LS 3.6 4 cyl

[venturaII]

So, I'm just gonna drop this right here and see what happens...lol

https://www.motortrend.com/how-to/bl...e=linkin.bio:D

[venturaII]

A big N/A 4 cyl based on the 7000+rpm LS7 doesn't sound like a terrible thing...and who knows, maybe there will be an aluminum block version? I'd love to know what the external dimensions are...

[Irace86.2.0]

I'm just going to drop this right here and see what happens...lol

[CedN]

Imagine the vibrations, must be quite brutal. Fun idea anyway

[venturaII]

The Blueprint/LS motor has real packaging advantages that other 4 cylinder motors don't, being based on a 2 valve pushrod motor. Plus it'll accept GM pattern accessories and transmissions, so that's another big point for it. I wonder if the block and sump are designed to be canted at all, which would further reduce engine height. Obviously 3.6 liters is a helluva big 4 cylinder so it's clearly going to have secondary vibrations, but I don't think anyone would have expectations otherwise. But if they're getting 340 horsepower out of ~216 cubic inches, the the motor HAS to be able to rev...it can't be a low rpm tractor motor...you have to move some air to make those numbers with that displacement. I don't know how they've done it, but I can't wait to see it on a dyno...that will really tell the whole story.

[TommyW]

Gonna be a torque monster! If it fits say bye to the K24 swaps

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by TommyW

Gonna be a torque monster! If it fits say bye to the K24 swaps

Lol...no more torque dip..

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by venturaII

The Blueprint/LS motor has real packaging advantages that other 4 cylinder motors don't, being based on a 2 valve pushrod motor. Plus it'll accept GM pattern accessories and transmissions, so that's another big point for it. I wonder if the block and sump are designed to be canted at all, which would further reduce engine height. Obviously 3.6 liters is a helluva big 4 cylinder so it's clearly going to have secondary vibrations, but I don't think anyone would have expectations otherwise. But if they're getting 340 horsepower out of ~216 cubic inches, the the motor HAS to be able to rev...it can't be a low rpm tractor motor...you have to move some air to make those numbers with that displacement. I don't know how they've done it, but I can't wait to see it on a dyno...that will really tell the whole story.

Packaging of this compared to a conventional DOHC 4cylinder seems negligible or worse vertically. The heads are decently tall and wide, especially because the block is quite large because of the large bore. Maybe for a turbocharged drag car where the extra room up high might make a difference for fitting large turbo. Maybe. There is definitely advantages over a 3.6L V6. I’m not really getting what they mean by 300hp and 500tq capacity in a performance application. Like are they saying what it could make with a turbo without needing upgraded rods or something? Because it isn’t making 500tq NA at typical compression.

I don’t think there is anything magical here or innovative. Just a lot of vibrations.

[venturaII]

LS3 (all LS...) heads are far shorter than the height of any overhead cam cylinder head, even with their tall cathedral ports. No camshaft, no lifters, no chain/belt/sprockets/actuators, etc. The valve cover is essentially flat, and the coils can be relocated anywhere under the hood. The block has a ~9" deck height so that's pretty cut and dry. The big question is what the sump arrangement is like. And that's all if the motor is totally vertical...if it can be canted at all, it'll be even shorter. Yes, it's a chunky block compared to other 4 cylinder motors because of bore size and cam in block, but it's still shorter lengthwise than an LS V8, and there will be acres of room on the sides.

The article IS written rather confusingly...it seems to imply that with the LS head in NA form, it's making 340 horse. Then they're talking about since being an iron block, it'll be compatible with power adders, so I assume that's where the 500lb/ft torque number came from. Like I said, I want to see one running on a dyno at full pull, and then I think the picture will become much clearer.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by venturaII

LS3 (all LS...) heads are far shorter than the height of any overhead cam cylinder head, even with their tall cathedral ports. No camshaft, no lifters, no chain/belt/sprockets/actuators, etc. The valve cover is essentially flat, and the coils can be relocated anywhere under the hood. The block has a ~9" deck height so that's pretty cut and dry. The big question is what the sump arrangement is like. And that's all if the motor is totally vertical...if it can be canted at all, it'll be even shorter. Yes, it's a chunky block compared to other 4 cylinder motors because of bore size and cam in block, but it's still shorter lengthwise than an LS V8, and there will be acres of room on the sides.

The article IS written rather confusingly...it seems to imply that with the LS head in NA form, it's making 340 horse. Then they're talking about since being an iron block, it'll be compatible with power adders, so I assume that's where the 500lb/ft torque number came from. Like I said, I want to see one running on a dyno at full pull, and then I think the picture will become much clearer.

I'm just saying that DOHC vs OHV design will make more of packaging difference in a V6/V8 configuration than in an inline engine. If we look at the LS versus Coyote motors, the LS has more displacement for a smaller package, but if we compare the distance from the crank to the top of the valve cover, it doesn't look crazy different in this crude overlay where I flipped the LS horizontally and superimposed the crank bolts. Considering the K24 fits in the 86, I don't know that we need to go to a OHV type of setup for clearance issues with the hood. There just isn't any large displacement 4 cylinders beyond about 2.7L because of secondary forces, so it is hard to compare the dimensions of this motor next to something equal with OHC/DOHC, but if we were to imagine two motors of equal displacement with different type of head design then we would see that a DOHC would likely be marginally taller, but would be a little wider at the head and valve cover. This might allow someone to fit a bigger turbo or smaller intake manifold, if packaging restraints required such considerations.

