LS2 pics

[Juniorss]

http://www.srtforums.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30085

[Tails]

Great pic and the engine is cool too!!
:drink: :drink:

[CMNTMXR57]

What is sad is why it is posted on a Dodge forum!

What's also sad is a few people that still f*cking compliain about GM and their pushrod motor.

It's does the job, it does it with a simple layout, and at the end of the day, delivers the goods in an unarguably tried and true method! Why does everyone insist on having complicated mult-valve engines with variable valve timing and astronomical rpm ranges to obtain those "maximum" power levels when I can get it out of a motor that makes most of it's power seamlessly from idle all the way to fuel cutoff, delivers it before those high tech motors have even wound up, and is stone cold reliable!

I just don't get it! I subscribe to the K.I.S.S. theory I suppose.

[britus56]

I'll say it again. "Hey yuppy boy, how do my old time pushrod powered taillights look!! Fix your sweater!!" This motor or the LS2 are hardly antiquated designs, and if "pushrod engines" didn't kick ass they wouldn't be residing in the hottest GM cars offered, would they?

[crazywop112]

The LS2 rocks! :D

[Holeshot]

:cool:

I am sure this will put the Hemi to shame.

Would like to see this in a GOAT in 2005:bubbrub

And I am sure we will

[CMNTMXR57]

The point is, a motor isn't classified as "high tech" because of how it operates it valvetrain!

In the case of the LS1/LS6 and now LS2, it gets the job done in a convienent, simple, cost effective and easy to maintanance package. It is a flexible motor and can be used in varying platforms. THAT'S WHY GM STAYS WITH IT!

This LS2 motor will not only see duty in the C6, but it will also see use in the GTO, The next Camaro/Firebird (if they do come back), the next Impala/Monte/Malibu and other platforms going to V8 power and rear wheel drive AND it will see use in the trucks as the next line of Vortec engines. As such the engine has to be powerful, reliable, easily servicable (to meet certain warranty cost requirements), easy to train technicians on, and flexible in how it can be used.

A Subaru WRX's or Neon SRT's "high tech" valvetrained motor doesn't need to fit all these bills and is generally used only in those cars and limited use elsewhere. Subaru also doesn't sell as many vehicles (let alone as many with one particular motor) as Chevrolet/GM does and as such, warranty repair costs aren't as crucial as it is to the General. Of course you'll argue that if it never had problems it'd be a moot point. But as far as I'm concerned, if it has tits or tires, it's gonna give you problems. If by following the labor book, they prescribe the cost to replace a set of "low tech" heads (and valvetrain) on an LS1 be 4 hours of cost and the same process for a "high tech" multi-valve, variable valve timed set of heads and valvetrain on the same motor take 8 hours, you can easily see which one GM is gonna pick for cost savings....the low tech pushrod actuated system.

Sorry, I have had three DOHC motors and still have one in the driveway (95 Lumina with the 3.4L DOHC V6, 96 Monte Carlo with the same 3.4L DOHC V6, and a 98 Oldsmobile Aurora with the 4.0L DOHC Aurora V8). They're nice engines, smooth, powerful, and efficient and an absolute bitch to work on and at the end of the day, I prefer driving my "low tech" antiquated pushrod actuated valvetrain in my pickemup truck. I love the way it sounds and I love the way it delivers it's power.

For instance, to replace the cam in an LS1 you install it with intake lobe cylinder #1 straight up and then degree it accordingly. I went 112* of advance. In order to do the same on the Aurora is a two person job, involves staggering all 4 cams, degreeing all 4 cams, and then timing each one. It is a VERY complicated process that even made my head swell trying to comprehend it.

[HD926]

I like it

[CMNTMXR57]

Originally posted by tuffguy
lol, i wouldn't exactly call those great examples of technology. and i wouldn't call those engines reliable. i know that the lumina has engine/tranny problems, as does the monte carlo.

there's also great examples of NA straight-4 engines that are extremely reliable and do not need to be opened up to be worked on.

what will be the most important thing to me will be the interior of the C6. it better not be as cheap as that or the srx or xlr, and i hope that it doesn't have a rental car interior like the C5.

