LS2 pics

4876 Views 47 Replies 18 Participants Last post by 05PontiacGTO, May 2, 2005

Juniorss

Discussion Starter · Dec 31, 2003

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

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

Tails

· #2 · Dec 31, 2003

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

CMNTMXR57

· #3 · Jan 1, 2004

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

· #4 · Jan 1, 2004

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

· #5 · Jan 1, 2004

The LS2 rocks!

Holeshot

· #6 · Jan 1, 2004

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

· #7 · Jan 1, 2004

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.

See less See more

HD926

· #8 · Jan 1, 2004

I like it

CMNTMXR57

· #9 · Jan 1, 2004

tuffguy said:
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

· #10 · Jan 2, 2004 (Edited)

Why doesnt GM use SOHC or DOHC for performance?

See less See more

CrispieGee

· #11 · Jan 2, 2004

Low tech pushrod engines

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

· #12 · Jan 2, 2004

speed_demon_fre said:
Why doesnt GM use SOHC or DOHC for performance?

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

· #13 · Jan 2, 2004

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

CMNTMXR57

· #14 · Jan 2, 2004

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

· #15 · Jan 2, 2004

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

· #16 · Jan 2, 2004

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

· #17 · Jan 2, 2004

...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

· #18 · Jan 2, 2004

LS2's debut

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

Discussion Starter · #19 · Jan 2, 2004

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

· #20 · Jan 3, 2004

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

1 - 20 of 48 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.