If I remember right from just changing out the rear end fluid, the car has the smaller 7.5 or 7.6 rear gear. I would leave that alone simply to avoid more work. It should hold up to a stock SBC.

Now, for the SBC, are you suggesting to stick with or to do away with the electronic controls that are on the car now?

Sorry for all the questions, but thus has been a great help. Thank you.

N0DIH
08-22-07, 09:48 AM
If it was me? I would look for a LT1, get the entire wiring harnesses, get a 4L60E and drop the whole kit and caboodle in. Parts cars are fairly easy to find for $500ish with all you need. Makes for a great combo, that will fit in that car nicely. You get 260+ hp, 335+ lb/ft torque. Mods are out there to make much much more if you feel the need. Reliability is phenomenal, rivaling most anything ever put on the non commercial sales market that hit the highways of the world. The SBC is the worlds cheapest engine to rebuild and maintain. So you can leverage that to keep your own costs down. L98 Z28/Vette/TA engine are also good choices, especially keeping the TPI intake, they make great low end torque, even better than the LT1 at low rpms where this car spends a lot of time.

I was going to mention the 500 Cad too, which includes the 472, 368 and 425 as a drop in. Just need a THM400 to handle it, any OD will be short lived on the 7.7L and 8.2L. The 6L and 7L would last a bit longer, depending on how well driven.

Mud
08-22-07, 10:42 AM
Aside from Camaros, T/A's, and Caprice, are there any other source cars for the LT-1's? I think that's the best bet, as you mentioned, get the car and get everything that's needed at the same time.

I would probably not go the big cad engine route due to greater availability and lower cost for the LT-1 and also I do not want the 3 speed tranny, for a driver I would prefer the 4 speed.

Many thanks for helping to clarify the choices down, greatly appreciate it.

PS - just a note on the electronic carb on my 86. I would recomment anyone to re-read the comments that N0DIH has posted in the 5.0 and 5.7 forum on rebuilding and adjustments/tweaks. I've worked on q-jets before and the info posted is great to help set the carb correctly and to be able to tweak it slightly as well. I had not worked on the electronic version though, but with the info posted and the info in the service manual it is running spot-on after the rebuild.

z06bigbird
08-22-07, 10:53 AM
94, 95, 96 Fleecewoods??

95 and 96 use regular gas.

Plenty of power.

N0DIH
08-22-07, 12:38 PM
Yup, all LT1's were regular gas engines... Looking at the Corvette timing tables, makes me think it was intended to be a premium fuel engine....

94 Fleetwood also is regular gasser...

Mud
08-22-07, 01:13 PM
Thanks again.

N0DIH
08-22-07, 01:20 PM
If you are shooting for 1 mpg better city/highway, the L99 might be a good choice. But often the L99's are frowned on, and there weren't as many made as the LT1. But any parts that work on a LT1 save pistons, rods and cranks, work on the L99 (265 CID, aka, 4.3L).

But the L99 isn't a bad engine either. The nice thing is too, the crank and rods from a L99 can be put in an LT1 and make an LT1 a 4.9L 302.

So the LT1/L99 can be made to work and work well. And have even some cool non stock applications.

HotPursuit
08-23-07, 04:35 PM
So are you saying a 94 FW runs on premium?? I am just going off of other cars (caprice,Impala) but the 94's also run on regular? :confused:

ShadowLvr400
08-23-07, 06:08 PM
*whistle* I happen to have a Caprice serving as a parts car right now. I'd be willing to discuss a engine and tranny sale. The engine will start and if you toss coolant and a water pump on it, it's a solid motor. The differential is probably of no value though, since the accident involved the back wheels. Other things currently stripped off the motor involve plug wires, some hoses, and.... the ignition coil I think. The motor has about 130-150k on it, I can't recall. No fluid leaks or anything though. (I've been picking some parts off the car for a bit.) Oh, I'd prefer not to give up all the ac parts for it, since I'm currently having AC problems on my 96 Fleetwood. But, we could talk more if you want.

coleman
08-23-07, 06:32 PM
I put a LS1 into my old Trans Am, dead solid performer and such a sweet smooth and reliable ride on the interstate (I've gotten over 30mpg in my severely lightened Trans Am - even if it was only once, on a cool day, on a flat road, and a four hour drive).

