@@mewrongwayKOCXF the Flathead Ford is nothing like the d-series GM V8 lol 😆 the ls was originally designed for Ford and was supposed to be used by Ford but Ford didn't want to use it so they went ahead with their plans to use their modular V8. All the information is there if you do the research. The ls nothing more than a modernized 351 Windsor. Also you're trying to say that GM is the one in the lead when Ford was making dual overhead cam V8s way before GM ever thought to. Hence V8 tank engines.. GM decided to stick with the pushrod V8 so yeah. You're telling me in LS V8 is more technologically advanced than a Coyote 5.0? Look I like all cars it doesn't matter to me but you just sit there and act like ford is just trying to copy GM is just silly dude. If you don't like Fords that's fine but don't sit there and make up stupid shit.
A 4.8 would be great in an 80s F-Body. Without even doing any big modifications it would be a big improvement over the old 5.0, or even the 5.7 in stock form.
I drove one 620,000 miles, all original unmolested drivetrain, less u-joints, when I sold it. Ran like new. Used under a quart over 5k miles. Made the decision to run dino oil and just change it a lot vs. synthetic. Also used Lucas in everything - motor, trans, rear end, fuel. Very heavy use, loaded bed and towing. Modern gas engines can last as long as diesels if you keep them clean and oiled.
I consistently get shit gas mileage around 10 mpg, but my truck has a booty setup. Other than the mpg complaint the 4.8 is mechanical sound and stupid reliable.
I mean.... that's 100 hp / L out of a pushrod 2V engine. That used to be exclusive domain for DOHC 4V systems, so pretty awesome overall. That RPM range is badass, 7200 RPM!
I put that intake on my Gen 3 4.8 that has a big cam and 243 heads and it really helped the power band from 3500 and up quite a bit. Definitely noticeable.
Perfect engine for a G-Body. You can daily Drive the shit out of it and then take it to the racetrack and dial in the chassis and have some G-Body shuffling fun!
The reign of the LS1 has lived on because it’s just such an economical package for both price/performance and package dimensions. Would love to see a tear down and refresh for a boost build.
Reign of the LS? Which one has gone 5.88 @ 256mph with an almost entirely oe parts engine? None. John Mihovetz has taken the 4.6 4V to that level. Which LS has gone 300.4mph in the standing mile? Zero. A prepped 5.4L Ford GT has. Which LS has won overall Sick Week, Tx2k24, Import vs Domestic with a sleeved oe cast block and heads and oe crank breaking every Drag and drive radial record ever? None. Brett Lasalas Coyote has. The LS has "reigned" on cheap easy builds... but not ultimate performance with oe cast engines. Last note. The one year 4V engined were allowed in the Engine Masters Challenge in 2013, the 4V Fords took a clean sweep on the podium and crying from the GM camp forced a rule change and the 4V aren't allowed now against the pushrod engines. All those extra cubes don't make up for inferior flowing heads. Fact
@@chadkent1241 that’s great. Brett’s Snot Rocket 1.0 and 2.0 were insane. Still doesn’t change anything that I said from being true. The LS swap reigns supreme because of price/performance and engine package dimensions. At this point, everyone knows the Coyote is a phenomenal engine. But the 4.6 and 5.4 are not ideal swap engines BECAUSE they’re so massive and heavier than an aluminum LS - making them harder to use in some vehicles. Not sure why this provoked a history lesson from you about Ford engines, because it wasn’t a personal attack on Ford engines at all. Just the fact that the LS swap (especially the junkyard truck engines) are still one of the best options to swap into your build.
The LS in Speed Demon went 400mph. That seems like a pretty impressive number to us. Also, no one hates Ford's here, there's simply no denying the LS's prevalence in the high-performance community.
The thing is the LS7 is rated 505hp with full accessories, cats, air box, etc. manufacturers test the engines how the engine sits in the car! Many of magazine/youtube engine dyno’s DO NOT give accurate results because they test in gross and not net like the manufacturers do.
