View Single Post
  #5  
Unread 02-20-2013, 07:09 AM
Smithers's Avatar
Smithers Smithers is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 3,238
Send a message via AIM to Smithers Send a message via Skype™ to Smithers
Default

Just thought I would throw this in the pros and cons section. Someone on another forum was responding to a guy that suggested he use an LS engine in his truck build. I'm a fan of LS engines and it was very hard for me to resist the crazy torque and power of them. Here is the reply he gave which explains why he chose to go the 1UZ / 2UZ engine swap route.
As for the comments asking why I didn't do a LSx motor, that's easy: why would I want a cheap copy when I can have the original? You see many of the "revolutionary" features on the LSx motors were first* found on the 1UZ Lexus V8... from the crank driven oil pump to the 6 bolt mains and structural oil pan! Only apparently GM missed the 4 overhead cams, 32 valves, pentroof combustion chambers, oil squirters, simplified oiling system, coil-on-plug ignition (later 1UZ), die cast aluminum block (vs sand cast) and some of the closest production tolerances in the industry... Of course that's the difference between an engine family originally intended for $50k-up luxury vehicles (no compromises and high budget for R&D and production) and an engine intended for everything from a $15k work truck to the Corvette (lots of compromises and low budget by necessity).

I'm not knocking the LSx motors they're state of the art as far as a pushrod motor goes... it's just pushrod motors haven't been "state of the art" for 20 years now...and they can't accomodate modern advances like "true" VVTi that can vary cam overlap or dual VVTi that can adjust intake and exhaust timing independently, 4 valve pentroof combustion chambers, the low frictional loss of a direct operating OHC valvetrain, well you get the idea...

*yes I realize there were other engines that had these features but no other mainstream V8s had them back then (that I am aware of).
Reply With Quote