By on October 24, 2012

There’s a new small block in town, baby: keeping the spirit of the original 1949 Kettering OHV V8 alive. Piston Slap says the new name is sad: mediocre memories of the Optispark munching, reverse flow coolin’ LT-1 is not a fitting successor to the sheer splendiferousness that was the LSX.  Vellum Venom says that the 2006 Ford F-150 called, asking for its fender emblem back.  But what’s the real story?

All snark aside, the GEN V small block is a stunning piece of engineering on paper.  The LT1′s (no dash) forged crank and connecting rods are pure hot-rod porn.  Plus, gadgets found elsewhere:  direct injection, variable valve timing and…wait for it…another try at displacement on demand for a V8.  Third time is the charm, perhaps, and the promise of 26MPG from Six-Point-Two liters of engine sends the Porsche 911′s puny boxer motor packing.  And this is the beginning, you know there will be hotter (LT4, anyone?) version with even more power. With the “Kettering factor” present in the compact, low center of gravity LT1, this must be the lightest production V8 @ 465lbs**: let’s put one in a new BMW M5, compare the cost, ease of repair, road course performance (even with 100 less ponies), etc just to prove a point.  And then do more LT1 swaps on the competition.  That would make a statement!

Or just put it in the Cadillac ATS (optional) and CTS (standard) and call it a day. That won’t happen, but kudos to GM Powertrain for another motor that will be The One To Have in your next engine swap fantasy.

And to that idiotic rumor of Chevy putting a twin-turbo V6 in the Corvette?  Oh please: LT1-FTW, SON!

 **dave504 corrected me, the normally-injected Ford Coyote is lighter.  My bad.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

136 Comments on “GEN V Small Block Chevy = LT1-FTW?...”


  • avatar
    Monty

    GM just gave wet dreams to a whole lot of gearheads…

  • avatar
    rpol35

    “Piston Slap says the new name is sad: mediocre memories of the Optispark munching, reverse flow coolin’ LT-1 is not a fitting successor to the sheer splendiferousness that was the LSX.”

    It’s a very fitting tribute to the original 1970-1972 LT-1; Holley carb, solid lifters, 2.02 heads et al. If you never drove one you really missed it.

    • 0 avatar

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t those gutless rev-monsters with none the other two LT1′s torque curves?

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        Small-block Chevy engines were all gutless rev monsters compared to what you could get with other brands.

        The classic LT-1 ans z28 at least brought a different driving experience to the table.

      • 0 avatar
        rpol35

        No, you have that confused with the dreck that you are referencing. In 1970 the LT-1 (with a dash) had 370 gross horsepower, 380 lb. feet of torque, 11:1 compression ratio, forged pistons, rods (with full floating pins) & crank with a 6,500 RPM redline. A/C was not allowed due to the rev curve and that continued to be the case through 1972 even though the compression ratio was reduced by then for low/no lead fuel.

        They were many things but never gutless.

      • 0 avatar
        daveainchina

        My father is the original owner of a 1969 ‘vette with the 350/350 with AC. This is the same engine as the LT-1 but with hydraulic lifters instead of mechanical, just didn’t rev as hard. It also had 380 torque.

        If you think that is gutless, you’ve never driven one. I can also attest that the AC belt on this lower revving engine had serious issues and were constantly being munched/thrown off etc. I couldn’t imagine seeing one on a LT-1 because that revs even higher.

  • avatar
    bumpy ii

    Forged crank and rods? Yeah, it should take GM about a week to decontent that into the piston-slapping, oil chugging, bolts-in-a-dryer truck mill that will actually be on the showroom floor.

  • avatar
    wumpus

    Cost?

    Variable valve timing: pretty much requires cam-in-cam or other exotic technology. This is the one I’m concerned about.
    Direct injection: (actually just the bean counters are going to object to the cost of the extra two injectors. But object they will.)

    I’m pretty sure that the LS1-3 engines were cheaper to build than any 300+hp DOHC V6. Not that you would know it from GM’s willingness to sell them. Of course, Nissan traditionally is the only company willing to sell the engine you want: check Wards list and see how many check boxes are required to buy any engine on that list.

    • 0 avatar
      Wheeljack

      Chrysler’s Hemi has had variable valve timing (not cam-in-cam – the entire bump stick is advanced or retarded) since 2009 and it’s been trouble free. The Viper V-10 got cam-in-cam VVT in 2008 and it also has been fine.

    • 0 avatar
      JD-Shifty

      there aren’t extra Fuel injectors in a DI motor.

      • 0 avatar
        nikita

        At least one engine (an Audi?) uses a set of port injectors just to wash down the intake valves due to the deposits issue that many DI gasoline engines seem to have.

      • 0 avatar
        Athos Nobile

        @nikita,

        I was told that the extra set of injectors (port injection) on the Audi engine was added to improve low RPM drivability and emissions. Expect them to become more and more common as emissions regulations become more stringent.

        And a very versed PT engineer explained me the why of the oil caking in the valves. Mystic PCV systems won’t solve the issue. That extra set of injectors may help with the problem, but not by the reasons you stated.

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      cam-in-cam is only used on the dodge viper, and mostly for bragging rights, the added complexity and weight to squeak out 5-10 more horse power is just not worth it. VCT has by far the most effect on varying the timing on the exhaust valve side and not as much effect on the intake valve so that’s what I assume they optimized for here.

      I recently read a great article on it on a tech site, but can’t seem to find it.

  • avatar
    harshciygar

    What about this engine makes it an engineering marvel?

    Forged crank and rods? Hardly a marvel; more like standard features on many high performance engines.

    Direct injection? Pretty sure most compact cars come with that technology, as well as variable valve timing.

    Sure, it is lightweight, and I can’t be too harsh until we have some real power numbers…but 26 mpg from Active Fuel Management is sort of pathetic, especially in a car like the Corvette that has been getting mid-20s fuel economy for the past couple generations.

    The high compression ratio of 11.5:1 also won’t make it easy to just slap a supercharger on there, fancy piston tops or not.

    Sorry, but I’m kind of disappointed.

    • 0 avatar

      It’s a marvel because nobody else makes a motor this good. And the fuel economy is pretty good considering the power keeps on going up. This is OVER 100HP more than the original LS1!

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        For an alleged Ford guy, you sure do spend a lot of time batting for the other team. GM’s “stunning piece of engineering” consists mostly of technologies that everyone else has had for 10+ years now.

        “It’s a marvel because nobody else makes a motor this good.”
        Citation Needed!!!! Ford’s Coyote engines make similar power and 5 minutes of research would reveal that they are 430 lbs compared to the LT1′s 465. Or you can upgrade to the Boss engine which makes 444 hp despite giving up 50 cubic inches. Ford has always made better power from their V8′s – the 302 made similar power to GM’s 350 (the 305 wasn’t even in the conversation). They did stumble with the 4.6, but it made 390 hp at the end of its life and it still managed to put GM’s ponycars out of business.

        The Coyote is and always will be a superior engine to the LSX, being that the Coyote truly is a stunning piece of engineering, but it will never be as popular since one’s automotive knowledge has to be more recent than 1955 to work on it. Wake me up when GM re-releases the LT5 – then we can talk about engineering.

        LT1-FTL

      • 0 avatar

        Alleged Lincoln-Mercury, not Ford.

        The LS-LT motors are much, much smaller than the Coyote and definitely lighter. Go ahead and prove me wrong. While I don’t like their sound, I still believe that OHV > OHC.

        Ford shoulda stuck with Windsor-style motors and invested in continuous improvement. Now you know where I stand.

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        Alleged rebadged Ford.

        Small refers to displacement, not physical size. Remind me how the motors are lighter when I have already proven they aren’t.

        Technology > 1950′s garbage.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “Ford has ALWAYS made better power from their V8′s”

        As you wrote, Citation needed.

        “Technology > 1950′s garbage.”

        Bold words when the Mustang still uses a live axle.

      • 0 avatar

        Re: weight. You are right! It was lighter before direct injection. And physical size is important, especially if you want to go in a sports car like the C7, not a yacht-Muscle car. Why discount size?

        Add DI and factor center of gravity of OHV and I’m still not sold on Coyote > SBC.

