I meant to type "track", not "lap".

It doesn't matter to me if your MODIFIED LS3 Base can beat my STOCK
LS2, Z51 or any other LS2. Onve you've modified the car, as far as I'm concerned, all bets are off.

To circle back once agaion to the POINT of this post - I responded to the initial poster and provided the reason why I personally do not feel any "LS3 Envy", as they put it.

The reason being that GM has proven beyond a doubt with repeated track runs, that the STOCK LS2, Z51, Manual is faster than the STOCK LS3 Base. For that reason, and that reason alone, I am quite comfortable just knowing my car is faster than a STOCK LS3 Base. I am also quite comfortable with the fact my car is only .1 seconds slower than an LS3 Z51.

There is absolutely nothing you or anyone else is going to say that is going to change my feeling. I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep pushing on this.

 

Of course not. Denial ain't just a river in Africa. When you're bathing in the waters of DE Nial, no one can talk you into coming out.

Nefertiti and Cleopatra lying stark naked on the banks couldn't talk you into coming out. DeNial feels good. Its "soothing".

But plenty in here know if you don't, that you're all wet. Careful you don't drown. A lot of people have drowned in Denial river.

 

I was merely repeating what has been documented, at length, and posted in this forum. Not sure why you assumed that I was stating as FACT, that the LS2 had 410 HP. If you take the time to read the documentation, you will see why there is a very strong argument for the theory that the LS2 has 410 HP.

Oh.... and I got no problem telling you that your claim that "technology has passed all LS2 owners by" amounts to little more than a crock of SHI% Please

 

..aaaaaaaand that line of crap hasn't changed my mind either. But I know you'll keep trying, with the hope that maybe some of your BS will stick to the wall.

What else ya' got???

Also...
..Now, in this fantasy world of yours where "LS2 owners can't get rid of their cars" (as you so eloquently put it) are all the LS3 owners who also have their cars on the market, getting full asking price, or more than asking price?

 

Nuff said. An admission that you are parroting unfounded information is all I need to know.

Thats the problem here. We're dealing mainly in facts. You mainly in theory and "wishful thinking" and "pipe dreaming".

If you ain't talking "facts" then whats the point in you talking at all?

Fact: LS3 430-436 SAE Certified Horsepower

Fact: LS7 505 SAE Certified Horsepower

Fact: LS9 638 SAE Certified Horsepower

What was the "theory" again as to how much the SAE Certified Horsepower rating for the LS2 engine was???


I have read the "documentation" and espoused the theory once myself, perhaps even well before you did.....even helped perpetrate it when the theory first came out....Schindler and NeedforSpeed both can tell you, as can MarinaBlue.....and then I woke up and came to the realization that it was bull$#**. And "publicly" stated as such. The facts have a way of doing that to those of us who don't wish to endlessly embrace fantasy.

I decided against living in denial. Its too bad that you haven't. But I sort of feel partly responsible for you embracing that horsecrap as I played a role in advancing it.

When that theory first came out, Marina Blue and myself were the ones really pushing it. I thought, perhaps even more strongly than you, that there was validity to it.

But the FACTS quickly changed all of that.

After about 3 days or so of seeing what the LS3 could do, and what it was about, my words then were: "I've seen enough". I knew then that any talk of the stock LS2 holding a candle to it was wishful thinking.

Indeed, it actually accelerated my decision to go ahead and get rid of my own LS2 based C6, which I was trying just as hard as you are now, to fool myself and others, into believing that "technology and progress had not bypassed it, and went ahead and got what I wanted in the first place. The Z06.

So when you talk about this "theory", I know it all too well. I was instrumental perpetrating it. And I know it for what it is.

You want to fantasize that your LS2 makes 410 bhp (or more) stock be my guest.

Been there done that. That theory is just as unfounded now as it was when it was first postulated.

Nobody can force you to face the facts. But if you want to continue wandering around in darkness and ignorance, and spouting off unfounded , as you are now, then go right ahead.

