I apologize in advance for rambling. For what its worth, I just thought I would weigh in on the '04 GTO issue. First, I own a '69 Judge, and a yellow '04. To me, its pretty cool to open the garage door and see them sitting next to each other. I grew up in a GM family, my Father, Uncles & Grandfather all worked for GM, most of them at Pontiac Motors when there was such a thing as divisional autonomy within GM. So to say I like Pontiacs is a understatement. Anyway, after reading all the comments about the styling of the new GTO in particular the comment that they look like a Cavalier or a lot of other cars on the road, I tended to agree. It then occured to me that when I was a kid, and the "classic" GTOs we know an love were driven as real every day cars, I remember that the GTO looked an awful lot like another entry level GM car called the Tempest. In fact I had to look fairly close at the Pontiac A bodies to discern if it was a GTO or a Tempest or a LeMans, especially the earlier cars. In fact the overall shape of the car was very similar to other makes on the road at the time, so they blended in to the automotive landscape of the time quite well. It seems that most people rember only the GTO and not the rest of the A body line that suported it. The A body 4 door wagons, Tempest, LeMans carried the GTO as the GTO did not stand on its own. When I drive my Judge in todays traffic it stands out from all the other cars as should any car that is 35 years old. When I drive my new GTO, yes it belnds in but I do get lots of positive comments and interestingly enough from kids. This may have something to do with the fact that its yellow and stands out in terms of color alone.
I applaud Lutz for spearheading the Manaro to the states as the GTO. It is a great car, and it is a great car to live with on a daily basis and I'm happy that Pontiac actually has a V8 rear wheel drive 4 passenger coupe. Lutz understood that with the demise of the F car, Pontiac really had nothing left in the lineup that could maintian Pontiac's performance image. While I would like to see the GTO styling as more retro to the original in the same sense that the new Mustang is, without the GTO, Pontiac would be another boring front wheel drive division of GM with only body cladding and red lit intstrument clusters to set their cars apart from the other divisions.

I apologize in advance for rambling. For what its worth, I just thought I would weigh in on the '04 GTO issue. First, I own a '69 Judge, and a yellow '04. To me, its pretty cool to open the garage door and see them sitting next to each other. I grew up in a GM family, my Father, Uncles & Grandfather all worked for GM, most of them at Pontiac Motors when there was such a thing as divisional autonomy within GM. So to say I like Pontiacs is a understatement. Anyway, after reading all the comments about the styling of the new GTO in particular the comment that they look like a Cavalier or a lot of other cars on the road, I tended to agree. It then occured to me that when I was a kid, and the "classic" GTOs we know an love were driven as real every day cars, I remember that the GTO looked an awful lot like another entry level GM car called the Tempest. In fact I had to look fairly close at the Pontiac A bodies to discern if it was a GTO or a Tempest or a LeMans, especially the earlier cars. In fact the overall shape of the car was very similar to other makes on the road at the time, so they blended in to the automotive landscape of the time quite well. It seems that most people rember only the GTO and not the rest of the A body line that suported it. The A body 4 door wagons, Tempest, LeMans carried the GTO as the GTO did not stand on its own. When I drive my Judge in todays traffic it stands out from all the other cars as should any car that is 35 years old. When I drive my new GTO, yes it belnds in but I do get lots of positive comments and interestingly enough from kids. This may have something to do with the fact that its yellow and stands out in terms of color alone.
I applaud Lutz for spearheading the Manaro to the states as the GTO. It is a great car, and it is a great car to live with on a daily basis and I'm happy that Pontiac actually has a V8 rear wheel drive 4 passenger coupe. Lutz understood that with the demise of the F car, Pontiac really had nothing left in the lineup that could maintian Pontiac's performance image. While I would like to see the GTO styling as more retro to the original in the same sense that the new Mustang is, without the GTO, Pontiac would be another boring front wheel drive division of GM with only body cladding and red lit intstrument clusters to set their cars apart from the other divisions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by projectfolly:
I apologize in advance for rambling. For what its worth, I just thought I would weigh in on the '04 GTO issue. First, I own a '69 Judge, and a yellow '04. To me, its pretty cool to open the garage door and see them sitting next to each other. I grew up in a GM family, my Father, Uncles & Grandfather all worked for GM, most of them at Pontiac Motors when there was such a thing as divisional autonomy within GM. So to say I like Pontiacs is a understatement. Anyway, after reading all the comments about the styling of the new GTO in particular the comment that they look like a Cavalier or a lot of other cars on the road, I tended to agree. It then occured to me that when I was a kid, and the "classic" GTOs we know an love were driven as real every day cars, I remember that the GTO looked an awful lot like another entry level GM car called the Tempest. In fact I had to look fairly close at the Pontiac A bodies to discern if it was a GTO or a Tempest or a LeMans, especially the earlier cars. In fact the overall shape of the car was very similar to other makes on the road at the time, so they blended in to the automotive landscape of the time quite well. It seems that most people rember only the GTO and not the rest of the A body line that suported it. The A body 4 door wagons, Tempest, LeMans carried the GTO as the GTO did not stand on its own. When I drive my Judge in todays traffic it stands out from all the other cars as should any car that is 35 years old. When I drive my new GTO, yes it belnds in but I do get lots of positive comments and interestingly enough from kids. This may have something to do with the fact that its yellow and stands out in terms of color alone.
I applaud Lutz for spearheading the Manaro to the states as the GTO. It is a great car, and it is a great car to live with on a daily basis and I'm happy that Pontiac actually has a V8 rear wheel drive 4 passenger coupe. Lutz understood that with the demise of the F car, Pontiac really had nothing left in the lineup that could maintian Pontiac's performance image. While I would like to see the GTO styling as more retro to the original in the same sense that the new Mustang is, without the GTO, Pontiac would be another boring front wheel drive division of GM with only body cladding and red lit intstrument clusters to set their cars apart from the other divisions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Uh oh, common sense has been interjected into the forum of bashers.

