I just might already have that starter on my '95 Ford Probe GT 2.5L V6/5-speed. It's snowed in, but I'll try to look this weekend.

i found another starter that should work well for this. it's for a larger engine and one of the apps is even a v8. here's the pic

and here are the apps.
1996-1999 FORD All Models V6-182 3.0L DOHC S ENG CODE
1996-1999 FORD All Models V8-206 3.4L DOHC SHO ENGINE
1996-1999 MERCURY All Models V6-182 3.0L DOHC S ENG CODE

this should have a little more torque and be better suited to spinning an ls4

------------------
88blackchopv8

I haven't made any progress, either. It was perfect weather this last friday and saturday, but it's been snowing since sunday morning, so I still can't get my Fiero out.

Starter aside, I just bought one of those Pontiac Torrent / Chevy Equinox driver's side axles. Here's hoping the ends are correct!

Even though I do not "need" a tranny mounted starter for my SBC/F40... I have convinced myself that is the way to go... mostly because once you go tranny mounted starter - then the adapter plate can interchange between SBC and LSx and my future upgrade will only require an engine specific custom flywheel.

I need to take my nissan starter into a starter shop and see if they can swap out the pinion gear for one with more teeth (larger diameter)... If so, then it will be time to cut the starter bulge off my brand new tranny.

[This message has been edited by fieroguru (edited 03-30-2009).]

Seems like fine thinking to me. On the other hand, devil's advocate style, mounting it to the block will be easier if the first F40 explodes and I have to go to an NSX 6-speed.

I didn't want to mess with CV greese today, so did some starter mockup.

Here are 3 nissan starters: Maxima, Pulsar, 280Z (for a SBC Z-kit). The Maxima and Pulsar ones are reverse rotation:


With my 1/8" adapter plate, the maxima one will work perfectly with my flywheel/ring gear combo:




There are 3 potential starter locations on the F40.
1: Under the engine oil pan... tranny is already notched... probably for the custom LSx oil pan:


2: In the normal starter location with portions of the tranny case removed.

Remove the block bolt boss, webbing and starter bulge to make room for the starter to slide in along side the tranny.

With the starter mounts flush with the tranny bosses (move to engine side to get the measurements vs. cutting the tranny at this point), the starter needs to go in about 1 1/8" further and rotate slightly to maintain clearance to the pressure plate.


The bolt bosses in the tranny could be cut down and retapped (on bellhousing side of case) then a bracket made to connect the tranny bosses and the starter bosses.


3: Above the normal starter location and inbetween the bellhousing bolts:

This might require the least amount of tranny surgury, but then the starter would have to be modified to clear the bellhousing bolts... and I really do not like to modify a replacement part.

Now if I could swap the larger bendix to the Pulsar starter, it could possibly be mounted with a bracket that comes off the tranny bellhousing bolts/studs... downside is it is a smaller starter and the larger bendix might make it too weak... Yes swaping the bendix is a modification, but if the starter ever went out I could swap the bendix to the new one and complete the repair (on the road if needed).

Stock LS4 FWD oil pan; FWIW:



If you could find a starter short enough to fit and didn't have any concerns with ground clearance, you could weld up some mounting bungs to the factory alum oil pan and mount it on the underside. But what I see people coming up with for mounting the starter to the manual trans is promising. The only concern I have is the rating of the starters that people have found -- in that will any of them be durable enough to be reliable starting this engine time after time? Something designed to crank a V6 or small displacement V8 may not last very long cranking a 5.3L LS4 that has 10:1 compression; especially if the reduction ratio isn't correct.

quote Originally posted by Dennis LaGrua: BTW, has anyone completed an LS4 swap other than Darth Fiero? IIRC he had issues getting the engine management to work correctly but haven't heard anything of late.