      • 0 avatar
        doctorv8

        Dave504,

        As much as I love the Coyote motor, and my 1990 DOHC LT5, for that matter….look at the torque curve of the 5 liter DOHC vs the 6.2 DI LT1. One is an 11.5:1 DI 6.2L motor, and the other is using port injection, and measures at least 3-4″ wider, with a higher CG. Don’t know the GenV V8 without stating all the facts!

      • 0 avatar

        Dave, You need to also consider the physical size of the engine which limits what vehicles it can be used in, and a smaller size helps lower the center of gravity. I think the 450 HP and torque numbers are low-balled. So is the 26 MPG or better highway rating. I will wait till official numbers are out in January. The Coyote is already down at least 60ft-lb on the LT1 (this with a conservative 450 torque rating).

        “being that the Coyote truly is a stunning piece of engineering”

        Come back to us when Ford adds direct injection and active fuel management to the Coyote. Better yet, come back to us for an argument when they fix the 6 Speed Transmission on the 5.0. Since most Mustangs are automatics, bought by bosses for their blonde secretaries, I guess the Ford could get away with not putting a real transmission in their GTs.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        @alluster
        The only transmission you can get behind the Coyote 5.0L is a 6 speed, auto or manual. I wouldn’t be surprised if 50% or more 5.0L Stangs were manual from the population I’ve sampled.

      • 0 avatar
        bumpy ii

        Re: size and center of gravity. The Corvette is the ONLY product in GM’s lineup where that makes an ounce of difference. Silverados and Tahoes? Nope, they have to be able to fit the gigantic diesels. Camaro and Commodore variants? Nope, they have to accommodate OHC V6s and high hoods and beltlines. Same with the CTS and ATS, and any V8 in the ATS screws up the weight balance.

        So, we’re left to conclude that either GM is irrationally devoted to an engine architecture suited to 5,000 cars a year, or they are penny wise and pound foolish in buffing the LS while the Ultra V8 languishes on the shelf.

      • 0 avatar
        cronus

        The coyote can get similar mileage or make similar power but it can’t do both at the same time. You can’t quote Boss HP ratings and GT mileage against one LT1 variant. Plus these are just the base Corvette specs, look for the Z06 version to knock it out of the park.

        Also the 430 pounds you’re referring to is the shipping weight without the alternator, AC compressor, or starter while the 465 pounds for the LT1 is the fully dressed weight (source http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1003_2011_ford_mustang_
        gt_50_coyote_engine/viewall.html ). I expect the fully dressed weights to favor the LT1 but I haven’t seen the fully dressed weight of the coyote listed.

      • 0 avatar
        Moparman426W

        These comments are funny. Like I said a couple of weeks back in another post I follow the engine masters series buildups and shootouts religiously, and 3rd gen hemis whip LS series engines on a regular basis. RPOL, the LS9 only makes 638 horses with a blower? A couple of months ago at the engine masters series they were making over 700 horses with a 5.7 hemi with a single carb, with factory 5.7 heads lightly ported. Mopar Muscle Magazine built a similar engine in this month’s issue with similar power.
        Mr. Norm sells Challengers with blowers that make over 1,000 horses.

      • 0 avatar

        Moparman426W… You are comparing a custom crate motor with a factory base Corvette motor. Do you understand that they are engineered with different goals?

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      It’s a marvel because of the potential punch in the package for the price. The did say it would get BETTER fuel economy than the current 26 mpg in the Vette.

      Because of the volume it will be built in (unlike other hi-tech V8s), you’re looking at the number one hot rod engine to be modded and swapped into whatever for the next generation.

      There is no replacement for displacement. And don’t say turbos.

    • 0 avatar
      rpol35

      You are basically right; other than direct injection, which GM has not done with a V8 yet, it is pretty standard fair, with the internals (materials & design) dating to the ’60′s.

      As Sajeev points out however, it’s notable because no one else is messing around with such a thing and probably won’t with new Fed CAFE rules.

      There is no denying the hard-boiled reliability and consistent power that these LS derivatives will continue to enjoy.

    • 0 avatar
      JD-Shifty

      most compact cars are NOT DI. why did you say that?

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      When real world numbers from testing come out, I fully expect this to be the most fuel efficient gasoline 450 hp motor on the planet, not to mention if it’s as durable as an LS motor, it will be good for 300,000 miles and still spank porshe and ferarri in ALMS races, I would say that’s quite an accomplishment! Not to mention: optimized with millions of hours of CFD tuning, compact package, light weight, low emissions. It hits on all of the major needs for this type of application and does it marvelously.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    I’m actually a pretty big fan (and user) of the Gen 2 LT1, but I think the name rehash for the Gen V is kinda dumb.

    Also, any details on swappability with Gen III and IV engines?

    • 0 avatar

      Considering the complexity of DI and VVT, it’s a safe bet that the blocks are different. As long as the bellhousings/engine mounts are the same, I’m hoping it will be a direct swap into any LS-car.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        I would agree with those assumptions. We may be in for some suprises though as GM is very good at harmonizing their engine lineups. The Gen III and IV were sooo good for this.

        Endless cylinder head, displacement and compression combinations could be made by swapping production parts.

        Wanna make a cheap and easy 450hp for less than a grand? LQ9 6.0L block $400, 862 LS1 heads $100, MS3 cam $350, LS1 intake $100. Done.

        Wanna turbo it? Truck manifolds bolt up facing forward. They’re just a dream to work with.

        Anyone can armchair specs vs the other engines that are out there, but until you get out there and work with them, swap them, and mod them, you won’t know exactly why it’s always LSX-FTW.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        danio3834

        Well said. I pays to read the dirty hands mags as well as the clean hands mags as well. The ability to work the various GM V8 parts it pretty awesome, and it is a load of hotrodding fun to make stuff like this work. If you’ve done it, you get it. And while the “No replacement for displacement” is not quite as true as it once was, cubes still have their place. Of all the errors GM has made over the years, the LSx and earlier engines owe no apologies, even considering the horrid Opti-Crap ignition and its nightmarish location.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        @golden
        Everyone likes to hate on the Opti, but in my experience, you have to be pretty negligent to kill a vented opti. I daily a 4.3L version of the Gen 2 LT1 and have owned many others and you pretty well have to ignore a leaking water pump for a good long while to kill them.

  • avatar
    BrianL

    Read up on the engine before saying that this isn’t very advanced.

    What is new and different about the engine is really around combustion. Lots of computer modeling and chamber design went into this. That is where the real improvements are.

    Yes, the HP number is a little higher and this weighs a little more than the LS3, but this has basically the same torque curve as the LS7 through 4000 rpms.

    Really, go read about it on some sites. For people who really know engines, more than just heard about direct injection and VVT, it is really quite impressive. Likely, there are going to be truck variants that are different and very promising as well.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      I’m a diehard fan of no brand, but it looks like the butt-hurt Fordites can’t argue with the massively impressive performance data, so they’ve defaulted to the “well, yeah…so what…there’s still some decades old technology in that motor!”

  • avatar
    dave504

    Keep moving the goalposts. Similar power, similar mileage (in a heavier and less aerodynamic car), lower weight, all in a smaller displacement package. Coyote FTW!

    The LS isn’t even the best pushrod engine, as the 5.7 Hemi makes 375-390 hp (depending if you get it in a car or truck) which is more than the LS1 and close to the higher displacement LS2, not to mention the 6.4 Hemi which makes 470hp. GM is awful at making power from their huge levels of displacement.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Peak HP numbers are next to meaningless in the real world. Look at the pwoer curves. Not to say the Hemi isn’t a terrific engine, it is. But to say the Hemi is a superior engine just because it makes a little bit more peak power is one dimensional thinking.

      Case in point. A while back some friends and I were at the drag strip and someone came up with the idea that we should organize a heads up wife race in our tow vehicles.

      My wife lined my ’03 F150 5.4L 2V vs another guy’s wife in her Ram 1500 Hemi. Keep in mind my lowly mod motor “only” puts out 260hp vs. the Ram’s 370 or so advertised hp. The Ram won, but it wasn’t by much, 16.2 vs. 16.5.

      By only looking at the peak advertised HP numbers, you would probably assume that the Ram would be a ton faster than the F-150, but not the case.

