Talk:GM small-block engine
|The content of General Motors LT engine was merged into GM small-block engine on April 2014. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
|Chevrolet small-block engine table was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 23 April 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into GM small-block engine. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|WikiProject Automobiles||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
- 1 To do: Gen 5 Engines & Tables
- 2 Holden VE Commodore Application
- 3 LS2 / LS7 Ratings
- 4 Factory Five
- 5 '550hp' claim
- 6 Units
- 7 HSV GTS
- 8 Piston Slap
- 9 "All LS1s make 345hp"
- 10 External links
- 11 Aluminum LH6 reference
- 12 reorganization
- 13 GenIII LS engines are SBC
- 14 what about the 8.1 liter
- 15 Pictures
- 16 LS1 engine shares firing order with Toyota UZ engine
- 17 First Generation
To do: Gen 5 Engines & Tables
Holden VE Commodore Application
The section on the L98 shows application dates of 2006-2007. As far as I'm aware the L98 6.0L V8 is still being fitted to "SS" and "SS-V" variants of the Commodore range and as such should read 2006-present. Open for discussion before edit. Drew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe earlier ls6 engines were 385 horsepower. The 405 hp version came later, after the addition of lighter valves a higher lift cam and better exhaust. Will do some research and come back.--Ultrapop1 02:10, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Much appreciated! --SFoskett 03:01, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
LS2 / LS7 Ratings
Chevy rates the LS2 in the C6 at 400 hp @ 6000 rpm, not 405. Also, IIRC the new LS7 has been rated at 505 hp @ 6300 rpm and 470 lbs-ft @ 4800 rpm by the new SAE J2723 rating. Atleast that's according to the GM Small Block blog. I'm going to go ahead and change those.--C-Tine 2 July 2005 17:32 (UTC)
- You're right. These numbers were fixed on the Chevrolet Corvette page but not here. Thanks! --SFoskett July 2, 2005 19:35 (UTC)
You all are talking about the LS2 in camaro and other sports cars but what about the LS1 in trans am? Can you tell me how much horsepower it has? The car I'm getting has a LS1 engine with a ram air, how much hp would that have? -HLN- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ram air almost makes no difference, maybe if you're going 100 mph you MIGHT pick up 3 hp or something....I can't prove this, but the ram air design on these cars are very inefficient, mostly because of the baffles they used to keep rain out of your intake. Either way, your car is probably putting out around 340-350 hp.
- BTW, the Camaro and the Trans Am got the same engine, the LS1, even the 5th gen Camaro SS got the LS3, never the LS2 99FormulaM6 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed the reference to the Factory Five from the LS1 section - seeing as it's not a production vehicle (it's a kit car), it's about as relevant as mentioning that there are 1993 RX-7's with LS1s. Ayocee 17:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
One of GM's favorite things to trumpet about the new Z06 and LS7 is that it is the first engine to be certified using SAE's J2723 test. I find it highly suspect that they would trumpet this, and yet somehow manage to 'miss' 45hp. Ayocee 02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
They didn't "miss" 45hp. An unladden LS7 was SAE tested, not the Z06. The engine is rated for 505hp, and 45 hp is lost throught the drivetrain. It isn't 550hp or even 505hp by the time it gets to the wheels.--18.104.22.168 01:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
- Incorrect, the LS7 (like all production engines) is rated via engine dynamometer. I.E. the advertised power is what the engine produces at the flywheel. The LS7 only produces 430-460 at the rear wheels as measured via chassis dyno in stock form. To put it simply, the LS7 produces roughly 505 HP at the crank and is NOT "underrated". TheBalance (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
An effort should be made to adopt some unit convention, either SI (english) OR english (SI). It reduces the quality of the articles if the units are constantly mixed. For example, the engine size notation ci (cc) is proper if other measurements are cited as inches (centimeters).