Dennis, the engine management issues I had with the LS4 swap I did last year have been resolved (also last year). Turned out to be an abuse mode that was kicking in and once I found the table in the programming that controlled it; I deactivated this mode and it fixed the issue. So far no problems concerning engine management have occurred since on this vehicle.

-ryan

------------------
5+ years on this same swap -- NO engine or transmission failures...

Custom GM OBD1 & OBD2 Tuning | Engine Conversions & more | www.gmtuners.com

So what if it is 10:1? Is your cam so small you have torque peak at 500 rpm? No. Do you crank it at WOT? No. the LS engines have the lowest rotating friction of any V8 ever. Yes, there is a case to be made that it's 200 psi in 8 cylinders instead of 6, but not all 8 are compressing at the same time. Use a good enough battery and a good-enough cable, no problem.
Again, if that trans ever fails, you'll hafta redo all this work on the next one, so I'm dead set on mounting my starter to the block somehow.

quote Originally posted by Darth Fiero: Stock LS4 FWD oil pan; FWIW: If you could find a starter short enough to fit and didn't have any concerns with ground clearance, you could weld up some mounting bungs to the factory alum oil pan and mount it on the underside. But what I see people coming up with for mounting the starter to the manual trans is promising. The only concern I have is the rating of the starters that people have found -- in that will any of them be durable enough to be reliable starting this engine time after time? Something designed to crank a V6 or small displacement V8 may not last very long cranking a 5.3L LS4 that has 10:1 compression; especially if the reduction ratio isn't correct. -ryan

Care to share the dimensions of that cutout? It really looks like someone at GM was thinking ahead...

I hear what you are saying about the starters... The 280Z starter has been used on most Z-kit style SBC installs with good results. However, the Maxima and the Pulsar ones are suspect... especially if I start swapping the bendix between the two. Only one way to know for sure though...

In IL, there was a place in town that would custom built starters and alternators... haven't found a place like that here in KY yet.

quote Originally posted by Isolde: So what if it is 10:1? Is your cam so small you have torque peak at 500 rpm? No. Do you crank it at WOT? No. the LS engines have the lowest rotating friction of any V8 ever. Yes, there is a case to be made that it's 200 psi in 8 cylinders instead of 6, but not all 8 are compressing at the same time. Use a good enough battery and a good-enough cable, no problem. Again, if that trans ever fails, you'll hafta redo all this work on the next one, so I'm dead set on mounting my starter to the block somehow.

Compression ratio has a lot to do with cranking resistance. A lower compression engine will take less energy to crank it over vs. one with higher compression. Simple physics. I don't know if I buy your claim that the LS engine have the "lowest rotating friction of any V8 ever" either. What info have you based this on?

The strength of battery and the size of your cables mean little if the starter is not built for the loads you are demanding of it. The starter motor is just like any other electrical motor. It is only designed to work at a certain load for a certain amount of time. Asking it to work at higher loads than what it was designed for will overheat it more quickly which will shorten its life. Go over to Summit Racing Equipment or Jeg's High Performance and look at the aftermarket starters they offer. Most of them come with a "maximum recommended compression ratio" rating. Why do you suppose they think that matters?

Plain old marketing. Friction info comes from GM. Compression is just BS, because an 10:1 engine with a big cam will actually have less cranking pressure than a 9:1 engine with a small cam. Still, the starter is only fighting one piston at a time. And if you're running it on pump gas, you're not much over 200 psi cranking compression, whatever your static compression ratio.
I don't see why you armchair engineers hafta always argue with those of us with training and experience. Better to ask questions than look the fool.

i agree mounting the starter to the engine is probably the best option, getting it mounted off the rwd bellhousing flange is very close to where the factory starter snout cutout on an f40 is. it would seem that is the easiest location for starter clearance. i like the ford/mercury starters better than those nissan starters as there is nothing obstructing the starter gear, thus providing the most flywheel/clutch clearance. yes a cam with more overlap will have less static cranking compression. unless you have some crazy cranking pressure these starters should crank over a reasonable ls4 [400-500 hp range] without too much trouble. won't know until it's tried. don't turn this thread into a pissing match. calling each other names solves nothing. lets find some viable alternatives/solutions to make to make an ls4/f40 swap a relatively easy, doable, great option for all of us.