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        I can go on all day about area under the curve, but the truth is that the Coyote makes peak torque at 4200 rpm, while the LS3 which has another 1.2 liters of displacement doesn’t make peak torque until 4600, but the Coyote’s hp peak is later due to its ability to rev higher (7000 rpm vs 6700). It is a very competitive motor for the size and area under the curve is comparable with GM engines with much more displacement.

        I don’t have the Hemi power curves, but Mopar’s main problem is that their cars weigh the most and they still use iron blocks and heads. If/When the Hemi moves to all-aluminum like Ford and GM their engines will destroy the LS/LT.

      • 0 avatar
        doctorv8

        Yeah, dave, that tq peak may be lower in the RPM range than the LT1, but it’s only 390 ft lbs, vs 450+ for the LT1. No contest.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      The LS6 existed. The LS-series came out around the time of the 5.4 and way before the HEMI.

      Ford and Chrysler make good V8s, that’s why GM is releasing this newer one.

    • 0 avatar

      “the 5.7 Hemi makes 375-390 hp (depending if you get it in a car or truck) which is more than the LS1…”

      Not fair. The LS1 came out in 1997 and it was just as powerful as the original 5.7 HEMI that came out 6-ish years later. The 5.7 HEMI didn’t make 375 until 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Hemi_engine#5.7

      • 0 avatar
        rpol35

        “The LS isn’t even the best pushrod engine, as the 5.7 Hemi makes 375-390 hp (depending if you get it in a car or truck) which is more than the LS1 and close to the higher displacement LS2, not to mention the 6.4 Hemi which makes 470hp. GM is awful at making power from their huge levels of displacement.”

        Not sure what constitutes “best” but if you really want to talk go, the 6.4 Hemi at 470 HP seems pretty weak next to the LS9′s (6.2 litre) 638 HP. Yeah I know, the LS9 has a blower but we’re talking getting “bested” by 168 HP.

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        Sorry, you can’t just wave away the fact that it has a blower. The LS9 has an Eaton 2300 which adds another 2.3 liters of displacement. Apples to oranges comparison.

    • 0 avatar
      burgersandbeer

      I’m a long way from an engine expert, but I can’t resist throwing this thought out there and then running for cover…

      Isn’t physical size and weight more important than displacement? I’ve always thought of displacement and specific output as marketing tools that may or may not be relevant. Displacement and physical size/weight may often scale in proportion with eachother, but I thought one of the big advantageous of the GMs small blocks (particularly the LSx series) is a compact size and small weight relative to displacement.

      Lower specific output may not look great on the datasheet, but you’ll have less weight in the nose and more flexibility with packaging. Now I’ll run away and hope someone with an engineering background can comment.

      • 0 avatar
        Dynasty

        I would agree the actual size of an engine and how much it weighs are pretty important metrics.

        Which is precisely why the LS motors are so great. Compact size. Light weight. And lots of power.

        But apparently pushrods are too old skool for some people..

        So then you look at the HP and torque curve for this engine, and its efficiency.

        And the relative inexpensiveness of the cost of manufacturing this motor.

        Personally, I think GM should just become the global supplier for the 80% of the worlds internal combustion engines. And use the SBC ranging anywhere in displacement from 4.8 liters and up.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        To get a low revving pushrod to make good power, it makes so much darned torque that none of the truly slick manual trannies (excepting perhaps some of the latest wonders from Porsche), can handle it. Which kinda sucks if you grew up on a diet of ITRs, NSXs, Miatas and S2000s. Also, all that torque everywhere, resulting in the cars being geared high, magnifies driveline lash, less than predictable backtorque and fueling issues in low speed bumper-to-bumper situations. Combine the two, and manual smallblock cars can be more of a chore to drive in traffic than a dual personality engine like many Hondas, which play grocery getter below VTEC, raped banshee above. Then add to that, the fact that the autos GM has paired the smallblock with, is not always up to the latest in nonintrusiveness, and the smallblock’s reputation for a bit of non-euro crudeness isn’t entirely undeserved.

        None of which means the smallblock isn’t the greatest engine ever, from a rational standpoint, for those who like some get-up-and-go in their cars. GM really needs to work on pairing them with the greatest possible trannies (autos as well as manuals) and drive lines, to bring out the best in them. It’s such a unique product, with so much to offer, that you’d hope GM would try building a tuly competitive strategy around it. As in, pairing it with more cars at more reasonable prices, to get volumes up; perhaps even sell “half-smalls”, as in ~3L OHV I4s, in low priced cars for people who don’t want the complexity of turbos, nor the anemic bottom of euro-sized engines.

        And please, put that low revving torque-thingy in a real, modern day landyacht, with tall sidewall tires that can withstand potholes, while still driving more like a car sized like an RR Ghost or so.

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        Exactly. Displacement means nothing in and of itself. It’s what fanboi’s argue about while engineers laugh at them. If we want to talk about something useful, let’s go with hp/mpg or something along those lines.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        @nikoo
        Displacement means a lot. Especially to engineers. Displacement means bigger cylinder volume, which means more potential air, more potential fuel and more potential power. The exciting part is figuring out the best way to fill the space at any given load range.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I’ll take a medium Hater-ade with my popcorn please.

  • avatar
    acuraandy

    As long as it doesnt burn 2 qts of oil per 500mi like my buddies (old) Grand Prix GXP with LS2, this should prove a decent engine.

    Any word on being in the new ‘Chevy SS/Commodore’?

    • 0 avatar
      BrianL

      The Grand Prix GXP had the LS4. But, I did hear many of the LS engines had oil consumption problems.

      I would bet money on this engine being in the new Chevy SS.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      FYI, the FWD LS motors were the LS4. Most of the oil consumption issues were due to the DoD causing carbon buildup in the colder cylinders.

      For longevity, most recommend to turn it off with a tune.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        I happen to think DOD is an awesome concept, but that cold cylinder problem should be easily solved…I think…Why could you not have the cylinder deactivation for both banks? That way you could alternate the deactivated side eliminating the problem of going “cold”. No doubt the problem did not rear its head in durability testing, but once identified the fix should be easy. The only added cost would be a software change and the same deactivation hardware for the valves on both sides. How much more could that cost? Just add a few bucks to the car and be done with it. This may be a bit of keyboard engineering, but am I wrong?

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        @golden
        The deactivated cylinders are spread on either bank, 2 on each. I suspect it was due to cost savinggs in parts and the tuning time needed to make it work. They probably figured they could tune the problem out in the calibration by cycling the DoD more often.

        As we often find out, when you try and calibrate out an undesirable side affect, some customer that drives outside the major percentile will make it rear it’s head.

        IMO, similar to the Northstar ring carbon issue, it really isn’t a problem that a good long romp on the throttle from time to time shouldn’t cure.

    • 0 avatar
      acuraandy

      Ah. LS4. Sorry, boys, a bit rusty on my SBCs….

    • 0 avatar
      APaGttH

      The Grand Prix GXP had an all aluminum LS4 engine under the hood with 5.3L displacement. The LS2 is a 6.0 V8 and would not fit under the hood of the W-Body Grand Prix on this, or any other planet.

  • avatar
    jacob_coulter

    The modern small block Chevy V8′s (whatever you want to call them) are “brilliant” because they’re relatively simple. If I were GM, I would do whatever I could not to change that. The following that engine has developed over the years is astonishing.

    I lean more towards Ford, and I think their new Coyote 5.0 V8 is more of a technological marvel, but I would prefer a GM LS series engine all day if I could have that option in Ford vehicles.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      I think the new LT1 is more of a marvel than the Coyote. The Coyote isn’t a bad motor, but if we’re talking engineering sophistication, the LT1 features Direct Injection and Displacement on Demand, two features the Coyote is devoid of.

      They both have variable valve timing. The only thing the Coyote has more of is cams, timing chains and valves. You were right about simplicity being key.

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        The Coyote was built with Direct Injection in mind, and the engine has the injector bosses already cast into the engine, and the current speculation is that it will be available for the mid-cycle refresh.

        Displacement on demand is not needed for the Coyote, as it already gets stellar fuel mileage for a Mustang. Not to mention that DoD has neither been popular nor desirable for the typical demographic that buys these cars. The G8 implementation was not modification friendly, even if you disabled it via tune.

        I don’t think anything can be called an engineering marvel when 60+ years of the same architecture produces “innovations” that everyone else already has.