Great assesment. I agree 1000% percent. It is too bad others don't get it.

WEll I think the '04-'05 makes a lot of sense. I plan to drive a few and decide if I want one.

I agree totally with you, Projectfolly, but I hope you have your shield in place. I wrote a similar post recently and I was met with plenty of opposition, called stupid for buying one yada, yada, yada. Funny, though, I don't feel stupid at all. How people can call someone stupid for buying what one wants with his own hard earned money is beyond me. They same to forget that the '73 GTO looked exactly like the '73 Grand AM. I think we all were intially put off by the stying of the New GTO but some of us looked beyond that and considered the total package. As I stated before, this is only the beginning of a come back of the GTO. While the first attempt may be considered a failure by some it is an attempt I am very glad they made. Subsequent attempts will be met with skepticism as well but Pontiac will eventually give us what we want.

Isn't there some kind of filter that could be put in place to disallow "pro new GTO" messages ... or must we just continue to rely on the bashing that has become commonplace.

This is almost 2005 - Surely there is some technology we could deploy to stop these objective well-stated comments at the source :-)

Mike M

Thanks Pont3. I know I'll suffer the slings and arrows of those who do not like the new GTO and thats OK, controversy is good. I look at it this way, the GTO can only get better. There is evidence of this by the improvements to the 2005 model year cars. Hopefully the styling will get better eventually, but even then I dont think the car will make appeal to everyone. For example, say a few years down the road the styling goes retro.Which year GTO would be the best one to draw from ? If it looks like a '68 with the smooth voluptious coke bottle styling, the people that prefered the crisp timeless lines of the '64s and 65's wont like it, just like like back in the day when some said the new '68s had a "pregnant" look. As for me, I figured the days when one could walk into a Pontiac dealership and buy a new GTO were gone forever, so I'll try to enjoy it while it lasts and spend as much time as I can releasing smoke from the tires of my new GTO just like those that had the opportunity to do back in the day !

Nice post, projectfolly - we all can argue ad infinitum about styling. I for one love the styling of my '04 - sleek & smooth! I like the older cars too, but just sitting in one reminds me the appeal is based on nostalgia - I wouldn't want my modern mechanicals sheathed in such bodywork, anymore than I'd want my '03 Suzuki SV1k to look like a 60's or 70's model Suzuki.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trace:
Nice post, projectfolly - we all can argue ad infinitum about styling. I for one love the styling of my '04 - sleek & smooth! I like the older cars too, but just sitting in one reminds me the appeal is based on nostalgia - I wouldn't want my modern mechanicals sheathed in such bodywork, anymore than I'd want my '03 Suzuki SV1k to look like a 60's or 70's model Suzuki. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Having modern drivetrains in vintage metal works, too! Check the 'click current pics' on my page; look here

