6.2 ls3 GM performance crate engine

[Marky Dissod]

... a 10L80 w/3.42 might perform better than a 6L80 w/3.73? (while costing more as well)

May I show you something?

10L80: ... 4.69 ... 2.99 ... 2.15 ... 1.77 ... 1.52 ... 1.28 ... 1.000 ... 0.85 ... 0.69 ... 0.64 (7.32 Spread)
6L80E: . . . . 4.03 . . . . 2.36 . . . . . . . . . 1.53 . . . . 1.15 . . . . . . . 0.85 . . . . . 0.67 (6.01 Spread)

Awfully imprecise, yet it still manages to visually represent the improvement from the 6L80 to the 10L80.
10L80 not only has more gears than the 6L80, most of those additional gears are more assertive.
Look at it long enough, you'll see: it'd literally be COUNTERproductive to give the 10L80 any more axle gear.

3.23 is the GM OE axle gear for every suv with 10L80. OK, watch this:
10L80 x 3.23 axle: ... 15.15 ... 9.66 ... 6.95 ... 5.72 ... 4.91 ... 4.13 ... 3.231 ... 2.75 ... 2.23 ... 2.07 (7.32 Spread)
6L80E x 3.42 axle: . . . . 13.78 . . . 8.07 . . . . . . . 5.23 . . . . . . . 3.93 . . . . . 2.91 . . . . 2.29 (6.01 Spread)
6L80E x 3.08 axle: . . . . . 12.41 . . .. 7.27 . . . . . . . . . . 4.71 . . . . 3.54 . . . . . . 2.62 . . . . . . . 2.06 (6.01 Spread)

OK, so, if highway MpG is more important to you / her, then go with 3.42 with the 6L80E.
But if metro / urban stop'n'go, or towing / hauling is more important, seriously consider 3.73 with 6L80E.

Bet his wife'd NEVER let him have a 6.7L.

 

[mikez71]

Added a couple combos...
10L80 I used 4.70, 2.99, 2.15, 1.80 , 1.52, 1.28, 1, .85, .69, .64

10L80 x 3.08 axle: .... 14.48 ... 9.21 .... 6.62 .... 5.54 ... 4.68 ... 3.94 ... 3.08 ... 2.62 ......... 2.13 . 1.98 <------------------------------?
10L80 x 3.23 axle: .. 15.15 ... 9.66 ... 6.95 .... 5.72 ... 4.91 ... 4.13 ... 3.23 ... 2.75 ... 2.23 .. 2.07 (7.32 Spread)
10L80 x 3.42 axle: ..16.07 .. 10.23 ... 7.35 ... 6.16 ... 5.20 ... 4.38 ... 3.42 ... 2.91 ... 2.36 . 2.19 <------------------------------?

6l80 I used 4.027, 2.364, 1.532, 1.152, .852, .667

6L80E x 3.08 axle: . . . . . 12.41 . . . .. 7.27 . . . . . . . . 4.71 . . . . . 3.54 . . . . . . 2.62 . . . . . . 2.06 (6.01 Spread)
6L80E x 3.42 axle: . . . . 13.78 . . . 8.08 . . . . . . . . 5.24 . . . . . 3.93 . . . . . .. 2.91 . . . 2.28 (6.01 Spread)
6L80E x 3.73 axle: .... 15.02 . . . 8.82 . . . . . .. 5.71 . . . . . . . 4.30 . . . 3.18 . . . . . 2.49 <-----------------------------?

Looking at that I might as well stay 3.08 if going 10L80.
But it doesn't look like a 10L80 with 3.42 would be particularly bad..

But yea, 3.73 definately spaces out nicely...

 

[j91z28d1]

do they have a 10 speed swap dialed in yet for these trucks? do you need a stand along controller or a segment swap in hp do it?

