$15,000 for an LT-5 motor?

[A26B]

Originally Posted by EvanZR1

IF this had been available when I had my motor issue, I would have considered it at around half the asking price. But definitely not for $15K. For that price I got a fully ported 391 closed deck from Pete.

It really comes down to a difference in the objective.

For you Evan (and most of the rest of us here on the forum) , two factors drove your decision (1) you already had an engine & (2) you wanted more power. I'm with you on that. I built my 94 405 LT5 to a 415 cu in for the same reasons.

Different factors for customers I have sold crate engines to;

(1) Badly damaged engine, working with a dealership (??) The economics to repair are heavily in favor of a complete replacement engine & a new engine trumps the rebuild. Economics drive this decision. Sale of the take-out engine offsets a part of the cost.

(2) International to a country with very strict emissions laws. Cost to rebuild involves round trip shipping the engine to the US. A complete, major overhaul & shipping would likely exceed the cost of the new crate engine and ALL components would be new. Less time & concern.

(3) The custom car builder: With the LT5's unique, exotic look, power is not the major concern and 405 HP is not shabby either. A $15,000 engine is but a small fraction of the cost that goes into building some of these cars. I have had at least a dozen, maybe two, dozen customers putting LT5 engines in all sorts of different cars, from a 40's Packard to Chevy pickups, with every earlier generation of Corvettes, plus Camaros, Chevelles, 55~57 Chevys, etc.
Being here in the US, most do find used engines and leave stock internals or modify, but they have access to builders.

So bottom line..... it all depends on the final objective & what you're starting with. Remember, EVERY single component on a crate engine is brand new, from the clutch fork to the power steering hoses, wiring harness to the drain plug.

[Dynomite]

Originally Posted by A26B

I shipped a new crate engine to Japan & the customer had no problems with the engine. Another went to a customer in New Mexico who did not encounter any problems. I know of other instances with the same trouble-free results.

Jerry...…..
How much would it cost to ship a crate engine say from New York to South Dakota

Also......who are your shippers?

How much does a Crate Engine weigh?
What are its crated dimensions?

[A26B]

Originally Posted by Dynomite

Jerry...…..
How much would it cost to ship a crate engine say from New York to South Dakota

Also......who are your shippers?

How much does a Crate Engine weigh?
What are its crated dimensions?

Weight, as crated by GM - 739 lbs
Crate size - 43"L x 36"W x 39"H

[spork2367]

And here is what a crate motor is currently bringing:

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1990-chevrolet/

[A26B]

No, the one on BAT IS not comparable to the 93-95 crate engine pictured in my post. In fact, I think that’s strong money for the engine sold in BAT. You should probably use a photo & specs of the one listed on BAT TO be representative of the price.


Sent from my iPhone using ZR-1 Net Registry

[spork2367]

Originally Posted by A26B

No, the one on BAT IS not comparable to the 93-95 crate engine pictured in my post. In fact, I think that’s strong money for the engine sold in BAT. You should probably use a photo & specs of the one listed on BAT TO be representative of the price.


Sent from my iPhone using ZR-1 Net Registry

I somewhat disagree. If you had a 1990-1992 car, this engine is the most correct replacement. Since that constitutes the majority of cars, I would say this was a steal.

As far as BAT, stuff on there has been going for stupid money. 1988 4runner with a 3.slow and 255k miles just sold for 14k!!! 2009 Honda S2000 with 91 miles went for 70k.

The Wette Vette motor sat on ebay for a month with no sale at 10k, and went on BAT and brought that in 7 days.

What do you think make this engine worth less? It's a two bolt engine (which is essentially meaningless since there are virtually no failures attributed to cap walk.) It is one of the very few 2 bolt crate engines that wasn't a dyno test mule.

[A26B]

Originally Posted by spork2367

I somewhat disagree. If you had a 1990-1992 car, this engine is the most correct replacement. Since that constitutes the majority of cars, I would say this was a steal.

As far as BAT, stuff on there has been going for stupid money. 1988 4runner with a 3.slow and 255k miles just sold for 14k!!! 2009 Honda S2000 with 91 miles went for 70k.

