Attention LS1 owners..... need a bit of feedback.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
1999 SS. 78,000 miles
- One passenger window motor
- One dead 10-bolt crush sleeve and ensuing overhaul (after having a cam install)
- 1 toasted clutch - starting having problems before the cam.
- Shocks, springs, bearings have all been good.
- AC compressor giving me issues (may have been messed with too much during engine work)
- Will not hold a full resevoir of power steering fluid. it will leak down to about 2/3 full and stop
- Never used a ton of oil, even as a daily driver.
Overall it has been a good car, but not nearly the miles you have. On a side note, how do you like the NT-05's? I am thinking about going to a aggressive street tire, and my top choices are Ecsta XS, Proxes R1R, and NT-05.
- One passenger window motor
- One dead 10-bolt crush sleeve and ensuing overhaul (after having a cam install)
- 1 toasted clutch - starting having problems before the cam.
- Shocks, springs, bearings have all been good.
- AC compressor giving me issues (may have been messed with too much during engine work)
- Will not hold a full resevoir of power steering fluid. it will leak down to about 2/3 full and stop
- Never used a ton of oil, even as a daily driver.
Overall it has been a good car, but not nearly the miles you have. On a side note, how do you like the NT-05's? I am thinking about going to a aggressive street tire, and my top choices are Ecsta XS, Proxes R1R, and NT-05.
However, as I mentioned, just because it doesn't happen to one person (in this case myself) doesn't mean it's not a common issue with owner's in general. If it is, then it's got to be something I need to consider as needing money set aside in the near future if I keep my Camaro.
Typical infers that more do than don't. And that's not true.
Many do, maybe even a lot do, but that still doesn't make it typical.
1. You look up the difference. I know what it is and the design is exactly the same.
2. It's still an LS1 so if as you say LS1s typically use oil then it should too.
Many do, maybe even a lot do, but that still doesn't make it typical.
1. You look up the difference. I know what it is and the design is exactly the same.
2. It's still an LS1 so if as you say LS1s typically use oil then it should too.
The briefly used Gen III 5.7 truck was an L31 engine. The one that "replaced" it are the LQ4 and LQ9 6.0 liter engines, which are NOT the same engines (the blocks are not the same). The LH6 5.3 is also a different engine than the LS1.
To help you, you may want to do a google search under those engine codes and compare them to an LS1. These engines have the same basic design, but there are quite a few differences between them. And any of those differences give different engine characteristics... including potential oil consumption.
The LS2 engine is an entirely different bird from the LS1. Also, between the different years and versions of the Gen III, there are different pistons, valvetrain differences, different block castings and materials, some are set up for DOD, others have upgrades over the LS1 engine, different heads, and a myriad of other differences.
Giving a blanket statement that since a truck engine (made with far more tougher parts including piston rings for heavy hauling) is the same as an LS1 (where the engine is not expected to pull heavy loads) is again extremely inaccurate.
What goes for one engine does not goes for all.
Again, all information on the differences on various Gen III engines are widely available, and easily accessible on the internet, and can be found with only a few moments effort. I think it would help you here.
Last edited by guionM; Sep 10, 2010 at 08:51 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 906
From: niagara falls ont. canada
I read somewhere that the oil use issue was mainly in the M6 cars.
Guys were and still are driving around town cruising in second gear and higher rpms which was causing the blowby.
Guys were and still are driving around town cruising in second gear and higher rpms which was causing the blowby.
Last edited by transamtom; Sep 10, 2010 at 08:04 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 13,713
From: The Golden State
Sounds like you did. 
Thank you for the post, Rod. Often what happens is that somone makes a post about their friend's engine, and without that friend directly getting involved in the conversation, a lot of important points are missed.
You point out in your turbo engine that you replaced valetrain items and you ran 8psi boost.
Perfectly plausable.
My Thunderbird SC ran 12psi stock as did the Ford GT.
Shelby GT500 run 9.
Grand Nationals ran 10psi, and the supercharged GXPs and Regals also ran 10.
The Turbo and supercharged GMs could safely run up to 20psi. Based on that yardstick, I consider 8 psi low/moderate.
Cobras run the same 8psi that you run, but it is capable of far more because it has drag racing grade pistons, rings, and connecting rods. The Thunderbird and the GM blown V6s had forged internals. Pressuring up the Thunderbird SC beyond 15psi risk blowing head gaskets, but the internals can easily take it.