------------------
88blackchopv8

Any new information on this? Darth to see any problems with the computer and a manual trans? I assume there are normally connections between the them but I don't know much about the modern ECUs/BCUs.

That LS low friction cranking claim might be attributed to how fast the newer engines crank up and run due to the multi notched trigger wheels that offer more resolution to the exact piston location relative to TDC for ignition application to begin vs the old crank and hold. Who knows for sure, can anybody tell me how much voltage I need to feed the regulator on the 3900 alternator to get it to put out more than 13volts since there's mention of BCMs in this thread? (Default is "on" at about 50% duty, plugged in or not).

isolde i read in another thread you were saying that a truck ls crank has a longer tail end than the ls4 and even other "normal" rwd ls series engines. i had not heard this before. would it be possible to machine the snout of the truck crank to the ls4 style snout, thus reducing and/or eliminating the need for a flywheel spacer for proper mating/positioning of the flywheel clutch assy to the f-40? the less separate pieces you have in there i think would make everything more durable and less prone to failure. why cobble it together if you don't have to?the simpler the better. let me know what you think.

------------------
88blackchopv8

Yes, the rear of the truck crank is longer than the rear of the Camaro/Corvette cranks, which are longer than the LS4 crank. This may only be true of the 6.0L engines, but even if so, it's far easier to rebalance a 6.0 crank for a 5.7 or 5.3 than trying to balance a 5.3 crank for a 5.7 or 6.0
Not many places can do it, but yes, the snout could be machined to match the LS4 specs.

What is the "seal pad"?

I was under the impression that only one type of flywheel adapter was to use Gen I/II transmissions on Gen III/IV engines. This adapter is available from GMPP and is .400 thick. Since the Gen I/II crank flange stands 0.687 proud of the bellhousing flange, this puts the Gen III/IV crank flange ~0.287 proud of the bellhousing. Is this not the case for all engines? What is the other dimension?

The seal pad is that round thing on the rear of the crank that the rear main seal seals against. The LSx family uses 3 different crank seal pads. 1 for LS4, 1 for most RWD including Vette, Camaro and light trucks, and 1 for 6.0s in 2500 and 3500 pickups.
So, if we were to measure out from the rear face of the rear main cap, to the surface where the flywheel or flexplate goes, the LS4 will have the shortest measurement, while the truck 6.0 will have the longest measurement.
Now, moving from cranks to blocks, if we measure back from the rear face of the rear main cap, to the surface on the block that the trans bolts to, the LS4 has a shorter measurement, and all other LSx blocks have a common, longer measurement. However, the LS4 has holes for both FWD and RWD transmissions.
The truck 6.0 crank in the LS4 block will help with the F40 having a deeper bellhousing than the Getrag, Muncie and Isuzu.
If you do that, and use that GM .400" spacer, with extra holes drilled to match your flywheel, it might make the clutch issue less of an issue. Depending on choice of flywheel, you might even be able to mill the .400" spacer thinner, or eliminate it entirely, and redrill either the crank or flywheel. Spec already makes a clutch for the F40 with the L67, and the truck crank in the LS4 block might allow us to use that. Or make us one.
If I'm the first to get to that point, I'll start a new thread with pics and measurements and part numbers.