That's the interesting part with American engines. The engineers design and build the block with SI, but they publicly post the engine's vital stats in english. The LT and LS blocks were both designed with SI measurement and their displacements are both advertised in metric. In this case, unit conversion should stand as "SI (english)"
With that said, it's safe to say that Detroit doesn't use cubic inches anymore. Only the old guys are calling an LS7 a "427" or an LS1 a "350".--22.214.171.124 23:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
- The LT block was still designed in inches, it has the same 4.0/3.48 combo that all prior 350's had. That said, anyone calling the LS1 a "350" either works for a parts store or doesn't check their facts...most people refer to it as the 346 that it is, if they call it in cubes. The LS7 is at least still technically a 427, even if it isa 427.9 cubic inch engine. Ford can keep the 428 number ;) Ayocee 16:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
HSV's GTS didn't use the LS6. It used the LS1, that was modified by Callaway & was designated "C4B": http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_1553/article.html Aml_0000 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this should be part of the article. There was a class action suit, for LS1s, no? As I recalled there were alot of pist-off GM owners. 126.96.36.199 22:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC) CJ DUB 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- There were some, but they still amounted to a small percentage of all LS-series V8's produced. Given that GM has never issued anything more than a TSB for the issue, and that these TSBs only cover engines up through 2002, I think the mention / wording in the article was a bit sensationalist. For every one vehicle that had an engine replaced, or other bottom-end repairs done to resolve this issue, there are literally thousands on the road with no piston slap problems whatsoever. Ayocee 18:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
- HAHAHA. Tell that to the people who ended up with piston slap. A manufacturer may not release a recall as this would be admitting there is a known problem, would open them to litigation and more serious class actions. By the way, what's your reference for the numbers of engines w/wo piston slap? CJ DUB 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts. How would a recall open them to more litigation, or any at all? I have no reference that is not anecdotal (I know many people who own / have owned Generation III V8s and not one has ever had a serious case of piston slap) but I have also never once seen any actual information provided regarding the actual numbers of engines that are affected. I get the feeling it's as overstated as the Mazda 1.8 #4 failure from 1999-2000, and Mazda did issue a TSB and recall procedure for those.Ayocee 17:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dude that is a class action suit waiting to happen. You get $10K, I'll find a trial lawyer. The comment "I know many people who own..." is pure anecdote. The article makes it seem as though it something that really happened to nobody. The text entry "However, the scope of the problem appears to be fairly limited as no recall has been issued by General Motors, and the majority of owners of these engines do not report this issue.  Additionally, it appears that this issue is confined only to a small number of the engines produced between 1997 and 2002." is also anedotal. Please reference the "fairly limited" and the "only early" engines. I have found evidence that this issue affect 2007 models, even. CJ DUB 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I know that my only evidence is anecdotal (which is why I noted it as such) but I've never seen any non-anecdotal evidence to the contrary. If this is truly a 'class action lawsuit waiting to happen', how has it not happened in the decade that the engine has been out? Where are the numbers and evidence showing how many engines have actually been replaced due to this problem? Where are the TSBs relating explicitly to GenIII / IV engines after 2002? The only TSBs for newer model years that I've found are GM policy changes across GM's whole line, everything below 8500LB, so basically every GM engine from the Ecotec on up except for the Duramax and 496. Where is the proof that the problem is anything other than a cold-engine noise in almost all cases? Every Volvo redblock I've ever seen was noisy as hell on startup and yet they'll run 200k or more like it was nothing; cold noise is not a definite indicator for long-term problems. Where are the used GenIII / IV equipped vehicles with "New engine at xx miles" in the ad? You'll find it with other vehicles that have engines with longevity issues (such as the FD RX-7...the turbocharged 13B rotary makes for some great power, but cared for improperly and it will eat apex seals like nobody's business). There isn't much that can be offered as evidence that it is not a large problem, but where is the evidence that it IS a problem?Ayocee 16:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I think it's worth revisiting this topic and its merits as to inclusion in Wikipedia. My previous reply above may have been worded a bit harshly in exasperation (or whatever it was) but the fact remains that even now the only 'source' available for the problem (as well as its scope and severity) appears to be a site that would arguably fall under the category of a self-published source. I'm not trying to be combative or argumentative here, either; if there's a reputable source that actually shows evidence of piston slap being a) a problem on a significant number of engines and b) a significant issue, I'd love to see it (and cite it for Wikipedia purposes). Ayocee 21:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a 2004 crate LS1 that i bought from Chevrolet and installed in my 2001 Camaro, the engine has Piston Slap from day one.I just let the engine warm up before i drive and BTW I added a supercharger with 8 psi boost and still no problems from it.I drag raced for over 12 years and most of the time I set the engine up loose for piston speed and almost every time had some piston slap. it's not a problem for me. Camaro guy 11:47,June 14 2012
Anyone can say they have a LS1 with pistons slap, but i can't seem to find one even in a used dealer lot with piston slap, found a 5.0L mercury & 5.0 explorer that had piston slap with only 100k miles, and that's a smaller piston. stop making stuff up, this doesn't exist real life, in larger numbers like the 5.0L in SUV's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
"All LS1s make 345hp"
There are known and easily-verified differences in the details of most LS1 variants - the cam used in the Corvette is not the same cam as in the Camaro, and the camshaft specifications changed between 1997-2000 and 2001-on. While it's likely that the actual output is closer than GM would admit, there's no reason to believe that every version of LS1 ever used was actually putting down 345hp. Ayocee 20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- In 2000 all F-bodies dropped the EGR and got the same large overlap cam that was in the 'vettes LS1. Other then exhaust system and air intake before the throttle body the engines are practically the same and produce relatively the same power. The numbers were very close before 2000. Some C5s would dyno more then F-bodies, some would dyno less. The differences mostly fell on an engine to engine basis. I've personally seen show room stock Fbodies and C5s dyno 310+ RWHP and some under 290 on the same dyno.