 

. Utter . And someone in here tried to tell you just how they knew it was utter , but you say you "didn't have time" to listen.

 

Once and for all, here is WHY the "rumor" spread about the LS2's HP rating.


Officially, per GM, per SAE ratings, the AMERICAN based LS2 engine makes:

400 hp (298 kW) at 6000 rpm
400 ft·lbs (542 N·m) at 4400 rpm

Now, the reason WHY the rumor started, was because the LS2's in the E-series HSVs are modified in Australia to produce 412 hp (307 kW) and 412 ft·lbs (559 N·m)

So, through misinformation, through rumors, people started to spin and the 410HP LS2 in Corvettes emerged.

So, the USA based Corvette's that got the LS2 engines made 400HP. The Australian LS2's got 412HP.

Now, can we lay this to rest, once and for all????

 

Good post.

But no, I doubt its ever put to rest as long as people want to believe that their cars are "underrated" and "just as good as" the latest version to come out.

Denial. It ain't just a river in Africa.

 

The LS3 is a much better design over the LS2.

*The LS3 block is an updated version of the LS2 casting featuring a larger bore of 4.06 in (103 mm) creating a displacement of 6.2 L

*It features higher flowing cylinder heads sourced from the L92

*A more aggressive camshaft with 0.551" lift

*A revised valvetrain with 6 mm (0.24 in) offset intake rocker arms

*A high-flow intake manifold

* 47 lb/hr fuel injectors from the LS7 engine.

* The L76/L92/LS3 cylinder heads use 2.165 in (55.0 mm) intake valves, and 1.59 in (40 mm) exhaust valves.


On a side note, from April 2008, Australian performance car manufacturer, HSV, adopted the LS3 as its standard V8 throughout the range, replacing the LS2. It dropped the LS2, and went with the LS3. They actually de-tuned the LS3 to 425 hp. Power and torque was restricted to protect the drivetrain currently used in the E-Series sedans.

 

It's silly that people think that GM lied or that the #'s were skewed. When something is SAE certified, it goes through some very, very strict testing. When SAE came out and said that the LS2 gets 400HP, that is a 100% fact.

Someone heard or read that the LS2 in Australia made 412HP. The reason why it made 412HP was because they MODIFIED IT, but it was for AUSTRALIAN USE only in the E-series HSV's.

So the facts got twisted and then the rumor circulated that the LS2 makes 410HP+ here in the states and in the Corvette. Which it does NOT. The LS2 in the Corvette makes 400HP from the factory.

 

After High School, the true battle for who is best is waged in the size and quality, location and value of one's home (i.e. square feet in this country) NOT THE CAR. The car should not factor in how cool you are for the real ballers. Indeed, its value should be less than 3.6% of the total net worth of your home.

 

It's funny because what you are saying, you are saying while looking down on the LS2 C6's. Just because you chose some mods on your C6 and it didn't turn out how you wanted is not reason enough to claim someone can't mod a C6 into a better car than the Z06. Hell back in December Car and Driver ranked the Z06 behind a stock 08 Z51 after track testing of those two and a ZR1. Just imagine what they would have thought of a modified Z51. "The loser among these three is the Z06. In the past, we've given the car something of a free pass simply because it provides stupendous performance for about $70000. It is still a great value, but the Z51 and the ZR1 highlight it's major fault, namely that it is really difficult to drive hard on a track, which is supposedly its raison d'etre."

 

I not talking down about the LS2, I think its a great engine and was happy with it. My only point is that once you start modifying a car it will cost you something, i.e MPG, reliability, noise,.

Personally, I don't care what road and track or Car and driver people say, They don't live in the real world, most of these people by their own admission own mini vans, the spend a few hours with a car and get to send it back. Or they get it pick from a fleet of long term test vehicles when the need something. Their either drive worn out test mules and media cars, or have to baby reader owned cars. It's like being a photographer for playboy, you see so many hot naked women all day, that you lose your ability to appreciate the real cute chick next door.

