Tell Bob Lutz what you think of the GTO

[pont3]

Oh, forgot to add that, in recent years, FORD used Yamaha, (Taurus SHO)engines and Chrysler used some Mitsubishi engines, and GM even used some Toyota engines. Therefore, it is understandable why so much confusion exists.

[judge_jury_executioner_69]

I am asking YOU to present one aspect of the LS1 design (again, other than bore spacing) that was inspired by the SBC. Either you can or you can't. Back up your statements with facts. I have lots of facts on the design of the LS1 so, if you have some facts showing that some aspect of its design was based on the SBC, enlighten us. Give us some facts.[/QUOTE]

heres a few facts:

1. they still use pushrods
2. 2 valves per cylinder
3. V8
4. you can even argue that they still use a crank,cam,pistons,connecting rods,bearings,rings,and gaskets just like any SBC did.

[Mr_GTO]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by judge_jury_executioner_69:
heres a few facts:

1. they still use pushrods
2. 2 valves per cylinder
3. V8
4. you can even argue that they still use a crank,cam,pistons,connecting rods,bearings,rings,and gaskets just like any SBC did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those didn't come from inspiaration of the old SBC when the design of the new LS1 was done.

What he means is CARRY OVER PARTS. WHICH CARRY OVER PARTS were TAKEN DIRECTLY from the SBC and placed in the LS1? IE they will fit both motors.

ANSWER? NONE

[David Jones]

Why do parts need to directly carry over, to make your assumption valid? That arguement makes no sense. You try to make it sound like it does, TYPING IN CAPS CARRIES LOTS OF WEIGHT AND DENOTES ULTIMATE KNOWLEDGE. SCREAM FACT A LOT. Truth is GM says is an ancestor. TYPE CAPS ALL YOU WANT.

[Mr_GTO]

This is a decent article on it, not 100% accurate but pretty damn close.

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.

Sponsored Links

[David Jones]

Thats a great article and very informative. Find a similar article on how the original design had evolved up to that point. Its been said that GM celebrating 50 years of the smallblock is a marketing tool. No more so than an engineer saying that they had a "clean sheet" of paper. "New and improved". Jeez, I would hope some improvements would take place.
How much interchanges between the early Pontiac V-8 and its last model, produced in 1978. Parts don't need to be directly interchangeable to have a direct ancestory.
I like the way you have allowed your self to become "the" authority on this issue. What GM thinks be damned......

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is a decent article on it, not 100% accurate but pretty damn close </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give me some CAPS and type FACT a few more times. Maybe I'll buy in soon.

[rabon008]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by judge_jury_executioner_69:

heres a few facts:

1. they still use pushrods
2. 2 valves per cylinder
3. V8
4. you can even argue that they still use a crank,cam,pistons,connecting rods,bearings,rings,and gaskets just like any SBC did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, you are really good. All of these items were first used in a SBC? I'm amazed. I thought they were used in V8s years before Chevy even had a V8.

[rabon008]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David Jones:
No more so than an engineer saying that they had a "clean sheet" of paper. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say an engineer. I said the engineers who designed the LS1. There is a big difference. You choose to believe someone who may never have even met the people who designed it. I choose to believe the people who actually designed the LS1.

[David Jones]

Well you coose who you want and I'll choose GM.
Lets say I'm am engineer working on an engine project. Would I rather say I had been part of refurbing a 50 year old design. Or would it look better on my resume for me to strut around saying I had started with a "clean sheet" of paper. I'll just happen to keep the same bore spacing. And make it a 90 degree V-8. And keep them pushrods. And leave 2 valves in there. Lets just make it look like the original just because.

My "an" and your "the" are in fact the same person. There is no difference. I didn't say an electrical engineer. Or hydraulic engineer. Or nuclear etc. I was talking about the engineers that <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">actually designed the LS1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[rabon008]

Thanks for pointing out my typo.