      • 0 avatar

        “I don’t think anything can be called an engineering marvel when 60+ years of the same architecture…”

        OHC architecture pre-dates OHV by several decades.

        And the DOHC V8 came around the same time as the Kettering OHV motor: http://bmp.thefloatingwidget.net/work/The_History_and_Development_of_the_V8_Engine.pdf

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        You have missed the point, which was that GM has been working on some variant of the pushrod 350 since the 1960′s and their list of new technologies is only new to GM. Compare that with the 4 years of Coyote development to get to similar hp and mpg numbers in a lighter engine with fewer cubic inches.

      • 0 avatar

        I’m still missing it. You make it sound like the Coyote is a stark departure from every other DOHC mill ever made, and that the GM design hasn’t changed much since 1949.

        Because an all-aluminum, 6-bolt main, non-siamese ported LS-LT motor is so much like the original. And the Coyote is so radically different from a DOHC Ferrari, Mark VIII, whatever.

        Plus, the LS’ short block heavily borrowed from the LT-5 from the ZR-1. I can’t find the proof online, but it’s in a book about the C4 Vette by Dave McClellan, IIRC.

      • 0 avatar

        “Compare that with the 4 years of Coyote development to get to similar hp and mpg numbers in a lighter engine with fewer cubic inches.”

        I’m sorry to be a nag, but much of this will be cleared up when we can overlay the dyno curves of the LT1 on the Coyote. Even if they are similar HP numbers, I seriously doubt a port-injected Coyote can match the area under the curve of a LT1: especially high rpm BOSS motor.

        But…compare the Coyote to the outgoing LS3 and you have a (barely?) lighter engine, similar power, similar MPG, and the ability to fit into almost any low slung sports car out there. Can’t do that in a DOHC motor.

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        I am comparing the Coyote to what GM has out right now, not their future vaporware. Besides, we may see a direct injected Coyote with some other tweaks by then. The non-DI boss version is already at 444 hp.

        “the ability to fit into almost any low slung sports car out there. Can’t do that in a DOHC motor.”

        Tale of the tape:
        LSX
        Length: 28.75
        Width: 24.75
        Height: 28.25
        Source: http://paceperformance.com/p-3990-engine-dimensions.html

        Coyote
        Length: 26.08
        Width: 29.05
        Height: 28.89
        Source: http://fordracingparts.com/Download/charts/FRPP_5-0_engine_package.pdf

        Coyote is 2.6 inches shorter but a whopping 4.3 inches wider with height being negligible. Remind me again how huge this motor is compared to the LSX. You keep repeating “lighter engine”. Are you having trouble with the definition of lighter?

      • 0 avatar

        I like those facts, surprised to see the height difference is that small.

        But, going back to moving goal posts, you think a motor that’s 4 inches wider with 4 camshafts and 2x more valves on the top makes a superior design for a performance machine that needs the lowest center of gravity?

        Simpler, cheaper to make(?), lower center of gravity, smaller, a more modern OHV architecture compared to dinosaur DOHCs…similar power and fuel economy. What is our disconnect here?

        And let’s see what happens when the DI power curve is laid over the non-DI motor. Is the extra weight worth it or not?

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        “Simpler, cheaper to make(?)”
        This is true. I would expect it to be cheaper to make since they have been producing it for 60 years.

        “lower center of gravity”
        Citation Needed. You are incorrect on both weight and dimensions so “lower center of gravity” is an unfounded assumption.

        “smaller, a more modern OHV architecture compared to dinosaur DOHCs”
        Smaller – again you are having trouble with definitions. Overall size is negligible as 4 inches wider really means 2 inches per side. No engine bay is that tight, and if it is, then you’re going to have overheating issues with your LS if you manage to squeeze it in. “Dinosaur DOHC” – that’s a knee-slapper.

        “…similar power and fuel economy. What is our disconnect here?”

        Coyote: Better power to weight, better power per displacement, better mileage in a car that is heavier and less aerodynamic, makes almost equivalent power despite being down 1.2 liters – the displacement of a Honda. The LS makes cheap power and has a huge aftermarket (easy to do when you have been cranking out the same parts for 60 years), yet is just barely above an engine with 4 years of development and shares zero parts with the 4.6 and 5.4. If Ford ever makes a 351 Coyote, then they will put the Camaro out of business again.

      • 0 avatar
        jacob_coulter

        I’m comparing the current Coyote engine from Ford with the CURRENT LS engine from GM when I say the Ford is more of a technological marvel, not a vaporware concept engine that isn’t yet in production.

        And I’m still saying I prefer the LS because I value simplicity. It’s also REALLY easy to up the power on LS engines to the point where a street car can barely handle the power, and you don’t need to use forced induction. A cam and a head change can easily get you 500hp on an LS engine.

    • 0 avatar

      “Citation Needed. You are incorrect on both weight and dimensions so “lower center of gravity” is an unfounded assumption.”

      Sorry, but I’ll be totally comfortable saying that a DOHC motor is more top heavy than an OHV.

      “Dinosaur DOHC” – that’s a knee-slapper.”
      It’s funny because it’s true. Find me a OHV motor made before 1949.

      “Coyote: Better power to weight, better power per displacement, better mileage in a car that is heavier and less aerodynamic”

      Better mileage is questionable, considering tranny gearing and final drive. Power to weight? I will disagree until I see the two power curves overlayed on a chart.

      “years of development and shares zero parts with the 4.6 and 5.4.”

      The LT1 shares parts with small block Chevys made in 1991 when the 4.6 came out? That’s hard to believe.

      • 0 avatar

        Ya know….if any GM and Ford powertrain engineers are reading this, send your engine specs over so we can have a Battle Royale with all the info from the horse’s mouth.

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        “Sorry, but I’ll be totally comfortable saying that a DOHC motor is more top heavy than an OHV.”
        You were also certain about the weight and dimensions until I came up with actual facts. OHC was good enough for arguably the greatest sports car created: the Ford GT. Is this what you were referring to regarding “a superior design for a performance machine that needs the lowest center of gravity?”

        Better mileage is questionable, considering tranny gearing and final drive.
        Mustang GT MPG: 17/26
        Corvette MPG: 16/26

        “Power to weight? I will disagree until I see the two power curves overlayed on a chart.”
        They shouldn’t even be close being that the Ford is down 1.2 liters of displacement. But they are. GM “engineering” FTL.

        The LT1 shares almost 6 decades of updating the same basic motor. The Modulars were 100% clean-sheet designs that drew on almost nothing Ford had ever previously produced. Don’t be obtuse.

      • 0 avatar

        “You were also certain about the weight and dimensions until I came up with actual facts.”

        Which I understand. But I’ll sleep fine considering the extra cams/valves atop a DOHC motor. Feel free to nail me again, I’ve been used to it ever since I started the Piston Slap column.

        “OHC was good enough for arguably the greatest sports car created: the Ford GT.”

        The Ford GT, while awesome, has a tube-like frame designed around the 5.4L. And it would still have a lower center of gravity with an OHV motor in it, again.

        “Mustang GT MPG: 17/26 Corvette MPG: 16/26″

        Gear ratios?

        “They shouldn’t even be close being that the Ford is down 1.2 liters of displacement. But they are. GM “engineering” FTL.”

        Let’s be clear: the LT1 has 450lb-ft of torque and the Coyote has 390 @4250rpm. The LT1 claims to make 400 pound-feet between 2,000 and 4,000 rpm. By the time 4250revs happens, the LT1 already spanked the Coyote, by *how much* we don’t know yet. And in the end, SIXTY MORE POUND FEET. How is this FTL?

        “The LT1 shares almost 6 decades of updating the same basic motor. The Modulars were 100% clean-sheet designs that drew on almost nothing Ford had ever previously produced. Don’t be obtuse.”

        So GM has the same basic motor, just because Ford never made a DOHC V8 before 1991? Did Ford invent the DOHC V8 architecture? That logic doesn’t work for me.

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        “Let’s be clear: the LT1 has 450lb-ft of torque and the Coyote has 390 @4250rpm. The LT1 claims to make 400 pound-feet between 2,000 and 4,000 rpm. By the time 4250revs happens, the LT1 already spanked the Coyote, by *how much* we don’t know yet. And in the end, SIXTY MORE POUND FEET. How is this FTL? ”

        Let’s be clear: the LT1 is VAPORWARE which only exists in both your dreams and GM press releases. Theoretical performance for a theoretical engine. The current LS is barely competitive with an engine that gives up 1.2 liters, and we don’t know what updates are in store for the Coyote which should appear sometime after the LT1 is released. Being that Ford is already getting 444 hp from the 5.0, the addition of DI will make those numbers even closer to the LT1′s performance. But since neither actually exist then it is irrelevant.

