LQ4 and a 63 Rambler

Hi folks. Need the opinions of the hive mind. I have a 1963 Rambler wagon (their "big" car which is really a mid-sized car by most standards) and I want to upgrade it to a more modern powertrain.

The goals are a nice highway cruiser with decent fuel economy, overdrive automatic, & cruise control, that could pull a small holiday trailer, and not break the bank doing this.

I have access to a free 6.0 LQ4 from a 2003 3500 Chevy Van with its (4L80??)automatic. It has 300,000 miles on it. I have the whole van at my disposal. It is cable throttle.

I also have a 5.7 TBI and a 700R4 that are both reasonably fresh from a 1988 Suburban. It would cost me a few dollars to buy from a friend. The complete Suburban is at my disposal.

I will back either of these choices up with an Explorer 8.8 rear end that would be shortened on one side. The rear ends are free to me.

I would expect that the LQ4 will need at the very least, a re-fresh with new bearings, rings, oil pump etc. I was hoping not to have to do a full re-build on it in order to keep the costs in check.

The internets tell me that the LQ4 would be a thirsty engine. I originally assumed it would be more frugal than the old 350 TBI by virtue of 4 decades difference in their design, but now I'm not so sure. I also assume that there would be more work involved in swapping the LQ4 under the hood of the Rambler. The truck manifold and front ancillary arrangement appears tall to my eyes. Buying an intake manifold, (oil pan?), ancillary brackets would add considerably to costs.

So, fuel economy is my first question: would the 6.0 be more thirsty than the 5.7? Am I inviting myself into a nightmare of adaptation trying to fit a 6.0? Am I deluding myself that I can cheaply "refresh" the LQ4 with 300,000 plus miles on it? The refresh of the 4L80E would also add to costs.

Opinions are greatly appreciated!!

I would for sure go with the newer engine. Does the van still run? You could always do the swap and get it running, then find another lower mileage long block to swap in later.

The van still runs and drives. Quite well actually!

I'd go with the newer engine for sure. While the electronics will be more of a PIA to swap and get correct, in the end you're have a cool classic with the reliability of something more modern.

FYI I have a friend who swapped in a carbed Camaro 2.8L V6 and 5-speed into a '62 Rambler convertible, and it was almost too much for the little car, So I think either engine choice might be a bit "too much"**.

**Not that "too much" is a bad thing...

The 4l80e would be pretty much unkillable in something as light as a Rambler.

Whatever you do, make a build thread!

You'd be surprised at what that the newer engine can manage.

If you're worried about the 6.0L, use the van to donate everything but the engine and find a lower mile 5.3L from a junkyard. The trans could use refreshing but the 4L80 is much more desirable over the 4L60. Then you have the harness, computer, accessories, etc that can all bolt on.

Initial rough measurements indicate that the tall intake manifold may fit under the hood of the Rambler. Same goes with the alternator and its bracket. The oil pan might even be suitable, or possibly slicing an inch or two out of it.

Without those costs incurred, then the swap looks more promising to me. I just got scared that the noted reputation of the 6.0's appetite for fuel caused me to second guess the idea. The light weight Rambler with a better aerodynamic profile than a 4X4 pick up truck should help a little for economy. The rear end ratio of the Explorer rear end is 3.27.

Cable actuation for the throttle body/ cruise/ transmission linkage sweetens it as well. The hydro boost might even come in handy since the Rambler is without a booster in the original system.

Build thread will be forthcoming.

GM 4 speeds usually have a stump pulling 1st gear, you could go pretty tall(high 2s) on the rear ratio for better economy without much sacrifice off the line. Might even be ideal to make it harder to break the tires loose trying to accelerate gently. If you're shortening the axle, re gearing wont be much extra work.

I agree a high 2's ratio would be ideal. I'm all about highway economy and with the lightweight car, that would be better. I believe the lowest ratio available on an 8.8 is 3.08.

The 8.8 being used in the malaise era, I'd think you could get numerically lower, though 3.08 would probably be good.

I'm reading that 2.26 and 2.73 were also available, appears many fox mustangs had the 2.73 so you should be able to get a set for next to nothing. I'd do the math for what your RPMs at 70mph would be with all of them and go from there.