- False, the F-Body continued with EGR through 2000; the LS1 in my truck was sourced from a wrecked 2000 Camaro and the EGR system / intake manifold was still present. Additionally, simply because two cars presumed to be stock (it's truly amazing how far one can go with no indications of any modification whatsoever) returned similar rear-wheel horsepower numbers is far from being 'verifiable' according to the Wikipedia standards. Also, keep in mind the independent rear suspension on the Corvette, which provides a better ride and improved handling...but also causes larger parasitic loss when compared to the simpler live-axle setup of the F-Body. Ayocee 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was mistaken. In 2001 EGR went away in the F-bodies. Is it possible there was overlap between the 2000-2001 model years engines in Fbodies? I am almost sure I've seen a 2000 LS1 Camaro w/o EGR from the factory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
- There's no way GM would've done that - they would have had to build two different F-Body engines and there would have been no reason to do so, if not emissions regulations in place making doing so difficult. EGR is very easy to remove, and a "factory" looking job would only require a 2001+ exhaust manifold for the passenger side, one of the non-EGR low profile intake manifolds (Corvette LS1, or LS6), a reflash, and a little creativity with hiding the wiring for the EGR. Ayocee 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think that something should be added about the actual power output of the LS1's....an LS1 is an LS1 is an LS1, year to year differences made almost no differences on power output. I know there was something stated about this already, but I want to clear it up a bit. In F-body cars, at least, 1998-2000 had a larger cam than in the 2001-2002 models, which dropped EGR to use the LS6 intake manifold and had to have a smaller cam to clear emissions. In mid 2000, they also changed the head design (to the 241 heads from the 853 heads) which didn't change the design really. Also, some 2001-2002 LS1's had the LS6 block, which didnt really make a large difference. Another thing, the 2001-2002 used better headers which did help with power a bit. Power output didn't change by any large amount after the switch. F-body cars usually dyno higher than the C5's stock for stock because, as stated, the IRS in the C5's cause a higher drivetrain loss.
It's getting pretty bad with a lot of GM pages but this one is particularly bad. It looks to me that, when compared against WP:EL, none of these links pass the criteria. Thoughts? Ayocee 16:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Aluminum LH6 reference
i am in the process of reorganizing this page to have the same flow as the original small block page and the LT series page. i have included the 4.8, 5.3, and the 6.0 in this page as well.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
ok i have completed the reorganization. this organization shows the relationship between each of the engines, cleans up the flow of this page, and adds the 99 or new V8 vortec engine in this page which needed to be here from the very beginning insted of just putting "car" only V8s. now all three pages that deal with the small blocks V8 (gen I thru gen IV) have the same flow and organization. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
- Why did you put Vortec engines on an LS engine page? The S in LS is there for a reason. Viperman5686 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- the vortec engines(4.8, 5.3, 6.0, and 6.2) in question are LS series engines because their block design is based off of the LS1. vortec is a term that GM uses for an engine that is in a truck. if i were to get an aluminum 5.3L short block and put it next to an LS1 short block, you couldn't tell that they were two different engines unless you measured their bores or ran their casting numbers. infact you can save some money in making an LS1 by getting a LM7 and boring it out 120 over. if you are wanting the LS1 look on the over bored LM7 just add LS1 intake, LS1 accessory drive, and LS1 harmonic balancer.