For most racers the traditional 300 RPM per-second-sweep on a water brake dyno is more than sufficient to determine how a component (such as induction or camshaft) affects the power and torque curves. Net or gross doesn't really matter when your goal is to validate if a new part is beneficial for an engine combination. OEM dynos are a whole different animal. They hold the engine at different RPM points for a painfully long duration. The final numbers are actually an average of the engines output during a measured time span across those ranges. Things like catalyst protect, which richness the air/fuel mixture to lower exhaust temperatures at WOT, and other tuning parameters, such as a reduction ignition timing as the engine coolant temperature rises, will actually lower the measured output during an SAE dyno pull, so the final numbers are more like average peak and not true maximum power. That's why we often see stock vehicles make more power than they are rated at on aftermarket dynos. For racing and street performance, we're not looking to produce a product brochure with guaranteed output to go with a new vehicle, but more to find the delta in performance increase between multiple component or tuning variables. Hope that helps explain why we dyno in this fashion.
I had a 4.8 in my old work van. That is a tough little motor. I loved it. It was used, abused, and never got regular oil changes. I delivered medical supplies, and (mostly) oxygen tanks. When loaded down in my 2500 express, the suspension and brakes complained a lot more than the motor. Sometimes i would drive more than 2500 miles a week, and she never let me down. I had a dead battery once, but nothing engine related. And, for a big van, that thing had plenty of acceleration. If i was empty, that thing would move.
Those edelbrock heads won't cut it, a better set of heads would have probably made the number..those are basically a slightly better 243/799 head. A set of (good) CNC ported 243s, trick flows or AFRs with a smaller combustion chamber to bump compression would put it at or over 500.
I love videos like this❤ taking the smallest V8s and making them make impressive horsepower with basic modifications. I just recently watched a video of the same thing with a 305!😊
Holy moly, dropping several thousand dollars on mods with a big honkin' cam in an LS to make just a hair more power than a bone stock Coyote from the same time. Good ol' GM engineering.
quiet down, a simple cam and spring swap in a lowly 5.7 hemi can make 550/510. and a 5.3, 6.0 or 6.2 LS would be almost as good. GM and Mopar can power 2500/3500 trucks with the torque they make. Ford had to create a whole new engine for that. A Coyote has to rev to 7000-8000 rpm to make power without boost.
now can you do the same thing with the 5.3L ? I would love to see the comparison 4.8 vs 5.3 since those are the 2 most popular available LS engines at the scrap yard.
@@chriscovington11 ouu i probably missed that. Just saw his k24 turbo video. Im gunna def check it out. But any LS will make tons of power if you boost them
4.8 is easier to go for simply cause it never came with the dod and afm garbage I'll take a 4.8 over a 5.3 most days only difference is stroke throw a 5.3 crank in it and watch it
I really only have interest in carb stuff for low budget builds. It's cheaper to land a carb than it is a full fuel injection system, but this is proof that carbs work but aren't the best.
The best thing to do with a GenIV 4.8, would be cam+springs and a GT45 Sloppy Mechanics Don't B.S. Me build. Otherwise, before I spent for aftermarket heads and a FAST 102, I would probably go to a set of 706/862 heads with the ports touched up, milled from 61.5cc to 58cc instead of 799/243 heads with 64cc and 2" intake valves that arent needed, then thinner headgaskets, like 0.039"-0.027, rather than stock 0.051", really for what aftermarket heads and intakes, expensive cams and shaft rockers cost and if you have accesses to a reasonabibly priced machine shop, either get a 5.3 core engine, or buy a used 5.3 crank, GenIV floating pin 6.098" rods, cheap cast floating pin 3.898" pistons, assemble the engine as an iron 5.7L, then run the original 243/799 heads, TBSS/NBS intake, ebay/amazon SSIII 238/242 or Summit Single plane 240/252 cam + Pac 1218s, 1.75"-3" headers, try ebay 1.8 rockers to raise the lift to .630/.630 or .604/.604 at the valve, get the compression up to 11.4-11.8:1, get the quench dialed to 0.040" or less. There's your 500hp n/a for similar money to the 4.8 with that expensive top end, induction and cam+valvetrain. Then as you work that bottom end you could make 540+hp with higher end cams, head work or heads, induction, very high compression for e85, nitrous or boost. An SBE 4.8 is really best used for boost, a dude ran 7s in the 1/4 with one in a New Edge Mustang that he claimed he never took the heads off. 4.8s will never be n/a heroes without being bored and stroked. They are cheap and perfect for amatures getting into turbo builds because the power capability is there and if it's destroyed because of a mistake or misfortune it's not a huge loss. Most people really can't use or apply the 1,000+hp a turbo 4.8 is capable of so seeing people waste a good aluminum 5.3, 5.7, 6.0, 6.2 or iron 6.0 they didnt need and couldn't use in a turbo mishap is sad and was an engine some guy running n/a could have gotten a lot of use from. I always reccomend iron 4.8/5.3 for turbo use. A 6.0 iron that could have been used n/a or to build a 408 stroker being destroyed in a budget turbo build is a sad thing.
