Why LT ?
10-24-2012, 06:14 PM
#21
Drifting
Why the whining?
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.
10-24-2012, 07:00 PM
#23
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...
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...
10-24-2012, 08:06 PM
#26
Drifting
Seriously, it's only a freakin' name for the engine!!!! Way too many concerned about names, or how little horsepower the engine has or whatever (other thread posts). It's about the complete package and experience of the car once it comes out and you get to see it and drive it. Every generation is better than the previous one and this generation will follow suit.
I am just waiting for Jan 13, 2013 to see the real deal.
I am just waiting for Jan 13, 2013 to see the real deal.
I agree about the name though, who cares about RPO codes but the obsessive folks who post in this section
10-24-2012, 08:09 PM
#27
Safety Car
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.
Last edited by 93Rubie; 10-24-2012 at 08:11 PM.
10-24-2012, 09:29 PM
#29
Melting Slicks
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.... ???
Last edited by Luster; 10-24-2012 at 09:35 PM.
10-25-2012, 01:39 AM
#32
10-25-2012, 01:42 AM
#33
Team Owner
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.
No.
Then there shouldn't be a problem in 2013/2014 either.
10-25-2012, 01:46 AM
#34
Team Owner
10-25-2012, 01:55 AM
#35
Le Mans Master
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.
No.
10-25-2012, 02:22 AM
#36
Team Owner
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.
10-25-2012, 02:34 AM
#37
Drifting
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).
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).
10-25-2012, 02:37 AM
#38
Le Mans Master
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."
10-25-2012, 08:34 AM
#39
10-25-2012, 10:10 AM
#40
Team Owner
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..
Last edited by JoesC5; 10-25-2012 at 10:14 AM.