 

You’re a hard nut to crack. That’s exactly why I started that thread named “LS2 Certified Horsepower—For LS2 Guys” in Sept. 2008. So if you’re memory is failing you, go back and read that thread. I added to it since that time and the evidence is even more convincing. I know you never read it, so take some time to do that, as I previously suggested, instead of making your one liners. By-the-way, this is the address to make it easy for you to find: http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-c...-ls2-guys.html

This really should have been made into a sticky because of all these “LS3 Envy” type threads. I thought of asking the mods to do that, but decided against it because of your health and welfare. Just imagine if you would have come to Corvette General every day seeing that thread as a sticky. It probably would have driven you to drink. You would have had to change your forum name from need-for-speed to need-a-drink. If you decide to have a few after the thread, I might even offer to come to Texas and throw down a couple with you. H—l, I might even bring a bottle of 143 proof George T. Stagg and then wait to drive you home.

Hope you learn something and then retain the knowledge. I’m not asking you to believe anything, just read the thread.

 

Execellent history lesson. As I mentioned before, I too lost faith in a more powerful LS2, but as time went on, other factors brought me back to the original 405-408 Net hp numbers.

What I presented in that "LS2 Certified Horsepower--For LS2 Guys thread are the real LS2 power numbers that came from two reliable sources within GM and another source outside GM with very good connections. My three sources are impeccable. One held a key position in Corvette production, another came from the top levels of GM Corvette engineering, and the third has accomplishments and credentials that place him among the highest echelon in the Corvette community. I have already revealed the name of the first source but will not reveal the identity of the other two. All of my sources stated the facts and all their numbers are in agreement. I included performance experiences from forum members, presented information from other sources, and did a logical analysis of GM’s own performance numbers as supporting evidence of LS2’s true power rating in that thread. I found it necessary to rewrite the "LS2 Power in Australia " section recently as better information was discovered. That info solidified the evidence even more.

That thread was NOT an attempt to prove some hypothesis or theory of mine. Those LS2 horsepower numbers came from the engine dynamometers that GM uses to rate their engines and were initially presented as a range. I chose one number that I thought Chevrolet would most likely have rated LS2 at. Since Chevy never did assign a correct rating to LS2, I might be one horsepower different from what Chevy may have used, but I don’t think that is likely. As I previously stated, LS2’s 400-hp was not a true rating but a marketing decision to protect the top dog status of the Z06.

It doesn't really matter to me what anyone believes, because I know who my sources are and all three are very credible. Comments and arguments can be made--and in your case, quite convincing--but I know the truth. I am aware you and some others will never believe what I have presented or the validity of my sources and that is OK...but I know different.

All I tried to do in that original thread was let people know the truth as told to me by three excellent sources--two from within GM and the other, if you knew his credentials, you would not question. I then presented evidence to back up the power numbers I was given. That evidence was easy to gather once I knew LS2's true ratings.

Argue all you want, but it makes no difference to me. I know the correct figures.

 

The testing I saw published for the LS3 showed no difference between the base and Z51, unlike the LS2 which showed a .1 advantage Z51>base.

Where are you getting information to the contrary? Link please.

Also, I don't think my catback would be the reason for winning at the drag strip against your LS2 car. Even before the catback it was running better than the LS2's at firebird. I can't document the improvement with the catback as the weather conditions were not the same.

 

That information is incomplete. Read the "LS2 Power in Australia" section of post #5 of this thread http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c6-c...-ls2-guys.html Better yet, read the whole thread.

 

No one is arguing that the LS3 is not a better engine. It definitely is. Progress is necessary and this engine is a great progression from the LS2. The problem is LS2 was never given its proper due.

 

Take into account how they measure engine power in other areas of the world. They use DIN if memory serves me.

Also if I recall correctly, the LS2 is rated at somewhere around 412 DIN.