Ls3
and 6.16 Liters
Le Mans Master
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 5,835
Likes: 6
Isn't it funny how "396" just sounds powerful ( perhaps you have to be older and owned a few or ridden/owned a '65 solid lifter 396 ) and "376" just sounds like nothing.
I mean, 350 sounds better than 376. I wish GM would bore out the LS3 to 396 inches and sell it rather than the problem prone 427 inch small block in the Z06.
Just 20 more cubic inches displacement and we'd all be riding around in "396s" ( small block of course but perhaps a bit more reliable than the LS7 )
And , speaking of the "magic" of numbers why didn't they rate the NPP at "435". I mean, "435" is just magic whereas "436" is just plain lame.
all my opinions....I lived when it was inches not liters displacement.....
I mean, 350 sounds better than 376. I wish GM would bore out the LS3 to 396 inches and sell it rather than the problem prone 427 inch small block in the Z06.
Just 20 more cubic inches displacement and we'd all be riding around in "396s" ( small block of course but perhaps a bit more reliable than the LS7 )
And , speaking of the "magic" of numbers why didn't they rate the NPP at "435". I mean, "435" is just magic whereas "436" is just plain lame.
all my opinions....I lived when it was inches not liters displacement.....
Race Director
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 13,298
Likes: 14
From: Somers NY
J/K I had a 1966 Chevelle "SS 396" 375 HP came from the factory with 4.11 rear and cost me less than $4000 & before that I had a 1963 Impala Super Sport 409 425 HP.... Damn wish I had those cars now....
Last edited by jpee; Mar 31, 2009 at 12:36 AM.