While yes the dreaded "X" motor was a troubled engine and that's why GM got rid of it. It was all aluminum, 4 cam, 24 valves, high winding engine "high tech" valvetrain operated engine. One of the first all aluminum mass produced engines that GM built in house unlike the LT5 in the ZR1 which was built by Mercury Marine.

The transmissions (the 4T65E) in either of those cars is no more problematic than any other GM transverse transmission. Remember, I used to work on these for a living! I was the one that got all those fancy "high tech" valvetrain operated "X" motors because I knew them inside and out cause I was the only one willing to work on them. The one I've repeatedly spoke about here has 121k on it with nary a problem.

[speed_demon_freak]

Why doesnt GM use SOHC or DOHC for performance?











http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/ northstar/apps/images/engine_lg.jpg

[CrispieGee]

What I find funny is that the old 5.7 still gets as good or BETTER fuel mileage than smaller, high-strung engines like the Northstar V8.

My '97 Avenger with a 2.5L 24-valve V6 (SOHC) is rated at 20/27, while the GTO is rated at 17/29. Granted, the GTO has a .50 top gear, but still -- 29 highway is REMARKABLE. There's something to be said for a relaxed, understressed engine.

I will say, though, that the Japanese Big Three (Honda, Toyota & Nissan) all make DOHC engines that are dead reliable. Nissan's 3.5 V6 is torquey as hell, too. (All of Honda's engines are very peaky in their power delivery, with zero torque down low.)

In the end, I'd rather have an LS1 or LS2. Or a Hemi, if stupid Chrysler would make a car that I'd like to own.

[CMNTMXR57]

Originally posted by speed_demon_fre
Why doesnt GM use SOHC or DOHC for performance?

http://www.gm.com/automotive/gmpowertrain/engines/ northstar/apps/images/engine_lg.jpg

There are a couple reasons why. 1) Because they are considerably more complex and more difficult to work on as well as to train 30 technicians in thousands of delearships around the country. Warranty costs HAVE to be factored in when servicing these vehicles. If all their technicians are busy removing half the top of a motor due to DOHC engines being so big up top to do something simple below instead of getting what they need fixed and getting the next car in, it isn't gonna fly.

For instance, those "X" motors I mentioned above are based on the same 60* architecture in the 2.8/3.1L V6. Working on an "X" motor is considerably more difficult, time consuming and frustrating compared to a 3.1L This is one of the reasons they did away with it and replaced it with the much more easily servicable and just as powerful 3.8L V6.

and 2) The performance to be had isn't significant enough to offset the above problems and costs.

[speed_demon_freak]

How does Ford and others get away with it and not GM?

[CMNTMXR57]

Different business model I guess.

Actually a SOHC engine wouldn't be that hard to work on so that isn't an issue with ford's. But the only ford V8 that was DOHC was the hand built SVT Cobra motor Of which there aren't large numbers of and the 24 valve DOHC V6 is the only V6 they have and isn't a widely used engine. It's the top of the line engine in Tauruses and Sable's.

[DevilYellow]

They are starting to use it more often, theres a 32v engine in the navigator.

The new GT's engine will be a SOHC 3 valve

[bonequark]

Most people I know with V8's in their Chevy Tahoes or Suburbans get in the 12-18 mpg range, but everyone I've known with F-bodies averaged out over 20mpg. My 96 SS gets close to 30 on the highway and 19-22 in town. That is only slightly less in town than my Maxima with a boatload of greater power in reserve. Chevy small block engineers have earned tremendous respect throughout the Industry for what they've done with the architecture. Whining about pushrod V8's completely misses the point. Chrysler's re-invigorated hemi is another dinosaur, hehe....

[bonequark]

...and while I think about it...those multi-valve ford V8's are useless unless blown or turbocharged. Plus, they sound....what's the word I'm searching for.....they sound rank.

I was reading a review of the Mercury Marauder and the tester was not pleased with the lack of low-end grunt on the car. I think he was missing the feel of the LT1 on the older Impala SS.

[CrispieGee]

So does anyone know when this 3-valve LS2 will be in production?

I had read on a Corvette site that the engine for the '05 will be a 6.0 2-valve design. :( But who knows if they're correct? It would be great if the 3-valve engine is ready to go by September!