Because of the pistons and compression, there is no way one should crank up pressure going into an LS1 much beyond the 8 psi you have unless you plan on destroying pistons (I have a pretty decent idea how tough they are). And most certainly one shouldn't try to match the stock psi of the GM blown V6s or Ford's Thunderbird SC, not to mention upping it beyond what the GM supercharged V6 (let alone the supercharged Cobra) is capable of handling unless you start upgrading your internals.
Sounds like a pretty fun ride, though.
Back to the oil issue, no smoke, no oil on the ground. Been a common issue with the CHP and a unnerving number of other LS1 owners.
As I already agreed, of course it isn't 100% of LS1 engines, and maybe isn't even 60%. But even if it's only 1 in 10 that is a extremely serious number and is definately a big issue. Would you buy a car for your family if 1 in 10 had failing brakes?....What if only 1 in 5 sponteneously blew up?
Toyota had perhaps 1 in 300,000 cars with an accelerator issue. Ford had perhaps 1 in 1,000,000 vehicles that had ignitions shorting out and perhaps one in 2 million that caused fires. The odds were even greater against the rusted tailgate cables that prompted recalls of GM's large pickups.
In the grand scheme of things, that makes the LS1 oil issue more than frequent enough to be considered quite common.
Thanks Rod.
I was no doubt lucky with this car. I've come across people who have had to replace headgaskets, had waterpump leakage, and like someone else mentioned, power steering leakage... all at a lot less miles. My car was assigned to the Stockton-Sacremento strip of I-5 for about 2 years,and was assigned to a single officer, so again I was lucky.
That's why I'm soliciting for feedback. Save the 2nd transmission, multiple power window motors, and the oil disappearence, my car seems to be far above the norm as far as durability.
And as you can tell, it's not a car that I "don't" drive often.
For #2.
Im the owner of the turbo car. The kit was installed at 6,000 miles the 1st year I owned the car. I bought it new. Its a 2000 Formula.
For the first 45K miles that the kit was on (before going forged); the motor was essentially stock. I did replace valvesprings, pushrods, clutch, and fuel pump when the kit was installed. raced it quite often, and drove it hard on the street as much as needed. lol. It was at just under 500rwhp and 8psi boost at this time. ran as much as 127+ traps in the 1/4 at 3900#'s.
Later on, it got an ls6 intake (no ls6 valley pan or pcv system, however), and a retune close to 550rwhp at 8.5-9psi boost. I ran as much as 132 at the same weight, in cold air.
Then it got new lifters, and truck heads trying to figure out a tick, 4-5 years ago.
It was only after we pulled the motor this year, that the cam lobe failure was found. The edge was wiped due to porosity in the metal. (defect).
NEVER used any oil, except when the scavenge pump went bad and it was being dumped out the exhaust in a big cloud. Think spy getaway type smoke, lol.
For #3
It is a twin turbo kit from Incon, and again; was put on the stock motor (see above). not some "low compression supercharger kit". Nor sure what that means? boost pressure at the intake is boost. the pistons dont care what type of compressor is providing it.
as for blowing up a powdered metal hyperpathetic piston 10.25:1 stock motor by the 1st race. LS1's aren't anywhere near as weak as you think, and they are 10.1:1. Not that it makes much difference. Maybe you're thinking lt1?
tune and fueling is key. <11.5:1 a/f ratio, 16* of timing at peak tq; and a fuel pressure regulator that raises fuel pressure with boost makes em quite safe. 5-600 rwhp through a manual trans is pretty easy, and some guys have made close to 700. Obviously thats pushing it, but they dont just grenade as soon as they see boost.
I know most of this is off topic, but I agree with Al. While it may be that some ls1's use oil; certainly not all of em do. and by the number of people I know whith these cars, I'd say its not the majority. Certainly not enough to say its common. I had a 98 z28 before this car, and it never used oil either.
The only thing I can guess, is that "maybe" as they get higher miles on them, they use oil? It doesn't seem to be from cylinder wear, so that leaves rings, pcv, and valve seals to the cause; I guess? I could see rings making it happen, but wouldn't more of them smoke, especially at cold startup?
If any of you out there that do have oil consumption, can you chime in and say whether you replaced the pcv? and did it help? I would consider this a maintenance item, but maybe they need them replaced more often than people do.
Another thought is that maybe in certain parts of the country where its colder or hotter for extended periods of time makes a difference? I sort of doubt that too, since in MI we get all types of weather. -10 to 105.
