What is difference between L98 & ZZ4?
#52
Supreme Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Santa Rosa, Cali
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1988 IROC 5.7 Money Pit
Engine: (being built; modified TPI ZZ4
Transmission: 2200 stall/ stage 3 700R4
Axle/Gears: freshened 3.27 in 9.bolt/
1988 IROC/distilling it all down to the final parts choices.....
I must say; that Gilbert Chevrolet site was extra-extra helpful and I'll bring along print outs to my next meeting with the engine builder.
It looks like I just need to focus on a few areas for finding cheaper parts off our classified board:
~ The Valvetrain: The World S/R Torquer heads arrived today and they look great; even came with a new set of Edelbrock valve covers! It appears to have a 76cc chamber, valves: 2.02x1.600" 11/32 with a max lift of .560". We'll be porting the hell out of these and upgrading to heavy double springs. How do I choose my roller lifters? What's the highest lift I should shoot for? The advertisers in Summit/Jegs claim 15-40 friction free horsepower and pricing is all over the place, including Crane Cams $800 set of lightweight high-performance rocker arms. Then there's mention of rocker designs that 'change' the geometry of where the lifter opens to the relationship of the cam lobe.... huh???
~Double roller timing gear set: Do I need a billet true roller with infinitely adjustable timing? Is a two piece cover neccesary?
~ oil pan and pump: I understand that one can put to much of a high volume pump in the pan? Does it really matter what shape of pan I use or is it important for longevity (my goal) to use a higher quart capacity unit?
~ Lastly, the Water Pump:What is appropriate for hot california summer, stuck in traffic for hours???
This is going to be fun! I'm glad I chose not to just freshen up my 150k mile engine. There's nothing like a forced crash coarse learning curve
Is there anything else I should know before sitting down and ironing out the parts list next week? This engine is going to sound so sweet that I just may need to delete my radio!!!
Nitro
It looks like I just need to focus on a few areas for finding cheaper parts off our classified board:
~ The Valvetrain: The World S/R Torquer heads arrived today and they look great; even came with a new set of Edelbrock valve covers! It appears to have a 76cc chamber, valves: 2.02x1.600" 11/32 with a max lift of .560". We'll be porting the hell out of these and upgrading to heavy double springs. How do I choose my roller lifters? What's the highest lift I should shoot for? The advertisers in Summit/Jegs claim 15-40 friction free horsepower and pricing is all over the place, including Crane Cams $800 set of lightweight high-performance rocker arms. Then there's mention of rocker designs that 'change' the geometry of where the lifter opens to the relationship of the cam lobe.... huh???
~Double roller timing gear set: Do I need a billet true roller with infinitely adjustable timing? Is a two piece cover neccesary?
~ oil pan and pump: I understand that one can put to much of a high volume pump in the pan? Does it really matter what shape of pan I use or is it important for longevity (my goal) to use a higher quart capacity unit?
~ Lastly, the Water Pump:What is appropriate for hot california summer, stuck in traffic for hours???
This is going to be fun! I'm glad I chose not to just freshen up my 150k mile engine. There's nothing like a forced crash coarse learning curve
Is there anything else I should know before sitting down and ironing out the parts list next week? This engine is going to sound so sweet that I just may need to delete my radio!!!
Nitro
#53
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
I must say; that Gilbert Chevrolet site was extra-extra helpful and I'll bring along print outs to my next meeting with the engine builder.
It looks like I just need to focus on a few areas for finding cheaper parts off our classified board:
~ The Valvetrain: The World S/R Torquer heads arrived today and they look great; even came with a new set of Edelbrock valve covers! It appears to have a 76cc chamber, valves: 2.02x1.600" 11/32 with a max lift of .560". We'll be porting the hell out of these and upgrading to heavy double springs. How do I choose my roller lifters? What's the highest lift I should shoot for? The advertisers in Summit/Jegs claim 15-40 friction free horsepower and pricing is all over the place, including Crane Cams $800 set of lightweight high-performance rocker arms. Then there's mention of rocker designs that 'change' the geometry of where the lifter opens to the relationship of the cam lobe.... huh???