        “So GM has the same basic motor, just because Ford never made a DOHC V8 before 1991? Did Ford invent the DOHC V8 architecture? That logic doesn’t work for me.”

        Will Optispark work on this new motor? What about reverse flow cooling? (to use your examples) GM already knows because they have already tried and failed with it, not to mention the billion other things they have already learned. The LT1 is the product of 60+ years of this knowledge. Do you REALLY think that since Ford already produced OHC engines in the past that any of that transferred to the Modular family? It’s not like they could compare the 2.3 produced in 1988 with the 1991 modular. They had to learn everything all over again, which GM does not need to do. Cam placement, number of valves, cooling, oiling, bore and stroke, displacement, etc are already pre-figured out for GM.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        Sajeeve:

        No doubt the Coyote is more top heavy compared to the LSx engines, raising its COG. However, installed in a car, does it make much difference? I enjoyed the posts above, and just have to say both of these engines are awesome. HEMI too. I have a question on the “old” LT-1 with the reverse cooling. Why was that design feature bad? Seems to me the bottom end may be cooled more than required with traditional flow directions in order to keep the temperature sensitive head within proper thermal limits. The “reverse” flow does not have that problem so I wonder why it was abandoned? Could it just be resistance to something different?

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        I am gonna have to agree with Sajeev on the CG thing, it should be right around where the camshaft is if not a wee bit lower which is much lower than in a OHC engine, especially a DOHC engine.

        Now if you ask me the coyote/road runner engines from Ford are humanity’s last best hope against the imminent ID4 mothership invasion but GM’s new small block is really nice piece.

        Anyways,

        Here is a link to corvette online ( http://www.corvetteonline.com/news/breaking-news-chevy-gen-v-small-block-reveal/ ) which has some nice shots of the engine and its components

        Right off the bat, the engine revs to 6600 rpm – not really a big deal even at 6.2L (Ford’s 5.8 in the GT500 can hit 7k for short periods of time and piston speed per Ford is right up there in F1 territory due to its much longer stroke) however…. GM is doing its with a big ol’ honk’n single 2.13″ dia (54mm) hollow stem intake valve backed by a nice rocker arm probably designed with a minimum amount of mass at the tip but followed by a pushrod and a heavy as hell hydraulic roller lifter. No fancy titanium retainers and keeper or a titanium valve to help save weight and keep durability in check (this engine has to go 100k + without even changing the plugs). The LS7 with its titanium rods and valves only manages another 400 rpm.

        The engine boasts 11.5:1 cr on a largish 4.06″ (103mm) bore – DI helps get that high compression ratio but so does a kick-ass combustion chamber (also check out those interesting pistons) along with a nicely designed cooling system but is handicapped by a spark plug that isn’t centrally located – its close but not quite where it should be.

        The camshaft isn’t to wild .551″ (14mm) int .524 (13.3mm) exh lift with 200 int/ 204 exh degress of duration @ .50 on 116.5 LSA – not to radical but a bit more aggressive than what you would find in a 4v motor since low and mid lift flow is where a 4v head reigns supreme (peak flow isn’t all that different)requiring less lift and duration – which makes longevity on a 4v OHC engine easier to manage and makes GM’s OHV all the more impressive when your talking durability – used to be a cam like this in an engine that revved above 6500 rpm and you could measure engine life in quarter mile passes, not thousands of miles.

        It would have been nice if GM would have provided airflow numbers – but thats best left to the buff mags and direct comparison on a flow bench – I dont think the OE guys use the aftermarket industry standard of 28″ of water when flowing the heads so inclusion would have been meaningless to us armchair engine experts.

        Something to chew on here, this isn’t a canted valve motor – the real reason a hemi works, not that dumb as fuch hemispherical chamber which lacks any real quench area – this is so important to emissions and drivability that the current hemi really isn’t a hemi – its closer in concept to Ford’s Boss 429 semi-hemi or cressent combustion chamber. The new GM engine by comparison is a parallel valve affair with its valve angles rotated slightly – that it most likely (the past LS motors did so) matches the current hemi in airflow is pretty impressive considering the valves are exposed to more shrouding.

        speaking of which, the VVT in the new GM engine is similar to what Ford employed in the older 3-valve 4.6 motor – it really isn’t true variable valve timing since the LSA has a fixed relationship and cannot be independently altered (unlike say Ford’s current 5.0 or even the V10 in the Viper which uses a concentric camshaft design allowing the LSA to be altered) – still a nice feature and probalby is there more for emissions and economy (controlling NoX and reducing pumping losses ) moreso than power.

        Also a note on the new LT engine’s weight – Ford and GM use different systems for determining the dressed weight of the engine so take the 465 pounds with a grain of salt, the engine might be heavier, but GM may also be including the AC compressor, starter and flywheel where Ford might only be including the altenator or perhaps GM beefed up the engine for NVH reasons (Ford added 100 pounds of iron to the 5.4 for just such a reason making the engine in my 09 GT500 one heavey rascal at 700 pounds dressed)

        Alot of people are saying 450hp – 450ft/lbs in a 6.2L is no big deal but we have yet to see what the higher performing variants will produce? GM is on record as saying that the 7.0 LS7 is on the way out so who knows what the next Z06 mill is going to be? Could be a 500hp 6.2 or maybe even a 550hp 6.2 that revs to 7,000 rpm (that would certainly make the humble pushrod chevy every bit as awesome as the 444hp 5.0 Boss motor)

        So we will see? Frankly this is a great engine that does great in the power density department (packaging + weight metric) and is certainly heir to the mouse motor crown.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        @dave
        Personally, I would prefer continuous improvement over “clean sheet” designs every number of years. But speaking of clean sheets, the LS1 was a completely new design in 1997. Nothing is shared with Gen 1 or 2 SBCs and 3/4s.

        You’re right about how they implemented 60 years of innovation into their clean sheet design however. Angle milling heads, giant port potential, designed in crank reinforcement etc. All the hotrodder tricks developped over 1/2 a century were built into the motor.

        Concerning the dimensional differences, 4.3″ of width is NOT negligible. Ask any packaging engineer what they could do with an extra 4.3″ inches in a modern engine bay.

        Also, Ford DOES (sorta) make a 351 version (354ci) of the Coyote, the Trinity 5.8L. (Yes it’s more 5.4L than 5.0L but the basic structure is similar). It does make impressive peak power, but performs similarly to the also blown LS9. I’m not sure you could make a big case for its superiority given the weight and packaging handicap.

        Again, the new generation LT motors will be infinitely more popular with hot rodders than the Ford or Mopar mills. Not necessarily because they are technologically superior, but because GM knows how to harmonize and package their parts to give hot rodders infinite cheap power options.

        Ford can hardly figure out how to share front covers or bearings between the SAME engine built in 2 different factories (Romeo vs. Windsor) let alone sharing major components between motors.

        Chrysler’s only volume Hemi is the 5.7L and junkyard prices high and availablity is low compared to GM’s V8s. If Chrysler made a smaller displacement OHV Hemi instead of the OHC 4.7L for all those years, this situation might be different.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        @Goldenhusky
        The reverse flow cooling in the Gen 2 LT1 wasn’t bad. A lot of people demerit it because it’s weird and makes some of the engine componenty incompatible with Gen 1 engines. Most of the engine isn’t compatible with Gen 1.

        They use unique cam driven water pumps (that had a tendency to leak on the optical distributor) and have cross over steam pipes along the back of the heads amoung other things.

        I always thought it was a neat solution to a problem. They wanted to bump up the compression to well over 10:1 but still wanted the engine to be able to run on regular fuel. (Keep in mind these were the days before fancy Gas Direct Injection tech). Cooling the heads first, they were able to reduce combustion chamber temperatures to reduce the chances of detonation.

  • avatar
    Larry P2

    TTAC BIAS ALERT!

