I haven't been on the boards in a while and was surpised to see this thread had 15 replies. As for anybody wondering why I don't go with a SBF, 1. I'm not a Ford guy, 2. LS1's are an amazing powerplant and I want to use a modern engine, and 3.  Volvo had absolutley no ties with Ford in the 80's.  Somebody mentioned something about the rearends being pretty stout, and yes they are.  The rearend used in these cars is the Dana 30, of 4x4 Jeep lore.  And to whoever started the negative comments/ fight, grow up.  Don't like my idea? That's perectly fine, different strokes for different folks is what makes us Car Crafters. Just don't be a Nancy about it.

The volvo I saw is a 122, about a '65 model. I can get it for nothing, only problem is it's now on a ranch in colorado and I would have to go get it. I aint even sure if it's front or rear drive, or how much room is under the hood. Has anybody had any experience with these cars? How much room under hood etc.? I have been under the hood of a few of the newer boxy styled ones , but never one of the previous generation.Maybe I should post the question on it's own.

 "LS1's are an amazing powerplant and I want to use a modern engine"

I love it when somebody tries to suggest that an aluminum 2-valve pushrod engine is "modern."  (not that there's anything wrong with antique configurations)

I doubt a JY LS1 will make the car any quicker and faster than any number of other engine swaps or power adders.   If it were mine and I wasn't going to high-pressure turbo it, I'd get out the tape measure to see if this engine would fit:

"New Take out  4.6  3 valve 2006 SUV Engines

low mileage take-outs

Why buy Pony GT  3 valve heads separately!! with this engine, you get Pony GT complete heads, valve covers, Pony 3 valve timing cover, Pony balancer with a cast iron 4.6 shortblock that can be used on any 2 valve engine replacement! we even throw in a Pony GT intake manifold (w/o throttle body)

Same as Pony GT engine above except with stronger cast iron block. same heads, cams & timing cover, valve covers & damper.

ON SALE   $1395.00!    What a Deal!!!  This is an SUV  long block with a 2005/06  Pony GT intake manifold included. * does not include throttle body as pictured. also does not include front accessories and has SUV exhaust manifolds. If you are going to supercharge a 2006/07 Pony, this is the block to use!! (similar to the 2003/04 S/C Snake configuration with a cast iron block)."

http://www.karkraft.com/new_engines.htm

Of course if I was going to high-pressure turbo it, a built 3V (forged rods and pistons swapped in) would make huge power . . . .

STAGE I AND STAGE II
INTERCOOLED SINGLE TURBO KITS

2005-2006 MUSTANG GT

469 rwhp 459 rwtq @ 8 psi
Kit shown with optional billet blow off valve and polished turbo housing

700+ HP CAPABLE STAGE I KIT
900+ HP CAPABLE STAGE II KIT

NOTE:  Lower boost settings should be used in order not to exceed about 500 rwhp on a stock engine.

http://www.turbochargedpower.com/05-06%20Mustang.htm

OHC, 3 VALVES PER CYLINDER, INTERCOOLED TURBO . . . NOW THAT'S A "MODERN" ENGINE!

the ls1 is a modern engine. 2 valves and ohv doesnt make it old. fuel injection, coil to plug ignition, that kinda stuff makes it modern. why fuss around with a smaller engine and adding forced induction parts when you can drop in a larger motor, and get the same reliability and probably gas milage too.  

He's hung up on the names...(don't tell him OHC's and turbo's have been around longer than serpentine belts...it'll ruin his mood)

Telephone has been around since long before anyone on this board was born...anyone gonna say a new cell phone isn't modern?  Same deal here...pushrods have been around forever...yet companies are still developing technology involved with it...but because the idea is old, people think its not modern...stupid...

Bigblockcutlass has already said he wants either an LS1 or a traditional SBC...I say go LS1...

Besides...who'd want to try to fit that behemoth of an engine (I think its compensating for something...like small cubic inches...oops...) into any engine bay it wasn't designed for...OHC's take up a ton of space...

Two valves per cylinder is an accounting decision, not an engineering decision. 

If American circle track and drag racing racing rules hadn't ossified development of multi-valve "stock car" engines,  two-valve engines would be little more than a quaint historical footnote by now. Even pushrod diesels have now moved to multiple valves to obtain increased valve curtain area.

A smaller turbo engine can have significantly better off-boost fuel economy (especially in stop and go "city" driving) than a comparable naturally aspirated power plant.  This is by virtue of reduced internal friction losses and pumping losses.   More importantly, a turbo engine can extract more average torque and power out of a particular octane fuel than a naturally aspirated engine of the same peak output (more area under the curve), greatly increasing daily driveability.   And a turbo engine can offer outrageous peak power and torque at signifcantly lower engine r.p.m. than any reasonably-sized naturally-aspirated engine.