The small details in the PCM of the newer engines really make it a superior choice to the LT1 - the largest difference lies in the computer controls despite all of the nice materials and manufacturing upgrades to the LSx and LQx. Although I'd rather use an iron block LQx than any of the LSx engines for something that will see as much regular load as a ~4500lb D-body. LQ9 comes to mind :)

I just put a 383TBI into my '93. If I do this much work again I'd settle for nothing less than the new drivetrain systems. The modern engines are cheap for what they are and it's really not that big a deal to add it into something that was available with a Gen I SBC.

If you do install a LSx/LQx engine avoid the aftermarket wiring harnesses. I used a Street and Performance harness, (before the cheaper Painless harness was available) and these days I'd just use a straight up B/D-body LT1 harness and do the whole deal for slightly more effort.

However - the LT1 is the right solution for an excellent engine with the least headaches in a D-body.
__________________
1981 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am Turbo - LS1/T56
1993 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham - 383 Vortec/4L60
1993 Mazda Protege LX - BP-ZE/G25M-R
1994 Mazda Protege DX - B8-ME/F25M-R

caddycruiser
08-23-07, 11:00 PM
So are you saying a 94 FW runs on premium?? I am just going off of other cars (caprice,Impala) but the 94's also run on regular? :confused:

NO. We clearly ruled that out, despite some misinformed posts:thumbsup:

It did in the Vette, but was tuned (among other small changes) to run on regular in these cars. Of course, you can also still do custom tuning and such to bump up certain parameters and make a B/D-body LT1 require Premium...but that's a whole other aftermarket thing;)

N0DIH
08-24-07, 09:02 AM
If you have seen the timing maps (I have) in the LT1 Vette, yup, it is a premie.... With the larger cam and aluminum heads, the timing is very different than the B/D LT1....

All others are 87 octane.....

caddycruiser
08-24-07, 11:46 AM
I put a LS1 into my old Trans Am, dead solid performer and such a sweet smooth and reliable ride on the interstate (I've gotten over 30mpg in my severely lightened Trans Am - even if it was only once, on a cool day, on a flat road, and a four hour drive).

The small details in the PCM of the newer engines really make it a superior choice to the LT1 - the largest difference lies in the computer controls despite all of the nice materials and manufacturing upgrades to the LSx and LQx. Although I'd rather use an iron block LQx than any of the LSx engines for something that will see as much regular load as a ~4500lb D-body. LQ9 comes to mind :)

I just put a 383TBI into my '93. If I do this much work again I'd settle for nothing less than the new drivetrain systems. The modern engines are cheap for what they are and it's really not that big a deal to add it into something that was available with a Gen I SBC.

If you do install a LSx/LQx engine avoid the aftermarket wiring harnesses. I used a Street and Performance harness, (before the cheaper Painless harness was available) and these days I'd just use a straight up B/D-body LT1 harness and do the whole deal for slightly more effort.

However - the LT1 is the right solution for an excellent engine with the least headaches in a D-body.


GREAT post. As N0DIH has mentioned many times, the LS-based truck engines (5.3L/6.0L) seem like they could be a great match for one of these cars, and cheaper to get, as long as you can sort out all the wiring and computer needs.

N0DIH
08-24-07, 09:17 PM
My personal opinion is 5.3L DOD engine is best, but no less than 3.42 gears, due to the higher rpm torque peak of the engine. Keep the truck intake is probably best for the heavy cars. 3.08's would be bare minimum in my book.

Mud
08-24-07, 09:49 PM
Wow - great info. Thanks, I'm printing this out as well - I need to read it all over a few times and make some notes on it as well to keep it straight in my head.
Shadow, thank you for the mention of the drivetrain, I will also consider it. My preference is for something with less than 100K if possible to be honest with you.