Great post, you made a lot of good points.. all cars evolve in styling and wont appeal to everyone...For example, a 1999 camaro looks nothing like a 1969 camaro. So if you closed-minded bashers would go test drive the new goat i am sure it will look a lot better to you afterwards. I am the proud owner of a 2004 phantom black 6m goat and have never been as satisfied with a car as I am with this one. I have owned 3 mustangs one of which was a 1998 cobra that i traded in for the goat...NO REGRETS. That should tell you how great this car is.
I saw a picture of a 70's model monaro ands it looked exactly like a 70's model gto/nova/ventura. so if those model cars had continued they would probably look like the current monaro/gto.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by projectfolly:
I apologize in advance for rambling. For what its worth, I just thought I would weigh in on the '04 GTO issue. First, I own a '69 Judge, and a yellow '04. To me, its pretty cool to open the garage door and see them sitting next to each other. I grew up in a GM family, my Father, Uncles & Grandfather all worked for GM, most of them at Pontiac Motors when there was such a thing as divisional autonomy within GM. So to say I like Pontiacs is a understatement. Anyway, after reading all the comments about the styling of the new GTO in particular the comment that they look like a Cavalier or a lot of other cars on the road, I tended to agree. It then occured to me that when I was a kid, and the "classic" GTOs we know an love were driven as real every day cars, I remember that the GTO looked an awful lot like another entry level GM car called the Tempest. In fact I had to look fairly close at the Pontiac A bodies to discern if it was a GTO or a Tempest or a LeMans, especially the earlier cars. In fact the overall shape of the car was very similar to other makes on the road at the time, so they blended in to the automotive landscape of the time quite well. It seems that most people rember only the GTO and not the rest of the A body line that suported it. The A body 4 door wagons, Tempest, LeMans carried the GTO as the GTO did not stand on its own. When I drive my Judge in todays traffic it stands out from all the other cars as should any car that is 35 years old. When I drive my new GTO, yes it belnds in but I do get lots of positive comments and interestingly enough from kids. This may have something to do with the fact that its yellow and stands out in terms of color alone.
I applaud Lutz for spearheading the Manaro to the states as the GTO. It is a great car, and it is a great car to live with on a daily basis and I'm happy that Pontiac actually has a V8 rear wheel drive 4 passenger coupe. Lutz understood that with the demise of the F car, Pontiac really had nothing left in the lineup that could maintian Pontiac's performance image. While I would like to see the GTO styling as more retro to the original in the same sense that the new Mustang is, without the GTO, Pontiac would be another boring front wheel drive division of GM with only body cladding and red lit intstrument clusters to set their cars apart from the other divisions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

thats your opinion and youre intitled to it. what upsets me is that the GTO was the first muscle car. it started all of this. how can you slap a chevy motor in an australlian car and call it a pontiac? ive said before im only 22 so i didnt have the expierence of you guys growing up with real muscle cars (big motors). i choose to drive a pontiac because they are diffrent then chevy (real pontiacs). the styling/performance is sub par for a GTO. true cars looked similar 30+ years ago. but when you bring a cars name back after 30+ years youd think it would look somewhat like the origional cars. it only makes sense. why would you call something a GTO and make it look like a grand am or a cavalier?

Why would you call something a GTO when it's a Tempest with a BIGA$$ engine? Answer: Because it is a GTO. Same deal with the '04.

LS1 a "Chevy motor"? I think GM Powertrain might disagree with you on that one.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Randy W:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trace:
Nice post, projectfolly - we all can argue ad infinitum about styling. I for one love the styling of my '04 - sleek & smooth! I like the older cars too, but just sitting in one reminds me the appeal is based on nostalgia - I wouldn't want my modern mechanicals sheathed in such bodywork, anymore than I'd want my '03 Suzuki SV1k to look like a 60's or 70's model Suzuki. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Having modern drivetrains in vintage metal works, too! Check the 'click current pics' on my page; http://mywebpages.comcast.net/toppop52/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Randy, you're quite right! Love your Impala! Maybe I'll have to restate my viewpoint: I wouldn't want &lt;my&gt; modern mechanicals in older bodywork, but I'll take &lt;yours&gt; off your hands for you!! http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...on_biggrin.gif Anytime you want to rid yourself of that I'd be glad to provide it a home!

Thanks Trace, in fact I'm going to sell that Impala, I've had it for 5 years, bought it from the orig. owner(86 yrs.old), with 57k on the clock. Converted the drvetrain 2 years ago. I love it but I want to put an LS1 in my '80 Grand Am!

