(What Engine Should Be In Your Build?)
The term “car culture” is one that changes depending on where you are in the world and what year/era you’re referring to. When I was in high school (in Southern California) there was a variety of car enthusiasts... there was a low-rider scene, there was the car show guys with the 1950’s rarely driven classics, the muscle car guys, some that were just savage Mad-Max style with massive engines or, the OEM purist muscle car guys that had garaged classic that only had original part...
...There was also the mini-truck guys.
The “mini truck guys” exist in everything... You can say that they are innovators but they also innovate in areas that are unnecessary. For example... it wasn’t uncommon to see crazy things like truck beds that had chrome hydraulic shocks that lifted the bed off the chassis and made it spin, or trucks that were converted into a dump truck. Or they would find ways to lower the car so low on miniature “deep dish” spoke wheels that were angled out to make the truck sit even lower.
Often times if you were behind one, they would come to almost a complete stop and still have to approach an intersection at an angle. You’d see enormous subwoofers in the beds of these mini trucks that rattled every loose part of the truck, elaborate (ridiculous) upholstery and of course - regardless of how much or how little was done to the truck, there would be a large painted club name on the back window that named the mini-truck club they were in (always some “dangerous/anti-social” sounding name like “Outlaw Minis”, “Lost-Boyz Miniz” or “Forsaken Ones”) along with the club names painted on the back window there were funny personalized names or nick-names on the driver’s side or passenger side rear window. The driver side would say something like “Lil Snoopy” and if there was no girlfriend, it would say “Who’s next” or “You wish”... (it wasn’t a humble crowd)
The mini-truck “guy” came and went but his spirit lives on today in new and inventive ways.
Fast forward 30 years and we have in the vintage 4x4 world and the LS Swap community. For the last several years, the answer to EVERY well funded vintage resto/mod truck has been “LS swap!”. (For those of you that don’t know “LS” is the shorthand for the Modern Chevy/GM V8 in all their variety and output ranges. (Wether or not the LS is “The BEST” engine made can be argued but that argument is difficult because there are MANY factors)
Let’s take a step back and understand why the high powered LS became a ‘thing’. Back in the 60’s 70’s and even 80’s, there wasn’t the ubiquitous reverberation of ant-oil, “Climate Change” demands coming form anyone. Gas prices were below $1 a gallon and vehicle owners were free to modify and make as much power as you could want. It’s this environment that inspired the California race culture and the genius innovators that came out of that era. Obviously the 1970’s introduced “emission standards” and smog checks that ended the muscle-car/pure-street racer era and introduced ‘neutered performance’ with engines that had a tangled web of vacuum hoses all over and through the engine bays to reduce the evils of unburned hydrocarbons. Ironically enough, many American motor-companies gamed this by increasing the displacement of engines even more to compensate for the loss of power resulted from the smog equipment.
On the American import side of things, The United States (because of American Motor Company’s lobbyists) handicapped any import trucks so that they could not compete with American Made trucks or the growing interest in off-road wagons. This was done by limiting the engine size allowed to enter the country (unless you used an American engine as Land Rover did with the Buick 215 or as they call it, ‘the 3.5L), so import trucks had 4 cylinders or 6. Imports were limited to gas only, so diesel engines were not seen in imports. (If you’re ever looking through social media and you realize all your favorite old 4x4 have a diesel model in other countries, that’s why)
They were also limited on the quality (gauge) of the metal used in the body so that import trucks felt “thinner/cheeper” compared to an American Truck. An example of these differences is a late 80’s Jeep Grand Wagoneer with a whopping 5.9L V8 option, compared to the Toyota Land Cruiser FJ62 with an 155 HP in-line 6 cylinder engine. Truth be told, Toyota though handicapped was able to create a 6 cylinder engine that competed with that AMC V8 in horsepower but not low end torque)
One of the things that came of this handicapping of import trucks was the influx of “mini-truck” (for a little call back) starting in the late 60’s and early 70’s from overseas. Foreign companies could not export full-size trucks to the U.S. until Toyota cracked that shell in the 1990’s with the partly American made T-100. But even in that, they were only allowed to put a 6 cylinder in them and the thickness of the body metal was noticeably thin and weak.