- the LS2 that was in the trailblazer had the world vortec on its engine covering, meaning that the term "vortec" is meaningless. really why should it matter if the engine came from a truck or car. i think the real question is why wasn't these engines included when the page was originally made? the addition of the of the LS based vortec engines makes the LS series page whole and legitate. now the LS series page isn't about "what did the engine come out of: car or truck?" but "do these engines share a common block architecture and have part interchangeability?".
- as for the S in LS i have no clue what that means and why its there. what does the T in LT1 standard for? i know that the S doesn't stand for sport or super because the LS1 took the place of the LT1 inwhich the T definitely doesn't stand for sport or super. but going back to this page. if you can give a valid arguement to why the LS based V8 vortecs shouldn't be included on the LS based engine page, they can be removed. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Viperman5686 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- your question is a very good and valid one to ask. i am suprized that no one has asked it in this page or the generation I and II pages that i have reorganized with similar questioning considering that all three have similar organisation and flow to them.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Viperman5686 (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
GenIII LS engines are SBC
all the LS engines are SBC. yes they can be found in other brands besides Chevy just like the previous two generations. this is relativily easy and i do mean easy thing to source. after the early 80's all V8's were either a Chevrolet or Cadillac design. the name itself is in referance to small block chevrolet, example: Gen I refers to Generation I small block chevrolet; Gen II refers to Generation II small block chevrolet; and of course Gen III/IV refers to Generation III/IV small block chevrolet. should we stop calling the northstar engines Cadillac engines all together as well and just simple call them premium V8s. technically both names are valid. just like the name SBC in referance to Gen III. it is technically correct to call them GM small blocks just like it is technically correct to call them SBC.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- Gen III SBC That's four references to the name in less than a minute of searching. removal of the Chevrolet from the article is nonsense because you will need to remove it from multiple wiki pages as well as thousands of articles on the net.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- funny here is an artical from GM itself saying: "The 5.7L Gen III LS1 introduced leading-edge technologies to the grand tradition of the Chevrolet small block V8, starting with all-aluminum construction, a thermoplastic intake manifold and drive-by-wire electronic throttle." http://archives.media.gm.com/division/2003_prodinfo/03_powertrain/03_car_engine/index.html . (go to 5.7 L and then click on "what's new". this is GM saying that its is a SBC. you can't add to a tradition of SBC if you aren't part of it already. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- Where are you getting this? The engine was referred to as the "5.7L V8 (LS1)" in the document.
- And "leading-edge technologies to the grand tradition of the Chevrolet small block V8" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for the LS1 being considered a small block Chevy, considering it is a corporate engine. The reason the SBC is the SBC is because other GM divisions used their own engine families, had they all used the SBC it would have been the GM or GM corporate small block. That is what the Gen III+ is.
- Now, click here: , note the LS engine isn't group with the SBC, now click on LS engine and note the description, and I quote, "Below is our LS range of crate engines including the LS1 V8 5.7L crate engine, LS2 V8 6.0L crate engine, LS3 V8 6.2L crate engine, LS6 V8 5.7L crate engine and the LS7 V8 7.0L crate engine described as the most technologically-advanced production GM small-block ever built"
- Here GM itself tells us what to call the engine family: , and I quote, "Known as the LS Family V-8 small-block".