Nice Impala !
I like the drivetrain set up too. I'd like to see how the Grand Am turns out as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by qgoat:
Great post, you made a lot of good points.. all cars evolve in styling and wont appeal to everyone...For example, a 1999 camaro looks nothing like a 1969 camaro. So if you closed-minded bashers would go test drive the new goat i am sure it will look a lot better to you afterwards. I am the proud owner of a 2004 phantom black 6m goat and have never been as satisfied with a car as I am with this one. I have owned 3 mustangs one of which was a 1998 cobra that i traded in for the goat...NO REGRETS. That should tell you how great this car is.
I saw a picture of a 70's model monaro ands it looked exactly like a 70's model gto/nova/ventura. so if those model cars had continued they would probably look like the current monaro/gto. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks! I agree on your point that if the GTO was kept around all this time it probably would look very similar to what the Monaro GTO looks like today. I must admit it took me a while to warm up to the new GTO. Once I test drove one, I was convinced and took the plunge. The more I drive it, the more I like it.
Speaking of black GTOs,a co-worker of mine totaled his new black one not long ago with only 2000 miles on the clock. Turns out after an evening of ahh, celebrating, he became lost in down town Detroit, (not a good thing) and ended up on a unfamilar side street. While ripping through the gears, he over shot a turn, and launched the car over a curb/embankment at about 90 mph, became airborne, cleared a 6 foot fence, and plunged down into a railroad ravine where he smacked a concrete wall. He woke up in the hospital he next day. Turns out other than getting his bell rang, he had a cut lip and chipped tooth. His passenger walked away. The GTO was a write off, but the point is, it did its job in the crash,and he lived to tell about it. After seeing the car, I have much more respect for its design and build quality.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Randy W:
Thanks Trace, in fact I'm going to sell that Impala, I've had it for 5 years, bought it from the orig. owner(86 yrs.old), with 57k on the clock. Converted the drvetrain 2 years ago. I love it but I want to put an LS1 in my '80 Grand Am! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grand Am?! Wait a minute, Randy... you are converting it to rwd, right? Have to be - and that would be very cool! http://forums.performanceyears.com/g.../icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rabon:
Why would you call something a GTO when it's a Tempest with a BIGA$$ engine? Answer: Because it is a GTO. Same deal with the '04.

LS1 a "Chevy motor"? I think GM Powertrain might disagree with you on that one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

remember when pontiac was forced to use the chevy 350's statring in the 80's ? those engines evolved into the LT1 then the LS1 now the LS2. what other GM camaker was using these 350's ? buick? caddy? oldsmobile? as i remember it was a chevy engine and pontiac was forced into using the motor. pontiac didnt choose to use it. wasnt their motor. so thats why it is a chevy motor. this dosent sound of a hard concept to understand. might be tough for some of us.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by judge_jury_executioner_69:


remember when pontiac was forced to use the chevy 350's statring in the 80's ? those engines evolved into the LT1 then the LS1 now the LS2. what other GM camaker was using these 350's ? buick? caddy? oldsmobile? as i remember it was a chevy engine and pontiac was forced into using the motor. pontiac didnt choose to use it. wasnt their motor. so thats why it is a chevy motor. this dosent sound of a hard concept to understand. might be tough for some of us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tell me, what parts of the LS1 is shared with the LT1 or SBC? Please show me a link from www.GM.com where it says the LS1 is a "Chevrolet" motor. PLEASE. I'll be waiting.

This is the same thing I posted on another thread, but it applies to this topic.
With regard to the new GTO being powered by the LS1/LS2, I can unerstand the complaints that the engine is a evolution of the Chevy Small Block (even though it shares no parts)and should not be powering a Pontiac - sort of.
The reality is that the traditional Pontiac V8 ceased production over 20 years ago.
Where the Pontiac Motors foundary and engine plant once stood that produced the engines is nothing but an empty tract of land. The days of each GM division having its very own powertrain, engineering and manufacturing are gone. With all the competitors in the automotive market now, GM has lost so much market share that they can no longer have independent divisions that compete against themselves like in the good old days when they had over 50 percent of the market. Out of all the engines GM produces, the best one by far for the GTO is the LS1/LS2 as many here can attest to. GM powertrain is just that, GM powertrain, not Chevrolet, not Cadillac, Buick or Pontiac - just powertrain.I dont like it anymore that the next guy but,we need to get over it and move on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr_GTO:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by judge_jury_executioner_69:


remember when pontiac was forced to use the chevy 350's statring in the 80's ? those engines evolved into the LT1 then the LS1 now the LS2. what other GM camaker was using these 350's ? buick? caddy? oldsmobile? as i remember it was a chevy engine and pontiac was forced into using the motor. pontiac didnt choose to use it. wasnt their motor. so thats why it is a chevy motor. this dosent sound of a hard concept to understand. might be tough for some of us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tell me, what parts of the LS1 is shared with the LT1 or SBC? Please show me a link from http://www.GM.com where it says the LS1 is a "Chevrolet" motor. PLEASE. I'll be waiting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets see, the LS1 is a 350cid engine. Who creared the 350, Chevy or GM? After all, the 350 is what, about 40 years old? As far as interchangable parts, evolution has taken care of that; and please, there are resources other than gm.com, though probably not as biased so you would not accept their information as factual. Please, no questions, (as is your style), look them up yourself. The 350 may be technically a GM motor, but you must admit, it is generally considered a Chevy motor. Thank you for your time, and have a good day http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...on_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KVman389:

Lets see, the LS1 is a 350cid engine. Who creared the 350, Chevy or GM? After all, the 350 is what, about 40 years old? As far as interchangable parts, evolution has taken care of that; and please, there are resources other than gm.com, though probably not as biased so you would not accept their information as factual. Please, no questions, (as is your style), look them up yourself. The 350 may be technically a GM motor, but you must admit, it is generally considered a Chevy motor. Thank you for your time, and have a good day http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...on_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's 346 actually. And again, we are not talking about the old SBC 350. We are talking about the LS1. Stick to the subject at hand.
GM makes the engine. Why would I look at other sources who call it a Chevy. they are just as wrong as you.

