Team Chevelle banner

Why do we still build genI's?

8K views 77 replies 34 participants last post by  Schurkey 
#1 ·
One of the newest mags just pulled a 6.0L iron truck motor, put a carb and ignition on it, stuck a cam in it and dyno'd at 480hp. Total price was like $2000. Granted these are magazine power #'s, but thats still at least 450hp with accesory's. And thats mostly stock. My question is whats the reason to build a Gen I when the GenIII's are getting so cheap? I haven't even started my stroker and Im thinking about selling it and going this route.
 
#2 ·
I'm just getting started on swapping the head gaskets in my 5.3 in a 2000 GMC and I would do 5 Gen 1 motors to this freakin thing, The old ones were SOOO easy to work on. I like working on my 406SB but absoutley HATE working on this truck.

LK
 
#4 ·
i disagree, but its all a matter of opinion. i enjoy working on either and have found that the gen 3's are quite easier to do cam swaps on than gen1's. they are pretty much the same to work on to me.
 
#3 ·
I can't even find a gen III in a junk yard around here, and any used sources will be well over $2000 before I do anything to it.

Jeff
 
#5 ·
You're right about the swap as far as a short list of parts needed but untill theres a million out there in the recycling yards my gen1 is fine.

There was an artical in CHP with a Gen1 Vs. a Gen3 and same money was spent 402 Vs. 406 and made very close to the same numbers (less than 10 apart) The one thing they did say was the 402 Gen3 was more streetable.

Here it is.
http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/t...s/0701ch_chevy_small_block_engine_dyno_tests/
 
#6 ·
put a carb and ignition on it

This is the part I can't understand ... if I was goint to put a GENIII in a Chevelle, or other older vehicle, it would have all of the fuel injection and elecronics that belong on it.

Just my opinion,
 
#8 ·
High pressure fuel system, wiring, usually a bit more exspencive, and upping the CFM of a carb is alot less exspencive then a TB and fuel injectors with FI. Thats my guess at least. Look at GM's LS2, its a carb'd crate motor. The Ls1 that came first was FI'd.
 
#7 ·
I'd say we build them because of nostalgia and looks. The LS motors are butt ugly. I would put one in something maybe post 72'.
I do like the power they have. We get those snub nosed Izuzu trucks at work that have the 6.0 motors in them and before we put bodies on them they'll easily smoke all 4 back tires. Those trucks even come with 4:10 gears from the factory. I've been telling them at work we should build one with a hollowed out body and drag race it for advertising purposes. They just don't think like I do. Later--Mac
 
#46 ·
#9 ·
ls1 is much easier to inject. one fuel line makes things alot easier.
 
#13 ·
Because some guys want original or nostalgic looks. A restoration of a 67 chevelle with a LS-1 engine would be tough to pull off as complete (unless it's on ebay, you could get documentation then).

And the whole metric thing.
Ask a Canadian what size ratchet they use with a 14mm socket....
 
#14 ·
SOME of us don't appreciate non-Chevy engines in our Chevelles.
 
#16 ·
I find the Gen1 stuff is a lot easier to get into. I mean you can get a buildable short block for a couple hundred bucks, and the 'payments' to the machine shop are attainable.

For many of us, it's easier than saving up a couple thousand (or more) for a buildable long-block.

I'm confident that once the new stuff is comparable (price-wise) to the early stuff, the Gen1 engines will begin to pass into the past. But, I was able to get my 383 together for about 5,500 and I had a full year to pay it off, which made it possible for me. It makes great power and I'm happy with it.

I'd consider an LS-based engine in the future, but the 6.0 block I'd like to build upon is still a pricey piece on the used market compared to a 350 4-bolt truck block or similar. The issues with the pricier electronics and especially the need for 'custom' headers is an issue with our classic vehicles.

Then, you have to back it with a transmission...and those choices are both limited and pricey too.

~Scotch~
 
#17 ·
The same reason I like flatheads in streetrods. It's just right!

Gen III's are not very plentiful in the wrecking yards yet so the prices are still way too high. I can but a rebuildable 350 for $400-$500. They want $2000 for a 5.3L and who wants to start with an engine that small. The last 6.0L was quoted at $3000 and an alum. 5.7L was $4500.
 
G
#18 ·
GM shoulda put an LS- "TYPE" topend on the old block we like so much imho AND then seen if they needed to create the LS- series in the first place..

Well, you say our old block isn't strong enough!! SO just pour it out of the new high-strength CG cast-iron material and be done w/ it!!!!