One website I saw indicates that the 4L80E has a 2.48 first gear compared to a 700R4 / 4L60E with a 3.06 first ratio. This suggests that the 4L80E doesn't have as much of a stump puller as the 700R4. My calculations at 70 mph with a 3.27 rear ratio would be 2137 RPMs. It would be nice to have a 2.73 which drops RPMs to 1784 at 70mph. All calculations based on a 215/65-16 tire.

I believe 2.73 was an option in Crown Vics/Marquis/Towncars. Not sure how to find out externally, though.

The 3.08 should put you around 2000 then, depending on your definition of small trailer, this would probably be about right.

Yes. 3.08 would probably be ideal. 2013 calculated RPMs.

Even the 4.8/5.3 are right around 300 ft lbs. of torque just off idle. A 6.0 in that chassis will tolerate whatever rear gear you want even with the 4l80' s tall first.

have you looked under your rambler wagon? curious as to the rear suspension setup, as far as how hard it would be to put a non rambler axle in.

my 66 has a torque tube rear end with links and coils and whatnot and looks like it would need a completely re-engineered rear suspension to swap axles.

Yes, exactly. The 63 has a torque tube as well. Part of the stimulus for this was the fact that the transmission is a relic from another long ago era. Same with the engine. The prospect of having to deal with a breakdown on a holiday, thousands of miles away from home with a car whose systems haven't been manufactured for nearing on half a century, was a factor in deciding to upgrade things.

A modern overdrive automatic. A more modern engine capable of delivering towing capabilities and respectable fuel economy. Disc brakes on the front and the rear. Air conditioning and cruise control. Keeping the original engine, transmission, and even the rear end seemed like a poor choice, when some other, more common, more modern pieces should swap in with relative ease.

With regards to the rear end, I could keep the leaf spring set up that the donor Explorer provides. Or, I could go with an Ebay 4 link set up that hot rodders commonly use. Can anyone chime in as to whether I would prefer the 4-link over the leaf springs? I have no desire to drag race or even track this car. I just want comfort and driveability. Is the 4-link geared more to drag racing?

MrJoshua wrote: Even the 4.8/5.3 are right around 300 ft lbs. of torque just off idle. A 6.0 in that chassis will tolerate whatever rear gear you want even with the 4l80' s tall first.

I'm concerned that a short first gear would be essentially useless with such a powerful engine in a light weight car. The taller rear end is important to keep the rpm's down at 70 mph. A taller first should help alleviate my concerns about rendering first gear useless.

Do you intend to ever mount sticky tires or generally beat on it? If so, might as well 4 link it from the start rather than adding things like cal tracs to the leaf springs till you effectively built a four link anyhow.

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure this is a general cruiser designed to eat up the miles on the highway. We'll stick to the track with the other track weapons in the fleet and maybe use this to tow them on a flat deck open trailer to the track. That being said, with a stonkin' V8 up under the hood, I suppose it would be tempting to fit some sticky rubber and turn a few laps at the road course, just to impress the students and elicit some laughs. Would the four link be harsh on the street? I'm pretty sure I don't want heim joints in my street car.

Rubber or urethane, dude. Yes it may bind at some point, but you're not looking for maximum articulation. Heim joints are for race cars.

a 4 link with heim joints will be harsh on the street. i have one on my belair. if i had to do it over again i'd probably build my own, with trailing arms and rubber bushings, but i was better at buy/weld than design/fabricate/weld back when i did it. the infinite adjustability is wonderful and it launches straight as an arrow, but i had to put a stock seat back in to act like more suspension so i could retain kidney function.

rambler is a unibody. i'd look to do some sort of trailing arm suspension similar to the 60's gm pickups. you could retain coils and shocks in the factory location and be similar enough in design that you do not have to clearance floor pan or add lots to the stamped frame rails. i have not been under mine in a couple months but i recall the lower arms going from the axle, at an angle and attaching to the torque tube. truck style trailing arms and a panhard will go a long way to making you handle better while retaining stock style geometry for ride quality.

i really like how my rambler rides so i would personally wish to stay as close to that as possible, while maybe adding a larger front sway bar and a smallish one in the rear like from a fox body or something similar where you get a bar that clamps to the axle tubes and just needs a couple brackets for arms to the chassis aft of the axle.

I don't profess to know very much, but I wouldn't deviate from the stock suspension on a cruiser, and just my 2 cents on the engine? Go with the 5.7, easier to "get running" easier to find parts on a sunday when your in the middle of nowhere