So you can't provide a link from GM stating it is a Chevy engine either uh? Thanks for playing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Jones:
http://www.gm.com/company/racing/tec...tteC5R.htm#top <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


What paragraph states the LS1 is a Chevrolet V8 again? I must be missing it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr_GTO:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KVman389:

Lets see, the LS1 is a 350cid engine. Who creared the 350, Chevy or GM? After all, the 350 is what, about 40 years old? As far as interchangable parts, evolution has taken care of that; and please, there are resources other than gm.com, though probably not as biased so you would not accept their information as factual. Please, no questions, (as is your style), look them up yourself. The 350 may be technically a GM motor, but you must admit, it is generally considered a Chevy motor. Thank you for your time, and have a good day http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...on_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's 346 actually. And again, we are not talking about the old SBC 350. We are talking about the LS1. Stick to the subject at hand.
GM makes the engine. Why would I look at other sources who call it a Chevy. they are just as wrong as you.

So you can't provide a link from GM stating it is a Chevy engine either uh? Thanks for playing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

346-350, splitting hairs are we? Ah yes, GM, Gods mouth. anything else is blasphamy.

The Chevrolet Gen III LS1
The First Look at the New GM Small-Block

By Jeff Smith
Photography: Jeff Smith

The most enduring engine in automotive history is about to change. The small-block Chevy is and will continue to be the most popular powerplant in the history of racing and high performance, but its legendary interchangeability will end within the next few years. Change is inevitable. Were it not for engineering, we might still be hot rodding flathead fours or mastodonic steam engines. So it is inescapable that the small-block should improve.
But rather than a eulogy for the original small-block, consider this a celebration for the heir to the throne. The new third-generation small-block, or Gen III, will be called the LS1, yet that one letter shift from the LT1 signals that this new engine is more evolution than revolution compared to the original 265. Squint your eyes and you’ll still see a small-block Chevy.

The GM Powertrain engineers were not deprived of a sense of history. The new LS1 is both similar yet vastly different. The new Mouse motor is still a 90-degree V8 employing 350 cubic inches of classic pushrod, two-valve power. While GM’s engineers had a “clean sheet of paper” to work with, the intricacy and complexity of a single- or double-overhead-cam engine didn’t pass muster.

This is where the 41-year-old Mouse motor and the new LS1 split genes. The new small-block shares nothing more than the same 4.40-inch bore spacing when it comes to the engine’s design. Frankly, except for the hydraulic-roller lifters and rod bearings, nothing interchanges with the previous small-block. Given that, let’s take a closer look at the new small-block Chevy for the third millennium.

To begin with, the LS1 will debut exclusively in the all-new ’97 Corvette. The engine is rated at 345 horsepower at 5600 rpm, with 350 lb-ft of torque at 4400 rpm. The block is all aluminum, with iron cylinder liners that are cast in place when the block is poured. The foundation is based on a Y-block design where the pan rail extends below the crankshaft centerline. While this adds weight, it more importantly adds strength and offers the opportunity for cross-bolted main caps. Overall, the LS1 is roughly 100 pounds lighter than the old aluminum-headed LT1, in addition to being shorter in height and length.


The sturdy main caps are powdered metal, held in place with four vertical and two horizontal fasteners. Block engineer Brian Kaminski also relocated the thrust bearing to the ideal center main cap, where it is less affected by thermal expansion of the block. While displacement is still 350 cubic inches, the bore/stroke relationship has changed to 3.90/3.62 inches (as opposed to 4.00/3.48). Perhaps the most significant change for those considering serious performance enhancements is the shift from the small-block’s strong five head bolts per cylinder to four larger and longer head bolts. According to Product Manager John Juriga, this improves cylinder sealing by creating a more manageable bore distortion and improving head gasket clamping. Removing one head bolt also allowed for optimizing the valvetrain and intake ports’ positioning.

The crankshaft remains a ductile cast-iron casting, yet offers wider rolled fillets for additional strength. The most significant change to the crank is in the new firing order (1-8-7-2-6-5-4-3), which will probably qualify as the next new Chevy trivia question. Juriga claims a slight improvement in crankshaft balance and stress while moving the adjacent firing cylinders from 5 and 7 to 1 and 3. The crankshaft is also internally balanced to minimize bending forces.