- The LS family is not a SBC, it is the corporate GM small block V8.TheBalance (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
it is both, looking at the link does say this. adding to something does mean that it is a part of it. now if the LS engines weren't SBC they line would be this : "Taking or building off (which would imply not SBC) from the grand traditions of the SBC The 5.7L Gen III LS1 introduced starting with all-aluminum construction, a thermoplastic intake manifold and drive-by-wire electronic throttle," but notice that it does say introduced new technologies to SBC. follow the link that i provided. click on the 5.7L in the break down. in the 5.7L spec page click on the Whats new and you will read the exact words that i copied and pasted here. this page predates your reference by 5 years the information predates yours by 11 years. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- The LS was a clean sheet design, intended from the outset as the corporate small-block. In fact, the LS has more in common design-wise with the small block Ford than it does the SBC. The LS is not a small block Chevy in any respect, give it up. TheBalance (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- why give it up when a: GM itself has posted it many times in the LS1 info paper and in the LS7 info paper and b: it beyond easy to get the info and sources example: http://grannys.tripod.com/rx7engineselectioninfo.html and c: the info on how ls1 came to be which was posted in hot rod mag in the early 2000s. really a ford small block...because the heads have semetrical exhaust ports? after the early 80's there were only two brands making V8s, chevy and cadillac....which still hasn't changed. it is not incorrect to call the LS engines gen III/IV SBC V8s as it also not incorrect to call them just gen III/IV V8s, the latter is just a shorter name for the first oneGulielmi2002 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- That is hardly a relevant source. GM itself refers to the LSx engines as Gen III/IV small block V8s.
- The LS is has many similarities with the SBF: identical cylinder head bolt pattern (vastly different from the 5-bolt SBC pattern), symmetrical intake AND exhaust port layout, nearly identical (high) camshaft position in the block, virtually the same deck height as the 351C. The only aspect the LSx shares with the SBC is bore spacing and rod journal diameter. For instance, LSx heads will bolt onto a 302/351 Ford block without modification, yet will not bolt onto a 350 SBC block, not even close. The LSx was a clean sheet engine design, one that took essentially nothing from the traditional SBC playbook, and was always intended as a corporate engine, not a "Chevy engine". The LSx is not a SBC, it is a GM corporate small block, and referring to it as a SBC will only mislead people into thinking it is related to the traditional SBC engine family, when that couldn't be further from the truth. TheBalance (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been following this discussion for the last couple of days and have read the sources provided for each side of the argument. I'm going to have to agree with the idea that the GM LS engine is a corporate engine manufactured by GM for use in all of their brands and is not Chevrolet specific in any way. If anything, GM seems to relate to the Chevrolet small-block only in marketing terms and that's probably only because the SBC has some history and identity behind its name. roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
- yes i will agree with the fact that the LS engine are corporate engines but so where the Gen I's after the early 80s. i am not arguing that they can't be called GM Gen III+ small blocks, but i am arguing that they can be called Gen III+ SBC too. the fact that they started out exclusively chevrolet is one point and more models of the chevrolet line up use them. just look at the numbers: LS1 exclusively chevy from 97-99; 4.8L exclusively chevy 99-current; 5.3L exclusively chevy 99-02; 6.0 exclusively chevy 99-02. chevrolet heads the non-premium (cady engines) under GM powertrain because they use them more just like cadillac heads the northstar engines under GM powertrain both common knowledge. other brands under GM use them true and modify them for their needs same was true for the Gen I's because they are corprate engine but who is the main design influence behind them...chevrolet. just like you can call the high feature V6s cady/holden engines because they designed them and yes they too are corporate engine as well.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The sbc (not the corporate v-8 LS engines)was not a corporate engine. If it was then the Olds v-8 was as well, since they put them in several car lines from different divisions up to 1990.
what about the 8.1 liter
- the 8.1 L vortec is a BBC engine with some mods originating from LS family. i went to a car dealership (ron carder in alvin, tx awhile back) and they had a cut-away of this 8.1L engine. externally and internally its a BBC; basically it's a stroked 454 with coil over plug, and even retains its hole for a distributor, but that hole is being used for some sensor that is used for timing of the coilsGulielmi2002 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The 8.1 (496 cu.in.) isn't even close to a big block Chevy. Completely different engine. The 8.2 (502 cu.in.) is a big block Chevy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Toyota UZ engine came before Ford modular and LS engines, so why are we using Ford as an example for firing order. this follow an incorrect fanboy argument that LS engine is just a copy of a Ford design, and serves no other purpose. Ford modular 4.6L OHC only made 210hp while Northstar 4.6L OHC made 300hp, so i think Modular is a bad example of a modern engine.
- BIGBLOCKFAN, there was never a first generation General Motors small-block engine. General Motors considers the Chevrolet small-block engine as the "first generation" small-block engine. However, it should be noted that the General Motors small-block engines are a corporate design and differ significantly from the original Chevrolet small-block engine design; enough to warrant a separate article. I hope that makes sense. Regards, VX1NG (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)