You, on the other hand, are implying the engineers (plural), who wrote the paper, lied. You haven't even read the paper or you'd know that the pushrods are different. The valve angles are different (much steeper and now copied by Ford). Deck height is different. The block is almost entirely different. The oil pan is a structural member. The crank pumps the oil and is shorter.

Read what someone actually says before you say that they are "strutting around", which implies they are lying or at the very least exaggerating.

[Mr_GTO]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David Jones:
Thats a great article and very informative. Find a similar article on how the original design had evolved up to that point. Its been said that GM celebrating 50 years of the smallblock is a marketing tool. No more so than an engineer saying that they had a "clean sheet" of paper. "New and improved". Jeez, I would hope some improvements would take place.
How much interchanges between the early Pontiac V-8 and its last model, produced in 1978. Parts don't need to be directly interchangeable to have a direct ancestory.
I like the way you have allowed your self to become "the" authority on this issue. What GM thinks be damned......

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is a decent article on it, not 100% accurate but pretty damn close </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Give me some CAPS and type FACT a few more times. Maybe I'll buy in soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The problem with your hypothesis is that BACK THEN each division had it's OWN engineering group. That isn't the case any more. There is no CHEVY, there is PONTIAC engines.

There is GM POWERTRAIN and that has been around since the early 90's.

Other than that PRESS RELEASE you keep citing, there is not one place that I have found on GM's Website where they call the LS1 a CHEVY.

[David Jones]

You, on the other hand are implying that GM is lying. I'll bet over the decades GM used a lot of different pushrods. I'll bet over the years they used a lot of different parts. And changed a lot of different of the original pieces. And I think the term "strutting around" in the context I used it in my reply fit very well.

[David Jones]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> There is GM POWERTRAIN and that has been around since the early 90's.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That doesn't change that the engine in question is based on a Chevy.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Other than that PRESS RELEASE you keep citing, there is not one place that I have found on GM's Website where they call the LS1 a CHEVY. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How many times do they need to say it?

[rabon008]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David Jones:
You, on the other hand are implying that GM is lying. I'll bet over the decades GM used a lot of different pushrods. I'll bet over the years they used a lot of different parts. And changed a lot of different of the original pieces. And I think the term "strutting around" in the context I used it in my reply fit very well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I set you up on that one. I was implying that the person who wrote the article didn't know. Again, there's a difference. The engineers who designed the engine know whether or not they started with a clean sheet, which they clearly state in their paper that they did. To say that they didn't is calling them liars.

FYI: These pushrods were quite different and unique in 1997.

[David Jones]

Somehow I don't feel set up. I would have to feel you had made some sort of point. I don't. Calling them liars? Thats not what I said. You used those words. Read that post I made again. They used a lot of different pushrods over the decades. And other things too.

[rabon008]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David Jones:
Somehow I don't feel set up. I would have to feel you had made some sort of point. I don't. Calling them liars? Thats not what I said. You used those words. Read that post I made again. They used a lot of different pushrods over the decades. And other things too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, when you say that they did not start with a clean sheet design, you are calling them liars.

You cannot know what you are talking about when you talk about "based on a Chevy" if you haven't read what the actual designers of the engine had to say. They are the ones who would have "based" the engine design on something.

Of course Pontiacs, Chevies, Buicks, Cadillac, etc. used pushrods before 1997. Chevy was not the first V8 with a pushrod in it and Chevy didn't use these pushrods. Nor was the design of these pushrods based on any thing Chevy used (but they probably were based on the fact that what Chevy was using or had used in the past would not work).

Continued avoidance of the original question is all you have.

The argument is this: Is the LS1 based on the SBC? Your answer is yes. My answer is no. I back up my answer with facts stated by the actual designers of the LS1. You cannot point to anything in the design that was based on the SBC. All you can do is say: "He said it is." or "This article says it is." The fact that they use pushrods or crankshafts or camshafts or pistons for that matter has nothing to do with whether or not the Chevy Division ever made an engine.