The connecting rods are also powdered metal like the LT1’s but are “cracked,” meaning that the cap-to-rod interface is actually broken rather than machined. This creates a stronger cap position on the rod without the need for dowel pins. The new LS1 also enjoys a 0.398-inch-longer (6.098 inches) rod length, making the rod-length-to-stroke ratio 1.68:1 versus the LT1’s 1.63:1 ratio.

It's not GM, but hey, like I said, generally considered a Chevy

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I must be missing it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...icon_smile.gif
yes

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Trace:
Grand Am?! Wait a minute, Randy... you are converting it to rwd, right? Have to be - and that would be very cool! http://forums.performanceyears.com/g.../icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Grand Am was originally RWD, and Randy's is a RWD car... http://forums.performanceyears.com/g.../icon_wink.gif

Jeff Smith doesn't work for GM and that was an article by Jeff Smith, not from anyone at GM. Keep trying...

I am really dissapointed that Pontiac chose to put an SBC in the new GTO and recent 'birds. They really should have used "real" Pontiac power.........the Iron Duke! http://forums.performanceyears.com/g.../icon_wink.gif

The LS-1 shares bore spacing and rod journal size with the traditional SBC. Other than that, it was a clean sheet engine. Comparing it to a SBC is no different than comparing it to a RA-IV, which, BTW, is never coming back. They are completely different animals with similar displacement.

GM went to the SBC family in the late '70s for one reason. COST. They were much cheaper to manufacture than the better quality and more durable BOPC engines but gave adequate performance and longevity to the average end user.

The LS-1 is a very good engine. Better overall, imho, than anything GM has ever made for a performance car. It does it all well. Good performance, reliability, durability and fuel economy. There really are no compromises, other than brand recognition. The traditional SBC was, by any standards, a compromise. It was designed to be cheaply manufactured and put in GM's cheapest cars.

We are in a new millenium guys. The SD/tripower/RAIV etc. as we know them are never coming back. As long as the LS-1/2 is around, Pontiac doesn't need to waste resources re-engineering a performance engine.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Jones:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I must be missing it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...icon_smile.gif
yes <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not the way your link reads:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>"Before the introduction of the LS1, almost every V-8 engine used for racing dated back to designs that originated in the mid-'50s," said Doug Duchardt, director of GM Racing. "The GM small-block V-8 that was the cornerstone of America's racing industry for nearly 50 years is being replaced by derivatives of the LS1...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The SBC has been replaced by the GM Powertrain LS1...

And from KV's posted article above:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The new small-block shares nothing more than the same 4.40-inch bore spacing when it comes to the engine’s design. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

GM Powertrain started with a clean sheet of paper and designed an engine that has a nominal size of 350 ci. Seeing as how Buick, Olds, Pontiac and Chevy all had 350 ci of their own in the past, the displacement of said engine does not make it a Chevy.

It's GM. http://forums.performanceyears.com/g.../icon_razz.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Seeing as how Buick, Olds, Pontiac and Chevy all had 350 ci of their own in the past, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thus the name "corporate engine"..... http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...n_rolleyes.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr_GTO:
Jeff Smith doesn't work for GM and that was an article by Jeff Smith, not from anyone at GM. Keep trying... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you read the last line of that post? He does however write for a car magazine which you have referenced.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> GM's family of LS1 overhead-valve V-8 engines can trace its roots to the fabled Chevrolet small-block V-8 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You must have missed the beginning....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Jones:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> GM's family of LS1 overhead-valve V-8 engines can trace its roots to the fabled Chevrolet small-block V-8 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You must have missed the beginning.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then, using your logic, the LS1 is actually derived from the 331 ci Kettering OHV V8 first used by Cadillac in 1949.

http://www.caddydaddy.com/image/49exterior2.jpg

So now go and complain we have a Cadillac motor in the new GTO. That would be more correct than claiming it was a Chevy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> GM's family of LS1 overhead-valve V-8 engines can trace its roots to the fabled Chevrolet small-block V-8 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't really morph the above statement by GM from GM's own web site into anything about a Cadillac. I'm not using logic here, that would be a waste of time. Posted a quote from GM. You're supplying the changes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not using logic here, that would be a waste of time. Posted a quote from GM. You're supplying the changes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Logic, what's logic got to do with this thread?... http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...n_rolleyes.gif

And anyway, where are you going to get some?.... http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...on_biggrin.gif

Ok, well maybe you have a point..... http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...icon_smile.gif

AS I stated before, the only sbc parts that interchange with an ls engine, are the rod bearings! It is a total clean sheet design by the GM Powertrain Div. of General Motors. If that makes it a Chevy in someone's book, so be it!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Jones:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> GM's family of LS1 overhead-valve V-8 engines can trace its roots to the fabled Chevrolet small-block V-8 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can't really morph the above statement by GM from GM's own web site into anything about a Cadillac. I'm not using logic here, that would be a waste of time. Posted a quote from GM. You're supplying the changes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not that hard, and is actually more correct.