    LT1: 465 pounds @ 450 horsepower, 26 mpg;

    Mazda RX-8: 280 pounds @ 190 horsepower and a horrifyingly-miniscule 159 foot pounds of torque, 20 mpg (being extremely generous here).

    LT1 gets significantly better gas AND oil mileage, and more than double the horsepower and probably TRIPLE the torque at several thousand RPMs lower and at far less than double the weight. If an RX-8 had an option of 450 horsepower (270 more than the base engine) and triple the torque for a weight penalty of just 170 more pounds and at least 6 more mpg, I wonder if it would be ridiculed as barbarically-ancient 50 year-old technology, or would it be the most ordered option in Mazda history?

    LS engines having oil consumption problems? I call BS on that one! I have an LS2 with 70,000 miles which uses not one drop. And the RX8 is hotly defended for its abysmal oil consumption because it was, well….after all, “designed in.” The rotary “needs it.” As well as its horrifically-awful gas mileage which was colorfully described as “worse than a 1973 Buick 225 Electra.” Except that the Electra, weighing 3 times as much, probably gets a LOT better.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      The ones with DoD use oil and 70000 isn’t that many miles.

    • 0 avatar
      Loser

      Larry, the LS2 does have an oil consumption problem. I received a letter from Pontiac back in 2007 concerning oil consumption with 6 speed GTO’s. I have never had to add oil to mine but GM did identify this issue.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      @Larry:

      Actually, the Renesis in the RX-8 comes in 4 port (automatics) or 6 port (manual transmission) flavors.

      The 6 port Renesis makes 232 horsepower at the crank. The 4 port Renesis matched with the automatic is just under 200 horsepower.

      Oil is injected via metering pumps to lubricate side and apex seals.

      I’m not arguing for or against the relative merits or demerits of the rotary, but just wanted to point out some flawed figures and notes you cited.

  • avatar
    RRocket

    I guess the question that should be asked is whether it’s an engineering marvel for the money GM sunk into the development. Is this new engine befitting of the $1+ Billion GM has into it and the plant upgrades to build it?

    Time will tell…

    • 0 avatar

      Maybe if they put it as standard equipment in the CTS. (cough)

      • 0 avatar
        RRocket

        A couple of other things:

        -The new engine is heavier than the outgoing LS3 because of the added tech (466 lbs).
        -Variable valve timing isn’t terribly sophisticated. It can’t adjust intake and exhaust valve timing independently
        -Peak HP is 6,000. However, fuel cut-off is 6,600….that doesn’t seem right to me. Typo?
        -Fuel pump is cam-driven.
        -11.5 quart dry sump oil system will be available

      • 0 avatar
        nickoo

        @RRocket In regards to VVT, the cam-in-cam solution that would allow for independent intake/exhaust valve timing would have been for nothing more than bragging rights, added cost, complexity, and packaging issues actually would have made it a bad idea. Nearly all the benefit of VVT for an OHV engine comes from the adjustment to the exhaust valves and even with a fixed lobe cam causes almost no detrimental change to the intake side.

      • 0 avatar
        korvetkeith

        “@RRocket In regards to VVT, the cam-in-cam solution that would allow for independent intake/exhaust valve timing would have been for nothing more than bragging rights, added cost, complexity, and packaging issues actually would have made it a bad idea. Nearly all the benefit of VVT for an OHV engine comes from the adjustment to the exhaust valves and even with a fixed lobe cam causes almost no detrimental change to the intake side.”

        The advantage of variable intake and exhaust lobes would be via the tightening of LSA. Tight LSA cams can not be installed as standard equipment do to the poor idle characteristics. However, tightening the LSA at high RPMs can be tremendously beneficial. Overlap of the opening events for the exhaust and intake valves allows for scavenging. The high velocity exhaust gas helps pull in more intake charge.

        If you inspect a dyno curve from a viper, you’ll note a change in the slope of the torque curve when the cam timing is changed. The torque just takes off, I think it’s more effective than you imply.

  • avatar
    shelvis

    The 6.4 392 Hemi puts out 470 hp and 470 ft lbs of torque. It has cylinder shut off which has been in the Hemis since 05. 23 MPG Hwy for a big, heavy Challenger with it too. Those numbers compare pretty well I think to the new and improved GM motor. And the Mopar is like, what, 3 years old?
    I don’t really see how this ‘vette motor is anything besides just competitive. Nothing too exciting other than something new on a slow news day.

    • 0 avatar

      Off the top of my head, the 392 needs premium…according to the first link, the DI LT1 does not. It is recommended…whatever that means.

      • 0 avatar
        RRocket

        That’s a pretty weak argument for someone who shells out big money for a high performance engine.

        And even if you could run 87 octane in a Vette would you? I wouldn’t…

      • 0 avatar
        MBella

        RRocket, If it was designed to run on 87, putting anything higher in it would actually take power away. Higher octane fuel actually has a lower energy content, but allows an engine to run higher cylinder pressures without detonation and therefore higher output of the engine. In any engine not designed for that fuel, higher octane is not in any way better for it. This is not to say there will every be a Corvette designed to run regular.

    • 0 avatar
      dave504

      Fanboys hate when you challenge their unfounded assumptions. Their motor is always better, lighter, smaller, etc. Except for when the facts prove otherwise. I don’t think anyone is saying that the LS motors aren’t good, but the fanboys put them on a pedestal when the difference is MUCH closer than people think.

      • 0 avatar
        RRocket

        MBella,

        I am aware of the properties of octane. However several engines are designed for premium yet the ECU can handle lower octane, as will be the case with the Vette. So I think you have it backwards (at least in regards to the Vette). Off the top of my head, the Genesis Sedans with the TAU V8 are designed with premium in mind. Run regular instead and they lose 7 HP and 10 TQ. In the case of the Vette, due to the higher compression, you’d be losing power running regular instead of premium.

    • 0 avatar
      nickoo

      If mopar puts the money into it for aluminum blocks/direct injection and learns from their new v10 in the viper, I’m betting the next gen hemi will leap ahead of this new lt1.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Well, I guess GM is once again going to hobble overseas sales of the Corvette by dishing up yet another pushrod engine. Yup, enthusiasts all over the world, are just licking their chops and drooling at the thought of yet another two-valve per cylinder engine, pushrod operated requiring extra stout valvesprings and high friction to operate them.

    Why, if one is to believe Sajeev, who seems spectacularly uniformed on the niceties of engine design, this is the bestest engine ever to emerge from the mind of man. Sure, no other company has ever used CFD to model combustion chamber design or ever had an original engineering thought. Overhead cams preceded ohv by decades? In what universe? The lack of historical perspective or knowledge is stupefying on a website called the Truth About Cars. Very disappointing indeed.

    Rather the contradict the blather point by point, a tedious exercise, it is worthwhile to point out the two advances this engine does exhibit, not that they are unique to GM. The first is the extreme measures taken to minimize the oiling/coking of intake valves endemic to DI engines with a truly heroic effort at air-oil separation for the crankcase ventilation system. The high rocker covers conceal three separators per cylinder bank. BMW have gone to similar lengths in their new N20 engine, the 4 cylinder turbo powering the 3 and 5 series. Good for GM on that.

    The second advance is the mounting of the DI system itself, free-floating within the vee, and with much sound-deadening applied to reduce the diesel-like clacking of the HP fuel rail pump and the injectors themselves. A good idea, based on the deafening racket of the BMW and Subaru DI engines.

    Other than that, we have a relatively pedestrian update of the engine making all of 73 hp per litre, and no ability to independently vary exhaust and intake valve timing, no variable lift, and a highway rating of 26mpg, when people already claim over 30 for the current model.

    The engine may well be the best two-valver ever put into production, but that is akin to optimizing the IBM Selectric typewriter 3 decades into the digital age. Only a few people care, and they all live in North America, deriding the obvious advances made in engine design as effete manifestations of the pantywaists who inhabit the rest of the world.

    • 0 avatar
      dave504

      The sad part is that this is basically GM’s flagship engine. The cost gets amortized over the Corvette, Camaro, Silverado/Sierra, Yukon/Tahoe, Suburban, Escalade, and an untold number of Holdens. The Coyote is only available in the Mustang and F150, and isn’t even the top selling engine option in either of those applications. All of Ford’s development money is going to the Ecoboost while GM has untold billions to spend on LS development, and the best they could do is come up with a mildly competitive engine that makes poor use of its large displacement.

