IS-SV

btw, a lot of sweeping "generalizations and adjectives" above.

Threxx

Yeah I thought about that as I was writing it, but what I wrote can all be backed up by actual numbers if I went to the effort. They are facts.

I just didn't want him to come back and say something like "they are low tech stone age designs"... which is the general sentiment that I hear all the time, and yet I can't help but ask people to get more specific. Show me the numbers. Show me what it is about the LS3 that's of poor design. How does that translate to poor real world performance?

It doesn't.

mmarshall

Yes, Corvette engines are generally reliable, and the drivetrains reasonably reliable. The rest of the car; that's not necessarily the case.

bagwell

only minor things I've heard of are:
the fuel door switch getting filthy, corroded and failing (has a manual back-up release) and the interior door popper switch contacts becoming dirty and failing....both are cheap do-it yourself fixes.

2002GGPIS3

[QUOTE=bagwell;4399202]yep BLUE FLAME...

When introduced in 1953, the Corvette featured the "Blue Flame" six cylinder engine. This is not as the Chevrolet engineering team wanted things, but they had no choice. Although other GM marques featured V8 motors they were not willing to share; a very different situation compared to years later when various divisions would feature the same powerplants. It was renowned for reliability but with a rating of 105 HP, performance and sportiness was not included. The engineering staff responded with the usual engine upgrade methods. A more radical camshaft rubbing on solid lifters, dual valve springs, and a higher compression ratio cylinder head (8.0:1; previous was 7.5:1) all contributed to the effort. The largest gain was achieved via an upgrade to the induction system (right). Three Carter type YH sidedraft carburetors featuring "bullet" air cleaners with an aluminum manifold were incorporated and the output soared to 150 bhp at 4,500 RPM.



God, I feel so stupid, I know the first Corvettes have the blue flame, I only have over 20 books on corvettes, sorry completly forgot.. anyway the Corvette did not take off sles wise until they put the V8 in 1995, actually the thunderbird was out selling the Corvette at this time. Anyway I don't see a smaller Corvette engine then a V8 in the near future.

mmarshall

The Corvette V8 first went in for 1955, not 1995 (yes, I know it's just a typo ). The T-Bird was introduced in 1955 (the same year), so is wasn't actually "outselling" the Corvette until it had a little time to get established in the marketplace, where the Corvette had already been for two years.
The T-Bird did, as you note, outsell the Corvette after the first few months and an accurate count was able to be taken, primarily because Ford offered a V8 to start with and the choice of a floor-mounted three-speed manual or three-speed automatic, far more "sports"-like than the Corvette's Blue Flame six and two-speed automatic.

mmarshall

Many things, on the average car, WERE DIY-fixes back then. It's not like today, where you have to have a computer/electronics degree just to change the battery.

v8soarer91

GM have to look good and hard at what the euros are producing.
Holden LS2 6.0 v8, 6.2 v8 (HSV) 270 - 317kw dinosaur designed engine

Ferrari 4.3 v8, 6.0 v12
BMW 4.0 v8 5.0 v10 (brought the design and technology off Toyota from the 1uz v8)
Aston 4.7 v8, 5.9 v12
Lambo 5.0 v10, 6.0 v12
Mercedes 5.5, 6.0 v12

and you cannot go past the new GTR 3.8 v6 375kw for godzilla sake.

They all produce between 270kw - 500kw, 14 - 25ltr per 100kms.

GM needs to reduce the size and weight of their mainstream cars, redesign the engine for a smaller capacity and fuel efficiency (keep the V8).

Threxx

Ignorance is bliss I suppose right?

You just compared a very inexpensive to produce no longer in production GM engine to a bunch of very expensive exotic and in some cases forced induction motors.

LS9 is 638hp or 476kw and 6.2 liters of displacement. It weighs 520 pounds and if you wanted to order one up a la carte from your GM dealer they'd charge you $19,000 if they were charging you MSRP.

I dare you to call up the dealer for any of the cars you mentioned above and ask what the price is of any of those engines. You may also be surprised to find most of them are heavier and physically larger.

Power per liter of displacement is a completely uneducated argument dreamed up by idiots racing honda civics, tired of getting demolished by muscle cars and looking for a way to poke fun at them.

As an aside, where in the world did you hear that BMW's V8s 'brought' the design from the 1UZ?

kt22cliff

BMW S85 V10 engine is derived from BMW's own F1 engine program and has nothing what so ever to do with anything Toyota. S65 V8 is derived from S85 -> Same design as S85 with one less cyl per bank.

kt22cliff

And as Threxx said above, GM's LSx engines are are perhaps the strongest part of GM's assets and for pound per pound, power/weight ratio-wise, and fuel effeciency-wise one of the best N/A V8 engines produced anywhere.

mmarshall

Agreed....but they get some competition from Chrysler's 5.7L and 6.2L Hemis, and the 5.7L Hemi has that nice cylinder de-activation feature for when you don't need full power. Chrysler hasn't found a way yet to put it on the 6.2.

IS-SV

Wonderful, ultra strong 5.7L-6.2L pushrod V8's are the strength of the 2 automotive companies (GM and Chrysler) on the verge of bankruptcy.....As these engines become a smaller portion of their sales mix.........

I8ABMR

good point !!

SLegacy99

Which I don't understand. Cylinder deactivation has been in the works for years. If Honda can do it on their 6 cylinders (and the GM 3.9L too), why can't everyone else? Come on Toyota. The RX450h could certainly benefit on the highway by running on only 3 or 4 cylinders.