They refer to GM's family of OHV V-8's. Well, the first one was the 331 CI Cadillac. And taking it back even further, it was Cadillac that brought the first mass production V8 to market - I believe in 1914.

The LS1 is a new design. Your own link states that it is replacing the SBC, not an extenuation of it.

Bottom line, the LS1 family of engines is GM. Not Chevy, Pontiac, Buick, Olds (RIP), or Cadillac.

I don't see the bottom line in the same light. According to GM the sbc is the ancestor to the ls1.

According to Chevrolet advertising, the sbc is the ancestor of the LS engine line! That's like saying because Olds engineers worked on the Aurora engine, that it is decended from the Olds engines of the 1950's. It just won't wash.
Nobody seems interested in the facts! The fact is that the LS family is a clean sheet design, period. Sharing the same journal size on the crank throws does not make them directly related. That's like saying that all GM V8's of the 1970's were related because they used the same distributor cap and rotor!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr_GTO:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by judge_jury_executioner_69:


remember when pontiac was forced to use the chevy 350's statring in the 80's ? those engines evolved into the LT1 then the LS1 now the LS2. what other GM camaker was using these 350's ? buick? caddy? oldsmobile? as i remember it was a chevy engine and pontiac was forced into using the motor. pontiac didnt choose to use it. wasnt their motor. so thats why it is a chevy motor. this dosent sound of a hard concept to understand. might be tough for some of us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Tell me, what parts of the LS1 is shared with the LT1 or SBC? Please show me a link from http://www.GM.com where it says the LS1 is a "Chevrolet" motor. PLEASE. I'll be waiting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

can you tell me what car the origional LT1 was put into? a camaro. who makes the slowmaro? you should know that the LT1 evolved into the LS1 which evolved into the LS2.

heres a link for ya

http://www.nastyz28.com/camaro/z28lt1.html ( slowmaro link )

heres another
http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicl.../70vette.frame ( corvette link )

i could go on and on but its obvious you cant admit that the LT1 is a "GM" engine.

heres a lonk for ya about the LS1

http://www.gm.com/company/racing/tec...orvetteC5R.htm

as you were saying.......

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> can you tell me what car the origional LT1 was put into? a camaro. who makes the slowmaro? you should know that the LT1 evolved into the LS1 which evolved into the LS2.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The LT-1 went in the Vette first, and the LS-1 is no more an "evolution of the LT-1" than it is of any other SBC. The LT-1 is a completely different engine than the LS-1. The LT-1 was basically an evolution of the old iron block SBC with aluminum heads and a few other mods.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by judge_jury_executioner_69:

can you tell me what car the origional LT1 was put into? a camaro. who makes the slowmaro? you should know that the LT1 evolved into the LS1 which evolved into the LS2.

heres a link for ya

http://www.nastyz28.com/camaro/z28lt1.html ( slowmaro link )

heres another
http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicl.../70vette.frame ( corvette link )

i could go on and on but its obvious you cant admit that the LT1 is a "GM" engine.

heres a lonk for ya about the LS1

http://www.gm.com/company/racing/tec...orvetteC5R.htm

as you were saying....... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You took the short bus to school right?

Again, SHOW ME WHERE A GM SITE SAYS THE LS1 iS A CHEVROLET MOTOR. THe C5R says the LS1 is a GM engine, not a CHEVROLET engine.

The old LT-1 is a Chevy. The last LT1 was BASED off the old SBC and it WAS a GM Powertrain motor also.

The new LS1/LS2 share NOTHING but bearings and bore spacing with the old SBC. It was a clean sheet of paper design.

Keep trying and try to become some what educated on the subject at hand.

I do not even know where to start with this one.Some people just do not get it and never will.The 04 GTO is what it is.Some Austrailian car with a CHEVY based motor in it.The whole idea makes real Pontiac enthusiasts want to throw up.And yes if you think the new GTO was a great idea you are not a real Pontiac enthusiast by definition.I do not care if it is true that the only thing they share is bearings and bore spacing.It is still based on a Chevy.A Top Fuel aftermarket Hemi engine shares very little with old 426,I think it is only the bore spacing and camshaft centerline.But do you know what,they are still based on Chrysler Hemis.So they are Mopars.The Pontiac motor has been gone for 25 years now.But a funny thing is happening out there.We now have more Pontiac parts now available than when the motor was in production.Why,some people thought the motor should have never been canceled,some people love them.We are about to have 3 different aftermarket blocks available and 6 or 7 different types of heads.Not to mention all of the new rods we can now chose from.The 04 GTO should never have been built if this is the way they(GM) is going to do it.It was a mistake.And it is not closed minded to think so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dragncar:
I do not even know where to start with this one.Some people just do not get it and never will.The 04 GTO is what it is.Some Austrailian car with a CHEVY based motor in it.The whole idea makes real Pontiac enthusiasts want to throw up.And yes if you think the new GTO was a great idea you are not a real Pontiac enthusiast by definition.I do not care if it is true that the only thing they share is bearings and bore spacing.It is still based on a Chevy.A Top Fuel aftermarket Hemi engine shares very little with old 426,I think it is only the bore spacing and camshaft centerline.But do you know what,they are still based on Chrysler Hemis.So they are Mopars.The Pontiac motor has been gone for 25 years now.But a funny thing is happening out there.We now have more Pontiac parts now available than when the motor was in production.Why,some people thought the motor should have never been canceled,some people love them.We are about to have 3 different aftermarket blocks available and 6 or 7 different types of heads.Not to mention all of the new rods we can now chose from.The 04 GTO should never have been built if this is the way they(GM) is going to do it.It was a mistake.And it is not closed minded to think so. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yeah....