Cammer engines are just fine with me, but if you have a good pushrod design, it is no obstacle to achieving good power. Look at the Mercedes-built pushrod engine that won Indy a few years ago: Massive power and high revving.

If anyone has info on the launch of this 3-valve design, please advise. :)

[Juniorss]

Tuffguy, your trying to compare technology from 94-96 to 2004 the new Wimpala weighs 3600 pounds and in 94-96 they weighed over 4200 pounds. Cars today such as the marauder should be a little quicker considering that a new honda accord is faster then it.

[CMNTMXR57]

You're just upset about the Wimpala because it twists it's front wheels.

[Juniorss]

not only that... beside not really liking the way it looks i wish they would put a v8 in it. I hope they do make it RWD as well as making the Monte Carlo RWD also. I would consider a RWD V8 monte carlo if they were to make one next year which i dont think so or a GTO for my first car.

[CMNTMXR57]

Well, looks are a subjective matter.

Many here forget that 99% of the automotive population is NOT a performance enthuisiast. They could care less how quickly their car covers the 1/4 mile, how much rear wheel or front wheel hp it has, just as long as it moves sufficiently to get to speed. Nor do they care what set of wheels are driven by the engine.

Oh and a V8 option will be available in the Monte and Impala next year. It's a Vortec 4800 from the trucks mounted transversely.

[ImpalaSS96GTO06]

i hope this thing makes it to the GTO ASAP i really wanna get it in mine...when i do get it...hopefully...

[ImpalaSS96GTO06]

I'm well aware of how much they weigh. Which is why I don't get what the hype is about.

My friend rolled his and was hospitalized for for weeks. He was racing an import and entered a curve too fast.

im sorry to hear that...what year was it? he shoulda known better then tryin to take an impala ss which handles like the queen mary(without some suspension mods...front and rear sway bars and body bushings it goes though the slolom faster then a new M3 stock 70+mph i think the num,bers were) into turns with an import...the older SS's r slower then the new six bangers yes that is true...some older SS have been clocked bone stock at 14.7 and 14.8...i ran 15.0 with mine when it was stock...another thing to remember is that forced induction is a wonderful thing...if i take an ATI procharger and bolt it onto my small block ill put those little V6's to shame...not taking anything away from the GTP guys...i like those cars...

i have a question...have u ever driven one tuffguy? keep in mind im only askin a question and im not being condisending or obnoxiuos im just asking... have you ever driven one? if u have then u can say they r slower then "ish" but if not then u should try it...granted its not a real blow your socks off ride but with a little work it can be a real hauler...and very relyable...i have had my car for 3 years im hittin about 50K miles and i race at the track on a regular basis and i have had NO problems at all...

in all honesty its a case of taste...i like the bigger car...creates a nice sleeper effect to those imports who dont know exactly what it is...its also cool to have a car that does 165mph with a little computer programming... its just me...but just cause the car is older and slower dont count it out...sometimes it just takes a little work to turn my impala ss into somethin thatll turn some nice numbers and still get 20+ mpg....(sorry for the rant guys...i love my car) no hard feelings just my .02 cents...

[CMNTMXR57]

Now, now, why are we arguing about fellow GM bretheren cars.

The 94 - 96 Impala SS's are in a class all by themselves. I've driven several ranging from stock LT1 which could melt the tires with ease, to blown small blocks, to big old Rat motors under the hood. All were awesome at what they did. They were big, roomy, comfortable, and a "sofa on wheels". The best part about it is, that big sofa could kick the crap out of any punk in his gutted interiored, big winged, fart piped, grapefruit launcher exhaust tipped, sh*tty neon paint, and vinyl stickered tin can of an eyesore "race car" and do it with four adults in utter comfort. If I owned one (and I came one line away from signing my name on the dotted line for a DCM 95), I wouldn't be concerned about it's "cornering" capabilities because that's NOT what I bought it for. For most urban driving it'll be more than sufficient. I actually keep my eyes out for 9C1 Caprices cause I like them just as much.

The 2000 - present Impala's I like too. They are easy to service, they have a trick aluminum front engine subframe/cradle and much like their 90's bretheren of the same name have a tried and true powerplant under the hood. They DO handle better than the 94-96 versions and offer a bit more refinement.