Even a relatively inefficient device such as a Roots-style blower captures some of these efficiency advantages.  Eaton's research yields the following:

Integrated onto an existing engine, the Eaton Supercharger will increase torque across the entire engine operating range from 25 to 50 percent without compromising drivability or emissions.

Alternately, the Eaton Supercharger offers the vehicle manufacturer the option of using a smaller engine without perceived loss in power train performance. The unit's excellent ratio of air-flow capacity to package size is a plus in downsized or crowded engine compartments.

http://automotive.eaton.com/product/engine_controls/superchargers/displacement.asp

Gee, if I put a "sepentine belt" and coil-on-plug ignition onto a flathead, does that make it a "modern" engine?

While OHC engines date back to the first few decades of IC engine development (a notable example is Peugeot's DOHC design which defined the "modern" Indy car engine during the track's first decade),  OHC engines in ordinary mass market passenger cars were a much later development.  In fact, they didn't become the dominant powerplant until within the past twenty years.  

And, all things being equal, OHC multivalve engines dominate any competition class where they are allowed to compete against similarly-sized two-valve pushrod engines.   So to suggest that pushrod 2V engines are some sort of "modern" technological marvel (as GM and its minions do) strains credability.

BTW, a flathead takes up far less space than a pushrod OHV.  But we didn't just give up on bringing competition technology to the street for packaging purposes back then either.

Who knows if a 3V Modular Ford would fit into some old Volvo.  I haven't measured it and neither has Dr511SCJ nor you.

 But the point is that the LSx just isn't the second-coming of the internal combustion engine, no matter what Jeff Smith, CSIROC, 71Bigblocknova and the various hide-bound defenders of the SBC want to imagine about it.

Neither are turbos...no matter what TurboTed, MrFoMoCo, or Dr511SCJ say...and how many times they bring back that worthless thread...

OHC didn't become popular until recently because of MANUFACTURING processes...not because we finally relized the errors of our ways.  There are millions of ideas out there that would make any engine better...the problem is there isn't an economical way of producing it...same with OHC, turbo's, even computers. 

Fact is your precious overhead cam ford has to have a blower to produce similar output to a pushrod 2V LS7.  Fact is, that 2V pushrod LS7 revs higher than your OHC ford which is where OHC is supposed to shine...

If Ford wants to take its OHC engines into the GT1 class of Le Mans racing..its more than welcome to...it can get is A$$ whooped by the Vettes just like the Aston Martins have been (that is until ALMS decided to hit the vette with a 2 or 3 hundred pound weight penalty to even the playing field...now its a bit more competitive...even though the vette STILL won its class at Le Mans).  And by the way...the Aston Martins are OHC V12's...so your statement about them dominating wherever they face similar sized OHV motors is way off base.  The difference is a liter...and Aston Martin could make a 7 liter V12 if they wanted too...but that'd add even more weight...and make it even less competitive. 

The OHV LS series motor doesn't need blind followers like you to back it up...it has racing experience...your OHC Ford does not.  The rest such as the OHC Aston Martins...the OHC Ferraris that compete in a class lower than the Vette's do get dominated by this "ancient technology".  Bring some ACTUAL evidence other than your theories.  Technology isn't the name...its how that idea is implemented.

Sorry Bigblockcutlass...not meaning to continue an argument in your thread...but this is rediculous

I always find it odd that the Ford fans want to compare a supercharged version of the 4.6 to an N/A LS1.

A few observations:

The N/A 4.6 will costs as much or more as a N/A LS1 at your local yard. But won't make anywhere near the power in stock form.

You won't find a S/C 4.6 at your local yard and if you do...bring your wallet.

If you want to talk S/C. The same S/C's you can get for a 4.6 is also available for the LS1. 

A stock LS1 with a S/C will stomp a  stock 4.6 with a S/C.

Bottom line is the 4.6 is a punny enginine that doesn't stand up to the offerings from the other Domestic Automakers. (ie LS1  & 5.7 Hemi)

When Ford starts making an engine in the LS1 price range that has the same availability and makes the same power, Im sure folks will be rushing to stuff it into what ever project cars they can find.

Untill then ...... Stop crying when people overlook Fords over priced and under sized & powered offerings.

What is ridiculous is your defense of the rare LS7 and its hyperexpensive, somewhat loosely-related C6 R relative used in ALMS.

I can't really see how you've addressed any of TurboTed's points regarding "real world" street/strip engines.