It looks like I just need to focus on a few areas for finding cheaper parts off our classified board:
~ The Valvetrain: The World S/R Torquer heads arrived today and they look great; even came with a new set of Edelbrock valve covers! It appears to have a 76cc chamber, valves: 2.02x1.600" 11/32 with a max lift of .560". We'll be porting the hell out of these and upgrading to heavy double springs. How do I choose my roller lifters? What's the highest lift I should shoot for? The advertisers in Summit/Jegs claim 15-40 friction free horsepower and pricing is all over the place, including Crane Cams $800 set of lightweight high-performance rocker arms. Then there's mention of rocker designs that 'change' the geometry of where the lifter opens to the relationship of the cam lobe.... huh???
~Double roller timing gear set: Do I need a billet true roller with infinitely adjustable timing? Is a two piece cover neccesary?
~ oil pan and pump: I understand that one can put to much of a high volume pump in the pan? Does it really matter what shape of pan I use or is it important for longevity (my goal) to use a higher quart capacity unit?
~ Lastly, the Water Pump:What is appropriate for hot california summer, stuck in traffic for hours???
This is going to be fun! I'm glad I chose not to just freshen up my 150k mile engine. There's nothing like a forced crash coarse learning curve
Is there anything else I should know before sitting down and ironing out the parts list next week? This engine is going to sound so sweet that I just may need to delete my radio!!!
Nitro
Is there anything else I should know before sitting down and ironing out the parts list next week? This engine is going to sound so sweet that I just may need to delete my radio!!!
Nitro
#54
Supreme Member
Guys, the compression on the L-98 was officially rated at 9.3:1 for all years of production except the first (1986 when it was 9.5:1). I won't argue about 90-92 pistons being flattops, becuase I can't remember the last time I ripped into an original L-98 of that vintage (if I ever did). Just be aware that to hit 9.3:1 with flattops either the factory would have needed to use a significantly thicker head gasket, changed the combustion chamber volume of the heads (they didn't), or they just flat-out fudged the stated compression ratio numbers where the motor actually had more compression than they said it did.
#55
Supreme Member
iTrader: (3)
Guys, the compression on the L-98 was officially rated at 9.3:1 for all years of production except the first (1986 when it was 9.5:1). I won't argue about 90-92 pistons being flattops, becuase I can't remember the last time I ripped into an original L-98 of that vintage (if I ever did). Just be aware that to hit 9.3:1 with flattops either the factory would have needed to use a significantly thicker head gasket, changed the combustion chamber volume of the heads (they didn't), or they just flat-out fudged the stated compression ratio numbers where the motor actually had more compression than they said it did.
A L98 with a dish piston could not have the same compression as a flattop as said the 9.3 to 1. I have ran across the 9.8 to 1 numbers in either my chilton or haynes manual. When I tore down my 91-92 L98 motor this winter, it did indeed have factory flattop pistons. I even have a pic of someone elses motor with the same pistons. I beleive the stock head gasket from GM was part #10105117 which is .028 thick. When we measured the deck height, it was either .020 or .025 in the hole.
Im not trying to argue, just post some first hand info and some I have dug up.
Here is a pic of the stock L98 flattops.https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/atta...r-pistons2.jpg
Dished Stock L98 Piston pic>https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/atta...jr-piston3.jpg
#56
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hurst, Texas
Posts: 10,119
Received 428 Likes
on
368 Posts
Car: 1983 G20 Chevy
Engine: 305 TPI
Transmission: 4L60
Axle/Gears: 14 bolt with 3.07 gears
With all things equal: combustion chamber, deck height, head gasket.
A L98 with a dish piston could not have the same compression as a flattop as said the 9.3 to 1. I have ran across the 9.8 to 1 numbers in either my chilton or haynes manual. When I tore down my 91-92 L98 motor this winter, it did indeed have factory flattop pistons. I even have a pic of someone elses motor with the same pistons. I beleive the stock head gasket from GM was part #10105117 which is .028 thick. When we measured the deck height, it was either .020 or .025 in the hole.
Im not trying to argue, just post some first hand info and some I have dug up.