Weight wise, there is the iron block, which is heavy, but there is some reduction in the mass of the heads. There is reduced weight going from four to two valves and from two cams to one cam, but then it is necessary to add valve rods and lifters. Being interchangeable with existing LS heads is cool, but the exhaust manifolds, intake manifolds, accessory belt components, etc won't be compatible.

Losing the balancing shafts in the K24 when switching to the RSX Type S oil pump really makes the engine shake, so I'm curious what this engine would look like at 3.6L. Comparing the K20C1 in the CTR vs K20C4 in the Accord, Honda added balancing shafts to the Accord, so again, I'm curious how bad this thing would vibrate.

I think what I would really like to see is this side-by-side with a DOHC 3.6L VR6. Again, I don't think the dimensions of this blueprint motor would be incredibly different than say the VR6 such that the Blueprint motor would be able to fit where the other wouldn't. It would potentially allow larger turbo turbines.

[venturaII]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I'm just saying that DOHC vs OHV design will make more of packaging difference in a V6/V8 configuration than in an inline engine.

You also said that packaging for the OHV motor will be worse than a DOHC motor.

But then you say we don't need anything more compact than a K24.

Look, obviously this is a big displacement 4 cylinder motor. A big bore size really doesn't matter much in this application, dimensionally speaking, but a big stroke does. That's where the compact advantage of an OHV head comes into play. Again, I'm not sure what the sump configuration will be like, but from the crank centerline to the top of the valve cover, my money is on the GM motor being shorter overall than a K24. More room has obvious advantages in the world of engine swaps.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

There just isn't any large displacement 4 cylinders beyond about 2.7L because of secondary forces

That's not really true. The Porsche 968 came with a very nice 3 liter motor. Was it as smooth as a 3 liter V12? No, but it also didn't have the packaging problems of a V12 either. You make concessions for the desired outcome.

Also, there's a whole world of 3+ liter 4 cylinder motors out there that just aren't in production automobiles because they don't meet the design goals for appealing to the average drone who buys a Buick Century or Toyota Camry and doesn't want to feel the additional vibration of a big 4 cylinder. OMC/Mercruiser have made boat 4 cylinder motors between 3 and 3.7 liters from the 1960s all the way through to 2000, some of which were simply half of a big block Chevrolet or Ford motor. And while they weren't hitting 7000 rpm, they were still 5000+ rpm motors, limited mainly by their head design (they used the same GM oval and peanut port BBC heads, and Ford truck 460 heads). Yes, they vibrate a bit. No, it doesn't feel like it's a dump truck motor.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Weight wise, there is the iron block, which is heavy, but there is some reduction in the mass of the heads. There is reduced weight going from four to two valves and from two cams to one cam, but then it is necessary to add valve rods and lifters. Being interchangeable with existing LS heads is cool, but the exhaust manifolds, intake manifolds, accessory belt components, etc won't be compatible.

The article said the iron block LS motor is 300 pounds, so there's no need for conjecture in the weight department. Exhaust is going to be custom in a swap application anyway, so that's a non-issue. This is already a running design which has a working accessory drive system for water pump and alternator (both simple packaging issues in an engine bay as wide as the FT86). The only thing it doesn't have is AC bracketry, but I'll bet off the shelf GM LS stuff can be made to work with some modification. Again, it's a swap, so that's minor engineering that comes with the territory.

And more importantly, this isn't a case of seeing a motor laying in a junkyard and thinking "I wonder if that'll fit?". This is a motor being designed and offered by one of the largest crate engine manufacturers in the country (if not the world), with the sole intent of being used as a swap motor. Tight external dimensions are already a primary consideration, as well as how the engine actually runs. They're not going to offer the motor if it shakes like a road compactor...they already know nobody will buy it. But they also know that someone doing an engine swap isn't as concerned with some extra vibration as a soccer mom going to the grocery store. It's made for people who LIKE engines, and like to feel them and hear them. It's intended for enthusiasts.

Again, I'm still waiting to see it run in real life at WOT on a dyno, and a full spec sheet listing dimensions and that sort of thing, but I think it's easily as promising as any other swap that's been tried.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by venturaII

You also said that packaging for the OHV motor will be worse than a DOHC motor.

But then you say we don't need anything more compact than a K24.

Yeah, as designed, the coil packs that are on top of the valve cover would probably make it taller. They can be relocated, but it is another thing to consider. And yeah, a K24, LS, 2JZ all fit, to name a few, so I don’t know that a more compact motor is needed, but I’m not saying it wouldn’t be cool either. It is another option, but I’m mostly questioning the viability or improvement of such an engine. For instance, no one has talked about swapping a VR6 3.6L as a compact, “high displacement for its size” engine. I don’t know why, except that most might just do a LS for a NA setup and K24 or 2JZ for a turbo. Most don’t use all of the potential of these motors.

