Are you happy with your bolted 5.3? This is a open topic check it.
12-24-2010, 07:06 PM
#31
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 1,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i drove a 5.7 tundra , a new nissan patrol with a 5.6 320hp/380tq i really liked the lunch of them two they are pretty fast from 0-60
althogh the patrol had a taller first gear than my crew cab 5.3 6l80 3.42..it held sides with my truck from 0 to to 50 then i walked over him by 8 car lenghts at 120-130 mph
my mods in the sig and having 300whp aginst a stock 5.6 setting in a heaver SUV i was mad about my tq
next mod UDP
would sure like a cam or a 6.0 swap
althogh the patrol had a taller first gear than my crew cab 5.3 6l80 3.42..it held sides with my truck from 0 to to 50 then i walked over him by 8 car lenghts at 120-130 mph
my mods in the sig and having 300whp aginst a stock 5.6 setting in a heaver SUV i was mad about my tq
next mod UDP
would sure like a cam or a 6.0 swap
12-25-2010, 09:11 AM
#33
Less cubes = less torque. I used to run a 355 sbc in my 66 pickup, I had a buddy that had the same truck, with a 327. Similar mods, and I would walk him 3-4 cars from a dig but from a roll the lil 327 would hang.
You can blame the lack of lowend torque on several things. First off the bore is much smaller than a sbc. The heads are designed to flow big air in the mid to upper rpms. Sbc heads didn't but that had small ports for great velocity which made them very torquey. The TBI engines had swirl ports, that made them super torquey but flowed up top like ****. The older engines had cams designed for the shitty heads, flat tappet, low lift low duration on a much more narrow lsa, the power cam in sooner but on a stock sbc was usually done at about 4500-5000 rpms. The newer vehicles are heavier,harder to get moving.
I'll settle for the lack of instant torque in exhange for killer top end power, I'll just run a bigger converter! lol
You can blame the lack of lowend torque on several things. First off the bore is much smaller than a sbc. The heads are designed to flow big air in the mid to upper rpms. Sbc heads didn't but that had small ports for great velocity which made them very torquey. The TBI engines had swirl ports, that made them super torquey but flowed up top like ****. The older engines had cams designed for the shitty heads, flat tappet, low lift low duration on a much more narrow lsa, the power cam in sooner but on a stock sbc was usually done at about 4500-5000 rpms. The newer vehicles are heavier,harder to get moving.
I'll settle for the lack of instant torque in exhange for killer top end power, I'll just run a bigger converter! lol
12-25-2010, 10:36 AM
#34
Pretty much spot on in your description of differences. Local guy near me can whoop me in his old 71 or so 400 small block powered C10, for about 100 feet or so, then gets to see the little 323 going by him like his **** just broke...lol.
12-29-2010, 01:16 AM
#35
Launching!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sandbox, Kuwait
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my, i just got a 6.0 SSR intake, ported it, also got a 90mm LS2 TB, and just for fun i complimented them with LS6 heads, LS6 Cam, headers and an escalade exhaust for more bottom torque and top HP...
Extremely fast off the line and the engine never seems to run out of pin you in your seat
Extremely fast off the line and the engine never seems to run out of pin you in your seat
12-29-2010, 11:03 PM
#37
yes i agree. I have the need to wana run everyone. If the wallet had no limit, it still would never stop. swaped to a vmax 6.0 from my 5.3, still thinking of swaping a 6.2 camed, with lt headers, v8 mod, and dyno tune. I was told to just stick with what I have, and make more power and tq than the 6.2. I have a SC planed for the future, and want to get a 2300tvs just cause I know my hunger.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
GreyChevy
Tuning, Diagnostics, Electronics, and Wiring
1
07-07-2015 08:57 PM