The Wette Vette motor sat on ebay for a month with no sale at 10k, and went on BAT and brought that in 7 days.

What do you think make this engine worth less? It's a two bolt engine (which is essentially meaningless since there are virtually no failures attributed to cap walk.) It is one of the very few 2 bolt crate engines that wasn't a dyno test mule.

First, let's clarify something; Because it was stored in a wooden box doesn't make it a "crate engine" in the truest sense of the phrase as it applies to new LT5 engines manufactured and specially prepared for storage, specifically for GM SPO use.

OK, here’s what was stated on the BAT auction site, with my comments:

This 5.7-liter LT5 V8 was designed for the C4 Chevrolet Corvette ZR-1 and remains in a period crate. A handwritten tag and markings on the wood box indicate that the engine was made in 1989 as a pre-production unit. It was previously in the collection of R&K Machine founder and LT5 engine cart manufacturer Rick Kirk.

No real, documented, pedigree on this engine. Handwritten tag & box markings??

The selling dealer acquired the engine in 2018 along with the Wette Vette V8 which was sold on BaT in January 2019. The seller states that the LT5 has been crated and unused since it left the Mercury Marine assembly plant. This quad-cam ZR-1 engine is now offered out of New York State on a bill of sale.

The so-called “selling dealer” actually doesn’t know anymore about the history of this engine other than what he may have been told by Rick Kirk who is now deceased. He has no personal knowledge or presented any verifiable research.

General Motors tapped its newly-acquired Lotus engineering department to help design the DOHC V8 for the C4 Corvette ZR-1. The 5.7-liter LT5 V8 features aluminum construction, 32 valves, and electronic fuel injection. Assembly of the LT5 was outsourced to Mercury Marine in Stillwater, Oklahoma.

Not quite right. Mercury did much more than assemble the engines. The did virtually all of the machine work in-house and cast many of the parts right on site in Stillwater.

The seller believes that the engine was never installed in a car. After testing on a dynamometer, it is reported that the engine was stored in the included crate. The video above shows the crankshaft being rotated by hand. The seller has not run the engine and does not know if it will operate. It does not currently contain any oil.

There is no paperwork to support what the seller “believes,” and admittedly does not know if it will operate, only that it “does not currently contain any oil.” Real crate engines were specially prepared for long term storage while at Mercury. Storage instructions for real crate engines required climate controlled conditions. I know for a fact that this engine was warehoused for many years without any climate control.

The handwritten tag describes the engine as a #383 pre-production unit from 1989. The engine stamping is inconsistent with production ZR-1 engines, but includes the #383 designation seen above. No VIN stamping is present on the opposite side of the engine.

All true, but has no bearing on the condition of the engine or exactly what components were used in the assembly of this engine. There were over 3,000 changes made to the LT5 during the pre-production era.

The crate is included in the sale. Made of wood, the box is inscribed with “1989 Pre Production LT5 Engine #383.”

Here’s what is not included with this engine, that actually is included with a new crate engine.

Bellhousing
Clutch
Clutch Fork & Release Bearing
Motor Mounts

But you do get a rusty flywheel as evidence this engine was not stored in climate controlled space.

This engine is a real pig in a poke compared to a bona fide Crate engine.

I do not agree that this engine is a most correct replacement for 90~92 models. I don't think that having a pre-production engine is going to win any Bloomington Gold awards or make the ZR-1 worth any more because it looks more like the original engine. In fact, I would imagine a buyer may pay more for the car with the later 405Hp engine. I don't know that for a fact, just my opinion.

[spork2367]

Originally Posted by A26B

First, let's clarify something; Because it was stored in a wooden box doesn't make it a "crate engine" in the truest sense of the phrase as it applies to new LT5 engines manufactured and specially prepared for storage, specifically for GM SPO use.

This engine is a real pig in a poke compared to a bona fide Crate engine.

I had a long winded response typed up, but it's unimportant. I work in a facility where we crate and preserve every single engine we build.

