z06z06z06z06

disregard the npp option on the 6.2 because it wasn't available on the 5.7 liter vette, which engine is pound for pound more of a brute? it took chevy 6 years and .5 liter displacement to gain a modest 25 horsepower. many people still think that c5 z06 engine was under rated at 405hp. either chevy pulled out all the stops on the 2002 - 2004 z06 engine or they are holding out on us with the 6.2. just fishing for some opinions. even without direct injection i think chevy could easily pull another 25hp and 20lbs of torque from the ls3. thoughts?

carmos

i would agree,i figure in 2 yrs model years chevy will up the ls3 to 450 hp or 455 hp.if they go to direct injection they will get the same hp but even better mpg to keep up with cafe standards.

CENT Z06

Probably not fair to compare a LS-6 to an LS-1 or LS-3 .
A closer comparison would be to compare the LS-1 @ 350 to the LS-3 @ 430 , and the LS-6 to the LS-7 which provides an HP increase of 23% over the LS-1 and 25% on the LS-6. I can only speak for myself, but I think that's really not too bad. Besides I do not want to pay a gas guzzler tax like on the ZR-1. (That's why I did not buy the C-63)
I do think they can massage at least 25 HP by utilizing direct injection. Even better if they ever produce a 4 valve beast like the old ZR-1.
Who knows what the future will bring.

achilds

I doubt it considering the financial situation tht GM is currently in. If they take bailout money there will be strings attached and I am sure they will be directing the general to concentrate on green type cars. I bet the hp will go down in vettes in the next generation, if there is a next generation at all.

0Brian@RPT

The actual compasion should be between the base engines in the Vette. The LS1 was 350 hp and the LS3 is 430 hp. The difference is 80 hp and that is a nice improvement. As far as the Z06, the difference is more eventhough the displacement is a lot more. So, GM has done a good job in providing more while keeping the cars efficient. The LS6 is good but, the LS3 provides more torque and a broader range.

danl72

phileaglesfan

I loved the LS6 in my CTS V but people are right you can't compare it to the LS3 since the LS3 is a lot more common. A better comparison would be the LS7. The LS6 has less of a torque range but it does wind up quicker.

z06z06z06z06

dodge was getting 425hp out of their 6.1 liter "hemi" four years ago. chevy could pull 450hp to 460hp out of the 6.2 liter (ls3) without using direct injection if they wanted. i'm sure fuel economy would drop a bit, but still not to the level that would even come close to paying a gas guzzler tax.

2002 chevy ls6 5.7 liter 71.05 horsepower per liter

2005 dodge hemi 5.7 liter 69.67 horsepower per liter

2008 chevy ls3 6.2 liter 69.35 horsepower per liter

Joe_Planet

I think the ls6 and the ls3 is a fair comparison as they both have the same redline.
The displacement increased almost 9 percent, but the power increase was just a bit over 6, which suggests that GM could easily give the engine another 20hp or so

Racer86

Not to burst any bubbles, but a little old Toyota 3.5 V6
3.5 liter / 268 horsepower = 76.5 hp per liter

not08crmanymore

5.7 LS6..
6.2L LS3

0Brian@RPT

The LS3 could be higher if GM wanted to. They actually decreased the compression (10.9 down to 10.69) from the LS2 since the other engine upgrades provided the desired horsepower level. Where does the hp wars end? The 6.1 Hemi put out good numbers but, absolutely horrid fuel economy figures. Plus, the LS7 is still at 505hp and why raise the LS3 to 450 hp closing in on the LS7 eventhough the torque is much different.

CENT Z06

The new Camaro has a 300 HP 3.6 V-6 = 83.3 HP per liter
And the list can go on. I think the the point is that it can be done.

01SStoZo6

Didnt the 200 civic si make like 160hp from a 1.6l


Still only 16hp though

EvanD

Yeah and my R1 motorcycle is making 160hp out of 1 liter, apples and oranges...

johnodrake

Or the lil ole 3.6DI in the CTS 3.6L 304HP 84.44 HP/L

z06z06z06z06

ok, tell me this....

why does gm put the direct injection technology in the caddy before the vette? one is a sports car with super car aspirations. the other is (in my opinion) a classy family car. why in the h*ll does the family sedan get the technology before the world class sports car? i don't get it....

Stealthy4

Because if they dont, they only get 20mpg, and the rest of the world then bashes Caddy for not having the same technology as Germany and Japan and for being ungreen...

Besides, from my experience, it takes many different modifications (plus more money) to make an engine DI...I dont know the history of the 3.6L DI engine but it mave many been a completely new design as opposed to the LS engines which have been around since 96-97 and were designed/engineered even before that.

As far as LS6 vs. LS3: as times goes by, you see technology filter down and become cheaper and cheaper. This is kind of what happened, the LS6 was the top dog and the LS3 is the base model engine...obviously the numbers speak for themselves. The LS3 makes more HP and torque but also has more displacement. In other words, the LS6 was a great engine at the time and I would expect no less from the LS3 now. I like to think that GM pulled some tricks out of their sleeve to get the LS6 to te peak 405...some pretty cool stuff for durability and performance...

TO add to the list:
Solstice GXP is making 260hp from 2.0L but its boosted (130HP/L)
Honda S2000 made (if memery serves) 240HP from 2.0L (120HP/L)

Daytona Bob

Many LS2 Motors built in 06 and 07 came with the LS6 Headers. Its easy to see the LS2 became a stable LS6 for standard vette usage and the cutting edge unreliable became the LS7. (rocker arm failures etc)

Don't get me wrong... Improvements on the LS2 and LS7 have been made. LS2 becoming the LS3 and LS7 getting revised parts.

Raazor

Caddy XLR-V 4.4L 443 hp. 100hp / liter. My dad has one and reminds me every time I see him.