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      The sad thing about your post is the lack or understanding for the business case of the powertrain. When a simpler, serviceable and legacy parts bin meets your benchmark, why reinvent the wheel?

      You’re essentially saying that GM should have spent billions more on development to satisfy your tedious (and painful to read – sans the PM summary) snark. High school business class fail.

      • 0 avatar
        dave504

        Yep. It’s all a grand plan to satisfy the snark you didn’t have to read. Apparently, sometime in the 1990′s, the Ford people decided that the Windsor engine was no longer going to cut it and they needed to move to a new technology to meet CAFE’s ever increasing mandates. They took the leap and after about 7 years of pain, have come up with a great engine that makes equal power through smaller displacement which means better fuel economy.

        GM’s simpler, serviceable legacy parts bin mentality is what led it to bankruptcy in the first place and now their solution is a heavier engine with marginally better fuel economy. The above list of cars I pointed out represents the bulk of GM’s sales and this “new” motor is the best they could do. Do you really think they are somehow going to innovate a 1950′s motor to meet the 56.5 mpg CAFE standard? After DI and valve timing (old news for other cars), the runway for further innovation in pushrods is very short, especially when you can’t independently vary intake and exhaust valve timing. This should alarm anyone who is a US taxpayer, but at the rate GM is going, the government will still be part owner in 2020 and will request a federal waiver.

      • 0 avatar
        Athos Nobile

        @ dave504, do you really think GM didn’t also thought about replacing the OHV design with an OHC one?

        I can put money (and win) that there are very solid reasons on why GM choose this route instead of OHC.

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        dave504:
        Minimal capital for a lot of volume is a win for your investors.

        GM knocked out their global V6 program development quickly, as did Ford with their ecoboost line-up. Lead times aren’t what they used to be.

        GM has always been a powertrain company. Now that they no longer have their entire PT organization focused on the Volt, I’m sure they’re plotting the course for their future.

        I never would have thought I’d see the day someone would proclaim the mod motor as ‘modern.’ Brought a smile to my face. Tidbit of info: much of the combustion lab-simulation was done by a co-op student for several of the ecoboost North American variants. Development is fast paced as there are so many great concepts that never get the green light due to capital. It’s the never ending saga of the automotive engineer. Being flexible and efficient enough to move onto the next proposal is crucial.

        Don’t get me started on ze Germans, either. Their production systems are what GM/Ford/Chysler/Honda/Toyota used in the 50′s. Standardization of labor is still a new concept being developed for them by IE Doctoral candidates at Clemson University.

    • 0 avatar
      DeadWeight

      @wmba:

      What, precisely, is wrong with a pushrod motor?

      I used to think about this the way that you apparently still do. And then, a wise man explained in a very simple manner that GM had been able to produce extremely reliable, relatively efficient, very powerful pushrod motors, that met or exceeded many benchmarks of comparably sized overhead cam motors.

      In fact, it could be argued that GM is a pioneer in terms of advancing the pushrod motor to the point where many long-held assumptions about the inherent superiority of OHC motors may not only be challenged, but overturned.

      Sometimes, trendy is just that…trendy.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      wmba,
      I was reading, then I saw the HP/L argument and all credibility went out the window.

      Also, in the release they said it would BETTER the current 26 mpg hwy rating in the current ‘Vette.

    • 0 avatar
      mkirk

      Didn’t the LS1 share like literally 1 part with the old small block? Not really fair to compare this motor with you grandfather’s 283.

  • avatar
    tresmonos

    There’s a reason they picked Charles F. Kettering’s namesake to rebrand GMI.

    GM can still make awesome powertrains. I can’t wait until one of my GM buddies drives one of these home to rail. I’ll be sure to join in on the fun.

  • avatar
    NormSV650

    Nothing earth shattering here for the base motor. But this article will get more comments than any Coyote based vehicle review at ttac. :)

    • 0 avatar
      tresmonos

      You can’t beat the mix of nostalgia, political controversy and hot-rod power from the topic :)

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Personally my interest is always piqued by V8 and RWD whether the engine is made by GM, Ford, Chrysler, or heck Hyundai. :)

      • 0 avatar
        tresmonos

        Imagine yourself witnessing packaging studies for a new 4.8L V8 twin turbo diesel for a Expedition and Navigator, years before their planned introduction.

        …then imagine hearing about those plans being killed and the mill being subjected to the Land Rover parts bin.

        Anything with 8 cylinders might as well be the automotive form of Denise Milani. I am in 100% agreement with you.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      @ tresmonos – gonna have to google Denise Mila… oh good gawd, say hello to my next ex-wife!

  • avatar
    msquare

    An OHC engine is also OHV. It kind of has to be in order to work.

    It’s pushrods versus overhead cams, and the Chrysler and GM V8′s have done very well without the two extra valves per cylinder DOHC gives you while maintaining compact packaging.

    As far as historical OHV engines are concerned, every Buick ever made has been OHV, especially those prewar straight-8′s. Chevy has been OHV since 1913. Other GM makes have had flathead engines, including Cadillac, whose first V-16 was OHV, but the second one was not.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    If I am buying a new car it is hard to go wrong with any of the big 3′s current v8′s. These are good times in that respect. I’d likely go with the Stang’ because I like the car that is around the motor better.

    Now if I am looking for a motor to drop into my rock buggy or hot rod the LS wins hands down. Post Windsor Ford motors don’t fit vintage chassis well. Personally, I wish Ford had continued to develop the Cleveland series motors, but that’s another debate. Not sure how the new LT1 will do in this respect with all the direct injection and stuff but the packaging will still be easier.

    As for simplicity, well any new car is going to be a pain in the rear in this respect and if that’s your priority you probably own a mechanical injection diesel.

    Personally, I hate GM for never giving me a car like the G8 or Chevy SS with an Atlas inline 6 (Call it a Biscayne). I think that was the best thing going at GM motor wise.

    Anyway, just be happy we have all these choices and its not 1980 with 100 horse V8s littering all of the big 3′s lots.

    • 0 avatar
      noxioux

      +1 on the Atlas LL8. I’m planning to drop one into my ’68 Camaro. I’m astounded at how little play that engine got, considering its capabilities. Later versions at/above 300hp, nice flat torque curve. Seems hard to beat in a horsepower/fuel economy equation.

      But in an horsepower per dollar equation, the LL8 still loses to any LS series engine. The only reason I insist on swapping one in is to keep the “250″ badges on the fender, and to have something that is NOT a first-gen F-body with another goddamn 350 in it.

      • 0 avatar
        mkirk

        I almost put an Atlas in my Land Cruiser when I refreshed it. I decided not to however due to the “if I’m going to go to all that trouble I might as well put a Cummins 4BT in there” factor. The Atlas motors were never blessed with a worthy vehicle around them. I wonder if the same thermal efficiency emissions stuff that supposedly did in the BMW straight sixes killed them ultimately.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    And oh yeah…Flathead FTW!!!! I wonder what a valve in block motor could do with all this technological goodness just for the hell of it.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    And talking about the packaging of the Ford Modular v8, wasn’t it designed with the primary packaging goal being fitting it in FWD applications, even though I think it only saw one such application? I always liked the twin cam mod motors and while the LS is no doubt the better motor between the 2, keep in mind when Ford started offering the Modular the standard fare from GM was the TBI 350. If you wanted a technologically advanced flagship type motor you had to get a Northstar. I’ll pass thank you.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Correct, the the only FWD mod motor was the ’95-’02 Continental 4V Intech motor. I actually really like those cars and much prefer them over the STS.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      The Northstar’s real world service record more than justifies the direction GM powertrain took in continued evolving of LSx. Engines can be pretty, but their ultimate testament from the customer standpoint is how well they work in adverse conditions. Kudos to Ford for heading in the OHC direction and putting out a solid Modular V8 but it came out in 1991, and its development started in the 1980s, at this point its nothing new. When it was new, it had its share of problems which took years to iron out. I as a customer do no want to purchase unvetted whiz bang crap and then have it blow up on me if a proven design is available. GM was wise to continue the LS tradition in the Corvette and their truck line, people who purchase those products need them to function properly. You want pretty engine theory coupled with less than stellar reliability, go talk to zee Germans.

      Disclosure: I am long OHV.

