Anyone in the UK done an LS conversion yet?

[StevoD]

Fair enough I agree the ls engines are good but cant see you taking a forged engine and a normal engine rebuilt by the same guy driven hard then the forge giving up first

 

And you say manufacturers spend £millions then why are there modern engines which have chocolate bottom ends ??

Edited October 16, 2014 by StevoD

[Flex]

But surely forging ups the stakes massively and the only reason manufactures dont forge as standard is the cost?

[Ekona]

It's also more complicated. By increasing the strength of the engine via engineering stronger parts you need to do more testing to prove that you're on the right track, and at big power levels that's neither cheap nor easy for long-term usage.

 

I'd have no issue at all running a built engine carried out by someone else, but I'd also accept that having someone else fiddling around rather than a computerised factory robot doing it is likely to cause more weak points. Human error and all that.

 

 

 

But yes, cost is the primary issue.

[Flex]

What if superman or batman built it though?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(sorry )

[Ekona]

Then I'd definitely have one

[StevoD]

So why are these robots making engines that have chocolate bottom. Ends

[Ekona]

Which engines in particular?

[StevoD]

Well all that doc listed plus ones like Cooper s engine scoob 2.5 etc

 

And they all in performance cars tell me those cars wouldn't be better with a fully forged set up

[Grundy]

DE = Weak conrods

I would of probably survived with a Baffled Sump (Maybe some more oil, even if I did top up and check before Track)

[Ekona]

@StevoD: From the factory, yes. From a third party engine builder, possibly.

 

Again though, how many of these cars are being run as stock, or with mild performance increases? Turbocharged cars naturally end up with about 50-100bhp more than they were designed for, but NA engines with only a few percent extra bhp are usually fine.

 

In stock form, all those engines that Doc mentioned are pretty solid, as is the Subaru 2.5L and the Mini engines (not sure if you mean the SC lump or the turbo one).

[Ekona]

Thing is, would you be prepared to pay £10K more on a car for a built engine from factory?

[StevoD]

Right so your point of brands spending millions if they produce a product that's fails doesn't stand for a lot

Edited October 16, 2014 by StevoD

[Ekona]

*facepalm*

 

When run as per the factory, they don't fail with any regularity to be able to say they're 'made of chocolate'. If you start turning up the wick, then of course they're more prone to failure! If a manufacturer builds a bombproof engine then they have to charge much more for that, and then everyone complains it's too expensive and no-one buys one.

 

Does that make sense?

[StevoD]

Yea but the scoobs minis s13 etc fail on there own without turning up the wick so saying a stock engine is more realible for performance driving is rubbish

[Ekona]

*sigh*

 

Okay, you win. If you genuinely believe that a stock engine tuned for maximum reliability to make sure the multi-billion pound car company don't get stuck with a load of warranty issues is less reliable than an engine taken apart and put back together by a man in a shed and tuned for MAXIMUM POWAAAAHHHH, then I'm fine with that.

 

Some engines are weaker than others, that happens. As a genuine rule, the very vast majority of stock engines are much more reliable than those that are built up by tuners.

[StevoD]

Guess having worked for a reliable brand and dealt with all there multi million pound development failures I've lost faith haha

Edited October 16, 2014 by StevoD

[docwra]

In stock form, all those engines that Doc mentioned are pretty solid, as is the Subaru 2.5L and the Mini engines (not sure if you mean the SC lump or the turbo one).

 

This. Any modified engine, whether its been built by superman or not is more likely to fail than the standard ones, the CA, EJ and RB26 are all excellent examples of this, they rarely break under standard power. Besides, a lazy old V8 that only revs to 6K is clearly going to suffer less stress than a high compression engine thats regularly seeing 8.5K, thats common sense isnt it?

 

An LS3 is 430hp as standard, taking that to 50hp isnt a great increase by any means. A VQ35 with 500hp is running nearly twice its original power, thats a hell of a lot of additional strain on everything, not to mention the additional cooling, fuelling and lubrication its going to need, I know which Id take if I was into endurance racing

[StevoD]

Wait some my stock s13 ca18 that got rod knock was reliable from casual daily driving

 

What about my stockish s14 had a 3 inch exhaust granted Sr20 blacktop that also got rod knock from hard driving was reliable

[Ekona]

And the one thing in common is you?