ANd I love it when they brought out the new LS- block and it has 6! read "SIX", 6 bolts around the cylinders when they started w/ 4!!!!

Same way with the NOW rect port heads when they started off Cathedral shaped....

AND GM's made all sorts of valve-angled heads so why not use the 10 degree Buick jobbers w/ modern ports like the latest LS- heads have???

I will stop here.......................

Not happy about all this at all........

pdq67

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
 
#21 ·
See what it costs to build an all aluminum 15 degree headed standard SBC..

From my experiences, a stock LSx engine is a very durable engine compared to a stock GenI SB engine.

Many of the features on a stock LSx engine are considered "race" on a GenI..
 
#22 ·
Sorry pdg67, but I will have to respectfully say that I believe your beliefs on the Gen III not being significantly superior, or needed, is ignorance. Don't get me wrong, a good Gen I is a great motor. I do believe that the Gen I only has 2 real advantages over the Gen III though, price/availability, and it's usually a simple drop in. However, in my opinion that is where the advantages stop. Have you pulled apart a Gen III motor yet? Basically all the crap that people used to spend big bucks on to add to their Gen III blocks is already there. Does your Gen I have cross bolted (6 bolts total) mains? How about stock roller rockers? Forged internals? Not to mention the weight difference in the blocks, the iron blocks aren't a huge difference but the aluminum blocks are. Imagine an all aluminum 450ci that weighs less than your Gen I small block, putting out 550-600 streetable NA horsepower. Then imagine on top of that, if you can, that it fires right up in -10 below weather, and still gets 20+mpg on the highway, cruising at 1400 rpms at interstate speeds with a very fun 6 speed manual that provides you with every bit of bottom end performance that you can handle.

The bottom line is that both are here to stay, no doubt. The reason why guys keep building the Gen I's is the exact same reasons we keep building these Chevelles. They are old. They are inefficient. They are outdated. They are far obsolete...... but man are they friggin cool! You have to respect both engines, the Gen I for revolutionizing engines the first time, and the Gen III for doing it again. Anyway, get used to these Gen IIIs because they will be staying around for quite some time I think, I have a feeling the next big change to GM V8s will be the switch to hydrogen or something... but what do I know?
 
#25 ·
Sorry pdg67, but I will have to respectfully say that I believe your beliefs on the Gen III not being significantly superior, or needed, is ignorance. Don't get me wrong, a good Gen I is a great motor. I do believe that the Gen I only has 2 real advantages over the Gen III though, price/availability, and it's usually a simple drop in. However, in my opinion that is where the advantages stop. Have you pulled apart a Gen III motor yet? Basically all the crap that people used to spend big bucks on to add to their Gen III blocks is already there. Does your Gen I have cross bolted (6 bolts total) mains? How about stock roller rockers? Forged internals? Not to mention the weight difference in the blocks, the iron blocks aren't a huge difference but the aluminum blocks are. Imagine an all aluminum 450ci that weighs less than your Gen I small block, putting out 550-600 streetable NA horsepower. Then imagine on top of that, if you can, that it fires right up in -10 below weather, and still gets 20+mpg on the highway, cruising at 1400 rpms at interstate speeds with a very fun 6 speed manual that provides you with every bit of bottom end performance that you can handle.

The bottom line is that both are here to stay, no doubt. The reason why guys keep building the Gen I's is the exact same reasons we keep building these Chevelles. They are old. They are inefficient. They are outdated. They are far obsolete...... but man are they friggin cool! You have to respect both engines, the Gen I for revolutionizing engines the first time, and the Gen III for doing it again. Anyway, get used to these Gen IIIs because they will be staying around for quite some time I think, I have a feeling the next big change to GM V8s will be the switch to hydrogen or something... but what do I know?
i'm a LSx virgin - but it appears that there are advantages TO A POINT of the LS series engines - but he serious race stuff still remains to be old school.

I am building a 428 SBC for turbocharger and chose to go with old school conventional parts. When you cross over about 1500hp+ doesn't it become more expensive for the LSx series to stay together? Are there heads available for LSx that flow mid 400 cfm? My heads ain't over the counter but they are anything but inefficient!
 
G
#23 ·
Shea,

Again is ALL!!

1. GM shoulda put an LS- "TYPE" topend on the old block we like so much imho AND then seen if they needed to create the LS- series in the first place..

2. Old block isn't strong enough!! SO just pour it out of the new high-strength CG cast-iron material and be done w/ it!!!!