When you say "bona fide", that only applies to the crate engines AS RECEIVED FROM GM or an authorized shop. And I guarantee that was and still is GM's definition as well.

After joe blow bought it, there is no "bona fide". You have no idea how it was stored or what was or wasn't done with it. Can you guarantee that crate engine on Ebay was stored in climate controlled conditions? The sticker on the box doesn't mean anything.

And finally, no engine manufacturer (outside of the military) would put a 23+ year shelf life on crate engines. Call GM today and ask what their guaranteed shelf life is on an LS crate engine... With the highest level of preservation we offer, our engine shelf life is 1 year. That is on an engine that costs 55k+. Preservation beyond a year involves priming oil pumps, rotating the engine, etc. Not one LT5 in existence was crated and preserved with a 23 year guarantee.

Every one of these motors is a crap shoot unless you pull the entire thing apart.

Whether or not it was a good deal is more of an opinion based issue. So we can agree to disagree on that.

[A26B]

Originally Posted by spork2367

...............................................Eve ry one of these motors is a crap shoot unless you pull the entire thing apart.

Whether or not it was a good deal is more of an opinion based issue. So we can agree to disagree on that.

At one time, I had about 30 LT5 engines that came from GM. There were all sorts of engines, ranging from Phase II to pre production test engines to active suspension engines to engineering test engines & even the "windo engine" used to diagnose the secondary cam chain failure. None of those engines were prepared for storage & had sat in some dusty warehouse, uncovered, partially disassembled & some still had coolant & oil. So I think from this small sample, we can establish that not every engine was prepared for storage.

I concur completely with you that it is impossible to say whether actual "crate engines" were kept in heated storage.

Viability of Crate Engines
Insofar as storage prep goes; I don't know the details of the prep & have no basis to disagree with your statement about the effective longevity of such. However, I think however effective the storage prep might be after a certain period of time, it would be preferable to a "no-prep" storage.

Along this same line, Crate Engines weren't inexpensive and it's likely some were maintained in heated storage & some weren't. If you spend a lot for something, you tend to take better care of it.

In the same vein of uncertainty, we should consider actual information as it pertains to the activation of actual "Crate Engines," from storage to running condition. The impression I have over the last 17 years or so that I have been affiliated with the ZR-1/LT5 is that there have been no problems with "Crate Engines" when they were placed into service. You tend to hear more about bad news than good news, so I am reasonably confident in the preservation of "Crate Engines" being effective.

Every one of these motors is a crap shoot unless you pull the entire thing apart.

I think its more of a horse race than a crap shoot, with the long odds of a "Crate Engine" being a failure. Right now, I'm not aware of a failed "Crate Engine" having ever occurred. Granted, the quantity of my awareness is a small window compared to the total number, but it beats a crap shoot.

The issue of a guarantee is a no-brainer & I'm no fool to even consider that in my perspective of this discussion.

There is no evidence that we can present that is an absolute regarding the preservation effectiveness (apart from a 23 year guarantee) BUT, I do know that the subject "89 BAT Engine" did NOT receive any preservation treatment. No preservation of LT5 engines was undertaken until the end of the 1993~95 engine run was completed in 1993.

I do happen to have personal knowledge of where the BAT auction engine has been since it left Mercury. I have no reason to dispute the hand written tag or the Sharpie writing on the box.

Getting back on track with the origin of this thread, the fact that engine #383 sold on BaT for $9,000, in spite of its auspicious origin & condition, does speak well of the value for an actual Crate Engine being significantly higher. $15,000 for a documented, 405Hp LT5, complete with clutch, bellhousing & motor mounts is a viable amount.

I never meant to imply that the 89 engine sold on BAT was a bad deal for the buyer. It brought good money and may well be worth it. After all, that is the definition of "fair market value." I just used it as an example to compare it to a new Crate Engine, since you brought into the conversation for comparison.

