Fuel Injected In The Valley: ZL1 Camaro Spotted Near Cal State Northridge

Today was not one where I felt like driving my Permobil power chair to the gym. But the bus was crowded, and that turned out to be one of my best saving graces in a long time.

Mostly because some of my greatest, collector car treasures have been found on the sidewalks, and our featured 5th-Gen is no exception. This super clean, ZL1 Camaro was spotted on the corner of Reseda and Dearborn Street, in Northridge, California.

I spotted the supercharged pony on my way home from CORE Centers, across the street from Cal State Northridge. The owner was no where to be found, but the car appears to have been purchased from Motor City in Bakersfield, California.

To the untrained eye, it's just a 5th-Gen Camaro. But for anyone who's ever studied their Camaro history, the "ZL1" option has been, since 1969, the nameplate's most radical entry into the pony performance market.

Rick Seitz From "GM EFI" Puts Some LS Love Into His F-Body

Rick Seitz never fails in bringing, to the E-Verse, some of the best in late-model, GM performance. As editor-in-chief for both Timeless Muscle and GM EFI, Seitz is a guru in virtually everything fuel-injected.

But his latest F-Body catch, an '84 Trans Am with an LS swap, has got to be one of the pro-touring world's greatest builds. That's because Rick has joined forces with Scoggin-Dickey out of Lubbock, Texas, and as one of our nation's largest suppliers of GM crate motors, SD Parts has not disappointed with our featured LS3, stroker V-8.

As it currently stands, Seitz' LS3 mill is stroked from a stock 376 cubic-inches, housing a 4"-inch crank that brings the motor's displacement up to a staggering 416 cubic-inches. Seitz claims that his radical LS3 puts out about 600-horses, but in the near future, he hopes to bolt on a blower from Magnuson Products.

The late pony's undercarriage is considered as well, as Rick's Trans Am currently houses a front, A-arm assembly from BMR Suspension in Seffner, Florida. Rick's F-Body is also supported by an "S60" rear end, built by Strange Engineering out of Morton, Illinois.

It'll be interesting to see how the whole thing turns out once blown, but until then, Rick Seitz is responsible for one of the LS market's most outrageous builds, and he's taking numbers...if you're willing to lay it down!

MWS and Superformance Build A Classic Ford With A CHEVY Twist!!!

Since 1993, Mark's Workshop of West Australia, or MWS, has been the western Outback's premiere leader in supercharger installs and in-house tuning. Not only a retailer and manufacturer of such superchargers as the Eaton-based unit for Holden's (GM) LS1 motor, but MWS has some 25 years of fabrication experience accumulated, and so they have the knowledge and resources to build and fabricate their own, full-custom assemblies. MWS also specializes in various V8 conversions, Euro-tuning and suspension and brake upgrades.

Today, MWS brings us something that a lot of Ford--maybe even Mopar--folks might consider "sacrilege," enough even to seriously consider making confession booth reservations for Sunday. The "unpardonable sin" of which we speak is the 427 AC Cobra kit car from MWS and Superformance, fitted with an LS7/T56 drivetrain. The car, as seen in this video, is an unfinished project running on a dry sump and race-fuel system, just to name a few.

As far as the kind of responses the Cobra has generated on YouTube, these vary from those who understand the nature of kit-car construction to those who are a bit more "in-the-wool," condemning and reminding us all that Chev motors in Ford race cars are deserving of no less than "great and severe punishment." But for those of us who understand that the beauty of a kit car is in its flexability of construction, the LS-powered Cobra is nothing less than a mechanical masterpiece.

So why does the "stigma" between Chevy and Ford continue to exist? Because some of us, in the world of hot-rodding, have chosen to climb under a rock; truth be very much told, we were all one of "those" at one time or another. Once you come out from under that "rock," however, you might be surprised what you were missing while you "cried and complained" about how the days of 289s in FIA racing are long-gone. Actually, MWS' Cobra could've worked just as well with a carbureted 289 mill, but we're damn glad that our Aussie friends have chosen to represent the "Chev dog" with this Chevy/Shelby lovechild.


Read more about this car at Chevy Hardcore!

Does history really repeat itself?

Does history really repeat itself?

How the LS design was inspired by the “W” motor of the late ‘50s/early ‘60s...

To understand why GM’s supercharged LSA motor is the performance piece that it is, one must first understand how the evolution and performance of the LS series as a whole is indirectly connected to Chevy’s first ever production big block, the “W” motor first introduced by Chev in 1958 as part of their large-truck/full-size passenger line-up.