Here is a pic of the stock L98 flattops.https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/atta...r-pistons2.jpg
Dished Stock L98 Piston pic>https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/atta...jr-piston3.jpg
A L98 with a dish piston could not have the same compression as a flattop as said the 9.3 to 1. I have ran across the 9.8 to 1 numbers in either my chilton or haynes manual. When I tore down my 91-92 L98 motor this winter, it did indeed have factory flattop pistons. I even have a pic of someone elses motor with the same pistons. I beleive the stock head gasket from GM was part #10105117 which is .028 thick. When we measured the deck height, it was either .020 or .025 in the hole.
Im not trying to argue, just post some first hand info and some I have dug up.
Here is a pic of the stock L98 flattops.https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/atta...r-pistons2.jpg
Dished Stock L98 Piston pic>https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/atta...jr-piston3.jpg
#57
Supreme Member
I think we can safely say that GM fudged the compression ratio on the later motors, given your experience with them (thank you for noting the head gasket!). With that later combo using flattops you're right at 9.8:1.
Looks like GM just carried the published specs forward from the old days of dished pistons even though they actually made a change to flattops in the production motors.
Wouldn't be the first time we've found that things were different in production TPI motors than what the specs said they should have been. The lively discussion about the infamous "peanut cam" in later 90-92 305 TPIs with automatic transmissions comes immediately to mind. They were supposed to have them, but they didn't.
Looks like GM just carried the published specs forward from the old days of dished pistons even though they actually made a change to flattops in the production motors.
Wouldn't be the first time we've found that things were different in production TPI motors than what the specs said they should have been. The lively discussion about the infamous "peanut cam" in later 90-92 305 TPIs with automatic transmissions comes immediately to mind. They were supposed to have them, but they didn't.
#58
Supreme Member
iTrader: (3)
I think we can safely say that GM fudged the compression ratio on the later motors, given your experience with them (thank you for noting the head gasket!). With that later combo using flattops you're right at 9.8:1.
Looks like GM just carried the published specs forward from the old days of dished pistons even though they actually made a change to flattops in the production motors.
Wouldn't be the first time we've found that things were different in production TPI motors than what the specs said they should have been. The lively discussion about the infamous "peanut cam" in later 90-92 305 TPIs with automatic transmissions comes immediately to mind. They were supposed to have them, but they didn't.
Looks like GM just carried the published specs forward from the old days of dished pistons even though they actually made a change to flattops in the production motors.
Wouldn't be the first time we've found that things were different in production TPI motors than what the specs said they should have been. The lively discussion about the infamous "peanut cam" in later 90-92 305 TPIs with automatic transmissions comes immediately to mind. They were supposed to have them, but they didn't.
Your welcome!
I was pleased to find I had the flattops and not the dished. I ended up going with the same head gasket, stock piston, stock deck, but had my AFR 190's milled to 60cc's. I should be somewere between 10.3 and 10.8 to 1 compression.
#60
Supreme Member
iTrader: (3)
Nope stock bore. I just did a head/cam/intake swap on the L98 bottom end. I did a compression check and every cylinder was within 5 of each other.
It ended up being a strong motor. Its strong out of the hole and pulls hard on the big end. I really give props to Edels RPM airgap intake.
Of course we worked the heads and intake, so they are not exactly out of the box pieces.
#62
Junior Member
I refreshed the (very) used GM alum. heads with a good valve grind (no porting) and installed the used stock ZZ4 roller cam with the used stock lifters. I thought I'd replace the single roller cam chain set with the Edelbrock double one... big mistake! I thought it was a fluke that the cam spocket rubbed on the block, so I tried another one...it did too! I got out the dial gage and found a .009" wobble in both spockets, right out of the box. I bought the GM parts from the GMPP catalog and have been running this engine very hard for about 30 hours of road racing, with no issues at all.
I do use the Edelbrock Air Gap intake and a 750 Holley, and it has corrected dyno numbers that are disappointing, 280RWHP, 300LBFT. I know it would make more HP with a bigger cam, as I got just over 300RWHP on the previous block with Crane's best hyd. roller cam, with all the same parts. I've elected to run with less power to conserve the rest of the car (tires/brakes/diff/trans) for this year. Its even better on fuel consumption!
One more note: the timing chain cover is plastic, and is supposed to be a single use item, and it actually is. Don't reuse it, and don't try to put an older style metal one on, as it will really leak! Good luck with your car!
