[ASKED] Why does GM reuse engine names for different engines (eg. LT1)?
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_LT1_engine

Makes it very difficult when searching for parts.

There are thousands of other possible combinations of 3 characters (or more) to use...why reuse the same engine names?

Kinda agree with this, the old LT-1 back in the 70s was a great motor, then the LT1/4/5 in the 90s and now we're at it again. Now you have to think more when talking across generations. They could've picked some other 3-letter RPO combo

Marketing, time since last used, etc.

LT1, LT4 and LT5 play a strong part in Corvette's history, so using them again is no big deal. Makes sense to me.

There are some though that just haven't been used in a long time, and they just happened to be brought back for another engine.

L99 was the 2010-2015 Camaro AFM 6.2 V8, but L99 was used for the LT1 (gen 2 small block) based 4.3 V8.

L83 5.3 on the 1/2 ton trucks 2014-2019 (K2 trucks), yet was the famous "crossfire" injection Corvette engine for 1982 and 1984. To add to this, the L83 is now the L82 for 2019 new body truck, and L82 was a performance 350 from 1973-1980 for Corvette/Camaro.

LS9, the ever loved C6 ZR1 engine. LS9 was the code for 1969-1986 350 carb engine for C/K trucks under 8500 GWVR.

I don't really see the big deal? Especially since there is a rather long time frame from their recycle point. LT1 took 24 years to show up again.

Agree

I've been wondering the same question myself.

The same reason that they make a new Mustang, Camaro and Charger look like and old Mustang, Camaro and Charger.......they are brain dead drones and completely out of ideas.

Your too harsh. The new Mustang and Camaro are great looking cars with a hint of the old designs from the 1960s. I have to agree on the Charger, it really sucks. The new Challenger is a nice rendition of a classic muscle car. Ideas are in the design. The new drive trains are fantastic and they can turn corners. Drones? They are building what the market wants. A lot of the old car designs could do well in a modern version. The push these days, as far as most cars go, is fuel economy, so they make them as aerodynamic looking as possible. The basic car design has not changed much in a long time. It has been tweaking and improvements over time.

Right, but your argument is status quo rather than common sense based.

I don't see any benefit to reusing an engine name, even from a marketing standpoint it makes the consumer think "old technology". And when looking for parts, it makes it VERY difficult to find what you're looking for. Not to mention conversations about engines, etc.

I suspect one reason for reusing the engine names is demographics...Corvette buyers tend to be older, because the cars are expensive.
Same folks remember the "old" engine names...(I'm guilty !). Ex: can we say 427 ?

Lt1 was s#/+ once LS1 was introduced. Lt1 cars had the opti spark issues. I’m not happy I have to say my 2014 has a Lt1. I agree with OP. Bad choice to go back to LT

I really dislike my C7 engine being called an LT1. All LT1 makes me think of is how bad the old 80s/90s LT1s were. LT1 always meant instant NO for me when looking at something

Oh, but to bring back a 427 L88 on the LT block would be the cats' rear end by my notion. How much horsepower would that Bad Boy have?

Can’t wait for the C8 to be released becuase we are running out of questions to send the Chief Engineer. This one would be better suited for Marketing.

Agree... as someone who grew up on LS motors, reverting to LT nomenclature was a step back.