Its looking just fine for LS prices, there are hundreds of thousands of truck engines starting to litter junkyards, not to mention crate LSx engines arent very expensive, and countless manufacturers making blocks, heads, etc for them.

Just because there is a new engine on the block with a stock computer that they'll be making hard to tune, all is over ? What a joke.

First it will probably be a matter of weeks before FAST has an intake manifold and fuel rail set to bolt right on it and use normal injectors. Its already stated its using 58x, so a new manifold and injectors harness and computer, its ready to go right in place of everything else after plugging the cylinder head holes for the injectors.

Not to mention its debut in the vette, it may end up like the LS7, or the LS9, an expensive option, and not in a lot of other vehicles.

 

Right - technology has changed since then by leaps and bounds...I hope they stay around...but I have my doubts, and many others do too. Look at Ford, and how they're pushing the "Ecoboost V-6's" for example....

But to stay on topic, direct injection, IMO is the most precise fuel control out there. It most likely is more expensive to replace injectors I would think, along with the fuel pump. It's gonna make more power and use less gas...and that's the name of the game now. I'm impressed with what little I've read about it...

I'm not worried about aftermarket ECM's becoming available for the LT1...they'll be out there. Like anything else, they'll cost a fortune if you want to be first on the block to drop this LT1 into an older chassis, but someone will ALWAYS figure these things out...

 

I'm skeptical right now about the lt1, i never said its over but these things are going to expensive to build and modify for some time which means jy ls prices are going to go up quite a bit. And spending money to go back to ls style injection is a waste of money...just buy an ls3.

 

No, JY prices are not going to go up quite a bit

Again there are plenty of engines, and they have only come down over the years, and will continue to do so, going back to LS "style" injection a waste of money ? There is likely going to be very little if any power gains to the DI, the cost of a set of the DI injectors for an upgrade will long offset the cost of any potential fuel savings.

Its just a new better platform to put a big FAST manifold on and connect up a 58X computer. Plain and simple.

 

Also on the pcm tuning "issue" ...

Is the pulsewidth of DI injectors so small that current pcm's wouldnt be able to simply be retuned to run them ?

Everything else is going to work the same...

 

im not sure on this, but i would assume the DI injectors would require a much higher amount of current to operate them since the fuel pressure will be so high. -as compared to standard injectors. this would require a pretty stout injector controller. think "low impedance injectors on crack".

 

If the pulsewidth isnt an issue, the injector current shouldnt be much of an issue, a seperate driver box wont be too hard, think instead of a resistor pack for putting inline with low impedance injectors, a basic amplifier setup that has extra transistors to drive the current needed to the DI injectors.

 

They already make 'em. Logic level injector drivers on the ECU side to a injector driver breakout board.

They make 'em for ignition as well, where you need to drive 8 coils.

The aftermarket has some amazing stuff.

-- Joe

 

Gm should really look at revising the lt5 zr1 vette and bring dohc with all the new bells and whistles this new lt1 base c7 has.Easily see it being over 100k car though

 

For what ? More moving parts, a heavier engine and the same power / mileage ?

 

im thinking regardless the ls market will take a slight scrape or two. the lt1s were big back then even though its hard to see and as soon as the ls platform came out and the market was right for them prices for lt1s started dropping. the next issue is the aftermarket really needs to step up their game if these engines take off. injectors for direct injection isnt something that can be made or sold cheap.

i think GM needs to come up with some new signage. the LT1 name has been used in many different engine and people are already confused enough when your talking about the old old lt1s and the 93-97 camaro and whatever year vette lt1's this will just add to the confusion.

 

Overall a 4v head is better than a 2V head on the same displacement engine. There are reasons its become the modern head design. Yes, the heads are larger, and thus heavier. Yes, the design is more complicated due to the increased moving parts. But the flow potential is better, especially at higher engine speeds.

But it is a better design. Another reason why GM has stayed with 2v, is the simplicity of a 2v cam in block design. Less parts, less $$$ to produce.

 

Then why is it that most of the imports with dohc still only make similar HP to current GM pushrod versions, at similar displacements ?

 

The GM 3900 is one of the most powerful naturally aspirated Cam-in-block V6's GM ever produced in a factory car. 240hp @ 6000rpm, and 240lb/ft @ 2800rpm. People have modified them, and they can make excellent power. The heads on this motor are very similar in port design to the 5.3L LS heads. They flow about 250-260cfm on the intake ports.

The 3.6L DOHC in the camaro makes 312hp. Less displacement, more power. The 3.7L Mustang engine is similar too in that respect. More power, less displacement from the DOHC design.