The problem is the factory pistons don’t have valve reliefs so putting a .630 lift cam with 240° @.050in of duration will cause the pistons to hit the valves. We used a 235° cam and it barely cleared with just over .090in piston to valve clearance which is tighter than I like things to be. There is certainly more power on the table with a full engine build, higher compression pistons with valve reliefs, and more camshaft/cylinder head, more displacement. That just isn’t what we were trying to test here with a stock short block.
Hell, I got a set of 243 heads off an impala ss for 180 out the door at the pull a part, am running the texas speed 228r 600 lift cam, trunion upgrade, efi source gold box, and kooks full long tubes and true dual exhaust on my 2002 Camaro and let me tell you, the 4.8 in this thing screams. I usually dont shift untill 7100
I have a 4.8 in my 03 silverado with peformance reman 706's and tri metal race head gaskets. It also has a 15 whp edge tune on it and 3.73 gears it does surprisingly good for having a stock cam still.
If N/A I would also bore the cylinder out quite a bit. Believe LS1 pistons fit. They have extremely thick cylinder walls. I would change the compression with the piston swap to match the cam, too. At least 10:1.
That would be a pretty rowdy motor. Driveability would be a little rough. The reason why you don’t see more 4.8 builds like this is because of all the other LS motors exist. Those same parts on a 5.3 would have made 500
As someone who wants to put a 4.8LS in my Grand Cherokee, I'm more concerned with off idle, and partial throttle torque. Which wasn't covered here. _BUT!_ . . . the bone stock engine had over 300lbs. of torque at only 3000rpm , 1:51 , which is perfect for my intended application. I won't be doing WOT runs, I just need more low end torque than my 4.0L six can make. It costs real money to get over 300lbs of torque out of the 4.0L. The 4.8LS does it right out of the junk yard, stock.
@@troywood7170 . . why would I put that kind of money into any engine when I can get the same performance out of a cheap junk yard V8? I've already been thru all of this and done the math. The 4.0L is a DUD of an engine. I get that some people are very defensive of that engine, and I'm fine with the criticism.
@@RANDOMNATION907 The love comes from the 90's when they added fuel injection to that motor. It made 190hp and 225 pound feet of torque which was really impressive back then. Inside a little CJ or YJ they were more than enough. That and they lasted FOREVER being an I6. However they were a lot less impressive in the Cherokee due to the weight difference especially in the Grand Cherokee, so I can see why you'd want the change. LS swap that thing and don't look back. The 4.8 or the 5.3 are amazing transplant motors and everything you need to to make it easy is right on RU-vid. I think if you grab the donor trucks ECU, wire harness, and fuse box that's about all you need. If you want more customization/control Holly makes amazing engine management units for those. In the end you'll make more HP per dollar than dumping money into the 4.0.
The whole point of the 4.8 is high RPM & boost. Put a little cam in it and a cheap turbo and let it eat. No issues making 600 whp all day long on them even with high miles.
A buddy of mine blew up his turbo'd 406 ci LSX, waiting for a new block they threw all the speed parts on a 4.8 sitting around. Made 1048 hp.....for a little while anyway.