do you know what that measurement is on the truck seal pad? just how much further out is it? what would the machining of the truck crank snout to match the ls4 snout cost? if it's prohibitively expensive it may be better to just use the ls4 crank with the appropriate thickness spacer. i'm not sure i'm understanding what you were saying about that gm crank spacer. if what you're suggesting is to use that gm spacer as a flywheel adaptor with th ls crank pattern on one side and the flywheel bolt pattern on the other side i don't think that is a good idea. what is that spacer made of? if it's just aluminum i wouldn't want to do that. the only way i would use it is if it's through bolted into the crank. i guess you could make you own spacer out of an appropriate material, but i think it would be easier/safer/more durable to just have the ls bolt pattern drilled onto the flywheel, using a through bolted spacer if needed for proper flywheel/clutch positioning. i'd hate to have my clutch and flywheel come off the crank at speed. let me know what you think

i guess i should read your whole post before i type. i see you weren't planning on using the spacer as an adaptor. keep the info flowing, some ideas will be useless but some will help make this swap happen. it helps everyone who's thinking of attempting this swap to figure out the best solutions.
------------------
88blackchopv8

[This message has been edited by av8fiero (edited 04-25-2009).]

I have photos comparing the truck crank to a 'vette crank, but I don't have either the exact measurement, or the truck crank to measure. I would post the pic if my scanner was not broken. I'll do some searching.
As for having the snout machined, if it's just a matter of length, then the cost would be near free, If there's lathe work, that runs like $75/hr, but a competent lathe person should be able to do it in under half an hour, since the crank is not forged. I've never seen the snout of an LS4 crank that wasn't still in an assembled LS4 engine. If you take the truck crank to an automotive machine shop with a crank grinder, they're going to charge more. Certainly well over $100.
Sorry I'm not more clear and concise in expressing myself. No, the spacer as an adapter would not be safe. I wouldn't even idle the engine that way.

yes i agree, i think just the appropriate thickness spacer is the best/easiest option...the ls4 crank is designed to be ls4 specific. are the ls4 rod journals gun drilled like the ls6? i know you're planning on overboring your engine, are you going to have a balance issue? if the crank is balanced for the ls4 rotating assy will the crank be too light for balancing the larger ls series rotating assys without adding mallory metal[expensive] to the crank? i'm not looking to be as radical as you are hp wise so i'll be sticking with the 5.3 size, thus eliminating any worry about balance issues for me, but you may have an issue in this aspect of your build.

------------------
88blackchopv8

Fortunately for me, I'm an automotive machinist by trade, so the rebalancing costs me nothing. But if the LS4 does have the hollow rod journals, which I think it should and hope it does, it helps with balancing. For you. it allows lighter counterweights. I'll be using JE Piston brand ultralight forged pistons with tool steel pins, so they should be no heavier than the stock LS4 pistons and pins. I'm not that far along yet, which is why I haven't started a build thread yet. But thank you for thinking about it.

with welding bungs to the oil pan for a starter, how hard would it be to get the stock 4 speed or 5 speed to work?

No need to do that, unless you use an LS4. But if you use any other LS, then Archie's adapter plate provides a starter mount.

keepin it fresh bump

quote Originally posted by BMTFIERO: keepin it fresh bump

double bump

quote Originally posted by Isolde: No need to do that, unless you use an LS4. But if you use any other LS, then Archie's adapter plate provides a starter mount.

yeah, but the fwd LS4's are probably cheaper, I guess unless you pull of the truck 5.3 motors?

though I would like the added room of no adapter plate

It's not just the adapter plate, the LS4 block / crank / front cover / damper pulley is shorter than even the Corvette assembly. And while the truck 5.3 starts out much cheaper, by the time you resolve the issue of getting coolant into and out of the engine, the cost advantage disappears. I started with the truck 5.3, for $500, then stopped in favor of the LS4, for $1400.

I have all the cool transverse parts that make up what you need. Very expensive to duplicate these however..










I have now got the motorplate finalized for the L33 truck engine. Yes, you have to convert the front end of it to 5.3 LS4 stuff, but I sell all those modifed and ready to bolt on too.



Understand the best part of the advantage with the L33's.. LM7 ... Compatiablity with LS1 LS6 ... 1000's upon thousands of parts out there cheap, and these things make power. The automatic 4T65eHD mated to this is on a PCS controller that is FULLY programmable..