[spork2367]

Originally Posted by A26B

At one time, I had about 30 LT5 engines that came from GM. There were all sorts of engines, ranging from Phase II to pre production test engines to active suspension engines to engineering test engines & even the "windo engine" used to diagnose the secondary cam chain failure. None of those engines were prepared for storage & had sat in some dusty warehouse, uncovered, partially disassembled & some still had coolant & oil. So I think from this small sample, we can establish that not every engine was prepared for storage.

Absolutely. I'm sure there were a lot that weren't preserved. And there is no guarantee this one for sale was, in fact I would agree that it probably was not.

It does appear to be in rather nice original condition without excessive dust, dirt, discoloration, etc. I suspect it may have been a spare engine for a prototype car. Probably only packaged for short distance transportation with the car in case a spare engine was needed. But that's just a guess.

I concur completely with you that it is impossible to say whether actual "crate engines" were kept in heated storage.

Viability of Crate Engines
Insofar as storage prep goes; I don't know the details of the prep & have no basis to disagree with your statement about the effective longevity of such. However, I think however effective the storage prep might be after a certain period of time, it would be preferable to a "no-prep" storage.

I'm guessing that aside from the crating itself, preservation was minimal. The most sensitive area in engines is the bearing surfaces (contact areas), cam surfaces, and cylinder bores. Assembly lube, or engine oil from a dyno run is adequate preservation for the bearings and cam surface in a sealed area (sealed from atmospheric conditions), and being that these are nikasil plated bores, there is no real necessity for cylinder bore preservation, although they may have fogged them with something.

Along this same line, Crate Engines weren't inexpensive and it's likely some were maintained in heated storage & some weren't. If you spend a lot for something, you tend to take better care of it.

Agreed.

In the same vein of uncertainty, we should consider actual information as it pertains to the activation of actual "Crate Engines," from storage to running condition. The impression I have over the last 17 years or so that I have been affiliated with the ZR-1/LT5 is that there have been no problems with "Crate Engines" when they were placed into service. You tend to hear more about bad news than good news, so I am reasonably confident in the preservation of "Crate Engines" being effective.


I think its more of a horse race than a crap shoot, with the long odds of a "Crate Engine" being a failure. Right now, I'm not aware of a failed "Crate Engine" having ever occurred. Granted, the quantity of my awareness is a small window compared to the total number, but it beats a crap shoot.

And based on the number of low mileage cars that have become drivers after long periods of inactivity, I would say the robust design of the engine, along with some material choices makes preservation a minor concern in the scheme of things. So aside from material defects, I would expect crate engines, even with somewhat questionable storage, to be good well into the future. That's not counting possible leaking around seals that have a finite shelf life.

The issue of a guarantee is a no-brainer & I'm no fool to even consider that in my perspective of this discussion.

There is no evidence that we can present that is an absolute regarding the preservation effectiveness (apart from a 23 year guarantee) BUT, I do know that the subject "89 BAT Engine" did NOT receive any preservation treatment. No preservation of LT5 engines was undertaken until the end of the 1993~95 engine run was completed in 1993.

I do happen to have personal knowledge of where the BAT auction engine has been since it left Mercury. I have no reason to dispute the hand written tag or the Sharpie writing on the box.

I actually talked with the gentleman who acquired the items from the Kirk collection, but only in regards to some parts he had.

Getting back on track with the origin of this thread, the fact that engine #383 sold on BaT for $9,000, in spite of its auspicious origin & condition, does speak well of the value for an actual Crate Engine being significantly higher. $15,000 for a documented, 405Hp LT5, complete with clutch, bellhousing & motor mounts is a viable amount.

I never meant to imply that the 89 engine sold on BAT was a bad deal for the buyer. It brought good money and may well be worth it. After all, that is the definition of "fair market value." I just used it as an example to compare it to a new Crate Engine, since you brought into the conversation for comparison.

I understand where you're coming from. The bellhousing and motor mounts are minimal. The surface rust on the clutch is an easy fix. At 9k, the sum of the parts was worth more than the total price, so I think it was a good deal for whoever got it.

However, in the crate motor conversation as a whole...hard to justify 15k for an LT5 when 18k gets you this...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/GM-Performa...frcectupt=true