@@redlight3932 I know you mentioned that as a dig, but the rebuilt LSX has 15 years at a 1000+ hp tune and daily driven and 4.8 was one of a dozen sitting around he bought for 200 bux. They got several weeks horsing around at 1000 hp on a 4.8 They were fully well aware it wast going to survive and it still lasted longer than anyone guessed.
Excellent showing that the PFI/manifold is the best. It always is, but other dyno session videos clearly deliberately skip it completely, or set-up the carb with a ton of other power adders.
200K on the motor, overhaul it with new rings and pistons that bump up the compression ratio. This will add HP and a little bit of torque as well as help with the throttle response.
Keep in mind, you are measuring Gross Horsepower, which is measured at the flywheel (Net Horsepower is also measured at the flywheel, not the tires). Gross H.P. is also measured with and open exhaust, open, unrestricted intake, and no accessories connected to the front of the engine. Then it is corrected to STP (indicated on your dyno computer screen) Standard Temperature and Pressure (Sea Level Pressure 29.92 In Hg and Sea Level Temp 59 degrees F or 15 C) very favorable conditions. Net Horsepower requires stock intake, stock exhaust, and full front accessories connected (power steering, alternator, water pump, etc...) then corrected to SAE NET H.P. (29.23 in Hg, 77 degrees F or 25 C) My 4.8 L is 285 SAE Net H.P. on my 2004 Silverado That said, closing in on 500 Gross H.P. from a 4.8L is impressive!
I have an 07" GMC Sierra 1500 extended cab truck with the same stock 4.8 Ltr with the factory 243 heads when I got it 3 years ago..for a small 293 CID engine and heavy truck it runs damn good with just 105.000 miles on it..the factory Haines manual lists it at 295 HP at I believe 4800 rpm..so I like this tests..
Hotrod Magazine made somewhere around 800-850 hp before their engine gave up. It was originally supposed to be a 5.3 build, when they took the bottom end apart to investigate the damage they realized it was a 4.8
@@felonysounds You sure about that hoss? I only recall one time a 4.8 was mistakenly tested instead of a 5.3. www.motortrend.com/how-to/hrdp-1109-stock-gm-ls-engine-big-bang-theory/
Think a little bit of compression could have gotten you there? With that much cam it's probably a must, and I think you actually gave up a tiny amount of compression with those heads.
I do think compression would have helped tremendously, but we wanted to keep the short block stock. A domed piston with some valve reliefs could have worked wonders.
@@hemmingsmotornews Definitely! But I'm really just thinking machine those heads down to a small chamber, and flycut the pistons a bit as needed to give the proper P2V clearance, and let 'er rip again!!
How come you didn't do springs? Looks like you were getting some valve float at the top end there, I think you could have made even more power if you could get that under control.
@@hemmingsmotornews Yeah that's what I was noticing on the pull to 7600... but I guess it all depends if you would want to regularly spin it that high anyway.
The 4.8 is the best platform for high rpm because the stroke is shorter than that of the larger LS engines and slightly less bore. Ported heads, high rpm springs and lifters will get you over 8000rpm
@@EvPerkthe 4.3 is based off the ls1 architecture and has the same stroke and bore as the 5.7 as well just minus 2 cylinders.. The ecotec lv3 4.3 also has been show to handle boost and cams real well.. Sdcp makes cams and what they call a stage 2 cam with 14 pounds of boost led to the little lv3 making 700hp to the crank
Lv3 4.3 and the earlier tbi and the vortec version are all based off the ls1 architecture. Same stroke and bore and even uses alot of the same accessories sdpc make cams and afm/dod delete kits for the lv3 @@EvPerk
@@jcanfixall1585 it's based of the 350 5.7 same stroke and bore takes same mods the same the 5.7 is the ls1 architecture though the lv1 and lv3 4.3 are based off the Lt architecture
The Edelbrock heads came with higher pressure springs for a hydraulic roller cam that let us rev to 7,500 with no discernible valve train control issues.
@@Maverick09171 but race car stuff is cool lol. I actually just stuck a similar cam in a 408 I built and it had a beautiful torque curve. 600 hp and over 500 lb-ft on tap as low as 3,500rpm.