I haven't read the TSB's about oil consumption in a while, were they just the ones that said oil useage in 1000 miles is OK? GM isn't the only ones to say that I think, and it wasn't just for Lsx motors was it? Im thinking it was kind of a guideline the industry came up with just to "fix" a problem. (thinking out loud).
BACK ON TOPIC.
Im the owner of the turbo car. The kit was installed at 6,000 miles the 1st year I owned the car. I bought it new. Its a 2000 Formula.
For the first 45K miles that the kit was on (before going forged); the motor was essentially stock. I did replace valvesprings, pushrods, clutch, and fuel pump when the kit was installed. raced it quite often, and drove it hard on the street as much as needed. lol. It was at just under 500rwhp and 8psi boost at this time. ran as much as 127+ traps in the 1/4 at 3900#'s.
Later on, it got an ls6 intake (no ls6 valley pan or pcv system, however), and a retune close to 550rwhp at 8.5-9psi boost. I ran as much as 132 at the same weight, in cold air.
Then it got new lifters, and truck heads trying to figure out a tick, 4-5 years ago.
It was only after we pulled the motor this year, that the cam lobe failure was found. The edge was wiped due to porosity in the metal. (defect).
NEVER used any oil, except when the scavenge pump went bad and it was being dumped out the exhaust in a big cloud. Think spy getaway type smoke, lol.
For #3
It is a twin turbo kit from Incon, and again; was put on the stock motor (see above). not some "low compression supercharger kit". Nor sure what that means? boost pressure at the intake is boost. the pistons dont care what type of compressor is providing it.
as for blowing up a powdered metal hyperpathetic piston 10.25:1 stock motor by the 1st race. LS1's aren't anywhere near as weak as you think, and they are 10.1:1. Not that it makes much difference. Maybe you're thinking lt1?
tune and fueling is key. <11.5:1 a/f ratio, 16* of timing at peak tq; and a fuel pressure regulator that raises fuel pressure with boost makes em quite safe. 5-600 rwhp through a manual trans is pretty easy, and some guys have made close to 700. Obviously thats pushing it, but they dont just grenade as soon as they see boost.
I know most of this is off topic, but I agree with Al. While it may be that some ls1's use oil; certainly not all of em do. and by the number of people I know whith these cars, I'd say its not the majority. Certainly not enough to say its common. I had a 98 z28 before this car, and it never used oil either.
The only thing I can guess, is that "maybe" as they get higher miles on them, they use oil? It doesn't seem to be from cylinder wear, so that leaves rings, pcv, and valve seals to the cause; I guess? I could see rings making it happen, but wouldn't more of them smoke, especially at cold startup?
If any of you out there that do have oil consumption, can you chime in and say whether you replaced the pcv? and did it help? I would consider this a maintenance item, but maybe they need them replaced more often than people do.
Another thought is that maybe in certain parts of the country where its colder or hotter for extended periods of time makes a difference? I sort of doubt that too, since in MI we get all types of weather. -10 to 105.
I haven't read the TSB's about oil consumption in a while, were they just the ones that said oil useage in 1000 miles is OK? GM isn't the only ones to say that I think, and it wasn't just for Lsx motors was it? Im thinking it was kind of a guideline the industry came up with just to "fix" a problem. (thinking out loud).
BACK ON TOPIC.
You point out in your turbo engine that you replaced valetrain items and you ran 8psi boost.
Perfectly plausable.
My Thunderbird SC ran 12psi stock as did the Ford GT.
Shelby GT500 run 9.
Grand Nationals ran 10psi, and the supercharged GXPs and Regals also ran 10.
The Turbo and supercharged GMs could safely run up to 20psi. Based on that yardstick, I consider 8 psi low/moderate.
Cobras run the same 8psi that you run, but it is capable of far more because it has drag racing grade pistons, rings, and connecting rods. The Thunderbird and the GM blown V6s had forged internals. Pressuring up the Thunderbird SC beyond 15psi risk blowing head gaskets, but the internals can easily take it.
Because of the pistons and compression, there is no way one should crank up pressure going into an LS1 much beyond the 8 psi you have unless you plan on destroying pistons (I have a pretty decent idea how tough they are). And most certainly one shouldn't try to match the stock psi of the GM blown V6s or Ford's Thunderbird SC, not to mention upping it beyond what the GM supercharged V6 (let alone the supercharged Cobra) is capable of handling unless you start upgrading your internals.
Sounds like a pretty fun ride, though.
Back to the oil issue, no smoke, no oil on the ground. Been a common issue with the CHP and a unnerving number of other LS1 owners.