4V heads typically offer increased more mid-lift flow than 2v counterparts, and overall more peak flow. The math adds up when you research it. Why does GM not do it? Cost and complexity reasons. And I'm sure the "purists" would complain too.

But notice that all of their v6's are now DOHC designs.

But if you want a modern v8 example, why does the 5L ford engine now make 440hp, and the new LT1 make 450hp. The new 5L ford engine makes near as much power on 5L as the new LT1 does with 6.2L

 

I always see plenty of this DOHC is far better, more technology, blah blah, but never seem to see any proof.

Infiniti G37 VQ37VHR 3.7L

330HP
270 FT/Lbs

MPG 18/24

2004 GTO 5.7L

350 HP
365 Ft/Lbs

MPG 16/26

Where is the benefit ?

2007 Cadillac Escalade 6.2 L92 Curb Weight 5459

407 HP

MPG 12/14

2008 Infiniti QX56 Curb Weight 5597

320 HP

MPG 12/14

Wheres the benefit ?

People always trying to use HP/L as a performance standard, no it doesnt work that way, sure you can make more HP/L with a smaller engine, you have a smaller chamber, its more efficient.

I can find Briggs racing go kart engines with 50 HP, 34 Ci, thats 1.4HP/Ci or 90HP/L But I dont think you'll be jumping to make one power your car.

 

THIS!

I was very disappointed to find out the new ZR1 was a 6.2 with a roots blower... I mean at least put a turbocharger on it, but a roots blower, how low tech can you get?

the original ZR1 was about being king of the mountain, being the latest, most high tech badass! think about it, 405 hp out of a 350 in 1995!? yeah!

 

First where are you coming up with 440 HP magically ? http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2...ngGT_Specs.pdf

420HP
390 Ft/Lbs

MPG 15/26

2013 SS camaro

426 HP
420 Ft/Lbs

MPG 16/24

So, you've got 6HP less, 30 Ft lbs less, with an engine that is much larger physically, and extremely similar fuel mileage. I say again, where is the benefit ?

 

Its always interesting to see people say things like this, and then think how binary is still used for the most powerful electronics, sometimes its funny to see how people dont understand the KISS rule and how well it works.

 

I don't think you're making a good comparison here, what you really need to look at is BSFC. MPG is the whole car, and driver can make a HUGE difference for fuel econ.

 

Those are EPA ratings, actual testing.

Similar chassis, platforms, weights.

In exact applications, it is a very good comparison, and shows reality vs what you are hoping for on paper.

Hell the camaro is even sitting at 3860 to the mustangs 3675 there.

 

Ford Boss 302. 444hp. Factory power, and the engine is responding very well to mods with the aftermarket community.

I'm done with it, I'm leaving you with this statement. If 4V heads aren't better than 2v heads, then why is F1 built with a 4V head? F1 scrapes the barrel for every last bit of technological edge, and they use a 4V head. Why not 5v if "more is better"? They tried, but went back to 4V head design.

 

yeah, and the EPA say's my 4x4 Suburban is good for 10 mpg city, and I'm getting closer to 15, and that's with big BFG all terrains. and a TH400 instead of a 700R4...

to quote ligenfelter

"The worlds's best cam combined with a poor set of heads will produce an engine that's a dog. But bolt on a set of great heads even with a poor cam and that engine will still make great power."

 

You probably know all this, as you seem to be an intelligent sort, but I disagree.

The pushrod v8 is, I think, really knocking on the limit of its potential with these new GM engines, but as it stands right now I dont think it gives up anything to any DOHC v8. You can get the same power, the same or better gas mileage (brake specific fuel consumption is lower with single-camshaft engines), more displacement, less weight that is centered lower, and a far more compact package with a pushrod v8.

I think in the next 10-20 years we will see the DOHC engine really eclipse the pushrod engines for volumetric efficiency to the point that the old advantages of pushrod engines may become moot points. But right now with current tech I dont see the advantage. DOHC hp/liter numbers are great if you're racing in a class that has a displacement limit or your primary market is one that heavily taxes and penalizes consumers for larger displacements the way many foreign countries do. But we dont have regulations quite that arbitrary and draconian yet. The "advantages" of a DOHC v8 in a corvette just arent compelling.


Because they're racing under displacement limit. The volumetric efficiency of more valves is undeniable, but there's more to a good engine that volumetric efficiency.

 

Well, i'd reply to you guys, but it seems InfernalVortex is good at applying actual logic, rather than generalizations and has already painted the picture for those of you who want to use things that are completely irrelevant to the actual application.

 

Easy boys..not trying to start a war here.I was simply talking about Gm reusing the lt5 engine name..not the original lt5 motor from the vette back in the 90's.Which wasnt a bad motor to be honest..and took well to mods.Just wasnt cheap.