Next is the 6T75 6 speed automatic mating to the LSx engines. All new bolt pattern, and I have to redesign the starter issue for this one too. PCS is 2 months out on beta with a contoller to run the 6 speed, but I have already talked with the lead engineer at GM for this transmission and he is helping me with the differences on the 6L80 vs the 6T75.. looking good for an OEM control solution.



updated http://www.fastfieros.com/projects

I may order one of those plates, what's the cost? You've done some beautiful work. I have both an LM7 truck 5.3 and an LS4 car 5.3, and the LS4 comes with the LS2 heads, unlike the LM7. The LS4 can be bored to 3.905" and this is plenty for Fiero use. Likewise for stroke, using any other LSx block than the LS4 allows for an off-the-shelf stroker crank, but for use in a Fiero, it makes no sense. Boring an LS4 to the 5.7L bore size of 3.898", then adding the LS6 cam, valves, intake and computer makes for an emissions-legal way to have an LSx with a manual trans. It's no different as emissions go than rebuilding a real LS6 into an LS4 block, with an LS4 crank, for the purpose of better fitting into the Fiero. What seems more relative to the torque gained by exceeding a stock LS6 is an adapter plate to connect an LSx to the NSX 6-speed. Yes, the SBC version that already exists can be made to work, but is NOT ideal.

isolde have you worked out a starter and mount yet? this seems as though it will be the hardest part of an ls4/manual trans swap. any info or pics you might have on this would be great. my project has been stalled by honeydew lists. i would be interested if anyone has figured out the starter issues yet

------------------
88blackchopv8

My efforts got stalled by my daily driver S15 losing it's manual transmission, and I was 40% done replacing it's engine and trans with a Chevy 350 V8 and matching trans, when the buried irrigation pipe for the south pasture had to be dug up and repaired. Now I'm about 75% done. I'll be back at the Fiero as soon as I can, but for now, my work space and spare time are full.

what are the benefits of the nsx 6 speed? i don't know much about this transmission. is it a stronger trans? can it handle alot of torque? how about the gearing and final drive ratios? are they any better than what is available with the f40? what about the cost? i can't imagine a trans out of a high priced nsx being a cheap option. i thought i read somewhere that the gearing was suited for a high rev engine and wouldn't be right for a v8 unless you planned on spinning the engine rather high. if this is the case other than possible strength what is the benefit of this trans?

i think if an isuzu can live behind a mild v8 fairly well that an f40 could survive the same conditions and perhaps even a little more power just as well if not better. i would think that cost wise it's a much more feasible option to go with the f40. i'm not knocking the nsx trans or the desire to use it, heck if you can make it work that's great, but for me cost is a major consideration. i know you are planning a wilder build than me so that trans may be your best option, but the nsx transmissions i've been able to find are quite pricey and most fiero freaks are cheap and this trans would put this swap out of reach.

what do you think? what are the details, specs, availability, and cost of the nsx trans?

thanks, chris

Strength is the only thing that keeps the NSX trans in the minds of any Fiero enthusiasts. Spinning an LSx to 7200makes the gearing okay, if not ideal, but if you're running a serious L67, or an L98, you may find first gear near useless. But that also holds true for the F40. The NSX trans, whether the earlier 5 speed version or the later 6 speed revision, has second gear closer to first, which helps keep the engine in it's powerband. I know for fact I will be breaking my F40, but at least then I'll know how much it can take. The F40-Mt2 has the best top gear for mileage with a V8 or L67.

I am getting very close to having my F40 trany mounted starter completed:

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/099565.html

Still need to do some additional clearancing to move the starter in for its final position

Got home from work early and moved the starter in further:

that looks great! and it doesn't look too complicated, which is a big plus. once the starter mount issues are solved an ls4/f-40 swap should be very straightforward. great job!

------------------
88blackchopv8