As I already agreed, of course it isn't 100% of LS1 engines, and maybe isn't even 60%. But even if it's only 1 in 10 that is a extremely serious number and is definately a big issue. Would you buy a car for your family if 1 in 10 had failing brakes?....What if only 1 in 5 sponteneously blew up?
Toyota had perhaps 1 in 300,000 cars with an accelerator issue. Ford had perhaps 1 in 1,000,000 vehicles that had ignitions shorting out and perhaps one in 2 million that caused fires. The odds were even greater against the rusted tailgate cables that prompted recalls of GM's large pickups.
In the grand scheme of things, that makes the LS1 oil issue more than frequent enough to be considered quite common.
As for your main post, guionM....
I would say that if the rear and trans were already replaced, with 215k miles on it; I would think about having a short block ready. I doubt there are too many people that have a ton more miles on an f-body ls1 than you do. And since it was a cop car, probably not a lot have had a harder life. If there was a weak link, it might have popped up by now. All thats left is the motor. Well, maybe ac compressor; water pump, oil pump, alternator. etc. certainly not much else is left. Fuel pump?
If its going to be kept, have a budget for a motor. all else is relatively cheap if you get take out parts form us guys that have removed stuff. AC etc.
I would say that if the rear and trans were already replaced, with 215k miles on it; I would think about having a short block ready. I doubt there are too many people that have a ton more miles on an f-body ls1 than you do. And since it was a cop car, probably not a lot have had a harder life. If there was a weak link, it might have popped up by now. All thats left is the motor. Well, maybe ac compressor; water pump, oil pump, alternator. etc. certainly not much else is left. Fuel pump?
If its going to be kept, have a budget for a motor. all else is relatively cheap if you get take out parts form us guys that have removed stuff. AC etc.
I was no doubt lucky with this car. I've come across people who have had to replace headgaskets, had waterpump leakage, and like someone else mentioned, power steering leakage... all at a lot less miles. My car was assigned to the Stockton-Sacremento strip of I-5 for about 2 years,and was assigned to a single officer, so again I was lucky.
That's why I'm soliciting for feedback. Save the 2nd transmission, multiple power window motors, and the oil disappearence, my car seems to be far above the norm as far as durability.
And as you can tell, it's not a car that I "don't" drive often.
Last edited by guionM; Sep 10, 2010 at 08:58 PM.
Moderator
Joined: Jul 1998
Posts: 6,247
From: Charlotte,MI USA
What does this have to do with anything? Talking about a late model GMC with a GM Gen III 5.3 motor which has more simularities to an LS1 than differences.
I may not be as eliquent with my way of speaking or as nit picky about exactly correct wording as you are. But I do not need to research late model GM motors to know that they don't ''typically'' use oil.
I may not be as eliquent with my way of speaking or as nit picky about exactly correct wording as you are. But I do not need to research late model GM motors to know that they don't ''typically'' use oil.
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 2,043
From: Shelbyville, IN
It's completely stock right GuionM?
These engines will live forever at the stock shift points.
Eventually 300-400k miles you'll start to probably get compression loss and corrosponding power loss. Nothing a 0.010" and new rings couldn't take care of (or you could get a used shortblock).
Accessories can be problomatic, but not hard to replace. I'd say your biggest most $$$ item could be another A4 replacement; but if not beat on too hard at stock power levels (and torque managment left intact) they will last awhile.
U-Joints, Wheel bearings as well.
These engines will live forever at the stock shift points.
Eventually 300-400k miles you'll start to probably get compression loss and corrosponding power loss. Nothing a 0.010" and new rings couldn't take care of (or you could get a used shortblock).
Accessories can be problomatic, but not hard to replace. I'd say your biggest most $$$ item could be another A4 replacement; but if not beat on too hard at stock power levels (and torque managment left intact) they will last awhile.
U-Joints, Wheel bearings as well.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 146
From: North carolina
Even though everything might work at 250, 300,000 miles, the car is just going to be worn out all around. i think if you drove one with 50k on it then drove yours, you would notice a pretty good difference.
Moderator
Joined: Jul 1998
Posts: 6,247
From: Charlotte,MI USA
There's nothing that wears that can't be replaced. And a lot of things are pretty cheap to upgrade if you do the work yourself.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dbusch22
Forced Induction
6
Oct 31, 2016 11:09 AM
CARiD
Supporting Vendor Group Purchases and Sales
1
May 6, 2015 07:49 AM
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
0
Nov 23, 2014 10:33 AM