The major result of that handicapping of import 4x4s is seen more today because today people are willing to invest money into these old classic 4x4’s and of course they want to answer the obvious “power issues” that plagued many of these classic 4x4s.
In the late 60’s into the 70’s American companies didn’t know what to do with the “off-road” market. Bronco’s and Jeeps and Scouts were seen as a “ranch” vehicle and modeled like tractors... Not made for hauling, or any real utility other than moving people over uneven terrain or something to get up into the back country. There was no emphasis on engine size when it came to output, because they weren’t made to “go fast”... If anything you needed more torque rather than speed so there was not much innovation with these. Many of them (if not all) drive and feel like tractors because they were thought of as just that... a tool.
So with our feet firmly planted in present day needs. We have in our rear view mirror a clear evolution of the old 4x4 into the new sophisticated “SUV” nomenclature. However, with that new fancy designation (away from the “technical/tool sounding 4x4”), there were introduced comforts and safety standards into these SUV’s to appeal to a new market of soccer moms... They were expected to drive smooth and comfortably with modern traffic... The huge push for a "sporty family wagon” away from the mini-van into this new “SUV” changed the thinking of 4x4’s for a generation.
This is most noticeable in the 1990’s with the Toyota 80 series Land Cruiser with the optional “triple lock” option. That option basically A-B test the market and showed that most consumers of that SUV didn’t care about that off road function - which also explains the rarity today. People usually keep them if they have them.
That new expectation for ‘every car’ to be comfortable demanded answers to the drivetrain problems of older vintage off road vehicles. A 1967 Ford Bronco is really cool, until you are trying to merge on a freeway in 2024 going 80 miles per hour, or trying to turn on an interstate overpass at 45 miles per hour...Good luck... Enter the era of engine swaps...
Engine swapping isn’t new but in the past it wasn’t nearly as complicated. It was far easier when various manufacturers made a variety of engine sizes that often times shared parts and transmissions and motor mounts. Look at the ford mustang from the 1965 offered in a 3.3L V6 to a 7.0L V8 just a few years later in the Boss 429. You’d put a larger engine in your old American made car and for the most part, being a carbureted engine you didn’t have a ECM (Engine Control Module) or TCM (Transmission Control Module) - a computer to deal with. Transmissions were lever or cable driven and there were plenty of machine shops to fabricate any mounts or adaptor plates if even needed.
The other never talked about aspect of the old muscle car engine swap was that the vehicles that were getting the engine swaps back in the old ‘American street-racing days’ were lower to the ground with somewhat longer wheelbases and could handle and distribute the greater power more effectively. There were additional modifications you could make with adding traction bars, a bigger rear differential, and wider rear tires.
When you increase the horsepower and torque of a vehicle you inadvertently effect the suspension and handling of the car because of the lift when the torque of the drivetrain engages with the axels. This is mediated by having the vehicle lower to the ground and stiffening the rear suspension where the power goes. The steering can be adjusted but again, the vehicles these swaps were going into had a much wider spectrum or capacity for handling a more powerful engine.
Fast forward to today. Adding so much power to an older 4x4 with straight axels that sits several inches higher from large mud terrain tires and a chassis sometimes several feet off the ground, you instantly have several problems to address with the handling of the vehicle. The vehicle is taller which doesn’t distribute the weight well since the center of gravity is significantly higher than a muscle car, add to that how the torque of a new more powerful motor contracts the body over the axels. Many of these vintage 4x4’s get lifted which changes the geometry of the suspension and the angle of the driveshafts into the knuckle, causing various vibrations because of the angle the transmission is sending the driveshaft down into the differential which sometimes has people mounting the engine angled down to compensate for that angle. The height totally changes the steering so that the control in the steering loosens up far too much when the weight adjusts from the front to the back of the vehicle.
Often times you will need to change out not only the brake lines for a lifted vehcile and potentially your brake booster, but also a caster corrected front radius arms to balance and adjust the new orientation of the body to the axels. The older 4x4s are very heavy and the sheer inertia of the weight of the body with passengers or loaded down at higher speeds requires a new more robust braking system on top of that.