  • avatar
    let_that_pony_gallop

    I never understood all the hate for GM’s “Old” v-8 tech. It is all proven technology that makes good power, is reliabale, and efficent. If it aint broke dont fix it.

  • avatar
    JaySeis

    The SBC represents what is wrong with GM. That somehow, wood stove era design can be made to burn wood very efficiently, thus wood stoves in every house. It’s like GM keeping Buick around because it was the core company that Durant built GM around. Or the GM board of directors telling the SBC engineers that they can redesign the SBC as long as it keeps pushrods and the same bore centers and call it SBC. Such entrenched thinking is what sunk old GM and still lives and breathes in new GM.

    26 MPGs? Are you kidding? 35+ would be impressive, but as “stunningly designed on paper”….merely pedestrian. The ‘Vette has never escaped the velour suit & gold chain wearing bald headed mid life crisis wanna be porn star living off seconds in tupperware container image. An this design exercise won’t save it.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      My 2,900 lbs 2000 C5 Coupe could see 35-36 mpg. It was obviously lightened, had intake and exhaus plus a ecu tune for 65 mph. I went 10 hours straight once up to Wisconsin from Ohio.

      So the V8 can see the fuel economy but with a heavier, wheels, and tires, it won’t see much over 30 mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      Another example in this thread of someone who didn’t read the release. They said it would BEAT the 26mpg hwy rating in the current Vette. That could mean 50 mpg or 27.

      Either way, like others have noted, IRL, it’s easy to coax more from a Vette.

      Calling this engine “old” technology is stemmed only from ignorance and maybe too many Car and Driver articles. It has no basis on the real world application of this engine.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    Collinshark, the engine I was speaking of was not a custom crate engine, it was a used engine built by a builder, just like all of the other hemi’s and LS series engines used in the engine masters series. Hemis respond to mods better than the LS engines, although the LS engines are not slouches by any means.
    Just look at buildups of both engines, when built similarly with identical parts the hemis almost always trump them. The hemi has a much better port design, as well as a better plug location.
    I don’t know why I even posted to begin with, the comments left by the internet car lovers are rampant and there’s no use in really saying anything. You can’t really explain things to people that don’t know anything about engines, like why pushrod engines are better for hotrodders. One of the guys even said that displacement isn’t important, going by that logic an 18 wheeler should get by with an engine the size of a weedwacker engine.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      It’s definitely worth discussing these things Moparman. This is a car website and I think as long as we’re trying to represent facts in our statements, it should be discussed to death.

      I agree with you about the Hemi, I would way rather be swapping and building more Hemis than LS engines.

      The thing holding back the Hemi to rodrodders is price, availablility and lack of aftermarket as compared to the LS.

      • 0 avatar
        Moparman426W

        Diano, you are correct regarding the higher purchase price of a Hemi, and while not as plentiful as an LS they are out there, as they have been in production for a decade now. The average price of a 5.7 in salvage yards in my area is around 900 bucks, which is a bit steep but not too bad.
        As far as hop up parts availability goes there are more aftermarket companies that cater to the LS for sure, but there is certainly no shortage of stuff for the Hemi, and the stuff costs around the same as similar equipment for LS motors.
        Where the Hemi is going to cost more lies in the aforementioned purchase price, and it can be costly to swap one into an older ride without proper planning.
        For example if you purchase an engine that came out of a truck you have to change the front accessory mount to get the engine to fit into most cars, because the accessories on the truck engines are mounted higher and won’t clear the hood on most cars.
        It would be hard to find a used accessory mount from a car because most boneyards won’t sell them separately from an engine, and one ordered from a dealer costs 600 bucks!
        So for that reason it’s better to start with an engine that came from a car, unless you know someone that has the mount to spare.
        More parts are becoming available to to make swaps into older rides easier and cheaper as time progresses. For example Schumacher Industries now makes mounts and brackets for swaps into many older mopars.
        A nice thing about the 3rd gen hemi is that it can be made to look cool, like the older engines. paint it hemi orange, slap on a nice set of valve covers and intake manifold and it would almost look like it grew in the old musclecar that it’s being installed in.
        Nothing can be done about the looks of an LS, it’s just butt ugly. For many people, including myself the visual impact of an engine when you lift the hood is just as important as how it runs, at least when it comes to old rides.
        Some of the things people say are amazing. For one the LS series engines have absolutely nothing in common with the small block chevy, no more than any ford, chrysler or any other engine has in common with a small block chevy. Sure, they are both 90 degrees, OHV V8 engines with pushrods and 2 valves per cylinder. That configuration describes the majority of american engines built in the past. The LS isn’t even considered a chevy engine, there is no such thing as a chevy engine anymore, it’s a GM corporate engine developed by GM Powertrain.
        I agree on the car and driver articles. The only people that are impressed by OHC engines like the mod motor are the armchair car lovers, the type that read car and driver, road and track, consumer reports and the like and most of those guys can barely change a tire. It’s the real car guys, the ones that turn wrenches and actually know about cars that embrace the old pushrod motors. By the way my neighbor’s 1908 buick has an overhead cam.

  • avatar
    mkirk

    Why does everyone think OHC motors are hard to work on? I like having the spark plugs right on top rather than having to thread my hands between the exhaust manifold with 7 universal joints on a wrench. Some of you act like the Coyote is a Ferrari V12 while this LT1 is a Chrysler Slant 6 with respect to simplicity. They are both modern and complex beasts and unless you rebuild your own engines in the garage (this is important to some of us, but not many) than you are likely to be able to do the required work on either motor throughout its service life.

    • 0 avatar
      danio3834

      If you have mechanicl skill, DOHC motors arent hard to work on, they’re just harder to work on than OHV pushrod motors. The spark plugs on the LS motors really aren’t hard to get to at all. Only cylinder 8 next to the evaporator box really requires any effort, but can be done with hand tools, from above without much effort.

      Even in the 4th gen F-body cars with one of the tighter engine bays around, changing plugs is maybe a 30 min job.

      The harder to work on parts of the DOHC motors aren’t the spark plugs however. Doing any major engine work is significantly more labor intensive due to the added complexity of the valve train.

  • avatar
    doctor olds

    “Figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.”

    The Coyote engine (according to Dave504′s links)is 2 inches WIDER and only abut 1 inch shorter(in height) than an 8.1L Big Block V8!

    The site provides length from accessory drive pulley to flywheel for the LS engines, but only block length for the Ford.
    The DOHC is actually very much larger and heavier than the LS-LT engines, when comparably dressed.

    The Ford engine is great, just not as effective, in real world capability, as the GM engine. It also costs around $1,000 more to build.

    Sajeev has it right. Look at the area under the power curve and you will see that the LT1 is far superior to the Ford in performance capability. On the other hand, that high revving small displacement Ford V8 is sure lust worthy!

  • avatar
    korvetkeith

    GM performed a blind ride off comparison for an OHC vs. an OHV engine some time in the C4 corvette era. The testers preferred the OHV engine, and that’s what they went with.

    Even then the conventional knowledge would have been that OHC designs were superior. Despite that, GM obviously considered all aspects of engine design, performance, packaging, cost, reliability and efficiency, then made the decisiion. I applaud them for going against the grain and making the right decision. If it weren’t for the success of GM’s pushrod engine program, you would have never seen the Hemi.

    On mod motors vs. LSX motors. The defense of the Mod motor is laughable. I’d hear out an argument on a better designed OHC motor, but the Mod is not it. The fact that LS heads flow better through 1 valve than Mod’s do through 2 should be all the evidence you need. Let alone the packing beast that is the Mod motor.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    Something that I forgot to mention is that the 392 Hemi also uses a forged steel crank and rods. Forged rods were standard issue in pretty much all domestic engines in the past except for pontiac engines, which used cast iron rods with the exception being the super duty. Ford started the use of cracked powder metal rods with the mod engine, then everyone else followed suit.

  • avatar
    CelticPete

    IF you are going to drive an auto transmission car you CANNOT beat a high displacement pushrod engine IMHO. Drive one for a bit and I think most people will prefer that awesome down low torque they provide. It’s just so much better for the kind of driving most people do..

    FWIW – not a fan of ‘modern’ V-6s. If you can’t have a V-8 a turbo charged engine tuned to make torque at 1500 rpm is the best you can do..(Not counting diesels)


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States