5.3 HP estimation?

[Doober]

If you're going for a 5.3 iron, I might shoot for the 6.0, just because it's that much more motor, and you can probably get one for near the same price. X2 on T56, they're stronger stock-for-stock against a T5

I forgot to mention in that article they retained the factory tune and injectors, and matched the valvesprings (thinking back maybe it's not CC? I dunno...).

Take a look at this one
http://www.carcraft.com/projectbuild/116_0704_lq4_short_block/index.html

The dyno page:
http://www.carcraft.com/projectbuild/116_0704_lq4_short_block/dyno_testing.html

You could probably save some $ vs what they have listed (i.e. headers, carb, used intake/ignition, etc.), and be near the power levels they hit. I was thinking about a bigger cam for when I build a 6.0, but after seeing the results of this one I may stick with a slightly smaller one (originally thought mid-220ºs).

 

[T5MalibuWagon]

Doober, I here ya about the 6.0 and understand all the benifits but at the moment I have a lead on 5.3 thats cheap as heck. I was thinking that if I use the 5.3 to set it up than a swap to a 6.0 wouldnt take any time as all the bolt ons and such will swap over. I hope that the one I have my eye on doesnt go up to much.

Can I use an ls1 (5.7) flywheel on a 5.3 and or 6.0? What is needed to run the msd box for a carb swap? The add says that is has new oil pump, intake manifold, fuel injectors, fuel rails, coil packs, water pump, and crank pulley so I know I will need a alternator but what else? If I get it I hope that I can find a cheap t56, like there is such a thing.

 

[Anonymous]

yes the ls1 flywheel will work without a problem....

 

[T5MalibuWagon]

yes the ls1 flywheel will work without a problem....

Thanks, I thought they would but some times GM does some strange stuff.

I didnt end up getting the engine I was talking about, I guess its a good thing as I didnt really need to spend the money anyway. It was on Ebay and ending around 7:45pm so I set my alarm on my phone to go off at 7:30 I just didnt catch that I set it for 7:30am. So I didnt get the alarm and didnt end up with the engine. Oh well its not the only one out there and it saved me a 5 hour drive. I guess I can take Doobers advice and look for a 6.0 :|

 

[T5MalibuWagon]

I just read the new Car Craft artical about 5.3's. Cam, intake and headers made 430HP. I guess that 400HP isnt to hard to get. Kinda wish that I would have gotten that one yesterday.

 

[Doober]

I was reading the article on that 6.0, and the thing put out 439/424 tq/hp peak :shock: The cam added 15/57 to that peak, I'm sure a slightly milder cam would give a nice trade on that hp/tq number. Remember this is a bone stock 6.0 with a GMPP intake and 750 Holley with headers.

Crap... If I could come up with the money by the time it warms up, I'm tempted to stick one of these suckers in the '81, just so I'll have practice for the '78! :lol:

 

[T5MalibuWagon]

From what I saw the cam added 49hp on that 6.0l. I thought that there would be a bigger spread in hp between a 5.3 and a 6.0 but comparing that article you posted and the new CC one there is only about 50hp. I think the cam in the CC 5.3 is a little bigger also.

The 6.0 made 425hp with an intake and headers and 483hp with the cam. The 5.3 made 337hp with an intake and headers and 433hp with a Comp Thumper cam. I bet I could live with either.

Using TCI's calculator it says that in a perfect world my rambler would go 10.8s with the 5.3 and 10.4s with that 6.0. Like I said I think either would be fun

 

[deuce_454]

I was reading the article on that 6.0, and the thing put out 439/424 tq/hp peak :shock: The cam added 15/57 to that peak, I'm sure a slightly milder cam would give a nice trade on that hp/tq number.

trade??? that torque is flas as a diesel... hovering between 400 and 440 from 2000 to 5600 rpm.... wouldnt change a thing!

 

[Doober]

Well, that graph was with the aftermarket cam, the only reason I said slightly milder. It is a nice torque curve :twisted:

 

[78Bu88SS]

From what I saw the cam added 49hp on that 6.0l. I thought that there would be a bigger spread in hp between a 5.3 and a 6.0 but comparing that article you posted and the new CC one there is only about 50hp. I think the cam in the CC 5.3 is a little bigger also.

The 6.0 made 425hp with an intake and headers and 483hp with the cam. The 5.3 made 337hp with an intake and headers and 433hp with a Comp Thumper cam. I bet I could live with either.

Using TCI's calculator it says that in a perfect world my rambler would go 10.8s with the 5.3 and 10.4s with that 6.0. Like I said I think either would be fun

That 6.0 was an LQ9 version, not the LQ4 like stated originally. When they swapped heads on it at a later time you could clearly see the flat top pistons vs the dished factory ones in the LQ4

I'm doing a LQ4 with a mild cam similar to the Hot Cam, Vict Jr intake, 650DP, and 1 3/4" long tubes. I expect HP figures to be up around 440-460HP, we'll see what she'll do come spring with the 4000 stall Yank converter in it.