 

Right, no-one ever hand Steve your keys

[StevoD]

Non of my other cars have yet touch wood @*!# them self other than the old datsuns haha

 

I'm just amazed people think forged engines are unreliable like your hinting at it comes down to the piece of meat building the engine or maintaining or driving it if that piece of meat is good there is zero reason to avoid a fully forged 500 bhp vq

[Ekona]

No-one said forged engines are unreliable. What we're saying is that modifying anything (engines, phones, whatever) from their original spec to massively increase performance is very likely to make it less reliable than stock.

 

I would not avoid a forged 500bhp VQ. I just would never have the expectation that it would then be as reliable as a 276bhp VQ.

[Grundy]

No-one said forged engines are unreliable. What we're saying is that modifying anything (engines, phones, whatever) from their original spec to massively increase performance is very likely to make it less reliable than stock.

 

I would not avoid a forged 500bhp VQ. I just would never have the expectation that it would then be as reliable as a 276bhp VQ.

From my point of view though, I'd trust a Forged engine (Just been finished, not ended up in a car yet) over another stock engine, or car - Only because you pretty much have a freshly built new engine as opposed to a stock non modded engine with only the word of the previous owner as to how it was driven and looked after.

 

Pen and paper yes Stock should be more reliable, but in the real world, you can only ever really trust your self.

 

(Yes I know you have to factor in the mechanics that build the engine for any error etc, but that's a whole nother arguement )

[StevoD]

Good point as was proved recently people like to what was the term 'bullshit' about there engines condition/history

[docwra]

Guys, you think whatever you like - Ive been involved with modded cars for over 15 years now, from bone stock engines to forged builds that were running well over twice standard power and invariably the modified stuff breaks first. Sure, a standard CA can break but having gone through 3 modded CA's in less than 200 miles they arent that bad, trust me

 

Im not singling you out Grundy, but anyone who trusts an unrun engine over a proven one doesnt have experience with modified engines, thats crazy talk.

 

Even the best engine builder cant work tolerances like OE does, and any increase in power will put more strain on stuff like cranks, BE/LE/Main bearings, the oil pump, water pump, injectors, cambelt and valvetrain - failure of any of those components could be catastrophic which also leads to the other part of the equation - a replacement stock engine or even components will always cost much, much less than the modded version.

 

So when its less likely to break and cheaper to replace if it does ........... this is why LS conversions are so popular IMO

Edited October 16, 2014 by docwra

[StevoD]

Guys, you think whatever you like - Ive been involved with modded cars for over 15 years now, from bone stock engines to forged builds that were running well over twice standard power and invariably the modified stuff breaks first. Sure, a standard CA can break but having gone through 3 modded CA's in less than 200 miles they arent that bad, trust me

 

Im not singling you out Grundy, but anyone who trusts an unrun engine over a proven one doesnt have experience with modified engines, thats crazy talk.

 

Even the best engine builder cant work tolerances like OE does, and any increase in power will put more strain on stuff like cranks, BE/LE/Main bearings, the oil pump, water pump, injectors, cambelt and valvetrain - failure of any of those components could be catastrophic which also leads to the other part of the equation - a replacement stock engine or even components will always cost much, much less than the modded version.

 

So when its less likely to break and cheaper to replace if it does ........... this is why LS conversions are so popular IMO

 

 

Funny ive got two friends with fully forged ca18's that have done 20-25k on them currently without issue

 

So you destroyed 3 forged engines in 200 miles and your trying to give advice on them, i understand your very knowledgeable and have been here there any everywhere but can you not see the irony there

 

Also you say upping the power will put strain on etc etc etc, well isnt that the point?

 

When you build a fully forged high HP engine you as a rule upgrade everything to cope with it. Valve trains, bearings, pistons, rods, gaskets etc etc, of course you going to have issue with a 500bhp VQ if all you do is put forged bottom end and nothing else in it

 

and im curious why cant an engine builder work to OE tolerances? because if i my research tells me right the VR from the GTR is hand assembled so how can they be anymore closer than a engine builder from i dunno liverpool who has the same tools, that im sorry just sound bollocks.

 

http://nissannews.co...ind-nissan-gt-r

Edited October 16, 2014 by StevoD