 

[mikez71]

Home - Powertrain Swap Solutions

www.powertrainswapsolutions.com

Pretty sure they are including a standard GM tcm that you plugin..
Probably this.. https://www.hptuners.com/product/gm-t93-tcm-service-global-b/

 

[j91z28d1]

Home - Powertrain Swap Solutions

www.powertrainswapsolutions.com

Pretty sure they are including a standard GM tcm that you plugin..
Probably this.. https://www.hptuners.com/product/gm-t93-tcm-service-global-b/

supposedly there's a guy that makes a sub harness to go between your ecm and whatever tcm you need to run for the 10. Hopefully there's a tcm that does it besides the global B that can control it. that adds a lot of cost.

sadly I see hints that the gm 10 isn't very good in stock form long term. so you'll have added cost of beefing up what's needed to make it live longer than they do in the stock trucks to factory in. you could easily have $10k in this swap by the time you're done.

if it was mine I'd leave all that alone and do the fun part of building a motor first. more enjoyable to me than working on drivetrains, especially if you don't have lift access and some friends to help. if you still don't have the power you need, then go for it.

 

[mikez71]

I could be completely wrong about that tcm, but I thought it was a stock GM unit and being that's the one shown for 10speeds..

That's too bad about the durability of the 10L..

Thinking about it more, I really don't need the performance and added cost/hassle of it as well...

Axle swap and I can decide if the ratio will be adequte while I keep it in 2wd for awhile! Cheap and easy first!

 

[Geotrash]

Tacking on a few more thoughts about VVT (this subject is like the oil brand and filter debates from the bobistheoilguy forum, on the LS1tech forum pages), but the facts are these: VVT is worth 10 lb-ft more at 400 fewer rpm with the cam advanced and 18 additional horsepower at 300 rpm higher in the powerband with the cam retarded. For a stock cam.

In my cam research for my 2012, I could find zero examples of any back-to-back power comparison run between aftermarket VVT and non-VVT cams with similar specs. And most aftermarket VVT cams require a phaser limiter anyway to keep the valves from starting territorial disputes with the pistons.

But I do know this: I own a '07 Yukon XL Denali with the stock cam and VVT enabled. I also own a 2012 Yukon XL Denali with a Cam Motion Stage 2 Truck Cam without VVT (3-bolt), and I get to drive them both back to back. Both are Blackbear tuned and there is no comparison. The 2012 with the 3-bolt cam is a beast. The throttle response and punch in the back when tapping the throttle at lower RPM, like when leaving my street, make me smile every time.

But my reasons for not keeping VVT in the 2012 were about ease of install, simplicity and durability. In my case, the trade-off was the right one for me. But that's the great thing about this country - we get to choose based on what matters most to us.

 

[Charlie207]

Most aftermarket cams don't make real power until 3k RPM

This is some of the worst & pedantic marketing **** that people inject straight into their veins...

If you need torque, your transmission will shift into the a lower gear and get you into the usable power area. No one one Earth is rooting for Team Lug-My-Engine, unless you're all about burning up your torque converter, and bottom end.

Also, I'm not seeing the stance that VVT is unreliable. It works fine, but it's easy to delete and allows for 100x the cam variety that you have with VVT-cams.

We all already have torquey engines, and "losing" a few ft./lb. below 2000rpms is impossible to detect in a 7000lb. vehicle.

 

[mikez71]

If you need torque, your transmission will shift into the a lower gear and get you into the usable power area.

Except for 1st gear

I haven't driven anything other than my 3.08 geared 5.3 beast so that's where I'm coming from

 

[91RS]

This is some of the worst & pedantic marketing **** that people inject straight into their veins...

If you need torque, your transmission will shift into the a lower gear and get you into the usable power area. No one one Earth is rooting for Team Lug-My-Engine, unless you're all about burning up your torque converter, and bottom end.

Also, I'm not seeing the stance that VVT is unreliable. It works fine, but it's easy to delete and allows for 100x the cam variety that you have with VVT-cams.

We all already have torquey engines, and "losing" a few ft./lb. below 2000rpms is impossible to detect in a 7000lb. vehicle.

What are you even talking about? Did you read what I said at all? Who wants to have the engine screaming all the time and sounding like you’re driving a Mustang in a parking lot at WOT in 1st gear to get into the power? Not me.