N0DIH
08-24-07, 11:34 PM
2003
Engine
Chevy Truck Silverado 2500 6.0 RUNS GOOD EXC 94,000 B 3379 $800 Zemko's Inc. USA-MI(Clare) E-mail 1-989-386-3346

2003
Engine
Chevy Truck Silverado 1500 6.0L (8-364), VIN U, gas-112K 704X18 $1150 Forty Three Auto USA-MO(Joplin) Request_Quote 1-888-704-7904 Request_Insurance_Quote

2003
Engine
Chevy Truck Silverado 2500 66K 67,000 00003298 $1100 Bow Auto Salvage USA-NH(Bow) E-mail 1-800-464-3141

2003
Engine
Chevy Truck Silverado 2500 92K 92,000 00003408 $1000 Bow Auto Salvage USA-NH(Bow) E-mail 1-800-464-3141

Pretty much 6L LQ4's are pretty easy finds.....

N0DIH
08-24-07, 11:36 PM
2005
Engine
Chevy Truck Silverado 1500 5.3 RUNS GOOD 124,000 7M214 $594 Sharp Auto Parts USA-MN(Stillwater) Request_Quote 1-800-737-9503/1-651-439-2604 Request_Insurance_Quote

2005
Engine
Chevy Truck Silverado 1500 5.3L (8-323), VIN T (opt LM7)- B387 $600 M and M Auto Wrecking USA-CA(Beaumont) Request_Quote 1-951-845-4315 Request_Insurance_Quote

2005
Engine
Chevy Truck Silverado 1500 5.3L (8-323), VIN T (opt LM7)- 2491 $600 US1 Auto Parts USA-FL(Miami) E-mail 1-305-235-5656

2005
Engine
Chevy Truck Silverado 1500 5.3L (8-323), VIN T (opt LM7)- 51,000 B22297 $600.19 LKQ - Melbourne USA-FL(Melbourne) E-mail 1-800-242-7288

And these might be DOD engines too....

N0DIH
08-24-07, 11:39 PM
So LM7 swaps are great and cheap.

The 4.8L is RPO LR4
The 5.3L is RPO LM7
The 6.0L is RPO LQ4 or LQ9 (HO version in Escalade/Denali)

There are a few more RPO's, but these are the main ones.

http://www.carcraft.com/projectbuild/116_0704_lq4_short_block/dyno_testing.html

My thoughts are LQ4 or LM7 are best, and stay with the iron block versions, they are very very tough.

Mud
08-25-07, 11:10 PM
My thoughts are LQ4 or LM7 are best, and stay with the iron block versions, they are very very tough.

Agree 100% and thank you for the leads you posted, especially for the RPO info, that was a little confusing initially, got it straight now. One engine that I was also thinking about was the 5.7 (350) SBC - seems that this would be a possible candidate as well? Lots of them around in trucks.

N0DIH
08-26-07, 12:21 AM
The 5.7's are all AL blocks, and are typically more costly. So I lean towards the Fe block engines for durability and cost.

Considering the reliability of the LSx engines is world class, the average problems per hundred is 9 on the 5.3L, the Toyota Tundra 4.7L is 13 and the Ford 5.4L is 19.

The Bore/Strokes are:
Displ Bore Stroke CID Block RPO
4.8L 3.780 3.270 294 Fe LR4
5.3L 3.780 3.622 325 Fe LM7
5.3L 3.780 3.622 325 AL LS3
5.7L 3.900 3.622 347 AL LS1/LS6
6.0L 4.000 3.622 364 Fe LQ4/LQ9
6.2L 4.065 3.622 376 Fe L92
7.0L 4.125 4.000 427 AL LS7

I think the 4.8L would be a SWEET engine for a 90-95 Devilles, especially the DOD version.... Which leads you to grabbing the whole LS3 engine/trans from a newer FWD Impala SS/GP..... drop it in and fly....