Your not a real Pontiac enthusiasts because someone likes the idea of the new GTO? LOL!!! That is the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say so far.

I take you don't believe the 1980-2002 Firebirds/TransAms were not "really" Pontiacs because they had SBC in them? Oh please. Nice ramblings.

Well, seeing that the RAM IV engine was given the RPO LS1, seems rather fitting that the 04 GTO has an LS1. http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...on_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dragncar:
The whole idea makes real Pontiac enthusiasts want to throw up.And yes if you think the new GTO was a great idea you are not a real Pontiac enthusiast by definition. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v109/naoh37/orly.jpg

dragncar wrote: The Pontiac motor has been gone for 25 years now.But a funny thing is happening out there.We now have more Pontiac parts now available than when the motor was in production.Why,some people thought the motor should have never been canceled,some people love them.We are about to have 3 different aftermarket blocks available and 6 or 7 different types of heads.Not to mention all of the new rods we can now chose from.

Interesting. Are all these parts (blocks, heads, rods, etc.) manufactured by Pontiac? I am just taking a wild guess here but I would think the answer is: No. If I'm correct, are you suggesting that GM should have contracted the construction of an aftermarket "Pontiac engine" and stuck that in the new GTO?

Really, GM wasn't about to put anything but their top of the line production engine into the GTO (even moving up to the LS2 in '05). I would think that the use of the LS1 and LS2 has pi$$ed off more "Corvette enthusiasts" than real Pontiac enthusiasts.

Once again, '04 GTO haters will find anything to whine about. Ok, I want to see a show of hands: How many "real Pontiac enthusiasts" think that, because the WS6 (made in Canada?) had the "dreaded" LS1 engine, it wasn't a real Trans Am? Remember guys, that horrible, nasty "Chevy motor" was also in the Camaro SS. Come on, you know you want to bash the WS6 now don't you?

Fact is: The LS1 is not a "Chevy motor", the WS6 was a Trans Am and the '04 GTO is a Pontiac GTO. There is simply nothing that all your whining can do about that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr_GTO:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by judge_jury_executioner_69:

can you tell me what car the origional LT1 was put into? a camaro. who makes the slowmaro? you should know that the LT1 evolved into the LS1 which evolved into the LS2.

heres a link for ya

http://www.nastyz28.com/camaro/z28lt1.html ( slowmaro link )

heres another
http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicl.../70vette.frame ( corvette link )

i could go on and on but its obvious you cant admit that the LT1 is a "GM" engine.

heres a lonk for ya about the LS1

http://www.gm.com/company/racing/tec...orvetteC5R.htm

as you were saying....... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You took the short bus to school right?

Again, SHOW ME WHERE A GM SITE SAYS THE LS1 iS A CHEVROLET MOTOR. THe C5R says the LS1 is a GM engine, not a CHEVROLET engine.

The old LT-1 is a Chevy. The last LT1 was BASED off the old SBC and it WAS a GM Powertrain motor also.

The new LS1/LS2 share NOTHING but bearings and bore spacing with the old SBC. It was a clean sheet of paper design.

Keep trying and try to become some what educated on the subject at hand. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

you did read the first paragraph right ? the one in bold ? before you said show me where it says the LT1/LS1/LS6/LS2 was a chevy motor. i did that with the LT1. now you say the LS1 isnt a chevy motor but a "GM" motor. the site says GM's family of LS1 overhead-valve V-8 engines can trace its roots to the fabled Chevrolet small-block V-8, yet the LS1 is much more than an offshoot from the small-block family tree. The LS1 continues the small-block's longstanding virtues of compact size, simplicity, reliability and high specific output. i can read between the lines here. yes the LS1 was a clean sheet of paper design. same with the "newer" LT1 or in other words the chevy 350 evolved into the LT1 which evolved into the LS1. who rode the short bus to school ?