To suggest an LS7 is indicative of the whole LSx line is like asserting that a FE427 high-riser or Tunnel-Port was representative of a two-barrel 390.

Obviously, part of what makes an engine "modern" is that it takes modern production technology and advances in materials to make it economically viable to produce in mass quantities.  Both the modular and turbocharging involve ideas which have developed over time but which are now affordable because of "modern" technology and methods.

In contrast, excluding a few casting innovations and "Displacement on Demand" (not included in the LS7, by the way), the LSx engines aren't really any more advanced than what GM could have built decades ago had it spent the money to do so. The basic architecture is hardly any more "modern" than a 1929 OHV Chevy 6 or a 1955 SBC (although the materials and tolerances are much improved).  

BTW, the best supercharged modular V8 (Ford GT) is only 331 cubes (over 90 LESS than the expensive, hand-built and relatively unrefined LS7), yet it beats the Chevy's production horsepower output by around 50 and flat dominates it on torque across the RPM spectrum (the LS7 is a peaky high-rpm engine).   And simple bolt-ons can increase the Ford's advantage as much as 300 to 400 horsepower.  Try bagging 400 extra horsepower from an LS7 without "breaking the seal."  The GT500 and '03-'04 SVT Cobra engines have similar untapped potential.  

You neglect the fact that ALMS engines run intake restrictors to level the playing field between 2-valve and multivalve engines (the restrictor increase "correction"  formula for 2Vs is D=((D-1)x 1,034)+1. See http://www.imsaracing.net/2006/competitors/aco1.pdf)

You also neglect to point out that the ALMS limits maximum cubes for forced induction in GT-1 to 4 liters, but naturally aspirated engines can run up to 8 liters, suggesting the overwhelming advantage that boosted engines have over naturally-aspirated engines, even in highly-boost restricted environments such as ALMS.  The differences are even more stark on the street because naturally-aspirated engines require unstreetable cams and big r.p.m. to come remotely close to what a rather ordinary turbo engine of modest C.I.D. can do.

You also suggest that  61 more cubic inches in naturally-aspirated form can be lightly disregarded.  Of course, the only reason the 7-liter Corvette engine is competitive is because of the restrictor rules and the additional displacement--not because 2V and pushrods are technologically superior.

Also note that the Astons were signficantly faster at LeMans until non-engine related failures sidelined them.

Note that the minimum weight difference between the C6 R and the Aston is only 90kg.

You also neglect to mention that OHC Fords have won literally hundreds of races, from the Fairlane-based DOHC Indy V8 of the 1960s and '70s to the Cosworth DFV and derivatives, to the production-based DOHCs now raced in Grand Am competition, (including the championship winning, Modular-powered Mustangs),   Ford's nationwide domination of mini-stock racing, USAC Focus Midgets, and the scores of racers using Modular power in weekly drag racing, Fun Ford Weekend and Ford World Challenge competition.  So to suggest that Ford's OHCs are not competition proven is highly misleading.

Famed engine builder Robert Yates evensuggested that smaller, production-based OHC V8s would improve NASCAR racing by lowering costs and making the engines more relevant to what the OEMs were actually selling.  Yet much like the closed-minded Luddites on this board, NASCAR said no, preferring to keep nursing along familiar techological limits in place since the 1950s. 

Now that's "modern," isn't it?  

The high compression, cast hypereutectic pistons and weak aluminum block of the LS1 doesn't make it a prime candidate for supercharging in "stock form."

who gives a rats butt about supercharging or turbo charging. he wanted to put an ls1 into a volvo. hes looking for simple, reliable hp. nothing fancy, just something with enough power to get down the road. As for under the hood pop, there was nothing mentioned. the ls1 is supposed to look fit and finished, its not supposed to stand out...except on the street.  

Did you miss the part of my initial post where I wrote "if it were mine . . . ."

You have to admit that the Kar Kraft-sourced 3V would be cheap, fairly unique, and could be a solid basis for some serious power (not a piddly little 305 or so from a worn-out JY LS1).  And it would be a gas to show up at Ford events with a Ford-powered Volvo.

However, I agree with Turboted that "If the Volvo guy wants to put a Briggs and Stratton into his JY heap, who cares?   But the cult of the LSx can't be allowed to barf out GMPP's factory sales pitch on here without some contrary commentary grounded in objective reality."

I seriously doubt a low-buck LS1 Volvo will "stand out . . . on the street." At least not in a GOOD way . . . . It will make the import guys shake their heads and will be easy pickin's for the power adder Mustangs and boosted imports.  And even some Chevy Crafters will wonder why he wasted a "glorious" LS1 in a boxy $100 hooptie.  But at least it will reside in a higher quality car than it left GM in!

