Finally got to drive my Camaro!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: clinebarger
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
You did well to get an L92 for $2k. GM L92 and LS3's are very desired on the used engine market these days. I've been looking for an LS3 for my Camaro, and even used ones cost about as much as a new crate engine. My LS1 is getting very long in the tooth at 253,000 miles, and I'm itching to replace it. Oil consumption has gotten so high, I'm thinking about putting it on the "perpetual OCI" and only changing the filter every 10k miles.

The big valve small blocks definitely prefer higher duration splits from intake to exhaust than their smaller valve brethren. 12 degrees is probably par, so the cam you have will probably be weak on top end power. And running it in the advanced position will help low end torque. I'm guessing that it will run great up to 5500-5700 rpm.



Good luck with your search! I agree, The market is crazy! You would think that Gen 3 engines & early Gen 4's like the 24x LS2 would be coming down in price.....But there still high.

I would just order a custom spec cam from Cam Motion......But I am "trying" to adhere too a budget, Which is not working out very well.

Just curious.....What are you going too do about the 24x vs 58x issue?


I have been dithering between getting the Lingenfelter adapter box or getting a new GM ECU and harness with the engine. dailydriver's skepticism over the LPE box makes me hesitant on that one, and I am not comfortable that I know all the issues related to adapting the late model electrics to a 2002 Camaro. Maybe I'll just get a stroker crank from Callies with the 24X wheel and bypass all the little details, and add power besides. If I have to take an engine apart just to replace the trigger wheel, I might as well make it faster.

I'm finding your thread very informative for my situation. It seems like buying an L92 and building that would be more cost-effective than paying the extra money for an LS3.
 
I have read quite a bit on the LPE Interface, They seem to be reliable, However.....If it does break you can't just get one at a local parts retailer, That's the reason I don't run one. I have performed a few Crank Reluctor Swaps.....It's not hard at all.

I haven't ran a E38 (LS3 ECM) in a '99-'02 F Body yet, But I can tell you that the E38 is missing quite a few analog outputs/inputs that your P01 (LS1 PCM) has.....There are various workarounds that we discuss if you want including keeping the P01 too run the gauges.

Does your car have ASR, You may have to keep the P01 PCM & swap to 24x if you want it too work afterward.

The 2005 P59 PCM that I'm running required some workarounds, I all but squared everything away.....Gas Gauge reads backwards, Which I have gotten used to. Also....My A/C has no high pressure cut-out protection because the Analog (12VDC) A/C request is not compatible with the P59 that Requires a Serial A/C Request, E38's have the same issue.
 
Last edited:
This thread keeps getting better and better for me. I just got back from a track day with my Camaro, and I think the engine is finished as far as hard driving is concerned. It went through 2 quarts of oil (PU/PUE mix) in 90 minutes on track. I have a catch can on the foul air return hose, and it was catching about 12 ounces every session. I was also having to short shift at 5000 rpm, because it would detonate above that. I'm thinking that the rings are worn out. Mechanically, the engine is still quiet, but the high oil consumption, and the occasional overflow of the catch can makes it untrustworthy. I was getting complaints from track officials about smoke coming out after left hand turns.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
This thread keeps getting better and better for me. I just got back from a track day with my Camaro, and I think the engine is finished as far as hard driving is concerned. It went through 2 quarts of oil (PU/PUE mix) in 90 minutes on track. I have a catch can on the foul air return hose, and it was catching about 12 ounces every session. I was also having to short shift at 5000 rpm, because it would detonate above that. I'm thinking that the rings are worn out. Mechanically, the engine is still quiet, but the high oil consumption, and the occasional overflow of the catch can makes it untrustworthy. I was getting complaints from track officials about smoke coming out after left hand turns.


RIP LS1, It is very impressive that you track a 250,000 mile engine! And I doubt your going settle for driving it easy!!

Here is a 85K L99 for $3500 from LKQ, It will have the "car" Intake/Injectors/Fuel Rail, That will save some VS a L92/L94/L9H. You will have to delete the AFM & VVT. L99 LINK

Another LKQ L99 for $3000 with 121K.... 121K L99

I have had good luck with LKQ in the past, I looked at a few of their engines before I bought mine....But they are all on the eastern seaboard & shipping was going to be high.

L96 & LY6 6.0L's have the big valve heads & their cheaper, But the static compression sucks (9.6:1). And I'm not sure they have Full Floating Rods like LS3/L99/L92/L94/L9H engines.

Then there is the odd man out.......The 6.0L L76, One out of a G8 would have the correct Intake.

I'm sure you know most of this & how too search engines.....Good Luck!!
 
A warning too ANYONE considering the Comp Cams Trunnion Upgrade like I was.....DO NOT buy them! They have a serious issue.

After some research on the web, They are failing at a alarming rate. I'm not one too believe internet hype or Brand Bashing....So I had my customer bring his '57 Chevy LS3/4L80E in so I can check the Comp Trunnions that I installed less than 5,000 miles ago......They were already in "failure mode", Either the Bearings are not getting enough oil, Or the Trunnion Surface Hardness is questionable. But I suppose BOTH could be a factor?

Not my picture, I had to run home & get the set off my L92 as I didn't have a set of Offset Intake Rockers at work, But this is exactly how 4 of them looked. All of the other one's were showing signs of brinelling for lack of a educated term?