[ImpalaSS96GTO06]

Yes, I've driven one, and like most American cars, it's a sofa on wheels. Not what I look for in a car.

As for being faster than the new M3, I doubt it. In one of the Mustang mags they did a last shootout between the Camaro SS and the new Cobra. There happened to be a new M3 there, and it beat both the Camaro and the Cobra - 0-60mph, 1320, and around the course.

Unless you're trying to tell me that the Impala with minor suspension modifications is better than the Camaro SS and the Cobra. My best friend has a 2004 M3 with SMG. None of those cars can hang with him. That thing takes turns like it's on rails. So it's hard for me to believe that an Impala SS with bushings and sway bars will outhandle it.

Also, I would love to see the Impala get 20+mpg in LA traffic.


if its not what u r looking for then its not what u r lookin for...doesnt mean its slow...and yes the impala ss will get 20+mpg not in the city...on the high way the average is around 21-22 inthe city its more like 17 if u r nice to the gas pedal..

i never said an impala ss would be faster then an M3 in the 1320 or around the track or 0-60 with just suspension...i just said slalom...stock an SS will go through the slalom at about 63.5 mph and with body bushings and a set of front and rear sway bars itll do it in about 71mph...a brand new stock M3 will do it in 68mph(the M3's numbers i got from the dec edition of automobile mag)

[ImpalaSS96GTO06]

[QUOTE=CMNTMXR57]
and I came one line away from signing my name on the dotted line for a DCM 95

QUOTE]

y didnt u buy it?

[hada64]

Ok, probably going to show my ignorance here, but not counting the displacement which may change, isn't the only real difference between the ls1,ls2 and ls6 the heads? (with appropriate manifolds to match; cams aside also). Air flow makes horsepower and of course better heads will flow more air. The 2,3,4or 5 valves that get put into the heads are to allow that airflow. Basically, only ways to make horsepower are cubic inches and RPM, both of which, if the attendent parts will support, will make more power ( not counting blowers, nitrous etc). The overhead cams, though technically more complicated in many ways and harder to work on as CMNT suggests, allow significant reduction in valvetrain weight and thus more rpms. The ls2 is getting to the airflow problem with an additional valve but is doing it the "old" pushrod way. Look at those rocker arms. Don't appear to exactly be lightweights, thus rather modest RPM limits on these engines. But the added flow will allow the power. Obviously, all the other parts must match. You want to turn them 8-9000, bring cubic dollars- the only other thing that makes lots of horsepower! :thumbs:

[CMNTMXR57]

[QUOTE=CMNTMXR57]
and I came one line away from signing my name on the dotted line for a DCM 95

QUOTE]

y didnt u buy it?

We couldn't come to a acceptable price on my trade in and there were a few things wrong with the car that they weren't going to fix without tacking onto the price that I thought they should've fixed regardless. The car was an absolute animal gauging by the other stock LT1 Impala's I had driven and it was clean. I also didn't want the sh*tty aftermarket Kraco special the owner prior had put in. Getting a replacement Delco headunit isn't an issue as I usually keep a few around, but that was another cost I was looking at in terms of replacing.

Hada,

There is a certain "feel" to the delivery of power that Corvette owners are used to and like. Pushrod motors tend to have great levels of low rpm torque and a curve that remains relatively flat throughout the entire RPM range. Take a look at any LS1/6 dyno chart and you'll see what I'm saying. This is not to say the same couldn't be achieved with a DOHC design either, but GM powertrain can obtain the results they're getting in a must less costly, much easier to work on (for warranty purposes), stout, and proven setup. A third valve only enhances what already is a great breathing engine. Why muss it up with complicated whizz bangery OHC stuff.

[ImpalaSS96GTO06]

that sucks man u shoulda kept on lookin...i was lookin for mine for a year b4 i found the right one...

[CMNTMXR57]

I always kept my eye out, but it also came to a point where I had to settle down and pay off some of my bad habits (if you catch my drift).

Also, storage of it became an issue. Even though I have a 2.5 car garage, half of it is for the Camaro, the other half is tools a tractor, and a Harley. Where would it sit? I'd have to store it somewhere else which is another monthly bill on top of that.