And 5.3L blocks (Iron) can be often bored to 3.9" to make them iron 5.7L engines....

coleman
08-26-07, 09:07 AM
If you want to put a good ol' GenI SBC 350 in there, it'll work fine.

I'm not sure it's worth the effort of putting a 1955 architecture considering the newer alternatives, especially since you were comfortable with the idea of a 4.6 Ford engine in there. I'm learning more and more with these engine swaps - go big or sell the car and buy something already completed.
__________________
1981 Pontiac Firebird Trans Am Turbo - LS1/T56
1993 Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham - 383 Vortec/4L60
1993 Mazda Protege LX - BP-ZE/G25M-R
1994 Mazda Protege DX - B8-ME/F25M-R

Mud
08-27-07, 07:53 AM
I think that the Gen II SBC's were all cast iron blocks/heads - at least the one in my son's 91 Silverado is.

However, no matter, you have helped me a lot to develop a good game plan. Looks like 5.3 is the best solution, will bolt up to the 200-4R that is in the car now, but I am intending to grab the tranny and drivetrain PCM as well for a complete install. Great brain trust here, thanks.

Coleman, you are right, I am wanting a newer alternative - injected, all computer controlled.

Sorry if I have gone back and forth a bit on questions, just trying to sort thru the alternatives.

N0DIH
08-27-07, 09:48 AM
B/D Body LT1 (Gen IIs) were iron/iron. F/Y Body (Corvette and Trans AM/ForumulaZ28/B4C Police Camaro) were iron block aluminum head.

No Gen II had aluminum block. Bummer....

Gen I Small Block is the 1955-2003 Chevy Small Block V8, varying in displacment from 262 CID to 400 CID
Gen II Small Block is the 1992-1997 Chevy Small Block V8, known as the LT1 and L99 (350 and 265 CID)
Gen III Small Block is the 1997-200? GM Small Block V8, known as the LS1 (LR4, LM7, LQ4, LQ9, LS1, LS6), displacing 4.8L, 5.3L, 5.7L and 6.0L
Gen IV Small Block is the 2004-up GM GM Small Block V8, known as the LS2 (I believe they kept LR4, LM7, LQ4, LQ9, and added LS2, LS3, L92, and LS7), displacing 4.8L, 5.3L, 5.7L, 6.0L, 6.2L, and 7.0L

The Gen I and Gen II share very little, Gen I and II, and Gen III and IV, share nothing in the parts bin, although fuel injectors from the LS6 can be used on the LT1...

All truck blocks are iron, all car blocks are aluminum. The LS3 is for FWD application and may not bolt up to the RWD transmissions, and would make a killer swap in a 85-95 Deville/Seville/FWD Fleetwood/Eldorado. It makes 303 hp. Best upgrade to the front wheelers ever. But if you have a blown N*, the LS3 might be a great bolt in too. Beats that $4K rebuild....

Some early truck heads were iron, all were aluminum by 2002. The iron ones can be ported well, and flow just as well as the aluminums. But the weight....

The Gen II LT1 weighs in at 531 lbs with iron block and aluminum heads
The Gen III LM7 weighs in at 501 lbs with iron block and aluminum heads
The Gen III LS1 weighs in at 457 lbs with aluminum block and heads
(these are FULLY DRESSED engine wieghts, meaning all accessories, manifolds, etc are installed!)

The weight reduction compared to a Gen I/Gen II small block is worth a lot, as it is in front of center of gravity, and that will make a nice improvement in handling and ride. VERY nice. A little goes a long way when weight is reduced in front of CG. Trust me, I have seen it, it is dramatic.

The LS1 engine is also shorter with a block that is only 519mm long and 460mm wide compared to 553mm long and 434mm wide compared its Chevrolet LT1.

I would love to drop a all aluminum LS1 in a 1987 Fiero Formula.....

Mud
08-27-07, 04:01 PM
N0DIH, thanks for the info.

I am armed and dangerous now!

N0DIH
08-28-07, 03:03 AM
There are a few more RPO's, like the FFV engines and natural gas engines, etc. I don't have them all memorized yet.... Sorry to let you all down....