@@hemmingsmotornewsyeah it is! But that’s what I’m saying. That cam in a super light race car, sure. That cam in a street car with a 4.8, no bueno. Not a fan of dyno queens personally. But yeah we can agree a 408 needs a lot more cam than a 292, yeah?!
How many mpg will the 4.8 REALISTICALLY claim over the bigger LS motors? I remember in the 90s, owners of 305 V8s wishing they got the 350 because the mpg was the same. Thanks
whats really interesting is i know of one drag racer running this same size engine size but built out from Proline. It makes around 3500HP at 60+ Psi manifold and 3 stage 1000HP nos. 6 second car...on a 4.3 ! P.s yes a 4.3 it was special built and then left on the shelf. He needed an engine for 2023 so thats what he got. Theres a two year waiting list otherwise. And this although small, was a full tilt build...I think it was like 70 grand on discount for the orphaned bare long block. It was $85k ordered as is, customer put down 20k and never picked it up!?!
No BS, just a different testing protocol with a different intent. OEM dynos are a whole different animal. They hold the engine at different RPM points for a painfully long duration. The final numbers are actually an average of the engines output during a measured time span across those ranges. Things like catalyst protect, which richness the air/fuel mixture to lower exhaust temperatures at WOT, and other tuning parameters, such as a reduction ignition timing as the engine coolant temperature rises, will actually lower the measured output during an SAE dyno pull, so the final numbers are more like average peak and not true maximum power. That's why we often see stock vehicles make more power than they are rated at on aftermarket dynos. For racing and street performance, we're not looking to produce a product brochure with guaranteed output to go with a new vehicle, but more to find the delta in performance increase between multiple component or tuning variables. Hope that helps explain why we dyno in this fashion.
4:20 is a great number - but it's also a time stamp for a dyno where you guys stopped revving at 7200RPM even though you were still building power and it doesn't look like there are obvious signs - at least from my comfy seat in front of a computer - of valve float; I know another one or five hundo rippums isn't a ton, but it might have been cool to see juuuuust how far it goes
We did run it out to 7,500 in multiple pulls (not shown). It didn't make the edit because the engine did not make power past 7,200. Eric Rhee is an excellent dyno operator.
I don't think that is even close to off the shelf max power. It seems like bigger injectors, bigger fuel pump, tuning for e85, super charger/ turbo, lighter rotating assembly, and I'm sure other things I have not thought of.
Bigger injectors: Not needed for the power level. We had plenty of duty cycle to spare. Supercharger/turbo: This was a naturally aspirated test. The engine would obviously make more power with boost. Tuning for E85: This was done in the episode. Lighter rotating assembly: Very expensive and doesn't contribute anything to horsepower. This dyno session was meant to test the most common modifications people make: heads, intake, cam. Sure, there are more things that would influence power upward, but they would require a whole engine build, which was not the goal here.
The 4.8 may be junkyard cheap, but all the aftermarket parts cost about the same as the ones for a bigger engine, so if your going to spend $3K to upgrade a engine, why not spend a bit for a better engine in the first place?
Dual plane's such as the air gap are great intakes but they favor mid-range power and torque which was not the goal for this test. A good single plane will almost always make more power than a dual plane manifold.
pausing the video at the HP/torque curves leads me to this conclusion: at any RPM under 5000, new heads, spark and fuel tune, e85, aftermarket intake, and comp cam netted less than 20 hp.....if I'm wrong please explain, but very lack luster.....
Is it really fair to call a setup that picks up more than 20hp at the lowest point and over 119HP at peak power lack luster? Even with the big cam shifting the power up (an inevitable consequence of a large-duration camshaft) the engine still picked up everywhere across the power band and made an astounding 1.62hp per cubic inch. Seems like a major improvement to us.
62 degrees of overlap in a low compression 4.8 doesn't make for a good driver. I'm looking at a 470 hp LS1 with a 214 degree cam and ported 706 heads. You don't have to buy aftermarket heads and massive cam to get good power.
