Paul L

If I believe the source below, this base-level GM crate engine puts out 249hp. My stock L-82 is rated at 225. Are these apples/apples hp ratings? If yes, what is in the crate engine that is not in my L-82? The 249hp would be just fine for my type of driving.

I have had an oil consumption problem (quart per 500 miles) for the last two summers and, although the car runs well, it is a nuisance. I have tried numerous remedies short of a re-build. My winter thought is to bag the L-82 with its matching numbers for a future owner and drop in the crate engine with its 3-year warranty. Local rebuilders want ~$2,000CDN to rebuild and I can get the crate for about the same price.

Can I assume that the L-82 intake, exhaust manifolds, water pump, pulleys, etc. will just bolt on? And the TH350? I believe that I will have to use my existing oil pan. I would appreciate comments on this swap.
http://www.sdpc2000.com/cart.asp?act...id=128&pid=110

MIKER

Even if it is not a "apples to apples" compairson I bet that the net would be no less than 225 hp. For the money, I think that this is the best deal going for your needs. And, yes, all of your componenets will bolt right on.
I fully understand that you are not interested in performance upgrades but have you read the GM performance quest article. If nothing else, it shows you that this engine is built well enough to withstand a lot so that should indicate a L O N G life in stock form.
Sounds like a good plan! :seeya


[Modified by MIKER, 4:45 PM 2/3/2002]

DCShark

Although, I don't have a definite answer to your question I would say yes. I have thought of doing this swap this year as well. I was going to go with the Performer manifold, headers and my original Q-Jet. Is there a Canadian source for this engine besides John Bear Chevrolet. I guess any GM dealer should be able to get this engine for me. Have you checked out prices. And is there a core charge for this engine.
Sorry, to answer your question with more questions.

Paul L

You make a very good point. John Bear is selling that engine for $2525.00CDN. I will check with my local Chev dealer in Ottawa to see if they can do as well. Would save shipping, brokerage fees at the border and miscellaneous other little obstacles to cross border trade that our government puts in place.

Tom73

A while back I e-mailed GM Performance Parts asking how their crate engines are rated. That advised that the stock replacement crate engines are not rated. But the Performance Parts crate engines are rated at GROSS horsepower. They cannot do a NET hp as they do not know the setup of the car that it is to go into. So the a GMPP crate engine would be rated at, say, 250 GROSS HP while you L82 is 225 NET HP. Real world, I would say you have about ten to twenty hp over that crate engine.

But the one you reference does not appear to be a GMPP engine and I wonder who makes it :rolleyes: Compared to your L82, it has lower compression, smaller valves, and a milder cam. No way it could match the performance. And I am willing to bet it does not have the stronger internal parts that you L82 has (in fact it lists the crank as cast nodular. The L82 has forged).

tom...


[Modified by Tom73, 6:09 PM 2/3/2002]

Paul L

Thanks Tom. Thought it might be an apples/oranges situation. Looks like that crate engine with 8.5:1 compression is basically an L-48 with four-bolt mains. That is not necessarily bad as it does have potential. And as I said it may be all I need for boulevard/Sunday afternoon driving. Appreciate the reply.

PS-The smaller valves compared to the L-82 should have been a hint.


[Modified by paul79, 7:11 PM 2/3/2002]

Ganey

Paul

Yes, it is very similar to the L-48. Tom is basically right, the hp difference is more than his conservative estimate, more like L-48 to L-82 difference.

If you run the long oil filter & 1/2 qt. low in the pan that might take care of the oil usage. Some are saying the new Valvoline oil for older engines in the metallic red plastic is helping.

Paul L

Ganey,
I have tried that Valvoline oil for older engines. That does not work. The longer oil filter and running low on the dipstick intrigues me. Any idea what is behind that?

My last kick-at-the-cat (well, I wouldn't really) before dropping an engine with only 45,000 miles on it is the intake manifold gaskets. That was a suggested solution by Forum members but the car ran so well in 2001 I simply wanted to drive and not tinker. I will give that a try in April when the car comes out of storage.




[Modified by paul79, 7:33 PM 2/3/2002]

Ganey

This is a common trick that some have used for years. There is oil picked up by crank windage & thrown on the cylinders & the oil rings removes. By lowering the level in the pan less is thrown on the cyls. so the oil rings may be able to handle then when before oil was getting past the rings & being burned. Note that the dipstick says add at 1 qt. low & some run 1 qt. low in the pan. I.E. if oil is not added it goes down to a level & stays there.

Paul L

Ganey,
That is a compromise I do not think I would try. Sounds like a solution of sorts for an engine with marginal rings. I would prefer to refurbish.

Shark Racer

K. Being the "proud" owner of a GM GW350, I'll let you know a few things about it.
My signature should be all the proof in the world of what I think, but....
You can pick the block up for $600. That's the only remotely decent thing about it. If you're dying for a cheap buildup, by the block, get a good crank put in, good pistons, good heads, and a nice cam and you'll be happy. That's if you want to do this stuff yourself, otherwise save your pennies and dimes and get a ZZ4.
-Steve
PS The GM GW350 is almost identical to an L48, they idle the same, sound the same, and performance was better, but I also put an Edel performer intake on when I changed, so it's hard to say how much stronger the GW350 was than stock.