Renamed: 06 Esky LS364/450 Build (New Leather Seat covers)

[m1949]

I've been doing some digging to get a graph of a dyno on GM's Performance LS364 similar to what is being installed in my 06 Escalade. Some here have expressed concern about loss of lowend torque because of the LS6 cam. I brought this up to Metal Works Classics, who did the video below and they referred me to Matt at Springer Performance, and also sent me the dyno graph shown below, which is from the engine in the video. I also contacted West Bend Dyno who sell GM Performance engines. Both said about the same thing, indicating they have not seen loss of lowend torque compared to the stock LQ9 as a result of supplying the LS364 with a LS6 cam. Vince Hausmen from West Bend wrote me:

"While the overall power curve of the new engine is shifted higher in the RPM range compared to the old engine it still makes more power and torque everywhere thanks to the better LS3 cylinder heads. Low end torque would be the same or more and mid / high range is quite a bit more. GM used the LS6 camshaft as this engine was originally intended for C5 Corvette’s and 4th Gen F-Body’s. We have used it in many other platforms including pick-up trucks and even a Trailblazer SS. Every client has been extremely happy with the results."

In a few weeks I hope to post the dyno results from my install. I don't expect the HP number to be this high since my results will be at the rear wheels. Also, my setup is a bit different from the video. I'm using shortie headers and TBSS manifold and TB. I went with shorties because the guys at Speed Engineering told me if I am concerned about lowend torque shortie headers are a better choice. But we shall see. Stay tuned ........

The graph and utube video of the dyno run are below.

 

[Mudsport96]

Shorty headers are marginally better than stock manifolds. Of you are doing headers long tubes are the only way to go.

 

[m1949]

I aprreciate you sharing your opinion about headers. But, the shortie headers are already bought. I did quite a bit of reading, viewing and discussion of headers before deciding to go with shorties. According to what I read, saw on Utube (the video you posted is one of several I watched) and had confirmed by the guys at Speed Engineering, long tubes produce more top end power than do shorties in comparison to an oe manifold. The numbers given to me were anywhere from 15 to 30 +hp for longtubes and perhaps up to 15 +hp for shorties. But they also stated shorties do better for low end torque than longtubes. Since this build will not be raced or do burnouts, and is a daily driver, and since the LS364 is spec'd to add around 85hp of power at the top end and 50 lb/ft of top end torque over the LQ9 it replaced, I decided to sacrifice a bit of top end performance to help low end torque by going with shortie headers. Thanks again for sharing your concern.

 

[m1949]

I aprreciate you sharing your opinion about headers. But, the shortie headers are already bought. I did quite a bit of reading, viewing and discussion of headers before deciding to go with shorties. According to what I read, saw on Utube (the video you posted is one of several I watched) and had confirmed by the guys at Speed Engineering, long tubes produce more top end power than do shorties in comparison to an oe manifold. The numbers given to me were anywhere from 15 to 30 +hp for longtubes and perhaps up to 15 +hp for shorties. But they also stated shorties do better for low end torque than longtubes. Since this build will not be raced or do burnouts, and is a daily driver, and since the LS364 is spec'd to add around 85hp of power at the top end and 50 lb/ft of top end torque over the LQ9 it replaced, I decided to sacrifice a bit of top end performance to help low end torque by going with shortie headers. Thanks again for sharing your concern.

Another important reason I chose shortie headers is the cats can be attached to shorties without modification.

 

[mattt]

I've been doing some digging to get a graph of a dyno on GM's Performance LS364 similar to what is being installed in my 06 Escalade. Some here have expressed concern about loss of lowend torque because of the LS6 cam. I brought this up to Metal Works Classics, who did the video below and they referred me to Matt at Springer Performance, and also sent me the dyno graph shown below, which is from the engine in the video. I also contacted West Bend Dyno who sell GM Performance engines. Both said about the same thing, indicating they have not seen loss of lowend torque compared to the stock LQ9 as a result of supplying the LS364 with a LS6 cam. Vince Hausmen from West Bend wrote me:

"While the overall power curve of the new engine is shifted higher in the RPM range compared to the old engine it still makes more power and torque everywhere thanks to the better LS3 cylinder heads. Low end torque would be the same or more and mid / high range is quite a bit more. GM used the LS6 camshaft as this engine was originally intended for C5 Corvette’s and 4th Gen F-Body’s. We have used it in many other platforms including pick-up trucks and even a Trailblazer SS. Every client has been extremely happy with the results."

In a few weeks I hope to post the dyno results from my install. I don't expect the HP number to be this high since my results will be at the rear wheels. Also, my setup is a bit different from the video. I'm using shortie headers and TBSS manifold and TB. I went with shorties because the guys at Speed Engineering told me if I am concerned about lowend torque shortie headers are a better choice. But we shall see. Stay tuned ........

The graph and utube video of the dyno run are below.

What throttle body are you using with the TBSS manifold? Are you going to pick up the X-link so the newer 6 wire throttle body will work with your 8 wire plug Gen 3 Escalade?