[ImpalaSS96GTO06]

very good point...stil a shame though...its fun suprising th occasional ricer...lol

[bonequark]

Those LT1's are a blast, even stock.

[hada64]

CMNT, I agree completely and is part of what I was trying to say. Simple, good feel, easy to work on and cheap. Sure, some drag racers an Nascar go to the 8-9000 rpm ranges but takes buckets of money. Much above that, you won't see any pusrods, except bent ones ;)

[CMNTMXR57]

At the same time, in our application, there is no need to wind the engine up to 8-9,000 rpm.

If you have two engines that both make 350hp. One makes it at 5,200rpm and one makes it at 8,500rpm, which would you take?

I'd take the one that makes it sooner on the tach because while you're busy winding up your ticking time bomb.....I'll be gone!

[hada64]

Absolutely!!. Interestingly, new Hot Rod just arrived. has article on Air Flow Research aftermarket LS1 heads. Flow better than stock, stock LS6, Ported LS6. No HP numbers yet. $2500 full up.

Also in the questions section, a piece on exactly what we are discussing- pushrod vs OHC, etc etc. Makes and reinforces all the points we are talking about. Power and where, costs, simplicity etc. Nice comentary. The LS1 is right for what it does and it does it well. With some additions, does it better.

[CMNTMXR57]

There are a lot of great sets of heads out on the market now for the LS1. AFR does good sh*t, GTP (what I have) is great too. There are too many to mention now. :D

See, even Hot Rod agrees with me. LOL! :D

['91 Formula]

So does anyone know when this 3-valve LS2 will be in production?

I had read on a Corvette site that the engine for the '05 will be a 6.0 2-valve design. :( But who knows if they're correct? It would be great if the 3-valve engine is ready to go by September!

Cammer engines are just fine with me, but if you have a good pushrod design, it is no obstacle to achieving good power. Look at the Mercedes-built pushrod engine that won Indy a few years ago: Massive power and high revving.

If anyone has info on the launch of this 3-valve design, please advise. :)

My guess would be in the 2006 or 2007 Corvette Z06

[bonequark]

From an aftermarket price standpoint, it's a good thing the Goat has an LS1 in its gut. The LS2 will require all new products, testing and higher initial prices most likely.

[CrispieGee]

From an aftermarket price standpoint, it's a good thing the Goat has an LS1 in its gut. The LS2 will require all new products, testing and higher initial prices most likely.


Shoot, I hadn't thought of that. Then again, with 400 hp, I don't know that I'd be in such a rush to modify the LS2.

In fact, for what it costs to purchase a new car, I really won't have any additional funds to hop up an LS1 either. (It sucks to have hobbies that are expensive - car, motorcycle, drums -- I need to get some of my writing published so that I can afford this stuff!)

[CMNTMXR57]

He's a 100% correct. My LS1 was one of the first 3 heads/cammed and built LS1's at least in this area in '98. The LS1 was a new engine at that time. Conversely, the price was insane for parts.

I don't think many of you want to know what I paid for parts alone (the heads, cam, connecting rods, custom made ARP rod bolts and other internals).

Today you could build the same engine and even more (just parts) for $2,500 and that's less than half what I spent. :drink:

[speed_demon_freak]

http://www.z06vette.com/gallery/data/500/35c6head2 .jpg

http://www.z06vette.com/gallery/data/500/35c6head1 .jpg

[Todd @ Thunder Racing]

This is not the LS2 BTW. It is a Displacement on Demand truck engine (experimental). The LS2 iwas shown at the Detroit Auto show and is much like the LS1 in design.

[05PontiacGTO]

This is not the LS2 BTW. It is a Displacement on Demand truck engine (experimental). The LS2 iwas shown at the Detroit Auto show and is much like the LS1 in design.


Thats Exactly Right! And Im New To This Forum Nice To Meet All Of You Guys :D

[Huntress]

Welcome to the site, and a 1.5 year old thread :D

[05PontiacGTO]

Haha, Thanks I Just Love Bein Made Look Stupid :bubbrub Haha J/k

[TA455]

Wecome 05PontiacGTO. A thread is not old if it is the first time you have read it. ;)

[05PontiacGTO]

Haha, Thanks And Yeah I Guess I Could Look At It That Way ;)