 
That's not brinelling, that's spalling caused by surface fatigue. The rocker arm trunnion needles running over the surface repeatedly is causing that. The trunnion surfaces need to be made of bearing quality steel, then ground and polished to a bearing quality finish. I had experience with rolling fatigue failures when I was working on valvetrain components at Eaton. I doubt that lack of lubrication is the main culprit, although it could contribute. Surface hardness, proper finish, and material cleanliness (within the microstructure of the steel) are probably the main reasons. To me it looks like the surface is just ground, and not polished.
 
Thanks man! I knew I was using the wrong term.

This is why I was concerned with the Oiling, The Comp rollers are cut off from the oil supply that flows down the Rocker, Where the Factory Trunnion is flat on top then 2 angles on each end to get oil too the needles. I don't know how much oil is actually needed, But it seems GM was more concerned with it than Comp.

It looks like you are correct, They are just ground. I was going to "Redneck" test the surface hardening with a sharp file.....But they got sent too back Comp for a refund.......hopefully.

 
This is what I decided to go with.....Smith Brothers Push Rods Bronze Bushed Trunnion upgrade. The Trunnions have Flats for oiling, No counter bore requiring an Allen bolt....I hate Allen cap screws!!
They looked to be coated/tumbled with something, Ceramic maybe??

The instruction say to use oil during assembly, I think I should use Engine Assembly Grease as oil won't stay on the bushings very long. What do you guys think?

I realize this solution will NOT yield 100,000 miles of service. That's OK......I replace Valve Springs every 20,000-30,000 when using aggressive cam profiles anyway, So I will just swap the Bushings out at the same time.



 
I think pretty much anything Smith Brothers puts out is preemo stuff. Use whatever you want for assembly, but if they oil, then I'd bet oil is fine. It probably won't take long for them to be swimming in oil so whatever oil is applied won't need to hold out forever. Besides, immediately after startup, heat and load will be at a minimum, so lubrication requirements will be too.
 
IMO the 2001 Camaro is a pos and the latest one is far superior in every way
So while I commend you on your recycling of the 2001 and I agree the latest SS
is way over priced its IMO a better ride than a 2001
 
Originally Posted By: Excel
IMO the 2001 Camaro is a pos and the latest one is far superior in every way
So while I commend you on your recycling of the 2001 and I agree the latest SS
is way over priced its IMO a better ride than a 2001


The 5th and 6th-Gen Camaros are better cars in a few ways than the 4th-Gen, such as more power and independent rear suspension, but they are heavier, have larger frontal area and drag coefficient, and you can't see out of them. My 2002 Camaro is the best car I've ever owned, and it has never been passed on a racetrack by a Mustang.
 
Originally Posted By: Excel
IMO the 2001 Camaro is a pos and the latest one is far superior in every way
So while I commend you on your recycling of the 2001 and I agree the latest SS
is way over priced its IMO a better ride than a 2001


I think you could have gotten your point across without the "POS" part??
 
Got some time to work on the L92.

Block cleaned after a Very light Hone.
PTFE coated seamless Cam Bearings installed with retaining compound.
24X Crank Reluctor installed.
New King standard Main Bearings.

1st pic, Cam Bearings.
2nd pic, Old 58X Reluctor.
3rd pic, Reluctor Alignment tool.
4th pic, 24X Reluctor installed.
5th pic, Crank laid in the Block.









 
I decided to go with a different Camshaft specifically ground for a LS3....
Cam Motion LS3 Stage 2
Lobe Separation Angle, 114.
Intake Centerline, 110.
Duration @0.50", 220 Intake, 230 Exhaust.
Valve Lift, 579" Intake, .562" Exhaust.
Ground on a 8620 steel core vs the standard 5150 cores that OEM, Comp & most other aftermarket companies use.

Timing Chain, Cam Gear, Timing Damper, & LS3 Valley Cover installed.







 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
No kidding...I would expect at least .600" lift with that much duration. How will the ECM handle that much cam?


Intake Port flow numbers level off with valve lifts above .580" & the Exhaust flow levels out at about .570".
Anymore lift without porting AND a bigger bore doesn't do much besides beat up the Valvetrain.

Intake flow#'s
.500" 308.8 CFM
.550" 321.0 CFM
.600" 328.7 CFM
.650" 326.6 CFM

Exhaust flow#'s
.500" 205.5 CFM
.550" 210.7 CFM
.600" 214.6 CFM
.650" 217.8 CFM

220/230 Duration is pretty mild for a 6.2L LSX, If this were a 4.8L or a 5.3L, Sure....This would be extreme. Displacement eats up Duration.
Don't forget the LSA, The wider the LSA....The milder the Cam will seem. This Cam (114) is pretty wide.

I have a really good Tuner (Patrick Sparks @ Quality Motorsports), This ain't the old hit & miss "Burning PROM's" like the late 80's & early 90's.....I don't miss that [censored] at all!!
 
Looks great man!

If memory serves me the cam in the WS6 is a 230 232 exhaust .582 intake .592 at 112 LSA

Has been a LONG time since I put it in and the card with the specs is long gone.

I am at 67,000 miles now and I put it in at 19,000.

I have a nice set of heads on the WS6 as well.
 
What heads are you running Mike?

The L92 project is slowly chugging along....Got the Pistons knocked in, Heads built & installed, Next up is measuring Push Rod length.

Put the Pistons in my Transmission hot water Vat at 230 degrees for 8 hours, They turned out really clean! I did have to scotchbrite a few spots on the Crowns to remove carbon.
New GM LS6 Oil Pump, LS3 Head Gaskets, & Head Bolts were used.





 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom