sorry that's not going to work....cake and eat it too scenario right there...
dont go newer than 09 on an LS or you will have to deal with afm.
I have never done an LS swap but I seriously doubt it is a drop in and plug and play operation. I can see fuel system, ECM, engine mount, cooling system, transmission fitment, and a host of other mods that may be needed just to make it work. I would do a lot of research first before I worried about how to make it produce more power.
sorry that's not going to work....cake and eat it too scenario right there...
I don't want to be rude but you're talking in circles. Engines are nothing but air pumps and the more air you pump the more power you get. If you don't want to improve air flow with porting and polishing the heads or changing the lift and duration of the camshaft AND putting a high flow header system and extractor on the engine and you don't want to increase fuel flow which would definitely be dictated by the greater air flow then what specifically do you want to change? There is no free lunch.
Get ahold of Cam Motion.....They can custom grind a cam for your vehicle/engine combination.
In my opinion.....5.3L's are very limited unless you throw boost at them. Dyno numbers don't mean much for a mild street engine that'll spend most of it's life in lower & midrange parts of it's power band.
If you're going to go though the effort & expense of doing a swap......Use a better engine! A LY6 or a L96 Six Liter is a good start.
Or if you could find a LQ9/LQ4 Six Liter in decent shape.....These are getting up there in age & mileage.
And don't believe 5.3L's get better fuel economy than a 6.0L either....Especially in a heavy vehicle with the aerodynamics of a Barn. I swapped a LQ4 into my dads 2003 Tahoe to replace the leaky LM7 & even with the added load of higher Line Pressure in the built 4L65E....It gets the same if not a little better fuel mileage.
right i meant to say 07Pretty sure it showed in in 07 on trucks.
Interesting post. If I take your meaning, you're saying go with a 6.0L instead because they're better suited to my needs than the 5.3L. Because you get a power increase without a noteworthy decrease in fuel mileage. In fact MPG may increase a little.
I haven't driven a TBI 350, but I had a '96 C1500 with a 350 (Vortec) and I loved that motor.i have the lm7 in my 99 silverado and its plenty of motor in stock form. i had a 93 silverado with 350 before and its no comparison. my only add on is a flowmaster dual exaust system. sounds awesume but isnt obnoxious. i ave 18 mpg also. dont go newer than 09 on an LS or you will have to deal with afm.
I haven't driven a TBI 350, but I had a '96 C1500 with a 350 (Vortec) and I loved that motor.
I've driven an '03 Silverado 5.3L and '05 Tahoe 5.3L and they were gutless. My 350 would have flown past them.
Holley swap parts are expensive but fit better than anything I've ever used.
I would recommend against a 4L80E, A well built 4L60E/4L65E is MUCH more efficient.
I like your plan about getting a donor vehicle, but take advantage of the donor vehicle to the max. Also bring along the 6-speed automatic, because that alone will contribute to better fuel economy. A late-model 6.2 L86 and 6-speed auto transplanted as a unit with the control boxes and wiring harnesses would save a lot of electronic figuring-it-out problems. And a stock 6.2 L86 makes 420 HP while getting better fuel economy than the old 350. And the 5.3L L83 makes 355 HP, which is 145 more than what a 1987-vintage 350 makes. It will make your truck better in every way: performance, fuel economy, and smoothness.I will be using a donor truck. It will take care of most of the conversion difficulties. Then I'll part out the rest of the truck and make most (if not all) of the money back that I spent buying the donor. So it's kind of like getting the engine and trans for free. It's a huge help.
I consider making that scenario work, one of my specialties in life. But I will say that most of this thread seems to have the wrong idea about what I'm trying to accomplish. They seem to think I'm trying to make a good deal more power than stock. I am not. If all you can gain is 16hp without harming MPG, that's fine by me. I just wanted to go ahead and get that 16 hp. Although from my research, the situation does seem a little better than that.
Well I don't want to be rude either, but several posts in this thread prove you wrong. A simple full exhaust upgrade nullifies your post. And the free lunch is a bad example, there won't be anything free about these upgrades. They will cost plenty.
Interesting post. If I take your meaning, you're saying go with a 6.0L instead because they're better suited to my needs than the 5.3L. Because you get a power increase without a noteworthy decrease in fuel mileage. In fact MPG may increase a little.
The 5.7L Vortec had 255hp while the 5.3L in 2003 had 285hp. Plus a real throttle cable and not drive-by-wire was very responsive, could melt the rear tires. That 5.3L had as much of a chance to burn rubber as my 2.2L Camry. (Hint: 0% chance).5.3 is something like 110 more hp than the 350. And 30 more tq, if both are stock. It's probably not a good comparison if the 5.3L is in a 6k lb tahoe. Was your truck a single cab? If so it as a lot lighter than either of those vehicles that had the 5.3L. I notice you did say a 96 model. They did get a bump in power, but my old 87 ain't included in that. It's something like 180hp when it was new. That's before 200k miles were put on it. Just switching to a stock 5.3L will make it feel like a very different and much faster vehicle.
I've heard to stay away from the 60e, everyone says they are too weak. But a built one is of course a different story... could you elaborate a bit on why it would be more efficient than a 4L80e?
Idk, our 2004 Silverado would annihilate a tire (woo open diff!) no problem. But GM’s drive by wire programming left something (a lot) to be desired…The 5.7L Vortec had 255hp while the 5.3L in 2003 had 285hp. Plus a real throttle cable and not drive-by-wire was very responsive, could melt the rear tires. That 5.3L had as much of a chance to burn rubber as my 2.2L Camry. (Hint: 0% chance).