3. New LS- block and it has 6! read "SIX", 6 bolts around the cylinders when they started w/ 4!!!! In other word's, they didn't get it right in the first place is the way I see it!!

4. NOW rect. port heads when they started off Cathedral shaped....

5. GM's made all sorts of valve-angled heads so why not use the 10 degree Buick jobbers w/ modern ports like the latest LS- heads have???

Personally, I would use SOTA early MOPAR POLY combustion chamber designed SB heads instead... And get away from the old wedge chamber design...

AND if I ever get the chance, I will install a set of cast-iron LS-heads on an old block AND prove what I am PO'd about!!

pdq67

PS., and I don't think I have ever seen an old SB's crank knocked out and a hanging in the wind like I have the old 392 MOPAR Hemi after too much nitro...

Opinions are like axles AND I have '67 Camaro 12-bolt so go from there!!

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
 
#24 ·
Well, each engine series certainly has its plusses and minusses.

As for me, as soon as I clear out my engine inventory (I still have several engines in need of homes), the next engine I want to build is a twin turbo LS series ala "Scotty".

Say what you will about the low cost of building a gen1 engine, there is no cheaper platform to build a drive anywhere non-nitrous power adder 1,000 hp engine than the LS series.

As much as I love the "slightly rowdy for the street" nature of my n/a 496 (578 rear wheel horspower with the converter locked) it is a beastly ride for any real distance - really, the thunder and vibration gets old. Scotty has another 250 rwhp on me AND he can listen to his stereo while cruising down the highway. Pretty cool.

Thomas
 
#26 ·
where do you get headers for a gen III costing 600+ dollars? I have installed two sets of pace setter headers on a 2001 ss and a 99 z28. They both cost 349 and have nice quality 3/8 in flanges and come ceramic coated. The Gen III small block is gm's best engenered block ever IMO.
 
#27 ·
pdg67 - I totally hear and understand your side. There you listed 5 major upgrades to major systems they could've made to the Gen I. This could've made a motor nearly as good or as good as the Gen III. However with the time GM would have invested into doing these things to a now 40+ year old engine design, wouldn't it just make sense to totally revamp everything with modern technology? They have revised and revised over those many years to stay up to date with the technology of the year, but you can only revise a design that old (no matter how good it is!) so many times before it warrants a new base design. Take computers for instance, they have gone through the same things except at a much more rapid pace. My brother for instance likes to build computers from scratch, with mix and match parts. 5 years ago he would or could've started with a computer from 10 years ago and built something with current technology. Today I doubt he could update a 10 year old computer enough to compare to modern technology. Just an example.

Like I said, there is NOTHING wrong with a Gen I. Nothing at all. I still have the original 350 in my chevelle, untouched, factory original. It will probably be in there a few more years with a rebuild, since that's what I can afford. I might even throw a big block in if I can find one that I can afford. I also have a 5.3 Gen III in my garage that I dream of putting in the car, but right now the parts are significantly more expensive for them and I can't afford to do it. Anyway I'm not saying that the Gen I's are not a good engine, I'm not saying that they are not tough. In general I'm not saying anything bad at all about Gen I's, how can you? How can you argue about an engine that has been tried and true for 50 years? You just can't. All I am saying is that while I totally agree that the Gen I's have a huge advantage in the fact that they can be built significantly cheaper, I disagree in the fact that the Gen III's are a superior design/engine. With the millions, maybe even billions, of dollars that GM is spending on research, design, and development for these engines, do you think they would gamble that much on an engine that they think is obsolete? I respect your opinion, and your preference, as I hope you do mine. I just wanted to share my opinion as you have yours.

66 283 - Basically everything for the Gen III is more expensive, period. There are certain points that a Gen III is cheaper to build, but what it comes down to is that the initial cost is greater, but the initial horsepower gains are greater and therefore cheaper. Example like was stated before, a stock 6.0 with a cam change and some small mods is capable of 480 horsepower. Show me a stock 350-400 that can put out 480 very streetable horsepower with just a cam. Now figure in that you can get a stock 350 or 400 for alot less $$$ than the Gen III, that leaves you more $$$ to throw some performance parts at it to get that 480 hp. Bottom line is, it's not cheaper to build the Gen III, but it is a more efficient and more modern engine. The stock bottom end of a Gen III is more durable and capable of more hp than a Gen I. If I remember right, with nothing more than upgrading rod bolts to ARP's a stock bottom end of a LS engine is more than capable of handling 500-550hp, depending on how much you abuse it. It is probably easier to get the 1500+hp out of the LS though, maybe not cheaper though. It also has a higher max HP than the Gen I platform.

If you fellas would like to read up on the LS series, what it's capable of, and the general ins and outs of the Gen III's, head over to www.ls1tech.com .
It's a great site and has tons of useful information on these engines. Thank you guys for not turning this into an arguement, more an exchange of opinions and thoughts. It's not too many places that can pull that off!
 
#30 ·
66 283 - Basically everything for the Gen III is more expensive, period. There are certain points that a Gen III is cheaper to build, but what it comes down to is that the initial cost is greater, but the initial horsepower gains are greater and therefore cheaper. Example like was stated before, a stock 6.0 with a cam change and some small mods is capable of 480 horsepower. Show me a stock 350-400 that can put out 480 very streetable horsepower with just a cam. Now figure in that you can get a stock 350 or 400 for alot less $$$ than the Gen III, that leaves you more $$$ to throw some performance parts at it to get that 480 hp. Bottom line is, it's not cheaper to build the Gen III, but it is a more efficient and more modern engine. The stock bottom end of a Gen III is more durable and capable of more hp than a Gen I. If I remember right, with nothing more than upgrading rod bolts to ARP's a stock bottom end of a LS engine is more than capable of handling 500-550hp, depending on how much you abuse it. It is probably easier to get the 1500+hp out of the LS though, maybe not cheaper though. It also has a higher max HP than the Gen I platform.
Maybe when there are very good aftermarket parts available for the gen III's but to my knowledge nobody is building 2500hp+ twin turbo smallblocks YET based on the LS - all the serious guys are using Gen I.

How do you define your "higher max hp?" People are making over 3000hp out of Gen I's with twin turbos... i don't know how much higher you can go than that??
 
G
#28 ·
Right Shea,

But GM did way early-on when they created the ultra-modern ZR-1, LT-5 DOHC 'Vette engine for I figure right at a $1,000,000,000 AND then backed out of mass producing it!!

All they probably would have had to have done to the old block was make the complete deck thicker so they could bore the headbolt holes anywhere they wanted to put them and then install the new LS- type heads on it..

GM missed a cheap step up here, imho!!

Probably less than $100,000 to modify the sand moulds to do this to the old block..

Remember, it's the topend and cam that make the power, not the block...

pdq67

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
 
#29 ·
There's a book out there that contains the history of the LS1 engine and family. One of the reasons they decided not to use the old block was because they were going to have to replace all the equipment used to cast the blocks within a few years anyway.

I'm sure once NASCAR racers get their hands on LS-engines, we'll see a lot of tech trickle down and the true potential of these engines will be revealed. From what I hear, the process of making the engine legal is already underway. Nobody would even bother to make the engine legal if there wasn't some sort of real advantage over the current engines.
 
G
#31 ·
72,

Back again..

Imho, outside of bore and stroke revisions, GM revised the old block five time's!!

1. When they added the oil filter boss to the old 265 in '56! (Had a '55)..

2. When they added the rear cam oil passage behind the cam in BOTH the SB in '57 and the early BB in '67(??)! (Had a '57)..

3. When they added side motor mount bosses in '58!

4. When they went from a rope rear main seal to a rubber jobber in I think '59!! AND finally

5. When they went to the reverse cooling design of the later LT-1/LT1(?) engine...

And all this was over almost 40 years of the old block's production life span...

Give me a break...........

pdq67

PS., I may be off on the EXACT years, but.................


AND I just saw this post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"I thought this was kind of slick. An LSX with a front mounted distributor, front mounted mech fuel pump (I am not sure I like where it mounts), and one coil. Looks like it uses a Ford distriutor and fuel pump. Ignition box required of course. The LSX is getting more appealing all time."

Somebody must not like the OEM LSX design to have come out with this stuff imho....

Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote
 
#43 ·
72,
Back again..
Imho, outside of bore and stroke revisions, GM revised the old block five time's!!
1. When they added the oil filter boss to the old 265 in '56! (Had a '55)..
2. When they added the rear cam oil passage behind the cam in BOTH the SB in '57 and the early BB in '67(??)! (Had a '57)..
3. When they added side motor mount bosses in '58!
4. When they went from a rope rear main seal to a rubber jobber in I think '59!! AND finally
5. When they went to the reverse cooling design of the later LT-1/LT1(?) engine...
And all this was over almost 40 years of the old block's production life span...
Give me a break...........
pdq67
.
Don't forget when they changed to a roller cam and one piece rear main in about '87.
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top