LS1 Volvo

no no, you damn retard. is it that hard to read? the ls2 makes 103 more hp than the 4.6. the 5.3 makes 8 more h.p. also, the compression ratio is actually lower in the 5.3 than the 4.6, allowing it to hold just a little more boost. so power adder for power adder, it would still win. even the inline six makes 1 hp less than the 4.6, with 27 less cubes. a fuel filler door is optional on the exploder? what gives? oh a 6 speed auto makes is soooo much more fuel effiecient. I bet if they went back to a 4 speed auto, they'd get better economy. that little motor has to work too hard with that big ol tranny. if it works, leave it, just as gm has. the 4.6 should get better economy in the city than a 6.0, but it doesnt, going to show the paresitic power loss due to the tranny.  

as for indepent rear suspension, dont people complain about the lack of traction it gives? wouldnt you want a solid axle in a performance suv? i'd love to see a 500 rwhp boosted 4.6 suv that still has a warrenty.

Your tone is inappropriate.

Obviously I meant to type LS4 (although it's probably an LH6 engine code--I don't have an option sheet) when referring to the 5.3 Vortec.

You've provided absolutely no data on cylinder head flow, which is more important than "holding boost" to overall output.  Given that the 5.3 only makes 300-303 h.p. (even with LS6 head technology) with 44 more cubes than a 3V 4.6, the heads and cam timing are suspect.  And given that the DOD system isn't yet compatible with aftermarket cams (at least as far as I've been able to determine), the breathing limits of the 5.3 Vortec put it at a disadvantage to the rapidly developing 3V as a power-adder engine. So your assertion that it would be a "better" power adder engine is rank speculation.

Richard Holdener has tested scores of 4.6 and 5.4 N/A and power adder combinations.  These tests are published and available to all to read and learn from.

I've seen no similar test data on built 5.3 Vortecs.

You comments on the six-speed v. four-speed automatics are inaccurate.  The six speed does reduce ratio splits, which can keep the engine in a more efficient range during acceleration, adding performance as well as a bit of fuel economy, but the real advantage is smoother, more seamless power delivery through closer ratios.   And GM is  spending $170 million to refit the Ypsilanti, Michigan Hydramatic plant to build RWD/AWD six-speeds (and is developing a transverse six-speed automatic with . . . FORD) so perhaps even they realize the day of the four-speed has passed.

Interesting you mention the LL8 DOHC 4V Vortec six-cylinder, which was GM's only listing on Ward's 10 Best Engines for 2003-2005.   

"Ward's 10 Best Engines is an annual list of the ten 'best' automobile engines selected by Ward's AutoWorld magazine. The list was started in 1994 and has been drawn every year since then. The selection takes into account power and torque output, noise, vibration and harshness (NVH) levels, technical relevance and basic comparative numbers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward%27s_10_Best_Engines

An LSx engine hasn't made that list since 1999, while a Ford Modular has been on it all but two years (2003 and 2004) during the same time span.  

And the excellent power output of the 4.2 liter LL8 just supports the argument in favor of multivalve OHCs over undervalved pushrod engines.  However the great LL8 still trails horsepower-per-cube of the 2001 4.6 DOHC SVT Cobra engine.  It's slightly better in its most recent form than the detuned Marauder/Aviator/Mach 1 4Vs from a few years back. (but Ford's detuned 4V 4.6s beat the LL8 in year-to-year comparisons).  

The amazing thing about the 3V SOHC is that it approaches 4V levels of output with much less hardware (although Ford's production 4Vs have seldom pushed the envelope until in the hands of tuners like Sean Hyland. http://www.seanhylandmotorsport.com/ 

 "the 4.6 should get better economy in the city than a 6.0, but it doesnt, going to show the paresitic power loss due to the tranny."

No what it really shows it that it takes a fair amount of fuel to accelerate 4700 lbs of truck from stoplight to stoplight, regardless of how big the engine is.

Given the powerband of the LS2 (and I mean the 6.0 LS2 this time) and the way GM has geared it, the EPA city testing doesn't really get the engine into the fuel-guzzling  big horsepower part of the powerband that much.  Everyone I know with a Trailblazer SS just wishes that the EPA city numbers were true. And the SS uses 93 octane fuel (not the much cheaper 87 swill that the Ford was tested on)  Still the LS2's numbers fuel economy numbers are only marginally better than a 1978 403 Oldsmoble engine powering a similar amount of weight (of course the carbureted non-feedback Olds had significantly less power above 3500 rpm and generated more CO, HC and NOX)

I admit that Ford hasn't taken full advantage of the fuel economy potential of the Modular engine.  But that doesn't mean in a lighter-weight street machine that the Modular couldn't give better economy than a conventional small block  along with spectacular performance.  The fact that literally thousands of power adder Mustangs are proving this every day across America can't be ignored.  

It is ridiculous that this thread has turned into a huge debate.  65 posts? Get bent.  I'm just a kid who was looking for some info I doing a swap that I would like to try.  I was looking for personal opinions or a thesis on the LSX versus the Modular.  I wish there was a way I could close this thread.

I think that about covers it.  

Sounds like this Idea has generated a lot of interest, with 67 replies. I got stuck at #19 though, cuzz it's been deleted, and my browser won't jump past it. I'd like to see the rest of them, but guess I aint got enough computer savvy to figger it out. Haven't made plans of a time table to go get the 122-s yet, but I am definitely going to get it. Backed away from the 440 sneazle for this one though, looking at trying to find a 215 instead. Know a guy who put one in a jeep several years ago and it runs like a scalded dog! I also wouldn't have the weight issue of all that iron to carry and stop. It would still be an Olds rocket powered volvo that way, Maybe even can find an adapter plate/bellhousing to keep the original 4 speed, so the wife won't want to drive it. Got to get her Omega back on the road after a minor fender bender repair has turned into a full paint job with no time to work on it before I have room for the Volvo . Saving the 440 plan for another foolish Idea I had.to take a 3 door suburban , a 67 chevy short bed pickup , make a 3 door crew cab short bed 4X4, sharpen the upper body lines, buid a wrap-around front bumper add the grill and headlights from a 63-64 dynamic 88, roof glass reminisent of a vista cruiser, and build the ultimate"sport truck that never was" the Oldsmobile 4X442 with triangulated 4 bars at both ends.  I am looking a mopar axles , as I dont want big ole lockin hubs stickin' out, aa I would put olds 15" SSII wheels on it- might have to take the hubs to work and redrill them on the CNC mill to fit the wheels, or make some 4140 adapter rings, aint about to run no potmetal junk.Yeah, I'm nuts, but aint we all?  

I say burn it to the ground.yuppies,soccer moms and homersexuals drive volvos.BURN IT.or better yet ghost ride it into a lake while it is on burning  

in 1968 i met this who had the audasity to put a 427 ford in a 58 orvette sat up so high he could'nt run a hood.i remember asking him what got in to do that. his answer the motor was sitting in his garage, and his small block needed to be rebuilt, he claimed that he could put it back if he wanted.so i guess any engine will fit any car. i'd like to see a stock body crowsley with a 572 in it