• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

LFX 6 banger into a 240.??

M.H. Yount said:
No substitute for cubic dollars. ;) Still trying to figure out when exh manis and head pipes became complicated and expensive....
Click to expand...

Does anyone make a set of long tube headers for an LS swapped Volvo? Headers are typically one of the most expensive components of a swap (at least when you're swapping a V8 where one wasn't before). Hooker cast manifolds that fit our cars are $300ish, I bet a set of EL long tubes would be 3x as much.

How much is a good tubular header if you're sticking with a redblock and want 350hp?
 
383Mazda said:
Does anyone make a set of long tube headers for an LS swapped Volvo? Headers are typically one of the most expensive components of a swap (at least when you're swapping a V8 where one wasn't before). Hooker cast manifolds that fit our cars are $300ish, I bet a set of EL long tubes would be 3x as much.

How much is a good tubular header if you're sticking with a redblock and want 350hp?
Click to expand...

enginemasters tested the hooker manifold vs longtubes and the cast manifolds weren't that far behind the longtoobes.

Don't think that an lfx swap won't require fab work.
 
Mazda - I'm not aware of anyone making long tubes for the swap. But the market for that is going to be so small -- the price is going to be VERY high. I used these on mine -- https://www.speedwaymotors.com/Tru-...MIs93z5dGs1wIVhEwNCh0MyQ8GEAQYASABEgK3nPD_BwE

Properly sized, a set of long tubes would show gains on the bottom and mid-range over a shorty -- but as long as the shorty is sized to handle the flow, the long tubes will show very little difference at peak.
 
383Mazda said:
Let's all stop pretending "LS swap" means a 550hp LS7... most guys are using truck motors, iron block 5.3 / 6.0 which made between 270 and 325hp (most under 300hp with the LQ9 matching LS1 numbers at 345) and 4 speed automatics. Sure, all of you have best friends building 700+hp turbo LS motors, but that doesn't make someone else's effort to do something different pointless...
Click to expand...

Kenny has a 750 hp 6.0 truck motor in his volvo and he's my BFF
 
.7L more costs twice as much from a junkyard.

And with a turbo on it you've got too much HP either way.
 
A cursory search does not indicate that the LFX engine is substantially cheaper than a 5.3/6.0/whatever

the transmissions do seem to be reasonable, however. so there is that I suppose.
 
740atl said:
enginemasters tested the hooker manifold vs longtubes and the cast manifolds weren't that far behind the longtoobes.

Don't think that an lfx swap won't require fab work.
Click to expand...

I know there's not a big difference in a good cast manifold vs long tubes. IMO cast are worth it for the streetability / longevity over long tubes (especially on a turbo application :oogle: )

But that's my point on these motors, there is no header to worry about, if the stock exhaust doesn't fit you're looking at two down pipes essentially (as complicated as running tail pipes...), motor mounts (easy) and maybe oil pan and cross member mods, which are needed on LS anyway. With out measuring this is mostly guess work, but comparing Miata under hood pics of LS vs LF the brake booster clearance looks the same.

I'm on the lookout for a wrecked v6 camaro pullout, then I can really start comparing to my LQ4 sitting in the corner.
 
^ Now that I've got a 5.3 in a '93 245 I got specifically to do the swap, I want to do something like an LFX or Ecoboost 2.x to give my '80 245 a reason to continue existing. It'll be a few years before I'm ready to bite the bullet, though, lol - it was a long, taxing, build process, and I've got some other smaller projects in the queue ahead of that.

Compare the LFX to a 5.3, not a 6.0. Especially the lower-compression Gen. 3 variants like the LM7 and LM4 have similar power numbers, only swapping ft-lb and hp numbers between them.

The thing to watch would be the driver side downpipe clearance - it might exit right into the steering shaft, which would be hard to build exhaust to avoid. There's no solid measurements on the internet, but I suspect the LFX is 1/2" to 1" narrower, which wouldn't give much room for a clean transition, if it's in that exact area. Some of the V8 swappers relocated the steering shaft; a lot of us filthy casuals using STS mounts and Holley cast manifolds just used available wiggle room or switched to solid splined shafts.

If GM were going to start doing connect-and-cruise or E-rod packages around a V6 (and really, they won't - they've even dropped the 5.3 E-rod, nobody doing that much work wouldn't rather just have the 6.2. They probably sold just enough of them to pay off the CARB certification process), it won't be the LFX, for sure - it's already been superceded by the LGX. Still, it was available in pretty much every USDM GM product except the compacts and full size trucks, so it should have pretty good junkyard availability. Also came in RWD, maybe even with a manual option, in a Caddy or two (ATS / CTS). It wouldn't be a "drop in" package, nor would it be from the "Chevrolet Performance" catalog specifically, but if you had to do it using new parts, I'm sure you could get all the involved parts new from GM, through a dealer like Tasca. An engine from something like an Equinox + a modded pan from V8roadsters + a fresh transmission might also be a winning formula.

Rapid edit: They show that part number as fitting both the 3.6 and 6.2... maybe not!
 
Smaller bellhousing/manual trans (if you want it) for dirt cheap would be nice as the big advantage. Edit: linuxman beat me to that.

It's basically an engine support bar job and have a bunch of odd wrenches/wobbles with a really sturdy trans jack to get the 4L80E (trans more worth having compared to the smaller 60E anyway) out with the LS engine in the car.
That's actually the major packaging irritant of the LS IMO. The actual engine looks like it pretty much belongs in a brick.

They sold/sell way too many fleet rate or similar trucks/vans/SUVs for dirt cheap that will probably continue to have a torquey simple, reliable pushrod 5.3/6.0 V8 with an easy +50-100HP possible with the most utterly mundane inexpensive bolt-ons for the TB friendly budget.

Oh, and V6 weight might be nice if you're a real hair splitter about that. Both pretty light for a brick-sized car.
 
Last edited:
It is at the surface, somewhat intriguing from a learning point of view. Esoteric is the term that comes to mind, at least until someone does something really cool with one (or multiples). What's the holding power for the transmission? having a cheap manual option isn't worth much if you start scattering them at modest hp increases.

If it's got double adjustable cam timing and all that though, could be a really fun engine to mess with if you're into that sort of stuff.
 
Well, chains don't really "stretch"... but yes, the earlier (pre '12) motors (LLT) had timing chain issues. From what I understand it was a PCV breathing issue from the pass side head - carbon and oil would gunk up the pass side timing chain which would wear out the tensioner and the resulting slack in the chain would cause potentially huge issues... Apparently GM fixed on the LFX and newer motors though - but info is scarce and I still haven't found exactly what GM did to address the problem (other than the issue has gone away).
 
Lol chains don't stretch, tell that to my ZX-11, that eats drive chains for lunch. Last one I bought was an EK, it's got about 10k miles on it so far, I was only getting about 4k out of inferior ones. I'm sure timing chains can suffer the same fate, especially those top quality GM parts.
 
The gap between the link plates and the pins wears over time/use. As that gap gets bigger and multiplied over the many plates/pins that constitute a chain of this type, in use (tension) the chain becomes "longer" - but not because the metal 'stretches'. Teeth on gears also wear and as the teeth get smaller with time and wear, the chain fits more loosely over the gears. Tensioners are designed to help take up that slack due to wear over time, but the tensioners can fail/wear out too. Of course, worn tensioners and guide plates can add to the problem. No doubt your 'saki eats chains - but things are wearing out, not stretching. Having said all that -- LOTS of folks (and mechanics) refer to this type of wear as "stretch" which compounds the misnomer.

But it matters not - as long as cheap V8's abound, we won't see a lot of this or any other V6's being transplanted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top