 

[m1949]

Working on it. Orignal plan was to use TBSS throttle body, but I heard from the builder today that I bought the wrong harness. I haven't bought the new TB yet, so we are trying to decide if the extra cost for a new TB and the X-Link adapter vs. going with a four to three bolt adapter plate and using the old TB is worth a few added hp.

Well after learning I'd purchased the wrong throttle body harness, and seeing the price of the X-Link, plus the added cost of the larger throttle body, I've decided to buy an adapter plate and use the old TB from the LQ9. It isn't worth it to me to spend ~$350 to get the slight increase in power a larger TB would make.

 

[fasteddy]

Looking forward to the results. I swapped to a 6.0 last summer and love it. I wrestled with the LS364/450 vs 6.0 with cathedrals. I had done the 6.0/LS3 heads before in a camaro and the LS3 heads are low on TQ below 3000. But above 3000 they light up especially with a big cam. I did an LQ9 with shaved 317s and a big cam, 42lb injectors, stock manifold and TB. Love it! I got about 360lbs of TQ at 1500rpms up to about 415 at 5000rpms ..... at the wheels....about 420 to 490 at crank, approx. And with 3.73 gears I get about 19mpg on the hwy at 78-80mph. So I am happy with the result.

 

[m1949]

Thanks for the input! The mpg is the big question right now. I'll be overjoyed if we do as well as you. Going with the LS364/450 instead of a stock LQ9 longblock was a budget decision. My situation made the LS cheaper than a stock LQ9 since unlike GM, GM Performance did not have a block/core deposit. GM's was $2500 for the old engine. This was a problem since I had already negotiated the old engine as partial payment for the build.

I went back and forth on the issue of torque because of the LS6 cam. But the people at GM performance and a couple vendors I spoke to who sell and install this engine assured me the LS3 heads compensate for the cam, so low to mid range torque is comparable to better than with the stock LQ9 setup. We shall see.

Looks like the program tune will happen in the next couple weeks After initial tune the programmer/tuner will drive the truck for about a week to collect data and tweak the tune. I've stressed to him that this build is not about 1/4 mile et or burnouts. Its a daily driver so drive-ability and MPG are major considerations. We shall see!

 

[mattt]

In researching the NNBS/TBSS intake manifold swap onto a Gen 3 engine, I seem to remember reading that most of the improvement from making the swap is due to the larger 87mm 4 bolt throttle body which allows more airflow VS the stock 78mm 3 bolt throttle body. I do think there is some improved flow with the updated manifold itself, but it sounds like the throttle body is key here. Not trying to dissuade you from making the intake manifold swap, just relaying what I had read about it.

That X link is a pricey bugger, but it might be the only option to run the larger 4 bolt TB with 6 pin connector. I have looked for alternatives to the X link but have not found any other work around as of yet.
The other thing you'll need to contend with is the difference in fuel rails. If you got your TBSS NNBS intake with fuel rails then you're good to go, since your Escalade engine likely did not have a return line. If you only have 1 line connection to the fuel rail, that is what the NNBS TBSS fuel rail has. However, I believe your original 06 rails had a fuel pressure regulator and the NNBS TBSS rails do not. I have read there is a correction that can be done in the tune to overcome the lack of a regulator. I'm not sure how that works, but that one I've read multiple places.
My 04 FF has a return line so my intake swap will require a few more things to work. I'm tempted to find the one year (2005) only old style, truck intake manifold that has the flange for the larger 4 bolt 87mm throttle body. I'm considering this so I can use my factory 04 fuel rails, which should bolt up on this manifold, even though it was not used on a full size SUV or Truck.

 

[Tonyrodz]

In researching the NNBS/TBSS intake manifold swap onto a Gen 3 engine, I seem to remember reading that most of the improvement from making the swap is due to the larger 87mm 4 bolt throttle body which allows more airflow VS the stock 78mm 3 bolt throttle body. I do think there is some improved flow with the updated manifold itself, but it sounds like the throttle body is key here. Not trying to dissuade you from making the intake manifold swap, just relaying what I had read about it.

That X link is a pricey bugger, but it might be the only option to run the larger 4 bolt TB with 6 pin connector. I have looked for alternatives to the X link but have not found any other work around as of yet.
The other thing you'll need to contend with is the difference in fuel rails. If you got your TBSS NNBS intake with fuel rails then you're good to go, since your Escalade engine likely did not have a return line. If you only have 1 line connection to the fuel rail, that is what the NNBS TBSS fuel rail has. However, I believe your original 06 rails had a fuel pressure regulator and the NNBS TBSS rails do not. I have read there is a correction that can be done in the tune to overcome the lack of a regulator. I'm not sure how that works, but that one I've read multiple places.
My 04 FF has a return line so my intake swap will require a few more things to work. I'm tempted to find the one year (2005) only old style, truck intake manifold that has the flange for the larger 4 bolt 87mm throttle body. I'm considering this so I can use my factory 04 fuel rails, which should bolt up on this manifold, even though it was not used on a full size SUV or Truck.

What vehicles did that 1 year only intake come on?