Originally Posted by venturaII

Look, obviously this is a big displacement 4 cylinder motor. A big bore size really doesn't matter much in this application, dimensionally speaking, but a big stroke does. That's where the compact advantage of an OHV head comes into play. Again, I'm not sure what the sump configuration will be like, but from the crank centerline to the top of the valve cover, my money is on the GM motor being shorter overall than a K24. More room has obvious advantages in the world of engine swaps.

With relocating the coil packs, probably, but the K24 clears the hood, so more clearance is to what advantage? Unless someone wants to run a monster turbo, the narrow head might not equate to any benefits.

Originally Posted by venturaII

That's not really true. The Porsche 968 came with a very nice 3 liter motor. Was it as smooth as a 3 liter V12? No, but it also didn't have the packaging problems of a V12 either. You make concessions for the desired outcome.

Also, there's a whole world of 3+ liter 4 cylinder motors out there that just aren't in production automobiles because they don't meet the design goals for appealing to the average drone who buys a Buick Century or Toyota Camry and doesn't want to feel the additional vibration of a big 4 cylinder. OMC/Mercruiser have made boat 4 cylinder motors between 3 and 3.7 liters from the 1960s all the way through to 2000, some of which were simply half of a big block Chevrolet or Ford motor. And while they weren't hitting 7000 rpm, they were still 5000+ rpm motors, limited mainly by their head design (they used the same GM oval and peanut port BBC heads, and Ford truck 460 heads). Yes, they vibrate a bit. No, it doesn't feel like it's a dump truck motor.

Again, the exceptions are few and far between. I question whether it was the head design that limited rpms or the forces from the weight of the pistons, which are large, or the stroke length, which is longer than the K24. The LS7 had titanium rods and hypereutectic pistons, so I would think a built bottom would also be necessary for a high redline.

Originally Posted by venturaII

The article said the iron block LS motor is 300 pounds, so there's no need for conjecture in the weight department. Exhaust is going to be custom in a swap application anyway, so that's a non-issue. This is already a running design which has a working accessory drive system for water pump and alternator (both simple packaging issues in an engine bay as wide as the FT86). The only thing it doesn't have is AC bracketry, but I'll bet off the shelf GM LS stuff can be made to work with some modification. Again, it's a swap, so that's minor engineering that comes with the territory.

I saw the weight of the longblock, but I don’t know how it compares to alternative longblocks in terms of weight. I believe it is heavier than the K24, but maybe less than a VR6 or Q37. Exhaust for LS, K, 2JZ are off the shelf or already available for aftermarket swaps, which is one reason why people swap those three engines so much. Same with the intake manifold and other accessories such as AC. Want a lightweight or Fluidyne damper then it is available. Having done a swap, and having done one-off parts, the more that is available the better. If Blueprint takes care of everything then cool.

Originally Posted by venturaII

And more importantly, this isn't a case of seeing a motor laying in a junkyard and thinking "I wonder if that'll fit?". This is a motor being designed and offered by one of the largest crate engine manufacturers in the country (if not the world), with the sole intent of being used as a swap motor. Tight external dimensions are already a primary consideration, as well as how the engine actually runs. They're not going to offer the motor if it shakes like a road compactor...they already know nobody will buy it. But they also know that someone doing an engine swap isn't as concerned with some extra vibration as a soccer mom going to the grocery store. It's made for people who LIKE engines, and like to feel them and hear them. It's intended for enthusiasts.

Again, I'm still waiting to see it run in real life at WOT on a dyno, and a full spec sheet listing dimensions and that sort of thing, but I think it's easily as promising as any other swap that's been tried.

There are LS crate motors, K20C crate motors, K built motors, and I even think Toyota is offering brand new 2JZ longblocks, as well as any other manufacturer, such as VW with the VR6, so it isn’t like this is the only option for a new motor. Dimensions are something to consider, but for our platform, those three popular (LS, 2JZ, K) swaps are proven and well supported. We could add another, but I agree that I would want to see an idle, a dyno run and see pricing before I would be enthusiastic for such a swap over the proven alternatives. While engine vibrations might be okay for a dedicated track car, they can be miserable to daily and get old fast. This is true of not having AC or of getting bad mpgs, just to name other considerations. Again, for track, all that stuff can go out the window.

[D K]

So far I havent seen a single engine option thats better than the K24 in terms of weight, power potential, aftermarket support and reliability.
Maybe a Ford Duratec would be close, but nowhere near the r&d thats been done for the K swap.

[CedN]

Originally Posted by D K

So far I havent seen a single engine option thats better than the K24 in terms of weight, power potential, aftermarket support and reliability.
Maybe a Ford Duratec would be close, but nowhere near the r&d thats been done for the K swap.

I like the work Frankenstein Motorworks have done with the Toyota 2ar four cylinder, seems cheaper and easier to make power than the k24. Though its not like you can buy swap parts of the shelf for whatever car you have.

Over here the engine with most after market is probably a Volvo B23 series engine, and other Volvo engines. They've been swapped into everything , and heaps of cheap parts available for high hp builds.