There are pros and cons to dohc vs ohv but it comes down to application of both the vehicle type...and engine type whether its an inline motor or v.Both have their place imo.I do prefer dohc when it comes to boosted applications because of the valvetrain.

 

Because of valve train? Boost changes the game so much that the aspect of RPM and other aspects can become irrelevant when the correct blower or turbo setup is used. There are points where you are on the ragged edge and things are required, but seeing what the lowly 4.8 and even old junkyard 305s can do with boost, I cannot see what valve train from OHC setups do any better. I am not huge boost guy, just going off of my research.

 

Not a huge boost guy either.But looking at many ohc/dohc motors that are boosted to hell has its rewards.Valvetrain stress is less..more parts involved..yes for sure but they do last longer vs pushrod setup.Many guys go through springs,rockers etc enough as it is NA with off the shelf mild cams.Ohc have a wider rpm range that can be nice depending on your goals,inline motors we all know work very well with boost and quite efficient at it.Dohc NA as a v motor I think is a waste but in other forms its a blessing.Ford guys love it though..its a chance to say the smaller displacement beats up gm's..having a supercharger helps it along though.

Junkyard builds are fun and make sick power..but longevity of them is questionable.

 

i'll let my friend know his mod motor has a longer lasting valvetrain. (he's had it apart 2 times now for timing chain issues.)

 

Sucks to be him,every motor has its weak point and strengths.Ls1s had issues with timing chain..oil pumps...piston slap and so on.When I got my lq4 it had 39,000km on it and it needed a new chain.Being his second time in..hopefully there is a updated fix for that problem if its a common issue on the mod motors.Im sure this new lt series will have its own issues once its mass produced and driven around by the population we will see what faults come its way,whether its mechanical or driver error.

 

You had a bad chain? My original 197k mile 3/4 ton must need 4, lol. The early LS was not perfect, but te later after 2000 were way better. The GEN IV is a stout bastard. Wish it would last another 10 years or more, the gen IV is really a strong platform.

 

Yeah it had a loose chain when i got mine..that was the only thing wrong I checked it out before putting any mods.Figure the previous owner of the truck was female..start it and go type of woman driving the suburban before it got rearended..I slapped on new chain and chain guide..wasnt a big deal and I would have done it anyway for my own peace of mind doing the cam swap.

 

I replaced mine with a LS2 chain on the 89, but I think the "worn" chains, will not get any worse.

 

Awesome, they just had to unveil this just as i start my 1st Gen LS Firebird project... now ill be kicking my self in the *** if i dont put in a New Age LT motor in it...

Hmmmm... good opportunity to get in HP Pontiac w/ a 1st Gen Bird with a Gen 5 engine ?!?!

:P

 

stock chain in my '99 2500 with the lq4. 253k on it now.

 

Yeah I dont really see the correlation either? OHC setups can often allow for higher RPMs... but boost is a way to get around having to spin it to super high RPMs... therefore less stress on the valvetrain.

And as far as OHC setups having wider RPM ranges, some of that is due to less valvetrain mass, which is significant, but also its due to (in some cases at least) variable valve timing and we can now do that on pushrod engines which is super cool. Not sure how well it works, but definitely neat. Also the smaller engines dont have as much internal friction or mass to deal with as our heavier, larger v8s do, so they'll be able to spin higher anyway.

Oh and my Sierra 1500 with the 5.3 is going to roll over 200k miles before the new year probably. Great truck. The only issues I keep having are the stupid water pump gaskets not sealing perfectly. I keep getting a weeping leak on the passenger side of hte water pump.

 

Yea, the LS is no old sbc. All mine with a cam are at 7200 rpm. I do not see other OHC v8s going any higher, unless as you say, they are small cubes. At which point, you have to spin higher to keep up with larger cubes.

 

Quick PEACE OF MIND response on this whole LS JY prices going up BS, i work for the largest chain of JY's, rest assured, they are going DOWN. Rest easy, save your cash, build that LS fund and have fun when your driving it.

 

Yea, steady falling for me. The 07 up 5.3 and 4.8 went up for a minute, not allot, but back down.

 

Yeah but there isn't 50 mpgs in a 4000 pound car with a 5.7 to 6.0 v8 direct injected or not. Cars are heavy now because of nhsta standards add in EPA and CAFE at 50 and you are looking at Honda Accords being phased out for being too big and thirsty.

 

lol, now thats funny. US LTX guys already have a forum http://ltxtech.com/

 

Here's a CGI parts build of a the new LT1 posted by GM High Tech.