There was not one single design component of the SBC that was good enough (and I am a Chevy fan) to carry over to the LS1. So they designed a new engine, not based on the SBC but, rather, on a set of criteria that could not be met if they used any of the SBC architecture other than the bore spacing.

[David Jones]

I backed up my answer with GM's own website stating that the LS1's ancestor was the original SBC. You based your answer on what you read on the net. I based my answer on the company that employed the engineers. And all you can do is say is "he said it is" or "this article says it is". The original question is non answerable. Improvement made over the years have made most of the parts non interchangeable between design changes. Your insistence that they be interchangeable with the LS1 is foolish.
You also infer that GM is lying.

[rabon008]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David Jones:
I backed up my answer with GM's own website stating that the LS1's ancestor was the original SBC. You based your answer on what you read on the net. I based my answer on the company that employed the engineers. And all you can do is say is "he said it is" or "this article says it is". The original question is non answerable. Improvement made over the years have made most of the parts non interchangeable between design changes. Your insistence that they be interchangeable with the LS1 is foolish.
You also infer that GM is lying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. Man you are perhaps the most dense person I think I have ever talked with. What are you smoking or drinking?

First, you based your answer on what someone employeed by the company that employeed the engineers says. My information comes from the paper written by the GM Engineers who designed the LS1. The paper is SAE Technical paper #970915. I have a printed copy.

I don't insist that anything be interchangeable. I am telling you that the parts aren't interchangeable.

This last response from you seems to indicate you have been drinking heavily or are stoned.

The original question is absolutely answerable unless you're an idiot: What part of the design of the LS1 was influenced by the SBC?

The answer: Nothing but the bore spacing.

[GoatFink]

C'mon Sal! That is so lame. Honestly, there is nothing wrong with the new GTO except the style is a little understated. The '64 GTO was not a sporty looking car when compared to the Mustang made in 64 1/2 and it had performance galore! I think we're too spoiled expecting some extreme design with every car whether it sucks turds or performs extremely well. We have lost the idea or the least notion of what "Sleeper" means.

The new GTO is about refinement, comfort, power.
Take a look at the new Mustang GT and the truth reveals itself pretty quickly the new GTO is a much better car overall. It's just hidden in a skin that is a bit dated and the old adage not judging a book by its cover applies well here.

GM in a hundred years could never put together what Holden did. If GMNA got their hands on a GTO you know what we would have? A V6 FWD GTO made in the USA POS hard cheap plastic and rat fur lining with a retarded GTO badge pasted on for further insult.

The Monaro CV8 is an awesome car. For those who are true enthusiasts would know the older GT0 shared some parts with the Monaro and the Monaro was inspired by the GTO. Those Aussies love their RWD V8s coupes as much as we do.

The potential for the platform is astonishing. I'd say it's rather impressive for being a bit older. Not bad at all. Did I mention all the cool work Holden and HSV has done on Monaros??
Check out the 427 Cu in 540 + Horsepower beast based on a Monaro platform. Go to the web and look at Holden's impressive options which show the options that could be brought to the later model GTO. Loads of stuff we didn't get (yet).

It's time we start learning and accepting the truth instead of witlessly bashing a very nice car because everybody else is doing it. Lame.

Otherwise, we'll see a V6, four door, FWD car in GTO form or no GTO in a long time if ever again. If you haven't driven a 2005 GTO go and do it, you won't be disappointed. Or read the magazines written by biased journalist and let them decide for you.

[David Jones]

So, lets recap. I disagree with you and therefore I am dense, drinking heavily, stoned and an idiot. You have a copy of paper 970915. I am totally impressed. I hope you didn't really pay for it.
What I have enjoyed more than you'll ever know is this thread, leading up to your latest reply. I've enjoyed Mr_GTO's use of CAPS and the way you guys used the word FACT like a weapon. And the bold italics. Tasteful. Now the name calling. I wondered when I joined in how long it would take before that happened. My job is done.