Larry in BC
#64
Moderator
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Littleton, CO USA
Posts: 43,169
Likes: 0
Received 36 Likes
on
34 Posts
Car: 82 Berlinetta/57 Bel Air
Engine: LS1/LQ4
Transmission: 4L60E/4L80E
Axle/Gears: 12B-3.73/9"-3.89
I'll try putting my oar into this CR water here:
'82-'86, the "higher" compression engines (LU5, L69, LB9, and '85-'86 LG4) had flattops with 4 valve reliefs (something like 6cc piston crown volume) for 9.5:1 CR. In '87, they all (LO3, LB9, L98) went to slight dish with 4 valve reliefs (something like 12-13cc piston crown volume) to produce 9.3:1 CR. In all cases, the 305's had 58cc head chambers, and 350's had 64cc head chambers. All used a steel shim head gasket.
I don't know about the '86 L98 (or '84, or '85), as those were Vette engines (and a very, very few '86 f-bodies). They don't exist in the "real" world, don't ya know. . .
The ZZ4 comes with 4-relief flat-tops, which is why it's higher with 64cc heads than the production L98's. Gee, you can get those pistons from Pace for only $90.78/each!
'82-'86, the "higher" compression engines (LU5, L69, LB9, and '85-'86 LG4) had flattops with 4 valve reliefs (something like 6cc piston crown volume) for 9.5:1 CR. In '87, they all (LO3, LB9, L98) went to slight dish with 4 valve reliefs (something like 12-13cc piston crown volume) to produce 9.3:1 CR. In all cases, the 305's had 58cc head chambers, and 350's had 64cc head chambers. All used a steel shim head gasket.
I don't know about the '86 L98 (or '84, or '85), as those were Vette engines (and a very, very few '86 f-bodies). They don't exist in the "real" world, don't ya know. . .
The ZZ4 comes with 4-relief flat-tops, which is why it's higher with 64cc heads than the production L98's. Gee, you can get those pistons from Pace for only $90.78/each!
#65
TGO Supporter/Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: SALEM, NH
Posts: 11,771
Likes: 0
Received 93 Likes
on
78 Posts
Car: '88 Formula, '94 Corvette, '95 Bird
Engine: LC9, 355" LT1, LT1
Transmission: T5, Zf6, 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 3.42, Dana44 3.45, 3.23
I pulled apart a L05 from a police caprice and that had flat tops too.
I don't know why the early L98 f cars got the dish pistons.
-- Joe
#66
Supreme Member
Almost all 350s from the early-mid 70s on up to (apparently) about 1990 used very similar dished pistons. I'm sure the factory just kept on using them when they started putting FI on the motors, like the early TPI motors. You're jsut lucky that the TPI motors got smaller 64cc heads unlike the really dark days of smog emissions when they were almost all 76cc heads and compression was in the low 8s!
Tight quench and high compression used to be the enemy of passing factory emissions testing for the manufacturers. Full-face dished pistons were a common trick to help them out so it's not surprising they would keep using them for a while, even with fuel injection.
You can beleive it or not, back in the mid 80s a factory motor with 9.5:1 compression was like "pinch me, I must be dreaming!" It was a big deal back then. Today it's a snoozer, but back then we had all been dealing with factory motors in the low 8s for almost 15 years. It was like we could all finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. Then all we had to do was figure out how to use this new-fangled electronic fuel injection stuff vs. the carbs we had all grown up with! But that's a story for another day.
Tight quench and high compression used to be the enemy of passing factory emissions testing for the manufacturers. Full-face dished pistons were a common trick to help them out so it's not surprising they would keep using them for a while, even with fuel injection.
You can beleive it or not, back in the mid 80s a factory motor with 9.5:1 compression was like "pinch me, I must be dreaming!" It was a big deal back then. Today it's a snoozer, but back then we had all been dealing with factory motors in the low 8s for almost 15 years. It was like we could all finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. Then all we had to do was figure out how to use this new-fangled electronic fuel injection stuff vs. the carbs we had all grown up with! But that's a story for another day.
#67
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wonder Lake
Posts: 432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1987 chevy camaro iroc-z28 305 h.o.
Engine: 305 high output
Transmission: 700r4
Re: What is difference between L98 & ZZ4?
does anyone know if a l98 water pump will work on the 305 sbc, p m me yea or no please, thanks in ahead
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post