Actually, the original 348 big block, Chevy’s notorious W-shaped motor, was as much of a mechanical/technological milestone as the LS series that was introduced by GM in 1997. In terms of valvetrain construction, the “W” motor was a motor ahead of its time, using parts and techniques that were pretty non-conventional by ‘50s/early ‘60s standards. These included an overhead cam, with pushrods that were used as reservoirs for the motor’s overall oiling system. The “W” motor shared in common with the 265 and 283 small blocks a valvetrain consisting of tubular steel pushrods tapping stud-mounted, stamped steel rockers, an innovative design which allowed Chevy’s 348 to rev well-past 6,000 RPM, a considerably high range for a big block. This rocker arm assembly also allowed Chevy to build future big block V8s with an inclined-valve design, a layout that would force the engine’s valves to open away from the combustion chambers and cylinder walls.

But where the true meat of 348, and later 409, performance lies is in the head and piston designs, which much later on would become true of the LS engine family. For example, Chevy’s W mill incorporated crowned pistons with a head deck design that deviated from the traditional perpendicular design.

The 348/409 series also deviated from the standard chamber-in-head design, placing the combustion chambers in the block instead. The idea behind this and the vertical spark plug layout that accompanied the non-conventional combustion chambers was that a more turbulent flame front could be produced within the chambers by forming a “wedge” shape between the piston crown and the chamber itself. In other words, instead of using flat-topped pistons, Chevy used piston “crowns” to compress the air/fuel mixture tighter, which would naturally make for a more turbulent engine-running dynamic. It was the flat-torque characteristics of the W motor that made it successful in large trucks and full-size passenger cars.

This “flat-torque” dynamic was also achieved by the 348’s offset valve layout, which would ultimately become the Chevy big block hallmark. The reason that this was true is that Chevy intended the offset valvetrain to build maximum brake mean effective pressure at relatively low-running speeds, which was how the motor built bottom-end torque.

Once Chevy would introduce what they called the “Mark IV” generation of big blocks, including the 396, 427 and 454 motors, not much would change from the 348/409 series, except that the Mark IV motors would eventually turn out to be substantially souped-up versions of the original “W” motor. In fact, the second generation of Chev big blocks maintained the offset valves, but where the new big blocks differed from the originals was in the return to an in-head chamber instead of those cast into the cylinders. The Mark IV big blocks also returned to the 90-degree, cylinder head-deck design, and with this and the new inclined valve layout, the unmistakeable W-shaped valve covers of the 348 motor were no longer needed, which meant Chevy could return to traditional, square valve covers on their big block series. The inclined valves were also accompanied by spark plugs that entered the combustion chambers at an angle instead of vertically; this new spark-to-valve combination made for even furthered performance at yet higher RPM ranges.

With the introduction of the LS engine series, not much changed in terms of the concepts of effective mean pressure and overall volumetric efficiency, except that the LS has a dry weight of somewhere in the 400-pound range, where the Mark IV big blocks had a dry weight of around 685 pounds, with the all-aluminum, ZL1 427 being the exception.

 Come to think of it, the LS engine, especially with the introduction of the Generation IV series in 2005, was and still is a computer-controlled version of the “W” motor. Both the LS and the original big block engines were head-and-valvetrain deviants; where the 348/409 series deviated from the 90-degree deck design of the conventional small block, the LS series likewise deviated from the conventional small block’s pentagonal, five-bolt head pattern, abandoning this for an oversquared, four-bolt design.

Like the W motor, the LS is also a deviant in terms of spark; where the W motor, for years, had used vertically-inserted spark plugs, it eventually abandoned the layout for one using angled plugs in order to improve combustion, and the LS series would abandon distributors all-together, introducing a relay-pack system known as coil-near-plug ignition.

Both the 348 and LS series introduced to the GM market new ways of designing/building bottom ends; with the introduction of the 348 big block, GM incorporated a then-new piston profile which included a “crown” for increased compression and flame front turbulence, while the LS family introduced the use of hypereutectic pistons and the 1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3 firing order, a cylinder firing-order that was more in-line with Ford’s modular and other late-model V8s that would be the LS’ contemporaries.

In almost every industry and every facet of life, it’s been said that history repeats itself; in the world of engine performance, the compare-and-contrast between the 348 and the LS motor stands as brilliant evidence of this idea.

- Sal Alaimo Jr., B. A. (7/26/11)

S. J. A.

Custom vans are back in style...

Custom vans are back in fashion...

