What the heck? I see all the whining and complaining about the LT designation?! Why? GM knows what they are doing. Yea I have a LS7 and think that getting away from the LS and going to LT fits a whole new car.

 

Lsr, lsf, lsy, ls? Lt7! Lt3, lt9, l55? I'm not a fan of lt1 but I kinda like lt7,9,3,2 etc

Maybe they'll have a lt4 and dohc lt5 lol

 

I guess it has been 16 years when you do the math, but it feels too soon to reuse LT1 and LT4. Especially due to how much more highly regarded the LS series was over the last LT1 and LT4. Obviously it's not like anyone who loves this engine will be put off about the name toooo much, but it just seems a little strange IMO.

Would have at least preferred something else from the past, or at least something not already reused once already like LT-1/LT1... LX1, LX6/7, etc would have sounded pretty sweet...

 

LT1 is about as boring and confusing as they could have done!

 

I don't like the LT designation either.

 

They showed you the heart and you just want the makeup...

I agree about the name though, who cares about RPO codes but the obsessive folks who post in this section

 

While I agree the Opti-Spark is not in the BEST place for a distributor and has its share of problems. MOST of which where dealt with in the 95MY.

If you can find a more accurate way to time an engine I would love to hear it. 360 individual slits versus a 24x or 58x wheel? Very innovate design just poorly executed/placed. Had they put it back where the old HEI setup was, no issues.

FYI, my 93 at 60K has the orginal Opti-Spark runs perfect. A LOT of problems with LT1's are NOT opti-spark related yet it takes the blame. Other ignition areas have been issues for it. ICM, Coil, etc...

Also, a little history lesson for you on the "Crap LT1", if GM Powertrain had not been PO'ed by the LT5 development they would NOT have been as motivated to develop the LT1. Which DIRECTLY led to the development of the Gen 3, LS1.

It was a stepping stone from the L98 to the LS1. Without the LT1 92-96 the LS, would not exist. Nor have been as successful as it has been. GM learned a lot from the LT1/LT4 projects with a healthy does of LT5 thrown in for good measure.

You might want to know where your LS engine came from before you start bad mouthing things you apparently know nothing about.

I'm indifferent to the engine designation however, I think they should have called it something else. GM used L88, L98 stuff for years, then LT1-named after the 1970 LT-1 because it match/exceeded the 1970 in power output/performance. Then the LS series, LR would have made more sense.

 

Still sounds dumb and reminds people of a ****** c4.

 

Just as a side note, the original LS6 was in a 1970 big block 454 Chevelle SS, it's next appearance was in the C5 Z06 models 30 years later as an all aluminum small block. I wonder if the Z06 guys were bitchin' about the "LS6" designation back in '01.... ???

 

Just call it all a 427 and everyone will love it!!

 

10000%.

 

LR for "Light Roadster."

 

Was there a real problem with people mixing up the 'then new' LT1 5.7L of the 1992 Corvette with the ultra high performance 1970-1972 5.7L of the very same name (and those two were of the exact same displacement, this new one is NOT) back in late 1991 when it debuted?
No.

Then there shouldn't be a problem in 2013/2014 either.

 

Maybe.
But it reminds me more of one of the THE hottest small blocks EVER produced in the 1970 Corvette (and 1970 1/2 Camaro Z28).
My very first Corvette was a C4 LT1, it was a great/fun car.

 

The problem with using the same name for three completely unrelated Corvette engines is that you can't have a conversation about them without specifying which one you mean. If we're just going to describe the cars they originally came in, why even have engine names at all.

 

I see your point...but I take it that you were also vehemently opposed to them reusing other classic, legendary and iconic designations such as ZR1 (also for a 3rd time), Z06, LS6, LS7, ZL1, Grand Sport (also 3 times now) among others as well?

 

I think the thing is, reusing them for memorable engines seems nostalgic(i.e. ls6, both awesome engines). Using them a 3rd time seems unoriginal or desperate.

LR1 would have made sense. LX1 just sounds cool. If you're younger then 30, lt1 only had one real impact to you in car world, vettes and F bodies return to dominance in 92/93. Now, it has two meanings, 3 if you're a dinosaur(I kid I kid).

 

I don't mind the recycled model names (such as "Corvette") because we've distinguished whole cars by model year since forever.

But sporadically reusing semi-obscure RPOs for engines is pointlessly confusing... not to mention diminishing to the "classic, legendary and iconic" status of the old names. Saying "LT1" meant more when it _only_ meant "LT-1."

 

This is what I think too!

 

And don't forget that in 1978 the LS6 was a 151 cu in four banger with a two barrel carb, and the LS9 was a 350 V8 with a four barrel and the LT5 was a engine performance package for high Altitude..