The uncreative wing of Car Crafting will continue to plug the "me too" LSx into various engine bays and then wonder why so many of us are underwhelmed at the boring sameness of it all.  

The collected brilliance of the LS1 couldn't save the F-bodies from dying in the marketplace. Nor could the "awesome" LS2  salvage the underwhelming Pontiac GTO. With the exception of a small, vocal cult of Car Crafters, some dried-up old street rodders, and a declining number of light truck buyers, the LSx is mostly irrelevant to "modern" motoring. 

On the other hand, Mustang just recorded its best September sales month in twenty years, despite not having any antique pushrod engines.

What I can't figure out about the Modern Ford V-8's is the lack of decent gas mileage.  Even with a supercharger for a more street friendly cam they can't seem to match the mileage of the LS motors, even in the heavy F-bodies.  To me this seems like they must be more ineffiecient motors, at least as daily driving goes. Then on the race track in stock trim they couldn't keep up the stock trim F-bodies.  Then dollar for dollar power adders the F-bodies and LS motors would go faster per dollar spent.  And probably still get better mileage.  But for all the more technology shouldn't the efficiency of these 3 and 4 valve motors increase?  Overhead Valves, Overhead Cams, Fuel Injection, Superchargers and Turbos are all old technology (at least from the 50's or earlier), just with modern technology and modern building practices has the power potential gotten there. Same can be said with the LS motors, just as old technology, just made better.  If Ford wanted to do something inovative they should try and purchase V-Tec designs from Honda, that would really make the Ford V-8's powerful and economical.  Remember it would be just as easy for GM to lower the compression of the LS motors and upgrade the pistons at the assembly line as Ford does and stick a supercharger or turbo on it, it would come out cheaper and more powerful than Ford's.  My problem with Ford's V-8's are the frictional and rotational inefficiencies.  The rotational mass on two and even four cams is certainly much more a power drag than the inertial mass of lifters and push rods.  Not to mention the drag of a mile long (exaggerated) timing chain that runs against bushings to get from one cylinder head to the other, what a waste of energy (in the form of friction and weight). This all sounds like steps backwards in engineering, and is cheaply patched up with a supercharger.  GM builds a tried and true quality engine by engineering all the inefficiencies out of it, and they are doing a damn good job at it. Where else can you buy (from the factory) a car with over 400hp and gets nearly 30mpg?  All other makes (Ford, Dodge, BMW, Mercedes,etc) have a $3,000 Gas Guzzer Tax tached on to all of their high power engines. And remember dollar for dollar on aftermarket parts the LS motor will out power the Ford everytime because it is not only bigger it is much more efficient.  That is my two cents.

While Ford hasn't gone as far as it should have with variable valve timing, variable-path intake runners and variable cam phasing, (not to mention turbocharging) the OHC Ford engines are reasonably efficient.

Your speculations on "frictional and rotational efficiencies" are not based on actual data.

The key factors in Corvettes getting good highway fuel mileage are: (1) deep overdrives, (2) excellent aerodynamics and (3) low curb weight (vehicle weight is the largest single factor in fuel economy).

In comparison, former SVT chief engineer John Colletti hated deep overdrives because he didn't like the compromise on highway responsiveness (he felt a performance car should have some punch, even in top gear) and he would not allow them on any SVT product. Thus every SVT has left several m.p.g. on the table.  And all Ford's current vehicles using a modular V8 outweigh a Corvette by several hundred pounds and do not have small, swoopy aero profiles.

A built LSx with a radical cam (necessary to approach serious power levels  "all motor") isn't going to remotely approach 30 mpg (highway) in a heavy, traditional muscle car or without deep overdrive gears.

When the GT500s start showing up in numbers on the streets with upgraded power adders and bone-stock long blocks, it will take a lot more work for LSx-powered cars to stay in the game.

Speculating that GM COULD build the LSx for supercharging or turbo duty is just speculation.   They haven't shown any willingness to actually produce one power-adder friendly LSx in any sporting machine of any sort.

Undoubtedly extra cubic inches will make up for only two valves at some point, but if you can pull 750+ h.p. from a 281-331 cube engine on pump gas (which Richard Holdener has done several times on a dyno with Ford 2V, 3V and 4V Modulars) other factors (traction, driving skill) will probably make more of a difference. 

And most anyone who's going to shoot for 1000 or more h.p. on the street will use an older-style big block or developed small block (e.g. SBF with Yates-style heads or SB2) instead of an LSx.  In fact, other than a cheap aluminum engine block, an LSx has little to recommend it over an aftermarket-based SBC for serious street/strip work.