And LS conversions make them that much more fun

In my previous discussion on why/why not to do an LS-conversion a Porsche, the two main arguments that I and others had developed in favor of the conversion was that even an LS1 motor in stock form put out nearly twice the power of a stock 911 motor with a weight advantage of at least 66 pounds. With this being said, I and several others had developed the argument even further that the stock LS1 motor was even more compact and therefore more efficient, both in geometry and performance, than the now-dated, flat-6 configuration that would have originally been found in a Porsche 911 or 930.

This all being said and considered, wouldn’t it be better to take an LS motor, with either forced induction or stock, and retrofit it into an Astro/Safari van rather than try to “massage” a stock V6 that is not only heavier and more space-consuming than an LS, but doesn’t even come close to an LS V8 in terms of cam profiles and head designs? The answer to that question seems obvious when looking at this LS-fitted, ’98 Astro van built by Stan out of Janesville, Wisconsin.

A few things, before the actual LS conversion, to note about this Astro van: the paint and body are clean and they appear bone-stock, which means that an LS-swap would be perfect since nobody would think any differently about the van at first glance. Astro/Safari vans are also mid-sized, which means that the under-space of the van is actually accommodating for even a conventional V8 swap.

Stan has retrofitted his ’98 Astro with an LS1 out of a ’99 Trans Am, along with a 3.73 diff in the back and BFG P255/60R15 treads all the way around. The trans is also out of the ’99 TA, and according to Stan, the only serious tech issue he’s ever had with the van is when he drove it out of state and the mass airflow sensor went out. According to Stan, this was a problem that was fairly easy to fix, since he had saved the correct VIN code that came with the powertrain; a GM dealer in Little Rock, Arkansas was able to identify the VIN and fix/replace the airflow sensor fast enough to get Stan and company back on the road.

Aside from this, Stan’s V8 Astro has had front wheel bearings put in it, along with a new parking brake cable, rear axle housing and brake pads and rotors. According to Stan, the conversion has accumulated a soft 20,000 miles on it since it was finished.

 And this is what seems to be most admirable about Stan’s LS van conversion, that it has V8 power for the streets while maintaining the integrity of the van itself, which of course means a delicate balance between performance and reliability. Like the LS-911 swap that we had discussed in our last entry, Stan’s LS-powered Astro takes-on the competition without being over-the-top. Let’s learn a lesson from his and others’ late-model motor swaps: ratted-out pro street builds aren’t always the best option.

- Sal Alaimo Jr., B. A. (7/12/11)

S. J. A.

The pros/cons of doing an LS conversion on a Porsche...

Why we should or shouldn’t throw-out the original

Pros/cons of a Porsche-LS swap...

Stuffing a V8 into a Porsche, whether a 911 or a 914, is definitely not a new concept, but with the invention of the LS motor, certain dynamics of this once common conversion have certainly changed.

When the LS series was first introduced by General Motors in 1997, LS-conversions in pre-LS cars were relatively uncommon. Actually, the closest thing to a late-model engine swap that could be seen in pre-1975 rods and customs was the then-common, LT1 motor from the ‘80s and early ‘90s ‘Vettes, and this was a trend that popped-up at hot rod meets and other kinds of car-buff venues during what seemed to be the late ‘90s, all the way into the early 2000s.

The V8 Porsche experience, on the other hand, is one that goes back 30-some-odd years, back to a time when V8 swaps in Luvs and Vegas were prevalent. Of course, many of these amateur engine swaps were “backyard” projects that were built mostly for street and quarter-mile use, but when V8 swaps in the mid-motor 914s became a reality in the ‘70s, it became clear to a lot of us that having an American V8 in a European road car was the best way to go. The 914 Porsche, in particular, was a hotbed for Euro-American motor retrofitting because of its mid-to-rear layout; Euro automakers had understood, for years prior, that a rear-to-mid motored car maintained the best center of gravity, and therefore handled the best on road courses and oval tracks. The problem that existed within the world of Euro performance was definitely not one of road-handling, since even Porsches had always been keen on this aspect of overall performance. The problem was that most Euro sports cars of the era simply didn’t have the brake horsepower to back-up their superb handling/cornering capabilities.

But there was also a paradox that was created by the Euro-American, small-car V8 trend, as several members of Sportscarforums.com have pointed-out: some water-cooled, V6 and V8 applications are not only more powerful than a lot of factory Euro motors, but they’re more efficient. As one forum member observes, the 3.0 liter flat engine that can be found in the 1980 911 SC only produces around 178 bhp at 5600 RPM, and is actually 66 pounds heavier than GM’s LS1 motor, despite the fact that the LS is a V8 while the Porsche motor is a flat-six.