Remember the weight of the vehicle is now way above the actual brake rotors that is stopping your vehicle. That force you feel pulling you forward when braking adds an exponential stress to the braking system depending on the speeds you get to. The brakes get all your weight and the weight of the drivetrain and body that wants to continue moving forward because of the inertia. - And then, of course there are the difference in the weight of the new engines and transmissions that tend to be much larger than the original motors, and take up a different amount of space in the engine compartment. A vehicle that was made for one engine with mounts set in a way that works with the engineering of vehicle will have the designed balance thrown off because a new engine will have mounts in different spots, distributing that weight differently. (if it even fits).
In some cases you might get the engine in but then you have to modify or customize other parts to fit next to the engine which requires more investment. I’ve seen some swaps from very expensive companies that fit the intake around to the back of the engine (to make it fit). This means that it’s sucking the hottest and worst air for the intake which will kill some of the performance. All that money and you kill some performance because you position an intake “where it fits”.
For Range Rover Classics an LS swap requires far more than just the LS engine. If you ever wonder why a swap is $50-80k... Here’s a quick list of modifications that must be made to make these function properly:
New motor mounts, new ECM (computer), new more robust braking system, new custom radiator (to make room for the new motor), new transmission, new TCM (transmission computer) new crossmember, (that holds the new transmission), New adapter for transfer box, new custom driveshafts, possibly new gears, new exhaust system, new suspension (preferably adjustable), and of course, new center console bezel because the shifter will not be in the same spot.
Basically a new vehicle with a Range Rover Classic body. When it comes to Defenders, some of these changes adapt better to the Defender 110 and 130 design, but the Defender 90, you run into many of the same issues.
So why LS?... Simple. It’s the most available with the most parts made for them. (Yes they are a very impressive design but they are not the only option) The real question is “what’s best for your vehicle?” Is it an LS or is an LS the old “mini-truck spinning truck bed” of today (over engineered)?
There is a term for this question. It’s called “proportionality”. You can design a vehicle to have adequate acceleration power that feels proportional to the design of the vehicle. What that means practically is enough power to have a fully loaded vehicle move and accelerate with a sufficient amount of torque and horsepower that allows the driver to determine when or if to accelerate or brake. (There’s a lot of subjective language in there) but suffice it to say, a proportionally built engine should never have anyone in the car saying “can’t this go any faster?” - it does not mean an engine that leaves tracks of your $3000 tires on the street.
If you are looking for a race car, a vintage off road vehicle is not your thing... You can build a great driving, safe, capable vintage off-road vehicle that balances all the demands you might have without doing the LS option. An LS can be great. But it really depends on who is building it. It’s not a straight forward endeavor. YES! An LS can-be a great option! BUT, there are FAR BETTER option that aren’t as widely practiced because many builders will only work within their comfort zone.
Most if not all engines are naturally aspirated (which is a fancy word for “engine breathing”). A naturally aspirated engine is one that ‘breathes’ through the regular vacuum of the intake. This can be a carburetor, fuel injected and direct injection. If you augment the natural airflow of the engine, it is no longer a ‘naturally aspirated engine’. (This is something we can get into later) However, I bring it up because there are options for the original engine to increase performance without the swap.
Like the old mini truck with the chrome hydraulic spinning beds, just because you “can” doesn’t always mean it’s a good idea. And like those mini-truck’s impractical upgrades, building out ‘too much’ power for your build without reengineering other parts of the vehicle can result in a great show car with a wow factor when you rev it but also make it practically useless. An LS swap answers the power need but it potentially creates many more problems if not done properly.
The biggest issue to tackle is knowing that ‘more is not better’. Think of those old cartoons of the coyote trying to catch the road runner. In one episode he straps an Acme rocket to his back and lights it as the road runner flys by. The rocket quickly blows him past the road runner and into a cliff wall because though he could catch the road runner, he can’t stop or turn... That’s a perfect analogy of the LS problem. Yes they can be GREAT, but you do not need a 600 HP engine for a vehicle that came originally with 155-200 HP. You will not enjoy it. (If you’re building a muscle car, that’s a different story)
If the goal is to make a vehicle you enjoy driving and not just revving at a stop light or car shows, find out what a sufficient amount of power is and build to that spec.
Ultimately, knowing ‘what you want’ takes some investment of your time to know the differences available. But just thinking “bigger - faster - louder” is better will more than likely get you a vehicle that sits because it’s not enjoyable to drive.