Probably the most famous V8-powered Porsche 911 on the Web is the “Toy Rocket,” an ’80 911 SC with a supercharged, LS1 motor in place of the archaic flat-6. With the original motor in-place, the 911 SC can top out at around 139 mph; with the supercharged LS1 and stock, Porsche axles, the same 911 can run an 11.94 pass in the quarter-mile, while capable of doing 184 in 4th and over 200-mph in 5th. This kind of performance comes from an American-made, all-aluminum V8 that weighs-in at approximately 434 pounds, a considerable jump from the 911 6-cylinder’s rather heavy, 490 pounds.

Another key point that should be made about the LS block in general is that, no matter what kind of car it’s in, it’s geometrically small, which means that it’s universal in the kind of platforms that it can be used in. Technically-speaking, inline and flat-six motors are heavier and take-up more space than a V8, so bay space is actually being saved by doing an LS conversion on a 911.

The last point in this defense of doing an LS swap on a Porsche is the location of the motor in the car. As one member of Sportscarforums observes, the displacement of an LS1 motor (5.7 liters), because it is considerably larger than that of a Porsche flat-6, demands that the motor be placed slightly in front of the default motor location. What this means for road-handling, especially in the case of the 914, is that handling and cornering characteristics are actually optimized instead of hindered.

All-in-all, an LS conversion on a Porsche seems to make the most sense; not only does GM build an aluminum V8 that is lighter than a Porsche motor, but cubic inch for cubic inch, it produces twice the power within the exact same RPM range, and that’s without a supercharger. In fact, the LS1, in naturally-aspirated form, produces more than 50 bhp over a late ‘70s/early ‘80s 911 turbo; with a supercharger bolted-on, that same LS1 is capable of producing well over 500 bhp.

There’s no question of a doubt in my mind that there is a difference between American and German engineering, but there are pros and cons to both, and what V8 conversions in small, Euro cars has brought to the senses is that handling needs to back-up power. In this context, the LS series from General is a motor that almost seems to fit a 911 or 914 chassis perfectly, because it’s lighter and more compact than any other series of small block, while also being more technologically-advanced than previous generations.

- Sal Alaimo Jr., B. A. (7/10/11)

S. J. A.

John Devine and So-Cal Speed's LS7-powered '66 Chevelle...

A former GM-exec and a well-known rod shop build an LS7-powered Chevelle

Hot Rod magazine makes more than a sound point when they talk about the pros/cons of doing a custom conversion on an already-clean car. The pros are that not nearly as much money and labor are spent on bodywork and repairs; the cons are that a rare car that’s already straight to begin with is being cut-into, and money value on any car is automatically lost as soon as you replace the drivetrain, depending on what factory options the car came with.

But let’s not get any misconceptions as to how this whole thing works; when it comes to converting original cars, some pro builders just know how to do it the right way. Take former GM executive John Devine and So-Cal Speed Shop’s LS7-powered, ’66 Chevelle. The story behind this car is stunning. The car was actually bought in Portland, Oregon from the nephew of the original owner, the car having 15,000 original miles on it with a stock 283. The car would find its way to So-Cal Speed in 2004, where it would eventually be decided by Devine and So-Cal’s Pete Chapouris that an LS7/6-speed swap would be best for this standard but clean, 283-powered Chevelle.

The LS7 that would eventually find its way into the engine compartment is bone stock out of a Z06 ‘Vette, but as Hot Rod points-out, why would anybody need much more than 500-horse from a completely stock motor that’s meant to be driven daily just as much as it’s built to perform, and within the walls of a passenger car that was originally meant for everyday transport?

As evidence of the fact that clean, original cars have been being chopped and converted for years, Hot Rod cites Rod Saboury as a solid example, Saboury himself having had, during the early ‘80s, chopped and pro-streeted out a ’63 ‘Vette. At the time, Saboury had also encountered a great deal of flack for chopping-up an original car,

 but considering that it was also the early ‘80s, Saboury and other rod-builders of the time would not have had nearly as nice of a powertrain available as the LS series that has become so prevalent in hot rodding today. With that considered, and the observation from Hot Rod that spending a bit more on an already-clean platform is more efficient overall than restoring a beater

, doing an LS-swap on even a low-mileage car just doesn’t seem like that bad of an idea.

- Sal Alaimo Jr., B. A. (7/9/11)

S. J. A.